Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Darwin
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HUD won't help you as far as flare guidance without an ILS. What it will do is enable head free + track/path/speed monitoring
In order to descend below minima I believe a Pan call should have been the minimum required in order to tick the "emergency" box.
In response to the thread about monitoring dewpoint etc. In 20 years of flying I have never seen a crew not take the trend of an airport into consideration and constantly monitor it if it is deteriorating. Years of flogging up to Europe with payload limited aircraft instils this in most crew members early in their career.
Lots of big swinging d***ks in this discussion and a few attached to heads. At the end of the day both crew delivered their passengers to their destination albeit a little late.
Given the less than adequate support provided by others who could have relayed the deteriorating weather information sooner I think they both in hindsight would have autolanded at ADL given the choice. The legal requirements necessitated a diversion and that's what both of them did. Mildura going to fog was not indicated anywhere until late in the piece and they were once again let down by others.
To the credit of both crews they flew their aeroplanes and focused on the operation at what must have been a very stressful time. No one died. No one got hurt. What would you have them do?
Last edited by What The; 19th Jul 2013 at 07:26.
This is better than watching the tennis on TV although no one seems to be hitting the net ......it's a looooong tedious volley with only a few major players!
Lets get back to basics as this 'match' will yield no winners
Basics:
2x A/C same type.
2x A/C find that they have insufficient fuel to hold or divert (at the original destination) to a Cat A aerodrome (due a whole heap of reasons), Eg ML(assuming both Co's have ABC Cat dromes in their route manuals, A being the most suitable)
2x A/C divert to the closest drome (MIA)that has an acceptable forecast at the time of diversion & can handle their A/C type(otherwise they would never have dreamed of going there)
2x A/C end up in the circuit area of MIA with fog & nowhere else to go (Highlighted as that's the main crux of this story now)
So having nowhere else to go means rules pertaining to not going below the min, or waiting 'till they where/are blw their legal reserves thinking now they can legally throw out the rule book has nothing to do with it anymore.
If they had have turned up overhead MIA with 10 tonnes (figuratively speaking) or 1 litre they where landing period!
The Skippers found themselves in a situation that had only one outcome & that was they where going to land at MIA fog or no fog it's just how they went about it that's worth knowing so we can all learn!
Continue on players but keep an eye on that 'net', someone is gunna slip up !
Wmk2
Wmk2
Lets get back to basics as this 'match' will yield no winners
Basics:
2x A/C same type.
2x A/C find that they have insufficient fuel to hold or divert (at the original destination) to a Cat A aerodrome (due a whole heap of reasons), Eg ML(assuming both Co's have ABC Cat dromes in their route manuals, A being the most suitable)
2x A/C divert to the closest drome (MIA)that has an acceptable forecast at the time of diversion & can handle their A/C type(otherwise they would never have dreamed of going there)
2x A/C end up in the circuit area of MIA with fog & nowhere else to go (Highlighted as that's the main crux of this story now)
So having nowhere else to go means rules pertaining to not going below the min, or waiting 'till they where/are blw their legal reserves thinking now they can legally throw out the rule book has nothing to do with it anymore.
If they had have turned up overhead MIA with 10 tonnes (figuratively speaking) or 1 litre they where landing period!
The Skippers found themselves in a situation that had only one outcome & that was they where going to land at MIA fog or no fog it's just how they went about it that's worth knowing so we can all learn!
Continue on players but keep an eye on that 'net', someone is gunna slip up !
Wmk2
Wmk2
My point of view is all about fuel. At what fuel state can you bend the rules?
At what fuel state
To my thinking, this occurred as soon as they heard other aircraft diverting from MIA to their alternates.
Last edited by 601; 19th Jul 2013 at 07:25.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gazumped
About gazumped Licence Type (eg CPL. Pilots only)atplCurrent a/c Type (eg B737. Pilots only)b737Biographybrisbane dj pilotLocationbrisbaneInterestsfishingOccupationpilotOkay gazumped, you're a CA and not an FO with Dj's, that's even worse!
