Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Backing up a step, WTF were both crews thinking to begin with. The time of year, low wind , dew point almost at the temp. Hmmm what are the chances?
Neither crew used enough foresight to load about 2T extra fuel. A prudent Captain would have.
The next point is, if your technical alternate has some unforecast fog you still have choices, and it would not be straying far from a known reliable ILS. So in any case, regardless what fuel policy is, or rules, they should have had fuel to AD and enough to go to ML to a CatIII or if it was likely to clear they could have held at Adelaide.
And then and only then if it all turned to pooh...land on a perfectly good ILS, even if it meant bending some rules. Which rule bending is preferred! Mildura or Adelaide?
So in summary, they should not have launched with fuel more suited to cavok nice time of year fuel, they should have used their experience ( I believe they were not newbies) and been better prepared, they then might not have found themselves in a **** situation where they had to perform at a higher level, refer post above.
That said, the Captains had been set up for this, too much pressure to carry min fuel. There are those on either side of this debate, I have friends (C&T Capt's) who argue this from either side, you see it on prune, but right now the min fuel guys are probably saying what a great job, and the others saying bad planning to begin with. Bottom line, the bean counters and managers need to start running their business less close to the edge. Planning needs to provide for alternates that will work. No pressure to accept flight plan only fuel, even if it is not documented pressure.
Otherwise one day there will be a bent aeroplane.
The guy who is paying to Adelaide with conditions like this, who insists to see the flight plan fuel and the actual uplift by the crew........that will be me, or I get off. I wonder how many others would follow?
Neither crew used enough foresight to load about 2T extra fuel. A prudent Captain would have.
The next point is, if your technical alternate has some unforecast fog you still have choices, and it would not be straying far from a known reliable ILS. So in any case, regardless what fuel policy is, or rules, they should have had fuel to AD and enough to go to ML to a CatIII or if it was likely to clear they could have held at Adelaide.
And then and only then if it all turned to pooh...land on a perfectly good ILS, even if it meant bending some rules. Which rule bending is preferred! Mildura or Adelaide?
So in summary, they should not have launched with fuel more suited to cavok nice time of year fuel, they should have used their experience ( I believe they were not newbies) and been better prepared, they then might not have found themselves in a **** situation where they had to perform at a higher level, refer post above.
That said, the Captains had been set up for this, too much pressure to carry min fuel. There are those on either side of this debate, I have friends (C&T Capt's) who argue this from either side, you see it on prune, but right now the min fuel guys are probably saying what a great job, and the others saying bad planning to begin with. Bottom line, the bean counters and managers need to start running their business less close to the edge. Planning needs to provide for alternates that will work. No pressure to accept flight plan only fuel, even if it is not documented pressure.
Otherwise one day there will be a bent aeroplane.
The guy who is paying to Adelaide with conditions like this, who insists to see the flight plan fuel and the actual uplift by the crew........that will be me, or I get off. I wonder how many others would follow?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: U.K.
Age: 75
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regulations or Policy
Wiggy Quote:- "I('m) happy with the fuel regs I operate under?"
Are those the regulations or your Company's fuel policy?
The regulations, of course, are the lowest acceptable standard, below which an aircraft would be operating illegally.
Some companies raise the bar and do substantially better than the regulations, particularly with regard to fuel policy, FTLs and training.
A Company that operates stricly in accordance with the regulations has room for improvement.
The policy which you describe makes good sense to me (I might even have been familiar with that policy myself - WB perhaps?)
Are those the regulations or your Company's fuel policy?
The regulations, of course, are the lowest acceptable standard, below which an aircraft would be operating illegally.
Some companies raise the bar and do substantially better than the regulations, particularly with regard to fuel policy, FTLs and training.
A Company that operates stricly in accordance with the regulations has room for improvement.
The policy which you describe makes good sense to me (I might even have been familiar with that policy myself - WB perhaps?)
The guy who is paying to Adelaide with conditions like this, who insists to see the flight plan fuel and the actual uplift by the crew........that will be me, or I get off. I wonder how many others would follow?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabawocky
This recurring theme that the crew should have realised that fog was going to be a problem is simply crystal ball bull****.
The problem here was that the forecasting was simply inadequate.
Worse still if you look at the TTF and SPECI you will see that they consistantly had the weather improving from 2300z only to start rolling that time further and further as the morning progressed.
That sort of poor weather forecasting and moving of the goal posts simply invalidates the 3 hour validity of a TTF and makes it useless.
Pick a TTF any one will do!
I have read this prelim report over and over.
Have a look at the speci issued for mildura some 3 minutes after the qantas diverted. Broken 200ft. If thats not a hazard alert i dont know what is. Was that relayed to crew? I don't think so.
A lot of 20/20 bull**** going on here about legal requirments, fuel uplift, emergency declarations when and where and what box to tick.
Both crew were trying to stay legal and tick all these boxes so thats why they both diverted only to be faced with the same set of bull**** circumstances only this time without an ILS and no fuel.
You think two experienced captains decided to leave an ILS airport on a whim?
They both had actual reports that mildura was wide open. If they had ignored that and busted minimums at adelaide the 20/20 club would have a bunch of people posting about the legal ramifications of that. Or remarks about how a prudent captain would have diverted.
Cut these crews some slack gentlemen in my view they both excelled.
Thats the bottom line.
This recurring theme that the crew should have realised that fog was going to be a problem is simply crystal ball bull****.
The problem here was that the forecasting was simply inadequate.
Worse still if you look at the TTF and SPECI you will see that they consistantly had the weather improving from 2300z only to start rolling that time further and further as the morning progressed.
That sort of poor weather forecasting and moving of the goal posts simply invalidates the 3 hour validity of a TTF and makes it useless.
Pick a TTF any one will do!
I have read this prelim report over and over.
Have a look at the speci issued for mildura some 3 minutes after the qantas diverted. Broken 200ft. If thats not a hazard alert i dont know what is. Was that relayed to crew? I don't think so.
A lot of 20/20 bull**** going on here about legal requirments, fuel uplift, emergency declarations when and where and what box to tick.
Both crew were trying to stay legal and tick all these boxes so thats why they both diverted only to be faced with the same set of bull**** circumstances only this time without an ILS and no fuel.
You think two experienced captains decided to leave an ILS airport on a whim?
They both had actual reports that mildura was wide open. If they had ignored that and busted minimums at adelaide the 20/20 club would have a bunch of people posting about the legal ramifications of that. Or remarks about how a prudent captain would have diverted.
Cut these crews some slack gentlemen in my view they both excelled.
Thats the bottom line.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well framer, I think you might be of the belief that the fuel uplift is none of our business. What are you afraid of? Don't skimp, don't have anything to fear.
I think you are wrong. It is every bit our business. The passenger pays for proper delivery of service. And when the contracted provider is found wanting surely the customer has the right to observe and decide.
Lets say you are a mining company and you charter a contractor to provide FIFO in say a small jet or King Air as is done around the country a lot more these days. Do you the customer not take an active role in selecting the contractor? Do you not do audits and verify that the supplier is meeting its obligations? And if found wanting in certain areas, lets just say fuel policy for example,would you the customer not insist on further scrutiny on a regular basis until it felt that trust had been restored? That is exactly how contract management works.
So now who says it is none of the customers business? As a paying customer I expect that myself and my staff, family or friends are not subject to situations like this. If you skimp this much, what next, how far will it go? I can assure you as a customer it is my right to know anything I ask, or otherwise I am not your customer. If I don't have a need or concern....I don't need to ask. Simple.
Now I understand that if you ask 170 pax to critique the fuel uplift, about 169 of them would not have the understanding to determine if it was a conservative or bare bones load. So if you are a B737 operator and you want to avoid that kind of stupidity, (and I confess it is kind of ridiculous) the answer is simple. STOP doing things that would otherwise make us want to know in the first place.
Framer, I understand your concern, but please do not blow me off with a disrespectful one liner like that. This is serious stuff here, and if you are one of the folk on "min fuel" side of the fence, well you should be expecting people to critique your work. My customers critique our work all the time, most of the time they have huge amounts of faith, built on trust and good track record. But if we stuff up, I am sure to have them looking over our shoulder, and I do not see why anyone else should be different. This has always been the public perception of QF group and VA conservative and safe. Don't muck with it and there is no problem. Trust and respect from a customer is earned, it is not a right. And the paying public hold all the rights.
Problem is the jeanie is out of the bottle now.
My displeasure here is not just at the crew who think this way, it is company culture from the flight ops folk, and let's not have the BOM get away unchallenged either. As usual there is more to this than one node of failure.
I think you are wrong. It is every bit our business. The passenger pays for proper delivery of service. And when the contracted provider is found wanting surely the customer has the right to observe and decide.
Lets say you are a mining company and you charter a contractor to provide FIFO in say a small jet or King Air as is done around the country a lot more these days. Do you the customer not take an active role in selecting the contractor? Do you not do audits and verify that the supplier is meeting its obligations? And if found wanting in certain areas, lets just say fuel policy for example,would you the customer not insist on further scrutiny on a regular basis until it felt that trust had been restored? That is exactly how contract management works.
So now who says it is none of the customers business? As a paying customer I expect that myself and my staff, family or friends are not subject to situations like this. If you skimp this much, what next, how far will it go? I can assure you as a customer it is my right to know anything I ask, or otherwise I am not your customer. If I don't have a need or concern....I don't need to ask. Simple.
Now I understand that if you ask 170 pax to critique the fuel uplift, about 169 of them would not have the understanding to determine if it was a conservative or bare bones load. So if you are a B737 operator and you want to avoid that kind of stupidity, (and I confess it is kind of ridiculous) the answer is simple. STOP doing things that would otherwise make us want to know in the first place.
Framer, I understand your concern, but please do not blow me off with a disrespectful one liner like that. This is serious stuff here, and if you are one of the folk on "min fuel" side of the fence, well you should be expecting people to critique your work. My customers critique our work all the time, most of the time they have huge amounts of faith, built on trust and good track record. But if we stuff up, I am sure to have them looking over our shoulder, and I do not see why anyone else should be different. This has always been the public perception of QF group and VA conservative and safe. Don't muck with it and there is no problem. Trust and respect from a customer is earned, it is not a right. And the paying public hold all the rights.
Problem is the jeanie is out of the bottle now.
My displeasure here is not just at the crew who think this way, it is company culture from the flight ops folk, and let's not have the BOM get away unchallenged either. As usual there is more to this than one node of failure.
Last edited by Jabawocky; 20th Jul 2013 at 00:09.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
tenretni,
Understood. But why then did they not land in Melbourne?
Melbourne is where they should have been, not Mildura. I am happy to cut them slack, I have no personal agenda against them at all. I think as per the post at top of page they did an outstanding job, when faced with a **** situation. But they should not have been in that situation.
Problem is they should have been in Melbourne, loading fuel and going back to Adelaide. And this simply underpins all I am saying in the post above. Don't truck off to Adelaide without holding Melbourne despite the forecast, when the typical weather could jump up and bite you. And it did.
If it is severe CAVOK and there is no chance in hell of it turning to custard, sure no need for Melbourne.
Minimum legal does not equal prudent.
Understood. But why then did they not land in Melbourne?
Melbourne is where they should have been, not Mildura. I am happy to cut them slack, I have no personal agenda against them at all. I think as per the post at top of page they did an outstanding job, when faced with a **** situation. But they should not have been in that situation.
Problem is they should have been in Melbourne, loading fuel and going back to Adelaide. And this simply underpins all I am saying in the post above. Don't truck off to Adelaide without holding Melbourne despite the forecast, when the typical weather could jump up and bite you. And it did.
If it is severe CAVOK and there is no chance in hell of it turning to custard, sure no need for Melbourne.
Minimum legal does not equal prudent.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for you Jaba,
Do you carry an alternate on all your flights or 60 mins fixed reserve and another 45 mins on top of that., as that's what you are saying these pilots should have taken and what you would expect others to take, when the forecasts say the weather is good.
You ask why they didn't land in Melbourne, have you looked the Melbourne weather on the day, it was crap!
If a passenger asked how much fuel I had on board I will call the AFP have them removed, as I would consider that request as someone who is unstable and could be looking at using the aircraft as a weapon.
Even under the old system of ATC operational control, the ATC Ops controllers would not have question the departure fuel as there were no requirements at the time. What would have happened, once both aircraft were airborne and the amended weather for Adelside appeared this would have been relayed to both aircraft via the sector controller.
Do you carry an alternate on all your flights or 60 mins fixed reserve and another 45 mins on top of that., as that's what you are saying these pilots should have taken and what you would expect others to take, when the forecasts say the weather is good.
You ask why they didn't land in Melbourne, have you looked the Melbourne weather on the day, it was crap!
If a passenger asked how much fuel I had on board I will call the AFP have them removed, as I would consider that request as someone who is unstable and could be looking at using the aircraft as a weapon.
Even under the old system of ATC operational control, the ATC Ops controllers would not have question the departure fuel as there were no requirements at the time. What would have happened, once both aircraft were airborne and the amended weather for Adelside appeared this would have been relayed to both aircraft via the sector controller.
Last edited by BPA; 20th Jul 2013 at 00:29.
That sort of poor weather forecasting and moving of the goal posts simply invalidates the 3 hour validity of a TTF and makes it useless.
Pick a TTF any one will do!
I have read this prelim report over and over.
Have a look at the speci issued for mildura some 3 minutes after the qantas diverted. Broken 200ft. If thats not a hazard alert i dont know what is. Was that relayed to crew? I don't think so.
Pick a TTF any one will do!
I have read this prelim report over and over.
Have a look at the speci issued for mildura some 3 minutes after the qantas diverted. Broken 200ft. If thats not a hazard alert i dont know what is. Was that relayed to crew? I don't think so.
This whole incident is simply due to utterly woeful weather forecasting. BOM are specialists who should know more than the average line pilot, they should not have to be second guessed.
The ADL TTF's showed 150m in fog with a FM 30mins later saying fine and beaut. Talk about leading people up the garden path. The conditions were deteriorating yet they were still saying come on in, we think its going to be fine in 30mins. Utter crap!
The MIA TAF had a TEMPO for BKN006. Why on earth didn't they say hey it looks conducive to fog, lets put that on the TAF until we see how the day pans out. Nothing sends more alarm bells to pilots than FOG on a forecast.
The MIA METAR went from BKN039 to BKN002 in 18mins. Shows how useless the auto METAR is (except for duping pilots), fog rolling in but the AWS can't see it coming.
BOM need to lift their game and adopt a CONSERVATIVE approach to their forecasting.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabawocky
If you do a search on the net you will see that the melbourne weather was BKN003 with 4000mtrs vis.
Have a look at the TTF for melbourne and adelaide. Both indicating FM 2300 all good.
Its hard to be specific about the timing of all the events but its fair to say that a lot more fuel is required to go to melbourne with wx like that as opposed to mildura with clear conditions keeping in mind that fuel would have been a matter of concern for both these crew.
Prudent is an interesting word and its application in context can be very subjective.
If you do a search on the net you will see that the melbourne weather was BKN003 with 4000mtrs vis.
Have a look at the TTF for melbourne and adelaide. Both indicating FM 2300 all good.
Its hard to be specific about the timing of all the events but its fair to say that a lot more fuel is required to go to melbourne with wx like that as opposed to mildura with clear conditions keeping in mind that fuel would have been a matter of concern for both these crew.
Prudent is an interesting word and its application in context can be very subjective.
Last edited by tenretni; 20th Jul 2013 at 00:56.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Question for you Jaba,
Do you carry an alternate on all your flights or 60 mins fixed reserve and another 45 mins on top of that., as that's what you are saying these pilots should have taken and what you would expect others to take, when the forecasts say the weather is good. My ops are not RPT, and usually I have so much fuel it is not a problem. I almost went to YSDU/YNRM yesterday, but realising the holding/alternates and expected wx may have meant returning to Brisbane, I cancelled, was not worth the effort, and I would have arrived back here with 1.25 hrs fuel even after doing a MA. So my fuel policy/capability is not relevant o a B737 operation.
You ask why they didn't land in Melbourne, have you looked the Melbourne weather on the day, it was crap! indeed, but was MEL closed? Or were there ILS ops in use with legal landings?
If a passenger asked how much fuel I had on board I will call the AFP have them removed, as I would consider that request as someone who is unstable and could be looking at using the aircraft as a weapon. Unstable? yeah and how well would that hold up, I thought the pax was unstable
I think I would have just the same amount of success alleging you as the Captain were equally unstable and definately had the access and ability to actually use it as a weapon Vs me down the back. FFS if you are going to take shots at me do better than that.
