Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QF Flight Attempts Landing On Closed Rwy  
User currently offlineBd1959 From Australia, joined Oct 2002, 450 posts, RR: 2
Posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3434 times:

QF 638 from MEL to BNE last night left MEL an hour late. Was on finals into BNE when an aborted landing was executed. The flight diverted to Tamworth where the flight stayed for several hours before returning to BNE.

(QF website is currently listing 638 as Est 04:50 arrival at BNE with a schduled 23:10 last night).

BNE airport are quoted as saying that the usual active runway was closed last night for surface repairs and has been each evening for the past six months. The alternative rwy was apparently too short for a landing by the aircraft "in the conditions".

My question: how came a flight progress so far when there is clearly no chance of it being landed at it's destination?

BD1959

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDinker225 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 1059 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3420 times:

Wouldn't or shouldn't the pilot have known that the airport was closed at a certain time of day for the last 6 months? With a few calculations it would turn up that a flight from Melbourne to Brisbane is usually X number of hours. They must know that they must leave before a certain time so that they could arrive before the closure?

Dinker



Two rules in aviation, don't hit anything and don't run out of gas, cause if you run out of gas yer gonna hit something.
User currently offlineBd1959 From Australia, joined Oct 2002, 450 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3410 times:

Link to a rather sensational account (aren't they all?)

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

Dinker: What about ATC - aren't they aware of issues "up the line"?

BD1959


User currently offlineTsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3262 times:

Hmmm dont know how accurate the media reports it to be (as usual)..

but quoting from the YSSY board (and I think from a fellow a.net member)... the flight ops by VH-TJB went around runway 14/32 not due to runway works but due to weather being below minimums. Additionally, the runway under repair was 01/19.

Wonder how some people can make a go-around to be 'scary' when it is so bloody exciting!!!!! Big grin

[Edited 2003-05-15 05:51:34]


NO URLS in signature
User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3224 times:

That story is pretty pathetic. Big deal, what was the drama in going around? Pax get scared of the most stupidist things it's unbelievable. I don't think an incident like this even warrants a mention on a news report, must have been a slow news day or something. Regarding RWY 32/14- it's only 1700m long so i suppose if there was any kind of Xwind or something the crew wouldn't want to land on it.

User currently offlineBd1959 From Australia, joined Oct 2002, 450 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3155 times:

Tsentan and Positive_rate:

Regardless of how accurate the press report (of whether it was an abortive landing on a closed runway or one under minimum):

1) Brisbane Airport was unable to handle a flight which was destined to land there - to re-ask my original questions: whose responsiblity was it to recognise this and why was it not done until the flight was on finals?

2) I'm sure that the passengers were well impressed to be sat at Tamworth overnight on a plane

BTW 32/14 was supposedly under minimums not because of x-wind but because it was wet.

Not worthy of a news item? I beg to differ (better than av $4.50 in the budget!!).

BD1959


User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

14/32 was under minimums I believe not due to it's runway conditions or winds at that time. I believe visibility was very bad. Weather can change quickly, upon arrival the weather went below minimums for 14/32 and the B737 diverted. It's just a weather diversion.


Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineQANTAS747 From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3057 times:

I must say, why would it divert to Tamworth instead of Maroochydore or Coolangatta? for me that would be the better options.
As tamworth is an engineering base for the dash 8s, I wonder if it was diverted to Tamworth not just because of weather concerns. I think there may have been a mechanical fault involved that QF want to cover up.
Unless Tamworth was the only place open that time of night.

Just a thought.

QANTAS747


User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2386 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3047 times:

Simply not true QANTAS747. Anyone familiar with the weather patterns currently affecting the eastern seaboard of Australia would know that most coastal ports had similar conditions to Brisbane, with Sydney and Coolangatta also closed due to the curfew. Accurate weather reports are very difficult to get at 11pm, with most aerodrome met reporters off the job.
As the flight had flown past Tamworth and knew the aerodrome was clear it seems a logical port of diversion. It would not suprise me if the flight was dispatched with Tamworth as the alternate.
I'm sure the media would buy your story though!


User currently offlineTsentsan From Singapore, joined Jan 2002, 2016 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3011 times:

BD1959 - of course its not newsworthy. Do you see the news people reporting diversions to Adelaide when Melbourne was all fogged up or when Perth was fogged up a few days ago? You dont right, so what makes this newsworthy?

Rwy32/14 was under minimums cos its WET? Since when you was this a condition for landing? It was the visibility thats a problem. Rwy32/14 has no ILS so you have to go in with a much higher minimums then if you have ILS, and obviously as part of the landing checklist, if the crew cant see the runway by xxx metres, they declared a missed approach, went around and diverted.

As for Tamworth, AJ has provided a very logical explanation. Of cos unless you're trying to find fault with QF (as most people do).



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineBd1959 From Australia, joined Oct 2002, 450 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2837 times:

Tsentsan,

Perfect timing: Southern Cross Network News were this morning reporting the diversion of 3 International flights from Melbourne due to fog: a QF to SYD; MAS and SQ to ADL.

Agreed, the press do sensationalise anything to do with the aviation industry (as I pointed out in my 2nd post). In this instance - did the weather deteriorate so quickly that what was safe for the plane to go onto finals suddenly went under minimums on approach? If so - hats off to the pilot. If not, and the runway had been under minimum for some time why was the flight allowed to progress so far? My questions (above) have not been aimed only at QF but also the ATC (please read!)

I have never questioned QF's safety before (yes, I am very quick to criticise their inflight service) but I suddenly had flashbacks to the incident (in KL) with the 747 aquaplaning.

