denied landing Sydney, 600ft on final
 

I read in a newspaper today, that a Virgin Blue 737 was denied landing at Sydney as it was arriving a few minutes after the 2300 local closing time, the aircraft had to return to Melbourne and the airline accomodate the pax overnight before returning to Sydney the next morning.

Is this correct ?

If it is, would anyone out there have been tempted to declare a tech problem on the go-around and declare a pan in any case ?

robmac

Sounds like a good time for the "You're coming in broken and stupid" response, followed by an idle reverse landing.

Stupid NIMBY's (Not In My Back Yard)

PT:mad:

Hi,

Try this thread on D&G:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=98679

If the TWR controller in Zurich lets an aircraft land or take off before or after the cut-off time, the ATCO gets fined CHF20'000
Thats about US$ 14'000. I would also send the chap around under those conditions:yuk: :yuk:
Now I just wonder what the penalties are in Sydney.....

I searched some news sites on the subject and came up with "45-second-late plane sent back to Melbourne



SYDNEY

A FULLY-laden Boeing 737 was ordered to abandon a landing at Sydney Airport and return to Melbourne because it broke a curfew by less than a minute, Virgin Blue airlines said today.

The plane had descended to about 65 metres above ground level when air traffic controllers instructed the pilot to go around - 45 seconds after the 11pm curfew had passed.

Consequently, 170 passengers were flown back to Melbourne and Virgin Blue footed hotel bills for out-of-town customers and offered free flights as compensation.

Virgin Blue spokesman David Huttner said the airline had a technical problem, which delayed the flight, and air traffic authorities initially approved a flight extension to land before 11pm.

But then the landing was stopped when the flight was further delayed.

The airline lodged a complaint with the Federal Transport Minister and Mr Huttner said a review was under way to find out what went wrong.

Much more at:

http://www.cockpitforum.com/

Would it not be more feasible and safer to say no more approaches may commenced after 2300?. Surely then if an inbound aircraft is likely to miss this slot, they do not need to descend much further and can continue to an alternate or point of departure.
However if the aircraft had already passed the FAF say before 2300, they are "committed" to land and may continue.

Boeing that would far too much common sense. We are talking about Australia here mate, the founding nation of anal retentive, politically correct, mind numbing abhorrence! There are many in this country who either refuse, or do not have the the intellectual capacity to think outside their diminutive little box. Hopefully one day we will come around to the 21st centuary!

Strange logic applied here.

Tell an aircraft to go-around from 200', rather than letting it land using idle reverse. :uhoh:

I'll bet the nearby residents really appreciated that!! :*

Agree
 

I'm with you Kaptin M,

I'm sure the residents just loved it when the Virgin was told to go-around. 200ft from earth with the engines near idle, and suddenly, they're spooled into near full power and the aircraft cleans up (:mad: off pilots and all!) and heads back to Melbourne.

Hmm, idle reverse or full power ???

Now, let me see, which one makes more noise?

In the xxx seconds left to make the landing from 600ft out on short finals, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to just let the darn' thing land! :confused:

I mean, c'mon, a fully laden 744 (yes, I realise it has just made a pacific crossing) is able to land after the curfew, what difference is a small 737 going to make? Especially with idle reverse engaged and only minutes, if not seconds, after the curfew!

Perhaps Qantas have an insider at YSSY working as an ATC and he saw this as the perfect opportunity to sabotage the competition and get a promotion! :p Joking.

Sould make for an interesting topic.

Cheers,

Souls.

Still interested if any brave souls out there would have found a convenient last minute tech problem that necessitated getting the A/C on the ground in the interests of safety ?

Is the spirit of Ned Kelly truly dead in modern Australia ?

the problem with allowing approaches to start anytime before 2300 could comprimise safety. If a pilot is approaching on a mile final and the clock strikes 2300 they realize that if they dont land on this shot they wont be landing. This decreases the likelyhood they will initiate a go-around in the event of a problem like an unstablized approach or approaching minimums with no rwy. in sight. just a thought.

