Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing

[michael36]

No Cookies | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/travel/passengers-safe-after-virgin-plane-makes-emergency-landing-at-mildura/story-fni0b4w0-1226665511383)

How is this considered news worthy? A plane making a diversion due weather is standard. The article states the aircraft was low on fuel but I would be willing to bet they landed with all necessary reserves intact. Also commenting that 'no passengers appeared to be injured' just shows what is wrong with journalism today.

Anything for a story I guess.

[Captain Garmin]

might be the first B737 these country folk have seen. :ok:

[DirectAnywhere]

There is an additional article in the Australian.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/virgin-australia-flight-makes-emergency-landing-in-victoria/story-e6frg95x-1226665532147)

The article is confusing as it states the flight was destined for Melbourne but then goes on to say 'the 737 flight to Adelaide'.

However, it also states the flight diverted to Mildura and made two missed approaches there due to unforecast fog at Mildura followed by a landing. If that is the case, with the caveat that the media has got such things wrong before, then this incident is definitely newsworthy and potentially very serious.

[eskimounltd]

The one on news.com.au says it was BNE to ADL, but they don't mention the mised attempts.

[maggot]

Should Virgin change its fuel policy?


:}

[kennr]

Wiki lists Mildura airport runways as :

09/27 1,830 6,004 Asphalt
18/36 1,139 3,737 Asphalt

I thought a 60t 737 (heavily loaded) in dry conditions needs about 1,710metres... interesting landing for the passengers (and crew?)??

[framer]

Should Virgin change its fuel policy?
Heh heh classic :ok:

[UnderneathTheRadar]

The ABC reported it at lunchtime as:

- two flights diverted from ADL due to fog (one QF and one VA)
- they implied that there was then fog at YMIA when the diversions arrived and both held (presumably this fog was unforecast)
- VA then landed below the minima (my interpretation) - presumably because they didn't have the fuel to go anywhere else.

UTR

[j3pipercub]

Interesting

MIA had Prob fog all night. When I was driving out of AD the airport this morning at around 7am there was fog on Sir Donald Bradman drive moving towards the airport and nothing on the TAF all night except an ATIS stating fog patches in area about midnight, then this gem shows up.

TAF AMD YPAD 172100Z 1721/1824 05005KT 9999 FEW025 FM180000 VRB05KT
9999 FEW030 SCT045 FM181000 VRB05KT CAVOK
PROB30 1721/1724 0500 FG RMK

No mention of fog on the previous TAF.

Broadly, has anyone else noticed it's already been a big year for fog?

j3

P.S. sorry for being 'that guy' who posted the Taf :} thought it was relevant.

[bloated goat]

at the time the news radio stated that the aircraft was safely on the ground the latest AUTO SPECI for MIA showed 700mFG OVC001

[VH-XXX]

I'll tell you exactly what happened.

The aircraft was scheduled from Brisbane to Adelaide but due to bad weather couldn't land in Adelaide so diverted towards Melbourne but did not have enough fuel thus it landed at Mildura below the safe weather minima. A failure at two levels.

One might suggest that this would be due to Virgins new fuel policy that was implemented to save fuel and thus cash...

Someone might lose their job over this. Rumour has it that the crew came close to ditching it in a paddock.

[TSRABECOMING]

save fuel and money but pay more when divert. Good policy!

[maggot]

I'll tell you exactly what happened.

The aircraft was scheduled from Brisbane to Adelaide but due to bad weather couldn't land in Adelaide so diverted towards Melbourne but did not have enough fuel thus it landed at Mildura below the safe weather minima. A failure at two levels.

One might suggest that this would be due to Virgins new fuel policy that was implemented to save fuel and thus cash...

Someone might lose their job over this. Rumour has it that the crew came close to ditching it in a paddock.


wtf? I know this is a rumour network but your story does seem a little outlandish... Crew diverting *then* realising they didnt have enough? You can pretty much glide to melbourne from toc. Or go back to adl where i dare say youd feel better landing below mins. Unless they were worried about what people would say about them on pprune if they autolanded below :ooh:

[chookcooker]

I know we've had a lot of rain lately, but how does one ditch in a paddock?

[VH-XXX]

Chookcooker - preferably with the wheels up!

If you realised at first that you didn't have enough fuel to get to Melbourne, you wouldn't try and make it would you? Perhaps that answers your query maggot.

Part 2 of that: If you were going to go below minimums, would you do it at Adelaide or Mildura. We know the obvious answer to that but we won't know what happened until the conditions can be compared. Hindsight is a great thing.

Part 3 - did the aircraft not have enough fuel to get from Mildura to Adelaide....? ;)

[maggot]

#1. No. End of story. :bored:

[Desert Flower]

Look up VOZ1615 on FlightAware.

DF.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

So to sumarise:
- unforecast fog at ADL
- diverted to MIA which had prob fog
- arrived MIA to actual fog
- no fuel to go anywhere else

Sounds legal (cue reference to 'worlds best practice' and QF fuel policy- but from these facts QF could have been in the same position). The mess was that they went to MIA.

Are there any other 737 airfields they could have gone to within the same range (Edinburgh but presumably it was fogged in also) that didn't have a fog forecast? Port Lincoln? Mount Gambier? (I have no idea if these can take 737s)

Did they know about the prob fog at MIA when they diverted - FlightAware shows pretty much an immediate 180 degree turn and dash for MIA - so either they didn't know or they did know and had no other choice but to hope that prob 30 didn't eventuate?

[flamingmoe]

So a BNE-ADL flight, on receiving news of fog in ADL, didn't have enough fuel in the tanks to turn slightly left to MEL, where the weather was suitable, 2 runways with ILS, autoland, company personel etc etc, and land with LEGAL minimums?? Forget company policy, what captains own fuel policy would allow himself to be backed into a corner like this?

[Spotlight]

I guess you have been out of the business for a while Moe, or have led a sheltered life if you have not heard the term 'the min fuel brigade'!

This is not a comment on the MIA incident as facts are scarce at this stage.

[Dangly Bits]

My friend was on that flight. I'll try to find out the truth.

[Bankstown]

Look up VOZ1615 on FlightAware.

DF.
Wasn't it VOZ1384 that diverted?

[Capt Fathom]

turn slightly left to MEL

Define slightly

A 90 degree turn for 300nm ?

[Marauder]

DF flight was actually VA 1384

Hypothetical, on your way BN AD you fly past MIA, even though fog has been forecast all night, you look out the window, CAVOK. 15 minutes later get told AD has unforecast fog, and deteriorating below minima.

METAR MIA CAVOK at this time CAVOK.


What would you do?

As an aside QF also diverted there, did they have fuel for anywhere else

[kalavo]

'the min fuel brigade'

Oh sure, they're around, but I've always found after talking to them, filling up to MTOW rather than my normal safe happy number above company minimum was the best way to get rid of that dirty feeling.

[porch monkey]

XXX, I'll wager the new fuel policy had F@ck all to do with it. The "new" fuel policy actually has you arriving with MORE than the old one. It is a lot closer to being in line with what most captains would normally take. Anything you think you need, you take. Never heard of anyone getting a call about that. OTOH, there are a few "believers" amongst the boys, (very few I have to say), who regard plan fuel as good enough, occasionally they get a scare......... As always, unforecast fog can be an issue. Moe may be a bit closer to the truth.

[jportzer]

Look up VOZ1615 on FlightAware.
Wasn't it VOZ1384 that diverted? If you look up VOZ1615, which is a scheduled MQL - MEL run, you'll see that today it was serviced by a 738 and operated 3 hours late. I'm not quite sure the connection to VOZ1384, since VOZ1384 is also shown departing MQL and finishing its trip to ADL after the diversion. But at any rate that seems to imply that VOZ 738s operating to MQL is not unheard of, which maybe was the point.

(P.S. As long as we're using IATA codes, let's be consistent about them.)

[VH-XXX]

My friend was on that flight. I'll try to find out the truth.

As a passenger or crew?

It would be very interesting to hear what exactly the passengers was told. I understand that there is often quite a gap between cabin announcements and the actual truth. I mean, you don't want to upset the passengers by telling them that there's not enough fuel on board.

They need to fit heart rate monitors on pilots and hook it up to the black-box; that would be interesting.

[Capt Fathom]

There must have been enough fuel on board.....it landed!

[framer]

Pilots who take flight plan fuel if it is not enough to get somewhere reliable are setting themselves up IMO. I have no idea about this incident but at least once in a career an airport is going to close for a random reason ( bomb scare, lights go u/s , plane on the runway etc) and then you'l need to go somewhere else reliable. You need fuel from the miss to a runway where weather isn't a problem, simple as that really.
Ps that isn't a comment/ judgement on the Virgin flight, just on the topic of flight planning.

[Spotlight]

Photo on the Heraldsun website showing passengers disembarking shows quite good viz. Ceiling is hard to pick.

But photos from other sources show heavy fog. Hmmm.

[vee1-rotate]

Interesting to hear on the 5pm news, 2 different people on board who were interviewed, mentioning that cabin crew told them to assume brace positions on landing in MQL and were yelling "stay low, brace".

Perhaps cabin crew taking the flight crews information of an "emergency landing" a bit too literally, with little other information to go on?

[jportzer]

Perhaps cabin crew taking the flight crews information of an "emergency landing" a bit too literally, with little other information to go on? What are the actual procedures for landing below minima, is there anything documented? To me the brace position and emergency services on site seems a reasonable precaution. I'm only a PPL, so please correct me where wrong, but aren't the minima based, at least partially, on the tolerances for the instrument approach procedure in use and the amount of time/space it would take to correct for those tolerances before landing? If the runway is not sighted until below this minima, isn't there a good possibility the aircraft could be out of alignment with the runway, with not enough time available for adjustment. In which case the emergency precautions seem totally appropriate in the event of overrun.

[VH-XXX]

mentioning that cabin crew told them to assume brace positions on landing in MQL

Sounds fair, as the flight crew potentially don't know at what altitude they were going to become visual. That would have to be company SOP.

[Austaz]

About to Ditch in a paddock. i seriously doubt that was EVER an option.No options left? load up the RNAV App and it will deliver you over the threshhold at 50' AGL. 20' callout close the thrust levers. IF things are that bad i would rather be crashing on the runway than some obscure paddock. The majority of us will never know the full details so it a brave person (read arrogant) that can make an assumption on what was the right call without having all the facts.
Just my humble opinion though.:bored:
Ps: I wouldn't be taking a passengers opinion of what happen with too much weight. How many times have we heard "The engines went to full power and we shot up like a rocket. We all though we were going to die"..... Read... "The pilots conducted a by-the-book missed approach procedure and we were all safe.

[thorn bird]

Hmmm,
here's a handy diversion from the senate estimates for FF.
Shut them down!!!
Hey they shut Tiger down for a lot less.

[VH-XXX]

Channel 7 just showed video of the landing.

It was indeed foggy. Less than 500 metres horizontal visibility at a guess! There was a prec-search (go-around?) conducted prior where the aircraft was barely visible from the ground at what looked like 500ft or less.

We'll all get to read about this further when the report is released in about 2 years :rolleyes:

[Metro man]

Fog can form VERY quickly given the right conditions, I remember looking around after topping up the oil on an engine and wondering where all the hills had gone. They were definitely there when I started !

The news video looks quite interesting, definite fog. Difficult to say if it was forming or dispersing. Reminds me of a few early mornings with delayed departure.;)

[Capt Fathom]

With a guessed visibility of 500m or less, the aircraft would not become visual until 85 feet above the runway elevation, based on a 3 deg profile.

Yet it was seen at what looked like 500 feet during the previous approach.

It's getting better by the minute!

[DirectAnywhere]

Ben's take on the day's events.

Virgin jet fog 'drama' at Mildura a sign of bad fog season | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/06/18/mildura-emergency-a-sign-of-a-bad-fog-season-rising/)

It’s unusual for two mainline jets, both 737s, one operated by Virgin Australia and the other by Qantas, to have to land at Mildura because fog has closed one capital city airport (Adelaide) and they don’t have the fuel to go to another capital city (Melbourne) or to another jet capable airfield (Albury Wodonga for example).

As such, today’s diversion into Mildura by Virgin and Qantas flights, but with the former declaring a fuel emergency, raises some questions which may, stress the word ‘may’, prove important.

Fuel emergencies are not intended within the rules concerning diversions to alternate airports to be a normal procedure. That’s why they are called ‘emergencies’, to be used in an emergency, and it is the use of the emergency call for the Virgin flight to then safety land at Mildura that needs to be determined.

If we try to summarise the rules that Qantas, Virgin Australia, and anyone else has to abide by in diversions caused by the closure of an intended airport, the key point is that no matter whether it is an A320, or a 737 or an E-jet, and no matter where it may have started its trip, it will arrive in the vicinity of the alternative airfield (Mildura) with identical capability to make a set of missed approaches, and loiter with intent to land, if it has to.

