PDA

View Full Version : SYD FG 12/5


angryrat
11th May 2013, 23:01
Sounds like a debacle this morning... late inclusion of fog on the TTF, numerous missed approaches, diversions and so far a couple of 'low fuel' calls. Canberra and Richmond out as alternates, not sure about Willy. RVR not working :rolleyes: so visibility is being given by 'Car 2'.

Servo
12th May 2013, 01:01
I wonder, prior to the late inclusion of fog, if the temp and dew point were very close or same, with light to nil wind :suspect:

The pressure for crew to carry "less" fuel, lack of decent infrastructure (except car 2 :rolleyes:) and OTP will bight back one day.

Glad it is a day off.......... sort of :*

Howard Hughes
12th May 2013, 01:56
Clear now I hope! :ok:

Terrey
12th May 2013, 02:30
QF108 declared PAN and landed below minima. No options aparently.

DUXNUTZ
12th May 2013, 02:39
First world country, third world infrastructure. Good on Qf108.

How legal is it to get Rvr from an ops car?

bdcer
12th May 2013, 04:38
I'm pretty sure RVR must come from transmissiometer (spelling?), RV from an approved observer

ga_trojan
12th May 2013, 06:16
late inclusion of fog on the TTF, numerous missed approaches, diversions and so far a couple of 'low fuel' calls. Canberra and Richmond out as alternates, not sure about WillyWilly was fogged in.

I know fog is unpredictable but the YSSY TTF did not resemble reality. The TTF had it clearing up at a particular time and the RVR was steadily decreasing! Weather didn't improve until well after the FM period

I assume that's what the QF guys were hoping for and it didn't happen.

Captain Dart
12th May 2013, 06:25
And how many 'carbons' did the holding, go-rounds, diversions and repositions pump into our atmosphere? And how many accumatively over the decades?

Shame we can't convince Juliar, the Minister for Something that's Not Happening (Combet) and the bearded wonders to put some of their carbon scam money into first world ILS facilities.

thorn bird
12th May 2013, 08:00
VPN Dart,
Beat me to it!!! Has nobody in CAsA heard of CAT 111B??
Only been around since the 60 ties.

TIMA9X
12th May 2013, 08:10
First world country, third world infrastructure. Good on Qf108.

Oh yes

and

Shame we can't convince Juliar, the Minister for Something that's Not Happening (Combet) and the bearded wonders to put some of their carbon scam money into first world ILS facilities.

I guess a cue for Albo to announce another study for "foggy infrastructure planning alternatives."

The outcome would probably determine "what goes around, should continue to come around again, and again until the next study gets announced." :ugh:

over to you Albo.... enlighten us..

romeocharlie
12th May 2013, 08:18
Hardly a revelation, prob 30 fog on the TAF from 8pm the night before, and for the last 3 nights. Prob not going to help QF 108 who took off hours before.

PoppaJo
12th May 2013, 08:45
Did Air Canada get out of Melbourne?

FYSTI
12th May 2013, 08:58
Historic YSSY TTF's and TAF May 11 0000 to May 12 0200 (http://www.ogimet.com/display_metars.php?lang=en&lugar=yssy&tipo=ALL&ord=DIR&nil=SI&fmt=html&ano=2013&mes=05&day=11&hora=00&anof=2013&mesf=05&dayf=12&horaf=02&minf=59&send=send) (z). (query is already defined in the link, or set your own query (http://www.ogimet.com/metars.phtml.en))

ramble on
12th May 2013, 09:07
International Diverts.
The lack of reasonably close international divert options at our major capital cities is a just another sad reflection of the country's lack of infrastructre.

Infrastructure.
This government has been pushing the population 50million by 2050 wheel barrow. What a mess that is going to be. Especially with infrastructure in the hands of private investors (ie; banks).

ATIS with a Wet and Dry Bulb Temperatures.
Just about every other country has an ATIS with temperature and dewpoint. You can get it in a country airfield in India, but not in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth or Brisbane.
We used to do it. What happened, was it another cut in spending?

nitpicker330
12th May 2013, 10:50
Probably all Aircraft would have received the METARS ( TTF ) which have the temp/dew point on them so your point is moot ( oops, thanks Dart!! ) anyway....

