That is one smart Irish copper.:ok:

Lone pine
 

Both aircraft had an unenviable position to be put in, one did a superlative job, the other stuck his neck out, way out.

Listen very carefully, Flying down to the ground in poor vis below the minima is no more dangerous with 2100 kg on board versus 525 kg, both are highly dangerous manoeuvres, you need to be very careful before you embark on a deliberately dangerous manoeuvre, you need to be able to justify your decision, say for example you hurt someone in the process, because they weren't in the brace position. You see after all you are performing a dangerous manoeuvre busting the minima. Do you follow? We are not measuring willy sizes here, we are all in the same industry.

Gazumped
 

I don't think you're getting the argument.
It is irrelevant how much fuel they actually have in the tanks if it is still insufficient to get them to another aerodrome. In this case, with 2100kg remaining, no options to go elsewhere and weather closing in, I'd sure as hell start shooting approaches below minima right away to get down in one piece.

I see no benefit in sitting above the ever-thickening murk (which we have no reason to believe will magically disappear before we run out of fuel) burning precious fuel waiting to get into my FR before attempting an approach below minima, leaving me with one shot at getting it right, in possibly significantly worse conditions, when I could have made a few earlier attempts with the option to go around. The QF crew did manage to make it in on the first go, but who's to say that would have been the case if they'd waited until minimum fuel before giving it a crack?

...shooting the approach below minima with 2100kg vs 500kg is significantly LESS DANGEROUS as you have the option to go around and take another shot - at 500 you have nowhere to go but down.

On the money SKKM!
I say the QF crew displayed sound and smart judgment in doing what they did.

Skkm
 

Sorry mate, I disagree, re read what you actually said, there is no crystal ball, hanging around may have seen the fog lift, not thicken.

Let me give you a fact, if you bust the minima and hurt a passenger with more than fixed in your tanks, and he sues you personally, you will lose your house!
So bust as many minimas as you like, but don't hurt a passenger.

Lone pine
 

The sound and smart judgement included fuelling up and shooting through?

Remember the Irish copper! In actual fact he would have been charged with murder!

It would not matter how much fuel they each arrived with. As both did not have fuel to divert elsewhere, they had no flight fuel, all they had left was approach fuel.

As for the different methods that each crew took to getting on the ground, each did what they determined was the most appropriate for that crew at the time.

It is easy for all of us to sit here and examine each crew's actions in minute detail. We are not flying around in clear air above a layer of fog knowing that what you do in the next few minutes could all turn to :mad:

It is a simple fact that the forecasts caught both crew out.

To compound the QF situation was the fact that the amended forecast for Adelaide was delayed by "sterile cockpit" procedures. To me "sterile cockpit" procedure is to to keep the crew concentrated on aircraft operations and not talking about nappy changing at 2am.

Are forecasts no longer considered to be applicable to aircraft operations?

Given the circumstances that both crew faced, they both did a fantastic job.

I am impressed on how the Virgin crew determined their course of action.

Maybe one or both of the QF had done that approach to Mildura and knew where the runway would be in relation to the approach track.

Could/would have QF landed in Adelaide if they knew Mildura was going bad?

601
 

That is exactly the point, it does matter how much fuel you have on board, you cannot take the law into your own hands unless your justification is absolutely watertight.

Virgin's justification was watertight, even down to the "brace brace brace" call.

You need to talk to someone who has been in the witness box after an incident.......it absolutely does matter, your reasons need to be watertight.

What are you referring to in fuelling up and shooting through? Also are you saying that landing below minima when you don't have fuel to go anywhere else is only legal if your down to vapours?

Precisely that
The virgin crew declared themselves finished for the day, kicked all the toys out of the cot spat the dummy, you get the idea.

gazumped
 

I'd suggest you don't know what you are saying!

To quote you: "Let put in single syllables, until you have an emergency, you are not empowered to break the rules."

Sorry, the PIC can do whatever he likes at any stages if he believes the safety of his aircraft is at stake. Where did you get this idea from? Or maybe I should put it to you this way.....HE WAS IN AN EMERGENCY, he didn't have the juice to go anywhere else. He doesn't have to be down to 30 mins, you are confusing the process for an aircraft getting the attention of ATC for priority handling due to a low fuel state with the declaration of a fuel emergency with what can be numerous different types of emergencies, eg loss of all hydrualics. ATC: sorry, you cannot declare an emergency until you only have 30mins in the Tanks. AIRCRAFT: but we're going to crash. ATC: sorry, you shouldn't have carried the extra fuel, otherwise you'd only have 30 mins and we could accept your emergency!:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

To quoter you again: "Do you follow? We are not measuring willy sizes here, we are all in the same industry."

