Auckland and the A380
Thread Starter
Auckland and the A380
With the completion of the last runway upgrade works I have been thinking; will the A380 be a viable aircraft to use into Auckland. The Airport company (AIAL) seem to bend over backwards to accommodate Emirates on almost everything and I think this is typified by the runway works. However, will alternate requirements hamstring the operational benefits of bringing the aircraft to Auckland. With no other aiports in NZ capable of accommodating the 380 in anything other than a dire emergency, Australia is really the only bolt-hole. Would it really be economically viable to have to carry another 4hrs gas back to be able to divert to Aust?
Now colour me a cynic but to (probably) solve these issues, the installation of the CatIII approach systems seems all too convenient. Why was it not done years ago when they did the slab replacement at the 23L end? It seems to me that the airport company are so keen to be able to boast about being part of the A380 club.
Now with the effective elimination of needing to nominate a wx alternate, due to the CatIII approach, that just leaves tech alternates which, as I understand it, is not a legal requirement so it can therefore be eliminated when not convenient.
thoughts.
Now colour me a cynic but to (probably) solve these issues, the installation of the CatIII approach systems seems all too convenient. Why was it not done years ago when they did the slab replacement at the 23L end? It seems to me that the airport company are so keen to be able to boast about being part of the A380 club.
Now with the effective elimination of needing to nominate a wx alternate, due to the CatIII approach, that just leaves tech alternates which, as I understand it, is not a legal requirement so it can therefore be eliminated when not convenient.
thoughts.
Billyt
Regardless of the Cat iii (which I applaud, at least the NZ authorities are a little more progressive than their trans tasman brothers), the abortion will be arriving on an ICAO plan and will require an alternate.
And by the way AKL to SYD is around 2:40 not 4:00.
Cheers
Maui
Regardless of the Cat iii (which I applaud, at least the NZ authorities are a little more progressive than their trans tasman brothers), the abortion will be arriving on an ICAO plan and will require an alternate.
And by the way AKL to SYD is around 2:40 not 4:00.
Cheers
Maui
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that the alternate for use of the A380 will be Christchurch. I don't believe that the lack of airbridges to take the pax off the aircraft are a factor in choosing alternates, that is a commercial consideration. For the sake of the paper work I think that will be able to show that the A380 could safely land.
Thread Starter
billyt: yes ANZ will have to pump up some moolah for the CATIII however in all fairness they probably will benefit from it.
Maui: just because they are on an ICAO flight plan does not mean they have to nominate an alternate does it?
They runway at CH may be able to handle the aircraft but no other part of the airport can including PCN issues with the taxiways, wing tip clearances on all the taxiways etc etc.
As an aside if the 380 were to divert to CH in an emergency ATC would still find as may ATRs as they could to stack in front of it
Maui: just because they are on an ICAO flight plan does not mean they have to nominate an alternate does it?
They runway at CH may be able to handle the aircraft but no other part of the airport can including PCN issues with the taxiways, wing tip clearances on all the taxiways etc etc.
As an aside if the 380 were to divert to CH in an emergency ATC would still find as may ATRs as they could to stack in front of it
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that true re AirNZ's fuel policy for arrivals into NZ airports? You guys plan a full alternate irrespective? QF plans an alternate from TOD, eg, on SYD-AKL you'll be carrying WLG or CHC from TOD. With a CAT III at the bottom that MAY change for when when conditions are better than CAT III. AirNZ may well go that way too?
I just don't get to AKL these days - but how often do you get less than CAT I conditions over there? Frankly from my recollection it's more often a rain + screaming crosswind for the single runway direction that leads to an actual alternate reqt (ahh, that lovely "wet" and "wind 320/25-30"). CAT III isn't going to help in that situation.
As an aside, the Filipinos are installing a CAT III approach at Bacolod. Yes, it's true - Air Services Australia are there right now, contracted to do the work. Bacolod???? Look it up - how many of you have even heard of it?
I just don't get to AKL these days - but how often do you get less than CAT I conditions over there? Frankly from my recollection it's more often a rain + screaming crosswind for the single runway direction that leads to an actual alternate reqt (ahh, that lovely "wet" and "wind 320/25-30"). CAT III isn't going to help in that situation.
As an aside, the Filipinos are installing a CAT III approach at Bacolod. Yes, it's true - Air Services Australia are there right now, contracted to do the work. Bacolod???? Look it up - how many of you have even heard of it?
Last edited by Ron & Edna Johns; 21st May 2006 at 20:26.
Thread Starter
Ron/Edna, Auckland rarely experiences the conditions that require CATIII, just the odd foggy morning twice or three times a year hence the installation is only at the 23L end. Ironically probably the only fog for the next year occured while they had the main runway closed for the upgrade work
Below MDA
In my understanding,yes.
Maybe thats wrong, (and I really can't be bothered researching it), but the companies I have worked for (internationally) have required it, and being a natural coward I have never doubted that it is both required and wise.
What fools other than a few to your west, want to run around on fumes?
What fools want to pay fools up the front to run them around on fumes?
A quick way to a short career, in my mind.
Maui
In my understanding,yes.
Maybe thats wrong, (and I really can't be bothered researching it), but the companies I have worked for (internationally) have required it, and being a natural coward I have never doubted that it is both required and wise.