What I do find interesting is the TTF's when there was Fog present all show a 1 deg split in temps......

Ivasrus
12th May 2013, 11:05
Govt agency Airservices Australia has alteady upgraded the ILS to Cat II readiness.

Airport operator is yet to complete infrastructure works to permit Cat II ops.

Refer media releases
Instrument landing system upgrade for Sydney - Airservices Newsroom (http://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.com/releases/ab9748c9-8a17-429c-a596-074a1f72b20f)
Sydney Airport - Corporate - Media Centre - Media Releases - Media Release Detail - Upgrade to enhance low-visibility operations (http://www.sydneyairport.com.au/corporate/media-centre/media-releases/media-release-detail.aspx?item=%7BEEAEAEFC-7587-445B-804A-EBA554F0E5F6%7D&lst=%7BC313C142-0E4E-4269-A2FB-BDEB95B3BC9E%7D)
And AIC H09/13
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a13-h09.pdf

Cat II would have permitted continuous low vis ops at the RVRs this morning. The fog today was unprecedented in having formed with a record high overnight dew point depression.

Ken Borough
12th May 2013, 11:53
This question is not in any way meant to be critical but are Qantas aircraft, when operating without an alternate, permitted to proceed beyond a PNR based on a suitable airport when there's a probability of fog?

bubble.head
12th May 2013, 12:12
There was no FG indicated on the TTF until after 2114 according to the link above. If you had the weather package produced prior to that time, you would have planned accordingly to the TTF that you had on hand, which had no requirement due to the fog.

Going Boeing
12th May 2013, 12:17
Ken, no they can't proceed past DPA (the QF alternative for PNR) with weather below alternate criteria. The problem is when there is unforecast weather events after the aircraft has passed DPA and thus there is insufficient fuel to divert to a suitable airport. In this case, you investigate emergency airfields such as Williamtown, Richmond, etc but generally the alternate criteria at these airports are higher due to less precise instrument approaches. If the emergency airports are similarly weather effected, then it is safer to continue to the main airport and conduct an autoland. In the case of Sydney, the ILS facilities have been upgraded to Low Visibility standards so the quality of the electronic beams is as good as anywhere but all the runway lighting, approach lighting, exit taxiways etc haven't been upgraded to the required standard.

Based on the limited information given on this thread, it sounds like the QF108 crew took the safest option in the circumstances.

Offchocks
12th May 2013, 12:33
As for CAT II wouldn't everyone need a CAT II aircraft and CAT II training?

The aircraft must be certified and the crew trained if they are to operate to either CAT II or III.

romeocharlie
12th May 2013, 12:39
Bobble Head, no wasn't on the TTF was on the TAF for hours before though (the 1000 TAF had prob 30 fog between 1900 and 2300).

Keg
12th May 2013, 13:13
romeocharlie. So here's my monday morning quarterback job.

1. Take off from US west coast with nil requirements.
2. 1200 TAF has prob FG. Nil fuel for holding or alternate. Plan to fly to DPA and then divert if the weather doesn't improve.
3. Get a TTF about 1900 (for ETA about 2130ish) with no requirements on it. Continue past DPA.
4. Weather turns crap. Nil fuel to divert to another suitable aerodrome.
5. Couple it up and auto land.

Not the first time it's happened. Won't be the last.

romeocharlie
12th May 2013, 13:44
Fair call. My comments were more in relation to other aircraft rather than QF108. Glad you got in.

1a sound asleep
12th May 2013, 14:42
One day there will be somebody that wont get in, and it wont necessarily be a 1st world country operator

nitpicker330
13th May 2013, 00:24
Fly into an international Airport with a history of ATC and WX problems early in the morning rush. This Airport does not have LVP available either.

Then lob up without an Alternate.

Looking for problems and deserve what you get I would think.

Keg
13th May 2013, 10:32
...with a history of ATC and WX problems

Hmmm. Hardly think that SYD KSA has a 'history' of ATC problems?!?!?!

