[Peetwo]

Spot the disconnect -

What say you P2?  If you take the PT links the 'ATSB report' is linked from the article - the ATSB link is HERE - click Interim for the report.

Yes Old'Tom in the case of the Mildura fog cock-up (& numerous other newsworthy but ignored serious incidents) very convoluted.. I say bring back the old crash comics at least then you had a hardcopy that you could easily refer. Beats the hell out trying to find the progress of, or recently updated ATSB investigations on their website. Someone could surmise that CC Dolan has something to hide...    

Couple of recent comments worthy of regurgitating off Ben's blog:

1

George Glass
Posted January 25, 2016 at 12:11 am | Permalink

There is no requirement to carry alternate fuel for single runways in Australia, contrary to pretty well every other serious country.

ILS facilities at most Australian airports are Cat 1. Pretty much useless in fog.
Diverting to a remote airport with non-precision approaches and no ATC only makes sense if you understand that the Pilot in Command felt that his obligation to conform to regulations over-road common sense.

Contrary to what most of the traveling public assume Australia does NOT have world class facilities. Truth is we just get away with it.

There needs to be a comprehensive review of ATC and ground facilities in this country to work out where we want to be in 30 years time because right now its a joke.

2
Dan Dair
Posted January 25, 2016 at 7:53 am | Permalink

George Glass,

After ten years of ‘boom-times’, Australia’s infrastructure is not noticeably better for it.?

Sure the weather’s not generally so good in Northern Europe, but CAT III is considered ‘base-line’ for any significant airport which expects to safely serve it’s commercial passengers.

How many Australian commercial airports actually have full ILS capability.?
The problem with the remoteness of some of Australia’s cities could be mitigated by improvements in ILS systems & of course, much more accurate weather forecasting.

Perhaps Ben is right when he suggests ‘that rainy, foggy or stormy day when the current practices could result in the filling of truckloads of body bags’ & the depressing thing is that it looks like this will have to happen before a programme of upgrades is begun.

CASA should be mandating improvements at all commercial airports above certain passenger or aircraft-movement numbers, where there is any clear history of weather-related incidents.

It should create a defined programme of targets, to be implemented over a equally defined time period.

There is no reason why the cost-burden should not be shared around.
The Government can put some tax-dollars in & the rest can be shared between the airlines & the airports.

The only other safe option is to enforce the same fuel-reserve rules commonplace throughout most of the rest of the world.?

Ultimately, passengers will end up being those who really pay for it, but they’ll be buying considerably a improved
safety regime for it.

Particularly relevant to the Planetalking blog was my post off Skimore Corner, here is an extract: 

Four incidents, a ditching & two cover-ups? - Safety risk mitigation Oz style.

On the 22 February 2000 the ATSB issued safety recommendation 2000004 addressed to the BOM, under 'Safety Action' it states:

..As a result of these occurrences, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has commenced a project to review the fuel requirements for flights to remote islands...

  
& under the BOM response text:

..The Bureau is actively participating in the review of fuel requirements for flights to remote islands being undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority...

 
Yet here we are nearly 18 years from the first reported incident; nearly 16 years since the SR was issued; more than 6 years since the Pel-Air ditching; & 949 days since the Mildura fog incident occurred. For a reminder of the seriousness of that incident, here is a Planetalking article from 18 months ago - ATSB Mildura fog crisis report delayed for good reasons:

..Today’s announcement indicates that important changes are being pursued in the interests of safety, presumably with the enthusiastic support of the Australian carriers, as Mildura proved to be both a harrowing yet lucky night for each, in which the professionalism of their pilots played an essential role in getting them out of a situation in which a commercial jet flight in this country should never have been put at such risk...

Well finally there is a sign that some sort proactive action to address these identified safety issues maybe on the horizon - HOORAH!

Firstly from the CASA 'Standards Development and Quality Assurance Branch' issued 2 days ago:

CD 1508OS - Fuel and oil quantity requirements

Background

Regulation 234 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR) requires the pilot-in-command of an aircraft to take reasonable steps to ensure that the aircraft carries sufficient quantities of fuel and oil for the proposed flight to be undertaken safely. The regulation also requires the operator of an aircraft to take reasonable steps to ensure that an aircraft does not begin a flight unless it is carrying sufficient fuel and oil to allow the flight to be conducted safely.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) reports have revealed incidents and accidents directly related to carriage of insufficient quantities of fuel. CASA proposes to address this safety issue by amending regulation 234 of CAR to provide updated fuel and oil requirements.

