Qantas Fuel Mayday
Comedy gold!
Actually, I think you mean "refuse to comply". The operator's insurers and CASA may have something to say about that. (You being an expert on insurance, after all.)
Actually, I think you mean "refuse to comply". The operator's insurers and CASA may have something to say about that. (You being an expert on insurance, after all.)
Whatever you want to call it, refuse to comply or follow the old set of rules, doesn't affect me, although it quite obviously allowed them more freedom in planning in a few situations where we were grounded. It's quite obvious you don't keep up with what goes on at airlines these days, WRT to if you are big enough you do what you want. That's why I will be interested to see what the ATSB comes up with in this case as the amounts seem very thin for the new rules, while still 'safe' it seems very light.
We all do whatever we want, 43. Whether what we do is lawful doesn't matter ... until it matters. Big or small.
There's also a lot of waft in part 121 about operator set minimas and such, which makes a lot of stuff happen behind closed doors. While there are factors to be applied as guided what approach minimas they use are up to the operator and get pretty low if you are using the airport as an alternate, well below what a Jepp plate suggests. It's a minefield for pilots and a lot of theories yet to be tested. In theory I could use Melbourne or Sydney as an alternate with Cat 1 only capable with as low as 450ft ceiling, allowing only 200ft margin, legal, but prudent?
BNE-PER on a 737 with good load and a strong HW will definitely make it hard to fit on all the fuel you’d like. You can’t just take off traffic load to put on more fuel, that requires a call upstairs for approval. Yes, you can take more gas but in this circumstance it would have been a little more involved than a usual fuel order.
copied, I guess the boss could have alluded to as much in the quote. Investigation will be interesting. Expect it to be completed in 2024
Actually, I think you mean "refuse to comply". The operator's insurers and CASA may have something to say about that. (You being an expert on insurance, after all.)
Pretty sure a certain operator forced an exemption because they flatly refused to use the new rules, that then opened up a few others to the exemption. But an exemption is what they got, whether it's temporary or whatever who knows.
I reckon that’s a possibility. Perth is the only capital city I operate into and conditions need to be extraordinarily good for me to consider taking less than a tonne extra given the nature of traffic holding recently.
BNE-PER in the winter. Over 5 and a half hours flying time. Last day of school holidays in WA. There would have been no room for more fuel, Management pilot or otherwise.
The ATSB investigation was expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2023.
Moderator
We've all been caught out east coast to PER, back of the clock, in winter. Just one of those realities of life, met and best endeavours with forecasting notwithstanding. Very hard to be perfect when the crystal ball is its usual fogged up self but very nice to have a Plan B up your sleeve.
In the olden days, there were a few management examples of pushing the boundaries which very nearly came to grief. A 727 taxying in at CBR with engines spooling down comes to mind ....
I far preferred having a think about things and, if warranted, putting a bit more on for mum and the kids.
In the olden days, there were a few management examples of pushing the boundaries which very nearly came to grief. A 727 taxying in at CBR with engines spooling down comes to mind ....
I far preferred having a think about things and, if warranted, putting a bit more on for mum and the kids.
Yes, there is a "Minimum fuel" call, but it only means that any further delay MAY result in the aircraft landing with less than the planned final reserve fuel (See ICAO Annex 6 Pt I 4.3.7.2.2). The "Mayday Fuel" call means the aircraft IS PREDICTED to land with less than the planned final reserve fuel. The "Minimum fuel" call is only intended as a heads up and ATC is not obliged to provide priority handling (even overseas). I once declared "Minimum fuel" on descent into Hong Kong. The response was: "So is everyone else."
What $ value should I give the headlines and CASA scrutiny do you reckon?
Need to read the report really. With Flightplan fuel they should have arrived with 60 mins. At minimum they should have had the 30min Fixed plus 15mins. With that fuel and a 16 minute dealy ypu could go straight to a Mayday as it would mean ypu have 29 minutes left which is below the legal minimum. On the fave of it they system
worked as designed.
worked as designed.
Slightly off topic but related to the general discussion:
1979 at Amberley: (then) WGCDR pilot's taxi call one Sunday morning after a weekend jolly. "Taxi one for Willy POB 2 , Minimum Fuel." Remember it well as I was in the back seat.
Gne
1979 at Amberley: (then) WGCDR pilot's taxi call one Sunday morning after a weekend jolly. "Taxi one for Willy POB 2 , Minimum Fuel." Remember it well as I was in the back seat.
Gne

CASA is handing out exemptions to the new rules
Pretty sure a certain operator forced an exemption because they flatly refused to use the new rules, that then opened up a few others to the exemption. But an exemption is what they got, whether it's temporary or whatever who knows.
Here's the relevant extract from AIP
I kindly suggest that if you find yourself in that situation [of having with less than 30 minutes’ fuel remaining] while doing circuits, you should find another hobby.