1011 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 315 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2483 times:
SAN was closed last night for a good period of time because of FOG. I don't know how many planes made it in. The Chargers coming back from playing Denver on Sunday Night had to divert to ONT and bus down getting to San Diego at 4am. The Chargers were on DL 9820 and on 757. I had a family member going from DIA to SAN on Frontier 563 last night and had to divert LAX. I don't know how many flights had to divert but I am sure that flight crews and planes are at the wrong airports today so a lot of the SAN outbounds would be delayed.
This time of year sometimes sucks to fly into SAN. The weather last night was weird. The fog bank seemed to just hang over the airport, I live near the water about 10 miles north of SAN and it was clear most of the night.
Iahflyr From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 25 Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2470 times:
So you're saying the airport was closed or that the weather was below landing minimums? Airport authority closes an airport but not being able to fly the approach due to weather doesn't close that airport.
Being picky, maybe, but different phrases sure have different meanings.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22053 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2449 times:
SAN was below landing mins since about 8pm last night.
With the warm 80+ degree temps we are enjoying, cool marine fog has been getting pulled in at most coastal airports. LAX was down to single 1 runway Cat-3 ops on Saturday for a couple hours, while both LGB and SNA also have experienced fog during the last week.
According to the latest forecast SAN could experience similar repeat from about 9pm tonight.
[Edited 2006-11-20 19:42:39]
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2436 times:
Last night was indeed a weird one, as one would normally expect to see CRQ and NKX also have fog (just as NZY did), but the temp/dewpoint spreads were good there, and all the way north to LAX. Looking at the forecasts for tonight (11/20), I don't think that'll be the case again--it's forecast to be foggy all over.
One of my SJC-SAN flights got into SAN just before they dropped, and I had three others that I held on the ground at SJC. We waited to see if there was some improvement, but after a couple of hours, the flights were cancelled.
There was a recent thread here on Anet concerning an election there in SAN related to using NKX for commerical flights, and last night's fog (hardly an uncommon event during this time of year) makes using NKX a good idea, assuming folks in the area want reliable airline service.
Most people think that an airport is an airport, and that there are no diiferences between them, but that's not the case. The landing minimums required to get into SAN when it's foggy are so much higher than someplace like LAX. At LAX, the normal CAT-I ILS minimums are 200-1/2 (200 foot ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility) and a RVR (runway visual range, a measurement of visibilility epressed in feet) of 1800. LAX also has CAT-IIIa ILS, and you need RVR 700 to shoot that. At SAN, the ILS to runway 9 has minimums of 355-1 (355 foot ceiling and 1 mile visibility) and a RVR of 5000.
As you can see, one could have exactly the same weather at LAX and SAN, and at LAX, you'd be landing (especially if your airline was CAT-IIIa equipped) and at SAN you'd be below minimums and diverting to someplace like ONT or LAX and bussing to SAN. The terrain and obstacles around the SAN airport preclude installation and use of a CAT-IIIa approach, or even a CAT-I that has standard minimums, but that's not the case at NKX. If NKX was used for commerical flights and had a CAT-IIIa approach installed, the local area would see more reliable operations.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2404 times:
Quoting Iahflyr (Reply 1): So you're saying the airport was closed or that the weather was below landing minimums? Airport authority closes an airport but not being able to fly the approach due to weather doesn't close that airport.
Being picky, maybe, but different phrases sure have different meanings.
Not being picky at all in my book, and absolutely correct. It's only "closed" in the general context that you want to land there but can't because it's below landing minimums.
I once had a crew roll-up on their destination and tell me that the airport was "closed" due to fog and they wanted to divert. Turns out that one side of the airport had a fogbank over it, and while the approach on that side was indeed below minimums, using the back course approach to the reciprocal runway (winds calm) was a viable option, which we used and landed. I don't know if the crew chose to use the word "closed" or was told that by ATC, but it certainly didn't reflect the overall operational situation.
Isitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 26 Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2374 times:
Yeah I think you're right, but I take his post to say in a round-about-way, that SAN was below minimums therefore is was shut to arrivals
Is that too much for me to read into his post?
safe
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
Mdw22l31c From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 197 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2366 times:
Listening to channel 9 last night on UAL 543 into SNA the air traffic control was diverting AA flights to LAX and Southwest flights to LAS. The ATC said their no aircraft where holding to land at SAN and the airport had been closed for 2 hours.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4538 posts, RR: 26 Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2264 times:
Quoting 1011 (Thread starter): This time of year sometimes sucks to fly into SAN. The weather last night was weird. The fog bank seemed to just hang over the airport, I live near the water about 10 miles north of SAN and it was clear most of the night.
