Perth "Mayday" From Crikey.com
 

Top Stories
1. "Mayday!" Qantas jet dices with ditching off Perth
Ben Sandilands writes:




As if a fake ground engineer and dodgy electrical repairs weren’t enough to rattle Qantas regulars, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has dropped an incident report which reminds the airline of the need to make sure its jets have enough fuel to reach Perth.


The report says that on 16 September last year the crew of a Qantas A330 approaching Perth from Singapore for a midnight landing made two missed approaches in fog and then called "Mayday", the international distress signal, as they made a risky autoland approach.


This is the first reference industry sources can find to a Mayday call in an incident report involving a Qantas jet, although some thought there had been one involving multiple engine troubles on a 747 that made a hasty return to Sydney Airport in the 1970s.



The successful third attempt at landing at Perth was made when the Airbus was very low on fuel following the previous two attempts, and the only other course of action would have been to attempt a ditching at sea.


While Qantas international pilots are trained in autoland procedures at some overseas airports, they are not approved for anything other than emergency use at Australian airports because none have ground based navigational aids that are certified as reliably generating signals of sufficient accuracy for such ultra low visibility landings.


The flight had departed from Singapore without enough fuel to make a last minute diversion from Perth to the nearest suitable big jet airport which was Learmonth, 1110 kilometres to the north.


As the uber low key language in the ATSB report makes clear, this was in accordance with long standing Qantas fuel policy in relation to Perth.


But while Perth flights have long been a ‘special case’ for jet airlines in general because of its remoteness from suitable bad weather alternatives, there is a key issue at stake.


Qantas captains are under constant pressure to carry not a litre more in fuel than company operating procedures deem appropriate for each flight.


This tight fuel policy impinges on the traditional authority of captains to rely on their experience and judgement in calculating fuel appropriate to the variable conditions under which a flight operates.


Qantas has now implemented an interim fuel management plan for Perth which in lay terms says more fuel will be loaded whenever there is more than a hint that fog may form over its runways within an interval of some hours of scheduled arrival.


Which is timely, as it yesterday announced a $50 million upgrade to the Perth terminal, which its jets now have more certainty of reaching than was the case one dark and suddenly foggy night last September.

Send your tips to [email protected] or submit them anonymously here.

"Qantas captains are under constant pressure to carry not a litre more in fuel than company operating procedures deem appropriate for each flight.

This tight fuel policy impinges on the traditional authority of captains to rely on their experience and judgement in calculating fuel appropriate to the variable conditions under which a flight operates."

Bullsh!t to both the above paragraphs !!!

The policy might require you to load the 'minimum operational requirement' but there is no restriction, implied or expressed, on taking whatever fuel you require for the sector. I certainly have no hesitation in adding extra fuel if I think I'm going to need it, and I've never had a phone call asking why.

Regards,
BH.

From the way that Ben Sandilands wrote that article, it's obvious that he can't get his head around a fuel policy or understand a PNR/DPA calculation.

Is this statement correct??

"While Qantas international pilots are trained in autoland procedures at some overseas airports, they are not approved for anything other than emergency use at Australian airports because none have ground based navigational aids that are certified as reliably generating signals of sufficient accuracy for such ultra low visibility landings."

I've never heard that before.

Had this discussion a few weeks ago with a 30+ yr 744 captain and the issue of an earlier B767 contemplating a ditching over there some years back. Same circumstances.

Was agreed that while minimum fuel was offered, they were never under any "extreme pressure" to not uplift more if they felt the need.

Also I noted he was quite plain about .....Autoland, and very carefully, even in Perth is a much better option than any other alternative when the fuel is low.

I do think for the cost V risk Sydney and Perth should have CATIII. Seems to be a few diversions each year in both places, and Melbourne. One day it may well go pear shaped on someone.

J

think the ditching was a 747 - the 767 was a let down over the water to get vfr, before flying inland below cloud to Kal or learmonth or somewhere like that.

Read the ATSB report. Pretty interesting. They are critical why there isn't a cat III at Perth.

I thought Perth was the most remote capital in the world...you would think in those circumstances it would have a CAT III ILS.

