Porch, I can't believe that the emphasis of this thread is not on what you said in the last paragraph of your last post. Both of those factors are a disgrace in my opinion.

Oh come on. Given the info they had, what would you have carried ex BNE/SYD?

They didn't need an alternate at departure; I was only suggesting that if they had carried Jabba's "might be fog" fuel, they would have had BHI as an emergency option. If I get a report of fog at a port with another wide open but low PCN, I'll take the low PCN any time. A quick check of the FMS database for approaches would also be in order. ;)

I very much doubt that a GPS NPA to 0/0 onto a shortish runway is safer than an autoland onto a Cat 1 ILS. Legal or not, I know what I'd rather do. Those Virgin guys deserve a bravery award.

We had the ridiculous situation here a few years back where the Met Office at an outport didn't open until the first flight was ready to depart. I recall making many phone calls just prior to pushback asking about the actual weather there. Pretty silly really; the only time we needed accurate weather/forecasting, early morning, nobody's in the office for obs.

RJT and oracle,

Sydney has GLS approaches published to most of its runways. It has a ground station that corrects any GPS error to allow a ILS like approach all the way to autoland. Looks like the future to me.

The Don

Wet bulb/dry bulb stick out like dogs balls. Even when they were 05/05, the TTF guy was still calling it NOSIG.

Add a nice light 4kts wind for mixing -> Perfect fog weather.

The BOM, via computer models, can tell yer what they reckon the climate will be in 30 years time though they couldn't tell yer squat about the wx 30 minutes out..:hmm:







.

Given that the wind is quoted as an easterly I can well understand why the crews were not considering fog especially in light of the TAF. If the wind had been a south-westerly then it might have started raising a few red flags. I have only ever seen fog at ADL twice in my 20 years flying into the place and that was due to sea fog. All this post event dissection of the wx ignores the fact that ADL is not a destination that is regularly affected by radiation fog. The proof of this is that two crews from two different airlines were caught out by unforecast fog. The unforecast fog in ADL was unfortunate but the compounding of that error by the BoM with unforecast fog in MIA, which is subject to regular radiation fog, is bewildering.

If events like this are supposed to provide lessons to the wider community well I have now changed my fuel order for early morning arrivals into ADL!

Shagpile

Looking at that TAF and METAR I see nothing remarkable.
The prelim report mentions for example that the QF and VA were both estimating ADL past 2300z.

If the METAR is reporting 9999 with a 1 degree split in temp/dew point pre flight and you still dont have fog forming and the TAF is indicating a temp of around 11 to 14 degrees at ETA why would you think that fog was going to be a problem on arrival?

I guess what I am suggesting is that the reading of that TAF could be interpreted in different ways by different pilots.

Nothing wrong or right about that..

It just is the way it is.

LOOKLEFT

The crews were caught out by dud gen.
The so called wx experts the BOM were the ones caught out by fog.

The use of YBHI would only work for one aircraft in an emergency. If two B737 aircaft diverted to YBHI there is a very good chance the first aircaft could damage the runway and close the airport. If you want to include YBHI you might as well throw YPAG and YMTG into the picture. But none can be planned as an alternate.

People are throwing up 'what/could/should' have been done, while sitting at home looking at back on information that has been gathered over the 4 weeks since the event. Have a look at the tracks shown on the map included in the ATSB report, both aircraft flew past Mildura, so the crews would have an idea of what the weather was like, then 15-20 mins later they are provided with YMIA weather saying it's ok, the 2300 METAR has the cloud higher at 3900'. When both crews made the call to divert they had minutes to decide based on the information they were given and on what they saw when the flew past YMiA.

If both crews had any indication of the cloud lowering or fog forming at YMIA, they would have continued to YPAD and busted minimal via an Autoland following an ILS approach and this thread wouldn't be here!

As I said yesterday, let's focus on the prevention on another similar event.

What I see needs to be done is;
1. Rather than spend their money on building car parks and shopping centers, Airports should forced to upgrade all ILS's to at least CAT2 ASAP and work torwards CAT 3.
2. CASA to regulate Flight Dispatcher training like they do with load controllers. In the USA flight dispatchers are includedd in the FAR's and are licensed and trained to FAA standards.
3. Complete review of the BOM and the impact on years of funding cutbacks have had. The quality of the forecasts has declined and it's not just the lack of fog forecasting, during the summer months lack of thunderstorms is also and issue.