The current regulation 234 of CAR allows courts to consider any guidelines provided by CASA when determining whether sufficient fuel and oil were carried on a flight, which includes the guidelines provided in CAAP 234-1(1). While some of the information provided in the CAAP should be read as a requirement empowered by the current regulation 234, other information is advisory in nature. CASA intends to the make clearer the distinction between the regulatory requirements and the guidance material by transferring the requirements for determination of fuel and oil quantity from the CAAP to a proposed legislative instrument.

• SPC to CD 1508OS
  
• Annex A - Draft Civil Aviation Amendment (Fuel and Oil Requirements) Regulation 2016
  
• Annex B – Draft Civil Aviation (Fuel Requirements) Instrument 2016
  
• Annex C - Summary of key changes introduced by Civil Aviation (Fuel Requirements) Instrument 2016
  
• Annex D – Draft Civil Aviation Order 82.0 Amendment Order 2016 (No.X)
  
• Annex E – Draft CAAP 234-1(2) – Guidelines for aircraft fuel requirements
  

  
And then even better yesterday - some 30 odd years after the rest of the developed world - CASA made an announcement about a change to the regs, which they predict will pass on $10 million p.a. to industry, courtesy the OZ:

New aviation rules to slash weather delays

And then in a parallel universe "K" points out the simplicity of the Yank system that has held them in good stead for more than 40 years:

Whats wrong with KISS, easy to remember rules work every time;  Throw the AIP out along with 61 and the 'new fool  fuel rules'.

IFR Alternate Airports (1-2-3 Rule).

When filing an IFR flight plan, you must include an alternate destination airport when the weather forecast at your original destination predicts conditions below those specified in CFR 91.169. To help remember those conditions, you can use the 1-2-3 rule.

1 - During the time 1 hour before to 1 hour after the estimated arrival time
2 - Ceiling less than 2,000 feet
3 - Visibility less than 3 miles

If the above conditions exist, an alternate airport must be filed.

But then, WTF would the USA know about aviation or bad weather operations.  

Exactly "K" & guess what they're not prepared to sit on their laurels in regards to continuingly improving the system either, courtesy of Recode:

The Future of Aviation and Weather Forecasting




By George Spencer, Manager, Air Traffic Systems, Raytheon 

January 22, 2016, 5:00 AM PST

As air traffic controllers safely direct the arrival and departure of airplanes at a major airport, a convective thunderstorm engulfs the once-sunny skies, unleashing a flood of downpours, raging winds and dangerous lightning.

The treacherous weather across the airfield scrubs the flight plans of pilots and creates havoc for the flying public. Modern technology assists the controllers and airline operations centers, which do their best to optimize air traffic flow during a weather event, but delays eventually wreak disorder on the air transportation system, resulting in frustrated travelers and airlines and unplanned costs.

Bad weather is the cause of 70 percent of all traffic delays within the U.S. National Airspace System, adding about $6.7 billion a year in passenger costs.

Bad weather is the cause of 70 percent of all traffic delays within the U.S. National Airspace System, according to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), adding about $6.7 billion a year in passenger costs. An estimate from the Congressional Joint Economic Committee puts the annual cost of delayed flights at about $40 billion. That spending also adds up to lost time. In fact, in 2013 alone, the airline industry experienced more than 12 million minutes worth of weather-related delays.

While these air-traffic controllers and planners are well trained to decipher air traffic and the impact of weather on operations, they’re not professionally trained meteorologists. Predicting future weather patterns is not what they trained for or signed up for when taking on such a critical role within the transportation industry. They need technology to deliver accurate representations of the aviation environment including the impact of weather to enable confidence in decision making regarding the impact to both near and longer term operations.

