PPRuNe Forums - Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)

- - Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/517250-virgin-aircraft-emergency-landing.html)

Virgin Aircraft 'Emergency' Landing

No Cookies | Herald Sun

How is this considered news worthy? A plane making a diversion due weather is standard. The article states the aircraft was low on fuel but I would be willing to bet they landed with all necessary reserves intact. Also commenting that 'no passengers appeared to be injured' just shows what is wrong with journalism today.

Anything for a story I guess.

might be the first B737 these country folk have seen. :ok:

There is an additional article in the Australian.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

The article is confusing as it states the flight was destined for Melbourne but then goes on to say 'the 737 flight to Adelaide'.

However, it also states the flight diverted to Mildura and made two missed approaches there due to unforecast fog at Mildura followed by a landing. If that is the case, with the caveat that the media has got such things wrong before, then this incident is definitely newsworthy and potentially very serious.

The one on news.com.au says it was BNE to ADL, but they don't mention the mised attempts.

Should Virgin change its fuel policy?

:}

Wiki lists Mildura airport runways as :

09/27 1,830 6,004 Asphalt
18/36 1,139 3,737 Asphalt

I thought a 60t 737 (heavily loaded) in dry conditions needs about 1,710metres... interesting landing for the passengers (and crew?)??

Quote:

Should Virgin change its fuel policy?

Heh heh classic :ok:

The ABC reported it at lunchtime as:

- two flights diverted from ADL due to fog (one QF and one VA)
- they implied that there was then fog at YMIA when the diversions arrived and both held (presumably this fog was unforecast)
- VA then landed below the minima (my interpretation) - presumably because they didn't have the fuel to go anywhere else.

UTR

Interesting

MIA had Prob fog all night. When I was driving out of AD the airport this morning at around 7am there was fog on Sir Donald Bradman drive moving towards the airport and nothing on the TAF all night except an ATIS stating fog patches in area about midnight, then this gem shows up.

TAF AMD YPAD 172100Z 1721/1824 05005KT 9999 FEW025 FM180000 VRB05KT
9999 FEW030 SCT045 FM181000 VRB05KT CAVOK
PROB30 1721/1724 0500 FG RMK

No mention of fog on the previous TAF.

Broadly, has anyone else noticed it's already been a big year for fog?

j3

P.S. sorry for being 'that guy' who posted the Taf :} thought it was relevant.

at the time the news radio stated that the aircraft was safely on the ground the latest AUTO SPECI for MIA showed 700mFG OVC001

I'll tell you exactly what happened.

The aircraft was scheduled from Brisbane to Adelaide but due to bad weather couldn't land in Adelaide so diverted towards Melbourne but did not have enough fuel thus it landed at Mildura below the safe weather minima. A failure at two levels.

One might suggest that this would be due to Virgins new fuel policy that was implemented to save fuel and thus cash...

Someone might lose their job over this. Rumour has it that the crew came close to ditching it in a paddock.

save fuel and money but pay more when divert. Good policy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by VH-XXX

wtf? I know this is a rumour network but your story does seem a little outlandish... Crew diverting *then* realising they didnt have enough? You can pretty much glide to melbourne from toc. Or go back to adl where i dare say youd feel better landing below mins. Unless they were worried about what people would say about them on pprune if they autolanded below :ooh:

I know we've had a lot of rain lately, but how does one ditch in a paddock?

Chookcooker - preferably with the wheels up!

If you realised at first that you didn't have enough fuel to get to Melbourne, you wouldn't try and make it would you? Perhaps that answers your query maggot.

Part 2 of that: If you were going to go below minimums, would you do it at Adelaide or Mildura. We know the obvious answer to that but we won't know what happened until the conditions can be compared. Hindsight is a great thing.

Part 3 - did the aircraft not have enough fuel to get from Mildura to Adelaide....? ;)

#1. No. End of story. :bored:

Look up VOZ1615 on FlightAware.

DF.

So to sumarise:
- unforecast fog at ADL
- diverted to MIA which had prob fog
- arrived MIA to actual fog
- no fuel to go anywhere else

Sounds legal (cue reference to 'worlds best practice' and QF fuel policy- but from these facts QF could have been in the same position). The mess was that they went to MIA.

Are there any other 737 airfields they could have gone to within the same range (Edinburgh but presumably it was fogged in also) that didn't have a fog forecast? Port Lincoln? Mount Gambier? (I have no idea if these can take 737s)

Did they know about the prob fog at MIA when they diverted - FlightAware shows pretty much an immediate 180 degree turn and dash for MIA - so either they didn't know or they did know and had no other choice but to hope that prob 30 didn't eventuate?

So a BNE-ADL flight, on receiving news of fog in ADL, didn't have enough fuel in the tanks to turn slightly left to MEL, where the weather was suitable, 2 runways with ILS, autoland, company personel etc etc, and land with LEGAL minimums?? Forget company policy, what captains own fuel policy would allow himself to be backed into a corner like this?

I guess you have been out of the business for a while Moe, or have led a sheltered life if you have not heard the term 'the min fuel brigade'!

This is not a comment on the MIA incident as facts are scarce at this stage.

My friend was on that flight. I'll try to find out the truth.

Quote:

Look up VOZ1615 on FlightAware.

DF.

Wasn't it VOZ1384 that diverted?

Quote:

turn slightly left to MEL

Define slightly

A 90 degree turn for 300nm ?

DF flight was actually VA 1384

Hypothetical, on your way BN AD you fly past MIA, even though fog has been forecast all night, you look out the window, CAVOK. 15 minutes later get told AD has unforecast fog, and deteriorating below minima.

METAR MIA CAVOK at this time CAVOK.

What would you do?

As an aside QF also diverted there, did they have fuel for anywhere else

Quote:

'the min fuel brigade'

Oh sure, they're around, but I've always found after talking to them, filling up to MTOW rather than my normal safe happy number above company minimum was the best way to get rid of that dirty feeling.

XXX, I'll wager the new fuel policy had F@ck all to do with it. The "new" fuel policy actually has you arriving with MORE than the old one. It is a lot closer to being in line with what most captains would normally take. Anything you think you need, you take. Never heard of anyone getting a call about that. OTOH, there are a few "believers" amongst the boys, (very few I have to say), who regard plan fuel as good enough, occasionally they get a scare......... As always, unforecast fog can be an issue. Moe may be a bit closer to the truth.

Quote:

Look up VOZ1615 on FlightAware.

Wasn't it VOZ1384 that diverted?

If you look up VOZ1615, which is a scheduled MQL - MEL run, you'll see that today it was serviced by a 738 and operated 3 hours late. I'm not quite sure the connection to VOZ1384, since VOZ1384 is also shown departing MQL and finishing its trip to ADL after the diversion. But at any rate that seems to imply that VOZ 738s operating to MQL is not unheard of, which maybe was the point.

(P.S. As long as we're using IATA codes, let's be consistent about them.)

Quote:

My friend was on that flight. I'll try to find out the truth.

As a passenger or crew?

It would be very interesting to hear what exactly the passengers was told. I understand that there is often quite a gap between cabin announcements and the actual truth. I mean, you don't want to upset the passengers by telling them that there's not enough fuel on board.

They need to fit heart rate monitors on pilots and hook it up to the black-box; that would be interesting.

There must have been enough fuel on board.....it landed!

Pilots who take flight plan fuel if it is not enough to get somewhere reliable are setting themselves up IMO. I have no idea about this incident but at least once in a career an airport is going to close for a random reason ( bomb scare, lights go u/s , plane on the runway etc) and then you'l need to go somewhere else reliable. You need fuel from the miss to a runway where weather isn't a problem, simple as that really.
Ps that isn't a comment/ judgement on the Virgin flight, just on the topic of flight planning.

Photo on the Heraldsun website showing passengers disembarking shows quite good viz. Ceiling is hard to pick.

But photos from other sources show heavy fog. Hmmm.

Interesting to hear on the 5pm news, 2 different people on board who were interviewed, mentioning that cabin crew told them to assume brace positions on landing in MQL and were yelling "stay low, brace".

Perhaps cabin crew taking the flight crews information of an "emergency landing" a bit too literally, with little other information to go on?

Quote:

Perhaps cabin crew taking the flight crews information of an "emergency landing" a bit too literally, with little other information to go on?

What are the actual procedures for landing below minima, is there anything documented? To me the brace position and emergency services on site seems a reasonable precaution. I'm only a PPL, so please correct me where wrong, but aren't the minima based, at least partially, on the tolerances for the instrument approach procedure in use and the amount of time/space it would take to correct for those tolerances before landing? If the runway is not sighted until below this minima, isn't there a good possibility the aircraft could be out of alignment with the runway, with not enough time available for adjustment. In which case the emergency precautions seem totally appropriate in the event of overrun.

Quote:

mentioning that cabin crew told them to assume brace positions on landing in MQL

Sounds fair, as the flight crew potentially don't know at what altitude they were going to become visual. That would have to be company SOP.

About to Ditch in a paddock. i seriously doubt that was EVER an option.No options left? load up the RNAV App and it will deliver you over the threshhold at 50' AGL. 20' callout close the thrust levers. IF things are that bad i would rather be crashing on the runway than some obscure paddock. The majority of us will never know the full details so it a brave person (read arrogant) that can make an assumption on what was the right call without having all the facts.
Just my humble opinion though.:bored:
Ps: I wouldn't be taking a passengers opinion of what happen with too much weight. How many times have we heard "The engines went to full power and we shot up like a rocket. We all though we were going to die"..... Read... "The pilots conducted a by-the-book missed approach procedure and we were all safe.

Hmmm,
here's a handy diversion from the senate estimates for FF.
Shut them down!!!
Hey they shut Tiger down for a lot less.

Channel 7 just showed video of the landing.

It was indeed foggy. Less than 500 metres horizontal visibility at a guess! There was a prec-search (go-around?) conducted prior where the aircraft was barely visible from the ground at what looked like 500ft or less.

We'll all get to read about this further when the report is released in about 2 years :rolleyes:

Fog can form VERY quickly given the right conditions, I remember looking around after topping up the oil on an engine and wondering where all the hills had gone. They were definitely there when I started !

The news video looks quite interesting, definite fog. Difficult to say if it was forming or dispersing. Reminds me of a few early mornings with delayed departure.;)

With a guessed visibility of 500m or less, the aircraft would not become visual until 85 feet above the runway elevation, based on a 3 deg profile.

Yet it was seen at what looked like 500 feet during the previous approach.

It's getting better by the minute!

Ben's take on the day's events.

Virgin jet fog 'drama' at Mildura a sign of bad fog season | Plane Talking

Quote:

It’s unusual for two mainline jets, both 737s, one operated by Virgin Australia and the other by Qantas, to have to land at Mildura because fog has closed one capital city airport (Adelaide) and they don’t have the fuel to go to another capital city (Melbourne) or to another jet capable airfield (Albury Wodonga for example).

As such, today’s diversion into Mildura by Virgin and Qantas flights, but with the former declaring a fuel emergency, raises some questions which may, stress the word ‘may’, prove important.

Fuel emergencies are not intended within the rules concerning diversions to alternate airports to be a normal procedure. That’s why they are called ‘emergencies’, to be used in an emergency, and it is the use of the emergency call for the Virgin flight to then safety land at Mildura that needs to be determined.

If we try to summarise the rules that Qantas, Virgin Australia, and anyone else has to abide by in diversions caused by the closure of an intended airport, the key point is that no matter whether it is an A320, or a 737 or an E-jet, and no matter where it may have started its trip, it will arrive in the vicinity of the alternative airfield (Mildura) with identical capability to make a set of missed approaches, and loiter with intent to land, if it has to.

Qantas and Virgin were both diverted to Mildura by air traffic control when Adelaide airport notified it that fog was closing it to arrivals.

At the time air traffic control had reported that Mildura was clear. It acted on the best information it had, directed the affected airlines to go to Mildura, and then everyone was caught out by the unforecast fog that also affected the visibility at that airfield.

There is no suggestion that the crew of the Virgin Blue 737 did anything wrong.

But their route to a safe landing at Mildura was different to that used by the Qantas 737 in that they had to declare a fuel emergency meaning they had to land as soon as practicable rather than wait for an improvement in the visibility.

It may come down to the amount of fuel the respective pilots of the 737s used or didn’t use making missed approaches to the unexpectedly fog shrouded Mildura airport. The Virgin jet is reported to have made two missed approaches. Pilots are entitled to elect under their company’s operating procedures to fly an approach and abandon it if they cannot make visual contact with the runway at the decision height at which they continue the landing or power up the engines and climb away.

A spokesperson for Virgin Australia confirmed these details, and emphasised that the airline was co-operating fully with CASA and the ATSB, should the ATSB decide to inquire further into the incident on the basis that so doing may enhance or improve air safety through awareness of or discussion of the factors were in play at Mildura and in the 737s at the time.

It has so far been an uncommonly foggy or bad weather prone winter in SE Australia. There have been various other incidents in recent weeks that haven’t made it into the general media that were caused by late deterioration in conditions at airports like Sydney when approaching airliners had in some cases no option but to land in ‘crappy’ conditions.

Awareness of them may call for a ‘little’ extra precautionary fuel here, or a few less passengers or freight pallets there when it comes to flights heading off for SE capital city airports.

Especially if the aircraft concerned are large, will be flying for 14 to 15 hours, and have less alternative runways to choose from because of their landing weight and length and width requirements.

This may make this a winter where airline operations in general will need to become increasingly sensitive to the risk of last minute weather issues.

But the airlines don’t need the media to alert them to the risks. The merits of an ATSB inquiry would not be in pointing to a ‘problem’ the airlines are well aware of, but providing a cohesive and informed look at the issues arising from last night in Mildura as a basis for any change in the procedures or rules that everyone should adopt.