I believe gazumped is trolling on this episode. It appears the QF crew needed to have a 30 min pow-wow to come to a decision, then implement it and 30 mins later review it! Oops sorry, ran out of fuel. It would appear bleedingly obvious that the viz was HIGHLY likely to deteriorate, waiting longer would have made the job so much bloody harder.
If those crew had sat up there jaw boning the argument would be "why didn't they get on with the job of getting on the ground as quick as reasonably possible." To me it appears there was little to do in the decision making process other than work out how they were going to get the a/c on the ground.
gazumped, consider this possible scenario: A/C1 (most fuel critical) does the first app and GA, A/C2 follows up with same result, vis closes right down to say 200-300m with zero ceiling, now A/C1 comes around for the 2nd app and GA and now down to less than 1t and must land or it will be a real sphincter clencher GA, in the poor viz the A/C ends up disabled on the rwy due to collapsed gear and the rwy is now blocked and unusable. What is the outcome for A/C2?
If the viz had closed in faster one may have ended up in very deep manure. Risk assessment, what is likely to produce the worst outcome, breaking the minima on an rnav/gps equiped a/c while being able to maintain reasonable viz or leaving it until you declare a fuel emerg and doing an app in close to zero viz. I think the crew took the right course of action, I'm also sure if the QF CA didn't brief the CC he wished he did.
By the way, gazumped as far I'm aware all rnav apps are directly aligned with the rwy, if not the app plate will show it, so why do you need to "find" it?
I believe gazumped is trolling on this episode. It appears the QF crew needed to have a 30 min pow-wow to come to a decision, then implement it and 30 mins later review it! Oops sorry, ran out of fuel. It would appear bleedingly obvious that the viz was HIGHLY likely to deteriorate, waiting longer would have made the job so much bloody harder.
If those crew had sat up there jaw boning the argument would be "why didn't they get on with the job of getting on the ground as quick as reasonably possible." To me it appears there was little to do in the decision making process other than work out how they were going to get the a/c on the ground.
gazumped, consider this possible scenario: A/C1 (most fuel critical) does the first app and GA, A/C2 follows up with same result, vis closes right down to say 200-300m with zero ceiling, now A/C1 comes around for the 2nd app and GA and now down to less than 1t and must land or it will be a real sphincter clencher GA, in the poor viz the A/C ends up disabled on the rwy due to collapsed gear and the rwy is now blocked and unusable. What is the outcome for A/C2?
If the viz had closed in faster one may have ended up in very deep manure. Risk assessment, what is likely to produce the worst outcome, breaking the minima on an rnav/gps equiped a/c while being able to maintain reasonable viz or leaving it until you declare a fuel emerg and doing an app in close to zero viz. I think the crew took the right course of action, I'm also sure if the QF CA didn't brief the CC he wished he did.
By the way, gazumped as far I'm aware all rnav apps are directly aligned with the rwy, if not the app plate will show it, so why do you need to "find" it?
Not a happy ending. Fortunate or Lucky springs to mind.
Personaly, I would rather pay an extra few percent on my ticket price and know that airlines had to carry more fuel than present rules allow. Too many reports of desperate low fuel dramas due to "unexpected situations".
Personaly, I would rather pay an extra few percent on my ticket price and know that airlines had to carry more fuel than present rules allow. Too many reports of desperate low fuel dramas due to "unexpected situations".
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gazumpy
Lets get one thing clear. I think that both crews did the best they could on the day.
They both found themselves with unforecast fog and no fuel to divert.
So it seems that they both attempted approaches below the minima when FFR was not yet compromised.
By the way thanks for clarifying that in your post at #602.
(QUOTE) ANSWER 1) FUEL STATE ON FIRST APPROACH WAS NOT QUITE AT FFR, so your assertion is blatantly false! (END QUOTE)
You continue to bleet on about who was justified in doing so based on your fuel calculations. Thats absolute bull****. The only guys that know what fuel they had is the crews themselves.They were both very justified in doing what they did.
