Should I stay or should I go - Company Policy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should I stay or should I go - Company Policy
Following recent events where fog in MEL has caused mayhem with inbound traffic;
Qantas link flights out of DPO & LST remained on the ground until the fog subsided,
Yet Virgin flight ex LST departed even after being Advised that the RVR at MEL was 200m. This Aircraft was then stuck in a Hold in excess of 30 mins before diverting to AD (further from its destination than it started).
So tell us PPruners
What is your company policy with regard to departing when the conditions at your destination are below the landing minima, and other aircraft are missing out.
Qantas link flights out of DPO & LST remained on the ground until the fog subsided,
Yet Virgin flight ex LST departed even after being Advised that the RVR at MEL was 200m. This Aircraft was then stuck in a Hold in excess of 30 mins before diverting to AD (further from its destination than it started).
So tell us PPruners
What is your company policy with regard to departing when the conditions at your destination are below the landing minima, and other aircraft are missing out.
Captn Seagull
Our company policy is we can go as long as the destination visibility is above the landing minima. If this can’t be complied with we must nominate another destination airport that has a visibility above landing minima. As the flight progresses and if the visibility improves at the scheduled destination above the landing minima, then a reclearance operation is perfectly OK. Can’t see a problem with DJ departing with destination less than landing minima if they were doing it in accordance with their SOP’s. Maybe they had a flight plan and fuel for Adelaide. Maybe they were hoping they could refile for Melbourne once approaching TOD. Maybe we will just have to ask the crew.
Our company policy is we can go as long as the destination visibility is above the landing minima. If this can’t be complied with we must nominate another destination airport that has a visibility above landing minima. As the flight progresses and if the visibility improves at the scheduled destination above the landing minima, then a reclearance operation is perfectly OK. Can’t see a problem with DJ departing with destination less than landing minima if they were doing it in accordance with their SOP’s. Maybe they had a flight plan and fuel for Adelaide. Maybe they were hoping they could refile for Melbourne once approaching TOD. Maybe we will just have to ask the crew.
Last edited by 404 Titan; 27th May 2003 at 11:33.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Seagull
Our company policy is common sense and financial prudence to delay until conditions improve above the minima at the destination.
DJ crew probably wanted the extra stick time !!
Our company policy is common sense and financial prudence to delay until conditions improve above the minima at the destination.
DJ crew probably wanted the extra stick time !!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice try Apollo but I doubt it. Common sense covers a very broad spectrum. If one waits until the weather improves above landing minima (which in my opinion is farcical) you may well miss out when you get there as the wx can deteriorate below minimums very quickly if the right conditions exist. It is a command call on the day and I would suggest experience and local knowledge play an important role in the decision making process.
I have missed out at more airports around the world where the wx (forecast and actual) was considerably better than the actual conditions when we arrived. Alas wx is not homogenous. Conditions change (quickly at times) so I would always generally depart with wx below landing knowing full well that more than likely we will get in, possibly with a bit of holding.
More importantly, once again we see the need for CAT III airports and procedures in this country. Every year we see the same thing happen but the "head in the sand" Australians just wont come into the 21st century. The cost of those disruptions to the majors each year must amount to millions. More than enough to justify the cost of implementing CAT III ops. What will it take for some one to wake up to this quite obvious fact?
I have missed out at more airports around the world where the wx (forecast and actual) was considerably better than the actual conditions when we arrived. Alas wx is not homogenous. Conditions change (quickly at times) so I would always generally depart with wx below landing knowing full well that more than likely we will get in, possibly with a bit of holding.
More importantly, once again we see the need for CAT III airports and procedures in this country. Every year we see the same thing happen but the "head in the sand" Australians just wont come into the 21st century. The cost of those disruptions to the majors each year must amount to millions. More than enough to justify the cost of implementing CAT III ops. What will it take for some one to wake up to this quite obvious fact?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
404 Titan
I saw both your replies, edited & unedited. I must admit it makes my head ache a bit with the effort and possible traps involved.
I'm not having a go here (you may well be a senior pilot), but is launching and replanning enroute on the basis of weather at aerodromes that are never really considered as alternates advocated by the senior guys where you are. Leaving aside off track PNR situations.
I saw both your replies, edited & unedited. I must admit it makes my head ache a bit with the effort and possible traps involved.
I'm not having a go here (you may well be a senior pilot), but is launching and replanning enroute on the basis of weather at aerodromes that are never really considered as alternates advocated by the senior guys where you are. Leaving aside off track PNR situations.
Spotlight
On ultra long haul operations many a time you would never get away unless you applied a procedure like this and then use some common sense. Most of the time when the Vis is below landing minima, flight dispatch will plan us to an enroute airport that is close to the scheduled destination and has weather above the landing minima. Also at the planning stage we must have an alternate that meets the alternate planning minima. When we refile in-flight, the scheduled destination must meet the landing minima and it’s alternate must meet the planning minima. Remember when the flight plans are being compiled, the flight may not arrive at the scheduled destination for 20 to 24 hours.
On ultra long haul operations many a time you would never get away unless you applied a procedure like this and then use some common sense. Most of the time when the Vis is below landing minima, flight dispatch will plan us to an enroute airport that is close to the scheduled destination and has weather above the landing minima. Also at the planning stage we must have an alternate that meets the alternate planning minima. When we refile in-flight, the scheduled destination must meet the landing minima and it’s alternate must meet the planning minima. Remember when the flight plans are being compiled, the flight may not arrive at the scheduled destination for 20 to 24 hours.
In my experience when the weather has been below the alt minima, it's up to operations where they would like you to go, normally the next port of call for that aircraft, only if it is achievable. The idea is to keep some kind of schedule and slowly get pax where they want to be by the end of the day hopefully. Fortunately I have made my destination without having to divert!!! Touch wood! 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's wrong with going to have a look-see, as long as suitable alternate fuel is carried?
When I thinkof how few instrument approaches I've flown in anger v. the poor wx forecast, I think the odds are stacked in favour of getting in. This should not breed complacency though.
When I thinkof how few instrument approaches I've flown in anger v. the poor wx forecast, I think the odds are stacked in favour of getting in. This should not breed complacency though.
Nunc est bibendum
Personally, if I was going to a place like Melbourne with fog at the field when I left I'd arrive with a LOT more than 30ish minutes. I know a lot of blokes have carried about two hours worth PLUS the diversion when there is fog at destination and other factors not an issue (MLW, MTOW, etc!). This time of year in Melbourne, thats probably not a bad fuel order.
Anyway, I'm not going to cast stones. Maybe it was forecast to lift before they departed and looked like it was going to and then set in again. We all get 'caught' by the weather sometimes (read the six pages on the 737 going to TW a couple of weeks back) and you deal with it and move on.
Regards,
Anyway, I'm not going to cast stones. Maybe it was forecast to lift before they departed and looked like it was going to and then set in again. We all get 'caught' by the weather sometimes (read the six pages on the 737 going to TW a couple of weeks back) and you deal with it and move on.
Regards,
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft in question was scheduled to fly LST-MEL-ADL-BNE and beyond that day, and carried many connecting pax destined for ADL,BNE and other places besides MEL.
The aircraft had enough fuel to hold for hours (literally) and chose to divert in consultation with OPS when the wx in MEL was obviously not fluctuating, well below landing minima, and at a time when it would arrive in ADL in time to maintain its schedule.
When the aircraft landed in ADL, the first aircraft had just managed to get into MEL, so if the flight had chosen to stay on the ground in LST until the fog had lifted the MEL bound pax would have not got there much sooner than PAX shifted onto a ADL-MEL flight after the diversion. The ADL bound connecting pax were very happy and the BNE bound ones were not much worse off. The LST-ADL flight burned 400kg more than LST-MEL-ADL would have, which is not bad considering 30 min hold, but then we did hold at FL240.
Well that was the plan, the aircraft departed knowing full well MEL was closed, gave the Weather Gods a chance to smile, but with a plan to minimise downstream disruption at a cost of inconveniencing a few.
Cheers
ps I am impressed by the contributions to this thread, as it is one of the more courteous and open minded I have read in this forum.
The aircraft had enough fuel to hold for hours (literally) and chose to divert in consultation with OPS when the wx in MEL was obviously not fluctuating, well below landing minima, and at a time when it would arrive in ADL in time to maintain its schedule.
When the aircraft landed in ADL, the first aircraft had just managed to get into MEL, so if the flight had chosen to stay on the ground in LST until the fog had lifted the MEL bound pax would have not got there much sooner than PAX shifted onto a ADL-MEL flight after the diversion. The ADL bound connecting pax were very happy and the BNE bound ones were not much worse off. The LST-ADL flight burned 400kg more than LST-MEL-ADL would have, which is not bad considering 30 min hold, but then we did hold at FL240.
Well that was the plan, the aircraft departed knowing full well MEL was closed, gave the Weather Gods a chance to smile, but with a plan to minimise downstream disruption at a cost of inconveniencing a few.
Cheers
ps I am impressed by the contributions to this thread, as it is one of the more courteous and open minded I have read in this forum.
