PDA

View Full Version : Gold Coast ops today


Arcturus
27th Jan 2013, 00:19
I note that Virgin has cancelled all their flights into Gold Coast today from SYD,MEL & ADL. A wise decision given the weather forecast, I should think.

However, it appears Jetstar & Tiger are still attempting arrivals.

Capt Claret
27th Jan 2013, 00:57
The ABC news this morning (Weekend Breakfast ABC24) reported that "a plane missed the runway at Brisbane and has been diverted to Sydney". :rolleyes: :oh:

717tech
27th Jan 2013, 00:59
Interesting that the Gold Coast is still open but the Sunshine Coast is closed. Only flying machine we have seen was the rescue helicopter.

neville_nobody
27th Jan 2013, 01:55
Airports don't 'close' in Australia unless they are NOTAM'd as being u/s. It's just that if the weather is below the minima no one gets in.

What ever happened to Gold Coast getting an ILS?

The Green Goblin
27th Jan 2013, 02:10
Jetstar have an RNP approach into the goldcoast.

Don't think Tiger do. Virgin certainly don't and thanks why they have probably cancelled the flights.

Bit foolhardy of tiger to push it, especially with their regulator stoush.

BPA
27th Jan 2013, 02:21
The x-wind on a wet RWY at Goldy and more so MCY could also be why they have cancelled flights.

Current max x-wind at Goldy is 38 kts.

The Green Goblin
27th Jan 2013, 02:52
38 knots is the max demonstrated in the 320.

PLovett
27th Jan 2013, 03:23
Isn't MCY a narrower runway than normal or has it been widened?

Keg
27th Jan 2013, 03:26
38 knots is the max demonstrated in the 320.


Wet or dry because most runways in SE QLD today are on the wet side of things. :ok:

BPA
27th Jan 2013, 03:42
MCY still a 30m RWY

Ascend Charlie
27th Jan 2013, 03:49
Airports don't 'close' in Australia unless they are NOTAM'd as being u/s.

Well, Sunny Toast Airport had a Notam saying it was closed due to extreme weather.

Capn Bloggs
27th Jan 2013, 04:09
38 knots is the max demonstrated in the 320.
Risk management, Gobbo. :cool:

Bankstown
27th Jan 2013, 04:26
Sunshine Coast:
C23/13 REVIEW C22/13
AD NOT AVBL DUE SEVERE WX
EXC EMERG OPS
ATS STILL AVBL
FROM 01 262236 TO 01 272130 EST

neville_nobody
27th Jan 2013, 04:57
Well, Sunny Toast Airport had a Notam saying it was closed due to extreme weather

In whose opinion? The PIC is the sole judge of whether it is safe to land or not some tool in the safety car. In Eurpoe they can 'close' airports due weather but here it is the PIC's call.

You do the approach if you can get visual you land. If you don't you go around. Simple as that.

If the whole joint is underwater it needs to be NOTAM'd closed due flooding but to say the place is closed just because it's raining hard is ridiculous.

717tech
27th Jan 2013, 05:07
As has been pointed out, there is a NOTAM announcing MCY is closed. So given that,I would say that airports do in fact close. Much like Kowanyama atm...

I would be interested in the implications of the PIC deciding on landing at a "closed" airport and bending the plane...

neville_nobody
27th Jan 2013, 05:11
And I'm saying that they can't actually do that due weather not their decision to make.

Capn Bloggs
27th Jan 2013, 05:13
The rules changed when Operational Control was ditched (previously, ATC could close an airport for, say fog); now, I think ATC can only close an airport for Thunderstorms. I'll be [email protected] if I can find any reference to support my "think" though.

alphacentauri
27th Jan 2013, 05:36
Neville, Id say you are incorrect and they can actually do that. Cause they've done it.

The aerodrome owner has the authority to close their aerodrome if they feel operations in the current conditions are unsafe. I think you'll find this has nothing to do with atc and everything to do with the airport owner.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

crwkunt roll
27th Jan 2013, 05:56
C'mon where are the TAF posters??

