JQ Diversion RAAF Tindal 17/12 [Archive]

Capt Claret

17th Dec 2013, 09:56

Exactly how long does it take to move a "light aircraft" off a runway?

As long as it takes.

And I've never known the aerodrome operator to bulldoze and aeroplane off the runway to allow another aeroplane to land. Nor have I ever heard ATC clear an aeroplane to land on the parallel taxiway. Nor have I ever heard ATC clear an aeroplane to land over the top of the disabled aircraft, or land in the opposite direction and stop short.

All suggestions that have been made to me over the years in vain attempt to encourage the carriage of minimum fuel. :rolleyes:

*Lancer*

17th Dec 2013, 10:08

Claret, a devil's advocate might say that what ATC can and can't clear you for is different to what the PIC can and can't do :}

falconx

17th Dec 2013, 10:27

When atsb says they can move it

Capt Claret

17th Dec 2013, 10:43

Agreed Lancer, and answering the devil, last time I recall a lightie blocking R29 at DRW, a QF Mainline, a JQ, and an "Aussie" troop carrier all diverted to Tindal. Obviously all 3 captains were pussies (just like me) and wouldn't take those steps.

They all also avoided explaining to the inevitable enquiry "why did you elect captain, to land on a taxiway"?

supersingle

17th Dec 2013, 12:03

Runway 29 closed this afternoon, anyone have any details?

nitpicker330

17th Dec 2013, 12:06

Because "Chief Pilot" I carried flight plan fuel at the companies direction/preference and HAD NO CHOICE but to land on a straight bit of concrete ( taxyway ) or ditch in the water.......I chose the former...

Unfortunately a lot of companies push you to take the minimum for the conditions on the day. Single runway ops?? Nah not a worry because statistically it will be ok most of the time........and we'd rather save fuel now...... ( that's what they think, not me )

Luckily my outfit always carry an Alternate.

Check_Thrust

17th Dec 2013, 21:15

Unfortunately a lot of companies push you to take the minimum for the conditions on the day.

Ah yes, but they usually tie it in with a little gem in their ops manual stating that although it is not encouraged to take excessive amounts of fuel it is still the PIC's responsibility to ensure they take the right amount of fuel for any given scenario.

So you are damned if you do (by the company) and damned if you don't (by CASA, the company and no doubt a lot of upset passengers and their families).

I think I'd like to stick to the first option and be damned only by the comany for carrying "excessive" fuel which my ops manual allows for because at the end of the day it is deemed the PIC's fault if you don't.

Fred Gassit

18th Dec 2013, 05:37

While I was living in Darwin an RPT 737 landed on 36, (gear up blocking the main rwy), I don't know if it's the only time it has ever been done.

dubbleyew eight

18th Dec 2013, 05:44

usually there would be a mad scramble to locate a crane with enough capacity to lift the disabled aircraft clear.
then there would be some pressured negotiations to get the crane to leave the site they were working on and make the trip out to the airport.
then there would be a mad scramble to locate sufficient lifting strops.

all easy really. no delay to anyone. :rolleyes:

Metro man

18th Dec 2013, 06:52

I remember one night at Bankstown, the tower was unmanned and the single lit runway was blocked by a gear up landing. Luckily SYD was next door and the controllers were understanding of the inbound pilots position. Weather was good so no alternate was required.:hmm:

Fris B. Fairing

18th Dec 2013, 07:37

Fred

While I was living in Darwin an RPT 737 landed on 36, (gear up blocking the main rwy), I don't know if it's the only time it has ever been done.

Don't recall a 737. 337 perhaps?

dodo whirlygig

18th Dec 2013, 09:00

Yonks ago, TAA had a rather tight fuel policy under the fuel management hierarchy - amongst which was the then SRC.

Then, one day, said SRC was inbound to ASP in his 727 when a lightie did a gear-up landing on Rwy 12. Things got very interesting because he was adhering to the fuel policy he helped mandate and had bugger all options.

Later that evening in the bar in DRW I remember him asking the skipper I was flying with "what would you have done?". My skipper's response - "oh, you mean beyond having carried an alternate for a destination with a single runway - probably not much". The 727 skipper went very quiet.