The only time an emergency was declared was by the virgin crew on their second attempt. Given that they were going to land whether they could see the runway or not. I am sure that you agree that this was now an emergency situation.
In such a situation it is reasonable to expect that the crew would prepare for a land impact and they did.
The qantas guys were fortunate to have become visual when they did and landed.
This preoccupation of yours on who was justified in doing what at any given time is nonsense. Its a mental state that perhaps you need to deal with, because from where i sit, i bet it sure as hell wasn't the determining factor on how the crews reacted to their respective circumstances.
You see gazumpy they were to busy being pilots and commanders on the day. Not lawyers.
Lets get one thing clear. I think that both crews did the best they could on the day.
They both found themselves with unforecast fog and no fuel to divert.
So it seems that they both attempted approaches below the minima when FFR was not yet compromised.
By the way thanks for clarifying that in your post at #602.
(QUOTE) ANSWER 1) FUEL STATE ON FIRST APPROACH WAS NOT QUITE AT FFR, so your assertion is blatantly false! (END QUOTE)
You continue to bleet on about who was justified in doing so based on your fuel calculations. Thats absolute bull****. The only guys that know what fuel they had is the crews themselves.They were both very justified in doing what they did.
The only time an emergency was declared was by the virgin crew on their second attempt. Given that they were going to land whether they could see the runway or not. I am sure that you agree that this was now an emergency situation.
In such a situation it is reasonable to expect that the crew would prepare for a land impact and they did.
The qantas guys were fortunate to have become visual when they did and landed.
This preoccupation of yours on who was justified in doing what at any given time is nonsense. Its a mental state that perhaps you need to deal with, because from where i sit, i bet it sure as hell wasn't the determining factor on how the crews reacted to their respective circumstances.
You see gazumpy they were to busy being pilots and commanders on the day. Not lawyers.
Last edited by tenretni; 19th Jul 2013 at 10:06.
By the way, gazumped as far I'm aware all rnav apps are directly aligned with the rwy, if not the app plate will show it, so why do you need to "find" it?
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...BOGN02-132.pdf
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus,
As is rw06, and the app plate shows that. MIA is aligned as the chart shows. I wasn't having a shot at the crew, it's aimed at gazumped who seems to think that QF screwed up. I think both did bloody well and it could have been very much worse.
As an aside something needs to be done about alerting crews about changing wx instead of the bs situation where it's a sole crew responsibility when in flight (other than a hazard alert). Something also needs to be done about TTFs valid for 3 hrs and frequently changing on the next 1/2 hr. Happening all too often.
As is rw06, and the app plate shows that. MIA is aligned as the chart shows. I wasn't having a shot at the crew, it's aimed at gazumped who seems to think that QF screwed up. I think both did bloody well and it could have been very much worse.
As an aside something needs to be done about alerting crews about changing wx instead of the bs situation where it's a sole crew responsibility when in flight (other than a hazard alert). Something also needs to be done about TTFs valid for 3 hrs and frequently changing on the next 1/2 hr. Happening all too often.
Tenretni and willadvise----------with regards to your comments concerning the YMIA TAF and the BKN 600 tempo. If you read my summary of the TAF's in post #577 and when they were issued you'd plainly see that when the crews made their decision and then diverted from YPAD the latest YMIA TAF did not contain any TEMPO.....and the METARS were ok.
I'll copy and paste it again from page 14 of the the ATSB report:---
Mildura TAF YMIA 172302Z 1800/1812 20008KT 9999 SCT030 SCT050 RMK T 08 12 13 10 Q 1020 1019 1019 1020
Like I said, LED DOWN THE GARDEN PATH.....
