Qantas Fuel Policy Forces Plane To Land In Heavy Fog

[peter991]

Qantas fuel policy forces plane to land in heavy fog

According to an investigation by News.com.au, Qantas pilots flying from Singapore to Perth on 16 September, 2006 were forced to land at Perth Airport despite heavy fog. This was because it did not have enough fuel to divert to a more suitable airport.

Qantas fuel policy does not allow aircraft to carry more than the minimum necessary amount of fuel on any given flight. As a result, an Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report found that Qantas’s fuel policy could not accommodate a landing at a different runway if the conditions proved to be dangerous in Perth.

Although Qantas workers put more than the minimum required amount of fuel into the plane’s tanks, this was not enough to assure a safe landing somewhere else.

“In this case, the flight crew demonstrated their awareness of the risk in their conservative decision to carry fuel out of Singapore that was additional to the minimum fuel policy requirement,” the ATSB was quoted as saying in the report.

Despite the risks involved, the ATSB supported the pilots’ decision to land in Perth.

Peter

I find the above deeply disturbing! I wonder what heppens when there is severe headwinds. Is this the end of Qantas's much noted 'Qantas never crashes' policy? How many other airlines on long-haul flights (like budget carrier Jetstar BKK-Melbourne) also have a minimum fuel policy to keep costs down?

[Filer]

I find the above deeply disturbing! I wonder what heppens when there is severe headwinds. Is this the end of Qantas's much noted 'Qantas never crashes' policy? How many other airlines on long-haul flights (like budget carrier Jetstar BKK-Melbourne) also have a minimum fuel policy to keep costs down?

I agree with the concern. Some 5-6 years ago Malaysia Airlines ran into some very bad publicity in the UK when ground staff doing turnaround checks on the MH planes exposed the fact that the planes frequently arrived almost completely empty of fuel - just enough to taxi to the gate, but nothing in reserve. This was alleged to be the result of the airline's policy of flying with the very minimum amount of fuel needed, to save weight (and thus fuel) and money.

I believe that a lot of the well-informed comment at that time was that Malaysia Airlines was just unlucky to have been picked out as an offender, and that strict 'minimise-fuel' policies happened across all airlines - and that on long routes to busy airports, with delays in landing, there were frequently some narrow escapes. The last actual disaster of this type was, I think, in 1990, when an Avianca 707 crashed 15 miles short of JFK on a 5 hour flight from Colonbia after running out of fuel. It had been forced into holding patterns for an additional 90 minutes and various reports said that the captain appeared to have been reluctant to declare an emergency

I wonder whether in fact the latest Qantas experience is simply typical of all airlines in the current cost-conscious environment and it is worrying.

Doesn't the captain of the plane have responsibility to ensure that enough fuel is loaded to cover all contingencies, taking into account route, weather conditions etc, and that his decision always overrides the company's target policy?

Maybe there's a forum member with airline flying experience who can give some real insight into this issue.

[midas]

that's hugely disappointing and it shows a huge shift in the attitude

of Qantas to not compromising on these matters. We already knew

that this has been happening a long time at Jetstar so it seems

this is now endemic throughout the company

[tw25rw]

Don't like to defend Qantas, as they are pretty crap in my experience.. But where could they divert to? Perth is a long way from anywhere..

[Pink Mist]

Qantas workers dont refuell aircraft, oil company employees do

[tw25rw]

Qantas workers dont refuell aircraft, oil company employees do

Yeah, but Qantas tell them how much to put in. They don't just tell them to get as much in as they can before smokoe...

[skippybangkok]

Qantas workers dont refuell aircraft, oil company employees do

Obviously in the loop ( not ).

[sibeymai]

all well and good that the aircraft could still land in the foggy conditions. But what if the runway became unusable or damaged in some way ? The pilots must have had other options but if exercised would have inconvenienced passengers.

Sorry, I refuse to believe the pilots only had one option for landing.

Edited August 21, 2007 by sibeymai

[Levent]

Despite the original post stating that the ATSB has been looking into this, I find it very hard to believe that Qantas would actually be doing this for the simple fact that it is illegal. An airliner must have sufficient fuel to fly to its scheduled destination under the forecasted weather conditions, plus fuel to remain in a holding pattern for an amount of time, plus fuel to divert to another suitable airport after holding. These are the rules. Qantas, just as other airlines, may want to cut costs here and there, but there is no way they will be able to have a minimum fuel policy legally. If this is happening, it's about time CASA (the Australian aviation authority) wakes up and does something about it.

I am not familiar with the area, but I can imagine that Perth is far away from a suitable airport to land a big jet... I would think that the flight would be diverted to Darwin?

