Latest Divert Time. Que?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest Divert Time. Que?
Recent discussion on another thread highlighted the fact that there are some serious differences in interpretation of just exactly what is a "Latest Divert Time" [LDT], where is it positioned and what happens when it expires.
Noticeably absent from the discussion was input from ATC, probably because they were distracted by the "fuel policy" issue.
We have an opportunity to use PPRUNE as an educational tool, as it is one of the quickest and easiest conduits for eliciting opinion, sorting the wheat from the chaffe, and improving the overall level of understanding.
When ATC ask for and are given an "LDT" what do they understand that they are being given. What do they expect of the PIC when he reaches that time?
As a PIC, what are you giving ATC when you nominate a LDT. How do you calculate it. What are you going to do if you reach that time?
To start the ball rolling:
My latest divert time is the latest time at which I can reach the minima, and from that point land, or divert to alternate and land with mandatory reserves intact. In my current company mandatory reserves are overidden by a more conservative "Minimum Fuel Polcy", which dictates the minimum fuel with which I can land at my alternate.
If at anytime during holding/manouvering, it becomes obvious that I cannot reach the MINIMA by the nominated LDT, I must divert, to preserve my Minimum Fuel obligation, even if that means not trying an approach.
ATC and others, What are your thoughts.
TAC ON
Noticeably absent from the discussion was input from ATC, probably because they were distracted by the "fuel policy" issue.
We have an opportunity to use PPRUNE as an educational tool, as it is one of the quickest and easiest conduits for eliciting opinion, sorting the wheat from the chaffe, and improving the overall level of understanding.
When ATC ask for and are given an "LDT" what do they understand that they are being given. What do they expect of the PIC when he reaches that time?
As a PIC, what are you giving ATC when you nominate a LDT. How do you calculate it. What are you going to do if you reach that time?
To start the ball rolling:
My latest divert time is the latest time at which I can reach the minima, and from that point land, or divert to alternate and land with mandatory reserves intact. In my current company mandatory reserves are overidden by a more conservative "Minimum Fuel Polcy", which dictates the minimum fuel with which I can land at my alternate.
If at anytime during holding/manouvering, it becomes obvious that I cannot reach the MINIMA by the nominated LDT, I must divert, to preserve my Minimum Fuel obligation, even if that means not trying an approach.
ATC and others, What are your thoughts.
TAC ON
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When ATC ask for and are given an "LDT" what do they understand that they are being given. What do they expect of the PIC when he reaches that time?
Reason/logic: At your LDT, I believe you have enough fuel left to continue to original destination, make missed approach and then divert to alternate with appropriate reserves for that alternate (but that's pilot stuff). After your LDT you do not have enough fuel for all of that, thus you must divert unless you are assured of landing at original destination; it's your call.
If the reason for the hold is traffic, I wouldn't expect you to get 'promoted' in the queue. But if it were due to WX, fog etc. a quick negotiation (within company) can occur if we have the LDTs of all; this can also happen with traffic, but it's harder.
Why do we really want it; because we can make plans for 'generally speaking' a new flight plan or start wording up other sectors that you'll be on your way to XXXX soon. Tell the Flow to perhaps not count you as a number or be ready to remove you from the sequence.
Also we may stack you further out, or closer to your alternate if the time to LDT is large, with a view to bring you nearer when we are able; of course this may alter the LDT?
If you give me a LDT that is wrong, what can I do to assess it? If you say it's time 2315; I'm locking it in, if you revise it, then I lock that in instead.
Number one in all this, if you say we need to turn inbound now for a landing or divert now to XXXX I'll give you the option that I have available to me at the time.
I have had a few occasions where two or three minutes after a diversion the fog lifts and everyone can get in with minimal delay, because of earlier diversions, and the aircraft can't return. Also had the reverse. It's the old suck it and see principle.
Often when I ask for a LDT it takes a long time to get an answer, I understand it needs to be calculated/found; but a ball park would be handy as an initial planning tool; i.e. we’ve got 30 holding on, call you back with the LDT.
Often the handiest advice is the 'nominated alternate' and sticking to it. Very annoying if you reach an LDT and divert to a new alternate; not planned for etc. keep us in the loop.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your latest divert time is whatever you want it to be.
