QF 737 damaged at DRW
TEMPO has absolutely nothing to do with 60 mins holding fuel. It is simply a statement indicating a temporary change in weather from the general weather statement.
Different aircraft have different alternate minima depending on the equipment onboard and serviceable. If the tempo, or general weather for that matter is below that that then 60/30 or an alternate may be required.
Different aircraft have different alternate minima depending on the equipment onboard and serviceable. If the tempo, or general weather for that matter is below that that then 60/30 or an alternate may be required.
Does that mean Qantas is immune from the requirement to carry TEMPO fuel if Thunderstorms are forecast (which I'm assuming was the case given the weather recently)? If the TEMPO wasn't thunderstorms then ignore what I'm about to say.
According to the regs, regardless of the actual weather conditions associated with the Thunderstorms, TEMPO fuel is required.
Jepp ATC300 3.2.5 - "When thunderstorms or their associated severe turbulence or their probability is forecast at the destination, sufficient fuel must be carried to permit the aircraft to proceed to a suitable alternate or to hold (30mins or 60mins)."
So even if the weather wasn't actually forecast to go below alternate minimums, the sheer fact that there is TS forecast places a requirement for holding and/or alternate fuel.
Or am I missing the point?
TL
According to the regs, regardless of the actual weather conditions associated with the Thunderstorms, TEMPO fuel is required.
Jepp ATC300 3.2.5 - "When thunderstorms or their associated severe turbulence or their probability is forecast at the destination, sufficient fuel must be carried to permit the aircraft to proceed to a suitable alternate or to hold (30mins or 60mins)."
So even if the weather wasn't actually forecast to go below alternate minimums, the sheer fact that there is TS forecast places a requirement for holding and/or alternate fuel.
Or am I missing the point?
TL
Tempo up North
RENURPP - up north when people refer to a tempo they are invariably refering to one which involves thunderstorms i.e. CB BKN 1000 vis 3000m wind g35etc. Correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it any forcast for thunderstorms requires either, holding for the period during which the thunders are forecast (INTER/TEMPO/FM etc.) or diversion to an alternate without thunders (or any other alt requirement). It seems that the word tempo up north has become a colloquialism for tempo CBs.
Personally, in my time up North I have never seen a tempo refer to anything else but as you pointed out it can of course refer to any temp change in conditions. (if you count AS as being up north)
Personally, in my time up North I have never seen a tempo refer to anything else but as you pointed out it can of course refer to any temp change in conditions. (if you count AS as being up north)
Slice and Transition Layer
You are correct however if you watch the weather this time of year, with the monsoonal weather, you get tempo's for heavy showers with no mention of TS or CB. I have been here 13 yrs you do see it, I checked and Darwin today has TS on all but an example in Groote and Cairns.
TAF AMD YGTE 230010Z 0014
32010KT 9999 SCT018
INTER 0308 32015G35KT 2000 SHOWERS OF RAIN BKN008
T 30 31 32 31 Q 1007 1005 1004 1004
TAF YBCS 221628Z 1818 VRB05KT 9999 SCT025 SCT120
FM00 36010KT 9999 SCT030
FM09 VRB05KT 9999 LIGHT SHOWERS OF RAIN SCT020 BKN040
INTER 0618 4000 SHOWERS OF RAIN FEW008 SCT018
T 24 25 29 30 Q 1005 1007 1007 1005
and Coen
TAF YCOE 221738Z 2008 VRB05KT 9999 LIGHT SHOWERS OF RAIN SCT020
BKN040 SCT120
INTER 2002 4000 SHOWERS OF RAIN BKN010
TEMPO 0208 2000 THUNDERSTORMS WITH RAIN BKN010 SCT020CB
T 24 27 29 30 Q 1008 1009 1008 1007
I am neither supporting not having fuel, nor having a go at the pilot concerned, as I don't recall the TAF/TTF on the day. My reply was to the fact that a previous post suggested that Tempo in it self required an aircraft to carry 60 hdg.
Personally I try were possible to have 60 even if its not forecaste, especially at night time.
TAF AMD YGTE 230010Z 0014
32010KT 9999 SCT018
INTER 0308 32015G35KT 2000 SHOWERS OF RAIN BKN008
T 30 31 32 31 Q 1007 1005 1004 1004
TAF YBCS 221628Z 1818 VRB05KT 9999 SCT025 SCT120
FM00 36010KT 9999 SCT030
FM09 VRB05KT 9999 LIGHT SHOWERS OF RAIN SCT020 BKN040
INTER 0618 4000 SHOWERS OF RAIN FEW008 SCT018
T 24 25 29 30 Q 1005 1007 1007 1005
and Coen
TAF YCOE 221738Z 2008 VRB05KT 9999 LIGHT SHOWERS OF RAIN SCT020
BKN040 SCT120
INTER 2002 4000 SHOWERS OF RAIN BKN010
TEMPO 0208 2000 THUNDERSTORMS WITH RAIN BKN010 SCT020CB
T 24 27 29 30 Q 1008 1009 1008 1007
I am neither supporting not having fuel, nor having a go at the pilot concerned, as I don't recall the TAF/TTF on the day. My reply was to the fact that a previous post suggested that Tempo in it self required an aircraft to carry 60 hdg.
Personally I try were possible to have 60 even if its not forecaste, especially at night time.
Last edited by RENURPP; 23rd Feb 2003 at 03:19.
the usual stuff "there was a loud bang, we thought we were all going to die blah blah"
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the guys who are quoting the definition of Tempo like they just learnt it yesterday, you can bet your life a ‘professional’ 737 pilot (airline unknown) is not going to arrive in Darwin with bad weather forecast without the legal fuel (and then some!)
You show your own weakness by seriously thinking that another professional would allow this to occur.
Secondly, the 737 driver “apparently” said he had only 45 mins, which means there’s very little evidence that this was ever said.
And finally, what I would strongly suspect is the real situation is that the 737 driver did not rather nervously say he had only 45 minutes at all. More like ‘I can hold for 45 minutes no problem, (no sign of a quaver in the voice), AND I will then have the fuel required to divert to Tindal.’
He probably just gave ATC the heads-up that he would be gone if there was any more that 45 minutes delay.
You show your own weakness by seriously thinking that another professional would allow this to occur.
Secondly, the 737 driver “apparently” said he had only 45 mins, which means there’s very little evidence that this was ever said.
And finally, what I would strongly suspect is the real situation is that the 737 driver did not rather nervously say he had only 45 minutes at all. More like ‘I can hold for 45 minutes no problem, (no sign of a quaver in the voice), AND I will then have the fuel required to divert to Tindal.’
He probably just gave ATC the heads-up that he would be gone if there was any more that 45 minutes delay.
Beagle
If that was directed at me, I was purposely not entering the discussion on who said what, who did what and what the refueller said, leave that up to you guys.
I was more interested in the comments regarding what tempo means and when holding fuel is required. It ididn't appear to be understood, and if I am incorrect I hope some one will point it out to me!
Only a complete investigation will tell why "a professional’ 737 pilot" ran off the runway or what ever happened.
I was more interested in the comments regarding what tempo means and when holding fuel is required. It ididn't appear to be understood, and if I am incorrect I hope some one will point it out to me!
Only a complete investigation will tell why "a professional’ 737 pilot" ran off the runway or what ever happened.
Last edited by RENURPP; 23rd Feb 2003 at 09:57.
This "tempo" stuff is getting boring. If the crew had 45 mins before they had to go some where else ,then they had bucketloads of fuel, do the maths ie THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE 60 MINS without alternate.And if they had Tindal (maybe Tempo TS there aswell) they would have been drowning in the stuff. Some should just sit on there hands and think before diving onto your keyboards for a bit of crew bashing.
Ditto RENURRP...
I was merely entering the discussion on TEMPO fuel, because I found it interesting and it's good to thrash out the regs every now and then. Had the very same discussion with two company pilots yesterday while they were planning an IFR flight.
My reference to QF was simply that they may have been in some way exempt from that holding fuel because of other contingencies that they may have in place. No way considering they were unprofessional - that is just a joke.
As for "quoting it like i learnt it yesterday" - no way i knew that off by heart! I just grabbed the Jepps and put in the correct definition to remove any doubts.
Cheers,
TL
I was merely entering the discussion on TEMPO fuel, because I found it interesting and it's good to thrash out the regs every now and then. Had the very same discussion with two company pilots yesterday while they were planning an IFR flight.
My reference to QF was simply that they may have been in some way exempt from that holding fuel because of other contingencies that they may have in place. No way considering they were unprofessional - that is just a joke.
As for "quoting it like i learnt it yesterday" - no way i knew that off by heart! I just grabbed the Jepps and put in the correct definition to remove any doubts.
Cheers,
TL
Guest
Posts: n/a
Beagles.
Yours is the first intelligent comment so far. Thanks.
The 737 Captain involved in the landing is an experienced guy who has been around the block a few times. Landing in the tropics in wet weather is nothing new to him. The comment about the spilled coffee is p*ss weak.
Yours is the first intelligent comment so far. Thanks.
The 737 Captain involved in the landing is an experienced guy who has been around the block a few times. Landing in the tropics in wet weather is nothing new to him. The comment about the spilled coffee is p*ss weak.
MOFO,
there was very little to nothing intelligent about his post.
Some of us were simply discussing Tempo, you will not find anything in my post suggesting that the pilot did or did not have enough fuel. I have no idea just as you don't. Myabe we should have started another post so as not too offend you precious little 737 drivers.
Nice to see your loyalties to your work colleagues but get real.
I agree about the spilt coffee comment but take it in the vane it was posted.
there was very little to nothing intelligent about his post.
Some of us were simply discussing Tempo, you will not find anything in my post suggesting that the pilot did or did not have enough fuel. I have no idea just as you don't. Myabe we should have started another post so as not too offend you precious little 737 drivers.
Nice to see your loyalties to your work colleagues but get real.
I agree about the spilt coffee comment but take it in the vane it was posted.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Pity it was a 737. A pack of Qantas 747 w**kers pushed in front of us and a United crew at customs at Sydney earlier this week. When asked why the QF Captain curtly replied "Because we're Australia's national carrier" To a man we were too stunned to reply
Nunc est bibendum
Tross, I'll admit a poor reply but are you guys enrolled for the 'smart gate'. I've also pushed in front of crew waiting to be processed- mainly because we process ourselves these day and as AUSTRALIAN crew (rather than the 'other' comment) can take care of ourselves.