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
Porch Monkey, this is genuine debate, not a shot at you personally, but since you asked, here is my response. ( I had to enter 10 charcters as I embedded my answers in purple.
By the way, I would be apy to discuss this over a beer with you any day. Even if we still disagree 
Remember I am on your side, have your career and future in mind and the ongoing high safety record in Australia to remain that way.
No disrespect here,Thats OK, none to you either, its an adult debate but you're just not getting it.Well I am, and I am getting it more They carried what they felt they needed. Yes they didAccording to the info available. I am sure the info was that legally requiredThe pilots didn't f#ck up, they made the best of a bad situation. Yep they didnt f#ck up in MIA, please take the time to review my first post in this thread http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ml#post7949352 as I clearly support that case. However, why is that many a VA Captain never left BNE without MEL even on CAVOK days EVER and was not once challenged by it. Why is it same Captain landed in MEL when evryone around him bugged out to SY/CB/BN etc on more than one occassion because he had read the same info and had a gut feeling this might be worse, so for the cost of half an hours fuel all 180 pax arrived (30min late) but with safety to still make CB. The company never asked him how the f#ck he managed that. Apparently it was very lonely in the terminal. Or the same captain at the same airline has done CS-BN when others couldn't wouldn't because he held Alice Springs in the tanks when the east coast was stuffed for alternates. iIt cost s few hunder bucks but it got the job done. The B737 is an awesome machine, and it is hard to get a MLW issue like this, so where necessary it can take a bit more. CAVOK with 23 degrees and dew point of 10 it does not bear thinking about, but at other times it does. On that basis, not carrying MEL when it could have been so easily. Sure they met the rules. But when you see a TAF with VRB<5 and a METAR with 05/04, you have to get a little suspicious of what might be next. I do and I do not fly RPT. In fact I recently had the BOM explain the science behind Prob 30 and Prob 40 FG, not to do with this but it was in Launceston. The met office in HBA is very educational, and I bet 99% of pilots have never heard the explanation, but I could be wrong. So in not just my opinion it would have been prudent to carry more based on what I see in the TAF's that day. And you can forget anything close by as it will be potentially the same. 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. See this is the reaction I was not after, I have no desire to interrogate you or anyone, but if the fuel policy and the attitudes shown here were made public (more than pprune readers) and more incidents occur, you can be sure Ben Sandilands and others will start running a flag up a pole. To be frank about it, I gather by this remark you would object to being breath tested before duty too? We the paying pax expect that you are beyond reproach. Thus we have no need or desire to want to ask, but give us all reason to think or suspect, we are going to sit down the back wondering, will I be one of those pax ****ting themselves when the cabin crew are yelling BRACE BRACE BRACE HEAD DOWN STAY DOWN when the plane is otherwise perfectly serviceable. I have never ever on a QF or VA flight had ANY concernes whatsoever, but with the attitude of a few here, and your response, would you blame me for sitting at the back, TAF on my iPhone and wondering how many tonnes are on here for a VRB<5 05/04 arrival? I never have before but now I guarantee I will be. And any other pax that gets a bit wiser to the fact would react the same way. If I was a known alcoholic, and suspected to fly UTI but never crashed or bent a plane, would you trust me with your family or would you want to breath test me, or would you just say no regardless. Would your fear be rational? Even if irrational it is real. My point is do not give the public a chance to develop an irrational fear based on facts and history.