Folks,
WAAS has been mentioned, that would have been of marginal help at MIA, as the minima for a WAAS PVA ( or, at least, the published ones I have seen, have all had a 300' DH, viz. around 1200m. I believe it is possible, but I have never seen, a published WAAS PVA to 200'.

Yes, there have been research testing autolands with a LAAS, but I am not aware of any such approaches in service or any airlines contemplating WAAS/LAAS auto coupled approach /autoland operations any time soon.

Hell will freeze over before airlines would pay for a LAAS system at places like Mildura. Forget WAAS for Australia, a pity, but a realistic expectation. With new generation 3 GPS, now coming into service, slow moving users will have WAAS equivalent accuracy, without WAAS, leaving aviation as about the only beneficiary, over which to spread the cost.

Tootle pip!!

Bloggs , since you insist, I most likely would have had approx. 3t arrival at AD. The forecasts indicated no need for more. As Lookleft has pointed out, an easterly wind would not have raised much interest. The temp split of 1 or 2 degrees you see regularly. There is much more to fog formation than just a low temp split. So, arrival at MIA would have had approx. 2t, straight in via the RNAV, and no, I wouldn't have waited for QF. Had the information about the missed approaches at MIA been received in time, (it wasn't), then continue on to ADL for an autoland. Happy now? There was no indication at departure that anything other was likely to be needed.

Jack, yes, And will be interesting to see if anything changes. There have been some company changes already.

BPA, Amen.

Porch Monkey,

That's sounds fair. I believe that QF did just that in that they tracked straight to the IAF and shot an approach.

If you had done as you describe and not attempted a DME arrival with a visual approach first off and you were 10 mins ahead of QF then you would not have had to wait.

I'd imagine that you would have been on the ground by the time the others started their approach right?

It just wasn't meant to be on that day!

LeadSled

WAAS equivalent in Australia would have made the emergency proceedure adopted by the crews of descending well below published minima much safer.
Thus WAAS in Australia should be om the agenda, given the reduced cost needed now that Japan has done the hard work for our area.
The future promise of improved accuracy GPS without WAAS/SBAS is obviously not convincing, or else why would so many countries be bulding WAAS/SBAS type systems?

See

GNSS augmentation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:SBAS Service Areas.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bottom line, Met totally stuffed it, not once but twice, and even when the fog was there, they were predicting it to clear within 30 minutes.

It is just a bit of blind luck, combined with the skill of both crews that they will be subject to a severe thrashing with a wet lettuce leaf from ATSB and not the full force of a coroners court

Good question. Would 2T be enough to plan on arriving in MEL ? Lets say they did just that. Then they didn't get their optimum altitude for the divert, now we're down to 1.8 T. Then there was an extra 30kts of headwind ( happens all the time) now we're down to 1.7T. Then they got one lap of the hold for sequencing as there is fog in CBR and ADL and MIA so a few others have the same idea, now we're down to 1.5T and nothing out of the ordinary has happened. Then ATC lines up an A330 who takes a bit longer than expected and the ensuing go around nails another .8T leaving them with 0.7T on a crappy day in MEL. So planning on 2T overhead MEL with that weather is questionable, so how much should they plan on having overhead MEL? 3T?
If three tonne is acceptable to you Jabba, does that work with the MLW and the pax loads? I'm running out of battery so haven't got time to check from the report if it does or doesn't. That's an honest question too, I'm not being facetious, just running with your line of thinking to see where it ends up.
It was a CAVOK forecast so if the result is offloading pax or freight then it would be very hard to justify.
Ps I'm not a min fuel guy:ok:

Leadsled,

GLS autoland is part of the 380 type course here. We practice using the SYD approaches.

the Don

Prevention is better than cure
 

Everyone is devoting a lot of energy as to the why's of this incident but the fact is that in all probability something similar will occur again. The purpose of this thread should not be to determine if the crew is at fault. There two positions,

1. the crew got themselves into it and got themselves out of it or

2. The system let them down.

I am just a dumb mechanic but I am certain that the establishment will become more incompetent not less. If there is any chance that CASA/ATSB can blame a pilot to protect the system they will do so. Pilots will be exposed further. I am well aware that there are operators using synthetic vision to land at night out west (I do not condone this at all, check out the classic ad for FLIR with the deer in the middle of the runway with the synthetic vision showing a clear space).

