QF638 go-around and diversion at YBBN

[barleyhi]

ABC Radio news this morning, reports that QANTAS, having changed their themesong from “I Still Call Australia Home” to ”Stand By Your Man” have last night commenced 737 passenger services to Tamworth.

Accomodation was provided on board for the pax in the all inclusive deal. The package contained catering by the Mobil self serve near the bridge…..Tasty pies and sausage rolls fresh from the microwave.

Apparently the crew were an hour late out of Melb for Brisbane and would have missed the runway opening hours (due runway works & holding..I guess)
BN Notam
AD C0266/03 REVIEW C0254/03
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

Would have thouight they could have used 14/32 at 1700m????

[Keg]

Ch 7 this morning was reporting that it ws DJ who diverted to Tamworth? Alas, it's past 0730 and I've lost control of the remote to my four year old and ABC Kids so I can't confirm? ;)

[Snowballs]

Did the Captain wish them all "good night" :E

From the ABC news this morning:

Passengers spend night on diverted plane
Eighty Qantas passengers have had an uncomfortable night sitting in a plane at Tamworth airport in New South Wales after their flight from Melbourne to Brisbane was diverted.

Passenger Dick Wright says the plane left Melbourne an hour late and the landing in Brisbane was aborted because of bad weather and repairs to the runway.

He says the plane landed in Tamworth where passengers were told they had to stay in the plane because there was no accommodation.

Mr Wright says passengers spent almost four hours in Tamworth before being flown back to Brisbane around 5:30am AEST.

"We shouldn't have left Melbourne if the weather was so bad and the runway was under repair and they knew they couldn't land. It was a safety issue," he said.

[Longhauler]

(From news.com.au)

Flight diverted after landing drama
By Sheree Went
May 15, 2003

PASSENGERS aboard a Qantas jet were shaken when a landing in Brisbane was suddenly aborted overnight, apparently because of runway maintenance.

The flight, QF 638 from Melbourne, was about to land just behind schedule at 11.10pm when it suddenly rethrottled and "shot up steeply", according to passengers.

There was no official word on the incident early this morning.

One passenger, 17 year-old Adam Gilmore, said: "It was a normal flight heading into Brisbane, the seatbelt light came on and all was normal as far as I could tell.

"... about five or ten minutes into the descent, we suddenly went full throttle and shot very steeply up and it was a bit scary.

"There was a VB can rolling down the aisle beside me, so clearly we were going up at a reasonable angle."

Adam, a high school student from Brisbane's Kenmore, was speaking from inside the parked plane, which was diverted to Tamworth Airport after the aborted landing.

The passengers were forced to spend three hours on the tarmac at Tamworth this morning after landing there at 1.30am.

Adam said he had been told the plane had to be refuelled before its scheduled take-off for Brisbane at 4.30am.

After the aborted landing, he said it had taken "quite a while" for the flight crew to tell passengers what had happened and that they were being redirected to Tamworth.

He said he had learned later that the long runway at Brisbane airport had not been available.

Adam described the atmosphere on board the parked plane in Tamworth as "not good", with passengers growing restless as their third hour on the tarmac ticked by.

Hiss mother Linda, who was waiting in Brisbane to collect her son, said she had heard only two announcements alerting the waiting crowd to what was going on.

"We are getting no information at all, absolutely nothing," Mrs Gilmore said.

"There is no Qantas person anywhere here telling us what is going on."

A spokesman at Brisbane Airport would not comment on the aborted landing, but said the long runway at Brisbane was out of action while asphalt was being poured.

A Qantas spokesman also would not comment, but said the plane would leave Tamworth by 4.30am.

It was due to arrive in Brisbane at 5.05am.

[Lozza2002]

ABC Online

Posted: Thur, 15 May 2003 6:52 AEST

Passengers spend night on diverted plane
Eighty Qantas passengers have had an uncomfortable night sitting in a plane at Tamworth airport in New South Wales after their flight from Melbourne to Brisbane was diverted.

