Whether the Weather.....
Thread Starter
Whether the Weather.....
...... will be as forecast.
Gossip has it a QF flight to DRW had planned on it being a CAVOK arrival, but late in the flight storms were on offer. On arrival storm sitting over the approach end, the other end of the runway in the clear, but tailwind precluded landing. Went missed on the first approach and advised if the autoland following went missed they would declare a fuel emergency to Tindal. Autoland to the Cat I ILS successful.
Are domestic guys trained and current for autolands as a get out of jail card?
Shades of Norfolk and Mildura.
Gossip has it a QF flight to DRW had planned on it being a CAVOK arrival, but late in the flight storms were on offer. On arrival storm sitting over the approach end, the other end of the runway in the clear, but tailwind precluded landing. Went missed on the first approach and advised if the autoland following went missed they would declare a fuel emergency to Tindal. Autoland to the Cat I ILS successful.
Are domestic guys trained and current for autolands as a get out of jail card?
Shades of Norfolk and Mildura.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NNE of where I'd prefer
Age: 33
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting decision, to conduct an auto-land (is DRW equipped for such?) through crap weather rather than land in the opposite direction in the clear, albeit exceeding a downwind limitation. A missed approach into the weather from that approach in the clear would be a consideration, but the approach was through that same weather ......
If fuel was that tight I know what I'd be doing.
However, if they were visual at the Cat1 minima, an autoland wasn't necessary.
There's more to this than is immediately apparent, if there is anything at all.
If fuel was that tight I know what I'd be doing.
However, if they were visual at the Cat1 minima, an autoland wasn't necessary.
There's more to this than is immediately apparent, if there is anything at all.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is 737 auto land at Darwin approved? Yes
Is auto land recommended in crappy wx and low visibility? Yes
Was the crew auto land qualified? Yes
Was all the weather conditions suitable for rwy29 ILS approach and autoland? Yes
Was the aircraft carrying TEMPO TS fuel even though not required? Yes (it even had quite a bit more fuel than that)
Aircraft eventually landed at Darwin with half a tonne of fuel above required for a diversion from Darwin to Tindal with full reserves (after carrying out a ma from ILS minima due insufficient forward visibility in rain at minima and then holding for 25 minutes waiting for an improvement).
Was approach from other direction a better option with a higher minima and a reported tailwind guaranteeing another go around a better option? Seems at least 1 idiot thinks so.
What would you do if you carried out a normal stable approach and were visual at the minima? Continue the briefed procedure (autoland) as was the case here.
No rush, no drama. Had a second attempt at getting in to DRW before diverting to Tindal and got the required cues at the minima. Just another day at work.
Fake news, bull**** gossip.
Take your hand off it. You'll go blind.
Is auto land recommended in crappy wx and low visibility? Yes
Was the crew auto land qualified? Yes
Was all the weather conditions suitable for rwy29 ILS approach and autoland? Yes
Was the aircraft carrying TEMPO TS fuel even though not required? Yes (it even had quite a bit more fuel than that)
Aircraft eventually landed at Darwin with half a tonne of fuel above required for a diversion from Darwin to Tindal with full reserves (after carrying out a ma from ILS minima due insufficient forward visibility in rain at minima and then holding for 25 minutes waiting for an improvement).
Was approach from other direction a better option with a higher minima and a reported tailwind guaranteeing another go around a better option? Seems at least 1 idiot thinks so.
What would you do if you carried out a normal stable approach and were visual at the minima? Continue the briefed procedure (autoland) as was the case here.
No rush, no drama. Had a second attempt at getting in to DRW before diverting to Tindal and got the required cues at the minima. Just another day at work.
Fake news, bull**** gossip.
Shades of Norfolk and Mildura.
Last edited by Back Seat Driver; 28th Dec 2017 at 02:35.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BSD, I think PWL's comments were in relation to the circumstances as put in the first post: - T/S over the approach, a likely fuel emergency if the second approach was unsuccessful.
A landing over the tailwind limit, if they were the circumstances, results in what, exactly - other than a possible chat with the boss?
Landing distance wouldn't be an issue on 11, tyre speed limit nowhere near an issue (I'd not be surprised that the ground speed at landing weight approach speeds plus a 15, even 20kt tail wind is less than the grounspeed at takeoff for such a flight).
I'm a bit with PWL and would rather have the chat with the boss than put myself in a fuel emergency situation if I could avoid it - and my comments are in the context that the circumstances as described actually prevailed.
A landing over the tailwind limit, if they were the circumstances, results in what, exactly - other than a possible chat with the boss?
Landing distance wouldn't be an issue on 11, tyre speed limit nowhere near an issue (I'd not be surprised that the ground speed at landing weight approach speeds plus a 15, even 20kt tail wind is less than the grounspeed at takeoff for such a flight).
I'm a bit with PWL and would rather have the chat with the boss than put myself in a fuel emergency situation if I could avoid it - and my comments are in the context that the circumstances as described actually prevailed.
Last edited by zanzibar; 28th Dec 2017 at 08:25. Reason: Meant runway 11, not 29.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Megan, I deleted the post because I chose to add more info for the later Patagonia post.
Just for you though for your opening post.
You're nothing more than a backyard gossip spewing crap.
What I posted above is reality and you're a goose.
Up Yours.
BSD
Zanzibar, the aircraft is not certified for landing in greater than 15 knots tailwind.
There was no emergency that would require creative or adaptive procedures, rather a normal ILS approach to a CAT1 minima that was successful on the 2nd attempt.
An autoland to CAT1 minima offers no better chance of success than a hand flown approach but it does offer the benefit of having 2 autopilots coupled in the event of a ga and makes for a more orderly approach when just going with the pre briefed sop.
I believe there was a very valid reason for doing an autoland that had nothing to do with increasing the chances of landing off the approach.
As said fuel was not the determining reason.
There is a limit to missed approaches pax should endure and an immediate diversion to Tindal was more to do with getting there asap to refuel and get back to Darwin to minimise disruption to the next flight.
Now we have dickheads trying to make something out of nothing unusual
Just for you though for your opening post.
You're nothing more than a backyard gossip spewing crap.
What I posted above is reality and you're a goose.
Up Yours.
BSD
Zanzibar, the aircraft is not certified for landing in greater than 15 knots tailwind.
There was no emergency that would require creative or adaptive procedures, rather a normal ILS approach to a CAT1 minima that was successful on the 2nd attempt.
An autoland to CAT1 minima offers no better chance of success than a hand flown approach but it does offer the benefit of having 2 autopilots coupled in the event of a ga and makes for a more orderly approach when just going with the pre briefed sop.
I believe there was a very valid reason for doing an autoland that had nothing to do with increasing the chances of landing off the approach.
As said fuel was not the determining reason.
There is a limit to missed approaches pax should endure and an immediate diversion to Tindal was more to do with getting there asap to refuel and get back to Darwin to minimise disruption to the next flight.
Now we have dickheads trying to make something out of nothing unusual
Last edited by Back Seat Driver; 28th Dec 2017 at 07:07.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: world capital of the world
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a pity, Back Seat Driver, that you can't present a case without insults, pettiness and rudeness - something that other posters are mature enough not to direct at you.
If you care to revisit the original post, it was reported that the crew would declare a "fuel emergency" if the second approach wasn't successful. It was allegedly they who considered an impending emergency situation. Consequent replies would generally indicate a downwind landing might be an option to consider should the second approach miss out rather than putting yourself into such an emergency situation.
I acceptthat 15 kts is the "certified" down wind limit for QF from your comment but you neglected to answer Zanzibar's question as to the consequences of landing with greater than that. Does the sky fall in?
I know of cases where 737's inadvertently exceeded the certified service ceiling (turbulence related) and there were no consequences other than an explanation to the CP - I looked after I heard of them and the sky was still up there.
