ABC 774 Melbourne - Jon Faine on Fog at Aus Airports

[VH-Cheer Up]

Anyone hear Jon Faine launching his tirade on why Australian airports can't handle departures and arrivals when it's foggy?

He claims European and other airports (LHR, CDG, AMS, Narita, JFK, LAX, etc) can handle departures and arrivals in near-zero visibility. And that we are lagging behind.

What is the truth of the matter?

------
VH-CU

[Howard Hughes]

It's pretty simple really, no CAT III ILS's in Australia, not even any CAT II's for that matter!

It could however be argued that the number of foggy days in Australia doesn't warrant the added expense of these approaches, also the fact that fog in OZ only tends to hang around until mid morning, not 24/7 like LHR and some other European cities.

[ROO-C26B]

All Australian airports are only equiped and approved for Cat I approaches which has a higher DA limit. Where as for the rest of the world is approved for Cat IIIb which have a DA of 50'.

[Brian Abraham]

The guy Faine was interviewing (Melbourne airport management) stated that a Cat IIIB is on the way. True?

[Howard Hughes]

Interestingly the fog doesn't seem to slow down some carriers from the Asian continent!:ooh:

[bekolblockage]

The one-off cost of the improved equipment is not the main problem, its the increased frequency of flight checks that are required for Cat 3 ILS that make it a costly exercise for the 1 or 2 days a year that it would be useful.

Hell, the punters don't want to pay for what you have already. What chance this luxury?

[porch monkey]

All the lighting changes at ML airport are I believe in preparation for the availability of Cat3. Whether us domestics get to use it will be doubtful because of the previously mentioned cost and recency. The international operators however will be good to go.

[D.Lamination]

Australian Airport infrastructure is a joke - just like roads, public transport, water etc etc.

-Witness: no international standard 60M wide Rwys in the country except Darwin.

-No minima below Cat 1 ILS.

-International airports without even a full length parallel taxiway (YBCS).

-International airports with RWYs generally considered too short for regular widebody jet operations compared to international norms (YMML 09/27, YSSY 07/25, YSSY 16L/34R).

-Hardly any gates with dual aerobridges at major airports.

Several times every year the nations air transport is thrown into chaos by fog at SYD or MEL yet Cat III ILStechnology has been around since the 1960's, QANTAS B737-800's have CAT III manual flight HUD capability but they are not allowed to use it.

All the other problems mentioned above generally have either saftey or cost implications for the carriers and the public that use these airports. The costs, across the economy, of the fog disruption are massive even if it only happens a couple times a year.

Why aren't these problems fixed? I guess because the airport operators have no incentive to fix up the initial underinvestment / poor design by the various governments when the airports were built. These operators including our favorite Mac. Airports (their target is to get $32.50 from each person who visits their airport - even if your not flying!) are monopolies who can charge the carriers virtually what they want and get away with poor service and continuing underinvestment - particularly in the "operational" side of their airports.

Why should Mac Airports build a Cat III ILS? All those diverted aeroplanes will come back and provide a landing fee anyway, meanwhile all those stranded pax will spend more money in the terminal, on parking etc. I supsect this is why we have spending on masses of new shops, so much so you think you are in a Westfield Mall rather than an airport - at the same time they can't be bothered to upgrade navaids/taxiways /runways/approach lights - the list goes on. Fog costs the airport operators virtually nothing but everyone else from the customer to the enviroment is stung.:mad:

[bekolblockage]

D.Lamination

Get real. Most of the airports that Faine is trying to compare with handle 50-80 million passengers a year.
What sort of international movements/passengers at Cairns or Melbourne to spread the costs?

[Tankengine]

Cat 3 would solve problem!!

Quote:
"Interestingly the fog doesn't seem to slow down some carriers from the Asian continent!"

Yeah, I went round after 2 of them and saw zip!:eek:
of course wx may have changed.[didn't for next few hrs though!:E]

In AKL we can do 0'/75m, in MEL : 200'/800m!:yuk:

Is AKL that much busier than SYD/MEL?? ["get real"]:=

How much does GLS technology cost? We should perhaps change more quickly to it!:ok:

[halas]

Tank,

I think you will find that AKL has a limited amount of alternates for wide-body, CHC being the only one.

Suspect all the larger operators asked for cat III so they didn't miss out on payload, eg. when SYD was the alternate designated.

halas

[Wiley]

While I agree it's a total pain on the few occasions each year that fog bites Sydney or Melbourne, (Canberra's another matter altogether), how many of Australia's 'always look to the bottom line' current operators would be willing to spend the money and the sim time in getting their crews Cat III approval and the expense of keeping them current?

Years ago, I witnessed the imbecility of our system at its best when Sydney ATC would not allow a BA 747 to take off in low viz because BA was not on Sydney ATC's (then brand new) list for Cat 1-approved reduced viz takeoff operators. Meanwhile, domestic F27s and Chieftains were allowed to depart.

I thought the Nigel was pretty restrained in his comments to ATC, all things considered.

(Does anyone else recall when Australia went from 300' ILS minima down to 200', but only if crews did an autoland? Australia re-inventing Aviation again, treating a Cat I ILS like a *** Cat III?)

[Knumb Knuts]

:ooh: You mean - there are flubbers posting herein who actually listen to LL Faine? He who thinks he has the same physiology as a QF pilot? :yuk:

[HIALS]

I think we should review the old nugget that 'the number of foggy days means we can't justify Cat III equipment'.

In two weeks, I have been delayed a total of 17 hours because of fog at SYD and MEL that would not have been a problem with Cat III approaches.

The costs to the industry are enormous:

Extra fuel consumption holding
Extra fuel consumption diverting
Passenger accomodation when connections are compromised
Food for passengers that get stranded enroute
Network disruption (aircraft and crew in the wrong places)
Consequential delays trying to get the network back into order again
Maintenance costs associated with extra flight time (holding and diverting)
Extra customer service staff costs as huge and extended workloads are handled
etc
etc


Not to mention the bad publicity that our industry is exposed to when network chaos ensues.

I agree with other posters that the lack of 'first world facilities' is symptomatic of a lamentable lack of investment in our air transport system. The problem is now decades old.

Every jet transport aircraft in Australia is capable of Cat IIIB - but our ground equipment is four times as incompetent.

So - let's stop saying we can't justify the upgrade and get on with it.

[nomorecatering]

One thing that cracked me up was the SLF on tv news who said she was very very angry. At who FFS? God??

Once whilest working at YSSY, during the mother of all storms, I had a SLF approach me wanting to make a complaint about the weather. I whipped out my mobile and said I'd call god and see he if can move the storm for her.

Pratts.

[MR MACH]

You get what you pay for.

As you would be aware navaids/facilities are most definitely user pay.

In a previous life I was involved in this area. This was how the system worked and I don't think it has changed.

If say a CAT III installation was desired at an airport the Board of Airline Representatives (which usually includes all the airlines operating through that airport) approaches Airservices with a proposal. Airservices then determines what the costs are for installation, flight testing, ongoing maintenance and any other other extras.

Airservices then inform the Board of Airline Representatives what the costs will be over the life cycle of the installation and how much the navaid charges will increase. The Board then refers the matter to the airlines to determine if they still want the installation.

The Board of Airline Representatives then makes the decision on whether the installation will go ahead after receiving the replies from the airlines and informs Airservices the decision the airlines have made.

So the short answer is if the airlines want a navaid they can have it - but at a price. In the end the airline accountants make the decision on economics taking into account the relevant factors.

Can you imagine the screams from the airlines if an airport operator just kept installing equipment that the airlines deemed unsuitable and had to pay for!! So it really has nothing to do with the airport operator but the airlines themselves.

It is fairly hard to justify a CAT III installation on economics in Australia as the number of occasions that the ceiling/visibility would require CAT III operations is extremely low. This was using Bureau of Meteorology data.

[kiwi engineer12]

Tank,

I think you will find that AKL has a limited amount of alternates for wide-body, CHC being the only one.

Suspect all the larger operators asked for cat III so they didn't miss out on payload, eg. when SYD was the alternate designated.

halas

Ohakea is also an approved widebody alternate. Limited ground support, but it is used regulary, as its only 30mins or so flight time south of AKL.
A year or two ago it had 3 B747s, 1 A340-600, and a B777-200 all divert there at the same time due to fog in AKL (before AKL went CAT III)

[Composite Man]

D.Lamination - MEL airport is now the second international airport in Australia with a 60M runway but I agree with you about lack of infrastructure development at Australian airports in general.

MEL runway 16 will be certified CAT III later this year (ironically we will be out of fog season by then), I believe they are waiting until they have replaced the ILS facility on runway 27. CAT III certainly would have been handy in the last week or two.

As far as LWMO training and recurrency for domestic carriers (or any modern jet operator for that matter), I realise that operators are trying to cut costs where ever they can, however the ongoing recurency training for LWMO ops takes very little time and is simply attached to the 6 monthly sim checks. The cost of the recurrency training to airlines is negligible when compared to the cost of even a few dozen diversions a year.

One also has to wonder as to whether the introduction of A380 services to Australia and the need for a guaranteed alternate should fog hit the Eastern seaboard, was a driving factor in the decision to finally install a CAT III facility at MEL.

Either way it will most certainly be welcome when it is operational.

[GaryGnu]

Mr Mach,

That is a fairly good summary of the most recent foray into CAT II/III ops, except the names have changed.

The carriers (one in particular) were not prepared to pay for it, thus the airports were not willing to invest in the required ground infrastructure and the ANSP wasn't willing to provide the navaids. (Although I have heard that some of the ILS signals in Australia are of a CAT II standard.)

Subsequent to this I believe Melbourne independently set out to install CAT III facilities.

This is a cost benefit equation. All it needs are some accountants to come up with a suitable business case and you can have Low Vis Ops.

There are some marginal improvements on the way though; Transmissiometers in Sydney to allow RVRs of 550m to be used for CAT I minima; the possibility of suitably equipped aircraft conducting Low Vis Ops with approved HUD systems...

Tankengine,

I believe GLS is only being developed to CAT I standards at this stage. CAT III is the ultimate goal (but so is world peace!!)

[BN APP 125.6]

If you think our infrastructure is bad go to the US.

If you think our infrastructure is good go to Asia (ICN, HKG, SIN)

[flyer_18-737]

what the hell is CatIII CatII or whatever??

[toolowtoofast]

Auckland alternate:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj274/toolowtoofast/ohakea.jpg

[WynSock]

'flyer_18-737' whatever the Hell that means..

If you follow this link, it will answer your question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system


If you managed that alright, you might be able to get a job as a pilot here...

Pilot Jobs for anyone going cheap. (http://qantaslink.bfound.net/det-contact.aspx?jobid=30950&CoId=189&rq=1)

good luck.

:ok:

[ccysam]

Well if you can get the low cost airlines to pay for it, low vis is the go, but they won't, they'd rather screw the pax.
If by some miracle they did get it, sim would be even more rushed and unrealistic! Lets see, on my last sim I did, TCAS, GPWS, Windshear, EFOTO, SE go-round, RTO, engine relight, now lets race thru low vis landings.

[haughtney1]

Give me strength :ugh:

If by some miracle they did get it, sim would be even more rushed and unrealistic! Lets see, on my last sim I did, TCAS, GPWS, Windshear, EFOTO, SE go-round, RTO, engine relight, now lets race thru low vis landings.

Thats just the day 1 sim for most crews in other parts of the world.....
Are you saying you big bad Ozzie pilots can't keep up with the pace?

[Mike773]

Quote: kiwi engingeer_12:

Ohakea is also an approved widebody alternate. Limited ground support, but it is used regulary, as its only 30mins or so flight time south of AKL.
A year or two ago it had 3 B747s, 1 A340-600, and a B777-200 all divert there at the same time due to fog in AKL (before AKL went CAT III)


Actually, after that incident the CAA sent a letter to all airlines stating that OHA cannot be filed as an alternate. NZ is the only one permitted in use OHA now as they pay the Air Force an annual fee.

The CAA were not happy that some airlines overflew perfectly good alternates in Australia on the way to New Zealand in the knowledge that both AKL and CHC were below minimums. (No CAT-II, let alone III at that time).

Australia has a lot of alternatives (when compared to New Zealand) in los vis situations. The major issue in AKL now is no ground surveillance radar, so ground movements are limited to one at any one time. Reduces to about 6 aircraft movements an hour, with long-haul arrivals first priority.

It'd be nice to see 16R CAT-IIIb at SYD though.... [/dream mode off...] :E

[makespeed250kt]

Ever noticed how many new retail outlets there are at airport terminals these days?

Why would you be in a hurry to get people to where they're going when you can fleece 'em on the ground.

Believe it or not!

[Centaurus]

Lets see, on my last sim I did, TCAS, GPWS, Windshear, EFOTO, SE go-round, RTO, engine relight, now lets race thru low vis landings

Allowing time for simulator resets it would normally take 3 minutes of simulator time to undertake say 3 TCAS events, plus no more than 3 minutes for a GPWS escape manoeuvre, engine failure at V1 and go takes about five minutes by the time the last of the flaps are up, single engine go-around takes five minutes max depending on how far away from the landing runway you start the final approach, RTO takes max of two minutes and engine relight will take around 3 minutes max. The windshear escape manoeuvre takes around 10 minutes with resets. Total: 31 minutes out of a normal simulator session for one pilot of two hours. Not exactly over-worked if you know your SOP's...:D

[Ivasrus]

Mike773It'd be nice to see 16R CAT-IIIb at SYD though....
There would probably have to be fairly significant relocation of taxiways and buildings to allow upgrade of the 16R ILS. Having said that, 34L is looking ripe for CAT II enhancement, perhaps not so far away.

CAT III-equivalent GLS would be the logical strategy for future improvements.

[Tankengine]

Have done autoland in SYD using GLS.:ok:

Paperwork only needed to upgrade it to Cat3, and install GLS receivers in more jets, the ground installation is there! Casa/airservices is the holdup.:uhoh:

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Flyer 18-737 - please don't read the Age website on how CATIII works

Flying blind - how to land in fog

1. Under a category III rating, which allows planes to land in fog, the control tower communicates with the pilot to direct the plane down where the pilot has no visibility.

2. A software program is used as well to locate the plane and direct it towards the runway.

3. On the ground high intensity lighting along the centre line of the runway also needs to be fitted.