Passenger Dick Wright says the plane left Melbourne an hour late and the landing in Brisbane was aborted because of bad weather and repairs to the runway.

He says the plane landed in Tamworth where passengers were told they had to stay in the plane because there was no accommodation.

Mr Wright says passengers spent almost four hours in Tamworth before being flown back to Brisbane around 5:30am AEST.

"We shouldn't have left Melbourne if the weather was so bad and the runway was under repair and they knew they couldn't land. It was a safety issue," he said

[Just a Grunt]

Seems a Qantas flight from Melbourne executed a go-around on approach into Brisbane last night due to maintenance being conducted on the runway (01/19)- allegedly asphalt (perhaps concrete??) being poured. Flight was then diverted to Tamworth where it sat on the apron for 3 hours - lots of unhappy pax. No comment from Qantas or ATSB as yet.

Was the flight cleared to land on that runway? If so, how??? If not...................???????

Or just a beat-up?

[URL=http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6437983%255E2,00.html]

Jeff

[The Riddler]

ABC Online
Last Update: Thursday, May 15, 2003. 6:52am (AEST)


Passengers spend night on diverted plane
Eighty Qantas passengers have had an uncomfortable night sitting in a plane at Tamworth airport in New South Wales after their flight from Melbourne to Brisbane was diverted.

Passenger Dick Wright says the plane left Melbourne an hour late and the landing in Brisbane was aborted because of bad weather and repairs to the runway.

He says the plane landed in Tamworth where passengers were told they had to stay in the plane because there was no accommodation.

Mr Wright says passengers spent almost four hours in Tamworth before being flown back to Brisbane around 5:30am AEST.

"We shouldn't have left Melbourne if the weather was so bad and the runway was under repair and they knew they couldn't land. It was a safety issue," he said.

."Michael Sharp from Qantas says the pilot had planned to use the cross runway in Brisbane but aborted the landing because of weather conditions.

"It would've been a difficult one for the passengers and that is regrettable and we apologise for that, however I understand while in Tamworth the pilot was hopeful the main runway would be made available soon.

"That obviously didn't happen until 5:00am but as I said these decisions were all made in the interests of safety

[Grog Frog]

Why does QF continue to expand the myth that there is only one pilot on board.


"Michael Sharp from Qantas says the pilot had planned" etc


Secondly congratulations to QF, the lesson from QF1 has been learned.

If you can't make a safe stable approach go-around, what is the big deal, apart from the microwave pies, pasties and sausage rolls in TW

[aero979]

no accomodation or Qantas did not want to pay for it???

[MoFo]

Grog Frog.
Just one on board who makes the final decision buddy after taking all factors into consideration. Unlike the media.

[Buster Hyman]

Radio reports are saying it was due to WX at YBBN. Anyway, It'll be off to Dunnunda for this one!:D ;)

[Capt Fathom]

For a 4 hour transit, why would the passengers need accomodation? It would be a logistical nightmare at that hour of the morning.
You would think they could have opened the terminal!

[Grog Frog]

MoFo,

Agree, but it would be a brave Skipper to continue when the FO
calls go-around.

[Keg]

OK, I got it wrong earlier (that'll learn me for feeding kids and listening to news at the same time!).

Couple of issues here. The actual events of the diversion and what was told to the punters I'll leave alone.

Reporting by the media though. ROFLMAO. Just watched the Ch 7 1030hrs news and they had an interview with a kid- don't know if it was the same kid as before. Excerpts from the above though!

about five or ten minutes into the descent...

That puts you about 10,000 feet unless his time estimate is out between 100 and 400%.

..we suddenly went full throttle and shot very steeply up and it was a bit scary.

What, like normally happens when the aircraft takes off?

There was a VB can rolling down the aisle beside me, so clearly we were going up at a reasonable angle."

This happens when the aircraft is 'straight and level' so yeah, it must have been a 'reasonable angle'.

After the aborted landing, he said it had taken "quite a while" for the flight crew to tell passengers what had happened...

