Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
our company fuel policy approved by CASA
16.5 Inflight Fuel Requirements
16.5.1 Minimum Mandatory Requirements - All Engine operating
Dot point 7...
(an Alternate Airport, following an approach and missed approach at the destination, if the destination requires an alternate.)
Pretty clear to me, if wx at destination drops below alternate requirements inflight, you need to either ensure you have an alternate following missed approach at destination or re-plan to new destination at the point when advised of wx below alternate requirements. If this is not available a decision would be made to proceed to the safest airport option and file the subsequent incident report.
Interesting what Shot Nancy mentions about there companies inflight fuel policy. Shot what is the wording used in the (Minimum Inflight Fuel Requirements) of your company manual?
Rgs
16.5 Inflight Fuel Requirements
16.5.1 Minimum Mandatory Requirements - All Engine operating
Dot point 7...
(an Alternate Airport, following an approach and missed approach at the destination, if the destination requires an alternate.)
Pretty clear to me, if wx at destination drops below alternate requirements inflight, you need to either ensure you have an alternate following missed approach at destination or re-plan to new destination at the point when advised of wx below alternate requirements. If this is not available a decision would be made to proceed to the safest airport option and file the subsequent incident report.
Interesting what Shot Nancy mentions about there companies inflight fuel policy. Shot what is the wording used in the (Minimum Inflight Fuel Requirements) of your company manual?
Rgs
Dear mangatete et al,
My companies SOPs regarding fuel requirements are quite extensive and the use of landing minima once airborne is only one factor.
I don’t want to denigrate any of the crews involved but I think there is a lot to discuss here.
Especially with regard to:
Reliability, accuracy and therefore use of TAFs, TTFs and auto METARs,
Company alternate requirements,
Single runway destinations,
CATI destinations,
CATIII ops requiring an alternate and
Company requirement to source most current weather.
My companies SOPs regarding fuel requirements are quite extensive and the use of landing minima once airborne is only one factor.
I don’t want to denigrate any of the crews involved but I think there is a lot to discuss here.
Especially with regard to:
Reliability, accuracy and therefore use of TAFs, TTFs and auto METARs,
Company alternate requirements,
Single runway destinations,
CATI destinations,
CATIII ops requiring an alternate and
Company requirement to source most current weather.
A Qantas passenger jet landed at Sydney airport in heavy fog because a weather update had not been sent through to its crew, an official report has found.
The report found the Airbus A330 ultimately landed after its flight from
Perth in conditions below the minimum specified by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
An Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigation into the incident, which occurred on April 6 last year, found the Airbus aircraft landed in fog at Sydney airport because the adverse weather conditions were unforecast.
"The flight crew continued to manoeuvre the aircraft for a landing at
Sydney past the time they had previously nominated as the latest time for a diversion to Canberra," the ATSB report found.
It said that, since the occurrence, safety action had been taken by the air
traffic services provider and the Bureau of Meteorology to improve the reporting of weather information to flight crews and to improve the accuracy of fog forecasting at Sydney airport.
The report found the Airbus A330 ultimately landed after its flight from
Perth in conditions below the minimum specified by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
An Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigation into the incident, which occurred on April 6 last year, found the Airbus aircraft landed in fog at Sydney airport because the adverse weather conditions were unforecast.
"The flight crew continued to manoeuvre the aircraft for a landing at
Sydney past the time they had previously nominated as the latest time for a diversion to Canberra," the ATSB report found.
It said that, since the occurrence, safety action had been taken by the air
traffic services provider and the Bureau of Meteorology to improve the reporting of weather information to flight crews and to improve the accuracy of fog forecasting at Sydney airport.
Last edited by Lookleft; 10th Jul 2013 at 00:31.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard a conversation one morning last year between ATC and a jet tracking to an airport with deteriorating weather. The ATCO asked the jet pilot if they had the latest weather (TAF & TTF), to which they replied 'no'. Later the pilot asked ATC why the weather hadn't been provided to them earlier. The reply was along the lines of "after 1 hour from departure, our policy is it becomes your company's responsibility to update the crew with forecasts".
