X-Ray Vision in Perth?

[CSTGuy]

With the fog tonite in Perth, TWR ATC have consistently claimed TDZ viz of 450m & MID 350m yet almost all non-QF planes miraculously land. Two QF A330's miss then divert to ADL, SG diverts to ADL, and QLink 717 misses & diverts to ASP (?). Three VA A330's land first go, as does JQ & MH.

Hopefully CASA will have a could look at this, but I'm not holding my breath!

It's amazing how it's the same operators whom always seem to "get in". They must feel like such great pilots.........

[Captain Sand Dune]

Maybe they take a loooong time making a decision at decision altitude!!

[chookcooker]

45% of this fools posts are having a crack at VA/VB. Then there's another accusing someone else of being anti QF.

What a turkey.

[Keg]

Fog can be like that. I've made it in when the bloke behind me went around. I've watched from the terminal the fog in HKG go from 500m to 100m in a four minute period. Maybe QF were just unlucky. Maybe the fog had increased viz just as the VOZ flights arrived.

If you're concerned or had accurate info, a REPCON or even an ASIR is always available. Far more effective than PPRUNE.

[Gate_15L]

I dunno Keg, I think CSTguy fails on both counts....

Further, REPCON staff must be satisfied that the reporter's motivation for reporting is aviation safety promotion, and that the reporter is not attempting to damage a rival or pursue an industrial agenda.

[neville_nobody]

Agree with Keg, Fog is a complete lottery. I have landed on virtually a visual approach whilst everyone in front and behind me went around. We just happened to be at the minima when there was a break in the fog bank.

However, carriers from a very populous northern country seem to hold no regard for CAT I mininas and never go around. Been sitting at the holding point with a RVR well below landing minima and they just roll on in. Also been holding when they are the only ones to land. All other carriers diverted.

If the tower is calling an official RVR that low, then a REPCON may not be out of the question but you would want to get your facts straight.

Yet another reason why Perth needs to get into the 21st century with a CAT III ILS?

[dartman2]

QF and foreign carriers are probably limited by an approach ban point (mandatory missed approach at 1000') where as other Australian operators are not.

[rockarpee]

Perth is a cat 1 ILS, therefore no app ban for QF....

[Pontius]

Mmm, some interesting questions spring to mind from some of the comments here.

QF and foreign carriers are probably limited by an approach ban point (mandatory missed approach at 1000') where as other Australian operators are not.

I know I'm being a lazy git by not looking up the regulations (and my iPad is just downloading the latest Jepp update, which is taking a long time) but does Oz not subscribe to the ICAO Approach Ban procedure? In other words, has it filed a difference? If not, then the Approach Ban would apply to all operators.

(It's not necessarily only 1000' but I'm not trying to argue semantics)

Perth is a cat 1 ILS, therefore no app ban for QF

Bearing in mind my question above, Approach Ban procedures apply to any instrument approach, including CAT 1 and non-precision approaches, so why would QF be exempt?

[Captain Dart]

Cathay Pacific certainly has a 1,000' AAL approach ban, and it applies everywhere including Australian airports and Cat. 1 ops.

I am surprised the Greenies have not got on to, or been put on to, the issue of the thousands of tonnes of aviation fuel burnt into the atmosphere with go-rounds, diversions and re-positions because of Third World Australian ILS capabilities.

[benjam]

I was under the impression that, at the minima, you need to see lighting associated with the approach end of the runway in order to decide to continue toward a landing, irrespective of the reported ATC RVR.

Is this not correct?

[Pontius]

I was under the impression that, at the minima, you need to see lighting associated with the approach end of the runway in order to decide to continue toward a landing, irrespective of the reported ATC RVR.

Is this not correct?

