Network F100 busting minima, Paraburdoo

[Transition Layer]

Flight below minimum altitude involving Fokker Aircraft F100, registration VH-NHV, at Paraburdoo Airport, Western Australia, on 22 November 2021 (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2021/aair/ao-2021-048/)

[Bula]

Ouch.. 4 attempts.

[Brakerider]

4 goes- makes you wonder if they had much gas to go anywhere else

[No Idea Either]

4 goes- makes you wonder if they had much gas to go anywhere else

Probably not after 4 attempts, so rather than running out of gas, they do the old ‘flying it to the runway trick’. Virgin and Qantas got away with it at Mildura, but they were caught out by unforecast fog. Justifying it after 4 attempts (any holding as well?) will be a little harder. I have no idea about the RPT arrangement here, was it a mining run/charter? They mightn’t be too happy either.

[Capt Fathom]

What is the purpose of the Minimum Descent Altitude?

[Torukmacto]

What is the purpose of the Minimum Descent Altitude?
To avoid getting mentioned on Pprune

[BSD]

Torukmacto - how true! But, hang about: elderly PPruners may recall a dramatic low fuel incident with an MMA F28 in the 70s in that region of WA.

Wonder if the inquiry will reveal any similarities?

[Vref+5]

What is the purpose of the Minimum Descent Altitude?

It’s there so the Coroner doesn’t talk about you in the past tense

[dr dre]

Avherald info here:

Incident: Network Australia F100 at Paraburdoo on Nov 22nd 2021, descent below minimum without visual reference (http://avherald.com/h?article=4f0d9ee0&opt=0)

Multiple CAVOK alternates in the area at the time it seems

[volare_737]

I might be missing something here. How do the powers know they where not visual at minima ????

[NaFenn]

I might be missing something here. How do the powers know they where not visual at minima ????
I imagine through the crew reporting it

[Brakerider]

I imagine through the crew reporting it

maybe the FO snitched

[donpizmeov]

maybe the FO snitched

What ever happened to that famous CRM phrase “This will be our little secret"?

[Switchbait]

Yawn. It clearly didn’t spear in… moving right along…

[lederhosen]

I had a quick look at the charts and the approaches seem to have minimums of 500 to 600 feet with broken 800 reported in the metar. I would not be surprised if they had ground contact during the first approach and were fairly confident they would get in at the next attempt. Weather actually seems to have got worse certainly as far as visibility (in light showers of rain) is concerned during the further hour they spent trying to land, which was probably not what they were expecting in the Pilbara in summer. I suspect very few of us have been in this position given most company´s procedures quite rightly limit the number of missed approaches before diverting. With hindsight I am sure they wish they had made some other choices. But in a just culture self reporting usually limits punitive consequences.

[compressor stall]

Would the imminent Part 121 Alternate requirements (had they been in place) have prevented this event?

[krismiler]

Normally the ops manual gives you two approaches before you have to divert, unless there is a substantial improvement in the weather. To be sure of this I would want a report from a qualified met observer on the ground rather than making my own assessment.

They may have painted themselves into a corner by going below minimum divert fuel and then having no option but to land.

[TBM-Legend]

I blame Alan Joyce...

[Alt Flieger]

Krismiler ,Remote WA is the Wild West. Very few Control Towers , fewer qualified observers and even fewer precision approaches and NO requirement for mandatory alternates for single runways. RNP has improved things but mostly its all pretty basic. Third world really.
Not hard to get into trouble especially if you are a true believer in company fuel policy. Personally I spent most of my career ignoring it WA.

[43Inches]

Several 2000mt sealed runways within 100nm and 20 within 200nm. Paraburdoo is far from isolated, all the nearby mine strips and then Newman at 115nm, Karatha, Hedland and Onslow all just over 150nm. With 4 attempts it seems more a fixation on getting in rather than looking for somewhere else to go, that's if what was said earlier about all the surrounding areas being CAVOK is true. After 2 or so attempts people tend to notice a jet floating around doing circles, so it gets attention, even the passengers will put in reports if they thought something was amiss.

[Alt Flieger]

Newman an Alternate ? Really ? No Tower. No Met. Observer. No better Approach options. You are proving my point.

[43Inches]

Newman an Alternate ? Really ? No Tower. No Met. Observer. No better Approach options. You are proving my point.

I think the only point you are proving is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Having a tower is not an alternate requirement. Newman has a 2000m runway for an F100 easily to land, it has ATS to ground level, it has several approach options from VOR to RNAV/GNSS, it has fuel for a top up and then another go at the destination. I'm not sure what you would regard as a suitable alternate other than return to Perth? Not sure where you get it has no met, it has a cat B TAF service with METAR.

We are also talking about a situation where an emergency was possible due to low fuel state so PPR and all that is out the window, not a standard planned diversion due to weather where you have to book a slot.

The only thing we have no idea about, unless there was what was the relative weather at each point, which was a simple radio communication away. Newman being fairly busy would be easy to get an actual to verify weather from the TAF and so on. I live and breath this stuff daily at work it's not hard to plan and divert if things go south, you just have to keep that path open and not get cornered.

[Alt Flieger]

43Inches , I know full well that a tower is not an alternate requirement. I have operated in WA for 30 years. The services available in most of WA are a joke. I remember the debacle years ago when brand new towers were built in Karratha and Port Hedland then promptly closed as a cost cutting measure and stood empty for years. I know its not a requirement nor is mandatory alternate for single runways. But it should be , like the rest of the world.
RPT operations in WA are Mickey Mouse pure and simple. I recall flying with an ex-Longhaul F/O into Solomon on a hot dusty day. He commented “F#### that was like landing on the Moon ! “ Top of descent into Heathrow you have half a dozen alternates with Cat 2/Cat 3. Easy.
Majors regard Perth as a Remote airport.

Remember the BA 747 years ago that ended up in Learmonth after unforecast fog in Perth?. Not much has changed.
Why you would want to defend the dismal standard of facilities in WA is a mystery.
Events like this will continue so long as RPT Jets operate high frequency operation into inadequate facilities. Simple.
Cat B TAF ? Put out by a bloke in Perth. Not worth a pinch of the preverbial.
VHF on the ground ? Wow , such sophistication.

[43Inches]

We are not talking about a 747, its an F100. And what was said before is that conditions were CAVOK at numerous sites around Paraburdoo. So the options for diversion should have been high, facilities mean little in this regard. If it was the case of CAVOK at Newman for instance, why did they not divert there after one or two approaches, there was no mention of a fuel emergency being declared in the report, or any emergency being declared before descending below minima. I'm not debating they should have fumbled to another airport not knowing what the weather was. There's an AWIS at YPBO, they should have discussed options when they received the bad news on that before the first approach, they could have easily requested weather on an alternate at that point, maybe they did, we don't know yet.

The question is, why did the make 4 attempts and bust a minima?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Remember the BA 747 years ago that ended up in Learmonth after unforecast fog in Perth?. Not much has changed.

Cat B TAF ? Put out by a bloke in Perth.


Actually something has changed. As I understand it, that TAF isn’t put out by a bloke in Perth any more, nor is the one for Perth. All aviation forecasting is being centralised in Melbourne and Brisbane. “Best practice”, “Better, more streamlined service”, “Customer-focused”, all the usual crap you hear when someone’s trying to cut costs and get themselves a bonus.

[Icarus2001]

RPT operations in WA are Mickey Mouse pure and simple. That is because we pretend that they are Charter and not RPT.
fixedschedules and fixed destinations.
We don’t need no RFFS. Wait until one burns and see the surprise from government and the general public. One hundred passengers on a jet and no fire service available.
As I keep saying, we are a developing country but at least you can drink the water.

[BuzzBox]

Remember the BA 747 years ago that ended up in Learmonth after unforecast fog in Perth?. Not much has changed.

Can't do much about the weather, but at least Perth has a Cat 3B ILS nowadays. :ok:

[Alt Flieger]

Can't do much about the weather, but at least Perth has a Cat 3B ILS nowadays. :ok:

Yup , big improvement. Still no parallel runway though. QF B787 ops out of Heathrow direct must be interesting when there is a requirement on Perth.

[Alt Flieger]

As a matter of interest is the F100 RNP capable ?

