QF638 go-around and diversion at YBBN
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: yssy
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once more, the "dubious" person at TW has striven to reach the lowest level of his performance, and yet again failed an attempt.
"No sir, you can't use MY terminal or its entrances."
"No sir, you can't use MY terminal or its entrances."
Why Tamworth? Did Maroochydore and Coolangatta also have crap weather and runway works? Bus drive from either of those ports may have been a "better" option than sitting on a plane for 4 hours.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Back o' beyond
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cruze,
Your outburst in response to No.15's post was totally uncalled for and shows that YOU are in fact the "arrogant, ignorant ass". Passengers are unlikely to possess all the facts behind an operational decision, or to have the knowledge and experience required to evaluate whether or not a particular decision is 'safe'.
I don't know the facts behind this incident so can't make any comment about its safety aspects. I do know, however, that idiot journalists only ever look for the sensationalist angle to any story, and are not interested in facts.
Your outburst in response to No.15's post was totally uncalled for and shows that YOU are in fact the "arrogant, ignorant ass". Passengers are unlikely to possess all the facts behind an operational decision, or to have the knowledge and experience required to evaluate whether or not a particular decision is 'safe'.
I don't know the facts behind this incident so can't make any comment about its safety aspects. I do know, however, that idiot journalists only ever look for the sensationalist angle to any story, and are not interested in facts.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Coast
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few more snippets of information for those interested.
ABC Online 15 May 2003
CASA to investigate aborted landing of Qantas flight
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will investigate an aborted landing at Brisbane airport last night.
Qantas says the Melbourne-to-Brisbane flight could not land because the main runway was under repair and pilots chose not to use the second runway because of bad weather.
Passengers had to spend an uncomfortable night in the plane at Tamworth airport in New South Wales.
CASA will be checking to see if the airport notified pilots of the repairs, but spokesman Peter Gibson says it looks like a case of bad weather.
"At the end of the day, it is up to the pilots to make the judgment as to whether the landing is safe or not," Mr Gibson said.
"In this case the pilot was not confident that it was safe so the pilot did the right thing and simply went somewhere else that was safe."
ABC Online 15 May 2003
Well I'll save them some time..
This is straight from Brisbane Notams
RWY 01/19 NOT AVBL DUE WIP
OVERLAY/GROOVING. REFER AIP SUP H47/02 (STAGE 5)
AVBL AVFAX CODE 81547 OR INTERNET
FROM 04 211400 TO 06 161900
DAILY 1400/1900
SUNDAY TO FRIDAY
Aircraft in Question was VH-TJB, QF638 YSTW-YBBN @0505
VH-TJB, then went as QF788 YBBN-YBCS @ 0734
Keg
I,m by no means an expert on this subject but after reading your post i would say thats seems highly likely...
Regards
Lozza
ABC Online 15 May 2003
CASA to investigate aborted landing of Qantas flight
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will investigate an aborted landing at Brisbane airport last night.
Qantas says the Melbourne-to-Brisbane flight could not land because the main runway was under repair and pilots chose not to use the second runway because of bad weather.
Passengers had to spend an uncomfortable night in the plane at Tamworth airport in New South Wales.
CASA will be checking to see if the airport notified pilots of the repairs, but spokesman Peter Gibson says it looks like a case of bad weather.
"At the end of the day, it is up to the pilots to make the judgment as to whether the landing is safe or not," Mr Gibson said.
"In this case the pilot was not confident that it was safe so the pilot did the right thing and simply went somewhere else that was safe."
ABC Online 15 May 2003
CASA will be checking to see if the airport notified pilots of the repairs, but spokesman Peter Gibson says it looks like a case of bad weather.
This is straight from Brisbane Notams
RWY 01/19 NOT AVBL DUE WIP
OVERLAY/GROOVING. REFER AIP SUP H47/02 (STAGE 5)
AVBL AVFAX CODE 81547 OR INTERNET
FROM 04 211400 TO 06 161900
DAILY 1400/1900
SUNDAY TO FRIDAY
Aircraft in Question was VH-TJB, QF638 YSTW-YBBN @0505
VH-TJB, then went as QF788 YBBN-YBCS @ 0734
Keg
Crew running an hour late. Departs knowing that RW 19/01 will be shut but know that they can land on 14/32. Weather closes in a bit more than forecast and now 14 not available either. Weather at OOL no good, wx up the coast at Maroochy no good, can't divert back to SYD due curfew so aircraft diverts to Tamworth.
Regards
Lozza
Last edited by Lozza2002; 15th May 2003 at 12:45.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: your worst nightmare
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too saw little Mr Gilmores performance on the morning news. Granted he was possibly put up to it, but his little 'live eyewitness interview' was nothing short of cringeworthy. Did someone point out to the prepubescent little sh!t that the logies have been handed out this year, and that alas the title for 'best actor in a drama' is no longer up for grabs??
Since when do routine diversions (and there is at present no evidence that it was anything but) make it on to the national news. Pull your head out of your arses CH7 and report on something that really is newsworthy instead of trying to take more stabs at an industry which is presently on its knees. The term 'responsible and ethical journalism', although a contradiction in terms in recent times, comes to mind. I express my view here not because any particular airline was involved, indeed I would be just as p!ssed if it was VB that copped the slagging. No one in the media seems to realise that every shot they take at an industry so reliant on passenger confidence has the potential to cost jobs, and deny journos and media execs affordable upgrades when they demand them. No one's saying taint the facts, but a bit of perspective sure wouldn't go astray....
Sounds like a more worthwhile story here might lie in the TCC and its terminal.
Since when do routine diversions (and there is at present no evidence that it was anything but) make it on to the national news. Pull your head out of your arses CH7 and report on something that really is newsworthy instead of trying to take more stabs at an industry which is presently on its knees. The term 'responsible and ethical journalism', although a contradiction in terms in recent times, comes to mind. I express my view here not because any particular airline was involved, indeed I would be just as p!ssed if it was VB that copped the slagging. No one in the media seems to realise that every shot they take at an industry so reliant on passenger confidence has the potential to cost jobs, and deny journos and media execs affordable upgrades when they demand them. No one's saying taint the facts, but a bit of perspective sure wouldn't go astray....
Sounds like a more worthwhile story here might lie in the TCC and its terminal.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg,
You really must stop these sensible posts.
The QF bashers have a lot more fun in fantasyland.
Since when is a weather diversion such big news?
And why would you put people in a hotel for 15 minutes (that is about what they'd get by the time it was organised,transport to and from arranged etc. etc. -- assuming accommodation was even available on such short notice at sparrows with no local staff.)
Inconvenient to stay on the A/C? Yes.
Sensible logistic solution in the circumstances? I would think so.
Considering it would appear the intention of the crew was to proceed back to BNE as soon as the runway works concluded the decision to stay on the A/C seems to have been the best option.
You really must stop these sensible posts.
The QF bashers have a lot more fun in fantasyland.
Since when is a weather diversion such big news?
And why would you put people in a hotel for 15 minutes (that is about what they'd get by the time it was organised,transport to and from arranged etc. etc. -- assuming accommodation was even available on such short notice at sparrows with no local staff.)
Inconvenient to stay on the A/C? Yes.
Sensible logistic solution in the circumstances? I would think so.
Considering it would appear the intention of the crew was to proceed back to BNE as soon as the runway works concluded the decision to stay on the A/C seems to have been the best option.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 104 Likes
on
59 Posts
Avago; re Cruze Power's post; can't you tell satire/ a wind up when you see it?
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the state of the weather couldn't the airport authority have suspended their grooving operation for one night and made the instrument R/W available? It's been done before!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Devonport Tasmania Australia
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bottom line here.
Crew departs MEL with BNE open, operating on shorter but totally suitable runway.
Obviously carrying TMW as alternate with suitable fuel due to WX in BNE area. Fair enough so far. A/C arrives BNE TA, and on a VOR letdown or whatever approach they chose, discovered conditions were less than optimal due to visibilty, wind strength/direction, turbulence - whatever, and chose to abort the approach and perform a landing climb and proceed to their alternate. All performed obviously within the parameters required.
Now at this time, the SLF having had no warning of the impending display of what a commercial airliner can actually do performancewise, and having no warning from the flight deck (rightly so as the gentlemen in the blue suits would have been as busy as one armed wallpaperers) chuck a panic, as one would.
So far, I have not picked fault on the part of anyone from Qantas, just normal safe operations.
The aeroplane duly arrives at TMW, safe and sound but at a non QF port. Middle of the night, runway and approach lights no doubt activated by PAL, no ground staff available to open the terminal and what choice is there? Drop the airstairs and have a planeload of stressed SLF wandering off around the tarmac in the dark risking impact with an incoming freighter or screwing around with ground equipment or parked aeroplanes and smoking in the worst possible places or keep them where you can account for them all?