Dash 42
27th Jan 2013, 07:09
No need crwkunt roll,


You only need to watch the day long coverage on Chanel 7 with live cuts to some light rain on the Goldie to know it's very, very serious :rolleyes:

sleeve of wizard
27th Jan 2013, 07:15
you asked for it crwcunt roll

YBCG 270800Z AUTO 07026G39KT 1400 // BKN008 BKN012 OVC020 23/23 Q1002
TAF AMD YBCG 270539Z 2706/2806 06024G34KT 4000 RA SCT012 BKN020 OVC030
FM270900 04026G36KT 3000 RA BKN007 OVC018
FM272300 03022G32KT 7000 DZ BKN010
TEMPO 2706/2802 2000 RA BKN007 INTER 2802/2806 3000 SHRA BKN010 RMK
FM270600 SEV TURB BLW 5000FT TILL272400

zlin77
27th Jan 2013, 08:47
JQ12 NRT-OOL.....where did it get to today, airport information site just says delayed.....?

Capn Bloggs
27th Jan 2013, 09:29
C'mon where are the TAF posters??

TAF AMD YBBN 271026Z 2710/2812
05028G45KT 6000 -RA BKN008 OVC015
FM271300 04025G38KT 5000 -RA BKN010 OVC015
FM271800 03018G28KT 7000 -DZ BKN009 OVC015
FM280200 02014KT 9999 -SHRA SCT015 BKN025
TEMPO 2710/2712 1000 +RA BKN007
TEMPO 2712/2802 3000 DZ BKN007
INTER 2802/2812 3000 SHRA BKN012
RMK FM271000 SEV TURB BLW 5000FT TILL272400
T 25 25 25 25 Q 998 999 997 997
10 lines. I'm impressed!

Bonus METAR:

TTF SPECI YBBN 271013Z 05031G50KT 8000 -RA FEW009 SCT016 BKN023 25/23
Q0998 WS RWY01
RMK RF00.0/108.8
FM1013 05028G45KT 6000 RA BKN008 OVC015
TEMPO 1013/1313 1000 +RA BKN007
FM1013 SEV TURB BLW 5000FT

zone
27th Jan 2013, 10:09
Gold coast (ybcg)
***taf amd ybcg 262332z 2700/2724
***07020g35kt 4000 rain bkn010 ovc020
***fm270600 06025g40kt 4000 rain bkn008 ovc020
***fm271200 04030g45kt 3000 heavy rain bkn007 ovc018
***tempo 2700/2724 1500 heavy rain bkn006
***rmk fm270000 sev turb blw 5000ft till272400
***t 25 26 26 24 q 1005 1003 1001 1002

Eastwest Loco
27th Jan 2013, 10:22
Here's your answer Zlin using the flifo of the QF commercial duplicate
QF RESPONSE
‡DOQF252/26JAN

* OPERATIONAL FLIGHT INFO * QF 252 -1 SA 26JAN
CITY INFO HOUR (LOCAL)

NRT ESTIMATED TIME OF DEPARTURE 1130
LEFT THE GATE 1305
TOOK OFF 1329
ESTIMATED TIME OF ARRIVAL 2300 BNE

* 1A PLANNED FLIGHT INFO * QF 252 -1 SA 26JAN
APT ARR DY DEP DY CLASS/MEAL EQP GRND EFT TTL
NRT 2025 SA U/M YBHKML/G 332 9:00
VSNQOXE/G
OOL 0625 SU 9:00

Looks like it was held overnight and is enroute BNE.