Qantas and Virgin were both diverted to Mildura by air traffic control when Adelaide airport notified it that fog was closing it to arrivals.

At the time air traffic control had reported that Mildura was clear. It acted on the best information it had, directed the affected airlines to go to Mildura, and then everyone was caught out by the unforecast fog that also affected the visibility at that airfield.

There is no suggestion that the crew of the Virgin Blue 737 did anything wrong.

But their route to a safe landing at Mildura was different to that used by the Qantas 737 in that they had to declare a fuel emergency meaning they had to land as soon as practicable rather than wait for an improvement in the visibility.

It may come down to the amount of fuel the respective pilots of the 737s used or didn’t use making missed approaches to the unexpectedly fog shrouded Mildura airport. The Virgin jet is reported to have made two missed approaches. Pilots are entitled to elect under their company’s operating procedures to fly an approach and abandon it if they cannot make visual contact with the runway at the decision height at which they continue the landing or power up the engines and climb away.

A spokesperson for Virgin Australia confirmed these details, and emphasised that the airline was co-operating fully with CASA and the ATSB, should the ATSB decide to inquire further into the incident on the basis that so doing may enhance or improve air safety through awareness of or discussion of the factors were in play at Mildura and in the 737s at the time.

It has so far been an uncommonly foggy or bad weather prone winter in SE Australia. There have been various other incidents in recent weeks that haven’t made it into the general media that were caused by late deterioration in conditions at airports like Sydney when approaching airliners had in some cases no option but to land in ‘crappy’ conditions.

Awareness of them may call for a ‘little’ extra precautionary fuel here, or a few less passengers or freight pallets there when it comes to flights heading off for SE capital city airports.

Especially if the aircraft concerned are large, will be flying for 14 to 15 hours, and have less alternative runways to choose from because of their landing weight and length and width requirements.

This may make this a winter where airline operations in general will need to become increasingly sensitive to the risk of last minute weather issues.

But the airlines don’t need the media to alert them to the risks. The merits of an ATSB inquiry would not be in pointing to a ‘problem’ the airlines are well aware of, but providing a cohesive and informed look at the issues arising from last night in Mildura as a basis for any change in the procedures or rules that everyone should adopt.

[VH-XXX]

There was a prec-search (go-around?)



Yet it was seen at what looked like 500 feet during the previous approach.

Capt Fathom, I never used the word "approach." The video shows the aircraft flying down the runway at X height. Who knows, it may have been a go-around, but the video shows what is essentially a fly-by, hence my question-mark above.

The fact is, that it was rather foggy!

[By George]

As it's been said many times, "welcome to the third world". Even India has CAT3 ILS at its major airports. Sad for a country that once led the way. We have great coffee shops and places to buy furry kangaroos but can't get the planes in. Pathetic really, almost comical.

[TOUCH-AND-GO]

Took the words right out of my mind BG. A question? Was YMTG out of question?

[Afterburner1]

QUOTE

"Qantas and Virgin were both diverted to Mildura by air traffic control when Adelaide airport notified it that fog was closing it to arrivals. At the time air traffic control had reported that Mildura was clear. It acted on the best information it had, directed the affected airlines to go to Mildura, and then everyone was caught out by the unforecast fog that also affected the visibility at that airfield."

I doubt that ATC would have "diverted" the aircraft to MIA, it would have been the captains' decisions to divert there, not ATCs.

QUOTE

" Pilots are entitled to elect under their company’s operating procedures to fly an approach and abandon it if they cannot make visual contact with the runway at the decision height at which they continue the landing or power up the engines and climb away."

Pilots aren't "entitled" to do this under SOPs, it's expected of them by law... :ugh:


Not having a go at the pilots, they did a good job under tough circumstances, just more sh!t reporting....

[Metro man]

The video shows the aircraft flying down the runway at X height.

I'm sure we all remember from PPL met. about visibility in fog. The distance through the fog is much less when looking straight down from overhead the airport than it is when you are in the soup and looking through 2km of water droplets trying to find the runway.

[Kris Lovell]

What a day...

I was on that flight
Things I remember

Cockpit said high headwinds to Adelaide
Cockpit said we were Diverting from Adelaide to Mildura for fuel and to wait for fog to lift at Adelaide
I recall one go-around with ground visible ( certainly wasn't a prec.. Large thrust and pitch change ) not saying there wasn't one.. Just didn't notice it.
Cockpit advised that next approach is a landing and he will call brace as it may be bumpy landing.
On final(?) captain called brace brace
Followed by front cabin crew repeatedly yelling "heads down stay down" until we had slowed down on rwy

I got a picture and will post later of out window view.

I was towards front of aircraft

My memory is being taxed after a loooong day. Left Brisbane at 6 arrived Adelaide at 7:30ish so there may be some inaccuracies


Pic on taxi
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4782/31ow.jpg
* said cockpit as can't recall who made PAs

QF were there prior
1384 aircraft still there when we left at 3

Kris

I am not interested in talking to media

[RobShan]

YMTG runway is only 1524x30 so a bit tight I would imagine.

I was wondering about the military option, YPED. I happened to be listening to ATC before 1384 diverted, and ATC mentioned to 1384 that YPPF was now clear of fog. It is likely that YPED would have been clear as well.

[Catwalk Dweller]

What hasn't been mentioned so far is the way 3AW reported this (in the person of David Armstrong and that Journalist's Journalist Neil Mitchell). I admit I'm paraphrasing the exact wording here, but the story was retold as: "The Virgin 737 pilot was guided to a safe landing by the Qantas pilot who had landed before him . . ."

[roundaboutway]

A 73 conducted an auto land into AD this morning in the fog and got in whilst no one else was getting in.( I'm not sure if they made previous attempts.) My question is, could they have used auto land as a last resort and landed below minima or is this a standard procedure in foggy conditions?

[roundaboutway]

YPED was never clear (until around the same time AD became clear) and Parafield was for only a short period before it rolled in again.

[Angle of Attack]

Roundabout

Yes they could have but if you arrive to an airfield and it goes under minimums and you have fuel to an alternate field that is CAVOK , you would be shot for doing an unauthorized auto land into that runway. Sometimes **** happens and these aircraft got on the ground, thats what its all about...

[spelling_nazi]

That 737 that auto landed was me. We arrived into Adelaide with Melbourne diversion + 45 mins hold, because I had a feeling in my loins departing Sydney, and after a pulse quickening curfew arrival into Sydney with unforecast fog a week prior.

We held for about 25 mins while aircraft diverted left right and centre all around us.

When vis was reported as 820m we shot an approach and were just able to see expanding Hials at minima. Borderline stuff to be sure but we waited until vis was reported above requirements and got lucky.

Elected to auto land to enable all my attention to be on expanding segment.

First in, then others followed as fog quickly dissipated. Although around the terminal it seemed more clagged in than the runway.

Funny thing is, there were no requirements to divert really as metar had fog clearing 30 min after we arrived so if you'd trusted the metar you'd have gotten in.

Tough call when she's fogged in to put all your eggs in the metar basket but legally if you had 30 min on arrival at about 10:30 from memory you didn't have to go anywhere.

But we had bucketload so was a no brainier to wait it out.

Hats off to the mildura crews getting it down safely but I'd be damned if I'd leave an auto land capable airfield to head to a tinpot non-ils runway if I knew it had fog also.

That's the million dollar variable though isn't it. Was fog on the mildura metar?

[601]

At least it was not in the middle of WA in a F28 at night with only an NDB for the approach.

[Angle of Attack]

There is no way there was fog on MIA metar when the other crews elected to divert, surely, why divert? It was all down to fuel levels on arrival ADL.


601,
Better than being in a Baron in WA southwest with a NDB offset in 400m vis? Lol been there done that...Its all good mate...

[spelling_nazi]

Yeah sorry bad wording on my part. I'm sure they wouldn't have diverted Mildura if fog was there on ETA, but I wonder if it was a total surprise or if it was on the taf but not metar, then appeared out of the blue, much like Adelaide.

[RATpin]

Totally agree with By George, third world country masquerading as a first world country.Airport operators more interested in selling fast food and a so called government flat out sabotaging the economy.
It's unbelievable that internationals arriving at our so called "Premier City" have to divert for fog. Reminds me of the story of the United Captains last Aussie Flight,"just like to congratulate you guys on being the second best controllers in the world." Controller not realising he was being set up responded, thanks very much, who's the best? Everybody Else!

[Angle of Attack]

ATC personell have othing to do with it, it is the government......oh sorry private companies that dictate our national interest......

[RATpin]

Sorry AoA, Didn't mean to imply ATC are responsible for incompetent Government policy.

[nitpicker330]

I'm told there was a video taken by someone on the ground of the 73 trying to land? Has anyone got a link to it?

Well done to the VA crew, I guess the seat covers where changed later on!! :eek:

[kookaburra]

Video here if link works to 7 news

Virgin plane makes emergency landing at Mildura Airport - Yahoo!7 (http://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/latest/a/-/newshome/17648897/virgin-plane-makes-emergency-landing-at-mildura-airport/)

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

This will be a cracker of a report, some thing we'll all probably learn from. Expect the report in 2016-17 should we?

If you want a heads up the senate inquiry thread may give one!

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-106.html

[Buckshot16]

I'll be careful here, but I'm pretty sure ( No MELS, abs certain ) the 737 will land off an ILS in zero visibility, as oppose to a VOR/DME approach in marginal visibility, I wait for the facts.

[Capt Claret]

Just musing out loud...

I wonder if the airline's (collectively not just Virgin) bean counters had been on board enroute to the World Bean Counter's AGM in ADL, and had all had to go through the experience, including the BRACE, BRACE, BRACE; would they continue to advocate minimalist legal fuel "because statistically you'll just carry it for the sake of carrying it"?

Or would the experience, actually having some fear of the outcome, change their statistical outlook to permit the sensible carriage of an alternate, whether the current rules require it or not?

Hmmmm. :ooh:

[framer]

What is a rough fuel figure to climb out of Adelaide and go to Melbourne and land with 2 tonnes?

[greenslopes]

Excellent post Claret!

[framer]

If it was the required 2800m there wouldn't be a thread running on it.

[Hailstop3]

Firstly, credit where it is due, and hats off to the crew for a safe outcome.

Video looks like some serious pea soup. Would be lucky to be 800m I would think. No wonder the pax had been given the brace command. Makes sense to me. I look forward to finding out how they pulled it off safely but I am going to guess like everyone else has been, and agree with the previous poster who said dial up the rnav which will give the pseudo glideslope to the threshold.

I wonder if there will be an RNP approach implemented in Mildura at a later date now that the test flying calibration has been already completed :E

[004wercras]

Speaking of fuel, can anybody confirm whether VA have actually introduced new policy? I paxed 3 return sectors last week for business , 6 different aircraft for a total of 6 flights. Each aircraft was stinking hot, minimal to nil aircon until climb. No U/S APU's, just stinking hot onboard with plenty of pax whinging, including myself. I am curious whether a policy has been introduced? If it has it is not a good one. If my flights next week are a replica of last week I may go back to the Rat for a month or two to re-test the waters so to speak.
Three weeks ago the flights felt cooler??

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... i'm wondering why the BOM caint get their fog forecasts right ?

[AussieAviator]

I too got caught out yesterday, and I would have landed with 2.5 tons of fuel. I think the met boys were having a bad day, as the fog wasn't forecast and didn't clear until 1-2 hours AFTER the forecast TTF period! A quick discussion with my FO and we just went back to where we had just come from. The good news on that one was that the wind @ FL350 was 260/176kts, so picked up a nice little tail wind! I have left the auto-pilot on many times doing a practice RNAV/Z runway approach, and had made the decision a long time before, that it would get you within the runway confines, in fog. You may take out a few lights, but way better than crashing in a paddock!! I don't know the facts, but I imagine this is exactly what the Virgin crew did. Maybe the QF crew were just alerting them to the actual viz conditions as they made their final approach. I too would have prepared the cabin for a possible crash landing as they have had a lot of rain up that way, and the grass verges would be very soft. Brilliant result i reckon! :D

[Wally Mk2]

Interesting seeing around 72 posts in just one day on a subject that is obviously controversial.
I wonder whether this core subject (Min fuel) will result in much worse than what we are talking about here some day/night. It's on the cards just a matter of time when & then we shall see all the boffins ducking for cover with the word 'commercial' once again being swept under the 'safe' carpet!
I've operated in & out of MIA for many a year & it's a well known shocker of a place for fog, forecast & un-forecast. Lost a patient early one morning 'cause of fog, tried my damnedest to get in to that place several times never seeing the rwy/lights 'till in the missed App but had to go home with a very teary paramedic on board:sad:

The tech crew got safely on the ground that's the main thing, now lets talk about improving the situation so the risks can be further reduced not increased by the bean counters!

Wmk2

[601]

After having seen the fog at BN being cleared by aircraft executing missed approaches, the vis you see on the video taken from the terminal area may not be the vis the crew had on their second approach.