[Angle of Attack]

4 approaches is relatively rare, but I can pretty much guarantee once you decide to reduce the MDA, it means you ain’t got any more fuel to go anywhere else (unless possibly you had an uncontrollable fire onboard which wasn’t the case obviously) , the interesting thing will be how the crew got themselves into this situation, not the lowering of mda decision……I guess we will find out in 3 years once the ATSB have released the final 😂

[krismiler]

Possibly the WX was above the requirement for an alternate when the planning was being done ? Lack of accurate info regarding deteriorating conditions so the crew don't have the facts to reassess the situation and go somewhere else instead before TOD. Arrive with the WX below minima and no other options.

[lederhosen]

Based on the weather reported in Avherald and the charts (easy to find on the internet) the weather looked ok for the initial approach. They obviously had at least enough fuel for an hour (presumably enough to divert to Newman or wherever) as that is the time between first missed approach and landing on the fourth attempt. The mistake seems to have been in committing to the destination airfield. After that it may have been the choice between arriving below final reserve at their diversion airfield and busting a fairly high mda where they were.

[Alt Flieger]

Fixation on landing at planned destination is a real problem
Diverting is not done lightly. At the mob I used to work for some ports were available but banned due the simple lack of stairs and somebody to operate them. Then there is flight plans , load sheets max landing weight , takeoff weight etc. etc. Weather isn’t the only issue. In an ideal world you would discuss all that at flight planning before you left Perth. On top of that is getting an aircraft out of position and miners on crew change out of position. Contracts can be lost if you do that too often. Shouldn’t be a consideration but it is. Glad I’m retired. WA can be a pain with a cyclone of the coast or an ex-cyclone becoming a tropical low drifting inland. Take my hat off to those fliying underequiped aircraft there on a daily basis.
I had a dual-GPS RNP capable B737-800 with a HUD an lots of range.
Krismiler , its not like lobbing into Singapore. Like I said before , the Wild _ West.

[VH-MLE]

Probably irrelevant to this incident, but WA's aviation forecasting is now done via either Melbourne (Southern WA) & Brisbane (Northern WA - includes YPBO & YNWN). This was a cost cutting decision by BoM to reduce the number of forecasters in Perth.

Personally, I "feel" TAF accuracy around WA has suffered as a result of this move, with the loss of local knowledge the most likely cause...

[lucille]

Bluntly, lots of unemployed pilots = lots of pressure on employed pilots to perform to the company’s “satisfaction”.

This is the state of play across the world today.

[aussieflyboy]

Bluntly, lots of unemployed pilots = lots of pressure on employed pilots to perform to the company’s “satisfaction”.

This is the state of play across the world today.

Complete rubbish in Aus airlines. No one would blink an eye if this aircraft had diverted to Karratha or Newman after 2 approaches. It would have been refuelled and they would have tried again and if no luck gone back to Perth.

Pilots would not have even been questioned about it. The company would sort out the passengers on another flight later that day.

[MajorLemond]

I'd have to agree with the above comment, it'd be unlikely that you'd even hear about it if you diverted. It is inconvenient but all of the companies involved understand wx is beyond anyone's control and that it goes with the territory of operating aircraft into these ports.

YPKA is great option - CTA and the weather is usually good, save for cyclone season on occasion. Stacks of runways in the Pilbara, most of them have refuelling facilities too. Getting a new loadsheet and flt plan are pretty simple as it's all electronic anyway. Not really a big deal (although maybe it was in years gone by)

From experience I think the biggest threat in this region is the large amount of traffic and the potential for separation breakdowns, not weather.

But four approaches is a lot. Will be interesting to see what comes out of it.

[RichardJones]

Krismiler ,Remote WA is the Wild West. Very few Control Towers , fewer qualified observers and even fewer precision approaches and NO requirement for mandatory alternates for single runways. RNP has improved things but mostly its all pretty basic. Third world really.
Not hard to get into trouble especially if you are a true believer in company fuel policy. Personally I spent most of my career ignoring it WA.

Indeed.
"The only time you are carrying too much fuel, is when you're on fire"
it is not a crime to have an accident but it is a.crime to run out of fuel.

[Fred Gassit]

I agree about forecasting accuracy.
Seemed to go downhill starting about 18-24 months ago.
As recently as last week I did an approach to minimums on a nearly VFR forecast.
Yes, I know it happens but it is becoming more common.
Took them most of the day to amend it….

[krismiler]

Better weather reporting and forecasting capability is obviously required. If the crew were aware that conditions were deteriorating and likely to remain that way for a prolonged period of time, they may have diverted after the first missed approach.

Aviation involves trade offs, in PNG the four main factors are:
1. Fuel
2. Weather
3. Airfields
4. Daylight
Any one of these could be reduced as long as the other three were in your favor. Lowering two of these was emergency only and beyond that you didn't go.

If the Met Office isn't up to scratch in the area then carry extra fuel. The carriage of excess is something that regularly comes up at fleet meetings and I wouldn't be surprised if pilots had been made aware of how much extra had been uplifted in the previous month, how little of it was used and how much it had cost.

Many years ago I got caught out by fog in Tullamarine, I left Bankstown with the latest TTF which had no requirements on it. Arrived to BKN at 200', not sure of the vis on landing but the tower asked if I had cleared the runway.

[Roj approved]

Bluntly, lots of unemployed pilots = lots of pressure on employed pilots to perform to the company’s “satisfaction”.

This is the state of play across the world today.

Could it be an experience issue with the crew? Network has had rapid expansion, crew being upgraded/employed onto the F100 as more experienced crew move to the A320.

They have had a few move through management positions recently too.

[kimbobimbo]

Could it be an experience issue with the crew? Network has had rapid expansion, crew being upgraded/employed onto the F100 as more experienced crew move to the A320.

They have had a few move through management positions recently too.

Are you suggesting rapid expansion is a bad thing? Hypothetically it would only be bad if you tried to do it on no more money than you were spending before the expansion though right……….. … … in order to be cheaper than the other guy right…… … hmmmm. Surely a correctly resourced company can expand rapidly?

[awqward]

Would the imminent Part 121 Alternate requirements (had they been in place) have prevented this event?

Is Part 135 a thing in Australia?

[lederhosen]

Busting minima should not be taken lightly and will be properly investigated. However this crew did not autoland in nil visibility, they self reported going below an MDA of probably between 500 and 600 feet on a non precision approach, with a reported cloud base of broken 800 in light rain showers and visibility reducing to 3000 meters.

In this situation in a jet you can break out with ground contact but not be able to see the runway because of the forward visibility. On an ILS with minimums of 200 feet you would probably see the runway at 400 feet and it would be a normal day at the office. The F100 is pretty well equipped, half way to an Airbus, said friends of mine more familiar with it. We will find out eventually what happened and why. But so far it sounds a bit less dramatic then some are making out.

I think one learning point may well be that marginal conditions can make decision making more difficult. If the reported weather had been clearly insufficient the decision would have been easy. Or to use Professor Handy´s analogy ˋthrow a frog in boiling water he will jump out, warm the water slowly and he will boil to death.´

[Duck Pilot]

There is a new rule relating to approach bans that becomes effective at midnight tonight. The old charter and RPT chestnut also becomes history.

[lederhosen]

The Metar reported by Avherald (link in post 9) has vis all the 9s and scattered 600, broken 1500 in force at the time of the first approach. I am not familiar with Australian operations, but do any of the later reports make an approach ban relevant?

[compressor stall]

Is Part 135 a thing in Australia?
it is from midnight!

This op would be part 121 though. Above 9 seats and 8618.

[compressor stall]

The Metar reported by Avherald (link in post 9) has vis all the 9s and scattered 600, broken 1500 in force at the time of the first approach. I am not familiar with Australian operations, but do any of the later reports make an approach ban relevant?
Approach bans do not exist here yet. The new rules with approach bans come in at midnight, however approach bans are only going to be runways with RVR readings. I don’t think YPBO has them so it wouldn’t have stopped an approach.

[StudentInDebt]

Approach bans do not exist here yet. The new rules with approach bans come in at midnight, however approach bans are only going to be runways with RVR readings. I don’t think YPBO has them so it wouldn’t have stopped an approach.And an air traffic control service, so that’s something else YPBO lacks 😂

[lederhosen]

Thanks! based on what we know so far I am pretty sure most, probably all of us would have made a first approach. With hindsight the sense of two misses and you divert seems obvious. But we were not there and I have not seen any hard evidence to back up the assertion that everywhere else nearby was cavok. Some doubt about met forecasting in this part of the world has been raised together with the rapidly worsening weather evidenced by the destination airfield metars. Again I look forward to the official report.

[geeup]

How did this get reported?

The crew lodged their own report about going below mins?😅

Network have had some trouble with Fukker pilots skill sets in the last couple of years

[Lead Balloon]

'Busting minima' is a reportable matter under the TSI legislation.

[CaptainSouth]

Lederhosen posts…
”The F100 is pretty well equipped, half way to an Airbus, said friends of mine more familiar with it. We will find out eventually what happened and why. But so far it sounds a bit less dramatic then some are making out.”
Whilst I can see how it may be dismissed as less dramatic… it is busting minima. Minima designed by clever people in back offices looking at terrain obstacles aircraft type etc.
If the above sentiments are widely felt within the airline pilot community in the “feeder carriers”, we are in for a bumpy ride.

[lederhosen]

The selective quoting by CaptainSouth is rather misleading. My first line in post 44 was:

Busting minima should not be taken lightly and will be properly investigated.

Is this a skill set issue as suggested by another poster? there is no evidence so far about the quality of their flying. You can question their judgement but not their flying skills.

I am a retired 737 and Airbus captain with a lifelong interest in flight safety. So I am not sure what my views have to do with feeder carriers. I think we can learn quite a lot from incidents like this, but in a slightly more nuanced way than naughty little fxkker drivers! which was the gist of a post a couple of responses earlier.

[Alt Flieger]

The selective quoting by Captain South is rather misleading. My first line in post 44 was:

Busting minima should not be taken lightly and will be properly investigated.

Is this a skill set issue? there is no evidence so far about the quality of their flying. You can question their judgement but not their flying skills.

I am a retired 737 and Airbus captain with a lifelong interest in flight safety. So I am not sure what my views have to do with feeder carriers. I think we can learn quite a lot from incidents like this, but in a slightly more nuanced way than little fxkker drivers bad…..big airline drivers good.

I doubt this is a skill set issue. Nobody who has done both thinks “ Fokker bad… airline good”
Pilots in WA are battle-hardened. Its a tough gig.
Hardest job I ever had was single Pilot IFR in a light turboprop. Boeings are easy in comparison.
Its the operational environment.
I will say it again ….Wild West and Third World.
And that is being unkind to parts of the Third World……..

[-41]

Part 91/121/135 in WA is not that arduous

- perhaps the VHF/HF comms are frustratingly congested at times.

- most flights Tanker return fuel or close to it with MLW.
- Weather is generally benign and predictable with a look at the days MSLP Analysis.
- ADS B is glorious compared to the procedural past.
- Lots of Network alternate options in the 2000m range with FUEL, Lighting and stairs.

To label WA flying the wild west or 3rd world is a stretch.

[Alt Flieger]

Part 91/121/135 in WA is not that arduous

- perhaps the VHF/HF comms are frustratingly congested at times.

- most flights Tanker return fuel or close to it with MLW.
- Weather is generally benign and predictable with a look at the days MSLP Analysis.
- ADS B is glorious compared to the procedural past.
- Lots of Network alternate options in the 2000m range with FUEL, Lighting and stairs.

To label WA flying the wild west or 3rd world is a stretch.

WOW , ADSB. The hieight of sophistication!
Cyclones are not “benign weather” And it does take much when forecasting and facilities are rubbish.
Not a CAT 1 approach between Perth and Darwin. LOL
Where else have you operated ?
Europe? USA?
Trust me WA is rubbish.
30 years ago low population and low frequency of operations were used by the Bureaucrats to justify low expenditure on exotic stuff like Control Towers and Nav. Aids and radar etc. Thanks Dick! We are way past that now with frequency of Jet traffic into Mining sites etc.Shouldn’t happen in a First World country.
Its rubbish!

[Duck Pilot]

Maybe some of you guys need to come to PNG for a reality check!

We can show you guys some **** that will make your eyes bulged, and we do it every day!!! OPS Normal.

Over 20 years up there and I haven’t killed myself yet, come close to it though on a few occasions….

[Alt Flieger]

Maybe some of you guys need to come to PNG for a reality check!

We can show you guys some **** that will make your eyes bulged, and we do it every day!!! OPS Normal.

Over 20 years up there and I haven’t killed myself yet, come close to it though on a few occasions….

So , PNG is worse . So what. Been to Nepal ? Landed at Lukla ?
The thread is about WA. And aviation generally in Australia. Its nowhere near worlds best practice. Not even close.
Wait for the Royal Commission after the first hull loss. It will be a ripper.

[Duck Pilot]

Don’t worry bro, Australian Aviation will be safer in about 6 hours time when the new ops regs go live. Only took about 30 years to draft and implement, good use of taxpayers money🤬

I do agree with you, couldn’t miss an opportunity to take the piss!

[krismiler]

FIFO miners are frequent flyers, many of them would clock up more hours than management pilots. Four goes at landing would have been noticed, the crew did the right thing in reporting it rather than being called in for an explanation a few days later after the news got back.

The problem lie’s in trying to run according to an ops manual which is more suited to capital city and regional centre operations rather than remote areas with very limited facilities.

Anyone who’s operated in the GAFA knows that the TAFs are all the same for every airport within hundreds of miles. There is a winter one and a summer one, resources go towards the populated areas.

Mining companies are well resourced and having a qualified MET observer on hand for airports with high capacity flights wouldn’t be difficult. In most of the world, an alternate is mandatory and should be seriously considered for remote area ops, rather than relying on a generic forecast being above the alternate minima.

[compressor stall]

In most of the world, an alternate is mandatory and should be seriously considered for remote area ops, rather than relying on a generic forecast being above the alternate minima.

Broadly speaking it will be in less than 3 hours, albeit with some moderately stringent exceptions.

[The Banjo]

Would they normally tanker fuel due fuel price in the bush?

[Alt Flieger]

Gina Rinehart and Twiggy Forrest aren’t the problem. The amount they spend on their operations is gobsmacking. I've overnighted at Roy Hill several times. They would do what ever they had to. The problem is a chicken-**** regulator. I was once told in all seriousness by someone who had worked there that they had not mandated alternates at single runway locations in the regs. because in some parts of Australia there wasn’t one available at a reasonable commercial cost ! Brilliant !
In 40 years I know of at least 6 occasions when a single runway has been blocked by a disabled aircraft. If you hadn’t ignored fuel policy and decided to chuck on an extra tonne or so you were in a world of pain. It happens.
Third world. Simple.

[Duck Pilot]

Gina Rinehart and Twiggy Forrest aren’t the problem. The amount they spend on their operations is gobsmacking. I've overnighted at Roy Hill several times. They would do what ever they had to. The problem is a chicken-**** regulator. I was once told in all seriousness by someone who had worked there that they had not mandated alternates at single runway locations in the regs. because in some parts of Australia there wasn’t one available at a reasonable commercial cost ! Brilliant !
In 40 years I know of at least 6 occasions when a single runway has been blocked by a disabled aircraft. If you hadn’t ignored fuel policy and decided to chuck on an extra tonne or so you were in a world of pain. It happens.
Third world. Simple.

You are exactly correct, the federal and state governments must support the remote aviation infrastructure. I’m sure the mining companies are paying their taxes like all the rest of us to support public infrastructure in their areas of influence.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

You are exactly correct, the federal and state governments must support the remote aviation infrastructure. I’m sure the mining companies are paying their taxes like all the rest of us to support public infrastructure in their areas of influence.

The issue with our cost focused safety culture is that statistically, nothing happened here, no property was damaged and no lives were lost. It was simply an incident for which the pilots will answer…no harm no foul in a safety sense. Any claim to the contrary will be met with the “show me the hole in the ground” reply. It’s as if our safety regulator needs lives to be lost in the interests of safety before they do anything.

Its not about how much tax and royalties the mining industry pays, it’s about how much the government, and therefore regulator can get away with not spending backed up by the lack of accidents.

[Torukmacto]

Going in for another approach after having done 3 already is like going back into a night club after 3 am , nothing good ever happens !