Best all

EWL

fmcinop
27th Jan 2013, 11:21
A TTF would also indicate the presence of an approved meteorologist who would determine, survey and report the weather conditions and not the safety guy in a hilux.
With most airlines adopting adherence to approach bands, it is not longer an option for the PIC to have a go if they think its OK. If the weather reported is below minimum and you are still above the approach band altitude, the crew are not permitted to even try.. If the wx deteriorates once the aircraft is below the approach ban altitude then they are allowed to continue the approach and "have a look".
It is certainly not up to the PIC to override the advice of the airport operator regarding its suitability in certain weather conditions nor are they able to ignor weather reports and have a go anyway. If the operator determines the airport is unsafe, they can and will close it. Maroochdore has often been closed for such reasons as has Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. I have spent many an afternoon holding after my destination has been closed due weather.

zlin77
27th Jan 2013, 11:23
Appreciate the info EWl...(Former EW Fokker Driver)..

Transition Layer
27th Jan 2013, 13:07
With most airlines adopting adherence to approach bands, it is not longer an option for the PIC to have a go if they think its OK. If the weather reported is below minimum and you are still above the approach band altitude, the crew are not permitted to even try.. If the wx deteriorates once the aircraft is below the approach band altitude then they are allowed to continue the approach and "have a look".

Is an "approach band" the same as an "approach ban"? :confused:

fmcinop
27th Jan 2013, 19:11
Yes it is. Stupid phone spelling auto correct. Every time you type a word it changes it to what it thinks it should be.

It was supposed to be "Approach Ban"!

If the airport is closed, you won't receive a landing clearance. If you then run off the end, the side or encounter any other issue resulting in damage to the aircraft, airport or injury/ death of a passenger, you would have a difficult time explaining your actions to the judge and possibly 12 of your peers.

If the airport operator closed the airport, your job just became a whole lot easier. The decision to divert has been made for you.

BPA
27th Jan 2013, 21:05
Info 'D' at the Gold Coast this morning has a max x-wind of 42 knots and 5kts D'wind.

pull-up-terrain
27th Jan 2013, 22:07
Has anyone landed at Gold Coast this morning?

ejectx3
27th Jan 2013, 22:33
Watching flight radar 24 seeing emirates make 2 approaches to brissy then divert , also many , if not all Gold Coast flights end up in syd

neville_nobody
27th Jan 2013, 22:48
Got an AIP reference for any of that FMC inop? Approach Ban isn't even in the definitions in the Jepps.

angryrat
27th Jan 2013, 23:14
Any information on BNE ops? TTF was showing up to 40kts of x-wind with 500m vis in +RA yesterday. Also looked like it had the standard WS at 50' caused by the trees. I wonder what the wind was above the tree tops? Sporting couple of days in SE QLD.

Capt Fathom
28th Jan 2013, 01:51
The fact they diverted to BN doesn't necessarily mean that was their alternate.

But with a plane load of passengers bound for The Coast, I guess BN was worth a try before pinging off!

404 Titan
28th Jan 2013, 02:40
neville_nobody
Got an AIP reference for any of that FMC inop? Approach Ban isn't even in the definitions in the Jepps.
You won’t find an AIP or Jepps reference to it as it will be an Ops Manual requirement. I can assure you our airline has one.

wheels_down
28th Jan 2013, 06:02
Looks like ops are back underway, Virgin has got in twice over the last hour.

GAFA
28th Jan 2013, 08:53
My airline has a Approach Ban and most other companies will need to have one as CASA are currently working on the final wording of the reg before issuing it.

Square Bear
28th Jan 2013, 09:40
The fact they diverted to BN doesn't necessarily mean that was their alternate.

I'm with Captain Fathom....nice to see someone (company or otherwise) thinking. One hour 40 minutes as a pax on the train is better than going back to SYD etc.

coaldemon
28th Jan 2013, 11:21
Any Airline that is IOSA audited will have an Approach Ban.

Capn Bloggs
28th Jan 2013, 11:38
My airline has a Approach Ban and most other companies will need to have one as CASA are currently working on the final wording of the reg before issuing it.
Glad to see that after having Operational Control scrapped by the "let's do things the way they do overseas" brigade decades ago, we've turned full circle and pilots will now be told whether they can start an approach or not.

