X-Ray Vision in Perth?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In a burrow
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reminds me of the story I heard from a 737 skipper who had 3 windshear warning pop ups taxing out to RWY 34R in SYD a few years ago.
It is really simple - it is about continuing below the minima. The issue was not about continuing towards the minima - but rather below it.
It is a CAT 1 Approach. Not a low visibility approach, and not subject to a State Approach Ban. If it was I am sure ATC would not have cleared them for approach. Because you know what happens - they get to the bottom , see a couple of lights and go %4@# it and auto land! "But I was visual and could see 800 metres" B.S.
To be honest I was really surprised by VA. They were followed by Malaysian, who we had at a 99% surety they would land off the ILS.
Some operators, in my opinion, landed with less than CAT 1 minima. And for the record, I would bag any QF pilot who did the same.
Like I said before ...Amateur Hour.
It is a CAT 1 Approach. Not a low visibility approach, and not subject to a State Approach Ban. If it was I am sure ATC would not have cleared them for approach. Because you know what happens - they get to the bottom , see a couple of lights and go %4@# it and auto land! "But I was visual and could see 800 metres" B.S.
To be honest I was really surprised by VA. They were followed by Malaysian, who we had at a 99% surety they would land off the ILS.
Some operators, in my opinion, landed with less than CAT 1 minima. And for the record, I would bag any QF pilot who did the same.
Like I said before ...Amateur Hour.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: australia
Age: 74
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really Basil,
PWS available below 2300'
Switches on automatically when Take Off thrust is set.
What if the radar is on whilst taxing and has been on for more than the 12sec warm up delay time???
Is a PWC , "Monitor Radar Display" caution? possible if wind shear detected??
Call bull**** on your bull****!
PWS available below 2300'
Switches on automatically when Take Off thrust is set.
What if the radar is on whilst taxing and has been on for more than the 12sec warm up delay time???
Is a PWC , "Monitor Radar Display" caution? possible if wind shear detected??
Call bull**** on your bull****!
Problem is the only people who know what they saw are the FO/Capt.
How do you not know that they got to the minima and saw the landing environment. If they had all the lights turned up it is quite possible they saw the VASIs and touch down zone.
The viz at the QF terminal may not have been the viz at the runway threshold.
How do you not know that they got to the minima and saw the landing environment. If they had all the lights turned up it is quite possible they saw the VASIs and touch down zone.
The viz at the QF terminal may not have been the viz at the runway threshold.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few years ago at Perth, I was one of three aircraft that had to do an ILS (RWY 03) to the minima due fog. The fog wasn't forecast and it went as quick as it came. It was CAVOK before and after the sequence of those 3 ( a period of 10 mins or less).
A few months ago, I was sitting siting at the international side facing the east and heard the tower banging on about reduced vis. They could not see anyone on the western side of the airport, and the crew couldn't see two foot in front of them. I saw nothing but blue skies above and perfect vis out to the hills and beyond.
You have NO idea what the crew in question saw that morning when they got to the minima (and no, I wasn't one of them).
My company does not have an approach ban. If I came down for a look see and at the DA decided I had the required vis (whatever it may be for the approach), why would I go-around?
Nev beat me to it....
A few months ago, I was sitting siting at the international side facing the east and heard the tower banging on about reduced vis. They could not see anyone on the western side of the airport, and the crew couldn't see two foot in front of them. I saw nothing but blue skies above and perfect vis out to the hills and beyond.
You have NO idea what the crew in question saw that morning when they got to the minima (and no, I wasn't one of them).
My company does not have an approach ban. If I came down for a look see and at the DA decided I had the required vis (whatever it may be for the approach), why would I go-around?
Nev beat me to it....
I also work for an overseas airline where an approach ban applies to any approach where the reported vis/RVR is less than the minimum required.
The approach ban concept was, I believe, introduced into Australia by way of a CASA NPRM back in 2009. CASA subsequently introduced approach bans for LVO approaches (ie minima less than Cat 1), but not for other types of approach. I think they still have plans to introduce an approach ban for all approaches.
See:
NFRM 0906AS - IFR Minima and Low Visibility Operations
CAAP LVO-1(0) Approval to conduct low visibility operations
Agree with Monopole and others - you can't make a judgement regarding the vis at the minima unless you were in the cockpit at the time. I arrived in Perth one foggy morning last winter and held for 45 minutes because the vis was reported below minima. The vis gradually improved and we eventually landed. On short finals it was CAVOK over the runway, but both the domestic and international terminals were socked in by fog.
