Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lone pine
Both aircraft had an unenviable position to be put in, one did a superlative job, the other stuck his neck out, way out.
Listen very carefully, Flying down to the ground in poor vis below the minima is no more dangerous with 2100 kg on board versus 525 kg, both are highly dangerous manoeuvres, you need to be very careful before you embark on a deliberately dangerous manoeuvre, you need to be able to justify your decision, say for example you hurt someone in the process, because they weren't in the brace position. You see after all you are performing a dangerous manoeuvre busting the minima. Do you follow? We are not measuring willy sizes here, we are all in the same industry.
Listen very carefully, Flying down to the ground in poor vis below the minima is no more dangerous with 2100 kg on board versus 525 kg, both are highly dangerous manoeuvres, you need to be very careful before you embark on a deliberately dangerous manoeuvre, you need to be able to justify your decision, say for example you hurt someone in the process, because they weren't in the brace position. You see after all you are performing a dangerous manoeuvre busting the minima. Do you follow? We are not measuring willy sizes here, we are all in the same industry.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Aus
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gazumped
I don't think you're getting the argument.
It is irrelevant how much fuel they actually have in the tanks if it is still insufficient to get them to another aerodrome. In this case, with 2100kg remaining, no options to go elsewhere and weather closing in, I'd sure as hell start shooting approaches below minima right away to get down in one piece.
I see no benefit in sitting above the ever-thickening murk (which we have no reason to believe will magically disappear before we run out of fuel) burning precious fuel waiting to get into my FR before attempting an approach below minima, leaving me with one shot at getting it right, in possibly significantly worse conditions, when I could have made a few earlier attempts with the option to go around. The QF crew did manage to make it in on the first go, but who's to say that would have been the case if they'd waited until minimum fuel before giving it a crack?
...shooting the approach below minima with 2100kg vs 500kg is significantly LESS DANGEROUS as you have the option to go around and take another shot - at 500 you have nowhere to go but down.
It is irrelevant how much fuel they actually have in the tanks if it is still insufficient to get them to another aerodrome. In this case, with 2100kg remaining, no options to go elsewhere and weather closing in, I'd sure as hell start shooting approaches below minima right away to get down in one piece.
I see no benefit in sitting above the ever-thickening murk (which we have no reason to believe will magically disappear before we run out of fuel) burning precious fuel waiting to get into my FR before attempting an approach below minima, leaving me with one shot at getting it right, in possibly significantly worse conditions, when I could have made a few earlier attempts with the option to go around. The QF crew did manage to make it in on the first go, but who's to say that would have been the case if they'd waited until minimum fuel before giving it a crack?
...shooting the approach below minima with 2100kg vs 500kg is significantly LESS DANGEROUS as you have the option to go around and take another shot - at 500 you have nowhere to go but down.
Last edited by skkm; 18th Jul 2013 at 12:33.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skkm
Sorry mate, I disagree, re read what you actually said, there is no crystal ball, hanging around may have seen the fog lift, not thicken.
Let me give you a fact, if you bust the minima and hurt a passenger with more than fixed in your tanks, and he sues you personally, you will lose your house!
So bust as many minimas as you like, but don't hurt a passenger.
Let me give you a fact, if you bust the minima and hurt a passenger with more than fixed in your tanks, and he sues you personally, you will lose your house!
So bust as many minimas as you like, but don't hurt a passenger.
Let put in single syllables, until you have an emergency, you are not empowered to break the rules.
As for the different methods that each crew took to getting on the ground, each did what they determined was the most appropriate for that crew at the time.
It is easy for all of us to sit here and examine each crew's actions in minute detail. We are not flying around in clear air above a layer of fog knowing that what you do in the next few minutes could all turn to
It is a simple fact that the forecasts caught both crew out.
To compound the QF situation was the fact that the amended forecast for Adelaide was delayed by "sterile cockpit" procedures. To me "sterile cockpit" procedure is to to keep the crew concentrated on aircraft operations and not talking about nappy changing at 2am.
Are forecasts no longer considered to be applicable to aircraft operations?
Given the circumstances that both crew faced, they both did a fantastic job.
I am impressed on how the Virgin crew determined their course of action.
Maybe one or both of the QF had done that approach to Mildura and knew where the runway would be in relation to the approach track.