[airdualbleedfault]

To address a previous post about how can rapid expansion be anything but good, I think Network answers your question. This is one of many incidents on both types that have raised the regulators eyebrows, why else would they suddenly advertise for DEC on the A320? One of the problems with rapid expansion is the low hanging fruit (every airline has them) don't get enough years to get the experience that might make them safe, they go from light A/C to F100 captain in 2 to 3 years, which is fine if they are switched on, but many are not, and again I give you the truckload of incidents at Network, on both fleets, in the last 18 months. Of course part of the issue with the low hanging fruit is that they don't know they are average to below, and when the company pats them on the back for something like this, well that's just scary

[gordonfvckingramsay]

How is the culture there? A good culture can nurture up and comers through the early phases.

[PoppaJo]

Perhaps the regulator should grow some balls and halt expansion if they can’t handle it. They did that with Tiger way way back, put a cap on how many aircraft permitted to operate until they could show it could be done safely.

Quick upgrades will always play a part in how things work out over in the West. I’ve sat next to many who have since gone over, reason being nothing other but fast commands. I know they are not ready for it as they asked me for advice/assistance not long after getting the golden seat.

[Led Zep]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed the TAF forecasts have gone to pot. Over the last 18 odd months even YPPH has had some doozy "CAVOK" forecasts where everyone has then ended up in YBLN/YPKG/etc. I'll be interested to see if the crew got some dud forecasts?

I'll be back in a year or two when the ATSB has finished their investigation. :bored:

[krismiler]

Mining companies have safety management systems in place that are comparable to airlines. Companies that provide transport to them are regularly audited by outside specialists.

I doubt they will be waiting for an investigation and action to be taken. I would expect them to look into the incident themselves and have a solution in place well before anything comes out of CASA or the ATSB.

Procedural changes will likely be made and more resources allocated where needed, even if it means beefing up weather reporting and forecasting capability.

Price is always an important factor in FIFO contracts but a high level of safety is rightly demanded by the mining companies and the unions. The big names have deep pockets and would rather spend money on prevention instead of compensation. Being sued by the families of 100+ miners on $150 - 200 000 a year wouldn't be cheap.

[kellykelpie]

I find the TAF3 worse than the TTF. I wish Oz would keep it simple and just put 2 hours validity on metar and atis like they do in SE Asia. Why confuse things, especially for international crew? I remember a course in Singapore for new training Captains and someone started talking about TTFs. Non Australians were ‘what the hell is she talking about?’. Now we have TAF 3s. Why?

[neville_nobody]

Price is always an important factor in FIFO contracts but a high level of safety is rightly demanded by the mining companies and the unions. The big names have deep pockets and would rather spend money on prevention instead of compensation. Being sued by the families of 100+ miners on $150 - 200 000 a year wouldn't be cheap.

Well if that is true why do they all fly around in 30-40 year old aircraft then if it's all about safety?? Why is everything always outsourced and not in mainline?? You can't argue that it is because it's safer to use a contractor. Nothing will come of this like nothing came of the overrun they had a while back because they're too cheap. It will all continue as it is so long as they don't have some sort of major accident or fatality.

[43Inches]

I find the TAF3 worse than the TTF. I wish Oz would keep it simple and just put 2 hours validity on METAR and ATIS like they do in SE Asia. Why confuse things, especially for international crew? I remember a course in Singapore for new training Captains and someone started talking about TTFs. Non Australians were ‘what the hell is she talking about?’. Now we have TAF 3s. Why?

TTF was a METAR with trend forecast attached allowing its use for planning up to 3 hours from observation. A METAR is simply what in most cases the automated sensor saw exactly up above it, meaning its significance in isolation means nothing for what will happen in the next 30 minutes let alone 2 hours. All you use a METAR for is to confirm that the TAF is running true, or not.

There is one little part of commercial operations that some are forgetting here. The PIC of a commercial charter or RPT operation must be familiar with the local weather patterns and conditions for all ports they operate to. It is not sufficient to say the forecast was wrong continually. Forecasts are educated witchcraft at the best of times and rely on reports from pilots, observers, radar, sattellite imagery and automated stations for accuracy and updating. I really haven't seen much change to forecast accuracy in many years, it's neither better or worse, however the tools for self judgement on the weather and questioning are all still there. When you know the patterns you can see errors, you can ring the MET office and talk with an officer and get their opinion, the forecast may change as a result. I've changed a few TAFs just by being proactive and knowing the local patterns and talking it through with the met office.

[Vref+5]

Perhaps the regulator should grow some balls and halt expansion if they can’t handle it. They did that with Tiger way way back, put a cap on how many aircraft permitted to operate until they could show it could be done safely.

Quick upgrades will always play a part in how things work out over in the West. I’ve sat next to many who have since gone over, reason being nothing other but fast commands. I know they are not ready for it as they asked me for advice/assistance not long after getting the golden seat.

Don’t always blame the regulator, who sometimes has to appease regional airlines with significant political influence who don’t want to carry around additional alternate fuel , and therefore hijack the consultation process. Hypothetically speaking…

[Torukmacto]

TTF was a METAR with trend forecast attached allowing its use for planning up to 3 hours from observation. A METAR is simply what in most cases the automated sensor saw exactly up above it, meaning its significance in isolation means nothing for what will happen in the next 30 minutes let alone 2 hours. All you use a METAR for is to confirm that the TAF is running true, or not.

There is one little part of commercial operations that some are forgetting here. The PIC of a commercial charter or RPT operation must be familiar with the local weather patterns and conditions for all ports they operate to. It is not sufficient to say the forecast was wrong continually. Forecasts are educated witchcraft at the best of times and rely on reports from pilots, observers, radar, sattellite imagery and automated stations for accuracy and updating. I really haven't seen much change to forecast accuracy in many years, it's neither better or worse, however the tools for self judgement on the weather and questioning are all still there. When you know the patterns you can see errors, you can ring the MET office and talk with an officer and get their opinion, the forecast may change as a result. I've changed a few TAFs just by being proactive and knowing the local patterns and talking it through with the met office.

How many times will the chief pilot look the other way when I load extra 5T for WX that’s not on the TAF ? Forecasts need to be accurate .

[43Inches]

Forecasts need to be accurate .

The very nature of the beast is that there can be no 100% accuracy, you can just have a range of acceptable outcomes. That is you will either complain it's overly conservative and always carrying alternate fuel, or not conservative and they are missing things that actually occur. Somewhere in the middle is where forecasting sits.

That is why you are taught as a pilot to 'interpret' a forecast. The forecasts should resemble close to whats happening, and its up to the pilot to nut out the nuances.

[BuzzBox]

TTF was a METAR with trend forecast attached allowing its use for planning up to 3 hours from observation. A METAR is simply what in most cases the automated sensor saw exactly up above it, meaning its significance in isolation means nothing for what will happen in the next 30 minutes let alone 2 hours. All you use a METAR for is to confirm that the TAF is running true, or not.

Outside the aviation bubble that is Australia, METARs are often appended with a trend, valid for two hours after the observation. They're still labeled 'METAR', but they're a trend forecast.

[kellykelpie]

[QUOTE]TTF was a METAR with trend forecast attached allowing its use for planning up to 3 hours from observation. A METAR is simply what in most cases the automated sensor saw exactly up above it, meaning its significance in isolation means nothing for what will happen in the next 30 minutes let alone 2 hours. All you use a METAR for is to confirm that the TAF is running true, or not.

Yes, that’s very true! In Australia……that’s not the case if you venture beyond our borders. Elsewhere, Atis and metar do have a NOSIG or trend attached that you can use for planning. I understand that this is not practical in the Pilbara as you would need someone there to forecast but ‘TAF 3’? Keep it simple and have a metar with a trend attached….why do we have to be Oztranauts?

[krismiler]

When a Met man is talking about past WX he's a scientist, when he's talking about future WX he's reading tea leaves.

[43Inches]

Yes, that’s very true! In Australia……that’s not the case if you venture beyond our borders. Elsewhere, Atis and metar do have a NOSIG or trend attached that you can use for planning. I understand that this is not practical in the Pilbara as you would need someone there to forecast but ‘TAF 3’? Keep it simple and have a metar with a trend attached….why do we have to be Oztranauts?