[tw25rw]

Despite the original post stating that the ATSB has been looking into this, I find it very hard to believe that Qantas would actually be doing this for the simple fact that it is illegal. An airliner must have sufficient fuel to fly to its scheduled destination under the forecasted weather conditions, plus fuel to remain in a holding pattern for an amount of time, plus fuel to divert to another suitable airport after holding. These are the rules. Qantas, just as other airlines, may want to cut costs here and there, but there is no way they will be able to have a minimum fuel policy legally. If this is happening, it's about time CASA (the Australian aviation authority) wakes up and does something about it.

I am not familiar with the area, but I can imagine that Perth is far away from a suitable airport to land a big jet... I would think that the flight would be diverted to Darwin?

Darwin is hours away so would only go there if they had plenty of warning and no better option.

There are other airports in the region like Port Headland. Probably just too tight to pay for the extra fuel needed.

[skippybangkok]

Despite the original post stating that the ATSB has been looking into this, I find it very hard to believe that Qantas would actually be doing this for the simple fact that it is illegal. An airliner must have sufficient fuel to fly to its scheduled destination under the forecasted weather conditions, plus fuel to remain in a holding pattern for an amount of time, plus fuel to divert to another suitable airport after holding. These are the rules. Qantas, just as other airlines, may want to cut costs here and there, but there is no way they will be able to have a minimum fuel policy legally. If this is happening, it's about time CASA (the Australian aviation authority) wakes up and does something about it.

I am not familiar with the area, but I can imagine that Perth is far away from a suitable airport to land a big jet... I would think that the flight would be diverted to Darwin?

I tend to agree with this statement. There are minimum legal requirements to have enough fuel to an alternative airport ( a 747 can land on other airstrips in the area - not familiar with Perth, but I am sure there as some around which could accommodate). From memory, (20 years back ), I think there was a 2hour reserve required if no alternative airport.

Although not a QANTAS fan, would like to see some real facts put on the table about such claims.

[torrenova]

I had in my head a 2 or 3 hour margin above conditions but I'm not able to quote any source. I remember the issue about Malaysia Airlines coming in requesting immediate glide path as they were on fumes.

Not sure about the cost arguments as the extra fuel purchase cost would be a one off (it would not ordinarily be used) though I accept the extra carriage costs (using more fuel to carry the excess fuel).

[Carmine6]

Despite the original post stating that the ATSB has been looking into this, I find it very hard to believe that Qantas would actually be doing this for the simple fact that it is illegal. An airliner must have sufficient fuel to fly to its scheduled destination under the forecasted weather conditions, plus fuel to remain in a holding pattern for an amount of time, plus fuel to divert to another suitable airport after holding. These are the rules. Qantas, just as other airlines, may want to cut costs here and there, but there is no way they will be able to have a minimum fuel policy legally. If this is happening, it's about time CASA (the Australian aviation authority) wakes up and does something about it.

I am not familiar with the area, but I can imagine that Perth is far away from a suitable airport to land a big jet... I would think that the flight would be diverted to Darwin?

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/invest...r200605473.aspx

Report abstract:

On 16 September 2006 at 0038 Western Standard Time, an Airbus Industrie A330 landed on runway 21 at Perth Airport in weather conditions that were below the applicable landing minima. The aircraft, registered VH-QPJ, was being operated in accordance with the instrument flight rules (IFR) on a scheduled passenger flight from Singapore to Perth, WA.

Before departure from Singapore, the aerodrome forecast (TAF) for Perth Airport predicted a 30% probability of fog after 0200. The aircraft was due at Perth at 0020 so in accordance with the operator’s fuel policy; fuel was not specifically carried for a diversion from the destination to an alternate aerodrome. While the aircraft was in cruise, the TAF was revised to forecast fog from 2400, but the trend type forecasts (TTF) which superseded the TAF trended fog from 0030.

At about 2350, when the flight crew commenced descent, the aircraft passed the point where it had the fuel to divert to Learmonth, WA. About 10 minutes later, the TTF was amended to forecast fog to occur before the aircraft’s arrival time. The fog occurred at about 0015. The crew attempted two Instrument Landing System (ILS) approaches before they used autoland to land on runway 21 in weather conditions that were below the prescribed landing minima for the ILS

The ILS at Perth (and other Australian airports) was approved to the Category I standard that did not allow landings where the visibility was less than 800 m. The Perth runway 21 ILS glide path critical area was not fully protected from multipath effects during low visibility operations.

Perth and Learmonth were the only aerodromes in Western Australia that could be classified as suitable for the A330, and Learmonth was 599 NM (1,110 km) from Perth.

As a result of this occurrence, the operator implemented an interim flight planning fuel policy specifically for Perth.