Delay would have been an unknown at that stage as WX was obviously still a factor, and no doubt the TMW refueller was being dragged out of bed to replenish supplies for another attempt.
Hotels were not an issue, as a go ahead could have come at a moments notice. Also, an airline is not incumbent in supplying accommodation in cases of weather related delay, even though they do in mose cases involving an overnight.
Passenger Dick Wright said - etc etc. What an apt name.
The media needs a good hard kick in the ring for making a 3 ring circus of a simple and operationally safe diversion due to WX and interviewing the collection of species from the very shallowest end of the gene pool they chose for on air quotes.
As for the customer always being right Cruze and others - BITE ME - that is the most dangerous assumption one could ever make in commercial aviation. Professional people for one are normally in control of their environment, and when they place themselves in the hands of others and have no control, some can and do become extremely unreasonable.
The Airline and the Pilot in Charge are always right in operational matters, as are the checkin staff and cabin crew, until advised otherwise by tribunal or suitable authority.
As far as I can see with this one, it was a totally normal operation of a B737/400 that diverted to a planned alternate and ground held until such time that the flight could be projected as intended.
I would be interested to see what non Airline operational people consider to be the correct path they consider QF should have followed in this case. As for not leaving MEL, we are talking Chinese Aviation here - one cloud in the circuit area - dont go. Now that would cause even more whiners.
Nice job QF, and anyone in here who actually took the media slant to this matter, your sole purpose on earth must simply be serve as a warning to others.
To give even professional people any say in their destiny in a situation like this or worse would be pure lunacy, much less a redneck on their first flight wo nearly ruined a perfectly good pair of undies when the gear retracted on takeoff.
iwillflya
I suggest you download the fairly bulky file of he QF BKK incident.
The FO who was PIC on the approach intiiated a go - around as he saw there was no hope of getting down in one piece, but the Captain overrode him and pulled the power back off.
Crash teams were rolling before OJH even touched tarmac.
Very interesting read and animation.
Best all
EWL
Crew departs MEL with BNE open, operating on shorter but totally suitable runway.
Obviously carrying TMW as alternate with suitable fuel due to WX in BNE area. Fair enough so far. A/C arrives BNE TA, and on a VOR letdown or whatever approach they chose, discovered conditions were less than optimal due to visibilty, wind strength/direction, turbulence - whatever, and chose to abort the approach and perform a landing climb and proceed to their alternate. All performed obviously within the parameters required.
Now at this time, the SLF having had no warning of the impending display of what a commercial airliner can actually do performancewise, and having no warning from the flight deck (rightly so as the gentlemen in the blue suits would have been as busy as one armed wallpaperers) chuck a panic, as one would.
So far, I have not picked fault on the part of anyone from Qantas, just normal safe operations.
The aeroplane duly arrives at TMW, safe and sound but at a non QF port. Middle of the night, runway and approach lights no doubt activated by PAL, no ground staff available to open the terminal and what choice is there? Drop the airstairs and have a planeload of stressed SLF wandering off around the tarmac in the dark risking impact with an incoming freighter or screwing around with ground equipment or parked aeroplanes and smoking in the worst possible places or keep them where you can account for them all?
Delay would have been an unknown at that stage as WX was obviously still a factor, and no doubt the TMW refueller was being dragged out of bed to replenish supplies for another attempt.
Hotels were not an issue, as a go ahead could have come at a moments notice. Also, an airline is not incumbent in supplying accommodation in cases of weather related delay, even though they do in mose cases involving an overnight.
Passenger Dick Wright said - etc etc. What an apt name.
The media needs a good hard kick in the ring for making a 3 ring circus of a simple and operationally safe diversion due to WX and interviewing the collection of species from the very shallowest end of the gene pool they chose for on air quotes.
As for the customer always being right Cruze and others - BITE ME - that is the most dangerous assumption one could ever make in commercial aviation. Professional people for one are normally in control of their environment, and when they place themselves in the hands of others and have no control, some can and do become extremely unreasonable.
The Airline and the Pilot in Charge are always right in operational matters, as are the checkin staff and cabin crew, until advised otherwise by tribunal or suitable authority.
