3 years later The Mildura report
Is Don,
You stated:
With respect, perhaps your outfit is different but as for mine, if they published a larger figure when there was no legal necessity for an alternate to make me feel more comfortable where would it end?
The fuel they publish on the plan is a legal minimum, me and my offsider are paid the big money to decide to either take it or take more. If they didn't publish the minimum legal, what figure would they publish? (would it have a comfort factor scale next to it)
In the circumstances you describe our contingency fuel will be different to many others but would still be a valid figure if we have some to allow for unforecast options.
I've often heard pilots say "they want us to take X tonnes" (i.e. the minimum legal published on the plan) that is just not true, they want us to take what we believe we need to take to stay safe and satisfy the following criteria:
1) Is it legal?
2) is it safe?
3) Is it in the company's interest?
This third one is the catch all here if the minimum legal printed on the plan means you'll end up diverting then my mob will always want me to take more, they trust us to use discretion.
You stated:
Quite why dispatch calculated the fuel to the kilo, sometimes as low as 9T, based on the fact that the weather was forecast to be 100' above the alternate minima never ceased to amaze me.
The fuel they publish on the plan is a legal minimum, me and my offsider are paid the big money to decide to either take it or take more. If they didn't publish the minimum legal, what figure would they publish? (would it have a comfort factor scale next to it)
In the circumstances you describe our contingency fuel will be different to many others but would still be a valid figure if we have some to allow for unforecast options.
I've often heard pilots say "they want us to take X tonnes" (i.e. the minimum legal published on the plan) that is just not true, they want us to take what we believe we need to take to stay safe and satisfy the following criteria:
1) Is it legal?
2) is it safe?
3) Is it in the company's interest?
This third one is the catch all here if the minimum legal printed on the plan means you'll end up diverting then my mob will always want me to take more, they trust us to use discretion.
600 x $60 in extra fuel burn = $36000 a day x 365 days = $13,140,000 a year in extra fuel burn. Now it depends on if you are paying the bill or flying the aircraft how that affects you
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
600 x $60 in extra fuel burn = $36000 a day x 365 days = $13,140,000 a year in extra fuel burn
Now it depends on if you are paying the bill or flying the aircraft how that affects you
Now it depends on if you are paying the bill or flying the aircraft how that affects you
This is just the accountants way of making it sound so bad that they can apply pressure on us to take less fuel.
But do the math the other way.
Let's say those 600 flights carry an average of 180 passengers.
The additional $60 in extra fuel burn, divided by 180 passengers equates to only 33 cents extra per passenger.
That has to be the cheapest insurance in the world!!!
And on top of that, how about the bean counters actually calculate how much money was saved by those pilots who carried a little extra fuel and avoided the necessity to divert early, and all the associated costs that were avoided by using a little common sense (meals & accommodation, additional crew due to flight time limitations, additional fuel to actually get to the original destination.....)
It sure is all relative Bloggs - that $13 million goes straight to the bottom line in a profit of say $500 million if you are lucky ! Becomes more significant when looked at that way.
But agreed safety is paramount - dare I say affordable safety - I know can, worms etc.
But agreed safety is paramount - dare I say affordable safety - I know can, worms etc.
Last edited by On eyre; 6th Jun 2016 at 01:08. Reason: Addition
Thread Starter
I think Willie covered it nicely.
Using your logic on passengers paying for insurance....well they still fly Garuda, Air Asia and a few other airlines. As long as it's cheap and they can wear thongs...and there is the rub.
That's why a strong legislation is required for an even playing field. Unfortunately the ATSB report into Mildura ignored the dancing elephants in the room. It almost seems it was written by people who have no RPT experience, because people in that world get it. And I think it's why that world gets that this is such a poor report missing an opportunity to cover the big issues. But it only took 3 years....
Using your logic on passengers paying for insurance....well they still fly Garuda, Air Asia and a few other airlines. As long as it's cheap and they can wear thongs...and there is the rub.
That's why a strong legislation is required for an even playing field. Unfortunately the ATSB report into Mildura ignored the dancing elephants in the room. It almost seems it was written by people who have no RPT experience, because people in that world get it. And I think it's why that world gets that this is such a poor report missing an opportunity to cover the big issues. But it only took 3 years....
Thread Starter
Fuel policy
Infrastructure ie ILS/GLS capability
AIr services provision of operational information
Airline provision of operational information
Bom capabilities and funding
Did you write the report Buzzie?
Infrastructure ie ILS/GLS capability
AIr services provision of operational information
Airline provision of operational information
Bom capabilities and funding
Did you write the report Buzzie?
Traffic_Is_Er_Was and many others.
Do not confuse Operations Control with Operational Control.
Two very different roles and responsibilities.
The former wholly belongs to the airline and the latter belongs as it should, with the Aircraft Commander.
CC
Do not confuse Operations Control with Operational Control.
Two very different roles and responsibilities.
The former wholly belongs to the airline and the latter belongs as it should, with the Aircraft Commander.
CC
Did you write the report Buzzie?
Last edited by BuzzBox; 6th Jun 2016 at 02:03.
Thread Starter
Sorry Buzzie couldn't resist!
