Qantas Fuel Mayday

[olderairhead]

How to make a story sound sensational.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/qantas-pilots-declare-mayday-due-to-low-fuel-on-transcontinental-flight-20220720-p5b35r.html

[KABOY]

How to make a story sound sensational.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/nsw/qantas-pilots-declare-mayday-due-to-low-fuel-on-transcontinental-flight-20220720-p5b35r.html

Declared a mayday and landed with 40 minutes of gas. What would have happened if they did a GA?

[43Inches]

Nothing wrong with what the crew did, but declaring a 'Mayday' is pretty sensational in the minds of the travelling public. No need to hype it much, considering it was a 'Mayday', and it did involve a 'low fuel state'. Only question is was Kalgoorlie or other a viable alternate available instead of a Mayday, or were they committed to Perth for some reason. That's something for what will be an inevitable investigation as I doubt the ATSB will drop this one. There's also the question about flying across a continent with bare minimums, which I assume they must have also used variables as well for some reason to get to that point, ie stronger headwinds, as arriving at Perth from Brisbane with just 40 mins is barely fixed reserve let alone all the other stuff. I am aware variables are there to be used, but it's a situation that is rarely an occurrence.

[SHVC]

Let’s just hope the crew get the same scrutinization on here as the 71 rocky crew did. Was PH really under the pump with arrivals? What are the other contributing factors that led to this mayday as it is never just one contributing factor.

[chookcooker]

Luck everyone else in the stack wasn’t so “company minded” or it would have compounded.

[Mach E Avelli]

Nothing wrong with what the crew did, but declaring a 'Mayday' is pretty sensational in the minds of the travelling public. No need to hype it much, considering it was a 'Mayday', and it did involve a 'low fuel state'. Only question is was Kalgoorlie or other a viable alternate available instead of a Mayday, or were they committed to Perth for some reason. That's something for what will be an inevitable investigation as I doubt the ATSB will drop this one. There's also the question about flying across a continent with bare minimums, which I assume they must have also used variables as well for some reason to get to that point, ie stronger headwinds, as arriving at Perth from Brisbane with just 40 mins is barely fixed reserve let alone all the other stuff. I am aware variables are there to be used, but it's a situation that is rarely an occurrence.

While I think that “mayday” for a low fuel state (as opposed to knowing that you will run out of the stuff) is mis-use of the term as it was originally intended, that is what the regulations required in this case. Unless the additional holding time was issued prior to passing PNR beyond Kalgoorlie, there is nothing to see here; move on….

[Joker89]

If I read this right, they don’t declare minimum fuel, they don’t go to “pan” they go straight to “mayday”

righteo, nothing to see here

[Low Pass]

Let me guess.....Management pilot trying to show everyone why they should take flight plan fuel?

[neville_nobody]

If I read this right, they don’t declare minimum fuel, they don’t go to “pan” they go straight to “mayday”

And that’s going to be ATC’s get out of jail free card. If they didn’t declare minimum fuel and given a time then it will be on the pilots.

[43Inches]

Having been in a similar situation in a much larger delay sequence ATC won't care what you say until you get to the "mayday fuel" call. Luckily we had options to reduce fuel flow dramatically, position for diversion and landed with 50 minutes fuel after the sequence freed up, the original delay had put us within 5 minutes of minimum. When we told them we could not absorb any further delay they were just interested in where we were going to divert to. Our situation was fine until an aircraft behind declared a medical and added the extra delay time, always good to have at least another 15 minutes spare for those sort of occurrence.

And that’s going to be ATC’s get out of jail free card. If they didn’t declare minimum fuel and given a time then it will be on the pilots.

ATC already has a get out of jail card, holding requirements were changed from holding fuel requirements for traffic to 'expected traffic delays', which means the holding fuel requirement is subject to discussion, I take that amount as the minimum expected delay and add some more if I think it's under-cooked. Like if you hold a nearby controlled airport as an alternate, the expected delays are for expected normal traffic, so if you divert there on short notice a short distance expect more delays due to unexpected sequence changes.

[Lead Balloon]

While I think that “mayday” for a low fuel state (as opposed to knowing that you will run out of the stuff) is mis-use of the term as it was originally intended, that is what the regulations required in this case. Correct.

All this was discussed, at length, when the new regulations were made. The use of the word 'mayday' is now mandated in circumstances that are not an emergency. In reality the circumstances might justify a 'pan' call, but the brains trust that makes the rules knows better.

Don't forget: If you're doing circuits and you realise you might land with less than 30 minutes' fuel remaining, you must declare a 'mayday'.

[43Inches]

In theory now you should be arriving with at least 45 minutes if its a single destination with no alternate, way more if it's considered isolated. Don't know what QF domestics fuel policy is, so they might still be using the old 30 minutes rule, I heard some operators refused to move to the new rules. The extra 15 minutes providing buffer for the inevitable 'Mayday fuel' if you cut it too thin.

[morno]

Isn’t there a “Minimum Fuel” call? So if you declare that, it means you cannot absorb any further delay or you will land with below reserve fuel.

Overseas that was the case anyway. Used it myself once during a diversion and ATC prioritised us over everyone.

[Beer Baron]

Declared a mayday and landed with 40 minutes of gas. What would have happened if they did a GA?
If they landed with 60 minutes fuel in tanks then it would be hard to justify the Mayday. If they did a GA (or held for 16 minutes) then they would have eaten into the FFR, that’s why they declared an emergency. But after all, that is the reason you have a FFR, for unexpected situations. Obviously you shouldn’t be running so lean that you regularly eat into the FFR but these situations are exceptionally rare.

[mates rates]

So this crew arrived over PH with 1600 kgs if the 40 mins fuel remaining is to be believed.Given 15mins extra holding would be max.600 kgs or if on descent less than 100 kgs.They must have been arriving PH with 2200kgs max. including any traffic holding from the flight planning stage.This is very thin on fuel for PH.This airport always needs to be considered a remote strip operation with unpredictable WX and the worst ATC system around, you ALWAYS need a plan B.So there is plenty to see here!!What is legal and what is safe,are two different things.

[43Inches]

The investigation into this will be a paperwork exercise of whether they should have carried x amount of fuel, was a diversion prudent, was the delay appropriate. At no point was safety really a factor as they landed with more than enough fuel, as the crew did the right thing and made sure they landed with enough. If they held until fuel went down to fumes, then it would be a safety event.

So this crew arrived over PH with 1600 kgs if the 40 mins fuel remaining is to be believed.Given 15mins extra holding would be max.600 kgs or if on descent less than 100 kgs.They must have been arriving PH with 2200kgs max. including any traffic holding from the flight planning stage.This is very thin on fuel for PH.This airport always needs to be considered a remote strip operation with unpredictable WX and the worst ATC system around, you ALWAYS need a plan B.So there is plenty to see here!!What is legal and what is safe,are two different things.


Maybe they were using to old plan for KG and keep going as contingency reserve requirements reduce allowing Perth.

[Low Pass]

So this crew arrived over PH with 1600 kgs if the 40 mins fuel remaining is to be believed.Given 15mins extra holding would be max.600 kgs or if on descent less than 100 kgs.They must have been arriving PH with 2200kgs max. including any traffic holding from the flight planning stage.This is very thin on fuel for PH.This airport always needs to be considered a remote strip operation with unpredictable WX and the worst ATC system around, you ALWAYS need a plan B.So there is plenty to see here!!What is legal and what is safe,are two different things.

Correct. The delta burn on 73 is piss all. People try too hard for the company...

[Lead Balloon]

It's not so much about what they landed with, and more about what they predicted they would land with: The pilot in command must declare a situation of emergency fuel when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the fixed fuel reserve for the flight. The pilot in command must declare an emergency fuel state by broadcasting MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY FUEL.

Note The emergency fuel declaration is a distress message.

You continue to crack me up, 43": I heard some operators refused to move to the new rules.I think you'll find that operators don't get a choice. The clue is in the word "rules".

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

QF domestic flights are all planned with a minimum of 70 minutes over destination, plus whatever dispatch or the crew deem necessary on top of that.
It’d be interesting to know the facts of what happened here, but of course the absence of said facts should be no barrier to speculation and condemnation…

(For joker89, there’s no such thing as declaring a pan for fuel. As morno alludes to, there’s ‘minimum fuel’ and then ‘mayday fuel’. Do we know for sure that ‘minimum fuel’ wasn’t declared?)

[43Inches]

I think you'll find that operators don't get a choice. The clue is in the word "rules".

Actually I know one operator of the QF group that does not use the new rules. Hence why I said this. They claimed the new fuel and alternate requirements were uneconomical so stuck with the old requirements, including use of special alternate minima and such (which part 121 can not use anymore). That may have changed in the last few months, but was like that for some time after the new rules were adopted.

[Lead Balloon]

Comedy gold!

Actually, I think you mean "refuse to comply". The operator's insurers and CASA may have something to say about that. (You being an expert on insurance, after all.)

[43Inches]

Whatever you want to call it, refuse to comply or follow the old set of rules, doesn't affect me, although it quite obviously allowed them more freedom in planning in a few situations where we were grounded. It's quite obvious you don't keep up with what goes on at airlines these days, WRT to if you are big enough you do what you want. That's why I will be interested to see what the ATSB comes up with in this case as the amounts seem very thin for the new rules, while still 'safe' it seems very light.

[Lead Balloon]

We all do whatever we want, 43. Whether what we do is lawful doesn't matter ... until it matters. Big or small.

[43Inches]

There's also a lot of waft in part 121 about operator set minimas and such, which makes a lot of stuff happen behind closed doors. While there are factors to be applied as guided what approach minimas they use are up to the operator and get pretty low if you are using the airport as an alternate, well below what a Jepp plate suggests. It's a minefield for pilots and a lot of theories yet to be tested. In theory I could use Melbourne or Sydney as an alternate with Cat 1 only capable with as low as 450ft ceiling, allowing only 200ft margin, legal, but prudent?

[Beer Baron]

QF domestic flights are all planned with a minimum of 70 minutes over destination, plus whatever dispatch or the crew deem necessary on top of that.
Normally true, but you left out a key phrase, ‘payload permitting’.
BNE-PER on a 737 with good load and a strong HW will definitely make it hard to fit on all the fuel you’d like. You can’t just take off traffic load to put on more fuel, that requires a call upstairs for approval. Yes, you can take more gas but in this circumstance it would have been a little more involved than a usual fuel order.

[Joker89]

(For joker89, there’s no such thing as declaring a pan for fuel. As morno alludes to, there’s ‘minimum fuel’ and then ‘mayday fuel’. Do we know for sure that ‘minimum fuel’ wasn’t declared?)

copied, I guess the boss could have alluded to as much in the quote. Investigation will be interesting. Expect it to be completed in 2024

[neville_nobody]

Actually, I think you mean "refuse to comply". The operator's insurers and CASA may have something to say about that. (You being an expert on insurance, after all.)

CASA is handing out exemptions to the new rules

[43Inches]

Pretty sure a certain operator forced an exemption because they flatly refused to use the new rules, that then opened up a few others to the exemption. But an exemption is what they got, whether it's temporary or whatever who knows.

[walesregent]

Let me guess.....Management pilot trying to show everyone why they should take flight plan fuel?

I reckon that’s a possibility. Perth is the only capital city I operate into and conditions need to be extraordinarily good for me to consider taking less than a tonne extra given the nature of traffic holding recently.

[Chad Gates]

BNE-PER in the winter. Over 5 and a half hours flying time. Last day of school holidays in WA. There would have been no room for more fuel, Management pilot or otherwise.

[Chronic Snoozer]

copied, I guess the boss could have alluded to as much in the quote. Investigation will be interesting. Expect it to be completed in 2024

From The Australian - The ATSB investigation was expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2023.

So you're out by a year, it'll be 2025.

[john_tullamarine]

We've all been caught out east coast to PER, back of the clock, in winter. Just one of those realities of life, met and best endeavours with forecasting notwithstanding. Very hard to be perfect when the crystal ball is its usual fogged up self but very nice to have a Plan B up your sleeve.

In the olden days, there were a few management examples of pushing the boundaries which very nearly came to grief. A 727 taxying in at CBR with engines spooling down comes to mind ....

I far preferred having a think about things and, if warranted, putting a bit more on for mum and the kids.

[BuzzBox]

Isn’t there a “Minimum Fuel” call? So if you declare that, it means you cannot absorb any further delay or you will land with below reserve fuel.

Overseas that was the case anyway. Used it myself once during a diversion and ATC prioritised us over everyone.

Yes, there is a "Minimum fuel" call, but it only means that any further delay MAY result in the aircraft landing with less than the planned final reserve fuel (See ICAO Annex 6 Pt I 4.3.7.2.2). The "Mayday Fuel" call means the aircraft IS PREDICTED to land with less than the planned final reserve fuel. The "Minimum fuel" call is only intended as a heads up and ATC is not obliged to provide priority handling (even overseas). I once declared "Minimum fuel" on descent into Hong Kong. The response was: "So is everyone else."

[Australopithecus]

BNE-PER in the winter. Over 5 and a half hours flying time. Last day of school holidays in WA. There would have been no room for more fuel, Management pilot or otherwise.

That is sometimes the case, yes. So let me try to weigh up the relative merits of a tech stop compared to a min fuel arrival in PER.
What $ value should I give the headlines and CASA scrutiny do you reckon?

[Ollie Onion]

Need to read the report really. With Flightplan fuel they should have arrived with 60 mins. At minimum they should have had the 30min Fixed plus 15mins. With that fuel and a 16 minute dealy ypu could go straight to a Mayday as it would mean ypu have 29 minutes left which is below the legal minimum. On the fave of it they system
worked as designed.

[Gne]

Slightly off topic but related to the general discussion:
1979 at Amberley: (then) WGCDR pilot's taxi call one Sunday morning after a weekend jolly. "Taxi one for Willy POB 2 , Minimum Fuel." Remember it well as I was in the back seat.

Gne

[parishiltons]

Isn’t there a “Minimum Fuel” call? So if you declare that, it means you cannot absorb any further delay or you will land with below reserve fuel.

Overseas that was the case anyway. Used it myself once during a diversion and ATC prioritised us over everyone.

Yes, there is a MINIMUM FUEL call but it does not provide any priority. To get additional priority a MAYDAY FUEL call must be made. Every call has a specific meaning that provides a common pathway for consequent actions by the pilot and ATC. Here's the relevant extract from AIP (sorry for the large lettering - that's how it uploaded):

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1020x1192/screen_shot_2022_07_21_at_14_26_47_eac810b5a3ab4086e4ecc341e 5740229077a3686.png

[tossbag]

(You being an expert on insurance, after all.)

:D:D

Funny bastard

[BuzzBox]

Don't forget: If you're doing circuits and you realise you might land with less than 30 minutes' fuel remaining, you must declare a 'mayday'.

I kindly suggest that if you find yourself in that situation while doing circuits, you should find another hobby. :8

[Lead Balloon]

CASA is handing out exemptions to the new rulesOf course. I should have remembered that under the new outcomes-based rules from which exemptions would not be required, exemptions are being granted.
Pretty sure a certain operator forced an exemption because they flatly refused to use the new rules, that then opened up a few others to the exemption. But an exemption is what they got, whether it's temporary or whatever who knows.In which case the new rules are – as they were predicted to be – a farce.
Here's the relevant extract from AIPHere’s a link to the actual instrument: CASA 29/18 — Civil Aviation (Fuel Requirements) Instrument 2018 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L00644).
I kindly suggest that if you find yourself in that situation [of having with less than 30 minutes’ fuel remaining] while doing circuits, you should find another hobby.Please let me try to learn from your wisdom. What safety risk arises from landing with 29 minutes’ fuel remaining after doing a few circuits in a C152?

[Chronic Snoozer]

Please let me try to learn from your wisdom. What safety risk arises from landing with 29 minutes’ fuel remaining after doing a few circuits in a C152?

Your timepiece may be incorrect?

[Dick Smith]

I may have missed this- who came up with the mayday fuel call? Was it someone at ICAO?

[sunnySA]

I may have missed this- who came up with the mayday fuel call? Was it someone at ICAO?
Yes, there is a MINIMUM FUEL call but it does not provide any priority. To get additional priority a MAYDAY FUEL call must be made. Every call has a specific meaning that provides a common pathway for consequent actions by the pilot and ATC. Here's the relevant extract from AIP (sorry for the large lettering - that's how it uploaded):

Yes Dick, you must've missed this.

