Virgin ATR in rain

[Mike W]

I've just had the most bizarre day resulting from a Virgin Australia ATR not being able to handle what the first officer termed as "showers".

I was on VA1187 from SYD to PQQ this morning when we attempted to land at PQQ in rain. We had to do a go around from fairly low altitude and back into a circuit abut the airport for about 20 minutes or so. The first officer explained on the PA that we were unable to land due to a "rain shower" and we would wait a bit and have another go. However the showers persisted and we gave up heading on to Brisbane.

To to make things more interesting, when we attempted to land in Brisbane, we had to perform a go around there as well but this time due to a runway incursion bu another aircraft that (according to the First Officer) requested an immediate departure, was denied and went anyway causing said go around.

The end result was no meeting in Port Macquarie for me and a trip back to SYD and a wasted day.

My question is, what's the go with the ATR not being able to land? I'm sure I've landed in worse rain than that (no mention of wind anywhere by the way). I'm avoiding that type from now on! Nothing flash anyway...

[Zac M]

Every aircraft/company has different limits as to what they can and can't land in, it is more than likely that visibility was below the company/aircraft minima therefore you were unable to land. As for the Brisbane go-around, I was on the ground when that happened, the PAL A320 was slow to get moving, no incursion, just took too long, it was requested that takeoff was immediate however this didn't happen and your flight has to go missed.

[Mike W]

Thanks Mate for explaining both. You're probably right about the visibility at PQQ come to think about it.

Still, two go-around's at two different airports on the same aircraft flight is a bit different.

[Rob R]

Brisbane has had numerous go-arounds over the last 2 weeks due to slow moving international aircraft.

Zac is spot on re visibility requirements at the minima and some companies also have a ban on the number of approaches that can be carried out plus a ban on starting or continuing an approach should the VIZ drop below company requirements. This requirements are in place to enhance safety.

Most approaches at regional airports require the visibility to be 4000m or greater.

[Max C]

Just to add some more data to chew on.

Based on Flightaware, it looks like they were doing the Runway 21 RNAV approach (see attached chart here https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/PMQGN02-139.pdf)

The minimum cloud base and visibility required (assuming they had an accurate weather report) is 450ft base and 3.0k visibility.

If they got to 450ft and could not see the approach lights or the runway, then they must conduct a missed approach. If in their opinion there is not going to be an improvement in the weather then they may elect to divert, which they did.

As for going to BNE, that would've been the crews next sector anyway so in a lot of cases the company (mine included) will always prefer to have the aircraft continue on to where it needs to be to avoid further schedule disruption down the line.

[Mick F]

'Showers' can often just be the term shared by the flight crew to the passengers. There's often a lot more detail that isn't necessarily shared over a PA.

Minimum visibility's and cloud heights are determined by the approach chart applicable to that aerodrome. Having a bit of a look at the METAR history for PMQ this morning, it appears there were several periods this morning where the visibility dropped below 4km's. I dare say this is when you were due to land?

I wouldn't go criticising the ATR. In some instances, the jet's have greater requirements and would have to do missed approaches in weather where the ATR can land.

Larger aerodromes such as Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne etc., the visibility can be as low as 550-800M's and aircraft are still able to land. All comes down to the type of approach that is available. The GPS approaches at most regional airports require 3-4km's visibility and cloud heights of generally 5-600ft. Larger aerodromes where ILS approaches are available, can be as low as the 550-800m's and 200ft cloud base.

Mick

[Mike W]

We were due in at 9:45am.

You're right about the ATR of course, just would have preferred a 737. Of course I realise why a plane of this size is used for this application. After 3.5 hours on an ATR by the time we landed in Brisbane, I was a bit over it.

Thanks for the info Max, I was wondering if that's why we went on to Brisbane instead of somewhere closer. It makes sense they didn't want to disrupt the rest of the day's scheduling.

[David N]

This is a nice (Wet) landing at PQQ (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PpUftG_mxg8)

[Rowan McKeever]

Wow look at the nose bouncing around... I assume that's resulting from standing water??

[Grahame Hutchison]

With only 1800 metres to play with, the crew would be feeling just a little bit of pressure to pull up in very wet conditions.

[Mick F]

Port Macquarie's runway back then (not sure about now, haven't flown there for years) was renowned for being a bit rough because of the sandy sub-soil. So that would have been like that dry or wet.

Mick

[Yusef D]

If you're thinking of taking a 737 to PQQ, count me out!

[Rowan McKeever]

Oh come on Yusef, don't be like that! :P

[Hugh Jarse]

Not really, Rowan. That's the result of the council having the runway works done by the cheapest tender. It's almost always been a basket case of a runway for RPT.

I operated into PMQ for almost 20 years in J31/32, Dash 8's and the E-Jet. The runway surface quality was so poor when we operated in the E-Jet you could feel a distinct change in the runway surface where the Dash used to lift off on 21. It was like hitting a house brick. That may have been what you saw.

I never felt any more pressure to "pull up" in PMQ than any other airport on the network when I was on the E-jet. We work out the numbers before departure to make sure it works. But we do that for all ports with a shorter runway. YBHM is another, with a similar length to PMQ, and much heavier aircraft land there :)

The difference in "getting in" or not can come down to something as simple as the state of the rain repellant on the windscreen. I've missed out at quite a few regional airports over the years when flying the Dash (including PMQ) when we've been unable to get the required visibility due to the rain repellant having not been re-done for quite some time.