Oh FFS, this bs about a QF aircraft considering ditching off PH due to not being able to get in comes up every couple of years on PPRUNE.

The story that blueloo alludes to is a bit different. I think it was Ross McDonald who was on his final command check. I don't know if it was 767 or 747 but I suspect it may have been 747 by virtue of the fact that I think the skipper was Captain Hatton-Ward (his son used to go to my Church and his other son is in Saudi as an instructor on the Hawk last I knew). PH went unforecast crap weather. They diverted to YPLM (I think, it may have been somehwere else) prior to DPA. Divert airfield then went unforecast crap weather. They did a let down and missed out. They then let down on a radial over the water to get a cloud break and came back in about 600'. Ditching never entered into the discussion.

The so called incident at PH where the crew supposedly discussed ditching until magically saved by either ATC, paxing QF crew, paxing AN crew, paxing TAA crew, paxing Australian crew, paxing RAAF crew (insert desired company according to your own bias here) is an urban legend that has probably been distorted from the story above. I've asked about it a few times. Many in QF have heard of the story but no one has ever spoken to anyone else (management, past crew, pax, reporters, safety department or anyone else remotely involved in the company for the last 40 years) that was there or knows that the incident happened. It's crap. One of the more recent versions related on PPRUNE had it happening as late as 1992. :rolleyes:

Sandilands, you're a clown. Your previous post on Avalon indicated clown-ish tendencises. This one confirms it! :rolleyes: :ugh:

Can anyone comment on the reliability of the ILS signals during a CAT I autoland in places like SYD/MEL/PER for aircraft or pilot recency, usually done in VMC or conditions well above minima?

Only seen a couple of autolands, both during pea soupers into LHR and therefore completely legit.

Just curious if the CAT I installations at our major airports perform very differently to ridgy didge CAT III ones, especially during the flare and rollout.

TL, my understanding is that the actual ILS signal is largely the same set up, just that the back up systems is what makes or breaks you for a CAT II or CAT III runway. If I recall correctly, Aussie airports lack the necessary processes to ensure that the equipment and power switches across to the secondary source within a particular time frame.

Having flown into both LHR in CAT II conditions and autolanding into most autoland permitted runways in Australia at everything down to and including CAT I weather (8 1/2 years on the 767 will do that to you), I can state without a shred of doubt that the only times I've had issues with the ILS signals is when the critical areas were not protected.

Keg................... the diversion you speak of was many many years ago (20?) where on a final command check on a 747 into Perth, the aircraft diverted to Learmonth, made an NDB approach and missed out. The fellow under check decided to let down over the water and proceed back to the airfield visually which he did successfully. He was also successful in passing the check ride!:)

This event with the A330 and others like it have been discussed many times before, the problem for Perth being:
1. Unreliable forecasts.
2. Lack of low vis landing aids i.e. Cat III ILS with the required procedures. Compared to overseas, we are well behind in not having one CAT III system in Australia even though they have been available for thirty odd years.
3. Suitable diversion airfields being quite a distance away. Note that carrying an alternate is not always the answer as the above shows. I also don't think YPKG as a suitable planned alternate for large jet aircraft.
4. Casa fuel requirements are on the lean side when compared to other international regulators.
5. Fix items 1. & 2. and the problem will mostly go away.

BTW at times I take extra fuel and have never been questioned by the company, nor have I heard of anyone else being questioned.

I remember the fuel fly-spec charts that used to be published showing your personal fuel uplift (above MOR) versus all others, some thought it was pressure, I thought it was informative.

Besides I also remember Lucas (CP back then) clearly saying that he was more concerned about those at the bottem left of the chart (carrying little or nothing over MOR) rather than the top right (carrying heaps).

To me that demonstrated a very sensible approach.

Nowadays its just the fuel conservation group that puts out the occasional newsletter, thats hardly unreasonable pressure to put on an professional Captain and crew.

