Qantas Fuel Mayday
So both aircraft were in an emergency situation, they both busted minima to get in to Mildura. And the 'legal' fuel you talked about here wouldn't have got them to a legal alternate with any fuel reserves intact.
Mind you, I don't criticise either of these crews, quite the reverse actually. Steely-eyed missile man stuff getting both those aircraft on the ground safely. But painting the Qantas flight as 'legal' and the Virgin as not is disingenuous.
Mind you, I don't criticise either of these crews, quite the reverse actually. Steely-eyed missile man stuff getting both those aircraft on the ground safely. But painting the Qantas flight as 'legal' and the Virgin as not is disingenuous.
Both aircraft safely arrived is what matters, whether each followed the rules is debatable. It's interesting that the QF aircrafts fuel details were not obtained by the ATSB for that event, and they had to use a calculation for the estimated FOB. In the Mildura case this was definitely a case of CAR 257 where decent below minima is allowed due to no other course of action available, ie an emergency. In the case of the 330 mentioned earlier its interesting, they had to declare an emergency to use Canberra as an alternate, but then busted minima at Sydney, which was also allowable under CAR 257 due to a fuel emergency, but is there a fuel emergency when you have fuel for an alternate? What is safer, busting the minima or diverting to an 'emergency' alternate under company policy, which would be considered a suitable alternate for general operations. It's pretty obvious from some wording in that report that the ATSB seems to think that the pan call was given to 'push in front' of other traffic so they could have a go before getting to YSCB divert fuel, but they only remarked at it, not really pushing the idea. It really is unfortunate that the briefing QF gave the ATSB/ATC on the why things are that way is not explained to the pilots in general for our education, as it would be nice to know the answers to these questions of what is preferable. This latest Perth Mayday was not really similar to either event as both the previous were due to weather conditions, not prolonged traffic holding.
Both aircraft safely arrived is what matters
whether each followed the rules is debatable
This discussion has gone on for 5 days now. How long did the crew have to make their decision which ended in an uneventful landing?
The crew of this flight must have been reading this thread;
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-vzu/#2ccd1536
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-vzu/#2ccd1536
Only thing to say is that on a CAVOK day Busselton is a fantastic alternate. It’s 14mins down the road.
It has stairs for both 737, 320, F100 aircraft. The staff their are great. They got all g up and ready 3 times in preparation for Jetstar coming to it. They can handle a diversion. Lack of parking spots would be the only issue if too many turned up.
Nice 45m runway 03/21 with easy RNAVs to follow.
Only thing is if the weather is crap in PH it’s likely to be crap in Busso so KG is the better alternate there.
I’ve being flying recently with East Coast guys and being PH based I do make a habit of mentioning Busselton is now a very suitable airport. Most thank me as they aren’t aware it’s now considered a Network aerodrome. Easy to have missed over the last two years since WA was a seperate country after all and you can easy miss these small but significant things in the mix of all of us getting back in the air.
It has stairs for both 737, 320, F100 aircraft. The staff their are great. They got all g up and ready 3 times in preparation for Jetstar coming to it. They can handle a diversion. Lack of parking spots would be the only issue if too many turned up.
Nice 45m runway 03/21 with easy RNAVs to follow.
Only thing is if the weather is crap in PH it’s likely to be crap in Busso so KG is the better alternate there.
I’ve being flying recently with East Coast guys and being PH based I do make a habit of mentioning Busselton is now a very suitable airport. Most thank me as they aren’t aware it’s now considered a Network aerodrome. Easy to have missed over the last two years since WA was a seperate country after all and you can easy miss these small but significant things in the mix of all of us getting back in the air.
Well anonfly sounds like the reasonable, sensible people I fly with 99% of the time.
It’s interesting visiting the prune website again after a few years off because there is a definite ‘tone’ to the conversation that is a bit adversarial but still some good information in amongst it all.
My opinion is that the system worked with both the flight in question and the one pictured above that diverted to Kalgoorlie. I imagine that on the Kalgoorlie diversion flight the weather was assessed at the ‘in flight re-planning point ‘ ( DPA is it?) and all the wx information was there to divert in order to remain within the rule set. On the flight that landed with 40 minutes fuel remaining I imagine they also made an assessment at the ‘ in flight re-planning point ‘ and all was well to continue to destination. No problem. Then, aviation being rather dynamic, things changed, ATC threw up extra holding, no problem, the system has standard calls to ensure clear communication between ATC and the aircraft, these standard calls were used and the aircraft landed 10 minutes before it really needed to.
As far as crew decision making around how much fuel they loaded pre-flight we don’t have enough info to compare it to what we think we would have done in their shoes but I would bet that they were limited and most of us would have done the same as them. Guess we’ll find out in a couple of years. Have a nice day everyone.
It’s interesting visiting the prune website again after a few years off because there is a definite ‘tone’ to the conversation that is a bit adversarial but still some good information in amongst it all.
My opinion is that the system worked with both the flight in question and the one pictured above that diverted to Kalgoorlie. I imagine that on the Kalgoorlie diversion flight the weather was assessed at the ‘in flight re-planning point ‘ ( DPA is it?) and all the wx information was there to divert in order to remain within the rule set. On the flight that landed with 40 minutes fuel remaining I imagine they also made an assessment at the ‘ in flight re-planning point ‘ and all was well to continue to destination. No problem. Then, aviation being rather dynamic, things changed, ATC threw up extra holding, no problem, the system has standard calls to ensure clear communication between ATC and the aircraft, these standard calls were used and the aircraft landed 10 minutes before it really needed to.
As far as crew decision making around how much fuel they loaded pre-flight we don’t have enough info to compare it to what we think we would have done in their shoes but I would bet that they were limited and most of us would have done the same as them. Guess we’ll find out in a couple of years. Have a nice day everyone.
When you live....
Both aircraft safely arrived is what matters, whether each followed the rules is debatable. It's interesting that the QF aircrafts fuel details were not obtained by the ATSB for that event, and they had to use a calculation for the estimated FOB. In the Mildura case this was definitely a case of CAR 257 where decent below minima is allowed due to no other course of action available, ie an emergency. In the case of the 330 mentioned earlier its interesting, they had to declare an emergency to use Canberra as an alternate, but then busted minima at Sydney, which was also allowable under CAR 257 due to a fuel emergency, but is there a fuel emergency when you have fuel for an alternate? What is safer, busting the minima or diverting to an 'emergency' alternate under company policy, which would be considered a suitable alternate for general operations. It's pretty obvious from some wording in that report that the ATSB seems to think that the pan call was given to 'push in front' of other traffic so they could have a go before getting to YSCB divert fuel, but they only remarked at it, not really pushing the idea. It really is unfortunate that the briefing QF gave the ATSB/ATC on the why things are that way is not explained to the pilots in general for our education, as it would be nice to know the answers to these questions of what is preferable. This latest Perth Mayday was not really similar to either event as both the previous were due to weather conditions, not prolonged traffic holding.
It's incomprehensible that any trans-australia flight can't be given a final fix time at least an hour out and use that to determine if they'll arrive with their reserves intact. If things go to pot after that then ATC should be asking for latest divert times or latest approach times and re-sort the sequence from there.
I wonder if the airborne holding was extended to facilitate additional departures rather than due to additional arrivals? I'm not sure how arrival sequencing is impacted by departures from the same runway in Perth, but if there is say an additional few minutes between each arriving aircraft in order to get a few departures away, then reducing the airborne traffic holding in critical situations shouldn't be too hard to achieve by 'holding' a few aircraft on the ground.…..Is that too simplistic?
Only thing to say is that on a CAVOK day Busselton is a fantastic alternate. It’s 14mins down the road.
It has stairs for both 737, 320, F100 aircraft. The staff their are great. They got all g up and ready 3 times in preparation for Jetstar coming to it. They can handle a diversion. Lack of parking spots would be the only issue if too many turned up.
Nice 45m runway 03/21 with easy RNAVs to
It has stairs for both 737, 320, F100 aircraft. The staff their are great. They got all g up and ready 3 times in preparation for Jetstar coming to it. They can handle a diversion. Lack of parking spots would be the only issue if too many turned up.
Nice 45m runway 03/21 with easy RNAVs to
Forgive me if I recall this wrong, but didn't the QF flight 'push in' at Mildura? - the report says something like VA was tracking for the 27 GNSS then after discussion with QF, elected to hold for the QF which needed to land "due fuel". I don't think there was enough information provided to clarify how close the two were but if (and they're only ifs), VA had gone first, with minor (any?) delay to QF then they both might have gotten before the weather really closed in. I'm not passing any judgement here but it strikes me that both a/c would/should have had similar amounts of fuel at about that time and the more direct attitude of the QF captain (need to approach "due fuel") helped them out to the possible detriment of the VA. Translate that to Perth and it can be seen how anything other then a "mayday fuel" leaves potential for intentional or inadvertent problems being created for others.
It's incomprehensible that any trans-australia flight can't be given a final fix time at least an hour out and use that to determine if they'll arrive with their reserves intact. If things go to pot after that then ATC should be asking for latest divert times or latest approach times and re-sort the sequence from there.
It's incomprehensible that any trans-australia flight can't be given a final fix time at least an hour out and use that to determine if they'll arrive with their reserves intact. If things go to pot after that then ATC should be asking for latest divert times or latest approach times and re-sort the sequence from there.
Have you seen the list of requirements (including PPR) to use it?
There is a few events the last 20 years now that seem to show a cultural issue at QF that its ok to bust a minima without telling anyone that you will do so, which then leads to a few other assumptions of how they view minima
Personally, I've sat on the ground in visibility less than half that required for landing as Qantas aircraft diverted in all directions and other airline's aircraft (with their alternate fuel apparently) landed in visibility that miraculously and significantly improved for the few seconds they were approaching the minima. It was a common occurrence before Sydney and Melbourne had Cat II approaches.
The lovely people at YSCB parked a vehicle behind a Qantas jet to prevent it leaving before a landing fee was paid, after the jet had to divert there on short notice due a problem at YSSY. As I recall, the fee was $18,000 but my recollection may be fuzzy.
That's a very broad statement to make. I'm sure you have a list of the dozens of such occurrences in the tens of thousands of Qantas flights "in the last 20 years".
I wonder if the airborne holding was extended to facilitate additional departures rather than due to additional arrivals? I'm not sure how arrival sequencing is impacted by departures from the same runway in Perth, but if there is say an additional few minutes between each arriving aircraft in order to get a few departures away, then reducing the airborne traffic holding in critical situations shouldn't be too hard to achieve by 'holding' a few aircraft on the ground.…..Is that too simplistic?
The crew of this flight must have been reading this thread;
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-vzu/#2ccd1536
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-vzu/#2ccd1536
https://www.watoday.com.au/national/...27-p5b4xm.html
Last edited by Chronic Snoozer; 27th Jul 2022 at 03:34.
