[Peetwo]

Spot the disconnect -

What say you P2?  If you take the PT links the 'ATSB report' is linked from the article - the ATSB link is HERE - click Interim for the report.

Yes Old'Tom in the case of the Mildura fog cock-up (& numerous other newsworthy but ignored serious incidents) very convoluted.. I say bring back the old crash comics at least then you had a hardcopy that you could easily refer. Beats the hell out trying to find the progress of, or recently updated ATSB investigations on their website. Someone could surmise that CC Dolan has something to hide...    

Couple of recent comments worthy of regurgitating off Ben's blog:

1

George Glass
Posted January 25, 2016 at 12:11 am | Permalink

There is no requirement to carry alternate fuel for single runways in Australia, contrary to pretty well every other serious country.

ILS facilities at most Australian airports are Cat 1. Pretty much useless in fog.
Diverting to a remote airport with non-precision approaches and no ATC only makes sense if you understand that the Pilot in Command felt that his obligation to conform to regulations over-road common sense.

Contrary to what most of the traveling public assume Australia does NOT have world class facilities. Truth is we just get away with it.

There needs to be a comprehensive review of ATC and ground facilities in this country to work out where we want to be in 30 years time because right now its a joke.

2
Dan Dair
Posted January 25, 2016 at 7:53 am | Permalink

George Glass,

After ten years of ‘boom-times’, Australia’s infrastructure is not noticeably better for it.?

Sure the weather’s not generally so good in Northern Europe, but CAT III is considered ‘base-line’ for any significant airport which expects to safely serve it’s commercial passengers.

How many Australian commercial airports actually have full ILS capability.?
The problem with the remoteness of some of Australia’s cities could be mitigated by improvements in ILS systems & of course, much more accurate weather forecasting.

Perhaps Ben is right when he suggests ‘that rainy, foggy or stormy day when the current practices could result in the filling of truckloads of body bags’ & the depressing thing is that it looks like this will have to happen before a programme of upgrades is begun.

CASA should be mandating improvements at all commercial airports above certain passenger or aircraft-movement numbers, where there is any clear history of weather-related incidents.

It should create a defined programme of targets, to be implemented over a equally defined time period.

There is no reason why the cost-burden should not be shared around.
The Government can put some tax-dollars in & the rest can be shared between the airlines & the airports.

The only other safe option is to enforce the same fuel-reserve rules commonplace throughout most of the rest of the world.?

Ultimately, passengers will end up being those who really pay for it, but they’ll be buying considerably a improved safety regime for it.

Particularly relevant to the Planetalking blog was my post off Skimore Corner, here is an extract: 

Four incidents, a ditching & two cover-ups? - Safety risk mitigation Oz style.

On the 22 February 2000 the ATSB issued safety recommendation 2000004 addressed to the BOM, under 'Safety Action' it states:

..As a result of these occurrences, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands...

  
& under the BOM response text:

..The Bureau is actively participating in the review of fuel requirements for flights to remote islands being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority...

 
Yet here we are nearly 18 years from the first reported incident; nearly 16 years since the SR was issued; more than 6 years since the Pel-Air ditching; & 949 days since the Mildura fog incident occurred. For a reminder of the seriousness of that incident, here is a Planetalking article from 18 months ago - ATSB Mildura fog crisis report delayed for good reasons:

..Today’s announcement indicates that important changes are being pursued in the interests of safety, presumably with the enthusiastic support of the Australian carriers, as Mildura proved to be both a harrowing yet lucky night for each, in which the professionalism of their pilots played an essential role in getting them out of a situation in which a commercial jet flight in this country should never have been put at such risk...

Well finly there is a sign that some sort proactive action to address these identified safety issues maybe on the horizon - HOORAH!

Firstly from the CASA 'Standards Development and Quality Assurance Branch' issued 2 days ago:

CD 1508OS - Fuel and oil quantity requirements

Background

Regulation 234 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) requires the pilot-in-command of an aircraft to take reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient quantities of fuel and oil for the proposed flight to be undertaken safely. The regulation also requires the operator of an aircraft to take reasonable steps to ensure that an aircraft does not begin a flight unless it is carrying sufficient fuel and oil to allow the flight to be conducted safely.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) reports have revealed incidents and accidents directly related to carriage of insufficient quantities of fuel. CASA proposes to address this safety issue by amending regulation 234 of CAR to provide updated fuel and oil requirements.

The current regulation 234 of CAR allows courts to consider any guidelines provided by CASA when determining whether sufficient fuel and oil were carried on a flight, which includes the guidelines provided in CAAP 234-1(1). While some of the information provided in the CAAP should be read as a requirement empowered by the current regulation 234, other information is advisory in nature. CASA intends to the make clearer the distinction between the regulatory requirements and the guidance material by transferring the requirements for determination of fuel and oil quantity from the CAAP to a proposed legislative instrument.

