Merged: Fog proof Tullamarine?

[Cat on a PC©]

I thought with the new CAT III ILS and new lighting, this (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/flight-delays-as-fog-blankets-melbourne-airport-20100603-x0cv.html)was a thing of the past.

According to the Melbourne Airport (http://www.melbourneairport.com.au/About-Melbourne-Airport/Media/Media-releases/Major-technology-upgrade-and-new-control-tower-for-Melbourne-Airport.html)site, the CAT III would have allowed 100% arrival and departure capability in foggy conditions for all approved operators.What percentage of 'operators' using YMML are approved for CAT III. Going on media reports about the number of diversions in today's foggy conditions, there doesn't appear to be many.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Newspapers reporting significant disruption this morning. Is the CATIII ILS working or is it just no-one is trained to use it?

Flights Delayed At Melbourne Airport (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/flight-delays-as-fog-blankets-melbourne-airport-20100603-x0cv.html)

[Capt Fathom]

There needs to be a significant reduction to the ALTN Minima to make it worthwhile for longhaul flights (or others caught out by last minute changes)

If you can't carry diversion fuel, the CATIII minima is useless to you!

[A Comfy Chair]

Cat III?

Qantas widebody fleet, the foreign operators and thats about it!

As the others have said, you need to have an alternate (probably Sydney), so the Los Angeles flights will never make it without a fuel stop.

[Tankengine]

I spent >60mins gatehold plus about 10min holding pattern today in a QF widebody capable of 100m vis ops while MEL was 300m.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

ATC needs to lift it's game and allow those WITH the ability to use it!:mad:

[eocvictim]

"It should start to break up about the 10am or 11am mark. The airport has been in fog for the last couple of hours. The visibility is down to the 500 metre mark with very low cloud as well.’’

aye?

CAT IIIB RVR 75m
CAT IIIA DH50' RVR 200m
CAT II RVR 100' 350m

...?

[nebpor]

Simple SLF here giving the view from the back ...

When I arrived at Melbourne tonight for the 5pm QF Sydney flight, our Captain told us about Qantas having a bad day due to the early morning Melbourne fog, then the mid-afternoon Sydney weather. The first thing I thought was - didn't I read recently that Melbourne had just upgraded to a higher tech system that meant they wouldn't suffer as much from fog?

So I'm 'glad' to come on here this evening to find that the professionals are discussing just this thing!

Now you've cleared that up for me, can one of you kindly explain what went so pear-shaped in Sydney in the afternoon - was it thunder storms that caused delays, i.e. no way to avoid them?

[sunnySA]

Perhaps those capable of CAT111 should have priority, a bit like PRM at Sydney where those who are PRM capable have priority over those who are NON-PRM.

When the quoted RVR is such that only CAT111 capable aircraft are likely to make a successful approach then it is complete folly to have other aircraft fly the approach and miss out. Waste of everyone's time and money, extra workload for the Tower and both APP and DEP controllers.

[AlJassmi]

CASA haven't approved approach bans for those without >CAT 1 ability. So ATC can't tell the CAT1ers to get nicked even when it's known to be a waste of their and everyone else's time.

I believe some departures who require 500m vis were invited to wait until conditions were suitable so they weren't just sitting at the holding pt blocking everyone else.

[clear to land]

ALTN Minima are irrelevent to an inbound long haul operator-we ALWAYS have an ALTN. (Whether it is a suitable ALTN or not can be an issue.) The question is why anyone is 'having a go' at the approach when RVR is available and says it is below the minima :ugh:

[Falcon124]

Guess no one here works ATC at YMML?

Sure, the CAT III approach systems are working and many of the aircraft have CAT III capability, but the crew have to be current with CAT III training & checks PLUS the aircraft has to be checked out & current (yes, the aircraft too - go figure).

In addition to this, full CAT III slows approaches down to a crawl as more time is required between arrivals plus runway inspections are required.

So, if you're coming in from long overseas with not a lot of fuel before you're on reserves and you know it's bad, even with CAT III currency, you may be in a queue as it's a slow stack, so you go elsewhere.

As to domestics, Virgin Blue, Jetstar & Tiger aren't CAT III neither are the Qantas 737s out of NZ, so there's a stack of "no joy" aircraft.

