Fog? Yeah, right!

[howiesue]

Today, 18 June 2015, Brisbane airport has had 30 flight cancellations and numerous delays due to "fog".

I'm baffled. Sure, it was misty with reduced visibility, but nothing like that which London experiences in Winter. I clearly recall back in 1980 (!) returning to LHR from HKG in a BA 747 and we landed in fog so thick I could barely see the wingtips. I repeat, 1980! Here we are, 35 years later, and Brisbane cannot handle visibility that was nowhere near as poor as that flight into LHR in 1980. What happened to technology? Even back then, LHR was handling incoming and outgoing flights with frequencies of around 90 - 120 secs. Progress? Hmmm! :?:

 

[dajop]

Ability to cope with adverse conditions is proportional to frequency of said conditions. Probably applies to all areas of life, not just at airports.

 

[juddles]

Ability to cope with adverse conditions is proportional to frequency of said conditions. Probably applies to all areas of life, not just at airports.

I see your point, but I am surprised if Brisbane can not take landings in reduced visibility. Maybe this is a thread/topic that could be run past JB or others on the Ask the Pilot thread?

 

[Katie]

It was really thick this morning, even at ~7:45am when we left for school drop off. I can normally see Herston hill from home; this morning I could barely see past the house next door. Visibility in the areas where we were driving were barely 50m-100m. I heard a plane before we left for the drop offs, no idea if it was arriving or leaving.

We noticed fog last night on the drive from the airport to home, at around 10:30pm. Minimal at that stage.
Around the RBWH was clear on our drive in, it was much thicker around Windsor and Albion.

 

[juddles]

It was really thick this morning,....

I am ignorant to the details and reality, but I would "expect" in this day and age that planes flying into BNE could land in any conditions, with no need to "see".

 

[harvyk]

The ability to deal with fog depends on the equipment installed at the airport, the aircraft actually doing the flying and the certifications of the pilots.
Yes, the fog might not have been as thick in BNE this morning as you might get at LHR, that said since at LHR fog is not uncommon they would have better equipment for dealing with fog than at BNE.

 

[medhead]

That's the thing London get regular fog, Brisbane doesn't. Why should they install expensive navigational equipment for something that might happen once every 2 years?

An analogy from a mate who was living in Baltimore. They'd infrequently get days off work because of snow fall blocking all the roads. It would take days for the snow to be cleared. When he moved to Michigan. They be lucky to have half a day off work for snow. Michigan has the full set of snow equipment, because they need to use it regularly.

 

[dajop]

That's the thing London get regular fog, Brisbane doesn't. Why should they install expensive navigational equipment for something that might happen once every 2 years?

An analogy from a mate who was living in Baltimore. They'd infrequently get days off work because of snow fall blocking all the roads. It would take days for the snow to be cleared. When he moved to Michigan. They be lucky to have half a day off work for snow. Michigan has the full set of snow equipment, because they need to use it regularly.

Exactly. Basic risk management. Greater the risk, or greater the impact of the risk = more you spend on managing or mitigating the risk.

 

[howiesue]

Understood. But I presume the aircraft are not the issue or only certain aircraft could land at non-equipped airports which would surely cause havoc in logistics, and after all, Brisbane is an airport that handles considerable international traffic. If it's the on-ground equipment how do they land at night when a horrible rainy night would produce almost the same effect?

 

[harvyk]

Understood. But I presume the aircraft are not the issue or only certain aircraft could land at non-equipped airports which would surely cause havoc in logistics, and after all, Brisbane is an airport that handles considerable international traffic. If it's the on-ground equipment how do they land at night when a horrible rainy night would produce almost the same effect?

This really is getting into the "Ask the pilot" territory, so I suggest you ask this question there. My basic understanding of it is all 3 things (the airport, the aircraft and the pilots) need to be certified to handle low visibility landings, and not all of them are (I believe JB recently mentioned that he got a low visibility rating recently renewed, not all QF pilots had such a rating since most of our airports don't get European style fog)

In terms of what is actually required on a horrible rainy night and how that compares to fog I would again suggest directing your question to the "Ask the pilot" thread, since there are several actual real life pilots on this forum whom would have no doubt direct experience in the exact sorts of environments you are asking.

 

[medhead]

The low visibility post is probably within the last 50 to 100 posts in the ask the pilot thread.

 

[robd]

It looked pretty bloody foggy when channel 7 was reporting on it this morning.

 

[medhead]

Here is the post in Ask the pilot:
http://www.australianfrequentflyer....sion/ask-the-pilot-30478-200.html#post1259610

To quote:

All airports, aircraft, and even crews have different operating limits. Because I regularly operate in areas in which fog is common, I'm qualified to CAT IIIB...which is an automatic landing in virtually zero visibility. Most pilots (aircraft and airports as well) do not need this qualification, and so they don't have it. It's expensive in training to get and to keep, and requires equipment in the aircraft and on the ground. The vast majority of runways don't have this equipment..it only comes together in places like London Heathrow.

For non equipment airports:

Basically though, you need around 3 miles of visibility from the runway. If you don't have that, then you can't continue past the 'missed approach point'. From that point, the aircraft will be flown manually.

IMO rain doesn't block out light, for example runway lights, as much as fog does. (all things being equal)

 

[howiesue]

Thanks Harvyk - I will indeed go to the "Ask the pilot" area. Just noticed that there is an answer there now from Medhead which helps. Thanks guys.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

This was the view this morning about 0615 looking out the window at gate 22 and even the 737 parked on bay 22B immediately behind the 737 at the gate was hard to see and the fog got considerably thicker after this pic, only lifting around 1000 when you could actually see the tarmac and runway again.



Some people may remember the Air Crash Investigation episode that featured a collision due to a runway incursion at Milan's Linate Airport in 2001 which was Italy's worst air disaster killing 118 people. The crash occurred during heavy fog.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linate_Airport_disaster

 

[Deleted member 29185]

I was at a training course at 7am at Eagle Farm this morning and the fog was considerably worse there than anywhere else between there and the Gold Coast, yet the radio was saying fog was "thick and terrible" around Yatala.......really? A few hundred metres visibility at Yatala/Beenleigh. Not so at Eagle Farm (probably down to 30-40m) so I guess perception of the fog may have directly related to where people live.

I for one was happy that planes were grounded.....especially when I was going across the Gateway Bridge! :shock:

 

[Boris spatsky]

Both ends of the Brisbane main runway (01/19) need 800 m visibility for a plane to land. Brisbane does not have Cat II or III ILS capability as the cost would not warrant the frequency of fog.

Most fog is 500m vis or less. So it is fairly limiting from a landing stand point when fog rolls in there. Try driving a car at 250 km/h in thick fog and you'll get the idea of the issues involved...

 

[wannabeinvestmentbanker]

I was on the 6am QF BNE-SYD and I was very surprised that we took off on time. It seemed that regional services were predominantly cancelled. Interestingly the captain requested that all electronic devices be switched off for take off and landing and cabin crew was enforcing this.

 

[jb747]

The weak link in Australia, with regards to low visibility operations, is the airports. With a couple of recent exceptions, the required equipment simply does not exist. I would expect that pretty well all of the jet aircraft would be capable, though I don't know if the domestic operators would bother qualifying pilots for operations that simply don't happen....it wouldn't seem to be a good way to spend training dollars.

Beyond that though, there is another issue. Any time we operate in foggy conditions, we also require an alternate that isn't affected. In Europe acceptable alternates are pretty common, and not normally all that far away. In Australia most alternates for heavy operations are in excess of an hours flying time away...and that is fuel that ultra long haul ops simply won't have. So, quite often, even though the conditions at my destination would allow me to fly an approach and land, unless I can find the fuel for that alternate, I can't continue. That's why, every now and then, you'll see flights like QF94 turn back to Sydney from around Albury.

I was on the 6am QF BNE-SYD and I was very surprised that we took off on time. It seemed that regional services were predominantly cancelled. Interestingly the captain requested that all electronic devices be switched off for take off and landing and cabin crew was enforcing this.

Allowing passenger electronic was an exercise in risk management. The risk is considered very low, and in most circumstances, any issues can be readily fixed by the pilots. But, in low vis operations, with the autopilot engaged all the way down to taxi speed, all of the margins disappear, and even the tiniest glitch caused by someone's game controller becomes unacceptable.

 

[Deleted member 29185]

The weak link in Australia, with regards to low visibility operations, is the airports.........
.......Allowing passenger electronic was an exercise in risk management. The risk is considered very low, and in most circumstances, any issues can be readily fixed by the pilots. But, in low vis operations, with the autopilot engaged all the way down to taxi speed, all of the margins disappear, and even the tiniest glitch caused by someone's game controller becomes unacceptable.

Thanks for the reply. It's nice to hear from the coughpit, when most of us just don't have a clue as to operational realities. I certainly appreciate an insiders view on various issues. Cheers!