Ask The Pilot

[AviatorInsight]

Anyway, this begs another question: what ILS tech is available to aircraft at Melbourne? Everytime it's foggy we hear of cancelled flights, diversions and so on.

Why can't they do the same with MEL as they do in London, New York and so on?

Because runway 16 is the only runway capable of an autoland. Even then some aircraft/crew aren’t capable of conducting a low Vis approach.

Again, there is a GLS available on every runway (but ILS on 16/27 only) but not every aircraft has the equipment on board for a GLS approach. This technology in my opinion works really well and isn’t affected by interference of the glideslope and localiser signals. Unfortunately we can only fly down to 200ft on 09/34/27 and only the lighting system is available on 16 for autolands and low vis approaches.

 

[jb747]

Because runway 16 is the only runway capable of an autoland. Even then some aircraft/crew aren’t capable of conducting a low Vis approach.

The QF A380s can do a GLS autoland on 34. I did the final certification flight for it. I don't think the minima is all that low, but you can autoland.

 

[AviatorInsight]

The QF A380s can do a GLS autoland on 34. I did the final certifcation flight for it. I don't think the minima is all that low, but you can autoland.

You’re right. I double checked and turns out we’re approved for all runways at MEL for autoland. RVR must be >125m on 16/27/34 and >350m on 09.

 

[jb747]

You’re right. I double checked and turns out we’re approved for all runways at MEL for autoland. RVR must be >125m on 16/27/34 and >350m on 09.

125 m RVR is scary enough.

 

[mjt57]

Because runway 16 is the only runway capable of an autoland. Even then some aircraft/crew aren’t capable of conducting a low Vis approach.

Again, there is a GLS available on every runway (but ILS on 16/27 only) but not every aircraft has the equipment on board for a GLS approach. This technology in my opinion works really well and isn’t affected by interference of the glideslope and localiser signals. Unfortunately we can only fly down to 200ft on 09/34/27 and only the lighting system is available on 16 for autolands and low vis approaches.

Am I right in assuming that it all comes down to cost?

From a pax's perspective it can be REALLY frustrating, not to mention super-annoying, when the airline tells me that my flight has been diverted/cancelled/delayed/can't be bothered due to foggy conditions.

I'd imagine that if they were forced to pay us refunds then maybe they'd equip their aircraft and train the crews.

Maybe.

Thing is, I don't understand much of it at all and can only vent when this happens to me.

 

[Quickstatus]

GLS

How accurate is GLS compared with ILS?

 

[Quickstatus]

125 m RVR is scary enough.

How quickly can an aircraft on landing cover the 125m?

 

[OZDUCK]

I assume/trust that the increased tailwind allowance outlined in this article would not be a problem?

Brisbane Airport launches flight path change to cut city noise

Three major airlines will be able to fly more often over Moreton Bay in a move Brisbane Airport says will reduce aircraft noise over the city.

www.abc.net.au

 

[AviatorInsight]

How accurate is GLS compared with ILS?

It's the same accuracy. It just receives a lot less interference from other aircraft as it's GPS based and cheaper for airports because one transmitter can sit in the middle of the airfield and have a GLS approach to all runways.

Also, once you're within 23nm from the runway, you can use the GLS for the approach.

 

[AviatorInsight]

I assume/trust that the increased tailwind allowance outlined in this article would not be a problem?

For the majority of flights, not really. Most aircraft can take up to 10 or 15kts tailwind. I suspect there will be a few operators out there who would "operationally require" the most into wind runway and they are quite within their rights to do so.

ATC will have no other choice but to grant them their request.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Am I right in assuming that it all comes down to cost?

From a pax's perspective it can be REALLY frustrating, not to mention super-annoying, when the airline tells me that my flight has been diverted/cancelled/delayed/can't be bothered due to foggy conditions.

I'd imagine that if they were forced to pay us refunds then maybe they'd equip their aircraft and train the crews.

Maybe.

Thing is, I don't understand much of it at all and can only vent when this happens to me.

Yes mostly cost for the airline and the airport themselves. Lots of maintenance at the airport with regard to keeping the ILS operational plus all of the associated lighting.

Cost for the airline to keep crew trained in the simulator and the aircraft themselves being able to conduct the approach. Note: not all VA 737s can do full CATIII autoland. The older V registered aircraft are all CATII.

 

[jb747]

Less than 2 seconds. Just enough time to pucker.

 

[jb747]

I'd imagine that if they were forced to pay us refunds then maybe they'd equip their aircraft and train the crews.

Maybe.

Thing is, I don't understand much of it at all and can only vent when this happens to me.

It’s not as simple as that, as I’m sure you realise. But next time you feel like venting, just take your car out on a foggy day, accelerate to a bit over 300kph, and then come back and tell me how much you really want to do that.

For the majority of flights, not really. Most aircraft can take up to 10 or 15kts tailwind. I suspect there will be a few operators out there who would "operationally require" the most into wind runway and they are quite within their rights to do so.

It’s basically dumb, and falls into the category of “acceptance of deviance”.

 

[Quickstatus]

Less than 2 seconds

Less than typical reaction time. How would you know there was nothing on the runway beyond 125m?

 

[flyer89]

Here’s a low vis into Sydney. Begins at about 8:00.

 

[mjt57]

It’s not as simple as that, as I’m sure you realise. But next time you feel like venting, just take your car out on a foggy day, accelerate to a bit over 300kph, and then come back and tell me how much you really want to do that.

Like I posted earlier, I have troubles finding my street in the fog.

But yes, I understand the idea of flying through cloud/fog and relying on instruments is a skill and a level of faith that most of us mere mortals cannot really comprehend.

Once, I went for a night flight with a friend as a part of his private pilot's licence training. I think that they called it "Night VFR" or something like that back then.

Because it was a clear night and we could see the lights from the power stations, paper mill and towns it wasn't too bad for me. Only when landing and relying on him judging things based on lights along the runway did it become a tad worriesome.

 

[jb747]

But yes, I understand the idea of flying through cloud/fog and relying on instruments is a skill and a level of faith that most of us mere mortals cannot really comprehend.

Instrument flying ultimately becomes a language, or perhaps a musical instrument. I don't see the attitude indicator and translate what it's saying. It's simply obvious to me. Of course, back in the early days of my flying, there was probably a bit more work involved.

But what I really meant was the part where you are on the runway in fog. Aircraft make extremely bad cars. For a start you're sitting quite some way above the runway, so you can't see what's right in front of you. Whilst landings in fog are generally automatic, and that includes roll out control, they aren't all, and just hanging on to the centreline can be hard work. Taking off is even worse, as they're always manual, steering to hang on to the c/l is being done by your feet (rudder and rudder/nose gear interconnect), and you have to be trained not just for the day when it all works but all of the engine out cases (i.e. engine out and abort, or e/o and continue). Remaining on the runway then becomes a big issue, so there is quite a bit of training and sim practice required. The cost isn't minor, and it may not be cost effective for an airline. It's not just a case of them being cheap.

 

[torks]

With Qantas currently operating a return flight from London to Tel Aviv (ASY1168) would this be operated by pilots who were on a London trip and then were just told we are extending your trip and you are now flying to Tel Aviv tomorrow?

With the heightened risk there at the moment would the pilots have an opportunity to say no or they just have to fly where the company tells them to?

 

[mjt57]

But what I really meant was the part where you are on the runway in fog. Aircraft make extremely bad cars. For a start you're sitting quite some way above the runway, so you can't see what's right in front of you.

Ah, OK, gotcha.

Sort of like navigating a mountain road in the fog/cloud, I guess. Closest that I can relate to is probably riding the motorbike over Mt Hotham in fog/cloud and relying on the yellow lines to stop becoming airborne (albeit temporarily) and hoping that no-one decides to use your side of the road coming from the other direction.

 

[jb747]

With Qantas currently operating a return flight from London to Tel Aviv (ASY1168) would this be operated by pilots who were on a London trip and then were just told we are extending your trip and you are now flying to Tel Aviv tomorrow?

That's basically it. I don't think there would have been enough time for anyone in Oz to get up there to do it. I'd expect a couple of extras have been called out and sent up to London, but they'll plug into to things a bit further down the road...most likely the London-Perth sector, or perhaps any subsequent flights.

With the heightened risk there at the moment would the pilots have an opportunity to say no or they just have to fly where the company tells them to?

Scheduling would have asked, but I doubt that anyone would refuse.