As for the 'history' of wx problems, they have a couple of days a year of unforecast fog. Very rarely does it deteriorate like it did the other day with aircraft already having gone past DPA because the TTF had no requirements on it. Most times when it goes out due unforecast fog it's very early in the piece and people divert. I can think of only a two occasions in the half dozen years where it's required someone to couple it up and land anyway- A330 and the one on the weekend.

So on that basis should every arrival into SYD have an alternate?

Jack Ranga
13th May 2013, 10:40
He's probably talking about the well publicised staffing problems that have caused delays in the past. Valid point I think.

nitpicker330
13th May 2013, 10:51
Yes and the fact that un forecast fog does occur quite regularly in SYD.

It's that time of year...

heavy.airbourne
13th May 2013, 13:15
Do I unverstand this correctly? Q flies US west coast to Dunnundo w/o an alternate? Do you want to beat Indonesia for an aviation low? :rolleyes:

DirectAnywhere
13th May 2013, 22:45
Heavy, I'm not often a QF defender but in the scenario described, for the first 12 hours or so you've got any number of enroute alternates to lob into to get fuel if required.

If the KLAX-YSSY scenario you'll generally have enough fuel to divert to Brissy up to top of descent if the weather in Sydney suddenly and unexpectedly deteriorates. If a deterioration is forecast off the TTF then obviously divert sooner.

If the weather deteriorates after top of descent Williamtown and Richmond are good options. If they clag in too then couple it up, land and fill out the paperwork.

The fuel policy covers all scenarios other than an unforecast deterioration of weather past your PNR, what we call DPA. Crews are regularly updating weathers prior to DPA and, if necessary, will divert prior to this point to a suitable airport to pick up extra fuel, probably Brissy in the scenario described above.

For Melbourne in the scenario described above, you would probably use Sydney as the return port and Avalon as the diversion port if unforecast fog developed -although the CAT 3 ILS in Melbourne has been a bit of a game changer there.

The strict answer to your question is yes, the fuel policy does not require the carriage of an alternate.

nitpicker330
14th May 2013, 04:41
Excellent, so the backup plan is to just Autoland below minimums......:eek:

"Worlds best practice" I see....:D

Capt Claret
14th May 2013, 05:27
Damned f I can understand why one's manliness or worth as a pilot is so oft judged by how little fuel one is prepared to uplift! :sad: :ugh:

Trent 972
14th May 2013, 06:14
heavy.airbourne saidDo I unverstand this correctly? Q flies US west coast to Dunnundo w/o an alternate? ........
No you do not understand correctly.

Q carries an alternate if required pre flight.
Q carries an alternate if the Flight Planning Department think it might be prudent, even if not required.
Q carries an alternate if the captain so decides, whether required or not.
Q does not carry an alternate for destination if all the above determine an alternate is not required, but does carry an alternate to a pnr which is always inside the destination TTF validity period.
ie. Q does not proceed past DPA (PNR) without a valid and suitable TTF that indicates an alternate is not required.
On the very rare occasion that an aircraft has passed its DPA and the TTF changes to below alternate criteria, then you might be pleased that you payed to fly on Q than some airline "aviation low".

nitpicker330
14th May 2013, 06:21
Maybe but my mob requires an Alternate all the time every time.
None of this DPA rubbish...

How much fuel does QF really save in the end after a few very expensive diversions versus the cost of carrying a little extra gas??

Trent 972
14th May 2013, 06:33
post removed due to no point in arguing with a DPA non believer.
Carry an umbrella even if there is no chance of rain, you won't ever get wet.

Praise Jebus
14th May 2013, 06:59
If I get your point Trent, after receiving the TTF that's looks ok you commit to destination as much as three hours out, knowing nothing about possible delays etc? And the back up weather plan is declare an emergency, and it's planned that way?

