Qantas Fuel Mayday

[Plazbot]

Originally Posted by Wizofoz

No, OS ATC will try its' best to avoid an emergency rather than allow one to happen.

Yeah, nah. At my OS facility, you declare min fuel you get a Roger. You declare mayday fuel, you get a Roger cancel hold. It's a pretty simple concept that seems to be drawing much angst.

[nose,cabin]

Originally Posted by Plazbot

Yeah, nah. At my OS facility, you declare min fuel you get a Roger. You declare mayday fuel, you get a Roger cancel hold. It's a pretty simple concept that seems to be drawing much angst.

This is a true story and hopefully learn and share a lesson from an old timer.

in 1965 a BOAC Comet4 at Darwin was advised by ATC Darwin tower
“Runway flooded deep water “
Captain asked
”how long to drain away?’
tower
”we don’t know”!
Captain
give me Alice Springs weather
he was NOT advised
TAF Dust was forecast some 4 hours later at 6am sunrise.
The Captain had to hand fly to land in zero visibility in dust in Alice.
‘The moral to learn
Always have plan B with FULL backup
notams, TAF metar, special weather etc.

I also remember just recently, Perth airport was fully closed due smoke, , vis below 100 meters, from a bush fire in Guildford Cemetery adjacent threshold RWY 21 and 24.

[Wizofoz]

Originally Posted by TimmyTee

So if more delay enters the system (say a go around), you're saying ATC should pluck the min fueller out of the sequence to avoid them diverting? What about the other aircraft that this then knock on effects?

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?

Read the definition of minimum fuel again. it means the aircraft has commited to destination and can't divert. And try this- an aircraft is losing hydrulics and will, in a short while, have no control- not an emergency yet, but will be catastrophic soon- does HE get priority? Mayday fuel is an emergency, meaning the aircraft has less fuel than is considered safe- it is in distress. Moving an aircraft up so that doesn't happen is simply ensuring flight saftey,

[Wizofoz]

Originally Posted by Plazbot

Yeah, nah. At my OS facility, you declare min fuel you get a Roger. You declare mayday fuel, you get a Roger cancel hold. It's a pretty simple concept that seems to be drawing much angst.

Sure, but how often have you seen an aircraft that has declared minimum fuel been then given more delay?

[wombat watcher]

[lucille]

Just as an historical aside, I seem to recall the Mayday fuel phraseology was introduced after the Avianca 502 crash in New York.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052

It was an effort to tighten up communications between crew and ATC especially if one or both are not native English speakers. Despite the gnashing of teeth by the Mayday purists, I guess it’s working as intended.

I’ve also noticed, that unless clearly specified, chaps who have spent a lot of time sitting in ejection seats seem to have a different understanding of what minimum fuel means. 🤣

[compressor stall]

>> Bussleton enters the chat.

[tossbag]

No, OS ATC will try its' best to avoid an emergency rather than allow one to happen.

Yes mate, but rules are rules, and nobody enforces a rule better than an Australian. The king of rules, more rules than the rule shop can stock. Or ten rule shops.

[tossbag]

Yeah, nah. At my OS facility, you declare min fuel you get a Roger. You declare mayday fuel, you get a Roger cancel hold. It's a pretty simple concept that seems to be drawing much angst.

Wiz, did ya read that? That's what happens at an overseas ATC facility when you give an Australian a job

[cLeArIcE]

Not to hang this crew as I don't know the circumstances, ( QLD PER can tricky this time of year balancing payloads etc and sometimes you don't have much wiggle room) but assuming that you can, who in their right mind arrives into Perth without substantial traffic holding or alternate fuel to go to Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Busselton etc? Infact, not just Perth. The whole network is a shambles currently.
Also, why are delays in to Perth even a thing? ATC know we are all coming for hours beforehand. Why can't you begin to sequence us 800nm+ out? There isn't that much traffic. It's hardly the north Atlantic.

[Wizofoz]

Originally Posted by tossbag

Yes mate, but rules are rules, and nobody enforces a rule better than an Australian. The king of rules, more rules than the rule shop can stock. Or ten rule shops.

Exactley my take, Toss- rules based thinking in an environment where flexibility and common sense are needed.

[nose,cabin]

Originally Posted by cLeArIcE

Not to hang this crew as I don't know the circumstances, ( QLD PER can tricky this time of year balancing payloads etc and sometimes you don't have much wiggle room) but assuming that you can, who in their right mind arrives into Perth without substantial traffic holding or alternate fuel to go to Kalgoorlie, Geraldton, Busselton etc? Infact, not just Perth. The whole network is a shambles currently.
Also, why are delays in to Perth even a thing? ATC know we are all coming for hours beforehand. Why can't you begin to sequence us 800nm+ out? There isn't that much traffic. It's hardly the north Atlantic.