Contrary to your opinion, the great majority don't give a flying rats arse as long as the ticket is cheap, Yep, sadly that is trueand they don't die I doubt that crosses their mind, but it might if they knew they would be in a potential problem like MIA. Unless of course this whole episode is really a non-event.. 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? No, they send em to plenty of other CTAF's around Oz
An edit just to address another of your points. The company CANNOT vary any flight legal fuel. Agreed, sorry if I gave you that idea, I meant their own policy over and above legal, if I wrote that wrong I apologise for the confussionThe Captain can take more than the recommended plan, If he feels it is necessary. Yep, and that underpins my whole arguement, I think the companies should be encouraging all captains to be more like the one I quoted above. His F/O's often sighed relief when they saw his planning logic. The company never questioned it, it was never excessive, but it never gave rise to stress either. A happier balance is what should be encouraged not a bare bones nothing more. And I accept the company do not insist you do that either, so it is your choice, but they could encourage better decissions so the crew do not get dealt a **** sandwich like these two crews did. Remember I am not persecuting the crews, but I think they could have saved the cockup at the gate, rather than MIA.Perhaps you need to read a little more some of the replies addressing these issues earlier in the thread. Yes you could be right there, but I waded in at page 31 and seeing gazumped ranting on I came to the defensive position of both crews..... but at the same time, this could all have been avoided if the thought process was a bit different at the gates.
Why is it then that many Captains hold the view there was nothing wrong......no lets say that again, why is it that many Captains hold the view that the fuel choices of these two flights was "sub optimal" and in their entire career never chose that scenario, rather they always had MEL or where ever else depending on the day, and nobody gets roasted for it, and others will happily support the fly on bare minimum legal fuel? Who is right Vs wrong? They are both right. Who is legal or not? they are both legal? Who gets the job done 100% of the time?
Better looking at it than looking for it.
So as a paying pax how do I tell the difference in safety from the two?
The paying public deserve better than what they got that day in MIA, blame whoever you like, but how do they ensure it never happens again? Or more the point when you are paxing home after a trip how do you ensure it never happens to you? And worse still when the option is there to cary excessive amounts more without MLW or other issues. This is not DFW - BNE stuff we are talking about.
but you're just not getting it.Well I am, and I am getting it more They carried what they felt they needed. Yes they didAccording to the info available. I am sure the info was that legally requiredThe pilots didn't f#ck up, they made the best of a bad situation. Yep they didnt f#ck up in MIA, please take the time to review my first post in this thread http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ml#post7949352 as I clearly support that case. However, why is that many a VA Captain never left BNE without MEL even on CAVOK days EVER and was not once challenged by it. Why is it same Captain landed in MEL when evryone around him bugged out to SY/CB/BN etc on more than one occassion because he had read the same info and had a gut feeling this might be worse, so for the cost of half an hours fuel all 180 pax arrived (30min late) but with safety to still make CB. The company never asked him how the f#ck he managed that. Apparently it was very lonely in the terminal. Or the same captain at the same airline has done CS-BN when others couldn't wouldn't because he held Alice Springs in the tanks when the east coast was stuffed for alternates. iIt cost s few hunder bucks but it got the job done. The B737 is an awesome machine, and it is hard to get a MLW issue like this, so where necessary it can take a bit more. CAVOK with 23 degrees and dew point of 10 it does not bear thinking about, but at other times it does. On that basis, not carrying MEL when it could have been so easily. Sure they met the rules. But when you see a TAF with VRB<5 and a METAR with 05/04, you have to get a little suspicious of what might be next. I do and I do not fly RPT. In fact I recently had the BOM explain the science behind Prob 30 and Prob 40 FG, not to do with this but it was in Launceston. The met office in HBA is very educational, and I bet 99% of pilots have never heard the explanation, but I could be wrong. So in not just my opinion it would have been prudent to carry more based on what I see in the TAF's that day. And you can forget anything close by as it will be potentially the same. 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. See this is the reaction I was not after, I have no desire to interrogate you or anyone, but if the fuel policy and the attitudes shown here were made public (more than pprune readers) and more incidents occur, you can be sure Ben Sandilands and others will start running a flag up a pole. To be frank about it, I gather by this remark you would object to being breath tested before duty too? We the paying pax expect that you are beyond reproach. Thus we have no need or desire to want to ask, but give us all reason to think or suspect, we are going to sit down the back wondering, will I be one of those pax ****ting themselves when the cabin crew are yelling BRACE BRACE BRACE HEAD DOWN STAY DOWN when the plane is otherwise perfectly serviceable. I have never ever on a QF or VA flight had ANY concernes whatsoever, but with the attitude of a few here, and your response, would you blame me for sitting at the back, TAF on my iPhone and wondering how many tonnes are on here for a VRB<5 05/04 arrival? I never have before but now I guarantee I will be. And any other pax that gets a bit wiser to the fact would react the same way. If I was a known alcoholic, and suspected to fly UTI but never crashed or bent a plane, would you trust me with your family or would you want to breath test me, or would you just say no regardless. Would your fear be rational? Even if irrational it is real. My point is do not give the public a chance to develop an irrational fear based on facts and history. Contrary to your opinion, the great majority don't give a flying rats arse as long as the ticket is cheap, Yep, sadly that is trueand they don't die I doubt that crosses their mind, but it might if they knew they would be in a potential problem like MIA. Unless of course this whole episode is really a non-event.. 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? No, they send em to plenty of other CTAF's around Oz
An edit just to address another of your points. The company CANNOT vary any flight legal fuel. Agreed, sorry if I gave you that idea, I meant their own policy over and above legal, if I wrote that wrong I apologise for the confussionThe Captain can take more than the recommended plan, If he feels it is necessary. Yep, and that underpins my whole arguement, I think the companies should be encouraging all captains to be more like the one I quoted above. His F/O's often sighed relief when they saw his planning logic. The company never questioned it, it was never excessive, but it never gave rise to stress either. A happier balance is what should be encouraged not a bare bones nothing more. And I accept the company do not insist you do that either, so it is your choice, but they could encourage better decissions so the crew do not get dealt a **** sandwich like these two crews did. Remember I am not persecuting the crews, but I think they could have saved the cockup at the gate, rather than MIA.Perhaps you need to read a little more some of the replies addressing these issues earlier in the thread. Yes you could be right there, but I waded in at page 31 and seeing gazumped ranting on I came to the defensive position of both crews..... but at the same time, this could all have been avoided if the thought process was a bit different at the gates.
Why is it then that many Captains hold the view there was nothing wrong......no lets say that again, why is it that many Captains hold the view that the fuel choices of these two flights was "sub optimal" and in their entire career never chose that scenario, rather they always had MEL or where ever else depending on the day, and nobody gets roasted for it, and others will happily support the fly on bare minimum legal fuel? Who is right Vs wrong? They are both right. Who is legal or not? they are both legal? Who gets the job done 100% of the time?
Better looking at it than looking for it.
So as a paying pax how do I tell the difference in safety from the two?
The paying public deserve better than what they got that day in MIA, blame whoever you like, but how do they ensure it never happens again? Or more the point when you are paxing home after a trip how do you ensure it never happens to you? And worse still when the option is there to cary excessive amounts more without MLW or other issues. This is not DFW - BNE stuff we are talking about.
Remember I am on your side, have your career and future in mind and the ongoing high safety record in Australia to remain that way.
Porch Monkey, in your fuel scenario you do not need 60 minutes holding at MEL (no alternate required for ADL, remember?). It would be carried as an emergency alternate only: Cat III to beat any fog there (or try Canberra..or Broken Hill or Woomera!). So you can reduce your fuel load by 2t at least. And chop off another 500 for final landing fuel; the whole thing (carrying MEL) actually is quite doable. And both these flights were nowhere near full. So let's not get carried away. I can also come up with a doomsday scenario but it doesn't happen often.
If you still can't carry enough, kick off the freight, then some pax. Why? Because the BOM can't forecast. There has been so many stuffups lately that CASA should mandate RPT jets carry alternates whenever they go to the southern airports between 2200-1000.
The pilots didn't FU but 80-odd Virgin pax almost got creamed. Have you actually thought closely about what happened at MIA? You're ripping into Jabba about his concerns ("aren't you carrying enough fuel, you pilots, like I thought I was paying for?") but what is your solution to this event?
If you still can't carry enough, kick off the freight, then some pax. Why? Because the BOM can't forecast. There has been so many stuffups lately that CASA should mandate RPT jets carry alternates whenever they go to the southern airports between 2200-1000.
