Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fog In SYD = Problems For UA Passengers  
User currently offlineQF108 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 333 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7804 times:

Did a search and didn't find anything on this, the article is from todays Sydney Morning Herald,

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...avoc/2007/05/14/1178995079800.html

It was really foggy yesterday morning, I believe that it only caused one go-around which was a DJ737 unsure which flight. All other flights that attempted to land got in safely. This was a bit of a no-win situation for UA, im sure QF can call upon 744 crews based in BNE to fly the BNE-SYD sector, whereas UA has two flights a day to SYD, thus it seems the only available were the UA839/840 SYD-MEL-SYD crew.
Still it seems that westbound flight from the US seems to take forever to get here flying direct, let alone going to via BNE and have to wait for the pilots to fly from SYD-BNE twice !

This diversion from the 9th may not have helped when looking for crews either,

http://www.vpmag.com/yssy/viewtopic.php?t=19118

[Edited 2007-05-15 04:01:25]


Blessed are the Cheesemakers !
78 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25370 posts, RR: 49
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7780 times:

For a little more balanced reporting, the fog also caused problems for Qantas not only United in addition to the good citizens of Sydney which saw public transport disrupted as well.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...dney/2007/05/14/1178995029309.html

Transport turmoil as fog engulfs Sydney

Sydney transport services are back to normal after a heavy fog caused delays to ferries, planes and cars this morning.

The fog caused six international flights to be diverted, Sydney Airport said in a statement.

Five flights - QF74, QF12, QF108, UA839 and UA864 went to Brisbane and one flight, QF22, flew to Melbourne.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineVHVXB From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 5525 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7732 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1):
Five flights - QF74, QF12, QF108, UA839 and UA864 went to Brisbane and one flight, QF22, flew to Melbourne.

It was 7 including QF22
QF12 - VH-OEG - LAX-(BNE)-SYD
QF74 - VH-OJN - SFO-(BNE)-SYD
QF108 - VH-OEF - JFK-LAX-(BNE)-SYD
QF94 - VH-OEI - LAX-(BNE)-MEL
UA839 - N127UA - JFK-LAX-(BNE)-SYD
UA863 - N178UA - ORD-SFO-(BNE)-SYD


User currently offlineQF108 From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 333 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7701 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1):
For a little more balanced reporting, the fog also caused problems for Qantas not only United in addition to the good citizens of Sydney which saw public transport disrupted as well

Don't get me wrong this wasn't meant to be a UA bashing, have flown them several times and would be happy to fly them again, in fact I fly UA especially domestically in the US Ch.9 is the best IFE around ! They were just the main focus of this story, it would have been nice if the article mentioned that UA don't have extra crews on standy for the one or two days a year this happens. But the headline passengers horrendous 27 hour ordeal is going to sell more newspapers !



Blessed are the Cheesemakers !
User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 7697 times:

I have been in this Sydney foggy situation before and was in a BA 747 which did a go-around after attepmtping to land in the fog but to no avail. We eventually diverted to BNE and saw a whole line of strange widebodies when we landed, including a UA 747, QF747-400 etc... which are not normally found in BNE on a normal day. I have attached the report below...

I guess this annual occurence is a norm.

http://www.airliners.net/discussions/trip_reports/read.main/33200



Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7268 times:

Doesn't SYD have CAT III ILS ?

User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7232 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 5):

Apparently not because when the BA 747 that I was on did the go-around, the pilot mentioned that although the aircraft was able to land in zero-visibility, the airport wasn't equipped to handle such an approach.



Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineCurmudgeon From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 695 posts, RR: 22
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7232 times:

SYD does not even have CAT II ILS. In fact there are no ILS installations in all of Australia better than CAT I. The weather here just doesn't warrant it, or at least that's the official story. On the other hand, when you need it, you really need it. The expectation is that RNP approaches will eventually have very low limits, but that's some time away yet.


Jets are for kids
User currently offlineRDUDDJI From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 6978 times:

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 7):
SYD does not even have CAT II ILS. In fact there are no ILS installations in all of Australia better than CAT I. The weather here just doesn't warrant it, or at least that's the official story.

