Destination Aiport not allowing T/O's to their Airport because of WX

[manuel ortiz]

Can/does ATC in your part of the world denay commercial operators to take off from their departure Airport because - their - Airport which happens to be your destination is below landing WX minimums?

Alternate airport is Cavok so no problem if the WX at Dest. does not change and you have to divert

The point is not because of traffic congestion in their airspace but because actual and forcasted WX shows to be below minimums for arrival at destination.

Q. is also not if it makes any sense or not to T/O with that WX at destination.

[JonG]

UK MATS part 1 Section 1, Chapter 4, Page 5

A controller has no authority to withhold take-off clearence because the intended destination is closed.


I assume it would be the same for weather below minima.

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

OK good point. Maybe I misunderstood the original question. I was not talking about a controller specifically witholding clearance, more in terms of Flow Management issuing flight suspension messages due to weather below minima.

[5milesbaby]

I think it has been known for Flow Control to impose a "zero flow rate" occasionally to certain routes for a/c inbound to certain large UK airfields simply to protect the controllers. If you are sat on the ground waiting to get airborne you wouldn't know about any congestion at your destination and this would not be specified in the flow restriction, but I would imagine (or have actually seen) at say Heathrow, the stacks would fill very quickly with anything already airborne from departure points further away. Simple solution, stop anything else getting airborne temporarily until the situation can be controlled safely. Imagine 42 aircraft entering the stacks every hour, the RTF is quite loaded. Then they all ask to divert.............

5mb

[Roffa]

It used to be, maybe still is, the case that LHR could apply an RVR barrier in low vis ops i.e. only traffic able to land below a certain IRVR would be accepted.

Not seen that done for a while though.

It was probably done when there were more a/c about that couldn't land in IRVRs below around 600m. Didn't want the stacks filling with traffic that couldn't make an approach.

Now that the bulk of traffic can land in very low IRVRs the low vis flow control takes care of the airborne holding situation (most of the time anyway).

[manuel ortiz]

Tks for the good feedback and to clarify my original Q!!

It is actually the destination airport (180 nm away) telling the departure airport ATC to not give the IFR clearence to that aircraft because they (Destination) are below minimums for their VOR App.

So, can the destination aiport at your part of the world do that and is there any written guidance on that.
Would be particulary interested in an ICAO Ref. but any further feedback will be very much appreciated.

Pilot/Operator point of view might be to depart and if WX remains below minimums before the FAF divert to the alternate but the departure airport follows the destination ATC instructions and will not issue an IFR clearence to that destination.

[chiglet]

When I worked in Manch Tower, we would sometimes get flow messages stating that a/c which could not meet a set RVR minimum, were not being given a slot. As has been said, it's not necessarlily the destination a/f, but en-route holds, that stack up as well.

[manuel ortiz]

Traffic congestion was not an issue, enroute or at destination.

[Captain Windsock]

Why didn't you refile to your alternate airport, which was cavok, and have your original airport as the alternate? Then when airbourne if your original airport became within limits you could divert into them and everybody happy.

[Dizzee Rascal]

It is actually the destination airport (180 nm away) telling the departure airport ATC to not give the IFR clearence to that aircraft because they (Destination) are below minimums for their VOR App.

This sounds very much like a situation we had the other day at the airfield where I work (where are you referring to manuel?)

In our case, the zero rate flow restrictions inbound were not implemented by us (at the airfield) but by the flow manager on behalf of the local radar unit who physically cannot handle a stream of inbounds (not just for our airfield but another one they deal with up the road) when the weather for one or the other deteriorates and or is below minimums and it is highly likely that the aircraft will be asking to divert. This particular radar unit has a tough time of it already with only 3 levels to handle traffic. 2 of these levels being inside controlled airspace and 1 out!

Like I said, in our case the zero rate was not implemented by us but having seen the ATFM messages myself in the past they do look like we had issued them. Regardless of who issued the zero rate flow, or what the messages said, due to the local set-up, when the weather is below the absolute minima (and aircraft shouldn't be making approaches anyway), zero rate is the only the option available.

[manuel ortiz]

DR
It happened between two small Countries in the Americas.

The mentioned option to depart putting the alternate as destination and departure as alternate was one of the solutions considered but it also had some PAX impact. At the end we got a release to go, WX did not change and we just headed to the alternate.

This all prompted my Q. to know if in other parts of the world the two airports involved had the right to do the same.

By the way, not that I am really complaining!

Of course I have started to contact the two ATC's involved just to know their point of view.

How do you all interpret JonG's first feed back post to all this topic?

Great to be in contact with you ATC guys!! Believe its my first post here... Very seldom fly to Europe, you all do a grat job!!