What needs to change

Some 66 percent of delays are preventable with the right data and enhanced air traffic management decision-support tools, so it’s critical that air-traffic personnel work with the most accurate and timely weather information possible. The current landscape of weather data for aviation is scattered across various complex systems that ingest and display a myriad of data to air-traffic controllers and planners.

The current landscape of weather data for aviation is scattered across various complex systems that ingest and display a myriad of data to air-traffic controllers and planners.

After all, the weather needs for aviation are much different from those for general meteorology. The FAA needs specific types of weather data and modeling capabilities that show whether or not any given airspace is safe for travel. This is a much more complex challenge than merely issuing a forecast that dictates whether a sensible traveler will need to bring an umbrella on the way to the airport, or after landing, for that matter.

Critical improvements in the management and monitoring of aviation weather data will be absolutely necessary to keep up with the anticipated growth of air traffic over the coming decade — and the technology is already evolving rapidly to accommodate increasingly sophisticated and complex meteorological algorithms.

Imagine a situation where thousands of simultaneous algorithms process gigabytes of data streaming over interconnected networks and flowing into astute algorithms tuned for real-world weather applications, high-performance computing humming in remote server rooms 24/7/365, with redundancy and real-time display of the output across hundreds of systems. This orchestrated concert of events produces the most accurate aviation weather products on the planet, the FAA’s NextGen Weather Processor. In the years ahead, aviation weather forecasting will increase time frames of weather predictability, create more confident and accurate forecasts and provide safer and more efficient travel for passengers.

Of course, innovation in the field is by no means limited to the aerospace and defense sector, and aviation weather technology certainly does not grow in a vacuum. In fact, forward-thinking concepts and technologies seem to be coming out of every corner of industry, which will undoubtedly continue to accelerate a collective shift toward accuracy and immediacy. For example, Vaavud is building a crowd-sourced weather platform that has been likened to a “Waze for weather.” The company sells personal wind meters that will turn a smartphone into a high-tech meteorological tool to provide a community of users with highly personalized weather.

It’s imperative to have modernized weather sensors, processing and integrated decision support systems in place that will benefit the airspace, all segments of flight, air-traffic controllers, planners, airlines and, of course, passengers.

Panasonic Weather Solutions’ patented Tropospheric Airborne Meteorological Data Reporting (TAMDAR) sensor has helped change the way atmospheric data is collected and forecasts are assembled. TAMDAR sensors are currently installed on over 225 commercial aircraft operating in the National Airspace System (NAS), where they continuously transmit atmospheric observations via the global Iridium satellite network in real time as the aircraft climbs, cruises and descends. This results in approximately 50,000 more daily weather observations when compared to today’s weather balloon (radiosonde) program.

Boston-based startup Understory is fielding small and easily deployable weather stations that measure three-dimensional wind, rain and hail, as well as other atmospheric variables, to bring a hyperlocal — and therefore more accurate — picture of the weather to communities. The city of Somerville, Mass., is using Understory technology to constantly measure weather intensity. This helps city officials figure out what kinds of crews might need to be dispatched during a blizzard, for example. The company also has pilot tests under way in Kansas City, Mo., and Dallas, Texas.

Meanwhile, data and analytics players such as Hwind Scientific have grown out of the NOAA Technology Partners Office, aimed at commercializing NOAA innovations. HWind’s founder, Dr. Mark Powell, is leveraging his work at NOAA’s Hurricane Research division. His company is harnessing the power of real-time hurricane data to help insurance and risk-mitigation companies and government agencies prepare, respond and recover when faced with disastrous weather.

Just as weather intersects with most every aspect of our everyday life, it also impacts every phase of flight — not just takeoff and landing. So it’s imperative to have modernized weather sensors, processing and integrated decision support systems in place that will benefit the airspace, all segments of flight, air-traffic controllers, planners, airlines and, of course, passengers.

The future of aviation weather technology looks brighter than ever — regardless of any rain in the forecast.

---

George Spencer is a manager of Raytheon’s Air Traffic Solutions.

Hmm...so do you think such innovative thinking & suggestions were put forward at the ATSB talk-a-thon that occurred in the wake of the '2013 Mildura fog and fuel f*ckup'?? Not bloody likely when we're already 40 odd years behind other first world aviation nations - UFB!


MTF...P2