View Full Version : Approach to BNE today
Cralis
8th Dec 2017, 03:15
Exactly which approach is this into BNE today? :)
https://s8.postimg.org/ivp86kfn9/strange.jpg
Out of interest though, once the crew is informed by ATC that there isn't going to be a normal STAR, which I'm guessing, this isn't, is that when ATC vector the aircraft the whole way, or onto the glide slope?
maggot
8th Dec 2017, 03:43
Decent storm front through about an hour or two ago
RENURPP
11th Dec 2017, 06:59
In my case, CB's (nor any significant weather for that matter) weren’t forecast until later in the afternoon, (hours after our ETA) even the ATIS only indicated few at 3000 with distant showers. 20 minutes later we carry out a visual until advised of a wind change with a 25kt tailwind (TS approaching) on the ground. With little fuel to play with so off to the Sunny Coast, followed by 1/2 dozen others.
mates rates
11th Dec 2017, 11:37
RENURPP
Jepps Meteorology AU11 paragraph 1 says the TAF Inter and Tempo periods do not guarantee when the actual weather will occur.So if it’s on the TAF carry it.
AerocatS2A
11th Dec 2017, 15:20
So if there are TS anywhere on a 36 hour TAF you should carry the fuel?
The Bullwinkle
11th Dec 2017, 19:47
So if there are TS anywhere on a 36 hour TAF you should carry the fuel?
Yep!!!!!!!
Mates Rates, I'm not sure if I'm missing something but, out of curiosity you have a more accurate reference for that? I can't find it.
I've lived in Brissy for more than 25 years but the last 18 months or so have been in a reasonably elevated position between the airport and the city. Whilst well aware of potential wind effects associated with thunderstorms, it's not until I lived here that I've noticed the phenomenal gusts associated with storms approaching Brisbane. Those approaching from a more southerly rather than westerly direction appear to be more severe and are often more destructive. They seem to have a different appearance, usually with a distinct leading roll-cloud. I'm sure a meteorologist could explain the reason for the difference but in the meantime……...
Beware of Brissy's (and everywhere else's) thunderstorms and take care!
Capn Bloggs
11th Dec 2017, 21:58
the TAF Inter and Tempo periods do not guarantee when the actual weather will occur.So if it’s on the TAF carry it.
Rubbish. TAF 06-06 CAVOK, INTER 18-24 95TS. You don't need to carry 30 holding if arriving at 09. if you're arriving at 19, of course you carry it.
That said, given the (in)accuracy of BOM forecasting these days, it'd probably be a good idea!
mates rates
11th Dec 2017, 22:18
Rubbish. TAF 06-06 CAVOK, INTER 18-24 95TS. You don't need to carry 30 holding at if arriving at 09. if you're arriving at 19, of course you carry it.
That said, given the (in)accuracy of BOM forecasting these days, it'd probably be a good idea!
It’s not rubbish Bloggs,it’s a fact.If you only carry the inter or tempo during the required period and you get caught out,don’t criticise BOM.They will just quote the paragraph in the Jepps or AIP’s as the problem is yours!!Its a cop pout by them.
mates rates
11th Dec 2017, 22:25
SHVC
The applicable paragraph is “INTERPRETATION and USE of FORECASTS” Jepps Meteorology AU 11 Paragraph 1.
Capn Bloggs
11th Dec 2017, 22:34
I say again, there is no requirement to carry holding if you're not in the holding period, and that section does not indicate so.
Jepps Meteorology AU11 paragraph 1 says the TAF Inter and Tempo periods do not guarantee when the actual weather will occur
No it doesn't. It is merely a general waffle-on. I do agree it's a copout.
Page 523 for the nerds... :ok:
I did read that mates rates, the way you worded it made it difficult for me to find, I don't interperate it as you do otherwise we would be carrying alternates and tempo/inter fuel almost everyday, it's just a waffle on saying the times they give are the "most probable for the time of the forecast" with TS if you're going to arrive an hr before or after commen sense would tell you to take the gas, 12hrs before arrival would you carry the extra gas?!
