Nightmare end to QF32 Fri 14 Nov
 

QANTAS was forced to ration water, biscuits, nappies and toilet paper - four sheets a person - to passengers who spent more than 24 hours on a flight diverted from Sydney because of a storm.

QF32 left Singapore at noon Sydney time on Friday and was due to arrive in Sydney about 8pm.

But the Boeing 747 was forced to circle the airport for more than an hour and then spend more than eight hours at Canberra airport after failing to land because of the storm.

The unplanned stop at Canberra to refuel turned into a four-hour wait for the fuel truck to arrive. By the time the plane was ready to take off again Sydney airport's 11pm curfew was in force, prompting Qantas to apply to the Department of Transport for special dispensation to land. It was refused.

The airline kept passengers on board until 5.30am yesterday, in anticipation of the airport's curfew ending at 6am. By that time the cabin crew had already exceeded their maximum shift time and a new crew was called in.

Shortly before 6am the airline made a decision to book hotel rooms for passengers for the four hours before the plane could take off. They were processed by a single Customs officer in Canberra.

"It was a nightmare," said Francis Chippeck, who travelled with her daughter, Ava, 2, from Singapore. "The plane was hot and sticky and I ran out of nappies at about 1am.

"They gave me two extras but by yesterday morning I was down to the last one and I had to say to her, 'You better not poo."'

Ronald Ross and his four children, aged 4 to 15, joined the Qantas flight on Friday morning after travelling from London the day before. By the time they arrived in Sydney the family had spent 72 hours on planes and waiting at airports.

"The whole time we were on there they only gave us two biscuits and a bottle of water," he said.

"The crew were great but the only thing that annoyed me was that I had four children and I asked them if we could get them off the plane first and in the end we were the last to get off."

Other passengers commended the Qantas cabin crew, saying some of the stewards offered their own mobile phones for people to call their families to tell them of their delays.

But one passenger, who asked only to be identified as Martin, said the crew were forced to ration everything on board throughout the night. "I had to ask for toilet paper," he said. "They only gave me four sheets."

A Qantas spokeswoman said: "The aircraft stopped at Singapore from Europe so there wouldn't have been [resources] left on board, anyway."

She said it was not possible to get extra supplies on board at Canberra. "Canberra's not set up to service a 747 - they don't normally land there; it's not an international airport."

A Department of Transport spokesman did not respond to questions about why it denied Qantas dispensation to break the curfew.

Third World Country would do better!
 

This really riles me - there's no reason for this to happen in a civilised modern country, especially in the nation's capital.

From the moment the a/c was told to divert to Canberra there should have been arrangements made to ensure what transpired did not happen. What has service capability for a 747 got to do with anything other than refuelling logistics?

Is toilet paper unprocurable in Canberrra? What an absurd situation for pax to endure.

What is more absurd is the curfew - if they were going to MEL or BNE, they would have been fine. It is embarassing to our country that in these situations they authorities can't allow the diversions to land. It was a thunderstorm - it wasn't the fault of the airlines.

DJ873 got to SYD was put into a holding pattern, was given no confirmed landing slot and in the end returned to MEL, due to low fuel.

I agree with Sarah and Philip, it is an embarassment. What did the QANTAS staff do in Canberra to service the aircraft? It is a major QANTAS port with aircraft up to 763 operating from there. All praise to the cabin crew who were thrust into a very difficult situation. Hopefully, they will be reimbursed by QANTAS for mobile phone calls made from their own phones.

Was it not the pilots decision to divert to Canberra and not Brisbane or Melbourne? He/she may have chosen Canberra to be as close to Sydney as possible for a hopeful quick return.

Weather, equipment failure, missed approaches should all be statutory exceptions - anything that's not discretionary really.

If for argument sake QF32 was allowed to return to YSSY after curfew - other aircraft had also been diverted due to the weather and would have been awaiting return clearance. Do the authorities only allow one aircraft in after curfew and not others thus being accused of favourtism or do they stick by the rules? Also if all aircraft had been allowed to return i can probably guess that anyone under the fligh path would have been lodging noise complaints and probably writing to the media as well. Its a no win situation for all concerned (well the hotel operators had a big win but thats another story)

Spurious curfew arguments
 

The curfew is in place under normal conditions. It prevents discretionary out of hours movements. Once the situation becomes non-discretionary and there are no viable alternatives there ought to be automatic exemption. Even paying the fine for breaking curfew would probably have cost less than what Qantas ended up paying to bus pax into Canberra, put them up at hotels, service the a/c, get new crew, etc.

