JQ Diversion RAAF Tindal 17/12
I remember one night at Bankstown, the tower was unmanned and the single lit runway was blocked by a gear up landing. Luckily SYD was next door and the controllers were understanding of the inbound pilots position. Weather was good so no alternate was required.
Fred
Don't recall a 737. 337 perhaps?
While I was living in Darwin an RPT 737 landed on 36, (gear up blocking the main rwy), I don't know if it's the only time it has ever been done.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: world capital of the world
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yonks ago, TAA had a rather tight fuel policy under the fuel management hierarchy - amongst which was the then SRC.
Then, one day, said SRC was inbound to ASP in his 727 when a lightie did a gear-up landing on Rwy 12. Things got very interesting because he was adhering to the fuel policy he helped mandate and had bugger all options.
Later that evening in the bar in DRW I remember him asking the skipper I was flying with "what would you have done?". My skipper's response - "oh, you mean beyond having carried an alternate for a destination with a single runway - probably not much". The 727 skipper went very quiet.
Around the same time there was a photo of a RAF Harrier which, due to low fuel, landed on a Spanish fishing trawler in the North Sea. This got pinned to the notice board in the crew room titled "N******'s fuel policy". Said it all.
Interestingly, TAA's fuel policy underwent review and common sense (which aligned with the practice of most pilots anyway) finally prevailed. Guess where the pressure for the review came from?
p.s landed a DC-9 on 36 in DRW many a time. There you go, an age give-away.
Then, one day, said SRC was inbound to ASP in his 727 when a lightie did a gear-up landing on Rwy 12. Things got very interesting because he was adhering to the fuel policy he helped mandate and had bugger all options.
Later that evening in the bar in DRW I remember him asking the skipper I was flying with "what would you have done?". My skipper's response - "oh, you mean beyond having carried an alternate for a destination with a single runway - probably not much". The 727 skipper went very quiet.
Around the same time there was a photo of a RAF Harrier which, due to low fuel, landed on a Spanish fishing trawler in the North Sea. This got pinned to the notice board in the crew room titled "N******'s fuel policy". Said it all.
Interestingly, TAA's fuel policy underwent review and common sense (which aligned with the practice of most pilots anyway) finally prevailed. Guess where the pressure for the review came from?
p.s landed a DC-9 on 36 in DRW many a time. There you go, an age give-away.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can remember seeing a QF 737 landing RWY36 at Darwin, I think it was when the Hercules did a wheels up landing, and he didn't have fuel to go back to TN. Also during one of the exercises, 29 had a FA 18 drop it hydraulics all over it. We couldn't depart 36, but a Virgin 737 and a AN Emb 170 landed on 36.
Bottums Up
Fred
Quote:
While I was living in Darwin an RPT 737 landed on 36, (gear up blocking the main rwy), I don't know if it's the only time it has ever been done.
Don't recall a 737. 337 perhaps?
Quote:
While I was living in Darwin an RPT 737 landed on 36, (gear up blocking the main rwy), I don't know if it's the only time it has ever been done.
Don't recall a 737. 337 perhaps?
I think there's a "because of a" missing from Fred's comment about gear up.
Yeah sorry, To be clear, I don't remember what was blocking the rwy (definitely not a 737!)
An RPT 737 used 36 to land, it was barely newsworthy at the time (no photobombing crocs?) so I figured it must happen from time to time, it was the only one I saw over about 5 years.
An RPT 737 used 36 to land, it was barely newsworthy at the time (no photobombing crocs?) so I figured it must happen from time to time, it was the only one I saw over about 5 years.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot A always takes min fuel, even when operating to a single runway airport.
He/she is a management favourite, saving the company $100 every time they sign on because they will never re-fuel other than at a major port unless wx holding requires it, and then not a drop more.
Pilot B takes enough to arrive with min fuel at an alternate when flying to a single runway airport.
Pilot B is considered a profit waster.
5 years later after a lighty does a gear up when Pilot B is on short final, diverts and lands at suitable alternate with min fuel.
Hooray, Pilot B goes from a$$hole to hero in less than 24hrs - amazing stuff!
He/she is a management favourite, saving the company $100 every time they sign on because they will never re-fuel other than at a major port unless wx holding requires it, and then not a drop more.
Pilot B takes enough to arrive with min fuel at an alternate when flying to a single runway airport.
Pilot B is considered a profit waster.
5 years later after a lighty does a gear up when Pilot B is on short final, diverts and lands at suitable alternate with min fuel.
Hooray, Pilot B goes from a$$hole to hero in less than 24hrs - amazing stuff!
Funnily enough a thread has just started on Rumours and News about a B767 having to make an emergency landing on a 1600m airstrip due to his destination airport's runway being blocked.
http://www.pprune.org/african-aviati...ds-arusha.html
http://www.pprune.org/african-aviati...ds-arusha.html
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Pilot A always takes min fuel, even when operating to a single runway airport.