So even with a functional CAT III system (that was apparently used this morning to bring a few in) it's not a walk in the park and there are delays, queues and hassles. At least some got in despite the clag :)


NOTE: I'm not an ATC at YMML but a friend of mine is and he gave me a pretty good run down on it :)

[BalusKaptan]

Most countries have an 'Approach Ban'. This needs to be implemented in Australia to assist LWMO operations to work appropriately. Even with this process in place some operators will still hog the space by carrying on down to 1000' AAT before going-around. Many airports, on arrival in the approach area, request aircraft to state what minima they require for their flight and thus ATC position the arrivals so that those that can legally continue an approach below 1000'AAT get the chance to ahead of those that just fly down to 1000'AAT then give it away.

[c100driver]

It is ground movements that slows down the arrival and departure rate the most. At AKL only 4 aircraft can move at any one time on the taxiway with mandatory hold points.

Auckland will drop down to about 12 movements per hour in Cat111 operations, it increases a little with the MLat operational. When AKL first went Cat111 the rate was only 6 an hour as every one gained experience in LVO so it does get better.

For start clearance the pilot is required to pass departure viz minimum required to ATC. The start is only given if the viz is better than that stated. On arrival the pilot is asked for approach cat, if the weather is below your cat they ask what airport you want to divert to.

The priority at Auckland is International Arrivals first, then international departures, domestic arrivals then domestic departures.

It is not business as usual but at least it is some business.

[an3_bolt]

ALTN Minima are irrelevent to an inbound long haul operator-we ALWAYS have an ALTN. (Whether it is a suitable ALTN or not can be an issue.)

Not all airlines (including long haul operators) have the same fuel policy and requirements regarding alternates at destination.

Your statement is obviously correct for your airline however.

Cheers

[parabellum]

Companies that I have worked for have stated their own Approach Ban in the SOPs. If the required RVR. is, say, 600m and the actual RVR is 200m then that would constitute an approach ban and non equipped aircraft shouldn't even be taking a look, just a complete waste of fuel. In a B744 a missed approach can use between 4 and 5 tons of fuel, that same fuel would last a long time at min drag speed in the hold. Given a bit more familiarity with CatIII and I would expect MEL ATC to get this sorted, still early days.

[Red Jet]

Cat III?

Qantas widebody fleet, the foreign operators and thats about it!



You can add V Australia to that short list:ok:

As the others have said, you need to have an alternate (probably Sydney), so the Los Angeles flights will never make it without a fuel stop.

Actually, the mighty -300ER can carry a full passenger load LAX-MEL, holding ADL as an alternate. This aircraft was BUILT for this sort of a thing.

[Falcon124]

Thanks mmmbop - I'll pass this on to my mate at ATC as he seemed to indicate that some crews may not be CAT III current even if the aircraft was and also that some aircraft may not be verified. Will see if I misquoted or if he considers a similar response to your "What a load of irrelevant rubbish." :) :)

[Tankengine]

"Quote:
ATC needs to lift it's game and allow those WITH the ability to use it!
Got nuthin' to do with ATC, whenever there's a fog like that you all WANT to hold and wait for someone else to have the first crack.

Sounds like a company problem to me Tankboy"

Owen,
The companies cannot do anything if the ATC idiots [managers, not the individuals on the radios] will not let them!!:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

In other parts of the world when the conditions reduce below the criteria they have they declare "low visibility operations" and all the cat1 guys either hold or divert [or stay parked on the ground] while those with the capability simply come in and land!:ok: - usually with no delay as the Cat1 aircraft are not in the picture!:E

of couse our ATC system is the best in the world!:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Falcon124]

At no stage would an ATC check if the crew or aircraft are current/capable.

Sorry Owen - wasn't trying to say that ATC would check this. Rather that my ATC mate had indicated that this was reasons for specific aircraft NOT attempting to use YMML's shiny new CAT III capable equipment.

[missy]

Can someone post the ML ATIS for the relevant period, tks.:ok:

[eocvictim]

SPECI YMML 022124Z 33003KT 0100 R16/0125V0450D R27/0325V0400N FG VV/// 08/08 Q1026 FM2400 VRB05KT CAVOK

thats the worst part of it. It was that bad for about an hour.