A timely reminder. This topic was thrashed out a few years ago when on receipt of a MAYDAY FUEL call, ATC declared a Full Emergency. The extract from AIP (not repeated due to the jumbo formatting) is comprehensive enough and is very clear for the PIC and ATC.

[Mach E Avelli]

Yes Dick, some brainiac at ICAO made it a 'recommendation' which of course meant that most ICAO states then incorporated it into their rules.
Clearly whoever made this up had lost the original intent of 'mayday'. But now in sim training we get 'mayday' from some operators for a simple engine failure in a multi engine aircraft. Buncha pussies, or what?
Hearing this, the spotters at the perimeter fence listening on their hand held radios would work themselves into an orgasmic frenzy, and of course would call their favourite reporter, who in turn would wet themselves in excitement at such a scoop.

Unfortunately, in some cultures a pilot could be most unlikely to call a mayday, for fear of the attendant publicity being a career limiting move; whereas if one could use the term 'low fuel state' or 'below minimum reserve fuel' to get appropriate handling from ATC, perhaps it would be less alarmist and no less safe.

[Dick Smith]

And that's what is clearly happening!

I believe the term is a mistake but it will be hard to change!

When ATC or pilots hear the word MAYDAY immediate action needs to be taken.

For example a dual engine failure mayday like the one above the Hudson River normally needs more immediate action by ATC than fuel below 30 minutes on landing.

[Chronic Snoozer]

I believe this current legislation has slowly dripped through various organisations and authorities following the crash of Avianca 052 in 1990. (ICAO introduced it in 2012)

Probable cause

"The National Transportation Safety Board (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Transportation_Safety_Board) (NTSB) determines that the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew to properly manage the airplane's fuel load, and their failure to communicate an emergency fuel situation to air traffic control before fuel exhaustion occured".

Recommendation

"Develop in cooperation with the International Civil Aviation Organisation, a standardized glossary of definitions, terms, words, and phrases to be used that are clearly understandable to both pilots and air traffic controllers regarding minimum and emergency fuel communications."

Avianca 052 Fuel Exhaustion (https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR9104.pdf)

[airdualbleedfault]

Have to laugh, the likely cause of this issue, the second best ATC in the world, have completely avoided scrutiny. I believe some years back, when these delays magically appeared out of nowhere, it was mooted that Gatwick handled more than double the traffic of perth with a single runway, nightmare airspace and worse weather. It was also noted that around the time Air lack of Services Australia made significant staff cuts the delays were introduced.

[BuzzBox]

When ATC or pilots hear the word MAYDAY immediate action needs to be taken.

That's the whole point - when ATC hears the "Mayday Fuel" call, they immediately give the aircraft priority for landing so that (hopefully) it doesn't run out of fuel.

Do you remember the 1990 crash of an Avianca B707 in New York, where the aircraft ran out of fuel after extended holding? One of the findings of the subsequent investigation was the "lack of standardised understandable terminology for pilots and controllers for minimum and emergency fuel states".

[BuzzBox]

Please let me try to learn from your wisdom. What safety risk arises from landing with 29 minutes’ fuel remaining after doing a few circuits in a C152?

None, obviously, but that wasn't the point.

[InCruise]

Qantas is playing this down by spinning it - saying "it wasn't a safety issue" on news tonight ! Sure Qantas. . . Sure - no one believes you Mayday is a cut-through word. The Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) already specifies that a pilot in command is required to broadcast Mayday Mayday Mayday fuel: when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.

Perhaps by uplifting adequate fuel - instead of those extra pax would of been a better idea - ex Brisbane hu ? Commercial pressures has proven to be a disastrous in the past, in aviation.

Qantas is consumed all sides on spotfires breaking out and diminishing/tarnishing ONE WAS a proud quality brand. Damage done now. No matter how much PR spinning they do - Sad Really.

[Dick Smith]

All ICAO needed was a word which made the situation 100% clear to ATC but not the publicly well known Mayday.

Could be "Perth - we have alpha fuel"

The media will beat this up every time Mayday is mentioned as if everyone is about to die! Glad I don't own an airline!

[Lead Balloon]

None, obviously, but that wasn't the point.Wasn’t the point of what?

[tossbag]

I kindly suggest that if you find yourself in that situation while doing circuits, you should find another hobby.

You're being serious right??

[Global Aviator]

So this crew arrived over PH with 1600 kgs if the 40 mins fuel remaining is to be believed.Given 15mins extra holding would be max.600 kgs or if on descent less than 100 kgs.They must have been arriving PH with 2200kgs max. including any traffic holding from the flight planning stage.This is very thin on fuel for PH.This airport always needs to be considered a remote strip operation with unpredictable WX and the worst ATC system around, you ALWAYS need a plan B.So there is plenty to see here!!What is legal and what is safe,are two different things.

Best response yet.

[BuzzBox]

Wasn’t the point of what?

Let me try to learn from YOUR wisdom. There's been a lot criticism about the use of "Mayday Fuel" to declare a fuel emergency. In your esteemed opinion, what words should a crew use to declare a fuel emergency and at what point should they be used?

[BuzzBox]

You're being serious right??

What do you think? The emoji I used might provide a clue.

[HalfGreen]

All ICAO needed was a word which made the situation 100% clear to ATC but not the publicly well known Mayday.

Could be "Perth - we have alpha fuel"

The media will beat this up every time Mayday is mentioned as if everyone is about to die! Glad I don't own an airline!


I agree completely with this. The media being the media will always make a story that gets clicks (maybe even manufacture bits of it), I bet journalists that haven't the foggiest will salivate at opportunites like these and just throw it whatever they can find because they know "Qantas" and "Mayday" together garners a lot of attention. Not only that but it makes nervous flyers even more nervous. They aren't helping.

[Lead Balloon]

Let me try to learn from YOUR wisdom. There's been a lot criticism about the use of "Mayday Fuel" to declare a fuel emergency. In your esteemed opinion, what words should a crew use to declare a fuel emergency and at what point should they be used?I don’t have much wisdom. I merely absorbed the points made by those with experience when this was debated to death a couple of years ago.

The answer to your question is in the terms of your question. A fuel ‘emergency’ should be declared when it’s an ‘emergency’. The word emergency has a meaning. So does the word ‘mayday’.

But both of those words are now being used in the context of circumstances which are not, objectively, an emergency. It’s a case of the tail wagging the dog, because apparently we don’t have the wit or wisdom to design ATC procedures that will result in a heavy stuck in a stack being given priority due to calculated fuel being a minute short on landing, without the use of the word “MAYDAY”. Only in aviation…

And, in any event, the rules have (in Australia) been applied to all Australian aircraft, including a Cessna 152 doing circuits, despite the circumstances giving rise to the bright idea being quite specific.

[morno]

Qantas is playing this down by spinning it - saying "it wasn't a safety issue" on news tonight ! Sure Qantas. . . Sure - no one believes you Mayday is a cut-through word. The Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) already specifies that a pilot in command is required to broadcast Mayday Mayday Mayday fuel: when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.

Perhaps by uplifting adequate fuel - instead of those extra pax would of been a better idea - ex Brisbane hu ? Commercial pressures has proven to be a disastrous in the past, in aviation.

Qantas is consumed all sides on spotfires breaking out and diminishing/tarnishing ONE WAS a proud quality brand. Damage done now. No matter how much PR spinning they do - Sad Really.

Huh? Go back to the spotters forum

[mustafagander]

Does anybody know what the Wx was at RAAF Pearce?

[Capt Fathom]

What a pointless thread. Whatever the reason, an aircraft into Perth became aware they may land with less than minimum fuel.
They followed the required RT procedure and the rest was a non event.

[Dick Smith]

Captain. You must have missed the blaze of emotive reporting in the newspapers and on TV.

[Lead Balloon]

I would agree, CF, but for this kind of fallout:Qantas is playing this down by spinning it - saying "it wasn't a safety issue" on news tonight ! Sure Qantas. . . Sure - no one believes you Mayday is a cut-through word. The Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) already specifies that a pilot in command is required to broadcast Mayday Mayday Mayday fuel: when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned fixed fuel reserve and as a result of this predicted fuel state, the aircraft requires immediate assistance.

Perhaps by uplifting adequate fuel - instead of those extra pax would of been a better idea - ex Brisbane hu ? Commercial pressures has proven to be a disastrous in the past, in aviation.

Qantas is consumed all sides on spotfires breaking out and diminishing/tarnishing ONE WAS a proud quality brand. Damage done now. No matter how much PR spinning they do - Sad Really.This is a rare circumstance in which I agree with what Qantas said. But punters will make the - I would suggest, reasonable - assumption that the declaration of a mayday meant there was an emergency and it makes no sense that an emergency involved no risk to anyone’s safety.

[BuzzBox]

I don’t have much wisdom. I merely absorbed the points made by those with experience when this was debated to death a couple of years ago.

The answer to your question is in the terms of your question. A fuel ‘emergency’ should be declared when it’s an ‘emergency’. The word emergency has a meaning. So does the word ‘mayday’.

But both of those words are now being used in the context of circumstances which are not, objectively, an emergency. It’s a case of the tail wagging the dog, because apparently we don’t have the wit or wisdom to design ATC procedures that will result in a heavy stuck in a stack being given priority due to calculated fuel being a minute short on landing, without the use of the word “MAYDAY”. Only in aviation…

And, in any event, the rules have (in Australia) been applied to all Australian aircraft, including a Cessna 152 doing circuits, despite the circumstances giving rise to the bright idea being quite specific.


Having worked overseas for a number of years and seen these procedures in action on several occasions, they worked well. ATC instantly got the message, the aircraft concerned (not mine) were vectored out of the hold, given priority for landing, and nobody batted an eyelid. It seems to me that some people here like to make mountains out of molehills. Perhaps they need to broaden their horizons and see how the real world operates outside the sheltered workshop that is Australian aviation.

[neville_nobody]

Perhaps by uplifting adequate fuel - instead of those extra pax would of been a better idea - ex Brisbane hu ? Commercial pressures has proven to be a disastrous in the past, in aviation.

But where does that end?? 30 minutes extra? 60 minutes extra? 2 hours extra just in case?? You shouldn't need 36 minutes of additional holding fuel if the forecast is CAVOK. However that is what was required in this instance. United had a similar Mayday in Sydney a few years ago when they too got messed around with traffic holding in fine conditions.

The real issue here is the Australian ATC system combined with the lack of runway infrastructure but I will bet my bottom dollar that none of that will be addressed in the report it will just all be glossed over and if they can't blame the pilots then it will just be swept under the carpet.

[601]

fixed fuel reserve
If is never to be used, why carry it?
Surly this day and age with accurate winds, accurate performance data and well coordinated ATC, it could be done with.
Then a Mayday would be appropriate.

I got busted by an ATC gentleman for only having a margin of 1 minute, when I had 45min plus 60 holding and 15%.

[albatross]

Actual Quote from a Bell 204 pilot in Canada years ago: : “How long will this thing run on the Low Fuel Light? BEEP BEEP BEEP Disregard I just found out!”
Splash one 204 in the lake 1/2 mile from the pad he was heading for.

[uxb99]

Actual Quote from a Bell 204 pilot in Canada years ago: : “How long will this thing run on the Low Fuel Light? BEEP BEEP BEEP Disregard I just found out!”
Splash one 204 in the lake 1/2 mile from the pad he was heading for.
Unfortunately didn't end so well for the Police chopper over a Glasgow pub.

The question in this (Qantas) instance isn't so much "Fuel mayday was called" but "Why?".
Everyone blaming the crew. Maybe a technical fault was to blame?

[Wizofoz]

What a pointless thread. Whatever the reason, an aircraft into Perth became aware they may land with less than minimum fuel.
They followed the required RT procedure and the rest was a non event.
Actually, "May land" with less than final resereve is casue for a "Low fuel advisory". WILL land with less is a "Mayday".
The fact that having been goven a "Low fuel advisory" ATCs response was "Not our problem" is a potential place for seeing where there is a problem. That is an indication that there is a potential emergency and a chance to stop it. If they really DID say "Can't help unless it's a Mayday", then we need some very serious examination of ATC procedures.
I've been in the situation of knowing we were going to be tight at the destination for 7 hours, conveyed this to Oceanic and Continental US ATC, and had them work very hard to help us out- no danger, we had divert options- but ATC is there to facilitate air traffic.
If they landed with more the 30 mins at holding rate, they were not technically in a "Mayday" state, but having been all but dared to do so by ATC, and realising that DECLARING and emergency was the only way to PREVENT an emergency, they did the right thing-but whichever ATC bod decided stopping a low fuel emergency from happening isn't their problem needs kicking.

[Wizofoz]

I don’t have much wisdom. I merely absorbed the points made by those with experience when this was debated to death a couple of years ago.

The answer to your question is in the terms of your question. A fuel ‘emergency’ should be declared when it’s an ‘emergency’. The word emergency has a meaning. So does the word ‘mayday’.

But both of those words are now being used in the context of circumstances which are not, objectively, an emergency. It’s a case of the tail wagging the dog, because apparently we don’t have the wit or wisdom to design ATC procedures that will result in a heavy stuck in a stack being given priority due to calculated fuel being a minute short on landing, without the use of the word “MAYDAY”. Only in aviation…

And, in any event, the rules have (in Australia) been applied to all Australian aircraft, including a Cessna 152 doing circuits, despite the circumstances giving rise to the bright idea being quite specific.
The problem is there is a layer of saftey to PREVENT an emergency that seems to be missing- the crew let ATC know they were headed in that direction, and the mechanism should be in place to ensure it doesnt get tht far. Is the 737 left with statutory minimums and was in a position that they may end up with less than 30 minutes, they should have been given priority so as to stop it getting that far.

[Wizofoz]

If everyone just carried the bare minimum and declared minimum fuel upon arrival it ain't gonna work. These rules sound like they were determined to protect crews from their company fuel policy.

But they don't, and it would be both bad practice and poor ecconomics to do so- the number of divertions would make any supposed saving moot. Minimum fual means something hasn't gone to plan (in my case, a flight-planning error as it was a brand new aircraft and the performance degredation figure was wrong) but it isn't yet an emergency. ATC is there for saftey- and PREVENTING an emergency sounds like a sound saftey goal to me!

[Lead Balloon]

Having worked overseas for a number of years and seen these procedures in action on several occasions, they worked well. ATC instantly got the message, the aircraft concerned (not mine) were vectored out of the hold, given priority for landing, and nobody batted an eyelid. It seems to me that some people here like to make mountains out of molehills. Perhaps they need to broaden their horizons and see how the real world operates outside the sheltered workshop that is Australian aviation.You make my point for me, albeit inadvertently, Buzzbox.

The “procedure” could work just the same if the mandated phrase were “Fluffy Puppy” or “Ford Prefect” or “Ethel The Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying”.

In the “real world”, the word “Mayday” is usually used to describe a ‘mountain’, not a ‘molehill’. That’s why it’s hardly surprising when the media and punters get really animated when they hear that an airliner’s crew has declared a “Mayday”. And the media and punters get really sceptical when the airline says ‘move on, nothing to see here, there was never a risk to safety’.

The terminology makes a mountain out of a molehill.

I get it: There’s a power stoush going on between ATC and airlines. ATC don’t want airlines to be ‘encouraged’ to use fuel management practises which assume they’ll be able to ‘cut the queue’ by simply declaring a ‘Fluffy Puppy’. So the bright idea: Let’s make sure it can only be done by declaration of a ‘Mayday’, thus turning the circumstances into a ‘mountain’. But the same outcome could be achieved without the ‘collateral damage’ of declaring a ‘Mayday’ when there’s no objective emergency.

And I also get it that the aim of the declaration is to precipitate priority changes now on the basis of calculations and predictions as to what could happen if nothing changes. But I note that the prediction of what could happen, which results in the requirement to declare a ‘Mayday’, includes landing with 1 minute of final reserve having been consumed. (And please: Let’s not rehash all the arguments about instrument accuracy and potential further random delays, which arguments lead inexorably to requirements for declarations of ‘Mayday’ earlier and earlier and earlier and earlier…)

Finally, this all points up why this has nothing to do with a C152 doing circuits out the back of Bourke and why this special ‘Mayday’ declaration rule should not apply to them at all.

[mates rates]

Does Qantas apply an individual performance degradation figure to their computerised flight planning?

