No CAT III - again!

[D.Lamination]

:ugh:

SMH today:
Fog causes Sydney transport chaos
Daniel Emerson
June 10, 2008 - 8:51AM


Sydney's transport services are returning to normal after heavy fog this morning prompted the diversion of 14 international flights and the cancellation of ferry services.

Blah blah etc then

The Sydney Airport spokesman said the fog was not as severe as previous years and another occasion earlier this year.

"Six to ten hours per year are lost to fog and this is only the second morning [this year] so we are doing all right," he said.:yuk:

I guess he is doing alright as he is not paying only the airlines, the pax and the environment are paying.

Refer also to this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=329727

[Occy]

These things cost money and no-one is willing to pay, it would seem, so things will go on as they are. I stopped worrying about this a long time ago. If it's below landing minima, we divert. If we are out of hours, it's off to the hotel and the company can sort the resulting mess out.

[Keg]

Even if they were prepared to pay, some of the international flights wouldn't be able to carry the alternate required anyway!

[preset]

Keg, not sure what you mean. With wx like that you are going to have to carrying the alternate one way or the other ...... or am I missing something here ?

I agree, given the relatively few days affected, that it really isn't justified on a cost/usage basis. Rather see the money spent on something else like trying to reduce delays say !

[Dragun]

Some of them would leave before the 24 hour TAF is updated with fog on it. Wasn't on the forecast last night.

I have no international experience (and I guess it depends on the operator) but would most carry an alternate anyway if possible for situations such as this morning?

[Keg]

That's precisely my point preset. Of the eleven- or however many- flight diversions this morning, I wonder how many of them would have been able to carry the alternate and land on a cat III. Certainly not all of them. A Cat III capability at SYD is still going to result in a number of aircraft diversions due to not being able to carry the gas for an alternate anyway. Any flights from the US are going to struggle. EK flights direct will probably be the same.

It would mean that the domestic network could keep going that would certainly be not a bad thing.

[preset]

That's precisely my point preset. Of the eleven- or however many- flight diversions this morning, I wonder how many of them would have been able to carry the alternate and land on a cat III. Certainly not all of them. A Cat III capability at SYD is still going to result in a number of aircraft diversions due to not being able to carry the gas for an alternate anyway. Any flights from the US are going to struggle. EK flights direct will probably be the same.



Sorry Keg, I'm still not seeing it. Landing off a cat III approach shouldn't take any more fuel than a cat I approach so if the destination wx is forecast at or near the minima (whatever that may be, cat I, II, III) then I would think alternate fuel would be carried. Of course a case could be made that some holding fuel should be carried since approach spacing will be greater when LVP are in force, maybe this is what you are suggesting ?
I get the impression from comments over the years the SYD spacing is not that tight & holding or speed reduction is not uncommon already :)

[Keg]

preset, I think I see where the confusion arises. Many of the diversions this morning wouldn't have even made an approach at Sydney. They would have diverted well before SYD due to not having the fuel to make an approach at SYD- no matter what the minima- and then divert elsewhere.

A Cat III approach doesn't solve all the ills at SYD because a number of the flights inbound simply can't make the approach at SYD and still have BNE as the alternate. Even with the Cat III approach they are going to be diverting an hour or so out of Sydney to a designated alternate. Quite often I departed LAX with a weather requirement on SYD or MEL but without the gas to carry the requirement. The flight was predicated on going to a DPA and then diverting if the weather requirements were still there. Nothing will change this point if a Cat III approach is installed. As you point out, the fuel requirements won't have changed and the aircraft still won't be able to carry it.

The only difference it will make is for those aircraft that CAN carry the fuel requirements- probably about half of those 11 aircraft- and the domestic fleet who can load up and carry MEL for SYD.

[C441]

Preset,
Whilst the aircraft may be able to shoot a successful Cat III approach, it would still most likely be required to carry fuel for an alternate as the Alternate minima will be higher than the Cat III Landing minima (at best somewhere between the current Cat I and the Cat III minima).
Using a Qantas example, from memory most European airports have an alternate minima of 400ft/1600m, well above the available Cat III minima.

[preset]

C441
My point is no matter what the minima is if the forecast is indicating that a diversion is probable then an airline will have to carry alternate fuel. I don't know what some airline fuel policies are but some authorities require alternate fuel to be carried, some all the time regardless of wx, some if the forecast is marginal. Again it's not about what the minima is just if the forecast is indicating conditons could be close to it.
I don't see what the difference would be if OZ goes to cat III. For example if the wx in SYD tomorrow was close to cat I would not an aircraft flying from the US carry an alternate ?

