X-Ray Vision in Perth?

[CSTGuy]

With the fog tonite in Perth, TWR ATC have consistently claimed TDZ viz of 450m & MID 350m yet almost all non-QF planes miraculously land. Two QF A330's miss then divert to ADL, SG diverts to ADL, and QLink 717 misses & diverts to ASP (?). Three VA A330's land first go, as does JQ & MH. :=

Hopefully CASA will have a could look at this, but I'm not holding my breath!

It's amazing how it's the same operators whom always seem to "get in". They must feel like such great pilots.........:D

[Captain Sand Dune]

Maybe they take a loooong time making a decision at decision altitude!!:E

[chookcooker]

45% of this fools posts are having a crack at VA/VB. Then there's another accusing someone else of being anti QF.

What a turkey.

[Keg]

Fog can be like that. I've made it in when the bloke behind me went around. I've watched from the terminal the fog in HKG go from 500m to 100m in a four minute period. Maybe QF were just unlucky. Maybe the fog had increased viz just as the VOZ flights arrived.

If you're concerned or had accurate info, a REPCON or even an ASIR is always available. Far more effective than PPRUNE.

[Gate_15L]

I dunno Keg, I think CSTguy fails on both counts....

Further, REPCON staff must be satisfied that the reporter's motivation for reporting is aviation safety promotion, and that the reporter is not attempting to damage a rival or pursue an industrial agenda.

[neville_nobody]

Agree with Keg, Fog is a complete lottery. I have landed on virtually a visual approach whilst everyone in front and behind me went around. We just happened to be at the minima when there was a break in the fog bank.

However, carriers from a very populous northern country seem to hold no regard for CAT I mininas and never go around. Been sitting at the holding point with a RVR well below landing minima and they just roll on in. Also been holding when they are the only ones to land. All other carriers diverted.

If the tower is calling an official RVR that low, then a REPCON may not be out of the question but you would want to get your facts straight.

Yet another reason why Perth needs to get into the 21st century with a CAT III ILS?

[dartman2]

QF and foreign carriers are probably limited by an approach ban point (mandatory missed approach at 1000') where as other Australian operators are not.

[rockarpee]

Perth is a cat 1 ILS, therefore no app ban for QF....

[Pontius]

Mmm, some interesting questions spring to mind from some of the comments here.

QF and foreign carriers are probably limited by an approach ban point (mandatory missed approach at 1000') where as other Australian operators are not.

I know I'm being a lazy git by not looking up the regulations (and my iPad is just downloading the latest Jepp update, which is taking a long time) but does Oz not subscribe to the ICAO Approach Ban procedure? In other words, has it filed a difference? If not, then the Approach Ban would apply to all operators.

(It's not necessarily only 1000' but I'm not trying to argue semantics)

Perth is a cat 1 ILS, therefore no app ban for QF

Bearing in mind my question above, Approach Ban procedures apply to any instrument approach, including CAT 1 and non-precision approaches, so why would QF be exempt?

[Captain Dart]

Cathay Pacific certainly has a 1,000' AAL approach ban, and it applies everywhere including Australian airports and Cat. 1 ops.

I am surprised the Greenies have not got on to, or been put on to, the issue of the thousands of tonnes of aviation fuel burnt into the atmosphere with go-rounds, diversions and re-positions because of Third World Australian ILS capabilities.

[benjam]

I was under the impression that, at the minima, you need to see lighting associated with the approach end of the runway in order to decide to continue toward a landing, irrespective of the reported ATC RVR.

Is this not correct?

[Pontius]

I was under the impression that, at the minima, you need to see lighting associated with the approach end of the runway in order to decide to continue toward a landing, irrespective of the reported ATC RVR.

Is this not correct?

That all depends on whether the Approach Ban 'procedure' is applicable in Oz. This procedure allows you to commence an instrument approach with the RVR /CMV below minimums for that procedure but, when reaching the OM/FAF/1000' (delete as applicable to operator's country), you have to carry out a missed approach if the RVR/CMV is still below mins. Having passed the Approach Ban Point (with the RVR/CMV above mins) if the visibility then deteriorates below mins you may continue the approach until the normal decision point. If you can then see the appropriate references then continue, if not, go-around.

As far as I know, this 'procedure' is state-wide and not only applied to certain operators within a country, hence my question about it applying in Oz when it was suggested that QF may be ruled by it, whereas others were not.

[JustJoinedToSearch]

Benjam, pretty sure you're thinking of the requirement to keep the landing runway environment in sight whilst visually circling below the MDA. No such requirement for a s-i cat I ILS as far as I can see.

Never seen anything like an approach ban in aip anywhere but happy to be corrected.

[OhSpareMe]

Runway Visibility around the time of the X Ray Vision approaches was nowhere near the required 800 m for a CAT 1 to RWY 21. I was there. Reported Vis was fluctuating between 350 - 550 m in all zones for the two hours I was waiting at the gate to get going.