The completion of the missed approach may have dissipated the fog enough to complete the final approach and landing.

[Alien Role]

Personal experience - Ansett days; CBR to ADL with a CAVOK TAFOR / TTF-M on ADL.
Preparing for briefing prior to TOPD and got the ADL atis which indicated fog moving in from the NE. Had not received any hazard alert from ATC.
Mildura and MEL had fog and too far into the flight to return to CBR so the decision was made to continue to ADL and try to beat the fog (with the option of an autoland if need be).
VOR/D 05 no good so took a 5kt downwind ILS 23 and got visual at 600'. The fog continued to thicken after our arrival.
From what I have observed at ADL, the fog forms up the Barossa Valley , not so much over the airport itself, then slides down the valley with a katabatic breeze which also takes out Edingurgh.
The ADL forcast might not have fog but it is frequently not too far away.

Role on....

[Abe Froeman]

Thankful very experienced Captain flying this one, 30+yrs flying experience

Been told he cut his teeth flying turbo props flying Adl to Mql in his younger days

Top effort

[Fris B. Fairing]

What hasn't been mentioned so far is the way 3AW reported this (in the person of David Armstrong and that Journalist's Journalist Neil Mitchell). I admit I'm paraphrasing the exact wording here, but the story was retold as: "The Virgin 737 pilot was guided to a safe landing by the Qantas pilot who had landed before him . . ."

Channel 9 Brisbane made a similar statement in their promo for the 6 o'clock news but there was no such reference in the full bulletin.

[Capn Bloggs]

Bl@@dyHell! That video gave me goosebums.

Ben Sandilands has completely missed the point, which is that the BOM have comprehensivley failed the travelling public by it's apparent inability to forecast accurately. This is endangering the lives of thousands of unsuspecting travellers because airlines are trusting the forecasts to carry fuel levels that are too low to cope with a bad forecast/unplanned diversion.

[Chadzat]

Bloggs- Bingo.

Surely it doesnt 'cost' the BOM anything to put a PROB30 up in the TAF the night before? In the past fortnight I have had early morning departures to 2 aerodromes that had no mention of fog and thus no alternate requirement. The temp/dew point split and wind off the metar led me to believe that fog would be likely and whaddyaknow- speci's come out mid-sector. 1 resulted in a diversion and the other occassion the fog was partial and not fully over the airfield.

Do the BOM have a vested interest in not putting limiting forecasts up?

[ejectx3]

Like Singapore's rolling tempo to enable singair to avoid carrying extra fuel?

[training wheels]

Has anyone ever seen anything higher than PROB30 for FG or any other weather for that matter? Eg, PROB70 FG? I never have. It always seem to be PROB30 or nothing. If you see PROB>50 for FG or BR, that would at least get more attention.

[michael36]

I have never seen anything greater than PROB40 on a TAF. It was my understanding that PROB30 means it is unlikely but definitely could occur. PROB40 on the other hand indicates a very high certainty of the event occurring.

[triathlon]

My understanding is probs are only forecast at 30 or 40.

[ruddman]

I too got caught out yesterday, and I would have landed with 2.5 tons of fuel. I think the met boys were having a bad day, as the fog wasn't forecast and didn't clear until 1-2 hours AFTER the forecast TTF period! A quick discussion with my FO and we just went back to where we had just come from. The good news on that one was that the wind @ FL350 was 260/176kts, so picked up a nice little tail wind! I have left the auto-pilot on many times doing a practice RNAV/Z runway approach, and had made the decision a long time before, that it would get you within the runway confines, in fog. You may take out a few lights, but way better than crashing in a paddock!! I don't know the facts, but I imagine this is exactly what the Virgin crew did. Maybe the QF crew were just alerting them to the actual viz conditions as they made their final approach. I too would have prepared the cabin for a possible crash landing as they have had a lot of rain up that way, and the grass verges would be very soft. Brilliant result i reckon!



Non-pilot question if that's ok. I thought that was pretty typical for a 737, landing with around 2.5t?

[skkm]

My understanding is probs are only forecast at 30 or 40.
Correct.
AIP GEN 3.5 3.6.7

(Although, in my observation, PROB30 seems a more or less definite guarantee that there is going to be fog).

[waren9]

So far this this winter, we have had
1. Jets autolanding below ILS minimas
2. Jets landing below NPA minima (I presume)
3. Jets diverting to non company airports when a fairly common (if irregular) winter weather phenomenon occurs

All with no fuel for other options.

How is this worlds best practice?

Some aspects as to the nature of that phenomenon is quite well known. i.e its onset, severity and duration can be quite hard to predict.

We as a pilot group in this age are ever more constrained by rules and manuals that are only getting fatter and fatter.

Personal judgement and discretion is slowly becoming a thing of the past as newer guys are coming through are only shown/taught to play by the manual. Fuel load is becoming more and more surreptitiously limited by payload through company policy.

Time to take a step back guys before something gets bent.

Just because a manual or a rule book says it might be OK, we need to ask ourselves more and more, just as much as Teresa Green and his mates would have done in the past "**** the forecast, is my fuel load a prudent one?"

Dont leave it to BOM, a company manual or a CASA reg to keep you out of trouble. The guys that write that stuff have different drivers and KPI's which are often at direct odds with our own aims (Not talking about BOM here).

[Mr Whippy]

Apparantly in South African Airways its policy to always carry an alternate unless the destination has multiple useable non-intersecting runways, or at any other time the crew feels it necessary, no questions asked. Seems pretty sensible to me.

[Ramjager]

If BOM hasnt tried to kill you at least once you havnt been flying long enough.
Accuracy or lack there of in Aussie forceasts is or from my experience pretty common.
If you are basing fuel decisions relying totally on accuracy of forecasts you are setting yourself up. How many times to forecasts change post departure and if you are basing your fuel uplift on a trans con flight from Bris to Per do they really know what the weather will be in 6 hiurs time? Jeez they cant even get what it will be like in 3 hours time!
To expect 100% accuracy is im sorry never ever going to happen.
My questions would be and i havnt seen it posted did Mildura have a prob of fog of fog on the TAF?
Was there a TTF which superseded it without fog on it?
Having diverted several times while operating into Tassie due unforecast fog in Slowbart the first thing on my diversion checklist is W..does my diversion field have an acceptable forecast that makes it Legal to divert there.
As frequently Launy may have a prob of fog ruling it out as an option as to divert there then have it roll in as what happened yesterday means you have insufficient to return to Melbs so its straight back to Melbs you go Cavok or not at Launy.
On company fuel policies since when does that ever obligate a Captain to carry less fuel than they see fit you are protected under the Regs every day to carry as much as you feel you require..
The guys did well to get it down just live to know what he forecasts said..

[ejectx3]

As spelling nazi said, if your loins are stirring, fill her up shags!

[Matt48]

Hi all,
Would anyone have an idea of how much fuel a 777 APU would use in 4 hrs waiting on taxiway for a storm to clear.
Would it have much effect on reserve fuel for a flight from O'Hare to LAX.
I was once in this situation as a pax, just wondering.
Thanks, M48.

[Icarus2001]

Boring I know but I will wait for the investigation to publish a report.

As far as BOM forecast accuracy, they get it right much more regularly than getting it wrong, only some of you guys seem to forget that. Sure, getting it wrong has implications such as we see here but that is why the PIC makes the final call about fuel load, not BOM. I am always amazed HOW accurate BOM get winds aloft and cloud base etc.

Ultimately, a safe outcome with some lessons for all, and cheap too.

[FYSTI]

Firstly, hats off to both crews, great job to get everyone on the ground safely given the sh!t sandwich you found yourselves eating.

This incident confirms us as being in the ranks of the aviation third world , and has all the hallmarks of similar incidents for example the 2010 Polish Air Force crash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash) in Russia, which didn't have a "good outcome".

Thankfully both aircraft were 800's with high accuracy nav systems. It could well have been a different outcome with a steam driven non-GPS model.

[triathlon]

Surely airlines can find other ways to save money without having min fuel policies if it compromises safety.

[ejectx3]

Yeah.... Half the number of "managers" , and fire the boss.

[flynerd]

One of the problems with BOM and Ozzie Govt spending cutbacks is that there are less local experienced people doing the forecasting.

A lot of present day forecasting is done relying only on historic data modelling and statistics. So, they _will_ get it right more often than not - that's how statistics work! :8 :8

But when some conditions "outside-the-box" are looming, they will get it wrong as they need LOCAL experience and a window to look out-of to make reasoned forecasts.

Another factor is that the local BOM may not be "local". For Adelaide, they could be outsourced to Sydney, Canberra or Melbourne (or Mumbai). Now that cannot help.

[deanm]

I'm guessing that neither airline would attempt to takeoff from Mildura with diverted passengers on board?

DeanM

[Octane]

Just asked my bro if he went to Mildura recently. His reply "Nope.. don't carry company fuel, always have lots of gas. Keeps my life simple...!" :}

What I don't really get that is, if say you always carry say an extra 5T of fuel for mum, is that extra weight going to really be a huge expense in the scheme of things. As a passenger I'd rather pay an extra $2 fuel surcharge (a complete scam anyway) than endure go arounds in fog at night with no fuel for an alternate.

What would be the actual dollar cost of carting an extra 5T of fuel Brissy to Adelaide be anyway?

To the uninitiated the entire situation seems absurd.....

[Lookleft]

I'm guessing that neither airline would attempt to takeoff from Mildura with diverted passengers on board?

Their respective performance departments would assess it and provide takeoff charts.

One of the problems with BOM and Ozzie Govt spending cutbacks is that there are less local experienced people doing the forecasting.

That explains an awful lot about the state of forecasting in this country. If this is indeed a "bad fog season" then it is even more important for the BOM to be more conservative with their forecasting. For them to miss the fog in Adl is unfortunate but to then also miss it for Mildura is borderline incompetent.

Well done to the crew. I can't imagine the thoughts going through their mind when they realized that they would have to do an improvised autoland with a chance of it not being successful.

I'm also interested to know if the airport authorities activated their emergency plans and if the landing had not been successful, if emergency vehicles were at the airport.

[ejectx3]

Yes they were.

[Kharon]

N.B. I hereby formally acknowledge that this is only my idle wondering; I was not present, don't have enough data and I am only speculating "over a coffee", while waiting for 'the report' to appear; provided booze, bad living and old age don't cart me off first.

TW # 81 "Has anyone ever seen anything higher than PROB30 for FG". I've never checked this out; but, a wise old pelican (Met man at Sydney) told me one day when I was jumping up and down about the 'bloody forecast', "we only need to within plus or minus 70% of actual, to be within our required accuracy boundaries". So, 30% prob +70 =100% correct if forecast right; or conversely >60% right, if forecast wrong. - Just saying. - Tricky stuff this fog, clear sky, light breeze, Dp and OAT close and closing, high pressure, winter, early morning at a known fog factory near you. The met office computer model might not 'see' it, but I betcha the 'locals' know.

But was Mildura not a passing strange choice though?; Brisvegas to Adelaide track, (round numbers, broad brush) from dim memory (Venel is it ?) was about 210 nms from Adelaide. From there it's 275 ish to Adelaide and it's "about" 260 nms to Melbourne, well before TOD anyway, lets say, for sake of argument 35 minutes out, 15 before TOD. Plenty of options from there. Even from o' head YMIA it's only what? 250 nms to Melbourne as opposed to 180 odd nms to Adelaide. That's only + 70 odd miles, which, in a 73 series anything, is not too long a stretch. The Adelaide met data (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-106.html#post7898967)does show the trend toward fog, so I am left, still wondering, why risk Mildura, provided Melbourne was readily available? But then again, I wonder about a lot of things, mostly about the same things Capt. Claret was (#64), back up the page there a bit.

SN – "But we had bucketload so was a no brainier to wait it out." Tim Tam to that man, for a pure definition of no sweat aviating. The met data I've seen provided and this time of the year, would have me reaching for "the books" and a sharp pencil. Q) Why have you always got 4 tons fuel on board landing Bloggs?. (A) 'Cos I can't get any more in the little bugger, that's why......:D

[Lookleft]

The met data (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/468048-senate-inquiry-hearing-program-4th-nov-2011-a-106.html#post7898967)does show the trend toward fog

It does eventually but if you look at the 2130 SPECI with MIFG they then state NOSIG which is supposed to be a statement of trend for the next 3 hours even though leading up to it the temp and the dew point are 05/05.

At 2200 the penny finally drops and they start trending FG.

Forecasts should be just that and not akin to Monday morning football discussion.

[VC9]

It is possible to get caught out whether you have minimum fuel or lots of fuel. With minimum fuel the decision is clear cut, in this case autoland at an ILS equipped airport, which in hind sight may have been the safest option.

The fact is that all major capital city airports should have at least one CAT 3 capable runway. It is 2013 not 1963.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

The last para of the news item....

"The Australian Transport Safety Bureau says it is collecting information about the incident, and may conduct a formal investigation."