Yeah last night was definitely interesting at SAN. When I got off at 11:30 last night, it was so bad that I couldn't see the end of our J-lines at the gates. Got in my car, went up the hill on Laurel St. to get onto I-5 and it was clear. I didn't encounter any fog on my drive home. It really did just sit on top of the airport.
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2): SAN was below landing mins since about 8pm last night.
The last arrival was around 6:30pm.
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 3): One of my SJC-SAN flights got into SAN just before they dropped, and I had three others that I held on the ground at SJC. We waited to see if there was some improvement, but after a couple of hours, the flights were cancelled.
I spent a lot of time in Operations last night listening to all the action in the Coordinator's room. Was your voice one that I heard communicating with the holding flights? haha
[Edited 2006-11-20 22:25:24]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2236 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 7):
I spent a lot of time in Operations last night listening to all the action in the Coordinator's room. Was your voice one that I heard communicating with the holding flights?
Naw, wasn't me.. I gave 2677 a couple of updates via ACARS on the way down from SJC, and he got in just before the ceiling and viz cratered. Everyone else I held at SJC. I think 291 from ABQ was the last of ours to make it in.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4538 posts, RR: 26 Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2216 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 8): I think 291 from ABQ was the last of ours to make it in.
I believe 291 diverted to SJC. The flight goes ABQ-SAN-SJC, but the aircraft bypassed SAN as the SAN-SJC portion was cancelled.
Lets hope we don't see a repeat tonight...
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2182 times:
Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 9): I believe 291 diverted to SJC. The flight goes ABQ-SAN-SJC, but the aircraft bypassed SAN as the SAN-SJC portion was cancelled.
Guess mine was the last one in then... BUR was kicking my butt with weight issues, so as soon as 2677 landed I held the others at SJC and focused on BUR...
The amended TAF puts it in there about 6pm local, and it's that deck at 200 feet, and later, 100 feet that's gonna get you (in addition to the visibility) because the ILS to 09 has such a high decision altitude (355 feet versus the normal 200 feet).
SkyHarborsHome From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 273 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2170 times:
On average, how many nigts a year does this affect landing at SAN. I fully expect this at SFO but not at SAN. I fly in there about 3 times a month so I guess I am just lucky to have missed one of these fog-out nights.
HikesWithEyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 816 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2135 times:
Quoting SkyHarborsHome (Reply 11): On average, how many nigts a year does this affect landing at SAN. I fully expect this at SFO but not at SAN. I fly in there about 3 times a month so I guess I am just lucky to have missed one of these fog-out nights.
Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5441 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2109 times:
Good thing I didn't work last night. I would've been doing a lot of cancellations.
Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
DavestanKSAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 1678 posts, RR: 15 Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2078 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 3): Last night was indeed a weird one, as one would normally expect to see CRQ and NKX also have fog (just as NZY did), but the temp/dewpoint spreads were good there, and all the way north to LAX.
Indeed. Well visually around NKX I didn't think it was so foggy. I'm don't know about WN, but I know if the wx conditions were border line, AS would fly a holding pattern around Catalina Island and attempt to land here at SAN when the wx cleared a bit. Most of the time however, they couldn't get in and went to LAX.
Fog can be quite nasty this time of year. It sucks too. Usually flights (well AS is who I worked with) would divert to LAX and the pax were bussed down, or other accomidations were made. Made for a late night. Although we didn't have to clean the RON's that couldn't come in, we had to wait for the busses to arrive at the airport, and take the luggage off of them. And then morning ops would be messed up, and a/c would have to be ferried (or with pax from the flight that couldn't get in the previous night) in.
GOCAPS16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4298 posts, RR: 23 Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2065 times:
I was suppose to be flying from SAN-ATL last night's redeye flight but I didn't make it out to SAN. Luckily I stayed in VA, otherwise, I would've been in big trouble if my redeye flight was cancelled.
