Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gazumped,
It's not that we don't understand you, it's just that we all believe you are completely incorrect.
You do not have to land with less than FFR to break the rules. You can break the rules at any point as long as it is done for a justifiable valid safety reason.
Allowing yourself to land with less than FFR is breaking a rule in itself, which also must be justifiable with a valid safety reason, for example DJ will have to justify conducting a go-around on the first approach knowing that they will infringe on the FFR by doing so. And I'm sure they can justify it. As can the QF crew justify their landing off the first approach.
It's not that we don't understand you, it's just that we all believe you are completely incorrect.
You do not have to land with less than FFR to break the rules. You can break the rules at any point as long as it is done for a justifiable valid safety reason.
Allowing yourself to land with less than FFR is breaking a rule in itself, which also must be justifiable with a valid safety reason, for example DJ will have to justify conducting a go-around on the first approach knowing that they will infringe on the FFR by doing so. And I'm sure they can justify it. As can the QF crew justify their landing off the first approach.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gazumped
Following on from your comments I will draw your attention to the report.
If you read it carefully you will note that the VA also descended below minima to 300 feet ( 150 feet above ground) before going around for their final attempt.
Accordingly if one follows your reasoning then they to we're not watertight in their approach as they did not yet have a fuel emergency.
So rather than directing criticism on any of the crew how about you accept the fact that although the VA did the same thing as QF and it seems got even lower than QF they were not as lucky due to worsening weather.
So they then made their last approach in zero vis.
It's that simple mate.
Following on from your comments I will draw your attention to the report.
If you read it carefully you will note that the VA also descended below minima to 300 feet ( 150 feet above ground) before going around for their final attempt.
Accordingly if one follows your reasoning then they to we're not watertight in their approach as they did not yet have a fuel emergency.
So rather than directing criticism on any of the crew how about you accept the fact that although the VA did the same thing as QF and it seems got even lower than QF they were not as lucky due to worsening weather.
So they then made their last approach in zero vis.
It's that simple mate.
Last edited by Lone pine; 18th Jul 2013 at 14:30.
Gazumped, you are a complete fool. A Monday morning quarterback is a low character at the best of times but you take it to a new level.
Picking faults with a dynamic, unforecast situation with 20/20 hindsight is easy. The funny thing here though is that for the QF guys, making the approach as early as possible proved to be very fortuitous. Hanging about and making further legal approaches until they were at min fuel would only have lead to a more dangerous situation. Now I acknowledge they couldn't have know that, but as it panned out they were right in making their decision.
What I find absurd is your assertion that waiting until the weather was MUCH worse and their fuel situation was MUCH worse somehow would have been a better scenario.
Furthermore you stated:
Yet the interim report states:
300ft is 260 feet BELOW the minima! Even further than the Qantas crew busted the minima.
So the Virgin crew DID "embark on a deliberate descent below the minima" with the intent to go around.
All that being said, I think that with the information available both the Virgin and Qantas crews did an fantastic job and should be applauded.
Well done fellas.
I hope I don't end up in a similar situation.
Picking faults with a dynamic, unforecast situation with 20/20 hindsight is easy. The funny thing here though is that for the QF guys, making the approach as early as possible proved to be very fortuitous. Hanging about and making further legal approaches until they were at min fuel would only have lead to a more dangerous situation. Now I acknowledge they couldn't have know that, but as it panned out they were right in making their decision.
What I find absurd is your assertion that waiting until the weather was MUCH worse and their fuel situation was MUCH worse somehow would have been a better scenario.
Furthermore you stated:
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.
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 ft
So the Virgin crew DID "embark on a deliberate descent below the minima" with the intent to go around.
All that being said, I think that with the information available both the Virgin and Qantas crews did an fantastic job and should be applauded.
Well done fellas.
I hope I don't end up in a similar situation.
Nunc est bibendum
To add to level of inanity put forward by gazumped, you had a go at me for my comments and yet you didn't address them at all.
The assertion put forward was that QF did a gas and go and in doing so, delayed VOZ's arrival into MIA. I expressed some surprise at that as it's not in the report and I don't think it would have been physically possible. I'm not disputing that the QF crew did in fact gas it up and then blast off for ADL, but I reject the assertion that in doing so they delayed the VOZ crew from conducting and approach.
So any time you're ready to apologise, I'm all ears. I won't hold my breath though.
The assertion put forward was that QF did a gas and go and in doing so, delayed VOZ's arrival into MIA. I expressed some surprise at that as it's not in the report and I don't think it would have been physically possible. I'm not disputing that the QF crew did in fact gas it up and then blast off for ADL, but I reject the assertion that in doing so they delayed the VOZ crew from conducting and approach.
So any time you're ready to apologise, I'm all ears. I won't hold my breath though.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Back Paddock
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, QF and Virgin crews both displayed exemplary professionalism and decision making. They each resolved situations which could have befallen us all (yes I know, exempt for the the '5T for mum' mob.....)
