just wondering if any of the major airports in Australia use this technology yet. During periods of low cloud it seems a large majority of aircraft must divert but with a CAT 3 the weather will usually never get so bad that an aircraft can't make a successful approach, unless XWinds are too excessive
Folks, All about user pays, and in this case, the users, the airlines will not pay for upgrades ---- a CBA says it's cheaper to have the occasional diversion. If Cat.III availability reduced alternate minima requirements, it might be a different story. Tootle pip!!
Folks, All about user pays, and in this case, the users, the airlines will not pay forupgrades
When were these upgrades offered & to which airlines. What was the cost of the upgrade and what then was the cost per airline?
Sounds a very dubious explanation.
it's cheaper to have the occasional diversion.
For whom? Maybe for the air carrier, not for Australia or its trading customers. You miss a day's work & that day has gone forever. You don't boost productivity by under investing in infrastructure. Sorry, its not cheaper to have the occassional diversion.
A wealthy country such as ours, awash with cash like almost no other nation should be, right now, substantially spending on equipment, technology and prodctivity. For the first time since WWII Australia is looking very likely to be considered a safe haven for capital markets instead of the US!! This is our time - it probably won't ever be better.
If you believe this nation should not have Cat IIIC ILS capabilities in the relevant capitals today then it truly is time to give the whole game away!
"If you believe this nation should not have Cat IIIC ILS capabilities in the relevant capitals today then it truly is time to give the whole game away!"
Tell that to the minister without a brain. Who advises him?...for years they thought it wasnt safe, so.....
Last edited by thorn bird; 17th May 2012 at 09:53.
A wealthy country such as ours, awash with cash like almost no other nation should be, right now, substantially spending on equipment, technology and prodctivity.
Would that be the one with Billions of debt and increasing at $100m per day?
All about user pays, and in this case, the users, the airlines will not pay forupgrades When were these upgrades offered & to which airlines. What was the cost of the upgrade and what then was the cost per airline? Sounds a very dubious explanation.
Nulli, Are you aware of the AATA, Australian Air Transport Association, representing its members, and the BAR, Board of Airline Representatives, the lobby for the international carriers. The discussions on every aspect of charges levied on airlines is intense and ongoing.
Quote:
it's cheaper to have the occasional diversion. For whom? Maybe for the air carrier, not for Australia or its trading customers.
The airline bottom line, what else ---- but that carries through the system to fares, in what is a reasonably competitive environment.
The simple fact, and it is a fact, is that the number of hours a year, at major airports, where Cat III availability would have made a difference to arrivals is rather small, the consensus so far (and this is nothing to do with the present Minister) is that there is no economic justification for further rollout of Car III.
If "global warming" is real, will the incidence of fog become even more uncommon?? I certainly don't have that answer, but who does??
What a lot of pilots don't realise is that it is not a matter of an airport operator simply buying more sophisticated ILS equipment to offer Cat III precision approach capability at an airport. Precision approach capability is all about a "whole of airport" operations concept.
Any increase in precision approach capability beyond Cat I capability may also involve costly adjustments to airport perimeter fencing and security, airfield lighting, standby power facilities as well as to surface movement guidance and surveillance systems; just to name a few.
As LeadSled indicates all these associated costs need to be factored in as well, and assessed against the likely number of diversions and their economic impact under a CBA. At the end of the day, it is usually the user airlines that will determine whether a higher level of precision approach capability is operationally justified and whether they are prepared to pay for the extra level of capability. Regulators may also mandate a higher level of capability if they consider safety is likely to be compromised.
Quote: All about user pays, and in this case, the users, the airlines will not pay for upgrades When were these upgrades offered & to which airlines. What was the cost of the upgrade and what then was the cost per airline? Sounds a very dubious explanation.
Nulli, Are you aware of the AATA, Australian Air Transport Association, representing its members, and the BAR, Board of Airline Representatives, the lobby for the international carriers. The discussions on every aspect of charges levied on airlines is intense and ongoing.
And are these discussions involving Air Services and their charges. So specifically, when were any airlines offered ILS's upgrades to Cat III and when did they turn down the offer to pay for these upgrades? Continues to sound very dubious.
So its 'intense & ongoing'....... hardly a revelation of any value
The simple fact, and it is a fact, is that the number of hours a year, at major airports, where Cat III availability would have made a difference to arrivals is rather small, the consensus so far (and this is nothing to do with the present Minister) is that there is no economic justification for further rollout of Car III.
Sorry mate, no facts forthcoming so far.
Understand this, the economic power in Australian super alone is AUD 1.3 trillion under management. This is the time you build up your infrastructure & productivity. You need this infrastructure in Australia. This country has consistently fallen behind on national capex & yet its economic prosperity significantly puts us ahead of most other developed countries.
Why would you speak against sound capital investment at this time?
Seems like all the empty vessels are out there again with most of these posts incorrect. Neither Airservices or the government paid for the ML Cat III upgrade. It was done by the airport operator to attract business to ML which is also curfew free. The upgrade also involved upgrades to airport lighting including stop bars and standby power. The ILS is battery powered on continuous charge. The fence was already there. If people want to know about systems, they need to go to the source rather than wild speculation via this forum.
Understand this, the economic power in Australian super alone is AUD 1.3 trillion under management.
Hang on. That is MY money, not "Australia's" to spend on "keeping up with the Joneses". In decades in the industry in Oz, there is no way a Cat 3 ILS would be justifed given the number of diversions that I have made because of really bad weather.
Especially in the current economic climate, you'd be a moron to start spending money on dubious-benefit projects just because it sounds like a good idea. Spending the taxpayers money is bad enough; unless there is a clear financial benefit, keep yer mitts off personal super.
I can't give you the number of times but whenever the weather is below CatI. It's not just CatIII but also includes Cat II. All the QANTAS jet fleet is CatII or CatIII. So on those days when conditions are less than 200ft / 800m it can be used. The RVR transmissometers also allow CatI down to 550 RVR. Takeoff is also available down to 125m RVR RWY 27 and 100m RWY 16 providing the operator is approved. This opens departures to Jetstar and Virgin who will eventually move to CatII / III. So eventually ML wil have diversions and missed approaches due weather almost a thing of the past. There are some limitations around RVR transmissometers certification and rain. The Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System also speeds up surface traffic handling during LVP.
