If there were "fines for aircraft which break [the movement restrictions]" would they be more or less than the cost of the go around + the return flight + the overnight hotel bill + the trip the following day + the ill will of the pax?

OK, had enough of the usual BS being spouted.

The SYD noise rules are probably the most ridiculous in the world, but ATC don't "send you around" or "deny clearance". They just tell you you're going to be late, and there is a HUGE fine for breaches such as this one. The aircraft departed origin with an ETA for SYD of 2309, was given track shortening, no speed restrictions etc to try and help, but if the wheels aren't on the deck when that clock ticks over, the noise nazi's leap into action. The noise nazi's have their own little tower, and know exactly what time, how much noise (to the decibel) etc. each flight generates. The airport is open H24, with noise-complient types operating in there over night. Late night noise generates public complaints, which are all followed up.

Once again, this is nothing to do with the controllers, who bent over backwards to help. They have to put up with mind-boggling, onerous, politically driven operating orders, and in this case did evertyhing to try and help. Put $hit on the pollies and noise-oids by all means, question the wisdom of departing the flight in the first place, but aim at the right people. I would've expected people in this forum to have a better grasp of how aviation works.:hmm:

Ferris

A tad defensive don't you think, especially the BS bit, methinks thou dost protest too much.

However, no one has blamed the controllers per se, just the system, whoever is responsible for administering it and operating it without any minimal degree of latitude and common sense.

Would it also be fair to presume that the controllers who were so helpful in speeding up the en-route portion, may have been different from the ones in Sydney tower, something like

Virgin Blue, established...

Contact Sydney Tower on ....

Sydney Tower, VB with you, established ILS...

VB....... ****** off were closed


Only joking Ferris, don't have a heart attack ;)

robmac

VB knew very well before even leaving Mel that there was a possibility of this flight being rejected at Syd, funny how they had enough fuel loaded for the return trip.. need i say more :)

The way it works is that you apply for a dispensation through the Dept of Transport for the late arrival. If the dispensation is approved no problem.. this is how a QF 747 landed about 10 minutes after VB diverted!! VB applied for the dispensation before leaving MEL but it wasnt received prior to departure and due to a breakdown in communcications somewhere along the line it wasnt received on arrival at YSSY. ATC advise the PIC of the possible fine for landing, the decision to continue is 100% up to the PIC no doubt it would be cheaper to turn around rather than pay the fine.. a contingency which the fuel situation proves was pre-planned. ATC did not reject or refuse this flight landing. It was pure economics of VB's Part.

my 2 cents...

RampTech

A couple of years ago a certain Asian airline decided to break the curfew for departure believing it was cheaper than the fine plus over night expences.
After that the fine was increased five fold to a figure I believe to be around $500,000!

why then did the tower clear the virign aircraft to that point knowing full well what would happen??

because its not up to tower to make that decision its up to PIC to either land or go elsewhere.. ATC would advise the PIC of the consequences of landing ..fines etc.. and continue giving clearances until the PIC requested a diversion.

What would have happened if MEL had a similar curfew? :uhoh: :confused: :eek: