Well put Stallie I couldn't agree more!:D Although Hempy's...

"at the end of the day, if an RPT jet call's either PAN or MAYDAY they will get an In-Flight Emergency Response from ATC (after all, that's the whole point of the call in the first place..)"

... may well be true here in Oz as we, along with ATC, generally understand the concept but the initial PAN call in the Ryanair incident at Valencia was not understood and was even joked about by the Spanish ATC.

Hence the addition of para 4.3.7 to ICAO Annex 6 (my bold):

Quote:

---

4.3.7 In-flight fuel management

4.3.7.1 An operator shall establish policies and procedures, approved by the State of the Operator, to ensure that in-flight fuel checks and fuel management are performed.

4.3.7.2 The pilot-in-command shall continually ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining on board is not less than the fuel required to proceed to an aerodrome where a safe landing can be made with the planned final reserve fuel remaining upon landing.

4.3.7.2.1 The pilot-in-command shall request delay information from ATC when unanticipated circumstances may result in landing at the destination aerodrome with less than the final reserve fuel plus any fuel required to proceed to an alternate aerodrome or the fuel required to operate to an isolated aerodrome.

4.3.7.2.3 The pilot-in-command shall declare a situation of fuel emergency by broadcasting MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL, when the calculated usable fuel predicted to be available upon landing at the nearest aerodrome where a safe landing can be made is less than the planned final reserve fuel.

Note 1.— The planned final reserve fuel refers to the value calculated in 4.3.6.3 e) 1) or 2) and is the minimum amount of fuel required upon landing at any aerodrome.

Note 2.— The words “MAYDAY FUEL” describe the nature of the distress conditions as required in Annex 10, Volume II, 5.3.2.1, b) 3.

Note 3.— Guidance on procedures for in-flight fuel management are contained in the Flight Planning and Fuel Management Manual (Doc 9976).

---

But as Hempy and Stallie point out there is not much more that ATC could do or assist with, especially to an uncontrolled regional airport, so the RT procedures were kind of irrelevant...:rolleyes:

My 2ds worth
 

Ladies and gentlemen,

May I ask All in this forum for quiet and patient thoughts and consider the fate of those who escaped death, welcome them back to the land of their loved ones, and say "There but for fortune/lady luck/proper planning/the grace of God/go I". Well done, 'coz you're still here! May the beer be cold and frothy!

I would like to postulate the following:

1. Far too many aircraft are today being flown with far too insufficient fuel, and this is not company specific. Companies are making roadshows out of pilots' fuel carrying, but the CARs clearly say that the PIC is responsible for carrying sufficient.

2. What are the F/O's saying at the time? All F/Os are "Captains in waiting", and do they think that the Capt will bail them out unreservedly? I remember once going into PH and the F/O refusing the landing because it was over his OM1 limits. I am NOT going to fly every sector for anyone, and if 20 kt is so taxing for an ex-Dash-8 captain, then you shouldn't be occupying that seat. He landed it fine, and a pox to the half-wits that wrote OM1!

3. Pilots do not pay for the fuel. If I was paxing on your flight, paying,say, $16.00 fuel levy on my ticket, well guess what? I'd rather pay $16.30 and have you carry enough fuel than follow your sorry ass through your windscreen! Dig?

Accidents happen when the crew are out of options. NEVER let fuel be one of the links in the chain. When a bean-counter can show you his ATPL, Class 1 medical, Command IFR rating AND tell you an interesting story, THEN consider their opinions. In the meantime - you are the captain, you are the crew. The pax rely upon and trust you.

Don't let them down, I might be one of them one day - worse still, you might be one of mine.

Cheers,

Ned

Ned, waste of good wind unless you can produce an AIP or ICAO reference. Always remember, those who hesitates to reach for the rule book before making any sort decision, are doomed to constant insecurity.....:ugh:

I get what you guys are saying about F/O's landing limits but......
I feel sorry for the F/O's because they have conflicting instruction. They are being told on one hand to stick to the rules, have personal discipline in this regard etc etc, and then their Captain is saying 'stuff the rules, you can do it".
I agree with your anti OM1 sentiment mainly but it does put the F/O in a difficult situation if they have made a personal commitment to operate within the rules during normal ops.

Another interesting aspect of this matter is that it is not the first time an RPT aircraft has landed in below minima conditions at Mildura due unforecast fog. One I remember was in the Kendell days. Landed with only minutes of fuel after diversions trying to find a clear airport. Fog was not forecast anywhere in the area.
If our SMS systems are designed to prevent repeats and are overseen by CASA to prevent same what went wrong here ? ( asked a little tongue in cheek considering Norfolk and many other similar episodes.)

Greedy

I've been overseas and missed most of this but I'd make these points:

1. The ATSB seems to be taking 2 years plus for any report of real seriousness or contention. There are currently 87 outstanding reports going back to June 2011. Now that K. Rudd's new mate "Albo" has taken on the NBN as well as retaining transport, its hard to see any of the issues raised in the senate hearings getting any attention. Don't expect anything out of the ATSB anytime soon, and certainly not before we have a new government.

2. Unlike Pelair and others, one would expect the airlines involved to be able to afford serious lawyers. The usual ATSB blame it on the pilot tactic won't work.

3. TAF's at regional airports (in my experience) have become dramatically worse in the last 3-5 years. And the early morning ones are worst. I frequently see wholesale changes to overnight forecasts made at about 9am. Many of our regional TAF's are now nearly worthless.

4. If we had US type costs for ILS installation & maintenance of ILS, there would be one at Mildura. I spent some time at a the recent Victorian Govt. Super Trade Mission with some senior guys from Avalon airport and they ran through the ASA charges for the ILS maintenance. The ASA charges are breathtaking. We have a mantra that our private industries (ie the car industry) is internationally competitive. Its time we turned our attention to our government bodies. Why shouldn't ASA be internationally competitive?

There is a lot of discussion here about fuel reserves, but that is only so the flights could get to a capital city airport. The question that we are missing is " How can Australia justify not having an ILS equipped runway with full radar & met facilities between Brisbane & Adelaide?" That's 1,000 nm.

Lets also not forget that we had 2 major airline jets manoeuvring around an airport with no radar coverage.

There is about $6.5m of regional development funds being spent on renovating (not extending, or rebuilding - renovating) the Mildura terminal. A fraction of that money would give Mildura an ILS. Clearly the government cares more about comfortable departure lounges than air safety.

The debate about fuel & mayday calls are secondary. Why can we not provide better quality alternate airports?

Or better quality primary airports. Some CAT II/III facilities would have prevented/helped 7 fog related incidents that have occurred in the last 2 months!!

That is a circular argument as shown on the QF autoland thread. How much is enough? Both these aircraft had enough fuel to fly to ADL then an alternate, what then?

an alternate usually has weather sufficient to support your intended operation legally.

proper alternate provision and monitoring from the start, not the inflight scramble to somewhere random when all of a sudden plan a is not an option.

An alternative to an ILS would be a SBAS system, equivalent to WAAS.
Admittedly higher minimums, but more geographically extensive than a single ILS at Mildura, and with the Japanese MSAS system probably available in our region, much of the hard and expensive work has already been done.
In the present election situation, with the sides more competitive, one or other side may be persuaded to adopt this capability as policy.

WAAS would be a solution. But my real point is that the focus should not be on mayday calls or fuel reserves. It out to be on having first world airport infrastructure. If we could install an ILS for the same price as they do in the US, then Mildura could have an ILS for 1/4 the cost of the terminal renovation.

Akro old mate,
Can't rent floor space in an ILS, so no return on"Investment".
Possibly wasn't such a great idea to hand prime real estate to property developers, especially when public interest infrastructure is perched on it that requires investment now and into the future. The return on "investment" will win every time, just look at BN. The developers want the users to invest the money to build a runway so they can charge them landing fees. Imagine if all the profits Mc Bank and others have pocketed, not to mention directors fees and bonuses had been invested back into airport infrastructure? Hell we could have had runways paved with gold!!

Perhaps some here should join CASA, as you are the fount of all knowledge
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Careers at CASA

Owen,
Sorry mate only CAsA know anything about Aviation, the rest of the world is a basket case. Don't you listen to Mc Comic.

ils services
 

There is an ILS between BN and MB at YSWG

YSWG is not the only ILS between BN and MB! There are at least 11 others :E

ils services
 

Well aware of the others - just a reply to Old ARKO.

Probably a timely reminder of the old flight planning adage:

Ahh adage time, my favourite part.

Reminds me of the old one that goes something like;

You can't have too much runway behind you except when you're on fire and you don't have a lot of fuel!!

I wonder if the crew were pondering this as they made their final approach :eek:

I like it! How about It's better to be on the ground preventing p1ss poor performance than in the air wishing you were a bold pilot?

ATSB have now included QF
 

The ATSB have updated their investigation to include QF. They have also removed the reference to low fuel.

Investigation: AO-2013-100 - Weather related operational event involving B737s VH-YIR and VH-VYK at Mildura Airport, Victoria on 18 June 2013

casa, atsb and Mildura
 

The 2nd July update by atsb says:

Let's see if atsb can meet their self imposed deadlines!!!

I'm using as reference an ICAO document dated Dec 2012. It lists a total of 16 civilian & 9 Military ILS installations in Australia.

The new Wagga ILS is further away from Adelaide than Melbourne by about 100nm and about 40nm further from Mildura than Melbourne. So its irrelevant to the debate.

In my experience in dealing with the airforce (for non aviation uses), they have become so restrictive, bureaucratic, insular and restrictive in the last 3 - 5 years, that I can imagine it would be easier to deal with CASA / ATSB following a landing on a highway than the airforce. It is easier for us to use military facilities in Singapore, Thailand and the US than Australia.

The only way I get to 11 ILS enroute is to include Sydney, Melbourne, and the cluster near each. The reality is that most of these are not effective alternates in situations such as this.

If you said you wanted an alternate within (say) 250nm with a different weather condition, then Adelaide's in trouble.

My real point is just that we are more precious about ILS than most other countries. From the same ICAO document, I count 147 airports with ILS in China, 53 in Japan, 23 in Malaysia (with nearly the same population), 26 in Saudi Arabia, 26 in Thailand.

If we were serious about aviation safety, we'd use the $6.4 million being spent on paint, carpet and partitions in the Mildura terminal upgrade and put ILS into 4 more airports. Or embrace WAAS. Our government is shortchanging us, and pilots end up taking the blame.

I don't believe they have met this deadline on a single significant report. They get a plethora of minor reports done relatively quickly to make the stats look reasonable.

Old Akro although I agree with your premise on the ILS/WAAS installation lagging behind other developed/developing nations, which is also just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to aviation infrastructure (especially with airports) in this country. But in the YMIA incident would ILS or WAAS made a great deal of difference?? Maybe it would be better if YPAD had a CATIII ILS or the BOM had sufficient resources to be more predictive of localised wx phenomena or...and the list goes on..and on..

However I believe there to be far greater systemic issues related to the YMIA incident(s) (that in the wash-up industry stakeholders will ignore at their peril). It is extremely refreshing to see the ATSB placing some of their limited resources into (hopefully) carrying out a thorough, unbiased, apolitical inquiry into this incident....industry desperately needs our old bureau back!;)

Ben's sentiments: :ok:

What now inc QF as part of the fiasco?........nah we can't have that, the Mods would never allow it:E
'bout time the authorities look at ALL the details not just to select whom they want to appease some with lots more clout!
The 'Fog' that has the most impact on these events is the Fog that the bean counters create!
I would like to think that this event will shake up the industry a little & make sure pilots get support not angst!.


Wmk2

You are completely correct.

But I think we both agree that the focus should be on the failings in aviation infrastructure rather than pilot's decision making or fuel reserves. Cat III in Adelaide, WAAS or ILS at Mildura or better forecasts would have avoided the whole situation.

And by the way, lets not forget that there is still no radar coverage at Mildura.

How good is that Ben(sarcs) agrees that the atsb should investigate further.