Gazumped There is a reason no one agrees with your sentiments. I suggest you reread the various insightful, experienced comments from others here and think about why the majority have so much praise for the way both crews went about their business in trying circumstances. Good luck with your upgrade........
Gazumped There is a reason no one agrees with your sentiments. I suggest you reread the various insightful, experienced comments from others here and think about why the majority have so much praise for the way both crews went about their business in trying circumstances. Good luck with your upgrade........
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pointless distinctions
gazumped,
I figure there are only 4 people who know what the picture out the front window looked like when it mattered. In truth, no one else can say with certainty what that picture was - we know that ground observers have a very limited area in which to observe, made much worse if they happen to be in the middle of the weather and, because the situation is quite often very dynamic, the preceding aircraft can also see a totally different picture.
As for things like holding fuel, well, forecasting when a fog is going to lift is probably more difficult than predicting when it is going to form - and we know how well that's been going lately!
At Mildura, once thing was very clear - the aircraft were committed to land there and it was entirely preferable to do so with the engines running. It was inevitable that they would run out of fuel at some stage, so all the rules and regulations that are designed for normal operations and to prevent such situations arising had already passed their 'use by' date on commencing the approach. What occurred was 2 different crews practicing dynamic decision-making in what I believe were different circumstances of time and space.
The outcome was fabulous - the alternatives were all very bad.
If we get a decent investigation and we get a decent report (unfortunately still mutually exclusive propositions) that allow us to maximise the training benefits, we will all be so much better for the event.
So I propose we park the carping stone-throwing and concentrate on the lessons. The best of those in this case for you may be a reminder that:
'the rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools'.
I figure there are only 4 people who know what the picture out the front window looked like when it mattered. In truth, no one else can say with certainty what that picture was - we know that ground observers have a very limited area in which to observe, made much worse if they happen to be in the middle of the weather and, because the situation is quite often very dynamic, the preceding aircraft can also see a totally different picture.
As for things like holding fuel, well, forecasting when a fog is going to lift is probably more difficult than predicting when it is going to form - and we know how well that's been going lately!
At Mildura, once thing was very clear - the aircraft were committed to land there and it was entirely preferable to do so with the engines running. It was inevitable that they would run out of fuel at some stage, so all the rules and regulations that are designed for normal operations and to prevent such situations arising had already passed their 'use by' date on commencing the approach. What occurred was 2 different crews practicing dynamic decision-making in what I believe were different circumstances of time and space.
The outcome was fabulous - the alternatives were all very bad.
If we get a decent investigation and we get a decent report (unfortunately still mutually exclusive propositions) that allow us to maximise the training benefits, we will all be so much better for the event.
So I propose we park the carping stone-throwing and concentrate on the lessons. The best of those in this case for you may be a reminder that:
'the rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools'.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ancper et al
Resorting to name calling is poor form indeed
Keg, I did not say that qantas fuelling up and shooting through delayed virgin in any way, I just stated the facts, as unpalatable as that may be. Qantas waited until virgin landed and then departed (after the weather improved) which it was always going to do , and may have done so within qantas's legal fuel reserves.
Go around fuel and shoot another approach is 500 kg, adding this to virgins final landing fuel, gives them 1025 on final, absolute rock solid reason to go 250 ' below minima. The assertion that it is 1100 kg is plain wrong.
The gist of all this ho hah from my proponents, apart from a few name callers seems to be, "So long as weather is not as forecast and deteriorating and you have no fuel left to divert you can go any amount below minima regardless of how much fuel you have on board" quite absurd thought processes.
One of my proponents has even given me a job as a dj FO, another false comment.
How about stick to the facts, and play the ball not the man.
I have stuck rigidly to facts, the rest of you use an interesting embroidering technique.
Keg, I did not say that qantas fuelling up and shooting through delayed virgin in any way, I just stated the facts, as unpalatable as that may be. Qantas waited until virgin landed and then departed (after the weather improved) which it was always going to do , and may have done so within qantas's legal fuel reserves.
Go around fuel and shoot another approach is 500 kg, adding this to virgins final landing fuel, gives them 1025 on final, absolute rock solid reason to go 250 ' below minima. The assertion that it is 1100 kg is plain wrong.
The gist of all this ho hah from my proponents, apart from a few name callers seems to be, "So long as weather is not as forecast and deteriorating and you have no fuel left to divert you can go any amount below minima regardless of how much fuel you have on board" quite absurd thought processes.
One of my proponents has even given me a job as a dj FO, another false comment.
How about stick to the facts, and play the ball not the man.
I have stuck rigidly to facts, the rest of you use an interesting embroidering technique.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So by your expert calculations the Virgin guys would have been landing with less than FFR on the first attempt.