Qantas has had at least one other Mayday in the recent past. The A330 that went into Osaka issued one. (and rightfully so with a suspected cargo fire )

Just following on from Kegs post (first post was great but next time tell us how you really feel about it).
Cat II/III is not only about the LLZ/GS beams having triple uninteruptable power supplies, triple transmitters, triple antenna etc, but also the lighting requirements are to a higher standard, ie approach lighting leading into the touchdown zone, runway and taxiway centreline lighting is closer together etc. Airservices Oz seem to be holding off on Cat III ILS istallations as they hope that development of Cat III capable augmented GPS approaches will save them a heap of money. They will still have to spend money on the lighting systems so they should be fitting that now. It would make it a lot safer in situations like the A330 in Perth.

The point that is being missed here is that in Australia, airlines still operate without routinley carrying fuel to an alternate. Anywhere else in the world, the aircraft would have dispatched with enough fuel to go somewhere else if the destination went down for weather or any other reason.

Did a Cat 1 practice auto land at night/VMC(B767) into Per 21 about 5 mths ago.Wrote up as unsatisfactory,as had to disconnect on roll out about 90kts as the a/c veered to the side of the runway(Rollout annunciated).No known a/c defect and ATC said no a/c or traffic infrigments.
.....exactly why cat 2 and below have bigger protection margins...........still beats a ditching though.

There was also the recent incident where the A330 autolanded in Sydney due to fog, although in that incident ATC knew that the 34 end of the runway had good vis but the ATIS was indicating 800m. I think that a Cat III ILS is like the issue of manning the tower at AVV, it will enhance safety but someone else should pay for it.

Not carrying enough fuel.............what if the Runway was closed due an incident like we had in BNE last year, a B727 rolled onto the grass and was bogged!

Sure maybe if the runway was notblocked you could land if you were running out of fuel, but what if it was! No autoland is gonna help ya then.

Wizofoz
To a point you are correct in that carrying an alternate every where you go helps out a lot, however it is not a panacea for all weather problems, you can still get caught out...........even in Europe!

QF fuel policy has always been questionable. Just the way they like it.

Luckily not to many min op idiots around, however they do seem to get caught out - I seem to recall a fleet manager got caught somewhere in the NT not to long ago.

The 3 most useless things in aviation:

-The sky above you.
-The runway behind you.
-The air in your tanks.

QF guys still know this and still order fuel accordingly.

Sandilands... Mate... :mad:

If this had happened to KAL, Garuda, Dyasty or Air China, asperions would have been cast on the competency of the crew or the leglity of deliberately going below minimaalbeit it is indeed within the skipper's emergeny authority. Questions would have been asked how in the world the crew screwed itup ig time. For QF? How tame!

Probably both pilots spent too much time heads down punching buttons while looking at the MAP with it's squillions of pretty dotted and magenta lines and green half circles and fixes and things and hadn't a clue how to fly a simple raw data NDB approach with all the time in the world to look outside for the aerodrome as the aircraft tracked ever so accurately on autopilot...

And the basis for your assertion is...??

You don't think there's maybe just a chance that, I dunno, the weather was below minima or something? :rolleyes:

Foot in mouth disease from Tee Emm
 

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. The aircraft involved was a 747-238.

Care to type a retraction Tee Emm? :rolleyes:

And the time frame was 1983/4 so it was prior to any "glass" cockpit in QF service. I think Tee Emm was just showing his anti Qantas bias.

From my time on the classic, raw data NDB's to minima with circling were very common in just about every sim, so really I did more NDB's to minima in 3 years on the 747 then 10 + years in GA.

Anyone who has tried circling in a classic Sim would know that it is much harder than real life due to lack of side/rear vision.

Tee Emm, nice try! :ugh:

Anyone seen Tee Emm? http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/scared003.gif

Just ask Ralph: Aviation's foremost Monday morning expert!
 

Perth is an airport that has always been suseptable to unforecast fog. I used to operate in and out of PER fairly often in the AN days. Those crews who fly to PER should consider the chance of unforcast fog on arrival at any time that there is:

1) Calm winds.
2) Cavok and
3) Ambient Temp/ Dew point split of less than 4 degrees C.
4) especially at night.

The change in the QF fuel policy (as reported by Steve Creedy in 'The Australian'), to applying a 2 hour buffer on operational requierments regarding fog is insufficient. Blind adherance to such a policy will bite somone on the @ss without common sense consideration of the conditions for fog formation.

