Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 36
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing
No Cookies | Herald Sun
How is this considered news worthy? A plane making a diversion due weather is standard. The article states the aircraft was low on fuel but I would be willing to bet they landed with all necessary reserves intact. Also commenting that 'no passengers appeared to be injured' just shows what is wrong with journalism today.
Anything for a story I guess.
How is this considered news worthy? A plane making a diversion due weather is standard. The article states the aircraft was low on fuel but I would be willing to bet they landed with all necessary reserves intact. Also commenting that 'no passengers appeared to be injured' just shows what is wrong with journalism today.
Anything for a story I guess.
There is an additional article in the Australian.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
The article is confusing as it states the flight was destined for Melbourne but then goes on to say 'the 737 flight to Adelaide'.
However, it also states the flight diverted to Mildura and made two missed approaches there due to unforecast fog at Mildura followed by a landing. If that is the case, with the caveat that the media has got such things wrong before, then this incident is definitely newsworthy and potentially very serious.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
The article is confusing as it states the flight was destined for Melbourne but then goes on to say 'the 737 flight to Adelaide'.
However, it also states the flight diverted to Mildura and made two missed approaches there due to unforecast fog at Mildura followed by a landing. If that is the case, with the caveat that the media has got such things wrong before, then this incident is definitely newsworthy and potentially very serious.
Should Virgin change its fuel policy?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wiki lists Mildura airport runways as :
09/27 1,830 6,004 Asphalt
18/36 1,139 3,737 Asphalt
I thought a 60t 737 (heavily loaded) in dry conditions needs about 1,710metres... interesting landing for the passengers (and crew?)??
09/27 1,830 6,004 Asphalt
18/36 1,139 3,737 Asphalt
I thought a 60t 737 (heavily loaded) in dry conditions needs about 1,710metres... interesting landing for the passengers (and crew?)??
When you live....
The ABC reported it at lunchtime as:
- two flights diverted from ADL due to fog (one QF and one VA)
- they implied that there was then fog at YMIA when the diversions arrived and both held (presumably this fog was unforecast)
- VA then landed below the minima (my interpretation) - presumably because they didn't have the fuel to go anywhere else.
UTR
- two flights diverted from ADL due to fog (one QF and one VA)
- they implied that there was then fog at YMIA when the diversions arrived and both held (presumably this fog was unforecast)
- VA then landed below the minima (my interpretation) - presumably because they didn't have the fuel to go anywhere else.
UTR
Interesting
MIA had Prob fog all night. When I was driving out of AD the airport this morning at around 7am there was fog on Sir Donald Bradman drive moving towards the airport and nothing on the TAF all night except an ATIS stating fog patches in area about midnight, then this gem shows up.
TAF AMD YPAD 172100Z 1721/1824 05005KT 9999 FEW025 FM180000 VRB05KT
9999 FEW030 SCT045 FM181000 VRB05KT CAVOK
PROB30 1721/1724 0500 FG RMK
No mention of fog on the previous TAF.
Broadly, has anyone else noticed it's already been a big year for fog?
j3
P.S. sorry for being 'that guy' who posted the Taf thought it was relevant.
MIA had Prob fog all night. When I was driving out of AD the airport this morning at around 7am there was fog on Sir Donald Bradman drive moving towards the airport and nothing on the TAF all night except an ATIS stating fog patches in area about midnight, then this gem shows up.
TAF AMD YPAD 172100Z 1721/1824 05005KT 9999 FEW025 FM180000 VRB05KT
9999 FEW030 SCT045 FM181000 VRB05KT CAVOK
PROB30 1721/1724 0500 FG RMK
No mention of fog on the previous TAF.
Broadly, has anyone else noticed it's already been a big year for fog?
j3
P.S. sorry for being 'that guy' who posted the Taf
thought it was relevant.
Last edited by j3pipercub; 18th Jun 2013 at 04:30.
at the time the news radio stated that the aircraft was safely on the ground the latest AUTO SPECI for MIA showed 700mFG OVC001
Last edited by bloated goat; 18th Jun 2013 at 04:33.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll tell you exactly what happened.
The aircraft was scheduled from Brisbane to Adelaide but due to bad weather couldn't land in Adelaide so diverted towards Melbourne but did not have enough fuel thus it landed at Mildura below the safe weather minima. A failure at two levels.
One might suggest that this would be due to Virgins new fuel policy that was implemented to save fuel and thus cash...