I'm hoping that most here would be hoping, that they aren't in the same industry as you, not in the same company and certainly not on your aircraft if you even happen to command one. FFS!

One has the option to go around, the other doesn't.
QF would have had 2200kg on touch down, if they did go around they would have been down to 1400kg and possibly facing worse viz than on the first attempt and maybe having to coordinate with other aircraft also experiencing fuel issues.
You seem to hang your hat on the rules keeping you safe Gazumped, they won't always keep you safe. Over and above any rule is the Captains responsibility to keep the passengers and aircraft safe, they are specifically empowered to break any rule they see fit to achieve this outcome. Both Captains did just that. Well done to the four pilots involved.
Framer.

Firstly-----holy crap Batman they were seriously let down by the system:eek:

Well done to both crews.

Now, Mr gazumped:- you my friend are completely missing the point. The Commander has the authority to do whatever he sees fit in the circumstances in order to maintain flight safety. THAT'S WHAT HE'S PAID FOR.
The regs give him this exact power.

At the end of the day ( in QF's situation ) when you can clearly see this un-forecast fog is getting worse by the second you don't muck around, you land the damn Plane Maverick...:ok: otherwise you are landing in a paddock...

So stop this Monday morning quarterbacking bull**** and give both crews the respect they deserve considering what that had to deal with.

Best of all lets ALL learn from this.....:ok:

1/ ATC should have passed on the fog in ADL to all Aircraft inbound no matter where they were.( this would have saved the day )
2/ BOM should lift their game.
3/ All operators of RPT Aircraft should carry a suitable alternate at all times.
4/ All Airports in Oz should be capable of at least Cat 2. ( especially PER, and now it seems ADL )

'skkm' that's pretty much it in a nutshell, well put. (as is both the above posts as I have just seen their good input)
There's a lot of opinion here but right or wrong the commander has the final say. If he decides that he's going below Min then he's correct regardless of fuel qty & justification was very obvious!
He clearly had not enuf gas to go elsewhere as he had a fuel emerg right there & then even if he technically had more than what was required to call it so so starting App's & going blw Min straight up was a good call as he would have had options albeit slim (aka going around) with 2100 kg's on first attempt.
The Virgin skipper obviously used up his similar gas by going around.


Remember we are talking about two identical airframes here but two different CPU's making the decisions so it's hardly going to be a text book outcome for both A/C.
The end result was to get the machines on the ground (in once piece) so apart from the rules & regs all bets where off & raw survivability was kicking in.


Wmk2

Framer
 

I don't hang my hat on the rules keeping me safe, you will find no such comment in my posts. Although rules and sop's are a pretty good start, once or twice in your flying lifetime you will be forced to break the rules.

You do not seem to understand. Virgin was not going to do a missed approach, neither was qantas. You don't embark on a deliberate descent below the minima if you intend to go around. Neither manoeuvre was less or more dangerous than the other, both carry risk, considerable risk, both break the law, one is wholly justified, 100% justified, the other was not. One crew carefully thought out the process, the other did not.

Simple isn't it?

Say after me, " if I deliberately break the rules, I will have a watertight reason."
Go on its not that hard

Guzumped is also missing the point that both crews went below minima before they were below fixed fuel reserves. It states this clearly in the report. As they should have given the situation.

"At approximately 2358, the crew of YIR commenced their first approach, deciding that if they obtained visual reference with the runway, they would land and that if they were not visual they would conduct a missed approach. The crew of YIR had planned to descend to a minimum of 300 ft14, and configured the aircraft early for the final approach."

The minima is around 600' so Mr Guzumped Qantas decided to go a certain height below minima before they were below fixed fuel reserves and were lucky enough to get visual reference and land and you criticise them but Virgin did the same thing and were unlucky and didn't get visual so had to try again (this time below fixed reserves) and that is fine?

Why don't you actually read the report before commenting on the actions of either crew. Or better yet don't comment on there actions at all!

Dear Gazumped
 

Both crews did a great job in testing circumstances.
But if you command an airliner in Aust please make it known in your "welcome aboard" p.a.
I'll then get off and leave you to manage any potential crisis right down to the last legal option before you finally "grip it up" and resolve the issue at the last gasp with no other "out". I hope it all goes well for you. :rolleyes:

As I said before, all they had on board other than FR was "approach fuel". They did not have any "flight fuel" as they could not fly anywhere else.

So do they doodle around in the clear blue sky above ever increasing fog and get to a point where they have used their "approach fuel" to conduct an approach with no prospect of a missed approach or use what approach fuel they had and conduct an approach knowing full well that they have the fuel have a go at a second approach.

The CARs allow a pilot to "pay due regard to all dangers to navigation .. and to any special circumstances which may render a departure from those rules necessary in order to avoid immediate danger"


They did and I did. Somewhat similar circumstances, but I had the luxury of diverting from a fogged in aerodrome to a CAVOK aerodrome, but I used 2/3 of my FR to get there.