In other words whatever you are comfortable with so that you do not land with less than the required fuel minimums as dictated by either your company or the CAO requirements.
Bust the CAO minimum fuel requirement and watch both the law as well as your employer come down on you unless you have overriding circumstances.
After all, operational control does rest with the pilot in command unless security issues are involved etc etc etc.
In other words whatever you are comfortable with so that you do not land with less than the required fuel minimums as dictated by either your company or the CAO requirements.
Bust the CAO minimum fuel requirement and watch both the law as well as your employer come down on you unless you have overriding circumstances.
After all, operational control does rest with the pilot in command unless security issues are involved etc etc etc.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAC, it is obvious now what your problem was on the other thread; you have a very restrictive definition of latest divert time.
May I suggest that the definition offerred by SM4 Pirate
is closer to the one held by most pilots, i.e. it is a PNR time, and has nothing to do with being at the minima.
May I suggest that the definition offerred by SM4 Pirate
As an ATC I am expecting that you will leave hold at that time and either proceed to destination or divert to alternate.
Last edited by The_Cutest_of_Borg; 30th Aug 2005 at 20:37.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM4 Pirate
My alternate figures, both fuel plan and FTI, are based on diversion from the MAP’t. This is the figure I have on my flight plan, and is I believe, universal practice.
Scenario 1
If I am 200 nm north of SYD coming down from BNE. Things start to turn ugly and in the spirit of timely advice and desiring to preplan your sequences, you advise me:
“expect significant delays, when ready, go ahead with your Latest Divert Time.”
I will use the MAP’t as the basis for my LDT.
Logic: it’s the only point I can reasonably expect to fly over, and I already have all the data from that point.
Scenario 2
If I am somewhere on an ATC guided tour of the Blue Mountains, Woolongong or perhaps doing a bit of impromptu fish spotting out in the Tasman, and you advise me that things are getting uglier:
“you are still number 10 in the sequence, advise your Latest Divert Time”.
I will use the MAP’t as the basis for my LDT.
Logic: it’s the only point I can reasonably expect to fly over, and I already have all the data from that point.
Scenario 3
I am being held at XXX. You feel the need for information and request an LDT.
I will use the MAP’t as the basis of my LDT
Logic: it’s the only point I can reasonably expect to fly over, and I already have all the data from that point.
I have no idea what your sequencing plans are. You may shift my hold or you make take me on a scenario 2 guided tour. I don’t know. The one constant in each scenario is the MAP’t. If the logic holds for scenarios 1 & 2, why would it not hold for scenario 3?
If you ask me for a DT from a particular point, different story. Ask for any particular time and I will do my best to give it to you.
The time/calculation you nominate in your example is a DT from the hold but it is not an LDT. Internationally it is referred to as an EFC, or in this case a Latest EFC. It is a generally pointless to hold beyond that time as nothing more than a diversion can be undertaken, but it is not an LDT. In high density areas it is conceivable that ATC might require a hold beyond a latest EFC, to facilitate traffic flow to a popular alternate.
In the absence of a specified point for a requested LDT, I will give you a time based on the MINMA, planning a latest possible time to be at the bottom of the hill, and still be able to divert. If at any time in the sequence, it becomes obvious to me that you will not get me to the minima by the nominated time I will initiate a diversion immediately, to maximise my options at the alternate. In my experience this is the international standard.
Some have suggested that such an interpretation is narrow and, by inference a bit anal. However it should be remembered that we work in an international environment. SYD as an international airport deals with legions of crews for whom English is a second language. Equally we, as aircrew must deal with ATC’s from a wide range of backgrounds. It has been my experience that when a non native speaker is asked a question in a language in which he is not fluent, he will take a literal interpretation of the individual words, rather than an overall view which may be tinged with local influence. Hence, if you ask a Japanese or a Columbian or an Egyptian, for a LATEST time he will almost certainly give you a figure from the MAP’t, as that is the true, latest, time.
If due to local custom you wish to use DT in lieu of the international standard EFC, may I suggest it is essential that you specify the point from which you want the DT calculation made.
In the incident that sparked this thread (according to the report), the pilot was asked for and gave a Latest Landing Time. For him to continue as he did he must have believed his LLT, was an LDT aligned with your interpretation, which as I have pointed out is not an LDT. If a native English speaker can be sucked in to this sort of error, what is the possibility of a non native speaker making a similar error?
