VA leaves Passengers stranded on Christmas Island

[AviatorInsight]

Likely the fleet is already committed. mine site rotations occur mostly on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. As for the crew options, there really isn't any aside from leaving an entire crew on the island for a week (it did used to happen I believe, when VA ran twice weekly). I'm sure some might like to be paid to be there, but it's a waste of resources and huge cost for an airline. Likewise you can't station crew at LEA, for the same reason.

As for the weather, this is the current TAF from BoM and might help.

TAF YPXM 192307Z 2000/2024
11007KT 9999 -SHRA SCT005 BKN008
FM201000 16007KT 9999 -SHRA BKN010
TEMPO 2000/2024 1000 TSRA BKN001 FEW020CB
RMK
T 24 26 26 25 Q 1011 1013 1011 1010

It's been a while since I interpreted one of these, but;

- Issued 19/12 at 2307Z, aka 0707 Perth time or 0607 XCH time on 20/12
- Valid until 20/12 midnight zulu, aka 0800 Perth time or 0700 XCH time on 21/12
- Currently low winds at 110 degrees, scattered cloud at 500ft, broken at 1000 feet
- From 20/12 1000-0000Z (aka 1800 PER time, 1700 XCH), rain showers with broken cloud
- From 20/12 0000-2400 (i.e. 24hrs from 0800 PER time, 0700 XCH), temporary thunderstorms and rain are possible with broken cloud to 100 ft and some coughulonimbus cloud at around 2000ft. These clouds are best avoided. Visibility at 1000ft

I do not know the specifics of minima at XCH but having gone through some Airservices Australia stuff, I *think* you need a minima of 1600ft vis, but I may be completely wrong on that. If that is the case though, that TAF with visibility to 1000ft does not meet said minima.

99% of that is true. Not bad if its been a while since you’ve decoded it. The company minimums for XCH (at the planning stage) are 1300’ and 6km visibility. Anything less than that and an alternate will be required. I dare say that they would be carrying alternates anyway?

Landing minima (used once airborne) can get the aircraft down to 484’ and 3km vis (RWY18) or 490’ and 3.3km (RWY36).

Thanks for the detailed information. I do think you need visibility at XCH. What about Thursday's forecast?

If the fleet is already committed, then Virgin, all the way to the executive team, is lying to me.

Tomorrow from 0000Z (0700L), wind is good with a few showers and broken cloud at 1000’. There is also a 30min holding requirement for the entire forecast period for conditions to deteriorate. Cloud at 500’ and vis at 3km.

I really hope they give it a shot and pick you up!

 

[CPMaverick]

99% of that is true. Not bad if its been a while since you’ve decoded it. The company minimums for XCH (at the planning stage) are 1300’ and 6km visibility. Anything less than that and an alternate will be required. I dare say that they would be carrying alternates anyway?

Landing minima (used once airborne) can get the aircraft down to 484’ and 3km vis (RWY18) or 490’ and 3.3km (RWY36).



Tomorrow from 0000Z (0700L), wind is good with a few showers and broken cloud at 1000’. There is also a 30min holding requirement for the entire forecast period for conditions to deteriorate. Cloud at 500’ and vis at 3km.

I really hope they give it a shot and pick you up!

What is an alternate? Another landing airport?

Unfortunately, as already outlined, VA aren't even going to pretend to try in this case. But I'm really interested in your views on that.

 

[henrus]

It looks like an Alliance F70 is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. Is that the VA replacement?

 

[CPMaverick]

It looks like an Alliance F70 is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. Is that the VA replacement?

No. Can you please post where you found this information??

 

[Must...Fly!]

It looks like an Alliance F70 is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. Is that the VA replacement?

Doubt that would have the legs, but not familiar with the F70s.

 

[CPMaverick]

Found it. QQ603. Appears to be a charter. I'll call them in the AM and see if I can get a seat.

Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker!

I'm asking VA to rebook me on this service. We'll see what they say about weather now...