And it was not a bugsmasher.

I won't be as nice as the other guys, I also think you more than likely missed my thoughts on the end of pg 27, but gazumped you are a fool and have no idea what you are talking about. I hope you spend quite some time with dj in the RHS seat, you have a lot to learn about what decision making is about and also what is legal! Doing whatever you need to do for the safety of the a/c whether you go below minima, or divert and land with less than FR is not breaking the law.

By the way, QF had a valid reason; deteriorating visibility with insufficient fuel to divert. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???????????

Gazumped,

Mate, you are up a gum tree here. While you are comfy in your arm chair there, take a pause and realize you are peddling a black and white viewpoint in a literally grey situation.
Further, to go below final rsv fuel you are In a fuel emergency.
A commander has the prerogative to decide he in a situation ( ie an emergency) requiring him to exercise the rights affording to him by the regulations.
No one else.

If QF had gone around we'd have seen 2 rpt 737s on min gas in the same cct with wx going pear shaped. No one knows how that would've played out.

Get off your high horse and stop be an arm chair expert.

Gazumped,

Had the QF aeroplane landed by busting the minima with fuel to divert to a suitable alternate, your argument would be sound.

Gazumped,

It's not that we don't understand you, it's just that we all believe you are completely incorrect.

You do not have to land with less than FFR to break the rules. You can break the rules at any point as long as it is done for a justifiable valid safety reason.

Allowing yourself to land with less than FFR is breaking a rule in itself, which also must be justifiable with a valid safety reason, for example DJ will have to justify conducting a go-around on the first approach knowing that they will infringe on the FFR by doing so. And I'm sure they can justify it. As can the QF crew justify their landing off the first approach.

Gazumped

Following on from your comments I will draw your attention to the report.
If you read it carefully you will note that the VA also descended below minima to 300 feet ( 150 feet above ground) before going around for their final attempt.
Accordingly if one follows your reasoning then they to we're not watertight in their approach as they did not yet have a fuel emergency.

So rather than directing criticism on any of the crew how about you accept the fact that although the VA did the same thing as QF and it seems got even lower than QF they were not as lucky due to worsening weather.

So they then made their last approach in zero vis.

It's that simple mate.

Gazumped, you are a complete fool. A Monday morning quarterback is a low character at the best of times but you take it to a new level.

Picking faults with a dynamic, unforecast situation with 20/20 hindsight is easy. The funny thing here though is that for the QF guys, making the approach as early as possible proved to be very fortuitous. Hanging about and making further legal approaches until they were at min fuel would only have lead to a more dangerous situation. Now I acknowledge they couldn't have know that, but as it panned out they were right in making their decision.
What I find absurd is your assertion that waiting until the weather was MUCH worse and their fuel situation was MUCH worse somehow would have been a better scenario.

Furthermore you stated:
Yet the interim report states:
300ft is 260 feet BELOW the minima! Even further than the Qantas crew busted the minima.
So the Virgin crew DID "embark on a deliberate descent below the minima" with the intent to go around.

All that being said, I think that with the information available both the Virgin and Qantas crews did an fantastic job and should be applauded.
Well done fellas. :D I hope I don't end up in a similar situation.

To add to level of inanity put forward by gazumped, you had a go at me for my comments and yet you didn't address them at all.

The assertion put forward was that QF did a gas and go and in doing so, delayed VOZ's arrival into MIA. I expressed some surprise at that as it's not in the report and I don't think it would have been physically possible. I'm not disputing that the QF crew did in fact gas it up and then blast off for ADL, but I reject the assertion that in doing so they delayed the VOZ crew from conducting and approach.

So any time you're ready to apologise, I'm all ears. I won't hold my breath though.

Wow, QF and Virgin crews both displayed exemplary professionalism and decision making. They each resolved situations which could have befallen us all (yes I know, exempt for the the '5T for mum' mob.....)

Gazumped There is a reason no one agrees with your sentiments. I suggest you reread the various insightful, experienced comments from others here and think about why the majority have so much praise for the way both crews went about their business in trying circumstances. Good luck with your upgrade........

pointless distinctions
 

gazumped,

I figure there are only 4 people who know what the picture out the front window looked like when it mattered. In truth, no one else can say with certainty what that picture was - we know that ground observers have a very limited area in which to observe, made much worse if they happen to be in the middle of the weather and, because the situation is quite often very dynamic, the preceding aircraft can also see a totally different picture.

As for things like holding fuel, well, forecasting when a fog is going to lift is probably more difficult than predicting when it is going to form - and we know how well that's been going lately!