That's surprising and quasi embarrassing. You'd think they'd equip at least one RWY at each major jetport with CAT III? Wow.



Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
User currently offlineHAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2561 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 6904 times:

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 7):
The expectation is that RNP approaches will eventually have very low limits, but that's some time away yet.

RNP approaches will have lower minimums than current RNAV and GPS approaches, and in some cases they will match Cat I ILS mins, but they won't go lower than that. They are a means to get ILS-like minimums to airports and runways that lack ILS's, or for curved approaches where ILS type approaches are impossible. They won't however allow approaches to Cat II or III levels.

HAL



One smooth landing is skill. Two in a row is luck. Three in a row and someone is lying.
User currently offline787EWR From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 204 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 6846 times:

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 8):
That's surprising and quasi embarrassing. You'd think they'd equip at least one RWY at each major jetport with CAT III? Wow.

I would agree. Kingsford sits right on the bay. I would imagine they have inclement weather some time.

BNE is an international airport however, they have customs(i've gone through it). I don't understand why they could not let the passengers off and keep them in the arrivals lounge until the new crew came in from SYD


User currently offlineCurmudgeon From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 695 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 6837 times:

Yeah, I got a little ahead of myself on that one. The ILS is still the required approach aid to get low limits...I was thinking of HGS displays on CAT II rwys allowing CAT III minima.

Australia might only need CAT III once a year if that, and then only for a couple of hours. The obvious problem are the oceanic flights arriving t the margins of the curfew...0601 and 2300, right in peak fog time.

As far as embarrassing goes...no, not so much. I don't think that anyone here is embarrassed to only need low limits for a few hours a year. Sunscreen on the other hand....

Cur.



Jets are for kids
User currently offlineFuffla From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 6791 times:

Just a question, why would this flight:

QF94 - VH-OEI - LAX-(BNE)-MEL

have to go via Brisbane? Its final destination is Melbourne, and that is supposibly clear given that another flight also landed there.


User currently offlineETA Unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2077 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 6703 times:

Re QF094- I would imagine SYD is that flight's diversion airport and with SYD closed, the crew elected to put down in BNE in case something unexpected happened a little further south.

User currently offlineEK413 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 4919 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 6637 times:

Quoting Fuffla (Reply 12):
QF94 - VH-OEI - LAX-(BNE)-MEL

have to go via Brisbane? Its final destination is Melbourne, and that is supposibly clear given that another flight also landed there.

The flight terminates in SYD and then operates a International/domestic sector QF074 and returning in the evening forming the QF073...

EK413



Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We are tonight’s entertainment!
User currently offlineVHXLR8 From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 500 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 6562 times:

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 10):
BNE is an international airport however, they have customs(i've gone through it). I don't understand why they could not let the passengers off and keep them in the arrivals lounge until the new crew came in from SYD

This part doesn't sound right to me either. I don't see why the pax just weren't kept in the airside part of the terminal while they waited. Furthermore, it seems a gross safety/security violation to have pax on an aircraft without crew!! Transit requirements require at least 7 crew onboard a 747 whilst on the ground.


User currently offlineAJ From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 2391 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 6538 times:

One issue that the passengers had is their precious duty free alcohol purchases. Every transit flight at Australian International Terminals must be screened to the new LAGs rules, even if operating a domestic sector. The United passengers were not impressed that they would have to surrender their bottles of booze so a deal was struck to have them hold stowed!

User currently offlineSFORunner From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 6506 times:

Quoting VHVXB (Reply 2):
It was 7 including QF22

7 x 747s = a lot of pax. Let's be conservative and say roughly 200 per aircraft.

1400: that's a high number of "unexpected" pax to show up at your door.

Quoting 787EWR (Reply 10):
BNE is an international airport however, they have customs(i've gone through it). I don't understand why they could not let the passengers off and keep them in the arrivals lounge until the new crew came in from SYD

How much space is in the arrivals lounge area?

If illegal crews required all pax disembark, how many immigration and custom agents are there to handle them? What about ramp crew to unload their baggage?

How many 747 movements does BNE see on a "normal" day?

Not to slight BNE ... but if there aren't folks and space on the ground to process pax, it's easier to leave pax on the aircraft (from the airport's perspective) as long as necessary/possible.


User currently offlineVHVXB From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 5525 posts, RR: 18
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6330 times:

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 17):
7 x 747s = a lot of pax. Let's be conservative and say roughly 200 per aircraft.

6 flights to be correct. QF22 is operated by the A333


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6302 times:

Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 8):
That's surprising and quasi embarrassing. You'd think they'd equip at least one RWY at each major jetport with CAT III? Wow.

If it has an ILS then its the lack of the right approach lights/runway lights that prohibits the CAT II/III. ILS is the same regardless the approach category and it should have a fail safe generator standard. If not, then it's embarasing and somone should spend the $3 million to get it up to par, at least at Sydney.


User currently offlineQFFlyer From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 380 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 6286 times:

Quoting EK413 (Reply 14):
Quoting Fuffla (Reply 12):
QF94 - VH-OEI - LAX-(BNE)-MEL

have to go via Brisbane? Its final destination is Melbourne, and that is supposibly clear given that another flight also landed there.

The flight terminates in SYD and then operates a International/domestic sector QF074 and returning in the evening forming the QF073...

I was under the impression that this [QF 94] was a LAX-MEL direct fight at all times [diversions excepted], and that QF 26 formed the QF 73 MEL-SYD international/domestic sector, before becoming QF 5 to FRA.

Cheers


User currently offlineCurmudgeon From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 695 posts, RR: 22
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6219 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 19):
ILS is the same regardless the approach category and it should have a fail safe generator standard. If not, then it's embarasing and somone should spend the $3 million to get it up to par, at least at Sydney.

Not ll ILS installations are created equal. The shielding, calibration and and maintenance requirements are different. The approach/runway lighting issue would take more than 3 million to cure. Maybe as much as 10 times that.



Jets are for kids
User currently offlineTrent1000 From Japan, joined Jan 2007, 567 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6176 times:

http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/...3519-27977,00.html?from=public_rss

FOG and duty-free liquor caused what was described as a near-riot among passengers on a United Airlines flight which diverted to Brisbane yesterday because Sydney was closed.
"something akin to a riot occurred," according to one airport worker. "Those passengers simply did not want to stay on board."

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 17):
How many 747 movements does BNE see on a "normal" day?

According to flightstats.com BNE today has four 744 arrivals/departures - QF, JL, NZ, MH.
(from a total of 30 international arrivals)


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6098 times:

Quoting Curmudgeon (Reply 21):
Not ll ILS installations are created equal. The shielding, calibration and and maintenance requirements are different. The approach/runway lighting issue would take more than 3 million to cure. Maybe as much as 10 times that.

There is a single ILS accuracy standard with varied localizer antenna arrays, the largest glidelsope and antenna array is about $500k-$750k installed. The cost of an ALSF-II lighting system installed is $1.5 million per runway. For $2-2.5 million you get CAT III to the primary runway end. For $3.5-4 million you get both ends of one runway. Even if you need to update all of the runway lighting, regulators and controllers, you're still only looking at about $7-10 million per runway depending on what needs to be replaced. This is a very low cost project.


User currently offlineCurmudgeon From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 695 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6004 times:

Thanks for the information on the prices for the electronics. I still dont think that the airport would or could do anything for only 3 million. Also, SYD is privately owned by an investment bank, the same one that was spearheading the recent failed attempt to buy QF. They are not in the business of spending money for aviation. The landing fees generated by a CAT II approach aid would not provide an RoI. (The airplane arrives anyway eventually).