[Keg]

Again, that's the point. No they would not. They physically can't get the gas on. Therefore Cat III approaches don't make a zot of difference so seeing them as the silver bullet for these early morning diversions is a fools game.

With WX below alternate criteria- even for a Tempo- then most flights from the US, Jo'burg, Dubai, etc are diverting elsewhere well before SYD. Therefore Cat III is a waste of time and effort for these flights.

[ernestkgann]

Keg it's a bit of a stretch to say that CAT3 landing systems would be a waste of money. All international operators I know of are required to plan their flights with an alternate, no matter what the weather is. EK certainly does and the guys I fly with, from ops worldwide, indicate that their past companies do the same. Indeed even in the RAAF we were required to plan an alternate for international flights. We can throw the alternate away once airborne under certain conditions and even do so to a planned low vis approach.
I would argue that a CAT III capability would be great for the international operators but possibly not QF because of their fuel policy.
I'd bet QF carry an alternate to LA but not on return because Aust regs don't require it and the return sector against the STJ makes it tight.
In our company's case if we had to hold for an extended period at SY and the airport was set up with multiple CAT3 systems on different rwys we could abandon the alternate in favour of staying at SY and completing an autoland to get in.

[Jet_A_Knight]

Not to mention the tonnes of fuel across the fleets making up the schedule during the day.:hmm:

[ALLICEDUP]

Hey Keg,

I think Preset needs to know what DPA is in order to understand that an aircraft may not carry the required fuel when departing say LAX to MEL. I am new to this type of operation so will leave that for you to explain.

[ACMS]

Ahh maybe you might just have to offload some cargo chaps.

CX always carry an Alternate for HKG after a 15 hr ULH flight. Usually it's MCO but if the WX looks crap then KHH or TPE can be loaded with only maybe a 5 tonne drop in Cargo. ( we carry maybe 20 to 30 tonnes )

If we still can't make HKG with an alternate after we've dropped cargo we plan a tech stop.

It's not rocket science after all. That's what PLANNING is about.

Now if you didn't know about the FOG, well that's different I guess.
( although I wouldn't make a differnce to CX planning as we would already have carried an alternate )

[Lord Flashhart]

Keg-

Ek always carries an Alt for Syd and Mel. Its a bloody shame that Oz has no cat III ops. The other day we went to Auckland and even they had CAT III (and we had to shoot one for real too). Yet the day before, the Syd flight had to divert to Melb, with all the ensuing chaos for parking, refueling, crew scheduling etc. BRING ON CAT III!!!

[Bazzamundi]

What he is trying to say is that there is often not enough volumetric capicity in tanks at high weights to carry enough fuel for an alternate out of the US. You practically need about 20 tonnes over the top of Sydney to get to Brisbane or Melbourne in a 400, and often leaving LA with the tanks full, unfavourable winds, and high payloads, you end up with much less than that at Sydney.

Simple equation therefore becomes if you don't get a TTF for Sydney with no requirements, go somewhere before you get there. In the past I have seen HNL, AKL, BNE and others used for a gas and go to make the requirements at Sydney. A CatIII will still have higher alternate mins on a foggy day, so for some of these flights you still have to stop off enroute for a top up.

Most other routes are fine, just the US to Aus are hard, particularly the LAX to MEL sectors.

[C441]

Eclan,
At no time did I suggest that Qantas policy is the only policy; it is the only international policy that I, personally, have experience of.
It was used purely as an example and as it seems probably not a good one as I had misinterpreted preset's question.

I have many friends working with various other aviation groups around the world and some of their policies often make some Qantas policies look inadequate. (And for that reason I usually don't mention any carrier in any post I make - probably wont in future too.)

So please don't insinuate that I am Qantas centric and cannot see any other view. You just don't know me that well.:)

Oh and by the way I support an AFL team in the bottom four too. Doesn't mean I think that the likes of Hawthorn, Geelong or the Dogs cant play the game.

[preset]

Keg wrote
Even if they were prepared to pay, some of the international flights wouldn't be able to carry the alternate required anyway!

Allicepup wrote
Hey Keg,

I think Preset needs to know what DPA is in order to understand that an aircraft may not carry the required fuel when departing say LAX to MEL. I am new to this type of operation so will leave that for you to explain.