I'll copy and paste it again from page 14 of the the ATSB report:---
Mildura TAF YMIA 172302Z 1800/1812 20008KT 9999 SCT030 SCT050 RMK T 08 12 13 10 Q 1020 1019 1019 1020
Like I said, LED DOWN THE GARDEN PATH.....
Last edited by nitpicker330; 19th Jul 2013 at 09:42.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to nitpick Nitpicker but my point was that since their ETA YMIA was before 0000 the old TAF TEMPO BKN 006 applies until 0000. The METARs are irrelevant as far as I can tell since they can't be used for flight planning. I totally agree with you that they were sold a sh!t sandwich.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aside something needs to be done about alerting crews about changing wx instead of the bs situation where it's a sole crew responsibility when in flight (other than a hazard alert). Something also needs to be done about TTFs valid for 3 hrs and frequently changing on the next 1/2 hr. Happening all too often.
A hazard alert will only be directed to you if you are within 1hr (2hrs for a SIGMET) of the hazardous conditions as well.
A SPECI at a non controlled aerdrome will be only directed to you if you are within 1hr flight time.
A SPECI at a non controlled aerodrome will not be directed to you or its availability generally broadcasted if there is a VHF AWIS. This is to reduce the workload associated with "nuisance" SPECIs. A "nuisance" SPECI is when the actual conditions are the same as the forecast conditions. Eg If TS RA and VRB gusting winds are forecast a SPECI will be generated reflecting that. Often these SPECIs are generated every 10-15mins and at multiple locations within a controllers airspace creating a deluge of information that nobody particularly cares about. Interestingly if the AWIS is NOTAMed US then it still won't be directed/broadcast. This is because SPECIs generated at locations that have a VHF AWIS are not sent to the controller.
In practice a lot of ATCs, but not all (particularly if they have a high workload or a handover has occurred), will pass hazard alert and AMD wx to all potentially affected aircraft. This I think has led (feel free to contradict me if you think otherwise) to a sense of "ATC will let me now if something has changed"
Personally, if an aircraft diverts, I will check the MET for their proposed diversion destination (TAF and METAR usually). I do this because I have on 2 occasions prevented a diversion to a location that was not suitable.
It appears QF ops monitor the weather forecasts and advise there crews. Does Virgin or any other airline do the same?
The provision of MET is a distraction to ATC of the prime purpose of separation. In years gone by the Flight Service supervisor (not plugged in and talking to aircraft) was responsible for assessing MET products and ensuring distribution. When FS was absorbed into to ATC there was a decision made to only direct it to aircraft within 1 hrs flight time and give the responsibility to the ATC on the console. I am sure most of you can have a guess why! If the provision of AMD Met information is to be expanded then it should be removed from the responsibility of the operational ATC.
A hazard alert will only be directed to you if you are within 1hr (2hrs for a SIGMET) of the hazardous conditions as well.
A SPECI at a non controlled aerdrome will be only directed to you if you are within 1hr flight time.
A SPECI at a non controlled aerodrome will not be directed to you or its availability generally broadcasted if there is a VHF AWIS. This is to reduce the workload associated with "nuisance" SPECIs. A "nuisance" SPECI is when the actual conditions are the same as the forecast conditions. Eg If TS RA and VRB gusting winds are forecast a SPECI will be generated reflecting that. Often these SPECIs are generated every 10-15mins and at multiple locations within a controllers airspace creating a deluge of information that nobody particularly cares about. Interestingly if the AWIS is NOTAMed US then it still won't be directed/broadcast. This is because SPECIs generated at locations that have a VHF AWIS are not sent to the controller.
In practice a lot of ATCs, but not all (particularly if they have a high workload or a handover has occurred), will pass hazard alert and AMD wx to all potentially affected aircraft. This I think has led (feel free to contradict me if you think otherwise) to a sense of "ATC will let me now if something has changed"
Personally, if an aircraft diverts, I will check the MET for their proposed diversion destination (TAF and METAR usually). I do this because I have on 2 occasions prevented a diversion to a location that was not suitable.
