BRU 12/03/2014 fog, airport closed for 1 hour, delays

[tangolima]

Hello

Maybe an idea to merge this topic with the other one which was already created on the 10th: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=52580

Greetings,

[Nevihta]

The airport also has to be "certified" for total blind landing. Special itineraries with special lighting for guidance etc...

[sn26567]

Maybe an idea to merge this topic with the other one which was already created on the 10th: viewtopic.php?f=21&t=52580

Done!

[Kapitein]

Perhaps I have a very stupid question as I am not a pilot or ATC specialist but BRU Apt is equipped with ILS.
Can't a/c make blind landing thanks to ILS or need the pilots a speacial licence?

Well the landing wasn't, for some, a problem. Landings did happen from time to time but the take off was a problem because we were under airportminima. But I guess Mr. ATCO can explain this better then me .
While in approach pilots where told that the RVR was beneath the airport minima, a SN pilot (A319) said it was ok for them because the company minima where 75m...

[Atco EBBR]

When the airport is below minima, we can (and do) keep aircraft on the ground, but we are not allowed to withhold clearance to land...

I just wonder if it's a wise thing to do, landing at an airport below minima. Also looking at insurance etc...

[tolipanebas]

When the airport is below minima, we can (and do) keep aircraft on the ground, but we are not allowed to withhold clearance to land...

I just wonder if it's a wise thing to do, landing at an airport below minima. Also looking at insurance etc...

The thing is BRU is using what I would call 'non standard' RVR requirements under CAT3B because allegedly the fire fighters can not go out in case of lower visibility than that, so the airport is still stuck with an RVR requirement of no less than 150m.

Before the advent of modern (fbw) aircraft, this was not much of an issue because there were no planes certified to land with an RVR (much) lower than that anyway, but this is no longer the case: the Airbusses of SN are certified and approved by BCAA down to 75m of RVR for instance!

Many of the bigger airports around the world have adapted to the new trend and lowered their airport minima to make the better capabilities of these modern planes really useful, but not so at BRU, so the obvious solution is that BRU finally trains it fire fighters to the lower industry standard RVR standards too, so we can make full use of our plane's capabilities, just like at most other major airports.

Given that so far it had not occured yet that BRU was below airport mimima for so long, the issue never got a high priority, but after yesterday, you can bet that BATA will take this up with the BCAA because this is likely to happen again in the near future and it severely disrupted network operations.

The same problem exisits for airport take-off minima too BTW: there too the RVR requirement at BRU is 150m, which is actually quite high by today's standards, and as atco_EBBR pointed out, controllers are keeping a perfectly capable plane on the ground purely on the basis of some airport limitation which is basically noting but a restriction imposed by its fire brigade.

[teddybAIR]

Strange weather! In BRU still fog and only 4 degrees, while in most of Belgium weather is nice and temperatures above 10 degrees.

When the Germans were looking for a spot to build a military airport near Brussels during WWII, the locals intentionally indicated a place where there was often fog. So goes the legend...

I heard exactly the same story: the germans bombed the airfield in Evere and were looking for a suitable field in the neighboorhood to base their operations. They were so clever to ask the local population where they could find fairly flat field that could be used. Locals pointed out a location of which they new that fog builds up very early and clears the latest due to the very moist soil. The airport has since expanded into what it is now and consequently is located at the worst possible location in terms of fog. And it is very apparent. I live about 500m from the airport in the axis of RWY 01/19 near the haachtsesteenweg. Quite often I find myself leaving home in the sun only to drive in 100m visibility when coming a little nearer to the airport.

[Atco EBBR]

When the airport is below minima, we can (and do) keep aircraft on the ground, but we are not allowed to withhold clearance to land...

I just wonder if it's a wise thing to do, landing at an airport below minima. Also looking at insurance etc...

The thing is BRU is using what I would call 'non standard' RVR requirements under CAT3B because allegedly the fire fighters can not go out in case of lower visibility than that, so the airport is still stuck with an RVR requirement of no less than 150m.

Before the advent of modern (fbw) aircraft, this was not much of an issue because there were no planes certified to land with an RVR (much) lower than that anyway, but this is no longer the case: the Airbusses of SN are certified and approved by BCAA down to 75m of RVR for instance!