I think we agree on more than we disagree probably but to say this report was a disappointment to me would be an understatement. This country was forced to land 2 RPT jets unplanned below landing minima at a regional airport. How did it get to this? We got a report that covers less than the interim report did 3 years later that adds nothing to the conversation this country needs to step up from its current state.
Fuel Ploicy
The CASA requirement when those aircraft dispatched was to have their fixed fuel remaining at touchdown, for those who don't know that's 30 minutes of fuel. Even the airlines think that is ridiculous and would of planned to have their aircraft there with 60 minutes. Then the pilots add on their discretionary ( the word that cannot be spoken). Surely the ATSB report could have as a safety recommendation suggested the CASA policy at the least needs reviewing? It is under Part 121 I believe but surely this report could have been used to reinforce that. Imagine if the aircraft had rocked up to ADL with CASAs fuel requirements. Most countries now I believe have recognised a 2nd option should always be available to RPT aircraft.
Infrastructure
Most if not all RPT aircraft can autoland, some for a long time. Every 5 years we have an RPT aircraft having a run in with unforecast fog. The airports won't pay for it because they will tell you the statistics don't make it worth the money they have to spend. Surely the ATSB report as a safety issue could have suggested the case for infrastructure needs to be made and funded. Maybe a small ticket safety surcharge on all airline tickets to pay for this. But again another dancing elephant
Bom
We all know forecasting is a dark art. But what happened on this day? Was it training, was it manpower, was it a mistake, was it cost cutting. I believe but may be wrong that Met guys now get 2 weeks training in AV Met and are expected to be a jack of all trades. Anyone here believe that met forecasting has improved in the last 10 years? We wouldn't know the first thing about it from this report.TTF vs TAF is a whole new subject.
Air Services
Where do you start? Who knew that air traffickers were marked down in their checks if they over serviced aircraft, ie giving them MET info that was available on the Internet or AWIS that don't work or if they do only if you are line of sight? WTF. Who and why were decisions made to cut this level of service to aircraft, why did the pilot world mostly not realise this had occured? Who made the safety case for this and why was it so inaccurate? The National Operational Centre, what role are they meant to play in this? They were not even aware it seems until both aircraft were almost on the ground.
Airlines
What level of training is required for their ops control centres, do they have the facilities and man power required?
Others will have many more points I'm sure.
It's not the ATSBs job to fix these things. It is their job to start the ball rolling and uncover things that need fixing before the next major incident. The What we knew very shortly after this incident. The how and why 3 years later we still don't know.
I think we agree on more than we disagree probably but to say this report was a disappointment to me would be an understatement. This country was forced to land 2 RPT jets unplanned below landing minima at a regional airport. How did it get to this? We got a report that covers less than the interim report did 3 years later that adds nothing to the conversation this country needs to step up from its current state.
Fuel Ploicy
The CASA requirement when those aircraft dispatched was to have their fixed fuel remaining at touchdown, for those who don't know that's 30 minutes of fuel. Even the airlines think that is ridiculous and would of planned to have their aircraft there with 60 minutes. Then the pilots add on their discretionary ( the word that cannot be spoken). Surely the ATSB report could have as a safety recommendation suggested the CASA policy at the least needs reviewing? It is under Part 121 I believe but surely this report could have been used to reinforce that. Imagine if the aircraft had rocked up to ADL with CASAs fuel requirements. Most countries now I believe have recognised a 2nd option should always be available to RPT aircraft.
Infrastructure
Most if not all RPT aircraft can autoland, some for a long time. Every 5 years we have an RPT aircraft having a run in with unforecast fog. The airports won't pay for it because they will tell you the statistics don't make it worth the money they have to spend. Surely the ATSB report as a safety issue could have suggested the case for infrastructure needs to be made and funded. Maybe a small ticket safety surcharge on all airline tickets to pay for this. But again another dancing elephant
Bom
We all know forecasting is a dark art. But what happened on this day? Was it training, was it manpower, was it a mistake, was it cost cutting. I believe but may be wrong that Met guys now get 2 weeks training in AV Met and are expected to be a jack of all trades. Anyone here believe that met forecasting has improved in the last 10 years? We wouldn't know the first thing about it from this report.TTF vs TAF is a whole new subject.
Air Services
Where do you start? Who knew that air traffickers were marked down in their checks if they over serviced aircraft, ie giving them MET info that was available on the Internet or AWIS that don't work or if they do only if you are line of sight? WTF. Who and why were decisions made to cut this level of service to aircraft, why did the pilot world mostly not realise this had occured? Who made the safety case for this and why was it so inaccurate? The National Operational Centre, what role are they meant to play in this? They were not even aware it seems until both aircraft were almost on the ground.
Airlines
What level of training is required for their ops control centres, do they have the facilities and man power required?
Others will have many more points I'm sure.
It's not the ATSBs job to fix these things. It is their job to start the ball rolling and uncover things that need fixing before the next major incident. The What we knew very shortly after this incident. The how and why 3 years later we still don't know.
QF fuel savings of $13m a year for ten years = $131mil for ten years.
The reality is that for that sort of money, every runway that Qantas operates to in Oz could be fitted with cat 2/3 ILS with autoland.
