Weather; or not?
The Oz – “The tension that can exist between an airline and an airport was in sharp focus earlier in May when reports emerged of a March 2017 incident where a Qantas Boeing 737-800 had been delayed from departing Canberra Airport after diverting there while en route from Auckland to Sydney due to weather. (Bollocks).
The Oz – "This was the last in a series of multiple incidents where unannounced, Qantas were diverting large international aircraft to Canberra Airport, and putting other aircraft that had planned and arrangements in place to divert to Canberra Airport in jeopardy. (Bollocks).
I know the ‘big boys’ have other fish to fry and this is all part of a much bigger ball game – but – I wonder why aircraft Sydney or Melbourne bound need to divert the Canberra so frequently. “Due to weather” is cited, which is a little misleading. The instrument landing (bad weather) facilities at the major terminals; and, the equipment in the modern fleet; and the general weather conditions, excluding the occasional Fog, themselves rarely call for a diversion to an alternate – due actual weather conditions precluding a landing.
So it becomes a ‘fuel’ issue – when Sydney has aircraft stacked due to the rules and the restrictive ‘movement rate’ rules under which ATC must operate; the odds are in favour of diversion due to a traffic stack ‘delay’ rather than ‘the weather’ conditions. When confronted by the potential of a further 30 or 40 minute delay - after using the planned holding fuel allocation – a diversion may become necessary – due to delay induced not by poor, below minima weather, but by speed at which preceding aircraft are processed. Just saying..No one is bothered by 'the conditions' - but what's left in the tanks (safe time) causes much discussion.
ATC do the best they can – given their limited options and restrictions, but the traffic does pile up, and fuel available is not an infinite commodity. Nobody diverts an aircraft for fun – the knock-on effects can create horrific problems for everyone. The radical cause is the process in place which slows traffic movement to a standstill during the periods when ‘instrument’ approaches are required. One thing is certain – ATC could shift aircraft a lot faster than the ridiculous political ‘cap’ allows, even faster if ‘distribution’ of noise requirements were lost. One thing is certain sure – neither Sydney or Melbourne have weather conditions anywhere near as poor as our neighbours anywhere North of Darwin have, where conditions actually below landing minima frequently demand a diversion. It will be a big job to clean up the regulatory mess which artificially creates a need to divert.
Just my two bob’s worth.
The Oz – “The tension that can exist between an airline and an airport was in sharp focus earlier in May when reports emerged of a March 2017 incident where a Qantas Boeing 737-800 had been delayed from departing Canberra Airport after diverting there while en route from Auckland to Sydney due to weather. (Bollocks).
The Oz – "This was the last in a series of multiple incidents where unannounced, Qantas were diverting large international aircraft to Canberra Airport, and putting other aircraft that had planned and arrangements in place to divert to Canberra Airport in jeopardy. (Bollocks).
I know the ‘big boys’ have other fish to fry and this is all part of a much bigger ball game – but – I wonder why aircraft Sydney or Melbourne bound need to divert the Canberra so frequently. “Due to weather” is cited, which is a little misleading. The instrument landing (bad weather) facilities at the major terminals; and, the equipment in the modern fleet; and the general weather conditions, excluding the occasional Fog, themselves rarely call for a diversion to an alternate – due actual weather conditions precluding a landing.
So it becomes a ‘fuel’ issue – when Sydney has aircraft stacked due to the rules and the restrictive ‘movement rate’ rules under which ATC must operate; the odds are in favour of diversion due to a traffic stack ‘delay’ rather than ‘the weather’ conditions. When confronted by the potential of a further 30 or 40 minute delay - after using the planned holding fuel allocation – a diversion may become necessary – due to delay induced not by poor, below minima weather, but by speed at which preceding aircraft are processed. Just saying..No one is bothered by 'the conditions' - but what's left in the tanks (safe time) causes much discussion.
ATC do the best they can – given their limited options and restrictions, but the traffic does pile up, and fuel available is not an infinite commodity. Nobody diverts an aircraft for fun – the knock-on effects can create horrific problems for everyone. The radical cause is the process in place which slows traffic movement to a standstill during the periods when ‘instrument’ approaches are required. One thing is certain – ATC could shift aircraft a lot faster than the ridiculous political ‘cap’ allows, even faster if ‘distribution’ of noise requirements were lost. One thing is certain sure – neither Sydney or Melbourne have weather conditions anywhere near as poor as our neighbours anywhere North of Darwin have, where conditions actually below landing minima frequently demand a diversion. It will be a big job to clean up the regulatory mess which artificially creates a need to divert.
Just my two bob’s worth.