Is this really policy at AsA? No saying it was a contributing factor in this incident, but could be in the future if something similar happens.
Is this really policy at AsA? No saying it was a contributing factor in this incident, but could be in the future if something similar happens.
Ando1bar - not one hour after dep. If you are within 1 hour you get it, otherwise it is company or pilot responsibility - ever since ops control closed down 15 or so years ago. ASA policy is per AIP. ATC continue to be amazed at the number of pilots and companies that don't understand it.
AIP GEN 3.3-3 para 2.1.1
Pilots are responsible for obtaining information necessary to make operational decisions. To ensure that accurate information is obtained in adequate time, pilots must take into consideration that ATC initiated FIS is limited to aircraft within one hours flight time of the condition or destination at time of receipt of the information by ATC.
AIP GEN 3.3-3 para 2.1.1
Pilots are responsible for obtaining information necessary to make operational decisions. To ensure that accurate information is obtained in adequate time, pilots must take into consideration that ATC initiated FIS is limited to aircraft within one hours flight time of the condition or destination at time of receipt of the information by ATC.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: in a suitcase
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't been on this site for years now retired and don't miss the BS.
Reading your posts re the B737 into MIA I can't get over the fact that CASA still has it's head up it's large rear aperture why on earth this country doesn't have Cat 3 a,b and c facility is beyond me - fog is no a problem then.
Q. Why in a B737NG (I guess) would you head of to an airport without a precision approach, the a/c is capable just shoot the approach at ADL and be done with and tell CASA to go screw themselves and catch up with the rest of the world.
Having worked for years in Europe with Cat 3C approval flying in extreme conditions became a normal days work during winter.
I believe this is the only 3rd World Country you can drink the water
Reading your posts re the B737 into MIA I can't get over the fact that CASA still has it's head up it's large rear aperture why on earth this country doesn't have Cat 3 a,b and c facility is beyond me - fog is no a problem then.
Q. Why in a B737NG (I guess) would you head of to an airport without a precision approach, the a/c is capable just shoot the approach at ADL and be done with and tell CASA to go screw themselves and catch up with the rest of the world.
Having worked for years in Europe with Cat 3C approval flying in extreme conditions became a normal days work during winter.
I believe this is the only 3rd World Country you can drink the water
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having worked for years in Europe with Cat 3C approval flying in extreme conditions became a normal days work during winter.
...If you are within 1 hour you get it, otherwise it is company or pilot responsibility - ever since ops control closed down 15 or so years ago. ASA policy is per AIP. ATC continue to be amazed at the number of pilots and companies that don't understand it....
Yet the fundamental stuff still isn't understood at ATPL/airline level.
Australian passengers are very lucky that the benign weather and topography helps to mitigate the risks caused by the third world aviation infrastructure and the confusion and ignorance that results from the amount of regulatory chaff smothering the safety wheat.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 369
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operational Control
Operational Control ceased on the 10th of January 1991.
The 1991 March/April Australian Flying contained a good 12 page article about Sydney's Air Traffic Control and the plans for future Air Traffic Control in Australia. There is a few paragraphs about the loss of face to face briefing services and operational control with a quote from a Senior Ops Controller which I think fits this thread.
He says "while most pilots and many ops controllers acknowledge the fact the service is outdated and largely unnecessary, commercial pressures may force pilots to make unsafe decisions.
It's an economic rationalisation, a pilot can do his own operational control if he has all the information; however we are in a better position to access the information without the burden of commercial pressure"
Note:I'm not saying the crews of these aircraft made an unsafe decision.
The 1991 March/April Australian Flying contained a good 12 page article about Sydney's Air Traffic Control and the plans for future Air Traffic Control in Australia. There is a few paragraphs about the loss of face to face briefing services and operational control with a quote from a Senior Ops Controller which I think fits this thread.