Jets are for kids
25 Sydscott : If you think the Fog was bad today, wait until you see it this morning. I'm sitting here in Chifley Tower and from Hunter and Elizabeth Street I can b
26 EddieDude : It seems that some flights are being diverted now to other airports, including CBR.
27 Sparklehorse12 : I can't see McBank doing anything out of grace for the good of aviation. If you are not QF you are a pain in the butt because you might actually chal
28 Post contains links QF108 : Just released from the Sydney Morning Herald http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...gain/2007/05/17/1178995269666.html A total of 25 international fl
29 VHVXB : Ok here are the following flight which were diverted this morning MEL QF6 EK412 CX111 EY450 TG995 UA863 VS200 GA714 QF136 QF40 BNE BA15 BA9 KE811 OZ60
30 DeltaGator : Not a whole heck of a lot. Most definitely not enough to handle a bunch of 747s within an hour or so of each other.
31 RDUDDJI : I have to respectfully disagree. At the nation's primary airport, it's really unfathomable that they don't have at least one CAT III approach. Yes, p
32 StealthZ : I was under the impression that air navigation infrastructure was provided by and funded by Air Services Australia not the airport operator. Not atte
33 Sparklehorse12 : Talk to Max Moore Wilton or the Australian Government. The two tighest asses in Australia.
34 Sydscott : I think you'll find that Air Traffic Control etc is managed by Air Services Australia which is a government organisation. So it really has nothing to
35 Aussie_ : To add to the list from VH-VXB, the following internationals ended up in Canberra today: Emirates 777-300ER from BKK/DXB (A6-EBN) Atlas Air (for QF) 7
36 Monteycarlos : You should have seen MEL at 0800 this morning. One of the UA flights was sitting off the gates, engines running for at least an hour. Hmmmm, not sure
37 Post contains images VH-KCT* : Well actually, I think you'll find that we can accomodate them in our country. Believe it or not, Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra are a part of Aust
38 VHVXB : my mistaken then Sydney Airport boards were showing it was cancelled
39 Monteycarlos : The departure may have been. Not too sure. As for SYD and the CAT III issue, I think you'll find that there are only about 3 airports in the world eq
40 Curmudgeon : For what it's worth, I personally think that the local ILS installations should be at CAT II standards. I remain sanguine about the prospects of that
41 EK413 : Sorry, I have requested my post be deleted due to the fact my information was refering to another flight / information... EK413
42 RDUDDJI : So it appears most of the Australians who responded think CAT III ILS is a wasted investment at the nation's largest airport. That's exactly the reaso
43 Sydscott : No UAL has 2 daily flights into Sydney and, presumably, has at least two lots of crew here waiting to meet those flights. UAL schedulers would have s
44 Monteycarlos : You're living in a dream world if you think thats the way it works. The costs would be passed directly to the airlines. I'd know because its been pro
45 Aussie_ : Once a year? It's already the second time this week!! I'd be very surprised if not 2-3 more occurences before this winter is over, but every year, of
46 Monteycarlos : Actually, just read an article that said events like the fog yesterday happen on average twice a year in SYD and are invariably more common in May.
47 RDUDDJI : I agree, fog doesn't happen often at SYD...I never stipulated otherwise. It doesn't happen often at LAX either, but they have CAT III capabilities on
48 ETA Unknown : I lived in Sydney for over 10 years. Those fog affected mornings happened 2- maybe 3 times a year tops. No airport management company in their right m
49 Monteycarlos : Ok, this is just getting ridiculous. I've read the thread. I am commenting that you have provided no evidence as to the financial viability of instal
50 StealthZ : Maybe not so much. I don't have specifics so this is just food for thought, UA had some other issues at SYD Last weekend possibly a carry over effect
51 Boeing7E7 : It's Oz's primary international gateway. The airport accepts multiple long haul - fuel starved aircraft. There's no excuse for not offering the maxim
52 Sydscott : Have you seen what Qantas and UAL charge to get here?? They can afford to pay!! What I mean is that the plane en route would have to be flying within
53 Monteycarlos : I am not sure where that figure came from, but irrespective it would seem the carriers disagree. They're the ones who knocked back the proposals for
54 Boeing7E7 : Regardless the system use (ILS/WAAS/LAAS), lighting controls the visibility minimums. Without the lighting, you can't have the approach. ILS/WAAS/LAA