:ok:

[astinapilot]

To answer some q's

2.5 tonne in 737 is not much. Approx 60 mins. 1 missed approached and recircuit and you're at legal mins.

Bn-ad. Per tonne of fuel carried extra it will use about 60kg. So 5t is 300kg= $350. Does not sound much but virgin do 3000 flights per wk ( from website) = 1 mil/wk. Not all would use 300kg but rough enough.

So it is a find balancing act b/w balancing commercial and safety considerations. Why we get paid the big bucks ;-)

[DirectAnywhere]

I've been wondering for years what relevance the number has after a PROB fog. It doesn't matter operationally whether it's PROB 10 or PROB 90. If there's any probability of fog or other phenomena reducing the visibility below the alternate criteria, or whatever the exact AIP wording is, you need an alternate.

So why don't we ditch the number entirely and make it just PROB, meaning there is some probability, so gas it up?

Or, even better, remove the term PROB entirely. If there is a chance of deteriorating weather during a certain period just forecast it as such. It makes the TAF/ TTF shorter, which makes it easier to read, and makes no operational change as far as flight crew are concerned.

[34R]

I just hope that those involved are receiving any support and help that is needed. At the end of the day the souls on board count was the same at the conclusion of the flight as it was when it started, and that is a great thing.

The crew was an experienced one and I'm sure every avenue was exhausted before the final call was made. Sometimes everything can be done right and you can still find yourself pushing the proverbial uphill.

Let's allow the facts to be discovered, and turn this into a situation we can all benefit from.

[Creampuff]

Kharon:But was Mildura not a passing strange choice though?; Brisvegas to Adelaide track, (round numbers, broad brush) from dim memory (Venel is it ?) was about 210 nms from Adelaide. From there it's 275 ish to Adelaide and it's "about" 260 nms to Melbourne, well before TOD anyway, lets say, for sake of argument 35 minutes out, 15 before TOD. Plenty of options from there. Even from o' head YMIA it's only what? 250 nms to Melbourne as opposed to 180 odd nms to Adelaide. That's only + 70 odd miles, which, in a 73 series anything, is not too long a stretch. The Adelaide met data does show the trend toward fog, so I am left, still wondering, why risk Mildura, provided Melbourne was readily available?According to Abe Froeman:Been told [the Captain] cut his teeth flying turbo props flying Adl to Mql in his younger days.Perhaps his familiarity with Mildura was a factor? (My recollection may be inaccurate, but wasn’t there an incident about a decade ago during which the captain of an international aircraft inbound to Sydney(??) made a decision to divert to Tamworth(??), which was the aerodrome at which he’d done his training, and had to be practically ‘ordered’ by the on-ground chief pilot to divert to Williamtown(??) due to fuel considerations?

Anyway, the genius of the ATSB’s ‘beyond Reason’ approach will now come to the fore:

Investigation? Done!

Zero systemic issues. Only violations by the PIC.

CASA ‘deals’ with the pilot and everyone’s happy and safe! :ok:

[Matt48]

Hi all,
I was wondering how pilots calculate fuel with walk on cargo not being weighed.
There was an Aircrash Investigation show on tv last night on that very subject.

[parabellum]

Like Singapore's rolling tempo to enable singair to avoid carrying extra
fuel?


Care to elaborate? Never had anything like that in my ten years there.



Apparently in South African Airways its policy to always carry an alternate
unless the destination has multiple useable non-intersecting runways, or at any other time the crew feels it necessary, no questions asked. Seems pretty
sensible to me.


Absolutely bog standard just about everywhere in Europe, SE Asia, Middle East etc. Trip Fuel + Contingency Fuel + Diversion Fuel + at least 30mins holding fuel at diversion airfield + fuel for an approach and landing, regardless of weather forecast at destination, more may be added, if there is weight/room if fog, TS, BR etc. is forecast. Never go without a diversion and forecast wx. at diversion at ETA must be above Cat 1 minima. If payload too much to allow this then a 're-dispatch' plan may be used, an achievable destination en route is selected but if fuel approaching this destination is sufficient then flight can continue to original scheduled destination, company variations will apply.

At capts. discretion, when approaching one hour to go to destination, which is an airfield with parallel runways, both serviceable, No Sig Wx, and if fuel is dropping below minimum required then the diversion fuel may be used to complete flight to destination, again, company variations apply.

Possibly not in Australia or the USA?

[waren9]

So why don't we ditch the number entirely and make it just PROB, meaning there is some probability, so gas it up?

INTER and TEMPOs with PROBs less than 40 may be disregarded for ETOPs alternates at our mob.

[bdcer]

With regard to the PROBs:

MANUAL OF METEOROLOGY PART 2 (ISBN 0 644 09903 8) from BOM states, on pg 118, that PROB is defined as "condition whose occurrence is doubtful or uncertain (50 per cent or less)".... So I guess by exclusion, anything else in the aerodrome forecast is only has 50% or greater likelihood of occurring.

[Metro man]

I've been wondering for years what relevance the number has after a PROB fog. It doesn't matter operationally whether it's PROB 10 or PROB 90.

IIRC you will only see PROB 30 or 40 on a TAF, no other percentages are used.

[Octane]

Thanks for that info, shows how the numbers add up..

Another one for you, do Captains get reviewed on their decision making re alternate fuel? I'd ask bro but he's well, out there somewhere with loads of "gas"!

[waren9]

Yes. Jetstar have started to do it, graphs of uplift by capt and base.

My last employer has been doing it for years.

[astinapilot]

Virgin no. We get graphs of where we sit occasionally but no one has questioned me. Problem arises that company has a min legal fuel policy and some guys take this. Most often you want a little more even on nice days. A lot more on not so nice. Virgin carry alternates most places.

[framer]

When they show the Captains their fuel uplift graph at Jetstar, do they have a big gold star for every time the Captain put on extra gas and then didn't divert because they had the ability to hold for 20mins thus saving the company thousands of dollars and keeping the passengers happy at the same time?
Or do they just say 'Geez Wayne you're in the top 20th percentile for uplift, sort yourself out'.

[DirectAnywhere]

Metro Man, I know, it was just an example to illustrate the point that it's of no operational relevance whether the probability is 10 or 90%, it still requires the carriage of an alternate or holding. So why not just ditch the number or the term PROB entirely and just forecast it - the operational impact is precisely the same. PROB30 might give you a warm fluffy feeling that it's 70% not likely to happen but is operationally of no relevance.

[lamax]

Generations of regional airline pilots have never trusted inland city/town morning CAVOK forecasts in winter when anti-cyclonic conditions exist with dry bulb, wet bulb temperatures within one degree of each other. A call to the forecaster at Mildura Met. Office equips the pilot with additional knowledge when decision making, a line of defence which I expect is not pursued by modern flight ops. departments. As mentioned previously, good airmanship by the crew in a safe outcome. Perhaps unkind judgement here if events happened too quickly for flight ops. to catch up.

[Lookleft]

When they show the Captains their fuel uplift graph at Jetstar


As far as I am aware there is no show and tell with fuel graphs and they know the response they would get if they did. I have never been questioned on my fuel uplift.

[Derfred]

In my company a report is required if a diversion takes place due to weather, but no report is required if a diversion is avoided due discretionary fuel.

So, no, the bean counters have no idea how often the pilots save the day.

Here inlies a problem.

[Capt Claret]

I think to simply blame the Met Man or the BOM is overly simplistic. Like most government bodies, they're asked to do more with less. And given less resources to do more with. And one can't just blame Labor or Gillard, as both sides of politics are of the one colour in this regard. :{

[Ollie Onion]

To be honest I don't go anywhere without an alternate no matter what the forecast weather. On my wee domestic jet it makes sod all difference to fuel burns to carry the extra. In the past 3 years I have had diversions due to earthquakes on final approach, a student stacking it in on the runway ahead of me and severe turbulence on approach. Do I give a toss what the boss thinks... Not really, I am paid to make that call, the bean counters can worry about the finances. Fact of the matter is I work for an airline that can't justify the purchase or hire of GPU's at each port resulting in regular maintenance burns in excess of 500kgs, it would take me weeks of carrying an extra ton here and there over 30 minute sectors to equal that wastage.

[phil evans]

standby to see BOM include a PROB 30 FG..on every TAF for the rest of winter!!....It covers BOMs arse.

[waren9]

Fact of the matter is I work for an airline that can't justify the purchase or hire of GPU's at each port resulting in regular maintenance burns in excess of 500kgs, it would take me weeks of carrying an extra ton here and there over 30 minute sectors to equal that wastage.

well said ollie.

[Kodachrome]

When I was training I was told that if the prediction for something to occur was equal to or greater than 50% then it would appear on the forecast without a PROB.

Never seen that one in writing though so I'm not sure how true it is

[Capt Claret]

When I was training I was told that if the prediction for something to occur was equal to or greater than 50% then it would appear on the forecast without a PROB.

Never seen that one in writing though so I'm not sure how true it is

Kodachrome, I've read that recently but blowed if I can find the actual reference now.

Crikey advises that the ATSB have announced an investigation, as per the following links.

ATSB investigating Virgin Mildura fog incident | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/06/19/atsb-investigating-virgin-mildura-fog-incident/)

Investigation: AO-2013-100 - Low fuel diversion involving Boeing 737-8FE, VH-YIR, Mildura Airport, Victoria on 18 June 2013 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-100.aspx)

[Capn Bloggs]

12.15.3 When thunderstorms or reduced visibility due to fog, mist, dust, smoke or sand is forecast but the probability is assessed at 30% or 40%, the terms PROB30 or PROB40 are used respectively. INTER and TEMPO may also be used with a PROB for thunderstorms. If greater than or equal to 50% probability is forecast, reference is made to the phenomenon in the forecast itself not by the addition of a PROB statement.
C'mon Claret, get with the program! :)

[joblogs]

Can l ask the question how has qantas come out as heros?? Did they not land in thick fog of a npa below the minima ...maybe a little more fuel and no mayday or brace ...or was it clear when they touch down???

[601]

Did they not land in thick fog

My guess it was the TL refueller:D

[Angle of Attack]

Joblogs,
You werent there so assumptions like that are completely out of order, enough said...

[BPA]

Looking at Flightradar 24, the Virgin aircraft made the decision to divert to Mildura first, with the Qantas aircraft about 5 mins behind. Note, the Qantas did a few holding paterns to the east of Adelaide.

The Virgin aircraft disappears of Flightradar first with the Qantas aircraft still in view for another 3-5 mins. Based on this it would appear Virgin arrived in the Mildura area first, but Qantas who were behind them landed first???

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Unless I'm missing something, the timing seems odd:

- YPAD TAF updated at 172100
- Diversion occurs at 172300

I find it hard to believe a crew, on discovering that their destination went below Alternate minima, continued with either no alternate (it seems they had no planned alternate based on them never getting near Adelaide) or with an alternate allegedly below the alternate minima.

So if they didn't know their destination was PROB30 two hours before they diverted - why not? The layers of the cheese should have been:
- ACARS updates
- company operations department
- ATC (would this warrant a Hazard alert? I thought they were for METARs going SPECI?)

Everyone else seems to have turned back (except the QF - where did he come from? Did he also not get the message?)

UTR

[piston broke again]

Underneath the radar,

The most logical thing to do in that case would be to continue toward your destination, work out a PNR to a suitable alternate with a comfortable margin. If your destination is socked in at your PNR - go to your alternate. PIC 101. I'm only speculating but it looks like thats what they did in this case. Diverted to MQL only to find enroute, it was now fogged in. Very little time to make a decision to go back to ADL where you know you're landing below minima. Kudos to the crew. Safe outcome!

[BPA]

UTR,

The Qantas aircraft came from SYD and it arrived in the ADL area before Virgin and held to the east. As I said in my post above the Virgin aircaft, diverted towards Mildura first and the Qantas aircraft left it's holding and followed about 5 mins behind Virgin, but some how it landed first in Mildura. I'm not knocking any of the crews (Qantas and Virgin), I'm just stating what the radar (via Flightradar 24) showed. There must have been a reason why Qantas landed first, which should come out in the ATSB investigation.

Based on what we all know at the moment, I say well done to all crew.

[Wally Mk2]

All very interesting reading & much can be learnt for us all.

Few good questions being asked re Prob of FG. As has pretty much been alluded to hear any greater % of fog beyond 30 or 40 the relevant documents states Fog, full stop.
In a way there's a qualified met man in all of us drivers, we had to do Met along the way so apart from the legal side of things ALL pilots ought to be making fuel calcs to suit their understanding of the pending WX at the destination.

We've got a high press over us ATM with wide spaced iso's & clear night skies with light winds at Grnd Lvl along with being bloody cold & no split between temps, that tells us that this could get bloody ugly re Fog.

I know that I wouldn't trust the Met man (no offense Met man) as far as I could throw him with those conditions lurking.

Flying's bloody dangerous even on a Cavok day !