Ken Borough
14th May 2013, 07:02
Nitpicker,

Qantas saves a lot of fuel($$$$$$sayear) and has few diversions. Not only is fuel saved, the policy allows the carriage of a lot more payload ($$$$$$s a year) than would otherwise be the case if a per-flight alternate had to be planned and carried. Payload carriage is of course always subject to operational requirements. There's a lot more to fuel policy and payload carriage than meets the eye.

neville_nobody
14th May 2013, 07:03
How much fuel does QF really save in the end after a few very expensive diversions versus the cost of carrying a little extra gas??

You would have to also consider payload given that much of QF's flying is Long Haul and pushing the capabilities of the machine. How much more payload do QF carry on a regular basis because they don't carry an regular alternate especially in Australia where they can be a 1 hour+ away.

Also the consideration that to carry the extra gas costs you extra gas. You have to haul your alternate fuel all the way across the Pacific.

Whether this is safest action or not is the issue at hand I suppose.

DirectAnywhere
14th May 2013, 07:13
How much fuel does QF really save in the end after a few very expensive diversions versus the cost of carrying a little extra gas??

Presumably enough to make it worthwhile. If that weren't the case believe me, in the current climate the policy would change very rapidly.

Praise Jebus, in the west coast US to AUS example, as I said, you would generally have an alternate up to top of descent, in many cases past it. Fuel is almost always available to go to Richmond or Williamtown from Sydney or Avalon from Melbourne if required. Crews don't make the decision 3 hours out. They'll make it based on the TTF issued immediately prior to DPA, almost invariably within an hour of arrival.

With respect to delays, any planned traffic holding is uplifted, generally 20-25 minutes in Aus. West coast US to Australia flights only carry 10 minutes as per agreement with Airservices. Most other destinations would have an alternate by virtue of the proximity of suitable airports. Eg. KLAX-KONT, RJAA-RJTT, WSSS-WMKK, EGLL-EGKK.

Trent 972
14th May 2013, 07:34
PJ,
Another way of looking at the DPA policy is-
Q if required, will divert to a suitable alternate from its DPA (PNR) or earlier, as a means of maximising payload, rather than restrict payload and fly to a destination that requires an alternate and then divert.
DirectAnywhere above, says it all really.

ANCPER
14th May 2013, 07:37
FFS,

For those who have never operated in Australia,there is no requirement to carry an alternate unless your destination a/p wx is below "altn min". This fuel policy is approved by CASA and prior to CASA instigating individual company FPs, was the AIP Fuel Policy.

For those who have never operated o/s, it is a requirement to carry an altn at ALL times, can be dropped once in flt if certain requirements are met.

Nitpicker,
your company has a host of altn a/p with 40 min of HK which all have Cat2 minimum app available including your destination. Here our infrastructure is somewhat backward even when compared to back of the woods Asian destinations. I'll think you'll find that are not departing without uplifting max fuel because of cost, but because of load. US-OZ is bit like LAX-HKG for you without the close well serviced (nav aid wise) altn
A/Ps available to you. And also unable (if historical data that CX has indicates successful flt to dest low) to drop in to a Korea/Japan/Taiwan type enroute altn with a relief crew to pick up where you hop off. They do their best and it appears to work.

nitpicker330
14th May 2013, 07:40
Yes all true BUT HKG ain't our only destination!!

Nice places like Surabaya, Bali, Jakarta, Cebu, Colombo etc. Some without an ILS too and their alternate is quite a way away...

And if the wx is rotten in HK it's a sure bet those other ports nearby ain't good either, therefore requiring RCKH or RCTP or RPLL fuel.

Anyway I guess I'm making the case for CX having an Alternate!! :eek:

We don't always have crews available in RKSI or RCTP to bring it home ( so to speak!! ) after a tech stop. Usually the crew would use discretion.....:sad:

I get your point though, I guess QF long haul arrivals would need a fair bit more gas to carry an alternate 400 nm away...in reasonable wx CX have a few more choices close by HK.

Going Boeing
14th May 2013, 08:13
Nitpicker, there are some airlines whose policy is to always carry a full alternate, but their choice of alternates doesn't make for a safer operation eg, nominating Paya Lebar as an alternate for Changi. As we know, if a thunderstorm is affecting Changi it's almost certain that it is affecting Paya Lebar.