That all depends on whether the Approach Ban 'procedure' is applicable in Oz. This procedure allows you to commence an instrument approach with the RVR /CMV below minimums for that procedure but, when reaching the OM/FAF/1000' (delete as applicable to operator's country), you have to carry out a missed approach if the RVR/CMV is still below mins. Having passed the Approach Ban Point (with the RVR/CMV above mins) if the visibility then deteriorates below mins you may continue the approach until the normal decision point. If you can then see the appropriate references then continue, if not, go-around.

As far as I know, this 'procedure' is state-wide and not only applied to certain operators within a country, hence my question about it applying in Oz when it was suggested that QF may be ruled by it, whereas others were not.

[JustJoinedToSearch]

Benjam, pretty sure you're thinking of the requirement to keep the landing runway environment in sight whilst visually circling below the MDA. No such requirement for a s-i cat I ILS as far as I can see.

Never seen anything like an approach ban in aip anywhere but happy to be corrected.

[OhSpareMe]

Runway Visibility around the time of the X Ray Vision approaches was nowhere near the required 800 m for a CAT 1 to RWY 21. I was there. Reported Vis was fluctuating between 350 - 550 m in all zones for the two hours I was waiting at the gate to get going.

Two QF A330's had a shot and diverted. Then we had a bit of giggle taking bets whether Malaysian would land (was watching on Flight Radar 24) but after VA landed just prior to MH it was then going to be a no-brainer. After that a JQ came in and landed. Departures then proceeded.

I departed on 03 in 400m RV. Shortly after a JQ missed and diverted.

Amateur hour in my opinion.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Pontius

does Oz not subscribe to the ICAO Approach Ban procedure? In other words, has it filed a difference? If not, then the Approach Ban would apply to all operators.

No, No and nonsense.

[Ollie Onion]

Approach ban DOES NOT apply in Australia, individual operators may apply one (such as Jetstar) but it is not legislated.

[nitpicker330]

Exactly, we've had CAT3B qualified crews sitting in the hold waiting while CAT1 only crews take it down the ILS to have a look see, then go around....

Time to introduce an approach ban.

Yes I am referring to YMML 16.

[Capt Basil Brush]

Runway Visibility around the time of the X Ray Vision approaches was nowhere near the required 800 m for a CAT 1 to RWY 21. I was there. Reported Vis was fluctuating between 350 - 550 m in all zones for the two hours I was waiting at the gate to get going.

Two QF A330's had a shot and diverted. Then we had a bit of giggle taking bets whether Malaysian would land (was watching on Flight Radar 24) but after VA landed just prior to MH it was then going to be a no-brainer. After that a JQ came in and landed. Departures then proceeded.

VA have an Approach Ban policy, however with a reported Cat 1 RVR of 550m an approach can be conducted to the minima. If you have the required visual reference you land, if not go around. As mentioned fog can vary by the minute at different parts of the aerodrome. The previous flight might land, then you might not see anything a few minutes later.

I think there are a few people getting a bit carried away over this.

[blow.n.gasket]

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.
They quite rightly decided to hold for the obvious source to pass over,a large Cumulus cloud spewing forth virga .
1st arrival has a go, and initiates a missed approach due obvious severe windshear.
4 more hero's have a go despite Tower reporting severe windshear and a big fat Cu to be seen spewing forth virga overhead.
How many more hints does one need?
The funny part was the last guys to roll the dice were at about 1000 'when they were told by Tower that the previous 4 aircraft had gone around due windshear, and "good luck cleared to land 34R", or words to that effect.
The reply heard over the radio was" XYZ cleared to land" with the windshear warning blearing away in the background clearly heard over the transmission.
These hero's were then seen to battle away with the shear down to about 300',as seen on the TCAS, before discretion took over.


PS not one of these "professionals" who, "had a go", despite numerous warnings were in an aircraft with an endangered marsupial on the tail.

[nitpicker330]

What? Good "story" but no professional Pilot in the western world would ignore a REACTIVE WINDSHEAR WARNING. we are all spring loaded to react.

Maybe some third world Airline perhaps but Australia.........

Good attempt at a windup though

Not to mention VB bashing...