Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
Originally Posted by UnderneathTheRadar
ATC (would this warrant a Hazard alert? I thought they were for METARs going SPECI?)
Prefix directed transmissions and broadcasts with HAZARD ALERT when a sudden change to a component of FIS, not described in a current MET product or NOTAM, has an immediate and detrimental effect on the safety of aircraft.
When a meteorologist is discussing past weather he is a scientist. When he is discussing future weather he is a fortune teller reading tea leaves.
They can always use the magic word AMENDED and issue another forecast if they make a mistake or things turn out differently.
I've been caught out by fog at MEL, I delayed my departure to get the latest TTF one night. Five minutes later I was taxiing with required fuel as there was no alternate requirement. Arrived with a 200' cloud base, reducing vis, aircraft ahead had gone around and nowhere else to go. Steam driven turboprop so forget auto land. I flew the most accurate ILS approach of my career, saw a couple of touch down zone lights at the last second and landed. The tower called to see if I had vacated the runway because the visibility was so bad.:hmm
They can always use the magic word AMENDED and issue another forecast if they make a mistake or things turn out differently.
I've been caught out by fog at MEL, I delayed my departure to get the latest TTF one night. Five minutes later I was taxiing with required fuel as there was no alternate requirement. Arrived with a 200' cloud base, reducing vis, aircraft ahead had gone around and nowhere else to go. Steam driven turboprop so forget auto land. I flew the most accurate ILS approach of my career, saw a couple of touch down zone lights at the last second and landed. The tower called to see if I had vacated the runway because the visibility was so bad.:hmm
Last edited by Metro man; 20th Jun 2013 at 04:35.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunny QLD
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No roo not at all. As was eluded to re every time you flight plan you trust a forecast. In fact I'd hypothesise that the aircraft that went to mildura might have had enough fuel to hold until the fog ended on the metar but instead went to mildura, and had they remained in Adelaide would have gotten in drama free. Hypothesise I emphasise.
When you arrive at an aerodrome with tempo holding due TS, do you divert immediately if there's a cell you have to hold for? No you don't.
If you've put fuel on to hold until a condition is forecast to clear , why not stick with the plan? If not what's the point of the plan?
It's a judgement call on the day. Ill tell you I'd rather hold over Adl rather than go mildura, then auto land Adl if the metar is wrong. Provided I have the fuel to legally hold until the fog is forecast to end of course.
When you arrive at an aerodrome with tempo holding due TS, do you divert immediately if there's a cell you have to hold for? No you don't.
If you've put fuel on to hold until a condition is forecast to clear , why not stick with the plan? If not what's the point of the plan?
It's a judgement call on the day. Ill tell you I'd rather hold over Adl rather than go mildura, then auto land Adl if the metar is wrong. Provided I have the fuel to legally hold until the fog is forecast to end of course.
Last edited by ejectx3; 20th Jun 2013 at 00:13.
Someone here mentioned that of course the BOM use historical data and current forecasts to figure out whats going to happen. My question is do they keep track of all the times its been wrong and as such give themselves the ability to see a short term local trend that may require the issuance of different Forecasts?
For instance, a few people have mentioned that recently they have noticed a trend in the area for unforecast fog, does the BOM keep data that would allow them to see the same thing happening 2 days in a row and cause them to automatically place a "Prob30" in based on these recent occurrences where their data is telling them it won't happen but recent observations have shown it occurred anyway?
For instance, a few people have mentioned that recently they have noticed a trend in the area for unforecast fog, does the BOM keep data that would allow them to see the same thing happening 2 days in a row and cause them to automatically place a "Prob30" in based on these recent occurrences where their data is telling them it won't happen but recent observations have shown it occurred anyway?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The forecasting has fallen over badly in the last couple of months. In a two month period I have personally seen unforecasted fog twice, overcast cloud below the minima and a unforecasted thunderstorm which was about 10 miles from the field but nowhere to be seen on a TTF 45 minutes from the destination . Additional to that is the two QF incidents, the Virgin incident plus a few more I have heard about on the grapevine.
Yes I can understand a few incorrect forecasts here and there but this is becoming an Australia wide trend.
Yes I can understand a few incorrect forecasts here and there but this is becoming an Australia wide trend.
Yes Ixixly, yet another case of "this can be done by numbers". Just as with flying, you can't do it successfully only by what the book (or computer model) says. Smart, experienced humans are necessary to make it work.
It would appear that, despite amazing technology levels and what should be decades of experience build-up, the only thing that is preventing some really serious weather incidents is illegal Autoland and RNAV approaches (almost) to the ground.
It would appear that, despite amazing technology levels and what should be decades of experience build-up, the only thing that is preventing some really serious weather incidents is illegal Autoland and RNAV approaches (almost) to the ground.
Every time you flight plan you do exactly that.
You're example had one forecast being 100% correct or an emergency ensues.
The reality of flight planning ( for me anyway) is that you only need one of two forecasts to be about 50% correct to operate safely. Completely different odds, much less risk involved.
I agree that you wouldn't necessarily divert if you had fuel to hold. In fact that was my intention on the day. We could see the fog clearing slowly, tower was updating us on improving conditions, and I had fuel to hold well past the metar forecast clearing time. Even if I had to lose my Mel diversion option, I was more than happy in this instance , that the fog would clear in time for me to comfortably get in.
"In this case"... Being the crucial phrase. Horses for courses. But to say "you'd be mad" to remain at an aerodrome waiting for a forecast improvement to occur is way off base.
"In this case"... Being the crucial phrase. Horses for courses. But to say "you'd be mad" to remain at an aerodrome waiting for a forecast improvement to occur is way off base.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crikey advises that the ATSB have announced an investigation, as per the following links.
Investigation: AO-2013-100 - Low fuel diversion involving Boeing 737-8FE, VH-YIR, Mildura Airport, Victoria on 18 June 2013
If you've put fuel on to hold until a condition is forecast to clear , why not stick with the plan? If not what's the point of the plan?
And that I did. I had 1.5 hours holding past the forecast clearing time. Please refrain from passing judgement on my decision making skills as I would not question yours without knowing the full picture.
Good on you. I wasn't commenting on your post. I was questioning ejectx's hypothetical idea and a specific set of circumstances different to yours - of only carrying fuel to improve time plus 30 minutes and then sticking around after that when a diversion to a suitable airport is available. He made no mention of diverting to an airport with questionable wx in his initial post.
Last edited by Roo; 20th Jun 2013 at 03:23.
Ah yes. But I agree with him that leaving yourself with only one option (ie staying ) is not always a risky decision if you are almost certain (ie you can see the limiting weather clearing) that the limitining weather will vanish.
Bottums Up
We need a friendly bean-counter.
It would be very interesting to know the financial cost to Virgin, not just in dollars out laid but also dollars lost, the dollars worth of time and effort that will go into the ensuing investigation, and the dollar amount of the publicity I've the issue, and then equate the sum of all these dollars with the volume of fuel it would buy.
In other words, by saving a little on flight fuel burn by not carrying an alternate, how much have they lost?
It would be very interesting to know the financial cost to Virgin, not just in dollars out laid but also dollars lost, the dollars worth of time and effort that will go into the ensuing investigation, and the dollar amount of the publicity I've the issue, and then equate the sum of all these dollars with the volume of fuel it would buy.
In other words, by saving a little on flight fuel burn by not carrying an alternate, how much have they lost?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunny QLD
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It costs about 10kg of fuel for an extra ton of fuel on an hour sector. Ie sweet F.A.
To put in perspective to carry 2 hours extra fuel over destination costs you about 40kg or 1 minute of cruise fuel.
It's ridiculous the drive to push min fuel when it costs so little for the insurance of extra fuel. (737 figures)
Or in dollar terms to carry 2 hours of insurance about $40
To put in perspective to carry 2 hours extra fuel over destination costs you about 40kg or 1 minute of cruise fuel.
It's ridiculous the drive to push min fuel when it costs so little for the insurance of extra fuel. (737 figures)
Or in dollar terms to carry 2 hours of insurance about $40
Last edited by ejectx3; 20th Jun 2013 at 06:11.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see why the bean counters do these sums & come up with tangible figures that drive cost savings as they multiply what appears piddly stuff all per airframe across the whole fleet over a financial year & bingo numbers that makes a bean counter smile:-)
Trouble is to cut costs & lets face it every industry is cutting costs some by way of less employees or ceasing Ops (Ford in Geelong for Eg) there are only a few avenues for the bean counters to work with & that is the human element to the base costs of a product & a more efficient use of that product.
The human element is malleable by way of work place/product efficiencies producing more for the same effort/wages cost. We are constantly seeing how the bean counters are trying to make the machine work more efficiently.
Now right or wrong there is merit in some of this (as if there wasn't then no one would have a job) but as we all are saying here at what cost? Changing CI for Eg in a planes FMGC might be all well & good on paper for the bean counters but one storm, some holding by ATC (BN perfect Eg) a diversion as is the core subject here in this thread or even a request for speeding up can erase what small saving was going to be gained for that particular flight in the first place.
The single biggest problem to all this is safety & that as we known comes at a cost. Commercialism the very reason why we have transport planes in the first place is the overriding factor & the exact reason as to why these couple of A/C ended up in this situation is all based on cost.
The balance to safety & commercialism if bloody tenuous that's for sure!
To protect the man within the machine first the man has to be placed ahead of the machine, that won't happen as man costs, the machine produces money.
Solution?...............fill in the spaces knock yourselves out but for a start stupidly cheap airfares is where it all started I believe!
Wmk2
Trouble is to cut costs & lets face it every industry is cutting costs some by way of less employees or ceasing Ops (Ford in Geelong for Eg) there are only a few avenues for the bean counters to work with & that is the human element to the base costs of a product & a more efficient use of that product.
The human element is malleable by way of work place/product efficiencies producing more for the same effort/wages cost. We are constantly seeing how the bean counters are trying to make the machine work more efficiently.
Now right or wrong there is merit in some of this (as if there wasn't then no one would have a job) but as we all are saying here at what cost? Changing CI for Eg in a planes FMGC might be all well & good on paper for the bean counters but one storm, some holding by ATC (BN perfect Eg) a diversion as is the core subject here in this thread or even a request for speeding up can erase what small saving was going to be gained for that particular flight in the first place.
The single biggest problem to all this is safety & that as we known comes at a cost. Commercialism the very reason why we have transport planes in the first place is the overriding factor & the exact reason as to why these couple of A/C ended up in this situation is all based on cost.
The balance to safety & commercialism if bloody tenuous that's for sure!
To protect the man within the machine first the man has to be placed ahead of the machine, that won't happen as man costs, the machine produces money.
Solution?...............fill in the spaces knock yourselves out but for a start stupidly cheap airfares is where it all started I believe!
Wmk2
Or would suggest that Qantas just hasn't dobbed theirselves into the ATSB yet.
Carrying extra fuel is cheap insurance
Some decent infrastructure may be the only solution to this sort of problem
Last edited by neville_nobody; 20th Jun 2013 at 07:12.
Interesting topic
devils advocate on fuel
40kg ($40) extra burn on every flight times 500/ day ( no idea how many VA or QF do) time 365 = over 7 million dollars in extra fuel burn per year.
But if you need it you carry it!
devils advocate on fuel
40kg ($40) extra burn on every flight times 500/ day ( no idea how many VA or QF do) time 365 = over 7 million dollars in extra fuel burn per year.
But if you need it you carry it!
