Joy ride on Virgin Blue
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: hell in heaven
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joy ride on Virgin Blue
08/08/03
A Virgin Blue aircraft was allegedly forced to abandon a landing at Australia's Sydney Airport after arriving 45 seconds late.
The Boeing 737 aircraft was operating a domestic flight from Melbourne to Sydney with 170 passengers on board. However, the aircraft suffered a technical problem which caused the flight's takeoff to be delayed. Air traffic controllers approved a flight extension for the aircraft to land at Sydney before the 2300 flight curfew.
Unfortunately, the aircraft did not make its destination before the curfew and was forced to return to Melbourne. Virgin Blue provided the passengers with hotel accommodation and offered free flights as compensation.
An investigation into the incident has been launched.
From: m2.com/
A Virgin Blue aircraft was allegedly forced to abandon a landing at Australia's Sydney Airport after arriving 45 seconds late.
The Boeing 737 aircraft was operating a domestic flight from Melbourne to Sydney with 170 passengers on board. However, the aircraft suffered a technical problem which caused the flight's takeoff to be delayed. Air traffic controllers approved a flight extension for the aircraft to land at Sydney before the 2300 flight curfew.
Unfortunately, the aircraft did not make its destination before the curfew and was forced to return to Melbourne. Virgin Blue provided the passengers with hotel accommodation and offered free flights as compensation.
An investigation into the incident has been launched.
From: m2.com/
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems for what I hear, the aircraft never had a chance as soon as it was airborne at Melbourne, got everything, high speed, RWY 07 DCT GLF etc. and still missed out. (Original RWY34L ETA 2309)
The curfew seems to be ridiculous at times doesn't it, 45 seconds late = 2301. 2300+15 seconds is acceptable... The whole point of the curfew is to reduce noise; the go-round would have made heaps more noise than the touch down...
But why try and push it like this, 2309 ETA usually means you won't make it, doesn't it... Were the passengers briefed about the possibility of coming back to ML before the go-round? I saw some snippets of some really upset people.
Bottle of Rum
The curfew seems to be ridiculous at times doesn't it, 45 seconds late = 2301. 2300+15 seconds is acceptable... The whole point of the curfew is to reduce noise; the go-round would have made heaps more noise than the touch down...
But why try and push it like this, 2309 ETA usually means you won't make it, doesn't it... Were the passengers briefed about the possibility of coming back to ML before the go-round? I saw some snippets of some really upset people.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw this reported in other places as "ATC sent the 737 around". My understanding of the rules is that ATC will just tell you if you are going to be late, thereby copping a huge fine if you continue. It's still the crew's decision on whether they proceed or not.
Ready to be told different.
Ready to be told different.
You can directly thank our mostly spineless elected representatives for the curfew woes of Sydney Airport. The blame lays directly with those who have caved-in to elements within our society who would rather stand in the way of an efficient transport system and the follow-on benefits they would bring.
Another rum for Ops, lest he stand upon his chair once again and lambast those officials with their collective snouts in the trough of society mostly funded by those of us unfortunate enough to work for a living.....
....glug, glug....
Now, where was I.....
Another rum for Ops, lest he stand upon his chair once again and lambast those officials with their collective snouts in the trough of society mostly funded by those of us unfortunate enough to work for a living.....
....glug, glug....
Now, where was I.....
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the charge if an airplane lands after the curfew.
It would be different for each aircraft, yes I realise that.
but if you had 170 x 100 for a night. $17,000
Plane costs $50 actual fuel/time cost per passenger $8,500 x 2, need to do the journey twice.
Then you got crewing and having the plane in the wrong position.
Is the fine above $50,000. You would think it it was under this you would just take the fine.
Any one know. Surely a flight crew would know to give them all options available to them before deciding to turn back.
It would be different for each aircraft, yes I realise that.
but if you had 170 x 100 for a night. $17,000
Plane costs $50 actual fuel/time cost per passenger $8,500 x 2, need to do the journey twice.
Then you got crewing and having the plane in the wrong position.
Is the fine above $50,000. You would think it it was under this you would just take the fine.
Any one know. Surely a flight crew would know to give them all options available to them before deciding to turn back.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet another abhorrent example of how farcical this country is in it's politically correct crusade. What NORMAL human being would not have just allowed the landing? What are these guys trying to achieve?
I believe a Qantas a/c (747) landed after the virgin a/c diverted. Anyone know how they managed that?
I believe a Qantas a/c (747) landed after the virgin a/c diverted. Anyone know how they managed that?
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fred Bassett
No fines as such, the big stick is quite simply, you can't fly into this airport any more (or some other period)
You can try and get a dispensation from a representative of the Minister, a bit of a pandering excercise with the particular snotty public servant involved but one of the steps you can take.
I prefered the attitude of an airline GM who told me (duty Ops controller) to run the airline and he (the GM) would sort out the pollies. And he did. Made my job easier and the passengers got to where they wanted to be.
Mr Hat
45 seconds or 1 second, doesn't matter, the wording of the curfew is along the lines of " land before 2300 local time"
I've known of flights diverting due to curfew having held due weather inspite of the original departure time plus flight time having them over the fence well before curfew.
Sperm Bank
ATS have no say in the matter. The document that established the curfew does not give them authority to be "reasonable".
