Australian airlines more reliable, figures show

[NM]

From news.com.au:

IN what may be a shock to many travellers who have been hit with long delays, figures have revealed that Australian airlines are becoming more reliable.

 

[Sprucegoose]

From news.com.au:

NM do we have stats agianst US airlines?

 

[NM]

NM do we have stats agianst US airlines?

I think the problem will be that the stats are measured differently in different countries. Other circumstances differ too, such as weather conditions.

 

[samh004]

I think the problem will be that the stats are measured differently in different countries. Other circumstances differ too, such as weather conditions.

Exactly, when was the last snow storm in a major-Australian airport?

 

[NM]

Exactly, when was the last snow storm in a major-Australian airport?

Even the de-icig requirements at HBA pale into insignificance compared with ORD, BOS, IAD etc.

A little fog throws SYD, MEL, CBR and even BNE into chaos.

 

[samh004]

A little fog throws SYD, MEL, CBR and even BNE into chaos.

That’s true. Can’t something be done for planes to land in those conditions though? Is it ILS they use?

Edit: And just noticed your post count of 12354. Did no one point it out at 12345

 

[NM]

That’s true. Can’t something be done for planes to land in those conditions though? Is it ILS they use?

The problem with AutoLand capability in low-visibility conditions i sthe cost to maintain both the aircraft (yes, individual aircraft must maintain certification) and flight crew certification. Such fog conditions are not common enough in Australia for the airports, aircraft and crew to maintain certifications for cat 3 autoland capabilities.

Edit: And just noticed your post count of 12354. Did no one point it out at 12345

Had no idea such a "milestone" was imminent

 

[harvyk]

That’s true. Can’t something be done for planes to land in those conditions though? Is it ILS they use?

According to my mate who used to work for QF at CBR, it has to do with visibility rules here in AU. I believe he said there must be at least 200m of visibility (just in case), this is despite the fact that ILS would allow low \ no visibility landings, and that in europe low \ no visibility landings where common place.

Of course this was the late 90's that he was saying this, so the rules may have changed a little since then.

 

[NM]

According to my mate who used to work for QF at CBR, it has to do with visibility rules here in AU. I believe he said there must be at least 200m of visibility (just in case), this is despite the fact that ILS would allow low \ no visibility landings, and that in europe low \ no visibility landings where common place.

Sort of correct. In order to operate at different Cat levels (Cat 1, Cat 2, Cat 3), all parts of the system must be regularly tested and certified to meet the operational criteria, this includes:

• The ILS systems themselves
• The aircraft (each individual aircraft)
• The Flight Crew
• Air Traffic Controllers

The costs involved in maintaining Cat 3 (A, B or C) certification across all those functions does not warrant the benefits to be gained on the small number of occasions when visibility is below the allowable minima. The actual minima do vary by country. In the Australia, CASA defines them as Runway Visible Range (RVR) and Ceiling (high above the runway where it can be seen):

Cat 1 - RVR = 800m, Ceiling = 200ft
Cat 2 - RVR = 400m, Ceiling = 100ft
Cat 3 - RVR = 0m, Ceiling = 0ft

Note that some counties have three classifications for Cat 3, being Cat 3A, Cat 3B and Cat 3C, with decreasing definitions of RVR down to zero at Cat 3C.

Here is a short video of a Cat 3 landing.

Of course if its truly zero visibility, the problem is that only one aircraft can land on the runway because it will be unable to taxi off the runway if the pilots cannot see the runway. But of course that would be extremely rare.

I was once in the coughpit of a QF 744 landing at LAX where the Captain asked ATC for permission to perform an autoland procedure. The log for the aircraft showed that it was about to be out of certification as it had not performed an autoland for a period of time/cycles and if they didn't do it this flight then the aircraft would no longer be certified for the procedure if it was required due to low visibility. So in clear weather and excellent visibility conditions, the aircraft landed itself at LAX. It was interesting watching the yoke and thrust levers adjusting themselves as the pilots sat back and monitored the approach. It was a good, though "solid" landing.