Should work really well in the bush. :rolleyes:

Twin Beech
28th Jan 2013, 16:33
Approach bans have been in place in most countries for at least forty-two years* Essentially they are designed to prohibit ILS approaches inside the OM when RVR (not reported from some car) is below landing minima.

In the meantime CAT III approach/ autoland capability has become more common, almost rendering state approach bans moot.

Australia has only recently installed transmisometers adjacent to ILS runways at a few airports, hence the sudden fascination with approach bans. I don't do many non-ILS approaches anymore, but I haven't seen an approach ban philosophy applied to anything but an ILS.

I cannot recall clearly, but I think the whole idea started with the advent of the CAT II approach. The bans were in place to prevent non-approved operators from descending to the then new heroic limits without the equipment and training required.

*well, they were in the books when I did my first IR in '71. My instructor told me that if they had approach bans in place for the ILS just request the NDB approach. Looking back now it dawns on me that he may have been a knob.

zone
28th Jan 2013, 20:32
It all comes under low vis ops. The relevant CAAP is LVO-1(0). It only starts applying when you get to Cat II ILS ops so thats why we don't see it reflected in many ops manuals.

For landings, the following approach ban rules apply:

• when making an approach, the PIC of the aircraft must not continue beyond 1 000 ft above aerodrome elevation if a controlling zone RVR is reported by ATC as continually less than the
specified minimum for the approach; and

• if, after passing 1 000 ft above aerodrome elevation, a controlling zone RVR is reported by ATC as falling below the specified minimum, the approach may be continued to the minima.

DirectAnywhere
28th Jan 2013, 22:02
.... which is all very nice in theory but it doesn't stop anyone descending to 200 feet on a cat I approach with 1000 metres vis in driving rain and 45 knots of crosswind in mod/severe turbulence - which is what it was like up here over the weekend.

Approach bans aren't really relevant to this discussion.

fmcinop
29th Jan 2013, 07:52
We use the approach ban on all approaches not just low vis cat II cat III approaches. Both domestic and international arms of Virgin now have approach bans on all approaches. It is not restricted to just low vis ops!

If the weather is reported below the minima before the approach ban altitude or point, the crew are not permitted to continue the approach below or beyond the approach ban..ILS,RNAV,NBD,VOR.

noclue
29th Jan 2013, 10:38
How much cloud bellow a NPA's MDA does there need to be before the approach gets "banned"

i.e. A RNAV APP with a MDA of say 5-600' but the airport is reporting few or scattered cloud at 4-500' would you not be allowed to fly that approach?

fmcinop
29th Jan 2013, 12:01
It all depends on the reported visibility.

sleeve of wizard
29th Jan 2013, 16:52
An instrument approach may be commenced regardless of the reported RVR/VIS but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/Visibility is less than the applicable landing minima.

Where no outer marker or equivalent position exists, the Commander shall make the decision to continue or abandon the approach before descending below 1000 ft above the aerodrome on the final approach segment.

If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position depicted on the Instrument Approach Chart, the reported RVR/Visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA(H) or MDA(H).

A pilot may continue the approach below DA(H) or MDA(H) and the landing may be completed provided that the required visual reference is established at the DA(H) or MDA(H) and is maintained.

Commencement and Continuation of an Approach in Australia

The approach shall not be continued beyond 1000ft AAL if the RVR / Visibility is less than the applicable landing minima.

Watchdog
30th Jan 2013, 01:17
Sleeve,

Your cut and paste is not from any Australian AIP/regulation....yet.

Fmcinop
Approach bans are JAA(EASA) pertinent to LVO's (essentially) with Transmissiometers reporting RVRs in usually the three zones. Who's going to report the cloud base in Charleville when I'm doing my RNAV....the refueller??

The adoption of such by operators as SOP is fine, good actually, but certainly not mandated by state procedures,

Isn't MEL Australia's only place with a cat II at present?