Around the same time there was a photo of a RAF Harrier which, due to low fuel, landed on a Spanish fishing trawler in the North Sea. This got pinned to the notice board in the crew room titled "N******'s fuel policy". Said it all.

Interestingly, TAA's fuel policy underwent review and common sense (which aligned with the practice of most pilots anyway) finally prevailed. Guess where the pressure for the review came from?

p.s landed a DC-9 on 36 in DRW many a time. There you go, an age give-away.

Dog One

18th Dec 2013, 09:11

I can remember seeing a QF 737 landing RWY36 at Darwin, I think it was when the Hercules did a wheels up landing, and he didn't have fuel to go back to TN. Also during one of the exercises, 29 had a FA 18 drop it hydraulics all over it. We couldn't depart 36, but a Virgin 737 and a AN Emb 170 landed on 36.

Capt Claret

18th Dec 2013, 09:21

Fred

Quote:
While I was living in Darwin an RPT 737 landed on 36, (gear up blocking the main rwy), I don't know if it's the only time it has ever been done.

Don't recall a 737. 337 perhaps?

G'day Fris,

I think there's a "because of a" missing from Fred's comment about gear up.

Fred Gassit

18th Dec 2013, 09:54

Yeah sorry, To be clear, I don't remember what was blocking the rwy (definitely not a 737!)

An RPT 737 used 36 to land, it was barely newsworthy at the time (no photobombing crocs?) so I figured it must happen from time to time, it was the only one I saw over about 5 years.

Boney

18th Dec 2013, 10:11

compressor stall

18th Dec 2013, 10:41

That Herc wheels up was in 1999 or 2000, more likely the latter. Should help to narrow it down.

Metro man

18th Dec 2013, 11:10

Funnily enough a thread has just started on Rumours and News about a B767 having to make an emergency landing on a 1600m airstrip due to his destination airport's runway being blocked.:hmm:

http://www.pprune.org/african-aviation/530170-ethiopian-767-lands-arusha.html

Jabawocky

18th Dec 2013, 12:12

Pilot A always takes min fuel, even when operating to a single runway airport.

He/she is a management favourite, saving the company $100 every time they sign on because they will never re-fuel other than at a major port unless wx holding requires it, and then not a drop more.

Pilot B takes enough to arrive with min fuel at an alternate when flying to a single runway airport.

Pilot B is considered a profit waster.

5 years later after a lighty does a gear up when Pilot B is on short final, diverts and lands at suitable alternate with min fuel.

Hooray, Pilot B goes from a$$hole to hero in less than 24hrs - amazing stuff!

Wrong!

Pilot B goes home satisfied he did a good job once again and nobody notices.

The problem is companies measure all the negatives, but they never measure all the times where the circumstances were against them but clever crew decisions saved them from a huge expense.

That is not a measurable item.

Sadly……..I bet many can think of when they have done so and not been thanked.

compressor stall

18th Dec 2013, 22:04

Funny how those regular posters who previously dismissed this scenario as "the old single runway chestnut" are conspicuous in their absence.....

greybeard

18th Dec 2013, 22:40

My age will show.

Landed DC-3, F-27, F-28 on 36 under normal operations.

Before all those new buildings were put on the North side of the Airport.

"one of these days" someone will get really caught out, get hurt and the "rules will change".

Looong ago an F-28 blew at least 2 tyres at Perth, came to rest at the intersection of 06/24 and 20/02, yes 20/02 when we were not lisdexic, fortunately 11/29 was still operational.
However Qaintas had to cancel due crew hours etc etc.

Perth is a so called "single runway" but who in Australian operations considers that bit?????

Retirement is good fun.