He/she is a management favourite, saving the company $100 every time they sign on because they will never re-fuel other than at a major port unless wx holding requires it, and then not a drop more.
Pilot B takes enough to arrive with min fuel at an alternate when flying to a single runway airport.
Pilot B is considered a profit waster.
5 years later after a lighty does a gear up when Pilot B is on short final, diverts and lands at suitable alternate with min fuel.
Hooray, Pilot B goes from a$$hole to hero in less than 24hrs - amazing stuff!
He/she is a management favourite, saving the company $100 every time they sign on because they will never re-fuel other than at a major port unless wx holding requires it, and then not a drop more.
Pilot B takes enough to arrive with min fuel at an alternate when flying to a single runway airport.
Pilot B is considered a profit waster.
5 years later after a lighty does a gear up when Pilot B is on short final, diverts and lands at suitable alternate with min fuel.
Hooray, Pilot B goes from a$$hole to hero in less than 24hrs - amazing stuff!
Pilot B goes home satisfied he did a good job once again and nobody notices.
The problem is companies measure all the negatives, but they never measure all the times where the circumstances were against them but clever crew decisions saved them from a huge expense.
That is not a measurable item.
Sadly……..I bet many can think of when they have done so and not been thanked.
Funny how those regular posters who previously dismissed this scenario as "the old single runway chestnut" are conspicuous in their absence.....
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
My age will show.
Landed DC-3, F-27, F-28 on 36 under normal operations.
Before all those new buildings were put on the North side of the Airport.
"one of these days" someone will get really caught out, get hurt and the "rules will change".
Looong ago an F-28 blew at least 2 tyres at Perth, came to rest at the intersection of 06/24 and 20/02, yes 20/02 when we were not lisdexic, fortunately 11/29 was still operational.
However Qaintas had to cancel due crew hours etc etc.
Perth is a so called "single runway" but who in Australian operations considers that bit?????
Retirement is good fun.
Landed DC-3, F-27, F-28 on 36 under normal operations.
Before all those new buildings were put on the North side of the Airport.
"one of these days" someone will get really caught out, get hurt and the "rules will change".
Looong ago an F-28 blew at least 2 tyres at Perth, came to rest at the intersection of 06/24 and 20/02, yes 20/02 when we were not lisdexic, fortunately 11/29 was still operational.
However Qaintas had to cancel due crew hours etc etc.
Perth is a so called "single runway" but who in Australian operations considers that bit?????
Retirement is good fun.
Bottums Up
A cursory perusal of the ACN Charts in the Jeppesen Airways Manual indicates that the only common RPT type jets that could routinely use 18/36 at Darwin without a pavement concession would be the Embraer Jungle Jets, F100/28 and BAe146 family.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probabilities............
Interesting how much time we spend briefing/planning/training for EFATO and the recovery, with much stern discussion of the myriad scenarios. In general there seems to be a consensus of opinion. Yet, when it comes to the sensibility (to me anyhow) of carrying an alternate when the destination is a single runway, opinions suddenly diverge to polar opposites.
I find it intriguing, that over the last 20 years of my airline career - I have had, dare I say it, no engine failures(knock wood).
However, just in the last 3 years(jet ops) I have had at least 6 diversions from single runway airports. In only one case was it weather related - excessive unforecast xw/TURB and too many in the queue behind. The others were all related to ground based problems resulting in the runway becoming unavailable.
In all cases I elected to carry sufficient fuel above the company policy to provide for an alternate - thankfully.
Diversions seem to be more frequently discussed within these forums than engine failures........
I find it intriguing, that over the last 20 years of my airline career - I have had, dare I say it, no engine failures(knock wood).
However, just in the last 3 years(jet ops) I have had at least 6 diversions from single runway airports. In only one case was it weather related - excessive unforecast xw/TURB and too many in the queue behind. The others were all related to ground based problems resulting in the runway becoming unavailable.
In all cases I elected to carry sufficient fuel above the company policy to provide for an alternate - thankfully.
Diversions seem to be more frequently discussed within these forums than engine failures........
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learned about this for the first time when I read the EU-Ops alternate requirements.
Among them: (paraphrasing)
Always have diversion fuel unless... the destination has at least two useable runway strips. If runways intersect, assume blockage is on the intersection for purpose of calculating LDA on remaining runway.
After that I started thinking about this topic when planning, even in Australasia.
Among them: (paraphrasing)
Always have diversion fuel unless... the destination has at least two useable runway strips. If runways intersect, assume blockage is on the intersection for purpose of calculating LDA on remaining runway.
After that I started thinking about this topic when planning, even in Australasia.
I have landed a 737 on RW 36 at Darwin.