Wmk2

[sunnySA]

FWIW
From the BoM Aeronautical Services Handbook (Operational Manual for the Provision of Aviation Weather Services in Australia).
Investigations
The Bureau prepares reports in relation to aviation accidents and incidents, usually in response to requests from government agencies responsible for aviation safety and from the aviation industry.
The principal types of reports are:
a. Meteorological information for Aviation Safety Investigation Reports (ASIRs), and
b. Aviation Meteorological Incident Reports (AMIRs).
Meteorological Information for Aviation Safety Investigation Reports (ASIRs)
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has the primary statutory responsibility for investigating aviation incidents or accidents. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) may also conduct such investigations in carrying out its responsibilities as regulator of civil aviation safety.
As part of an investigation into an aviation incident or accident, a request for meteorological information may be sought from the Bureau through the National Manager Aviation Weather Services (SRAV).
Procedures for the provision of meteorological information are maintained by SRAV and can be found on the Bureau’s Aviation Weather Services intranet.
All relevant information (charts, observations forecasts and warnings) is to be retained in the case of an incident or accident.
Aviation Meteorological Incident Reports (AMIR)
Aviation industry clients (such as regional, domestic and international airlines, and Airservices Australia) may request an AMIR when a meteorology-related incident has a significant adverse effect on its operations. Typical incidents include unforecast weather causing multiple aircraft to divert to other destinations; and significantly over-forecast weather requiring excessive fuel to be carried.
The purpose of an AMIR is to review the service delivery aspects of the incident and make recommendations for remedial action where appropriate.
Procedures for the provision of an AMIR are maintained by SRAV and can be found on the Bureau’s Aviation Weather Services intranet.
No doubt both QF and DJ have asked for an AMIR.

In relation to Probability Forecasts
Probability Forecasts, indicated by PROB%ddhh/ddhh, shall only be used if the estimated probability of occurrence is thirty or forty percent, and shall only be used with reference to thunderstorms or poor visibility (less than the alternate minimum) resulting from fog, mist, dust, smoke or sand, e.g. PROB30 0118/0123 0500 FG. PROB is included in the forecast before the RMK section. If greater than or equal to 50 percent, reference is made to the phenomena in the forecast itself, not by the addition of a PROB.
And specifically in relation to Fog
INTER and TEMPO are not to be used with fog.

Adelaide in one of the aerodromes that has an Airport Weather Briefing prepared (Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney and during the wet season, Darwin).
Airport Weather Briefings (AWB) are provided for some capital city aerodromes and are used by both operators and Air Traffic Services. They are an extension to the TAF service aimed at expanding on the information provided in the TAF.
The office responsible for the preparation of the TAF prepares the AWB.
AWBs are issued in conjunction with the routine TAF but take a lower priority and are not amended or updated (except for the Code Grey component which can be amended as a separate product).
Airport Weather Briefings may contain the following sections (as per local arrangement): Current TAF, TAF Summary, Thunderstorm Potential, Other Possibilities, Outlook, Code Grey, Issuing Officer and Notes.
The TAF Summary is an explanation of the TAF, using plain language, with no jargon or acronyms. It may include the synoptic situation, local effects and reasons for forecast changes in weather conditions.
The Thunderstorm Potential section highlights the possibility of thunderstorms occurring within a 20nm radius of the aerodrome reference point and is used for flight planning and air traffic management purposes. Phrases such as slight chance, chance and likely should be used instead of a percentage. INTER or TEMPO should not be used.
The Other Possibilities section should include comments on other possibilities that may occur during the validity of the TAF. It can include conditions that have a less than 30% chance of occurring, or if there is an uncertainty as to the timing of an event. Particular attention should be paid to SAM (special alternate minima) conditions, noting that decisive phrases such as “conditions could drop to below SAM” are more useful to the aviation industry than “conditions could drop to SAM”.
The Outlook section includes a brief description of the weather for the following 2 or 3 days based on the Public Weather forecasts. It should also include the forecast maximum and minimum temperatures where available.
Code Grey information is included in the afternoon issue of the AWB.
Code Grey advice is a special forecast service intended to supplement the routine 06 to 12 TAF. It is designed to reduce the operational impact, particularly on long-haul flights arriving the following morning, of later amendments to the 06 TAF.
The service gives flight planners some insight into alternative weather scenarios being considered by the forecaster, and as such it provides early advice of a possible later TAF amendment. It is issued when there is a small but realistic chance of fog, thunderstorms, or visibility or cloud (BKN or more) below Special Alternate Minima. The probabilities used will be 5, 10 or 20% only.
So PROB 5, 10 or 20 can be included in AWB, PROB 30 or 40 included in TAF.

It would be interesting to see the afternoon issue for the day concerned as to whether Code Grey was included (previous say of course).

http://reg.bom.gov.au/general/reg/ash/ASH.pdf (http://http://reg.bom.gov.au/general/reg/ash/ASH.pdf)

[marreeman]

Two year wait for a Basi report with no pressure, yet crews have less than a couple of hours to make these decisions under pressure with a high work load!

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

Two year wait for a Basi report with no pressure, yet crews have less than a couple of hours to make these decisions under pressure with a high work load!

True, look at the senate thread and read the conclusions about the Atsb and casa.

There are 26 recommendations from the senate inquiry not the Atsb about the Norfolk Island accident.


Crikey blog
Damning Senate report on ATSB, CASA Pel-Air failings | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/05/23/damning-senate-report-on-atsb-casa-pel-air-failings/?wpmp_tp=0)

[ejectx3]

Interesting situation you often face. You arrive at aerodrome A at 2300z with fog, with a metar saying fog clearing at 0000z. But 2330z is your aerodrome B diversion fuel cutoff time.. You have fuel in tanks to hold until 0030 and make an approach to A.

You have no legal obligation to divert at 2330 to B. Do you stay or do you go at 2330?

[Roo]

You have no legal obligation to divert at 2330 to B. Do you stay or do you go at 2330?
I hope that is a rhetorical question. Had you decided to "stay" in Canberra on Tuesday , which was also fogged in (same day as Mildura &ADL BTW) you would have found yourself severely out of luck. It was FC to clear at 0000 and did not actually clear until about 0115. You would be a mug to hang your hat on a forecast in the circumstances you describe.

[framer]

If you stay then you are betting the farm that the forecast is correct and we all know that sometimes it isn't. Pretty risky to stay IMO.

[601]

betting the farm that the forecast is correct

Every time you flight plan you do exactly that.

[Hempy]

ATC (would this warrant a Hazard alert? I thought they were for METARs going SPECI?)

Prefix directed transmissions and broadcasts with HAZARD ALERT when a sudden change to a component of FIS, not described in a current MET product or NOTAM, has an immediate and detrimental effect on the safety of aircraft.

My bolding. A Hazard Alert is only warranted if the ATC become aware of a condition that is not already promulgated in a MET product or NOTAM e.g METAR/SPECI. It can't be both, if its promulgated it's NOT a HA.

[Metro man]

When a meteorologist is discussing past weather he is a scientist. When he is discussing future weather he is a fortune teller reading tea leaves.

They can always use the magic word AMENDED and issue another forecast if they make a mistake or things turn out differently.

I've been caught out by fog at MEL, I delayed my departure to get the latest TTF one night. Five minutes later I was taxiing with required fuel as there was no alternate requirement. Arrived with a 200' cloud base, reducing vis, aircraft ahead had gone around and nowhere else to go. Steam driven turboprop so forget auto land. I flew the most accurate ILS approach of my career, saw a couple of touch down zone lights at the last second and landed. The tower called to see if I had vacated the runway because the visibility was so bad.:hmm

[ejectx3]

No roo not at all. As was eluded to re every time you flight plan you trust a forecast. In fact I'd hypothesise that the aircraft that went to mildura might have had enough fuel to hold until the fog ended on the metar but instead went to mildura, and had they remained in Adelaide would have gotten in drama free. Hypothesise I emphasise.

When you arrive at an aerodrome with tempo holding due TS, do you divert immediately if there's a cell you have to hold for? No you don't.

If you've put fuel on to hold until a condition is forecast to clear , why not stick with the plan? If not what's the point of the plan?

It's a judgement call on the day. Ill tell you I'd rather hold over Adl rather than go mildura, then auto land Adl if the metar is wrong. Provided I have the fuel to legally hold until the fog is forecast to end of course.

[Ixixly]

Someone here mentioned that of course the BOM use historical data and current forecasts to figure out whats going to happen. My question is do they keep track of all the times its been wrong and as such give themselves the ability to see a short term local trend that may require the issuance of different Forecasts?

For instance, a few people have mentioned that recently they have noticed a trend in the area for unforecast fog, does the BOM keep data that would allow them to see the same thing happening 2 days in a row and cause them to automatically place a "Prob30" in based on these recent occurrences where their data is telling them it won't happen but recent observations have shown it occurred anyway?

[ga_trojan]

The forecasting has fallen over badly in the last couple of months. In a two month period I have personally seen unforecasted fog twice, overcast cloud below the minima and a unforecasted thunderstorm which was about 10 miles from the field but nowhere to be seen on a TTF 45 minutes from the destination . Additional to that is the two QF incidents, the Virgin incident plus a few more I have heard about on the grapevine.

Yes I can understand a few incorrect forecasts here and there but this is becoming an Australia wide trend.

[Capn Bloggs]

Yes Ixixly, yet another case of "this can be done by numbers". Just as with flying, you can't do it successfully only by what the book (or computer model) says. Smart, experienced humans are necessary to make it work.

It would appear that, despite amazing technology levels and what should be decades of experience build-up, the only thing that is preventing some really serious weather incidents is illegal Autoland and RNAV approaches (almost) to the ground.

[framer]

Every time you flight plan you do exactly that.
That's a tad disingenious.
You're example had one forecast being 100% correct or an emergency ensues.
The reality of flight planning ( for me anyway) is that you only need one of two forecasts to be about 50% correct to operate safely. Completely different odds, much less risk involved.

[spelling_nazi]

I agree that you wouldn't necessarily divert if you had fuel to hold. In fact that was my intention on the day. We could see the fog clearing slowly, tower was updating us on improving conditions, and I had fuel to hold well past the metar forecast clearing time. Even if I had to lose my Mel diversion option, I was more than happy in this instance , that the fog would clear in time for me to comfortably get in.

"In this case"... Being the crucial phrase. Horses for courses. But to say "you'd be mad" to remain at an aerodrome waiting for a forecast improvement to occur is way off base.

[training wheels]

Crikey advises that the ATSB have announced an investigation, as per the following links.

Investigation: AO-2013-100 - Low fuel diversion involving Boeing 737-8FE, VH-YIR, Mildura Airport, Victoria on 18 June 2013 (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-100.aspx)

The fact that there isn't an investigation on the Qantas aircraft landing prior to Virgin would suggest that the Qantas 737 got visual? Has this been confirmed?

[Roo]

If you've put fuel on to hold until a condition is forecast to clear , why not stick with the plan? If not what's the point of the plan?
A wise pilot would put a sh1t load more fuel on than that required to hold until a condition is forecast to clear. So there would be no need to stick to your questionable plan in the first place. BTW I am not in any way speculating about the ADL Flights. We arrived over CBR at the time conditions were forecast to clear. It was not until at least 75 minutes later that aircraft were starting to get in with numerous diversions in the interim. We held for 80 minutes through out the period you would have had us busting minimas and doing an autoland. No thanks. Could have held for a further 40 minutes before having to divert to SYD.

[spelling_nazi]

And that I did. I had 1.5 hours holding past the forecast clearing time. Please refrain from passing judgement on my decision making skills as I would not question yours without knowing the full picture.

[Roo]

Good on you. I wasn't commenting on your post. I was questioning ejectx's hypothetical idea and a specific set of circumstances different to yours - of only carrying fuel to improve time plus 30 minutes and then sticking around after that when a diversion to a suitable airport is available. He made no mention of diverting to an airport with questionable wx in his initial post.

[spelling_nazi]

Ah yes. But I agree with him that leaving yourself with only one option (ie staying ) is not always a risky decision if you are almost certain (ie you can see the limiting weather clearing) that the limitining weather will vanish.

[Capt Claret]

We need a friendly bean-counter.

It would be very interesting to know the financial cost to Virgin, not just in dollars out laid but also dollars lost, the dollars worth of time and effort that will go into the ensuing investigation, and the dollar amount of the publicity I've the issue, and then equate the sum of all these dollars with the volume of fuel it would buy.

In other words, by saving a little on flight fuel burn by not carrying an alternate, how much have they lost?

[nitpicker330]

Not to mention bad PR......:D

[ejectx3]

It costs about 10kg of fuel for an extra ton of fuel on an hour sector. Ie sweet F.A.

To put in perspective to carry 2 hours extra fuel over destination costs you about 40kg or 1 minute of cruise fuel.

It's ridiculous the drive to push min fuel when it costs so little for the insurance of extra fuel. (737 figures)

Or in dollar terms to carry 2 hours of insurance about $40

[Matt48]

About the only time you have too much fuel on board is if you are on fire.
Carrying extra fuel is cheap insurance.