[Feather #3]

Have a little read of this gem.

Approach bans may not be in force in this country, but it would be interesting, to say the least, to hear the defence of a pilot of an aircraft incapable of Cat II/III who commences an approach with RVR figures anywhere like those in the SPECI above.

Having said that, other countries ATC won't even consider letting non-LoVis capable aircraft commence an approach and expedite the arrival of appropriately equipped aircraft. Go-arounds from approaches commenced in contravention of this Reg waste time, fuel and increase risk for the travelling public.

However, the novelty in this country of at last being able to actually use the full capabilities of modern aircraft in this phase of flight might take some time to sink in to those responsible for managing the show at both airline and other levels.

G'day ;)

[Tankengine]

Zero change to my Airline's ops, only change req is on the ground in MEL!:ugh:

[Wizofoz]

Feather is right on the money here.

There has always been a culture in Aus that you can "Go and have a look". But is vis is well below minimum, you have no "Reasnoble expectaion" of a landing, and are totally exposed if anything goes wrong.

[Bankstown]

CASA Low Vis approvals include approach ban information. If the RVR is below minima an approach cannot be commenced, if the reported RVR falls below minima and the aircraft is below 1000 feet the approach can be continued.

[missy]

CASA Low Vis approvals include approach ban information. If the RVR is below minima an approach cannot be commenced

Be interesting to see the CASA Low Vis approvals in writing (anyone??).

ASMGCS and ML ILS replacement got a mention at Waypoint 2010.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projectsservices/industryforums/waypoint/2010/presentations/workshop4.pdf (http://http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projectsservices/industryforums/waypoint/2010/presentations/workshop4.pdf)
Pity Low Vis operations and approval weren't discussed...

[Capt Fathom]

CASA Low Vis approvals in writing

Try the CASA Website!

[Feather #3]

Please note, I'm not talking about those who HAVE Low Vis approval/s, it's those who DON'T and then "clutter" the system!:=

G'day ;)

[A. Le Rhone]

Yes but in fairness you are talking about RVR when the 'have a look' mentality was more cloud-base oriented. WX on approach to RW16 at YMML can often hover well above and below ceiling minimas and the only way to really test it is to actually go to the minima and see what's there. Approach bans would be daft in those circumstances. The old TAA 'monitored-approach' was perfect for the above scenario.

LWMO tends to be more RVR-limiting and this is where the have a look approach is not suitable and open to cowboys with get-in-itis - especially if they don't know how to put A320 levers into the TOGA detent ;-)

[compressor stall]

Those who flew internationally understood the ramifications of CAT II & III......

A few years ago couple of American bizjet pilots found out the hard way what the implications are for shooting an approach with approach bans in place in Russia. Apparently they were locked up for for nearly a week....

[haughtney1]

A few years ago couple of American bizjet pilots found out the hard way what the implications are for shooting an approach with approach bans in place in Russia. Apparently they were locked up for for nearly a week....

Ahh yes, the wonderful Russian (or former Republic) system of telling the pilots at 300' AGL "RVR below minima...landing not possible...your decision?"
"aaaaaah going round...."

:ugh:

[MrApproach]

The "go and have a look" was all about ATC declaring a ground visibility while a pilot can observe a flight visibility, hence many a pilot has landed because he could see what he needed. RVR transmissometers have changed that.

Another reason for approach bans is to allow departures. With a sky full of circling aircraft getting near their latest divert times no-one gets to depart even though the departure minimum is often better than the landing.

[fujii]

During the fog on 3rd June, 32 aircraft landed when LVP were in progress. For the same period the week before there were 55 landings. The difference being CAT I aircraft which could not land. Without CAT III there would have been no landings on 3rd.

[missy]

During the fog on 3rd June, 32 aircraft landed when LVP were in progress. For the same period the week before there were 55 landings. (http://During the fog on 3rd June, 32 aircraft landed when LVP were in progress. For the same period the week before there were 55 landings.)

Interesting stats, are you able to advise how many non-CAT III aircraft made an approach?

tks

[Tankengine]

OK Fujii,
Can you explain why we gateheld in Sydney for over an hour in a Cat3 aircraft?

[le Pingouin]

Tank, Surely that is a company decision? Talk to them.

[sunnySA]

I understand that MEL required 15 mins between successive departures FROM all airports. At SYD the 15 mins quickly became a 90 minute delay for the last SYD-MEL aircraft.

[Tankengine]

Le Pingouin,
Not company, ATC!:ugh:
As Sunny replied, ATC required, but why? If no Cat 1 aircraft arriving then things should SPEED UP!!:E

[nitpicker330]

Missy:-- Are you able to tell us how many per hour landed during the LVP and what was the average holding time required.

I need to know how much extra fuel to carry next time fog is forecast:ok:

[le Pingouin]

Tank, fair enough. As far as I'm aware ATC has no way of knowing what cat ILS a particular aircraft is capable of until we're told. Perhaps your company (presuming you fly for one of them) needs to talk to Airservices about developing some procedures.

[Tankengine]

Agreed!

Although why install the good gear with no plan?:confused:

[missy]

nitpicker330
Missy:-- Are you able to tell us how many per hour landed during the LVP and what was the average holding time required.

I am not able to advise how many LVP movements per hour at MEL nor the average holding time. You really need to speak to someone who is more recent with ops at MEL.

Perhaps AIP needs to be wordsmithed to include something like:

Notwithstanding sub para 9.3, at Melbourne, when Low Visibility Procedures are in progress, the following order of priorities will apply:
a. scheduled commercial air transport operations into Melbourne with CAT111 capability
b. with equal status:-
i. scheduled commercial air transport operations;
ii. non-scheduled commercial air transport operations;
iii. military aircraft (other than training flights);
iv. aircraft engaged in the personal transport of
- State Governors or he Administrator of the Northern Territory,
- State Premiers of Chief Ministers of erritories;
v. aircraft participating in Medical (MED 2) operations;
c. with equal status:
i. general aviation aircraft proceeding to a primary aerodrome;
ii. Military and civil training flights; and
d. other operations

As I recall, CAT111 capability isn't in the FPL. It would then need to be advised to ATC, who would need to manually enter the information into the aircraft's label on the radar display (only when Low Visibility Procedures are on the MEL ATIS).

As it is unlikely that Maestro would be able to recognise information from the aircraft's label then MEL Flow would be required to manually sort the arrival sequence. Might need to have separate holding points for non-CAT111 aircraft.

tankengine,
why install the good gear with no plan

Good question, unfortunately, CATIII is seen as a panacea for all things that can't be seen. There is a lot more to CATIII operations than just a lower minima. ATC procedures are just part of this, aircraft capability, aircrew & ATC familiarity, more rigorous flight testing procedures, aerodrome facilities, to name a few.

[missy]

Joint AirservicesAustralia and Melbourne Airport Media Releases, 31/5/2010.

Major technology upgrade and new control tower for Melbourne Airport

Melbourne Airport has received a major technology boost with the commissioning of an Australian-first Category 3 Instrument Landing System (ILS) to improve reliability and safety in marginal weather conditions.

Airservices Australia, the national air navigation services provider, has also confirmed today Melbourne will receive a new $17m air traffic control tower and $21m technical services centre, with tower construction to start almost immediately.

The three major projects are part of a multi-million dollar upgrade to aviation infrastructure in Melbourne by Airservices and Melbourne Airport.

The new ILS is supported by other improvements including a laser-based runway visual range system to measure fog density, improved taxiway lighting for low visibility conditions and the introduction of runway ‘stop bars’ to control aircraft movement and enhance safety.

In addition, Airservices has recently introduced an Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS) which will identify and track every aircraft and vehicle on the airport.

Airservices CEO Greg Russell said the upgrades were the result of significant planning and investment by Airservices, the airport and other key stakeholders in the aviation industry.

“The ILS project in particular involved a high degree of co-operation between personnel from Airservices, Melbourne Airport, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Bureau of Meteorology,” Mr Russell said.

“It is a ground-breaking project and our technical and engineering teams have worked long and hard to deliver the new ILS in time for Melbourne’s fog season,” he said.

Melbourne Airport’s Executive General Manager Simon Gandy said “This is a great milestone for all those travelling in and out of Victoria. We are currently the only airport in the country to have this certification, which gives us a fantastic operational advantage that will serve to strengthen our curfew free, single terminal precinct.

“We invested over $10M in additional infrastructure. The entire project practically ensures a 100% arrival and departure capability in foggy conditions for all approved operators. This whole of industry initiative is fantastic for the state and testament to the partnership between Airservices Australia, airlines and airport operator” he said.

The airport’s new Category 3 ILS brings Melbourne into line with major international airports such as London Heathrow and Frankfurt.

It allows suitably equipped aircraft to land in marginal weather conditions where visibility is down to as low as 75 metres. Previously these aircraft would have had to divert to an alternative airport without at least 800m visibility to the runway threshold.

The new Category 3 system will provide a major boost for international flights in particular as most international aircraft such as the Airbus A380 and latest Boeing aircraft are equipped and certified for such landings.

Airservices new control tower, fitted with state-of-the-art technology, will support the recent equipment upgrades and see the replacement of the current tower, which dates back to the opening of the airport, by late 2012.

The new 78m high tower will be built adjacent to the current tower by contractor Hansen Yunken and will take into account long-term development plans for the airport outlined in its Master Plan.

Airservices new technical facility at the Melbourne Air Traffic Services Centre will house the engineers, technicians and equipment required to maintain the safety and integrity of Australia’s air navigation system.

It will replace a number of separate, ageing buildings predating the opening of Melbourne Airport. Work is expected to start later this year and be complete by late 2011.

The projects are part of an ongoing $800m upgrade of Airservices infrastructure, communications, navigation and surveillance capabilities.


Does anyone have the AIP SUPP that introduced Melbourne's CATIII ILS?

[Capt Fathom]

Does anyone have the AIP SUPP that introduced Melbourne's CATIII ILS?

There was no AIP SUPP.

It was part of a DAP amendment to the MEL Charts!

[missy]

Captain Fathom
There was no AIP SUPP.

Thanks.

[wtfia]

It's amazing and embarrassing how far behind the rest of the world we are in this industry.

[sunnySA]

Wondering how today's PIR of June 3 is going?

[sunnySA]

Missy said
As I recall, CAT111 capability isn't in the FPL. It would then need to be advised to ATC, who would need to manually enter the information into the aircraft's label on the radar display (only when Low Visibility Procedures are on the MEL ATIS).

As it is unlikely that Maestro would be able to recognise information from the aircraft's label then MEL Flow would be required to manually sort the arrival sequence. Might need to have separate holding points for non-CAT111 aircraft.


Indeed, MEL Centre is required to enter CAT2 or CAT3 into the aircraft's label and the MEL Flow Director is required to use the info to construct the sequence.

Anyone have info of when AIP will be changed to institute "Approach bans" during LVO?

[lestump]

Not strictly true to say there have never been approach bans. In the "good old days" when ATC had Operational Control and Tower's reports of conditions were gospel, the airport could be closed to landings and/or departures and the only aircraft who were legally entitled to make an approach when conditions were below minima were training aircraft conducting practice approaches with missed approach, or aircraft declaring an emergency. Of course, ATC would make liberal use of "conditions fluctuating about the minima" which permitted an approach except when visibility was in RVR (in those days, below 2000m).

Further to that, ATC could also stop VFR (Special VFR) aircraft from getting themselves into strife by withholding a clearance when conditions were below sensible levels. These days, they don't have that right and lighties can fly off into ridiculous weather if they wish. ATC is then expected to somehow magically produce a way for them to safely survive.

So, bring back the good old days.

Yes, I know, I'm getting too old for this sh1t.:rolleyes:

[fujii]

Approach Bans are not an ATC function as many seem to think. They are included in the CASA approval for Low Vis Ops for each airline. If RVR is reported as below minimum at the start of the approach , the aircraft must not continue the approach. If RVR is reported as below minimum after the OM or 1000 ft, the aircraft may continue to the minima. The role of ATC is to provide RVR whilst the approach is completely at the discretion of the PIC.