Two QF A330's had a shot and diverted. Then we had a bit of giggle taking bets whether Malaysian would land (was watching on Flight Radar 24) but after VA landed just prior to MH it was then going to be a no-brainer. After that a JQ came in and landed. Departures then proceeded.

I departed on 03 in 400m RV. Shortly after a JQ missed and diverted.

Amateur hour in my opinion.

[Capn Bloggs]

does Oz not subscribe to the ICAO Approach Ban procedure? In other words, has it filed a difference? If not, then the Approach Ban would apply to all operators.

No, No and nonsense.

[Ollie Onion]

Approach ban DOES NOT apply in Australia, individual operators may apply one (such as Jetstar) but it is not legislated.

[nitpicker330]

Exactly, we've had CAT3B qualified crews sitting in the hold waiting while CAT1 only crews take it down the ILS to have a look see, then go around....:ugh:

Time to introduce an approach ban.

Yes I am referring to YMML 16.

[Capt Basil Brush]

Runway Visibility around the time of the X Ray Vision approaches was nowhere near the required 800 m for a CAT 1 to RWY 21. I was there. Reported Vis was fluctuating between 350 - 550 m in all zones for the two hours I was waiting at the gate to get going.

Two QF A330's had a shot and diverted. Then we had a bit of giggle taking bets whether Malaysian would land (was watching on Flight Radar 24) but after VA landed just prior to MH it was then going to be a no-brainer. After that a JQ came in and landed. Departures then proceeded.

VA have an Approach Ban policy, however with a reported Cat 1 RVR of 550m an approach can be conducted to the minima. If you have the required visual reference you land, if not go around. As mentioned fog can vary by the minute at different parts of the aerodrome. The previous flight might land, then you might not see anything a few minutes later.

I think there are a few people getting a bit carried away over this.

[blow.n.gasket]

Reminds me of the story I heard from a 737 skipper who had 3 windshear warning pop ups taxing out to RWY 34R in SYD a few years ago.
They quite rightly decided to hold for the obvious source to pass over,a large Cumulus cloud spewing forth virga .
1st arrival has a go, and initiates a missed approach due obvious severe windshear.
4 more hero's have a go despite Tower reporting severe windshear and a big fat Cu to be seen spewing forth virga overhead.
How many more hints does one need?
The funny part was the last guys to roll the dice were at about 1000 'when they were told by Tower that the previous 4 aircraft had gone around due windshear, and "good luck cleared to land 34R", or words to that effect.
The reply heard over the radio was" XYZ cleared to land" with the windshear warning blearing away in the background clearly heard over the transmission.
These hero's were then seen to battle away with the shear down to about 300',as seen on the TCAS, before discretion took over.


PS not one of these "professionals" who, "had a go", despite numerous warnings were in an aircraft with an endangered marsupial on the tail.

[nitpicker330]

What? Good "story" but no professional Pilot in the western world would ignore a REACTIVE WINDSHEAR WARNING. :eek: we are all spring loaded to react.

Maybe some third world Airline perhaps but Australia.........

Good attempt at a windup though:D

Not to mention VB bashing...

[nitpicker330]

Capt Basil Brush-----ok but prior to 1000' AGL if the reported RVR ( or VIS if
RVR not available ) is below the chart required then CANNOT continue.

If already below 1000' AGL you can continue to minima and "decide"

[Capn Bloggs]

Exactly, we've had CAT3B qualified crews sitting in the hold waiting while CAT1 only crews take it down the ILS to have a look see, then go around....

Time to introduce an approach ban.
Err, no, make your rules more practical.

[Transition Layer]

Basil Brush,

VA have an Approach Ban policy, however with a reported Cat 1 RVR of 550m an approach can be conducted to the minima.

Pretty sure Perth only uses RVs (at this stage) hence the minima of 800m. Does that change things in this case?

[nitpicker330]

So the RVR is below CAT2 and these CAT1 only heroes without an approach ban get to take a look while we have to run around a holding pattern and quite possibly divert because we can't wait.....
Yeah that's a good idea...:D

[Capt Basil Brush]

Yes your right Transition, I just had a look at Perth and no RVR - surprise surprise. So 800m it is. In that case if previous aircraft have been landing, the PIC I believe has the option to use that observation to continue below the approach ban. (If it's a state requirement or company procedure)

[nitpicker330]

Transistion----yes the Perth ILS chart says 0.8. This can be either RVR or VIS. Whichever they give it must be 800m to go below 1000'

If we were told an RVR or VIS 550m then we could not fly below 1000'. ( approach ban )


In our case----

Approach Ban. The Commander/PIC shall not commence an approach (i.e. descent below 1,000 FT AAL) if the reported RVR is below the published minimum. When RVR is not available, reported visibility shall be used instead. In such circumstances, reported visibility shall be controlling in the same manner as RVR. Factoring of reported visibility to obtain an equivalent RVR is not permitted for an approach.