[KAPAC]

It’s a problem as old as aviation , 747 going into Heathrow , Aussie captain , not Qantas , having issues with female approach controller who wants him to declare fuel maday but he just wants reassurance of no delays and in frustration asks if there is a male controller he can talk too . Long haul into LA gets told he will have to declare a fuel mayday if he wants to get priority , so he does only to be told he is No 42 in the fuel mayday stack .
I get atc’s frustration , pilots arriving regularly wanting special consideration and some days they just say prove it ! Should they prioritise a long haul that departed the day before with weather that’s changed while in flight or a domestic or regional that departed 2 hours ago that took min fuel ?
No need for special word , maybe Perth needs more fuel as not a lot of options if things don’t go perfectly?

[brokenagain]

having issues with female approach controller who wants him to declare fuel maday but he just wants reassurance of no delays and in frustration asks if there is a male controller he can talk too

Sounds like he has bigger issues than just fuel TBH!

[nose,cabin]

See discussion
https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/288996-perth-mayday-crikey-com.html

perth is a very dangerous airport for the inexperienced pilot.
your union and the AFAP needs some teeth.

‘I have heard a declaration, “Mayday “ while preflighting with radio on tower, on ground Perth 0200, and the fog was not forecast.
The aircraft QFA330, landed with almost no fuel after doing an auto land in 100meters fog.

my experience of over 25,000 hours tells me you should always carry alternate for Perth.
I am retired now and have ATC tower experience.
Airports close for multiple reasons
Fog, thunderstorms, melted runway ,accidents, security similar to 911, use your imagination for possible closures.
I was ATC when Sydney had the “Mr Brown” 1971 security threat but could have been for real.
I always carry alternate fuel, (once I carried Melbourne when nothing else was possible.)

very expensive but your aviation union should act in the interest of the accepted international safety standards.
Demand union policy from Your Toothless union.

[43Inches]

The system should treat all users the same, the problem is more that they allow inbounds to continue and then slap them with a last minute 15 minutes, when it could have been done a long time before. Give aircraft proper slots, be at feeder fix x at x time, not 'about this time' gdp rubbish so that everything departs +-15 minutes or some nowhere near that and then deal with 15 aircraft that should have been well spaced. I can depart right on GDP time, get airborne and get min speed and15 mins holding, then another aircraft gets max speed to fit in front of me, that's where the system makes no sense at all. And that scenario happens regularly, not based on emergencies or medicals, just weird TAC decisions. Then inevitably the max speed aircraft doesn't meet its time and everything gets a further slow down, when we could have been 5 minutes ahead of it even with slow down of 5 minutes.

I always aim to land with an hour+ in the tanks, no point being on fumes when you don't have to, my aircraft starts yelling expletives at me before it gets to FR fuel level anyway, so I'd be dealing with abnormal checklists and reports if I got anywhere near 30 minutes remaining.

[Capt_SNAFU]

Has anyone thought that the flight may have been fuel limited. I.e due to headwinds which have been large over the last few days that with BNE/PER that with full tanks may not have given them the fuel they would have liked? Not dissimilar to DPS ops on the 737 where full tanks can leave you with approx 3.0 fuel at destination.

[BuzzBox]

Lead Balloon:

The “procedure” could work just the same if the mandated phrase were “Fluffy Puppy” or “Ford Prefect” or “Ethel The Aardvark Goes Quantity Surveying”.

Yep, but ICAO chose to use the term "Mayday", a word that gets everyone's attention, as intended. Get over it. They also chose to use fixed reserve as the trigger; a well known concept that is already defined in the regulations and which is supposed to be kept intact except in cases of emergency. What other quantity of fuel remaining would have been acceptable to the critics? Ten minutes, five minutes? Perhaps a pilot should wait until fuel exhaustion occurs before declaring an emergency? After all, the aircraft is flying perfectly well right up to the point where the noise stops, so no emergency exists before then, right? Sarcasm aside, at what point does a low fuel situation become an 'emergency'? History shows that leaving it up to a pilot to determine such a nebulous point can have catastrophic results. Tying it to a simple concept such as fixed reserve takes away that nebulosity.

A point that seems to have been lost in the argument is that this isn't some Australian oddity; it's an ICAO procedure recommended for use by around 190 different countries, including Australia. Many of those countries do not use English as their first language, with resultant communication difficulties that have been a factor in past accidents. The use of a simple term such as "Mayday fuel" and tying it to fixed reserve arguably takes away much of that problem, as intended.

The terminology makes a mountain out of a molehill.

Only in Australia do we get so uptight about such esoteric crap. It's little wonder that Australian pilots are known overseas as "oztronauts", for their habit of making simple tasks far more difficult than they need to be. If Australian media outlets get so anxious about the use of the term "Mayday", then perhaps they need to be educated.

[Capn Bloggs]

Where's that Like button.

[RickNRoll]

All ICAO needed was a word which made the situation 100% clear to ATC but not the publicly well known Mayday.

Could be "Perth - we have alpha fuel"

The media will beat this up every time Mayday is mentioned as if everyone is about to die! Glad I don't own an airline!

The benefit of having to cal Mayday is that it publicly names and shames operators who send out planes with not enough fuel.

[Lead Balloon]

Lead Balloon:



Yep, but ICAO chose to use the term "Mayday", a word that gets everyone's attention, as intended. Get over it. They also chose to use fixed reserve as the trigger; a well known concept that is already defined in the regulations and which is supposed to be kept intact except in cases of emergency. What other quantity of fuel remaining would have been acceptable to the critics? Ten minutes, five minutes? Perhaps a pilot should wait until fuel exhaustion occurs before declaring an emergency? After all, the aircraft is flying perfectly well right up to the point where the noise stops, so no emergency exists before then, right? Sarcasm aside, at what point does a low fuel situation become an 'emergency'? History shows that leaving it up to a pilot to determine such a nebulous point can have catastrophic results. Tying it to a simple concept such as fixed reserve takes away that nebulosity.

A point that seems to have been lost in the argument is that this isn't some Australian oddity; it's an ICAO procedure recommended for use by around 190 different countries, including Australia. Many of those countries do not use English as their first language, with resultant communication difficulties that have been a factor in past accidents. The use of a simple term such as "Mayday fuel" and tying it to fixed reserve arguably takes away much of that problem, as intended.



Only in Australia do we get so uptight about such esoteric crap. It's little wonder that Australian pilots are known overseas as "oztronauts", for their habit of making simple tasks far more difficult than they need to be. If Australian media outlets get so anxious about the use of the term "Mayday", then perhaps they need to be educated.
I'm not uptight about anything, Buzz. I've nothing to get over. I don't care how many fuel maydays are declared.

And what's it got to do with Australian pilots making a simple task more difficult? This one's easy: Declare a Mayday when your calculations result in you predicting that you'll land with less than final reserves.

But good luck educating the media and the public, particularly when the explanation won't make sense. "Yes, a Mayday was declared by the crew because the rules required them to do so. Yes, the ATSB will be carrying out an investigation, as it does in the case of any Mayday declaration. But there was never any risk to safety."

(And I should have added to my earlier post: I get it that running out of fuel is bad.)

KAPAC's anecdote got my 'like':Long haul into LA gets told he will have to declare a fuel mayday if he wants to get priority , so he does only to be told he is No 42 in the fuel mayday stack .That's what happens when everybody knows the emergency isn't actually emergency.

[Lead Balloon]

The benefit of having to cal Mayday is that it publicly names and shames operators who send out planes with not enough fuel.
Ah, but it may not be true that a 'plane' whose crew declares a fuel Mayday was 'sent out' with 'not enough fuel' in fact.

Let's pluck an example. I know: Let's use the one that precipitated this thread.Qantas chief pilot Dick Tobiano said air traffic controllers had requested the aircraft remain in a holding pattern for longer than the QF933 pilots had previously been advised, and that to be given priority to land they needed to make a fuel mayday call.

“The aircraft landed with 40 minutes of fuel in the tank, which is well above the minimum requirements. Our pilots followed the correct procedures and there was no safety issue with the flight,” he said in a statement.

Tobiano said the pilots had loaded fuel based on pre-flight conditions in accordance with the requirements of Australia’s air-safety regulator ...I'll bet leftie that ATSB won't conclude that the aircraft was 'sent out' with 'not enough fuel'.

[BuzzBox]

That's what happens when everybody knows the emergency isn't actually emergency.

So what's your solution?

And what's it got to do with Australian pilots making a simple task more difficult?

The same mindset that causes us to "get so uptight about such esoteric crap".

[Lead Balloon]

I gave it earlier: Use different terminology that won't give the media and punters an attack of the vapours for making the reasonable assumption that a Mayday means a life-threatening emergency. The brains trust in ICAO, when refereeing these little power struggles between ATC and operators, needs to understand the collateral damage being done to public confidence.

But Australia is moving slowly towards a far more effective solution: Turning busy airports into CTAFs because Air relax-everything's-under-control Services isn't doing its job. No separation standards other than 'don't collide' make for very efficient traffic flows.

[BuzzBox]

I gave it earlier: Use different terminology that won't give the media and punters an attack of the vapours for making the reasonable assumption that a Mayday means a life-threatening emergency. The brains trust in ICAO, when refereeing these little power struggles between ATC and operators, needs to understand the collateral damage being done to public confidence.

Why should ICAO pander to a "public confidence" issue that seems to be unique to Australia? These procedures are used in other countries, yet they don't attract the same media attention as they do in this country. When did we become such a bunch of princesses?

Furthermore, how does different terminology fix the problem of 42 aircraft allegedly declaring "Mayday Fuel" to gain priority?

[Autobrakes4]

Has anyone thought that the flight may have been fuel limited. I.e due to headwinds which have been large over the last few days that with BNE/PER that with full tanks may not have given them the fuel they would have liked? Not dissimilar to DPS ops on the 737 where full tanks can leave you with approx 3.0 fuel at destination.

Finally out of 5 pages of crap, someone gets it.

They probably departed with full fuel tanks and it still wasn't enough. You depart knowing you've only got the required holding but if ATC give you extra then guess what, you haven't got it. Stop poking stuff at the pilots until the real story comes out.

[aviator's_anonymous]

Would a Pan Pan call be suited for this situation? or is Mayday required?

[Capn Bloggs]

Would a Pan Pan call be suited for this situation? or is Mayday required?
The AIP has the answer. It's free on the ASA website.

[BuzzBox]

Would a Pan Pan call be suited for this situation? or is Mayday required?

A helpful soul even provided the answer in an earlier post:
https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/647915-qantas-fuel-mayday-2.html#post11265090

[parishiltons]

All ICAO needed was a word which made the situation 100% clear to ATC but not the publicly well known Mayday.

Could be "Perth - we have alpha fuel"

The media will beat this up every time Mayday is mentioned as if everyone is about to die! Glad I don't own an airline!
Aviation professionals understand the implications of a MAYDAY FUEL call and will initiate/respond accordingly. While it may seem spectacular to the media/public that's not the point - the point is for each party involved to understand and respond appropriately to achieve a safe outcome. Which is what happened. And it's standard internationally - it's not one of the dreaded bespoke Australian or USA-specific things.

[Mach E Avelli]

Would a Pan Pan call be suited for this situation? or is Mayday required?

While it would seem that a ‘Pan Pan’ meets the definition (serious, but not at this stage life-threatening) ICAO don’t give that option for fuel prediction below minimum reserve. A ‘Mayday Fuel’ it is, regardless of traffic, weather and an individual Captain’s assessment of the risk. Perth may be remote (though in my opinion an easy airport if you can tolerate a bit of turbulence in summer easterlies and take the occasional fog forecasts seriously), has multiple runways, precision approaches and (worst case) Pearce is only a few miles up the road .But this unfortunate crew really had no option other than a mayday - and exactly what the rules required.
Yet a pan call for other situations e.g. engine failure, degraded performance, flight control issues, weather diversions etc. will get ATC assistance where available.

[fdr]

And that's what is clearly happening!

I believe the term is a mistake but it will be hard to change!

When ATC or pilots hear the word MAYDAY immediate action needs to be taken.

For example a dual engine failure mayday like the one above the Hudson River normally needs more immediate action by ATC than fuel below 30 minutes on landing.

For the 'udson, once the boids had flown the coop, Sir Isaac Newton was the one in charge, ATCs actions were unlikely to alter the effects of gravity.

The dark side of the push towards CRM as a palliative for all ills has had it's downsides, an example being the B734 accident at east midlands... where the crew processes to review the actions taken were never able to be completed with the continuous communications from well meaning parties.

[BuzzBox]

Dare I say it, if you broadcast PAN FUEL, you are getting the same treatment anyway. No ATC is stupid enough or pedantic enough to argue the point in the heat of the moment.

Wanna bet? Some countries don't recognise "PAN PAN", let alone "PAN FUEL". I'm fairly certain that if you tried that in Australia, ATC would tell you to declare "MAYDAY FUEL" if you want priority. In the QF case, ATC was already aware of the aircraft's fuel state, but still told them they needed to declare "MAYDAY FUEL" to get priority.

[Uplinker]

My 2p is that minimising fuel is daft and unprofessional. I am am not advocating taking full tanks wherever you go, nor am I advocating taking ridiculous amounts of extra fuel and causing more emissions, but this whole minimum fuel thing is dangerous and puts an extra burden on crews, which, on top of fatigue and difficult rosters is really not a good thing. If an aircraft cannot take enough fuel, then obviously its ZFM is too great and they need to take out some seats.

Year's ago, I flew with an old Captain who had been some sort of fuel use "expert" in his previous airline. He scribbled all over the PLOGs I had carefully prepared, saying well we don't need this and we don't need that and if we use this alternate blah blah, then we only need this much fuel, happy? Well, no not really, but I was a very new, very junior F/O, so off we went.

We got to Guernsey, and made our approach......to minimums........and went around. Oh dear, the weather was worse than forecast, and he had not brought the poor weather fuel.

A quick circuit and we tried again, only to go-around again. Now we were in deep ****, (Guernsey is an island in the English Channel, UK). We dived into Jersey, (the island 'next door'), (I think we declared a MAYDAY), and thankfully got in. When we shut down, his hands were shaking and I thought you stupid dick-head. You have put us all under strain and stress, not to mention endangering us all, for......what?
We had a couple of people like him in the next airline I joined, who seemed to delight in rounding figures down instead of up and all sorts of other nonsense in "proving" they could land closer to legal minimum fuel than everybody else, as if it was some sort of :mad: game :mad:.

One other time, the weather at Alicante unexpectedly went out, and at least four aircraft from a certain Irish company immediately broke off and diverted to Valencia, as did those from a few other airlines. Valencia very soon became full and unable to accept any more diverting aircraft.

Not big. Not clever, Not professional. I am not blaming crews, it is the airlines who mandate this nonsense. And it is nonsense because the only reason they are doing it is so they can advertise even cheaper seat prices.

ATC are quite right to refuse to assist aircraft who are deliberately taking minimum fuel. Saying they will not respond other than to a MAYDAY is the right response in my view. Otherwise, every airline would be declaring minimum fuel and expecting priority over everyone else. This would rapidly become farcical, not to mention even more dangerous.

[tossbag]

I don't reckon this one is all that hard,

I'll bet the Qantas aircraft departed with legal fuel.
I'll bet the Qantas crew were re-calculating fuel state at appropriate times during the flight.
I'll bet the Qantas crew's dangly bits or flappy bits didn't clench or tighten at any time during the flight due to fuel state.
I'll bet that the Qantas crew, when informed of the changed holding requirements, knew exactly how much fuel they had on board and what effect the holding requirements would have on that quantity.
I'll bet that most Qantas Captain's would have quite a few hours in the log book, even if they were a new Captain and would apply that experience against the 'quality' of ATC in this country.

The AIP requirements worked exactly the way it was meant to work, the aircraft got the priority it required and deserved and landed without its safety, that of the passengers or crew ever being in doubt.

**** the ******** media and the usual alarmist bull**** that saturates daily Australian life.

[missy]

...The media being the media will always make a story that gets clicks (maybe even manufacture bits of it), I bet journalists that haven't the foggiest will salivate at opportunites like these and just throw it whatever they can find because they know "Qantas" and "Mayday" together garners a lot of attention. Not only that but it makes nervous flyers even more nervous. They aren't helping.