A TREND or METAR with trend attached is basically just what we call a TTF or now a TAF3, with a shorter useful period of 2 hours instead of 3. As you already know having TREND requires a MET observer so it's not going to happen outside of places that already have TAF3 so it's really irrelevant, and the TAF3 offers better coverage anyway. If mine sites wish to pay for a met observer to sit and watch clouds, fair enough, get them approved to issue TAF3s. But without any benefit form it such as lower minima for CAT 1+ and so on, it wont have any safety implications and the trend can always be wrong as much as any TAF. It can just be more rapidly amended, which means nothing if you are already en-route nearing destination when it happens.

[dr dre]

All this talk about reliability of forecasts is a bit redundant in this case as we don’t know what the destination forecast was at the time of departure.

The historical METAR data has been published but has anyone found the TAF data that would’ve been valid before the incident flight?

[Icarus2001]

Forecasts need to be accurate . That is hilarious.


In other news, apparently it is perfectly legal to carry an alternate when not technically required, who knew?

PS Fuel was clearly not an issue at the first approach if they had fuel for three more.

[Arthur D]

I love the presumption of wrong doing or incompetence by the crew on this forum. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that because Network crew are paid less then therefore the standards are lower. Apropos, the sky gods at QF could never get caught like this…..

like, never land in fog… or continue with an unstable approach…. Or forget to put the wheels down….

glass houses maybe?

I thought the ‘P’ here was for Professional

[Derfred]

I’m not sure about the sky-gods you speak of, but mainline Qantas pilots would always divert after the 2nd missed approach.

[morno]

I’m not sure about the sky-gods you speak of, but mainline Qantas pilots would always divert after the 2nd missed approach.

I think the whole point of the discussion is what lead to them not doing that though? How do you know that after the second approach there wasn’t something else that then gave them no good options? Are you telling me that Mainline pilots are immune to all other factors that could play out and put them in this situation?

I’ve been in my second missed approach before to then have Centre announce literally as I was still climbing, that all of my possible alternates had just had their TAF’s amended to be no better than my destination or even worse, and the METARS indicating below minimas. Now I’m stuck with only one option should a 3rd approach not be successful. And that was departing with all legally required fuel plus some.

It happens buddy, so don’t bring your “we’re better than you” attitude on here and tell us that mainline wouldn’t have had it happen to them. It just makes you look like even bigger dicks when it does.

[krismiler]

The problem is also a lack of suitable alternates within a reasonable distance. When flying in some countries there are so many airports around that you need to reduce the range on the navigation display to be able to see them, with 160nm range the display is too cluttered to read. An additional 20 mins of fuel brings many more airports into your range of options where as in remote areas of Australia a substantial increase in fuel is required to bring even a single airport into consideration.

A thorough review of remote area operations is required, I'm sure the pilots flying to Antarctica aren't using standard regs.

[dr dre]

The problem is also a lack of suitable alternates within a reasonable distance.

Newman, Solomon, Boolgeeda, Eliwana, West Angeles, Coondewanna, Barimunya, Cloudbreak, Christmas Creek, Ginbata, Iron Bridge, Port Hedland, Karratha, Onslow and probably Learmonth all within 20 minutes diversion time.

Although not all their historic TAFs are available online I’m fairly sure the entire Pilbara wasn’t socked in below minima that morning

[Ollie Onion]

How about we just wait for the report, at the end of the day they landed safely and then seemingly self reported the incident.

[Keg]

I love the presumption of wrong doing or incompetence by the crew on this forum. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that because Network crew are paid less then therefore the standards are lower. Apropos, the sky gods at QF could never get caught like this…..

like, never land in fog… or continue with an unstable approach…. Or forget to put the wheels down….

glass houses maybe?

I thought the ‘P’ here was for Professional

What makes you think it’s ‘sky gods at QF’ that are being critical here? :rolleyes:

Personally I was wondering what else was going on that lead to this one and hoping to learn something myself. Though I am surprised that we managed to get to 5 pages before this became a d!ck measuring contest.

[Capt Fathom]

The problem is also a lack of suitable alternates within a reasonable distance. A thorough review of remote area operations is required,

Why? We have been operating under these conditions for decades! How many accidents have been attributed to these lack of alternates and remoteness?

[krismiler]

We've been lucky that the holes haven't lined up in the Swiss cheese yet and nothing major has happened since the Fitzroy Creek F28 incident 50 years ago.

Captain Reg Adkins had a bit to say about the issue of alternates in his book "I Flew for MMA."

​​​​​​https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/459303-forty-years-ago-today.html

[Alt Flieger]

I recall many years ago a QF B737 landed at Ayers Rock and promptly lost hydraulics to the nose wheel steering. No alternate on a -300.
More recently a QF B737-800 landing at Darwin lost both nose wheel systems when in the flare when a perfectly aimed bird strike took out both hydraulic lines in the nose wheel well. Was pretty interesting for a while for aircraft holding at Howard Springs while the organised a tug and a cleanup team to clean up the spilled hydraulic fluid.
Most recently a Virgin B737 overran the runway in Hobart. If you weren’t carrying Launceston you were in a world of pain.
It happens.
Krismiler is correct.
The Regis. are archaic.
Just rolling the dice.

[Torukmacto]

Is there much traffic into these single runway mining sites ? Would you follow another aircraft inside 30 mins regularly? Could they get a piece of machinery to the airport to tow ( bulldoze ) a disabled aircraft off the runway if required ?

[Alt Flieger]

Is there much traffic into these single runway mining sites ? Would you follow another aircraft inside 30 mins regularly? Could they get a piece of machinery to the airport to tow ( bulldoze ) a disabled aircraft off the runway if required ?

NO

Many years ago I was in the circuit in Canberra when an Aerocommanders gear folded on one side on touchdown. Came to rest at the runway intersection. Nobody would touch it until insurance issues were sorted out. I kid you not. The answer is simple just carry an alternate.not that hard most of the time. The difference between standard fuel to Hobart and carrying Launceston is hardly worth arguing about. Check Captains might argue the toss at flight planning or at debriefing on a line check. But never met one yet who will tell you straight up that its a bad idea. They are company parrots and forced to argue against some things that the know are a bad idea , like fuel policy. Answer? Grow some, and use your judgement.

[Lookleft]

Could they get a piece of machinery to the airport to tow ( bulldoze ) a disabled aircraft off the runway if required ?

The old bulldoze the disabled aircraft off the runway myth. Ask yourself who "they" are, who are going to take on the responsibility of arranging the purchase of and payment for the hire of a bulldozer and operator. Then ask yourself who is then going to be responsible for the subsequent runway inspection to ensure no debris is left. Finally, ask yourself what would be the minimum time that all this would happen. The airport will just be NOTAMed as unserviceable due disabled aircraft and anyone airborne would just have to figure it out for themselves. If you don't have the fuel to go somewhere else then it is not the airport operator's problem.

[Torukmacto]

NO

Many years ago I was in the circuit in Canberra when an Aerocommanders gear folded on one side on touchdown. Came to rest at the runway intersection. Nobody would touch it until insurance issues were sorted out. I kid you not. The answer is simple just carry an alternate.not that hard most of the time. The difference between standard fuel to Hobart and carrying Launceston is hardly worth arguing about. Check Captains might argue the toss at flight planning or at debriefing on a line check. But never met one yet who will tell you straight up that its a bad idea. They are company parrots and forced to argue against some things that the know are a bad idea , like fuel policy. Answer? Grow some, and use your judgement.
Ill fly with you .

[Alt Flieger]

Love to but I’m retired.
Had some kind phone calls from F/O’s when I did.
I know all F/Os have their personal list of Captains they dread seeing at sign-on. Very often due to , but not limited to, Issues such as fuel ordering.
Nothing worse than sitting on the edge of your seat every sector on a multi day pattern. Easy fixed if youre a Captain happy to assume Command and exercise your judgement. I’m old fashioned. I still think it part of the job.

[kellykelpie]

Agree with the great sentiments of this thread! Fuel gives us all options and it’s so nice to have that when things go wrong. Also agree with the plug to “I Flew for MMA” by Reg. A great book which gives a wonderful insight into the history of flying in WA.

[compressor stall]

AF. Being retired excuses you from knowing the alternate aerodrome rules for aircraft changed last week.

Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays.

Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction.

Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret.

[Alt Flieger]

AF. Being retired excuses you from knowing the alternate aerodrome rules for aircraft changed last week.

Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays.

Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction.

Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret.

Thanks CS. Being retired has some advantages , like not having to keep current with amendments lol.
Sounds like an improvement. They have been a long time coming. The Fuel Fascists wont be happy !

