QF: All flights into and out of Sydney cancelled due to fog

[Blackswan]

Does the word "Cowboy" mean anything to you in this context?

Mmmm, well I made my appointment.

Perhaps he had an 'appointment' of his own that he was quite keen to keep? *wild speculation*

 

[Mrmaxwell]

About time they put a 'proper' ILS there.

Agreed. For a major international airport that knows how to charge major international taxes/fees upgrades are needed.

A new airport would be good....

 

[Tooner]

Due to the variable waking habits of littlest Tooner, and my alarm set for 5:30am, I was half awake at close to 5 when I heard the distinct sound of a 747 "taking off" to the north. Given there are no departures at this time, and the only landings are from the south, I get the feeling someone felt the fog was a bit much to land in, and gunned it.:shock:

I didn't know about the fog until I headed out the back at 5:50am, when it was particularly thick!

 

[wtolmie]

I was on the 6am Syd - Melbourne flight, and we ended up leaving about 30 minutes late.. Lucky a collegue was on the 7am flight and he ended up cancelling his trip altogether !!!

 

[straitman]

About time they put a 'proper' ILS there.

Please explain :?:

 

[Harpoon]

Please explain :?:

There is ILS and then there is ILS.

Instrument landing system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are three categories of ILS which support similarly named categories of operation.

• Category I - A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height not lower than 200 feet (61 m) above touchdown zone elevation and with either a visibility not less than 2,625 feet (800 m) or a runway visual range not less than 1,800 feet (550 m). An aircraft equipped with an Enhanced Flight Vision System may, under certain circumstances, continue an approach to CAT II minimums. [14 CFR Part 91.175 amendment 281]
• Category II - Category II operation: A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height lower than 200 feet (61 m) above touchdown zone elevation but not lower than 100 feet (30 m), and a runway visual range not less than 1,150 feet (350 m).
• Category III is further subdivided
  • Category III A - A precision instrument approach and landing with:
    • a) a decision height lower than 100 feet (30 m) above touchdown zone elevation, or no decision height; and
    • b) a runway visual range not less than 655 feet (200 m).
  • Category III B - A precision instrument approach and landing with:
    • a) a decision height lower than 50 feet (15 m) above touchdown zone elevation, or no decision height; and
    • b) a runway visual range less than 2,625 feet (800 m) but not less than 165 feet (50 m).
  • Category III C - A precision instrument approach and landing with no decision height and no runway visual range limitations. A Category III C system is capable of using an aircraft's autopilot to land the aircraft and can also provide guidance along the runway surface.

In each case a suitably equipped aircraft and appropriately qualified crew are required. For example, Cat IIIc requires a fail-operational system, along with a Landing Pilot (LP) who holds a Cat IIIc endorsement in their logbook, Cat I does not. A Head-Up Display which allows the pilot to perform aircraft maneuvers rather than an automatic system is considered as fail-operational. Cat I relies only on altimeter indications for decision height, whereas Cat II and Cat III approaches use radar altimeter to determine decision height.[2]

Note the CAT III comments. Basically it's 'proper' because you can land with near zero visibility. And Cat IIIc you can land it on autopilot. I'm sure we must have some pilots that read these forums who can probably elaborate.....

My understanding is that MEL is currently installing or planning to install CAT III ILS which means it'll be a much more modern airport from a 'landing in all conditions' point of view. But more than happy to be corrected on that one. (I only know this because my mate works at Melb Airport as an electrician told me /shrug)

I'm of the impression that most Aussie large airports (SYD/MEL/BNE/ADE/PER) only have basic ILS systems (CAT I or CAT II), but they are more than ample for our needs in general. It's only real fog in days where its a problem.

 

[NYCguy]

Then there's the whole "synthetic vision" thing...

 

[NM]

I'm of the impression that most Aussie large airports (SYD/MEL/BNE/ADE/PER) only have basic ILS systems (CAT I or CAT II), but they are more than ample for our needs in general. It's only real fog in days where its a problem.

And how do you justify the very high costs to both the airport and airlines to maintain the capability to use CAT III facilities?

For an aircraft make an autoland under CAT III conditions, the airport facilities, the aircraft and the pilots must all have current certification to undertake the activity. That all costs money and requires appropriate procedures to ensure compliance.

