Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

I had to look up those terms. The reality is, flying suit or not, if you don’t have pilots’ wings, then pilots will never take you seriously.

 

[OZDUCK]

Apparently an Air Asia flight to Perth diverted to Port Hedland this morning because of fog at Perth Airport. Perth Airport has Cat. 111b landing equipment but I assume that Air Asia cannot use that capability. I would guess that it costs, in technical terms, 'a lot' to train pilots and equip an aircraft to use Cat 111b? I understand that the QF aircraft doing the Perth/LHR flights are so equipped but how widely is the capability spread across Qantas/Virgin aircraft?

 

[Daver6]

Apparently an Air Asia flight to Perth diverted to Port Hedland this morning because of fog at Perth Airport. Perth Airport has Cat. 111b landing equipment but I assume that Air Asia cannot use that capability. I would guess that it costs, in technical terms, 'a lot' to train pilots and equip an aircraft to use Cat 111b? I understand that the QF aircraft doing the Perth/LHR flights are so equipped but how widely is the capability spread across Qantas/Virgin aircraft?

Wasn't it also Air Asia that instead of landing a LEA when they had shut down an engine decided to head all the way back to PER because they weren't familiar with LEA?

 

[SYD]

Wasn't it also Air Asia that instead of landing a LEA when they had shut down an engine decided to head all the way back to PER because they weren't familiar with LEA?

What, something you can land a Space shuttle on (with no engines)!

 

[OZDUCK]

Yep they didn't want to land at Learmonth because it wasn't enough of an emergency.

There were claims of some unusual comments by the pilot - “He said ‘I hope you all say a prayer, I’ll be saying a prayer too and let’s hope we all get back home safely’,” she said.

"The flight crew decided to divert to Perth. While Perth was the nearest suitable aerodrome, at the time of the engine failure Learmonth was significantly closer. The fight crew’s decision to divert to Perth was influenced by the operator’s classification of Learmonth as an emergency aerodrome to be used in ‘dire emergency only’, a condition that the flight crew determined that was not applicable to their aircraft."

Engine failure involving Airbus A330, 9M-XXE, near Carnarvon, Western Australia, on 25 June 2017 | ATSB

www.atsb.gov.au

 

[jb747]

Apparently an Air Asia flight to Perth diverted to Port Hedland this morning because of fog at Perth Airport. Perth Airport has Cat. 111b landing equipment but I assume that Air Asia cannot use that capability. I would guess that it costs, in technical terms, 'a lot' to train pilots and equip an aircraft to use Cat 111b? I understand that the QF aircraft doing the Perth/LHR flights are so equipped but how widely is the capability spread across Qantas/Virgin aircraft?

For the low Cat stuff to be useful, you need, the airport to have the right equipment, the aircraft to be so fitted, the crew to be qualified and current. Plus, you will also need some sort of alternate, that does not require an alternate itself. That last part could well be the hardest bit to provide where Perth is concerned. Busselton may have become useful since I retired, but last time I flew into Perth (in a 747 quite a long time ago), the state was pretty devoid of alternates.

All of QF's long haul flights aircraft are 111a or 111b, but I don't think the 737s go past Cat II (AV?). In a career that was mostly long haul flying, I've done lots of Cat II, a few Cat IIIA, and one or two Cat IIIB.

Wasn't it also Air Asia that instead of landing a LEA when they had shut down an engine decided to head all the way back to PER because they weren't familiar with LEA?

Yes. And it wasn't the only diversion that was subject to question at the time. There was another in the vicinity of Alice Springs, where they diverted to Melbourne after an engine failure.

What, something you can land a Space shuttle on (with no engines)!

That just means the runway is long and concrete.

Yep they didn't want to land at Learmonth because it wasn't enough of an emergency.

I'm not sure whether it was a commercial or competence decision. In either case it was a stupid choice. They'd have to be close to #1 on my list of people not to fly with.

 

[Daver6]

I'm not sure whether it was a commercial or competence decision. In either case it was a stupid choice. They'd have to be close to #1 on my list of people not to fly with.

This! There is no way in hell I'd fly with them. There have been too many bad decisions made by their pilots when things have gone wrong. I feel that it's been sheer luck nothing more serious has happened.

 

[OZDUCK]

For the low Cat stuff to be useful, you need, the airport to have the right equipment, the aircraft to be so fitted, the crew to be qualified and current. Plus, you will also need some sort of alternate, that does not require an alternate itself. That last part could well be the hardest bit to provide where Perth is concerned. Busselton may have become useful since I retired, but last time I flew into Perth (in a 747 quite a long time ago), the state was pretty devoid of alternates.

