Interesting Night At YPPH - 'EASTERLIES"....
My understanding of this incident is that they arrived over the top with 3500 kgs.Got windshear warning on approach several times.This is a go around requirement at VA.Landed with 1100 kgs,this is below the normal FR (30 mts) of 1200 kgs.
This should be a lesson to all who are encouraging pilots to take less and less fuel down to flight plan fuel.And a message to pilots that you are more than covered by the CAR's to carry whatever fuel you feel you need for the safety of the flight.
Perth is a potentially dangerous place from the point of view of unpredictible weather and poor forecasting.I NEVER go there without Kalgoolie fuel.A lesson proven above.
This should be a lesson to all who are encouraging pilots to take less and less fuel down to flight plan fuel.And a message to pilots that you are more than covered by the CAR's to carry whatever fuel you feel you need for the safety of the flight.
Perth is a potentially dangerous place from the point of view of unpredictible weather and poor forecasting.I NEVER go there without Kalgoolie fuel.A lesson proven above.
Perth is a potentially dangerous place from the point of view of unpredictible weather and poor forecasting.I NEVER go there without Kalgoolie fuel.A lesson proven above.
I must admit I am surprised ATC even mentioned the shorties. PEA 05 wouldn't have been any good as it's even closer to the hills than Perth.
Lots of juicy stuff to consider.
METARs
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 25th Jan 2012 at 00:08. Reason: added METARs
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Consider previous diversions too!
If a few have already gone to YPKG [including perhaps A330s] then there may be no parking space - stay on the runway and the NEXT aircraft can't land!
If a few have already gone to YPKG [including perhaps A330s] then there may be no parking space - stay on the runway and the NEXT aircraft can't land!
Bottums Up
Couldn't agree more with mates rates.. Darwin RWY11/29 was closed twice yesterday, Aprox 40 mins in the aro and about 3+ hours in the evening. We found out taxiing at Gove for Darwin. Both closures due contaminated RWY.
The TAF/TTF gave no indication of this, just tempo holding for TS.
At least two aircraft diverted, a 73 from SYD went back to ASP, and a 71 from CNS diverted into GOV for fuel then back to CNS.
The point is that fuel minimalists push the carriage of min fuel on the belief that it's legal with little regard to what might be sensible.
The TAF/TTF gave no indication of this, just tempo holding for TS.
At least two aircraft diverted, a 73 from SYD went back to ASP, and a 71 from CNS diverted into GOV for fuel then back to CNS.
The point is that fuel minimalists push the carriage of min fuel on the belief that it's legal with little regard to what might be sensible.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the mods: the four posts above are the very reason I suggested that the previous thread was inappropriately closed.
These guys that have posted have shown by their words that they are the olds and bolds. If one young Captain happens upon their words and re-thinks his fuel order into PER because of what he has read and learned, how much safer might his operation be?
Slow news day indeed!
These guys that have posted have shown by their words that they are the olds and bolds. If one young Captain happens upon their words and re-thinks his fuel order into PER because of what he has read and learned, how much safer might his operation be?
Slow news day indeed!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GT really needs to get a hearing test.
He states "the pilots of a Virgin passenger airliner dangerously low on fuel condsidered landing at Rottnest Island or Jandakot". On the recording the only person who mentioned them was the controller. The crew did say they looked at Pearce and after the controller mentioned Gin Gin they did ask about the wind up there.
GT also forgot to mention the 717 NXI who said "we will have a problem if we have to go-around". That's right it's painted in QF colours so he can't say anything bad about them.
From the recordings it sounds like all the aircraft that night arrived in PH with similar fuel or enough for 2 approaches.
Perhaps it's time for PH to be treated like remote islands with the need to carry an Alternate at all times.
He states "the pilots of a Virgin passenger airliner dangerously low on fuel condsidered landing at Rottnest Island or Jandakot". On the recording the only person who mentioned them was the controller. The crew did say they looked at Pearce and after the controller mentioned Gin Gin they did ask about the wind up there.
GT also forgot to mention the 717 NXI who said "we will have a problem if we have to go-around". That's right it's painted in QF colours so he can't say anything bad about them.
From the recordings it sounds like all the aircraft that night arrived in PH with similar fuel or enough for 2 approaches.
Perhaps it's time for PH to be treated like remote islands with the need to carry an Alternate at all times.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After many years of flying, with a considerable number into turbulent and gusty conditions on approach and landing, I have learnt that chasing airspeed can lead to unwelcome and dangerous situations. Unfortunately we have the blind adherance to the letter of the stabilised approach criteria. It doesn't work in some situations.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a burrow
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1100kg could well have been FR as there is no set figure - it is calculated for each individual flight depending on Ldg Wt.