This incident, in my view highlights the need for global standardisation in radio procedures, and the necessity for both sides of the radio to understand which page they are working on.
Although I have not seen an Aust. AIP for many years I suspect it is silent in this area, as are Jepps.
Personally, I don’t give a rats what time you want, ask for it and I will give it to you, but only if the request is precise can we all be sure that the response is appropriate.
TAC On
My alternate figures, both fuel plan and FTI, are based on diversion from the MAP’t. This is the figure I have on my flight plan, and is I believe, universal practice.
Scenario 1
If I am 200 nm north of SYD coming down from BNE. Things start to turn ugly and in the spirit of timely advice and desiring to preplan your sequences, you advise me:
“expect significant delays, when ready, go ahead with your Latest Divert Time.”
I will use the MAP’t as the basis for my LDT.
Logic: it’s the only point I can reasonably expect to fly over, and I already have all the data from that point.
Scenario 2
If I am somewhere on an ATC guided tour of the Blue Mountains, Woolongong or perhaps doing a bit of impromptu fish spotting out in the Tasman, and you advise me that things are getting uglier:
“you are still number 10 in the sequence, advise your Latest Divert Time”.
I will use the MAP’t as the basis for my LDT.
Logic: it’s the only point I can reasonably expect to fly over, and I already have all the data from that point.
Scenario 3
I am being held at XXX. You feel the need for information and request an LDT.
I will use the MAP’t as the basis of my LDT
Logic: it’s the only point I can reasonably expect to fly over, and I already have all the data from that point.
I have no idea what your sequencing plans are. You may shift my hold or you make take me on a scenario 2 guided tour. I don’t know. The one constant in each scenario is the MAP’t. If the logic holds for scenarios 1 & 2, why would it not hold for scenario 3?
If you ask me for a DT from a particular point, different story. Ask for any particular time and I will do my best to give it to you.
The time/calculation you nominate in your example is a DT from the hold but it is not an LDT. Internationally it is referred to as an EFC, or in this case a Latest EFC. It is a generally pointless to hold beyond that time as nothing more than a diversion can be undertaken, but it is not an LDT. In high density areas it is conceivable that ATC might require a hold beyond a latest EFC, to facilitate traffic flow to a popular alternate.
In the absence of a specified point for a requested LDT, I will give you a time based on the MINMA, planning a latest possible time to be at the bottom of the hill, and still be able to divert. If at any time in the sequence, it becomes obvious to me that you will not get me to the minima by the nominated time I will initiate a diversion immediately, to maximise my options at the alternate. In my experience this is the international standard.
Some have suggested that such an interpretation is narrow and, by inference a bit anal. However it should be remembered that we work in an international environment. SYD as an international airport deals with legions of crews for whom English is a second language. Equally we, as aircrew must deal with ATC’s from a wide range of backgrounds. It has been my experience that when a non native speaker is asked a question in a language in which he is not fluent, he will take a literal interpretation of the individual words, rather than an overall view which may be tinged with local influence. Hence, if you ask a Japanese or a Columbian or an Egyptian, for a LATEST time he will almost certainly give you a figure from the MAP’t, as that is the true, latest, time.
If due to local custom you wish to use DT in lieu of the international standard EFC, may I suggest it is essential that you specify the point from which you want the DT calculation made.
In the incident that sparked this thread (according to the report), the pilot was asked for and gave a Latest Landing Time. For him to continue as he did he must have believed his LLT, was an LDT aligned with your interpretation, which as I have pointed out is not an LDT. If a native English speaker can be sucked in to this sort of error, what is the possibility of a non native speaker making a similar error?
This incident, in my view highlights the need for global standardisation in radio procedures, and the necessity for both sides of the radio to understand which page they are working on.
Although I have not seen an Aust. AIP for many years I suspect it is silent in this area, as are Jepps.
Personally, I don’t give a rats what time you want, ask for it and I will give it to you, but only if the request is precise can we all be sure that the response is appropriate.
TAC On
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eerrrrr
TO
If at any time in the sequence, it becomes obvious to me that you will not get me to the minima by the nominated time I will initiate a diversion immediately, to maximise my options at the alternate. In my experience this is the international standard.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry TAC ON, didn't realise you were trawling.