Goodness knows those pilots should tell the passengers the very second something is not quite right. Never mind flying the aeroplane, getting weathers, arranging clearances etc. Just tell the passengers straight away.

Anyway, lots of things here. Weather (which may have precluded an approach and landing onto 14/32), runway works, etc, etc. Should be interesting in the wash up.

[No. 15]

Was there a NOTAM out regarding the runway repairs? Either way, someone's butt is going to get kicked......

Funny how the "credible" journos rely on passenger info as being the ones to decide what is or isn't safe for heavy jet / airline ops.

[Keg]

How about this for a scenario though?

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.

Now, I have absolutely no idea if I'm even close to the mark but my scenario isn't out of the realms of possibilities. Indeed apart from the crews actions WRT information, no one may get backside kicked and someone may get praised for handling a tough job well.

At the moment though, none of us (and least of all the media) have a clue as to what happened or why.

[Buster Hyman]

These punters were damned lucky that the crew didn't walk off due to duty hour limitations!!!;) :p As it was, the servo probably gave them better food anyway!:yuk:

[King Benny]

Calling for hotel rooms for a tech stop is stupid in my opinion, not opening up ther terminal so the punters can get out is also silly though. In experence with QF ground staff, those claims of only two broadcast to waiting people is so typical. Maybe it was just to busy at BN after 2am this morning. There is nothing wrong with a go around, ever. Don't hang to much poo on the boys and girls on the front line in the 737, they have to deal with there ground departments too. But on a happy note, the only thing in life that is for sure is if you just feel like a bit of abuse by arrogant snotty nose dwebs, check in at a QF counter in Brissy. They wont let you down. :)

[Cypher]

I dunno.. you get them back onto the ground in ONE piece and they still complain!!!

You just can't win damn it!!!!! :suspect:

[King Benny]

Buster, even if they did run out of duty, I am sure nothing the minister of Qantas wont fix up for them.:}

[kimwest]

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."

[missy]

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.

[Avago]

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.

[Ralph the Bong]

By recollection, CG has a curfew at night. I dont know about the other airports. Question: what was the WX??

[Lozza2002]

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
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.

Well I'll save them some time..:p

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.
I,m by no means an expert on this subject but after reading your post i would say thats seems highly likely...:ok:

Regards
Lozza :ok:

[lackov]

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. ;)

[woftam]

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.


:ok:

[MoFo]

King Benny
I agree about the Brisbane staff. Give a Brisbanite an inch of power and they'll act like God.

[Groaner]

There was a VB can rolling down the aisle beside me

See - it was Virgin Blue's fault!

[Pinky the pilot]

Avago; re Cruze Power's post; can't you tell satire/ a wind up when you see it?:confused:

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[BlueEagle]

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!:confused:

[Eastwest Loco]

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

[Metro man]

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.

[ferris]

Maybe airlines generally need to re-think about how much info they give pax.

On another thread recently (so many threads, so little time:rolleyes: ) 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.

[Ozgrade3]

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.

[Douglas Mcdonnell]

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!!

[Reverend Doctor Doug]

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

[Metro man]

I've got some more shocking news too, aircraft routinely depart with below legal minimum fuel required !:eek:

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.

[Spotlight]

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.

[Fris B. Fairing]

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

[No. 15]

When I initially posted all I had heard about the situation was that the a/c went around due to unexpected repairs being carried out on the rwy, ie; the crew were not informed or knew of the repair work. Hence my post, as I wanted to find out the truth.

Cruz Power: Grow Up. Check your private messages as I refuse to get into a personal attack on a public forum. God help us all if anyone else subscribes to your level and opinion of safety. Excuse me for being an ignorant and arrogant ass in thinking that the pax also paid for the crews' expertise and professionalism.

Couldn't agree more with Eastwest Loco and Metro Man. Great to see "professional" pilots giving good advice and information - isn't that a big purpose of this forum?

My gripe is as per many others... the damn pond scum journos beating up a story from "Dick" the passenger. Hats off to the QF crew for a professional job. Only hassle for QF seems to be a customer relations issue. But what could they do at that time of night?

