Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
Time for a talk to your Chief Pilot perhaps
They are fairly carefully chosen by bankers and accountants who hold the power.
Which is why is arrived overhead Adelaide with an hour holding then Melbourne diversion. Temp and few point hugging each other, low temps and a breath of wind forecast.
Flightplan had us arriving overhead with 75 min fuel. Not this little black duck.
Flightplan had us arriving overhead with 75 min fuel. Not this little black duck.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porch Cat 11 training is not much use if you are not auth below Cat 1 ( your post 212). A regulator's approval process needs the airline to make a safety case for AWO operations. Hard to argue its not safer to land Cat11/111 than to divert with a low fuel state to a regional alternate, turn the jet yourself then fly back to destination thus increasing duty time. I am sure you would agree with that but your airline needs to ask the question before a Senate Inquiry does.
And yes well aware ADL is only Cat 1 which is why I referred to MEL...perhaps SN isn't though?
And yes well aware ADL is only Cat 1 which is why I referred to MEL...perhaps SN isn't though?
Not when I was holding west of Adl it wasn't . TTF was ok.
Ok for clarification, my original thought was arrive over ADL with fuel to out live any fog that might eventuate.
When we discovered fog from the VHF met service, about abeam melbourne,
The ttf for mel allowed us to consider it As an ADL alternate. Bear in mind our eta YMML was ADL eta + holding then divert so we had options.
Ok for clarification, my original thought was arrive over ADL with fuel to out live any fog that might eventuate.
When we discovered fog from the VHF met service, about abeam melbourne,
The ttf for mel allowed us to consider it As an ADL alternate. Bear in mind our eta YMML was ADL eta + holding then divert so we had options.
Last edited by spelling_nazi; 23rd Jun 2013 at 08:51.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: australia
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So here lies the problem when an aircraft actually needs to use an enroute adequate port, and the prob fog becomes a reality , Houston we have a problem
Suitable/Acceptable assessment is for pilots and planning on the day sh+t hits the fan.
You can have one as an ADQ but not also as ALT at the same time.
FFRATS
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SN,
The amended ML TAF issued at 1704 had prob 30 fog and the 1900 TTF SPECI had from 2000 VRB 5 kts 0500 FG
Compare that to AD, with the 1900 TTF saying all the 9's few022 NOSIG
The AD TAF had all the 9's Few030 Sct045
So you are in the planning room about to depart on your flight to AD, which is all good and ML has fog, why would you even consider ML as an alternate?
The amended ML TAF issued at 1704 had prob 30 fog and the 1900 TTF SPECI had from 2000 VRB 5 kts 0500 FG
Compare that to AD, with the 1900 TTF saying all the 9's few022 NOSIG
The AD TAF had all the 9's Few030 Sct045
So you are in the planning room about to depart on your flight to AD, which is all good and ML has fog, why would you even consider ML as an alternate?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Max AB, maybe I didn't make the situation clear. The training and the intent is for VA to be using Cat 2. It is currently in CASA's hands. I was correcting your inference that VA is not intending anything other than Cat 1. That is incorrect.
Read my clarification post. Departing Syd I only considered fuel to hold hours past any possible fog in Adelaide. Upon discovering Adl had fog abeam YMML, the TTF YMML allowed us to consider it an alternate.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know much on the QANTAS 737 conditions which diverted there?
Did they get in substantially earlier where vis wasn't as much of an issue - perhaps break in the fog at the right time?
Did they get in substantially earlier where vis wasn't as much of an issue - perhaps break in the fog at the right time?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blueloo,
Have a read I've my previous posts. Virgin arrived at Mildura before Qantas, yet Qantas landed first. If it was clear when Virgin arrived, then why did they allow the Qantas aircraft to land first? Only the Qantas and the Virgin crew know the answer to that at the moment. Once the ATSB have finished the investigation hopefully we all we know what happened in the CTAF.
Have a read I've my previous posts. Virgin arrived at Mildura before Qantas, yet Qantas landed first. If it was clear when Virgin arrived, then why did they allow the Qantas aircraft to land first? Only the Qantas and the Virgin crew know the answer to that at the moment. Once the ATSB have finished the investigation hopefully we all we know what happened in the CTAF.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the fact that the VA aircraft did a missed approach off their first attempt, has something to do with it. After they have done the missed approach, the QF a/c has a go, lands, and the VA a/c then lands off the second approach? Would that not explain the apparent discrepancy?
Video shows the QF 737 is already on the ground when the DJ does a missed
approach.
approach.
Didn't DJ do a couple of missed approaches and what was on the video was the second one?
After they have done the missed approach, the QF a/c has a go, lands, and the VA a/c then lands off the second approach?