What fools other than a few to your west, want to run around on fumes?
What fools want to pay fools up the front to run them around on fumes?
A quick way to a short career, in my mind.
Maui
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory, CHCH was not going to spend $20M to upgrade their runways just to be an A380 alternate. It may well upgrade if regular services were planned but they are not as far as I know.
S2K
S2K
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cat III makes no diff if the wx is forecast below catI you must have an alternate..( NZ Rules) remember, simply failures in the aircraft or on the ground mean Cat III u/s Can do the planning at TOD if wx F + B . EK always has an alternate. If the wx is forecast below landing min, we have 2 with gas for furtherest.
CAT III will be no good at all with 30 kts x-wind and heavy rain/ wet runway which happens a lot more than fog.
CHC does not have to do anything to be nominated as an alt. only requirement is adequate runway length, at least 1 nav aid (Radar counts), adequate wx and the required level of RFS. Taxiways/ infrastructure are largely irrevalent.
CAT III will be no good at all with 30 kts x-wind and heavy rain/ wet runway which happens a lot more than fog.
CHC does not have to do anything to be nominated as an alt. only requirement is adequate runway length, at least 1 nav aid (Radar counts), adequate wx and the required level of RFS. Taxiways/ infrastructure are largely irrevalent.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: London
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taxiways/ infrastructure are largely irrevalent.
Maui. Sure as God made little apples some fool in an EK jet will arrive in AKL with fumes in the tank. Something you wrote about fools paying fools kind of hit the nail on the head.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Single Seater - sorry, didn't make myself very clear. You're right, with wx below Cat I you still need (and should need) an alternate despite a rwy having Cat III. However, currently operators such as QF are operating into AKL with an alternate even when it's CAVOK and wind 000/00. All I'm thinking is that there is scope to revisit that sort of policy if you have a super-duper Cat III at the bottom. Maybe. Begs the question why the alt reqt exists on a CAVOK day with even the CAT I gear - it probably gets down to single rwy issues, perhaps, esp CHC for bigger jets?
The remoteness and small size of NZ still needs considering, of course. There are quite a few bits of concrete fairly close around SYD, for example, if that airport suddenly closes for some reason. Not so AKL, esp for 747 sized jets.
Who knows - yes, when flying on the jumbos into NZ it was always one of those places where I wanted an alternate all the time. However the smallness of the country can mean many available airports may need alternates themselves.
Alternate reqts aside, I'm still wondering about the commercial sense of putting this CAT III in. It will improve arrivals on maybe 2-3 days per year? Sydney doesn't have CAT III because of this commercial rationale. And it doesn't address the much more common weather problems in AKL which lead to diversions. What you REALLY need in AKL is a 2nd (3rd if you count 05L/23R) runway, running NW-SE !
The remoteness and small size of NZ still needs considering, of course. There are quite a few bits of concrete fairly close around SYD, for example, if that airport suddenly closes for some reason. Not so AKL, esp for 747 sized jets.
Who knows - yes, when flying on the jumbos into NZ it was always one of those places where I wanted an alternate all the time. However the smallness of the country can mean many available airports may need alternates themselves.
Alternate reqts aside, I'm still wondering about the commercial sense of putting this CAT III in. It will improve arrivals on maybe 2-3 days per year? Sydney doesn't have CAT III because of this commercial rationale. And it doesn't address the much more common weather problems in AKL which lead to diversions. What you REALLY need in AKL is a 2nd (3rd if you count 05L/23R) runway, running NW-SE !
Ron and Missus Ron
Cat III is not required in SYD cos the Qowboys are quite prepared to carry inadequate fuel, couple it up and land anyway, despite the weather.
No one else counts. Ergo. No need to pay for expensive installations.
M
Cat III is not required in SYD cos the Qowboys are quite prepared to carry inadequate fuel, couple it up and land anyway, despite the weather.
No one else counts. Ergo. No need to pay for expensive installations.
M
Alternate reqts aside, I'm still wondering about the commercial sense of putting this CAT III in.
And it doesn't address the much more common weather problems in AKL which lead to diversions. What you REALLY need in AKL is a 2nd (3rd if you count 05L/23R) runway, running NW-SE !
Don’t forget that you can perform a Cat 2 approach on a cat 3 ILS if they are in force. Unlike a cat 3, an auto land and rollout in for example the Airbus and I imagine for Boeings is “preferred”, not “required” and depending on the reported runway braking action you can operate up to max crosswind for the aircraft type. Now whether I would like to do this in practice is debatable but the option is there.
In regards to the requirement for carrying an alternate on all flights, Australia is very much a loner when it comes to its requirements. If one looks around the world most regulatory authorities require alternates on all IFR flights. I’m not sure if it’s commercial pressure from the airlines in Aus but CASA should grow some balls and bring Australia in line with most of the world.
In regards to the requirement for carrying an alternate on all flights, Australia is very much a loner when it comes to its requirements. If one looks around the world most regulatory authorities require alternates on all IFR flights. I’m not sure if it’s commercial pressure from the airlines in Aus but CASA should grow some balls and bring Australia in line with most of the world.
Last edited by 404 Titan; 26th May 2006 at 23:39.
