Thanks for the bump NutLoose, before it faded into oblivion without comment!
Thanks for the link Basil, I had not thought to search the expression. Interesting reading, and I do not claim to have studied it in detail (yet).
I understand the concept and the reasons for Risk Assessment, but wonder if it can be a rather blunt instrument at times. In this case, it has been identified that a risk exists, during certain met conditions, of turbulence worse than might be obvious, that could result in an aircraft accident. The chosen solution seems to be that during any period that the turbulence is forecast, the airfield will be closed, regardless of the actual conditions (thanks LFH for the chapter and verse on that).
Arty, I fully agree that encounters with severe turbulence and rotors are dangerous, and I am not suggesting ignoring the risk. However, is "Risk Assessment" not what our job as professional pilots mainly consists of? We have our individual training, our company/organisation Ops Manuals with all their limitations to guide us. I am interested in how the "Ownership of risk" has migrated from the aircraft crew/airline/operator to the Airfield operator. Are the conditions found at MPA so unique that the decision must be taken away from the crew? How are decisions made at other international airports that suffer similar weather issues - is it an airfield decision or an operator decision. Is this a difference between Civ And Mil?
LanChile regularly operate into very challenging destinations, such as Ushuaia. I am sure there are turbulent conditions when aircraft stop operating, but is it the Airport that decides? (Maybe it is, I do not know).
I agree that with rotors, you cannot predict exactly when they will hit if it is already blowing 350/30-40, but when the forecaster has forecast 330/15-20, Tempo 340/25g35 530003, P30 tempo vrb05 560003, it does not go from 15 kts to 560003 in an instant. It has often been the case during the past year, since the rules changed, that aircraft have been prevented from contemplating a departure based on actual conditions, because the airfield is closed based on what might happen rather than what is actually happening.
Sandy Parts, appreciate your suggestion of a chat to the Liaison Officer, however as a lowly individual (albeit with an aviation background), I don't think I would get much out of it - I suspect from various conversations I have had that there are people representing various operators (Hi-Fly oil charter?, LanChile?), and the FI government who don't seem to be able to get any review of the rules considered.