Well I'm glad to see I've maybe sparked some debate & comment on the subject :)
I don't know what the TLA DPA stands for & would be happy for an explanation.
As some have commented since my last post, my comments have been driven by my belief that most international carriers are required to carry alternate fuel for every flight (I understand QF may have a different policy) and therefore whether the destination minima is cat I or III would then be irrelevant to what departure fuel was taken (in the broad sense that is !), that was my point. Now if we are talking of enroute replanning then that's another discussion since different fuel policy requirements may come into play at that time.
As some have already said total fuel capacity can be a limiting factor for long flights but of course then the airline has to make a choice either decrease the ZFW so fuel consumption drops (obviously if capacity is the issue extra fuel can't be loaded in already full tanks) ie endurance increases or make a tech stop.

PS For those that may not be familiar with the abbreviation TLA it stands for Three Letter Acronym. Apologies for my pathetic attempt at humour :8

[Offchocks]

preset

DPA is basically the latest decision point along the route where if the latest WX forecast is above a certain cloud base/vis called alternate minima (which is higher than landing minima), then it is okay to continue without an alternate and usually landing with 60-90 minutes of fuel. If the weather at DPA is forecast below the alternate minima you divert to your en-route alternate. If the weather is cr*p pre flight then most often an alternate is carried if possible, otherwise divert from DPA if it is still cr*p.

I've worked under both flight planning methods and they both have their pros and cons.

From a personal point of view I reckon CAT III should be in BNE/SYD/MEL and PER, but that would mean dragging OZ aviation into the 20th century! :)

Apologies to all others for being off topic.

[preset]

Thanks Offchocks for the info. I'm familiar with the concept & have used similar myself.

[Keg]

So let me see if I understand this correctly. Every time EK arrive in Sydney and irrespective of the forecast they have fuel for MEL or BNE? What's this in a 777 or A340? About 15 tonne or so? (A third again on rough 767 figures is what I'm using). They do this for a couple of flights a day, 365 a year? They do this for MEL and BNE also? Does EK go into PER at the moment? What do they carry for that?!?! :eek:

Talk about a lot of extra gas but I guess when you're getting it cheaply from your nation I guess it ain't such a big deal. :rolleyes:

[Lord Flashhart]

Hey Keg-

Syd- usually Cb or Mel as alt,

Melb- Usually Syd or Adelaide

Perth- Port Hedland

Yep every flight everywhere in the world we have an alternate. You need it for third world destinations especially 3rd world places like Australia.

(Saves you doing autoland approaches in Perth when you shouldnt like good ol Quaintass did a while back.):E

Oh and we also have a commit to destination fuel policy.

[Keg]

Fair enough. As I said, it's a lot of extra gas to carry as well as the cost to carry it. Are you guys carrying much freight?

[Tankengine]

And at Qantas we can't use Cbr as a 330 alternate because CASA has not "approved" it [emergency only!]:ugh:

[Capt_SNAFU]

So EK have enough fuel to go the 820nm to hedland from the missed appproach in per? Thats a fair bit of fuel. Is it just one approach the go or enough for more than one?

[Lord Flashhart]

snafu-

Sorry- I made a mistake there- we usually hold Learmonth not Hedland.

Keg- the Syd melb flights are usually chokka with pax.

[schlong hauler]

Cat 111 ils is old technology. The 738, hopefully soon, will be certified for Cat 111 conditions using the HGS and augmented gps read gls approaches. No bending of the ils due to traffic or interference just rock solid simple approaches hand flown to cat 111 conditions. We need to get with the program? Bring on the 787 with dual hgs and multi mode receivers after all we are only forty years behind Europe and the US.

[willnotcomply]

simple approaches hand flown to cat 111 conditions



Me no think so!!!

[rmcdonal]

I was of the impression that all cat3s HAVE to be flown by the autopilot, of which you need 3.:confused:

[kimoki]

I think the point is it would be nice to land at the planned destination and not have to divert to the alternate. The fuel is carried anyway. Of course the people that own the airports are not going to cough up the money to stick in a decent Cat 3 ILS as it doesn't cost them anything when the fog rolls in.

[MTOW]

Have to admit that when I read schlong hauler's post about hand flown Cat III approaches and Cat III being 'old technology', I thought he might have been hauling his schlong a bit too often.

That unpronounceable word with the asterisk at the bottom of the Pprune page came to mind.

(I know there are some HUD-fitted corporate jets that enable hand flown approaches to be flown to a very low minima, but to date, I don't believe any major airline has procedures that allow a hand flown to any minima below Cat I (200'/550m viz). Standing by to be corrected, but certainly that's the system in my airline, and we're cleared to operate to Cat IIIB, with 0' minima.)

I'll be interested to see if Australia comes up with some amazingly complex procedure of its own for Cat III ops rather than simply following the procedures in almost universal use elsewhere in the world. Except France.

Edited to add: always carrying an alternate is standard practice virtually everywhere in the world except Australia - possibly the only example that comes to mind where Australian procedures are not more restrictive than everywhere else in the world. The only other example that comes to mind where Australian procedures are far more sensible than ICAO is Australia's loss of radio procedures, where the no radio aircraft just goes ahead and lands. ICAO grimly sticks to the patently silly procedure of entering the hold etc.

[Kiwiconehead]

AVE to be flown by the autopilot, of which you need 3

Don't need 3 - Avro RJ does CATIII with one.

Critical bits are the failure monitoring and modes.

[Avid Aviator]

I think some of the savings bandied about for Cat 2 & 3 are a bit overstated. Having landing minima below Cat 1 does not change your fuel requirements (read ALTN MINIMA) at destination. So even if you're Cat3 equipped, and Melb is Cat 3 capable as they promise one day, you still have to lug alternate fuel from LAX if Melb is below the published alternate minima - that's the same alternate minima as we use today, not a lower one because the ILS has a 3 added after it.

Yes, some aircraft will get in because the landing minima is lower, but some will still divert because the minima's not 0 metres, alternate fuel will still have to be carried from departure ports as it is now (a lot for long haul operators) and short haul operators will still gate hold before departure because it's probably cheaper, less delay and more efficient than launching into an airport with (real) low vis operations in progress.

I doubt the few hours a year Mel/Syd/Bne/Per are above Cat 2 or 3 minima but below Cat 1 (a small window in RVR) would save anything like the huge cost (spread over our limited capacity) of providing this infrastructure.

[Lord Flashhart]

Avid -

There is a difference between carrying the extra fuel and actually burning it. Plus the cost of accommodating 400 (on one flight) passengers in a place where they didn't actually want to be. Plus the fuel burn of the subsequent return to the original destination. Plus it is more than just a couple of hours a year.


Bring on Cat IIIC, especially at alleged major airports like Syd and Melb.

[point8six]

Fog at Sydney again? Last year I set off for YSSY with a forecast of 4kms, only to be advised that the actual was 100m with a CAT1 ILS, when close to ToD pt. Even 3rd world airports have CAT3 capability - so come on Sydney, time to catch up! (Are any Australian airports CAT2 or 3?). Should be "a requirement".:ok:

[strobes_on]

It's long been established that a single wide body diversion costs far more than than just the cost of the diversion fuel.

Accommodation (mentioned above), fuel (mentioned above), crew positioning (crew out of hours), maintenance requirements, airport and air navigation charges for use of the diversion airspace and airport, ground handling charges - the list just goes on and on. Traffic holding fuel waiting to be sequenced for a CAT 2/3 arrival pales into insignificance when compared to these other costs.

Over 20 international wide body diversions this year from the major east coast airports is a scathing indictment of the 1950's head in the sand mentality that seems to exist in Australia.

People running these organisations need to look at the calendar and realise that in 2008 there is NO excuse for not having at least one CAT 3 installation at MEL, SYD, BNE.

TIBA procedures that are a direct result of hopeless staffing practices are additional examples of gross mismanagement by the head authority. I stand to be corrected, but I can't think of one western developed country that I operate to frequently, where such large chunks of airspace and tower services are withdrawn in this manner so often.

This also reminds me of the joke doing the rounds about Australian ATC.

Pilot to ATC:

Can I tell you that Australian ATC is the second best I have ever seen.

ATC to Pilot: (After patting himself on the back)

Thankyou very much - who is the best ?

Pilot to ATC:

The rest of the world.

Australia is the laughing stock of the international aviation community when it comes to these issues.:ugh:

Rant over.

[Wiley]

From my experience, strobes on's last comment is distressingly close to the mark, and the joke is one you hear repeated far too often by so many international pilots - of many different nationalities - that Bruce Byron should take note. (Hint: I hope the minions who prepare Bruce's and the Minister's daily media scrapbook (do they still do that?) includes this thread, or at least the last few posts, in the issue.)

Another very expensive addition to strobes on's list is the follow on effects to the whole airline's schedule to a widebody's diversion due to weather, particularly at the extremes of a network, as Sydney and Melbourne are for all overseas airlines. It affects schedules for days, both because of the unavailability of the airframe and crews for its/their planned schedule,and in relatively large numbers of pax missing connections or having to be found seats on later flights, their booked flight having left half empty.

**********

If we're talking about saving the environment by reducing unnecessary fuel burn, another can of worms that simply must be addressed is the curfew in Sydney. Apart from strangling the efficiency of the whole Australian domestic network, it has a totally negative impact on the scheduling of virtually every international airline that serves Sydney.

The noise levels of modern day jet aircraft, particularly if they employ noise abatement procedures, is a fraction of the first generation jets’ noise print, around which the curfew was imposed. And I think a survey to find how many people living today under the flight paths of Sydney airport who have moved there – (and in many cases, bought property there cheaper than elsewhere in Sydney because of its proximity to the airport) – would show that very, very few are families who have lived there since before the airport became a major producer of aircraft noise.

[Bruce Roy]

Even if they were prepared to pay, some of the international flights wouldn't be able to carry the alternate required anyway!
Umm, am I missing something here, being cat 111 doesn´t absolve you from carrying an alternate. just means your alternate could be crappier. And I don´t know of anyone who will file nil alternate with fog on the forecast.

[Keg]

Yes Bruce, you are missing something.

LAX-SYD. 744. Min fuel before weather requirements can at times be 170 tonne. You can reach volumetric max- due to SG of fuel at about 168 tonne. If you have Tempo or alternate weather in SYD then you're departing without the fuel but based upon an in flight diversion of the weather doesn't improve.

HNL-SYD. 767. Min fuel before weather can be close to max. Throw on a Tempo requirement and they may just have it. An alternate requirement probably won't be able to be met. Depart knowing that if the alternate is required in flight that you're going somewhere else.

NRT-MEL. NRT-PER. 767. As above for HNL-SYD.

In any of the three cases above a Cat III won't make a zot of difference.

Even if I can off load the punters to put on the gas if the alternate is required on something that is going to be limited (767 flights like HKG-SYD, HKG-MEL, then I'm running an economically unviable service and hacking off the punters and breaking the freight contracts. It's probably cheaper when all things are considered to depart with the full traffic load and divert if the weather remains crappy.

Consider too the case whereby an alternate isn't forecast to be required- and thus isn't carried- but the weather changes so that weather requirements now exist. This is typical of a lot of the fog events in Sydney. A Cat III doesn't help out there either for Qantas flights. Of course this is due to our fuel policy which says that you don't need to turn up to Sydney with BNE or MEL every day of the week.

Finally, how many days a year would a Cat III be useful in Australia? My information shows 15 days a year in Sydney with Fog. MEL: 16. PER: 17, ADL 6, BNE 25.

A few people have talked about the 'costs' of diversions. Now I'm no 'min fuel' person but I'm also not a fan of carrying the stuff around for the mythical (realistically less than 1:1,000,000 event) of it being needed. There are about 32 flights out of MEL for SYD ever day. If each of them carried an alternate then we'd be looking at an increased fuel burn on each and every flight of about 300kg....possibly more. Extra fuel burn of 3500 tonne per annum. SYD for MEL is going to be a bit less given that we can plan Launie or Hobart....say about 2000 tonne per annum. PER flights carry Kalgoorlie on the 767 or Learmonth on the A330/Classic. Eight flights a day from the east coast? Ball park about 2000 tonne. So we've considered SYD-MEL-SYD and East Coast- PER and we've come up with about 7500 tonne of extra fuel burnt per annum by carrying the alternate when it wasn't required. It's going to take a lot of diversions 'saved' to make up for that cost!

Anyway, more fuel to the fire! :ok:

[blueloo]

Dont forget Keg, there are alot of min fuel gimps at QF, who look forward to their free Whip and Mars Bar Crew Snack bonus for following the company min fuel policy. So the weather needs to only go inter and many are stuffed.

[Bruce Roy]

Ah Keg, thanks for the informative answer on long haul fuel issues though my point was about the Cat III making no real philosophical difference to alternate requirements. Crappy weather (as designated by a legal criteria), carry an alternate even if you do have all the toys and crew training.. Not sure how aussie (CASA) will deal with LVP´s, but the JAR model seems to work fairly well. Has done for a while too.

[Keg]

Bruce, of course you're absolutely correct about your philosophical point. Cat I or Cat III, they both require an alternate. In normal circumstances for most QF ops, an unforecast alternate requirement due weather will see us diverting. There are exceptions to this rule and many crew are often a lot more conservative than the book says we have to be when the circumstances dictate. EG many 767 crew will carry Kalgoorlie for PER if the forecast is clear skies, high QNH, cold temps, etc even with no fog annotated on the forecast....too many close calls I guess. If there is fog on the forecast that is scheduled to start/finish a couple of hours either side of ETA then many guys will go for alternate plus some fat on top.

[410]

It's SOP in EK to carry 30 minutes holding fuel on top of the alternate whenever low viz ops are forecast, even if that means offloading payload. A sensible precaution, in my opinion, as Cat III ops always involve delays, if only for the extra spacing required betwen arrivals to protect the ILS signal. Usually, the delays stretch to more than just this.

I think even the most hard-headed management type would prefer the aircraft get in more or less on schedule with 4 or 5 tonnes of cargo left behind that have 100% of the payload divert to BNE or MEL at top of descent because the Cat III trained crew in a Cat III rated aircraft approaching an approved Cat III airfield have run out of options at that point.

I appreciate that transPacific ULH ops don't always give a crew the option of holding fuel when the fog is unexpected, but SY ATC usually give such aircraft priority, don't they?

[GaryGnu]

This is simply a cost/benefit decision by airline beancounters.

For those interested have a look at this (http://astra.aero/downloads/GIT/GIT10-Meeting_minutes_V1.1.pdf) document. In particular, page 5 of 10. This was the last time I am aware of that CAT II/III was considered in public in a co-ordinated manner, other than on a single airport basis.

Basically, the airlines said they didn't want to pay for it, the airports said if the airlines wouldn't pay for it then they wouldn't build the facilities.

While I would not defend the methods of airline accountants who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing I doubt very much whether they give a flying toss whether Australia is the laughing stock of the international aviation community when it comes to these issues

Very smart people with very accurate information make these decisions and I for one am not going to question it without better info.

[Lord Flashhart]

Keg- I have operated in companies that don't req' alts everywhere and those that do (eg EK). You have to admit it has just been lucky that there hasnt been an accident. (The 330 auto land at perth springs to mind). If there had of been a bingle then extra costs of carrying that fuel will all be worth it. We also operate to a large number of !!!!ty one runway airports in Africa, Pakistan, India, God the list is too long to mention. So- No fog forecast- off to Khartoum, then Bam - Prang on the runway and no runway available for landing. We divert. If it was Qantas- ???????? woops.

[Keg]

G'day Flashart, I agree with everything you said up until the very last sentence. No doubt if we were flogging around into the depths of Africa as EK does our fuel policy would probably be quite different to what it is now. The reality is that we don't so it doesn't. However, many of us going into Cairns will carry a lot more than min op due to it being a single runway 'super GA' field.

PER and the A330 autoland leads to an interesting discussion but one that I'm reluctant to pursue in a public forum. I did allude to that issue earlier and you can probably gather my personal feelings from my comments in that previous post. Suffice to say the QF fuel policy was modified post that event.

However, can I run through with you the EK answer to this one? When you guys carry an alternate, how much do you carry above and beyond min op (for the alternate). The reason that I ask is that an EK flight in the same circumstance as the QF one would have been diverting to Learmonth I presume? How much above and beyond diversion fuel and reserves? I'd hate to be turning up to YPLM for the first time on fixed reserves and variable from PER! Not quite as much as a low viz approach below minimums but still! ;) :eek:

[Lord Flashhart]

Gday Keg,

The additional fuel is up to the individual skipper. I'd say most skippers take a bit for the mum and the kids so to speak. Anywhere from 1 tonne to 3 tonnes plus. It really depends on where about you are going. Anywhere in Africa- 3 tonnes is not unusual to cover the TIA (this is africa) effect. I can only speak for the bus, and even then there is huge difference between the 330, 340-300 and 340-500.