"The specific value of any of the meteorological elements given in a forecast shall be understood to vary due to the limitations of forecasting techniques and limitations caused by the definition of some of the elements. The recipient shall understand that any specific element in a forecast will be the most probable value which the element is likely to assume during the period of the fore-cast. Similarly, when the time of occurrence or change of an element is given in a forecast, this time shall be understood to be the most probable time which is likely during the period of the fore-cast"
mates rates
11th Dec 2017, 23:32
My point is simply this.Do not attempt to blame BOM if TS’s occur outside the Tempo period.They have already wiped their hands of any responsibility!Think of the good news,you already have an answer to the Flight Department managers who want you to run around with minimum fuel or not carry the extra fuel when you think it is necessary.
itsnotthatbloodyhard
12th Dec 2017, 00:19
So if I’ve got a TAF with TEMPO fog early in the morning, I should carry the extra fuel for my 3 pm arrival?
mates rates
12th Dec 2017, 03:34
So if I’ve got a TAF with TEMPO fog early in the morning, I should carry the extra fuel for my 3 pm arrival?
No but if the fog reforms at 3 PM the BOM are off the hook and your in the poop!
itsnotthatbloodyhard
12th Dec 2017, 03:53
Not really much point having a forecast at all then, is there? Just gas it up to max RTOW, and hope for the best.
Snakecharma
12th Dec 2017, 03:57
Mates Rates - Christ, dont try and use that logic on me if you ever fly with me!
The purpose of those words is more to cover the we predicted 15 kts and you got 10, or 25, NOT we stuck a tempo for TS on at 5pm local and it turned up at 6 am, so nah nah na nah nah its your fault.
I have no problems with interpreting TAFS and adjusting the fuel accordingly, in fact I do so all the time, I have often loaded TEMPO fuel on for an arrival that was scheduled a couple of hours before the forecast requirement and lo and behold the tempo came forward, but I have never, in more than 30 years of flying, including over 25 in command of multi crew aeroplanes, carried fuel for a requirement in the manner you describe.
It isnt practical on many aeroplanes and it isnt necessary, nor does it do anything to improve safety and it sure as hell isnt an economic thing to do.
It is my belief that our brief as pilots is the safe and efficient movement of aeroplanes and the people within - carrying fuel in the manner described satisfies neither of those elements in my opinion.
And I am not a "captain vapours" type person either before you have a crack at me.
RENURPP
12th Dec 2017, 05:31
Mates Rates - Christ, dont try and use that logic on me if you ever fly with me!
The purpose of those words is more to cover the we predicted 15 kts and you got 10, or 25, NOT we stuck a tempo for TS on at 5pm local and it turned up at 6 am, so nah nah na nah nah its your fault.
I have no problems with interpreting TAFS and adjusting the fuel accordingly, in fact I do so all the time, I have often loaded TEMPO fuel on for an arrival that was scheduled a couple of hours before the forecast requirement and lo and behold the tempo came forward, but I have never, in more than 30 years of flying, including over 25 in command of multi crew aeroplanes, carried fuel for a requirement in the manner you describe.
It isnt practical on many aeroplanes and it isnt necessary, nor does it do anything to improve safety and it sure as hell isnt an economic thing to do.
It is my belief that our brief as pilots is the safe and efficient movement of aeroplanes and the people within - carrying fuel in the manner described satisfies neither of those elements in my opinion.
And I am not a "captain vapours" type person either before you have a crack at me.
I cannot see any post above blaming the BOM.
First, I agree 100% with the above quote.
The Tempo was forecast 2 hours after our arrival. All en-route possible alternates were CAVOK. i.e. Sydney, Coffs, Tamworth, Gold Coast etc etc etc. and they remained that way whilst we were en-route. Additionally we had sufficient fuel to either return to the Gold Coast OR as we did continue onto the Sunshine coast, so please explain why I would load a few more tonnes of fuel to satisfy your reading of a legal "cop out"?
Has common sense been completely replaced with platinum plated arse covering?
Rated De
12th Dec 2017, 05:55
That said, given the (in)accuracy of BOM forecasting these days, it'd probably be a good idea!
CAR 224 sums it up..Strict liability means it is all yours when it goes wrong. So fuel equals time. Desks never run out of fuel, so it matters little what you friendly fleet 'token' manager says...
An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability. Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
(2) A pilot in command of an aircraft is responsible for:
(a) the start, continuation, diversion and end of a flight by the aircraft; and
(b) the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time; and
(c) the safety of persons and cargo carried on the aircraft; and
(d) the conduct and safety of members of the crew on the aircraft.
