Network F100 busting minima, Paraburdoo
AF. Being retired excuses you from knowing the alternate aerodrome rules for aircraft changed last week.
Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays.
Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction.
Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret.
Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays.
Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction.
Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret.
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AF. Being retired excuses you from knowing the alternate aerodrome rules for aircraft changed last week.
Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays.
Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction.
Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret.
Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays.
Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction.
Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret.
Sounds like an improvement. They have been a long time coming. The Fuel Fascists wont be happy !
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt any crews are arriving at these single runway airports in WA with anywhere near minimum fuel. Certainly all the Qantas/Qantaslink aircraft would be tankering into these ports due to the high cost of fuel. This leads to another problem of a higher landing weight than may be desired.
Used to fly in north of Spain a few decades ago, not much in the way of weather forecasting you could rely on. Luckily it was a shortish flight, so standard fuel for us used to be round-trip + 30 min, without having to leave anything behind. Several time left with a CAVOK NOSIG and after passing the marker, and getting transferred to tower hearing: "Fog just came in, its now VV000, and RVR0100, what are your intentions?". There is just no way you will ever recoup the cost of running out of fuel, by tankering less fuel if you are flying to isolated, single runway places with dodgy weather reporting.
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
”There is just no way you will ever recoup the cost of running out of fuel,”
Could not agree more Hans. But you are not thinking like the Fuel Nazis at the mob I used to work for. They were often ex Longhaul and would point out how expensive it was to carry fuel Longhaul and “nice to have fuel” was often not possible.
My response was always to point out the exposure to risk in a very large fleet of short haul aircraft operating multiple sectors each day.
Rare events actually become inevitable if you run the numbers.
Sadly I never made any impression.
The new Regs mentioned in post 101above seem a step in the right direction.
Accountants should be on tap not on top.
Could not agree more Hans. But you are not thinking like the Fuel Nazis at the mob I used to work for. They were often ex Longhaul and would point out how expensive it was to carry fuel Longhaul and “nice to have fuel” was often not possible.
My response was always to point out the exposure to risk in a very large fleet of short haul aircraft operating multiple sectors each day.
Rare events actually become inevitable if you run the numbers.
Sadly I never made any impression.
The new Regs mentioned in post 101above seem a step in the right direction.
Accountants should be on tap not on top.
Thread Starter
I doubt any crews are arriving at these single runway airports in WA with anywhere near minimum fuel. Certainly all the Qantas/Qantaslink aircraft would be tankering into these ports due to the high cost of fuel. This leads to another problem of a higher landing weight than may be desired.
AF. Being retired excuses you from knowing the alternate aerodrome rules for aircraft changed last week.
Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays.
Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction.
Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret.
Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays.
Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction.
Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret.
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting how there is a separate runway requirement for overseas but not AU. Maybe we don't get runway closures from wheels ups here.
TAF for Hedland at the time was 9999 SCT030 that whole morning. It's 25 minutes flight time for an F100 from Paraburdoo. If the weather in Hedland was good then Karratha was almost certainly similar (can't find a previous TAF for Karratha) and Karratha is about 22 minutes from Paraburdoo.
From the AvHerald write up it was 60 minutes from the first approach to landing. So one can assume, even if the weather in YPBO was worse than forecast when realising this after the first approach a diversion to either YPPD or YPKA (with either a Tower or an AFIS available for more accurate weather) would have to have been the obvious decision. I would say a diversion would have been available after the second approach too. So why they remained in the area and seemed committed to land is a bit of a mystery.
Not discounting the numerous airports in the "Iron Triangle" less than 15 minutes away, one of which with a suitable TAF and aircraft successfully landing at could've been passed from ATC to the incident aircraft expeditiously.
From the AvHerald write up it was 60 minutes from the first approach to landing. So one can assume, even if the weather in YPBO was worse than forecast when realising this after the first approach a diversion to either YPPD or YPKA (with either a Tower or an AFIS available for more accurate weather) would have to have been the obvious decision. I would say a diversion would have been available after the second approach too. So why they remained in the area and seemed committed to land is a bit of a mystery.
Not discounting the numerous airports in the "Iron Triangle" less than 15 minutes away, one of which with a suitable TAF and aircraft successfully landing at could've been passed from ATC to the incident aircraft expeditiously.
Last edited by dr dre; 7th Dec 2021 at 08:41.
Interesting.......I was on the 2nd flight after this one (as there's flights every 30 minutes for a couple of hrs) flying up to work and we took additional fuel on in Perth "in case a diversion was required" made 2 attempts and the cloud was quite bad right to ground level. Could barely see the ground as we were on final and flew quite a low flat approach - definitely different and fly this flight weekly - We diverted to Karratha. We were informed by the flight crew that the aircraft ahead and had made multiple attempts but managed to get in.
Also adds to the mystery of why 3 planes sat there for the whole day on the ground, guess the naughty ones were stood down awaiting pineapples to be inserted.
Flights to Boolgeeda and Solomon landed that morning.......so there were plenty of options close by for the flight involved.
Also adds to the mystery of why 3 planes sat there for the whole day on the ground, guess the naughty ones were stood down awaiting pineapples to be inserted.
Flights to Boolgeeda and Solomon landed that morning.......so there were plenty of options close by for the flight involved.
Last edited by pilotdude09; 7th Dec 2021 at 11:58.
Could barely see the ground as we were on final and flew quite a low flat approach - definitely different and fly this flight weekly
Krismiler ,Remote WA is the Wild West. Very few Control Towers , fewer qualified observers and even fewer precision approaches and NO requirement for mandatory alternates for single runways. RNP has improved things but mostly its all pretty basic. Third world really.
Not hard to get into trouble especially if you are a true believer in company fuel policy. Personally I spent most of my career ignoring it WA.
Not hard to get into trouble especially if you are a true believer in company fuel policy. Personally I spent most of my career ignoring it WA.
43Inches , I know full well that a tower is not an alternate requirement. I have operated in WA for 30 years. The services available in most of WA are a joke. I remember the debacle years ago when brand new towers were built in Karratha and Port Hedland then promptly closed as a cost cutting measure and stood empty for years. I know its not a requirement nor is mandatory alternate for single runways. But it should be , like the rest of the world.
RPT operations in WA are Mickey Mouse pure and simple. I recall flying with an ex-Longhaul F/O into Solomon on a hot dusty day. He commented “F#### that was like landing on the Moon ! “ Top of descent into Heathrow you have half a dozen alternates with Cat 2/Cat 3. Easy.
Majors regard Perth as a Remote airport.
Remember the BA 747 years ago that ended up in Learmonth after unforecast fog in Perth?. Not much has changed.
Why you would want to defend the dismal standard of facilities in WA is a mystery.
Events like this will continue so long as RPT Jets operate high frequency operation into inadequate facilities. Simple.
Cat B TAF ? Put out by a bloke in Perth. Not worth a pinch of the preverbial.
VHF on the ground ? Wow , such sophistication.
RPT operations in WA are Mickey Mouse pure and simple. I recall flying with an ex-Longhaul F/O into Solomon on a hot dusty day. He commented “F#### that was like landing on the Moon ! “ Top of descent into Heathrow you have half a dozen alternates with Cat 2/Cat 3. Easy.
Majors regard Perth as a Remote airport.
Remember the BA 747 years ago that ended up in Learmonth after unforecast fog in Perth?. Not much has changed.
Why you would want to defend the dismal standard of facilities in WA is a mystery.
Events like this will continue so long as RPT Jets operate high frequency operation into inadequate facilities. Simple.
Cat B TAF ? Put out by a bloke in Perth. Not worth a pinch of the preverbial.
VHF on the ground ? Wow , such sophistication.
Last edited by ActiveLooker; 12th Dec 2021 at 02:01.
Fifty years after Fitzroy Crossing and we're still facing the same pressures regarding the carriage of extra fuel and being constantly reminded of the cost and payload restrictions.
It's easy enough for the accountants running spread sheets, they aren't at the sharp end when the fog rolls in or approach radar goes down.
I've had phone calls because I arrived with "too much" fuel, and you're guaranteed one when you arrive with too little. You never get one praising you when the extra was needed.
.
It's easy enough for the accountants running spread sheets, they aren't at the sharp end when the fog rolls in or approach radar goes down.
I've had phone calls because I arrived with "too much" fuel, and you're guaranteed one when you arrive with too little. You never get one praising you when the extra was needed.
.
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LOL
And for your enlightenment and edification most aircraft in WA are not fully RNP capable.. Mainline B737-8 yes others mostly no.
How many hours do you actually have operating in WA ?
Oh, Plan and manage. I wish I had thought of that over the last 40 years. Thank you so much for your input.
LOL
And for your enlightenment and edification most aircraft in WA are not fully RNP capable.. Mainline B737-8 yes others mostly no.
How many hours do you actually have operating in WA ?
LOL
And for your enlightenment and edification most aircraft in WA are not fully RNP capable.. Mainline B737-8 yes others mostly no.
How many hours do you actually have operating in WA ?
And now we see this, Deck chair shuffle at Network aviation
Whether related to this incident or an earlier string of incidents, no doubt this will be the “fix” and they’ll try to continue “business as usual”.
Whether related to this incident or an earlier string of incidents, no doubt this will be the “fix” and they’ll try to continue “business as usual”.