Thunderstorm chaos
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you watch the next 10 minutes or so after the attempted landing you will see a Fokker 100 out of POM hold to the SW and then divert to, I presume OOL, and the QANTAS 734 also decide to head in that direction.
It was also noticeable that the ground noise stations to the SW of BNE were giving raised readings at regular intervals. That of course may have been due to passing trucks but it also looked like it could have been thunderclaps.
It was also noticeable that the ground noise stations to the SW of BNE were giving raised readings at regular intervals. That of course may have been due to passing trucks but it also looked like it could have been thunderclaps.
I think you are drawing conclusions based on questionable information and understanding of what is going on. By all means, chuck the book at them after having a look at the real data. My take is that it was merely an interesting, lateral-thinking approach that didn't work out and I'd leave it at that. 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...you will see a Fokker 100 out of POM hold to the SW and then divert to, I presume OOL, and the QANTAS 734 also...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The only "plane" (apart from jaba in the weeds out west) I can see at that time is a 734 BNE>OOL attempting to land on 01.
Actually I did come on from out west the day before, some storms to keep clear of but nothing like the monster of a cell yesterday afternoon. From the view I had safely in my Landcruiser it was a sight alright! Just watched the QF flight and zoomed up appropriately the "Visual Approach" looked OK to me, at that time I had a good view of the storm and it was clear to the NW of the cell, and the track I see shows it tracking straight down the runway. Maybe your map is wonky?
The webtrack is very accurate from my observations in the past.
After his go round the new atis was
ATIS YBBN I 150711
APCH: EXP INSTRUMENT APCH
RWY: 01
OPR INFO: POSSIBLE DELAYS
FOR SOUTHBOUND JET DEPARTURES
DUE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT,
HIAL ON
+ WIND: 150/20,
MAX DW 18,MAX XW 23
+ VIS: REDUCING TO 5000M IN RA
CLD: FEW018 FEW025 FEW035CB
+ TMP: 22
+ QNH: 1009
+ SIGWX: TS AT AD
ATIS YBBN I 150711
APCH: EXP INSTRUMENT APCH
RWY: 01
OPR INFO: POSSIBLE DELAYS
FOR SOUTHBOUND JET DEPARTURES
DUE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT,
HIAL ON
+ WIND: 150/20,
MAX DW 18,MAX XW 23
+ VIS: REDUCING TO 5000M IN RA
CLD: FEW018 FEW025 FEW035CB
+ TMP: 22
+ QNH: 1009
+ SIGWX: TS AT AD
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Smog Central
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From stuff.co.nz
'More storms are predicted to hit Brisbane today, a day after tennis ball-sized hail caused havoc in the city's south and east.' Sporting flying at YBBN
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it was clear to the north of the aerodrome, (The noise monitors on the RW extended centreline give a good indication of the storms whereabouts at the time.) and as the QF976 departed RW01 just prior to the QF126 GA, the tower reported wind was Easterly at 9 - 12 knots. I have no argument with the aircraft making a visual approach, my concern is the action below 500ft and the local wx conditions in the area at that time. If you want to have another look at Webtrak at 05.05.31pm local (15 December)(pause the playback there) you will see that the aircraft is indicated alt - 150m (500ft) in a left turn towards the runway but still 50 degrees off runway heading. (Not meeting the 'stable' criteria that we have in mainline QF anyway). The aircraft (according to webtrak) does not Go Around for another 30 seconds from an indicated altitude of 53 metres. Do JetConnect have a '500ft Stable' call, and if so what was going on for the next half minute?
For Bloggsie, I acknowledge that I may be
however I don't have any doubt as to my
edit
For Bloggsie, I acknowledge that I may be
drawing conclusions based on questionable information
understanding of what is going on
Last edited by Trent 972; 16th Dec 2010 at 04:53.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
16th Dec Storms
Well another batch this afternoon, a bit earlier, and more mayhem
This JQ arrival was trying hard but I assume they diverted to YBSU after bugging out off the 19ILS, and watching the storm front at the time it was pretty huge!
This JQ arrival was trying hard but I assume they diverted to YBSU after bugging out off the 19ILS, and watching the storm front at the time it was pretty huge!
They'd better have gotten out of MC quickly otherwise they would have got a nice windscreen wash:
The aircraft (according to webtrak)
You don't know how accurate the altitude figures are
You don't know the refresh rates
You don't know how accurate the position is laterally
You don't know what the crew could see out the window
You don't know what kind of instrument approach (if any) was flown
You don't know the airline's procedures
All that I would trust in this webtrack stuff is the noise level at those recorders and seeing the approximate path of an aircraft if it diverts or trundles around stuff.
Save the approach stuffup analysis for a FOQA analysis or equivalent.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compressor,
What I have a problem with is seeing all the young S/O’s in mainline QF who have had any chance of a progressive career stymied by the farming out of routes to the cheapest entity that the QF board can create.
This flight was a QANTAS flight from AKL-BNE operated by Jetconnect. I would like nothing more than the real data for this approach to be made public knowledge, but I won’t hold my breath.
