If you want a heads up the senate inquiry thread may give one!

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...011-a-106.html

I'll be careful here, but I'm pretty sure ( No MELS, abs certain ) the 737 will land off an ILS in zero visibility, as oppose to a VOR/DME approach in marginal visibility, I wait for the facts.

Just musing out loud...

I wonder if the airline's (collectively not just Virgin) bean counters had been on board enroute to the World Bean Counter's AGM in ADL, and had all had to go through the experience, including the BRACE, BRACE, BRACE; would they continue to advocate minimalist legal fuel "because statistically you'll just carry it for the sake of carrying it"?

Or would the experience, actually having some fear of the outcome, change their statistical outlook to permit the sensible carriage of an alternate, whether the current rules require it or not?

Hmmmm. :ooh:

What is a rough fuel figure to climb out of Adelaide and go to Melbourne and land with 2 tonnes?

Excellent post Claret!

If it was the required 2800m there wouldn't be a thread running on it.

Firstly, credit where it is due, and hats off to the crew for a safe outcome.

Video looks like some serious pea soup. Would be lucky to be 800m I would think. No wonder the pax had been given the brace command. Makes sense to me. I look forward to finding out how they pulled it off safely but I am going to guess like everyone else has been, and agree with the previous poster who said dial up the rnav which will give the pseudo glideslope to the threshold.

I wonder if there will be an RNP approach implemented in Mildura at a later date now that the test flying calibration has been already completed :E

Speaking of fuel, can anybody confirm whether VA have actually introduced new policy? I paxed 3 return sectors last week for business , 6 different aircraft for a total of 6 flights. Each aircraft was stinking hot, minimal to nil aircon until climb. No U/S APU's, just stinking hot onboard with plenty of pax whinging, including myself. I am curious whether a policy has been introduced? If it has it is not a good one. If my flights next week are a replica of last week I may go back to the Rat for a month or two to re-test the waters so to speak.
Three weeks ago the flights felt cooler??

Hmmm... i'm wondering why the BOM caint get their fog forecasts right ?

I too got caught out yesterday, and I would have landed with 2.5 tons of fuel. I think the met boys were having a bad day, as the fog wasn't forecast and didn't clear until 1-2 hours AFTER the forecast TTF period! A quick discussion with my FO and we just went back to where we had just come from. The good news on that one was that the wind @ FL350 was 260/176kts, so picked up a nice little tail wind! I have left the auto-pilot on many times doing a practice RNAV/Z runway approach, and had made the decision a long time before, that it would get you within the runway confines, in fog. You may take out a few lights, but way better than crashing in a paddock!! I don't know the facts, but I imagine this is exactly what the Virgin crew did. Maybe the QF crew were just alerting them to the actual viz conditions as they made their final approach. I too would have prepared the cabin for a possible crash landing as they have had a lot of rain up that way, and the grass verges would be very soft. Brilliant result i reckon! :D

Interesting seeing around 72 posts in just one day on a subject that is obviously controversial.
I wonder whether this core subject (Min fuel) will result in much worse than what we are talking about here some day/night. It's on the cards just a matter of time when & then we shall see all the boffins ducking for cover with the word 'commercial' once again being swept under the 'safe' carpet!
I've operated in & out of MIA for many a year & it's a well known shocker of a place for fog, forecast & un-forecast. Lost a patient early one morning 'cause of fog, tried my damnedest to get in to that place several times never seeing the rwy/lights 'till in the missed App but had to go home with a very teary paramedic on board:sad:

The tech crew got safely on the ground that's the main thing, now lets talk about improving the situation so the risks can be further reduced not increased by the bean counters!

Wmk2

After having seen the fog at BN being cleared by aircraft executing missed approaches, the vis you see on the video taken from the terminal area may not be the vis the crew had on their second approach.

The completion of the missed approach may have dissipated the fog enough to complete the final approach and landing.

Never trust ADL in winter !
 

Personal experience - Ansett days; CBR to ADL with a CAVOK TAFOR / TTF-M on ADL.
Preparing for briefing prior to TOPD and got the ADL atis which indicated fog moving in from the NE. Had not received any hazard alert from ATC.
Mildura and MEL had fog and too far into the flight to return to CBR so the decision was made to continue to ADL and try to beat the fog (with the option of an autoland if need be).
VOR/D 05 no good so took a 5kt downwind ILS 23 and got visual at 600'. The fog continued to thicken after our arrival.
From what I have observed at ADL, the fog forms up the Barossa Valley , not so much over the airport itself, then slides down the valley with a katabatic breeze which also takes out Edingurgh.
The ADL forcast might not have fog but it is frequently not too far away.

Role on....

Thankful very experienced Captain flying this one, 30+yrs flying experience

Been told he cut his teeth flying turbo props flying Adl to Mql in his younger days

Top effort

Channel 9 Brisbane made a similar statement in their promo for the 6 o'clock news but there was no such reference in the full bulletin.

Bl@@dyHell! That video gave me goosebums.

Ben Sandilands has completely missed the point, which is that the BOM have comprehensivley failed the travelling public by it's apparent inability to forecast accurately. This is endangering the lives of thousands of unsuspecting travellers because airlines are trusting the forecasts to carry fuel levels that are too low to cope with a bad forecast/unplanned diversion.

Bloggs- Bingo.

Surely it doesnt 'cost' the BOM anything to put a PROB30 up in the TAF the night before? In the past fortnight I have had early morning departures to 2 aerodromes that had no mention of fog and thus no alternate requirement. The temp/dew point split and wind off the metar led me to believe that fog would be likely and whaddyaknow- speci's come out mid-sector. 1 resulted in a diversion and the other occassion the fog was partial and not fully over the airfield.

Do the BOM have a vested interest in not putting limiting forecasts up?

Like Singapore's rolling tempo to enable singair to avoid carrying extra fuel?

Has anyone ever seen anything higher than PROB30 for FG or any other weather for that matter? Eg, PROB70 FG? I never have. It always seem to be PROB30 or nothing. If you see PROB>50 for FG or BR, that would at least get more attention.

I have never seen anything greater than PROB40 on a TAF. It was my understanding that PROB30 means it is unlikely but definitely could occur. PROB40 on the other hand indicates a very high certainty of the event occurring.