3 years later The Mildura report

[BuzzBox]

Er, no it wasn't. If I'm not mistaken, the 1800/1812 TAF showed SCT cloud, but the aircraft's ETAs for Mildura were 2332Z and 2342Z. The 1718/1812 TAF that was valid for the ETAs read "TEMPO 1719/1724 BKN006".

[neville_nobody]

Check out page 65 of the report.

TAF YMIA 172302Z 1800/1812
20008KT 9999 SCT030 SCT050
RMK
T 08 12 13 10 Q 1020 1019 1019 1020

It went bad when they were enroute.

[framer]

Neville Nobody

As far as I read it, at the time the decision was made and the information available to them diversion was the only option.

I probably didn't write it very clearly but I agree with you. I was trying to point out that the options they had were A) do something illegal or B) divert to a suitable airport.

[BuzzBox]

neville_nobody:

Yes, but that TAF was only valid from 18/0000Z. The aircraft arrived at Mildura at 17/2332Z and 17/2342Z respectively, so they had to use the earlier TAF. That earlier TAF had a TEMPO period for low cloud below the alternate minima between 1900Z and 2400Z. See page 62 of the report.

[Icarus2001]

The AIP makes no distinction between "pre-flight" and "in-flight", so you still need to comply if the weather forecast deteriorates after you get airborne.

There is a legal grey area here. Has it been tested in court?

[BuzzBox]

I have no idea, but CASA doesn't seem to think it's a 'grey area'. From the ATSB report:

"CASA clarified that there was no ‘strategic difference between an in-flight scenario and a pre-flight plan’ in relation to the use of forecasts.

In relation to the use of observation reports for in-flight planning, CASA noted that ‘weather observations are not a legal instrument to determine if an alternate should be held or for fuel planning, unless the observation has a trend appended to it (eg TTF…)…’."

[CurtainTwitcher]

Icarus, there is an even more difficult scenario where you hold enroute first due to weather at the field, does this time count towards the INTER/TEMPO period? ie where is the actual INTER/TEMPO holding required? For example, I've held at TOJAM for 40 minutes, then CG for another 30min, then proceeded to BNE, which still had TEMPO requirements.
Have I satisfied my TEMPO holding requirement? Do I still need the additional holding fuel in the BNE terminal area? Its not clear to me.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Iccy

There is a legal grey area here.

I'm surprised you'd ask such a question. What's logical, safety-wise? Say even on a short sector, you depart for a place that has an Inter; you're not carrying a "proper" Alternate but have your 30 minutes, just. Half way there, the forecast goes to Fog (or Tempo 95TS). Logic surely says you now do not have the required fuel, and you must go somewhere else to top up (if you can). If you can't, then obviously press-on and become a Mildura statistic, hopefully with a satisfactory outcome, although you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in court if you could have diverted but didn't.

Curtain Twitcher, I would say if the forecast says Tempo, that's what is needed for the weather, nothing more. If you were the only aircraft in the sky, then the extra holding you required constitutes a f-up on BoM's part. If you were being held up by numerous other aircraft, then ATC has stuffed up because they didn't correctly predict the traffic holding.

It's about time the "system" started taking responsibility for the issues brought to light after this almighty stuffup. What would have been the consequences had the DJ 737 landed in the drain, or worse, on the tarmac??

[BPA]

Squwak7700, your first hand information is not that good. A replacement crew was flown up from MEL, with the engineer and replacement FDR due to the ATSB requiring FDR on the aircraft.

Once they FDR was replaced the aircraft flown back to BNE that afternoon.

[Capt Fathom]

I was advised first hand that the aircraft suffered damage to the fuel system / pumps to the point that spare parts and a tech crew were flown out to repair it before it could go anywhere. Apparently fuel exhaustion in the pumps will cause this...

Did it say somewhere in the ATSB report the aircraft experienced fuel exhaustion?
If fuel exhaustion damages the fuel system, how do aircraft with multiple fuel tanks get by when they run tanks down. In fact, doesn't the 737 have an auxiliary tank?

[Keg]

I've held at TOJAM for 40 minutes, then CG for another 30min, then proceeded to BNE, which still had TEMPO requirements.

It depends on why you were holding. I reckon the TOJAM hold isn't part of it but the CG hold may be depending on whether there is a TS at the field causing aircraft to hold or too many aircraft for the airspace. if it's the latter then you still need the 60 min for mine.

[BuzzBox]

It could also be argued that the INTER/TEMPO holding fuel requirements are only intended to cater for inaccuracies in the weather forecast. They provide some protection in case the weather is worse than forecast and ends up below landing minima, preventing the aircraft from landing. In that light, the enroute holding has no bearing on the destination holding requirement. The INTER/TEMPO holding fuel should therefore be available until the aircraft is close to the destination and likely to land within the 30/60 minute period.

Some interesting reading:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/32921/b20040246.pdf

[*Lancer*]

At what point specifically is TEMPO fuel no longer required?

If your fuel policy requires 60 min at 1500' over the airport, then after holding for 60 mins at any point prior to the FAF you will fail to meet that requirement.

So where is the cutoff? When can you commit?

[BuzzBox]

It's not specified, but I'd say you can commit once you're close to the destination and can confirm you're able to land within the 30/60 minute period. The ultimate requirement is that you land with fixed reserve intact.

Earlier post edited for clarity.

[wondrousbitofrough]

Ok, so I'll ask this as someone who is in the industry, but doesn't sit behind the control column. To those that do, do you have any confidence that this can't happen again?

[BuzzBox]

Nope, but hopefully we've all learnt to be a bit more sceptical about the absolute accuracy of weather forecasts, especially if we're on the bones of our ass for fuel! Seriously though, I think this incident was a big wake up call for the 'system'. The ATSB identified several areas where the pilots were let down, including the accuracy of the weather forecasts and the provision of SPECIs to aircraft in-flight, especially in situations where crews have to make rapid decisions under high workload. It's impossible to guarantee that an incident of this nature won't happen again. I think the best we can hope for is that we've learnt a few lessons and that the likelihood of a recurrence has been reduced.

[Keg]

So where is the cutoff? When can you commit?

This was an interesting couple of hours during command training.

[hoss]

Re: wondrousbitofrough

This will happen again.

It has been happening for years, plenty of reports out there!

As long as we have 'rule based thinkers' and decline in basic airmanship this will continue.

SOP vs Absolute Standards

[Icarus2001]

Originally Posted by Iccy
There is a legal grey area here.
I'm surprised you'd ask such a question.

It was not a question. Is there a question mark?

[Old Akro]

Nope, but hopefully we've all learnt to be a bit more sceptical about the absolute accuracy of weather forecasts, especially if we're on the bones of our ass for fuel!

I trust this is a general statement rather than an assertion that these 2 aircraft were "on the bones of their ass for fuel". They had reasonable fuel for both holding and alternates, but were basically suckered into going somewhere inappropriate by a bad forecast and a system that did not reasonably pass on pertinent information to the pilots in command.

I would suggest that if they had any awareness of the real weather at Mildura, that they would have made different diversion choices. The ATSB report notes discussion in the cockpit of Woomera as an option, although since the Airforce took control of Woomera from the Department of defense it may no longer meet the operational requirements for emergency response. Which raises another area where Australia is descending into the third world.