ATC restrictions due to adverse wx

[BRUpax]

This evening's BHX-AMS BA flight was "delayed due to air traffic control restrictions because of adverse weather at AMS". I checked the AMS actual and the wx was fine. I suspect the truth was that the restrictions were due to runway capacity problems relating to local environmental restrictions. THAT IS NOT AN ATC INDUCED PROBLEM so why put the blame on them? Convenient I guess.

[You splitter]

When you say the weather was fine, exactly what do you mean?

Just because the wx is ok to land dosn't mean you wont get a delay. Zurich airport for example. As soon as the visability goes to below 1500m the flow rate is cut in half.
That means that the aiport would normally take 50 movements an hour but now takes only 25. You could be sitting on a CATIII fully automated landing aircraft capable of landing in conditions of 100m viz. You'd still have to wait your turn.

Also the other thing to consider is that the weather maybe OK at Amsterdam, but if every other airport within 50 Nautical miles is fogged out, every man and his dog is gonna end up at Amsterdam, therefore reducing the ATC capacity.

Then again you maybe right. The amopunt of times I've heard handling agents give out the wrong reason for a delay is astounding.

The crew should never lie to you. I always believe that most passengers can understand things don't go according to plan. Never lie. What is important to them is clear accurate information given regularly.

Cheers

[BRUpax]

Yes, I understand ALL that you point out and I did check to the best of my ability that none of these factors were in play. The EHAM wx at the time was 051555z 25017KT 9999 FEW009 SCT011 BKN015 09/07 Q0982 NOSIG. EBBR, EDDL, EHRD were all pretty similar. Hardly > adverse weather < you would agree.

Incidentally, I was only refering to the anouncement made [several times] in the departure lounge and not what the crew said. I travelled on a flight to BRU so I don't know what explanation the crew gave. They may well have provided the true picture.

[This message has been edited by BRUpax (edited 06 January 2001).]

[You splitter]

What can I say. Nothing wrong with the viz at all. If we start getting ATC capicity delays for 10km+ then I'd take Eurostar!

Sounds like misleading PA's if you ask me.

[Stop Stop Stop]

As a regular operator to AMS I think possibly the words 'Adverse weather conditions' were a little ill-chosen.

The wind on the actual of 250/17 will almost certainly have triggered operations of runway 27 for landing which always seems to slow things down a lot and slot delays given out at the last moment are not uncommon.

Whilst in limits for runway 19R I don't think you are fully equipped to comment on whether runway 19R was available. ATC can, and do, make tactical changes to runway availibility to fit in with agreed noise quotas for landings and take offs from each runway. The serious restrictions that we saw in October when the quota had been exceeded for the financial year does not feature any more.

My guess is that the wind was a bit strong from the west, ATC bunged everyone onto 27 which would delay things somewhat. It is better to absorb a delay by means of a slot than to spend 40 minutes going round the Sugol Hold waiting for your turn to land.

[OSMA723]

Looks like they had spouts at Eurocontrol
Copy of the AIM issued

AIM VALID 05/01/2001-05/01/2001 - RELEASED 15:43:00 05/01/2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TACT/CASA INFORMATION MESSAGE
-----------------------------
REF. : EHAMA05A
.
VALID : FROM: 1600 UNTIL: 2200 UTC
.
REMARKS : DUE TO CONTINUING STRONG WINDS AT EHAM THE LANDING RATE
HAS BEEN REDUCED TO 35/60 UNTIL 1730 AND THEN FURTHER
REDUCED TO 30/60.
-SIGNIFICANT DELAYS CAN BE EXPECTED. NO IMPROVEMENT
IS ANTICIPATED IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
FMD BRUSSELS
END OF PART 001