NZAA lighting failure 26/11/2010
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why carry KG fuel when you have Pearce right next door to Perth, surely you are carrying excess fuel for no reason.
Why CB fuel when Richmond is right nect door?
Maybe idiot airline pilots are not carrying minimum fuel they have simply thought out their options a little better?
Why CB fuel when Richmond is right nect door?
Maybe idiot airline pilots are not carrying minimum fuel they have simply thought out their options a little better?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Off track, again
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes there are pilots who are thoughtful about what fuel they carry but some others would still throw on an extra half a tonne even if they had diversion fuel to the moon, despite it being cavok everywhere. As has been pointed out Whenuipai would have been available and I'm sure the lights at Hamilton could also have been switched on if required.
I think gentlemen you don't need me to teach you any more about running around on minimum fuel.You have all the proof you need that only fools do that on the weather holding thread.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you don't need me to teach you any more about running around on minimum fuel.
So far you haven't taught me a thing I am afraid!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skynews
Theres a whole raft of reasons why Capts may choose to carry fuel for aerodromes further away than perhaps some closer in.
Just because Richmond and Pearce are "next door" does not make them necessarily the most desirable.
Theres a whole raft of reasons why Capts may choose to carry fuel for aerodromes further away than perhaps some closer in.
Just because Richmond and Pearce are "next door" does not make them necessarily the most desirable.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Well it's an IRS nowdays, but the AHRS were fun.
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must be a hangover from the days when ATC told you whether or not you had enough gas and that you come from a country that has 8/8 blue most of the time.
I've flown with a lot of Aussie pilots both as a copilot and a commander and in many parts of the world too. Some of those that came across to NZ had to learn real fast and admitted that they had learn't a lot.
Almost without exception, you all quote the rules using all your own unique (though fairly practical) terminology while still remaining completely inept at interpreting weather (outside of a TAF or TTF) and planning your fuel. I'ts an obvious weakness in your pilot training and the way things happen in Australia.
Anyway, back on subject, I am wondering if there will be any refund for local operators who were obviously seriously jerked around by this lighting fiasco. Everyone pays a premium price for AKL's services and AIAL and Airways Corp NZ certainly dropped the ball this time.
I've flown with a lot of Aussie pilots both as a copilot and a commander and in many parts of the world too. Some of those that came across to NZ had to learn real fast and admitted that they had learn't a lot.
Almost without exception, you all quote the rules using all your own unique (though fairly practical) terminology while still remaining completely inept at interpreting weather (outside of a TAF or TTF) and planning your fuel. I'ts an obvious weakness in your pilot training and the way things happen in Australia.
Anyway, back on subject, I am wondering if there will be any refund for local operators who were obviously seriously jerked around by this lighting fiasco. Everyone pays a premium price for AKL's services and AIAL and Airways Corp NZ certainly dropped the ball this time.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 62
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theres a whole raft of reasons why Capts may choose to carry fuel for aerodromes further away than perhaps some closer in.
Just because Richmond and Pearce are "next door" does not make them necessarily the most desirable.
Just because Richmond and Pearce are "next door" does not make them necessarily the most desirable.
Just because KG is further away doesn't make it more desirable than Pearce.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a reason there are also a whole raft of reasons why Capts may chose to carry fuel for aerodromes closer in then further away
Just because KG is further away doesn't make it more desirable than Pearce
I thought this thread was about the whys and wherefores of the lighting failure at NZAA NOT about fuel contingency at some place in OZ.
Has Airways finally been bitten by their profit first mentality?
Have they been putting enough recources into maintaining equipment?
Has Airways finally been bitten by their profit first mentality?
Have they been putting enough recources into maintaining equipment?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you know sometimes lightning will get you no matter what.
i had a server room that was protected by the building having a lighting rod, theoretically this took direct strikes out of the equation. the server room was close the the middle of the 3000 sq m floor plate.
on the in bound power line i had a surge suppressor that was designed to commit hari-kari if we had a strike come down the line.
behind that was a voltage smoothing 10kva in-line UPS.
everything in the server room ran off that UPS.
one day, none of this made a jot of difference. had a direct strike on the building (supposedly very very very unlikely) which transferred enough voltage through the reinforced concrete wall where it hit to take out a bundle of Cat5 runs and 3 switches in the server room, 5 PCs, and 2 printers connected to that Cat5.
had a guy in another company run Cat 5, literally 5m between two buildings underground. lasted less than 12 hrs. how the lightning managed to ground strike between those 2 buildings is quite remarkable.
