Italy goes CAT 1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Italy goes CAT 1
From FT:
Ruling threatens Italian aviation industry
By Mark Odell in London and James Blitz in Rome - Oct 30 2001 18:30:40
Italy's air transport system is facing a potentially major crisis following a ruling by national aviation authorities that would lead to the closure of the country's main airports in poor weather.
The regulator of the country air traffic control system, Enav, has ordered six Italian airports, including Rome's Fuimicino and the three airports serving Milan, to close if visibility falls below 550 metres.
The decision by Enav, which could remain in force until November 18, comes just as Italy is entering the worst time of year for fog, especially in airports in the north of the country.
Such was the extent of the public outcry that late on Tuesday, Enav partially bowed to pressure from the Italian transport ministry and said it would review the situation at each individual airport in 10 days time.
Airlines officials estimate that if there is a repeat of last year's weather patterns up to 80 per cent of flights to Milan could be affected.
The ruling effectively means that these airports would close if pilots cannot land commercial aircraft there using visual flight rules.
Such rules have long been surpassed in most countries, including Italy, by technology that allows an aircraft to land automatically when visibility is down to as little as 75 metres.
Industry officials reacted with dismay to what is seen as a panicked reaction to a crash earlier this month at Milan's Linate airport, which killed 118 people.
Giorgio Goggi, the official in charge of transport at Milan city hall, told Italian newspapers on Tuesday: "There's a danger that nobody's going to get to Linate and Malpensa. I'm happy about the increased safety but I fear the city will remain isolated."
The Milan daily Corriere Della Sera was even more blunt in its assessment in a front-page editorial on Tuesday.
"It's official," the paper said. "Our air transport system has finally landed in the third world."
The accident at Linate airport occurred in thick fog when a Scandinavian Airlines System aircraft that was taking off hit a business jet that had strayed on to the runway.
The pilot of the smaller aircraft had failed to follow the instructions from the control tower and taxied in completely the wrong direction.
But there has also been heavy criticism of the lack of a ground radar system at the airport, which was deactivated in 1999 and not replaced.
Italian criminal prosecutors are considering whether to bring any charges in relation to the accident.
One industry observer said the investigation had panicked the country's air safety regulators.
"The criminal investigation has got officials running scared. The bureaucrats are nervous and are trying to protect their own backs rather than take the right corrective action," he said.
The ruling also affects Bergamo airport, which also serves Milan, as well as the airports at Trieste and Bologna.
The authorities said the airports did not have a system in place to alert them to the failure of any runway landing lights.
But airline officials point out that the failure of a bulb on an airport runway would not affect a pilot's ability to land in reduced visibility.
Ruling threatens Italian aviation industry
By Mark Odell in London and James Blitz in Rome - Oct 30 2001 18:30:40
Italy's air transport system is facing a potentially major crisis following a ruling by national aviation authorities that would lead to the closure of the country's main airports in poor weather.
The regulator of the country air traffic control system, Enav, has ordered six Italian airports, including Rome's Fuimicino and the three airports serving Milan, to close if visibility falls below 550 metres.
The decision by Enav, which could remain in force until November 18, comes just as Italy is entering the worst time of year for fog, especially in airports in the north of the country.
Such was the extent of the public outcry that late on Tuesday, Enav partially bowed to pressure from the Italian transport ministry and said it would review the situation at each individual airport in 10 days time.
Airlines officials estimate that if there is a repeat of last year's weather patterns up to 80 per cent of flights to Milan could be affected.
The ruling effectively means that these airports would close if pilots cannot land commercial aircraft there using visual flight rules.
Such rules have long been surpassed in most countries, including Italy, by technology that allows an aircraft to land automatically when visibility is down to as little as 75 metres.
Industry officials reacted with dismay to what is seen as a panicked reaction to a crash earlier this month at Milan's Linate airport, which killed 118 people.
Giorgio Goggi, the official in charge of transport at Milan city hall, told Italian newspapers on Tuesday: "There's a danger that nobody's going to get to Linate and Malpensa. I'm happy about the increased safety but I fear the city will remain isolated."
The Milan daily Corriere Della Sera was even more blunt in its assessment in a front-page editorial on Tuesday.
"It's official," the paper said. "Our air transport system has finally landed in the third world."
The accident at Linate airport occurred in thick fog when a Scandinavian Airlines System aircraft that was taking off hit a business jet that had strayed on to the runway.
The pilot of the smaller aircraft had failed to follow the instructions from the control tower and taxied in completely the wrong direction.
But there has also been heavy criticism of the lack of a ground radar system at the airport, which was deactivated in 1999 and not replaced.
Italian criminal prosecutors are considering whether to bring any charges in relation to the accident.
One industry observer said the investigation had panicked the country's air safety regulators.
