Perth (YPPH) Fog 10 Aug Domestic Diversion
 

I understand that a Virgin Blue on a flight Melbourne to Perth on evening of 10 August decided to return to Melbourne account of fog at Perth.

I understand that the flight had got to "around Eucla region" before deciding to return.

If so, it would have been a costly exercise in fuel and passengers would not have been too happy!!


Mike:ugh:

I am guessing that if they got to Perth without enough fuel for an alternate and stuffed up the landing it would be more costly and the pax a little more upset.

Why Does Perth of all places not have CAT III approaches. Does it cost that much? Even regional crappy Eurotrash airports have these facilities.

Any thoughts?

I think the AAE 727's also diverted to Adelaide last week due fog on PH, KG & GEL.

Mind you Cat III isn't going to worry 727 ops.

Which ones would they be Hedge ?:=

Heathrow :}:}:}:}:}:}:}:E:p

Now that's not funny regi !!!;)

Pesky fog!

How was it that the Rat drivers continued and got in ok with the same conditions/forecast, but VB decided on YPAD. :confused:

Some secret VB YPAD get together...... :eek::eek:

Hedge you raise a valid point i think. It won't happen though.

mmciau,

On Friday I downloaded my Wx literally minutes before a work colleague sitting next to me, and the differance was a few hours in the onset of the Fog period. Maybe the VB crew got an updated Wx and (rightfuly) decided to give PH a miss.

A 'Rat' driver may set me straight here, but I was once told that Qf always carry and alternate for PH due to the often unforecast onset of fog (or smog from the brick works),

Mono I guess forecast wx will have an impact.

Do the airlines (Both QF & VB) personnel on the ground at the various airports pass on "real time" wx conditions? Are any of them trained wx observers?

I know that the ATC/BOM wx system is set up for this purpose, but it could be used as another source of info in the decision making process.

It is a tough call once heading over west - to continue or divert. I would have thought that YPKG would have been a more suitable alternate than YPAD. Or is it the lack of facilities that stop this?

From the news reports I saw, the SLF said that VB just let them all sleep in the terminal. := Could do that anywhere :sad:

Cat 3 won't help
 

OK, so assume $millions of dollars are invested in a Cat 3 installation at PH, plus the expense to upgrade training/crew quals/aircraft status for domestic aircraft to land in Cat 3. This will then mean an aircraft can probably land if it reaches PH to find it below Cat 1 min.
But the problem is reaching PH!
Most B737 aircraft will have to divert anyway, because Cat3 capability does NOT affect alternate minima and these aircraft often can't carry enough fuel for an alternate from the East Coast. So if the VB aircraft in question couldn't reach PH and hold an alternate (as was the case here, by the sound of it), then it has to divert when the forecast goes below ALTN MIN (regardless of whether there's a Cat1, 2 or 3 capabilty at the destination).
By the way, QF do not always carry an Alternate for Perth. They do have have an internal assessment process however, that sometimes results in alternate fuel being carraied when not required by official forecasts.

You cannot knock the guys for erring on the side of caution, especially with fog.

BTW, is Forest still carried as an alternate by any hi-cap operators??

flew in on a dj flight from sydney around 1330, weather was rather ****e,
news here was reporting it turned around 30mins from perth, that would have been oe rther long 737 flight, around7-8hrs or so

mmciau perhaps you would have preferred them to end up in a situation like this?
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...x#tab_abstract
Or this? http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...00002305.aspx"
Or this? http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...200002305.aspx
:rolleyes:

from what I heard, the flight in question arrived into MEL about 2am with no ground services or staff at all, and pax were left in the terminal until about 7am? any truth in this?

It's been said before on this site, but it's worth repeating: surely with the cost of fuel today being what it is, the economics are there for the main users of PER to kick in towards the cost of adding 500 metres and an ILS to the main runway at KAL?

I'd be guessing that any such outlay when shared among the users of PER would pay for itself in just a few years both in diversions that would no longer be necessary and extra payload/less cost in all that diversion fuel and island destination now carried for ops into PER.

The Boulderites wouldn't notice if the 'back 9' of their golf course went missing...it's only dirt after all.:E

I seem to recall the weather being OK in Kal on the day in question. Maybe VB are reluctant to use Kal after their falling out with the local council over their on-again off-again start up a few years back.:ooh:

Somebody mentioned Forrest, what a great idea, VB (or anyone) could supply the pax with sufficient mattrasses to camp on the old hangar floor, throw in a tour of the old met office and everyone would be happy.:}

Heres a few :
Cork (EICK)
Santiago de Compostela (LEST)
Vigo (LEVX)
Nantes (LFRS)
Marseille (LFML)
Bordeaux(LFBD)
Lille (LFQQ)
Dresden (EDDC)
Cologne(EDDK)
Bremen (EDDW)
Shannon (EINN)
Venice (LIPZ)
Torino (LIMF)
Marseille (LFML).... are all CAT III

These are regional airports which would not see a lot of traffic by Euro standards. All the major city airports have at least Cat II with most having CatIII B (No DH RVR 75m).
Countries with only CAT 1 facilities we go to would be the likes of Slovakia,Lithuania,Latvia,Poland,Estonia,

We can plan to the destination as long as the forecast (+-1 Hour) indicates the RVR is that which is specified on the chart or more (for CAT III as low as 75m). It its below this we can still go, but need two alternates.

A CAT II/III airport can be selected as an alternate if the the RVR is above CAT 1 minima (usually 550m). Cloud base is not considered.