That said, I wonder why the crew did several approachs prior to landing. I would imagine that there was some pressing operational need for several approaches, however, once it was clear that a diversion was not possible, you might as well plan to autoland off the first approach.

From Ben Sandilands:
Bull:mad:.

From the ATSB report:
ie, the crew did pretty much eveything right. Just one of those rare and unfortunate circumstances where they were caught out, past DPA, by the unpredictable weather systems that Perth is often subject to.

Should they have carried a full alternate? I'm sure that with the benefit of hindsight everyone is saying, "yes" however that is not always necessary, practical or possible. Sure QF could fly everywhere carrying fuel for a full alternate, some airlines do but it all comes down to risk-management. You can't carry enough fuel to cover every possible scenario. As the ATSB report states, "the statistics for the years 2003 to 2006 showed only one unforecast fog event at Perth". The risk was assessed by the crew and accounted for but unfortunately in this case they were caught out, it does happen and they managed the subsequent incident well.

The upside of this is that QF has now amended its policy to better manage the risk that fog in Perth presents. It's an extremely conservative policy now but that's obviously what the situation demands.

The BoM is also developing a Forecast Decision Support System for fog forecasting which should also reduce the chance of a similar incident.

What it all boils down to is that this is just another reminder that this industry is constantly maturing and evolving. We need to continue to learn and adapt to keep the industry safe and professional. What we don't need is "reporters" like Ben Sandilands scaremongering, it serves no useful purpose.

For a more objective article read Steve Creedy's coverage in the Australian or even better, read the ATSB report.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I know that there are people who have been caught out by unforecast fog at PH when it hasn't been on the forecast at all but for me personally, a forecast of FG within 90 minutes after ETA would have seen me carry the full alternate plus some.

Ah well. Yet another reason to remember to carry more juice.

It happened in YPAD in 1999 to Ansett A320 VH HYO.
Here is the report
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...199904029.aspx
I can tell you that HYO had nowhere else to go. Note the fix. CCTV cameras at PF and ED!
J

Would you operate to an isolated island in the pacific, with FG forecast +90mins from your arrival and not carry an alternate...

Just because its not surrounded by hours of water, dosn't mean its not an isolated destination and treated as such.

vis report 150 meters
 

event at Perth". The risk was assessed by the crew and accounted for but unfortunately in this case they were caught out, it does happen and they managed the subsequent incident well.

the engineers at Perth told me the fuel in tanks at shutdown was 15minutes.
hardly enough to make a go round.
passengers desreve much better than that

Hate to be harsh, but...
The fog was forecast. Perth is an isolated aerodrome.
Fuel for a suitable alternate should have been uplifted.
Yes, the crew uplifted extra fuel - but quite what the plan was, I'm not sure - hold to wait for any fog to lift?
Why not do what most professional airlines do all the time, always carry a destination alternate - and then leave it up to the crew to take extra fuel as required.
I do agree however, that the crew did a good job in handling the situation they should never have been put/put themselves in.
I also wonder, if they would have had enough fuel from TOD to go direct to Learmonth?
Couldn't have been much in it...

With respect bring back the biff, carrying YPKG or YPLM for every flight arriving into PH is overkill by a fair margin...unless you think that carrying Pearce is acceptable. That'd be like what SQ do at SIN when their destination alternate is Paya Leba. :rolleyes:

It comes down to knowing PH and knowing what is likely to happen. I agree (and said previously) that faced with that sort of forecast, I would have had a truck load more fuel on.

Once again this raises the issue of extending / upgrading KG to cope with such a situation. With the resuming of east bound flights from the aforementioned likely in the near future, surely this is justified. Maybe a certain Mr Smith can reissue that cheque for a hundred big ones just for a feasibility study on the matter:cool:
Not very often you see 8/8ths on the deck at both PH + KG simultaneously.

the fog that formed at 0100 was all clear by 0300.
No one can call the exact time for the correct "mix" to form fog in a katabatic wind from the hills to the east.
most internationals, heavy aircraft, carry YPAD at night .HN. due unsure of YPLM lights and RFF. (previous diversions no lights avail at YPLM on arrival)
that is 20tons fuel, on landing. expensive to carry but very professional
every flight every night.