From Letters to the Editor SMH Friday 22-July-22.
The Qantas managers presiding over the chronic delays, cancellations and lost baggage that continue to sully the airline’s once great reputation should use the prudent actions of their pilots, who declared a fuel emergency to ensure a priority approach and landing, as a textbook example of how competent professionals go about ensuring passenger wellbeing (“Qantas pilots declare ‘fuel mayday” (https://www.smh.com.au/link/follow-20170101-p5b35r)’, July 21). Col Burns, Lugarno

[hoss]

I’ll bet 95% of 737 crew plan and arrive into PER with 3.6 (~90 minutes) or more! 😉

[Wizofoz]

I gave it earlier: Use different terminology that won't give the media and punters an attack of the vapours for making the reasonable assumption that a Mayday means a life-threatening emergency. The brains trust in ICAO, when refereeing these little power struggles between ATC and operators, needs to understand the collateral damage being done to public confidence.

But Australia is moving slowly towards a far more effective solution: Turning busy airports into CTAFs because Air relax-everything's-under-control Services isn't doing its job. No separation standards other than 'don't collide' make for very efficient traffic flows.

They DID use different terminology (Declaring Emergency, Low fuel, Fuel emergency) but have recently aligned with ICAO, so Pans for urgency, Mayday for distress (including fuel).

[Lead Balloon]

*sigh*

I know what terminology they used..

My suggestion is that the ‘book’ should mandate terminology different to ‘Mayday’ or ‘Emergency’ or ‘Distress’ in circumstances where, for example, the crew comes to the conclusion that, if nothing changes, they’ll land having consumed 1 minute of their final reserve. The current rules mandate declaration of a ‘Mayday’ in those circumstances.

I’ll say it again: I couldn’t care less if ‘Maydays’ must be declared in these circumstances. But nobody should be surprised when the media and punters assume that the circumstances must have constituted an emergency and get confused and sceptical when the airlines (and eventually the ‘safety’ authority and investigator) say that there was never any risk to safety.

[CaptainInsaneO]

Does anyone know if they called MINIMUM FUEL to ATC before the MAYDAY?

I’d assume they would have

[KAPAC]

Use of Maday for low fuel works . The consequences of having to make a maday makes unloading bags for fuel or planning a tech stop easier .

Execute one to teach a 1000 .

[lucille]

Boy oh boy, I now feel blessed to have worked for an operator whose fuel policy mandated an alternate regardless of weather.
Weather is not the only trigger for a diversion.

[nose,cabin]

Boy oh boy, I now feel blessed to have worked for an operator whose fuel policy mandated an alternate regardless of weather.
Weather is not the only trigger for a diversion.

yes I also agree, I was lucky.
my international airline employment company’s flight plan was always provided with alternate airport with all required notams metar etc, very professional.

So many good airlines have a fuel policy to international safety standards.

‘unfortunately Australia regulatory authority and limp unions, ie AFAP,
do not enforce international safety standards and gives Australia airlines an unfair economic advantage until the inevitable happens.
I am sure the Reason Swiss Cheese model, doesn’t see a distress call as a slice of Swiss Cheese.

[Wizofoz]

*sigh*

I know what terminology they used..

My suggestion is that the ‘book’ should mandate terminology different to ‘Mayday’ or ‘Emergency’ or ‘Distress’ in circumstances where, for example, the crew comes to the conclusion that, if nothing changes, they’ll land having consumed 1 minute of their final reserve. The current rules mandate declaration of a ‘Mayday’ in those circumstances.

I’ll say it again: I couldn’t care less if ‘Maydays’ must be declared in these circumstances. But nobody should be surprised when the media and punters assume that the circumstances must have constituted an emergency and get confused and sceptical when the airlines (and eventually the ‘safety’ authority and investigator) say that there was never any risk to safety.
Out of interets, at what point do you think low fuel IS an emergency? I've never landed with less than final reserve and never want to.

[Wizofoz]

I don't reckon this one is all that hard,

I'll bet the Qantas aircraft departed with legal fuel.
I'll bet the Qantas crew were re-calculating fuel state at appropriate times during the flight.
I'll bet the Qantas crew's dangly bits or flappy bits didn't clench or tighten at any time during the flight due to fuel state.
I'll bet that the Qantas crew, when informed of the changed holding requirements, knew exactly how much fuel they had on board and what effect the holding requirements would have on that quantity.
I'll bet that most Qantas Captain's would have quite a few hours in the log book, even if they were a new Captain and would apply that experience against the 'quality' of ATC in this country.

The AIP requirements worked exactly the way it was meant to work, the aircraft got the priority it required and deserved and landed without its safety, that of the passengers or crew ever being in doubt.

**** the ******** media and the usual alarmist bull**** that saturates daily Australian life.
The only bit I disagree with here is that they SHOULD have gotten that priority when they declared minimum fuel- it's ATC that need tobe held to the public flame for turning a nothing into a circus.

[compressor stall]

Boy oh boy, I now feel blessed to have worked for an operator whose fuel policy mandated an alternate regardless of weather.
Weather is not the only trigger for a diversion.

Can anybody explain why in good weather etc, one of the requirements if you don't want to hold an alternate is destination has to have dual (separate, not crossing) runways - but only for for overseas ops. AU single runway is fine....
MOS 121 4.08 refers.

[compressor stall]

‘unfortunately Australia regulatory authority and limp unions, ie AFAP, do not enforce international safety standards and gives Australia airlines an unfair economic advantage until the inevitable happens.
.

But the ICAO Annex VI standard regarding destination alternate aerodromes is:
For a flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules, at least one destination alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the operational and ATS flight plans, unless:

a) the duration of the flight from the departure aerodrome, or from the point of in-flight re-planning, to the destination aerodrome is such that, taking into account all meteorological conditions and operational information relevant to the flight, at the estimated time of use, a reasonable certainty exists that: 1) the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological conditions and 2) separate runways are usable at the estimated time of use of the destination aerodrome with at least on runway having an operations instrument approach procedure.

[tossbag]

The only bit I disagree with here is that they SHOULD have gotten that priority when they declared minimum fuel- it's ATC that need to be held to the public flame for turning a nothing into a circus.

Agreed, but if it's consistent around the world (and I don't know that it is?) then there's no ambiguity with foreign crew operating into Australia. Or Australian crews operating overseas. I personally think that the use of the word 'mayday' in this instance is over the top, but it's the only word that will grant the crew the priority it requires.

[Wizofoz]

Agreed, but if it's consistent around the world (and I don't know that it is?) then there's no ambiguity with foreign crew operating into Australia. Or Australian crews operating overseas. I personally think that the use of the word 'mayday' in this instance is over the top, but it's the only word that will grant the crew the priority it requires.
No, OS ATC will try its' best to avoid an emergency rather than allow one to happen.

[BuzzBox]

Can anybody explain why in good weather etc, one of the requirements if you don't want to hold an alternate is destination has to have dual (separate, not crossing) runways - but only for for overseas ops. AU single runway is fine....
MOS 121 4.08 refers.

Probably because that's what's specified in ICAO Annex 6 Part I - International Commercial Air Transport (Aeroplanes). The preamble of Annex 6 states, under 'Applicability':

Annex 6, Part I, contains Standards and Recommended Practices adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization as the minimum Standards applicable to the operation of aeroplanes by operators authorized to conduct international commercial air transport operations.


CASA obviously adopted many of the Annex 6 requirements for domestic operations too; bastardised where necessary to suit our 'unique' operating environment :rolleyes:. I can only assume the dual runway requirement was not adopted for domestic use because the woeful lack of aviation infrastructure in this country made it all too hard. :ugh:

[compressor stall]

I can only assume the dual runway requirement was not adopted for domestic use because the woeful lack of aviation infrastructure in this country made it all too hard. Agree. So given we have bad infrastructure, I can think of a really good mitigator for single runway operations, even in good weather. Starts with "a", ends with "e" and has the letters l,t,e,r,n,a,t in the middle.

[BuzzBox]

So given we have bad infrastructure, I can think of a really good mitigator for single runway operations, even in good weather. Starts with "a", ends with "e" and has the letters l,t,e,r,n,a,t in the middle.

Yep - No argument from me!

[neville_nobody]

Can anybody explain why in good weather etc, one of the requirements if you don't want to hold an alternate is destination has to have dual (separate, not crossing) runways - but only for for overseas ops. AU single runway is fine....
MOS 121 4.08 refers.

CASA don't want a real fight with the airlines over a real safety issue that will increase operating costs and build pressure on the Australian government about the lack of Australian aviation infrastructure.

Probably a career ending move for anyone involved. Much safer to make lots of noise about non-issues where there are no real consequences and make a nice little line on your resume.

[Lookleft]

As PIC there are a whole bunch of things that I have to consider to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft. Worrying about the media reaction to a Mayday call is not one of them. Thats what all those highly paid PR people are for. At the end of the day I think the PIC would have operated the aircraft within the QF fuel policy and used the relevant phraseology to ensure a safe arrival of the aircraft such that it didn't run out of fuel at the end of the landing roll. All the "chatter" about what a Mayday is and when and where it should be used is bollocks.

[Nookie2nite]

The only bit I disagree with here is that they SHOULD have gotten that priority when they declared minimum fuel- it's ATC that need tobe held to the public flame for turning a nothing into a circus.

ATC following the rules….how can they be held responsible??? Minimum fuel is no priority - MAYDAY fuel has priority…
Read your AIP - minimum fuel does not afford the pilot any priority…..10.9.2.1

[Wizofoz]

ATC following the rules….how can they be held responsible??? Minimum fuel is no priority - MAYDAY fuel has priority…
Read your AIP - minimum fuel does not afford the pilot any priority…..10.9.2.1
No GUARENTEE of priority- that doesn't preclude common sense being used to enhance air saftey, which is how this identical rule is used every where else in the world.

[TimmyTee]

No GUARENTEE of priority- that doesn't preclude common sense being used to enhance air saftey, which is how this identical rule is used every where else in the world.

But if a pilot just needs to utter "minimum fuel" - what exactly does that mean?
One pilots min fuel might be touching down with low pressure lights on, another may be with 10min "just in case", and another might be some other number.

If ATC started re-ordering based on the above, the knock on effects could impact other guys who may actually have less fuel, not to mention the ability for "queue jumpers" if there's no accountability attached

[Wizofoz]

But if a pilot just needs to utter "minimum fuel" - what exactly does that mean?
One pilots min fuel might be touching down with low pressure lights on, another may be with 10min "just in case", and another might be some other number.

If ATC started re-ordering based on the above, the knock on effects could impact other guys who may actually have less fuel, not to mention the ability for "queue jumpers" if there's no accountability attached
The definition of minimum fuel is clearly laid out in AIP. Any more delay and it's an emergency. The entire intent is for ATC to therefore not GIVE any more delay, so as to AVOID an emergency.

[TimmyTee]

The definition of minimum fuel is clearly laid out in AIP. Any more delay and it's an emergency. The entire intent is for ATC to therefore not GIVE any more delay, so as to AVOID an emergency.

So if more delay enters the system (say a go around), you're saying ATC should pluck the min fueller out of the sequence to avoid them diverting? What about the other aircraft that this then knock on effects?

Of course ATC won't disadvantage someone and will do what they can to help, but why should a min fuel statement mean that aircraft is moved up in the sequence?

[Plazbot]

No, OS ATC will try its' best to avoid an emergency rather than allow one to happen.
Yeah, nah. At my OS facility, you declare min fuel you get a Roger. You declare mayday fuel, you get a Roger cancel hold. It's a pretty simple concept that seems to be drawing much angst.

[nose,cabin]

Yeah, nah. At my OS facility, you declare min fuel you get a Roger. You declare mayday fuel, you get a Roger cancel hold. It's a pretty simple concept that seems to be drawing much angst.
This is a true story and hopefully learn and share a lesson from an old timer.

in 1965 a BOAC Comet4 at Darwin was advised by ATC Darwin tower
“Runway flooded deep water “
Captain asked
”how long to drain away?’
tower
”we don’t know”!
Captain
give me Alice Springs weather
he was NOT advised
TAF Dust was forecast some 4 hours later at 6am sunrise.
The Captain had to hand fly to land in zero visibility in dust in Alice.
‘The moral to learn
Always have plan B with FULL backup
notams, TAF metar, special weather etc.

I also remember just recently, Perth airport was fully closed due smoke, , vis below 100 meters, from a bush fire in Guildford Cemetery adjacent threshold RWY 21 and 24.

[Wizofoz]

So if more delay enters the system (say a go around), you're saying ATC should pluck the min fueller out of the sequence to avoid them diverting? What about the other aircraft that this then knock on effects?

Of course ATC won't disadvantage someone and will do what they can to help, but why should a min fuel statement mean that aircraft is moved up in the sequence?
Read the definition of minimum fuel again. it means the aircraft has commited to destination and can't divert. And try this- an aircraft is losing hydrulics and will, in a short while, have no control- not an emergency yet, but will be catastrophic soon- does HE get priority? Mayday fuel is an emergency, meaning the aircraft has less fuel than is considered safe- it is in distress. Moving an aircraft up so that doesn't happen is simply ensuring flight saftey,

[Wizofoz]

Yeah, nah. At my OS facility, you declare min fuel you get a Roger. You declare mayday fuel, you get a Roger cancel hold. It's a pretty simple concept that seems to be drawing much angst.
Sure, but how often have you seen an aircraft that has declared minimum fuel been then given more delay?

[wombat watcher]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1620x513/3c405369_1251_4b53_989b_96896e7da555_184d86da03d495e4d6d3269 2c411718aa5bab43f.jpeg

[lucille]

Just as an historical aside, I seem to recall the Mayday fuel phraseology was introduced after the Avianca 502 crash in New York.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052

It was an effort to tighten up communications between crew and ATC especially if one or both are not native English speakers. Despite the gnashing of teeth by the Mayday purists, I guess it’s working as intended.

I’ve also noticed, that unless clearly specified, chaps who have spent a lot of time sitting in ejection seats seem to have a different understanding of what minimum fuel means. 🤣

[compressor stall]

>> Bussleton enters the chat.

[tossbag]

No, OS ATC will try its' best to avoid an emergency rather than allow one to happen.

Yes mate, but rules are rules, and nobody enforces a rule better than an Australian. The king of rules, more rules than the rule shop can stock. Or ten rule shops.

[tossbag]

Yeah, nah. At my OS facility, you declare min fuel you get a Roger. You declare mayday fuel, you get a Roger cancel hold. It's a pretty simple concept that seems to be drawing much angst.

:D

Wiz, did ya read that? That's what happens at an overseas ATC facility when you give an Australian a job ;)

[cLeArIcE]

Not to hang this crew as I don't know the circumstances, ( QLD PER can tricky this time of year balancing payloads etc and sometimes you don't have much wiggle room) but assuming that you can, who in their right mind arrives into Perth without substantial traffic holding or alternate fuel to go to Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Busselton etc? Infact, not just Perth. The whole network is a shambles currently.
Also, why are delays in to Perth even a thing? ATC know we are all coming for hours beforehand. Why can't you begin to sequence us 800nm+ out? There isn't that much traffic. It's hardly the north Atlantic.

[Wizofoz]

Yes mate, but rules are rules, and nobody enforces a rule better than an Australian. The king of rules, more rules than the rule shop can stock. Or ten rule shops.
Exactley my take, Toss- rules based thinking in an environment where flexibility and common sense are needed.

[nose,cabin]

Not to hang this crew as I don't know the circumstances, ( QLD PER can tricky this time of year balancing payloads etc and sometimes you don't have much wiggle room) but assuming that you can, who in their right mind arrives into Perth without substantial traffic holding or alternate fuel to go to Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Busselton etc? Infact, not just Perth. The whole network is a shambles currently.
Also, why are delays in to Perth even a thing? ATC know we are all coming for hours beforehand. Why can't you begin to sequence us 800nm+ out? There isn't that much traffic. It's hardly the north Atlantic.

Yes the shambles needs fixing.
‘That is your duty to lobby with letters.
‘Senators, CASA, Unions.
I believe all RAAF airports should be open to any aircraft for use as Alternate (no Mayday needed)
Preflight support, notams provided every flight., H24 fireFFS and runway lights. Ground support ie stairs, tow bars, ground power.

Expect fuel saving if nearby RAAF airports as alternate , Pearce costs the taxpayers a fortune.
it is normally not available.

Change will happen eventually.

[BuzzBox]

Sure, but how often have you seen an aircraft that has declared minimum fuel been then given more delay?

I've seen it happen in Hong Kong on more than one occasion, when unforecast thunderstorms caused havoc. The affected aircraft subsequently declared "Mayday fuel" and were dealt with accordingly.

That said, I agree that most OS controllers would facilitate a "Minimum fuel" aircraft wherever possible, but they are certainly not obliged to do so.

[nose,cabin]

Singapore will permitTengah Air Base Landing for a very large fee.

‘The boss is not happy to receive this landing bill I was informed. Over $10k.
many years ago..

[fdr]

Does Qantas apply an individual performance degradation figure to their computerised flight planning?

Used to... however, it is curious that some parts of the policy in 2018 made it a requirement to apply manufacturer data for the fuel planning in certain cases, and that hopefully doesn't come up too often, as it would be a pain and also would not necessarily be biased towards safety.

A further curiosity arises that the alternate diversion ends up covering OEI or Depress... which means that the whole thing has to be planned as that case, which appears to be a multiple failure case that is not generally covered anywhere else... that is, you have your failure en-route, still approach and miss at your destination, and then climb back up and trundle cross country to another world location on one engine, or decompressed etc... and that seems odd. At arrival at the new new new destination, the alternative to the airport that in spite of being engine out you flew away from, you are also planned to land with 15 minutes 'o gas. Excellent. Now, as a punter, I think I would be unhappy about that scenario being done with my skin in play, and as an accident investigator, I would expect a fair bit of issues raised for the setup of lunacy by a regulator.

Perth always has been and always will be an annoying airport on occasions, Have had greater than 70 kts crosswind on all runways for arrival, and looked out of the #2 window of a 74 to see the runway, and not been too happy with that. Following the divert to a location that is good for seafood, 5 hours later, we arrive in fog. Perth is designed for the entertainment of the gods, not drivers.

[The Love Doctor]

Also, why are delays in to Perth even a thing? ATC know we are all coming for hours beforehand. Why can't you begin to sequence us 800nm+ out? There isn't that much traffic. It's hardly the north Atlantic.

Isn't that what the GDP is for? oh wait :hmm:

[fdr]

Sure, but how often have you seen an aircraft that has declared minimum fuel been then given more delay?

More to the point, what pilot is going to sit in the hold until they are a glider... other than Avianca, and a few others... but the drivers that do so will get their name in the funny pages.

A while back, the TC examiners and instructors were lamenting on the fact that one of the LOFT exercises would have the crews holding until they ran out of sim time. Then they changed the remaining fuel, and the guys did indeed hold until they went silent. My suggestion was to sit back and give the crew the full monty experience following making the sim into a 6DOF glider. After the first crew sat there for 15 minutes until impact, the word got around that it was not a fun experience, and the crews started diverting as was prudent to avoid a repeat. They only had to let one crew enjoy the full ride to get the message out. That followed a particularly unpleasant event at NYC where the plane, one x big plane, darn near became a glider overhead JFK, and ended up diverting to Stewart, which was closed and ugly too.

[Capt Fathom]

DROPS. It’s not the ‘Australian airlines’ rules.
CASA and their predecessors have made the rules, and the airlines and ATC comply with them.

[Wizofoz]

Wow. I love how the fact that Australian airlines don't need to plan an alternate like the rest of the world

But when it doesn't work out in a remote place like PH it is somehow those awful Australian ATC fault.

Bahaha. All hail the Oztronauts.

And yeah. Where is that GDP???
You're right that Australia has quite different alternate requirements, but aircraft all over the world end up in commit-to-destinaion situations which ammount to the same thing.

[nose,cabin]

You're right that Australia has quite different alternate requirements, but aircraft all over the world end up in commit-to-destinaion situations which ammount to the same thing.


“commit to destination”,Alternate fuel

You're right that Australia has quite different alternate requirements, BUT

Alternate Airport,

fuel calculation includes missed approach at the destination airport, ( both engines operating,)

, complete the missed approach procedure, climb, cruise, descent to alternate airport, and 15 minutes reserve.

No taxi fuel at destination,


When ATC holding is required

The latest TTD time is provided to ATC.

This becomes the diversion time allocated by

ATC.

Clearances are ready and issued prior to diversion time.

Never loose plan B.

[KAPAC]

You're right that Australia has quite different alternate requirements, but aircraft all over the world end up in commit-to-destinaion situations which ammount to the same thing.

Respectfully disagree .

[BuzzBox]

Respectfully disagree .

Would you care to elaborate?

[KAPAC]

Would you care to elaborate?
If I understand your statement correctly ? Airlines that require an alternate for every flight some how end up flying to their destination with no alternate fuel , same as happens in Australia ? Operations I’ve been involved with the captains are very reluctant to drop the alternate even if they legally can . Obviously if your in the circuit , no delays , your not going to divert because your about to go below min divert . In this situation the alternate could be dropped to accept the 15 min traffic hold knowing there is 2 runways and little chance of further delays .
No reflection on this Qantas crew , I’m sure it was a perfectly legal flight and it was handled professionally with safe outcome . Well done ! I’m happy to be operating in a world where alternates are carried on every flight .
Island Reserve maybe ? If they could take the fuel ? Having worked out of Perth I got nothing but respect for WA pilots , highly skilled , smart pilots . It’s not an easy destination , 727 captain 40 years ago dropped alternate as he could see Perth airport , license suspended . 146 , RJ’s stretched !
maybe this mayday call is a trigger, for me .
ramble over , stay safe !

[Wizofoz]

If I understand your statement correctly ? Airlines that require an alternate for every flight some how end up flying to their destination with no alternate fuel , same as happens in Australia ? Operations I’ve been involved with the captains are very reluctant to drop the alternate even if they legally can . Obviously if your in the circuit , no delays , your not going to divert because your about to go below min divert . In this situation the alternate could be dropped to accept the 15 min traffic hold knowing there is 2 runways and little chance of further delays .
No reflection on this Qantas crew , I’m sure it was a perfectly legal flight and it was handled professionally with safe outcome . Well done ! I’m happy to be operating in a world where alternates are carried on every flight .
Island Reserve maybe ? If they could take the fuel ? Having worked out of Perth I got nothing but respect for WA pilots , highly skilled , smart pilots . It’s not an easy destination , 727 captain 40 years ago dropped alternate as he could see Perth airport , license suspended . 146 , RJ’s stretched !
maybe this mayday call is a trigger, for me .
ramble over , stay safe !
"Reluctant" doesn't mean "Can't"- you even agree it is legal. If you are carrying an alternate, but unexpected delays at the destination mean you need to use that fuel, you can. After all, you are carrying only enough to land at the alternate with 30 minutes final reserve- if the expected delay means you will land with MORE than that at the destination pax have paid to get to, why woulkd you not?

[Wizofoz]

“commit to destination”,Alternate fuel

You're right that Australia has quite different alternate requirements, BUT

Alternate Airport,

fuel calculation includes missed approach at the destination airport, ( both engines operating,)

, complete the missed approach procedure, climb, cruise, descent to alternate airport, and 15 minutes reserve.

No taxi fuel at destination,


When ATC holding is required

The latest TTD time is provided to ATC.

This becomes the diversion time allocated by

ATC.

Clearances are ready and issued prior to diversion time.

Never loose plan B.
Only when an alternate is required, which is the small minority of flights in Ausrtralia

[C441]

Out of interest….
Can those overseas operators reading this thread advise the alternate that their airline would usually plan, based on a VMC forecast, for Perth? Would they carry any advisory traffic holding fuel on top of that?

I ask this as I had a discussion with a friend many years ago about his airline's fuel policy/requirements for various destinations. He advised that if operating from (say) Singapore to Melbourne, they would have Avalon as a planned alternate and little else above the statutory requirements. He also mentioned that they were strongly discouraged from adding any more than planned fuel, to the point that he had F/Os 'reporting' him for adding what he believed was carefully considered additional fuel. We agreed that feeling free to add our own reasonable additional fuel - without pressure from the flight ops department - was a better place to be than having a pre-planned amount and a management that discouraged a crew from making decisions based on experience and practical knowledge.

[nose,cabin]

Sorry topic drift,

I am thinking SE Asia during the burn off season which is unique.

Smoke haze for a month.

Visibility 300 meters most of the day.

(unlikely in Perth but it is a possibility with the summer approaching.)

Some airlines cleared for approach by the tower,
fly the ILS when tower report 300 meters in smoke haze.

We were instructed by our company to enter the hold and wait for tower ATC report the ILS minimum 800 meters visibility.

Sometimes that happened before TTD ( diversion time) sometimes no.

This can become a high stress cockpit,

see crash report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia_Flight_152

[BuzzBox]

Out of interest….
Can those overseas operators reading this thread advise the alternate that their airline would usually plan, based on a VMC forecast, for Perth? Would they carry any advisory traffic holding fuel on top of that?

The airline where I worked considers Perth to be an isolated airport for its wide-body operations (no acceptable alternate within 1 hour 45 mins of the destination). If the weather forecast was above the alternate minima we would carry island reserve fuel (two-hour's holding fuel, at normal cruise consumption, overhead the destination airport). Additional advisory traffic holding fuel was not required. If we were to need an alternate the two nearest alternates we could plan were Adelaide or Den Pasar (Bali).

Airlines have different policies w.r.t extra fuel, but in 20 years as a wide-body Captain I added extra fuel on plenty of occasions and was never questioned.

[Global Aviator]

Out of interest….
Can those overseas operators reading this thread advise the alternate that their airline would usually plan, based on a VMC forecast, for Perth? Would they carry any advisory traffic holding fuel on top of that?



In a narrow body 737/320 not many choices if coming from SE Asia, Geraldton & Kalgoorlie are the two main ones and both do not have international facilities. I remember hearing of a Scoot 320 diverting to Kalgoorlie only to have no stairs available or was it no fuel?

The amount of flights into Perth compared to the number of diversions would be extremely low and hence most get away with it. However as mentioned a few times above Perth should be treated with respect. Cavok yet get there and the crosswind is serving up a lovely turbulent experience, that early morning surprise fog that hangs around, blah blah blah.

I fill the tanks to max available fuel pretty much every Perth and still sometimes I don’t reckon that’s enough! Airlines do push the limits of certain aircrafts capabilities.

[BuzzBox]

Obviously if your in the circuit , no delays , your not going to divert because your about to go below min divert . In this situation the alternate could be dropped to accept the 15 min traffic hold knowing there is 2 runways and little chance of further delays .!

So what would you do if you’re on descent to a destination with only one runway, you encounter unexpected delays and you don’t have any ‘extra’ fuel above that required to divert to your alternate, which also has only one runway? Divert or commit to the destination and use the alternate fuel for holding?

[Lapon]

So what would you do if you’re on descent to a destination with only one runway, you encounter unexpected delays and you don’t have any ‘extra’ fuel above that required to divert to your alternate, which also has only one runway? Divert or commit to the destination and use the alternate fuel for holding?

It would require a judgment call based on the reasons for the 'unexpected' delay.

Can only do the best with the information one has at the time.
Something like a FOD inspection being carried out following an incident of sorts and it might be prudent to bug out, a delay due sequencing of priorty traffic less so.
At least carrying alternate fuel provides the option.

[KAPAC]

So what would you do if you’re on descent to a destination with only one runway, you encounter unexpected delays and you don’t have any ‘extra’ fuel above that required to divert to your alternate, which also has only one runway? Divert or commit to the destination and use the alternate fuel for holding?
What’s the delay ? If it’s a 210 that’s done a wheels up at Devonport I’d divert to Launceston . If it’s because there is 2-3 aircraft arriving similar time I’d slow down and consider dropping alternate . It’s up to the captain on the day . Having an alternate gives options . I understand your saying if I divert to a single runway alternate I’m now in same position as if I’m flying to a destination with no alternate but before I divert I got 2 airports up my sleeve , destination and alternate . Gives me options if a problem arises as I’m on descent to destination .

[BuzzBox]

Having an alternate gives options . I understand your saying if I divert to a single runway alternate I’m now in same position as if I’m flying to a destination with no alternate but before I divert I got 2 airports up my sleeve , destination and alternate . Gives me options if a problem arises as I’m on descent to destination .

Absolutely. I only asked the question because you previously said the alternate could be dropped “knowing there is 2 runways…”. There is a surprising number of people out there that seem to believe an aircraft must divert in the circumstances I described. and they use that belief to justify carrying extra fuel, “just in case”.

[smiling monkey]

In a narrow body 737/320 not many choices if coming from SE Asia, Geraldton & Kalgoorlie are the two main ones and both do not have international facilities. I remember hearing of a Scoot 320 diverting to Kalgoorlie only to have no stairs available or was it no fuel?

I do recall an Air Asia Indonesia A320 diverting to Kalgoorlie a few years ago due to excessive holding time due weather in Perth at night. Their biggest issue was not knowing KGI has pilot activated lighting and their unfamiliarity with operating with PAL. If I remember correctly, a local aircraft enroute to the east coast from Perth helped with keying the lights for their arrival.

Now, the real issue here is why, after all these years, Perth does not have a parallel 03/21 runway? When 03 is in use, 06 always seem to be unavailable as well, limiting arrivals to only one runway thereby causing the backlog and ATC issuing delaying action for aircraft arrivals. Always carry extra fuel when 03 is in use at Perth if you plan to arrive during peak hour traffic.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Now, the real issue here is why, after all these years, Perth does not have a parallel 03/21 runway?

Munday Swamp heritage site is the answer. Environmental and heritage studies and other blah have reduced the proposed parallel from 3800m to 3000m and no doubt delayed everything by a thousand years.

"The need for a second parallel runway at Perth Airport was first identified in 1973 and has been included in Perth Airport Master Plans dating back to the 1980s."

Approval granted for Perth's New Runway (https://www.perthairport.com.au/Home/corporate/articles/2020/12/01/04/04/new-runway-approval)

[ExSp33db1rd]

Million years ago ..... VC-10 ex-London overflew Boston en route New York, and on approaching JFK was given a holding time that would have meant landing with less then the minimum required on arrival, and certainly less then required to divert to any suitable alternate, so immediately diverted back to Boston, where ...... the WX had deteriorated due snow, and was way below any possible landing minima. Now no diversion fuel left - what to do ? Emergency landing at a USAF base was approved, and succeeded. Phew ! (Nb, not me )

[The Love Doctor]

I do recall an Air Asia Indonesia A320 diverting to Kalgoorlie a few years ago due to excessive holding time due weather in Perth at night. Their biggest issue was not knowing KGI has pilot activated lighting and their unfamiliarity with operating with PAL. If I remember correctly, a local aircraft enroute to the east coast from Perth helped with keying the lights for their arrival.
.

I always thought it was astounding in a supposed 1st world country like Australia that all these airports have notoriously unreliable PAL. It seems possible for the councils etc to keep the street lights on every night without a problem but can't seem to keep runway lights on all night?

[KAPAC]

Resource rich state like WA that provides %40 of Australians income and relies on Aviation , it’s the most isolated city on the planet and it can’t afford to upgrade its main airport or leave lights on during the night at a remote alternate .

[Lead Balloon]

It can "afford it", but why would it do it? It's making a motza for the owners as is, and that's all that counts.

Transport used to be an essential service (like energy). Now it's a 'market'. And when you have a monopoly...

Same reason for Sydney KSA being a third world **** hole.

[Icarus2001]

it’s the most isolated city on the planet This old chestnut. :rolleyes: Honolulu slipped into the Pacific Ocean did it?

[KAPAC]

This old chestnut. :rolleyes: Honolulu slipped into the Pacific Ocean did it?
by some measures, Honolulu in Hawaii is the most isolated city in the world. Small Pacific islands aside – Perth, Western Australia, is the most isolated city on any continent, anywhere on Earth.

Operations into Hawaii better supported by infrastructure and airline fuel policy .

[43Inches]

Hmm, so isolated for 737 operations, when you could go to Busselton, Kalgoorlie, Pearce. Add to that possibly Albany, Esperance, and a few other 1800m+ strips that can handle jets. Pearce is viable, a QF group landed and refueled at East Sale a few years back when it got caught out by weather in Melbourne, I don't recall the RAAF was particularly phased by it being used for such purpose given the circumstance. The question in this riddle is why the jet did not proceed to an alternate for fuel, and rather declare a Mayday to proceed to it's nominated destination. Were the alternate destinations ruled out, were they led to believe there was going to be no more holding and then told last second there was more, say after passing the pnr for PKG. The report will have all the answers. Is it OK to declare a fuel mayday to push to a destination when an alternate is available? again something for the ATSB to ponder over.