If thats the case why not land?
Why go around and run a serious risk of flaming out only to have to land in the same weather 10 mins later?
Gazumpy both planes descended below the minima because they had to.
Qantas got visual and landed. Virgin did not get visual and went around.
You dont know what Qantas would have done if they were not visual.
Virgin landed the second time without becoming visual because they had to.
Whats your beef?
If thats the case why not land?
Why go around and run a serious risk of flaming out only to have to land in the same weather 10 mins later?
Gazumpy both planes descended below the minima because they had to.
Qantas got visual and landed. Virgin did not get visual and went around.
You dont know what Qantas would have done if they were not visual.
Virgin landed the second time without becoming visual because they had to.
Whats your beef?
You still don't get it mate.
All bets are off with regards to rules once you run out of options......YOU DO THE SAFEST THING AS LONG AS YOU CAN JUSTIFY IT LATER ON.....
So, with your thinking they should have landed on the Silver city highway perhaps?? Landed in BHI??
I have a feeling that neither you or I shall ever experience the "sick in the stomach" feel these 4 guys went through........just think yourself lucky to be passing judgement from the comfort of your lounge room.
Exceptionally well done to them.......
All bets are off with regards to rules once you run out of options......YOU DO THE SAFEST THING AS LONG AS YOU CAN JUSTIFY IT LATER ON.....
So, with your thinking they should have landed on the Silver city highway perhaps?? Landed in BHI??
I have a feeling that neither you or I shall ever experience the "sick in the stomach" feel these 4 guys went through........just think yourself lucky to be passing judgement from the comfort of your lounge room.
Exceptionally well done to them.......
Last edited by nitpicker330; 18th Jul 2013 at 22:33.
The ATSB preliminary report is out.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4172363...100_prelim.pdf
It looks like it does a good job of tabling the facts & timeline. I've put it aide to read fully later, but it appears to be written in a completely different style than any I have read recently. There also seems to be some legalese in the style. I'm looking forward to reading it.
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4172363...100_prelim.pdf
It looks like it does a good job of tabling the facts & timeline. I've put it aide to read fully later, but it appears to be written in a completely different style than any I have read recently. There also seems to be some legalese in the style. I'm looking forward to reading it.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tetretni
An funny thing fog, time ticks by, and fog lifts, sometimes quite quickly.
I have no beef, just sticking to the facts, 525+500=1025, 2100 -(500)X2=1100, is not maths, it's arithmetic.
It appears that almost everyone else has a beef with me, calling me names, giving me jobs, making deliberately false statements. Interesting!
How about fuelling up and shooting through, after an adrenaline rushing, minima busting approach........sound judgement?
No beef just a question.
Any answers?
Comments?
I have no beef, just sticking to the facts, 525+500=1025, 2100 -(500)X2=1100, is not maths, it's arithmetic.
It appears that almost everyone else has a beef with me, calling me names, giving me jobs, making deliberately false statements. Interesting!
How about fuelling up and shooting through, after an adrenaline rushing, minima busting approach........sound judgement?
No beef just a question.
Any answers?
Comments?
Do you mean after they landed MIA the QF crew refueled at left ASAP?
Mmmmmmm, tough call, I guess they spoke to their CP and that was the decision. I know from past experience that after an incident QF stand the crew down ( at least for the day ) and get another crew. I would have thought this should happen after busting the minima and filling out the Air Safety reports........I guess ATSB will pass their thoughts on that decision as well..
Mmmmmmm, tough call, I guess they spoke to their CP and that was the decision. I know from past experience that after an incident QF stand the crew down ( at least for the day ) and get another crew. I would have thought this should happen after busting the minima and filling out the Air Safety reports........I guess ATSB will pass their thoughts on that decision as well..
Last edited by nitpicker330; 18th Jul 2013 at 22:48.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have not answered my question.
Why not land off the first attempt given that as you claim they were already compromised with regards to FFR.
Why risk a flameout on a second attempt.
Waiting.
Why not land off the first attempt given that as you claim they were already compromised with regards to FFR.
Why risk a flameout on a second attempt.
Waiting.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nitpicker330
Incorrect, have been there. Read my prior posts. Missed out at the minima, forecast cavok, thunderstorm off the end if the field, after reserve diminishing, minima busting second approach. BOM reply to my incident report was all public service mumbo jumbo as why they had done nothing wrong. All a very long time ago in GA.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tetretni
The fuel state was not quite at emergency, and whilst it was not, there was a chance that given more time conditions might improve.
Also cabin prep had not been done.
A flame out with 1 nano seconds fuel more than fixed, is not possible, (with normal attitudes), otherwise certification would have not been granted.
You can't be serious?
Also cabin prep had not been done.
A flame out with 1 nano seconds fuel more than fixed, is not possible, (with normal attitudes), otherwise certification would have not been granted.
You can't be serious?