Even under the old system of ATC operational control, the ATC Ops controllers would not have question the departure fuel as there were no requirements at the time. What would have happened, once both aircraft were airborne and the amended weather for Adelside appeared this would have been relayed to both aircraft via the sector controller. Again, min fuel Vs prudent, knowing what ADL and places can be like at that time of year? It is a judgement call, Captains discresion. So why then would plenty of folk who actually captain these things into these ports say they always carried more under situations like that?
Do you carry an alternate on all your flights or 60 mins fixed reserve and another 45 mins on top of that., as that's what you are saying these pilots should have taken and what you would expect others to take, when the forecasts say the weather is good. My ops are not RPT, and usually I have so much fuel it is not a problem. I almost went to YSDU/YNRM yesterday, but realising the holding/alternates and expected wx may have meant returning to Brisbane, I cancelled, was not worth the effort, and I would have arrived back here with 1.25 hrs fuel even after doing a MA. So my fuel policy/capability is not relevant o a B737 operation.
You ask why they didn't land in Melbourne, have you looked the Melbourne weather on the day, it was crap! indeed, but was MEL closed? Or were there ILS ops in use with legal landings?
If a passenger asked how much fuel I had on board I will call the AFP have them removed, as I would consider that request as someone who is unstable and could be looking at using the aircraft as a weapon. Unstable? yeah and how well would that hold up, I thought the pax was unstable
I think I would have just the same amount of success alleging you as the Captain were equally unstable and definately had the access and ability to actually use it as a weapon Vs me down the back. FFS if you are going to take shots at me do better than that.Even under the old system of ATC operational control, the ATC Ops controllers would not have question the departure fuel as there were no requirements at the time. What would have happened, once both aircraft were airborne and the amended weather for Adelside appeared this would have been relayed to both aircraft via the sector controller. Again, min fuel Vs prudent, knowing what ADL and places can be like at that time of year? It is a judgement call, Captains discresion. So why then would plenty of folk who actually captain these things into these ports say they always carried more under situations like that?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The The,
Agreed.
Even worse have a look at the mildura metars that presumably these crew used in their decision to divert.
THEY WERE NOT AUTO METARS
So how did the BOM obtain the data to compile these actuals?
The more I look at this the more I feel for those crew.
Agreed.
Even worse have a look at the mildura metars that presumably these crew used in their decision to divert.
THEY WERE NOT AUTO METARS
So how did the BOM obtain the data to compile these actuals?
The more I look at this the more I feel for those crew.
Last edited by tenretni; 20th Jul 2013 at 01:12.
Why is it some carry more and its no big deal, yet others arc up in defence?
In a jet aircraft more fuel is more weight which means a higher operating cost. If you then times that weight across an entire network it becomes a perceived expense by the accountants.
That's one of the big differences between jets and bugsmashers.
It has all been done before on here. You can't just fly around with full fuel all the time in a jet it doesn't work economically. It then becomes a juggling act over how much is enough. Unfortunately that calculation is made with a few assumptions of which none were correct in this instance.
Last edited by neville_nobody; 20th Jul 2013 at 01:27.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba, usually you make complete sense in what you post, and I always read your posts. However, you are over your head with previous couple. What they were thinking is what was reasonable given the information to hand, the company policy and their experience and the Regs. I suggest If you don't want to travel RPT, you don't. Perhaps you could start your own airline, and advertise the fact you carry more fuel than anyone else. Under your logic, you'll be a hit. But I won't be financing it.......
OTOH, maybe you could do the figures on using MEL as an alternate based on that forecast. Oh wait, it required an alternate itself. Or holding till at least 2300. Go work that out and come back to us. Oh and don't forget you have MLW at ADL to contend with if you decide to carry it all........
OTOH, maybe you could do the figures on using MEL as an alternate based on that forecast. Oh wait, it required an alternate itself. Or holding till at least 2300. Go work that out and come back to us. Oh and don't forget you have MLW at ADL to contend with if you decide to carry it all........