404 Titan
30th Jan 2013, 04:13
Watchdog
Approach bans are JAA(EASA) pertinent to LVO's (essentially) with Transmissiometers reporting RVRs in usually the three zones.
Can’t speak for JAA(EASA) but in a large number of Asian country’s it applies to all approaches.
Who's going to report the cloud base in Charleville when I'm doing my RNAV....the refueller??
I’m not sure where you get cloud base from in your argument when talking about “Approach Ban”. RVR/Vis is the only determining factor for “Approach Bans” and we are only talking about airports that have a met observer or Transmissiometers, i.e. airports that accept RPT turboprop/jet transports. The idea of having “Approach ban” requirements out in the bush where actual WX reports aren’t available is impractical and plainly nonsense.
Isn't MEL Australia's only place with a cat II at present?
Mel RWY 16 is actually Cat IIIB to approved operators.

In reference to the thread regarding WX at OOL on the 27th Jan, an Approach Ban would only be relevant for some operators if the reported Vis on the ATIS or tower was below 4000m for VOR 14/32, 4100m RNAV 32 or 4500m RNAV 14. What the wind is doing is irrelevant to “Approach Ban”. This is an aircraft limitation issue. If outside the limits you can have a go in the hope it will reduce below the limits by the time you land, and/or hold and/or divert.

Capn Bloggs
30th Jan 2013, 04:58
I’m not sure where you get cloud base from in your argument when talking about “Approach Ban”. RVR/Vis is the only determining factor for “Approach Bans” and we are only talking about airports that have a met observer or Transmissiometers, i.e. airports that accept RPT turboprop/jet transports. The idea of having “Approach ban” requirements out in the bush where actual WX reports aren’t available is impractical and plainly nonsense.

Nonsense? I don't think so. Dozens of "airports that accept RPT turboprop/jet transports" in Oz have neither an approved observer or a transmissi thingamajig (and never will). In fact, at the few places I go to that do have met observers they probably can't even see the finals areas from their office. So unless I'm landing at a flash Cat II or above airport, I'll be on my own (even at a regional tower - how could they, with any reliability, tell me what the vis on Final is, especially say if the tower itself is in fog or is being dumped-upon by a localised shower?). I can't see (pardon the pun) that the Approach Ban system at any but properly-equipped Cat II and above airports is appropriate at all.

404 Titan
30th Jan 2013, 05:17
Capn Bloggs

Read what I said again. When you have you will see that what I said was an “Approach Ban” would only work at airports that can provide a RVR/Vis report, i.e. on the ATIS or from the tower to the pilot. I fly to plenty of airports around Asia where the ability of the Met/tower observer to determine the actual visibility is questionable. I’m still compelled to adhere to the “Approach Ban” requirements in my company Ops Manual even at airports that only have a VOR approach.

Capn Bloggs
30th Jan 2013, 05:42
Titan,

I did read your post. I was pointing out that
we are only talking about airports that have a met observer or Transmissiometers, i.e. airports that accept RPT turboprop/jet transports.
does not apply at dozens of jet RPT ports in Oz.

Further to your comment about questionable towers, it is bordering on the ridiculous to accept an ATIS statement of say "vis reducing to 4km in showers/rain" (or something 100m less that the approach minimums) as reason to not to do an approach to the minimums. And as I alluded-to previously, it is just as questionable to start the approach, then get a visibility assessment from the bloke in the tower when you get to 1000ft (or whatever the AB point is). In a lot of scenarios the tower (or met observer) will be in no position to give me an accurate vis on final.

I suppose that's why CASA hasn't introduced the procedure... Fine for transmissiometer-equipped runways, a hindrance for all other ops ie the vast majority of jet ops in Oz.

nitpicker330
30th Jan 2013, 05:55
Our company flies to some of the best AND worst Airports all over the World and the system seems to work just fine.

Yes at any uncontrolled Airport you'll be on your own and obviously a different set of rules should apply.. :ok:

sleeve of wizard
30th Jan 2013, 06:13
Watchdog, try this from Jepp Intro section.

Approach Ban - An approach procedure, for which continuation beyond a specific point, and or specified height, if the reported visibility or RVR is below the minimum specified for that approach.