:ok:

Capt Claret

18th Dec 2013, 23:52

A cursory perusal of the ACN Charts in the Jeppesen Airways Manual indicates that the only common RPT type jets that could routinely use 18/36 at Darwin without a pavement concession would be the Embraer Jungle Jets, F100/28 and BAe146 family.

carpe_jugulum

19th Dec 2013, 01:40

Interesting how much time we spend briefing/planning/training for EFATO and the recovery, with much stern discussion of the myriad scenarios. In general there seems to be a consensus of opinion. Yet, when it comes to the sensibility (to me anyhow) of carrying an alternate when the destination is a single runway, opinions suddenly diverge to polar opposites.
I find it intriguing, that over the last 20 years of my airline career - I have had, dare I say it, no engine failures(knock wood).
However, just in the last 3 years(jet ops) I have had at least 6 diversions from single runway airports. In only one case was it weather related - excessive unforecast xw/TURB and too many in the queue behind. The others were all related to ground based problems resulting in the runway becoming unavailable.
In all cases I elected to carry sufficient fuel above the company policy to provide for an alternate - thankfully.
Diversions seem to be more frequently discussed within these forums than engine failures........

Oktas8

19th Dec 2013, 04:19

I learned about this for the first time when I read the EU-Ops alternate requirements.

Among them: (paraphrasing)
Always have diversion fuel unless... the destination has at least two useable runway strips. If runways intersect, assume blockage is on the intersection for purpose of calculating LDA on remaining runway.

After that I started thinking about this topic when planning, even in Australasia.

Dogbolter

19th Dec 2013, 04:37

I have landed a 737 on RW 36 at Darwin.

The situation was as follows -

Inbound from Brisbane at top of descent we were advised of a disabled aircraft on the main runway at Darwin. From memory it was a Pearl Aviation Kingair or such sized aircraft and it had a main gear failure on one side. It was located half way along the runway. ATC advised us that they were 'trying to locate a crane from in town' to move the aircraft but gave us no time frame for this operation. We entered a holding pattern at top of descent.

our options were -

1. Divert to Tindal.
2. Land on RW 36 at DRW.
3. Land on half of main runway at DRW.

Tindal was ruled out because although we had the fuel to get there, our ETA fell into a Tempo period of thunderstorms and we did not have Tempo fuel.

Landing on an available half of the main runway was not approved by ATC even though we requested it twice. The available surface left was still longer than the total length of runway 36.

We did the numbers for 36 and they were tight but not impossible. Runway 36 had no approach lighting (PAPI/TVASIS) or instrument approach guidance etc.
Our decision was to leave the hold at the latest possible time, planning to land on 36, with the option of joining a left base for runway 11 if it could be cleared in time.

The main runway remained blocked and we landed on runway 36.

With the assistance of a very capable First Officer, this came off without a hitch. The aircraft pulled up easily (about 1000m) and we were able to turn off runway 36 straight onto the main runway and taxi into the terminal. After refuelling, and when the runway had finally been cleared, we continued on the next sector to Perth.

In the back of my mind, if on late final runway 36 looked too unsafe, I would have gone around, re-positioned for the main runway and landed on half of it. Whether it was approved or not was inconsequential. That is what I am paid for.

Of course, there was also the possibility of landing on the long taxiway at Darwin, but it is quite thin and rough.

My personal fuel policy is to 'add a bit'. There have been a couple of occasions like the above where I've been glad for the extra thinking time.

Popgun

19th Dec 2013, 05:44

There have been a couple of occasions like the above where I've been glad for the extra thinking time.

and that's the part that bean-counters and KPI-obsessed pilot managers don't get!

Ned Gerblansky

19th Dec 2013, 10:56

Great to see that wise heads are showing the way for the in-experienced. The CARs mandate that the PIC will carry enough fuel! You will never want to be in a court-room facing a be-wigged tw@t asking why you didn't carry enough, nor, as F/O, why you didn't question the calcs, or refuse to fly.

I recall there has been two flight crews prosecuted for manslaughter in this vicinity over the last ten years. The law supports you to be conservative and safe, why do anything different?

PS well done to the diverting crew!

RENURPP

19th Dec 2013, 18:19

Dogbolter,

thanks for telling your story, it would be nice to read more factual posts like yours on pprune.

500N

19th Dec 2013, 18:49

I know it is a Mil aircraft but a British C-17 made a short landing
on a runway blocked by a disabled 747 in South Sudan.
(a civilian 737 airliner had slewed to a halt 2 thirds of the way down the runway after its nose wheel collapsed. )

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/raf-evacuates-britons-from-south-sudan

lurker999

20th Dec 2013, 09:32

I bet dogbolter scared the living crap out of people on the highway.

The little ones can appear very low there, a 737 :eek:

Howard Hughes

20th Dec 2013, 10:12

That Herc wheels up was in 1999 or 2000, more likely the latter. Should help to narrow it down. Reckon it was 2000, was sitting on a baggage trolley watching it all unfold from the Victor run up bay. A C-5 Galaxy returning from Dili was number "two in the emergency sequence" (also with gear problems) and diverted to Tindal. Prior to the disabled aircraft being cleared, I do believe the runway was back in use with a displaced threshold! :ok:

down3gr33ns

20th Dec 2013, 10:15

and that's the part that bean-counters and KPI-obsessed pilot managers don't get!

I once flew for an outfit where the bean counters were OBSESSED with average fuel burns. Have a figure below the fleet average and you were a top bloke but, have a figure above the average and you could eventually expect to be called in for a cup of tea. Mistake number 1, their not understanding how averages are arrived at!!!

Now, we used to fly from A to B and where B would close at a moment's notice (no NOTAMS to that effect) for VIP movements. Aircraft had been sent around from 500 ft on finals in these circumstances and ended up diverting 'cos they couldn't hold until B re-opened.

I soon learned and regularly began carrying an extra tonne or two "just in case". On a considerable number of occasions B closed because of "VIP movements" however I was able to hold for the 30 minutes or so it needed before landing. It was without exception that parallel company flights couldn't hold and diverted.

It wasn't long before I was called in for the "cup of tea" to explain why my average burn was above the fleet average. I told them my average was exactly that, my average, and then asked them the following:-

a) what were the comparative burns in my getting from A to B compared to those that couldn't hold and diverted to C before eventually returning to B? It was generally around 4 - 5 tonnes less for me compared to the aircraft that diverted.

b) how big a disadvantage to the schedule was my being 30 - 40 minutes late on the blocks at B compared to the disadvantage of the aircraft that diverted being at least 2, sometimes 3, hours late in landing at B? Stunned silence was the usual response - bean counters seem incapable in considering that.

The bean counter wallahs could not comprehend that, despite my personal average hourly burn being more than that of the aircraft that diverted, they were better off because I'd simply burnt several tonnes less in getting the aircraft to B than those other aircraft. I was left with the impression that I could have burnt tonnes and tonnes more fuel without question as long as it was at a rate below the fleet average. WTF!!!!!

In the end I argued my position over and over in the vain hope they'd see the logic but, to no avail - you see, average burn was paramount!!! Ultimately it all got too hard for them (not being able to ride roughshod over an individual) and I was never called in again despite my not altering my practice and probably still having an over the average fuel burn rate.

As was said by someone else,

and that's the part that bean-counters and KPI-obsessed pilot managers don't get!

And, sadly, they never will.

markis10

20th Dec 2013, 21:59

The herc was 2000:

Investigation: 200000618 - Lockheed Aircraft Corp L382G, ZS-JIY (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2000/aair/aair200000618.aspx)

ANCIENT

21st Dec 2013, 07:15

Back in the mid 70s, in the days of the "great Australian air race" Ansett 727 blew some tyres landing at Alice. TAA, as was usual were second. No requirement for alternate so no extra fuel. These were the days when DCA provided operational control and they advised the TAA 727 to divert to ISA. Captain refused saying while he could get there with absolute min reserve there was a PROB 30 of TS at ISA. Captain declared that runway available at Alice was adequate and he would land there. DCA relented but instructed him to land over the disabled Ansett 727. The TAA captain declined and said he would prefer to hit the obstacle at 10 knots rather than than 130 if the approach was misjudged. He landed towards the disabled aircraft.
Sometime later as an FO on 727 I submitted a fuel request for a flight from BNE to ISA carrying enough fuel for Alice. The captain berated me about the extra fuel all the way to ISA and on the ground made a point of asking a grounds man how long it would take to push a disabled aircraft off the runway. The Captain's complexion paled when he was told it would take at least 24 hrs to get equipment to the aerodrome to do the pushing.
Any Captain of of a jet in Australia who does not have the capability to divert from any of our single runway airports has not given much thought to his responsibility for his passengers.

Big Girl 727

21st Dec 2013, 07:59

AN 737 landed over L-100, another landed downwind towards the L-100 and QF 737 landed RWY 36.

dodo whirlygig

21st Dec 2013, 08:12

AN 737 landed over L-100, another landed downwind towards the L-100 and QF 737 landed RWY 36.

Two cowboys, then.

down3gr33ns

21st Dec 2013, 08:35

TAA, as was usual were second.

Yep, didn't bend throttles in a juvenile attempt to prove masterful.

Cowboys, indeed.

Capt Fathom

21st Dec 2013, 11:29

Any Captain of of a jet in Australia who does not have the capability to divert from any of our single runway airports has not given much thought to his responsibility for his passengers.

What utter BS! Why not fill the tanks just in case!

You can only plan for 99 percent of contingencies 99 percent of the time! Anything that arises after that, you just deal with.

NGsim

21st Dec 2013, 21:55

I wouldn't consider a runway unavailable at a single runway aerodrome part of the 1%

waren9

21st Dec 2013, 22:23

What utter BS! Why not fill the tanks just in case!

You can only plan for 99 percent of contingencies 99 percent of the time! Anything that arises after that, you just deal with.

so, a 737 landing in fog below minima on a npa with cabin crew yelling brace brace, and 500kg after the guys "dealt with it" is an acceptable standard for australian aviation is it?

not in my book :=

Bankstown

22nd Dec 2013, 02:33

Any Captain of of a jet in Australia who does not have the capability to divert from any of our single runway airports has not given much thought to his responsibility for his passengers.
Even if it means leaving some of those passengers behind so the fuel can be added?

bagchucka

22nd Dec 2013, 03:33

Even if it means leaving some of those passengers behind so the fuel can be added?

Would you rather take some of the passengers all of the way or all of the passengers some of the way?

Bankstown

22nd Dec 2013, 06:11

I'm not the only cog in the machine. The company sells all the seats on my aircraft. I am flight planned to depart at MTOW and arrive at 'singlerunwayville' with 60 minutes fuel but no alternate. Perfectly legal according to today's regulations.

I offload passengers to give me an alternate. What exactly do I tell my boss?

Bankstown

22nd Dec 2013, 11:04

I appreciate the answer ventus, I just cannot see that application occurring amongst many jet captains operating in the region. My question stands.

The risk assessment conducted whenever flight planning and operating an aircraft should take into account the factors mentioned in this thread, however risk assessments are exactly that. They rarely completely mitigate risk.

I'd love to always have an alternate, never carry a deferred defect, never operate into a CTAF on a Saturday and so forth. Is this possible?

Try the 'tombstone imperative' as interesting reading.

ANCIENT

22nd Dec 2013, 19:33

Interesting thoughts being expressed here.
I do not believe I ever mentioned off loading pax/payload but just to consider trying to have an out by having some extra fuel.
All these problems would be reduced if only Australia followed the rest of the world with fuel requirements. ICAO standards are for the planning to an alternate for all flights. Fortunately my company adopts this policy.
We have to work within the regulatory frame work. In a country like Australia we have limits and one of them for pilots of RPT jets is the limited number of available runways suitable to take our aircraft.
Adopt the ICAO standard and decisions may be a little easier.

framer

22nd Dec 2013, 19:56

I always have fuel to another strip in the 737 and I'm not sure it costs the company more over the years as many times I have been able to hold for 30 minutes ( normally due to TS or single runway ops due wind ) before making a divert decision and then got in to destination while others around me have left for their alternates. Each time that happens the schedule of the ones that divert is thrown out the window and they have an extra burn of five or six tonnes by the time they have diverted, returned to destination, and then picked up their return pax. It's a rare occasion when we can't take extra without offloading pax so that makes it easier.
It normally costs about 50 cents per passenger to take the extra gas minus whatever savings from those occasions when I don't divert when I would have had to. I'm more conscious of efficiency than most I fly with and take whatever steps I can to save fuel enroute and on the ground. Hopefully that reduces my burn a bit as well. At the end of the day different pilots come to different conclusions when making risk assessments. You see it all the time with other elements like how high to fly , whether or not to go around or through weather etc etc. human beings are different, that's just life.

dodo whirlygig

23rd Dec 2013, 09:51

framer - what D3G's said.