[nitpicker330]

Good ol Perth, has it all...:ok:


YPPH 201109Z 2012/2118 36008KT 9999 SCT030
FM210000 34016KT 9999 -SHRA SCT025 BKN035
FM210500 26013KT 9999 -SHRA SCT015 BKN020
FM210900 22012KT 9999 -SHRA SCT020 BKN030
INTER 2100/2103 5000 SHRA BKN010
TEMPO 2103/2109 3000 +SHRA BKN006
INTER 2109/2114 5000 SHRA SCT010
PROB30 2014/2101 0300 FG
PROB30
INTER 2104/2108 32025G50KT 2000 TSRA BKN006 FEW018CB

[nitpicker330]

Oops, they've issued another one without the Fog


YPPH 201348Z 2013/2118 01008KT 9999 SCT030
FM210100 36012KT 9999 -SHRA SCT025 BKN035
FM210400 35016G26KT 9999 SHRA SCT015 BKN020
FM210700 26014KT 9999 SHRA SCT015 BKN020
FM210900 22012KT 9999 -SHRA SCT020 BKN030
INTER 2101/2104 5000 SHRA BKN010
TEMPO 2104/2109 VRB25G45KT 2000 +SHRA BKN006
INTER 2109/2112 24020G35KT 4000 SHRA BKN008
INTER 2112/2116 5000 SHRA SCT010
PROB30
INTER 2104/2107 32030G50KT 2000 TSRA BKN006 FEW018CB

[OhSpareMe]

In that case if previous aircraft have been landing, the PIC I believe has the option to use that observation to continue below the approach ban. (If it's a state requirement or company procedure)

Sorry Capt Basil, but the previous aircraft (the 2 QF A330's) didn't land - most likely because the crews couldn't see squat. That would have been their 'observation.'

Lets face it - the VA guy coupled up and made his own CAT 3 approach and landing, which then led to the muppets from Malaysian and Jetstar doing likewise (not all JQ as the later one of them missed and diverted)

I don't anyone give me crap about 'drifting fog banks' etc. It was a pea-souper.

[OhSpareMe]

BTW - there is no RVR (determined electronically) at Perth, only Runway Visibility (RV) reported by an Approved Observer - in this case the Safety Officer(s) down at ground level. The TWR couldn't see a thing - their Vis was about 5 feet.

[underfire]

Not sure about Perth, but at YMML and YBBN, I have seen QF land while others hold, because they have the RNP-AR procedures in the box...(they dont have coded procedures for the A330...only B737/A320)

[Capt Basil Brush]

OhSpareMe (your attitude)

BTW - there is no RVR (determined electronically) at Perth, only Runway Visibility (RV) reported by an Approved Observer - in this case the Safety Officer(s) down at ground level. The TWR couldn't see a thing - their Vis was about 5 feet.

Look up a few posts and you will see that no RVR in Perth has already been determined.


In that case if previous aircraft have been landing, the PIC I believe has the option to use that observation to continue below the approach ban. (If it's a state requirement or company procedure)
Sorry Capt Basil, but the previous aircraft (the 2 QF A330's) didn't land - most likely because the crews couldn't see squat. That would have been their 'observation.'

Lets face it - the VA guy coupled up and made his own CAT 3 approach and landing, which then led to the muppets from Malaysian and Jetstar doing likewise (not all JQ as the later one of them missed and diverted)

I don't anyone give me crap about 'drifting fog banks' etc. It was a pea-souper.

I was remarking in general - not about what did or did not occur in Perth regarding QF330's and Virgin, Malaysian etc. You seem to be all worked up about this, got a chip on your shoulder(s) for some reason? A bit of inexperience showing through as well. Calm down, it's not good for your blood pressure. :)

[Jonah Hex]

Approach ban only applies to ops below cat 1.

[nitpicker330]

Maybe in your Airline but mine and many other Internationals have it for all approaches.

[blow.n.gasket]

Sorry to burst your little bubble Nitpicker, but it did happen, as described,
one caveat though,
the time was back in the "wild, wild ,west days" of 2004!
Back when there was a distinct lack of maturity on flight decks due to youngins getting commands with 15months of experience instead of 15+ years!

[OhSpareMe]

Low visibility landings in QF have a ban on proceeding below 1000 AGL if the ATC reported visibility or controlling zone RVR is lower than the published minimum required for landing.

As Perth RWY 21 is Cat 1 only - and therefore by definition not a low visibility approach - one can continue to the MAP for a 'look' irrespective of the reported VIS if the PIC believes the required visual reference will be attained. Nothing wrong with that, as demonstrated on Thursday night. Its the bit about landing below minima that is of concern.

Thanks for medical advice Capt Basil. I shall bear it in mind.

[Capt Basil Brush]

OhSpareMe,

Your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph. You got it right in the first paragraph, but attempted to justify the QF A330's shooting approaches to have a "look" when the reported vis was less than 800m. Iam not sure if the intent of "Low Visibility Landings" justifies continuing below the approach ban point knowing the visibility is less than the minima, by saying Cat 1 is not low visibility, and therefore the approach ban does not apply? Maybe that is QF's policy?

Iam with Nitpicker on this one, approach bans in most (I would actually assume all) airlines that have an approach ban policy applies to ALL instrument approaches, not just below Cat 1, and usually not only for ILS approaches.

It would be interesting to see the different policies on approach bans that different airlines use.

[nitpicker330]

Sorry I still call "bull****"

I know a lot of the checkers and trainers in the Airline you are so keen to point the finger at and they have years of experience. I would be very surprised if any of their Commanders ever ignored a Windshear warning unless there was a greater emergency.
Back in 2004 they were still a startup Airline that employed mostly direct entry Commanders that had come from An and Tn via Mh and Sq with years of mature experience behind them flying for highly reputable Airlines. Those that were upgraded Commanders were trained by these guys too.

So, sorry but I say crap. Your friend was obviously pulling your leg in order to talk down the opposition...:D

[JustJoinedToSearch]

Capt Basil Brush not sure if I'm interpreting your post correctly but if you are asking AIP specifically defines CAT I as not 'low visibility', not just QF.
ENR 1.5 - 4.8.

Low Visibility Operations
4.8.1 A low visibility operation is an operation involving:
a. an approach with minima less than precision approach CAT I;or
b. a take--off with visibility below 550M.
4.8.2 Aircraft operators may conduct low visibility operations only if spe-
cifically approved by CASA. Approvals are granted in the form of
an exemption to the standard IFR take--off and approach minima
and will be subject to specified requirements.

[Capt Basil Brush]

I was trying to tie the bit about Cat 1 and low visibility procedures in with the normal requirements of approach bans, where applicable. However if QF's approach ban only applies to low vis ops, then it gives them an advantage over other operators with an approach ban that applies to all approaches. Ie including Cat 1 approaches.
Clear as mud I suppose. :)

[Capt Basil Brush]

Reminds me of the story I heard from a 737 skipper who had 3 windshear warning pop ups taxing out to RWY 34R in SYD a few years ago.

I also call "bull****" on this one. Correct me if I am wrong, but windshear warnings are usually inhibited while taxing - unless he taxies with take-off power set. That would be interesting :ok:

[OhSpareMe]

It is really simple - it is about continuing below the minima. The issue was not about continuing towards the minima - but rather below it.

It is a CAT 1 Approach. Not a low visibility approach, and not subject to a State Approach Ban. If it was I am sure ATC would not have cleared them for approach. Because you know what happens - they get to the bottom , see a couple of lights and go %4@# it and auto land! "But I was visual and could see 800 metres" B.S.

To be honest I was really surprised by VA. They were followed by Malaysian, who we had at a 99% surety they would land off the ILS.

Some operators, in my opinion, landed with less than CAT 1 minima. And for the record, I would bag any QF pilot who did the same.

Like I said before ...Amateur Hour.

[blow.n.gasket]

Really Basil,
PWS available below 2300'
Switches on automatically when Take Off thrust is set.
What if the radar is on whilst taxing and has been on for more than the 12sec warm up delay time???
Is a PWC , "Monitor Radar Display" caution? possible if wind shear detected??


Call bull**** on your bull****!

[neville_nobody]

Problem is the only people who know what they saw are the FO/Capt.

How do you not know that they got to the minima and saw the landing environment. If they had all the lights turned up it is quite possible they saw the VASIs and touch down zone.

The viz at the QF terminal may not have been the viz at the runway threshold.

[Monopole]

A few years ago at Perth, I was one of three aircraft that had to do an ILS (RWY 03) to the minima due fog. The fog wasn't forecast and it went as quick as it came. It was CAVOK before and after the sequence of those 3 ( a period of 10 mins or less).


A few months ago, I was sitting siting at the international side facing the east and heard the tower banging on about reduced vis. They could not see anyone on the western side of the airport, and the crew couldn't see two foot in front of them. I saw nothing but blue skies above and perfect vis out to the hills and beyond.


You have NO idea what the crew in question saw that morning when they got to the minima (and no, I wasn't one of them).



My company does not have an approach ban. If I came down for a look see and at the DA decided I had the required vis (whatever it may be for the approach), why would I go-around?


Nev beat me to it....

[Con Catenator]

Monopole is spot on :ok:

[BuzzBox]

I also work for an overseas airline where an approach ban applies to any approach where the reported vis/RVR is less than the minimum required.

The approach ban concept was, I believe, introduced into Australia by way of a CASA NPRM back in 2009. CASA subsequently introduced approach bans for LVO approaches (ie minima less than Cat 1), but not for other types of approach. I think they still have plans to introduce an approach ban for all approaches.

