|
When a Met man is talking about past WX he's a scientist, when he's talking about future WX he's reading tea leaves.
|
Yes, that’s very true! In Australia……that’s not the case if you venture beyond our borders. Elsewhere, Atis and metar do have a NOSIG or trend attached that you can use for planning. I understand that this is not practical in the Pilbara as you would need someone there to forecast but ‘TAF 3’? Keep it simple and have a metar with a trend attached….why do we have to be Oztranauts? |
All this talk about reliability of forecasts is a bit redundant in this case as we don’t know what the destination forecast was at the time of departure.
The historical METAR data has been published but has anyone found the TAF data that would’ve been valid before the incident flight? |
Forecasts need to be accurate . In other news, apparently it is perfectly legal to carry an alternate when not technically required, who knew? PS Fuel was clearly not an issue at the first approach if they had fuel for three more. |
I love the presumption of wrong doing or incompetence by the crew on this forum. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that because Network crew are paid less then therefore the standards are lower. Apropos, the sky gods at QF could never get caught like this…..
like, never land in fog… or continue with an unstable approach…. Or forget to put the wheels down…. glass houses maybe? I thought the ‘P’ here was for Professional |
I’m not sure about the sky-gods you speak of, but mainline Qantas pilots would always divert after the 2nd missed approach.
|
Originally Posted by Derfred
(Post 11150920)
I’m not sure about the sky-gods you speak of, but mainline Qantas pilots would always divert after the 2nd missed approach.
I’ve been in my second missed approach before to then have Centre announce literally as I was still climbing, that all of my possible alternates had just had their TAF’s amended to be no better than my destination or even worse, and the METARS indicating below minimas. Now I’m stuck with only one option should a 3rd approach not be successful. And that was departing with all legally required fuel plus some. It happens buddy, so don’t bring your “we’re better than you” attitude on here and tell us that mainline wouldn’t have had it happen to them. It just makes you look like even bigger dicks when it does. |
The problem is also a lack of suitable alternates within a reasonable distance. When flying in some countries there are so many airports around that you need to reduce the range on the navigation display to be able to see them, with 160nm range the display is too cluttered to read. An additional 20 mins of fuel brings many more airports into your range of options where as in remote areas of Australia a substantial increase in fuel is required to bring even a single airport into consideration.
A thorough review of remote area operations is required, I'm sure the pilots flying to Antarctica aren't using standard regs. |
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 11151086)
The problem is also a lack of suitable alternates within a reasonable distance.
Although not all their historic TAFs are available online I’m fairly sure the entire Pilbara wasn’t socked in below minima that morning |
How about we just wait for the report, at the end of the day they landed safely and then seemingly self reported the incident.
|
Originally Posted by Arthur D
(Post 11150799)
I love the presumption of wrong doing or incompetence by the crew on this forum. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that because Network crew are paid less then therefore the standards are lower. Apropos, the sky gods at QF could never get caught like this…..
like, never land in fog… or continue with an unstable approach…. Or forget to put the wheels down…. glass houses maybe? I thought the ‘P’ here was for Professional Personally I was wondering what else was going on that lead to this one and hoping to learn something myself. Though I am surprised that we managed to get to 5 pages before this became a d!ck measuring contest. |
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 11151086)
The problem is also a lack of suitable alternates within a reasonable distance. A thorough review of remote area operations is required,
|
We've been lucky that the holes haven't lined up in the Swiss cheese yet and nothing major has happened since the Fitzroy Creek F28 incident 50 years ago.
Captain Reg Adkins had a bit to say about the issue of alternates in his book "I Flew for MMA." https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...ago-today.html |
I recall many years ago a QF B737 landed at Ayers Rock and promptly lost hydraulics to the nose wheel steering. No alternate on a -300.
More recently a QF B737-800 landing at Darwin lost both nose wheel systems when in the flare when a perfectly aimed bird strike took out both hydraulic lines in the nose wheel well. Was pretty interesting for a while for aircraft holding at Howard Springs while the organised a tug and a cleanup team to clean up the spilled hydraulic fluid. Most recently a Virgin B737 overran the runway in Hobart. If you weren’t carrying Launceston you were in a world of pain. It happens. Krismiler is correct. The Regis. are archaic. Just rolling the dice. |
Is there much traffic into these single runway mining sites ? Would you follow another aircraft inside 30 mins regularly? Could they get a piece of machinery to the airport to tow ( bulldoze ) a disabled aircraft off the runway if required ?
|
Originally Posted by Torukmacto
(Post 11151951)
Is there much traffic into these single runway mining sites ? Would you follow another aircraft inside 30 mins regularly? Could they get a piece of machinery to the airport to tow ( bulldoze ) a disabled aircraft off the runway if required ?
Many years ago I was in the circuit in Canberra when an Aerocommanders gear folded on one side on touchdown. Came to rest at the runway intersection. Nobody would touch it until insurance issues were sorted out. I kid you not. The answer is simple just carry an alternate.not that hard most of the time. The difference between standard fuel to Hobart and carrying Launceston is hardly worth arguing about. Check Captains might argue the toss at flight planning or at debriefing on a line check. But never met one yet who will tell you straight up that its a bad idea. They are company parrots and forced to argue against some things that the know are a bad idea , like fuel policy. Answer? Grow some, and use your judgement. |
Could they get a piece of machinery to the airport to tow ( bulldoze ) a disabled aircraft off the runway if required ? |
Originally Posted by Alt Flieger
(Post 11151955)
NO
Many years ago I was in the circuit in Canberra when an Aerocommanders gear folded on one side on touchdown. Came to rest at the runway intersection. Nobody would touch it until insurance issues were sorted out. I kid you not. The answer is simple just carry an alternate.not that hard most of the time. The difference between standard fuel to Hobart and carrying Launceston is hardly worth arguing about. Check Captains might argue the toss at flight planning or at debriefing on a line check. But never met one yet who will tell you straight up that its a bad idea. They are company parrots and forced to argue against some things that the know are a bad idea , like fuel policy. Answer? Grow some, and use your judgement. |
Love to but I’m retired.
Had some kind phone calls from F/O’s when I did. I know all F/Os have their personal list of Captains they dread seeing at sign-on. Very often due to , but not limited to, Issues such as fuel ordering. Nothing worse than sitting on the edge of your seat every sector on a multi day pattern. Easy fixed if youre a Captain happy to assume Command and exercise your judgement. I’m old fashioned. I still think it part of the job. |
Agree with the great sentiments of this thread! Fuel gives us all options and it’s so nice to have that when things go wrong. Also agree with the plug to “I Flew for MMA” by Reg. A great book which gives a wonderful insight into the history of flying in WA.
|
AF. Being retired excuses you from knowing the alternate aerodrome rules for aircraft changed last week.
Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays. Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction. Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret. |
Originally Posted by compressor stall
(Post 11152350)
AF. Being retired excuses you from knowing the alternate aerodrome rules for aircraft changed last week.
Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays. Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction. Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret. Sounds like an improvement. They have been a long time coming. The Fuel Fascists wont be happy ! |
I doubt any crews are arriving at these single runway airports in WA with anywhere near minimum fuel. Certainly all the Qantas/Qantaslink aircraft would be tankering into these ports due to the high cost of fuel. This leads to another problem of a higher landing weight than may be desired.
|
Used to fly in north of Spain a few decades ago, not much in the way of weather forecasting you could rely on. Luckily it was a shortish flight, so standard fuel for us used to be round-trip + 30 min, without having to leave anything behind. Several time left with a CAVOK NOSIG and after passing the marker, and getting transferred to tower hearing: "Fog just came in, its now VV000, and RVR0100, what are your intentions?". There is just no way you will ever recoup the cost of running out of fuel, by tankering less fuel if you are flying to isolated, single runway places with dodgy weather reporting.
|
”There is just no way you will ever recoup the cost of running out of fuel,”
Could not agree more Hans. But you are not thinking like the Fuel Nazis at the mob I used to work for. They were often ex Longhaul and would point out how expensive it was to carry fuel Longhaul and “nice to have fuel” was often not possible. My response was always to point out the exposure to risk in a very large fleet of short haul aircraft operating multiple sectors each day. Rare events actually become inevitable if you run the numbers. Sadly I never made any impression. The new Regs mentioned in post 101above seem a step in the right direction. Accountants should be on tap not on top. |
Originally Posted by VC9
(Post 11152443)
I doubt any crews are arriving at these single runway airports in WA with anywhere near minimum fuel. Certainly all the Qantas/Qantaslink aircraft would be tankering into these ports due to the high cost of fuel. This leads to another problem of a higher landing weight than may be desired.
|
Originally Posted by compressor stall
(Post 11152350)
AF. Being retired excuses you from knowing the alternate aerodrome rules for aircraft changed last week.
Basically you need one for large aircraft unless (1) you’re going to an isolated aeródrome or (2) you’re within 60 mins of the destination. Both scenarios need good weather and no ATC delays. Scenario 2 won’t stop some of the scenarios you mention but it’s half a step in a safer direction. Part 121 MOS applies, but good luck trying to interpret. |
Originally Posted by Transition Layer
(Post 11152477)
Precisely!
Relying on the good will of company Dispatchers is hardly a solution |
CS did you stop reading Part 121 4.08 (destination alternate) at point 1??
Point 3 is the exception if above the applicable alternate criteria. No alternate required. |
Originally Posted by LTBC
(Post 11152495)
CS did you stop reading Part 121 4.08 (destination alternate) at point 1??
Point 3 is the exception if above the applicable alternate criteria. No alternate required. Interesting how there is a separate runway requirement for overseas but not AU. Maybe we don't get runway closures from wheels ups here. |
TAF for Hedland at the time was 9999 SCT030 that whole morning. It's 25 minutes flight time for an F100 from Paraburdoo. If the weather in Hedland was good then Karratha was almost certainly similar (can't find a previous TAF for Karratha) and Karratha is about 22 minutes from Paraburdoo.
From the AvHerald write up it was 60 minutes from the first approach to landing. So one can assume, even if the weather in YPBO was worse than forecast when realising this after the first approach a diversion to either YPPD or YPKA (with either a Tower or an AFIS available for more accurate weather) would have to have been the obvious decision. I would say a diversion would have been available after the second approach too. So why they remained in the area and seemed committed to land is a bit of a mystery. Not discounting the numerous airports in the "Iron Triangle" less than 15 minutes away, one of which with a suitable TAF and aircraft successfully landing at could've been passed from ATC to the incident aircraft expeditiously. |
Interesting.......I was on the 2nd flight after this one (as there's flights every 30 minutes for a couple of hrs) flying up to work and we took additional fuel on in Perth "in case a diversion was required" made 2 attempts and the cloud was quite bad right to ground level. Could barely see the ground as we were on final and flew quite a low flat approach - definitely different and fly this flight weekly - We diverted to Karratha. We were informed by the flight crew that the aircraft ahead and had made multiple attempts but managed to get in.
Also adds to the mystery of why 3 planes sat there for the whole day on the ground, guess the naughty ones were stood down awaiting pineapples to be inserted. Flights to Boolgeeda and Solomon landed that morning.......so there were plenty of options close by for the flight involved. |
As the 717s no longer fly the route having 3 broken Fokkers on the ground is common.
|
Could barely see the ground as we were on final and flew quite a low flat approach - definitely different and fly this flight weekly |
Originally Posted by Alt Flieger
(Post 11148509)
Krismiler ,Remote WA is the Wild West. Very few Control Towers , fewer qualified observers and even fewer precision approaches and NO requirement for mandatory alternates for single runways. RNP has improved things but mostly its all pretty basic. Third world really.
Not hard to get into trouble especially if you are a true believer in company fuel policy. Personally I spent most of my career ignoring it WA. |
Originally Posted by Alt Flieger
(Post 11148533)
43Inches , I know full well that a tower is not an alternate requirement. I have operated in WA for 30 years. The services available in most of WA are a joke. I remember the debacle years ago when brand new towers were built in Karratha and Port Hedland then promptly closed as a cost cutting measure and stood empty for years. I know its not a requirement nor is mandatory alternate for single runways. But it should be , like the rest of the world.
RPT operations in WA are Mickey Mouse pure and simple. I recall flying with an ex-Longhaul F/O into Solomon on a hot dusty day. He commented “F#### that was like landing on the Moon ! “ Top of descent into Heathrow you have half a dozen alternates with Cat 2/Cat 3. Easy. Majors regard Perth as a Remote airport. Remember the BA 747 years ago that ended up in Learmonth after unforecast fog in Perth?. Not much has changed. Why you would want to defend the dismal standard of facilities in WA is a mystery. Events like this will continue so long as RPT Jets operate high frequency operation into inadequate facilities. Simple. Cat B TAF ? Put out by a bloke in Perth. Not worth a pinch of the preverbial. VHF on the ground ? Wow , such sophistication. |
Fifty years after Fitzroy Crossing and we're still facing the same pressures regarding the carriage of extra fuel and being constantly reminded of the cost and payload restrictions.
It's easy enough for the accountants running spread sheets, they aren't at the sharp end when the fog rolls in or approach radar goes down. I've had phone calls because I arrived with "too much" fuel, and you're guaranteed one when you arrive with too little. You never get one praising you when the extra was needed. . |
Originally Posted by ActiveLooker
(Post 11154637)
ahhhh, you’re the guy that Carrie’s the extra few tonnes, just in case. Plan and manage. Doesn’t matter if it’s Solomon or Heathrow.
LOL And for your enlightenment and edification most aircraft in WA are not fully RNP capable.. Mainline B737-8 yes others mostly no. How many hours do you actually have operating in WA ? |
Originally Posted by Alt Flieger
(Post 11154686)
Oh, Plan and manage. I wish I had thought of that over the last 40 years. Thank you so much for your input.
LOL And for your enlightenment and edification most aircraft in WA are not fully RNP capable.. Mainline B737-8 yes others mostly no. How many hours do you actually have operating in WA ? |
And now we see this, https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...-aviation.html
Whether related to this incident or an earlier string of incidents, no doubt this will be the “fix” and they’ll try to continue “business as usual”. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:57. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.