404 Titan
30th Jan 2013, 06:13
Capn Bloggs

As nitpicker330 has said our company flies to some of the best and worst airports in the world and the system works just fine. You need to get out and smell the roses. The way it works in Australia isn’t always the best you know and that goes for met services.

Capn Bloggs
31st Jan 2013, 03:13
The way it works in Australia isn’t always the best you know and that goes for met services.
My point exactly, Titan. :rolleyes:

Without the appropriate met services, the AB system will be a pain and a nuisance. For the umpteenth time, I am not opposed to any system that might stop nutcases trying to land in fog (seems to be a lot of that overseas...); the system must though be supported by the proper infrastructure. Otherwise, it just becomes another unnecessary distraction and danger for crews as they terminate more approaches at the FAF, as well as in all probability increasing costs because of unnecessary go-arounds and diversions.

Watchdog, try this from Jepp Intro section.

The last time I looked, Jepp is not the authoratitive document in Australia. Some times it can't even get the copying-of-AIP bit right.

Derfred
31st Jan 2013, 05:00
There is no approach ban in Australia except for Low Visibility Operations (Cat II/III).

Hobo
31st Jan 2013, 07:00
...200 feet on a cat I approach with 1000 metres vis in driving rain and 45 knots of crosswind in mod/severe turbulence - which is what it was like up here over the weekend.

Sounds like a standard winter's day at the island airports round the UK and a reasonably regular occurrence at LGW.

DirectAnywhere
31st Jan 2013, 07:06
I know. Which is why I said discussion of approach bans wasn't really relevant given the conditions.

No Idea Either
31st Jan 2013, 09:46
Not too sure about the approach bans being across the board at VAA. Initially it was but I thought it was reduced to just the cat II/III LVA. Cant find a reference to them in the standard instrument preparation procedures, just the II/III procedures. FMCINOP, can you point me in the right direction before my next check:uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh:

RAC/OPS
31st Jan 2013, 10:17
Approach bans only applicable to CAT II/III ops, and in the UK work something like this:

An aircraft may not continue an approach below 1000 AAL if the IRVR/RVR is below the absolute minima for that approach (as determined by the CAA). The reason being that individual companies/acft/pilots have their own minima depending on recency, equipment etc.

ATC will advise the pilot and request intentions - they can't enforce the ban - and will not prevent the acft from landing. A MOR (ESIR) will be submitted for the CAA to follow up.

All this from 5 years+ memory, I'll check the UK regs. Of course what CASA decide to do in their isolationist wisdom is anyone's guess!

nitpicker330
31st Jan 2013, 10:22
I would think its up to each Australian operator to specify their own procedures in their Ops Manual which is approved by CASA as part of their AOC requirements.

Therefore you will have to follow your own manuals and not just CASA.

Each could and probably will be different. :ok:

My HK company does just that, as approved by HKCAD.:)

GAFA
31st Jan 2013, 10:41
No idea Either,

It's in section 10 of Vol A1.

coaldemon
31st Jan 2013, 11:49
Any airline audited for Iosa compliance will have an approach ban in their manuals. Check the Isarps.

Toruk Macto
31st Jan 2013, 12:22
Personally I like approach bans !

No Idea Either
31st Jan 2013, 23:46
Thanks GAFA:ok:

fmcinop
1st Feb 2013, 23:50
10.23.8.1

AWIS is the only time it's at pilots discretion due to the nature of the measuring device, however the Captain must still be as sure as possible a successful approach and landing can be made?????

I think an A1 re-write of this may be on the way. VB (or VA NOW) aircraft not even permitted to try an approach (ILS, VOR, GNSS, NDB) with rapidly moving and changing WX and diverting whilst other operators give it a go and get in!

VH-ABC
2nd Feb 2013, 00:25
Fmcinop, rewrite done in December I believe (snuck in like block level cruising). Only applicable to Cat II/III approach. Common sense prevails. 11.3.6 mentions approach ban, however you are spot on with your reference.