Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: nowhere
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willadvise
I don't believe there is a culture of expecting ATC to inform of a change, in actual fact I'd have thought most pilots would not expect that at all. I don't know how far back you go, but 20 odd yrs ago that would have been the case. If you look at the interim report how many times could they have checked the wx to find no change. When changes like that occur all a/c inbound to the port should be advised. Not many would have the flight following that QF seem to have picked up from the US, where that is the norm (actually, I think it may be a requirement). I doubt any smaller operators would, too expensive!
Pilots are being left holding the baby, min turnaround times, max payloads with a resulting minimal fuel uplift when prior to dep you have the latest and all is good, only to get airbourne to find it isn't worth jack. I cover myself as much as possible because what's happened here is what I have expected.
Pilots are being left holding the baby, min turnaround times, max payloads with a resulting minimal fuel uplift when prior to dep you have the latest and all is good, only to get airbourne to find it isn't worth jack. I cover myself as much as possible because what's happened here is what I have expected.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, when the sh1t hits the fan in Barcelona, amongst the 1st to call "time" we find not Ryanair or EasyJet, but rather KLM /Air France in my recent experience.
Last edited by captplaystation; 19th Jul 2013 at 14:36.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want more reserves, it needs to be an FAR/ICAO reg. Otherwise you put your 90 minute reserves airline at a disadvantage against the other ones carrying the minimum required.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations to the VA crew for recovering a very bad situation. Major questions need to be asked firts of met and second of the regulator as to whether the 'no div/good weather' fuel policy is a wise one. The VA crew had taken extra fuel as well. They were very badly let down by met and as far as I can see took the logical decisions for the divert based on information available.
This regulatory policy will one day result in a smoking hole and dead people in some part of the world.
This regulatory policy will one day result in a smoking hole and dead people in some part of the world.
Compylot and Gazumped, you are both so desperate to try and suggest that the Virgin crew were god's gift to aviation and the QF boys were cowboys that you haven't even read the initial report properly.
BOTH crew busted minima on their first approach.
BOTH crew planned to bust minima before they had reached FFR.
BOTH crew commenced an approach with the intention of busting the minima without declaring a fuel emergency.
BOTH crew commenced this approach without briefing their cabin crew.
BOTH crew planned to land off that approach if they got visual.
(It's all in the report. Why don't you stop posting rubbish and read it)
The difference between the two crew????
The QF guys got lucky and got visual, the VA guys didn't.
BOTH crew did a bloody good job but the variability of Mother Nature provided for two different paths to the same conclusion.
BOTH crew busted minima on their first approach.
BOTH crew planned to bust minima before they had reached FFR.
BOTH crew commenced an approach with the intention of busting the minima without declaring a fuel emergency.
BOTH crew commenced this approach without briefing their cabin crew.
BOTH crew planned to land off that approach if they got visual.
(It's all in the report. Why don't you stop posting rubbish and read it)
The difference between the two crew????
The QF guys got lucky and got visual, the VA guys didn't.
BOTH crew did a bloody good job but the variability of Mother Nature provided for two different paths to the same conclusion.
Well done for recovering a very bad situation.
Am I correct in inferring that, if TAF is CAVOK, then they don't have to plan an alternate?
indicated clear weather in Adelaide with no necessity to plan for an alternate aerodrome, the crew departed with sufficient fuel to arrive at Adelaide with 2500 kg of fuel remaining giving them about 30 minutes of flying time on top of the required final reserve.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The weather limits are lower than CAVOK...
Canada's air regs, others may vary
(2) Weather Requirements
For at least one (1) hour before and until one (1) hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome of intended landing, there shall be, in respect to that aerodrome:
(a) no risk of fog or other restriction to visibility, including precipitation, forecast or reported, below 3 miles;
(b) no risk of thunderstorms isolated or otherwise forecast or reported;
(c) a forecast ceiling of at least 1,000 feet above FAF altitude and a visibility of at least 3 miles or a ceiling of at least 1,500 feet above the MDA and a visibility of at least 6 miles; and
(d) no risk of freezing rain, freezing drizzle, or sleet forecast or reported;
Other restrictions, read 721.19 No Alternate Aerodrome - IFR Flight
Google "no alternate ifr australia" the regs are probably similar
Canada's air regs, others may vary
(2) Weather Requirements
For at least one (1) hour before and until one (1) hour after the estimated time of arrival at the aerodrome of intended landing, there shall be, in respect to that aerodrome:
(a) no risk of fog or other restriction to visibility, including precipitation, forecast or reported, below 3 miles;
(b) no risk of thunderstorms isolated or otherwise forecast or reported;
(c) a forecast ceiling of at least 1,000 feet above FAF altitude and a visibility of at least 3 miles or a ceiling of at least 1,500 feet above the MDA and a visibility of at least 6 miles; and
(d) no risk of freezing rain, freezing drizzle, or sleet forecast or reported;
Other restrictions, read 721.19 No Alternate Aerodrome - IFR Flight
Google "no alternate ifr australia" the regs are probably similar
Last edited by Wxgeek; 19th Jul 2013 at 19:13.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To pay extra for having more fuel should be, IMHO, a regulation. An extra 1000kg on a 737 would be sufficient and carriers like Ryanair won't come back in the list with fuel emergency's. Per pax it won't cost more than a few Euro's pp.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel figures
There's been some changes on Annex 6 - (Amendment 36) and the addition of Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual - ICAO Doc 9976 to the "new" requisites for fuel planning and management.