IF Perth was truly isolated for the day, due to every other port in the area being fogged in or not adequate, then surely the extra fuel required for travel to an isolated aerodrome would need to be carried, add to that EDTO requirements.

[fdr]

This old chestnut. :rolleyes: Honolulu slipped into the Pacific Ocean did it?

Honolulu has buckets of alternates, and they are available as diverts. The disinterest in infrastructure that plagues Australia results in very few choices for international operators inbound, and even for domestic on occasion. Add Perths TAF accuracy that is about as good as choosing lotto numbers...

Precision approaches... that's arguably Perth, and nowhere else nearby. Add environmental conditions that can challenge autoland capability for less than the most modern systems...

PHNL-PHTO-188nm
YPPH-YPLM - 589nm. KSEA- LSFO 589nm. EGLL-LIMJ 565nm
YPPH-YPAD - 1145nm KSEA-KAMA 1179nm EGLL-LMML 1135nm

Its reasonable to say Perth is isolated

[Global Aviator]

Hmm, so isolated for 737 operations, when you could go to Busselton, Kalgoorlie, Pearce. Add to that possibly Albany, Esperance, and a few other 1800m+ strips that can handle jets. Pearce is viable, a QF group landed and refueled at East Sale a few years back when it got caught out by weather in Melbourne, I don't recall the RAAF was particularly phased by it being used for such purpose given the circumstance.

Yes they are all 1800m+ however as said what infrastructure? Stairs for the 737/320, tow bar, approaches mentioned, etc. Yes i would certainly use any of these in dire emergency but not for a min fuel situation, no one shouldn’t be in that position but if one is then what the QF crew did works.

Now throw in foreign crew on the 737/320 and the only real alternate is Kalgoorlie.

Perth is an isolated airport for a myriad of reasons.

[43Inches]

What stairs do you need, its a dash and splash. As I said this happened to a QF 737 that diverted to East Sale a few years back due to a low fuel state. Albany advertises that its 737 capable, Busselton is a Jetstar port, so you are saying an A320 can land there but not a 737 for a spot of fuel? And Pearce has an ILS, whatever that matters when RNP will get you in to any of these ports. My point is if you are going to declare a low fuel state and broadcast a mayday fuel, can you do so with alternates available that are acceptable and within range. Remembering that under the new fuel rules, alternates require less fuel and weather minimums than the destination. I think many posters here are forgetting that WA has a number of options for 737 sized aircraft now, while navaids might be an issue this aircraft would have been RNP capable. We are not talking about foreign crew or a heavy type international flight, it was a domestic QF 737-800. Or do QF 737 crew need ILS everywhere they go now?

[Lookleft]

As I said this happened to a QF 737 that diverted to East Sale a few years back due to a low fuel state.

Do you want to actually put a date to that timeline. A "few years back" would be 2018.

And Pearce has an ILS, whatever that matters when RNP will get you in to any of these ports.

Do you mean RNP-AR or the rebadged RNAV-Z! Only RNP-AR would be of use if committing to a diversion because a lot of the RNAV-Z give you a minima not much better than a VOR approach. If you want to talk diversions "a few years back", remember the Virgin 737 that diverted from Adelaide because of fog and ended up landing in fog in Mildura off an RNAV-Z. He would have been better off declaring a Mayday and auto landing in Adelaide.

If you are going to write factually incorrect stuff then remember the saying about it better people thinking you are a fool........

[BuzzBox]

What stairs do you need, its a dash and splash. As I said this happened to a QF 737 that diverted to East Sale a few years back due to a low fuel state. Albany advertises that its 737 capable, Busselton is a Jetstar port, so you are saying an A320 can land there but not a 737 for a spot of fuel? And Pearce has an ILS, whatever that matters when RNP will get you in to any of these ports. My point is if you are going to declare a low fuel state and broadcast a mayday fuel, can you do so with alternates available that are acceptable and within range. Remembering that under the new fuel rules, alternates require less fuel and weather minimums than the destination. I think many posters here are forgetting that WA has a number of options for 737 sized aircraft now, while navaids might be an issue this aircraft would have been RNP capable. We are not talking about foreign crew or a heavy type international flight, it was a domestic QF 737-800. Or do QF 737 crew need ILS everywhere they go now?

If you were the Captain of the QF aircraft involved in this incident, what would you have done? Diverted into an unfamiliar, marginal airport on the bones of your ass for fuel; or declared a fuel Mayday and continued to a very familiar destination, for which you were already on descent, set up and briefed? What would be the safest option, in YOUR opinion?

[cloudsurfng]

What stairs do you need, its a dash and splash. As I said this happened to a QF 737 that diverted to East Sale a few years back due to a low fuel state. Albany advertises that its 737 capable, Busselton is a Jetstar port, so you are saying an A320 can land there but not a 737 for a spot of fuel? And Pearce has an ILS, whatever that matters when RNP will get you in to any of these ports. My point is if you are going to declare a low fuel state and broadcast a mayday fuel, can you do so with alternates available that are acceptable and within range. Remembering that under the new fuel rules, alternates require less fuel and weather minimums than the destination. I think many posters here are forgetting that WA has a number of options for 737 sized aircraft now, while navaids might be an issue this aircraft would have been RNP capable. We are not talking about foreign crew or a heavy type international flight, it was a domestic QF 737-800. Or do QF 737 crew need ILS everywhere they go now?

plan on using the escape rope for the walk around? Popping a slide?

[Capn Bloggs]

Lookleft, that was an uncharacteristically harsh post from you. I don't see an issue with "a few years" being 2018, nor "RNP" to get into an alternate. All those discussed here have LNAV/VNAV minima (Busselton and Kalgoorlie have RNP-AR). Is 200ft really going to make a difference at Geraldton?

I can't see the relevance of the Virgin (and QF) diversion to Mildura to this incident. Different cause and circumstance.

I don't see any "factually incorrect stuff" in 43 inche's posts.

[Capn Bloggs]

Buzzbox, you're getting a bit dramatic there. Regardless of familiarity with ports, plugging in a straight-in approach and then landing on the big black area that appears in front of you at 500ft on final shouldn't really be a problem, should it?

[43Inches]

If you are going to write factually incorrect stuff then remember the saying about it better people thinking you are a fool........

And the fool would be? The one who omits QF diverted ahead of VA and landed at Mildura safely, or that the diversion was flawed because updated information was not sought prior to diversion or not passed on when alerted by aircraft arriving earlier. For instance not much made of the Rex flight who saw the unfolding drama and immediately diverted to an alternate to avoid what was a growing list of unknowns ahead regarding holding aircraft, unforecast weather, etc, possibly causing them issues. Or should I recite the CARs which require a PIC of RPT/Charter to be familiar with all airports, including alternates and weather patterns on the route to be flown, so that diversions and such can be made without having to fly to 'unfamiliar' airports. I mean seriously the amount quoting Perth is so isolated means a captain operating there should be aware of all alternates en-route and in the area and it would be easy to be familiar as there are not that many, and due diligence means you must be familiar with all alternates and emergency possibles. Some here make it sound like the QF crew are barely trained and experienced and are flying a Cessna 172 on a private hop.

PS Mia forecast had a Tempo for broken low cloud before the VA aircraft had even diverted, so they needed to arrive at MIA with at least 60 minutes holding, so it was a marginal destination as is.

Point still stands though, that if every other port in the area had alternate or marginal forecasts, why was the aircraft operating on bare minimum fuel.

One last clear point; what the QF crew did was not unsafe, they landed with reserves intact, so I agree they acted appropriately. However if as has been posted earlier you start getting multiple aircraft using this fuel mayday because numerous cut it thin, then ATC will have to triage who goes first, and you may end up with different outcomes, I mean what if the 3-5 aircraft ahead all were operating on minimum fuel and then a chorus of fuel maydays rolling as they got additional delays to follow the QF. So it has to be asked if they had appropriate fuel to begin with, did they consider alternates, were they completely committed to Perth and if not is a Fuel Mayday appropriate if alternates are available. All questions the ATSB will ask I'm sure.

[BuzzBox]

Buzzbox, you're getting a bit dramatic there. Regardless of familiarity with ports, plugging in a straight-in approach and then landing on the big black area that appears in front of you at 500ft on final shouldn't really be a problem, should it?

Perhaps so, but that somewhat misses the point. In my view it comes down to choosing the safest option, which is not a rushed diversion into an unfamiliar airfield.

[Lookleft]

Bloggsy sorry you thought that my post was harsh but my point about Mildura was that there is no such thing as a simple diversion to a regional airport especially if you are relying on a TAF. I agree Busselton has RNP-AR but I cant find an RNP-AR at Kalgoorlie. As others have pointed out there is also the issue of stairs etc. Company requirements would possibly still necessitate a walk around by a crew member before departure even for a refuel. The hypothetical about multiple maydays is irrelevant as on the day only one crew used a prescribed and legal procedure to ensure they landed with the statutory reserves intact. I doubt the crew didn't follow the QF fuel policy and will be supported by QF flight ops in their decision to continue to Perth. The ATSB won't produce a report that is very different to this one:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2004/aair/aair200401270/

[43Inches]

One issue is that both crew in the Mildura incident did not request the TAFs, only the current METARs. That was one of the issues highlighted by the ATSB, they only requested and received the current METAR which was pre the low cloud and fog rolling in. The current TAF had a Tempo for BKN Cloud at 600 feet, which means a 60 minute fuel requirement for any arriving aircraft. The SPECI was passed to both aircraft while they were busy talking on other frequencies and not followed up. Both aircraft landed well before 60 minutes holding had expired.

There is no point asking for current conditions if diverting to a place that has deterioration on the forecast, the current conditions only tell you what is happening at that point in time, not at arrival time. The Met run down in that report shows why it was forecast as low cloud rather than fog and why they got it wrong. In any case both aircraft should have had 60 minutes on arrival + at least 30 minutes reserves.

The 60 minute requirement had been there all morning as well.

I mean basically you are saying that you would not divert due fuel because the forecast at any of these locations might be wrong. And we are saying now that QF has no alternates in the Perth area including Kalgoorlie or Busselton with no stairs for a 737, this just sounds silly as how did this 737 get to Perth with barely reserves and traffic holding without some sort of contingency fuel as well. I can only think it was holding YPKG initially en-route and shifting to YPPH as it reconsidered variables. I would say Pearce has 737 capable stairs as they handle RAAF 737.

[neville_nobody]

The only question going to asked in regards to diversion is why they didn’t go to Kalgoorlie. It might well be they couldn’t make it anyway so Perth was the only option.

[Pastor of Muppets]

The same pig-headed bookworms that will argue require/request semantics with English second language carriers hurtling toward Botany Bay at 300 knots.
Cameras out and fingers hovering over the crash button….

[wombat watcher]

The only question going to asked in regards to diversion is why they didn’t go to Kalgoorlie. It might well be they couldn’t make it anyway so Perth was the only option.


The passengers paid their money to go to Perth

[Icarus2001]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/275x210/gizv6_ba03cdb04d1df79b19b0e69d1e11db2526f07b13.gif

[tossbag]

The one who omits QF diverted ahead of VA and landed at Mildura safely

The Qantas aircraft landed in the same fog that the Virgin aircraft landed in. And in a very similar fuel state. i.e. f@ckall.

[43Inches]

The Qantas aircraft landed in the same fog that the Virgin aircraft landed in. And in a very similar fuel state. i.e. f@ckall.

The QF aircraft landed at 0945 with the calculated ability to hold until 1020 and then commence an approach with reserves intact. So it landed with 1 hour left in the tanks, probably 30 minutes more than this incident in Perth landed with. However both aircraft overlooked the TAF Tempo requirement and did not have the 1 hour needed for that particular requirement, as the diversion was unplanned and observations were used instead of the TAF that both crew had.

[tossbag]

So both aircraft were in an emergency situation, they both busted minima to get in to Mildura. And the 'legal' fuel you talked about here wouldn't have got them to a legal alternate with any fuel reserves intact.

Mind you, I don't criticise either of these crews, quite the reverse actually. Steely-eyed missile man stuff getting both those aircraft on the ground safely. But painting the Qantas flight as 'legal' and the Virgin as not is disingenuous.

[43Inches]

Both aircraft safely arrived is what matters, whether each followed the rules is debatable. It's interesting that the QF aircrafts fuel details were not obtained by the ATSB for that event, and they had to use a calculation for the estimated FOB. In the Mildura case this was definitely a case of CAR 257 where decent below minima is allowed due to no other course of action available, ie an emergency. In the case of the 330 mentioned earlier its interesting, they had to declare an emergency to use Canberra as an alternate, but then busted minima at Sydney, which was also allowable under CAR 257 due to a fuel emergency, but is there a fuel emergency when you have fuel for an alternate? What is safer, busting the minima or diverting to an 'emergency' alternate under company policy, which would be considered a suitable alternate for general operations. It's pretty obvious from some wording in that report that the ATSB seems to think that the pan call was given to 'push in front' of other traffic so they could have a go before getting to YSCB divert fuel, but they only remarked at it, not really pushing the idea. It really is unfortunate that the briefing QF gave the ATSB/ATC on the why things are that way is not explained to the pilots in general for our education, as it would be nice to know the answers to these questions of what is preferable. This latest Perth Mayday was not really similar to either event as both the previous were due to weather conditions, not prolonged traffic holding.

[Capt Fathom]

This discussion has gone on for 5 days now. How long did the crew have to make their decision which ended in an uneventful landing?

[tossbag]

Both aircraft safely arrived is what matters

Despite the absolute embarrassment that Australian aviation is. Everything about it, infrastructure, attitudes, mentality but mainly the delusion that it's better than everybody else.

whether each followed the rules is debatable

Don't care really, both crews got those aircraft down despite being ****** over by the Australian aviation system.

[smiling monkey]

The crew of this flight must have been reading this thread;

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-vzu/#2ccd1536

[Capn Bloggs]

This discussion has gone on for 5 days now. How long did the crew have to make their decision which ended in an uneventful landing?
If you don't like it, Fathom, don't read the thread. I'm finding it quite interesting.

[Capn Bloggs]

The crew of this flight must have been reading this thread;

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-vzu/#2ccd1536 (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-vzu/#2ccd1536)
TAF amend Perth (Issued 1426), Prob 30 Fog from 1600. ATIS at 1406: 700/800/1200.
:cool:

[anonfly]

Only thing to say is that on a CAVOK day Busselton is a fantastic alternate. It’s 14mins down the road.
It has stairs for both 737, 320, F100 aircraft. The staff their are great. They got all g up and ready 3 times in preparation for Jetstar coming to it. They can handle a diversion. Lack of parking spots would be the only issue if too many turned up.
Nice 45m runway 03/21 with easy RNAVs to follow.
Only thing is if the weather is crap in PH it’s likely to be crap in Busso so KG is the better alternate there.
I’ve being flying recently with East Coast guys and being PH based I do make a habit of mentioning Busselton is now a very suitable airport. Most thank me as they aren’t aware it’s now considered a Network aerodrome. Easy to have missed over the last two years since WA was a seperate country after all and you can easy miss these small but significant things in the mix of all of us getting back in the air.