But mav, that's the problem with all blindly applied curfews. It does't matter when the cut-off is, if you're nearing the airfield (or nearly ready for departure) but it's going to be tight there will always be pressure to cut corners or break the rules.

There was one time, at band camp, I was checking a co-piglet. He was given a simulated engine fire with a practice diversion to Woolsington which didn't accept training after 2300. My victim was slow to sort himself out and we finally got onto the ILS at spot-on 2300. Being the sensible people they are, the ATCOs permitted us to continue.....but the racket made by a VC10 going around on 3 engines at full power would probably wake the dead! And the noise of a little 737 going around a couple of seconds after 2300 would be as loud as a sparrow farting in comparison.

Permitting approaches to commence no later than 2300 at defined arrival fixes, plus increased 'administration fees' for landings after 2300 would seem sensible. But then I'm not an Oz bureaucrat!

Another 3-engined VC10 tale - once upon a time our boss had made himself even more unpopular than he normally was by insisting that we did more training at the end of trips if we had the fuel. At the Secret Oxonian Flugplatz, training in those days was permitted before 2300L, after that it was one approach only plus an idle reverse landing. We came back after 2200, my co-pilot did an approach and touch-and-go, then I did an approach. Now it just so happened that I knew the boss was in his quarter which is right under the NDB approach course and close to the missed approach point. I also knew that he was in bed as he'd got an early start the next day - and would no doubt burgle the trip for himself.... So, out came the little devil horns and I flew a 3-engined NDB to go-around at the missed approach point at exactly 2259. Settle at MDH, drive in to the beacon, then full chat on 3 right over his roof at 670 ft!!. Perfectly legal - and a way of letting him know that we were taking full advantage of his diktat regarding flying training! But soon afterwards, the rules were changed!

Oops-off thread a bit. Sorrreeeeeee!

mmm, sadly the tower guys have their hands tied by politicians and regs... not to mention an Approach controller that sends you out to New Zealand or Newcastle on downwind! :rolleyes:

The "inside Initial of Final app. fix @ .. time" sounds workable.:D

Interesting piece below that ties in...

Sydney Airport expects to treble its annual traffic to 68.3 million passengers by 2023, capitalizing on the introduction of larger aircraft, according to the draft master plan for Australia's busiest gateway. CEO Max Moore-Wilton said Sydney has the capacity and infrastructure planning in place to handle the projected 4.2% yearly growth in passenger numbers and 2.4% increase in aircraft movements for the next 20 years. He said the airport will achieve this expansion without changes to the existing legislated cap on movements of 80 per hour and curfew, and with no new runways and continuing access by smaller Regional operators. "Our planning is predicated on gradual incremental growth of both passengers and aircraft movements over time," he said. It is estimated that it could take another 10 years for Sydney to return to the traffic levels experienced shortly after the 2000 Olympic Games in early 2001. The draft master plan was released Thursday and will be available for public display and comment before being submitted to the minister for transport and regional services by Dec. 31

:confused:

The lunatics are running the asylum - How many tonnes of unecessary greenhouse gasses went into the atmosphere because of this ridiculous diversion?:*

It may be like Aberdeen (UK) - the aerodrome insurance was (going back a few years anyway) INVALID after the notified closure time, and there would have been NO cover for a landing. A similar event took palce there a few years back. It was not a noise issue.

Quite correct BOAC.

Whilst it is infuriating being denied landing clearance, if an aircraft lands outside of the curfew then the aerodrome authority is not insured and in the event of something bad happening on landing, there is no guaranteed fire cover etc.

Annoying yes, but safe at least.

P7

Not really, I presume that standby fire cover is available for emergency diverts, and if anyone can give me an instance of where Insurance actually prevented an accident I will give them my house !!!

Robmac - I know nothing of the SYD 'incident' other than from here, but the ABZ one was NOT an emergency, but a flight running late. No airport would deny landing to emergency traffic, I'm sure!

Not so.

Sydney is a 24hr ops airport. It doesn't close. There are restrictions on movements after curfew for noise abatement, and fines for aircraft which break them, but no insurance or operational reasons why aircraft can't land.