See:

NFRM 0906AS - IFR Minima and Low Visibility Operations (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_100523)

CAAP LVO-1(0) Approval to conduct low visibility operations (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/lvo-1.pdf)

Agree with Monopole and others - you can't make a judgement regarding the vis at the minima unless you were in the cockpit at the time. I arrived in Perth one foggy morning last winter and held for 45 minutes because the vis was reported below minima. The vis gradually improved and we eventually landed. On short finals it was CAVOK over the runway, but both the domestic and international terminals were socked in by fog.

On that occasion the observer only updated the RV every 10 minutes or so. In the case OhSpareMe described, who's to say the RV didn't improve between observations, allowing some aircraft to land??

It is a CAT 1 Approach. Not a low visibility approach, and not subject to a State Approach Ban. If it was I am sure ATC would not have cleared them for approach.

I think not - it is not ATC's job to enforce an approach ban. That's not to say they won't report you if you bust one though!

[OhSpareMe]

Problem is the only people who know what they saw are the FO/Capt.

That is correct. And I agree.

But it was really foggy! 800 metres is a long way to see in fog! And I don't think the MET Gods smiled on those guys and parted the fog along the runway environment just in time for them.:=

[b215]

I think REG 257 covers this. You can only commence an approach to land (other than low vis ops)if you think on reasonable grounds that you will get visual at the minima. Wether 400 m on the ATI would give you that expectation or not would be up to the PIC on the day .

[OzSync]

Spot on b215, this requirement is repeated in a QF manual to apply when approach bans don't.

[caneworm]

Perth got caught out with a sudden fog last year about this time. Many aircraft were in the air at the time, attempting approaches and subsequently diverting.
What was notable about that night was a pilot sitting in his aircraft, (safely on the ground), and was admonishing pilots for attempting an approach. He was making these transmissions on Approach frequency.
It was bad enough that he was making illegal transmissions, worse that he was wrong in his assessment, it was most of all, an unwanted distraction on what was a difficult night.

Poor form for an ex management type.

[Con Catenator]

REG 257 is technically compromised whenever an aircraft flies towards a destination (ie a point of intended landing) that is below appropriate minima, but is carrying fuel to an alternate airport.

The reference paragraphs (Parts 6a and 6b) are not applicable to offences of strict liability where the offence happened but no there is no need to prove the crew did so "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or even negligently".

[Wally Mk2]

Deviating slightly here it does make one wonder in today's so called modern era of advanced electronics/techno stuff that we still need to rely on the eyeball Mk1 to effect a Ldg in marginal conditions. I mean the BOM are at best % guessers of WX yet we fly clear across the country full knowing that we may not be able to land, seems crazy!!
The Rwy is still there it's only how the brain is tricked into not seeing the Rwy (thru our very limited eyes) due our inability to see thru the fog.
HUD's, Cat111Z etc etc are all available for pretty much a 0/0 Ldg so beats me why we waste zillions of $$$ diverting, wasting fuel adding to the worlds carbon footprint, turning back, cancelling flights & risking the whole shooting match 'cause of our humans failings.

Someone has gotta come up with a better mousetrap!:-)


Wmk2

[dr dre]

HUD's, Cat111Z etc etc are all available for pretty much a 0/0 Ldg so beats me why we waste zillions of $$$ diverting, wasting fuel adding to the worlds carbon footprint, turning back, cancelling flights & risking the whole shooting match 'cause of our humans failings.

I believe you need CL and TDZL for low vis ops, which would require $$$ and 03/21 to be closed for a period of time to install it. The powers that be obviously believe money is better spent on new terminals and shops, in the airport of one of the most isolated cities in the world which is prone to unforecast fog, :ugh:

It's thinking like this that caused the VA emergency landing in Mildura in fog with basically no fuel in the tanks after having diverted away from a major airport with an ILS. I mean seriously, who is in charge of Australian Aviation infrastructure??? Third world countries have better facilities than us. Are our masters just a bunch of day VFR pilots who have never experienced how a modern overseas international airport with proper low vis facilities and procedures operates????

[rh200]

This was bought up on the news the other night. As the talking head said, most likely won't happen in Perth. The cost benefit analysis doesn't add up.

Another words the amount of times it happens in Perth doesn't offset the install and maintenance.

[thorn bird]

Mc bank seems to be of the opinion that airports are far more important as earners of tax free dollars from parking lots and shopping center's to warrant squandering money on infrastructure for aviation use.