As far as I can see with this one, it was a totally normal operation of a B737/400 that diverted to a planned alternate and ground held until such time that the flight could be projected as intended.
I would be interested to see what non Airline operational people consider to be the correct path they consider QF should have followed in this case. As for not leaving MEL, we are talking Chinese Aviation here - one cloud in the circuit area - dont go. Now that would cause even more whiners.
Nice job QF, and anyone in here who actually took the media slant to this matter, your sole purpose on earth must simply be serve as a warning to others.
To give even professional people any say in their destiny in a situation like this or worse would be pure lunacy, much less a redneck on their first flight wo nearly ruined a perfectly good pair of undies when the gear retracted on takeoff.
iwillflya
I suggest you download the fairly bulky file of he QF BKK incident.
The FO who was PIC on the approach intiiated a go - around as he saw there was no hope of getting down in one piece, but the Captain overrode him and pulled the power back off.
Crash teams were rolling before OJH even touched tarmac.
Very interesting read and animation.
Best all
EWL
Last edited by Eastwest Loco; 15th May 2003 at 20:31.
If we only took off when we were absolutely certain of landing at the destination ,we'd never go anywhere. I depart all the time for destinations forcasting conditions below the minima (of course carrying fuel for an alternate). Usually I manage to land ,weather forcasts tend to err on the safe side and after all I only need it to be above minima for a couple of minutes. When I can't land , once or twice a year , I go to my alternate and make another plan. Many times I have landed and 15 minutes later weather has closed in , sometimes I have diverted and been told later on that had I arrived 30 mins earlier/later I would have got in with no problem ,but that's life.
On this particular occasion it didn't work out for the pilot ,the minima on the 14 VOR/DME approach is much higher than the 01 or 19 ILS.
It would have been difficult to clear the runway at short notice with all the equipment and lights set up ,and even if they had who wants to land on wet asphelt. Often work is done on runways at night and it is notamed ,will clear with 15 mins notice if operationally required but this time it couldn't be done.
On this particular occasion it didn't work out for the pilot ,the minima on the 14 VOR/DME approach is much higher than the 01 or 19 ILS.
It would have been difficult to clear the runway at short notice with all the equipment and lights set up ,and even if they had who wants to land on wet asphelt. Often work is done on runways at night and it is notamed ,will clear with 15 mins notice if operationally required but this time it couldn't be done.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keeping the pax informed?
Maybe airlines generally need to re-think about how much info they give pax.
On another thread recently (so many threads, so little time
) I read about a dead-heading pilot becoming alarmed at the pax reaction to a go-around. Near panic in the cabin.
Maybe the drill could include an announcement in that calming, authorititive tone "Nothing to be alarmed about, going around". Education has got to be the way to go. Stop all this 'near-death' reporting crap. I think the public would be much more tolerant if given a little info in the seatbacks, a quick announcement etc. If you treat them as sheep, how else can you expect them to react? Might even RAISE the profile of the industry, from a safety angle.
Just a thought.
On another thread recently (so many threads, so little time
) I read about a dead-heading pilot becoming alarmed at the pax reaction to a go-around. Near panic in the cabin.Maybe the drill could include an announcement in that calming, authorititive tone "Nothing to be alarmed about, going around". Education has got to be the way to go. Stop all this 'near-death' reporting crap. I think the public would be much more tolerant if given a little info in the seatbacks, a quick announcement etc. If you treat them as sheep, how else can you expect them to react? Might even RAISE the profile of the industry, from a safety angle.
Just a thought.
Why couldnt the skipper have rung up for 40 pizzas, some Pepsi and Garlick bread to be delivered(surely there would have been a pizza place still open). feed the pax, put some music on the PA and makea bit of a party of it.
Could have been a bit of good PR in it.
Could have been a bit of good PR in it.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a pefect opportunity to slip into the "Tamworth Hotel" and experience some genuine Redneck Hospitality.
The locals would have loved to see some out of towners/Blowinns. Chrikey, what a steamer!!
The locals would have loved to see some out of towners/Blowinns. Chrikey, what a steamer!!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: middle east
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just goes to show that, with SLF being given status as an informed commentator by said sensationalist journo, the crew were on a hiding to nothing.
I can just see the other two headlines.
"Qantas crew too scared to depart for Brisbane because runway wasn't long enough, Virgin continue to operate" or
"Qantas Captain under investigation due to runway over run incident at Brisbane during torrential downpour".
Those that do this job day in day out know that these guys (or girls) most probably made the right decision. I'll bet that there are a lot of monday morning quarterbacks who read this forum, that wouldn't have the balls to do what this crew did. It's pretty easy sitting in front of a computer screen at home, telling the world how it should be done. It's not quite as easy when you are sitting in the front 2 seats looking at those particular computer screens and actually doing it.
The Rev
I can just see the other two headlines.
"Qantas crew too scared to depart for Brisbane because runway wasn't long enough, Virgin continue to operate" or
"Qantas Captain under investigation due to runway over run incident at Brisbane during torrential downpour".
Those that do this job day in day out know that these guys (or girls) most probably made the right decision. I'll bet that there are a lot of monday morning quarterbacks who read this forum, that wouldn't have the balls to do what this crew did. It's pretty easy sitting in front of a computer screen at home, telling the world how it should be done. It's not quite as easy when you are sitting in the front 2 seats looking at those particular computer screens and actually doing it.
The Rev
Last edited by Reverend Doctor Doug; 16th May 2003 at 02:18.
I've got some more shocking news too, aircraft routinely depart with below legal minimum fuel required !
Scenario 1
Fuel required for flight calculated ,aircraft departs with less.Not all taxi fuel is burnt ,ops manual fuel consumption figures are bettered ,ATC give track shortening, tailwind found/headwind not as bad as forcast. Aircraft arrives overhead/passes close to suitable airport with good weather which was filed as destination.Fuel on board/ wx at intended destination checked and found to be sufficient to continue with required reserves intact. Aircraft continues (having carried extra pax/freight) ,passengers none the wiser.
Scenario 2
Fuel required for flight calculated ,aircraft departs with less. Extended taxi ,delay at holding point. ATC take aircraft off course due inbound traffic ,no track shortening available.Unforcast headwind encountered . Ice starts building up on the airframe ,speed reduces further and fuel consumption goes up as power is increased and anti ice switched on. Aircraft arrives overhead/passes close to same airport.Fuel checked found insufficient to continue ,aircraft diverts and refuels.
Press cannot wait to get opinions from John , a milkman who states that the pilot should never have been allowed to take off risking all their lives ,and Sue a 17 year old student who describes how terrified she was clinging to the arm rests after the pilot told them they were running out of fuel.
Scenario 1
Fuel required for flight calculated ,aircraft departs with less.Not all taxi fuel is burnt ,ops manual fuel consumption figures are bettered ,ATC give track shortening, tailwind found/headwind not as bad as forcast. Aircraft arrives overhead/passes close to suitable airport with good weather which was filed as destination.Fuel on board/ wx at intended destination checked and found to be sufficient to continue with required reserves intact. Aircraft continues (having carried extra pax/freight) ,passengers none the wiser.
Scenario 2
Fuel required for flight calculated ,aircraft departs with less. Extended taxi ,delay at holding point. ATC take aircraft off course due inbound traffic ,no track shortening available.Unforcast headwind encountered . Ice starts building up on the airframe ,speed reduces further and fuel consumption goes up as power is increased and anti ice switched on. Aircraft arrives overhead/passes close to same airport.Fuel checked found insufficient to continue ,aircraft diverts and refuels.
Press cannot wait to get opinions from John , a milkman who states that the pilot should never have been allowed to take off risking all their lives ,and Sue a 17 year old student who describes how terrified she was clinging to the arm rests after the pilot told them they were running out of fuel.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My favorite was the 17 year old with pimples interviewed for the ABC News, (possibly the aforementioned Master Gilmore) vehemently declaring he would never fly Qantas again. Err, well, um I mean I'll ask mum not to send me with Qantas next time.
As an aside, a relative very close to Cooly drome went to bed due not being able to hear the TV above the noise of the rain on the night in question.
As an aside, a relative very close to Cooly drome went to bed due not being able to hear the TV above the noise of the rain on the night in question.
I suppose it would be fair to say that we would not be discussing this if Brisbane Airport had a parallel runway with ILS. Isn't it ironic therefore, that when the cry went out from the news editor to "get me an expert - any expert", they should turn to a federal shadow minister who has always opposed such a development at Brisbane. He then goes on to express his concern that the pilots should have the best available runways. (I can't recall the exact quote as by this time my flabber was totally gasted).
The hypocrisy is breath-taking.
Cheers
The hypocrisy is breath-taking.
Cheers