At Mildura, once thing was very clear - the aircraft were committed to land there and it was entirely preferable to do so with the engines running. It was inevitable that they would run out of fuel at some stage, so all the rules and regulations that are designed for normal operations and to prevent such situations arising had already passed their 'use by' date on commencing the approach. What occurred was 2 different crews practicing dynamic decision-making in what I believe were different circumstances of time and space.

The outcome was fabulous - the alternatives were all very bad.

If we get a decent investigation and we get a decent report (unfortunately still mutually exclusive propositions) that allow us to maximise the training benefits, we will all be so much better for the event.

So I propose we park the carping stone-throwing and concentrate on the lessons. The best of those in this case for you may be a reminder that:

'the rules are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools'.

Ancper et al
 

Resorting to name calling is poor form indeed

Keg, I did not say that qantas fuelling up and shooting through delayed virgin in any way, I just stated the facts, as unpalatable as that may be. Qantas waited until virgin landed and then departed (after the weather improved) which it was always going to do , and may have done so within qantas's legal fuel reserves.

Go around fuel and shoot another approach is 500 kg, adding this to virgins final landing fuel, gives them 1025 on final, absolute rock solid reason to go 250 ' below minima. The assertion that it is 1100 kg is plain wrong.

The gist of all this ho hah from my proponents, apart from a few name callers seems to be, "So long as weather is not as forecast and deteriorating and you have no fuel left to divert you can go any amount below minima regardless of how much fuel you have on board" quite absurd thought processes.

One of my proponents has even given me a job as a dj FO, another false comment.

How about stick to the facts, and play the ball not the man.

I have stuck rigidly to facts, the rest of you use an interesting embroidering technique.

So by your expert calculations the Virgin guys would have been landing with less than FFR on the first attempt.

If thats the case why not land?

Why go around and run a serious risk of flaming out only to have to land in the same weather 10 mins later?

Gazumpy both planes descended below the minima because they had to.

Qantas got visual and landed. Virgin did not get visual and went around.

You dont know what Qantas would have done if they were not visual.

Virgin landed the second time without becoming visual because they had to.

Whats your beef?

You still don't get it mate.

All bets are off with regards to rules once you run out of options......YOU DO THE SAFEST THING AS LONG AS YOU CAN JUSTIFY IT LATER ON.....

So, with your thinking they should have landed on the Silver city highway perhaps?? Landed in BHI??

I have a feeling that neither you or I shall ever experience the "sick in the stomach" feel these 4 guys went through........just think yourself lucky to be passing judgement from the comfort of your lounge room. :D

Exceptionally well done to them.......:ok:

The ATSB preliminary report is out.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4172363...100_prelim.pdf

It looks like it does a good job of tabling the facts & timeline. I've put it aide to read fully later, but it appears to be written in a completely different style than any I have read recently. There also seems to be some legalese in the style. I'm looking forward to reading it.

Akro-----where ya been mate, reply 491 page 25 mentions the report!! Get with the program will ya :}

Tetretni
 

An funny thing fog, time ticks by, and fog lifts, sometimes quite quickly.

I have no beef, just sticking to the facts, 525+500=1025, 2100 -(500)X2=1100, is not maths, it's arithmetic.

It appears that almost everyone else has a beef with me, calling me names, giving me jobs, making deliberately false statements. Interesting!

How about fuelling up and shooting through, after an adrenaline rushing, minima busting approach........sound judgement?

No beef just a question.

Any answers?

Comments?

Do you mean after they landed MIA the QF crew refueled at left ASAP?

Mmmmmmm, tough call, I guess they spoke to their CP and that was the decision. I know from past experience that after an incident QF stand the crew down ( at least for the day ) and get another crew. I would have thought this should happen after busting the minima and filling out the Air Safety reports........I guess ATSB will pass their thoughts on that decision as well..

You have not answered my question.

Why not land off the first attempt given that as you claim they were already compromised with regards to FFR.

Why risk a flameout on a second attempt.

Waiting.

Nitpicker330
 

Incorrect, have been there. Read my prior posts. Missed out at the minima, forecast cavok, thunderstorm off the end if the field, after reserve diminishing, minima busting second approach. BOM reply to my incident report was all public service mumbo jumbo as why they had done nothing wrong. All a very long time ago in GA.

Ok then, you of all people should know then.....

gazumpy my question to you remains unanswered.

Tetretni
 

The fuel state was not quite at emergency, and whilst it was not, there was a chance that given more time conditions might improve.

Also cabin prep had not been done.

A flame out with 1 nano seconds fuel more than fixed, is not possible, (with normal attitudes), otherwise certification would have not been granted.

You can't be serious?

Deadly serious.

The fuel state was not quite at emergency. Right?

So why bust the minima? Which they did on first attempt.