An operation using that fuel policy is definitely less safe than the Qantas policy (& I'm not referring to CX).

Capt Claret
14th May 2013, 08:15
Could it be that Australia's regulatory position on the lack of need to carry alternate fuel unless the Wx is below proscribed limits harks back to the day when aeroplanes didn't carry much fuel, and aerodromes were relatively scarce, and payload capability didn't allow it?

Nowadays, perhaps its quite feasible for modern jet & turboprop aircraft to carry an alternate, without having to sacrifice payload.

Counter-rotation
14th May 2013, 23:27
Good discussion.

I can't help thinking that as others have already said, this should be more focussed on the level of services (or lack thereof) in this country in the 21st century, ie. landing aids serving busy capital city airports, and maybe in this case met. forecasting, than whether an operator's policy requires one to always carry an alternate... :hmm:

Captains will continue to make good command calls based on their experience and the information at hand, at the time the decision is made.

FYSTI
14th May 2013, 23:55
Nowadays, perhaps its quite feasible for modern jet & turboprop aircraft to carry an alternate, without having to sacrifice payload.
Not for longhaul ops with the cost of carriage at >300kg/ton.

You also forget the airline accountant's maximum, "make every sector limiting" [with payload], or stated another way, "you will always be scratching for gas".

OneDotLow
15th May 2013, 05:08
As numerous people have stated above, QF could nominate an alternate for most flights. i.e. Pearce, Richmond, Williamtown, Cooly, Avalon etc, but under the CASA regs it is not required, so why would they? With all but a very, very few exceptions, the system works, and works well. But most importantly, it is approved by CASA who take into account the operating environment and also the weather forecasting success rate.

Out of interest, is the alternate that CX, EK etc hold, a preflight requirement? or inflight requirement? I'd imagine there would be quite a few times when enroute weather has the flight down in fuel, but it can continue to destination due to the dest weather being ok.

BuzzBox
15th May 2013, 05:35
Out of interest, is the alternate that CX, EK etc hold, a preflight requirement? or inflight requirement?

In CX's case an alternate is required both pre-flight and in-flight, however, in-flight the alternate can be dropped under certain conditions, ie destination has two independent runways suitable for landing, good weather, no known/probable ATC delays, and sufficient fuel to continue to destination with 5% contingency at or abeam the last suitable ERA plus fixed reserve.

angryrat
15th May 2013, 05:58
EK nominates an alternate on each flight.

Yes, whilst you nominate Paya Lebar for Singapore during TS, QF will hold at least an hours hold with the ability to go to a more suitable alternate such as KL or CGK. Sometimes EK has more fuel than QF, sometimes EK has less than QF. Both policies have their merits and their holes. Just means we could be doing an Autoland busting minima, while you to have face TS's.

Maybe when QF108 was Autolanding in 400m vis, that is the time for Virgin, Jetstar and Tiger to hang back from the hold point :E

By the way, I believe Virgin got caught with their pants down too. No mention of it in here.

unseen
15th May 2013, 06:30
What will EKs alternate for YPPH be when it starts flying the A380 there?

YPLM or YPAD - both a long way away.

ASY68
15th May 2013, 06:56
If fog is forecasted for PER, TT have in the past carried MEL for the MEL-PER back of the clock.

Transition Layer
15th May 2013, 07:17
ASY68

If by TT you mean Tiger, that would be a commercial decision, not because its the most sensible or efficient.

The A320 could happily use Kalgoorlie, Learmonth (or maybe even Geraldton) assuming they were suitable, but then the crew would be out of hours after continuing to Perth with no crew base to find replacement crew. Much easier to fly all the way back to MEL with a plane load of very unhappy punters!

haughtney1
15th May 2013, 07:35
What will EKs alternate for YPPH be when it starts flying the A380 there?

YPLM or YPAD - both a long way away.


Well on the 777 it's currently YPLM 9 days out of 10, and from DXB more often than not we are MLW limited, so fuel is not a problem.
I can't comment on the 380, but given the whales propensity to need to carry vast quantities of gas, I'd say it won't be an issue.