[VC9]

I doubt any crews are arriving at these single runway airports in WA with anywhere near minimum fuel. Certainly all the Qantas/Qantaslink aircraft would be tankering into these ports due to the high cost of fuel. This leads to another problem of a higher landing weight than may be desired.

[hans brinker]

Used to fly in north of Spain a few decades ago, not much in the way of weather forecasting you could rely on. Luckily it was a shortish flight, so standard fuel for us used to be round-trip + 30 min, without having to leave anything behind. Several time left with a CAVOK NOSIG and after passing the marker, and getting transferred to tower hearing: "Fog just came in, its now VV000, and RVR0100, what are your intentions?". There is just no way you will ever recoup the cost of running out of fuel, by tankering less fuel if you are flying to isolated, single runway places with dodgy weather reporting.

[Alt Flieger]

”There is just no way you will ever recoup the cost of running out of fuel,”



Could not agree more Hans. But you are not thinking like the Fuel Nazis at the mob I used to work for. They were often ex Longhaul and would point out how expensive it was to carry fuel Longhaul and “nice to have fuel” was often not possible.
My response was always to point out the exposure to risk in a very large fleet of short haul aircraft operating multiple sectors each day.
Rare events actually become inevitable if you run the numbers.
Sadly I never made any impression.
The new Regs mentioned in post 101above seem a step in the right direction.
Accountants should be on tap not on top.

[Transition Layer]

I doubt any crews are arriving at these single runway airports in WA with anywhere near minimum fuel. Certainly all the Qantas/Qantaslink aircraft would be tankering into these ports due to the high cost of fuel. This leads to another problem of a higher landing weight than may be desired.
Precisely!

[volare_737]

AF. Being retired excuses you from knowing the alternate aerodrome rules for aircraft changed last week.

Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays.

Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction.

Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret.

The 30 min INTER and 60 min TEMPO holding fuel still applies !!!

[Alt Flieger]

Precisely!

Yeah thats all terrific, but its not mandated by Regulation is it ?
Relying on the good will of company Dispatchers is hardly a solution

[LTBC]

CS did you stop reading Part 121 4.08 (destination alternate) at point 1??

Point 3 is the exception if above the applicable alternate criteria. No alternate required.

[compressor stall]

CS did you stop reading Part 121 4.08 (destination alternate) at point 1??

Point 3 is the exception if above the applicable alternate criteria. No alternate required.

Hmm, you are right - I misread my notes. I might need to amend my flow chart I drew to try and get my head around it all..... Disregard comments above!

Interesting how there is a separate runway requirement for overseas but not AU. Maybe we don't get runway closures from wheels ups here.

[dr dre]

TAF for Hedland at the time was 9999 SCT030 that whole morning. It's 25 minutes flight time for an F100 from Paraburdoo. If the weather in Hedland was good then Karratha was almost certainly similar (can't find a previous TAF for Karratha) and Karratha is about 22 minutes from Paraburdoo.

From the AvHerald write up it was 60 minutes from the first approach to landing. So one can assume, even if the weather in YPBO was worse than forecast when realising this after the first approach a diversion to either YPPD or YPKA (with either a Tower or an AFIS available for more accurate weather) would have to have been the obvious decision. I would say a diversion would have been available after the second approach too. So why they remained in the area and seemed committed to land is a bit of a mystery.

Not discounting the numerous airports in the "Iron Triangle" less than 15 minutes away, one of which with a suitable TAF and aircraft successfully landing at could've been passed from ATC to the incident aircraft expeditiously.

[pilotdude09]

Interesting.......I was on the 2nd flight after this one (as there's flights every 30 minutes for a couple of hrs) flying up to work and we took additional fuel on in Perth "in case a diversion was required" made 2 attempts and the cloud was quite bad right to ground level. Could barely see the ground as we were on final and flew quite a low flat approach - definitely different and fly this flight weekly - We diverted to Karratha. We were informed by the flight crew that the aircraft ahead and had made multiple attempts but managed to get in.

Also adds to the mystery of why 3 planes sat there for the whole day on the ground, guess the naughty ones were stood down awaiting pineapples to be inserted.

Flights to Boolgeeda and Solomon landed that morning.......so there were plenty of options close by for the flight involved.

[aussieflyboy]

As the 717s no longer fly the route having 3 broken Fokkers on the ground is common.

[Icarus2001]

Could barely see the ground as we were on final and flew quite a low flat approach - definitely different and fly this flight weekly Flat measured against what if you were in cloud?

[ActiveLooker]

Krismiler ,Remote WA is the Wild West. Very few Control Towers , fewer qualified observers and even fewer precision approaches and NO requirement for mandatory alternates for single runways. RNP has improved things but mostly its all pretty basic. Third world really.
Not hard to get into trouble especially if you are a true believer in company fuel policy. Personally I spent most of my career ignoring it WA. most airfields in WA now have a thing called AWIS and LNAV/ VNAV RNP approaches. This is pure and simple, plan the flight correctly, monitor weather enroute, fly an approach if legally able to do so, and divert whilst you have enough fuel. Simples!

[ActiveLooker]

43Inches , I know full well that a tower is not an alternate requirement. I have operated in WA for 30 years. The services available in most of WA are a joke. I remember the debacle years ago when brand new towers were built in Karratha and Port Hedland then promptly closed as a cost cutting measure and stood empty for years. I know its not a requirement nor is mandatory alternate for single runways. But it should be , like the rest of the world.
RPT operations in WA are Mickey Mouse pure and simple. I recall flying with an ex-Longhaul F/O into Solomon on a hot dusty day. He commented “F#### that was like landing on the Moon ! “ Top of descent into Heathrow you have half a dozen alternates with Cat 2/Cat 3. Easy.
Majors regard Perth as a Remote airport.

Remember the BA 747 years ago that ended up in Learmonth after unforecast fog in Perth?. Not much has changed.
Why you would want to defend the dismal standard of facilities in WA is a mystery.
Events like this will continue so long as RPT Jets operate high frequency operation into inadequate facilities. Simple.
Cat B TAF ? Put out by a bloke in Perth. Not worth a pinch of the preverbial.
VHF on the ground ? Wow , such sophistication. ahhhh, you’re the guy that carries the extra few tonnes, just in case. Plan and manage. Doesn’t matter if it’s Solomon or Heathrow. Pleased you’ve retired. Perhaps time to enjoy it rather than troll these threads.

[krismiler]

Fifty years after Fitzroy Crossing and we're still facing the same pressures regarding the carriage of extra fuel and being constantly reminded of the cost and payload restrictions.

It's easy enough for the accountants running spread sheets, they aren't at the sharp end when the fog rolls in or approach radar goes down.

I've had phone calls because I arrived with "too much" fuel, and you're guaranteed one when you arrive with too little. You never get one praising you when the extra was needed.
.

[Alt Flieger]

ahhhh, you’re the guy that Carrie’s the extra few tonnes, just in case. Plan and manage. Doesn’t matter if it’s Solomon or Heathrow.

Oh, Plan and manage. I wish I had thought of that over the last 40 years. Thank you so much for your input.
LOL
And for your enlightenment and edification most aircraft in WA are not fully RNP capable.. Mainline B737-8 yes others mostly no.
How many hours do you actually have operating in WA ?

[morno]

Oh, Plan and manage. I wish I had thought of that over the last 40 years. Thank you so much for your input.
LOL
And for your enlightenment and edification most aircraft in WA are not fully RNP capable.. Mainline B737-8 yes others mostly no.
How many hours do you actually have operating in WA ?

They should all pretty much be RNP capable. Edificate yourself on what RNP means these days and the capabilities of LNAV/VNAV. RNP-AR is an entirely different thing.

[Roj approved]

And now we see this, https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/644164-deck-chair-shuffle-network-aviation.html

Whether related to this incident or an earlier string of incidents, no doubt this will be the “fix” and they’ll try to continue “business as usual”.

[dr dre]

And now we see this, https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/644164-deck-chair-shuffle-network-aviation.html

Whether related to this incident or an earlier string of incidents, no doubt this will be the “fix” and they’ll try to continue “business as usual”.

Was it a "push", or was it a "jump"......

[Alt Flieger]

They should all pretty much be RNP capable. Edificate yourself on what RNP means these days and the capabilities of LNAV/VNAV. RNP-AR is an entirely different thing.

