Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Qantas Fuel Mayday

Old 26th Jul 2022, 06:56
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: At the buffet
Age: 48
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The same pig-headed bookworms that will argue require/request semantics with English second language carriers hurtling toward Botany Bay at 300 knots.
Cameras out and fingers hovering over the crash buttonÖ.
Pastor of Muppets is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 07:13
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
The only question going to asked in regards to diversion is why they didnít go to Kalgoorlie. It might well be they couldnít make it anyway so Perth was the only option.

The passengers paid their money to go to Perth
wombat watcher is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 07:28
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Icarus2001 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 10:05
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The one who omits QF diverted ahead of VA and landed at Mildura safely
The Qantas aircraft landed in the same fog that the Virgin aircraft landed in. And in a very similar fuel state. i.e. [email protected]
tossbag is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 10:36
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Qantas aircraft landed in the same fog that the Virgin aircraft landed in. And in a very similar fuel state. i.e. [email protected]
The QF aircraft landed at 0945 with the calculated ability to hold until 1020 and then commence an approach with reserves intact. So it landed with 1 hour left in the tanks, probably 30 minutes more than this incident in Perth landed with. However both aircraft overlooked the TAF Tempo requirement and did not have the 1 hour needed for that particular requirement, as the diversion was unplanned and observations were used instead of the TAF that both crew had.
43Inches is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 11:44
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
tossbag is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 12:43
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
43Inches is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 13:07
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 13:16
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Location: tossbagville
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Both aircraft safely arrived is what matters
Despite the absolute embarrassment that Australian aviation is. Everything about it, infrastructure, attitudes, mentality but mainly the delusion that it's better than everybody else.

whether each followed the rules is debatable
Don't care really, both crews got those aircraft down despite being ****** over by the Australian aviation system.
tossbag is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 14:56
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Jungle
Posts: 584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The crew of this flight must have been reading this thread;

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-vzu/#2ccd1536
smiling monkey is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 15:39
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,282
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
If you don't like it, Fathom, don't read the thread. I'm finding it quite interesting.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 15:44
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,282
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The crew of this flight must have been reading this thread;

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-vzu/#2ccd1536
TAF amend Perth (Issued 1426), Prob 30 Fog from 1600. ATIS at 1406: 700/800/1200.

Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 16:33
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Earth
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Only thing to say is that on a CAVOK day Busselton is a fantastic alternate. Itís 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 itís likely to be crap in Busso so KG is the better alternate there.
Iíve 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 arenít aware itís 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.
anonfly is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 21:26
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 55
Posts: 2,772
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
framer is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 21:59
  #195 (permalink)  
When you live....
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: 0.0221 DME Keyboard
Posts: 951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches View Post
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.
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.
UnderneathTheRadar is online now  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 22:36
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.Ö..Is that too simplistic?
C441 is offline  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 23:12
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 4,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by anonfly View Post
Only thing to say is that on a CAVOK day Busselton is a fantastic alternate. Itís 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
Have you seen the list of requirements (including PPR) to use it?
compressor stall is online now  
Old 26th Jul 2022, 23:56
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by UnderneathTheRadar View Post
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.
There's a few elephants in the room regarding the QF crews actions at Mildura. They knowingly reduced the minima to get in, which is still busting a minima to land, which was admitted in crew interviews. However there was no declaration of a mayday despite them planning to bust minima with a revised minima 200 ft below the published. That would have led to them being stood down in Mildura and the CVR and FDR data being seized for scrutiny like the case of the VA aircraft. Instead they refueled and left a few hours later. The VA aircraft was dealing with a low fuel state and imbalance which is described in the report. I assume for some reason the FDR and fuel records were not provided to the ATSB from the QF flight for some reason, which is beyond my comprehension as to why this information was unavailable. 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, but that's for another discussion. IMO the VA aircraft did everything right by the book except carrying the fuel for the TEMPO at MIA. Both aircraft landed safely which is the main thing, however had the QF aircraft come to grief due to preforming what is an emergency procedure the services would not have been in direct attendance as they were for the VA aircraft. Which is the main reason you declare your emergency so if something does go wrong all the chips are in place to minimise the downsides.

Have you seen the list of requirements (including PPR) to use it?
PPR means nowt if you need somewhere to land due a low fuel state, unless of course that PPR involves making the aerodrome safe for use.
43Inches is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2022, 00:13
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
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".

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.
C441 is offline  
Old 27th Jul 2022, 00:24
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Lead Balloon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.