55 Monteycarlos : Further enforcing my point that this is a financially unviable for conditions which have a 0.5% chance of occuring. I think you'll find that every ma
56 Post contains images VH-KCT* : This thread is absolutely absurd. You said Australia couldn't accept the aircraft. We could and we did. Actualy there are plenty of excuses. There are
57 Boeing7E7 : But at least they offer the availability to minimize the impact. Sydney isn't even offering the ability to support it. It's truly absurd at a major g
58 Monteycarlos : See reply 56. However I would agree with SYD being an absurb gateway, however not because it doesn't have a CATIII ILS. More the fact that its tiny a
59 Aussie747 : Once or twice a year eh !!! What a crock Bureau of Meteorology has a record of the following dates over the previous 12 months that have caused "mild
60 Post contains links Monteycarlos : Based on "mild to severe"? That would be a silly idea. Considering mild is probably above the Cat I RVR minimums it is a very transparent argument. D
61 VH-KCT* : Your stats mean nothing without a source and a definition of 'mild to severe' is it talking about the effect on capacity, noise abatement, or the mod
62 Post contains images VH-KCT* : Mild probably means some effect on the noise abatement procedures that are used to ensure that arrivals are not over the current sitting member's pri
63 Monteycarlos : Couldn't have said it better myself. It'll be interesting to see the replies dodge every single key issue you've raised here.
64 StealthZ : Huh, $6-8 million?? By your assumption of $5000 hr, and 30 min extra flying, some did a bit less to BNE some may have done a but more to CBR & MEL, 1
65 Boeing7E7 : An issue of instrument landing capability at a major gateway should never be on the consult of an airline. There are two questions that are on the ta
66 StealthZ : No you weren't you said... I am not sure the facts would support your claim, many of the aircraft diverted sit at SYD for hours anyway so there is in
67 Boeing7E7 : No, I just didn't clarify it. I specified a $5,000 an hour aircraft with a 30 minute diversion then extrapolated that to what it would cost for such
68 RDUDDJI : And you jumped in to bail out SYD's lack of CAT II/III ILS. The pot calling the kettle black. Admittedly, the only reason I looked at this thread was
69 VH-KCT* : Ah yes, the famous 2 question formula. And yet you continue to refuse to consider the importance of possibility. The standard risk management model u
70 Post contains images EDICHC : Wow with that many missed approaches you must be unlucky... next time I'm travelling remind me to ask if you will be on the same flight!
71 Monteycarlos : How so? I have no affiliation with SYD airport. In fact, if anything I represent an airline customer. You'd know that if you read the thread. Again,
72 Boeing7E7 : Because they have too much input on SYD's operations and development. Input is one thing, control of the decision making process is an entirely diffe
73 Monteycarlos : I thank you for attempting an answer, but it doesn't actually answer the question. You're saying they said no to a CAT III ILS because they have too
74 RDUDDJI : I answered all of your relevant questions. You just didn't like my answers. Obviously we disagree on the subject. You say I answered the questions, a
75 Post contains images Monteycarlos : Well thanks for the input. Further to the suggestion that capacity is not related to the installation of a CATII/III ILS, I would like to see an expl
76 Post contains images VH-KCT* : Thanks for comfirming my suspicions, RDUDDJI
77 Boeing7E7 : Because $6-8 million spent on a facility worth multi-billions is a very small deal.
78 RDUDDJI : You groundstop everything that's not already in the air (thus reducing the demand), and you land what's already in the air on the single RWY. Shorter
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UA SYD Office Problems posted Wed Dec 14 2005 14:23:33 by Simpilicity
Changing Times For UA In DEN posted Fri Jul 15 2005 09:18:22 by Klwright69
Flying DEL-BOM-SYD Worried About Fog In DEL posted Tue Feb 8 2005 11:34:02 by Nickofatlanta
Problems At UA Check-in At SFO On Wed May 26? posted Thu May 27 2004 22:06:27 by Planemannyc
Spa At SIN For SQ Passengers In Transit posted Thu Feb 12 2004 12:34:52 by Richardw
Booking Number For UA Flights posted Tue Apr 17 2007 01:57:19 by Rizzibird
Rego. Help For UA 51 (JFK-LAX) On Feb. 4 posted Tue Feb 6 2007 00:45:39 by Odie
NZ Pilot In Trouble Over Diversion For Ice Burg posted Sun Jan 21 2007 05:31:40 by 777ER
B767-238ER In SYD Last Week - Details Pls posted Mon Jan 8 2007 05:49:14 by QantasA380
Vision Requirement For UA FAs posted Mon Jan 1 2007 13:59:56 by Skycruiser