[dr dre]

The cost benefit analysis doesn't add up

Until another event like Mildura happens only this time with fatalities, let's see the cost benefit analysis then :ugh:

[BuzzBox]

From another thread:

YPPH: It's all going to happen... (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/434899-ypph-its-all-going-happen-8.html)

Systems Upgrade Should Beat Airport Fog
Thw West Australian, 21 June 2014

Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor

Perth Airport will significantly upgrade its aircraft instrument landing system over the next 12 months, which should almost eliminate delays caused by fog. Yesterday, the airport confirmed to The Weekend West that talks with airlines and Airservices Australia were at an advanced stage. The announcement came after a day of chaos at the airport, with the travel plans of thousands disrupted when fog blanketed Perth Airport for more than six hours.

About 45 flights were delayed or diverted, some as far as Adelaide, because of customs and immigration requirements, setting in motion knock-on delays of at least 24 hours for many passengers.

The fog started rolling in at 9.30pm on Thursday and lifted about 5.20am yesterday.

Perth Airport has a CAT 1 instrument landing system. Under CAT 1, pilots must be able to see the runway from a height of 61m with forward visibility of 800m. The CAT 3b system to be installed reduces that visibility height to just 15m and forward visibility to only 75m, almost eliminating diversions.

Most international and many domestic aircraft are capable of CAT3b operations, if the airport is equipped.

I'll believe it when I see it…

[KABOY]

Can we drop the visibility crap, RVR is RVR! What you see from the terminal, tower, car park is irrelevant. The tower is reporting an RVR from a transmissometer situated next to the runway......or is Australia different because they don't adapt approach bans!

Airlines worlwide use this as their basis for an approach ban, not visibility which is measured over the horizon from some non descript point within the airport boundary.

[missy]

RVR = transmissometer situated next to the runway (eg Sydney, Melbourne)
Runway Visibility = typically safety officer next to the runway counting runway lights (eg Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane)

[BuzzBox]

The tower is reporting an RVR from a transmissometer situated next to the runway

All well and good, but the only airports in Australia that have transmissometers are Sydney & Melbourne. The others rely on approved observers to assess the visibility for ATC, generally by counting runway lights. The resulting RV can't be used for Cat 2/3 approaches, or even Cat 1 when the vis is less than 800m.

Welcome to Australia and its third-world aviation infrastructure. Actually, come to think of it, some so-called third-world airports are better equipped than Australia's!

[dartman2]

Having worked for two companies that had approach ban points (imposed by regulation), I think they are of questionable value.

In the case of CAT2/3, sure, but CAT 1 and non precision it is ridiculous. The pilot is in a better position to judge visibility in an environment that can change rapidly.

I have had VIS reports of 2000m when the runway is clearly in sight from 10nm.

[neville_nobody]

Sadly it's a very West Aussie thing to bring others down like this. There's quite a small-man, envy thing in the culture over there. You see it on the roads and in the opinions. Nothing better to do over there, I suppose.

No the point is a valid one. Many airlines are getting a competitive advantage by busting the minima.

The reality is that the airport needs to get it act together. Simply not good enough.

[GoNorth]

We'll just ignore the two Qantas aircraft that landed between the missed approaches shall we?

Everyone else must be dodgy though.....:ugh:

[thorn bird]

Oh good grief, I cant believe you guys!!

[halfforwardflank]

...and sweeping generalizations about the entire population of a state, Eclan, what particular location are they the specialty of? W*nker.

[dubbleyew eight]

the reality is that Perth is like flying to Christmas Island or Lord Howe Island.
it is a very remote airfield.

the greatest single safety improvement that could be made in Australian aviation is to put a CAT3 instrument landing system at Perth airport.

when perth gets clagged in the consequences can be dreadful.
alternate airfields are Kalgoorlie, Adelaide in South Australia and Exmouth almost the same distance away.

the original poster is actually bang on the money.
one day the pushing of minimas will surely have fatal consequences.
a CAT3 ILS would remove all of those dangers.

btw my nipper who flies jets into perth on a regular basis agrees completely with me on this.

[dubbleyew eight]

on one of my control system courses the guys buttonholed me for an opinion.

"you're a pilot, how do they make a landing into geraldton with absolutely no forward visibility?"

I had to bite my lip and make no comment.

during his GA time the nipper also worked for the company and described to me the company expectation that he would land a charter aircraft full of passengers in zero visibility.
he was well skilled in instrument flying and while the hairs were up on the back of the neck lack of fuel caused him to follow company expectations.
....until the next run in clear weather he realised that he had only just missed a tower.
he quit after that flight.

the problem here is not that the company is at fault (well it is but it isn't) but that australian aviation has been so stupidly developed by our government that basic infrastructure that would make it safe has never been installed.

the guys in the peanut gallery are merely asking how they land when they can't see.
they don't know, shall we say, how much a pilot needs to be confident of his abilities at times.

I know the situation is crap and watching a moron like McCormic does nothing for my blood pressure. it could so easily be fixed.

[nitpicker330]

Really?

What infrastructure would you like installed in Geraldton then? CAT3B perhaps!! We all know that's not cost effective so we have worlds best practice at those type of Airfields.

We are no better or worse than any other place in the World except for maybe Perth international which should have CAT3B due to its remote location at rotten wx.

[Kharon]

Eclan # 70 –"This thread does begin to make a little sense when one realises, like I did belatedly, that the argument was started and carried by peanut throwers in the gallery.

This reads exactly like GA wannabes who have an issue with jets or airlines or the eastern states or Perth airport or whatever, take your pic, and I've seen all of the above exhibited there!! And these silly claims about pilots flying below minimas while still in IMC in fog - that is really amateur."

Steam ON.

during his GA time the nipper also worked for the company and described to me the company expectation that he would land a charter aircraft full of passengers in zero visibility.

Bollocks. Bollocks on three levels: 1) Not even the roughest, dumbest, light minded chief pilot, owner or operator would allow a statement like that to be even whispered in the darkest corner of the furthest pub from civilisation, not even legless during a Friday night session. (2) Junior pilots are often 'startled' when they actually realise the full implications of the 'job'; all weather operations. The first encounter with real 'minima', pissing rain, wind and real potential for go-around, quite often produces 'trembling knees' syndrome when it is realised just how close to the dirt they actually are and how little room there is to play with. (3) Who, with half a brain would be out 'in it' with no fuel and nowhere to go. Bollocks and BTW it has nothing to do with McComic – it's just the job, the reality of life once you leave the sheltered workshop of flight school. Expecting to work 0930 until 1600 with a long lunch break, short hops in perfect conditions is only a distant dream.

he was well skilled in instrument flying and while the hairs were up on the back of the neck lack of fuel caused him to follow company expectations.....

Several real life safety concerns right there, but the one that really troubles is the notion that the flight was allowed, by the PIC to be placed in dire jeopardy to start with, and then was completed by someone who was 'terrified'. The title, pilot-in-command does not come by default, it's hard earned by being exactly that. "Sorry boss, no can do, I can give you 60% load all the way, or 100% with a pit stop, but there's no flaming way I can carry the alternate, do an approach, land with reserves and carry that payload in these weather conditions".

until the next run in clear weather he realised that he had only just missed a tower. he quit after that flight

Then 'he' should never have been there; obviously his "blind" approach was far out of tolerance. As I am, with idiots who make puerile, uninformed comments about real professional pilots, doing 'the job', safely and legally in all conditions, even the difficult ones.

May I suggest engage brain before opening mouth or; better, try making the command decisions, have the skill, do the training and pass the checks required which allow you to put many lives, safely on the dot in low visibility at a remote airfield; lets know how you get on.

Steam off. Sorry folks, don't know, it just gets to me sometimes.

[nitpicker330]

No need to apologize, said it better than I would have. :ok:

[neville_nobody]

That is complete and utter bollocks, Neville. Are you suggesting it is now operational policy in "many airlines" to bust minima??? Are you serious? That would be one of the more weird things I've read here.

Please have a read of the comments regarding fluctuations of visibility in fog and see if this would explain what you are putting down as criminal negligence by PICs or airline management.

Well I can tell you that I have personally seen some foreign airlines, one in particular show no regard for the the CAT I Minima. Whether that is policy or not I can't say, but one in particular is getting a competitive advantage out of it for sure as it is very consistent.

Personally witnessed three events which were pretty blatant. Heard a few others on the radio in the hold which certainly raised an eyebrow, but without being at the holding point you could never say what they really saw.

[Capn Bloggs]

Are you suggesting it is now operational policy in "many airlines" to bust minima???
Of course he isn't. NN did say "busting" which implies pretty clearly to me that they shouldn't have been doing what they did. Not a case of "operational policy" at all.

[BuzzBox]

A Cat 3B ILS would certainly be a major improvement at Perth, but it only solves part of the problem. The other problem is the lack of a decent alternate within a reasonable distance from Perth.

Although LVO would allow most jet aircraft to land and facilitate fewer diversions, the airlines would still be required to carry fuel for an alternate. As things stand, the nearest alternates some international carriers can plan are Adelaide or Bali. That means a lot of extra fuel has to be carried by the time we take alternate and ETOPS fuel considerations into account. If we have to plan Adelaide as our alternate, with Darwin and Adelaide as the ETOPS alternates, then we will land in Perth with around 25 tonnes of fuel (A330). That seriously reduces the revenue payload we can carry and it also costs a heck of a lot just to carry the extra fuel.

The best solution would be to upgrade Kalgoorlie or Learmonth with decent parking facilities and RFF, but I doubt anyone wants to pay.

[C441]

2/3 of a lifetime ago I regularly used to operate into Melbourne in the middle of the night. It was well known then that if there was fog in Melbourne, runway 27 afforded you the best chance to get in. Not sure why, but experience had proved it to be true.