BD1959






User currently offlineMr.BA From Singapore, joined Sep 2000, 3423 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2821 times:

I am not too sure about this but I am going to post it anyway, pilots or someone who has more knowledge on this correct me.

As stated, 14/32 has no ILS and I believe the runway must be seen at a certain point of time during final approach and this altitude is set by the FAA? It works something like the CAT I/II/III approach. On the other hand the pilot might not have full details to the weather condtion, or he probably wanted to make an attempt, they might just make it down anyway.

Everywhere you go in bad weather I am sure you see airports that are still operating under safe limits have planes flying all over the airfield attempting to land, some make it, some simply diverted.



Boeing747 万岁!
User currently offlineBd1959 From Australia, joined Oct 2002, 450 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2789 times:

Thanks Mr.BA,

Talking of procedures for weather diversions - which I'm now starting to understand more of! - why in this day and age would some International flights into MEL be diverted due to fog? This morining both QF and BA flights made it in early, MAS, SIA and (presumably) QF LAX diverted. Is this purely due to deteriorating minimums once on the ground since I'd have thought ILS would negate the effect during landing itself.

BD1959


User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2386 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2729 times:

I have never questioned QF's safety before (yes, I am very quick to criticise their inflight service) but I suddenly had flashbacks to the incident (in KL) with the 747 aquaplaning.

Flawed flashback? Are you referring to the overrun at Bangkok?

As stated, 14/32 has no ILS and I believe the runway must be seen at a certain point of time during final approach and this altitude is set by the FAA? It works something like the CAT I/II/III approach. On the other hand the pilot might not have full details to the weather condition, or he probably wanted to make an attempt, they might just make it down anyway.

The approach to runway 14/32 is a VOR/DME non-precision approach, nothing like a Cat I, II or III ILS (precision) approach, with much higher ceiling and visibility requirements. The FAA has absolutely nothing to do with it,the Civil Aviation Safety Authority governs Australian aviation. Airservices Australia controls the airways.

Talking of procedures for weather diversions - which I'm now starting to understand more of! - why in this day and age would some International flights into MEL be diverted due to fog?

No Australian ILS facilities are rated to Cat II or III due to the higher costs versus the very few days per year they would be required. It is a risk that a few flights per year will have to divert as the Cat I 200' minima is not sufficient.
Hope that clears a few things up!



User currently offlineBd1959 From Australia, joined Oct 2002, 450 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

Yes AJ - BKK (silly me! Embarrassment )

BD1959




User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2702 times:

>>>If not, and the runway had been under minimum for some time why was the flight allowed to progress so far?

Because the visibility -flucuates-. I've had numerous flights where the viz took a dump while they're enroute, and common sense says that you continue and see what the conditions are at the time of your intended landing. The visibility (as measured by RVR when it gets below 1 mile here in the US) often moves above/below FAA minimums. You need RVR 1800, it's 2000, oops, there's 1600, 1200, back to 2000, back to 1200... If it's below when you get there in the terminal area, you hold. If it comes up, you commence the approach and either land, or go missed approach. If it stays below, I get to divert them...


User currently offlineETA Unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2664 times:

Bad day for QF- how long will it take to repair the landing gear of Wednesday night's QF108 LAX-SYD?

User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2386 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2632 times:

What happened to QF108?

User currently offlineETA Unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

Problem with rear landing gear last night just before pushback- pax put in hotels. They did an aircraft switch with an inbound arriving aircraft and the delayed flight left around noon Thursday. I guess the 744 in question might be in LAX for a while.

User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2548 times:

Ok fair enough maybe it should rate a mention in the news then, but interviewing the pax on board the a/c is just plain wrong. What's the point of interviewing pax when they have no idea what they are talking about anyway? I think airline pax need a bit of "training" before they fly so they know what a Go-around is, so they know what it means if they have to divert, so they know what happens if they have an engine failure, so they know that turbulence is not dangerous etc. The everyday pax has no idea about any of these things and so when some little incident occurs they get a little carried away. Maybe the airlines should introduce a little brochure that fits into the seat pocket that explains the basic theory of flight and procedures.

User currently offlineTsv From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2483 times:

Has anyone here actually been in a 737 (or anything larger) that landed on runway 14/32?

I have on a nice clear day and can tell you it was a hell of ride!



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineQANTAS747 From Australia, joined Mar 2000, 222 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

Ok sorry bout that, I'm from Canberra so don't really know much about the weather up there. Oh well, twas just a thought, and hey, you learn something everyday, and this will help me in my (future) studies in becoming a pilot.
Thanks!


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Landing Gear Fails On QF Flight posted Sat Jun 2 2001 15:11:46 by Phileo
Landing On Water - Successful Attempts? posted Wed Oct 27 2004 21:57:51 by Geoffm
Ex Australian Pm Throws Hissy Fit On QF Flight posted Sat May 10 2003 03:29:33 by 767er
QF Flight Aborts Takeoff At NRT - Runway Closed posted Tue Nov 13 2001 04:35:25 by Aussie_
Small Plane Makes Emergency Landing On Autobahn posted Sat Nov 25 2006 12:44:14 by DutchFlyer
LHR:Their Landing On 27L Again, But Why The Break? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 12:17:23 by Lazyshaun
Amazing SAA 747SP Landing On Very Narrow Runway.. posted Wed Nov 1 2006 22:12:53 by Keesje
Emergency Landing On YouTube posted Mon Oct 30 2006 06:27:02 by NWADC9
Hilarious Landing On The Highway Video posted Fri Oct 20 2006 20:00:17 by Fll2993
Emergency Landing On Interstate 75 Today posted Fri Sep 29 2006 23:47:54 by Hamfist