QF1 in BAH
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diversion to BAH
Ex SYD planned at MTOW with max pax load. Full alternate and 35min App fuel (read holding). Not sure what you want off loaded to carry more. It already was planned over 20000KGS over the top. Weather went below at all close alternates Muscat refused to accept the aircraft. Crew did amazing and got the pax SAFELY where they were going. There are NO cowboys here!!!
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Present Position
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unseen..apologies for my previous outburst...your q deserved a more intelligent reply. Following is my stab at it:
At flit planning we have a set piece of information: its like performance art in that we all know our lines and what is expected of us. What is not perfectly understood is the range of possibilities at the destination. This of course includes wx, rwy configuration due to unforeseen events while we are enroute, aid serviceability, and random events on aircraft operated by our near-term contemporaries. Add to that the usual smorgasbord of potential unfortunate circumstances from political and geological events and passenger vicissitudes and you end up with a cocktail of unknowns.
How you best manage that is largely informed by your personal biases and experience. As such it is of course subject to constant revision. My personal, and by no means perfect, bias, is to only winnow the fuel down to some level that reflects the risk model to the degree that my imperfect factoid collection and...superstition...allow. I have never yet allowed any commercial factors to influence my thinking...to do so is to call into question your essential decision making ability.
I do not work for anybody in management: i work for the punters down the back.
Here's a simple test: you are flying the last plane home after your carrier declares bankruptcy. To which metrics do you measure your prudence? Why? What has changed? If your answer is simple economics, then you may need to revisit your default position viz fuel.
I once had an interesting philosophical discussion* with K. Ireland about all of this. He volunteered that QF's fuel policies amounted to an annual savings of....exactly our profit. So then: QF exists by virtue of taking less fuel than all of our competition. Is that correctt? And by that, I mean to ask: is that right?
* I had a taser and a hockey mask: It was more pro forma than interesting.
At flit planning we have a set piece of information: its like performance art in that we all know our lines and what is expected of us. What is not perfectly understood is the range of possibilities at the destination. This of course includes wx, rwy configuration due to unforeseen events while we are enroute, aid serviceability, and random events on aircraft operated by our near-term contemporaries. Add to that the usual smorgasbord of potential unfortunate circumstances from political and geological events and passenger vicissitudes and you end up with a cocktail of unknowns.
How you best manage that is largely informed by your personal biases and experience. As such it is of course subject to constant revision. My personal, and by no means perfect, bias, is to only winnow the fuel down to some level that reflects the risk model to the degree that my imperfect factoid collection and...superstition...allow. I have never yet allowed any commercial factors to influence my thinking...to do so is to call into question your essential decision making ability.
I do not work for anybody in management: i work for the punters down the back.
Here's a simple test: you are flying the last plane home after your carrier declares bankruptcy. To which metrics do you measure your prudence? Why? What has changed? If your answer is simple economics, then you may need to revisit your default position viz fuel.
I once had an interesting philosophical discussion* with K. Ireland about all of this. He volunteered that QF's fuel policies amounted to an annual savings of....exactly our profit. So then: QF exists by virtue of taking less fuel than all of our competition. Is that correctt? And by that, I mean to ask: is that right?
* I had a taser and a hockey mask: It was more pro forma than interesting.
Last edited by Twin Beech; 8th Apr 2013 at 02:29.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Weather went below at all close alternates Muscat refused to accept the aircraft. Crew did amazing and got the pax SAFELY where they were going.
Still there are plenty of strips of Tarmac in the general vicinity including OMDW and a secret airbase....that I can see from my back balcony..almost
Over 40 other aircraft bound DXB diverted that night. Where are all the threads about them?
Until recently DWC has only been available to pax flights declaring an emergency. This is slowly changing with a limited number of EK flights allowed to use it now and full pax ops starting in Oct apparently.
Until recently DWC has only been available to pax flights declaring an emergency. This is slowly changing with a limited number of EK flights allowed to use it now and full pax ops starting in Oct apparently.
Someone should do something about this!
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Present Position
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its called the Khamsin. Like Melbourne's Brickfelder, the Scirocco, Kiwatin, Santa Ana...all of these phenomena are well documented* and predictable.
*But likely not in your (or mine) airline's manuals.
*But likely not in your (or mine) airline's manuals.
TB said
No wonder LH is dragging us down with attitudes like yours! Kicking of freight on your own volition due to a personal probability of alternate?
To borrow a quote from Sal Kerrigan in The Castle
For those readers not familiar with QF fuel policy, a more balanced approach would be to consult with the IOC to express personal reservations regarding the successful outcome of the planned flight. Suggest options possibly including offloading of freight if gut instinct was strong enough. Allow them to do their job and make a judgement call in the best interests of the QF business .
This might be to take all the planned payload, fly to a decision point, assess the options, then perform the Command role by deciding whether to proceed or divert.
If, however, you are referring to those circumstances when an official or personal probability exists regarding an alternate, then I have always, repeat always, kicked off payload to take that fuel. Invariably it's cargo that gets kicked.
To borrow a quote from Sal Kerrigan in The Castle
Get your hand off it Darrel!
This might be to take all the planned payload, fly to a decision point, assess the options, then perform the Command role by deciding whether to proceed or divert.
Last edited by CaptCloudbuster; 8th Apr 2013 at 23:16. Reason: Add content for non QF pilots
I think there was one a few years ago. Management threw a conniption fit, had kittens and promptly made it very clear that BAH was no longer the preferred diversion port in the Middle East.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bottom side of up
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not correct. I operated the last scheduled service out of Bahrain as the QF 5 on 05/08/90 on VH-EBV. The service was cancelled early due to the first Gulf war.
I did a medical diversion into BAH on what became the last sector of my FO check in B747-400 VH-OJI on the 15 Apr 1996, 17 years and some days ago. I passed the check too. 
Nunc est bibendum
I recall being planned via BAH to LHR one night due to excessive headwind and requiring reduced seating ex SIN. No one told refueler to hold at new fuel load for BAH and so we ended up leaving people behind and going direct.