"The criminal investigation has got officials running scared. The bureaucrats are nervous and are trying to protect their own backs rather than take the right corrective action," he said.
The ruling also affects Bergamo airport, which also serves Milan, as well as the airports at Trieste and Bologna.
The authorities said the airports did not have a system in place to alert them to the failure of any runway landing lights.
But airline officials point out that the failure of a bulb on an airport runway would not affect a pilot's ability to land in reduced visibility.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Munich, Bavaria
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
The pilot of the smaller aircraft had failed to follow the instructions from the control tower and taxied in completely the wrong direction.
End Quote
As I know, the two German pilots of the Cessna Citation got lost in thick fog due to missing and non-ICAO standard taxiway markings and informed the tower after realizing that they no longer knew, where they were - AND ATC DIDNīT CARE!!!
The pilot of the smaller aircraft had failed to follow the instructions from the control tower and taxied in completely the wrong direction.
End Quote
As I know, the two German pilots of the Cessna Citation got lost in thick fog due to missing and non-ICAO standard taxiway markings and informed the tower after realizing that they no longer knew, where they were - AND ATC DIDNīT CARE!!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
A couple of things come to mind.
First - the last bit from the FT
If I understand correctly, in true LVOs (i.e. dismal weather/vis) the operating minima are calculated such that only three consecutive lights may be visible from the flightdeck. The failure of one lamp is a significant degradation in the visual guidance available and this at a time when all cues are needed. Because of this, in the UK at least, we need to monitor or inspect lights to ensure that no two consucutive lamps have failed before a take-off or landing in these conditions. It matters!
Second - I don't believe that any controller with an aircraft lost on his or her airfield in fog doesn't care! Mis-understands the situation, perhaps, but doesn't care, no.
First - the last bit from the FT
But airline officials point out that the failure of a bulb on an airport runway would not affect a pilot's ability to land in reduced visibility.
Second - I don't believe that any controller with an aircraft lost on his or her airfield in fog doesn't care! Mis-understands the situation, perhaps, but doesn't care, no.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Midnight Blue:
You are mistasken: your fellow countryman were even offered a follow-me but refused because they were "familiar" with the airport.
About the ENAV ruling: I am sure that nobody with previous experience operating in and out of Italy is surprised, because that's how the system works - nobody cares as long as nothing happens. Once tragedy hits home everybody overreacts to safe himself.
You are mistasken: your fellow countryman were even offered a follow-me but refused because they were "familiar" with the airport.
About the ENAV ruling: I am sure that nobody with previous experience operating in and out of Italy is surprised, because that's how the system works - nobody cares as long as nothing happens. Once tragedy hits home everybody overreacts to safe himself.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are NOTAM's published that downgrade Linate (LIN) and Turin (TRN) to CAT I due to work in progress on the approach lighting monitoring system.
Did anyone notice that the approach lighting system is required for CAT I and CAT II but not for CAT III approaches?
So this downgrade is a complete nonsense and costs the companies a lot of money for delay and diversions.
I hope this guy releasing this NOTAM which downgrades the airports to CAT I will realise very soon that he did a mistake and the companies will be paid the money they lost by him!
Let's go back to a professional solution!
Did anyone notice that the approach lighting system is required for CAT I and CAT II but not for CAT III approaches?
So this downgrade is a complete nonsense and costs the companies a lot of money for delay and diversions.
I hope this guy releasing this NOTAM which downgrades the airports to CAT I will realise very soon that he did a mistake and the companies will be paid the money they lost by him!
Let's go back to a professional solution!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How much of the approach lighting do you think you will see when going down to minimums in real CAT III ?
Think about just where you will be at your CAT IIIa minima of 50' and see if you can answer your own question......
Not CAT III qualified i suspect
Think about just where you will be at your CAT IIIa minima of 50' and see if you can answer your own question......
Not CAT III qualified i suspect
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Macedonia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems, as reported in the Italian press yesterday, that the requirement to modify taxiway markings & lighting systems was made clear in 1998, with a 2 year timescale to complete the work.
Unfortunately, somebody forget about the deadline.
Absolutely ******* incredible, don,t you think! So who will hang for this one.
Unfortunately, somebody forget about the deadline.
Absolutely ******* incredible, don,t you think! So who will hang for this one.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well known about in Italian press ref the
SAS accident is that ATC unaware of the crash cleared a Lufthansa to takeoff.....
Lufty then asked ATC to clarify that SAS was
airborne as it was not painting on TCAS!!!
No contact with SAS made and the rest you know.
Sharp or what....earned the money that day.
SAS accident is that ATC unaware of the crash cleared a Lufthansa to takeoff.....
Lufty then asked ATC to clarify that SAS was
airborne as it was not painting on TCAS!!!
No contact with SAS made and the rest you know.
Sharp or what....earned the money that day.
