Lack of fuel forces Qantas jet to land in heavy fog

[NM]

One suspects that in a real emergency they would just put the plane down anywhere it could be done, and worry about how to get it out of there later.

As with any flight - Take-off is optional, landing is mandatory.

 

[ColinP]

One suspects that in a real emergency they would just put the plane down anywhere it could be done, and worry about how to get it out of there later.

Yes, I guess they would. Just like the pilots of the Gimli Glider did. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet.

 

[serfty]

I have not read the ATSB report, but saw something in Crikey today about it.

• The aircraft made two unsucsessful attempt to land,
• Called an emergency "Mayday", received permission for an "auto-land" and
• subsequently landed using this "Hands free" method.

More here: Crikey - Politics - "Mayday!" Qantas jet dices with ditching off Perth

 

[jpk]

Getting it out again may be an issue!

QF has managed to put a 747-200 and a 707-138 on the ground at Longreach, but without runway extensions, there they will stay. Of course, such one-ways are no unique to Longreach. There is a B52 and a Concorde sitting at Duxford (near Cambridge, north of London) that needed to stripped of all excess weight in order to land, and neither is ever going to fly out under their own steam.

there's some footage on youtube of SAA landing a 747SP at a museum airstrip for the final time, cos getting it in there was tight. the airstrip looked more like a paddock with a thing bit of coughumen across it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap_nyRzEOMI

 

[straitman]

But you don't require much more than 40 feet of "runway" to land and take-off. Or are you talking about a previous life .

Previous life flying orange & white dog whistles :!:

 

[maninblack]

As with any flight - Take-off is optional, landing is mandatory.

I know I have posted it before but I just love this photo :shock:
Airliners.net Photos: Vaso Airlines Ilyushin Il-86

And into WLG's little 6300ft rwy. A regular service for a time in the 80's
Airliners.net Photos: Qantas Boeing 747SP-38

 

[oz_mark]

I know I have posted it before but I just love this photo :shock:
Airliners.net Photos: Vaso Airlines Ilyushin Il-86

And into WLG's little 6300ft rwy. A regular service for a time in the 80's
Airliners.net Photos: Qantas Boeing 747SP-38

Weren't SP's over powered little rockets? A feature not common to Airbus.

 

[jpk]

And into WLG's little 6300ft rwy. A regular service for a time in the 80's

how awesome does that little baby look! during all the recent talk about the new QF livery, i couldn't help but wish they would paint a 744 in the old QF style. it would look great and respect the past history of the company. i think *A airlines have to have 1 aircraft in a heritage livery don't they?

 

[Dave Noble]

i think *A airlines have to have 1 aircraft in a heritage livery don't they?

Not afaik. I believe that they have to have 1 aircraft in Star Alliance Livery

Dave

 

[NM]

I have not read the ATSB report, but saw something in Crikey today about it.

• The aircraft made two unsucsessful attempt to land,
• Called an emergency "Mayday", received permission for an "auto-land" and
• subsequently landed using this "Hands free" method.

It is my understanding that the procedure would have panned out as follows:

Fog was covering the airport and the aircraft descended using the nav aids down to the defined minima for the runway, but as the runway was not visible to the pilots, they were required to abort the landing and go around. This is an operational requirement when visibility is below the minima for the runway.

In order to be permitted to autoland when visibility is below the defined minima for the runway, an emergency condition must be declared. Hence the call of "Mayday" in order to change the situation to allow the aircraft to autoland on a runwayt where visibility is below the minima.

No aircraft is permitted to land on a runway where visibility is below the defined minima unless its an emergency. And its not an emergency unless "Mayday" is called. So the Mayday call was a formality to allow them to perform the landing under the low vis conditions.

 

[NM]

Here is an excerpt from the ATSB report, showing the background for the two "missed approaches":

At about 0010, the crew began a runway 21 instrument landing system (ILS) approach. The crew reported that at the 250 ft minima, the visibility was less than the required 800 m and they initiated a missed approach. The crew of a departing aircraft reported that the visibility was better on the southern end of the runway and VH-QPJ was radar vectored for a runway 03 ILS approach. At the 320 ft minima, the visibility was less than the required 1,500 m so the crew initiated another missed approach.

And the next paragraph shows why the "Mayday" was transmitted to ATC:

The crew decided to carry out another runway 21 ILS approach and conduct an autoland10 to below the approved minima if required. The crew calculated that at the completion of the approach the aircraft would have about 30 minutes margin over the minimum fuel reserves. Based on the lack of alternatives and the intention to conduct an approach below minima, the crew transmitted a Mayday11 to ATC.

And the actual visibility conditions are notes as follows:

The crew reported that the approach was flown using low visibility procedures with autoland selected. At the 250 ft altitude minima, the pilot in command had approximately 400 m visibility and some of the approach lighting was visible. At approximately 100 ft above the runway, the pilot in command could see the runway threshold lights. The landing was reported to be normal and the crew had sufficient visibility to navigate to the terminal.

 

[NM]

And the ATSB report also includes the definition and location of alternate airports, as well as the definition and location of adequate and emergency airports.

Availability of airports

The aircraft operator provided information about airports approved for A330 operations in a Route Manual Supplement (RMS), which was carried on board for flight crew use. If an airport was approved as a ‘main’ or ‘alternate’ airport, and the weather conditions were forecast to be better than the alternate minima, the airport was classified as ‘suitable’ for that aircraft type. Learmonth was the only airport in Western Australia, other than Perth, able to be classified as suitable for A330-300 operations.

The RMS identified aerodromes that were classified as ‘adequate’ for use in event of a critical system failure during Extended Range Operation with Twin Engine Aeroplanes operations. Kalgoorlie and Port Hedland were the only airports in Western Australia nominated as adequate for A330-300 operations. The RMS also nominated Pearce and Broome as emergency airports.

 

[jpk]

i wonder what other the operators did that night? the QF flight is usually preceded by the SQ by 30mins or so, and the EK from DXB comes in about an hour afterwards. did they divert or did they autoland as well... interesting.

 

[NM]

i wonder what other the operators did that night? the QF flight is usually preceded by the SQ by 30mins or so, and the EK from DXB comes in about an hour afterwards. did they divert or did they autoland as well... interesting.

Flight before the QF flight had no issues. Read the ATSB report for the timing of the fog. The airport was not affected by fog until just prior to the QF flight landing. I don't know what later flights did, but they would have had sufficient notice of the fog conditions to have been able to divert.

The QF A330 did not receive notification of the fog conditions until just after they had passed the DPA (Designated Point All Engines operating) for diversion to Learmonth, so they were unable to divert. A flight arriving an hour later would have received the updated weather condition information in plenty of time to divert if required.

 

[NM]

Pilots stood down after low-fuel flight error | NEWS.com.au

fyi!

How is this story relevant to the situation discussed in this thread?

As it is referring to a different situation altogether, I will move the post to commence its own thread in the same forum. I think it warrants its own thread for discussion.

 

[Alanslegal]

How is this story relevant to the situation discussed in this thread?
quote]

both are issues regarding fuel? one refers to low fuel, the other refers to low fuel reading due to pilot error?

 

[NM]

both are issues regarding fuel? one refers to low fuel, the other refers to low fuel reading due to pilot error?

I think the new media report warrants its own thread for its own discussion since it refers to a different and unrelated incident.

 

[straitman]

How is this story relevant to the situation discussed in this thread?
quote]

both are issues regarding fuel? one refers to low fuel, the other refers to low fuel reading due to pilot error?

Got to love the uninitiated comments that always refer to 'pilot error' as the cause of these situations. :evil:

From my perspective I ask how the procedures allowed the pilots to get into the situation in the first place :?:

 

[oz_mark]

From my perspective I ask how the procedures allowed the pilots to get into the situation in the first place :?:

Actually when one reads the ATSB reports, they seem pretty thorough at working out what went wrong, why it went wrong, and what can be done about it.

 

[NM]

Actually when one reads the ATSB reports, they seem pretty thorough at working out what went wrong, why it went wrong, and what can be done about it.

Very true. But unfortunately most media reporters, and certainly those non-mainstream reports that seem to live for bashing Qantas, don't seem to read or understand the ATSB reports.