1200kg FR would have to be around max Ldg Wt, which would be unlikely in this case.
G T was probably told by QF to dig some dirt on the opposition in order to keep his 'benefits'.
1200kg FR would have to be around max Ldg Wt, which would be unlikely in this case.
G T was probably told by QF to dig some dirt on the opposition in order to keep his 'benefits'.
Originally Posted by Capt Basil Brush
1100kg could well have been FR as there is no set figure - it is calculated for each individual flight depending on Ldg Wt.
1200kg FR would have to be around max Ldg Wt, which would be unlikely in this case.
1200kg FR would have to be around max Ldg Wt, which would be unlikely in this case.
Nunc est bibendum
Unfortunately we have the blind adherance to the letter of the stabilised approach criteria.
A stable approach exists when the aircraft is configured for landing, on the normal approach path, with correct thrust, rate of descent and airspeed required under the prevailing conditions.
So the speed can be going up and down as much as it likes. If it's more than +20 then the PNF is required to make a call but that does NOT make it mandatory for the PF to make a go around if the thrust and rate of descent is required for the prevailing conditions.
It's sad that PPRUNE has come to this but I need to be blunt and say that I'm NOT advocating going into the flare at +30 knots but flying a reference ground speed that is the equivalent of about VRef +20 when you are expecting low level shear, and accepting speed excursions above VRef +20 when above the expected shear height. This still meets the stable approach criteria even if it means the PNF will be 'chirping' a bit making the mandatory calls regarding speed.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: aus
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Piston. But you have to see it from my angle. I have been working in the industry for 20 plus years and currently flying a wide body aircraft. To hear this mindless dribble aimed at a professional and without knowing the full facts reeks of amateurism.
Go and fix your piston engine.
Go and fix your piston engine.
Keg,
You'll find that other companies (and indeed some sections of CASA) have more prescriptive Stab Approach criteria, hence the apparent "emphasis" on speed control.
You'll find that other companies (and indeed some sections of CASA) have more prescriptive Stab Approach criteria, hence the apparent "emphasis" on speed control.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strong Easterlies are a fact of Summer life at PER. In the 727
yonks ago we used a howgozit "PNR-ish" chart for the routes
MEL-PER and SYD-PER using KGI as enroute alternate. Only
once we did pull in there for PER x/winds as 06 was closed
due WIP.
BTW why wasn't bloody 06 offered to begin with?
VC9 true words. A good example was Kai Tak IGS13 on a bad
day. Nowadays its Chek Lap Kok with an approaching typhoon
and a strong Southerly.
yonks ago we used a howgozit "PNR-ish" chart for the routes
MEL-PER and SYD-PER using KGI as enroute alternate. Only
once we did pull in there for PER x/winds as 06 was closed
due WIP.
BTW why wasn't bloody 06 offered to begin with?
VC9 true words. A good example was Kai Tak IGS13 on a bad
day. Nowadays its Chek Lap Kok with an approaching typhoon
and a strong Southerly.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These wx events should really not come as a surprise, The BOM and Severe Storms Research have both published reports and advisories detailing the dangers of the Darling Scarp. Perth has historically seen dangerous conditions develop in the form of rotor streams when strong low-level easterly flows prevail. Perth, Jandakot and Pearce can be subject to large reversals over very short distances. When synoptics suggest a strong easterly flow, areas west of the Darling scarp may be subjected to exceptional gusts.
BOM info can be found here http://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/data/...-flying-sw.pdf
The SSR site is presently down but I will provide a link once available.
Regards
BOM info can be found here http://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/data/...-flying-sw.pdf
The SSR site is presently down but I will provide a link once available.
Regards
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure about the Boeing but the Bus FCOM I currently fly clearly states in the event of KNOWN or SUSPECTED windshear - delay approach or divert.
We fly approaches in gusty conditions with windshear all the time, its what makes us tough blokes, right?
But be aware that many times, myself included, you are probably leaving yourself wide open in the event of a hard landing/blown tyre/bent spar etc.
What was the forecast for PER that night. My experience with a previous airline and the one I currently operate to PER with is viz/ceiling come into flight planning and xwind must be within limits but no one considers the huge am easterlies that can totally ruin your day.
We fly approaches in gusty conditions with windshear all the time, its what makes us tough blokes, right?
But be aware that many times, myself included, you are probably leaving yourself wide open in the event of a hard landing/blown tyre/bent spar etc.
What was the forecast for PER that night. My experience with a previous airline and the one I currently operate to PER with is viz/ceiling come into flight planning and xwind must be within limits but no one considers the huge am easterlies that can totally ruin your day.
hence the apparent "emphasis" on speed control
