Melbourne Fog Vs RPT
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tasmania
Age: 53
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hoss, an advantage using RWY34 is it has a 100ft lower TCH.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASA are upgrading ILSs around the country for cat II/III capability but that is just the start. Airports then need to install centreline lighting, additional approach lighting, additional taxiway lighting, transmissiometers (or other RVR measuring devices), stop-bars etc etc. Not top mention new low-viz prociedures for airport operations as a whole.
It's a very expensive exercise, one that the airlines aren't generally willing to assist with (curious, given the massive cost to them from just one bad fog day).
It's a very expensive exercise, one that the airlines aren't generally willing to assist with (curious, given the massive cost to them from just one bad fog day).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any comments on why VB were stating (and presumably departing) with a vis required for takeoff of 300m when the AIP SUP clearly states that for that you need instrumented RVR when it was not available?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NFR
No - GP not affected, and this new LLZ type can be verified on the ground, so no special flight test. The A340 only got two of the 16 'elements'.
Just out of interest, did the 16ILS need a calibration flight to occur to bring it back into service after the Emirates low flying mission?