Fast-forward a few years and there I was sitting at the threshold of 27 with 2 or 3 runway lights in view. I had to wait a while as it was below the take-off minima. Meanwhile, 3 jets from a couple of our northerly neighbours, managed to land on runway 16 whilst the 'locals' held or diverted or both.

My, how the weather patterns around 'Tulla' must have changed in those few years! :rolleyes:

A comparison of various airline's diversion rates due to low vis at Australian ports would be interesting.

[Capn Bloggs]

The best solution would be to upgrade Kalgoorlie or Learmonth with decent parking facilities and RFF, but I doubt anyone wants to pay.
Given somebody/Defence/aka the taxpayer can't afford to fix the Learmonth Beepback (for 12 months) don't hold your breath. A 3000m strip 600-odd nm from one of the most remote major airports in the world; ideal for a Cat3b alternate?

I think KG would be a bridge too far; too many flights would want to go there. The place would have to be twice the size.

[mustangranch]

Could I be the devils advocate here. Why not be proactive and think forward. Aircraft will only get more advanced as will our navigation techniques. Why not upgrade the aircraft and put in RNP approaches? Sure you will still need HIAL, but runway lights won't ever become redundant!
Ground based aids are a thing of the past unfortunately.
Happy to be corrected if I am wrong here.

[Capn Bloggs]

Why not upgrade the aircraft and put in RNP approaches?
My understanding is 50ft ceiling and 75m vis will be a while for RNP; newly installed GBAS at Sydney only goes down to around the Cat 1 minima at the moment.

[Lookleft]

As RNP is very dependent on temperature and having the correct QNH set I can't see it being a substitute for a CATIIIB ILS any time soon.

[mustangranch]

Ok, well how about we used tried and tested methods.......
File:IWM-CH-15271-FIDO-Lancaster-Gravely.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IWM-CH-15271-FIDO-Lancaster-Gravely.jpg)

And replace with......

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bradthomas/5567532382/

:O

[Lookleft]

If they just build the natural gas pipeline direct to the airport it should even keep the Greens happy!

[BuzzBox]

A 3000m strip 600-odd nm from one of the most remote major airports in the world; ideal for a Cat3b alternate?

No, not ideal, but where else would you suggest?

[rh200]

An interesting point someone has made about alternate fuel and lack of revenue. I suppose its already been done, but it would be good to see an analysis.

Another words an integrated cost per year loss to revenue per airline. It would then be put against the cost of a reasonable alternate and or better ILS. Could make a good case for you scratch my back I'll scratch your sort of things, another words put our fees up by x amount etc.

[Capn Bloggs]

No, not ideal, but where else would you suggest?
I'm suggesting that it is (sort of) ideal. :ok:

[Pearly White]

Ok, well how about we used tried and tested methods.......
File:IWM-CH-15271-FIDO-Lancaster-Gravely.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And replace with......

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bradthomas/5567532382/

I remember my Dad talking about the FIDO system at Blackbushe (near Camberley) back in the late 1950's when it was London's third airport. Apparently it took a while to heat up and cost heaps to run, but was very effective.

[BuzzBox]

I'm suggesting that it is (sort of) ideal.

Ahhh, sorry!! :O

[mustangranch]

Pearly white,

Yes I remember old friends from the bygone era talking of similar!

Maybe something these days could be designed that is more environmentally friendly, but surely a trent 900 at TOGA burns more fuel in a go around than one of these systems? Food for thought....

On further research, FIDO used roughly 250,000 (close enough to 1,000,000 litres) gallons of fuel per hour. It took 15 minutes to burn the fog off. Thus, we'd burn 250,000 litres to remove the fog........put in a 3C ils at those rates!

[grrowler]

It is well known that viz fluctuates in fog, and for what it's worth, I was taxiing out at around that time and the viz was significantly better at the terminal than down the southern end (03 for departures). I do not pretend to know what the viz was to the north of the airport (DA for 21).

[neville_nobody]

Eclan the ones I have witnessed two have been at the holding point then lined up behind and the other taxiing past the landing and we could hardly see the aircraft.

Very different from the original poster who sitting at the Terminal some 1-2KM away. In this instance I don't think anyone could comment unless they lined up behind the landing aircraft.

Claiming to know what the other pilots saw and did is infantile, ignorant, small-minded, embarrassing and slanderous

Except that when you line up behind them landing and you can't see squat would bring into question what they saw at the minima some 500m behind you!

[Icarus2001]

the reality is that Perth is like flying to Christmas Island or Lord Howe Island.
it is a very remote airfield.Almost. Geraldton is 199nm to the North, Kalgoorlie is 291nm to the East and Busselton is 109nm to the South. We can ignore Pearce 16nm to the North also.

[Capn Bloggs]

Eclan, whatever ya reckon! :rolleyes:

Iccy, we're talking about real jets here. Them big ones that come in over the water, not our two-pot light twins that can go anywhere (and land in the fog anywhere! ;)).