Walter747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1440 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2049 times:
My dad was on DL Flight 444 from ATL. he didn get into his hotel till 1AM when they were due to arrive a 7p.m.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2029 times:
Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 14): The number is listed to hear the ATIS if you're so inclined.
The ASOS might be a little better source, since the ATIS normally comes out once an hour ( :50-:55 past) with an occasional update if conditions change radically. The ASOS will give whatever ceiling, visibility, and winds are occuring at the time you call.
WX ASOS: PHONE 619-296-8934
Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 14): I'm don't know about WN, but I know if the wx conditions were border line, AS would fly a holding pattern around Catalina Island and attempt to land here at SAN when the wx cleared a bit.
We try to launch when we can as well, but there are times when you can't. The lack of a CAT-IIIa or CAT-II, or even a standard CAT-I ILS approach really hampers the place...
AirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1914 times:
Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 3): There was a recent thread here on Anet concerning an election there in SAN related to using NKX for commerical flights, and last night's fog (hardly an uncommon event during this time of year) makes using NKX a good idea, assuming folks in the area want reliable airline service.
Although the ballot measure would not have taken effect immediately, they should use this as their announcement:
"Attention passengers on Southwest XXX to San Diego, this flight is going to be canceled due to fog over the airport in San Diego. We are sorry for the inconvenience. If the citizens of San Diego had approved a measure in the recent election to allow operations at Miramar MCAS, we would be able to get you to San Diego tonight, but unfortunately we cannot. While you are in San Diego, be sure to thank one of their citizens for not allowing you to get there tonight."
Swadispatcher From United States of America, joined May 2004, 427 posts, RR: 10 Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1828 times:
I hear it's rolling in again.. it's at the approach end of runway 9 and North Island NAS is at 1/4 FG.
Maintain 2300 until Boiler, cleared for the VOR-A approach, report BATLE inbound..
Coronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1590 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1805 times:
Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 20): Although the ballot measure would not have taken effect immediately, they should use this as their announcement:
"Attention passengers on Southwest XXX to San Diego, this flight is going to be canceled due to fog over the airport in San Diego. We are sorry for the inconvenience. If the citizens of San Diego had approved a measure in the recent election to allow operations at Miramar MCAS, we would be able to get you to San Diego tonight, but unfortunately we cannot. While you are in San Diego, be sure to thank one of their citizens for not allowing you to get there tonight."
Oh give me a break. Is it our fault the Marines will not move? Their motto is "we take land away, not give it up". That seems to apply in our own country as well. Once that changes, then we'll get a move on.
The latest hourly weather on the page shows visibility at 1/8 SM and ceiling BKN at 100 ft.
25 Silver1SWA: Tonight wasn't quite as exciting. Fog rolled in much later. Most outbounds made it out. I think we only cancelled 3 departures. All inbound RON's were
26 Boeing7E7: SAN is below landing minimums about 3% of the time, or 186 hours a year. However, you have to consider "when" this happens. Usually the last 3-4 hour
27 N1120A: I really don't get why every runway at LAX isn't CAT III equipped. It would certainly have made sense to equip 25R as such prior to shutting down 25L
28 DavestanKSAN: Very cool, thanks a lot for the info Dave
30 Goldenshield: Nitpicky as it is, many aircraft, and many airlines, aren't certified for CAT IIIb operations.
31 Max Q: In our operation, the cloud ceiling can be below DH, as long as you have the required visibility, that is all that is needed to start the approach (we
32 Bicoastal: My sister flew out yesterday morning. Extremely long lines of people needing to be rebooked due to few/no aircraft being on the ground overnight. Peop
33 Laxintl: I would guess that its comes down to simply a cost-benefit analysis. How many days/hours per year is LAX really at Cat-III mins? Remember 25R & 24L d
34 N1120A: Which LAWA and the FAA have lots of I know. They are CAT I The steadily improving air quality has definately made a huge difference.
35 Boeing7E7: Nor are airports able to accomodate CAT III approaches due to terrain, like Lindbergh. Is that your solution? Coffee and muffins? Now add about 40,00
36 Tom in NO: The FAA funds all of their ILS/VOR, etc installations. Airport operators such as LAWA, as a general rule, do not fund that type of equipment. Tom at
37 DavestanKSAN: love it!!!!!!!!!! Well played Dave[Edited 2006-11-22 09:16:31]
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 315 posts, 
From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4298 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
