Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Merged: Fog proof Tullamarine?

Wikiposts
Search
Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Merged: Fog proof Tullamarine?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 4th Jun 2010, 13:21
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SPECI YMML 022124Z 33003KT 0100 R16/0125V0450D R27/0325V0400N FG VV/// 08/08 Q1026 FM2400 VRB05KT CAVOK

thats the worst part of it. It was that bad for about an hour.
eocvictim is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2010, 00:53
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post CAR257(6)

Have a little read of this gem.

Approach bans may not be in force in this country, but it would be interesting, to say the least, to hear the defence of a pilot of an aircraft incapable of Cat II/III who commences an approach with RVR figures anywhere like those in the SPECI above.

Having said that, other countries ATC won't even consider letting non-LoVis capable aircraft commence an approach and expedite the arrival of appropriately equipped aircraft. Go-arounds from approaches commenced in contravention of this Reg waste time, fuel and increase risk for the travelling public.

However, the novelty in this country of at last being able to actually use the full capabilities of modern aircraft in this phase of flight might take some time to sink in to those responsible for managing the show at both airline and other levels.

G'day
Feather #3 is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2010, 01:45
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Zero change to my Airline's ops, only change req is on the ground in MEL!
Tankengine is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2010, 04:52
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,786
Received 44 Likes on 20 Posts
Feather is right on the money here.

There has always been a culture in Aus that you can "Go and have a look". But is vis is well below minimum, you have no "Reasnoble expectaion" of a landing, and are totally exposed if anything goes wrong.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2010, 06:24
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, N.S.W. Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CASA Low Vis approvals include approach ban information. If the RVR is below minima an approach cannot be commenced, if the reported RVR falls below minima and the aircraft is below 1000 feet the approach can be continued.
Bankstown is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2010, 07:13
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 703
Received 67 Likes on 40 Posts
CASA Low Vis approvals include approach ban information. If the RVR is below minima an approach cannot be commenced
Be interesting to see the CASA Low Vis approvals in writing (anyone??).

ASMGCS and ML ILS replacement got a mention at Waypoint 2010.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projectsservices/industryforums/waypoint/2010/presentations/workshop4.pdf
Pity Low Vis operations and approval weren't discussed...

Last edited by missy; 5th Jun 2010 at 07:18. Reason: clarity
missy is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2010, 07:27
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,294
Received 169 Likes on 86 Posts
CASA Low Vis approvals in writing
Try the CASA Website!
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 5th Jun 2010, 08:16
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Smile

Please note, I'm not talking about those who HAVE Low Vis approval/s, it's those who DON'T and then "clutter" the system!

G'day
Feather #3 is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2010, 23:30
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes but in fairness you are talking about RVR when the 'have a look' mentality was more cloud-base oriented. WX on approach to RW16 at YMML can often hover well above and below ceiling minimas and the only way to really test it is to actually go to the minima and see what's there. Approach bans would be daft in those circumstances. The old TAA 'monitored-approach' was perfect for the above scenario.

LWMO tends to be more RVR-limiting and this is where the have a look approach is not suitable and open to cowboys with get-in-itis - especially if they don't know how to put A320 levers into the TOGA detent ;-)
A. Le Rhone is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2010, 00:11
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 4,295
Received 139 Likes on 63 Posts
Those who flew internationally understood the ramifications of CAT II & III......
A few years ago couple of American bizjet pilots found out the hard way what the implications are for shooting an approach with approach bans in place in Russia. Apparently they were locked up for for nearly a week....
compressor stall is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2010, 01:55
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
A few years ago couple of American bizjet pilots found out the hard way what the implications are for shooting an approach with approach bans in place in Russia. Apparently they were locked up for for nearly a week....
Ahh yes, the wonderful Russian (or former Republic) system of telling the pilots at 300' AGL "RVR below minima...landing not possible...your decision?"
"aaaaaah going round...."

haughtney1 is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2010, 11:30
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The "go and have a look" was all about ATC declaring a ground visibility while a pilot can observe a flight visibility, hence many a pilot has landed because he could see what he needed. RVR transmissometers have changed that.

Another reason for approach bans is to allow departures. With a sky full of circling aircraft getting near their latest divert times no-one gets to depart even though the departure minimum is often better than the landing.
MrApproach is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2010, 05:35
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Melbourne ILS

During the fog on 3rd June, 32 aircraft landed when LVP were in progress. For the same period the week before there were 55 landings. The difference being CAT I aircraft which could not land. Without CAT III there would have been no landings on 3rd.
fujii is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2010, 08:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 703
Received 67 Likes on 40 Posts
During the fog on 3rd June, 32 aircraft landed when LVP were in progress. For the same period the week before there were 55 landings.

Interesting stats, are you able to advise how many non-CAT III aircraft made an approach?

tks

Last edited by missy; 12th Jun 2010 at 08:56. Reason: pagination
missy is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2010, 09:00
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OK Fujii,
Can you explain why we gateheld in Sydney for over an hour in a Cat3 aircraft?
Tankengine is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2010, 13:07
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,838
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
Tank, Surely that is a company decision? Talk to them.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2010, 20:29
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,344
Received 137 Likes on 100 Posts
I understand that MEL required 15 mins between successive departures FROM all airports. At SYD the 15 mins quickly became a 90 minute delay for the last SYD-MEL aircraft.
sunnySA is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2010, 21:30
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Le Pingouin,
Not company, ATC!
As Sunny replied, ATC required, but why? If no Cat 1 aircraft arriving then things should SPEED UP!!
Tankengine is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2010, 23:39
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Missy:-- Are you able to tell us how many per hour landed during the LVP and what was the average holding time required.

I need to know how much extra fuel to carry next time fog is forecast
nitpicker330 is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2010, 04:28
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,838
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
Tank, fair enough. As far as I'm aware ATC has no way of knowing what cat ILS a particular aircraft is capable of until we're told. Perhaps your company (presuming you fly for one of them) needs to talk to Airservices about developing some procedures.
le Pingouin is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.