No CAT III - again!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont forget Keg, there are alot of min fuel gimps at QF, who look forward to their free Whip and Mars Bar Crew Snack bonus for following the company min fuel policy. So the weather needs to only go inter and many are stuffed.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: OEJN
Age: 64
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah Keg, thanks for the informative answer on long haul fuel issues though my point was about the Cat III making no real philosophical difference to alternate requirements. Crappy weather (as designated by a legal criteria), carry an alternate even if you do have all the toys and crew training.. Not sure how aussie (CASA) will deal with LVPīs, but the JAR model seems to work fairly well. Has done for a while too.
Nunc est bibendum
Bruce, of course you're absolutely correct about your philosophical point. Cat I or Cat III, they both require an alternate. In normal circumstances for most QF ops, an unforecast alternate requirement due weather will see us diverting. There are exceptions to this rule and many crew are often a lot more conservative than the book says we have to be when the circumstances dictate. EG many 767 crew will carry Kalgoorlie for PER if the forecast is clear skies, high QNH, cold temps, etc even with no fog annotated on the forecast....too many close calls I guess. If there is fog on the forecast that is scheduled to start/finish a couple of hours either side of ETA then many guys will go for alternate plus some fat on top.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's SOP in EK to carry 30 minutes holding fuel on top of the alternate whenever low viz ops are forecast, even if that means offloading payload. A sensible precaution, in my opinion, as Cat III ops always involve delays, if only for the extra spacing required betwen arrivals to protect the ILS signal. Usually, the delays stretch to more than just this.
I think even the most hard-headed management type would prefer the aircraft get in more or less on schedule with 4 or 5 tonnes of cargo left behind that have 100% of the payload divert to BNE or MEL at top of descent because the Cat III trained crew in a Cat III rated aircraft approaching an approved Cat III airfield have run out of options at that point.
I appreciate that transPacific ULH ops don't always give a crew the option of holding fuel when the fog is unexpected, but SY ATC usually give such aircraft priority, don't they?
I think even the most hard-headed management type would prefer the aircraft get in more or less on schedule with 4 or 5 tonnes of cargo left behind that have 100% of the payload divert to BNE or MEL at top of descent because the Cat III trained crew in a Cat III rated aircraft approaching an approved Cat III airfield have run out of options at that point.
I appreciate that transPacific ULH ops don't always give a crew the option of holding fuel when the fog is unexpected, but SY ATC usually give such aircraft priority, don't they?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here it is
This is simply a cost/benefit decision by airline beancounters.
For those interested have a look at this document. In particular, page 5 of 10. This was the last time I am aware of that CAT II/III was considered in public in a co-ordinated manner, other than on a single airport basis.
Basically, the airlines said they didn't want to pay for it, the airports said if the airlines wouldn't pay for it then they wouldn't build the facilities.
While I would not defend the methods of airline accountants who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing I doubt very much whether they give a flying toss whether
Very smart people with very accurate information make these decisions and I for one am not going to question it without better info.
For those interested have a look at this document. In particular, page 5 of 10. This was the last time I am aware of that CAT II/III was considered in public in a co-ordinated manner, other than on a single airport basis.
Basically, the airlines said they didn't want to pay for it, the airports said if the airlines wouldn't pay for it then they wouldn't build the facilities.
While I would not defend the methods of airline accountants who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing I doubt very much whether they give a flying toss whether
Australia is the laughing stock of the international aviation community when it comes to these issues
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: At a Bordello
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg- I have operated in companies that don't req' alts everywhere and those that do (eg EK). You have to admit it has just been lucky that there hasnt been an accident. (The 330 auto land at perth springs to mind). If there had of been a bingle then extra costs of carrying that fuel will all be worth it. We also operate to a large number of ****ty one runway airports in Africa, Pakistan, India, God the list is too long to mention. So- No fog forecast- off to Khartoum, then Bam - Prang on the runway and no runway available for landing. We divert. If it was Qantas- ???????? woops.
Nunc est bibendum
G'day Flashart, I agree with everything you said up until the very last sentence. No doubt if we were flogging around into the depths of Africa as EK does our fuel policy would probably be quite different to what it is now. The reality is that we don't so it doesn't. However, many of us going into Cairns will carry a lot more than min op due to it being a single runway 'super GA' field.
PER and the A330 autoland leads to an interesting discussion but one that I'm reluctant to pursue in a public forum. I did allude to that issue earlier and you can probably gather my personal feelings from my comments in that previous post. Suffice to say the QF fuel policy was modified post that event.
However, can I run through with you the EK answer to this one? When you guys carry an alternate, how much do you carry above and beyond min op (for the alternate). The reason that I ask is that an EK flight in the same circumstance as the QF one would have been diverting to Learmonth I presume? How much above and beyond diversion fuel and reserves? I'd hate to be turning up to YPLM for the first time on fixed reserves and variable from PER! Not quite as much as a low viz approach below minimums but still!
PER and the A330 autoland leads to an interesting discussion but one that I'm reluctant to pursue in a public forum. I did allude to that issue earlier and you can probably gather my personal feelings from my comments in that previous post. Suffice to say the QF fuel policy was modified post that event.
However, can I run through with you the EK answer to this one? When you guys carry an alternate, how much do you carry above and beyond min op (for the alternate). The reason that I ask is that an EK flight in the same circumstance as the QF one would have been diverting to Learmonth I presume? How much above and beyond diversion fuel and reserves? I'd hate to be turning up to YPLM for the first time on fixed reserves and variable from PER! Not quite as much as a low viz approach below minimums but still!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: At a Bordello
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gday Keg,
The additional fuel is up to the individual skipper. I'd say most skippers take a bit for the mum and the kids so to speak. Anywhere from 1 tonne to 3 tonnes plus. It really depends on where about you are going. Anywhere in Africa- 3 tonnes is not unusual to cover the TIA (this is africa) effect. I can only speak for the bus, and even then there is huge difference between the 330, 340-300 and 340-500.
This thread started off as a CatIII for Oz discussion, and as such, I just think that as the aviation industry expands in Oz and as more aircraft are coming equipped with cat III capability, surely there comes a point where the installation of Cat III equipment is a viable option for Oz. Fair enough 10years ago, not enough demand, but I think today, with the huge price of fuel (140$ just heard on CNN), coupled with the amount of traffic into Syd, if even the 15days of fog problem in Syd can be mitigated by Cat III then bring it on.
The additional fuel is up to the individual skipper. I'd say most skippers take a bit for the mum and the kids so to speak. Anywhere from 1 tonne to 3 tonnes plus. It really depends on where about you are going. Anywhere in Africa- 3 tonnes is not unusual to cover the TIA (this is africa) effect. I can only speak for the bus, and even then there is huge difference between the 330, 340-300 and 340-500.
This thread started off as a CatIII for Oz discussion, and as such, I just think that as the aviation industry expands in Oz and as more aircraft are coming equipped with cat III capability, surely there comes a point where the installation of Cat III equipment is a viable option for Oz. Fair enough 10years ago, not enough demand, but I think today, with the huge price of fuel (140$ just heard on CNN), coupled with the amount of traffic into Syd, if even the 15days of fog problem in Syd can be mitigated by Cat III then bring it on.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big problem here is people are becoming confused - the airlines determine the economic case and so far they have determined that they don't want to pay for Cat III. The high price of fuel may change their views though.
Also Bruce Byron does not have any bearing on what is installed - Airservices and the airport operators provide those services.
Anyone suggesting that GLS in CAT III conditions is just a hairsbreadth away is fooling themselves - fine to demonstrate it in VMC or a simulator but in the real live case there are many more considerations such as Runway Intrusion, Taxiway/Runway marking and lighting etc.
Even if the GLS equipped aircraft can land you have to quarantine the taxiways/runways from ground vehicles and other taxying aircraft.
In fact a simulator session can give a false sense of security as usually there is no "Taxying to the Gate" after the landing which can sometimes be extremely demanding.
If you think back the major accidents in low vis they have occurred not on Approach but on the ground because pilots/ATC were confused as to their ground position - eg Teneriffe.
Lighting and the upkeep of the lighting is the BIG cost. Facilities like the "no break generators" have to be brought into service before LVP operations can commence.
Here is a link to an ICAO powerpoint presentation: Aerodrome Operations in Limited Visibility Conditions which gives an idea of what is needed as visibility decreases.
www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/meetings/almaty/aerodrome_ops_limvis_en.pps
Also Bruce Byron does not have any bearing on what is installed - Airservices and the airport operators provide those services.
Anyone suggesting that GLS in CAT III conditions is just a hairsbreadth away is fooling themselves - fine to demonstrate it in VMC or a simulator but in the real live case there are many more considerations such as Runway Intrusion, Taxiway/Runway marking and lighting etc.
Even if the GLS equipped aircraft can land you have to quarantine the taxiways/runways from ground vehicles and other taxying aircraft.
In fact a simulator session can give a false sense of security as usually there is no "Taxying to the Gate" after the landing which can sometimes be extremely demanding.
If you think back the major accidents in low vis they have occurred not on Approach but on the ground because pilots/ATC were confused as to their ground position - eg Teneriffe.
Lighting and the upkeep of the lighting is the BIG cost. Facilities like the "no break generators" have to be brought into service before LVP operations can commence.
Here is a link to an ICAO powerpoint presentation: Aerodrome Operations in Limited Visibility Conditions which gives an idea of what is needed as visibility decreases.
www.icao.int/icao/en/anb/meetings/almaty/aerodrome_ops_limvis_en.pps
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact a simulator session can give a false sense of security as usually there is no "Taxying to the Gate" after the landing which can sometimes be extremely demanding.
A few respondents to this thread have made light of the training required and the costs involved in maintaining a Cat III rating for all of an airline's crews. Neither are inconsiderble, and anyone who thinks otherwise quite obviously has no experience of Cat III ops. I don't know the figures, but I understand that the added costs for an airport to provide Cat III facilities are quite considerable as well.
As for most things in this business these days, it all boils down to the dreaded bottom line. Sydney will get Cat III after the major operators using it have convinced themselves that the costs of 15 days of diversions per annum due fog outweigh the costs of paying the extra fees Macquarie Bank will charge them to provide - and maintain - the ground equipment AND the costs of maintaining their aircraft and training their crews for Cat III ops.
I agree with Keg that maybe it's about time some accountant factored in the ingangible costs of 'n' thousand pissed off passengers and disrupted schedules that those 15 days of diversions per annum inflict as well as the more obvious costs that can be more easily weighed against each other in black and white on a ledger sheet.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: ex Hong Kong
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one thinking that the decision not to have Cat III appears to be a microeconomic one (i.e. the cost/benefit analysis is being done by individual companies) whereas the overall effects of the disruption caused by the notional '15 days per year' has a macroeconomic effect (i.e. the cost/benefit analysis should be done by the Industry in toto).
Is the narrow view of individual managers causing Australian airports to fall behind global 'best practice'?
Is the narrow view of individual managers causing Australian airports to fall behind global 'best practice'?
Then some capts will add on a little more but any reason for this needs to be explained.
I like it!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Private vs Public
HIALS,
Quite possibly.
However, in a world where private airlines operate to privately owned (or long termed leased) airports with each busting their guts to pass a return to their shareholders and a government that dictates users shall pay for everything I don't think much will change.
If it is really that important that Australia has Low Visibility facilities then perhaps the point should be made to the Government when it is formulating the national aviation policy statement.
To those relying on GLS to come to the rescue, you better be prepared to wait. CAT I certification is expected late this year but CAT II/III is waaaaay off. GLS Cat II/III still requires all the compliant ground infrastructure and that can take time.
Quite possibly.
However, in a world where private airlines operate to privately owned (or long termed leased) airports with each busting their guts to pass a return to their shareholders and a government that dictates users shall pay for everything I don't think much will change.
If it is really that important that Australia has Low Visibility facilities then perhaps the point should be made to the Government when it is formulating the national aviation policy statement.
To those relying on GLS to come to the rescue, you better be prepared to wait. CAT I certification is expected late this year but CAT II/III is waaaaay off. GLS Cat II/III still requires all the compliant ground infrastructure and that can take time.