Someone might lose their job over this. Rumour has it that the crew came close to ditching it in a paddock.
The aircraft was scheduled from Brisbane to Adelaide but due to bad weather couldn't land in Adelaide so diverted towards Melbourne but did not have enough fuel thus it landed at Mildura below the safe weather minima. A failure at two levels.
One might suggest that this would be due to Virgins new fuel policy that was implemented to save fuel and thus cash...
Someone might lose their job over this. Rumour has it that the crew came close to ditching it in a paddock.
Originally Posted by VH-XXX
I'll tell you exactly what happened.
The aircraft was scheduled from Brisbane to Adelaide but due to bad weather couldn't land in Adelaide so diverted towards Melbourne but did not have enough fuel thus it landed at Mildura below the safe weather minima. A failure at two levels.
One might suggest that this would be due to Virgins new fuel policy that was implemented to save fuel and thus cash...
Someone might lose their job over this. Rumour has it that the crew came close to ditching it in a paddock.
The aircraft was scheduled from Brisbane to Adelaide but due to bad weather couldn't land in Adelaide so diverted towards Melbourne but did not have enough fuel thus it landed at Mildura below the safe weather minima. A failure at two levels.
One might suggest that this would be due to Virgins new fuel policy that was implemented to save fuel and thus cash...
Someone might lose their job over this. Rumour has it that the crew came close to ditching it in a paddock.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chookcooker - preferably with the wheels up!
If you realised at first that you didn't have enough fuel to get to Melbourne, you wouldn't try and make it would you? Perhaps that answers your query maggot.
Part 2 of that: If you were going to go below minimums, would you do it at Adelaide or Mildura. We know the obvious answer to that but we won't know what happened until the conditions can be compared. Hindsight is a great thing.
Part 3 - did the aircraft not have enough fuel to get from Mildura to Adelaide....?
If you realised at first that you didn't have enough fuel to get to Melbourne, you wouldn't try and make it would you? Perhaps that answers your query maggot.
Part 2 of that: If you were going to go below minimums, would you do it at Adelaide or Mildura. We know the obvious answer to that but we won't know what happened until the conditions can be compared. Hindsight is a great thing.
Part 3 - did the aircraft not have enough fuel to get from Mildura to Adelaide....?
#1. No. End of story. 
When you live....
So to sumarise:
- unforecast fog at ADL
- diverted to MIA which had prob fog
- arrived MIA to actual fog
- no fuel to go anywhere else
Sounds legal (cue reference to 'worlds best practice' and QF fuel policy- but from these facts QF could have been in the same position). The mess was that they went to MIA.
Are there any other 737 airfields they could have gone to within the same range (Edinburgh but presumably it was fogged in also) that didn't have a fog forecast? Port Lincoln? Mount Gambier? (I have no idea if these can take 737s)
Did they know about the prob fog at MIA when they diverted - FlightAware shows pretty much an immediate 180 degree turn and dash for MIA - so either they didn't know or they did know and had no other choice but to hope that prob 30 didn't eventuate?
- unforecast fog at ADL
- diverted to MIA which had prob fog
- arrived MIA to actual fog
- no fuel to go anywhere else
Sounds legal (cue reference to 'worlds best practice' and QF fuel policy- but from these facts QF could have been in the same position). The mess was that they went to MIA.
Are there any other 737 airfields they could have gone to within the same range (Edinburgh but presumably it was fogged in also) that didn't have a fog forecast? Port Lincoln? Mount Gambier? (I have no idea if these can take 737s)
Did they know about the prob fog at MIA when they diverted - FlightAware shows pretty much an immediate 180 degree turn and dash for MIA - so either they didn't know or they did know and had no other choice but to hope that prob 30 didn't eventuate?
So a BNE-ADL flight, on receiving news of fog in ADL, didn't have enough fuel in the tanks to turn slightly left to MEL, where the weather was suitable, 2 runways with ILS, autoland, company personel etc etc, and land with LEGAL minimums?? Forget company policy, what captains own fuel policy would allow himself to be backed into a corner like this?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess you have been out of the business for a while Moe, or have led a sheltered life if you have not heard the term 'the min fuel brigade'!
This is not a comment on the MIA incident as facts are scarce at this stage.
This is not a comment on the MIA incident as facts are scarce at this stage.
Last edited by Spotlight; 18th Jun 2013 at 06:24. Reason: Disclaimer