Sydney Airport Message Board Sydney Airport Message Board  

Go Back   Sydney Airport Message Board > Aviation Industry News and Discussion > Australia and New Zealand Industry


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 5th October 2018, 10:21 AM
MarkR MarkR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip Argy View Post
OK, just so I understand, what would ATC have done differently with a MINIMUM FUEL call on first contact?
The use of the phrase minimum fuel is used to describe a situation when an aircrafts fuel supply has reached a state where having committed to land at a specific aerodrome, the pilot calculates that any change to the existing clearance to that aerodrome may result in landing with less than the designated fixed reserve.

It does not change priority for the aircraft vs other aircraft heading to the same aerodrome.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 5th October 2018, 11:14 AM
Adrian B Adrian B is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 489
Default

VASAviation channel on Youtube have a shorted and unedited graphics and ATC recordings.

VASAviation recording 20 mins

VASAviation 5 minute version
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 5th October 2018, 11:37 AM
Greg Hyde Greg Hyde is offline
Prolific Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,063
Default

Should the crew diverted to Auckland and topped up the tanks ?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 9th October 2018, 02:00 AM
Mick F Mick F is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NSW
Posts: 845
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan McKeever View Post
To explain further my earlier post, I am suggesting the UA crew went straight to mayday to make ATC aware that, with a SIGMET in play at YMML, their only options (from their failed flightplan) were YSSY or a diversion.
A sigmet doesn’t necessarily mean that an aerodrome becomes unavailable as an alternate. Also, I highly doubt that United only have one option for an alternate on the east coast of Australia. There are ‘preferred alternates’, which would include company handling etc., but I imagine they also have suitable alternates which can be nominated for a legal perspective only.

Secondly, even if it did, then they then have the fuel no longer required for that alternate to use for the approach and landing in Sydney.

What was Sydney weather like at the time?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10th October 2018, 07:05 AM
MarkR MarkR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,075
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick F View Post

What was Sydney weather like at the time?
SPECI YSSY 032230Z 20012KT 9999 -RA BKN006 BKN035 16/15 Q1018

Pretty much as per the TAF they had at time of departure.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12th October 2018, 02:42 AM
Mick F Mick F is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NSW
Posts: 845
Default

Thanks Mark.

I still can’t work out why they couldn’t just change their alternate to Canberra or even Brisbane? It’s not like Sydney was below landing minima.

Anyway, I’m sure there was a lot going on in the cockpit at the time and perhaps company restrictions behind availability of alternates.

Mick
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 04:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © Sydney Airport Message Board 1997-2016
Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the Conditions of Use and Privacy Statement