It appears QF ops monitor the weather forecasts and advise there crews. Does Virgin or any other airline do the same?
The provision of MET is a distraction to ATC of the prime purpose of separation. In years gone by the Flight Service supervisor (not plugged in and talking to aircraft) was responsible for assessing MET products and ensuring distribution. When FS was absorbed into to ATC there was a decision made to only direct it to aircraft within 1 hrs flight time and give the responsibility to the ATC on the console. I am sure most of you can have a guess why! If the provision of AMD Met information is to be expanded then it should be removed from the responsibility of the operational ATC.
Last edited by willadvise; 19th Jul 2013 at 12:13. Reason: Added info about SPECIs
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It is this simple
At what fuel state can you bend the rules?
When you find yourself in a **** situation, you need to realise that eventually, one way or another you will end up descending below the MDA, like it or not.
Now answer this question, do you prefer doing it with enough fuel to do a MA and come back a second time? Most of us yes. Because nobody wants to do it with two flame outs at 5 miles out.
Better to be bending rules in a planned controlled and safe manner than breaking them in a complete state of misery.
I was dumped on a few years back for suggesting a two plot crew should have developed a plan using all their resources and executing a below minima landing on a long bitumen runway while runway aligned. Some did not get it then, and it seems some don't still. I beats an uncontrolled ditching in the ocean or countryside by a long margin.
Best not to find yourself there in the first place, but they did. No point making a catastrophe out of a **** situation.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although isn't the BKN 600' above landing minima? Maybe they thought it was the best of a bad bunch.......
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good post Jaba!
Another interesting fact is that VA actually made three attempted approaches.
One attempt at a visual
One at an instrument below minima and one more to the zero vis landing.
It's not clear in the report where exactly they broke of the visual approach but interestingly I don't know how you can intercept the IAF at MIAEC from the correct side without a lot of manoeuvring.
Can someone shed some light on this?
Another interesting fact is that VA actually made three attempted approaches.
One attempt at a visual
One at an instrument below minima and one more to the zero vis landing.
It's not clear in the report where exactly they broke of the visual approach but interestingly I don't know how you can intercept the IAF at MIAEC from the correct side without a lot of manoeuvring.
Can someone shed some light on this?
You can do whatever you want above MSA inside 25 nm's, besides they were VMC on top as well.
AIP reference::---
Minimum Sector Altitude
2.2.1 25NM and 10NM MSAs provide 1,000FT obstacle clearance. An
aircraft within 25NM or 10NM of the facility may use the applicable MSA, and deviation from the track being flown is permitted to facilitate entry to the instrument approach. In instances where the 25NM MSA has been divided into sectors, and the appropriate Sector MSA is lower than the 10NM MSA, the Sector MSA may be used for tracking to the aid provided aircraft tracking can be maintained within the sector.
AIP reference::---
Minimum Sector Altitude
2.2.1 25NM and 10NM MSAs provide 1,000FT obstacle clearance. An
aircraft within 25NM or 10NM of the facility may use the applicable MSA, and deviation from the track being flown is permitted to facilitate entry to the instrument approach. In instances where the 25NM MSA has been divided into sectors, and the appropriate Sector MSA is lower than the 10NM MSA, the Sector MSA may be used for tracking to the aid provided aircraft tracking can be maintained within the sector.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 19th Jul 2013 at 13:00.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Personaly, I would rather pay an extra few percent on my ticket price and know that airlines had to carry more fuel than present rules allow.
I'm afraid that in the current climate of competition and cut throat margins no airlines are going to be carrying extra fuel if it doesn't appear necessary from the forecast.
Looks like you're going to have to travel by train in the future.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse my ignorance nitpicker.
It's just that I was under the impression that there were clearly defined intercept angles for these types of approach fixes.
Maybe I'm confused.
It's just that I was under the impression that there were clearly defined intercept angles for these types of approach fixes.
Maybe I'm confused.