[661 KTAS]

On the same evening news was a 15 second piece on a NSW Air Ambulance King Air that REPORTEDLY dragged the dunlops on the breakwall at Coffs Harbour.

If my memory serves me correctly, the breakwall at Coffs is a reasonable distance from the aerodrome and any aircraft that is low enough to ripp the left main gear off is a much more significant story I would have thought !.

Sounds like its a standard media beatup - Anyone know the real story ? Have the RFDS taken over yet ?? - Noticed that the rego and perhaps some kind of logo on the tail was covered up !

[The Riddler]

661 KTAS,

This is being discussed on another post.


http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90068

:ok:

[woftam]

EWL,
Pretty well summed up mate.
And no,they don't have airstairs.
My thoughts on "journalists" have been previously aired.
Bunch of #ankers!!!
Must be a bloody slow news day when a simple weather diversion makes the six o'clock news.
Get a life you idiots !
As someone else has said you are slipping the boot in to an industry already on it's knees due SARS.

:mad: :mad: :* :*

[drivabilongbalus]

BIK

Just for your info, TJB has no airstairs, not sure what stairs they would even have at TMW.:confused:

[Bubbette]

re sitting on the runway, this happened to me on Delta at MCO a few years ago. It was evening, the plane was late incoming, and I, even though I'm not a pilot, knew that the crew was about to exceed their permitted work time before they go back to LGA. They didn't tell us anything. Don't know why. We hadn't left the gate, but they still didn't let us off for a few hours, until the permitted time had expired.

[topend3]

EWL fully agree with your post, don't mean to be picky but TJB is a 737-376.

:ok: :ok:

[MoFo]

Aircraft go around every day for various reasons.
Nobody gives those " I Thought I Was Going To Die"interviews because no one sticks a microphone under their nose, because nobody gives a sh*t.

The SLF get a microphone in front of them and want to play the game. The media are interested therefore they must have just had a life threatening experience.

Ho Hum. Just another day at the coalface at QF.

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Given the disgraceful way the media acts when a 'routine' aviation situation occurs.

How would the media act if (heaven forbid) a real avaition emergency occured.

Frank Sinatra summed up the Australian Media pretty well a couple of decades ago - during a down under visit.

He described them as being 'whores & pimps'.

[Tixylicks]

You can bet if the Media Boffins stuck a mic under the nose of a punter after all this and they said something along the lines of "Nahh it was all cool mate, No Worries" then they would drop em like a hot potato and go and find someone who's can give em what they want.

"Ah excuse me!! Was anybody's life in danger? Want your friends to see you on the news? Step this way!!"

Clowns- all of em

Tixy

[Flight Detent]

Just a couple of questions -
a/ with the WX forecast for BNE, surely the Captain had enough fuel aboard for many more than ONE approach!

b/ why did he only carry out ONE approach, why not hold for a few minutes and try again, it's not a long way from Brisbane to Tamworth!

c/ when the aircraft is parked on the tarmac at Tamworth, why can't the pax get off and stretch their legs, and who could stop anyone anyway. When I fly as a pax I am not a prisoner of the crew, if I want to get off in that circumstance, I should be allowed to do so!!

These planning details would have been predictable before he left MEL, even for a not-so-experienced (usually) B737 Captain, surely he's seen this sort of stuff before!!

Cheers

[661 KTAS]

Are there any stairs that can service a 737 at YSTW ??

Perhaps thats why people werent let off ?

[amos2]

Perhaps I'm missing something here in respect to Metro's posting re his scenario 1 & 2?

Unless I read you wrong Metro, you're suggesting that you would depart A for C, with the legally required fuel, and then when over or abeam C would determine if you had enough fuel to go to B (which is where you really are supposed to be going) and then change your flight plan and go there!

OR (scenario 2)

When over or abeam C if you don't have sufficient fuel to go to B (which is where you are really supposed to be going) then you simply land at C much to the surprise of the cretins down the back!