I don't know what happened at Auckland, but it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the lightning found the weak point no matter what the plans the mice have to stop such events, or recover from a strike.
as for Darwin, i'm surprised the lightning doesn't take out the lights more often, frankly.
i had a server room that was protected by the building having a lighting rod, theoretically this took direct strikes out of the equation. the server room was close the the middle of the 3000 sq m floor plate.
on the in bound power line i had a surge suppressor that was designed to commit hari-kari if we had a strike come down the line.
behind that was a voltage smoothing 10kva in-line UPS.
everything in the server room ran off that UPS.
one day, none of this made a jot of difference. had a direct strike on the building (supposedly very very very unlikely) which transferred enough voltage through the reinforced concrete wall where it hit to take out a bundle of Cat5 runs and 3 switches in the server room, 5 PCs, and 2 printers connected to that Cat5.
had a guy in another company run Cat 5, literally 5m between two buildings underground. lasted less than 12 hrs. how the lightning managed to ground strike between those 2 buildings is quite remarkable.
I don't know what happened at Auckland, but it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that the lightning found the weak point no matter what the plans the mice have to stop such events, or recover from a strike.
as for Darwin, i'm surprised the lightning doesn't take out the lights more often, frankly.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Clearly, the redundant system was neither redundant, nor independant, so is therefore inadequate for the job.
An aircraft designer designs an electrical system to cater for a total failure..i.e if you lose all the electrics..the default setting is the engine keeps turning.
AAL and Airways stepped on their collective d1cks with this one, and I'd bet 5 bucks cold hard cash..that the genius who thought this through..also thought they were saving money.
Mates rates..I'm afraid your assertion is far too simplistic. I quite happily fly around with company minimum fuel, in fact I came back from Shanghai 12 hrs ago with min fuel with no problem.
Minimum fuel means plenty of things, legal minimums are a totally different kettle of fish, and require awhole other thread.
An aircraft designer designs an electrical system to cater for a total failure..i.e if you lose all the electrics..the default setting is the engine keeps turning.
AAL and Airways stepped on their collective d1cks with this one, and I'd bet 5 bucks cold hard cash..that the genius who thought this through..also thought they were saving money.
Mates rates..I'm afraid your assertion is far too simplistic. I quite happily fly around with company minimum fuel, in fact I came back from Shanghai 12 hrs ago with min fuel with no problem.
Minimum fuel means plenty of things, legal minimums are a totally different kettle of fish, and require awhole other thread.
It all comes down to the situation on the day. Landing with 60 mins is my ideal min and I do often. I agree with Sky, there are many out there that no matter what will take more fuel.
It comes down to the likelihood of getting in. As professionals we need to think about the situation and make a decision, it is very easy to load fuel every time but we need to think more I believe.
SYD for example, with no weather req. 3 rw's, you are going to get in so why do you need more fuel or an ALT? In your back pocket you have RIC, undesirable but extremely unlikely. On the other hand if SYD had TCU, CB's etc then minimum fuel will not suffice.
AKL if it was CAVOK that night. Why take more fuel? An alternate would have been planned. For some NZCH, but lets be pessimistic and give ourselves NZHN as it was unlikely to be used. When the lights fail you have approx 1hr fuel so head to NZHN or Whenapai. Whats the big deal. This is a once in XXXX times occurrence so if we all carry fuel in case the lights go out then the Greenies won't like us. Bean Counters another story and yes I don't agree with it all going to Management bonuses.
If AKL B010 then take NZWN, when lights go out you can give away NZWN for NZHN and hold some more then if you choose give away NZHN for Whenpai or divert at any stage.
My 2 cents
It comes down to the likelihood of getting in. As professionals we need to think about the situation and make a decision, it is very easy to load fuel every time but we need to think more I believe.
SYD for example, with no weather req. 3 rw's, you are going to get in so why do you need more fuel or an ALT? In your back pocket you have RIC, undesirable but extremely unlikely. On the other hand if SYD had TCU, CB's etc then minimum fuel will not suffice.
AKL if it was CAVOK that night. Why take more fuel? An alternate would have been planned. For some NZCH, but lets be pessimistic and give ourselves NZHN as it was unlikely to be used. When the lights fail you have approx 1hr fuel so head to NZHN or Whenapai. Whats the big deal. This is a once in XXXX times occurrence so if we all carry fuel in case the lights go out then the Greenies won't like us. Bean Counters another story and yes I don't agree with it all going to Management bonuses.
If AKL B010 then take NZWN, when lights go out you can give away NZWN for NZHN and hold some more then if you choose give away NZHN for Whenpai or divert at any stage.
My 2 cents
