Saturday night - Tulla Wx and foreign airline
When you live....
Thread Starter
Saturday night - Tulla Wx and foreign airline
Hi all,
Was out on an entertaining Saturday evening cross country around Victoria and at about 7pm heard a large number of jets stacked all around Melbourne waiting for it to re-open.
I missed what must have been a prelude to this discussion but centre asked XXX (I won't give names - but it was a foreign longhaul flight) for his intentions, XXX asked for an approach time, centre replied that he didn't know as the first to try was still on it's way in, then advised that if XXX wanted to declare a fuel emergency they'd get cleared straight in otherwise they'd have to wait their turn, XXX asked for a minute, centre then was fairly forthright (putting it politely) that XXX needed to make a decision, XXX comes back with 'diverting to avalon'.
My curiosity is, and I think I've answered in my head, is why didn't he declare the fuel emergency and go straight in? Assuming they've ended up with more paperwork by diverting than declaring, is it that without the certainty of getting into Melbourne, he didn't want to risk missing then not having enough to get to Avalon?
I couldn't help but thinking (without knowing of course) that language and possible impatience by the controller (not criticising - there were a LOT of a/c holding and they had been for quite some time - I think the highest at CANTY was about FL260) may have contributed to not the best outcome. If he was that low on fuel and a very vigorous front covered everywhere from Mt Macedon south, surely a diversion or fuel emergency declaration would have come before being committed to one approach only?
Just curious to know if a) it was, as it seemed, a possible language issue and b) how/when you'd declare a 'fuel emergency' (if such a thing exists).
Thanks,
UTR
Was out on an entertaining Saturday evening cross country around Victoria and at about 7pm heard a large number of jets stacked all around Melbourne waiting for it to re-open.
I missed what must have been a prelude to this discussion but centre asked XXX (I won't give names - but it was a foreign longhaul flight) for his intentions, XXX asked for an approach time, centre replied that he didn't know as the first to try was still on it's way in, then advised that if XXX wanted to declare a fuel emergency they'd get cleared straight in otherwise they'd have to wait their turn, XXX asked for a minute, centre then was fairly forthright (putting it politely) that XXX needed to make a decision, XXX comes back with 'diverting to avalon'.
My curiosity is, and I think I've answered in my head, is why didn't he declare the fuel emergency and go straight in? Assuming they've ended up with more paperwork by diverting than declaring, is it that without the certainty of getting into Melbourne, he didn't want to risk missing then not having enough to get to Avalon?
I couldn't help but thinking (without knowing of course) that language and possible impatience by the controller (not criticising - there were a LOT of a/c holding and they had been for quite some time - I think the highest at CANTY was about FL260) may have contributed to not the best outcome. If he was that low on fuel and a very vigorous front covered everywhere from Mt Macedon south, surely a diversion or fuel emergency declaration would have come before being committed to one approach only?
Just curious to know if a) it was, as it seemed, a possible language issue and b) how/when you'd declare a 'fuel emergency' (if such a thing exists).
Thanks,
UTR
Last edited by UnderneathTheRadar; 20th Sep 2009 at 13:33. Reason: doh - had the airline in the title!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think it's pretty straight forward: How does an emergency exist if the a/c still has enough fuel for the diversion, and hasn't done so yet?
I would imagine the authorities would take a dim view of declaring emergencies when none exist, for the sake of expediency.
I would imagine the authorities would take a dim view of declaring emergencies when none exist, for the sake of expediency.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 65
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I was a bit impatient. What I wanted to say was "Make a f@#$ing decision or get out of my airspace..." while holding a ML slot open for him in case he demanded it. You heard the last gasp of a conversation that had been going on for over 10 minutes...
Despite other options becoming available along the way he continued to AV.
Despite other options becoming available along the way he continued to AV.
Despite other options becoming available along the way he continued to AV.
UTR, why not name the airline on here?
By the way, tell your friends too, next time they do a search for the cheapest fare to Asia/Europe it might make them think twice.
Peter Fanelli,
re: paperwork
I don't know about other airlines, but in QF, a diversion requires an ASIR to be submitted...generally not a huge amount of paperwork, but paperwork nonetheless.
By the way, tell your friends too, next time they do a search for the cheapest fare to Asia/Europe it might make them think twice.
Peter Fanelli,
re: paperwork
I don't know about other airlines, but in QF, a diversion requires an ASIR to be submitted...generally not a huge amount of paperwork, but paperwork nonetheless.
When you live....
Thread Starter
Thanks all:
Peter, as TL alluded, I'm sure some paperwork is needed for a diversion - crew hours? refuelling at that time of night? ground handling? RFF?
Ferris, the implication I read was that Melbourne was no longer an alternative as fuel was low. Avalon also had inter holding and had only just cleared the same storm band - if there wasn't enough fuel for Melbourne how was it ok to to have Avalon as a backup with 30 mins holding required?
Spodman - I think you were clear and may have assisted in a decision being made. I'll agree, you were very 'to the point'.
GG- yep, agree - it's just that (from the outside) it seemed like the wrong decision and I'm curious as to if thats the case and if so, why did they reach the wrong decision?
TL - I can only stress again that I didn't have the whole picture and know why what happened happened and so the decision to divert may have been entirely appropriate and the best course of action. On that basis I don't want to name the airline.
Cheers,
UTR.
Peter, as TL alluded, I'm sure some paperwork is needed for a diversion - crew hours? refuelling at that time of night? ground handling? RFF?
Ferris, the implication I read was that Melbourne was no longer an alternative as fuel was low. Avalon also had inter holding and had only just cleared the same storm band - if there wasn't enough fuel for Melbourne how was it ok to to have Avalon as a backup with 30 mins holding required?
Spodman - I think you were clear and may have assisted in a decision being made. I'll agree, you were very 'to the point'.
GG- yep, agree - it's just that (from the outside) it seemed like the wrong decision and I'm curious as to if thats the case and if so, why did they reach the wrong decision?
TL - I can only stress again that I didn't have the whole picture and know why what happened happened and so the decision to divert may have been entirely appropriate and the best course of action. On that basis I don't want to name the airline.
Cheers,
UTR.
I think most people in the business would consider "paperwork" in this case to be between the crew/airline concerned and the authorities, not internal company paperwork.
but one of the golden rules of aviation is to make a joint decision between the crew, brief it and run with it.