[Wally Mk2]

I can see why the bean counters do these sums & come up with tangible figures that drive cost savings as they multiply what appears piddly stuff all per airframe across the whole fleet over a financial year & bingo numbers that makes a bean counter smile:-)

Trouble is to cut costs & lets face it every industry is cutting costs some by way of less employees or ceasing Ops (Ford in Geelong for Eg) there are only a few avenues for the bean counters to work with & that is the human element to the base costs of a product & a more efficient use of that product.
The human element is malleable by way of work place/product efficiencies producing more for the same effort/wages cost. We are constantly seeing how the bean counters are trying to make the machine work more efficiently.

Now right or wrong there is merit in some of this (as if there wasn't then no one would have a job) but as we all are saying here at what cost? Changing CI for Eg in a planes FMGC might be all well & good on paper for the bean counters but one storm, some holding by ATC (BN perfect Eg) a diversion as is the core subject here in this thread or even a request for speeding up can erase what small saving was going to be gained for that particular flight in the first place.

The single biggest problem to all this is safety & that as we known comes at a cost. Commercialism the very reason why we have transport planes in the first place is the overriding factor & the exact reason as to why these couple of A/C ended up in this situation is all based on cost.
The balance to safety & commercialism if bloody tenuous that's for sure!


To protect the man within the machine first the man has to be placed ahead of the machine, that won't happen as man costs, the machine produces money.

Solution?...............fill in the spaces knock yourselves out but for a start stupidly cheap airfares is where it all started I believe!


Wmk2

[neville_nobody]

Or would suggest that Qantas just hasn't dobbed theirselves into the ATSB yet.

Nor do we see their other two autolands in SYD on the ATSB site.:hmm:

Carrying extra fuel is cheap insurance

Unfortunately that theory doesn't work so well in a jet.

Some decent infrastructure may be the only solution to this sort of problem

[ozbiggles]

Interesting topic
devils advocate on fuel
40kg ($40) extra burn on every flight times 500/ day ( no idea how many VA or QF do) time 365 = over 7 million dollars in extra fuel burn per year.
But if you need it you carry it!

[Sunfish]

Ozbiggles, bean counters love these sort of cheese paring games because they are very easy to play. You measure, for example, the width of the toilet paper roll and then compute the cost savings of making it a centimetre narrower and write a sober and wel reasoned paper advocating the change accordingly.

It's an easy game to play....badly.

To do it properly requires a calculation of costs related to the increased risk of a hull loss. Your insurer will do that for you.

[Beer Baron]

Ahhh... Not sure where you pulled those figures from ejectx3. On a BNE-ADL 737 flight plan from today the cost to carry is actually 48kg per 1000kg. Or 480% more than you suggest. To carry 2 hours extra fuel would cost closer to 230kg of fuel rather than 40kg. Then as ozbiggles suggests, if you multiply that across every sector then said insurance is a LOT more costly than you suggest.

[ejectx3]

Just based that on an average of my four east coast sectors today. Average loads.

One was 11kg/1000kg, then 7, 10 and 9.

738-800 figures.

Perhaps today was unusually low . Ill check tomorrow but weights/ loads were average so I'd imagine it would be fairly accurate .

All 1 hour sectors mind you.

[Mail-man]

....you guys do realize there are still guys flying around oz with minimum fuel (max load) without the luxury of autopilots capable of basic coupled approaches, let alone autoland. No gpws, radalt, I could go on. While I agree with most of the sentiments here remember some guys have it far worse.

[Beer Baron]

Just for the sake of interest, the cost to carry on a longer sector/larger aircraft can be significantly higher. Dallas - Brisbane; every 1000kg added will cost 380kg. To carry an extra 60 minutes of fuel on that sector (7.4T) would cost 2800kg. Not an insignificant amount. So comments like "the only time you have too much fuel is when you are on fire" are a touch simplistic.

[Icarus2001]

We can all play with numbers as long as we like. One can just about prove black is white if you keep doing it long enough.

My attempt...To carry 2 hours extra fuel would cost closer to 230kg of fuel rather than 40kg.

So how about one hour or thereabouts? Around $150-200 per flight, divided by say 140 pax, mmmm, should we ask the pax if they want to pay one dollar more? They already believe that "the system" is safe and that is what CASA does for them for their tax dollars.

When you start talking $7 million dollars a year it sounds very impressive, but divide that into the passengers carried per year. Then what do you get.

Ultimately these things will happen occasionally. That is why the person in seat 0A gets to make the FINAL decision.

What about this...a 737 lands at ADL in fine weather that morning and the nose gear collapses, aircraft comes to rest on the intersection of both runways. No BOM to blame this time. Make a command decision. For the poster who said that we rely on BOM every time we flight plan all I can say is, not without considering the above scenario EVERY TIME I take a jet into the air.

[Ken Borough]

BB

On sectors limited by TOW such as DFW/BNE, carriage of additional fuel may be at the expense of payload. This means that you have the cost of the addition fuel and displaced revenue with potential loss of good-will. The punters won't understand.

As an aside, I think the bean-counters of the world have better things to do than track and cost the carriage of additional or excess fuel. Does anyone have any hard evidence of this much rumoured practice?

[ozbiggles]

Not taking sides on what right or wrong. It's why pilots get paid the less big bucks. To decide when you think about costs and when you think of carrying the extra to make the odds better in your favour. For me I always like to have a good out!

[porch monkey]

Ken, you don't work in flight ops, do you? Of course there is I implied pressure, the emails to crew, the "new" planning systems, appeals to the crew to "think about how much fuel you put on". Cost analysis like we've seen above etc, etc. Having said that, I've never heard of anyone being questioned about their fuel requirements where I work.

[parabellum]

It costs about 10kg of fuel for an extra ton of fuel on an hour sector. Ie
sweet F.A.


The numbers we always used for increased burn when tankering fuel were; 4% per hour per ton,

i.e. 5tons tankered for two hours = 400kgs.

[Capt Claret]

My 1.5 hr sector this morning @ MTOW - 6 tonne, 53 kg fuel burn/extra 1000 kg.

So to comfortably carry TVL as an alternate for CNS in the venerable Douglas/Boeing 717 = 75 kg extra fuel burn.

[Capn Bloggs]

As an aside, I think the bean-counters of the world have better things to do than track and cost the carriage of additional or excess fuel. Does anyone have any hard evidence of this much rumoured practice?

You're not serious, are you Ken? Obviously not from Flt Ops...

[Ken Borough]

Clarrie

You should also consider the cost of not uplifting xxxxkgs fuel at the destination airport when fuel at that point is less than it is at the point of uplift. True, the opposite may be the case but as I understand it, the cost differences are often revealed in the FPL so as to provide guidance to drivers.

PM

I know of the 'pressure' to which you refer but it's really only applied in the cause of an efficient operation, diversions notwithstanding. I suggest that if it ever became common knowledge that management at any level or in any part of a company was reprimanding pilots for, or tried to interfere with, the way in which they exercised their operational prerogative, then that management would be outed in more ways than one. That said, there's nothing quite like a conspiracy. :ok:

Blogs

Betcha can't demonstrate that the bean-counters do it! Analysis are made as to variations in fuel prices. Graphs may be produced showing 'excess' fuel uplifts etc etc but has anyone been actually reprimanded, counselled etc for boarding xs fuel?

[Capn Bloggs]

The numbers we always used for increased burn when tankering fuel were; 4% per hour per ton,

i.e. 5tons tankered for two hours = 400kgs.
Yes, in my machine tankering costs 3.5% per 1000kg per hour.


One was 11kg/1000kg, then 7, 10 and 9.
EjectX, how many engines do you have running?! :E

[chookcooker]

"What about this...a 737 lands at ADL in fine weather that morning and the nose gear collapses, aircraft comes to rest on the intersection of both runways.. "


Land at Edinburgh

[Capt Fathom]

Chook, in your scenario, how much runway is there from the threshold of RWY05 to the intersection where your disabled aircraft is?

Enough for a 737 to land in, in the emergency situation you put forward!

[chookcooker]

Wasn't my scenario, it was in response to Icarus.

And your option was going to be my next point!

[ejectx3]

Rommel special

[Capn Bloggs]

Enough for a 737 to land in, in the emergency situation you put forward!
Provided the wind favours 05.

Stop this nonsense about conducting operations at an airport where a major crash has occurred eg nosewheels collapse. All the airport services will be engaged at the incident site and unless you declare a fuel mayday I suspect (and would expect) you'll be told to go to...Edinburgh.

[Cactusjack]

No Ken, of course the bean counters don't play with or analyse weights/fuel costs down to the most minute detail! Why would they, after all fuel and labor are only an airlines two biggest expenses, but of course they don't analyse these things closely!

For Kens benefit (why do I bother) and to provide the proof he so desperately needs, I worked for an overseas domestic carrier. We introduced slide boards to help slide disabled pax onto their seats more comfortably and to minimise staff injury during the transfer process. It was decided to place one slide board on each aircraft. Fleet total = 110. Each slide board weighed 1.1kg. That was then multiplied by 110 aircraft, and those aircraft were multiplied by the average number of cycles per year. Give or take some anomalies such as U/S aircraft, maintenance etc, we calculated the additional fuel costs of carting around those slide boards to be around $130 000 USD per year. Needless to say the slide boards ended up staying at the terminals and used upon request.

Ken, here is some fun for you, in between building model planes. Research why it is that most LCC carriers today don't use the built-in air-stairs? They opt for the rampies to push aluminium mobile stairs up to the aircraft. Now before you say 'serviceability issues' or maintenance costs, think big, think outside the box, think weight of stairs vs aircraft cycles vs fuel vs..............cost. (Now that is a big hint for you!)

So Ken, it is worthwhile for an airline to closely analyse fuel costs.
I would like to use the same matrix on VA, lets say to analyse the combined weight, per aircraft across the fleet annually, of the Voyeur magazines. I think you would be surprised at how much fuel is burned and the associated costs. However, you would need to compare that to the revenue that the magazines bring in, to see whether output is greater or less than the input and the additional fuel costs per annum are worth it. Maybe Il Deuce has already done that, maybe not, and then again maybe Ken can ring John and suggest it:ok:

Ken, go back to playing with your remote control helicopter and plane spotting. Your posts get more absurd every time.

[Gate_15L]

Cactusjack

:D:D

[Kharon]

Just out of idle curiosity, again; but anyone know how many ambulances are crewed and available at Mildura?. What is the emergency capacity of the base hospital (beds and doctors etc.). How many fire engines there are available at Mildura? What's the RFF call out time, muster plan and unit numbers available, on short notice - given the fog, time of day and traffic?. What is their (YMIA) large aircraft fire management capacity (foam and stuff). What procedures and staff availability are specified for dealing with a 'large' aircraft emergency in the Mildura airport 'EP' manual. No doubt the ATSB will provide accurate information.

[Ken Borough]

Cactus

Your simple and one-dimensional mind doesn't get it. Of course carriers analyse the cost of the stuff that's carried around. Anyone with a modicum of sense would or should always try to conduct an efficient business. in fact, aircraft weight reduction programs are not all that uncommon.What I'm suggesting is that they don't do it to monitor pilot's performance. That would be quite improper and a reflection on command prerogative.

You have confused oranges and apples - best you stck to writing invective ad hominem 'argument'. :ugh:

[Metro man]

of course the bean counters don't play with or analyse weights/fuel costs down to the most minute detail

We looked into reducing the amount of water carried in the aircraft system, for short sectors we would half fill with 100L instead of 200L. Some airlines print their inflight magazine on light weight paper.

Small savings individually, but when multiplied by 1000s of sectors per year it adds up.

[Tankengine]

Ken, how come I have a letter from my company with my average fuel order compared to everybody else?:confused:
Companies DO monitor this.:ugh: some of us just ignore it.:E

[Sarcs]

Ben Sandiland and ATSB's (shock horror!:ugh:) latest update:

Virgin Mildura fog update: This is getting interesting


Ben Sandilands (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/06/21/virgin-mildura-fog-update-this-is-getting-interesting/) | Jun 21, 2013 3:16PM
The ATSB has launched a thorough professional inquiry into a serious Virgin Australia incident at Mildura, in sharp contrast to its disgraceful conduct in relation to the Pel-Air ditching near Norfolk Island in 2009.

The ATSB has updated its advice on the Virgin Australia landing at Mildura (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-100.aspx) in fog conditions that didn’t meet the minimums acceptable under the rules for low visibility operations.

It has probably begun reading and analysing the data and cockpit conversations it retrieved from the 737′s voice and data recorders.