I stand by my original answer; if you get me you won't have any of the scenarios you suggested; I'll tell you to hold first, including where; I'm working everything from that point; because MAESTRO told me so.
If you work out the time to run to MAP't from there that's great; if not I care not. To me the LDT is time you tell me you need to be inbound or you're going elsewhere.
If I'm holding you at 250 SY and you give me your estimate for last diversion time from the field fence, how is this helping?
If it's such a problem suggest you write to your CP and get them to seek a meeting with the HATC on the topic. But after 20 years providing said 'service' it's never come up as a problem.
If you give me 2350 as the LDT one assumes that time would be after the time you'd actually need to move on from your current hold point; as you've worked it out. Rather than what I've suggested.
I'm not going to jump at "we need to divert to XX now" with a "but you said LDT was 2350"; I'm going to say track direct to... etc. So what's the problem, <putting up heat shields, knowing nothing about said other thread>.
I stand by my original answer; if you get me you won't have any of the scenarios you suggested; I'll tell you to hold first, including where; I'm working everything from that point; because MAESTRO told me so.
If you work out the time to run to MAP't from there that's great; if not I care not. To me the LDT is time you tell me you need to be inbound or you're going elsewhere.
If I'm holding you at 250 SY and you give me your estimate for last diversion time from the field fence, how is this helping?
If it's such a problem suggest you write to your CP and get them to seek a meeting with the HATC on the topic. But after 20 years providing said 'service' it's never come up as a problem.
If you give me 2350 as the LDT one assumes that time would be after the time you'd actually need to move on from your current hold point; as you've worked it out. Rather than what I've suggested.
I'm not going to jump at "we need to divert to XX now" with a "but you said LDT was 2350"; I'm going to say track direct to... etc. So what's the problem, <putting up heat shields, knowing nothing about said other thread>.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAC, even you say that the AIP and Jepps do not speak of your little procedure. The ATCO's here don't know of it. Are you making it up as you go along..?
99.99% of pilots here, when asked for a latest divert time, won't factor in where they are in relation to the minima; it is an illogical thing to do. ATC obviously won't either. All anyone is interested in is if they have enough fuel to reach their alternate.
So if the AIP's don't speak of it, the Jepps, the ATCO's and the vast majority of the pilots here do not subscribe to your theories, who is wrong?
I suspect you owe the crew of the A330 an apology.
As for your smug question in the other thread, what part of latest divert time do you really understand?
99.99% of pilots here, when asked for a latest divert time, won't factor in where they are in relation to the minima; it is an illogical thing to do. ATC obviously won't either. All anyone is interested in is if they have enough fuel to reach their alternate.
So if the AIP's don't speak of it, the Jepps, the ATCO's and the vast majority of the pilots here do not subscribe to your theories, who is wrong?
I suspect you owe the crew of the A330 an apology.
As for your smug question in the other thread, what part of latest divert time do you really understand?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Borg,
Maybe there's a few crossed wires here. The thing is the only reason you would ever hold is for the chance of an approach. If you have the chance of an approach then the "GO" point to the alternate is the Missed Approach point.
I have known pilots, expats with BA/QF bacgrounds who should have known better, assume that you can hold unti you would HAVE to divert or be cleared for an approach but always assuming that once you are cleared for the approach the requirement for an alternate no longer applies.
WRONG!
The requirement for an Alternate applies until you hit the TOGA buttons at the DH or MAP and even then, as we see often in Europe, if Alternate 1 is dodgy, then you still have to carry alternate 2. What you cannot do is hold to the point where ONLY a guaranteed succesful approach can get you on the ground with company minimum fuel on board.
Of what possible use is a Latest Divert Time that doesn't include at least one chance for an approach? Why would you be holding?
Maybe there's a few crossed wires here. The thing is the only reason you would ever hold is for the chance of an approach. If you have the chance of an approach then the "GO" point to the alternate is the Missed Approach point.
I have known pilots, expats with BA/QF bacgrounds who should have known better, assume that you can hold unti you would HAVE to divert or be cleared for an approach but always assuming that once you are cleared for the approach the requirement for an alternate no longer applies.
WRONG!
The requirement for an Alternate applies until you hit the TOGA buttons at the DH or MAP and even then, as we see often in Europe, if Alternate 1 is dodgy, then you still have to carry alternate 2. What you cannot do is hold to the point where ONLY a guaranteed succesful approach can get you on the ground with company minimum fuel on board.