Thank you henrus.

 

[Must...Fly!]

99% of that is true. Not bad if its been a while since you’ve decoded it. The company minimums for XCH (at the planning stage) are 1300’ and 6km visibility. Anything less than that and an alternate will be required. I dare say that they would be carrying alternates anyway?

Landing minima (used once airborne) can get the aircraft down to 484’ and 3km vis (RWY18) or 490’ and 3.3km (RWY36).

Thank you for the extra info, much appreciated.

Been 3.5 years since I looked at this stuff. I was quite happy being one of two who could where I worked. Usually lead to interesting conversations with tech crew.

Alternates for XCH, yes - but if memory serves, as fuel is so expensive (and not necessarily guaranteed to be available in sufficient quantity) on the islands, it's rare to get past LEA without turning back, if the chances are slim.

(Slightly OT) I do recall one bad weather day in the North West. The flight plan was littered with bad weather, including the return TAF to Perth. So to get the flight off the ground (charter, so, priority), one had to take fuel to get to the destination (mine site only aerodrome) and back. Plus holding at the mine site. Plus fuel for return journey or at least to an RPT port (again, huge cost to fuel up at site, if it was even immediately available). But then if they had to hold at destination, the TAF for Perth kicked in - and KGI - so required enough fuel to ADL as well.

"Fill her up" was the order. 26 tonne for a flight with a typical total return flight time of around 3 hours. Western Australia is fun, sometimes.

 

[Lendav Orav]

The contract should be given (back) to QF, I doubt this kind of delay handing would take place

 

[Must...Fly!]

Found it. QQ603. Appears to be a charter. I'll call them in the AM and see if I can get a seat.

Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker!

I'm asking VA to rebook me on this service. We'll see what they say about weather now...

Thank you henrus.

I suspect this is freight, or some sort of government charter. Good luck anyway.

The contract should be given (back) to QF, I doubt this kind of delay handing would take place

QF can't move the clouds any further than VA can.

 

[CPMaverick]

I suspect this is freight, or some sort of government charter. Good luck anyway.

QF can't move the clouds any further than VA can.

Thanks.

No idea if QF would do a better job... But this is looking more and more like this is not about clouds. It's about VA making everyone wait until they have aircraft idle on their schedule.

 

[Lendav Orav]

I suspect this is freight, or some sort of government charter. Good luck anyway.


QF can't move the clouds any further than VA can.

It doesn't sound like it's totally weather-related. QF has greater fleet capacity and likely to be able to deal with this kind of disruption more effectively.

 

[CPMaverick]

It doesn't sound like it's totally weather-related. QF has greater fleet capacity and likely to be able to deal with this kind of disruption more effectively.

It definitely started with the weather, but the 3 day wait is not a weather issue.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Thanks.

No idea if QF would do a better job... But this is looking more and more like this is not about clouds. It's about VA making everyone wait until they have aircraft idle on their schedule.

It doesn't sound like it's totally weather-related. QF has greater fleet capacity and likely to be able to deal with this kind of disruption more effectively.

Well it has been established above with concrete facts by people with experience of these flights that the weather precluded operations and VA were not making it up. Qantas are also not in the business of flying plane loads of people to a destination they are unlikely to land at.

As for tomorrow, who knows. The TAF does look better.

TAF AMD YPXM 201047Z 2012/2112
15010KT 9999 -SHRA BKN012
FM210200 18008KT 9999 -SHRA BKN018
INTER 2012/2102 3000 SHRA BKN010
RMK
T 24 24 24 24 Q 1011 1012 1011 1010

 

[CPMaverick]

I'm sorry if I misunderstood. I agree that weather was a problem for the cancelation. But I didn't get the conclusion that the weather forecast for Wednesday or Thursday were definitively against a successful flight?

The problem with the improved Thursday forecast is that VA have already decided they won't be trying.

 

[Lendav Orav]

Well it has been established above with concrete facts by people with experience of these flights that the weather precluded operations and VA were not making it up. Qantas are also not in the business of flying plane loads of people to a destination they are unlikely to land at.

As for tomorrow, who knows. The TAF does look better.

TAF AMD YPXM 201047Z 2012/2112
15010KT 9999 -SHRA BKN012
FM210200 18008KT 9999 -SHRA BKN018
INTER 2012/2102 3000 SHRA BKN010
RMK
T 24 24 24 24 Q 1011 1012 1011 1010

The lay person can't understand this report. But either way, why is alliance sending in a plane if virgin can't? I'd guess qf has aircraft with different capabilities to va. but just guessing...

 

[AviatorInsight]

What is an alternate? Another landing airport?

Unfortunately, as already outlined, VA aren't even going to pretend to try in this case. But I'm really interested in your views on that.

Yes exactly. If the weather looks bleak and below planning minimas and alternate airport must be planned to and associated fuel requirements that go with that.

Like I said, with the weather the way it is (at the moment) it definitely doesn’t stop an aircraft from getting into the airport, but a matter of alternate and fuel requirements.

Operationally, I’m not familiar with this route as I’ve never done it, but should they put the more reliable B737 on the route I’d be glad to bid for it to see how it works.

The lay person can't understand this report. But either way, why is alliance sending in a plane if virgin can't? I'd guess qf has aircraft with different capabilities to va. but just guessing...

All QF B737s as far as I know have the HUD, whereas VA don’t. I believe this gets the aircraft down to lower minimas but that’s about it. This does seem very strange to me though as to why they’d use a Fokker 70 in lieu of the original A320.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Is there any indication the F70 is a VARA charter, or was that just an assumption? QQ do operate their own charters in to XCH, presumably for government or maybe toll.

 

[CPMaverick]

The Alliance aircraft has nothing to do with VA. Unfortunately.

 

[jb747]

TAF YPXM 192307Z 2000/2024
11007KT 9999 -SHRA SCT005 BKN008
FM201000 16007KT 9999 -SHRA BKN010
TEMPO 2000/2024 1000 TSRA BKN001 FEW020CB
RMK T 24 26 26 25 Q 1011 1013 1011 1010

Let's translate this correctly. The base details give us an easterly wind at 7 knots, showers, and scattered cloud at 500', with broken at 800. So. already below the alternate criteria..which means you need fuel to go somewhere else, right down to touchdown. You'll then need to cover, not only the fuel needed to fly to that somewhere else, but also any weather requirements that it may have. Summer...pretty well everywhere within reach will probably also require at least an hour of holding fuel on arrival.

From 1000Z on the 20th, the weather improves a bit with the cloud now being broken at 1000'.

But, for the entire period of the 20th (Z), the weather will be temporarily (with is arbitrarily an hour) 1000 metres visibility, in thunderstorms, with broken cloud at 100', and another layer at 2000. So, not only below the alternate criteria, but also below the minima for the approach. The vis requirements vary a bit, but that vis is somewhere between a quarter an half of what is needed. On top of that...you don't land in a thunderstorm.

Next up, both Cocos and Christmas are islands in the middle of nowhere. They have their own CASA remote area operation requirements, which generally means more fuel/holding on top of anything that the weather might require.

The fact that you don't see any poor weather means nothing. The BoM weather reports and forecasts are all that is relevant.

The approach aids are limited, and there is no difference between the capability of QF, Virgin, or Fred Bloggs with regard to using them. Given the weather forecast, the entire operation would most likely have required landing at Learmonth in both directions. Dropping a crew there northbound. Coming back, offloading the current crew (or putting them in the cabin). WAITING on the ground until the crew you'd dropped off had had statutory rest (assuming you could find a hotel to actually put them), and then proceeding. So, an on ground wait of about 8-12 hours. At the airport.....at Learmonth.

I'm not surprised that they didn't go.

 

[CPMaverick]

Thanks jb747. What about today's weather?