Abysmal Journalism concerning Aviation
G'Day Mr B.,
Yes, it was OPC exercised by the Company, UAL in this case.
We also passed / relayed many other 'OPC' type and other msgs to and from as per each company's requirements.
e.g. Continental, for their company's purposes had a 'DEP' msg listing the taxi time, the take-off time, (Which at SY could be 'considerably apart' - around 40 mins or so on one day I do remember...) and the load / fuel in weights.
The total point being that some companies in those days did 'it' themselves, and 'diversions' were quite the norm.......
ATC still had the 'OPs Control' function at that time as well, under the jurisdiction of the 'SOC' - Senior Ops Controller.
e.g. Many years ago, waaay back when, a mate en route from Moruya to SY in a Be-65 Queenair, cruising at 6,000ft had a donk fail not far out of SY and at first they wanted him to track via Bindook VOR.....to which he said 'No Thanks'....
Then, To get him in under the 'steps' and avoid a bit of work, the msg was
'From the SOC, descend to 2,000.
The response from the pilot - 'For the SOC - NO WAY!' Like, who would give away alt. from a struggling acft just to please ATC?
He made it to SY on a looong progressive descent to the runway from 6,000!
True story....
Yes, it was OPC exercised by the Company, UAL in this case.
We also passed / relayed many other 'OPC' type and other msgs to and from as per each company's requirements.
e.g. Continental, for their company's purposes had a 'DEP' msg listing the taxi time, the take-off time, (Which at SY could be 'considerably apart' - around 40 mins or so on one day I do remember...) and the load / fuel in weights.
The total point being that some companies in those days did 'it' themselves, and 'diversions' were quite the norm.......
ATC still had the 'OPs Control' function at that time as well, under the jurisdiction of the 'SOC' - Senior Ops Controller.
e.g. Many years ago, waaay back when, a mate en route from Moruya to SY in a Be-65 Queenair, cruising at 6,000ft had a donk fail not far out of SY and at first they wanted him to track via Bindook VOR.....to which he said 'No Thanks'....
Then, To get him in under the 'steps' and avoid a bit of work, the msg was
'From the SOC, descend to 2,000.
The response from the pilot - 'For the SOC - NO WAY!' Like, who would give away alt. from a struggling acft just to please ATC?
He made it to SY on a looong progressive descent to the runway from 6,000!
True story....
Bottums Up
Recently added to the ABC News website.
From the editorial it seems to be a simple missed approach, described as an "airport emergency". Sheesh!
From the editorial it seems to be a simple missed approach, described as an "airport emergency". Sheesh!
Airport emergency in Adelaide rain
Updated 37 minutes ago
PreviousNextSlideshow: Photo 1 of 2
Singapore Airlines jet was on approach as another aircraft was still on the runway - file photo (flickr)
There has been an emergency at Adelaide Airport as a Singapore Airlines flight was forced to make a second landing attempt on a wet runway.
Airport management said there were safety concerns because another plane was still leaving the main runway.
But an airline official said the pilot chose to go around because heavy rain in Adelaide had reduced visibility.
There were 265 people on board.
They finally got into the terminal at about 8:30am ACST.
Updated 37 minutes ago
PreviousNextSlideshow: Photo 1 of 2
Singapore Airlines jet was on approach as another aircraft was still on the runway - file photo (flickr)
There has been an emergency at Adelaide Airport as a Singapore Airlines flight was forced to make a second landing attempt on a wet runway.
Airport management said there were safety concerns because another plane was still leaving the main runway.
But an airline official said the pilot chose to go around because heavy rain in Adelaide had reduced visibility.
There were 265 people on board.
They finally got into the terminal at about 8:30am ACST.
