Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
Top post JT! Very enlightening and I have a question (my bold):
So don't crew do that anymore, if not why not? And is it even taught in CPL/ATPL Meteorology syllabus or is it all rote learning these days (i.e. the forecast on the box doesn't indicate any probs so it should be fine)?
I know from flogging around in WA with RUFDUS in the middle of the night, in the cooler months and in particular on long legs (like PD to JT) I would religiously do what you described JT and it saved my bacon several times. It also wasn't that long ago!
Pick the trend post
Note: And I'm not being critical of the crew involved, on the contrary maybe this a failing in the CAsA ATPL/CPL syllabus that may need to be addressed?
Looking back some years when forecasting was very problematic with respect to fog conditions, I can't recall any crews of my acquaintance who didn't religiously consider dew point, temperature split, cloud cover, wind expectation, high/low, etc. This was especially so heading off to those airports notorious for being fog lovers ... motoring eastbound to PER or southbound to LST/HBA late at night bring back more than a few memories ..
I know from flogging around in WA with RUFDUS in the middle of the night, in the cooler months and in particular on long legs (like PD to JT) I would religiously do what you described JT and it saved my bacon several times. It also wasn't that long ago!
Pick the trend post
Note: And I'm not being critical of the crew involved, on the contrary maybe this a failing in the CAsA ATPL/CPL syllabus that may need to be addressed?
Last edited by Sarcs; 19th Jul 2013 at 02:00.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ..
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tenret
My post is not about the actions if the crew. It is about the culture of the airline. Did they declare a pan and fuel emergency? If so end of discussion, its just the report doesn't say.
If they din't declare a pan then my concern is that this "busting" of minimums is considered more normal at QF than VA where I fly. Busting minimums is an emergency rule break and warrants at minimum a pan call.
Last month I watched at the t/h of 16R a 747 land with both the previous and following aircraft miss. Conditions did not improve where I was.
My post is not about the actions if the crew. It is about the culture of the airline. Did they declare a pan and fuel emergency? If so end of discussion, its just the report doesn't say.
If they din't declare a pan then my concern is that this "busting" of minimums is considered more normal at QF than VA where I fly. Busting minimums is an emergency rule break and warrants at minimum a pan call.
Last month I watched at the t/h of 16R a 747 land with both the previous and following aircraft miss. Conditions did not improve where I was.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B737 landed below weather minima and substantially below FFR
Incident: Virgin Australia B738 at Mildura on Jun 18th 2013, landed below weather minima and substantially below final fuel reserve
A story, with a happy ending.
A story, with a happy ending.
Last edited by aguadalte; 19th Jul 2013 at 03:08.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest the reason we have the thinking of the VA crew is because the CVR was available. The fact that the QF crew refueled and continued meant that most or all of that portion of the recording would have been recorded over, and unavailable later. Good or bad, take your pick.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tenretni
To answer your question"what would do?"
1)Talk to the first aircraft in the sequence and ask, " how much fuel do you have? And whoever had less gets the first go.
2)when comes to my turn, do the approach to minima, then MAP.
3)Cabin prep, then discuss with other crew member, flying to the ground and landing, unsighted if possible
4)Declare an emergency
5)Land, and stand myself down.
6) Go to pub and have several beverages
7)Find meteorologist responsible, and send very strongly worded letter, questioning his parentage!
It's not too difficult, is it?
Fuelling up and shooting through, is ....um ......how do I put it.......questionable?
Pure guess work on my part, but I would suggest that management have since stood down the crew. I stand to be corrected on that
1)Talk to the first aircraft in the sequence and ask, " how much fuel do you have? And whoever had less gets the first go.
2)when comes to my turn, do the approach to minima, then MAP.
3)Cabin prep, then discuss with other crew member, flying to the ground and landing, unsighted if possible
4)Declare an emergency
5)Land, and stand myself down.
6) Go to pub and have several beverages
7)Find meteorologist responsible, and send very strongly worded letter, questioning his parentage!
It's not too difficult, is it?