If I can buy a Dynon with Foxtel showing me the scenery for 5 grand why cant we have an accurate GPS system to determine an aircraft's position in larger aircraft, after all the money flow for development is in larger aircraft. Drones land blind every time.

Wont be long before a pilot takes his guidance with him from aircraft to aircraft in GA, eg Ipad and AHDRS/GPS bluetooth unit. My little unapproved dynon EFIS ****s all over the vacumn gauges in my 172 for reliability. The system needs to be aircraft specific not airstrip specific.

Don't get carried away! If they don't get in to ADL because of fog and they don't have "proper" alternate fuel for MEL (it wasn't ever required), they declare "Minimum Fuel" and 90% of that stuff you mentioned gets chucked out the window. With the benefit of hindsight :ok: I'd plan to get to MEL with 1500kg for a Cat III and "I don't care what the weather is".

Not having the AWIS at MIA denied the crews from knowing the humidity.

4. CASA to revise RPT jet fuel policies to require an ILS alternate if possible until such times as BOM gets it's act together;

5. Conduct an education campaign for pilots about fog. 5kts NE at ADL in winter is merely mixing wind, nothing else (as proved on the day).

Re 2: Not sure how a flight despatcher would have made a difference in this case. He/she probably would have shot for the same fuel. If you meant ground-based company operational control in flight, then OK.

As for Jabba, I am invited to ask pretty demanding questions of a surgeon before the chop, why shouldn't pilots be open to the same thing (within reason, of course)?

Let's hear it. I would take an unapproved autoland on a long runway at ADL anyday than a made up procedure at MIA.

Not really MUCH more. If a key ingredient is in there then that may get ones attention.

How will we know when that is. "the establishment" as mentioned above already says they have their act together. Heaven help us if we need CASA to say when BOM are competent.:ugh:

For those asking about the HUD:

1. All QF B738's have one.

2. The HUD will show you exactly where to expect to see the runway and the aim point when you break visual.

3. The HUD won't give you flare guidance unless there is an ILS, however...

4. The HUD in the hands of an experienced user can be used to flare and land the aircraft very accurately without an ILS in zero visibility (although not certified for this purpose).

.. and a HUD with an EVS overlay makes life ever so much more relaxed I would expect (not having had the opportunity to fly one)

[QUOTE]....and a HUD with an EVS overlay makes life ever so much more relaxed I would expect (not having had the opportunity to fly one)/QUOTE]

John - it is a beautiful thing! :ok:

Not correct!:=

You declare minimum fuel and ATC tell you how long you will hold for. If you cannot make their time it is then up to you to find a new airport.

If you then declare a PAN you can do whatever you want.

If you carry an alternate you have to carry the traffic holding for that alternate. ATC must also understand that if they blow out the holding for whatever reason that should be a automatic hazard alert. Something some of them don't seem to understand.

Another unintended consequence of all this is that if there is unforecasted weather at one airport it can create a nightmare at the nearest alternate as all the diverting traffic get in each other's way and then inconvenience and delay all the scheduled traffic!!

Thanks Derfred and others for HUD info.

No. Read ENR 1.1-98. If ATC continues to dick you around after declaring minimum fuel, then declare a fuel mayday. You do not "have to find another airport".

Keep this in context, NN. I was replying to Framer's stumbling blocks to an unplanned diversion to MEL.

Sorry probably poor wording on my behalf but my point was the minimum fuel call will not do anything for your priority. ATC gives you a landing time if you can make that well and good, if you can't you either have to divert or declare an emergency.

People have learned this the hard way. Diverted without the traffic holding only to be told to wait in a hold with very little fuel in the tanks.

Just watch an ATC delay you after you've declared minimum fuel...............don't think so :cool:

I've seen it where they don't give priority to aircraft until there is the imminent threat of a PAN, and even then it was a case of asking other holding aircraft to volunteer to have their slot time adjusted to accommodate the min fuel call aircraft. He was moved up in the sequence to a landing time that just avoid the PAN by a few minutes.
I would NOT be hanging my hat on getting any priority whatsoever with a min fuel call. If you do that's a bonus, but not to work on as a plan and assume it will "just happen".