Last edited by porch monkey; 20th Jul 2013 at 01:53.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Jaba you say
"My ops are not RPT, and usually I have so much fuel it is not a problem. I almost went to YSDU/YNRM yesterday, but realising the holding/alternates and expected wx may have meant returning to Brisbane, I cancelled, was not worth the effort, and I would have arrived back here with 1.25 hrs fuel even after doing a MA. So my fuel policy/capability is not relevant o a B737 operation."
Well you are questioning RPT pilots about what fuel they carry, so I wanted to know yours. So you arrived back with 1.25 hours of fuel even after doing a MA, big deal, this happens everyday in the RPT world with most flights landing with the 1-2 hours fuel.
And then you say "was MEL closed? Or were there ILS ops in use with legal landings?" At the flight planning stage, when you say the crews should have put on more fuel the ML TAF was 5 lines long with low cloud and showers and a Prob 30 of Fog, the 1900 ML TTF had 500m vis in Fog from 2000, so it was below the cat 1 ILS landing minima and bellow the special ALtn minima. To use ML the crew would have needed a FF of around 2800 kg overhead AD, add on FR, holding fuel and allowing for 2 approaches they would have needed to arrive overhead AD with at least 8000kg. That's over 5000kg more than what the crews planned on arriving into AD, with the forecast having no requirements. BTW CB was also out due to fog.
Your next reply
"Unstable? yeah and how well would that hold up, I thought the pax was unstable I think I would have just the same amount of success alleging you as the Captain were equally unstable and definately had the access and ability to actually use it as a weapon Vs me down the back. FFS if you are going to take shots at me do better than that" You must be losing your memory, have a look at all the 911 flights, coast to coast with lots of fuel and they become weapons. Have a read of CAR309 regarding Powers of PIC.
And your final reply
"Again, min fuel Vs prudent, knowing what ADL and places can be like at that time of year? It is a judgement call, Captains discresion. So why then would plenty of folk who actually captain these things into these ports say they always carried more under situations like that?" Both these flights did not take min fuel, min fuel as per the regulations would have had them arriving in AD with 30 mins of fuel. Care to give examples of how much fuel and what triggers the"folk who actually captain these things into these ports" use? Both these flights had "captains" who fly to these ports and they planned to arrive with similar fuel, based a forecast that had no requirements.
Agree with what porch monkey said regarding your previous posts and what he said about your comments on this thread.
For those asking about how the metars are generated at YMIA, they are done by the BOM observer based on the airport.
"My ops are not RPT, and usually I have so much fuel it is not a problem. I almost went to YSDU/YNRM yesterday, but realising the holding/alternates and expected wx may have meant returning to Brisbane, I cancelled, was not worth the effort, and I would have arrived back here with 1.25 hrs fuel even after doing a MA. So my fuel policy/capability is not relevant o a B737 operation."
Well you are questioning RPT pilots about what fuel they carry, so I wanted to know yours. So you arrived back with 1.25 hours of fuel even after doing a MA, big deal, this happens everyday in the RPT world with most flights landing with the 1-2 hours fuel.
And then you say "was MEL closed? Or were there ILS ops in use with legal landings?" At the flight planning stage, when you say the crews should have put on more fuel the ML TAF was 5 lines long with low cloud and showers and a Prob 30 of Fog, the 1900 ML TTF had 500m vis in Fog from 2000, so it was below the cat 1 ILS landing minima and bellow the special ALtn minima. To use ML the crew would have needed a FF of around 2800 kg overhead AD, add on FR, holding fuel and allowing for 2 approaches they would have needed to arrive overhead AD with at least 8000kg. That's over 5000kg more than what the crews planned on arriving into AD, with the forecast having no requirements. BTW CB was also out due to fog.
Your next reply
"Unstable? yeah and how well would that hold up, I thought the pax was unstable I think I would have just the same amount of success alleging you as the Captain were equally unstable and definately had the access and ability to actually use it as a weapon Vs me down the back. FFS if you are going to take shots at me do better than that" You must be losing your memory, have a look at all the 911 flights, coast to coast with lots of fuel and they become weapons. Have a read of CAR309 regarding Powers of PIC.
And your final reply
"Again, min fuel Vs prudent, knowing what ADL and places can be like at that time of year? It is a judgement call, Captains discresion. So why then would plenty of folk who actually captain these things into these ports say they always carried more under situations like that?" Both these flights did not take min fuel, min fuel as per the regulations would have had them arriving in AD with 30 mins of fuel. Care to give examples of how much fuel and what triggers the"folk who actually captain these things into these ports" use? Both these flights had "captains" who fly to these ports and they planned to arrive with similar fuel, based a forecast that had no requirements.