This thread started off as a CatIII for Oz discussion, and as such, I just think that as the aviation industry expands in Oz and as more aircraft are coming equipped with cat III capability, surely there comes a point where the installation of Cat III equipment is a viable option for Oz. Fair enough 10years ago, not enough demand, but I think today, with the huge price of fuel (140$ just heard on CNN), coupled with the amount of traffic into Syd, if even the 15days of fog problem in Syd can be mitigated by Cat III then bring it on.

[MR MACH]

Big problem here is people are becoming confused - the airlines determine the economic case and so far they have determined that they don't want to pay for Cat III. The high price of fuel may change their views though.

Also Bruce Byron does not have any bearing on what is installed - Airservices and the airport operators provide those services.

Anyone suggesting that GLS in CAT III conditions is just a hairsbreadth away is fooling themselves - fine to demonstrate it in VMC or a simulator but in the real live case there are many more considerations such as Runway Intrusion, Taxiway/Runway marking and lighting etc.

Even if the GLS equipped aircraft can land you have to quarantine the taxiways/runways from ground vehicles and other taxying aircraft.

In fact a simulator session can give a false sense of security as usually there is no "Taxying to the Gate" after the landing which can sometimes be extremely demanding.

If you think back the major accidents in low vis they have occurred not on Approach but on the ground because pilots/ATC were confused as to their ground position - eg Teneriffe.

Lighting and the upkeep of the lighting is the BIG cost. Facilities like the "no break generators" have to be brought into service before LVP operations can commence.

Here is a link to an ICAO powerpoint presentation: Aerodrome Operations in Limited Visibility Conditions which gives an idea of what is needed as visibility decreases.

www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/meetings/almaty/aerodrome_ops_limvis_en.pps

[410]

In fact a simulator session can give a false sense of security as usually there is no "Taxying to the Gate" after the landing which can sometimes be extremely demanding.I'd have to agree that from my experience, taxying is potentially the riskiest area in low viz ops. On one occasion, I stopped and called for a follow me van after landing when I could see only one taxiway centreline light and I knew from the notams that there were closed taxiways. (The same night, the fleet captain taxied into a cul de sac and had to be towed to the gate.) In our sim sesions, taxying in low viz (and finding your way to the runway!!) is very much part of the exercise.

A few respondents to this thread have made light of the training required and the costs involved in maintaining a Cat III rating for all of an airline's crews. Neither are inconsiderble, and anyone who thinks otherwise quite obviously has no experience of Cat III ops. I don't know the figures, but I understand that the added costs for an airport to provide Cat III facilities are quite considerable as well.

As for most things in this business these days, it all boils down to the dreaded bottom line. Sydney will get Cat III after the major operators using it have convinced themselves that the costs of 15 days of diversions per annum due fog outweigh the costs of paying the extra fees Macquarie Bank will charge them to provide - and maintain - the ground equipment AND the costs of maintaining their aircraft and training their crews for Cat III ops.

I agree with Keg that maybe it's about time some accountant factored in the ingangible costs of 'n' thousand pissed off passengers and disrupted schedules that those 15 days of diversions per annum inflict as well as the more obvious costs that can be more easily weighed against each other in black and white on a ledger sheet.

[HIALS]

Am I the only one thinking that the decision not to have Cat III appears to be a microeconomic one (i.e. the cost/benefit analysis is being done by individual companies) whereas the overall effects of the disruption caused by the notional '15 days per year' has a macroeconomic effect (i.e. the cost/benefit analysis should be done by the Industry in toto).

Is the narrow view of individual managers causing Australian airports to fall behind global 'best practice'?

[Capt Fathom]

Then some capts will add on a little more but any reason for this needs to be explained.

This is good. If you have no reason to put on extra fuel, then you don't have to explain it.

I like it! :E

[GaryGnu]

HIALS,

Quite possibly.

However, in a world where private airlines operate to privately owned (or long termed leased) airports with each busting their guts to pass a return to their shareholders and a government that dictates users shall pay for everything I don't think much will change.

If it is really that important that Australia has Low Visibility facilities then perhaps the point should be made to the Government when it is formulating the national aviation policy statement (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/nap/index.aspx).

To those relying on GLS to come to the rescue, you better be prepared to wait. CAT I certification is expected late this year but CAT II/III is waaaaay off. GLS Cat II/III still requires all the compliant ground infrastructure and that can take time.

[Arctaurus]

Is the narrow view of individual managers causing Australian airports to fall behind global 'best practice'?

To quote a former Ansett General Manager: "Absolutely" :ugh: