|
I reckon Steves story has merit, I have it on good authority that the QF pilot happened to be none other than the same skipper who was paxing on the 767 about to ditch in Perth and told the crew to autoland it.
Awesome tales, petty they're both bullshyte |
DA the fuel policy you present does not explain the A330 autoland in 2004. Similar scenario to the QF737. Unforecast fog, alternate available but continues to destination and autolands in SY. On that day QF2, 744 using the same fuel policy, diverts to CB. I'm sure that if ADL had a CATIII ILS it would have been a consideration for both crews in their diversion decisions.\
If a CATIII ILS was available and 1 aircraft diverted to MIA and 1 went to ADL and autolanded, which aircraft was presented with the higher risk? In the black and white world of rules and regs which aircraft would be more correct in the decision that was made? In my mind there is no right or wrong just what do I consider the safest course of action. |
Lone pine,
According to the data on Flightradar and Flightaware, Virgin started their diversion 10 mins before Qantas. The Virgin aircraft was also closer to Mildura than Qantas and arrived in the circuit first. |
Thanks BPA. Saves me answering it. The reason QF landed first may make interesting reading.
|
As I said earlier, I'd love to see CAT3 ILS at all capital city airports in this country. However, its availability at Adelaide wouldn't have changed the outcome for the QF flight in this instance as they would still have been legally required to divert. |
Mildura is not an alternate airport? It can be. Why would you think i can't?
|
So the VA gets to mildura 10 maybe more minutes ahead of the QF.
What was the VA doing in the circuit for those 10 minutes before QF turned up? |
I only have one side of the story so I ain't going there on here. Apart from getting howled down by those it might upset, it is only one side. It can wait till the report.
|
I don't know call me old fashioned but common sense would dictate that you would be far better to do a coupled approach at ADL with Auto Land and argue about it later with CASA than the grief you give yourself and pax by winding up in a place like MIA with not enough fuel to start a fire or BBQ.
One wonders why places like Edinburgh or Whyalla weren't considered if your in that frame of mind - much closer. Give me a precision approach anytime though no matter what the conditions.:hmm: |
tenrenti,
Think about it... and you should be able to answer it. ATSB are due to publish their preliminary report next week, so some of the gaps in the event should be filled and the stories floating around ie icemansteeve's above should be put to bed. |
Mildura is not an alternate airport? It can be. Why would you think i can't? You would not carry Mildura as a weather alternate in normal operations. |
Derfred,
Is that a Qantas policy, as Virgin B737's have at times replaced the Embraer's on the MEL-MQL route? |
They have????? Is that right. First I have heard of it :suspect:
|
Yes. I don't know Virgin's policy.
|
It is not an alternate airport for the B737-800. Emergencies only. |
DA,
It indeed got a bit late last night and therefore thanks for your explanation of what (in a nutshell I assume) is the QF fuel policy - makes sense now why you were talking about alternate minima AFTER dispatch if destination = alternate (ie. you don't have one). As I indicated in my previous posts in my company we ALWAYS carry an alternate but one remote destination (Perth of all places) and the conditions and TAF to be met for latter are very strict. I guess your fuel policy works alright if the forecasts are good enough - the only thing I am not comfortable with is its application at a single runway destination; but that discussion deserves a different thread. AB |
AQIS, you could try this one for a discussion on the QF fuel policy.
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...el-policy.html That's why I was loathe to enter into too much discussion. I certainly don't want to get in to the idea of whether it's good or bad. It is what it is and the crew have to work within it as best they can. I should perhaps have been clearer and specified "destination alternate criteria" as opposed to "alternate criteria" to avoid confusion between the two ports but you are correct in that QF don't generally carry an alternate unless required by weather. See the linked thread for opinions on that one - the discussion is fraught!:E Cheers. |
CASA Guidelines
from 2006, this CAAP 234 1(1) forms the guidelines for fuel policy. It used to be in the AIP before then.
I tried to provide a link but its not working. Search CASA 234 and it comes up. |
S70IP Quote: "It is not an alternate airport for the B737-800. Emergencies only." Complete BS. I have landed there 3 times in a 737 when a Ejet went U/S. only issue is pavement concession which the company sorts out. 4 movements in 7 days "range" in PCN/ACN. |
YMIA is indeed a Cat C airport. This means that for the 738 it would not be PLANNED as an alternate. This does not mean that it cannot be USED as an alternate.
It is not defined as an emergency airport. Not sure but i think the difference between cat c for the 738 versus cat a for the 734 relates to the ACN for each type. |
Unforecast fog, alternate available but continues to destination and autolands in SY. On that day QF2, 744 using the same fuel policy, diverts to CB. |
Investigation: 200401270 - Airbus A330-301, VH-QPC
Worth a look. Not as simple as being on final when the amended TTF was issued. Also have a look at the criteria the company and the A330 crew thought was required for an emergency airport to be used. The 744 crew did not declare an emergency to use CB. Same policy, different response. My point is as much as the rules and regs try to cover all contingencies at the end of the day it is up to the crew to decide on the best course of action. I still consider that had a Cat III ILS been available in ADL then it would have been a more probable destination, especially for the QF crew as it appears that MIA is an emergency alternate. |
If a suitably equipped aircraft departs with a valid TTF that has no requirements, and once airborne, if the TTF does go below the alternate minima, but remains above the relevant landing minima, then the alternate requirement should go out the window. Particularly for east coast flying with one hour sector times.
(I accept that this probably would not have changed the unique VA/QF outcome at Mildura given the lack of CAT 2/3 capability at ADL) |
Most of the east coast major airports will go out for fog or TS more than for just cloud or vis
|
Broken Hill???? Ever heard of a little thing called PCN ACN?? It has a PCN of only 15 and a max tire pressure of 100 psi...........idiot.
Pretty sure the only time a 737 would land at Broken Hill would be for an Un contained Fire!! You have very little idea of who the Skipper was in the VA 737, I have known him for 24 years and he is one of the best operators you could ever hope to meet. Not to mention being a senior check.... So wind your silly little head in :mad: |
+ 1 for nitpicker330's post above.
Kharon, have you viewed any of the links posted earlier showing the location of each aircraft. Have you ever flown the BNE-ADL route or SYD- ADL? Both routes pass almost over the top of Mildura. |
Good Lordy................a senior checky ends up at Mildura with 510kgs of fuel :sad: would you have diverted from Adelaide to Mildura nitpicker?:E
|
Not sure what I would have done mate because I don't possess all the information.
I'm pretty sure he did what he thought "safest" on the day with all the info he had at his disposal..... |
Another:ok: for NP330 post above and two :ok: for his response to another poster with zip experience of flying RPT jets in this country. The point is Jack two airline crews diverted to MIA based on dud info provided by the BoM. If this country came up to first world status with ground equipment then this thread wouldn't exist.
|
:ok: :ok: for the poster above and another :ok::ok::ok: for the crews on the two aircraft that landed at MIA (that's not a piss take by the way). I have a little experience in fuel planning lookleft (not RPT). I'm impressed that you've never posted on something you know nothing about, :ok::ok: for you ;)
|
If this country came up to first world status with ground equipment then this thread wouldn't exist. |
I'm impressed that you've never posted on something you know nothing about |
Okay, kiddies - how about we focus on the topic at hand, rather than getting personal. :ugh:
|
Watsizname appears to have sobered up and deleted his post before nitpicker's.
I hate it when people do that. While the post didn't make any sense at least the thread did. :hmm: |
:confused:
|
The BoM "Fog Forecasting at Sydney Airport" Project
Lookleft, thanks for the link on VH-QPC, it was most informative.
A key Safety Action was: Bureau of Meteorology The BoM advised that the occurrence was reviewed at a Fog Workshop on 13 July 2004, which resulted in the establishment of the 'Fog Forecasting at Sydney Airport' project. The aim of the project is to review the existing forecasting methodologies and guidance material used to predict fog at Sydney aerodrome. The BoM intends to use the results from the review and subsequent real-time testing to implement a structured set of objective guidelines that are intended to improve the accuracy of fog forecasting at Sydney aerodrome. The project is a joint undertaking by staff from the Bureau's Sydney Airport Meteorological Unit and the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, in collaboration with researchers at Monash and Macquarie Universities. The project team members are currently constructing an expanded climatological database for Sydney aerodrome and reviewing the predictors for fog. The planned completion date for the project is December 2005. Stay Alive, |
FYSTI - fuelling the fire?
Having now read the offending (and offensive) post, Kharon's decision to delete it was wise. :ok:
FYSTI, rather than rekindling the fire, perhaps you might consider the same action. :oh: :ugh: |
FYSTI, that's pretty childish reposting a deleted post.
|
4dogs quite possibly it went the way regulation reform. As has been pointed out on other threads safety actions as opposed to formal recommendations that the ATSB once issued do not get tracked. Maybe when the report into this incident is issued they might refer to it but quite possibly corporate memory in both BoM and the ATSB won't stretch back that far and it has all but been forgotten. One of the purposes of safety investigation is to prevent future occurrences of the same event. That doesn't seem to be happening. This year has been referred to as a "bad fog season". The only thing bad about it is the lack of appropriate forecasting.
|
I would leave that to those with more of a Dikensian aspect :ok:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:56. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.