The flight briefing package indicated that the aircraft was capable of conducting an automatic landing4 and the crew reported that they were trained and current on auto-land procedures.
Last edited by 601; 18th Jul 2013 at 12:50.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
601
That is exactly the point, it does matter how much fuel you have on board, you cannot take the law into your own hands unless your justification is absolutely watertight.
Virgin's justification was watertight, even down to the "brace brace brace" call.
You need to talk to someone who has been in the witness box after an incident.......it absolutely does matter, your reasons need to be watertight.
Virgin's justification was watertight, even down to the "brace brace brace" call.
You need to talk to someone who has been in the witness box after an incident.......it absolutely does matter, your reasons need to be watertight.
Last edited by gazumped; 18th Jul 2013 at 12:52.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are you referring to in fuelling up and shooting through? Also are you saying that landing below minima when you don't have fuel to go anywhere else is only legal if your down to vapours?
Last edited by Lone pine; 18th Jul 2013 at 12:57.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gazumped
I'd suggest you don't know what you are saying!
To quote you: "Let put in single syllables, until you have an emergency, you are not empowered to break the rules."
Sorry, the PIC can do whatever he likes at any stages if he believes the safety of his aircraft is at stake. Where did you get this idea from? Or maybe I should put it to you this way.....HE WAS IN AN EMERGENCY, he didn't have the juice to go anywhere else. He doesn't have to be down to 30 mins, you are confusing the process for an aircraft getting the attention of ATC for priority handling due to a low fuel state with the declaration of a fuel emergency with what can be numerous different types of emergencies, eg loss of all hydrualics. ATC: sorry, you cannot declare an emergency until you only have 30mins in the Tanks. AIRCRAFT: but we're going to crash. ATC: sorry, you shouldn't have carried the extra fuel, otherwise you'd only have 30 mins and we could accept your emergency!
To quoter you again: "Do you follow? We are not measuring willy sizes here, we are all in the same industry."
I'm hoping that most here would be hoping, that they aren't in the same industry as you, not in the same company and certainly not on your aircraft if you even happen to command one. FFS!
To quote you: "Let put in single syllables, until you have an emergency, you are not empowered to break the rules."
Sorry, the PIC can do whatever he likes at any stages if he believes the safety of his aircraft is at stake. Where did you get this idea from? Or maybe I should put it to you this way.....HE WAS IN AN EMERGENCY, he didn't have the juice to go anywhere else. He doesn't have to be down to 30 mins, you are confusing the process for an aircraft getting the attention of ATC for priority handling due to a low fuel state with the declaration of a fuel emergency with what can be numerous different types of emergencies, eg loss of all hydrualics. ATC: sorry, you cannot declare an emergency until you only have 30mins in the Tanks. AIRCRAFT: but we're going to crash. ATC: sorry, you shouldn't have carried the extra fuel, otherwise you'd only have 30 mins and we could accept your emergency!
To quoter you again: "Do you follow? We are not measuring willy sizes here, we are all in the same industry."
I'm hoping that most here would be hoping, that they aren't in the same industry as you, not in the same company and certainly not on your aircraft if you even happen to command one. FFS!
Listen very carefully, Flying down to the ground in poor vis below the minima is no more dangerous with 2100 kg on board versus 525 kg, both are highly dangerous manoeuvres
QF would have had 2200kg on touch down, if they did go around they would have been down to 1400kg and possibly facing worse viz than on the first attempt and maybe having to coordinate with other aircraft also experiencing fuel issues.
You seem to hang your hat on the rules keeping you safe Gazumped, they won't always keep you safe. Over and above any rule is the Captains responsibility to keep the passengers and aircraft safe, they are specifically empowered to break any rule they see fit to achieve this outcome. Both Captains did just that. Well done to the four pilots involved.
Framer.
Firstly-----holy crap Batman they were seriously let down by the system
Well done to both crews.
Now, Mr gazumped:- you my friend are completely missing the point. The Commander has the authority to do whatever he sees fit in the circumstances in order to maintain flight safety. THAT'S WHAT HE'S PAID FOR.
The regs give him this exact power.
At the end of the day ( in QF's situation ) when you can clearly see this un-forecast fog is getting worse by the second you don't muck around, you land the damn Plane Maverick...
otherwise you are landing in a paddock...
