3 years later The Mildura report
I've got another suggestion: With mandatory ADS-B just around the corner, 'Big Brother' will soon know where all the aircraft are and where they're headed at any given time. In this age of automation, perhaps 'Big Brother' can also be programmed to filter all the data Airservices receives from BoM and push anything relevant to the controller's console.
The ATSB report did say that Airservices would explore avenues to better disseminate relevant information, so it will be interesting to see what evolves, if anything. To be fair to the ATSB, is it their job to develop the solutions? My understanding is that they are tasked with determining the safety issues, but it's the relevant organisation's job to come up with the answers. If the ATSB isn't satisfied with the result, they can then issue a safety recommendation, as they did over one of the issues that was highlighted in the report. By law, the relevant organisation must then, within 90 days, either accept the recommendation and provide details of how the recommendation will be effected; or explain, for the public record, why the recommendation is not accepted.
The ATSB report did say that Airservices would explore avenues to better disseminate relevant information, so it will be interesting to see what evolves, if anything. To be fair to the ATSB, is it their job to develop the solutions? My understanding is that they are tasked with determining the safety issues, but it's the relevant organisation's job to come up with the answers. If the ATSB isn't satisfied with the result, they can then issue a safety recommendation, as they did over one of the issues that was highlighted in the report. By law, the relevant organisation must then, within 90 days, either accept the recommendation and provide details of how the recommendation will be effected; or explain, for the public record, why the recommendation is not accepted.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 9th Jun 2016 at 02:16.
Thread Starter
In a practical sense I see what you are saying Buzz...but I have a dream.
For too long the inmates have run the asylum in this country regarding aviation. Everything comes down to a cost benefit analysis. That has its place of course but things like an even playing field regarding a modern fuel,policy ( I'm thinking always having a 2nd bit of Tarmac) infrastructure such as Cat 2/3 ILS or GLS at least at capital city airports and a proper NOC controlling critical bits of information is where we should be going.
In my dream the safety world would be pro active and lead this discussion before we lose an aircraft because we didn't have one of these things in place. As they say if you think safety is expensive try having an accident. To pay for this all, a safety surcharge on all airline tickets. Not a hard sell for a good politician...not around in the current crop.It might be a dollar a ticket.
Instead after 3 years we got a report telling us the pilots should have got updated inaccurate met reports. The interim report had more in it. The Norfolk report showed us the capabilities of the ATSB, it could be the ATSB isn't funded enough or doesn't have the money to pay for the people it needs. It's the missed opportunities to lead a discussion that has to be had that disappoints me most in all of this. This should have been the wake up call...fate keeps knocking, soon it will open the door.
For too long the inmates have run the asylum in this country regarding aviation. Everything comes down to a cost benefit analysis. That has its place of course but things like an even playing field regarding a modern fuel,policy ( I'm thinking always having a 2nd bit of Tarmac) infrastructure such as Cat 2/3 ILS or GLS at least at capital city airports and a proper NOC controlling critical bits of information is where we should be going.
In my dream the safety world would be pro active and lead this discussion before we lose an aircraft because we didn't have one of these things in place. As they say if you think safety is expensive try having an accident. To pay for this all, a safety surcharge on all airline tickets. Not a hard sell for a good politician...not around in the current crop.It might be a dollar a ticket.
Instead after 3 years we got a report telling us the pilots should have got updated inaccurate met reports. The interim report had more in it. The Norfolk report showed us the capabilities of the ATSB, it could be the ATSB isn't funded enough or doesn't have the money to pay for the people it needs. It's the missed opportunities to lead a discussion that has to be had that disappoints me most in all of this. This should have been the wake up call...fate keeps knocking, soon it will open the door.
Last edited by ozbiggles; 9th Jun 2016 at 02:45.
Nice dream! Seriously though, I agree with you; the safety world should be out there leading the discussion on safety issues. The fact that doesn't happen more probably comes down to one thing: resources, as you and others have already pointed out. Sadly, I can't see things changing any time soon when there are so many other 'higher priority' programs competing for limited government funding. Perhaps a safety surcharge is the way to go, as you suggested.
Thanks for the laugh Capn Bloggs.
So using your late forecast change with fog as an example, requiring an alternate as you said (was holding fuel okay?). There you are inbound to Perth in your B717, passing through transition on descent, flying the star. The Bumet in their wisdom add some requirements that you were not aware of when you departed Paraburdoo.
Q1 How are you going to know about it? Do you hear approach read out new TAFs very often?
Q2 If you did know by some method, ACARs etc, and you DO NOT have the extra fuel but you can see bloody field, what would you do?
Q3 If you land are you "legal"?
Q4 Will you report yourself.
Happy Days
So using your late forecast change with fog as an example, requiring an alternate as you said (was holding fuel okay?). There you are inbound to Perth in your B717, passing through transition on descent, flying the star. The Bumet in their wisdom add some requirements that you were not aware of when you departed Paraburdoo.
Q1 How are you going to know about it? Do you hear approach read out new TAFs very often?
Q2 If you did know by some method, ACARs etc, and you DO NOT have the extra fuel but you can see bloody field, what would you do?
Q3 If you land are you "legal"?
Q4 Will you report yourself.
Happy Days
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the elephant in the room that no-one seems to care about is that with a less than 30% chance of FG it won't even rate a mention on a forecast.
I'm sorry, but many seem to think pilots want accurate forecasts.
They don't. They want to know the worst case scenario, because that is what they have to plan for with fuel and contingencies.
I don't want to know the most likely weather at my destination, I want to know what could happen, even if unlikely.
So if it's 10% chance of FG at my destination, I want to know about it please.
Even if it's 1%.
I'm sorry, but many seem to think pilots want accurate forecasts.
They don't. They want to know the worst case scenario, because that is what they have to plan for with fuel and contingencies.
I don't want to know the most likely weather at my destination, I want to know what could happen, even if unlikely.
So if it's 10% chance of FG at my destination, I want to know about it please.
Even if it's 1%.
Originally Posted by Sled the Lead
Bloggsie, old mate,
In your case, that may very well be true, but for most real Captains, that is all part of command responsibility.
Funny thing, in the G.O.Ds of DCA Operational Control, it never did apply to Qantas, and it was Ansett various, TAA and EWA (on this side of the island) that had a somewhat spotty record.
In your case, that may very well be true, but for most real Captains, that is all part of command responsibility.
Funny thing, in the G.O.Ds of DCA Operational Control, it never did apply to Qantas, and it was Ansett various, TAA and EWA (on this side of the island) that had a somewhat spotty record.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 9th Jun 2016 at 07:47. Reason: Why should I bother...
Slippery answer which has you nicely avoiding the question, well done.
What would you do with this knowledge of 1% chance of fog. It would be on there every day through winter, then what?
So if it's 10% chance of FG at my destination, I want to know about it please.
Even if it's 1%.
Even if it's 1%.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have a contingency.
We seem to be constantly surprised by the regular occurrences of unforecast fog in this country.
We plan for engine failures every takeoff - that's about a 0.0001% chance.
We seem to be constantly surprised by the regular occurrences of unforecast fog in this country.
We plan for engine failures every takeoff - that's about a 0.0001% chance.
I think the elephant in the room that no-one seems to care about is that with a less than 30% chance of FG it won't even rate a mention on a forecast.
Defred,
This is exactly what code grey was all about ie to cover this possibility. If I remember correctly it has to do with Australia slavishly adopting ICAO standards. Before they used to give " prob 10% fog" and the view was forecast fog is fog is fog whether it is 100% or 10% forecast...... Adjust your fuel carriage accordingly.
I would have a contingency.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
There's a 0.000000000000000000000000000001% chance of a meteor hitting the threshold during your flare as well, that should be on every forecast from now on. But that's not having a go at you derfred, 10 or 20 percent probably should be included , but it still won't stop us forecast fog events. The main thing was that this Mildura event happened to GPS equipped aircraft, if it happened years ago pre GPS it could have been a precautionary search and landing event in a 737/727/DC9 Yikes!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? I would like to be a fly on the wall when the MFO/HFO/CP asks you why you are carrying around 30 minutes of extra fuel every day given a 1% probability of fog.
Anyway, I didn't say I would carry around 30 minutes of extra fuel every day. I said I would have a contingency.
If there was a 1% chance of fog at my destination there are several different ways it could affect the way I operated that flight. For example:
- Preflight, I may identify alternate airports that have zero chance of fog.
- These airports may not necessarily be destination alternates, they may be enroute alternates, or TOD alternates, for example.
- I may identify whether there is an alternate with an ILS, if my destination does not have an ILS.
- I may use this 1% as a trigger to seek a second opinion, such as telephoning a Company MET department, or contacting someone with local knowledge at destination.
- I may, as you say, carry more fuel. But not according to some pre-scripted policy. The extra fuel would be whatever I calculated I needed to mitigate the risk posed by this chance of fog. It would vary depending upon many factors.
- Inflight, I would definitely be paying closer attention enroute to monitoring the weather at my destination and alternates, now that my attention has been drawn to this 1% chance of a problem.
- I may also use this trigger inflight to pro-actively seek further information through Company or ATC channels, given that we now know they are not necessarily pro-actively seeking to help me.
There are a hell of a lot of mitigations available if the chance of a problem has been brought to your attention. It doesn't have to be as simple as just sticking on more fuel.
Fog generally will take at least 20 minutes from "first sign" to closing an airport (in my experience), so I would suggest that an airport with no reported fog at TOD could generally be committed to at that point. So a TOD alternate could be considered a viable mitigator.
As I said if the met guys could use this figure it would be on there almost every day in winter, in the south of the country.
Fog requires certain meteorological conditions to occur. Predicting whether or not it will occur is difficult. Predicting a chance of it occurring is not difficult. Predicting zero chance is also not difficult. The problem is that the BoM will only admit a chance when it has a high probability of occurring (30% or greater).
Given a temperature, wet bulb depression, QNH, cloud cover and wind, some days in winter will have a chance of fog. Many will have no chance of fog. There are many forecast conditions that will preclude fog, such as temperature, rain, wind and cloud. (i.e. zero chance. Not 0.00001%, zero.)
Many pilots flying early morning arrivals into these ports on these kinds of days will make our own assessment of so-called "unforecast fog" and make contingencies anyway. Many of us save costly diversions, embarrassment or worse by doing so. Often these pilot decisions require experience and local knowledge, and will vary from pilot to pilot, so a little more information from the experts at the BoM would be handy for these decisions.
What I object to is this: The BoM appears to deliberately withhold information from the pilots who along with their passengers may live or die based on this information.
Only 20% chance of fog? Shhh... don't mention it.
5 days of 20% chance of fog? Statistically speaking, one of them will very likely end up with "unforecast fog". And that's ok?
If an engineer told you you had a cracked turbine blade, but there was only a 1% chance of it failing during this flight, you wouldn't leave the ground. But somehow, with fog, less than 30% chance is not even worth a mention. That's the most amazing risk management I've ever heard.
Does this raise a serious case for WAAS in Australia?
Slippery Pete, Airservices isn't responsible for the Mildura AWIS - it belongs to the aerodrome operator. Refer to ESRA:
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION PROVIDED
1.TAF CAT B, METAR/SPECI.
2.AWIS PH 03 5023 3879 - Report faults to BoM.
3.AWIS FREQ 128.675 - Report faults to AD OPR.
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION PROVIDED
1.TAF CAT B, METAR/SPECI.
2.AWIS PH 03 5023 3879 - Report faults to BoM.
3.AWIS FREQ 128.675 - Report faults to AD OPR.
Hi Pengy.
Airservices were responsible at the time. The AWIS was provided via voice modulation on the VOR. The AWIS was fine, but the voice modulation on the aid had failed.
During the unserviceable period, the AWIS was available only by phone.
The day after the incident, ASA repaired the VOR, and AWIS services to airborne aircraft were resumed.
It is since then, that ASA are placing the AWIS responsibility onto airport owners. They are forcing airport owners to install and maintain their own VHF AWIS, as is the case now in Mildura.
Had they repaired the VOR AWIS in a timely manner, the affected crews could have accessed it at TOPC out of Adelaide and realised it was deteriorating quickly.
That statement of "report faults to BoM/aerodrome operator" is classic washing of hands by ASA. If they aren't responsible for any part of the AWIS infrastructure then they can't be blamed when it's not available.
Airservices were responsible at the time. The AWIS was provided via voice modulation on the VOR. The AWIS was fine, but the voice modulation on the aid had failed.
During the unserviceable period, the AWIS was available only by phone.
The day after the incident, ASA repaired the VOR, and AWIS services to airborne aircraft were resumed.
It is since then, that ASA are placing the AWIS responsibility onto airport owners. They are forcing airport owners to install and maintain their own VHF AWIS, as is the case now in Mildura.
Had they repaired the VOR AWIS in a timely manner, the affected crews could have accessed it at TOPC out of Adelaide and realised it was deteriorating quickly.
That statement of "report faults to BoM/aerodrome operator" is classic washing of hands by ASA. If they aren't responsible for any part of the AWIS infrastructure then they can't be blamed when it's not available.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Blue Yonder
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
