Qantas Fuel Mayday
Use of Maday for low fuel works . The consequences of having to make a maday makes unloading bags for fuel or planning a tech stop easier .
Execute one to teach a 1000 .
Execute one to teach a 1000 .
Boy oh boy, I now feel blessed to have worked for an operator whose fuel policy mandated an alternate regardless of weather.
Weather is not the only trigger for a diversion.
Weather is not the only trigger for a diversion.
my international airline employment company’s flight plan was always provided with alternate airport with all required notams metar etc, very professional.
So many good airlines have a fuel policy to international safety standards.
‘unfortunately Australia regulatory authority and limp unions, ie AFAP,
do not enforce international safety standards and gives Australia airlines an unfair economic advantage until the inevitable happens.
I am sure the Reason Swiss Cheese model, doesn’t see a distress call as a slice of Swiss Cheese.
*sigh*
I know what terminology they used..
My suggestion is that the ‘book’ should mandate terminology different to ‘Mayday’ or ‘Emergency’ or ‘Distress’ in circumstances where, for example, the crew comes to the conclusion that, if nothing changes, they’ll land having consumed 1 minute of their final reserve. The current rules mandate declaration of a ‘Mayday’ in those circumstances.
I’ll say it again: I couldn’t care less if ‘Maydays’ must be declared in these circumstances. But nobody should be surprised when the media and punters assume that the circumstances must have constituted an emergency and get confused and sceptical when the airlines (and eventually the ‘safety’ authority and investigator) say that there was never any risk to safety.
I know what terminology they used..
My suggestion is that the ‘book’ should mandate terminology different to ‘Mayday’ or ‘Emergency’ or ‘Distress’ in circumstances where, for example, the crew comes to the conclusion that, if nothing changes, they’ll land having consumed 1 minute of their final reserve. The current rules mandate declaration of a ‘Mayday’ in those circumstances.
I’ll say it again: I couldn’t care less if ‘Maydays’ must be declared in these circumstances. But nobody should be surprised when the media and punters assume that the circumstances must have constituted an emergency and get confused and sceptical when the airlines (and eventually the ‘safety’ authority and investigator) say that there was never any risk to safety.
I don't reckon this one is all that hard,
I'll bet the Qantas aircraft departed with legal fuel.
I'll bet the Qantas crew were re-calculating fuel state at appropriate times during the flight.
I'll bet the Qantas crew's dangly bits or flappy bits didn't clench or tighten at any time during the flight due to fuel state.
I'll bet that the Qantas crew, when informed of the changed holding requirements, knew exactly how much fuel they had on board and what effect the holding requirements would have on that quantity.
I'll bet that most Qantas Captain's would have quite a few hours in the log book, even if they were a new Captain and would apply that experience against the 'quality' of ATC in this country.
The AIP requirements worked exactly the way it was meant to work, the aircraft got the priority it required and deserved and landed without its safety, that of the passengers or crew ever being in doubt.
**** the ******** media and the usual alarmist bull**** that saturates daily Australian life.
I'll bet the Qantas aircraft departed with legal fuel.
I'll bet the Qantas crew were re-calculating fuel state at appropriate times during the flight.
I'll bet the Qantas crew's dangly bits or flappy bits didn't clench or tighten at any time during the flight due to fuel state.
I'll bet that the Qantas crew, when informed of the changed holding requirements, knew exactly how much fuel they had on board and what effect the holding requirements would have on that quantity.
I'll bet that most Qantas Captain's would have quite a few hours in the log book, even if they were a new Captain and would apply that experience against the 'quality' of ATC in this country.
The AIP requirements worked exactly the way it was meant to work, the aircraft got the priority it required and deserved and landed without its safety, that of the passengers or crew ever being in doubt.
**** the ******** media and the usual alarmist bull**** that saturates daily Australian life.
MOS 121 4.08 refers.