Somewhere in this over regulated world of ours there needs to be some common sense and intelligent decision making. I'd like to see the Dept of Transport explain why curfew exemption was not granted given the circumstances, and I'd like to see the terms of the exemption request to make sure the situation was clearly explained. Someone made a wrong call and I don't see why we can't have the accountability and transparency to see who and why. If someone is not prepared to have their decision subject to public scrutiny their authority to make the decision should be removed.

Firstly, it is your opinion that someone made a wrong call. Whoever made the decision no doubt followed the guidelines set out to them before making such a decision. I would presume the airlines involved would receive an outline of why their application for dispensation was rejected.

Secondly, if I was the one making the decision, I sure as hell would NOT want some obsessive anti-aircraft lobbyist getting hold of any of my particulars.

Public scrutiny of the decision is one thing, having particulars released of the one who made the decision is another.

All opinions I express on this board oddly enough are my opinions.

Hopefully there are no obsessive anti-aircraft lobbyists on this board. I agree that the identity of the individual isn't required, but the position of who made the decision would indicate whether the problem was escalated appropriately.

If the airline received an explanation for the rejection of the curfew exemption request I'd like to hear it so that I can express my opinion about it. Again, oddly enough, I use discussion threads on this board to express my opinions and welcome others doing likewise whether they agree with me or not. Who knows, I might even change my opinion after reading someone else's contribution. I think exchanges of views are productive, even if the view in this case is constructive dissatisfaction.

I'm sorry, but I interpreted it as you making a factual statement, not expressing an opinion.

I wasn't suggesting that there are anti-aircraft lobbyists on this board, but you are suggesting that the person is identified into the public arena. I'm sure if you rang the DOTRS they'd be able to tell you which 'position' makes the decision.

I'm sure you'd be able to dig for the explaination if you asked under 'freedom of information'.

Forgetting all the players in this scenario.

Why wouldnt QF 32 divert to an international port? Bne or Mel.

My feel for this is that Cbr was going to be line ball without the hassles they encountered anyway.

Would it not have been a better call to go to a facility that can handle the worst outcome? In this case missing the curfew.

I would have thought that such a diversion would have provided QF with much more flexibility. If the wheels fell of the plan.

Also possibly still providing an opportunity to achieve the outcome they wanted. To land prior to curfew. I am unsure what time QF32 originally arrived in the Sydney area mind you.

QF94 is never hesitated about being diverted to Sydney in Melbourne's foggy mornings, I agree. Yeah! it is a tad different as well.

On this one it turned out to be a big mess. I repeat I am not having a go at anyone, just intrigued.

Kind regards,

Geoff

Hi Phillip

I agree with your last two posts entirely.

It would seem on the face of it to be a harsh decision.

Like you I would love to know the rationale behind the knockback.
As for the diversion choice and its ramifications, well the pilots and qantas ops made a decision and thats that. I wasn't in the cockpit so its best not to question the captains decision.

As someone posted elswhere chalk it up to the joys of airline travel.

regards

Adam J

Just to play devil's advocate:

Why is it DOTARs fault? Why do we need to know the rationale for not giving an exemption to the curfew?

Qantas know about the curfew, it is no surprise. Why didn't they organise themselves better and do something about getting their passengers somewhere comfortable? Extremely poor management on Qantas' part.

If questions need to be asked, or heads rolled, start with the person who was responsible for leaving passengers on board for hours and not providing toilet paper. To me, that is the ridiculous part of the whole saga.

G'day Phil M

I'm not looking to apportion blame, but as others have said given the diversion was due weather, something outside of the airlines control, I only wonder what rationale is used to grant an exemption.

I guess it just seems a bit inflexible given the costs involved to the airlines and the disruption to passengers.

Adam J

For those asking why QF32 didn’t divert to YMML or YBBN – perhaps there were delays expected into these ports or some other TEMPO or INTER condition that required them to carry more than the 17 or so tons normally required. Or perhaps conditions deteriorated rapidly enough (and probably not forecast in the way they occured) that they arrived close to Sydney before it was clear they needed to divert somewhere. FWIW, Canberra is an approved emergency airport for the B747 fleet, so there will definitely be a reason there.

True.
Canberra is usually used as a technical alternate for Sydders, not a real alternate. You wouldn't want to go in there in a 747 unless you had no choice.
Also, AFAIK you don't require premission to land after the curfew, you can do it at any time though there's a hefty financial penalty in doing so - If that's the case then all the crew needed was permission from the company to do it.

All things considered, that would have been smarter ...

But in the current climate, what would the majority of shareholders think?

Sure, it looks good to the general public (depending on which side of the flight path you live under...), but how do the penalties stack up against the financial cost of the decision that was made on the night by the crew on duty?