• SPC to CD 1508OS
  
• Annex A - Draft Civil Aviation Amendment (Fuel and Oil Requirements) Regulation 2016
  
• Annex B – Draft Civil Aviation (Fuel Requirements) Instrument 2016
  
• Annex C - Summary of key changes introduced by Civil Aviation (Fuel Requirements) Instrument 2016
  
• Annex D – Draft Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order 2016 (No.X)
  
• Annex E – Draft CAAP 234-1(2) – Guidelines for aircraft fuel requirements
  

  
And then even better yesterday - some 30 odd years after the rest of the developed world - CASA made an announcement about a change to the regs, which they predict will pass on $10 million p.a. to industry, courtesy the OZ:

New aviation rules to slash weather delays

  

Some for MUM!

In amongst the first for 2016 ATSB SIBs - ATSB Aviation Short Investigations Bulletin - Issue 46 - there is actually a good news investigation report that pays credit to a Dash 8 Captain for throwing on extra contingency fuel that enabled the flight crew to divert to and land at a secondary alternate above the statutory fixed reserve fuel:

This incident highlights the importance of lateral thinking during flight planning, particularly where operations to remote areas are planned, and when an alternate aerodrome is close to the planned destination. In this case, the captain assessed the broader weather picture, and added fuel above the minimum requirements on the basis of that assessment. That additional fuel ultimately provided the crew with a safe option, despite encountering unexpected conditions that prevented a landing at the planned alternate aerodrome.

    
This incident is also intrinsically tied to the Mildura Fog cock-up by the ATSB:

ATSB comment


Following a small number of safety occurrences where unforecast weather events have led to unforeseen diversions or holding, the ATSB commenced a research investigation (Reliability of aviation weather forecasts) to examine how often weather events are not forecast in enough time allow pilots to make appropriate decisions (carry additional fuel, make a timely diversion or delay departure). Although the research investigation will focus on weather data for major Australian airports, the results should help operators better understand how much reliance can be given to forecast weather at destination airports at the time of pre-flight planning. This research investigation is linked in part to ATSB investigation AO-2015-100 (Weather related operational event involving B737s VH-YIR and VH-VYK at Mildura Airport, Victoria on 18 June 2013). On that occasion, the two aircraft involved diverted from Adelaide, South Australia, to Mildura, Victoria, due to poor weather in Adelaide. Unforecast weather was encountered when the aircraft subsequently arrived at Mildura.

In another weather-related incident, the ATSB found that the onset of fog at Perth Airport at the estimated time of arrival of a flight, was not forecast until after the aircraft had passed the point when it had insufficient fuel remaining to divert to a suitable alternate aerodrome. Before that point, there had been no requirement for the aircraft to carry fuel to continue to a suitable alternate (see ATSB investigation AO2012073 Weatherrelated operational event involving Boeing 717, VHNXO, Perth Airport, Western Australia on 01 June 2012). The safety message attached to that investigation report included ‘…pilots should be alert to the fact that the actual weather conditions can differ significantly from forecasts.’

Taking a look at the scope of the - Reliability of aviation weather forecasts - it would seem to me that the ATSB have missed a perfect opportunity - probably by design & PC - to examine the bigger picture of mandatory alternate fuel requirements:

Reliability of aviation weather forecasts

Following a small number of safety occurrences involving aircraft inbound to Sydney or Adelaide where unforecast weather events have led to unforeseen diversions or holding, this research investigation will examine how often weather events are not forecast in enough time for airlines to make appropriate decisions (carry additional fuel, timely diversion or delayed takeoffs). It will analyse Bureau of Meteorology weather data for major Australian airports. The results of this report should help airlines and pilots better understand how much reliance can be given to forecasted weather at destination airports at the time of pre-flight planning.

UFB - again Mr Mimi & his cronies supply the perfect top-cover through delay, spin & bulldust for what - "better understand how much reliance can be given to forecasted weather"  - FFS pilots in Australia have understood that fact since the BOM was first formed.

1st WOFTAM award for 2016 goes to the ATSB & that report when released 

And what of Sleepy Hollow? Well according to mrdeux they're adhering to SOP i.e. passing the buck :

7
mrdeux
Posted January 27, 2016 at 9:45 am | Permalink

And in the interim CASA introduces “advisory holding”.

If it isn’t mandatory, airlines will not load it. Which means that any aircraft that is held, especially after a long flight, may well leave the holding pattern with virtually no margin at all.

Another buck passed.

 
MTF...P2