The pilots didn't FU but 80-odd Virgin pax almost got creamed. Have you actually thought closely about what happened at MIA? You're ripping into Jabba about his concerns ("aren't you carrying enough fuel, you pilots, like I thought I was paying for?") but what is your solution to this event?
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: The Last Resort
Age: 52
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Good Argument
From a lighty pilots point of view I am learning heaps from this thread and the argument is vigorous but constructive. My question is can newer more advanced and cheaper technology such as a GPS approach be validated for smaller airports that is transferable, eg aircraft based rather than physically based at the strip and how far away is it from being viable
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For info CBR had fog on the day and BHI cannot be used as ATLN for 737's due pavement restrictions.
Rather than focus I what each crew should have taken on the day, let's focus on what needs to be fixed so another crew and passengers don't have to experience the same.
Rather than focus I what each crew should have taken on the day, let's focus on what needs to be fixed so another crew and passengers don't have to experience the same.
Last edited by BPA; 20th Jul 2013 at 12:16.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
BPA
My point exactly
Rather than focus I what each crew should have taken on the day, let's focus on what needs to be fixed so another crew and passengers don't have to experience the same.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry blogs, but I guess comprehension isn't your strong suit. Did you miss my statement about not representing the day in question? About being an example only? So let's see, ADL requires an alternate per the forecast. (if your crystal ball is working). MEL is available, but since it's bkn at 400/4000km it also requires an alt or fuel till 2300. (that's the hour hold. As long as it clears of course.) Plan to land with 1 hr. So, by your figure then I could decide to land with less. I could. But why? Regs say 30 min, company says hour. Bleat all ya want buddy, VA no more creamed their pax than QF did. The emotive bull**** is irrelevant. I have thought about it, I do every day. I have also read the prelim report, company briefings, and some of the crap on here. Does it change what I already do? No, it doesn't. I would suggest to you that there are quite a few other issues that need to be dealt with in the industry than what either company has as fuel policy. Start with forecasting and infrastructure.
Maybe we'll have that beer one day Jaba.
Maybe we'll have that beer one day Jaba.
For info CBR had fog on the day and BHI cannot be used as ATLN for 737's due pavement restrictions.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were YIR and VYK the only two aircraft heading for ADL that morning? If not, what happened to the others? Did they carry alternate fuel just in case and then successfully diverted to their alternates?
Where I fly, we always carry an alternate as well as 45 minutes holding fuel, even if the forecast doesn't require it. It's pretty much standard policy for airlines in this region to do so. If carrying additional fuel made such a huge impact on the airlines' bottom line here, I'm sure they'd stop this practice, but they don't so I guess they consider it to be better safe than sorry.
Where I fly, we always carry an alternate as well as 45 minutes holding fuel, even if the forecast doesn't require it. It's pretty much standard policy for airlines in this region to do so. If carrying additional fuel made such a huge impact on the airlines' bottom line here, I'm sure they'd stop this practice, but they don't so I guess they consider it to be better safe than sorry.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez blogs
Broken Hill better than Mildura on the day? Is that remark based on the forecast and metars or just hindsight.
You may as well argue that these guys should have gone to Broken Hill because they knew that the forecasts and metars were unreliable in Mildura but highly accurate in Broken Hill.
Broken Hill better than Mildura on the day? Is that remark based on the forecast and metars or just hindsight.
You may as well argue that these guys should have gone to Broken Hill because they knew that the forecasts and metars were unreliable in Mildura but highly accurate in Broken Hill.
Porch, as I said, doomsday? Carry BNE. Kick off freight/pax. Carry Woomera. Whatever.
You're joking, surely. Getting Visual at 300+ft AGL and 3000m vis is the same as 0ft/0m vis?? Unfortunately, it's only the "emotive BS" that gets things changed.
You seem to have a lot to say about the situation... So let's have it. What would "you already do" when presented with the flight planning situation these guys were?
With another 1000kg QF could easily have gone to BHI after missing out at MIA...
Bleat all ya want buddy, VA no more creamed their pax than QF did. The emotive bull**** is irrelevant.