All of QF's long haul flights aircraft are 111a or 111b, but I don't think the 737s go past Cat II (AV?). In a career that was mostly long haul flying, I've done lots of Cat II, a few Cat IIIA, and one or two Cat IIIB.

Yes. And it wasn't the only diversion that was subject to question at the time. There was another in the vicinity of Alice Springs, where they diverted to Melbourne after an engine failure.

That just means the runway is long and concrete.

I'm not sure whether it was a commercial or competence decision. In either case it was a stupid choice. They'd have to be close to #1 on my list of people not to fly with.

Thanks for the reply.

Back in the 1970's when I was stationed at Perth Airport the alternate was Meekatharra. Apparently it was the barest bones possible to allow it to operate and certainly no way to unload passengers off a 747. There was the occasional diversion there in my time and no-one spoke very highly of it. For those unaware it is a little over 750 km north of Perth by road. I gather this meant that a decision to divert had to be made very early. MH tried to fly A300's KL/Perth at that time but dropped them from that route because they were perilously close to not having the range for a diversion.

This is the place Tamie Fraser (For those youngsters - wife of the then PM Malcolm Fraser) called "the end of the earth" when they got stranded there in 1977. To be fair to her, after spending one night there in the early 1990's I thought she was being a bit kind to the place.

 

[AviatorInsight]

"The flight crew decided to divert to Perth. While Perth was the nearest suitable aerodrome, at the time of the engine failure Learmonth was significantly closer. The fight crew’s decision to divert to Perth was influenced by the operator’s classification of Learmonth as an emergency aerodrome to be used in ‘dire emergency only’, a condition that the flight crew determined that was not applicable to their aircraft."

Definitely an interesting decision!

Having said that, on pretty much every transcon we are planned non EDTO (extended ops). The reason being is they use Forrest as a suitable diversion airport. Now if I was to have an engine failure right over the top, even though Forrest would technically be the closest, I would deem it unsuitable unless absolutely necessary. My diversion would be to Kalgoorlie or even on to Adelaide.

While Forrest is long enough and wide enough to land a 737, the consequences come after we park the brakes. There’s no terminal, no ground handling agents, no fire services, no accommodation, no engineering, no ground start equipment, etc. Sure there might be stairs but who is going to put them on?

How will everyone get off? And when they do, passengers will be waiting until the next Indian Pacific comes along to get them to the nearest city.

Learmonth is a different story entirely. Same with their decision to overfly Alice Springs and go to Melbourne! It makes my decision to not fly with them so much easier.

All of QF's long haul flights aircraft are 111a or 111b, but I don't think the 737s go past Cat II (AV?). In a career that was mostly long haul flying, I've done lots of Cat II, a few Cat IIIA, and one or two Cat IIIB.

All of the -700s and any -800s with rego VUZ and prior are all CAT II. The 737-800s from YFC and after including 8IA are CATIIIB equipped. The difference being with the AFDS between the two variants (Fail Passive vs Fail Operational), and the latter also having an integrated standby flight display.

 

[jb747]

While Forrest is long enough and wide enough to land a 737, the consequences come after we park the brakes. There’s no terminal, no ground handling agents, no fire services, no accommodation, no engineering, no ground start equipment, etc. Sure there might be stairs but who is going to put them on?
ryone get off? And when they do, passengers will be waiting until the next Indian Pacific comes along to get them to the nearest city.

The ATSB isn’t interested in what comes after you park the brakes. All of those could be considered commercial reasons. Much better to simply say that you’re unhappy with the idea of a single engined, non precision, approach into a black hole, in the middle of nowhere. Thankfully, Forrest was never a consideration for the 767.

All of the -700s and any -800s with rego VUZ and prior are all CAT II. The 737-800s from YFC and after including 8IA are CATIIIB equipped. The difference being with the AFDS between the two variants (Fail Passive vs Fail Operational), and the latter also having an integrated standby flight display.

Do you know how that might relate to any of the QF 737s. My guess would be that given dear leader’s predilection for giving anything new to Jetstar rather than QF, that my guess re their 737s might be correct.

 

[flyer89]

Do you know how that might related to any of the QF 737s. My guess would be that given dear leader’s predilection for giving anything new to Jetstar rather than QF, that my guess re their 737s might be correct.

My info is they all have A3 HUD and are hand flown without automatics in low vis down to 50ft.

 

[AviatorInsight]

The ATSB isn’t interested in what comes after you park the brakes. All of those could be considered commercial reasons. Much better to simply say that you’re unhappy with the idea of a single engined, non precision, approach into a black hole, in the middle of nowhere. Thankfully, Forrest was never a consideration for the 767.

Definitely understand that. It really is just a planning exercise to be able to plan non EDTO. I would be satisfied to stand in front of a court and defend why I overflew and considered Forrest unsuitable. In my mind unless I was on fire, or had an explosive depressurisation with severe injuries and it was affecting the safety of flight it would be a short consider and then move onto the next suitable.