Now with everyone demanding cheaper and cheaper domestic airfares (just watch this site for a while to understand the downward pressure on fares), I can't imagine how the likes of QF, DJ and JQ would be interested in increasing their operating costs and having the airports increase their service fees. For now I think they are quite willing to continue with the current situation and just cop it on the few days each year when fog affects operations.

 

[oz_mark]

Now with everyone demanding cheaper and cheaper domestic airfares (just watch this site for a while to understand the downward pressure on fares), I can't imagine how the likes of QF, DJ and JQ would be interested in increasing their operating costs and having the airports increase their service fees. For now I think they are quite willing to continue with the current situation and just cop it on the few days each year when fog affects operations.

And for airports like Perth, have the appropriate risk mitigation strategies in place when fog is forecast (ie carry enough fuel to dosomething!!)

 

[Harpoon]

And how do you justify the very high costs to both the airport and airlines to maintain the capability to use CAT III facilities?

Oh exactly. Before spending the millions on Cat III you'd need to make sure it's a worthy investment.

(And talk about off-topic.... hehe apologies. Perhaps a new thread! Heh.)

I just asked my mate who works at MEL about it again (MSN works a treat). He said that Cat III is being installed at the moment on Rwy 16 only. Mainly due to the anticipated increase of A380 (and assumingly 787) long haul routes in the future. Being Cat III certified means that it's (in thoery) less risky to send your aircraft there as an airline as your less likely to have to divert the plane due to fog or whatever it may be. (I know I'm stating the obvious there).

So obviously they (Melbourne Airport or whoever funds it) deemed it a worthy investment to lure more carriers/routes to Melbourne. Which obviously has a nice return on investment for them

 

[NM]

And of course we need to keep in mind that even if an airport is CAT IIIC capable, under zero visibility conditions, only one aircraft could land and none could take off.

 

[oz_mark]

And of course we need to keep in mind that even if an airport is CAT IIIC capable, under zero visibility conditions, only one aircraft could land and none could take off.

So who gets to choose which one it is?

 

[Harpoon]

And of course we need to keep in mind that even if an airport is CAT IIIC capable, under zero visibility conditions, only one aircraft could land and none could take off.

Though it is still a big advantage... especially if you have a 15 hour A380 LAX-MEL flight inbound for example and you can land it in the fog rather than divert it to Avalon or Sydney. It's a big attraction to airlines to have that capability.

So who gets to choose which one it is?

I'm no ATC expert but surely they would be able to prioritise between the inbound flights - which ones to divert and which to let land. Assumingly long haul intl would be high on the priority list...

 

[NM]

Though it is still a big advantage... especially if you have a 15 hour A380 LAX-MEL flight inbound for example and you can land it in the fog rather than divert it to Avalon or Sydney. It's a big attraction to airlines to have that capability.

Well, in zero vis condition you may get to land, but you will still be sitting on the plane until the vis improves. Under zero visibility the aircraft would not be able to taxi off the runway.

Still probably better than diverting to another airport.

I'm no ATC expert but surely they would be able to prioritise between the inbound flights - which ones to divert and which to let land. Assumingly long haul intl would be high on the priority list...

I would expect that unless an aircraft declared an emergency of some sort (medical, low fuel, mechanical problem etc) the ATC would receive the aircraft in the order they arrive. I would hope ATC is not making prioritisation decisions based on which airline pays the most money or which flights will cause the most disruptions to passengers etc.

 

[straitman]

Harpoon,

As someone who has held a Command ME Instrument rating for 25+ years and who’s company owns an ILS (maintenance cost $A60,000 – $A80,000 pa) I feel reasonably qualified to comment.

Most of the answers have already been covered however here goes plus a bit of background information.

For recency purposes pilots are required to fly an ILS approach every 35 days whereas most other approaches are 90 days. There is also a requirement to fly actual IF every 90 days or complete a recency flight under ICUS (In Command Under Supervision) or with a C&T (Check & Training) pilot every 90 days. This applies for both the pilots.

I have flown to Cat III in the simulator and it is harder than Cat I but still manageable though the real issues occur when anything other than the normal takes place. There is literally no room for error and it is right at the limits. Would you really wish for this at the end of a 14 hr flight when the pilots are probably more tired than you :?: … though hopefully sober :!:

When you consider the ILS minima for YSSY (SYD) vary from 204 ft agl and .8 km vis (Rwy 16L) to 257 ft agl and 1.5 km vis (Rwy 34R) how does Cat III compare when considering the number of days this is a problem? There would still be the requirement to carry fuel to an alternate. All this is arbitrary however. (See below) Para 9.

The following is from AIP (Aeronautical Information publication) Australia which is the Pilot’s bible.



CATEGORY I MINIMA
8.1 Published ILS CATI DA and visibility minima are available to all
aircraft except that:
a. visibility 1.5KM is required when HIAL is not available; and
b. visibility 1.2KM is required unless:
(1) the aircraft is manually flown for the entire approach
using a flight director or the aircraft is flown to the CATI
DA with an autopilot coupled (LLZ and GP); and
(2) the aircraft is equipped with a serviceable failure warning
system for the primary attitude and heading reference
systems; and
(3) high intensity runway edge lighting is available.
Note: Operators are advised that all ILSs at Australian aerodromes
provide Category I minima only.

9. CATEGORY II/IIIMINIMA
9.1 Operations to category II/IIIminima are not available within
Australia. Operators of Australian registered aircraft wishing to
operate to category II/IIIminima outside Australia must make
application to CASA.
9.2 Approval requires operators to satisfactorily address aircraft
equipment and maintenance; pilot minimum experience
requirements; pilot ground, simulator and flight training; pilot
competency and recency; aerodrome and runway assessment
methods, in addition to any operational restrictions and/or local
regulatory authority requirements.

I would expect that unless an aircraft declared an emergency of some sort (medical, low fuel, mechanical problem etc) the ATC would receive the aircraft in the order they arrive. I would hope ATC is not making prioritisation decisions based on which airline pays the most money or which flights will cause the most disruptions to passengers etc.

AIPs' also lay out a list of aircraft priorities for ATC to operate, though I can't find it right now. Starts with Medical through to Private. I'll try and look it up tomorrow.

 

[JohnK]

I would happily accept being diverted to another airport after a 14 hour flight if it was not safe to land....

 

[kpc]

I wonder if they would consider this for Sydney as well:

Plan to fog-proof Melbourne Airport - News - Travel - theage.com.au

By the end of the year, Melbourne Airport expects to have the country's first "category III" instrument landing system, a ground-based system that uses a combination of radio signals, high-intensity lighting and computer software to guide an aircraft towards the runway.

In answer to my own Q: "yes"

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said a discussion paper would be distributed later this year to determine the enthusiasm of the industry to move to category III. Sydney and Canberra airports have also spoken to CASA about obtaining category III certification.

 

[straitman]

I wonder if they would consider this for Sydney as well:

Plan to fog-proof Melbourne Airport - News - Travel - theage.com.au

In answer to my own Q: "yes"

As pointed out earlier there is an amount of extra pilot training required to use the systems and aircraft need the equipment so it's possible that some/many aircraft and/or crews won't be able to use this technology.

 

[NM]

As pointed out earlier there is an amount of extra pilot training required to use the systems and aircraft need the equipment so it's possible that some/many aircraft and/or crews won't be able to use this technology.

And in addition to training there is the requirement for currency, which can be difficult to maintain for both aircraft and pilots.

 

[Mish]

sTake-Off isn't as restrictive (weather wise) as landing. Many problems on the network come about because the aircraft scheduled to takeoff for your flight cannot land due to the reduced visibility.

To the poster (sorry can't remember your name and can't see it in an edit_ referring to CAT I ILS minima requirements - Crews conduct this regularly regardless of weather conditions.

The real problem is that Australian airports don't invest in Cat II or Cat III ILS approach capability (very very expensive) due to the number of days per year it would be required.

Bad weather happens...

Moving to CAT II or III ILS systems in Australia (avoiding some of these delays) is VERY expensive. The reason it has not happened to date is that it would add more to the daily ticket price (through charges) than would be justified for the few times a year this happens. Does anyone really wish to pay more EVERY day for this?

To upgrade to CAT II or III ILS will cost a lot of money. We'll pay for it throughout the year in ticket pricing.