However, the modern world has a political correctness point of view, that prevents politicians to legislate more conservatively on fuel numbers, therefore the document is appealing to contracting states to develop their facilities and to operators to integrate modern statistical systems and SMS into the "new" fuel planning philosophy.
There's much to be done, especially in what concerns to the modernization of some country's facilities (including forecast capabilities and communication of those forecasts and NOTAMS).
As an example, I have dispatched a flight from LPPT to SBGR (with a nearby alternate at SBKP) the day before yesterday morning, with TAF's from 07H20Z, and during flight, I have asked via ACARS for the new ones, but after 10 hours of flight, ended up landing at my destination with four prints of the very same forecasts. This is unacceptable in today's long-haul flight operations, if we want to comply with Annex 6, FPFMM or EU-OPS 1.225 fuel criteria.
However, the modern world has a political correctness point of view, that prevents politicians to legislate more conservatively on fuel numbers, therefore the document is appealing to contracting states to develop their facilities and to operators to integrate modern statistical systems and SMS into the "new" fuel planning philosophy.
There's much to be done, especially in what concerns to the modernization of some country's facilities (including forecast capabilities and communication of those forecasts and NOTAMS).
As an example, I have dispatched a flight from LPPT to SBGR (with a nearby alternate at SBKP) the day before yesterday morning, with TAF's from 07H20Z, and during flight, I have asked via ACARS for the new ones, but after 10 hours of flight, ended up landing at my destination with four prints of the very same forecasts. This is unacceptable in today's long-haul flight operations, if we want to comply with Annex 6, FPFMM or EU-OPS 1.225 fuel criteria.
Bring on cat III GLS approaches. Saves the price of the ILS so even places like OZ can afford them. That two 737s can end up in a situation like this today is an appalling reflection on Australian aviation. Well done the crews. The system failed you both.
The don
The don
Basil
Pretty much, I can't remember the numbers but Oz rules certainly do often allow despatch without the need for alternate fuel..hence the great unhappiness expressed by some on the thread in the Oz forum about the "quality" of Australian Aviation weather forecasting...
wingview
But it is in the regulations (in Europe at least) it's called "contingency fuel"
An extra 1000kg on a 737 would be sufficient
For what?
Am I correct in inferring that, if TAF is CAVOK, then they don't have to plan an alternate?
wingview
To pay extra for having more fuel should be, IMHO, a regulation.
An extra 1000kg on a 737 would be sufficient
Last edited by wiggy; 19th Jul 2013 at 17:00.
Contingency fuel is misnamed. It is a small amount and may be burned before takeoff, unlike trip fuel and reserves. Something lacking in the regulation fuel reserves is the second option-a variable feast for when the wx and traffic jams conspire against you-something that comes down to luck it seems. I know this will involve higher overall fuel states but...is everyone happy with the legal fuel regs?
Contingency fuel is misnamed. It is a small amount and may be burned before takeoff, unlike trip fuel and reserves.
is everyone happy with the legal fuel regs?
Last edited by wiggy; 19th Jul 2013 at 20:04. Reason: taxi fuel, inserted correct quote
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
I don't think the fuel load was the problem here, but rather the met forecast. I recall once having a destination forecast of about 3,000m, with a prob 20 of 1,500m. The alternate was CAVOK. We tanked fuel, so arrived with plenty, to find the vis below Cat 2 minima. We held for a while, continually monitoring the alternate weather, which was still CAVOK. Finally we got the required minima and made an approach, only for the RVR to drop again and having to go around. Alternate still CAVOK, so with the RVR OK again, we set up a second approach and once more had to throw it away. Downwind at the alternate the vis was 3,000m, turning to intercept the ILS it was 1,200m and once established it was 150m. Go around and ask for a very tight radar circuit, with a request that if we went around a second time it would be "direct to finals" at the only other airfield available. RVR again 150m when established, but just above Cat 2 minima by 1,000'. Just after landing the fuel low-level lights came on on both sides. I calculated that if we had gone around and flown directly to the other airfield we would have landed with min reserve (just). So, I don't think there is any criticism against the crew, but someone needs to look at the forecasting system in that part of the world. Having said that, if the weather regularly does this, then extra fuel would certainly be a good idea.
Wiggy, what it comes down to is, that commercial financial pressures have forced the operating regulations into tight corners. In your "longhaul arena" you might see contingency fuel giving you a large "comfort blanket". It can be different on shorter sectors.
We can make-up scenario's of aircraft unservicabilities and weather-clamps but, the basic fact is that the present rules pretty much rely on the weather forecast being right and the aircraft staying servicable for the planned approach CAT.
We can make-up scenario's of aircraft unservicabilities and weather-clamps but, the basic fact is that the present rules pretty much rely on the weather forecast being right and the aircraft staying servicable for the planned approach CAT.
Last edited by Onceapilot; 19th Jul 2013 at 20:30.
the present rules pretty much rely on the weather forecast being right and the aircraft staying servicable for the planned approach CAT.
(As an aside in my non-Oz "Longhaul Arena" it's not that uncommon to see a whooping 5 minutes of contingency fuel on the plan, I might just be tempted to ask for a bit more
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What some here who advocate to operate with no diversion fuel forget is that weather is not the only reason an airport can close
On B737, 1000 kg. of extra fuel burns around 30 kg. per hour. hardly an amount to economize on. The Beancounters, and with them a lot of our collegues have it wrong to economize on fuel. Be efficient inflight, be fuel conservative in your planning.
On B737, 1000 kg. of extra fuel burns around 30 kg. per hour. hardly an amount to economize on. The Beancounters, and with them a lot of our collegues have it wrong to economize on fuel. Be efficient inflight, be fuel conservative in your planning.