[framer]

Well anonfly sounds like the reasonable, sensible people I fly with 99% of the time.
It’s interesting visiting the prune website again after a few years off because there is a definite ‘tone’ to the conversation that is a bit adversarial but still some good information in amongst it all.
My opinion is that the system worked with both the flight in question and the one pictured above that diverted to Kalgoorlie. I imagine that on the Kalgoorlie diversion flight the weather was assessed at the ‘in flight re-planning point ‘ ( DPA is it?) and all the wx information was there to divert in order to remain within the rule set. On the flight that landed with 40 minutes fuel remaining I imagine they also made an assessment at the ‘ in flight re-planning point ‘ and all was well to continue to destination. No problem. Then, aviation being rather dynamic, things changed, ATC threw up extra holding, no problem, the system has standard calls to ensure clear communication between ATC and the aircraft, these standard calls were used and the aircraft landed 10 minutes before it really needed to.
As far as crew decision making around how much fuel they loaded pre-flight we don’t have enough info to compare it to what we think we would have done in their shoes but I would bet that they were limited and most of us would have done the same as them. Guess we’ll find out in a couple of years. Have a nice day everyone.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Both aircraft safely arrived is what matters, whether each followed the rules is debatable. It's interesting that the QF aircrafts fuel details were not obtained by the ATSB for that event, and they had to use a calculation for the estimated FOB. In the Mildura case this was definitely a case of CAR 257 where decent below minima is allowed due to no other course of action available, ie an emergency. In the case of the 330 mentioned earlier its interesting, they had to declare an emergency to use Canberra as an alternate, but then busted minima at Sydney, which was also allowable under CAR 257 due to a fuel emergency, but is there a fuel emergency when you have fuel for an alternate? What is safer, busting the minima or diverting to an 'emergency' alternate under company policy, which would be considered a suitable alternate for general operations. It's pretty obvious from some wording in that report that the ATSB seems to think that the pan call was given to 'push in front' of other traffic so they could have a go before getting to YSCB divert fuel, but they only remarked at it, not really pushing the idea. It really is unfortunate that the briefing QF gave the ATSB/ATC on the why things are that way is not explained to the pilots in general for our education, as it would be nice to know the answers to these questions of what is preferable. This latest Perth Mayday was not really similar to either event as both the previous were due to weather conditions, not prolonged traffic holding.

Forgive me if I recall this wrong, but didn't the QF flight 'push in' at Mildura? - the report says something like VA was tracking for the 27 GNSS then after discussion with QF, elected to hold for the QF which needed to land "due fuel". I don't think there was enough information provided to clarify how close the two were but if (and they're only ifs), VA had gone first, with minor (any?) delay to QF then they both might have gotten before the weather really closed in. I'm not passing any judgement here but it strikes me that both a/c would/should have had similar amounts of fuel at about that time and the more direct attitude of the QF captain (need to approach "due fuel") helped them out to the possible detriment of the VA. Translate that to Perth and it can be seen how anything other then a "mayday fuel" leaves potential for intentional or inadvertent problems being created for others.

It's incomprehensible that any trans-australia flight can't be given a final fix time at least an hour out and use that to determine if they'll arrive with their reserves intact. If things go to pot after that then ATC should be asking for latest divert times or latest approach times and re-sort the sequence from there.

[C441]

I wonder if the airborne holding was extended to facilitate additional departures rather than due to additional arrivals? I'm not sure how arrival sequencing is impacted by departures from the same runway in Perth, but if there is say an additional few minutes between each arriving aircraft in order to get a few departures away, then reducing the airborne traffic holding in critical situations shouldn't be too hard to achieve by 'holding' a few aircraft on the ground.…..Is that too simplistic?

[compressor stall]

Only thing to say is that on a CAVOK day Busselton is a fantastic alternate. It’s 14mins down the road.
It has stairs for both 737, 320, F100 aircraft. The staff their are great. They got all g up and ready 3 times in preparation for Jetstar coming to it. They can handle a diversion. Lack of parking spots would be the only issue if too many turned up.
Nice 45m runway 03/21 with easy RNAVs to
Have you seen the list of requirements (including PPR) to use it?

[43Inches]

Forgive me if I recall this wrong, but didn't the QF flight 'push in' at Mildura? - the report says something like VA was tracking for the 27 GNSS then after discussion with QF, elected to hold for the QF which needed to land "due fuel". I don't think there was enough information provided to clarify how close the two were but if (and they're only ifs), VA had gone first, with minor (any?) delay to QF then they both might have gotten before the weather really closed in. I'm not passing any judgement here but it strikes me that both a/c would/should have had similar amounts of fuel at about that time and the more direct attitude of the QF captain (need to approach "due fuel") helped them out to the possible detriment of the VA. Translate that to Perth and it can be seen how anything other then a "mayday fuel" leaves potential for intentional or inadvertent problems being created for others.

It's incomprehensible that any trans-australia flight can't be given a final fix time at least an hour out and use that to determine if they'll arrive with their reserves intact. If things go to pot after that then ATC should be asking for latest divert times or latest approach times and re-sort the sequence from there.

There's a few elephants in the room regarding the QF crews actions at Mildura. They knowingly reduced the minima to get in, which is still busting a minima to land, which was admitted in crew interviews. However there was no declaration of a mayday despite them planning to bust minima with a revised minima 200 ft below the published. That would have led to them being stood down in Mildura and the CVR and FDR data being seized for scrutiny like the case of the VA aircraft. Instead they refueled and left a few hours later. The VA aircraft was dealing with a low fuel state and imbalance which is described in the report. I assume for some reason the FDR and fuel records were not provided to the ATSB from the QF flight for some reason, which is beyond my comprehension as to why this information was unavailable. There is a few events the last 20 years now that seem to show a cultural issue at QF that its ok to bust a minima without telling anyone that you will do so, which then leads to a few other assumptions of how they view minima, but that's for another discussion. IMO the VA aircraft did everything right by the book except carrying the fuel for the TEMPO at MIA. Both aircraft landed safely which is the main thing, however had the QF aircraft come to grief due to preforming what is an emergency procedure the services would not have been in direct attendance as they were for the VA aircraft. Which is the main reason you declare your emergency so if something does go wrong all the chips are in place to minimise the downsides.

Have you seen the list of requirements (including PPR) to use it?

PPR means nowt if you need somewhere to land due a low fuel state, unless of course that PPR involves making the aerodrome safe for use.

[C441]

There is a few events the last 20 years now that seem to show a cultural issue at QF that its ok to bust a minima without telling anyone that you will do so, which then leads to a few other assumptions of how they view minima
That's a very broad statement to make. I'm sure you have a list of the dozens of such occurrences in the tens of thousands of Qantas flights "in the last 20 years".

Personally, I've sat on the ground in visibility less than half that required for landing as Qantas aircraft diverted in all directions and other airline's aircraft (with their alternate fuel apparently) landed in visibility that miraculously and significantly improved for the few seconds they were approaching the minima. It was a common occurrence before Sydney and Melbourne had Cat II approaches.

[Lead Balloon]

The lovely people at YSCB parked a vehicle behind a Qantas jet to prevent it leaving before a landing fee was paid, after the jet had to divert there on short notice due a problem at YSSY. As I recall, the fee was $18,000 but my recollection may be fuzzy.

[43Inches]

That's a very broad statement to make. I'm sure you have a list of the dozens of such occurrences in the tens of thousands of Qantas flights "in the last 20 years".

3 on the ATSB website I've found, 2 actual landings where no statement was made that they were going to go below minima and did, the A330 at Sydney, which only indicated a PAN call so they could use YSCB as an alternate, not an intention to bust minima, and the Mildura incident. And Adelaide again in fog where they had prepared for an autoland after a missed approach and holding, but weather cleared to above minima during the approach. While I agree you might see this from other operators, they haven't pictured in the ATSB notes, so must be better at getting away with it.

[compressor stall]

PPR means nowt if you need somewhere to land due a low fuel state, unless of course that PPR involves making the aerodrome safe for use.

No argument there. I was replying to the suggestion to routinely hold it as an alternate. It can't be held as an alternate without PPR and providing a list of information stopping just short of the name of the purser's dog's vet's superannuation fund manager.

[Awol57]

I wonder if the airborne holding was extended to facilitate additional departures rather than due to additional arrivals? I'm not sure how arrival sequencing is impacted by departures from the same runway in Perth, but if there is say an additional few minutes between each arriving aircraft in order to get a few departures away, then reducing the airborne traffic holding in critical situations shouldn't be too hard to achieve by 'holding' a few aircraft on the ground.…..Is that too simplistic?

I wasn't at work on the day in question but no it doesn't happen that way. We have to squeeze the departures around the arrival sequence. Any delays would usually be from a missed approach, runway change, or change in conditions (VSA to IAL) and pop up flights within a certain distance of the aerodrome. We can usually ask Approach to slow an arrival on final to make a gap but that's usually within 10nm of the field and has no effect on the Maestro sequence. Having said that, I am just a simple tower controller so there may be additional things that I have missed of course.

[Chronic Snoozer]

The crew of this flight must have been reading this thread;

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-vzu/#2ccd1536

The refueller at Geraldton was also busy last night. Busso got a visit too.

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/broome-travellers-forced-to-sleep-on-geraldton-airport-floor-after-fog-causes-overnight-flight-chaos-20220727-p5b4xm.html

[tossbag]

Forgive me if I recall this wrong, but didn't the QF flight 'push in' at Mildura?

That's pretty much EXACTLY how it happened.

[missy]

I wonder if the airborne holding was extended to facilitate additional departures rather than due to additional arrivals? I'm not sure how arrival sequencing is impacted by departures from the same runway in Perth, but if there is say an additional few minutes between each arriving aircraft in order to get a few departures away, then reducing the airborne traffic holding in critical situations shouldn't be too hard to achieve by 'holding' a few aircraft on the ground.…..Is that too simplistic?
Interesting question and something I pondered myself. Hopefully ATSB will be looking at whether acceptance rates, decision to run/not run GDP, traffic advisories, ATC staffing in ML Centre, PH APP and PH TWR played a part.
IDK, but did QFA Operations / ASA NOC discuss switching landing times between company aircraft?

[Angle of Attack]

I guess when faced with deliberately landing at a minima lower than the legal one or running out of fuel and gliding to an off airport crash, I know which one I would choose.

None of the events in the past where QF landed below the legal minima, had any fuel to go anywhere else due unforecast fog. And I can guarantee an ASIR would have been submitted each time, but in all honesty apart from the Mildura event the ATSB didnt release a report as there was nothing to really report on apart from “The weatherman stuffed up”

[nose,cabin]

Precision Approach Categories

Most International Airlines can fly Cat3b.

All captains certified in the Simulators.every 90 days.

CAT IIIB

lower than 15 m (50 ft) or no DH

RVR less than 200 m but not less than 50

Maybe WA government should invest and upgrade Perth and the infrastructure.

Investment into the States future.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/precision-approach

Qantas are doing it already with many “Mayday auto lands.”

[KAPAC]

Precision Approach Categories

Most International Airlines can fly Cat3b.

All captains certified in the Simulators.every 90 days.

CAT IIIB

lower than 15 m (50 ft) or no DH

RVR less than 200 m but not less than 50

Maybe WA government should invest and upgrade Perth and the infrastructure.

Investment into the States future.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/precision-approach

Qantas are doing it already with many “Mayday auto lands.”

Agree , it’s not hard . Cat3C

See over a 100 Qantas passengers spent the night in regional terminal .

[Awol57]

There is a CAT3B approach into Perth already? And a CAT 2SA. Rwy 21 and 03 respectively.

[BuzzBox]

Precision Approach Categories

Most International Airlines can fly Cat3b.

All captains certified in the Simulators.every 90 days.

CAT IIIB

lower than 15 m (50 ft) or no DH

RVR less than 200 m but not less than 50

Maybe WA government should invest and upgrade Perth and the infrastructure.

Investment into the States future.

https://skybrary.aero/articles/precision-approach

Qantas are doing it already with many “Mayday auto lands.”

Umm, perhaps you missed it, but a CAT III ILS was commissioned on RWY 21 at Perth about four years ago. Our CAT IIIB minima for Perth were DH = 0 and RVR = 75 m (all zones) for the Airbus A330/A350. The problem now is that some operators don't have aircraft and/or crews that are appropriately certified/qualified. More accurate forecasting would obviously help too, so that aircraft might actually be carrying the necessary alternate fuel in the event of fog.

[BuzzBox]

Agree , it’s not hard . Cat3C

CAT IIIC? I think not.

[non_state_actor]

It's the operators not the airport that is preventing landing in fog. I'm sure F100's and A320's can do low viz ops you just have to spend the time and money upgrading everyone.

[Mach E Avelli]

QUOTE Qantas are doing it already with many “Mayday auto lands.”

Whatever next? " Mayday DUTY time? " …at least being fatigued poses risk.
I self-taught autolands for the first time I got caught out, as I rather knew would eventually happen with the scheduling and aircraft range capability at the time.
The aeroplane didn't realise that the guy pushing its buttons did not have a piece of paper to say 'autoland qualified' , and it was probable that the autoland system itself was out of certification date. I had made a habit of letting it do its thing on nice days to develop confidence in its integrity. Not legal of course, but that's what you get when you use aircraft on routes that push limits. Doing an 'illegal' autoland is a whole lot safer than swimming in the dark amongst the great whites. On the two occasions I did this, I kept schtum rather than fill in a lot of paperwork. Statute of limitations allows me to 'fess up now.
Point being, it can't be that expensive for operators of suitable aircraft to qualify all crews in this?
For those that don’t have auto land, regular sim practice at flying down to 50 ft with 300 m viz (for emergency use only) would not go astray.
As an aside, years ago I tried to introduce the monitored approach, which could have taken a lot of the stress out of low vis ops, but the the old ex-Ansett guard howled it down as un-Australian, or something. Typical not invented here syndrome. After all, what would the Poms know about crap weather?

[Capn Bloggs]

Mach E Avelli our hero. :cool:

[Mach E Avelli]

And a live hero at that. Bloggsie, you will soon be old enough to be entitled to war stories too. I bet you have a few…?

[Angle of Attack]

Indeed the 21 ILS is CAT3 but without knowing conditions I’m guessing it was unforecast fog? If that was the case you would need fuel to commence an approach and a full diversion, so if you didn’t have it you would need to divert early. Simple ABC of piloting. Storm in a tea cup, but I would suggest put a ****load of fuel on into Perth late nights in Winter, you can’t pick it!

[Angle of Attack]

Here’s the minimums into PH if anyone is interested,

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1523x765/ac44b913_1b5b_4ca7_a71f_bda4a933c81e_9de149c1bd15aa811e98022 97239e808e9f3e982.jpeg

[wombat watcher]

Indeed the 21 ILS is CAT3 but without knowing conditions I’m guessing it was unforecast fog? If that was the case you would need fuel to commence an approach and a full diversion, so if you didn’t have it you would need to divert early. Simple ABC of piloting. Storm in a tea cup, but I would suggest put a ****load of fuel on into Perth late nights in Winter, you can’t pick it!

Not necessarily correct. If the forecast for PER was above Alternate Criteria and you had already passed PNR and you couldn’t carry an Alternate, you are entitled to continue and commence an approach.
It is a step by step assessment, always complying with the rules until you have the circumstances such that you can no longer comply with all of the rules.
eg. You carry 10’ hold for ATC and they tell you that it will be 16’ and you don’t have it.

[Capn Bloggs]

If the forecast for PER was above Alternate Criteria and you had already passed PNR and you couldn’t carry an Alternate, you are entitled to continue and commence an approach.
Yes, I would have thought so, too. ;)

[BuzzBox]

Last night's YPPH TAFs:

TAF YPPH 261102Z 2612/2718 15005KT 9999 FEW015 BKN040 FM270100
07010KT 9999 BKN050 FM270600 08008KT CAVOK=

TAF AMD YPPH 261304Z 2613/2718 07004KT 9999 FEW008 SCT040 FM270100
07010KT 9999 BKN050 FM270600 08008KT CAVOK
PROB40 2614/2618 0300 FG=

TAF AMD YPPH 261308Z 2613/2718 07004KT 3000 BR FEW008 SCT040 FM261800
07005KT 9999 NSW FEW010 SCT040 FM270100 07010KT 9999
BKN050 FM270600 08008KT CAVOK
PROB40 2614/2618 0300 FG=

TAF AMD YPPH 261337Z 2613/2718 06004KT 0500 FG BKN002 FM261600
07004KT 3000 BR SCT005 FM261800 07005KT 9999 NSW FEW010
SCT040 FM270100 07010KT 9999 BKN050 FM270600 08008KT
CAVOK
PROB40 2616/2618 0300 FG=

TAF AMD YPPH 261405Z 2614/2718 06004KT 4000 BR SCT003 FM261800
07005KT 9999 NSW FEW010 SCT040 FM270100 07010KT 9999
BKN050 FM270600 08008KT CAVOK
PROB40 2615/2618 0300 FG=

TAF AMD YPPH 261426Z 2614/2718 06004KT 8000 HZ FEW003 BKN035 FM261800
07005KT 9999 NSW FEW010 BKN040 FM270100 07010KT 9999
BKN050 FM270600 08008KT CAVOK
PROB30 2616/2618 0300 FG=


The METARs show the fog started to appear at 1300 and lasted until some time between 1400 and 1430. The lowest vis recorded was 400 metres, at 1335.

