Page 1 of 1

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:51 pm
by ardypilot


Auckland airport is packed with people this afternoon, many of them waiting since 6am for flights out of the fog affected city.

By around 2pm full services had resumed but a great wall of fog lurking over the nearby Manukau Harbour suggests it may not remain so for long.

Bizarrely half the runway is in bright sunshine while the western half is shrouded in a fog bank.

Planes taking off were briefly disappearing into the fog before emerging into the clear blue sky.

In the terminal tempers appeared frayed with crowds packing every available space at the check in area.

Air New Zealand staff were serving peanuts and water to those waiting.

The airport is rescheduling international flights with outgoing flights delayed by up to two hours and several incoming flights cancelled from Australia.

An airport spokeswoman said international flights took priority over domestic flights when fog reduced the number of landings and take offs.

Fog blanketed much of the city for several hours and motorists travelling from the North Shore were warned to drive carefully as they approached the harbour bridge.

The fog was expected to lift later in the morning but it could affect hundreds of Wellingtonians planning to head north today for the Super 14 do-or-die rugby match between the Blues and the Hurricanes.


So- were there any heavy diversions such as 767s into Welly or 747s into Ohakea? And did anyone get pics?

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:56 pm
by Daniel
QUOTE
So- were there any heavy diversions such as 767s into Welly or 747s into Ohakea? And did anyone get pics?[/quote]

I think an Air Pacific 767 went to Christchurch and an Air New Zealand A320 went to Wellington B-)
That is an awesome picture showing it - the conditions are really wierd.
I know that this has caused trouble to many and it will probably take a while to clear things.
Doesn't Auckland have CAT III ILS or something? Couldn't they get in on that?

Cheers
Daniel

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:03 pm
by Njbb1995
wow that is very wierd! well thats Nz's wacky wild weather for you!!
cheers nick

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:03 pm
by Anthony
Daniel wrote:
QUOTE (Daniel @ May 16 2008, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think an Air Pacific 767 went to Christchurch and an Air New Zealand A320 went to Wellington B-)
That is an awesome picture showing it - the conditions are really wierd.
I know that this has caused trouble to many and it will probably take a while to clear things.
Doesn't Auckland have CAT III ILS or something? Couldn't they get in on that?

Cheers
Daniel


Yes I thought they had CatIIIb or something like that.
Maybe not CatIIIb yet, but at least some sort of ILS that made fog not a worry.

The news will be covering it tonight.
Lot's of pictures of people sitting in the terminal bored, and one of an ATR in the fog doing nothing.

That's a cool picture, hopefully someone got more pics of it.

Cheers
Anthony

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 5:44 pm
by victor_alpha_charlie
Trolly wrote:
QUOTE (Trolly @ May 16 2008, 04:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
So- were there any heavy diversions such as 767s into Welly or 747s into Ohakea? And did anyone get pics?


No 767s here, but I noticed an A320 taking off at an abnormal time (maybe the diverted one) and a Qantas 738 at the international terminjal, although that has been here the last few days.

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:31 pm
by pois0n
Daniel wrote:
QUOTE (Daniel @ May 16 2008, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think an Air Pacific 767 went to Christchurch and an Air New Zealand A320 went to Wellington B-)
That is an awesome picture showing it - the conditions are really wierd.
I know that this has caused trouble to many and it will probably take a while to clear things.
Doesn't Auckland have CAT III ILS or something? Couldn't they get in on that?

Cheers
Daniel


I didn't see any Air Pacific 767 at Christchurch today :blink:

Saw a couple Qantas ones though..

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:40 pm
by SA227
QUOTE
Maybe not CatIIIb yet[/quote]

The airport is, but not many aircraft so domestically fog will still continue to be an issue. CAT2 and 3 require airfield, pilot and aircraft certification.
Mist started forming at 2200 last night cancelling my 2nd ambulance job for the night. Looks like a repeat performance tonight.

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:45 pm
by A185F
victor_alpha_charlie wrote:
QUOTE (victor_alpha_charlie @ May 16 2008, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
and a Qantas 738 at the international terminjal, although that has been here the last few days.


Yea I've noticed that too, any Idea why ?? although I have a feeling it was on one stand to the left on tues, maybe different one

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 6:51 pm
by yak52dude
We're probably going to get more of this now with the colder weather.

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:00 pm
by greaneyr
The terminal was still fairly diabolical at 6pm tonight, although at least we got a seat. Our flight was full though. I had been in Auckland all day for meetings but had to leave for the airport early to make sure we actually got a seat on our 6:30pm flight since all flights before that had been full.

I felt sorry for the rest of the team who had left the hotel this morning at 7am to catch a flight early enough to make it back to work in Palmy for a decent day and finally got to Palmy at 6pm!

PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 9:28 pm
by victor_alpha_charlie
A185F wrote:
QUOTE (A185F @ May 16 2008, 06:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yea I've noticed that too, any Idea why ?? although I have a feeling it was on one stand to the left on tues, maybe different one


Can't be for extra capacity, because a 734 has the same number of seats as a 738 doesn't it? Maybe a 734 is in maintenance (for once)?

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 2:01 pm
by Peppermint
Air Pacific 767 came into Chch last Sunday, not sure if it was normal or that there was fog in Auckland then, either way I found it pretty cool looking up at the dirty belly and colours on the tail just as it started lowering the gear.

I can get why people get pissed off when they miss flights or can't get on one because they're cancelled, do they think that planes can fly in all weather? Would they rather be on time to something than risk their life?

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 2:18 pm
by creator2003
Im leaving on tuesday on a 8am flight to OZ would it be cancelled or delayed if the fog was set in ?? what are the condtions for them to leave on etc... is this just a internal flights thing

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 3:03 pm
by greaneyr
Peppermint wrote:
QUOTE (Peppermint @ May 17 2008, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I can get why people get pissed off when they miss flights or can't get on one because they're cancelled, do they think that planes can fly in all weather? Would they rather be on time to something than risk their life?

They just don't understand. Sea and air are the only ways to travel that are vulnerable to certain weather extremes to the point where a service can be cancelled, apart from when heavy flooding closes roads/railways etc. Even in that case, there is usually an alternative way to travel. To them it just doesn't make sense and they are frustrated as waiting around at an airport gets boring really quickly for most people. Plus, there's also the fact that they have paid money for a service and haven't received it through no fault of theirs.

But I agree with you totally. The reason airports have IFR departure minima is to avoid an aircraft not being able to land in the event of a problem after take-off. Lets say they got into the sky and developed a problem that required an immediate landing but couldn't due to the airport being below minima, how would the passengers feel then?

I do understand their frustration, but sometimes think it's worth reminding such people "look, would you rather die then?".

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 3:10 pm
by creator2003
QUOTE
The reason airports have IFR departure minima is to avoid an aircraft not being able to land in the event of a problem after take-off. Lets say they got into the sky and developed a problem that required an immediate landing but couldn't due to the airport being below minima, how would the passengers feel then?[/quote]
I suppose that answers my question aswell thanks ... :thumbup:

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 5:04 pm
by SA227
QUOTE
The reason airports have IFR departure minima is to avoid an aircraft not being able to land in the event of a problem after take-off. Lets say they got into the sky and developed a problem that required an immediate landing but couldn't due to the airport being below minima, how would the passengers feel then?[/quote]

Nice piece of logic and very applicable if you were driving a light twin but I'm allowed to depart off certain runways in zero ceiling and 800m vis which are conditions I may not be able to land in should there be a problem. For this scenario we have to have a departure alternate which is within 1 hour flying time at single engine speed.
Our 737's are approved down to zero ceiling and 300m vis for some runways but then they get to practice in the simulator.

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:50 pm
by twinstarda42
creator2003 wrote:
QUOTE (creator2003 @ May 17 2008, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Im leaving on tuesday on a 8am flight to OZ would it be cancelled or delayed if the fog was set in ?? what are the condtions for them to leave on etc... is this just a internal flights thing


$4m system guides pilots through fog
5:00AM Saturday May 17, 2008
By David Eames

A multimillion-dollar airport guidance system allowing planes to land in fog got its first workout yesterday when a pea-souper descended on Auckland International Airport.

Heavy fog saw dozens of flights in and out of Auckland cancelled - but planes with the new system were able to land.

By midday two international flights had been diverted: an Air Pacific flight from Nadi to Auckland was re-routed to Christchurch and an Air New Zealand flight from Sydney diverted to Wellington. An Air NZ flight to Adelaide was cancelled.

But the new Cat IIIB Instrument Landing System - which came fully on-line on Monday - meant all the international flights fitted with the receiving equipment, or suitably trained pilots, landed successfully.

In the past, a fogged-in Auckland Airport meant long-haul flights ran the risk of being diverted.

Airport spokeswoman Lucy Powell said the Cat IIIB system had worked throughout the day, with the only flights cancelled being those without the technology aboard, or untrained aircrew.

"All our landing equipment was working, but it still depends on the compatibility of the pilot."

The $4 million system fires electronic beams toward approaching aircraft, enabling the pilots to line up with the runway centreline and to descend on an ideal glide path.

Under the old (Category I) ILS, a pilot landing at Auckland needed to be able to see the ground at or above 60 metres (200ft) and have a minimum forward visibility of at least 800m to land safely.

If the minimums were not met, the crew was forced to declare a "missed approach" and climb to 915m (3000ft).

The minimum heights and distances are set by the Civil Aviation Authority and vary from airport to airport, but the higher the ILS category system, the lower an aircraft is allowed to descend without seeing the ground.

The new Cat III B allows much lower minimum altitudes, to a point where planes fitted with the technology can land in virtually any fog conditions. Auckland Airport experiences fog between 12 and 16 days a year, with diversions likely to be imposed on anywhere between three and 11 of those days.

While the fog is in, the airport's usual 40 take-offs and landings an hour are reduced to as few as six. Authorities believe that number will be boosted to around 12 by the end of this month, and up to 20 by September.

The new system sees Auckland landing minimums reduced to 15m (50ft) of altitude with a forward visibility down to a minimum 50m.

The new system works chiefly for international and domestic main trunk-flying jet aircraft, though some turbo-prop planes might have the system.

However, it is generally only the pilots of larger aircraft trained to use the system.

Airways Corporation, which ran the Cat IIIB upgrade, was required to make substantial changes to the airport's instrument landing system and lighting systems.

The upgrade included improvements to runway edge lights and approach lights. A large number of bright lights had to be installed at the point where aircraft touch down, while taxiway lights have been placed closer together to enable aircraft to taxi in poor visibility.

Other improvements are expected over the next year, culminating with the introduction of a ground radar, which will allow air traffic controllers to better direct aircraft on the tarmac.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story....jectid=10510631

PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:05 pm
by victor_alpha_charlie
The reason fligths are cancelled is because sure, planes can take off, but pretty soon you start running out of planes able to take off, as none can land.