Interesting Night At YPPH - 'EASTERLIES"....
Thread Starter
Interesting Night At YPPH - 'EASTERLIES"....
An 'Interesting' evening at YPPH on Tues. Jan 3rd, due 'Those Easterlies' and Cross Winds.
The Controller was very good in providing what he had...
From Radio Station 6PR in Perth this morning.....
The sfc wind reported as 110/40 and the w/v at 250ft reported as 100/38 gusting to 56 kts.
Video: Mid air drama revealed
Sounds like the boys and gals in both ATC and the Aircraft ALL earned their pay....
Cheers
The Controller was very good in providing what he had...
From Radio Station 6PR in Perth this morning.....
The sfc wind reported as 110/40 and the w/v at 250ft reported as 100/38 gusting to 56 kts.
Video: Mid air drama revealed
Sounds like the boys and gals in both ATC and the Aircraft ALL earned their pay....
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Hicks House
Age: 77
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this a game of how bug is your deck?
Might want to chuck a few tonnes on if you're heading to Perth in the next few weeks, with this heat wave, winds are likely to be similar.
Might want to chuck a few tonnes on if you're heading to Perth in the next few weeks, with this heat wave, winds are likely to be similar.
Agreed! That's not a standard breezy night when rottnest island and gingin are being considered! Quoka island ain't 30m wide from memory! Nor does it have the pavement to take a 73' !
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that worries me is this statement by the company:
That sure as sh1t wasn't what the pilots said in the recording. There is a huge difference between "we must land off this approach" and having an alternate. I'd love to know what the fuel remaining was on shut down...
I also shudder to think of the repercussions if this was Qantas... All hell would have broken loose.
PS! I just noticed that the other thread was closed with quote: "Slow News Day" by the mod... You are joking, right? This aircraft landed with what was described as vapours in the tanks and you believe this is nothing? Good lord!
Again, if this were Qantas the thread wouldn't be shut down with that kind of glib attitude.
For the younger aviators on the BB, I would have thought there was much to learn from this.
Slow news day indeed!
A Virgin Australia spokesman said that on arrival in Perth, Flight 697 had sufficient fuel to reach an alternate airport, although fuel to reach an alternative destination was not required to meet the regulatory requirement.
I also shudder to think of the repercussions if this was Qantas... All hell would have broken loose.
PS! I just noticed that the other thread was closed with quote: "Slow News Day" by the mod... You are joking, right? This aircraft landed with what was described as vapours in the tanks and you believe this is nothing? Good lord!
Again, if this were Qantas the thread wouldn't be shut down with that kind of glib attitude.
For the younger aviators on the BB, I would have thought there was much to learn from this.
Slow news day indeed!
My concern from reading the article and the low fuel condition getting more serious after altn fuel burnt off holding and then possibly starting to use the 30 min fixed reserve are the fact ATC mentioned rottnest, gin gin and jandakot as possible alternatives!!!
Pearce at least has a long(ish) runway and emerg RFFS on field.
Rottnest has only emerg portable lighting avail at night if I recall correctly??
Given the short, narrow runways at these 3 airports I would think a major runway over run accident would have been pretty much assured for a B737. Can you imagine what a disaster that would have been!!
Surprised ATC would have even suggested them. Especially in a world of Cover Your Ass and I accept no liability etc.
A bit different ATC suggesting nearby altns in a similar situation for eg in LA basin where there are numerous air carrier airports in close proximity that could handle an aircraft of that size with suitable rwy lengths avail etc. They wouldn't be suggesting a tiny GA airfield with a sub 1000m rwy in that situation.
If the sfc wind was approx110/40 as mentioned above at Perth and in excess of the max Xwind for the type on rwy 06 and an emerg landing was required due low fuel or impending exhaustion I would think Perth would have definitely been the place to attempt a landing given rwy lengths, RFFS & emerg services availability, 24/7 manned airport etc etc rather than any of the other places offered by ATC as possible altns.
Obviously up to PIC to ultimately decide and thankfully it didnt come to the worst case scenario.
Pearce at least has a long(ish) runway and emerg RFFS on field.
Rottnest has only emerg portable lighting avail at night if I recall correctly??
Given the short, narrow runways at these 3 airports I would think a major runway over run accident would have been pretty much assured for a B737. Can you imagine what a disaster that would have been!!
Surprised ATC would have even suggested them. Especially in a world of Cover Your Ass and I accept no liability etc.
A bit different ATC suggesting nearby altns in a similar situation for eg in LA basin where there are numerous air carrier airports in close proximity that could handle an aircraft of that size with suitable rwy lengths avail etc. They wouldn't be suggesting a tiny GA airfield with a sub 1000m rwy in that situation.
If the sfc wind was approx110/40 as mentioned above at Perth and in excess of the max Xwind for the type on rwy 06 and an emerg landing was required due low fuel or impending exhaustion I would think Perth would have definitely been the place to attempt a landing given rwy lengths, RFFS & emerg services availability, 24/7 manned airport etc etc rather than any of the other places offered by ATC as possible altns.
Obviously up to PIC to ultimately decide and thankfully it didnt come to the worst case scenario.
Last edited by aussie027; 24th Jan 2012 at 06:50.
There is a huge difference between "we must land off this approach" and having an alternate.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
We must land off this approach could mean minimum fuel to land then go to an alternate airport but from the discussions re Pearce Gin Gin etc there is no way they had fuel to diverte to a suitable airfield by that stage. Its pretty much a given they landed on vapours, but Perth is a pain in the butt place for this kind of stuff to happen whether windhear or unforecast fog. At least with the fog you can autoland the thing in a last ditch attempt, strong easterlies are another beast entirely, either way I think it is a bit of a storm in a teacup really!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoka island ain't 30m wide from memory! Nor does it have the pavement to take a 73' !