Agree with what porch monkey said regarding your previous posts and what he said about your comments on this thread.
For those asking about how the metars are generated at YMIA, they are done by the BOM observer based on the airport.
Last edited by BPA; 20th Jul 2013 at 04:43.
Even worse have a look at the mildura metars that presumably these crew used in their decision to divert.
THEY WERE NOT AUTO METARS
So how did the BOM obtain the data to compile these actuals?
THEY WERE NOT AUTO METARS
So how did the BOM obtain the data to compile these actuals?
Got me, though I think they likely just used the AWS data, might as well have been an auto. If there is a BOM field office in MIA, why can't they generate TTF's to produce something meaningful. Perhaps even look out the window.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading some of the above, I would just like to remind people that a METAR is not a forecast, it is an observation.
If you want a forecast, refer to either a TTF or a TAF.
If you want a forecast, refer to either a TTF or a TAF.
Thanks for replies re no alternate requirement.
The only place I've gone with no alternate is Gan, in an Argosy.
If the WHOLE runway had become unavailable I guess it would have been the lagoon. That would have been fine since Argosy shallow water landing capability had already been successfully demonstrated
Credit: AWA ARGOSY
The only place I've gone with no alternate is Gan, in an Argosy.
If the WHOLE runway had become unavailable I guess it would have been the lagoon. That would have been fine since Argosy shallow water landing capability had already been successfully demonstrated
Credit: AWA ARGOSY
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So honest question, what is wrong with departing BNE on a day when the dew point is only two off the temp and calm, with loading I dunno 3200kg for MEL and another 1-2T for whatever extra holding you might need due forecast for MEL so that they arrived with 2T+ in Melbourne? Under these circumstances I am not expecting 1hr for Adelaide as well as 1hr holding in Melbourne. You get to or close to Adelaide, find that its clagged in and not going to be better any time soon, so off to MEL with prudent fuel.
Is that outside the fuel capacity of a B738? I doubt it. Yes I know it will cost a burn of 100kg or something to carry it, but MIA cost a lot more.
One other point, MIA might be technically able to take a 737, but it is not in the QF/VA routes surely except for emergency use, which I guess they found themselves in. And from my understanding they didn't really have MIA as a suitable alternate either.
Side note:
Have had email and SMS agreeing with my concern mentioned earlier about passengers one day wanting to question fuel loads and alternates. I also had one good mate and B738 Captain reckon I am on a flogging to nowhere, and he may well be right! But I think he missed the point just as all the others who protested.
If there was a sharp rise in drunk pilots, unlicensed (India) or unrated or not current pilots flying and whats more this could just as easily be bare bones fuel causing more MIA events, and the public hear about it, don't you think the public, and the passengers would start asking for proof the pilots were current/rated/licensed and not intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? Of course not, it would come as no surprise would it. So the best way to avoid that is by not giving rise to alarm. Same might go for bones of your ass fuel loads too if it got out of hand.
We get on these things in good faith that the crew are trained, current, not intoxicated etc because the law, common sense and companies would not want anything but. But fuel is a fuzzy variable, and a company can vary the variable as can the crew, so we have to really have blind faith they are doing their job correctly when we step aboard. None of us want to sit down thinking.....has this guy loaded enough to avoid an MIA.
If you explained fuel calc's well enough to the two B738 loads in MIA, and surveyed them, I wonder if they would want to have a better education on what they are straping themselves into next time. I am sure most of the public think they fill 'er up just like the family car.
They did not need 15T to do Adelaide (could have had BN if they did), but a couple of tonnes more might have meant I never even had this thought about what will the public perception be one day. So to those who protested, it is not really me you are spitting your dummy at it is the possible public perception of your profession. Think about that for a while. I am actually on your side guys/girls! 
Is that outside the fuel capacity of a B738? I doubt it. Yes I know it will cost a burn of 100kg or something to carry it, but MIA cost a lot more.
One other point, MIA might be technically able to take a 737, but it is not in the QF/VA routes surely except for emergency use, which I guess they found themselves in. And from my understanding they didn't really have MIA as a suitable alternate either.
Side note:
Have had email and SMS agreeing with my concern mentioned earlier about passengers one day wanting to question fuel loads and alternates. I also had one good mate and B738 Captain reckon I am on a flogging to nowhere, and he may well be right!
But I think he missed the point just as all the others who protested.If there was a sharp rise in drunk pilots, unlicensed (India) or unrated or not current pilots flying and whats more this could just as easily be bare bones fuel causing more MIA events, and the public hear about it, don't you think the public, and the passengers would start asking for proof the pilots were current/rated/licensed and not intoxicated or under the influence of drugs? Of course not, it would come as no surprise would it. So the best way to avoid that is by not giving rise to alarm. Same might go for bones of your ass fuel loads too if it got out of hand.
We get on these things in good faith that the crew are trained, current, not intoxicated etc because the law, common sense and companies would not want anything but. But fuel is a fuzzy variable, and a company can vary the variable as can the crew, so we have to really have blind faith they are doing their job correctly when we step aboard. None of us want to sit down thinking.....has this guy loaded enough to avoid an MIA.
If you explained fuel calc's well enough to the two B738 loads in MIA, and surveyed them, I wonder if they would want to have a better education on what they are straping themselves into next time. I am sure most of the public think they fill 'er up just like the family car.
They did not need 15T to do Adelaide (could have had BN if they did
), but a couple of tonnes more might have meant I never even had this thought about what will the public perception be one day. So to those who protested, it is not really me you are spitting your dummy at it is the possible public perception of your profession. Think about that for a while. I am actually on your side guys/girls!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No disrespect here, but you're just not getting it. They carried what they felt they needed. According to the info available. The pilots didn't f#ck up, they made the best of a bad situation. I look forward to the conversation when you attempt to interrogate me at the gate about how much fuel I might or might not carry.
Contrary to your opinion, the great majority don't give a flying rats arse as long as the ticket is cheap, and they don't die. Most don't even know what kind of a/c they are on! And, just so you know, VA send the 737 to MIA whenever the E Jet is u/s. As such it's a semi regular visitor. That bother you too?
An edit just to address another of your points. The company CANNOT vary any flight legal fuel. The Captain can take more than the recommended plan, If he feels it is necessary. Perhaps you need to read a little more some of the replies addressing these issues earlier in the thread.
Last thing. Sometimes you just can't carry much more. Example. Back of ciggy packet figures. 5.4 to get to ADL. 3.0 to get to MEL. 2.2 for 1 hr hold at MEL. (req for Wx, clearing at 2300?) 2.0 landing. (company 1 hr). So, 12.6t so far. No variable or anything else on it. EZFW is 59.9. (full a/c) TOW minimum 72.5 Burn off 5.4 then LW at ADL is 67.1. No probs. OOPS! MLW 66.3. I'm not suggesting this calculation represents what happened. I'm trying to give you the idea that it isn't fill er up like some seem to think. It's a whole lot more complex than fuel management in GA a/c dude.
Contrary to your opinion, the great majority don't give a flying rats arse as long as the ticket is cheap, and they don't die. Most don't even know what kind of a/c they are on! And, just so you know, VA send the 737 to MIA whenever the E Jet is u/s. As such it's a semi regular visitor. That bother you too?
An edit just to address another of your points. The company CANNOT vary any flight legal fuel. The Captain can take more than the recommended plan, If he feels it is necessary. Perhaps you need to read a little more some of the replies addressing these issues earlier in the thread.
Last thing. Sometimes you just can't carry much more. Example. Back of ciggy packet figures. 5.4 to get to ADL. 3.0 to get to MEL. 2.2 for 1 hr hold at MEL. (req for Wx, clearing at 2300?) 2.0 landing. (company 1 hr). So, 12.6t so far. No variable or anything else on it. EZFW is 59.9. (full a/c) TOW minimum 72.5 Burn off 5.4 then LW at ADL is 67.1. No probs. OOPS! MLW 66.3. I'm not suggesting this calculation represents what happened. I'm trying to give you the idea that it isn't fill er up like some seem to think. It's a whole lot more complex than fuel management in GA a/c dude.
Last edited by porch monkey; 20th Jul 2013 at 10:46.