Diversions to Brisbane
Ohakea
Rongatai
Ohakea is not approved for QF B744's but is for Air NZ which is why QF aircraft have to divert to Nandi or Noumea if AKL weather is below Alternate Criteria and CHC is not suitable. The Air NZ aircraft have the ability to proceed to AKL and shoot an approach - most times getting in, but on occasions diverting to Ohakea. It gives Air NZ a significant commercial advantage. GB
Ohakea is not approved for QF B744's but is for Air NZ which is why QF aircraft have to divert to Nandi or Noumea if AKL weather is below Alternate Criteria and CHC is not suitable. The Air NZ aircraft have the ability to proceed to AKL and shoot an approach - most times getting in, but on occasions diverting to Ohakea. It gives Air NZ a significant commercial advantage. GB
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SYD
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Rongotai, but you're wrong. Re-read what I said in my previous post about Ohakea. All foreign airlines were made to update their expositions with the CAA last year to state that they won't use OHA except in an emergency. It is only available to NZ because they pay the RNZAF for the right to go there as necessary. Any foreign airline that comes to NZ with the intention of going to OHA, or ends up there due to poor fuel/flight planning is likely to face that wrath of the CAA.
"There have been some close calls over the years. The most famous being the UA flight that landed at WLG when they realised half way to CHC that they didn't have enough fuel for a missed approach at CHC or to get back to anywhere else that could take them."
This is interesting. A good few years ago I was up in the front office of a Singapore Airlines 747 enroute Singapore to Auckland. As we were taking in the dawn over Sydney, both Auckland and Christchurch were closed due fog but expected to open by the time we got there. My recollection is that we were carrying Sydney as an alternate (but wouldn't bet my left ball on that).
I asked the Captain if we could get into Wellington, which was open. He got out the books and a few minutes later said "We can get into there OK but getting out again won't be fun".
Dr
This is interesting. A good few years ago I was up in the front office of a Singapore Airlines 747 enroute Singapore to Auckland. As we were taking in the dawn over Sydney, both Auckland and Christchurch were closed due fog but expected to open by the time we got there. My recollection is that we were carrying Sydney as an alternate (but wouldn't bet my left ball on that).
I asked the Captain if we could get into Wellington, which was open. He got out the books and a few minutes later said "We can get into there OK but getting out again won't be fun".
Dr
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was the process to determine if a CAT III installation was justified in Australia. This was a few years ago - I don't think it has changed.
If a CAT III installation was being considered at an airport the Board of Airline Representatives (which usually includes all the airlines operating through it) approaches Airservices with a proposal.
Airservices then determines what the costs are for installation, lighting, flight testing, ongoing maintenance and any other other extras.
Airservices then inform the Board of Airline Representatives what the costs will be over the life cycle of the installation and how much the navaid charges will increase. The Board then refers the matter to the airlines to determine if they still want the installation.
When the Board has received the replies from the airlines it then makes the decision on whether the installation will go ahead and informs then Airservices of the decision.
So the short answer is if the airlines want a navaid they can have it - but at a price. In the end the airline numbercrunchers make the decision on economics.
If a CAT III installation was being considered at an airport the Board of Airline Representatives (which usually includes all the airlines operating through it) approaches Airservices with a proposal.
Airservices then determines what the costs are for installation, lighting, flight testing, ongoing maintenance and any other other extras.
Airservices then inform the Board of Airline Representatives what the costs will be over the life cycle of the installation and how much the navaid charges will increase. The Board then refers the matter to the airlines to determine if they still want the installation.
When the Board has received the replies from the airlines it then makes the decision on whether the installation will go ahead and informs then Airservices of the decision.
So the short answer is if the airlines want a navaid they can have it - but at a price. In the end the airline numbercrunchers make the decision on economics.