I'm sure its only because there is no-one else

In the last few years there has been a billion or so spent on climate. Considering water vapour is the main greenhouse gas it seems strange they haven't got fog worked out yet..:hmm:

Perhaps Sandilands needs to ask the question..:)

Senate Inquiry
 

I reckon they should pencil in a Senate Inquiry into this investigation for about January 2016 :E

Ansett Autoland at Adelaide 1999
 

It is interesting to compare the Mildura event with this incident that happened 14 years ago. It was a similar problem solved by an unauthorised procedure. Nothing has changed today except the BOM observations are done from a location closer to the runway.

If my memory serves me correctly the A320 crew were praised for their handling of the incident. They did not have much fuel left after landing (1500KG)
Investigation: 199904029 - Airbus Industrie A320-211, VH-HYO, Adelaide, Aero. SA, 20 August 1999

Or this one

In the 1970s, an Ansett F28 operating at night, encountered unforecast sea fog. It diverted to another port only to again encounter unforecast sea fog. At this stage the aircraft became fuel critical and declared an emergency. As a result of local knowledge gained prior to joining that airline, the flight crew were able to make an emergency landing at Fitzroy Crossing, a remote un-lit dirt runway (ground personnel were setting portable flares as the aircraft landed). The aircraft ran out of fuel on the landing roll.

casa, atsb and Mildura
 

Jungmeister, good catch.

It is interesting to look at the SR's from this:

Any further follow up from atsb?? or casa???

I was in Montreal at the time.

I was not in that job at the time.

I didn’t join CASA until after that time.

All CASA FOIs agree that pilots alone are responsible for anticipating and managing the consequences of un-forecast fog and third-world aviation infrastructure.

Fixed. :ok:

UITA asked.." Any further follow up from atsb??" According to the ATSB database apparently not!

What is even more alarming is that despite the issue seemingly listed as a 'Safety recommendation' there is no record listed as a SR or safety action or 'Safety advisory notice'.

Which begs the question was it ever recorded? Or was it recorded then binned when the ATSB changed over the database? Either way it would appear that safety issues/actions related to this incident are lost forever unless you happen to read the incident report.

Here is a link for all the SRs and 'Safety actions' addressed to the BoM, 'see here' .You should find that there is 1 page with 9 entries, one of which includes the 2000 Norfolk Island R20000040.

Maybe (in defence of the ATSB) the Safety Actions highlighted, in this incident, were addressed to the local BoM office and that is why it has slipped through the gaps. Either way I agree Jungmeister, good catch!:ok:

Priceless Creamy!:E

Thanks for that CC..another perfect opportunity missed...darn!!:ugh: Kind of sounds like the current Beakerised methodology on safety actions..."err they fixed it so what are you worried about...nothing to see here!" :oh:

"Not our part of ship"
 

They were internal BoM recommendations, not BASI/ATSB recommendations - therefore no need for BASI/ATSB to track them or make sure they happened. In the grand old naval tradition, it was someone else's problem - "not our part of ship"!!! :{ :O :=

I think a big point is being missed here.

Pilots don't so much need an "accurate" forecast (where "accurate" may be defined as being correct most of the time) as they need an "accurate" worst case scenario (where "accurate" should be defined as never failing to indicate the possibility of the worst case scenario).

If there is a 0.1% chance of a weather condition such as fog or TS occurring then I want a note to that effect on the forecast.

Gosh.

If "0.1% chance" is the threshold, every forecast will include one or both of fog and TS! :eek:

How does that help?

Exactly CreamPuff . If that were the threshold most pilots would develop a type of 'Threat Fatigue' relative to TS and fog and it would be next to useless.

so....

until all this gets fixed, why is no one questioning fuel policy?

rpt jets getting airborne on a cold winter mornings with high pressure systems hanging about without a pre arranged plan b

call me simple, but i struggle with that

Look at the post on p15. The fog was unforecast less than 2 hours prior. The forecasts went from PROB30 FOG to real FOG in one go.

In my experience PROB30 might as well be 0.1%. Its the lowest PROB that is used.

I think its reasonable to expect a better forecast that going from PROB30 to real fog in 2 hours with no intermediate steps.