At about 1015 EST on 18 June 2013 air traffic control advised the ATSB of a fuel related occurrence involving a Boeing 737-8FE (B737), registered VH-YIR, at Mildura Airport, Victoria. The aircraft, operated by Virgin Australia, was en route from Brisbane, Queensland, to Adelaide, South Australia, with five crew and 86 passengers on board when the crew diverted the aircraft to Mildura.
The aircraft had departed Brisbane at about 0630 that morning and carried sufficient fuel for the flight to Adelaide. On the basis of the weather forecasts at the time the aircraft departed Brisbane, there was no requirement to provide for an alternate airport to Adelaide. As the aircraft approached Adelaide, fog reduced the visibility at the airport to below the minimum required for landing. The crew diverted to Mildura and the aircraft landed safely at Mildura Airport at about 1010 following two instrument approaches.
The fog at Adelaide was not forecast when the aircraft left Brisbane. A number of other aircraft, in addition to the B737, returned to their departure airports or diverted to alternate airports as a result of the reduced visibility at Adelaide Airport.
The ATSB commenced an investigation at about 1100 on 18 June 2013 and the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were removed from the aircraft and forwarded to the ATSB’s facilities in Canberra for download. The investigation is continuing and will involve:
· examination of the recorded information
· interviews with the flight crew of this and other affected aircraft
· examination of the operator’s procedures
· review of the relevant radio and radar data
· examination of the relevant weather observations and forecasts.
It is anticipated that the investigation will be completed in March 2014.
It is clear that this is going to be a detailed consideration of all of the factors that caused an Australian airliner’s pilots to instruct passengers to adopt the crash landing brace position and then land at a fog bound airport under circumstances where they were left with no alternative but to set down.

In the background there is another question hanging in the air, which is whether Australia’s current regulations concerning the fueling of passenger flights are truly safe and adequate, or need to be reviewed and improved.

The contrast between this inquiry and the disgraceful conduct of the ATSB in relation to the Pel-Air ditching near Norfolk Island in 2009 is painfully obvious.

In that crash the data recorder from the jet was not recovered by the ATSB, but is probably well preserved at an easily recoverable depth.
Not only did the ATSB fail to recover such vital data, it failed to canvas the fueling policies of the operator, and acted in association with CASA the safety regulator, to unfairly frame all blame on the pilot while discounting evidence that CASA failed to perform its duties of oversight, and Pel-Air failed to meet the requirements of Australian safety rules.
Clearly the ATSB has found its charter and its professionalism in the Mildura fog incident. This incident has important safety ramifications for Australian mainline airlines and their passengers. Unlike the Norfolk Island disgrace, in which the ATSB although aware of the fact that none of the safety equipment on the Pel-Air jet worked as intended in a ditching, ignored its international obligation to make findings and recommendations concerning that aspect of the ditching to the world wide aviation community.

Now that the ATSB has got its head back into gear when it comes to safety inquiries, perhaps it might deign to consider the findings of the Senate committee that inquired into its conduct in relation to Pel-Air before it holds its regular board meeting on 24 July.

Perhaps the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Anthony Albanese, might also instruct the ATSB to re-open its Pel-Air inquiry, and do its job with the same thoroughness and fairness that it seems to be bringing to bear on the Virgin Australia incident.

Yes, time is running short Minister. It would be a pity to leave the Pel-Air scandal festering away while the ATSB adopts a different, and apparently totally professional approach to the conduct of the Virgin flight that ended up in Mildura in a pea-souper, rather than in the soup, like Pel-Air.
Hmm so will everything investigated by the bureau from now on always be benchmarked against the Norfolk ditching report??:E

Q/ I wonder if the bureau investigators have noticed a 'Critical Safety Issue' already? If so I wonder if Beaker will be game (or not) to promulgate an official 'Safety Recommendation'? As Ben said.."This is getting interesting"...:cool:

[Algie]

Charon

I'm guessing that, having allowed a second-best situation to develop, both the QF and VB crews thought that Mildura was a good option. Certainly a paradise compared to ETOPS planned alternates like Cold Bay, Adak, Shemya, Petropavlosk, Anadyr and Magadan in winter.

The question you should have asked: "At what point in the flight did it appear that Adelaide might well go bad and that anywhere else nearby (same high pressure, lioght breeze, small dew point/dry bulb split) would also likely go bad (or at least risk that) too. At that point was a diversion to MEL available?"


I would find that question interesting for command training courses and LOFT exercises etc.

But then I scare easily.

A

[Cactusjack]

Agaaaagh Ken, 'the font of plane spotting knowledge', you are like a puppy dog really - Quite stupid with little experience, easy to coax over with something dangled before it, puts itself into a comfortable position then gets kicked in the head by its wily owner! Funniest thing is that the puppy wanders off, forgets it got a kick in the head, and later on it comes back, does the same stupid thing and then cops another kick to the head!

Woof woof

[Flying Binghi]

Ben Sandiland latest update:...

Has there been anything from Sandilands reference the mater of the met forecast ?

Sandilands for one is fairly familiar with the Australian BOM and the sheer waste of multi millions of dollars to do with the global warming scam. What research is being done to ensure pilots get an improved basic fog forecast ?





.

[buzzz.lightyear]

Could the Townsville refueller ask the Mildura refueller how much was left in the tanks?

[max AB]

An earlier post offered the following scenario;

Interesting situation you often face. You arrive at aerodrome A at 2300z with fog, with a metar saying fog clearing at 0000z. But 2330z is your aerodrome B diversion fuel cutoff time.. You have fuel in tanks to hold until 0030 and make an approach to A.

Stay or Go?? Firstly if known before departure carry fuel for a hold until 0000z plus the approach and diversion fuel. Otherwise at 2330z you divert. If not you are proposing to commit to an airfield that is closed and I can't see any logic in that at all. Commit if your are assured of a landing sure, but how can you say that when the airfield is still below your approach minimas?

You have no legal obligation to divert at 2330 to B. Do you stay or do you go at 2330?
Then your fuel policy needs rewriting I would suggest.

An auto land to a Cat 1 facility below minima is an emergency, don't think of it any other way. It is most definitely not a plan B....Those that have done them to unprotected ILS aids will agree with me, the lack of protections even to a CAT 11/111 can result in some strange AP behaviour, I have experienced early flare and a low pass down the runway, late flare, sudden LOC divergence. To consider this as a non emergency option is pretty silly thinking.....

[illusion]

Our job has two key aspects:

Science and Art.

The Science is the black and white stuff. SOP's, rules, systems knowledge etc.

At best, forecast is a human prediction of what mother nature will be doing in the future. A mixture of Science and Art. While it is a document by which we apply our science based rules, one must remember that it does not come with an ironclad guarantee.

Sometimes we have need to look beyond the rule book, and ask,

"WHAT IF............"

If that means looking the KPI seeking fleet manager in the eye and telling him you made a COMMAND JUDGEMENT to carry more fuel or delay a flight or whatever then be it.

Anyone can be rule based trained to do the Science part of our job. It ain 't difficult. What is difficult is to "know when to show them, know when to throw them...", as Kenny Rogers used to say.

In the aftermath of an occurrence, the benchmark will not purely be the was it legal. The question will be asked, "what would/did a reasonable person have done/do in the same circumstances? A peer comparison. This approach is common in the medical profession. If 99 had done "X" and one did "Y" then there may be perception issues.

(This is a general discussion only and not directed at the issue under investigation)

[Hempy]

I know this is simplistic, but I have a massive issue with an RPT jet in an 'emergency' situation with no structural/systems etc issues or unlawful interference. Avianca anyone?

[framer]

What do you mean Hempy?

[Username here]

I know this is simplistic, but I have a massive issue with an RPT jet in an 'emergency' situation with no structural/systems etc issues or unlawful interference. Avianca anyone?

So you're ok with 'emergencies' as long as they are structural failures or hijackings?

:ok:

[Hempy]

That is a disingenuous question, but I will answer 'Yes'. If an aircraft has a genuine emergency because of something that couldn't be avoided by any practical means then it is, by definition, unavoidable. There is no possible excuse for running out of fuel....

[Jack Ranga]

Hempy, may help if you put yourself on the other side of the fence. Can't always takeoff with full fuel tanks.

Last night, pilot report from departing aircraft, fog's rolling in. Checked the TAF, CAVOK, checked the METAR, 9999 but with all the conditions that would indicate fog. After a report to MET, 2 minutes later a TAF comes out with fog.

Same night, TAF AMD issued for an aerodrome @ 1000 predicting fog @ 1100, 2 aircraft airborne airworking some distance away were informed. A phone call received at the front desk from the base around 1015 saying 'tell the aircraft the fog is at the aerodrome NOW'

I'm a little educated in the James Reason model of accident causation, not formally, but **** happens. A lot of drivers are placed in very serious situations due to a lack of infrastructure. Funny, airports seem to find the money for retail & car parks etc but when it comes to real infrastructure we are a pathetic joke.

If there's no excuse for running out of fuel, & 'excuse' is a very poor choice of word, how are aircraft placed in the situation where they have legal fuel loads and have very limited options when he above happens?

[601]

the benchmark will not purely be the was it legal.

Now a crew has to second guess the OM.

The only way to circumvent an occurrence like this again would be to require all IFR aircraft to carry a VFR alternate for every destination.

As for the autoland, don't aircrew practice flying an ILS all the way to a landing any more. We used practice it back in the 80s, just in case.

[Flava Saver]

Short & curly of it, is the crews (QF & VA) both had good outcomes given the information provided.

The thing that irritates me, and many of my colleagues is that it's 2013 and here we are with a met service that 'appears' to give semi accurate forecasts. I'm sure they are doing the best with the infrastructure they have....I don't know. But it's bull5hit.

Just remember folks....fuel tanks, not air tanks. Stuff the bean counters if you have a hunch...and remember 4 is the new 3. :D

[Dangly Bits]

Why hold overhead MIA for over an hour before losing options?

[max AB]

601...practising an auto land in cavok conditions when LVPs are not in force or to a Cat1 ILS has more risk associated with it than an Auto Land done in anger when protections are in force. That's what simulators are for....

[donpizmeov]

I am a big believer in the "if it aint broken don't f@ck with it" concept. But, how many OZ RPT flights have busted minimums this year as its their last option? Have any foreign carriers had to do the same?

Something just don't seem right.

The Don

[ozbiggles]

Dangly bits who told you they held for an hour over Mia? Because you are wrong

[VH-XXX]

Could the Townsville refueller ask the Mildura refueller how much was left in the tanks?

600kg's apparently..... dryer than a nuns .......


It would have been interesting to have heard when they called Pan Pan for the fuel emergency. I would imagine the frequency lit up with activity shortly after!


Am I correct in my understanding that Virgin pilots aren't trained to use auto-land and company policy says it can't be used? Unless perhaps they had training from a previous employer...

[Ollie Onion]

Does Mildura have an ILS, I didn't think so. So assuming no ILS then they won't have completed any sort of autoland.

[Hempy]

Jack. I understand what you are saying completely, and I agree that unforecast conditions can catch anyone out. It could even be described as 'unavoidable'...

My point is, just as airspace classification is designed to afford maximum protection to high capacity aircraft, I would have thought Airline policy would follow suit. I recall a 727 many years ago ex BN for AD had a crack at AD, 2 approaches at ML, got halfway to CB and ended up in LT....and that was a freighter. Because he could..

Note my original post RPT jet

p.s oh, and you blokes who actually recommend the use of autoland at a non Cat3c aerodrome vice a sensible fuel policy, you may as well hand the whole job over to a computer and stay at home...

[400ER]

There was no fog mentioned on the ADL TAF. I was inbound to MEL and holding ADL as an alternate. MEL had fog forecast and we were getting updates hourly by Volmet. At no stage was fog mentioned on the ADL Volmet, at approx 2130GMT ADL wind was calm and temperature and dewpoint were 5/5. After a short discussion we decided to give the Glenelg pub away and use Coogee Bay Hotel as our new alternate.
Later that morning in Melbourne we got word of what had happened, it really hit home that things could have been a lot worse for all of us.
In my opinion the crew did a fantastic job. Well done to all.

ER

[porch monkey]

XXX. 737 crew are trained. Autolands may be conducted, but only to Cat 1 minima. Not yet approved for less. So no, you are incorrect.

[BPA]

400ER,

Great post, the SYSTEM let the crews (Virgin and Qantas) down and both crews did a great job.

Most people on here and the media have been focusing on Virgin's fuel state, but the links below, prove Virgin diverted to MIA first with Qantas following. Based on this information, Virgin would have been in the circuit area first but for some reason they let Qantas land first. If you look at the QFA735 history it shows they held to the east of Adelaide before following Virgin to Mildura, so perhaps their fuel state was a bit more critical then Virgin when they arrived at Mildura.

The ATSB have stated they will be looking at the data and interviewing the crew of other aircraft, so I'm sure the ATSB will be able to find out why the Qantas 737 landed first.

I'm sure the Mildura refueler will know how much fuel was on board both aircraft.

Potentially we could be looking at 2 B737's that were in very similar situations and if that is the case the ATSB needs to find out how these crews were let down by the system(s).