Does it change what I already do? No, it doesn't.
Originally Posted by Lone Pine
You may as well argue that these guys should have gone to Broken Hill because they knew that the forecasts and metars were unreliable in Mildura but highly accurate in Broken Hill.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 20th Jul 2013 at 14:05. Reason: Lone Pine comment added
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oracle 1
The short answer is yes, but only if there is a WAAS like system in place. If there is, in an emergency, modern equipment can be programmed to set up a pseudo ILS like pathway to any runway, even one with no ILS.
Needless to say, we don't have a WAAS type system available in Australia, even though the Japanese WAAS like system (called MSAS) already covers Australia and we could use the Japanese Satellite system with a small investment.
My question is can newer more advanced and cheaper technology such as a GPS approach be validated for smaller airports that is transferable, eg aircraft based rather than physically based at the strip and how far away is it from being viable
Needless to say, we don't have a WAAS type system available in Australia, even though the Japanese WAAS like system (called MSAS) already covers Australia and we could use the Japanese Satellite system with a small investment.
Last edited by rjtjrt; 20th Jul 2013 at 23:17.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs, I've flown around the south eastern part of Oz for most of my aviation career, including Tassie. So I know a little about changeable weather. To cater for doomsday, you have to know about it. Neither crew knew. You can't run a viable operation based on doomsday everywhere you go. Unforecast fog has always "happened". Even when it happens, it's the timely information presentation that is important. They didn't get that. Pre flight, some people pick it, some don't. What I would've done, what you would've done or anybody else would've done is irrelevant now. We didn't. They did. I don't have their mindset, or their info. Neither do you. Would I have carried more fuel? I don't know. Would I have carried the same? I don't know. I wasn't there.
With another 1000kg QF could easily have gone to BHI after missing out at MIA...
If you accept that they required an alternate that was closer than ML, then MIA was the only option.
I think there is also a potential argument that busting minima at MIA is safer than at AD
My reading of the forecasts is that they went from PROB30 Fog to Fog below minima in one step. Really? I also suspect that the TAF was still saying PROB30 Fog AFTER the fog had formed.
An accurate forecast as little as 1 hour ahead may have changed this event.
A previous poster suggested that the BOM gets ground observations from a BOM person at the airport. One of my concerns / questions about the BOM is whether it has become primarily a 9-5 Mon - Fri organisation. Most of the decisions for this flight occurred before 9am. Was the BOM guy actually at work and providing observations?
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porch,
Given your prior experience I would bet my left one that if you looked at any of those TAF's, especially the one handed to the skipper in Sydney prior to departure you would have picked them as all susceptible to fog, DESPITE them not having a PROB. I would then bet my right one that if you looked at the metar's or speci's you would have picked it again?
I'm looking forward to finding out from the report why MET didn't pick any of the above? I'm also looking forward to finding out why the crews didn't get the information they required, from multiple sources, when it was timely available.
Given your prior experience I would bet my left one that if you looked at any of those TAF's, especially the one handed to the skipper in Sydney prior to departure you would have picked them as all susceptible to fog, DESPITE them not having a PROB. I would then bet my right one that if you looked at the metar's or speci's you would have picked it again?
I'm looking forward to finding out from the report why MET didn't pick any of the above? I'm also looking forward to finding out why the crews didn't get the information they required, from multiple sources, when it was timely available.
Sorry if it had already been mentioned, but haven't seen any comments regarding the HUD. Assume the QF aircraft had one, does VA?
I've never used one, so am interested whether it would be a big advantage in this type of situation or not?
I've never used one, so am interested whether it would be a big advantage in this type of situation or not?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite possibly Jack, it's what I was alluding to in my last post about it. Certainly, I've picked it before and compensated. Moreso in the last company than the present one for obvious reasons. But you don't know for sure whether you would pick it, as you don't have all the details, triggers,( or lack of) and mindset they did. Fact is they both departed with what was legal and what they felt was appropriate, given the info they had. That's why I am loathe to criticise either party. As far as flight following, bom and such, they need to get their **** together.