So stop this Monday morning quarterbacking bull**** and give both crews the respect they deserve considering what that had to deal with.
Best of all lets ALL learn from this.....
1/ ATC should have passed on the fog in ADL to all Aircraft inbound no matter where they were.( this would have saved the day )
2/ BOM should lift their game.
3/ All operators of RPT Aircraft should carry a suitable alternate at all times.
4/ All Airports in Oz should be capable of at least Cat 2. ( especially PER, and now it seems ADL )
Well done to both crews.
Now, Mr gazumped:- you my friend are completely missing the point. The Commander has the authority to do whatever he sees fit in the circumstances in order to maintain flight safety. THAT'S WHAT HE'S PAID FOR.
The regs give him this exact power.
At the end of the day ( in QF's situation ) when you can clearly see this un-forecast fog is getting worse by the second you don't muck around, you land the damn Plane Maverick...
otherwise you are landing in a paddock...So stop this Monday morning quarterbacking bull**** and give both crews the respect they deserve considering what that had to deal with.
Best of all lets ALL learn from this.....
1/ ATC should have passed on the fog in ADL to all Aircraft inbound no matter where they were.( this would have saved the day )
2/ BOM should lift their game.
3/ All operators of RPT Aircraft should carry a suitable alternate at all times.
4/ All Airports in Oz should be capable of at least Cat 2. ( especially PER, and now it seems ADL )
Last edited by nitpicker330; 18th Jul 2013 at 13:17.
'skkm' that's pretty much it in a nutshell, well put. (as is both the above posts as I have just seen their good input)
There's a lot of opinion here but right or wrong the commander has the final say. If he decides that he's going below Min then he's correct regardless of fuel qty & justification was very obvious!
He clearly had not enuf gas to go elsewhere as he had a fuel emerg right there & then even if he technically had more than what was required to call it so so starting App's & going blw Min straight up was a good call as he would have had options albeit slim (aka going around) with 2100 kg's on first attempt.
The Virgin skipper obviously used up his similar gas by going around.
Remember we are talking about two identical airframes here but two different CPU's making the decisions so it's hardly going to be a text book outcome for both A/C.
The end result was to get the machines on the ground (in once piece) so apart from the rules & regs all bets where off & raw survivability was kicking in.
Wmk2
There's a lot of opinion here but right or wrong the commander has the final say. If he decides that he's going below Min then he's correct regardless of fuel qty & justification was very obvious!
He clearly had not enuf gas to go elsewhere as he had a fuel emerg right there & then even if he technically had more than what was required to call it so so starting App's & going blw Min straight up was a good call as he would have had options albeit slim (aka going around) with 2100 kg's on first attempt.
The Virgin skipper obviously used up his similar gas by going around.
Remember we are talking about two identical airframes here but two different CPU's making the decisions so it's hardly going to be a text book outcome for both A/C.
The end result was to get the machines on the ground (in once piece) so apart from the rules & regs all bets where off & raw survivability was kicking in.
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 18th Jul 2013 at 13:21.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer
I don't hang my hat on the rules keeping me safe, you will find no such comment in my posts. Although rules and sop's are a pretty good start, once or twice in your flying lifetime you will be forced to break the rules.
You do not seem to understand. Virgin was not going to do a missed approach, neither was qantas. You don't embark on a deliberate descent below the minima if you intend to go around. Neither manoeuvre was less or more dangerous than the other, both carry risk, considerable risk, both break the law, one is wholly justified, 100% justified, the other was not. One crew carefully thought out the process, the other did not.
Simple isn't it?
Say after me, " if I deliberately break the rules, I will have a watertight reason."
Go on its not that hard
You do not seem to understand. Virgin was not going to do a missed approach, neither was qantas. You don't embark on a deliberate descent below the minima if you intend to go around. Neither manoeuvre was less or more dangerous than the other, both carry risk, considerable risk, both break the law, one is wholly justified, 100% justified, the other was not. One crew carefully thought out the process, the other did not.
Simple isn't it?
Say after me, " if I deliberately break the rules, I will have a watertight reason."
Go on its not that hard
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guzumped is also missing the point that both crews went below minima before they were below fixed fuel reserves. It states this clearly in the report. As they should have given the situation.