Flight Track Log ? QFA735 ? 18-Jun-2013 ? YSSY / SYD - YPAD / ADL ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA735/history/20130617/2110Z/YSSY/YPAD/tracklog)

Flight Track Log ? VOZ1384 ? 18-Jun-2013 ? YBBN / BNE - YPAD / ADL ? FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VOZ1384/history/20130617/2025Z/YBBN/YPAD/tracklog)

[framer]

That's a good point 400ER.
If the ML area had been fogged out ( including Avalon) what would have been your situation? Is there a chance you would have started a divert to Adelaide before finding out it was fogged in also?

[mates rates]

What is a legal amount of fuel and what is a safe amount of fuel for any circumstance are two different things. A company will stipulate the LEGAL MINIMUM to be carried by their SOP's approved by CASA.CAR 234(the law of the land) stipulates the PIC must carry a SAFE amount of fuel. This is where pilots discretionary fuel comes into the equation. Many factors determine this amount, but it should not be determined by bean-counters or flt.ops departments because, at the end of the day, the PIC has the legal responsibility and will wear the consequences. It is he who will have to prove he carried a SAFE fuel load.

[AQIS Boigu]

Have any foreign carriers had to do the same?

No...because foreign carriers HAVE to carry an alternate regardless what the forecast says...for ADL it's MEL...at least in my company...non-negotiable...

This year's fog season's track record speaks for itself with its multiple incidents resulting from an inept regulator, underequipped airports and domestic airline (fuel) managers ignoring the obvious.

It is embarrasing that Oz doesn't have facilities (LVO) even 3rd world airports can afford (Delhi has full CAT3B on 2 out of 3 runways for example...Lahore, Hanoi, TPE, BKK and KUL have CAT2 - these are just a few airports which come to mind but the list goes on)...

I wasn't there but from reading 11 pages of drama I would have elected to do an autoland on rwy 23 in ADL with a confirmation from the tower that the ILS beam is not infringed by any other planes or vehicles...

Does Mildura have the pavement strength for a 737?

[Di_Vosh]

(This has been mentioned by others already)

Mildura airport can handle aircraft of 737 size. It's not common, but happens often enough.

[Holding at]

Metro Man, I know, it was just an example to illustrate the point that it's of no operational relevance whether the probability is 10 or 90%, it still requires the carriage of an alternate or holding. So why not just ditch the number or the term PROB entirely and just forecast it - the operational impact is precisely the same. PROB30 might give you a warm fluffy feeling that it's 70% not likely to happen but is operationally of no relevance.

It states in the jepps somewhere (will try and get the reference) that for nomination of a suitable alternate that prob30 is except able without requirement but prob40 too will need an alternate.

That said, I believe tha the VA crew had nominated ML as there alternate so very curious as to why/how they ended up in mildura.

Can someone in the know advice if Qantas have an RNP approach into mildura? That might explain how they got in with presumably no dramas whereas virgin did what they did.

[FYSTI]

Can someone in the know advice if Qantas have an RNP approach into mildura?There are no RNP approaches at Mildura, just GNSS.

The PROB 30/40% can also have significance for ETOPS planning (ie PROB 30 can be disregarded for use as an ETOPS adequate preflight under some operators rules).

LeadSled, do you have any comments on this weeks events?

[Creampuff]

On 6 June Leaddie said:Two alleged events happening to one Australian carrier over a short period of time do not invalidate the statistics that under pin the Australian legislation and CASA approved fuel policies…How many “alleged events” is Australia up to now?

Image how many more alleged events there would be if Australian carriers were flying a statistically significant number of hours!

[Capn Bloggs]

It states in the jepps somewhere (will try and get the reference) that for nomination of a suitable alternate that prob30 is except able without requirement but prob40 too will need an alternate.
Looking foward to that ref, Holding At! ;)

[AQIS Boigu]

Me too...prob is prob...the numeric value doesn't matter (and yes...ICAO guideline is either 30 or 40).

You can ignore a "prob" if it is above the landing minima (ETOPS or alternate)...

[ejet3]

i heard 200kg's left

[spelling_nazi]

A metar with a trend supersedes the taf. Perfectly acceptable to plan from.

[Up-into-the-air]

I guess 200 or 600kg, would have been great to have needed a further go-around. Just enough to get to V1 - [maybe]

[AQIS Boigu]

Then call it a TTF not a METAR...

Using a METAR (one liner) is not enough...hope we all agree on that...

[FFRATS]

T= Trend
Need a statement of trend, eg FM or NS period otherwise just and observation not a forecast.
Forecast, the probable (:rolleyes:) weather for your arrival.
Observation, something thats already been seen...
FFRATS

[400ER]

I agree BPA, the system appears to have let QF, VA down. The latest TTF I received showed no requirements on ADL. At no stage were we updated on our filed alternate as having any weather issues.
Framer, If MEL had fogged in, yes we could have proceeded to ADL, however we were unable to use MIA. It would have been an interesting morning.

ER

[maggot]

Spelling_Nazi

I said METAR not TTF...

Back to the books for you too. Guess that makes 3


... Meanwhile,the rest of the world calls it... ? :hmm:

[Mstr Caution]

Road Watch: Fog cutting visibility | adelaidenow (http://m.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/road-watch-fog-cutting-visibility/story-e6frea83-1226665392155)

At least motorists were advised of "actual" fog at Port Adelaide at 07:36am

MC

[Wally Mk2]

There maybe some level of confusion here regarding TTF's, Metar's & Speci's.

The BOM's web site has an excellent "Knowledge Centre" for a top up of some knowledge we could all do from time to time:ok:

As 'FFrats' has pretty much alluded to here a TTF is a Forecast with a validity period ( & can be used for planing purposes) where as a Metar or Speci on it's own is a kind of 'snap shot' of the current WX with an issue time only:ok:


Wmk2

[AQIS Boigu]

...Meanwhile,the rest of the world calls it... ?

...NOSIG...

No change expected for only 2 hours and it can't be used for planning if it's part of a METAR...

[spelling_nazi]

No need to go back to the books for me. As I said a metar with a trend is a valid forecast and in fact supersedes the taf.

A TTF is a metar or speci with a trend suffix.
We're saying the same thing.

I am pretty sure Mildura only spits out an auto weather report and as the book says...
"Note: Pilots should exercise caution when interpreting automated cloud information as it may not be equivalent to a human observation. The information is reported as a thirty minute average (with double weighting given to the last ten minutes); and, as it is sourced from a single ceilometer sampling only the sky directly overhead, it may not be representative of the skyline."

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Back at the start of this thread, J3Pipercub said:

MIA had Prob fog all night.

Who did what well and why very much depends on this.

If MIA had prob fog all night, and noticing the big time difference between the issue of the 2100Z TAF for AD and when the aircraft actually diverted to MIA, if the crew knew about the 2100Z TAF and continued towards AD with MIA as their fallback plan if the fog eventuated then they clearly haven't done a good job and probably don't deserve kudos.

If the crew didn't know about the AD 2100Z TAF then why on earth didn't they know in time to realise that they needed a backup plan before they got into a corner where MIA was their only option? Who flys for several hours without rechecking the destination TAF from time to time?

If MIA never had a fog forecast then the BOM was clearly against them - debates about airmanship and when it is/isn't appropriate to carry alternates aside. The other thing that isn't clear that may impact on this - if the 2100Z TAF said fog - what did the TTF say?


UTR

[Tidbinbilla]

There is no TTF service for Mildura. Therefore, the TAF would stand from a planning point of view.

[triathlon]

Let me say this. At the planning stage and up until departure, if there was no fog forecast on the adl taf then an alternate would not have been planned.
Secondly mildura was probably an enroute adequate port for the sector flown, which can have fog forecast on it and still be a legal plan.
Mad I know! But thems the rules. So here lies the problem when an aircraft actually needs to use an enroute adequate port, and the prob fog becomes a reality , Houston we have a problem.

[FYSTI]

triathlon, based on the TAF provided by j3pipercub (http://www.pprune.org/members/76766-j3pipercub) in post #9 (http://www.pprune.org/7897248-post9.html),it was legally usable as an ETOPS adequate both preflight & inflight (PROB 30 FG 0500 disregarded) as well!

[triathlon]

Yes I agree that prob 30 can be ignored for edto alternates, but it would not have been planned as an edto flight on that sector. Having said that this is where the problem lay, where an enroute port is planned for emergency purposes or whatever, and when you get there it's clagged in.
Perhaps risk analysis has been carried out when regs are promulgated and " what are the chances of actually having to use an enroute port and the prob 30 actually turns to fog? "

[tenretni]

The interesting bit is that the YMIA TAF did not have a prob fog on it either.

Huston we have a bigger problem.

[max AB]

the system appears to have let QF, VA down

As an outsider your system appears to be this; A met service that is not an exact science (just like the rest of the world) however, you have fuel policies that rely on the fact it is an exact science and going from some posts on this thread crews believe the same. Weather in real life does not occur in convenient blocks of 30 minutes.....

This "system" combined with crews apparent indifference to an auto land to Cat 1 results in risk taking. MEL has Cat 111B yet it appears from one poster that Virgin at least AWO qualifies its crews but not below Cat 1. From this I deduce Virgin would prefer you go around from unforcasted fog in MEL and divert with little fuel to some regional alternate....? Time for a talk to your Chief Pilot perhaps...

Blame the bean counters, but they would prefer you divert....Bean counters give you no fuel as it saves money, but that risk assessment is based on the fact that they expect some diversions to happen....they don't expect you to commit to closed airports and then make an emergency landing... Pilots hate diverting as its extra work and a slight of their professionalism, ie you didn't "get in" when others did.... Diversion is part of the job, accept it, heck I expect QF and VB might even pay you for the extra hours..

Hats off to the MIA pair but the The Australian travelling public deserve better than an emergency landing....

[triathlon]

Sorry I wasn't aware YMIA didn't have fog on the taf. Yeh it does make for a bigger problem. Solution?
Maybe sometimes shti just does happen?
Or met men/ woman have some explaining to do ?
Maybe shti happens.
I don't know.

[porch monkey]

Max AB, it's about the CASA approvals process, not about what the company does or doesn't do. The training is to Cat 2. You are aware that the airports concerned haven't been approved for Cat 2 or 3 yet anyway, aren't you?

[triathlon]

Tenretni says the mildura taf didn't have fog forecast.
Someone is right and someone is wrong

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Tenretni says the mildura taf didn't have fog forecast.
Someone is right and someone is wrong

And that would seem to be the missing piece of the puzzle....

[framer]

Time for a talk to your Chief Pilot perhaps
Ahhh but who appoints the Chief Pilots?
They are fairly carefully chosen by bankers and accountants who hold the power.

[BPA]

The BOM issued an amended TAF for Mildura early Tuesday morning with NO fog on the TAF.

[ejectx3]

Or you could have looked at the taf with classic fog conditions brewing and put on the fuel anyway.

[spelling_nazi]

Which is why is arrived overhead Adelaide with an hour holding then Melbourne diversion. Temp and few point hugging each other, low temps and a breath of wind forecast.

Flightplan had us arriving overhead with 75 min fuel. Not this little black duck.

[spelling_nazi]

Accidentally Double posted ... Sorry

[BPA]

SN,

Have you looked at the weather for Melbourne on Tuesday morning? Melbourne was out, as there fog was on the TAF, TTF's, and the SPECI's.

[max AB]

Porch Cat 11 training is not much use if you are not auth below Cat 1 ( your post 212). A regulator's approval process needs the airline to make a safety case for AWO operations. Hard to argue its not safer to land Cat11/111 than to divert with a low fuel state to a regional alternate, turn the jet yourself then fly back to destination thus increasing duty time. I am sure you would agree with that but your airline needs to ask the question before a Senate Inquiry does.
And yes well aware ADL is only Cat 1 which is why I referred to MEL...perhaps SN isn't though?

[spelling_nazi]

Not when I was holding west of Adl it wasn't . TTF was ok.

Ok for clarification, my original thought was arrive over ADL with fuel to out live any fog that might eventuate.

When we discovered fog from the VHF met service, about abeam melbourne,
The ttf for mel allowed us to consider it As an ADL alternate. Bear in mind our eta YMML was ADL eta + holding then divert so we had options.

[FFRATS]

So here lies the problem when an aircraft actually needs to use an enroute adequate port, and the prob fog becomes a reality , Houston we have a problem

That's why Adequate assessment (ceiling Viz and crosswind) are for Lawyers to allow ETOPS.
Suitable/Acceptable assessment is for pilots and planning on the day sh+t hits the fan.
You can have one as an ADQ but not also as ALT at the same time.

FFRATS

[BPA]

SN,

The amended ML TAF issued at 1704 had prob 30 fog and the 1900 TTF SPECI had from 2000 VRB 5 kts 0500 FG

Compare that to AD, with the 1900 TTF saying all the 9's few022 NOSIG

The AD TAF had all the 9's Few030 Sct045


So you are in the planning room about to depart on your flight to AD, which is all good and ML has fog, why would you even consider ML as an alternate?