There are procedures in place to allow out of curfew ops. If a 744 arrived as you say it could be one of numerous flights that have a standing dispensation. The usual requirement is to be able to arrive 34L with no or minimal reverse thrust.
ding
No fines as such, the big stick is quite simply, you can't fly into this airport any more (or some other period)
You can try and get a dispensation from a representative of the Minister, a bit of a pandering excercise with the particular snotty public servant involved but one of the steps you can take.
I prefered the attitude of an airline GM who told me (duty Ops controller) to run the airline and he (the GM) would sort out the pollies. And he did. Made my job easier and the passengers got to where they wanted to be.
Mr Hat
45 seconds or 1 second, doesn't matter, the wording of the curfew is along the lines of " land before 2300 local time"
I've known of flights diverting due to curfew having held due weather inspite of the original departure time plus flight time having them over the fence well before curfew.
Sperm Bank
ATS have no say in the matter. The document that established the curfew does not give them authority to be "reasonable".
There are procedures in place to allow out of curfew ops. If a 744 arrived as you say it could be one of numerous flights that have a standing dispensation. The usual requirement is to be able to arrive 34L with no or minimal reverse thrust.
ding
Last edited by dingo084; 9th Aug 2003 at 18:49.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Oz
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will come as a shock....
Standing Dispo's have nothing to do with the livery painted on the tail.
They happen to be available to international operators arriving here. The nature of longhaul ops as opposed to shorthaul ops is the justification for them (being available).
Sorry if that sinks a conspiracy theory.
ding
Standing Dispo's have nothing to do with the livery painted on the tail.
They happen to be available to international operators arriving here. The nature of longhaul ops as opposed to shorthaul ops is the justification for them (being available).
Sorry if that sinks a conspiracy theory.
ding
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pardon my ignorance but couldn't these guys have been told a little earlier? Surely the people in question know the ETA and could have said "err guys don't bother we are going to knock you back..."
Are people really sitting there with a stopwatch?
Not having a go at the controller just think the rule lacks common sense.
How much waste can you have and how much inconvenience to the travellers!
Very expensive
Are people really sitting there with a stopwatch?
Not having a go at the controller just think the rule lacks common sense.
How much waste can you have and how much inconvenience to the travellers!
Very expensive
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Some strange logic applied here on the part of ATC.
Tell an aircraft to go-around from 200', rather than letting it land using idle reverse, due to the noise curfew.
I'll bet the nearby residents really appreciated that!!
Tell an aircraft to go-around from 200', rather than letting it land using idle reverse, due to the noise curfew.
I'll bet the nearby residents really appreciated that!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the comfy chair.
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll bet the nearby residents really appreciated that!!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaptin M.
Maybe you should think first before having a dig at ATC. The way ATC works with dispo's is that they would notify the aircraft landing that they are after curfew, they don't have dispensation and that if they land, penalties may apply. It is up to the PIC whether they land or not. So it is not ATC's fault, it is out of their hands. Dispo's are handled by the Department of Transport and Regional services. Maybe they should be blamed, not ATC. I agree, the law in this case was a little harsh, but law is law.
Mr Hat.
I think in this case, VOZ applied for a dispo before getting airbourne out of ML and apparantly the communication broke down and the dispo was never received, so I'm not quite what happened.
Natit
Maybe you should think first before having a dig at ATC. The way ATC works with dispo's is that they would notify the aircraft landing that they are after curfew, they don't have dispensation and that if they land, penalties may apply. It is up to the PIC whether they land or not. So it is not ATC's fault, it is out of their hands. Dispo's are handled by the Department of Transport and Regional services. Maybe they should be blamed, not ATC. I agree, the law in this case was a little harsh, but law is law.
Mr Hat.
I think in this case, VOZ applied for a dispo before getting airbourne out of ML and apparantly the communication broke down and the dispo was never received, so I'm not quite what happened.
Natit
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Virgin knew that there was a possibilty that this was going to happen before they even left. I'm pretty sure their ETA when they departed from Melbourne was after 23:00 local time. It wasn't just luck that they had enough fuel to come all the way back to Melbourne, that was deliberately done so they wouldn't be forced to land after curfew. This sort of thing isn't too uncommon, just that some flights are unlucky and don't make it in time 
Still, I don't think ATC has the authority to tell pilots they aren't allowed to land after curfew. They can inform them that there will be a penalty if they still want to land, but it's up to the pilot what they want to do. It would've been stupid for them to continue and land the plane, the fine for doing so would have been much more expensive than the cost of bringing everyone back to Melbourne and putting them in a hotel for the night.
Still, I don't think ATC has the authority to tell pilots they aren't allowed to land after curfew. They can inform them that there will be a penalty if they still want to land, but it's up to the pilot what they want to do. It would've been stupid for them to continue and land the plane, the fine for doing so would have been much more expensive than the cost of bringing everyone back to Melbourne and putting them in a hotel for the night.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this one of those situations where the Captain could just up the power levers to...well ...sort of change the ETA.
Pardon my ignorance I'm in GA (bugsmashers).
Could upping the levers have saved money in this instance? A little outside of the square...but hey a lot of fun!
Pardon my ignorance I'm in GA (bugsmashers).
Could upping the levers have saved money in this instance? A little outside of the square...but hey a lot of fun!
Bottums Up
Sucking Eggs
Why so many suggestions to go faster?
Does anyone really think that the crew, if they knew that curfew was an issue, were just going to dawdle along and hope the problem magically disappeared?
Sort of assumes, they don't know what they're doing?
Does anyone really think that the crew, if they knew that curfew was an issue, were just going to dawdle along and hope the problem magically disappeared?
Sort of assumes, they don't know what they're doing?