Have I got that right? If so, we will have to resit flight planning!

If I have it wrong, then I apologise.

You can of course depart A for B and replan over or abeam C, but not the other way around! I suspect, however, that that is what you meant!

[Feather #3]

Amos2

I didn't read Metro's post but what you've said above gives;

1) the American flightplanning system of 're-file inflight', and

2) a modification of the Qantas system which gives A-B reliability in the high 90's.

At all times, the airlines state they're going A-B to the pax. it's how you stay legal with little fuel at the end that counts.

G'day ;)

[sniffer dog]

I sincerely hope the media read this thread, as we all know a good ending and facts don't suit their sensationalist B....S....t

because the media, journos and all the other vermin scum in it WILL NOT tell the truth, they invade peoples privacy and call themselves professionals, they can't even spell the word. LOW LIFES' OF THE HIGHEST ORDER a POX ON THEM ALL

:*

[Eastwest Loco]

Whoops topend and others - for some reason I thought the TJ rego's 73's were 476 series.

As for the airstairs, was at that stage unsure of A/C type.

TMW is served by QF Link, and the Airport run by the council.

As if you could get one of the silvertails of TMW out of their cot, or have them commit dollars to calling out an employee to slap static stairs up to the aeroplane. Fat chance.

The route agent would no doubt have done the job, if suitable stairs are available and if notified, but again the unknown factor of weather - 5 minutes - 5 hours?

Guts of matter.

Qf right - media idiots - SLF still worse than sheep at a drenching.

Best all

EWL

[amos2]

...is Tamworth normally carried as an alternate by Qantas?

I doubt it!

[Metro man]

The 14 VOR/DME approach is a lot less precise (it uses the VOR at the beginning of runway 19) than the 01 or 19 ILS. Even though it looks fairly straight in the Jepp it does not line you up precisely with the centre line like an ILS does. Minima is 600' and 3.2km vis versus 220'+PEC and 0.8km vis on the ILS. RW 14 at 1760m is only half the length of the main runway and probably getting a bit tight for a 737, especially when wet and carrying an extra 5 knots or so due turbulance.

Captain probably did not fancy seeing the runway at the last second whilst high ,slightly fast and not quite lined up and then having to land on a short wet runway. Too may things starting to add up here. He probably didn't think it was worth trying a second approach as things wouldn't improve greatly in 10 minutes due to the extent of the weather ,not just talking about an isolated CB overhead the field that night.Operations manuals normally limit the number of approaches that can be made before the pilot diverts (2-3)

Captain diverted and landed safely ,pax inconvenienced and fed up but the whole thing will soon be forgotten about.

[Feather #3]

No offence intended. :D

TW was indeed the alternate for a friend's B737 the morning AFTER the Great Diversion !

They'd added up the fuel and looked at every other diversion option; all were below either ALTN CRIT or landing minima!! :eek:

As one of our supervisories said to CASA'a forebears [and they had a few!], "If you stick a long runway with an ILS close to a location with poor forecasting, you can expect MORE diversions here not less!!" [YSCB circa 1974]

You may not have to use the option very often [YPLM comes to mind], but they're still available. Indeed, my friend was almost the second TW diversion.

G'day ;)

[RaTa]

Flight Detent

In answer to your questions:
(a) It is not unusual to not carry more fuel than required for one approach and then diversion.
(b) See answer (a).
(c) No you will not be allowed to do just what you want to do, that does not mean that you are a prisoner but passengers are generally kept together as it causes problems when it is time to depart, usually causing further delays. (security and lost passengers). Also note the time of night, what would be available for the passengers at a small country town airport that early in the morning.....not a lot!
It does not matter how experienced the Captain was, these things happen to the best of them at one time or other, in all airlines! And BTW a lot of the 737 captains are very experienced.
Nobody wants the disruption for the passengers, but they arrived at their destination safely which at the end of the day is what matters most.

[badarse]

Loved the VB can angle of attack indicator. Watch for the telemovie coming soon to aa station near you.

[Dan Kelly]

I find some of the responses on this thread quite alarming.