Why is there such a hesitation in the civil world when it comes to making a Pan call ?

The military have no such problem ..

Was Avianca 52 so long ago that everyone has forgotten what can happen if ATC is allowed to run the show without the full story ?

John, lets just say the longhaul operator in question had a high "power distance index", just like Avianca 52. They were desperate to avoid using the PAN word and danced all around it with all sorts of contortions.

This incident is a classic example. VA call a Pan get all over the newspapers and the internet.

QF say nothing and do exactly what VA did and they get away scot free.

Emergency calls are a guaranteed way of making the front page. That's why there is reluctance.

I've made two Pan calls. One front page news, the other not a whisper. Luck of the draw I guess. The Minimum Fuel call gets you no priority but the Pan will. That's just the way it's designed. I've had a conversation with ATC about how we had a pax with chest pains and on oxygen and wanted direct to the field, we were given it then slowed to 230kts and sequenced number five to land with no explanation. I queried that and he said we would need to declare an emergency if we wanted priority. There is no " common sense" involved now days as everyone tries to stick to the 'rules' in order to protect themselves. Both the controller and I have English as a first language and the situation was obvious and understood by both parties, yet the actions didn't reflect that. The ensuing paperwork concluded with the finding that the controller was correct in that I did need to declare a Pan to get priority. Now I know I guess.

I had a similar situation framer but declared Med 1. I was given priority. Maybe it depends on the controller and his/her interpretation of the "rules"

Med 1 or 2...aren't these local procedures for Medivac flights? . A year ago almost to the day a 330 flamed an engine out following diversion from Madrid. ICAO then issued standardised fuel emergency calls. Neville has eluded to them, "Minimum Fuel" is not an emergency and will not get you priority. All it is telling ATC is you have committed to this airfield and any changes to the current clearance will land you below fixed reserve. If the clearance changes, ie you have to hold longer than previously advised the next step is "Mayday Fuel" there is no Pan call in between for the shy and faint of heart.

This must be in Oz regs somewhere so why the confusion?

It is in the Aus regs, fairly new I think but I stand to be corrected.
To be completely honest I can't keep up with all the regs and their changes for all the countries I fly into. I was always of the opinion that 'plain language' was ok in the situation I described but now I know better.

Med 1/2 now replaced by the ICAO standard 'Medevac' and 'Hospital' terminology in Oz. 'Hospital' priority (declared by medical authorities) is only accorded equal priority with normal RPT but 'Medevac' will definitely deliver you higher priority ("... [MEDEVAC] flights shall be granted priority as necessary" according to the book and it does not specify that it needs to be declared by medical authorities). I would have thought declaring 'Medevac' would have been as good as declaring a PAN for the purpose of communicating the level of priority required from ATC for a sick passenger? Do company SOPs provide any guidelines for this situation and what call should be given?

Now there's a thought. Would we be out of line to use the ' Medivac' call instead of a Pan? Or is the intention that it is for air ambulance only?

As the number of medicals increase on RPT we might as well be classified as air ambulances! I had a pax who was unconscious, I didn't want to be dicked around but the aircraft wasn't in any danger so I declared Med 1. Appropriate paperwork filled out at the end of the flight, never heard anymore about it. For me the system worked-on that occasion.:ok:

Neville

Interesting thing that PAN call. I mean what is it and is it defined by unambiguous objective criteria? Urgency. Pretty loose term that can mean different things to different people.

At least MAYDAY is fairly objectively defined as grave and imminent danger.

Landing with 2 tons in the tank versus 500 kg in the tank are two different states with different ramifications.

I would suggest that the later would be considered grave and imminent.

By ICAO definition at least.

In so far as the media is concerned they are only interested in sensationalism I would suggest. As such they are bound to concentrate on an aircraft that declares any type of emergency. Thats just how they work.

I would like to think that the crews involved on the day had more immediate issues to attend to, rather than worry about the media attention.

I would think that if "Medivac" was used by everyone then it may dilute the urgency for those that it was intended. Pan and include the nature of the emergency as medical...done. Mildura (inserted for relevence...:})

Do any of you blokes ever read your companies Operations Manuals and apply SOPs as per the manuals? It's all there, you know. Been developed over many, many, years by people far smarter than you or I!

Don't be a hero, just follow SOPs.

Get my drift? ;)