Including a flight over water when low on fuel - wouldn't be my first choice.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DSS-46 (Canberra Region)
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who described the fuel status as "vapours", Balance? YOU did. I suggest you look at the fuel requirements prior to the flight departing ex ML. That flight was completely legal.
I wouldn't put too much credence into anything The author wrote .
After all, he is nothing more than a Qantas apologist
I wouldn't put too much credence into anything The author wrote .
After all, he is nothing more than a Qantas apologist
Last edited by Tidbinbilla; 24th Jan 2012 at 14:47.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try reading my post again S L O W L Y, and maybe try thinking before you make a git of youself.
"On arrival", means arrival, shut down, end, nada, thats all folks. Otherwise they might have have the where-with-all to say "on arrival into holding near Perth".
Or has Virgin decided to redefine the term?
And I did say "vapours" but effectively so did the crew. "We must land off this approach" is pretty low fuel in my book.
I've done MEL to PER enough to suggest that after about 25 years I'm comfortable with the route, and I know its perils. That does not mean that I dont have anything more to learn, because each time I go flying I do learn.
I DID NOT SAY that the aircraft departed illegally. I DID say that your fellow mod shut down the other thread without considering what can be learned from this.
"On arrival", means arrival, shut down, end, nada, thats all folks. Otherwise they might have have the where-with-all to say "on arrival into holding near Perth".
Or has Virgin decided to redefine the term?
And I did say "vapours" but effectively so did the crew. "We must land off this approach" is pretty low fuel in my book.
I've done MEL to PER enough to suggest that after about 25 years I'm comfortable with the route, and I know its perils. That does not mean that I dont have anything more to learn, because each time I go flying I do learn.
I DID NOT SAY that the aircraft departed illegally. I DID say that your fellow mod shut down the other thread without considering what can be learned from this.
Thread Starter
Re 'Oh the irony'.......
YPPH used to have an E/W rwy, was it 10/28 (?) of about 1,700m length.
From Google Earth, it measures approx 104 deg T and the W/V was around 100deg. (M), so it is (was) virtually into the prevailing 'Easterly'.
However, that was decommissioned and made a taxiway, m a n y years ago....(early / mid 90's..?)
And yep! I too took the pilot's remarks to mean that 1 more would not have been on....
However, the crew voice in the background says in relation to what are your intents....that they will land rwy 06 and take taxiway W and call ground for taxy cnce....maybe this was just a good lesson for 'the other guy'..(?)
I also am led to understand that the w/v occurrence was unforecast.
However, I'm sure that having a rwy into wind would have helped everybody......
Interesting.....
Cheers
YPPH used to have an E/W rwy, was it 10/28 (?) of about 1,700m length.
From Google Earth, it measures approx 104 deg T and the W/V was around 100deg. (M), so it is (was) virtually into the prevailing 'Easterly'.
However, that was decommissioned and made a taxiway, m a n y years ago....(early / mid 90's..?)
And yep! I too took the pilot's remarks to mean that 1 more would not have been on....
However, the crew voice in the background says in relation to what are your intents....that they will land rwy 06 and take taxiway W and call ground for taxy cnce....maybe this was just a good lesson for 'the other guy'..(?)
I also am led to understand that the w/v occurrence was unforecast.
However, I'm sure that having a rwy into wind would have helped everybody......
Interesting.....
Cheers
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ya-huh. And? Nice contribution.
I did forget how much I loathe some of the contributors on this forum.
Is it perhaps because this was Virgin that there is an automatic defensive air about this thread?
I did forget how much I loathe some of the contributors on this forum.
Is it perhaps because this was Virgin that there is an automatic defensive air about this thread?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DSS-46 (Canberra Region)
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S L O W L Y.... Not quite sure what that means, balance. I listened to the recording several times, and at no stage did I hear "vapours". Whoever described it as that is a drama queen. As is the person that suggested that the crew "considered" Rotto as a viable landing spot. The ATCO suggested it, but it appears the crew did not consider it.
And I suggest to you that the contingency was, that after a second missed approach they would be using their fixed reserve. Hence why they "had to land off this approach" (without declaring a fuel emergency).
My understanding is the fuel reserve requirements are on landing, not shutdown, as you wrote. But we're splitting hairs, aren't we?
The reality of me posting comments about an alleged "aviation expert" is simply the opinion of someone who has worked in the industry for over 30 years, and found little resemblance to the truth from this particular "reporter", as others have complained about in another thread.
Irony. Kind of like "steely", or "bronzey". Only made of iron..........
And I suggest to you that the contingency was, that after a second missed approach they would be using their fixed reserve. Hence why they "had to land off this approach" (without declaring a fuel emergency).
My understanding is the fuel reserve requirements are on landing, not shutdown, as you wrote. But we're splitting hairs, aren't we?
The reality of me posting comments about an alleged "aviation expert" is simply the opinion of someone who has worked in the industry for over 30 years, and found little resemblance to the truth from this particular "reporter", as others have complained about in another thread.
Irony. Kind of like "steely", or "bronzey". Only made of iron..........
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: australia
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tid, the SLOWLY remark was in response to Icarus' rather rude post.
As far as the rest of what you said, please reread my posts. I dont disagree with you.
But I am suggesting that everyone here takes a deep breath and considers this for what might be learned, not defensive idiotic, finger pointing.
Geez.
As far as the rest of what you said, please reread my posts. I dont disagree with you.
But I am suggesting that everyone here takes a deep breath and considers this for what might be learned, not defensive idiotic, finger pointing.
Geez.