He says "while most pilots and many ops controllers acknowledge the fact the service is outdated and largely unnecessary, commercial pressures may force pilots to make unsafe decisions.
It's an economic rationalisation, a pilot can do his own operational control if he has all the information; however we are in a better position to access the information without the burden of commercial pressure"
Note:I'm not saying the crews of these aircraft made an unsafe decision.
efff me....22 pages of (Australian narrow minded BS) with lots of if's and but's...please keep it simple...
IF there was no fog on the ADL TAF the crew used for their fuel decision and IF the fog rolled in after dispatch and IF ADL had full CAT3B the only excitement of the day would have been a beautiful autoland and maybe a loooong taxi to find the gate "Delhi style"...that's it.
Please keep in mind that after dispatch you only require to show landing minima at your destination (and CAT3 minima can be applied - the minima is irrelevant at the alternate after dispatch).
At my home port (HKG) we got CAT3 and we haven't had any fog in 3 years or so - so frequency of weather or lack of doesn't justify not installing the appropriate equipment.
IF there was no fog on the ADL TAF the crew used for their fuel decision and IF the fog rolled in after dispatch and IF ADL had full CAT3B the only excitement of the day would have been a beautiful autoland and maybe a loooong taxi to find the gate "Delhi style"...that's it.
Please keep in mind that after dispatch you only require to show landing minima at your destination (and CAT3 minima can be applied - the minima is irrelevant at the alternate after dispatch).
At my home port (HKG) we got CAT3 and we haven't had any fog in 3 years or so - so frequency of weather or lack of doesn't justify not installing the appropriate equipment.
Please keep in mind that after dispatch you only require to show landing minima at your destination (and CAT3 minima can be applied - the minima is irrelevant at the alternate after dispatch)
Quote:
Please keep in mind that after dispatch you only require to show landing minima at your destination (and CAT3 minima can be applied - the minima is irrelevant at the alternate after dispatch)
Please keep in mind that after dispatch you only require to show landing minima at your destination (and CAT3 minima can be applied - the minima is irrelevant at the alternate after dispatch)
Alternate criteria applies at the destination preflight and inflight - typically 400'/1600m at an airport with multiple precision approaches. If you hit your PSD - called DPA - and the weather at destination is below alternate criteria, you go to your suitable alternate.
If it deteriorates after DPA, you continue, couple it up and fill out the paperwork.
So, in summary, the QF aircraft was legally required to divert. They diverted and the weather at the alternate deteriorated with unforecast fog after they diverted.
I don't know Virgin's fuel policy and won't comment on their circumstances.
Last edited by DirectAnywhere; 10th Jul 2013 at 11:45.
Cpt F,
If your destination is showing on minima you continue, no?
DA,
What are DPA and PSD???
Ok...every company has their own fuel policy but to keep 400ft/1600m even after dispatch doesn't make sense if you got CAT3 facilities on the ground at your destination...common sense dictates that if the skipper can reasonably assure a successful landing you continue.
In other words you are saying that if LHR was showing OVC001/RVR 150m all zones abeam FRA you would divert?
Maybe it's getting a bit late with some work induced jetlag...
If your destination is showing on minima you continue, no?
DA,
What are DPA and PSD???
Ok...every company has their own fuel policy but to keep 400ft/1600m even after dispatch doesn't make sense if you got CAT3 facilities on the ground at your destination...common sense dictates that if the skipper can reasonably assure a successful landing you continue.
In other words you are saying that if LHR was showing OVC001/RVR 150m all zones abeam FRA you would divert?
Maybe it's getting a bit late with some work induced jetlag...
Last edited by AQIS Boigu; 10th Jul 2013 at 13:50.
...and the alternate criteria are based on the same criteria as those as dispatch. We don't dispatch and suddenly ILS minima become the alternate criteria.
Without getting into specifics, if the weather at destination deteriorates below alternate criteria - which is the same inflight as at dispatch (ILS landing minima is irrelevant) - and you don't have fuel at your DPA (decision point - all engines) or PSD (last point of safe diversion or PNR), to proceed to destination, fly an approach and divert to an alternate which is forecast to be above alternate criteria, you divert to an enroute alternate, such as MIA in this case.