Nautilus Blue
15th May 2013, 07:55
from DXB more often than not we are MLW limited
If you don't mind me asking, is that due to the aircraft or the rwy? I once has an inbound need early descent and extra track miles to burn off enough fuel to land, and have been curious ever since.

ga_trojan
15th May 2013, 08:01
By the way, I believe Virgin got caught with their pants down too. No mention of it in here.

Jetstar/Qantas/Virgin aircraft all diverted that doesn't really mean you got caught. When your nearest alternate is 1 hour away you can't be carrying endless hours of additional holding fuel. The fact is the TTF was wrong so that's just the way it is.

DirectAnywhere
15th May 2013, 08:31
At least the discussion hasn't yet descended to the level of the apocryphal story of a QF bloke who was going to ditch off Perth rather than auto land in unforecast fog. Oh, wait...:}

angryrat
15th May 2013, 11:42
ga trojan,

I'm sure I heard Virgin require an approach and bust minimas because they were low on fuel. Yes TTF was wrong, that I'm not disputing, its just funny that QF is the topic of the whole discussion even when another operator did the exact same thing. That is what I was saying.

ernestkgann
15th May 2013, 21:12
If an aircraft auto landed to a Cat 1 installation in conditions less than Cat1 then it must have been reported to the ATSB. Have a look there.

haughtney1
16th May 2013, 06:33
If you don't mind me asking, is that due to the aircraft or the rwy? I once has an inbound need early descent and extra track miles to burn off enough fuel to land, and have been curious ever since.

NB, on the 777 it's the aircraft, it's very very rarely runway limited.

Essentially if we land with our contingency and YPLM gas intact at YPPH with a full pax load and cargo, you will be at MLW (a bit over 251 Tonnes). Usually we burn most of the contingency avoiding all the rubbish wx around the equator...but at the planning stage it is a consideration.

Ken Borough
16th May 2013, 07:02
Haughtney

Are you implying that the B777 has a low MLW relative to its MTOW, like the SP but unlike the B747? If that's the case, it cant be a very good piece of kit for tankering fuel.

haughtney1
16th May 2013, 07:18
Haughtney

Are you implying that the B777 has a low MLW relative to its MTOW, like the SP but unlike the B747? If that's the case, it cant be a very good piece of kit for tankering fuel.

No Ken, not at all, the 300ER has a variety of MTOW's but only one MZFW and MLW. These two numbers are approx 251T MLW and 237T MZFW, it means that in the EK config (where we fly around at pretty much MZFW all the time) going into PER with YPLM as an alternate, we have to land with about 15T of gas on a normal day, so as you can tell, to met the MLW limitation in this instance...it's a consideration.
PER is a special case.

Nautilus Blue
16th May 2013, 08:44
Thanks Haughtney.
PER is a special case
In so many, many ways ...

TIMA9X
16th May 2013, 09:41
I can't help thinking that as others have already said, this should be more focussed on the level of services (or lack thereof) in this country in the 21st centuryI guess now we have an election looming Albo and MMW will probably get together to come up with a plan and/or study to solve the problem by 2049 perhaps.:E

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-mdYvBhLYr38/UZSmE-kUV7I/AAAAAAAAAqI/BIz5e6KjVTM/s1024/HMAS-ALBANESE-MORE-WILTON-ALTERNATE-SMITH-small.jpg

C441
16th May 2013, 10:09
Classic! :D

Captain Gidday
16th May 2013, 12:19
Classic? No, it's definitely a -400.

Excellent montage though, I agree.

Capn Bloggs
16th May 2013, 13:54
it means that in the EK config (where we fly around at pretty much MZFW all the time)
Yes yes yes OK we get the message!! :D

Praise Jebus
19th May 2013, 09:41
Can some one tell me what the QF 380s carry re fuel on DXB to MEL/SYD. With the forecast above planning minimas there will be no alternate and 20 minutes hold fuel not required from the ME so how much route reserve is loaded? Are WLM, RIC and AVL approved by QF for the 380 ? Ta...