[cdnvic]

It could probably land at RAAF Pearce but it's close enough that it likely had the same weather and the runway is just at the minimum length to take an A330 landing.

[sibeymai]

Despite the original post stating that the ATSB has been looking into this, I find it very hard to believe that Qantas would actually be doing this for the simple fact that it is illegal. An airliner must have sufficient fuel to fly to its scheduled destination under the forecasted weather conditions, plus fuel to remain in a holding pattern for an amount of time, plus fuel to divert to another suitable airport after holding. These are the rules. Qantas, just as other airlines, may want to cut costs here and there, but there is no way they will be able to have a minimum fuel policy legally. If this is happening, it's about time CASA (the Australian aviation authority) wakes up and does something about it.

I am not familiar with the area, but I can imagine that Perth is far away from a suitable airport to land a big jet... I would think that the flight would be diverted to Darwin?

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/invest...r200605473.aspx

Report abstract:

On 16 September 2006 at 0038 Western Standard Time, an Airbus Industrie A330 landed on runway 21 at Perth Airport in weather conditions that were below the applicable landing minima. The aircraft, registered VH-QPJ, was being operated in accordance with the instrument flight rules (IFR) on a scheduled passenger flight from Singapore to Perth, WA.

Before departure from Singapore, the aerodrome forecast (TAF) for Perth Airport predicted a 30% probability of fog after 0200. The aircraft was due at Perth at 0020 so in accordance with the operator’s fuel policy; fuel was not specifically carried for a diversion from the destination to an alternate aerodrome. While the aircraft was in cruise, the TAF was revised to forecast fog from 2400, but the trend type forecasts (TTF) which superseded the TAF trended fog from 0030.

At about 2350, when the flight crew commenced descent, the aircraft passed the point where it had the fuel to divert to Learmonth, WA. About 10 minutes later, the TTF was amended to forecast fog to occur before the aircraft’s arrival time. The fog occurred at about 0015. The crew attempted two Instrument Landing System (ILS) approaches before they used autoland to land on runway 21 in weather conditions that were below the prescribed landing minima for the ILS

The ILS at Perth (and other Australian airports) was approved to the Category I standard that did not allow landings where the visibility was less than 800 m. The Perth runway 21 ILS glide path critical area was not fully protected from multipath effects during low visibility operations.

Perth and Learmonth were the only aerodromes in Western Australia that could be classified as suitable for the A330, and Learmonth was 599 NM (1,110 km) from Perth.

As a result of this occurrence, the operator implemented an interim flight planning fuel policy specifically for Perth.

This report confirms that the flight was not carrying enough fuel for the alternative landing site at Learmonth by the time it arrived at Perth. In fact it states that the plane passed the point where they had enough fuel to divert before they even reached Perth.

So the flight crew had to commit to a destination not knowing for certain if the runway would be usable on arrival, but relying on the probability that it would be usable when they had information that at some time the probability was that the runway would in fact become unusable due to fog.

Bloody big gamble IMHO. This appears to me to be reckless flying in the extreme.

Prudence demands that enough fuel be carried to maintain a holding pattern at the original destination for some time AND to divert to an alternative after that.

I don't trust an airline which is willing to gamble the safety of passengers against the vagaries of the weather. Eventually the weather will win. Qantas has obviously learnt nothing from the golf course excursion in Bangkok some years ago when another gamble with the weather was taken and Qantas lost. Luckily on that occassion nobody was killed.

What the hel_l is going on at Qantas ? Makes me rethink who I'll be flying with in future.

Edited August 22, 2007 by sibeymai

[Levent]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/invest...r200605473.aspx

Report abstract:

At about 2350, when the flight crew commenced descent, the aircraft passed the point where it had the fuel to divert to Learmonth, WA. The crew attempted two Instrument Landing System (ILS) approaches before they used autoland to land on runway 21 in weather conditions that were below the prescribed landing minima for the ILS

The ILS at Perth (and other Australian airports) was approved to the Category I standard that did not allow landings where the visibility was less than 800 m. The Perth runway 21 ILS glide path critical area was not fully protected from multipath effects during low visibility operations.

I would classify this as a very serious incident. Of course the ATSB would support the pilots' decision to land at Perth, because they simply had no other option! One of the main rules in aviation, and especially commercial passenger traffic, is to have back-ups for back-ups for back-ups. In this case, there was not one single back-up. The crew performed an autoland on a runway which is not approved for that. That means that the ILS system is not accurate enough. In other words, they put the aircraft and all aboard at a serious risk.

I've never flown on Qantas myself but had heard tonnes of positive things about them, but this incident makes me think...