On that occasion the observer only updated the RV every 10 minutes or so. In the case OhSpareMe described, who's to say the RV didn't improve between observations, allowing some aircraft to land??
I think not - it is not ATC's job to enforce an approach ban. That's not to say they won't report you if you bust one though!
The approach ban concept was, I believe, introduced into Australia by way of a CASA NPRM back in 2009. CASA subsequently introduced approach bans for LVO approaches (ie minima less than Cat 1), but not for other types of approach. I think they still have plans to introduce an approach ban for all approaches.
See:
NFRM 0906AS - IFR Minima and Low Visibility Operations
CAAP LVO-1(0) Approval to conduct low visibility operations
Agree with Monopole and others - you can't make a judgement regarding the vis at the minima unless you were in the cockpit at the time. I arrived in Perth one foggy morning last winter and held for 45 minutes because the vis was reported below minima. The vis gradually improved and we eventually landed. On short finals it was CAVOK over the runway, but both the domestic and international terminals were socked in by fog.
On that occasion the observer only updated the RV every 10 minutes or so. In the case OhSpareMe described, who's to say the RV didn't improve between observations, allowing some aircraft to land??
It is a CAT 1 Approach. Not a low visibility approach, and not subject to a State Approach Ban. If it was I am sure ATC would not have cleared them for approach.
Last edited by BuzzBox; 21st Jun 2014 at 05:02.
Problem is the only people who know what they saw are the FO/Capt.
But it was really foggy! 800 metres is a long way to see in fog! And I don't think the MET Gods smiled on those guys and parted the fog along the runway environment just in time for them.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: brisbane
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think REG 257 covers this. You can only commence an approach to land (other than low vis ops)if you think on reasonable grounds that you will get visual at the minima. Wether 400 m on the ATI would give you that expectation or not would be up to the PIC on the day .
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: A dozen towns ago
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perth got caught out with a sudden fog last year about this time. Many aircraft were in the air at the time, attempting approaches and subsequently diverting.
What was notable about that night was a pilot sitting in his aircraft, (safely on the ground), and was admonishing pilots for attempting an approach. He was making these transmissions on Approach frequency.
It was bad enough that he was making illegal transmissions, worse that he was wrong in his assessment, it was most of all, an unwanted distraction on what was a difficult night.
Poor form for an ex management type.
What was notable about that night was a pilot sitting in his aircraft, (safely on the ground), and was admonishing pilots for attempting an approach. He was making these transmissions on Approach frequency.
It was bad enough that he was making illegal transmissions, worse that he was wrong in his assessment, it was most of all, an unwanted distraction on what was a difficult night.
Poor form for an ex management type.
Last edited by caneworm; 21st Jun 2014 at 12:24.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: deutschland
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REG 257 is technically compromised whenever an aircraft flies towards a destination (ie a point of intended landing) that is below appropriate minima, but is carrying fuel to an alternate airport.
The reference paragraphs (Parts 6a and 6b) are not applicable to offences of strict liability where the offence happened but no there is no need to prove the crew did so "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or even negligently".
The reference paragraphs (Parts 6a and 6b) are not applicable to offences of strict liability where the offence happened but no there is no need to prove the crew did so "intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or even negligently".
Deviating slightly here it does make one wonder in today's so called modern era of advanced electronics/techno stuff that we still need to rely on the eyeball Mk1 to effect a Ldg in marginal conditions. I mean the BOM are at best % guessers of WX yet we fly clear across the country full knowing that we may not be able to land, seems crazy!!
The Rwy is still there it's only how the brain is tricked into not seeing the Rwy (thru our very limited eyes) due our inability to see thru the fog.
HUD's, Cat111Z etc etc are all available for pretty much a 0/0 Ldg so beats me why we waste zillions of $$$ diverting, wasting fuel adding to the worlds carbon footprint, turning back, cancelling flights & risking the whole shooting match 'cause of our humans failings.
Someone has gotta come up with a better mousetrap!:-)
Wmk2
The Rwy is still there it's only how the brain is tricked into not seeing the Rwy (thru our very limited eyes) due our inability to see thru the fog.