But you're deluding yourself if you think management understands!!!

framer

23rd Dec 2013, 11:45

I don't think management understands. In fact, I'm sure they don't, and how could they? They have never been solely responsible for the immediate safety of hundreds of people. It's a rare bird that understands the responsibilities of command having never had one.

No Idea Either

23rd Dec 2013, 17:01

When I did my upgrade and went for my 'command chat' the MFS told me to carry enough fuel I was comfortable with and which would avoid me ever coming back into his office. Pretty good advice from a very experienced pilot. I'm with you framer, escape route plus fixed reserve for high ga single runway airports. There is only a couple of these anyway, and I too have held for that extra 30 mins probably half a dozen times, while others were diverting around me left, right and center. All comes out in the wash and after all the pax'so safety is our number one priority........isn't it.

Willie Nelson

23rd Dec 2013, 20:32

No Idea Either,

I had the same chat with one of the senior guys at my well known low cost outfit when I was checked to the left seat.

For all the emails and newsletters discussing unnecessary fuel uplift, nobody has ever called me in to the office for extra uplift cup of tea, not once. My take on this is, give it some thought as to what your extra would really be needed for, don't just take it because it feels good. Otherwise, the PIC's discretion is left alone.

Classic example, if you're going from SYD to CNS on a Gin clear day and wish to take TSV as an ALT, I would use the variable from SYD to CNS and whatever tanker is provided as some of the flight fuel from CNS to TSV, the extra uplift is therefore bugger all and I know that I can touch down at TSV with fixed reserve intact.

*Lancer*

23rd Dec 2013, 22:50

WN, unless you actually burn that variable reserve for the purposes it is loaded... :}

The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise it's MLW/full tanks everywhere. In Australia, most companies have decided that not carrying an alternate for single runways is where that line is, probably because there are plenty of airports for a given aircraft type that may not always have a full alternate available within a reasonable distance. The PIC subsequently determines the actual fuel order based on all the additional bits of info and their experience.

Fuel policies inherently contain plenty of assumptions, and little latitude for variation. My opinion is that fuel orders are 'bad' when they too have plenty of assumptions, and not much thinking.

I have never, ever been questioned by my company regarding a fuel order, and I am not aware of any other pilot that has been.

Roller Merlin

23rd Dec 2013, 23:13

Legal liability lies with PIC. However any naive manager that attempted to coerce a PIC to take less fuel would take on a vicarious liability themselves. Thats why managers generally don't do it. They want the PIC to take it all.

If you can justify an upload, that is your right as PIC!

Dehavillanddriver

23rd Dec 2013, 23:55

It is all a matter of risk management

if you come from the south into Cairns you overfly Rocky, Mackay, Proserpine, Hamilton Island and Townsville at the very least.

so in reality you only need to consider the likelihood of an event occurring in the period between your PNR Townsville, which is likely to be the bottom of your descent/somewhere near the commencement of the ILS. Yes you will likely land in Townsville with only close to Fixed reserve but what are the chances, given the number of movements per year, of the runway becoming blocked in the time between the commencement of the ILS and touchdown? There often isn't another aircraft between you and the runway.

I reckon the risk is far greater for machines like the 380 and 747 where the number of airports capable of landing an aircraft of that size, particularly the 380, few and far between.

737's, A320's etc are unlikely to get into too much trouble I would think.

The problem, in my view, lies with people who think they must touch down with 2,3,4 tonnes even in an emergency.

And Framer - it would have cost a squillion to have that extra 30 minutes for every sector on the off chance - the cost of a diversion is far less than people think