Approach to BNE today
Indeed, BUT how often do you get pushed into a situation where you have no options even with flight plan fuel.
We tend to look at flights as being A to B divert to C.
The reality is that we often fly past perfectly suitable airports enroute where if turns to crap we can bail out to. Obviously the bigger the aeroplane the fewer the suitable airports but nevertheless the reality for most domestic flights in Oz is that we only really get fuel critical in the last part of the flight after we fly past the last usable enroute airport.
Assuming we are paying attention to the weather at the various airports then the weather has to turn to crap suddenly after the etp between that last suitable airport and the destination for us to be really in trouble.
So the big strict liability bogey man isnt a big a threat as many think, in my opinion anyway.
We tend to look at flights as being A to B divert to C.
The reality is that we often fly past perfectly suitable airports enroute where if turns to crap we can bail out to. Obviously the bigger the aeroplane the fewer the suitable airports but nevertheless the reality for most domestic flights in Oz is that we only really get fuel critical in the last part of the flight after we fly past the last usable enroute airport.
Assuming we are paying attention to the weather at the various airports then the weather has to turn to crap suddenly after the etp between that last suitable airport and the destination for us to be really in trouble.
So the big strict liability bogey man isnt a big a threat as many think, in my opinion anyway.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My two bobs worth. It is saying that the weather associated with the inter and tempo may not occur so don't get upset about carrying extra fuel for an event that didn't happen.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accuracy of MET data is important.
I think Virgin touched down with around 500kg. Not much in a 738, not sufficient for a go around.
Not somewhere I will ever let a 'policy' dictate I find myself whilst strict liability sits with me. What does a tonne cost to carry these days?
Upon arrival at Mildura, the actual weather conditions were significantly different to those forecast, in particular with visibility reduced in fog.
The flight crew of Qantas 735 conducted an instrument approach and landed below minima. The flight crew of Velocity 1384 also conducted an instrument approach and landed below minima in fog and with fuel below the fixed reserve
The flight crew of Qantas 735 conducted an instrument approach and landed below minima. The flight crew of Velocity 1384 also conducted an instrument approach and landed below minima in fog and with fuel below the fixed reserve
Not somewhere I will ever let a 'policy' dictate I find myself whilst strict liability sits with me. What does a tonne cost to carry these days?
Yeah but where do you draw the line?
Carry an extra tonne in a 737 and that gives you another 22-25 mins or thereabouts if I remember back to my time on the 737
All the fuel does is move the decision a bit further down the track.
I am not advocating not carrying additional fuel when you deem it necessary, but where do you draw the line?
The Mildura situation was a unique set of circumstances that is rare to say the least - as far as I remember neither Captain has had a "strict liability" conviction waved in their face.
In the case of the 737 the extra tonne could mean the difference of 10 pax (assuming a MTOW or RTOW limited takeoff.)In my machine 60 minutes of juice is around 70 odd pax so that would get the attention of a bunch of people.
In my view we get paid to make informed operational decisions and manage risk.
The safest place for an aeroplane is on the ground doing nothing, so anything beyond that is a risk management exercise.
Carry an extra tonne in a 737 and that gives you another 22-25 mins or thereabouts if I remember back to my time on the 737
All the fuel does is move the decision a bit further down the track.
I am not advocating not carrying additional fuel when you deem it necessary, but where do you draw the line?
The Mildura situation was a unique set of circumstances that is rare to say the least - as far as I remember neither Captain has had a "strict liability" conviction waved in their face.
In the case of the 737 the extra tonne could mean the difference of 10 pax (assuming a MTOW or RTOW limited takeoff.)In my machine 60 minutes of juice is around 70 odd pax so that would get the attention of a bunch of people.
In my view we get paid to make informed operational decisions and manage risk.
The safest place for an aeroplane is on the ground doing nothing, so anything beyond that is a risk management exercise.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah but where do you draw the line?
Long before bean counters ever somehow got their grubby hands on operations, command authority is inviolate!
If it really goes wrong, you will be the only one defending your actions, as will I. Fuel buys time, how much is up to you. We both win
as far as I remember neither Captain has had a "strict liability" conviction waved in their face.
In the case of the 737 the extra tonne could mean the difference of 10 pax (assuming a MTOW or RTOW limited takeoff.)In my machine 60 minutes of juice is around 70 odd pax so that would get the attention of a bunch of people.
Last edited by Rated De; 13th Dec 2017 at 19:31.
Rated, you are almost certainly correct about that flight being nowhere near close to performance limits, and in fact most domestic flights would be the same.
But the basic premis remains. In my mind i cant reconcile the carriage of extra fuel for mum and the kids except when it becomes payload limiting - surely when you are chock a block with pax then the risk is greater?
I suspect we are arguing the same side of the argument. I dont advocate min fuel, never have and never will, but I also dont advocate carting fuel around the countryside to mitigate something that will in all probability never happen.
I prefer to manage risk by using enroute alternates, and a whole bunch of other ways.
I guess my view is we as pilots need to use all the tools available to us to manage our flights and associated risks of which fuel is just one
But the basic premis remains. In my mind i cant reconcile the carriage of extra fuel for mum and the kids except when it becomes payload limiting - surely when you are chock a block with pax then the risk is greater?
I suspect we are arguing the same side of the argument. I dont advocate min fuel, never have and never will, but I also dont advocate carting fuel around the countryside to mitigate something that will in all probability never happen.
I prefer to manage risk by using enroute alternates, and a whole bunch of other ways.
I guess my view is we as pilots need to use all the tools available to us to manage our flights and associated risks of which fuel is just one