HUD's, Cat111Z etc etc are all available for pretty much a 0/0 Ldg so beats me why we waste zillions of $$$ diverting, wasting fuel adding to the worlds carbon footprint, turning back, cancelling flights & risking the whole shooting match 'cause of our humans failings.
Someone has gotta come up with a better mousetrap!:-)
Wmk2
HUD's, Cat111Z etc etc are all available for pretty much a 0/0 Ldg so beats me why we waste zillions of $$$ diverting, wasting fuel adding to the worlds carbon footprint, turning back, cancelling flights & risking the whole shooting match 'cause of our humans failings.
It's thinking like this that caused the VA emergency landing in Mildura in fog with basically no fuel in the tanks after having diverted away from a major airport with an ILS. I mean seriously, who is in charge of Australian Aviation infrastructure??? Third world countries have better facilities than us. Are our masters just a bunch of day VFR pilots who have never experienced how a modern overseas international airport with proper low vis facilities and procedures operates????
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was bought up on the news the other night. As the talking head said, most likely won't happen in Perth. The cost benefit analysis doesn't add up.
Another words the amount of times it happens in Perth doesn't offset the install and maintenance.
Another words the amount of times it happens in Perth doesn't offset the install and maintenance.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mc bank seems to be of the opinion that airports are far more important as earners of tax free dollars from parking lots and shopping center's to warrant squandering money on infrastructure for aviation use.
The cost benefit analysis doesn't add up
From another thread:
YPPH: It's all going to happen...
I'll believe it when I see it…
YPPH: It's all going to happen...
Systems Upgrade Should Beat Airport Fog
Thw West Australian, 21 June 2014
Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor
Perth Airport will significantly upgrade its aircraft instrument landing system over the next 12 months, which should almost eliminate delays caused by fog. Yesterday, the airport confirmed to The Weekend West that talks with airlines and Airservices Australia were at an advanced stage. The announcement came after a day of chaos at the airport, with the travel plans of thousands disrupted when fog blanketed Perth Airport for more than six hours.
About 45 flights were delayed or diverted, some as far as Adelaide, because of customs and immigration requirements, setting in motion knock-on delays of at least 24 hours for many passengers.
The fog started rolling in at 9.30pm on Thursday and lifted about 5.20am yesterday.
Perth Airport has a CAT 1 instrument landing system. Under CAT 1, pilots must be able to see the runway from a height of 61m with forward visibility of 800m. The CAT 3b system to be installed reduces that visibility height to just 15m and forward visibility to only 75m, almost eliminating diversions.
Most international and many domestic aircraft are capable of CAT3b operations, if the airport is equipped.
Thw West Australian, 21 June 2014
Geoffrey Thomas, Aviation Editor
Perth Airport will significantly upgrade its aircraft instrument landing system over the next 12 months, which should almost eliminate delays caused by fog. Yesterday, the airport confirmed to The Weekend West that talks with airlines and Airservices Australia were at an advanced stage. The announcement came after a day of chaos at the airport, with the travel plans of thousands disrupted when fog blanketed Perth Airport for more than six hours.
About 45 flights were delayed or diverted, some as far as Adelaide, because of customs and immigration requirements, setting in motion knock-on delays of at least 24 hours for many passengers.
The fog started rolling in at 9.30pm on Thursday and lifted about 5.20am yesterday.
Perth Airport has a CAT 1 instrument landing system. Under CAT 1, pilots must be able to see the runway from a height of 61m with forward visibility of 800m. The CAT 3b system to be installed reduces that visibility height to just 15m and forward visibility to only 75m, almost eliminating diversions.
Most international and many domestic aircraft are capable of CAT3b operations, if the airport is equipped.
Can we drop the visibility crap, RVR is RVR! What you see from the terminal, tower, car park is irrelevant. The tower is reporting an RVR from a transmissometer situated next to the runway......or is Australia different because they don't adapt approach bans!
Airlines worlwide use this as their basis for an approach ban, not visibility which is measured over the horizon from some non descript point within the airport boundary.
Airlines worlwide use this as their basis for an approach ban, not visibility which is measured over the horizon from some non descript point within the airport boundary.
RVR = transmissometer situated next to the runway (eg Sydney, Melbourne)
Runway Visibility = typically safety officer next to the runway counting runway lights (eg Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane)
Runway Visibility = typically safety officer next to the runway counting runway lights (eg Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane)