Melbourne Fog Vs RPT

[Jabawocky]

Fog delays flights at Melbourne Airport (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=816268)

Is it starting to become obvious to some we need some Cat3 ILS in this country!

[bob_bowne]

My information was that Melbourne airport has already installed a new ILS landing system supposedly to CAT 3B with a minimum of 50 feet and 350 meters visibility on Runway 16.

It was to be available by this winter?

There are no published Approach charts that I have seen and as each airline must be individually approved so I guess it is not happening any time soon.

350 meters visibility is very high and is about normal CAT 2 visibility but 50 feet is CAT 3B and there is a range of possible visibilities available, I forget the exact numbers.
:8

[Peter Fanelli]

Is it starting to become obvious to some we need some Cat3 ILS in this country!


Naaah, you just need more bank run pilots in the airlines! :E

[illusion]

Peter,

Yes we really do need bankrunners in jet aircraft with several hundred pasengers down the back like:

The bloke who killed a PA31 load in Young or

The bloke who killed 3 at Mt Hotham or

The check and trainer at Tamair who killed one or two trainees doing V1 cuts at night in a Metro.

Do what you THINK you need to do to keep your current job but keep it to your self.

[Enema Bandit's Dad]

Ummm, I think what he said was tongue in cheek :rolleyes:

[Watchdog]

Bob,
50' DA is normal Cat3a decision height, with Cat3b being no decision height, just minimum visibilty of around 150m-200m specified. Still, a 3a facility in MEL would be great! Just tell those EK A340 pilots to stay out of the antennas down there will ya! ;)

[Freewheel]

Have I been misled, or is the YSCB setup a Cat IIIb?

[Transition Layer]

Vis this morning in ML was being reported as 100m so you'd be needing at least Cat3B capabilities to get in with those conditions.

[A-Thousand-To-Go]

Have I been misled, or is the YSCB setup a Cat IIIb?

... misled up the creek and around the corner..

[Sunfish]

Global warming changes everything;)

[Freewheel]

... misled up the creek and around the corner..



Again! Bugger. :O

[Composite Man]

I believe as part of the replacement of 14 ILS facilities throughout Australia by Airservices over a period of 12 month to June 2008, Melbourne Runway 16 was upgraded to CAT 2/3B capability. To bring the entire airport up to CAT 3 capability requires the instalation of additional approach, runway exit and taxiway lighting. I believe that some, if not all of this, has been completed.

Australia, never having had LVO, then had to go through the process of issuing NPRM by CASA, with the associated discussion papers, before issuing NFRM which I am not sure has been completed. Overall this whole process has taken several years, and as someone flying for an overseas carrier who operates to LVO approved airports on a daily basis, and who has diverted to ADL more than once due to fog in MEL, I share your frustration.

It was hoped that CAT 3 ops would begin in MEL in early 2009, however it seems the whole process may have become caught up in the bureaucratic process that seems to dog aviation in this country.

[Reeltime]

When you begin to accept that Australia is a third world country, trying to look like it's first world, you can free yourself of those high expectations.

The airports, the roads, the ports, the public transport, the bureaucracy, the health system....etc

You get my drift..:hmm:

We do a damned good meat pie though. :ok:

[Mr. Hat]

Spot on Reeltime. 1st world taxes though.

[Animalclub]

Back in the 70's I travelled LAX - MEL on a BA VC10. I'm sure that after landing at MEL the Captain announced over the PA that this flight was the first to make an automatic hands off landing at Melbourne.
Was I dreaming? Maybe wishful thinking?
I'm not a pilot.

[Dick N. Cider]

The ML 34 ILS was most of the way through the process of validation for Cat IIIb when part of it got knocked down by a low flyer. Oops, put a hole in the data as well as the ILS.

[billyt]

Animalclub you are probably right, however it would not have been in low minima conditions.

[hoss]

34 ILS? i thought the 340 took out the 16 LOC antenna.

while it would be nice to have an ILS on 34, i think it would get more use on 16, especially anything cat3.

[aulglarse]

hoss, an advantage using RWY34 is it has a 100ft lower TCH.

As for the LOC antenna, RWY 16 ILS has been up and running for a few weeks now.:D

[No Further Requirements]

Just out of interest, did the 16ILS need a calibration flight to occur to bring it back into service after the Emirates low flying mission?

Cheers,

NFR.

[James Boag]

hoss, an advantage using RWY34 is it has a 100ft lower TCH.

CAT II/III are off rad alt so doesn't really matter what the TCH height is (unless fog/cloud stays at a perfectly level height (i.e. 500' AMSL like flight sim, not like reality where it hovers around say 100' AGL). CAT I, yeah kinda, but nah.

[apacau]

ASA are upgrading ILSs around the country for cat II/III capability but that is just the start. Airports then need to install centreline lighting, additional approach lighting, additional taxiway lighting, transmissiometers (or other RVR measuring devices), stop-bars etc etc. Not top mention new low-viz prociedures for airport operations as a whole.

It's a very expensive exercise, one that the airlines aren't generally willing to assist with (curious, given the massive cost to them from just one bad fog day).

[aulglarse]

Thankyou, I sit corrected.:ugh:

[A Comfy Chair]

Any comments on why VB were stating (and presumably departing) with a vis required for takeoff of 300m when the AIP SUP clearly states that for that you need instrumented RVR when it was not available?

[GAFA]

Because VB have CASA approval to operate down to 300m VIZ at certain airports ie MEL.

[badaz]

because i can

[man on the ground]

NFR
Just out of interest, did the 16ILS need a calibration flight to occur to bring it back into service after the Emirates low flying mission?
No - GP not affected, and this new LLZ type can be verified on the ground, so no special flight test. The A340 only got two of the 16 'elements'.

[No Further Requirements]

Thanks for that Man.

Cheers,

NFR.