Of what possible use is a Latest Divert Time that doesn't include at least one chance for an approach? Why would you be holding?
Nunc est bibendum
Not sure why I'm bothering but here goes.
Using one of TACs examples, I'm in the stack at FL200 because airfield requires alternate due fog.
If they ask me for latest divert time, I can have two possible numbers. One is the latest time I can shoot an approach, miss out and get to my alternate. This is the figure you keep using TAC. The second time will be slightly later one whereby I can divert from my hold to a suitable alternate airfield.
Obviously then, I have two options up my sleeve. If ATC can clear me for an approach before the first time then yahoo- all is well and good. If they can't do that then I can STILL CONTINUE TO HOLD on the chance the weather clears ABOVE THE ALTERNATE CRITERIA. Given the way the fog works in Sydney, there are LOTS of times when this second occasion happens. Further, I know of lots of flights that have employed this second technique when late in the sequence but with the weather improving. Using rough numbers and fuel burns for the 767 TAC, this second figure could well be about 20-30 minutes after the original number.
So, the time you give ATC would mean that you'd be sometimes diverting when you didn't have to? That IS what you're saying. The airport may be wide open now but because you HAD to shoot your approach 20-30 minutes earlier (when it was below the alternate criteria), you are now on your way to a different aerodrome- even though every man and his dog is now making an approach to an aerodrome that is above the SLAM.
Thankfully I'm not a 'crap magnet' like some of the other QF guys but I've seen the above occur a bunch of times at SYD, MEL and BNE. Arrive at holding with airfield requirint alternate and 20 minutes later there are no requirements at all. Ten minutes after that and we're CAVOK! Still, you'd be enjoying your diversion on min gas right about then!
Using one of TACs examples, I'm in the stack at FL200 because airfield requires alternate due fog.
If they ask me for latest divert time, I can have two possible numbers. One is the latest time I can shoot an approach, miss out and get to my alternate. This is the figure you keep using TAC. The second time will be slightly later one whereby I can divert from my hold to a suitable alternate airfield.
Obviously then, I have two options up my sleeve. If ATC can clear me for an approach before the first time then yahoo- all is well and good. If they can't do that then I can STILL CONTINUE TO HOLD on the chance the weather clears ABOVE THE ALTERNATE CRITERIA. Given the way the fog works in Sydney, there are LOTS of times when this second occasion happens. Further, I know of lots of flights that have employed this second technique when late in the sequence but with the weather improving. Using rough numbers and fuel burns for the 767 TAC, this second figure could well be about 20-30 minutes after the original number.
So, the time you give ATC would mean that you'd be sometimes diverting when you didn't have to? That IS what you're saying. The airport may be wide open now but because you HAD to shoot your approach 20-30 minutes earlier (when it was below the alternate criteria), you are now on your way to a different aerodrome- even though every man and his dog is now making an approach to an aerodrome that is above the SLAM.
Thankfully I'm not a 'crap magnet' like some of the other QF guys but I've seen the above occur a bunch of times at SYD, MEL and BNE. Arrive at holding with airfield requirint alternate and 20 minutes later there are no requirements at all. Ten minutes after that and we're CAVOK! Still, you'd be enjoying your diversion on min gas right about then!
From what I can see, both points of view are legal, no one is right, no one is wrong.
This whole issue from ATC and flight crew comes back to situational awareness.
When to divert, and what factors you take into account is situational awareness.
When it comes to situational awareness, there is no right or wrong answer, however environmental inputs (eg TTF, ATC, FMS, FMGC), and experience (aircraft, flying history, local knowledge) do play a big part in developing the mental model each of us use.
If TAC ON uses a different mental model, he is not incorrect, nor are others, how we weight variables is up to the individual.
What we read, every instructor, supervisor, and contemporary who has ever spoken to us has an opportunity to influence our judgment.
What is clear, is the mental model ATC and flight crew have now of the situation is not the same as at the time it developed, the reason being, we have effectively communicated information to build a different model.
This whole issue from ATC and flight crew comes back to situational awareness.
When to divert, and what factors you take into account is situational awareness.