I’ll tell you something else you don't know. If I started this ‘discussion’ by saying that whilst watching a huge storm approaching, (which was on the airport boundary fence, (go to LiveATC for the recording if you wish and download 15 dec 0700Z) I saw a QANTAS 737 coming from over the ‘Brekkie Creek’ turning around the Ascot race course at low level and heading to the east whilst descending and thinking WTF is this idiot up to, you probably wouldn’t believe me.
You can take what you want from Webtrak, but from what I saw, it seems to be 'in the ball park’.
What I have a problem with is seeing all the young S/O’s in mainline QF who have had any chance of a progressive career stymied by the farming out of routes to the cheapest entity that the QF board can create.
This flight was a QANTAS flight from AKL-BNE operated by Jetconnect. I would like nothing more than the real data for this approach to be made public knowledge, but I won’t hold my breath.
I’ll tell you something else you don't know. If I started this ‘discussion’ by saying that whilst watching a huge storm approaching, (which was on the airport boundary fence, (go to LiveATC for the recording if you wish and download 15 dec 0700Z) I saw a QANTAS 737 coming from over the ‘Brekkie Creek’ turning around the Ascot race course at low level and heading to the east whilst descending and thinking WTF is this idiot up to, you probably wouldn’t believe me.
You can take what you want from Webtrak, but from what I saw, it seems to be 'in the ball park’.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
With respect to Stallie, the webtracks feed comes from where? 
I think Trent has a very valid point, that is the kind of behaviour that you exepect in a northern neighbours airports and it eventually got them banned from EU airspace along with a lot of other tech failures.
Not something you want to see our national icon doing is it?
I bet the real data lines up pretty much with the webtracks.....have a look at the JT thread and the video's posted on youtube!
Its one thing for a PVT operation in his C182 to do that or maybe a Twotter in PNG, but not a B737 in Brisbane.
I think Trent has a very valid point, that is the kind of behaviour that you exepect in a northern neighbours airports and it eventually got them banned from EU airspace along with a lot of other tech failures.
Not something you want to see our national icon doing is it?
I bet the real data lines up pretty much with the webtracks.....have a look at the JT thread and the video's posted on youtube!
Its one thing for a PVT operation in his C182 to do that or maybe a Twotter in PNG, but not a B737 in Brisbane.
We where scooting around the tops of that stuff last night coming back from MK.
Nasty stuff the 'show' was brilliant. Tops where on or about 38K stretching for miles from well inland towards the coast. There where multiple highly active cells in that lot, it all seemed to be merging, the 'perfect storm':-)
'jaba' at least in yr plastic bird the lightening would look for someone else to fry buddy!:-)
Wmk2:-)
Nasty stuff the 'show' was brilliant. Tops where on or about 38K stretching for miles from well inland towards the coast. There where multiple highly active cells in that lot, it all seemed to be merging, the 'perfect storm':-)
'jaba' at least in yr plastic bird the lightening would look for someone else to fry buddy!:-)
Wmk2:-)
I watched the whole approach from when he passed overhead the city until about 300ft on final
Looked a completely normal visual approach pretty well by the river track.
Didn't appear low otherwise I would of lost him behind the Hamo hill.
The CB tracked by the 01 ILS.
No idea about the web track accuracy but by the eye looked fine.
He arrived just after the wind change, wasn't stabilised and correctly went round.
Looked a completely normal visual approach pretty well by the river track.
Didn't appear low otherwise I would of lost him behind the Hamo hill.
The CB tracked by the 01 ILS.
No idea about the web track accuracy but by the eye looked fine.
He arrived just after the wind change, wasn't stabilised and correctly went round.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So megle2 are you, or anyone able to answer my earlier question as to whether JetConnect have a policy of being 'Stable' by 500ft, and what the criteria for stable is?
Do JetConnect have rules similar to? -
I doubt the definition of 'immediate missed approach' would include 30+ seconds later and some 300ft lower.
Perhaps they don't have the above requirements, and it is just a hangover from the olden days for overpriced, inefficient legacy carriers.
Do JetConnect have rules similar to? -
STABLE APPROACH
A stable approach exists when the aircraft is configured for landing, normal approach path, correct thrust, rate of descent and airspeed as required under the prevailing conditions. Unless specified in a published procedure, the aircraft is required to be tracking the extended centreline of the runway with manoeuvring completed by 500 ft RA. If this does not occur, the approach is to be considered ‘Not Stable’ and the PF must execute an immediate missed approach.
A stable approach exists when the aircraft is configured for landing, normal approach path, correct thrust, rate of descent and airspeed as required under the prevailing conditions. Unless specified in a published procedure, the aircraft is required to be tracking the extended centreline of the runway with manoeuvring completed by 500 ft RA. If this does not occur, the approach is to be considered ‘Not Stable’ and the PF must execute an immediate missed approach.
Perhaps they don't have the above requirements, and it is just a hangover from the olden days for overpriced, inefficient legacy carriers.