Yes, Perth had a short runway 11/29 (I think...). I remember getting reported in 1995 or so by someone in the hills for flying "low and too fast" while on approach to RW29 in a Navajo. The runway was shut shortly after that:E

I see no report on the ATSB website. So the aircraft obviously landed with reserves intact.

Or failed to report it?

heard a rumour that another carrier declared a fuel emergency a few months ago due to unforecast wx at the destination (not Perth)

never heard a peep about it in the mainstream.

If I recall, a certain A330 a while back was considering ditching due fog at Perth...

I think the fact ATC even mentioning Rottnest as an alternate should warrant an investigation into ATC practices in such events.

But in any case, they landed with reserves in tact. If they broke any rules during such event, an incident report it is. Nothing more.

Let me guess..... A QF A330?

Remarkable how that story has survived, been embellished and changed over the years.

It is wrong. Whatever you heard, it is wrong.

Yes. For so long it was a QF 767, before that a B747 Classic.

I heared that story of a Captain considering ditching off Perth 30 years ago, when QF had the first of the 524D powered 747's.

One has to wonder why taxiway W, which used to be a runway, isnt maintained as servicable emergency runway, surely it wouldnt cost huge $ as the tarmac is allready there. However, there is never a shortage of $ to expand the retail part of the terminal. Do we have our priorities wrong?

With 50kts on the nose, would Rottnest have been viable as a runway of last resort for a 737?. Forget about pavement strength etc, that can be sorted out later, repairs etc. Given that Perth has a long history of unforcast extream weather, why arent most runways around Perth, Jandakit, Rottnest etc made suitable for an emergency such as this.

Yeah, I already know the answer, any money around is being used to expand the retail precinct.

Whatever you all argue over......it sounded easy as in my office at home....................


.................just as well those guys were doing it :D:D:D:D

I am in awe of the efforts some go to, the paying pax will never understand, I have only the limited knowlege to appreciate it, so this is when we all say.....you guys deserve he pay :ok:

Jaba:ok::ok::ok:

You forgot the bit where the paxing Ansett crew had to tell the QF 747/ 767/ A330 drivers to do an autoland! :E :ok:

Geez Balance take an Asprin and lie down for a while.

From what I have heard the aircraft arrived initially with just under 4000kg, and landed right on FR. Not vapours as you were suggesting must have been the case.

This sounds like a sh1tty night!

What about Cunderdin? longish runways, no obstacles, away from the hills, lights (i think). Not sure about pavement etc.

Good luck trying to find accomodation for 150 pax though... or getting them off the A/C for that matter!!

I don't get it with you guys....aircraft diverts to alternate (remote airport OCTA) and lands with reserves intact....great decision
Aircraft commits to destination (Capital city international CTA) and lands with reserves intact .......question the pilots and the airline

I think there are a lot of unqualified and uninformed posters on this subject.

Northam was nearer ..... and we could have cranked up the barbie with a bit of a warning. :}

A question
 

Hey all, haven't been in Perth for a while, but was there something wrong with 06/24?
Off the top of my head 2163m long and pretty much into wind?
Thanks

D/duck,
I think from earlier posts or the other closed thread, they were using 06 as the wind was reported as 110/40, I think it was, so obviously that means a lot of x wind.
I see max demo xwind limit is 33kts (with winglets)from the manual.

Thanks for the advice Basil. I took panadol, and slept well, thanks mate.

Nice to have an accurate figure, even if it is "what you heard". If true, then FR is certainly not "vapours", but still doesn't quite coincide with "we must land off this approach..."

FR will give you another approach, at least. And without doubt this was a low fuel emergency. Low Fuel Checklists kick in at 907kg each tank, so 1800kg, and fair to assume they had less than that.

Dont get me wrong here, I'm not blaming the crew one little bit. They were legal and did things well. But this crap with Perth keeps happenning. IMHO it needs to be treated as an isolated airport.

divingduck, whilst the wind on the ground may have been close to x-wind limits, I think the greater issue was the shear. Quite frequently in Perth, when the easterlies are blowing in the summer (it happens in winter too though), the wind on the ground may be 20-40 knots, the wind at 250' AGL will be another 20-30 knots on top of that. So it can all be looking good and then go pear shaped in the last couple of hundred feet.

Sometimes the trick is understanding what 'stable for the prevailing conditions' means but there are occasions when even that won't help if the shear hits at the wrong time. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be in the shoes of the crews that night trying to go through that on min gas. That said, the masochist in me LOVES those types of days but only when you have enough gas for a couple of go arounds and a diversion. :ok:

They can take up to 40kts crosswind, DRY or WET under normal procedures.

What has become of Australia. You people sum us up quite nicely by bickering and carrying on over an issue that was reported by the media. Do you people actually fly as professionals? I very much doubt it. Isn't there a wannabe forum. Go and make a nuisance of yourselves there.

I have used fuel the statement consideration requirements to save me going back to number 10 in line when I would have 30 min reserve left after 2 missed approaches at my destination airport and 1 at the alternate which was not required at the time. ATC can offer whatever they like. They are not pilots and finally any clown with half a brain would take his chance on Perth rather than Rotto at night.