The situation was as follows -
Inbound from Brisbane at top of descent we were advised of a disabled aircraft on the main runway at Darwin. From memory it was a Pearl Aviation Kingair or such sized aircraft and it had a main gear failure on one side. It was located half way along the runway. ATC advised us that they were 'trying to locate a crane from in town' to move the aircraft but gave us no time frame for this operation. We entered a holding pattern at top of descent.
our options were -
1. Divert to Tindal.
2. Land on RW 36 at DRW.
3. Land on half of main runway at DRW.
Tindal was ruled out because although we had the fuel to get there, our ETA fell into a Tempo period of thunderstorms and we did not have Tempo fuel.
Landing on an available half of the main runway was not approved by ATC even though we requested it twice. The available surface left was still longer than the total length of runway 36.
We did the numbers for 36 and they were tight but not impossible. Runway 36 had no approach lighting (PAPI/TVASIS) or instrument approach guidance etc.
Our decision was to leave the hold at the latest possible time, planning to land on 36, with the option of joining a left base for runway 11 if it could be cleared in time.
The main runway remained blocked and we landed on runway 36.
With the assistance of a very capable First Officer, this came off without a hitch. The aircraft pulled up easily (about 1000m) and we were able to turn off runway 36 straight onto the main runway and taxi into the terminal. After refuelling, and when the runway had finally been cleared, we continued on the next sector to Perth.
In the back of my mind, if on late final runway 36 looked too unsafe, I would have gone around, re-positioned for the main runway and landed on half of it. Whether it was approved or not was inconsequential. That is what I am paid for.
Of course, there was also the possibility of landing on the long taxiway at Darwin, but it is quite thin and rough.
My personal fuel policy is to 'add a bit'. There have been a couple of occasions like the above where I've been glad for the extra thinking time.
The situation was as follows -
Inbound from Brisbane at top of descent we were advised of a disabled aircraft on the main runway at Darwin. From memory it was a Pearl Aviation Kingair or such sized aircraft and it had a main gear failure on one side. It was located half way along the runway. ATC advised us that they were 'trying to locate a crane from in town' to move the aircraft but gave us no time frame for this operation. We entered a holding pattern at top of descent.
our options were -
1. Divert to Tindal.
2. Land on RW 36 at DRW.
3. Land on half of main runway at DRW.
Tindal was ruled out because although we had the fuel to get there, our ETA fell into a Tempo period of thunderstorms and we did not have Tempo fuel.
Landing on an available half of the main runway was not approved by ATC even though we requested it twice. The available surface left was still longer than the total length of runway 36.
We did the numbers for 36 and they were tight but not impossible. Runway 36 had no approach lighting (PAPI/TVASIS) or instrument approach guidance etc.
Our decision was to leave the hold at the latest possible time, planning to land on 36, with the option of joining a left base for runway 11 if it could be cleared in time.
The main runway remained blocked and we landed on runway 36.
With the assistance of a very capable First Officer, this came off without a hitch. The aircraft pulled up easily (about 1000m) and we were able to turn off runway 36 straight onto the main runway and taxi into the terminal. After refuelling, and when the runway had finally been cleared, we continued on the next sector to Perth.
In the back of my mind, if on late final runway 36 looked too unsafe, I would have gone around, re-positioned for the main runway and landed on half of it. Whether it was approved or not was inconsequential. That is what I am paid for.
Of course, there was also the possibility of landing on the long taxiway at Darwin, but it is quite thin and rough.
My personal fuel policy is to 'add a bit'. There have been a couple of occasions like the above where I've been glad for the extra thinking time.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been a couple of occasions like the above where I've been glad for the extra thinking time.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Somewhere in the ether between life and death
Age: 65
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Common sense = survival
Great to see that wise heads are showing the way for the in-experienced. The CARs mandate that the PIC will carry enough fuel! You will never want to be in a court-room facing a be-wigged tw@t asking why you didn't carry enough, nor, as F/O, why you didn't question the calcs, or refuse to fly.
I recall there has been two flight crews prosecuted for manslaughter in this vicinity over the last ten years. The law supports you to be conservative and safe, why do anything different?
PS well done to the diverting crew!
I recall there has been two flight crews prosecuted for manslaughter in this vicinity over the last ten years. The law supports you to be conservative and safe, why do anything different?
PS well done to the diverting crew!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know it is a Mil aircraft but a British C-17 made a short landing
on a runway blocked by a disabled 747 in South Sudan.
(a civilian 737 airliner had slewed to a halt 2 thirds of the way down the runway after its nose wheel collapsed. )
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...om-south-sudan
on a runway blocked by a disabled 747 in South Sudan.
(a civilian 737 airliner had slewed to a halt 2 thirds of the way down the runway after its nose wheel collapsed. )
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...om-south-sudan