I don't understand how people can realistically think that the operating crew didn't consider Coolangatta or Maroochy. I can't imagine any RPT Jet captain diverting BN to TW and not considering closer alternatives.

Flight Detent

In this day and age, if the pax deplane, they must be security screened before re boarding. I have enough trouble getting security people on hand for day time unscheduled tech stop (for fuel), I would imagine that in TW at night, it would be nigh on impossible.

Therefore, no security, no deplane, and your belief that you should be able to get off becomes irrelevant.

[Area 7]

Very normal really.

A/C departed knowing RW01/19 closed due works. (Thats why they had enough fuel to reach TW).

They planned to do the VOR/BME to RW14. Didn't get visual and went round.

CG and maroochy had similar WX and only VOR app's as well.

Decided to divert to TW ( a normal QF 737 alternate) with required reserves and where the WX was better.

Waited on the ground TW until Wx improved or RW 01/19 reopened.

Simple and all legal!
:ok:

[Spotlight]

Seems to me, that at the end of the day it probably was a big stuff up. Lousy weather and only the cross strip would seem to be a pretty good reason not to go.
To dig a bit deeper, who decides the fuel uplift for QF Domestic and why wasn't Rocky the alternate, agent on ground etc.

[amos2]

You're right Area 7..."very simple and all legal"

Also very amateurish I would suggest, to carry out a missed approach (quite proper) followed by a divert( quite proper)
and then plonk down in a "paddock" and sit there for 3/4 hrs with no amenities for the SLF.

Seems more like a G/A operation to me than RPT!

I ask the question again...is TW a normal alternate for Qantas 737 ops?

Or was this an emergency situation, which would change the whole outlook of course.

[Wizofoz]

Amos,

HE was there, YOU weren't.

Kindly list every delay and divertion you've ever made so we can all play "Monday Morning Quarter Back" and second guess you!

I would call YOURS the unproffestional attitude!

[SOPS]

:confused: Amos. I am having trouble at your reason. The FACTS appear to be, aircraft arrives, crew decides not to land and diverts to a suitable airport I did not know that having a five star hotel with a Roller Shuttle, was a requirement for a diversion, I thought it was just to keep your aircraft, your crew, and your pax safe. Perhaps you have never had that task?

[RaTa]

Amos

I thought you had read Area 7's post.......he does say that TW is a normal QF 737 alternate.

[amos2]

I am more than happy to be admonished if TW is a normal alternate for Qantas...and it would seem it is.

So, why are we all having this discussion?

[lambsie]

The QF PR department needs a rocket for not leaping to the defence of the crew. Their silence was positively insulting to all professional aircrew.

[RaTa]

Lambsie..... I suppose that they have not said anything is because 24 hrs after the event, the only place where it is remembered and discussed is in here!

[amos2]

Are you for real Over The Top?

Quote..."no stairs mean no pax leave the A/C"

No stairs mean no one leaves the A/C!

Think about it a bit more!

[Woomera]

Sounds to me like the system worked exactly as it should.

Anyone who has flown around in countries where they have REAL weather, would recognise this as a relatively common occurence.

OK the trigger was runway repairs, but the Tamworth option was a weather enforced one.

Last time it happened to me was Wichita/Denver diverted to Rapid City about an hour North, parked up with abo9ut half a dozen others, pleasant couple of hours wandering about the terminal (Tamworth sized), quick dash back to Denver to catch a hole in the weather and the last aircraft in or out for three days, after spending another hour groping our way from the runway to the terminal.

No drama, no ructions, just the way it is.

We don't know how lucky we are with Oz wx.

[Spotlight]

Iwilljeesuswheeze

I gather from your previous posts that you don't actually work in the industry. Assuming it is your intention to gain employment, take some advice and don't go sending off emails to TV stations.

[FiveTanks?]

I will

Flying for nothing for Jehovas until they wake up to you doesnt count.

[amos2]

This thread has totally lost the plot!

[tenke]

and...have you gone solo yet?