Many of the bigger airports around the world have adapted to the new trend and lowered their airport minima to make the better capabilities of these modern planes really useful, but not so at BRU, so the obvious solution is that BRU finally trains it fire fighters to the lower industry standard RVR standards too, so we can make full use of our plane's capabilities, just like at most other major airports.

Given that so far it had not occured yet that BRU was below airport mimima for so long, the issue never got a high priority, but after yesterday, you can bet that BATA will take this up with the BCAA because this is likely to happen again in the near future and it severely disrupted network operations.

The same problem exisits for airport take-off minima too BTW: there too the RVR requirement at BRU is 150m, which is actually quite high by today's standards, and as atco_EBBR pointed out, controllers are keeping a perfectly capable plane on the ground purely on the basis of some airport limitation which is basically noting but a restriction imposed by its fire brigade.

Thanks for sharing that, I didn't know that. Seems to me that you're right: the fire brigade standard should be updated asap. Especially in Brussels, which is so susceptible to fog...

Just a question. If you and the aircraft are certified for an RVR of lets say 75m, the actual RVR is 100m and you land at Brussels, do you put you or your company at risk?

[tolipanebas]

Just a question. If you and the aircraft are certified for an RVR of lets say 75m, the actual RVR is 100m and you land at Brussels, do you put you or your company at risk?

Basically, nobody really knows...
It's sort of a legal gray area, hence the fact it caused quite a bit of confusion yesterday amongst several airlines as well as ATCOs, and different decisions were witnessed (landing, go-around at DH, not even starting the approach, diverting), before sort of a consensus was reached that indeed one should ideally go around at the approach ban point (if you want to try anyway) at the latest.

IMHO, if the airport is declaring itself below operating minima purely because of its fire fighting limitations kicking in first, it simply needs to close itself until it is again above those minima: putting that decision onto the sholders of individual crews is all too easy as it has nothing to do with THEIR plane, or THEIR capabilities.

Reminds me a bit of that time when the fire department went on strike a couple of years ago...
There too, the airport failed to take its responsability and close itself at first, trying to shift the decision whether or not to operate without effective fire protection to the individual crews by adding it as a supplementary information in the ATIS.
Seems like not all the possible lessons have been learnt from this event.

[B.Inventive]

Actually when you think about it, it is not really so much a grey area.
if on the LIDO chart you read
CAT3b
0 - 150R
COMPANY

it means your minimum RVR is 150m, you can perform a CAT 3 without DH procedure (or DH = 0). This implies the navigational facility is completely up to standards in term of providing stable/correct/calibrated signals for an a/c's autoland system to use, but as the RVR requirement is more than 75m, which is the system limit for CAT3b ops in general, there must be an additional constraint.

But honestly 150m is 150m.
I do wonder though, why some atco's deem it necessary to keep on communicating RVR's after commencement of the final approach? Some words from our colleagues in the tower?
Is it a legal requirement for you guys to inform us of every RVR change during the final approach? I was under the impression the only thing you are 'required' to report is:
- occurence of hazards
- significant wind variations
- significant changes in runway surface condition
- significant changes in the operational status of visual or non-visual approach aids

The requirement to report RVR for me, was always before commencement of final approach but of course, human as we are I can be wrong...
regards

[B.Inventive]

Additional question towards the atco's:

Why in heaven's hell the single runway ops 01 of this week?
What changed?

[EBBU]

I do wonder though, why some atco's deem it necessary to keep on communicating RVR's after commencement of the final approach? Some words from our colleagues in the tower?
Is it a legal requirement for you guys to inform us of every RVR change during the final approach? I was under the impression the only thing you are 'required' to report is:
- occurence of hazards
- significant wind variations
- significant changes in runway surface condition
- significant changes in the operational status of visual or non-visual approach aids

The Manual for Air Traffic Services states that:

2.1.4.5 During final approach, the following information shall be transmitted without delay:

a) the sudden occurrence of hazards (e.g. unauthorized traffic on the runway) ;
b) significant variations in the current surface wind, expressed in terms of minimum and maximum values ;
c) significant changes in runway surface conditions ;
d) changes in the operational status of required visual or non-visual aids;
e) changes in observed RVR value(s), in accordance with the reporting scale in use, or changes in the visibility representative of the direction of approach and landing.

So yes, ATCOs are required to inform pilots about RVR during final approach.

Why in heaven's hell the single runway ops 01 of this week?
What changed?

That was talked about in the 'one and only RWY in use @ EBBR' topic.