Do you know how that might related to any of the QF 737s. My guess would be that given dear leader’s predilection for giving anything new to Jetstar rather than QF, that my guess re their 737s might be correct.

Talking to a QF mate, they’re only up to CATIIIA approved because in his words “they’re too tight to pay for 3B certification”.

 

[jb747]

Talking to a QF mate, they’re only up to CATIIIA approved because in his words “they’re too tight to pay for 3B certification”.

Low vis, manually flown off the HUD isn't something that CASA should be allowing. It's certainly not something I'd be happy being a pax on. Note to self, pax on QF heavies, but not light twins.

 

[jukebox333]

Apparently an Air Asia flight to Perth diverted to Port Hedland this morning because of fog at Perth Airport. Perth Airport has Cat. 111b landing equipment but I assume that Air Asia cannot use that capability. I would guess that it costs, in technical terms, 'a lot' to train pilots and equip an aircraft to use Cat 111b? I understand that the QF aircraft doing the Perth/LHR flights are so equipped but how widely is the capability spread across Qantas/Virgin aircraft?

QF7309 (I assume) missed it's approach earlier that morning, then diverted straight to Kalgoorlie:

 

[Rabs97]

Low vis, manually flown off the HUD isn't something that CASA should be allowing. It's certainly not something I'd be happy being a pax on. Note to self, pax on QF heavies, but not light twins.

The AIII mode on the HUD works very well. One of the best capabilities the HUD gives to the 738. No problems at all with safety, many crew would prefer it over a 737 Autoland, which doesn’t always provide the smoothest or most stable touchdown. There are better failure warning systems with the HUD and AIII indications are more sensitive than ILS localised and glide slope signals. As 737 pilots are flying multiple sectors per day they are usually very current and aware of system capabilities and aircraft control.

I guess different generations will come to grips with different technology. Some couldn’t fathom the concept of curved RNP-AR approaches (NZQN is a classic example) that may only align you with the runway within a mile of the threshold after snaking down a mountainous valley vs being aligned with final 15nm out on an ILS (or even the concept of GLS).

So no need to fear about paxing on “light twins”.

 

[jb747]

I know many of our 737 pilots, and I know that they are very competent. And it may be that manually flown is better than the 737’s autoland capability. But, that is much more a reflection on the 737’s ancient systems, and the fact that it is long past its replacement time. The aircraft is a good example of why grandfathering of systems should not be allowed.

 

[Peasant]

I was walking down Collins St in Melbourne a few minutes ago and noticed a 737 rocketing through the sky above me. So unusual did the speed seem that I opened Flight Radar and saw that it was VA 1365 inbound from LST.

According to FR, the aircraft was at 270knots and 4,000ft, which appeared to be about 100 above the normal speed I notice.

The aircraft then missed the usual right turn towards MEL at Yarraville, tracking out towards Laverton North, in a sort of dog leg before tracking towards the airport.

My question for the pilots is what sort of reasons would result in an approach being so much faster than normal, and at what point should such an approach be abandoned?

Side note is that it’s extremely blustery in MEL today.

 

[Rabs97]

I know many of our 737 pilots, and I know that they are very competent. And it may be that manually flown is better than the 737’s autoland capability. But, that is much more a reflection on the 737’s ancient systems, and the fact that it is long past its replacement time. The aircraft is a good example of why grandfathering of systems should not be allowed.

That doesn’t necessarily indicate that the aircraft operates to a lower level of safety or people should have reservations flying on one.

The systems may not be as new as newer aircraft but they get the job done and are reliable, the 738 having a very high dispatch reliability. I don’t think any serious incident can be linked to any HUD or AIII system in over 25 years of operation (note: talking about the NG model only).

 

[jb747]

That doesn’t necessarily indicate that the aircraft operates to a lower level of safety or people should have reservations flying on one.

People can make up their own minds. If given the choice of an A320 or a 737, I would prefer the A320.

The systems may not be as new as newer aircraft but they get the job done and are reliable, the 738 having a very high dispatch reliability.

To be honest that can be said about most legacy systems. It doesn't mean that they should stay static, nor does it mean that better systems shouldn't be fitted or developed. The 737 would not be certifiable under modern rules...

I don’t think any serious incident can be linked to any HUD or AIII system in over 25 years of operation (note: talking about the NG model only).

Rostov comes to mind.

 

[justinbrett]

I had to look up those terms. The reality is, flying suit or not, if you don’t have pilots’ wings, then pilots will never take you seriously.

I found non-pilot officers within a squadron were treated pretty well by pilots of that same squadron.

Obviously everyone is different.