When it comes to situational awareness, there is no right or wrong answer, however environmental inputs (eg TTF, ATC, FMS, FMGC), and experience (aircraft, flying history, local knowledge) do play a big part in developing the mental model each of us use.
If TAC ON uses a different mental model, he is not incorrect, nor are others, how we weight variables is up to the individual.
What we read, every instructor, supervisor, and contemporary who has ever spoken to us has an opportunity to influence our judgment.
What is clear, is the mental model ATC and flight crew have now of the situation is not the same as at the time it developed, the reason being, we have effectively communicated information to build a different model.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Keg,
As a practical matter your thinking is reasonable however there are three key points to remember
1. You can only do this your way if there is no chance that the airport and that particular RW, having opened, will not close again. Space doesn't permit the recounting of a zillion examples where pilots got stung by this one. At Seoul/Incheon there is no real problem because we use Cat 3b, but a Cat 1 or even 2 operation can find the fog extremely unpredictable. It moves around with a mind of its own. The time from the hold to your approach might be 10 minutes and I would not want to bet the family farm that things wouldn't change.
2. Legally of course, if, despite from your seat, it being a CAVOK day, the airport still requires an alternate then despite seeing the RW from the pattern, you can't go there. (Mind you, in another life I used to be able to see the RW at Launceston often only to find that at the minima it had gone: memo to young pilots, don' trust your eyes). The question of how you know whether an alternate is required and how that requirement can be changed at short notice is an issue all of its own.
3. Keg, you're not a captain yet but by the time you've been in the LHS a few years you'll have had to do many things which at that time seemed mindlessly conservative. The safety of the whole operation rests on that though-better a hundred unneeded missed approaches than one that should have gone round but didn't. As a matter of airmanship I try to tell our pilots that last minute decisions by the PIC to continue because "things seem better now" (WX, a cargo fire warning, etc) are almost always wrong. In very recent history Qantas has seen the two extremes. QF 1 at Bangkok where the PIC suddenly belived the weather was OK and changed his mind.....and the 330 at KIX where the crew flawlessly did the right thing, not even wondering whether their cargo fire warning was "false"; Second guessing forecasts, warnings or even current conditions using the MK 1 Eyeball is a suckers game. Make solid plans early and stick to them. I don't mean to preach at you at all.... but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and thats not what the SLF pay for. They like grey hair and conservative decisions every time!
Long term fix for Sydney is of course for at least one RW (34L?) to be cerified for Cat 3b. As TAC ON suggests, for Australia's premier airport this is hardly a revolutionary concept. My airline pays a lot of money to maintain a flawless 3b capabiity and a lot of money to land at Sydney. To be unable to land because of reduced vis when 3b and a 100 ft Alert H could easily get you in is very third world.
As a practical matter your thinking is reasonable however there are three key points to remember
1. You can only do this your way if there is no chance that the airport and that particular RW, having opened, will not close again. Space doesn't permit the recounting of a zillion examples where pilots got stung by this one. At Seoul/Incheon there is no real problem because we use Cat 3b, but a Cat 1 or even 2 operation can find the fog extremely unpredictable. It moves around with a mind of its own. The time from the hold to your approach might be 10 minutes and I would not want to bet the family farm that things wouldn't change.
2. Legally of course, if, despite from your seat, it being a CAVOK day, the airport still requires an alternate then despite seeing the RW from the pattern, you can't go there. (Mind you, in another life I used to be able to see the RW at Launceston often only to find that at the minima it had gone: memo to young pilots, don' trust your eyes). The question of how you know whether an alternate is required and how that requirement can be changed at short notice is an issue all of its own.
3. Keg, you're not a captain yet but by the time you've been in the LHS a few years you'll have had to do many things which at that time seemed mindlessly conservative. The safety of the whole operation rests on that though-better a hundred unneeded missed approaches than one that should have gone round but didn't. As a matter of airmanship I try to tell our pilots that last minute decisions by the PIC to continue because "things seem better now" (WX, a cargo fire warning, etc) are almost always wrong. In very recent history Qantas has seen the two extremes. QF 1 at Bangkok where the PIC suddenly belived the weather was OK and changed his mind.....and the 330 at KIX where the crew flawlessly did the right thing, not even wondering whether their cargo fire warning was "false"; Second guessing forecasts, warnings or even current conditions using the MK 1 Eyeball is a suckers game. Make solid plans early and stick to them. I don't mean to preach at you at all.... but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and thats not what the SLF pay for. They like grey hair and conservative decisions every time!