Again, without wishing to provide a flight planning lecture, DPA is a point provided preflight which dispatch determines as the last WAYPOINT where a flight may divert to a suitable alternate and land with all reserves intact. Flight crew may further refine that inflight to a slightly later - or possibly earlier - position considering the actual fuel on board to achieve the same end. This is essentially a PNR or PSD depending on the lingo you choose to use.
AQIS, in your example, if you don't have fuel for Gatwick or Manchester or Stansted etc. - which must be forecast above alternate criteria - then you would divert enroute from your DPA or before to Frankfurt or Amsterdam or something similar. The fact destination has CAT3 and conditions are CAT1 is irrelevant in the decision making process unless you have an an alternate from destination.
I thought the policy was pretty simple and sensible. But clearly not.
As I said earlier, I'd love to see CAT3 ILS at all capital city airports in this country. However, its availability at Adelaide wouldn't have changed the outcome for the QF flight in this instance as they would still have been legally required to divert.
Without getting into specifics, if the weather at destination deteriorates below alternate criteria - which is the same inflight as at dispatch (ILS landing minima is irrelevant) - and you don't have fuel at your DPA (decision point - all engines) or PSD (last point of safe diversion or PNR), to proceed to destination, fly an approach and divert to an alternate which is forecast to be above alternate criteria, you divert to an enroute alternate, such as MIA in this case.
Again, without wishing to provide a flight planning lecture, DPA is a point provided preflight which dispatch determines as the last WAYPOINT where a flight may divert to a suitable alternate and land with all reserves intact. Flight crew may further refine that inflight to a slightly later - or possibly earlier - position considering the actual fuel on board to achieve the same end. This is essentially a PNR or PSD depending on the lingo you choose to use.
AQIS, in your example, if you don't have fuel for Gatwick or Manchester or Stansted etc. - which must be forecast above alternate criteria - then you would divert enroute from your DPA or before to Frankfurt or Amsterdam or something similar. The fact destination has CAT3 and conditions are CAT1 is irrelevant in the decision making process unless you have an an alternate from destination.
I thought the policy was pretty simple and sensible. But clearly not.
As I said earlier, I'd love to see CAT3 ILS at all capital city airports in this country. However, its availability at Adelaide wouldn't have changed the outcome for the QF flight in this instance as they would still have been legally required to divert.
Last edited by DirectAnywhere; 10th Jul 2013 at 21:35.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are within 1 hour you get it, otherwise it is company or pilot
responsibility - ever since ops control closed down 15 or so years ago. ASA
policy is per AIP. ATC continue to be amazed at the number of pilots and
companies that don't understand it....
responsibility - ever since ops control closed down 15 or so years ago. ASA
policy is per AIP. ATC continue to be amazed at the number of pilots and
companies that don't understand it....
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand how 'just coupl(ing) it up' and landing on an unprotected Cat 1 ILS below mins is a suitable and commonly accepted practice and flying away from an ILS to a non-precision environment in the back blocks because you have a 400' ceiling. There is no ceiling in fog (usually) but there might be a couple of thousand metres of vis or RVR. This isn't the approach taken in the rest of the world. I also don't understand how, once dispatched, you can be required to hold a 'legal' alternate airborne. If you plan to an airfield that is above alt mins that goes below mins once airborne and you cannot hold an alternate you're illegal. You can't make fuel in this curious double jeopardy situation.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve, I just know I shouldn't do this, but you don't actually believe that **** do you? If you must know, VA diverted first. So there goes your theory right there. I won't go into why they landed first, as that will come out in the investigation. The fog was already in when both a/c landed. Don't believe everything you hear.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ernest I'm with you, to divert to an alternate and land with less fuel than you would at your destination because of ceiling alone is questionable. If the RVR/VIZ is adequate who cares about ceiling unless you are on a visual or circle?