Airport owners like Melbourne airport, SACL, even Mildura Airport - they have no motivation to install infrastructure like ILS. They'll build shops and cafes and carparks - because that's how they make money. In fact, why install an ILS with autoland at Mildura? If aircraft are holding and diverting, you'll have big delays and you can sell more carparks and coffees in the terminal while they wait. How many new ILS have been built in Australia in the last 10-15 years? Less than five? Yet traffic has exploded.
GDP, STAAS, enroute holding, transition to GNSS - it's all bandaid solutions to crippled infrastructure.
This is the chickens coming home to roost after privatisation of federal airports. We have massively under resourced system - and no one with motivation to sink money into infrastructure. Airlines are expected to do more and more, with less and less. Eventually the holes in the cheese were going to line up.
The reality is that for that sort of money, every runway that Qantas operates to in Oz could be fitted with cat 2/3 ILS with autoland.
Airport owners like Melbourne airport, SACL, even Mildura Airport - they have no motivation to install infrastructure like ILS. They'll build shops and cafes and carparks - because that's how they make money. In fact, why install an ILS with autoland at Mildura? If aircraft are holding and diverting, you'll have big delays and you can sell more carparks and coffees in the terminal while they wait. How many new ILS have been built in Australia in the last 10-15 years? Less than five? Yet traffic has exploded.
GDP, STAAS, enroute holding, transition to GNSS - it's all bandaid solutions to crippled infrastructure.
This is the chickens coming home to roost after privatisation of federal airports. We have massively under resourced system - and no one with motivation to sink money into infrastructure. Airlines are expected to do more and more, with less and less. Eventually the holes in the cheese were going to line up.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Sunnie Coast
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh, takes me back to this lively discussion that ensued back in 2009.....
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/359918-senario-do-we-need-alternate.html
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/359918-senario-do-we-need-alternate.html
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with Slippery Pete's sentiments, if not his maths. Trying to get ASA interested in an AWIB and Baro VNAV approach design into a large regional, ILS and tower equipped aerodrome in Australia. ASA could care less. Can I hang a transmitter off some ASA infrastructure, that's already got a feed from the Met station? ? No way mate, that's ours, bugger off. ILS's everywhere?, Yeh right, $2-3million a pop and ASA set the price for maintenance. Plus the HIALs to make an ILS actually usable at $?? million.
ASA do the absolute minimum these days. Have no interest in aviation and are just lumbered with some historic obligations to provide ATC, RFS and a few Navaids. All these are obligations ASA would rather operate without.
ASA do the absolute minimum these days. Have no interest in aviation and are just lumbered with some historic obligations to provide ATC, RFS and a few Navaids. All these are obligations ASA would rather operate without.
ILS's everywhere?, Yeh right, $2-3million a pop and ASA set the price for maintenance.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Akro, the guys at the point end have my sympathy. I have dealt with controllers and techs for nearly 40 years now and all are brilliant, dedicated professionals. But I will bet that the procedure and design office has 3 blokes who can do a design, and 57 managers.
I found the cost of installing ILS in the US a while back. I forget the number, but I think it was less than 1/5 the cost in Australia. Same hardware. Same installation process. The difference is AsA's charges. One day we need to get to examining what is really going on there. I'm sure the money is not going in controllers wages.
According to this article, $1.6m from scratch. If done in bulk, the economy of scale would easily get it down to $1m per installation.
Given CASA have so far spent $300m on regulatory reform (mainly that Part 61 piece of crap), we could have had 300 ILS installed all over the country. Which would provide a better safety benefit I wonder?
How much input does the PIC have on fuel loads for Qantas and Virgin?
And of course Wagga's ILS maintenance and running costs will be truly industry reflective, especially with their Tech college using it as a training tool.
How's that ILS going at the Gold Coast? That's infrastructure building these days in this country.
Checklist, I'm fully aware of whom is ultimately held responsible for the decisions which affect a flight, but on what information are those decisions being made?
How's that ILS going at the Gold Coast? That's infrastructure building these days in this country.
Checklist, I'm fully aware of whom is ultimately held responsible for the decisions which affect a flight, but on what information are those decisions being made?
Operations Control has not been abolished and is still practised by mature airlines today.
Operational Control was transferred from an ATS/FS responsibility (approving flight plans and closing airports) to that of the Aircraft Commander in either the late 80's or early 90's. It was a ridiculous situation that existed where an ATC could close an airport whilst sitting in a tower with their eye line above the minima (as was the situation at Perth and the then new Brisbane towers). The only person who is in a position to decide whether they can continue an approach and land at the minima is the pilot themselves, not anybody else.
CC
Operational Control was transferred from an ATS/FS responsibility (approving flight plans and closing airports) to that of the Aircraft Commander in either the late 80's or early 90's. It was a ridiculous situation that existed where an ATC could close an airport whilst sitting in a tower with their eye line above the minima (as was the situation at Perth and the then new Brisbane towers). The only person who is in a position to decide whether they can continue an approach and land at the minima is the pilot themselves, not anybody else.
CC
It was a ridiculous situation that existed where an ATC could close an airport