Yes the shambles needs fixing.
‘That is your duty to lobby with letters.
‘Senators, CASA, Unions.
I believe all RAAF airports should be open to any aircraft for use as Alternate (no Mayday needed)
Preflight support, notams provided every flight., H24 fireFFS and runway lights. Ground support ie stairs, tow bars, ground power.

Expect fuel saving if nearby RAAF airports as alternate , Pearce costs the taxpayers a fortune.
it is normally not available.

Change will happen eventually.

[BuzzBox]

Originally Posted by Wizofoz

Sure, but how often have you seen an aircraft that has declared minimum fuel been then given more delay?

I've seen it happen in Hong Kong on more than one occasion, when unforecast thunderstorms caused havoc. The affected aircraft subsequently declared "Mayday fuel" and were dealt with accordingly.

That said, I agree that most OS controllers would facilitate a "Minimum fuel" aircraft wherever possible, but they are certainly not obliged to do so.

[nose,cabin]

Singapore will permit

Tengah Air Base

Landing for a very large fee.

‘The boss is not happy to receive this landing bill I was informed. Over $10k.
many years ago..

[fdr]

Originally Posted by mates rates

Does Qantas apply an individual performance degradation figure to their computerised flight planning?

Used to... however, it is curious that some parts of the policy in 2018 made it a requirement to apply manufacturer data for the fuel planning in certain cases, and that hopefully doesn't come up too often, as it would be a pain and also would not necessarily be biased towards safety.

A further curiosity arises that the alternate diversion ends up covering OEI or Depress... which means that the whole thing has to be planned as that case, which appears to be a multiple failure case that is not generally covered anywhere else... that is, you have your failure en-route, still approach and miss at your destination, and then climb back up and trundle cross country to another world location on one engine, or decompressed etc... and that seems odd. At arrival at the new new new destination, the alternative to the airport that in spite of being engine out you flew away from, you are also planned to land with 15 minutes 'o gas. Excellent. Now, as a punter, I think I would be unhappy about that scenario being done with my skin in play, and as an accident investigator, I would expect a fair bit of issues raised for the setup of lunacy by a regulator.

Perth always has been and always will be an annoying airport on occasions, Have had greater than 70 kts crosswind on all runways for arrival, and looked out of the #2 window of a 74 to see the runway, and not been too happy with that. Following the divert to a location that is good for seafood, 5 hours later, we arrive in fog. Perth is designed for the entertainment of the gods, not drivers.

[The Love Doctor]

Originally Posted by cLeArIcE

Also, why are delays in to Perth even a thing? ATC know we are all coming for hours beforehand. Why can't you begin to sequence us 800nm+ out? There isn't that much traffic. It's hardly the north Atlantic.

Isn't that what the GDP is for? oh wait

[fdr]

Originally Posted by Wizofoz

Sure, but how often have you seen an aircraft that has declared minimum fuel been then given more delay?

More to the point, what pilot is going to sit in the hold until they are a glider... other than Avianca, and a few others... but the drivers that do so will get their name in the funny pages.

A while back, the TC examiners and instructors were lamenting on the fact that one of the LOFT exercises would have the crews holding until they ran out of sim time. Then they changed the remaining fuel, and the guys did indeed hold until they went silent. My suggestion was to sit back and give the crew the full monty experience following making the sim into a 6DOF glider. After the first crew sat there for 15 minutes until impact, the word got around that it was not a fun experience, and the crews started diverting as was prudent to avoid a repeat. They only had to let one crew enjoy the full ride to get the message out. That followed a particularly unpleasant event at NYC where the plane, one x big plane, darn near became a glider overhead JFK, and ended up diverting to Stewart, which was closed and ugly too.

[Capt Fathom]

DROPS. It’s not the ‘Australian airlines’ rules.
CASA and their predecessors have made the rules, and the airlines and ATC comply with them.

[Wizofoz]

Originally Posted by DROPS

Wow. I love how the fact that Australian airlines don't need to plan an alternate like the rest of the world

But when it doesn't work out in a remote place like PH it is somehow those awful Australian ATC fault.

Bahaha. All hail the Oztronauts.

And yeah. Where is that GDP???

You're right that Australia has quite different alternate requirements, but aircraft all over the world end up in commit-to-destinaion situations which ammount to the same thing.

[nose,cabin]

Originally Posted by Wizofoz

You're right that Australia has quite different alternate requirements, but aircraft all over the world end up in commit-to-destinaion situations which ammount to the same thing.

“commit to destination”,Alternate fuel

You're right that Australia has quite different alternate requirements, BUT

Alternate Airport,

fuel calculation includes missed approach at the destination airport, ( both engines operating,)

, complete the missed approach procedure, climb, cruise, descent to alternate airport, and 15 minutes reserve.

No taxi fuel at destination,


When ATC holding is required

The latest TTD time is provided to ATC.

This becomes the diversion time allocated by

ATC.

Clearances are ready and issued prior to diversion time.

Never loose plan B.