[wombat watcher]

How about this one:
You are 1000’ on finals and the cloud base/visibility is above the minima and below the Alternate Criteria which you have just become aware of; you have enough fuel to carry an Alternate.
Q: Are you legally required to divert?
Q:Wouldyou?
Q: If you would, what are your reasons for diverting?

[tossbag]

F@ck sake :hmm:

[Capn Bloggs]

What are you talking about, WW? Have you just been advised of a revised TAF, or has the tower just updated the actual conditions? And why would you divert if you are carrying alternate fuel without doing an approach first (or, I should say, finishing off the approach you are on)?

No/No/N'A.

[wombat watcher]

What are you talking about, WW? Have you just been advised of a revised TAF, or has the tower just updated the actual conditions? And why would you divert if you are carrying alternate fuel without doing an approach first (or, I should say, finishing off the approach you are on)?

No/No/N'A.


Correct/ correct/ correct.

NB
doesnt matter how you found out. It was a question to sort the bedwetters from the legal pedantics from those who have a practical approach. Many of whom have expressed an opinion on this thread.

[missy]

Last night's YPPH TAFs:

TAF YPPH 261102Z 2612/2718 15005KT 9999 FEW015 BKN040 FM270100
07010KT 9999 BKN050 FM270600 08008KT CAVOK=

TAF AMD YPPH 261304Z 2613/2718 07004KT 9999 FEW008 SCT040 FM270100
07010KT 9999 BKN050 FM270600 08008KT CAVOK
PROB40 2614/2618 0300 FG=

TAF AMD YPPH 261308Z 2613/2718 07004KT 3000 BR FEW008 SCT040 FM261800
07005KT 9999 NSW FEW010 SCT040 FM270100 07010KT 9999
BKN050 FM270600 08008KT CAVOK
PROB40 2614/2618 0300 FG=

TAF AMD YPPH 261337Z 2613/2718 06004KT 0500 FG BKN002 FM261600
07004KT 3000 BR SCT005 FM261800 07005KT 9999 NSW FEW010
SCT040 FM270100 07010KT 9999 BKN050 FM270600 08008KT
CAVOK
PROB40 2616/2618 0300 FG=

TAF AMD YPPH 261405Z 2614/2718 06004KT 4000 BR SCT003 FM261800
07005KT 9999 NSW FEW010 SCT040 FM270100 07010KT 9999
BKN050 FM270600 08008KT CAVOK
PROB40 2615/2618 0300 FG=

TAF AMD YPPH 261426Z 2614/2718 06004KT 8000 HZ FEW003 BKN035 FM261800
07005KT 9999 NSW FEW010 BKN040 FM270100 07010KT 9999
BKN050 FM270600 08008KT CAVOK
PROB30 2616/2618 0300 FG=

Five Amended TAFs in less than 90 minutes, that has to be a personal best. Listing the METARs and the ATIS for the same period would be very interesting.

[BuzzBox]

Five Amended TAFs in less than 90 minutes, that has to be a personal best. Listing the METARs and the ATIS for the same period would be very interesting.

I don't have the ATIS, but the following METARs were issued during that period:

SA 26/07/2022 11:00->METAR YPPH 261100Z 32004KT 200V350 9999 VCSH FEW010 SCT045 BKN055 14/13 Q1020=
SA 26/07/2022 11:30->METAR YPPH 261130Z 03004KT 9999 FEW013 BKN075 14/13 Q1020=
SA 26/07/2022 12:00->METAR YPPH 261200Z 07004KT 9999 FEW013 SCT080 13/12 Q1020=
SA 26/07/2022 12:30->METAR YPPH 261230Z 07004KT 9999 FEW013 13/12 Q1020=
SP 26/07/2022 13:00->SPECI YPPH 261300Z 00000KT 2000 BCFG NSC 12/11 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 13:00->METAR YPPH 261300Z 00000KT 2000 BCFG NSC 12/11 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 13:30->SPECI YPPH 261330Z 06003KT 0800 R21/P2000N FG BKN002 13/12 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 13:30->METAR YPPH 261330Z 06003KT 0800 R21/P2000N FG BKN002 13/12 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 13:35->SPECI YPPH 261335Z 06006KT 0400 R21/0700D FG BKN001 BKN035 13/13 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 13:50->SPECI YPPH 261350Z 02003KT 1500 R03/0650D BR BKN001 BKN035 13/12 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 14:00->METAR YPPH 261400Z 04005KT 5000 R03/0450V0650N VCFG SCT002 BKN035 13/13 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 14:00->SPECI YPPH 261400Z 04005KT 5000 R03/0450V0650N VCFG SCT002 BKN035 13/13 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 14:03->SPECI YPPH 261403Z 06005KT 7000 R03/0450V0900U FEW002 BKN033 13/13 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 14:30->SPECI YPPH 261430Z 07006KT 8000 FEW006 BKN030 13/13 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 14:30->METAR YPPH 261430Z 07006KT 8000 FEW006 BKN030 13/13 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 15:00->METAR YPPH 261500Z 07002KT 9999 FEW006 BKN030 BKN050 13/13 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 15:18->SPECI YPPH 261518Z AUTO 20004KT 9999 // SCT005 OVC036 14/13 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 15:30->METAR YPPH 261530Z 19005KT 9999 FEW006 SCT035 BKN048 14/13 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 16:00->METAR YPPH 261600Z 19005KT 9999 BKN032 BKN050 14/13 Q1021=

[nose,cabin]

I don't have the ATIS, but the following METARs were issued during that period:

SA 26/07/2022 11:00->METAR YPPH 261100Z 32004KT 200V350 9999 VCSH FEW010 SCT045 BKN055 14/13 Q1020=
SA 26/07/2022 11:30->METAR YPPH 261130Z 03004KT 9999 FEW013 BKN075 14/13 Q1020=
SA 26/07/2022 12:00->METAR YPPH 261200Z 07004KT 9999 FEW013 SCT080 13/12 Q1020=
SA 26/07/2022 12:30->METAR YPPH 261230Z 07004KT 9999 FEW013 13/12 Q1020=
SP 26/07/2022 13:00->SPECI YPPH 261300Z 00000KT 2000 BCFG NSC 12/11 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 13:00->METAR YPPH 261300Z 00000KT 2000 BCFG NSC 12/11 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 13:30->SPECI YPPH 261330Z 06003KT 0800 R21/P2000N FG BKN002 13/12 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 13:30->METAR YPPH 261330Z 06003KT 0800 R21/P2000N FG BKN002 13/12 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 13:35->SPECI YPPH 261335Z 06006KT 0400 R21/0700D FG BKN001 BKN035 13/13 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 13:50->SPECI YPPH 261350Z 02003KT 1500 R03/0650D BR BKN001 BKN035 13/12 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 14:00->METAR YPPH 261400Z 04005KT 5000 R03/0450V0650N VCFG SCT002 BKN035 13/13 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 14:00->SPECI YPPH 261400Z 04005KT 5000 R03/0450V0650N VCFG SCT002 BKN035 13/13 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 14:03->SPECI YPPH 261403Z 06005KT 7000 R03/0450V0900U FEW002 BKN033 13/13 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 14:30->SPECI YPPH 261430Z 07006KT 8000 FEW006 BKN030 13/13 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 14:30->METAR YPPH 261430Z 07006KT 8000 FEW006 BKN030 13/13 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 15:00->METAR YPPH 261500Z 07002KT 9999 FEW006 BKN030 BKN050 13/13 Q1021=
SP 26/07/2022 15:18->SPECI YPPH 261518Z AUTO 20004KT 9999 // SCT005 OVC036 14/13 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 15:30->METAR YPPH 261530Z 19005KT 9999 FEW006 SCT035 BKN048 14/13 Q1021=
SA 26/07/2022 16:00->METAR YPPH 261600Z 19005KT 9999 BKN032 BKN050 14/13 Q1021=

Perth Fog,



With $35 million spent, to upgrade Perth to Cat3 b landing in 2018, why are so many in the industry not yet certified?


https://www.pprune.org/tech-log/609526-basic-questions-regarding-dh-concept-cat-i-ii-iii-ops.html

[dr dre]

Perth Fog,

With $35 million spent, to upgrade Perth to Cat3 b landing in 2018, why are so many in the industry not yet certified?



Money. An accountant has done the sums and has figured out that the cost of the average number of diversions due low fog and re-accommodating pax is still cheaper than training crews and maintaining equipment to low vis standards.

[dr dre]

Not necessarily correct. If the forecast for PER was above Alternate Criteria and you had already passed PNR and you couldn’t carry an Alternate, you are entitled to continue and commence an approach.
It is a step by step assessment, always complying with the rules until you have the circumstances such that you can no longer comply with all of the rules.
eg. You carry 10’ hold for ATC and they tell you that it will be 16’ and you don’t have it.

You’re not just “entitled” to continue an approach. If you’ve truly passed a “point of NO return” then literally you have no other option than to land on the bitumen at that airport which may have suddenly gone down to 300 metres vis in unforecast fog, using the capabilities of your aircraft to their maximum possible potential to ensure the approach is as accurate as it can be. The only other alternative (wouldn’t really call it an alternative) is a Norfolk Island ditching situation.

[Australopithecus]

Cat lllb is as much about airborne equipment as it is crew training. Which aircraft have fail safe multi channel approach capability that aren’t currently using it? Even the standard 737 with its basic 2 axis autopilot* isn’t Cat lll certified. Its only by using the HGS that QF can do it at all.

* Apparently a 3 axis option exists, maybe Virgin has it?

[Chronic Snoozer]

You’re not just “entitled” to continue an approach. If you’ve truly passed a “point of NO return” then literally you have no other option than to land on the bitumen at that airport which may have suddenly gone down to 300 metres vis in unforecast fog, using the capabilities of your aircraft to their maximum possible potential to ensure the approach is as accurate as it can be. The only other alternative (wouldn’t really call it an alternative) is a Norfolk Island ditching situation.

Or try Pearce.

[morno]

If budget carriers in Asia can train their crews, maintain currency and keep the aircraft up to scratch, it bewilders me why airlines in Australia can’t do it. For gods sake it was an extra 30mins or so in the sim session every 6 months to maintain currency and that was it.

[wombat watcher]

Or try Pearce.

FFS, in an airline, a pilot just can’t go to any piece of bitumen that suits them.
An Alternate has a capital for a reason. It is assessed for all sorts of criteria and if it meets the tests it is approved as an Alternate.
Then there are others. Airports for use for twin engine aircraft for use when they have problems. They need to be approved. Then there are Emergency Airports which are assessed and approved for use in emergency, but emergency is not really a real emergency. Then there are funk holes. They are bits of bitumen where the PIC reckons he/she can put an aircraft down.
Most , but not all military airports in Australia don’t get assessed as an Alternate. There are a couple of exceptions.

[No Idea Either]

Hey Austral………

We don’t have any HGS at VA but we have 3B approval in the old girls. Not all machines, just the fail operational SFP’s. The earlier models are only fail passive so Cat 2 only. The fail ops do compensate for rudder so 3 axis I suppose, whereas the fail passives don’t.

[Chronic Snoozer]

FFS, in an airline, a pilot just can’t go to any piece of bitumen that suits them.

I was responding to this The only other alternative (wouldn’t really call it an alternative) is a Norfolk Island ditching situation.

In the Perth scenario, presumably you would find any piece of bitumen that suits rather than attempting a ditching. While Perth may have fog, Pearce may not.

[nose,cabin]

Emergency Fuel is very important and the delay in planning is unacceptable.

It's about time we saw some strategic thinking and planning, because if we keep cutting it that tight we mightn't be so lucky next time

10 years ago, we are still waiting

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/a-turbulent-night-points-to-the-need-for-a-second-airport-20120124-1qew3.html

Controllers and crews at times resorted to discussing the alternative landing strips at the RAAF's Pearce base in Bullsbrook north of Perth, when winds reached 40 knots at the runway's threshold, as well as its Gingin airfield.

One crew even asked about Rottnest Island which also has an east-west runway but no night landing facilities, according to the aviation website.

[Wizofoz]

Cat lllb is as much about airborne equipment as it is crew training. Which aircraft have fail safe multi channel approach capability that aren’t currently using it? Even the standard 737 with its basic 2 axis autopilot* isn’t Cat lll certified. Its only by using the HGS that QF can do it at all.

* Apparently a 3 axis option exists, maybe Virgin has it?
And everything from the -300 onwards is CatIIIa capable.

[Wizofoz]

Hey Austral………

We don’t have any HGS at VA but we have 3B approval in the old girls. Not all machines, just the fail operational SFP’s. The earlier models are only fail passive so Cat 2 only. The fail ops do compensate for rudder so 3 axis I suppose, whereas the fail passives don’t.
Cat2 or Cat3a? If only Cat2, thai's interesting- is it an Aussie thing that you can't do Cat3a fail passive?

[georgetw]

Back in the old days Cunderdin Airport was the option to Perth Fog.

[Australopithecus]

At QF anything below Cat ll has to manually flown using the HGS. Since you have to disconnect the 2 axis autopilot right after touchdown to prevent unwanted roll input in lieu of yaw I think they settled on Cat ll being the limit for autoland. That also may have been informed by too many dodgy roll outs in other than low visibility conditions when the ILS wasn’t protected. A Boeing tech bulletin refers.

QF has of course only one HGS, and the F/O is subjected to 90 seconds of terror watching me be a meat servo while staring into the sole low viz guidance source.

[dr dre]

I was responding to this

In the Perth scenario, presumably you would find any piece of bitumen that suits rather than attempting a ditching. While Perth may have fog, Pearce may not.

It may not have that fog but as it’s only a few miles from Perth and at the bottom of the scarp as well very good chance Pearce is affected by the same fog as Perth. Way too close to be considered a practical alternate.

Best bet is for all jet operators be capable of conducting low vis approaches. This isn’t a new concept, Tridents were doing low visibility approaches in the early 60s.

[nose,cabin]

Can the VIP RAAF B737 BBJ aircraft land in CAT 3 b at Perth?
I imagine it can.

[No Idea Either]

Wiz

I should have explained a bit better. The later model SFP’s are certified to 3B fail op. Due to snags they can be downgraded to 3A fail passive such as LAND 2, like if the IFSD ****s itself, etc. The earlier models that we have are (no IFSD) only certified to Cat 2 fail passive so any problems and it’s straight back to Cat 1. Neither have HGS.

[Wizofoz]

Wiz

I should have explained a bit better. The later model SFP’s are certified to 3B fail op. Due to snags they can be downgraded to 3A fail passive such as LAND 2, like if the IFSD ****s itself, etc. The earlier models that we have are (no IFSD) only certified to Cat 2 fail passive so any problems and it’s straight back to Cat 1. Neither have HGS.
Thanks for the info!!

[MENELAUS]

Oztranauts. The worlds’ finest.

[slast]

Mach E Avelli, check your PMs please?

[blind pew]

Wasn’t there a quaintass incident in the 70s where the captain decided to ditch a 737? after the airfield went below limits and they had nowhere else to go but was saved by a dead heading crew member that persuaded the captain that landing below limits was a better option?
IIRC it was published in BEA horror comic so would have been first half of the decade.
Steve might remember it.

[Australopithecus]

Well no. Not at all. QF didn’t operate 737s until after the merger with TN in 1992. That story, true or not, involved a 767. Allegedly.

[wombat watcher]

Wasn’t there a quaintass incident in the 70s where the captain decided to ditch a 737? after the airfield went below limits and they had nowhere else to go but was saved by a dead heading crew member that persuaded the captain that landing below limits was a better option?
IIRC it was published in BEA horror comic so would have been first half of the decade.
Steve might remember it.


absolute rubbish

[slast]

Doesn't ring any bells with me
Steve

[fdr]

Well no. Not at all. QF didn’t operate 737s until after the merger with TN in 1992. That story, true or not, involved a 767. Allegedly.

B767, and allegedly, not allegedly.... wasn't the white rat team's finest moment.

[MENELAUS]

B767, and allegedly, not allegedly.... wasn't the white rat team's finest moment.


Including broadcasting ditching PA’s to the punters.

[Capt Fathom]

Nothing on the ATSB website about a near ditching of a B767 near Perth! When was this?

[neville_nobody]

This has been done to death many a time. It's an urban myth.

Here's the answer https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/491330-qantas-ditching-perth-myth.html