For a flight to be conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules, at least one destination alternate aerodrome shall be selected and specified in the operational and ATS flight plans, unless:
a) the duration of the flight from the departure aerodrome, or from the point of in-flight re-planning, to the destination aerodrome is such that, taking into account all meteorological conditions and operational information relevant to the flight, at the estimated time of use, a reasonable certainty exists that: 1) the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological conditions and 2) separate runways are usable at the estimated time of use of the destination aerodrome with at least on runway having an operations instrument approach procedure.
a) the duration of the flight from the departure aerodrome, or from the point of in-flight re-planning, to the destination aerodrome is such that, taking into account all meteorological conditions and operational information relevant to the flight, at the estimated time of use, a reasonable certainty exists that: 1) the approach and landing may be made under visual meteorological conditions and 2) separate runways are usable at the estimated time of use of the destination aerodrome with at least on runway having an operations instrument approach procedure.
The only bit I disagree with here is that they SHOULD have gotten that priority when they declared minimum fuel- it's ATC that need to be held to the public flame for turning a nothing into a circus.
Agreed, but if it's consistent around the world (and I don't know that it is?) then there's no ambiguity with foreign crew operating into Australia. Or Australian crews operating overseas. I personally think that the use of the word 'mayday' in this instance is over the top, but it's the only word that will grant the crew the priority it requires.
Annex 6, Part I, contains Standards and Recommended Practices adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization as the minimum Standards applicable to the operation of aeroplanes by operators authorized to conduct international commercial air transport operations.
. I can only assume the dual runway requirement was not adopted for domestic use because the woeful lack of aviation infrastructure in this country made it all too hard. 
Last edited by BuzzBox; 23rd Jul 2022 at 07:16.
I can only assume the dual runway requirement was not adopted for domestic use because the woeful lack of aviation infrastructure in this country made it all too hard.
Can anybody explain why in good weather etc, one of the requirements if you don't want to hold an alternate is destination has to have dual (separate, not crossing) runways - but only for for overseas ops. AU single runway is fine....
MOS 121 4.08 refers.
MOS 121 4.08 refers.
Probably a career ending move for anyone involved. Much safer to make lots of noise about non-issues where there are no real consequences and make a nice little line on your resume.
As PIC there are a whole bunch of things that I have to consider to ensure the safe operation of the aircraft. Worrying about the media reaction to a Mayday call is not one of them. Thats what all those highly paid PR people are for. At the end of the day I think the PIC would have operated the aircraft within the QF fuel policy and used the relevant phraseology to ensure a safe arrival of the aircraft such that it didn't run out of fuel at the end of the landing roll. All the "chatter" about what a Mayday is and when and where it should be used is bollocks.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Mom's House
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read your AIP - minimum fuel does not afford the pilot any priority…..10.9.2.1
No GUARENTEE of priority- that doesn't preclude common sense being used to enhance air saftey, which is how this identical rule is used every where else in the world.
One pilots min fuel might be touching down with low pressure lights on, another may be with 10min "just in case", and another might be some other number.
If ATC started re-ordering based on the above, the knock on effects could impact other guys who may actually have less fuel, not to mention the ability for "queue jumpers" if there's no accountability attached
But if a pilot just needs to utter "minimum fuel" - what exactly does that mean?
One pilots min fuel might be touching down with low pressure lights on, another may be with 10min "just in case", and another might be some other number.
If ATC started re-ordering based on the above, the knock on effects could impact other guys who may actually have less fuel, not to mention the ability for "queue jumpers" if there's no accountability attached
One pilots min fuel might be touching down with low pressure lights on, another may be with 10min "just in case", and another might be some other number.
If ATC started re-ordering based on the above, the knock on effects could impact other guys who may actually have less fuel, not to mention the ability for "queue jumpers" if there's no accountability attached
Of course ATC won't disadvantage someone and will do what they can to help, but why should a min fuel statement mean that aircraft is moved up in the sequence?