Thank you so much. RNP-AR are different. So glad I know that now after all these years of flying them.

[ActiveLooker]

Thank you so much. RNP-AR are different. So glad I know that now after all these years of flying them. Based on your previous posts I too question your knowledge. RNAV (RNP) approaches can be 2D or 3D and flown by F100, A320 and B737 aircraft. Not just those special QF NGs.

[Alt Flieger]

Based on your previous posts I too question your knowledge. RNAV (RNP) approaches can be 2D or 3D and flown by F100, A320 and B737 aircraft. Not just those special QF NGs.

The original QF tailored charts had minima close to Cat 1. The generic charts today are a compromise to accomodate all types.
I’m amused that you “ question my knowledge”.
I’m retired now with 20,0000 hrs. I will leave you geniuses to it. Bye.

[Chad Gates]

ActiveLocker. I don’t know when ALT retired, but originally QF 737 NG’s were the only aircraft in Australia that could operate RNP (that was even before the AR was added to the name) approaches. The Jepp charts used to have “QF 737-800 only” or something like that written at the top of the charts. The approaches you are referring to were originally called GNSS approaches, and anybody who has been around for probably 5 years or more would most likely still use those names. I know I do. Can’t think of anybody, other that sim instructors that use the 2D and 3D terms. You’re obviousy newer than him at this, so maybe just tone down the know it all attitude out of respect for others. There was a world before you got here.

Cheers

[ActiveLooker]

ActiveLocker. I don’t know when ALT retired, but originally QF 737 NG’s were the only aircraft in Australia that could operate RNP (that was even before the AR was added to the name) approaches. The Jepp charts used to have “QF 737-800 only” or something like that written at the top of the charts. The approaches you are referring to were originally called GNSS approaches, and anybody who has been around for probably 5 years or more would most likely still use those names. I know I do. Can’t think of anybody, other that sim instructors that use the 2D and 3D terms. You’re obviousy newer than him at this, so maybe just tone down the know it all attitude out of respect for others. There was a world before you got here.

Cheers perhaps you should read the twats responses to others, not just my posts before you defend the poor old airman. VA B737s, F100s, A320s, all international wide bodies and corporate jets have been doing RNAV approaches for years. 2D/3D terminology isn’t new either Einstein. Perhaps explain LNAV and LNAV/VNAV minima differences whilst you are providing an education. If it’s only simulator instructors that know the terms 2D/3D then our industry is worse than I expect.

[Alt Flieger]

perhaps you should read the twats responses to others, not just my posts before you defend the poor old airman. VA B737s, F100s, A320s, all international wide bodies and corporate jets have been doing RNAV approaches for years. 2D/3D terminology isn’t new either Einstein. Perhaps explain LNAV and LNAV/VNAV minima differences whilst you are providing an education. If it’s only simulator instructors that know the terms 2D/3D then our industry is worse than I expect.

Heh heh, you are obviously going to do well in the industry. Perfect profile. Not. I used to sit on selection panels. Good luck. LOL !

[Chad Gates]

GNSS LNAV goes to an MDA. GNSS LNAV/ VNAV goes to a DA. Simple. And yes it is new, at least in Australia it is. We have been operating RNP-AR approaches from around 2008. We were the first in Australia to do it. That’s a fact. Haven’t got a clue what airlines around the world do. I work for Qantas.

[morno]

Heh heh, you are obviously going to do well in the industry. Perfect profile. Not. I used to sit on selection panels. Good luck. LOL !

Wow, can I bow down to you and your 20,000hrs?

Have you ever operated outside of WA with those 20,000hrs?

RNP LNAV/VNAV (3D, ohh **** sorry, I’m not a sim instructor, I’ve just kept up with the regulations) approaches can have bloody low decision altitudes. One small airport that I regularly go to is down to about 300ft. No special approvals needed, in fact some of them make RNP-AR’s look unnecessary and outdated.

[Alt Flieger]

Wow, can I bow down to you and your 20,000hrs?

Have you ever operated outside of WA with those 20,000hrs?

RNP LNAV/VNAV (3D, ohh **** sorry, I’m not a sim instructor, I’ve just kept up with the regulations) approaches can have bloody low decision altitudes. One small airport that I regularly go to is down to about 300ft. No special approvals needed, in fact some of them make RNP-AR’s look unnecessary and outdated.

Heh Heh. I really don’t care.
Ive done it all.
Don’t have to prove anything to anybody.
Happily retired.
Content with my career.

Knock yourself out.

[morno]

Heh Heh. I really don’t care.
Ive done it all.
Don’t have to prove anything to anybody.
Happily retired.
Content with my career.

Knock yourself out.

Well off you toddle then, bye bye.

[ActiveLooker]

Wow, can I bow down to you and your 20,000hrs?

Have you ever operated outside of WA with those 20,000hrs?

RNP LNAV/VNAV (3D, ohh **** sorry, I’m not a sim instructor, I’ve just kept up with the regulations) approaches can have bloody low decision altitudes. One small airport that I regularly go to is down to about 300ft. No special approvals needed, in fact some of them make RNP-AR’s look unnecessary and outdated. Let’s bow down together Morno. I’m even more impressed that he has been on selection panels. Must be because of his 20,000+ hours and experience in Nepal.

[Alt Flieger]

Let’s bow down together Morno. I’m even more impressed that he has been on selection panels. Must be because of his 20,000+ hours and experience in Nepal.

Heh Heh,, so bitter and twisted so young. Lighten up people. Not necessary to bow down. Ive had a good run. Difference between you and me is that I hope for the same for others !
Not toddling off. Golf game is still pretty good.

[Capn Bloggs]

RNP LNAV/VNAV (3D, ohh **** sorry, I’m not a sim instructor, I’ve just kept up with the regulations) approaches can have bloody low decision altitudes. One small airport that I regularly go to is down to about 300ft. No special approvals needed, in fact some of them make RNP-AR’s look unnecessary and outdated.
Curious. Which port?

[morno]

Curious. Which port?

Burketown in the Gulf. 279ft AGL to be exact, Cat A-C.

[Transition Layer]

RNP-AR really comes into their own when there’s terrain or obstacles around. Not much of that happening in Burketown Morno, hence the minima you describe.
In the case of Paraburdoo with terrain around, an RNP-AR would be worthwhile and potentially knock a couple of hundred feet off the LNAV/VNAV minima. But a busted arse 30 year old Fokker can’t do them anyway so it’s not really relevant to this discussion.

[ActiveLooker]

RNP-AR really comes into their own when there’s terrain or obstacles around. Not much of that happening in Burketown Morno, hence the minima you describe.
In the case of Paraburdoo with terrain around, an RNP-AR would be worthwhile and potentially knock a couple of hundred feet off the LNAV/VNAV minima. But a busted arse 30 year old Fokker can’t do them anyway so it’s not really relevant to this discussion.
The root cause was not the approach availability in PBO it was the lack of planning and inability to make a decision when backed into a corner. 60mins holding to then miss out and not have divert fuel is unacceptable. KTA, SLJ, GBW, ZNE all CAVOK and 15-20 mins away, even in an old bucket of bolts Fokker.

[Transition Layer]

The root cause was not the approach availability in PBO it was the lack of planning and inability to make a decision when backed into a corner. 60mins holding to then miss out and not have divert fuel is unacceptable. KTA, SLJ, GBW, ZNE all CAVOK and 15-20 mins away, even in an old bucket of bolts Fokker.
I tend to agree, the final report will be interesting reading. My post was simply in relation to Morno’s stuff about LNAV/VNAV minima vs RNP-AR minima and how it might apply somewhere like Paraburdoo.

[morno]

RNP-AR really comes into their own when there’s terrain or obstacles around. Not much of that happening in Burketown Morno, hence the minima you describe.
In the case of Paraburdoo with terrain around, an RNP-AR would be worthwhile and potentially knock a couple of hundred feet off the LNAV/VNAV minima. But a busted arse 30 year old Fokker can’t do them anyway so it’s not really relevant to this discussion.

Agreed, thanks TL. I was more responding to old mate who was blabbing on about QF 737’s being the only ones who could fly RNP procedures, when RNP is the normal (soon to be) standard name for any GPS approach.

[Capn Bloggs]

I was more responding to old mate who was blabbing on about QF 737’s being the only ones who could fly RNP procedures
Old mate was basically right though. QF 737s were doing things with GPS and FMS that you could only dream of a few years ago. You can call your GPS-NPA an RNP yada yada whatever all you like, the fact is that an RNP-AR, which QF has been doing for years, is a far more effective approach using GPS. As pointed out, your LNAV/VNAV straight in from 10nm with not a hill in sight is a far cry from an RNP-AR amoungst terrain. Even the shorter tracking makes a difference when you're paying the bills, especially given the nature of this topic. Try doing an LNAV/VNAV onto 17 at Canberra. I'll take old mate's "unnecessary and outdated" (your words) RNP-AR, thanks.

[kellykelpie]

Here is a link to the book that gives wonderful insight into the history of WA flying from DC3s to the introduction of jet operations into the Pilbara and beyond. Many interesting yarns and I’ve personally found the book very beneficial for the flying we do today. It’s available on ebook.

iflewformma.com (http://iflewformma.com)

[gordonfvckingramsay]

I think the thread has drifted somewhat. The type of approach is almost irrelevant and all that particular discussion does is take away from the real lessons here.

Edit: I am totally onboard with the idea that Australia is lagging behind the rest of the world, no argument there. It just didn’t cause this incident as crews always have a choice even if it’s an unpopular one.

[alphacentauri]

AltFlieger, your frustration is misguided. Ive been designing these things for 16years and the only reason -AR approaches are not more common is because aircraft capability is not that common. 737/320 and soon Q400 are the only types approved capable. Others can be but operators choose not to.

What does this have to do the regulator?

[Alt Flieger]

AltFlieger, your frustration is misguided. Ive been designing these things for 16years and the only reason -AR approaches are not more common is because aircraft capability is not that common. 737/320 and soon Q400 are the only types approved capable. Others can be but operators choose not to.

What does this have to do the regulator?

Ok , I get that.
What was frustrating is that when the first -AR approaches were introduced they were a game changer. Then they went backwards to generic charts.
Melbourne RWY 34 was a good example. From a minima of 200’ back to a GNSS approach simply because of ATC workload. Very frustrating.

[Capt Fathom]

Meanwhile, back at Paraburdoo…..!

[Capn Bloggs]

Fathom, to you it's "THE DOO", thank you. :ok:

[Cloudee]

Report finally out. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2021/aair/ao-2021-048

[Capn Bloggs]

Poor buggers. Never leave with air in the tanks and tell your mates to bugger off until you get in! Oh and a quick Mayday will get you the weather reports you need.

[kimbobimbo]

Could it be an experience issue with the crew? Network has had rapid expansion, crew being upgraded/employed onto the F100 as more experienced crew move to the A320.

They have had a few move through management positions recently too.

Crew weren’t new.

[Chocks Away]

No not brand new but the Townsville refueler tells me they were "Green with Green" though (limited experience in each seat).
A critical point many airlines overlook & take for granted in times of change or crewing droughts, such as we are seeing right now.

Happy Landings :ok:

[BuzzBox]

No not brand new but the Townsville refueler tells me they were "Green with Green" though (limited experience in each seat).

The report says the Capt had 6,698 hours total flying experience, with 2,641 hours on the F100. The FO had 6,735 hours total flying experience, including A320 and F70/100 time, and 1,556 hours on the F100. Hardly "green".

[Chocks Away]

:ok: Crossed wires sorry.
Comment was regarding their Newman incident.
"Play-on is the call".

[kimbobimbo]

No not brand new but the Townsville refueler tells me they were "Green with Green" though (limited experience in each seat).
A critical point many airlines overlook & take for granted in times of change or crewing droughts, such as we are seeing right now.

Happy Landings :ok:

You’re totally wrong there Mate. Green on green refers to new captains flying with new FO’s right? Captain wasn’t new or ‘green’. Stop spreading ****e. Wrong wrong wrong

[kimbobimbo]

:ok: Crossed wires sorry.
Comment was regarding their Newman incident.
"Play-on is the call".

WTF? You’re quoting an incident from years ago? Why not bring up the near loss of hull at Niffty over ten years ago as a prime example of why you’re right? What’s that? You forgot about it? Well I’ll remind you…

Qf paid an ENORMOUS amount of money to repair an F100 that encountered low level wind shear in cavok conditions approximately 10 years ago. The plane was bent the f up but they fixed it to not screw the insurance/record of the mighty QF. Captain was VERY experienced, not your insinuated green blah blah…

Theres an atsb investigation I think if you care to look it up, point is you can cherry pick if you like and hate on pilots if that’s what gets you off but please, PLEASE, get your facts right BEFORE you cherry pick. Otherwise you just end up looking a bit dumb? Wouldn’t you agree?

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

Report finally out. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2021/aair/ao-2021-048

I do love how lots of people are ****ting on the crew, while this paragraph is in black and white in the report, in the "What ATSB found" section.

Paraburdoo Airport had an automatic weather station, which could measure the relative humidity at the surface. However, there were no means for measuring atmospheric data above the surface, which is one of the elements used to forecast cloud bases. In addition, the nearest weather balloon stations were more than 160 NM (300 km) from Paraburdoo, and therefore, the Bureau of Meteorology relied on cloud observations at nearby aerodromes to verify the expected conditions for Paraburdoo. Also, as the Newman automatic weather station was not recording the cloud or weather data groups, it was unknown if a SPECI report should have been issued for Newman for low cloud conditions, as it was for Paraburdoo.

For context, I'm currently flying in Canada, and while not every strip in the middle of nowhere has a weather station, every airport that gets airline jet service has, at a minimum, an automated weather station that gives you access to wind, ceilings, temperature, and altimiter. Considering that these weather stations are also installed at a large number of 1500m gravel strips serving remote communities of 150-500 people, it seems otherworldly that not only do several of the airports in Australia that get airline jet service not have those, but also that this has been so normalized that there are pilots on this thread implying that this situation is fine, and people should just "learn how to interpret weather".

Seriously, let's say it's $100 000 to set up, and another few thousand to maintain yearly. Seems like a no-brainer compared to a) costs of carrying extra fuel on flights there, b) potential costs of an incident/hull loss, and c) increased weather forecast accuracy (due to better ground-level data). You could even have those stations issue AUTO TAFs if you connect them into the BOM back-end!

[havick]

I do love how lots of people are ****ting on the crew, while this paragraph is in black and white in the report, in the "What ATSB found" section.



For context, I'm currently flying in Canada, and while not every strip in the middle of nowhere has a weather station, every airport that gets airline jet service has, at a minimum, an automated weather station that gives you access to wind, ceilings, temperature, and altimiter. Considering that these weather stations are also installed at a large number of 1500m gravel strips serving remote communities of 150-500 people, it seems otherworldly that not only do several of the airports in Australia that get airline jet service not have those, but also that this has been so normalized that there are pilots on this thread implying that this situation is fine, and people should just "learn how to interpret weather".

Seriously, let's say it's $100 000 to set up, and another few thousand to maintain yearly. Seems like a no-brainer compared to a) costs of carrying extra fuel on flights there, b) potential costs of an incident/hull loss, and c) increased weather forecast accuracy (due to better ground-level data). You could even have those stations issue AUTO TAFs if you connect them into the BOM back-end!

Please refrain from making a post that makes perfect sense.

[Capn Bloggs]

Seriously, let's say it's $100 000 to set up, and another few thousand to maintain yearly. Seems like a no-brainer compared to a)
add a d) the billions of dollars ripped out of the ground every year in that part of the world.

[Led Zep]

add a d) the billions of dollars ripped out of the ground every year in that part of the world.

It is hard to fathom how some of those places have the knock-out combo of no TAF, AWIS, mobile, ADSB and VHF coverage.

[AlphaVictorFoxtrot]

It is hard to fathom how some of those places have the knock-out combo of no TAF, AWIS, mobile, ADSB and VHF coverage.
I mean, flying to remote locations, I get it (a bit). But what kills me is that these are places which receive planes with 100+ people on them, yet have less weather service than (checks for an airport he's been to semi-recently) CYLH (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lansdowne_House_Airport), an airport servicing a community of 250 people in the middle of nowhere with no resource extraction or tourism to speak of.

And, yeah, that weather station services a radius of about 150 miles... but, crucially, the remote communities further afield almost universally have either a weather station locally or one within about 150 miles.