Long term fix for Sydney is of course for at least one RW (34L?) to be cerified for Cat 3b. As TAC ON suggests, for Australia's premier airport this is hardly a revolutionary concept. My airline pays a lot of money to maintain a flawless 3b capabiity and a lot of money to land at Sydney. To be unable to land because of reduced vis when 3b and a 100 ft Alert H could easily get you in is very third world.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM4 Pirate
Not having a personal go. Please consider.
Great. IF you tell me that is where you want a DT from.
Do you guys use EFC? I have never heard in SYD but have heard and used it many times O/S. Mr Honeywell and I think Mr Collins seem to think its the universally accepted phraseology.
For the reasons previously suggested, re non native english speakers, it could only enhance the working environment for all.
I'ts telling you that if you can't get me to the church by that time you will be standing on your own cos I've got leave town THEN. However if you have told me you want me to give you a DT from 250, the question never arises.
'Fraid that doesn't cut it. Up til the time a Avianca 720 hit the water in New York after running out of fuel, no one realised there was a possible problem in communicating low fuel/ no fuel status. The fact that for the previous 20 years it had not posed a problem didn't save them.
Keg.
Elektra has put it far more eloquently than I. I would just add that basically it would have to change from closed to VFR in that time, if its anything less than VFR, most regulatory authorities I know of require that the alternate remain intact to the landing. If you hold beyond the Latest EFC you are toast, as far as the destination is concerned.
TO
Not having a personal go. Please consider.
if you get me you won't have any of the scenarios you suggested; I'll tell you to hold first, including where; I'm working everything from that point; because MAESTRO told me so.
If you ask me for a DT from a particular point, different story. Ask for any particular time and I will do my best to give it to you.
To me the LDT is time you tell me you need to be inbound or you're going elsewhere.
The time/calculation you nominate in your example is a DT from the hold but it is not an LDT. Internationally it is referred to as an EFC, or in this case a Latest EFC.
For the reasons previously suggested, re non native english speakers, it could only enhance the working environment for all.
If I'm holding you at 250 SY and you give me your estimate for last diversion time from the field fence, how is this helping?
But after 20 years providing said 'service' it's never come up as a problem.
Keg.
Elektra has put it far more eloquently than I. I would just add that basically it would have to change from closed to VFR in that time, if its anything less than VFR, most regulatory authorities I know of require that the alternate remain intact to the landing. If you hold beyond the Latest EFC you are toast, as far as the destination is concerned.
TO
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Long term fix for Sydney is of course for at least one RW (34L?) to be cerified for Cat 3b
(You almost have to wonder if replacing the old 50' TCH ILS was done to deliberately preclude CAT 3 approaches...)
Guest
Posts: n/a
And lets not kid ourselves, this is a numbers game for us, just as it is for the bean counters.
If every flight was planned to land with 3 hours fuel, there would be no diversions. If every flight is on such bare minimum fuel that if the forecast winds are 1 knot off we have to divert to the Refile, then there'll be a high percentage of diversions.
The middle ground is where we all earn our living.
If management, correctly choose to increase the likelhood of a diversion by reducing planed fuel over the destination, then our job is to agree yet to preserve "Safety First" we therefore move the diversion point further back into the flight. No big deal; And as with ETOPS, having done all the sums and all the planning, SOMETIMES a big twin will find itself in Cold Bay or Midway. Big deal.
Never, ever, ever hold til the only option you have is to hope that the recently improved conditions stay better.
If every flight was planned to land with 3 hours fuel, there would be no diversions. If every flight is on such bare minimum fuel that if the forecast winds are 1 knot off we have to divert to the Refile, then there'll be a high percentage of diversions.
The middle ground is where we all earn our living.
If management, correctly choose to increase the likelhood of a diversion by reducing planed fuel over the destination, then our job is to agree yet to preserve "Safety First" we therefore move the diversion point further back into the flight. No big deal; And as with ETOPS, having done all the sums and all the planning, SOMETIMES a big twin will find itself in Cold Bay or Midway. Big deal.
Never, ever, ever hold til the only option you have is to hope that the recently improved conditions stay better.