"At approximately 2358, the crew of YIR commenced their first approach, deciding that if they obtained visual reference with the runway, they would land and that if they were not visual they would conduct a missed approach. The crew of YIR had planned to descend to a minimum of 300 ft14, and configured the aircraft early for the final approach."
The minima is around 600' so Mr Guzumped Qantas decided to go a certain height below minima before they were below fixed fuel reserves and were lucky enough to get visual reference and land and you criticise them but Virgin did the same thing and were unlucky and didn't get visual so had to try again (this time below fixed reserves) and that is fine?
Why don't you actually read the report before commenting on the actions of either crew. Or better yet don't comment on there actions at all!
"At approximately 2358, the crew of YIR commenced their first approach, deciding that if they obtained visual reference with the runway, they would land and that if they were not visual they would conduct a missed approach. The crew of YIR had planned to descend to a minimum of 300 ft14, and configured the aircraft early for the final approach."
The minima is around 600' so Mr Guzumped Qantas decided to go a certain height below minima before they were below fixed fuel reserves and were lucky enough to get visual reference and land and you criticise them but Virgin did the same thing and were unlucky and didn't get visual so had to try again (this time below fixed reserves) and that is fine?
Why don't you actually read the report before commenting on the actions of either crew. Or better yet don't comment on there actions at all!
Dear Gazumped
Both crews did a great job in testing circumstances.
But if you command an airliner in Aust please make it known in your "welcome aboard" p.a.
I'll then get off and leave you to manage any potential crisis right down to the last legal option before you finally "grip it up" and resolve the issue at the last gasp with no other "out". I hope it all goes well for you.
But if you command an airliner in Aust please make it known in your "welcome aboard" p.a.
I'll then get off and leave you to manage any potential crisis right down to the last legal option before you finally "grip it up" and resolve the issue at the last gasp with no other "out". I hope it all goes well for you.
Last edited by Jetsbest; 18th Jul 2013 at 13:53.
That is exactly the point, it does matter how much fuel you have on board, you cannot take the law into your own hands unless your justification is absolutely watertight.
So do they doodle around in the clear blue sky above ever increasing fog and get to a point where they have used their "approach fuel" to conduct an approach with no prospect of a missed approach or use what approach fuel they had and conduct an approach knowing full well that they have the fuel have a go at a second approach.
The CARs allow a pilot to "pay due regard to all dangers to navigation .. and to any special circumstances which may render a departure from those rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger"
Say after me, " if I deliberately break the rules, I will have a watertight reason."
And it was not a bugsmasher.
Last edited by 601; 18th Jul 2013 at 13:44.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't be as nice as the other guys, I also think you more than likely missed my thoughts on the end of pg 27, but gazumped you are a fool and have no idea what you are talking about. I hope you spend quite some time with dj in the RHS seat, you have a lot to learn about what decision making is about and also what is legal! Doing whatever you need to do for the safety of the a/c whether you go below minima, or divert and land with less than FR is not breaking the law.
By the way, QF had a valid reason; deteriorating visibility with insufficient fuel to divert. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???????????
By the way, QF had a valid reason; deteriorating visibility with insufficient fuel to divert. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???????????
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: bumf*ck, idaho
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gazumped,
Mate, you are up a gum tree here. While you are comfy in your arm chair there, take a pause and realize you are peddling a black and white viewpoint in a literally grey situation.
Further, to go below final rsv fuel you are In a fuel emergency.
A commander has the prerogative to decide he in a situation ( ie an emergency) requiring him to exercise the rights affording to him by the regulations.
No one else.
If QF had gone around we'd have seen 2 rpt 737s on min gas in the same cct with wx going pear shaped. No one knows how that would've played out.
Get off your high horse and stop be an arm chair expert.
Mate, you are up a gum tree here. While you are comfy in your arm chair there, take a pause and realize you are peddling a black and white viewpoint in a literally grey situation.
Further, to go below final rsv fuel you are In a fuel emergency.
A commander has the prerogative to decide he in a situation ( ie an emergency) requiring him to exercise the rights affording to him by the regulations.
No one else.
If QF had gone around we'd have seen 2 rpt 737s on min gas in the same cct with wx going pear shaped. No one knows how that would've played out.
Get off your high horse and stop be an arm chair expert.