Cheers

CBR has handled 747s before - diversions and VIP visits mainly. These have been able to be serviced and handled by equipment on the ground in Canberra. So Qantas saying they didn't have the facilities is a crock... and even if there wasn't a catering truck to handle a 747 (and I know there IS one), couldn't they run stuff up the stairs???

That said, there's no way QF would have landed a 744 in CBR had the aircraft been able to make it to MEL or BNE. They must have been short on fuel or had some other requirement to make it land at CBR.

To my knowledge it's only the 2nd QF 744 at Canberra - a QF2 landed there some years ago one foggy Sydney morning ex BKK, the same day as a UA 744 also lobbed in from LAX.

This is what I find "interesting Management"

They kept passengers on the ground from 11pm to 5:30am before deciding to book hotels for "4 hours"

That is a utter joke, if they were going to bother with hotel do it at midnight not first thing in the morning. With only "4 hours" it's not worth leaving the terminal, getting to the hotel and then coming back

Poor management this one

beats me why they didn't divert to BNE or MEL? :eek:

That is the other million $ question

It's qantas budget cost cutting i guess lol

Yes well if they can avoid getting 200-300 hotel rooms then by all means I agree BUT as soon as they were denied a late landing at Sydney Airport then it should have been quite clear!

Why wait til 6am :confused:

Situations like this would not happen if the politicians grew some nuts and said goodbye to the cerfew.

It is about time that Sydney Airport moved into the 21st Century and became a full 24hour operation. If the people who live around the airport dont like it they can move, nobody asked them to move in under the flight path's and besides that the modern aircraft of today are much quiter than they were 20 years ago.

Yes QANTAS probably could have handled the situation better, but if it wasn't for the stupid politics the situation would never have arisen.

Remove the cerfew, situation averted and Sydney will finally move into the 21st centuary.

Bradley: My thoughts exactly, but I didn't want to bring that up

While I and others have blamed Qantas, and due to the curfew Qantas IS at fault here, the curfew is the real problem.

The A380 is pretty quiet, perhaps they should allow the A380 24 hour access ?

Agree. I can understand it being enforced but when weather delays flights (no fault of any airline), can't they be flexible and allow those flights to clear? The airlines ultimately foot the bill - thousands of dollars in hotel rooms etc for all of the carriers operating that day. It is embarassing to our city that we don't operate 24 hours but the fact they can't relax the curfew for situations the airlines have no control over is unfair.

As for those living in the flight paths, I am sure they would be keen to relax the curfew in this situation if they were on a flight or knew someone arriving.

In saying that, we would all agree QF could have handled the situation better if it occured again.

Weather may have contributed to QF32's delay - but isn't the real problem a management/operations decision to carry minimum fuel (not more permitting a diversion to MEL)? In this case, DOTARs can't be blamed for not giving QF a dispensation.

Although I'm inclined to agree that curfew dispensations due weather could be allocated fairly on the following basis:

- 34L arrivals only
- Dispensation period applies only to the duration of the cumulative delays since 1700 on that day.
- Delays defined as the time that ramp operations cease due storms in vicinity (which more or less corresponds with actual operational delays)
- Only applies to aircraft where forecast (TAF) deteriorated after departure.

I am flight path affected thanks to the changes implemented by the Howard Government, but do tend to agree with the above position.

I vehemently disagree with Bradley's position stated earlier. There were many of us negatively impacted by the 16L/34R opening. I moved to escape it, and then the Howard Government "shared" the noise over my previously unaffected house.....

Kent

that's what happens when you divert to a sub-standard airport & you try and bet against mother nature.

as for those living in the flight path, I reckon they'd just be keen to relax at 11pm after a long day of a/c noise.

For those questioning why Canberra not Brisbane or Melbourne:
What was the weather forecast for these two locations?

Re Sydney Airport's curfew, on occassions where an extension is granted, what actions are taken to organise the following?

• Customs/quarantine staff rostering
• Airport terminal staff
• Informing taxi companies, etc. that there will be passengers outside of curfew hours
• etc.

Just interested in the organisational aspect of things.

One of the papers I read mentioned that Melbourne was full. Dunno about Brisbane.

MEL weather.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/...q_statename=NA

BNE weather.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/...q_statename=NA

How true, in aviation circles, especially never bet against mother nature

There's plenty of room to park 747's on the south end of Sierra taxiway. (saw one parked there a month or two ago)
I'm not sure how they'd get the pasengers to/from the terminal though.

The airport's required to have buses on hand at short notice for events like emergencies, so transporting pax back to the terminal shouldn't be a problem.

Melbourne airport full, I doubt that :)

Am just the messenger...just relaying what I read...

As I understand it the problem wasn't that there wasn't parking space at MEL but not enough customs/immigration officers on duty to process the 1000s of international pax already there...