Qantas Fuel Mayday

[Lead Balloon]

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.)

[43Inches]

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.

[Lead Balloon]

We all do whatever we want, 43. Whether what we do is lawful doesn't matter ... until it matters. Big or small.

[43Inches]

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?

[Beer Baron]

Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard

QF domestic flights are all planned with a minimum of 70 minutes over destination, plus whatever dispatch or the crew deem necessary on top of that.

Normally true, but you left out a key phrase, ‘payload permitting’.
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.

[Joker89]

Originally Posted by itsnotthatbloodyhard

(For joker89, there’s no such thing as declaring a pan for fuel. As morno alludes to, there’s ‘minimum fuel’ and then ‘mayday fuel’. Do we know for sure that ‘minimum fuel’ wasn’t declared?)

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

[neville_nobody]

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.)

CASA is handing out exemptions to the new rules

[43Inches]

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.

[walesregent]

Originally Posted by Low Pass

Let me guess.....Management pilot trying to show everyone why they should take flight plan fuel?

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.

[Chad Gates]

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.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Originally Posted by Joker89

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

From The Australian -

The ATSB investigation was expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2023.

So you're out by a year, it'll be 2025.

[john_tullamarine]

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.

[BuzzBox]

Originally Posted by morno

Isn’t there a “Minimum Fuel” call? So if you declare that, it means you cannot absorb any further delay or you will land with below reserve fuel.

Overseas that was the case anyway. Used it myself once during a diversion and ATC prioritised us over everyone.

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."

[Australopithecus]

Originally Posted by Chad Gates

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.

That is sometimes the case, yes. So let me try to weigh up the relative merits of a tech stop compared to a min fuel arrival in PER.
What $ value should I give the headlines and CASA scrutiny do you reckon?

[Ollie Onion]

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.

[Gne]

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

[parishiltons]

Originally Posted by morno

Isn’t there a “Minimum Fuel” call? So if you declare that, it means you cannot absorb any further delay or you will land with below reserve fuel.

Overseas that was the case anyway. Used it myself once during a diversion and ATC prioritised us over everyone.

Yes, there is a MINIMUM FUEL call but it does not provide any priority. To get additional priority a MAYDAY FUEL call must be made. Every call has a specific meaning that provides a common pathway for consequent actions by the pilot and ATC. Here's the relevant extract from AIP (sorry for the large lettering - that's how it uploaded):

[tossbag]

(You being an expert on insurance, after all.)

Funny bastard

[BuzzBox]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

Don't forget: If you're doing circuits and you realise you might land with less than 30 minutes' fuel remaining, you must declare a 'mayday'.

I kindly suggest that if you find yourself in that situation while doing circuits, you should find another hobby.

[Lead Balloon]

CASA is handing out exemptions to the new rules

Of course. I should have remembered that under the new outcomes-based rules from which exemptions would not be required, exemptions are being granted.

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.

In which case the new rules are – as they were predicted to be – a farce.

Here's the relevant extract from AIP

Here’s a link to the actual instrument: CASA 29/18 — Civil Aviation (Fuel Requirements) Instrument 2018.

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.

Please let me try to learn from your wisdom. What safety risk arises from landing with 29 minutes’ fuel remaining after doing a few circuits in a C152?