Snakecharma
12th Dec 2017, 10:08
Indeed, BUT how often do you get pushed into a situation where you have no options even with flight plan fuel.
We tend to look at flights as being A to B divert to C.
The reality is that we often fly past perfectly suitable airports enroute where if turns to crap we can bail out to. Obviously the bigger the aeroplane the fewer the suitable airports but nevertheless the reality for most domestic flights in Oz is that we only really get fuel critical in the last part of the flight after we fly past the last usable enroute airport.
Assuming we are paying attention to the weather at the various airports then the weather has to turn to crap suddenly after the etp between that last suitable airport and the destination for us to be really in trouble.
So the big strict liability bogey man isnt a big a threat as many think, in my opinion anyway.
flying-spike
12th Dec 2017, 10:15
My two bobs worth. It is saying that the weather associated with the inter and tempo may not occur so don't get upset about carrying extra fuel for an event that didn't happen.
Rated De
13th Dec 2017, 08:43
Accuracy of MET data is important.
Upon arrival at Mildura, the actual weather conditions were significantly different to those forecast, in particular with visibility reduced in fog.
The flight crew of Qantas 735 conducted an instrument approach and landed below minima. The flight crew of Velocity 1384 also conducted an instrument approach and landed below minima in fog and with fuel below the fixed reserveI think Virgin touched down with around 500kg. Not much in a 738, not sufficient for a go around.
Not somewhere I will ever let a 'policy' dictate I find myself whilst strict liability sits with me. What does a tonne cost to carry these days? :ok:
Snakecharma
13th Dec 2017, 11:04
Yeah but where do you draw the line?
Carry an extra tonne in a 737 and that gives you another 22-25 mins or thereabouts if I remember back to my time on the 737
All the fuel does is move the decision a bit further down the track.
I am not advocating not carrying additional fuel when you deem it necessary, but where do you draw the line?
The Mildura situation was a unique set of circumstances that is rare to say the least - as far as I remember neither Captain has had a "strict liability" conviction waved in their face.
In the case of the 737 the extra tonne could mean the difference of 10 pax (assuming a MTOW or RTOW limited takeoff.)In my machine 60 minutes of juice is around 70 odd pax so that would get the attention of a bunch of people.
In my view we get paid to make informed operational decisions and manage risk.
The safest place for an aeroplane is on the ground doing nothing, so anything beyond that is a risk management exercise.
Rated De
13th Dec 2017, 19:18
Yeah but where do you draw the line?Isn't it great that when they structured the rules usually in the blood of mistakes of other poor souls, they had the foresight to give pilot in command ultimate authority and responsibility.
Long before bean counters ever somehow got their grubby hands on operations, command authority is inviolate!
If it really goes wrong, you will be the only one defending your actions, as will I. Fuel buys time, how much is up to you. We both win :)
as far as I remember neither Captain has had a "strict liability" conviction waved in their face.
As I was not present at the investigation, I do not know what was waved in their face. I suspect all sorts of veiled threats were made, but that is simply my opinion. Had the Virgin aircraft not managed to find the ground and attempted a go around, it is highly probable fuel exhaustion would have left the pilot in command with little choice other than the unimaginable.
In the case of the 737 the extra tonne could mean the difference of 10 pax (assuming a MTOW or RTOW limited takeoff.)In my machine 60 minutes of juice is around 70 odd pax so that would get the attention of a bunch of people.
All very true, but I think you would find that route has the aircraft nowhere near any take off limit and as such, its carriage would not impede commercial payload. Again each pilot in command is free to decide, that is the beauty of it. No matter what the 'bunch of people' may say.
Snakecharma
14th Dec 2017, 00:57
Rated, you are almost certainly correct about that flight being nowhere near close to performance limits, and in fact most domestic flights would be the same.
But the basic premis remains. In my mind i cant reconcile the carriage of extra fuel for mum and the kids except when it becomes payload limiting - surely when you are chock a block with pax then the risk is greater?
I suspect we are arguing the same side of the argument. I dont advocate min fuel, never have and never will, but I also dont advocate carting fuel around the countryside to mitigate something that will in all probability never happen.
I prefer to manage risk by using enroute alternates, and a whole bunch of other ways.
I guess my view is we as pilots need to use all the tools available to us to manage our flights and associated risks of which fuel is just one