Finally, as a matter of education, you don't need to delete a post to make changes to it, that's what the edit function is for.
If you care to revisit the original post, it was reported that the crew would declare a "fuel emergency" if the second approach wasn't successful. It was allegedly they who considered an impending emergency situation. Consequent replies would generally indicate a downwind landing might be an option to consider should the second approach miss out rather than putting yourself into such an emergency situation.
I acceptthat 15 kts is the "certified" down wind limit for QF from your comment but you neglected to answer Zanzibar's question as to the consequences of landing with greater than that. Does the sky fall in?
I know of cases where 737's inadvertently exceeded the certified service ceiling (turbulence related) and there were no consequences other than an explanation to the CP - I looked after I heard of them and the sky was still up there.
Finally, as a matter of education, you don't need to delete a post to make changes to it, that's what the edit function is for.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: AUS
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dodo, there was never any intention to declare a fuel emergency.
Never got anywhere near getting tight on fuel.
The flight always had more than enough fuel, several tonnes in fact.
Megan's "gossip" is just plain wrong/crap/rubbish/bull****.
Megan came on here gossiping about something he/she knows nothing about.
He/she deserves no respect for pedalling this imaginary crap.
He just assumed that the flight said it would divert to Tindal if unsuccessful on the second approach was because of a low fuel state. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Policy dictates no more than 2 ma's unless a greater emergency exists.
Aircraft missed out on 1st approach due not required viz at minima.
Aircraft landed on 2nd approach with required viz.
Big deal. Aircraft lands off ILS approach with a large margin of extra fuel in the tanks apparently around 2.5 tonnes above reserve.
If the discussions was about Darwin ATC advising of visual approaches when the actual conditions were around the ILS minima then that might be a bit more interesting.
Regards landing downwind beyond limit. Try that one when there is no requirement and let me know how you go.
Zanzibar
For your info. On a wet rwy for those conditions, Vref 158 (173k gs flaps 30 auto brakes 3 margin 240 metres.
Doable but more of an issue than you may think. Performance App won't accept a tailwind component greater than 15 knots so you're in test pilot territory there.
Never got anywhere near getting tight on fuel.
The flight always had more than enough fuel, several tonnes in fact.
Megan's "gossip" is just plain wrong/crap/rubbish/bull****.
Megan came on here gossiping about something he/she knows nothing about.
He/she deserves no respect for pedalling this imaginary crap.
He just assumed that the flight said it would divert to Tindal if unsuccessful on the second approach was because of a low fuel state. WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Policy dictates no more than 2 ma's unless a greater emergency exists.
Aircraft missed out on 1st approach due not required viz at minima.
Aircraft landed on 2nd approach with required viz.
Big deal. Aircraft lands off ILS approach with a large margin of extra fuel in the tanks apparently around 2.5 tonnes above reserve.
If the discussions was about Darwin ATC advising of visual approaches when the actual conditions were around the ILS minima then that might be a bit more interesting.
Regards landing downwind beyond limit. Try that one when there is no requirement and let me know how you go.
Zanzibar
Landing distance wouldn't be an issue on 11, tyre speed limit nowhere near an issue (I'd not be surprised that the ground speed at landing weight approach speeds plus a 15, even 20kt tail wind is less than the grounspeed at takeoff for such a flight).
Doable but more of an issue than you may think. Performance App won't accept a tailwind component greater than 15 knots so you're in test pilot territory there.
Last edited by Back Seat Driver; 28th Dec 2017 at 10:59.
Thread Starter
Megan's "gossip" is just plain wrong/crap/rubbish/bull****.
Megan came on here gossiping about something he/she knows nothing about.
He/she deserves no respect for pedalling this imaginary crap
Megan came on here gossiping about something he/she knows nothing about.
He/she deserves no respect for pedalling this imaginary crap
Gossip has it
The story I Op'ed with was as related by a guy in the circuit at the time,
I think it is time to move on.