Fuelling up and shooting through, is ....um ......how do I put it.......questionable?
Pure guess work on my part, but I would suggest that management have since stood down the crew. I stand to be corrected on that
You guys just dont get it do you?
Put yourselves in the QF drivers seat for a moment.
You arrive at the circuit and you know that aircraft have missed out on approaches to the minima. ... its in the report.
You know that the weather is getting worse just by observation. ...its in the report
You know that you dont have fuel to divert...its in the report.
What would you do?
Put yourselves in the QF drivers seat for a moment.
You arrive at the circuit and you know that aircraft have missed out on approaches to the minima. ... its in the report.
You know that the weather is getting worse just by observation. ...its in the report
You know that you dont have fuel to divert...its in the report.
What would you do?
What we can all agree on is that both aircraft found themselves in a situation where they were fast being painted into a corner and the only option available to both was an emergency landing. A landing that had the very real possibility of damage and or injury to the aircraft and passengers.
Two separate crew, in the same aircraft type, handling the situation in two very different ways.
OK, the outcome for both was the same, no one was hurt, VH-VYK and VH-YIR (no mention of the airlines involved here, lets keep emotion out of it) landed without injury or damage. The decision making processes that ultimately lead to that same outcome, at this stage and going on the information we have in the prelim report, were very different!
One crew it seemed, planned and discussed what they were doing, from alerting ATC to providing a local standby, briefing the cabin crew and even discussing where to expect they might see the runway when they did get visual by looking at the wind vector.
The other crew it seems just decided on the first attempt to 'bust' minima and land. Did the cabin crew or passengers know that the aircraft was carrying out an emergency landing? Did they discuss or evaluate exactly what they were about to do?
Now, more information may come to light that provides a clearer picture on the decision making by the crew of VH-VYK and they could of well discussed such matters.
I'm sure that the crew of both VH-YIR and VH-VYK are nothing short of competent professionals, but that doesn't mean that by going over the facts in the cold hard light of day we can't, at this point in proceedings start formulating some cold hard questions that when evaluated and discussed will hopefully provide some cold hard answers that will ultimately benefit everyone
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tentretni
Seems I missed a few posts back where you asked me a direct question about virgins first approach going deliberately below the minima.
Virgin are aware of at least 2 diverts to BHI, qantas "volunteer" visual at 150 below minima, virgins fuel state approaching minima on first approach is within a few kilos of declaring an emergency, and you actually criticise them for going 260' below the minima in a fact finding exercise to locate the disposition of the runway to better plan their second approach.
But think it is ok to go 150' below the minima on first approach with fixed + 30 minutes, no emergency declaration, no cabin prep, just hang on and hope for the best.
Is that the question you are asking? Do you actually read your posts before you send them off?
It is definitely not ok to go below minimas without rock solid reasons. With the cvr of qantas not being available, the only source of information about the discussions in the qantas cockpit are through personal testimony.
My advice to the QF crew if I were their legal council, would be to exercise their right to silence, which is exactly what they have done.
Tenretni are you joining up the dots yet?
Virgin are aware of at least 2 diverts to BHI, qantas "volunteer" visual at 150 below minima, virgins fuel state approaching minima on first approach is within a few kilos of declaring an emergency, and you actually criticise them for going 260' below the minima in a fact finding exercise to locate the disposition of the runway to better plan their second approach.
But think it is ok to go 150' below the minima on first approach with fixed + 30 minutes, no emergency declaration, no cabin prep, just hang on and hope for the best.
Is that the question you are asking? Do you actually read your posts before you send them off?
It is definitely not ok to go below minimas without rock solid reasons. With the cvr of qantas not being available, the only source of information about the discussions in the qantas cockpit are through personal testimony.
My advice to the QF crew if I were their legal council, would be to exercise their right to silence, which is exactly what they have done.
Tenretni are you joining up the dots yet?
FWIW there's a 30 page thread on the incident in the "Australia, New Zealand and Pacific section".
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...y-landing.html
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...y-landing.html
Last edited by wiggy; 19th Jul 2013 at 05:03.
Originally Posted by Compylot
I'm sure that the crew of both VH-YIR and VH-VYK are nothing short of competent professionals, but that doesn't mean that by going over the facts in the cold hard light of day we can't, at this point in proceedings start formulating some cold hard questions that when evaluated and discussed will hopefully provide some cold hard answers that will ultimately benefit everyone
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the contrary gazumpy.
I am not crticising the virgin crew for descending below minima when they (by your account) did not yet have a fuel emergency. I think that was an appropriate course to take.
You are the one criticising the qantas crew for doing precisely the same thing.
From the report:
Both crew went below minima on their first attempts. Neither crew had declared an emergency at that stage. Virgin in descending to 300 feet below minima on their first attempt had not prepared the cabin for an emergency landing. No problem with that.
That was rightly done when they found themselves with no option but to not just descend below minima, but to descend all the way to the ground.
Gazumpy if you want to suggest that qantas were just hanging on and hoping for the best, well the same can be said for the virgin guys on their first attempt.
Its an absurd assertion to make but i wont try to stop you.
I am not crticising the virgin crew for descending below minima when they (by your account) did not yet have a fuel emergency. I think that was an appropriate course to take.
You are the one criticising the qantas crew for doing precisely the same thing.
From the report:
Both crew went below minima on their first attempts. Neither crew had declared an emergency at that stage. Virgin in descending to 300 feet below minima on their first attempt had not prepared the cabin for an emergency landing. No problem with that.
That was rightly done when they found themselves with no option but to not just descend below minima, but to descend all the way to the ground.
Gazumpy if you want to suggest that qantas were just hanging on and hoping for the best, well the same can be said for the virgin guys on their first attempt.
Its an absurd assertion to make but i wont try to stop you.
Amazing that QF have managed to keep this one out of the media.
Any word on whether the HUD was in use and what that actually portrays?
That could have made a huge difference in QF getting in.
Hopefully the heat is put on the respective airports to get CAT II everywhere after this debacle.
I have done a visual approach landed easily no worries, and the fog bank rolls over and the guys 5 miles behind goes around. It is not out of the realms of possibility.
Any word on whether the HUD was in use and what that actually portrays?
That could have made a huge difference in QF getting in.
Hopefully the heat is put on the respective airports to get CAT II everywhere after this debacle.
The Virgin aircraft then conducts a missed approach after the Qantas aircraft had landed. I guess they were very lucky the fog cleared enough in those few minutes that they only had to 'bust' the minima by 150 feet because both before and after their landing other aircraft couldn't get in.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 19th Jul 2013 at 05:46.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neville
The worsening weather could very well have been the difference.
I mean in reading some of the report detail it appears that VA started their first approach nearly 10 minutes after QF.
Thats a long time in foggy weather.
The worsening weather could very well have been the difference.
I mean in reading some of the report detail it appears that VA started their first approach nearly 10 minutes after QF.
Thats a long time in foggy weather.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tenretni
The two questions you asked we're
1) " Why not land off the first attempt given that FFR already compromised?
2) Why risk a flameout on a second approach?
Then you deliberately baited as to why I hadn't yet answered you, just so you are kept in the loop the answers are below, do you need directions?
ANSWER 1) FUEL STATE ON FIRST APPROACH WAS NOT QUITE AT FFR, so your assertion is blatantly false!
ANSWER 2) FLAMEOUT IS NOT A RISK RIGHT DOWN TO UNUSABLE AT NORMAL ATTITUDES, provided SOP's are followed. Suggest you read certification requirements.
Do you know what SOP's are, or do I have to spell it to you?
Questions answered?
1) " Why not land off the first attempt given that FFR already compromised?
2) Why risk a flameout on a second approach?
Then you deliberately baited as to why I hadn't yet answered you, just so you are kept in the loop the answers are below, do you need directions?
ANSWER 1) FUEL STATE ON FIRST APPROACH WAS NOT QUITE AT FFR, so your assertion is blatantly false!
ANSWER 2) FLAMEOUT IS NOT A RISK RIGHT DOWN TO UNUSABLE AT NORMAL ATTITUDES, provided SOP's are followed. Suggest you read certification requirements.
Do you know what SOP's are, or do I have to spell it to you?
Questions answered?
Last edited by gazumped; 19th Jul 2013 at 06:13.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gazumped
Mate the VA guys descend by 260 feet below minima on a fact finding mission without preparing the cabin.
Those poor QF guys descend by 150 feet without preparing the cabin but OH NO you burst a blood vessel.
Pretty selective don't you think?
Mate the VA guys descend by 260 feet below minima on a fact finding mission without preparing the cabin.
Those poor QF guys descend by 150 feet without preparing the cabin but OH NO you burst a blood vessel.
Pretty selective don't you think?
Akro-----where ya been mate, reply 491 page 25 mentions the report!! Get with the program will ya
I think this discussion is maybe forgetting that the crews were probably getting additional information that is not part of the ATSB report. I don't fly for the airlines, so I'm guessing. But I would hope that the respective companies were making phonecalls to people on the ground at MIA and relaying this on the company frequency.
If I was onboard, I'd be pulling out the mobile and calling someone on the ground, although I'm not sure that the workload of the approach would have allowed this.
Either way, I would hope that the captain was getting some informal contemporary information on the fog and its development that would aid his judgement.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lone pine
I haven't burst any blood vessels, it would appear a few guys are though.
The 260 ' below the minima is a deliberate planning action, they knew what in all probability was going to occur, to get an idea of the disposition of the runway prior would seem a very well thought procedure, don't you think?
The whole issue is " when can you go down below the minima?"
On the contrary, not selective, factual.
The consensus seems to be, so long as no suitable alternate is within range, you can do whatever you like, regardless of fuel state. Curious, no? Note no blood vessels at risk here
The 260 ' below the minima is a deliberate planning action, they knew what in all probability was going to occur, to get an idea of the disposition of the runway prior would seem a very well thought procedure, don't you think?
The whole issue is " when can you go down below the minima?"
On the contrary, not selective, factual.
The consensus seems to be, so long as no suitable alternate is within range, you can do whatever you like, regardless of fuel state. Curious, no? Note no blood vessels at risk here
Last edited by gazumped; 19th Jul 2013 at 06:23.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gazumped
I accept that the VA crew deliberately descended below minima as part of their fact finding mission.
I also accept however that the QF crew deliberately descended below minima to try and break visual
One deliberately descended below minima in search of facts the other did in search of the ground.
One found the ground and landed the other got his facts right and landed in zero vis on his second attempt.
No emergencies were declared at that stage. No cabin preps were made at that stage.
So where exactly is the problem.
You cannot simply choose some facts and ignore others just to paint a picture.
Glad about the blood vessels!
I accept that the VA crew deliberately descended below minima as part of their fact finding mission.
I also accept however that the QF crew deliberately descended below minima to try and break visual
One deliberately descended below minima in search of facts the other did in search of the ground.
One found the ground and landed the other got his facts right and landed in zero vis on his second attempt.
No emergencies were declared at that stage. No cabin preps were made at that stage.
So where exactly is the problem.
You cannot simply choose some facts and ignore others just to paint a picture.
Glad about the blood vessels!
Last edited by Lone pine; 19th Jul 2013 at 06:39.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lone pine
Thanks about the concern for my blood vessels, we should take care of each others welfare when possible.
My point of view is all about fuel. At what fuel state can you bend the rules?
Remember the Irish copper. Just because you think you know how things will pan out, doesn't necessarily mean that you can act on that future assumption.
Fuelling up and shooting through, and thus overwriting the cvr, may prove quite fortuitous.
My point of view is all about fuel. At what fuel state can you bend the rules?
Remember the Irish copper. Just because you think you know how things will pan out, doesn't necessarily mean that you can act on that future assumption.
Fuelling up and shooting through, and thus overwriting the cvr, may prove quite fortuitous.