VS008 LGW-LHR

Just looking on flightradar24 - G-VWKD VS008 has just departed LGW en route to LHR. Am i right in thinking that this is due to the fog thats around this morning? Seems odd that it would be for any other reason as looking at the route it took in from LAX it flew right past LHR.

I doubt fog would prevent a VS flight from landing although consequential delays due to increased separation might if they were low on fuel

VS flight statis says for the VS8

Due to low visibility delays at London Heathrow, this flight has been diverted to London Gatwick. The plane will re-fuel and return to London Heathrow as soon as possible.

The fog is looking worse here now so could cause more problems for tonight. I noticed a lot of flights at both LHR and LGW are doing a few laps in the hold today.

In low visibility ATC have to put flow controls in place that essentially leave bigger gaps between aircraft. This means that capacity is artificially reduced and aircraft must wait (hold) for landing.

Most of the diverts are probably due to fuel remaining versus amount of time remaining in the hold before landing.

I work at Swanwick atc and though I don't recall which flights I have seen at least 2 VS flight diverted from LHR to LGW both due to fuel, time in hold at LHR has exceeded 50 mins for some A/C today due to LVP's,

Edit also one into stansted, the 2 that went into gatwick have filed plans to re position in the next 30 mins

and now looks like Bubbles on the 652 went to Stanstead, again for more fuel i guess...

I landed at LGW on VS32 early yesterday morning and was amazed at how low the visibility was, you couldn't see a thing outside until about a second before touchdown. The pilot had warned us and being one of the first flights in I was half expecting a go-around.
After landing the captain came on the PA and told us they had done a completely automated landing and they didn't touch the controls until we were slowing at 60mph on the runway.

I guess this must be standard practise during reduced visibility, but if an aircraft is capable of this, what factors will determine a divert over an automated landing?

Thanks,

Matt

Not all airfields have the correct Instrument Landing system for the fully automated landing, also each carrier has there own minimum runway visibility criteria as to whether they can attempt an approach or not, if The RVR is below the carriers minimum then it's either divert or hold in the hope the RVR improves.

Today the landing rate was low due fog hence delays and diversions were due to fuel issues rather than visibility being too bad!

Doesn't the situation also get more complicated due to the certification of the flight deck crew for fog landing on the specific type of aircraft? ISTRC reading somewhere that all the flight deck had to be qualified in order to make a landing in such conditions.

I've only experienced it once, at STN on an EZY flight, and to be honest had the flight deck not announced the fact I wouldn;t have been any the wiser.

Paul

They would certainly need to be certified for a full Cat 3 ILS landing, I would presume (I don't know) that all reputable airlines would ensure that their flight crews were suitably trained so that they can land all the way down to the carriers stipulated minimum visibility.

If I remember correctly there is still a minimum RVR even for fully automated landing (75 metres I think) though I don't know any airport that would stay open and allow movements on such a low RVR, as it's not just about the aircraft and flight crews capabilities but also the emergency crews at the airfield must be able to safely/swiftly respond should an incident occur.

That's my thoughts I work in the en-route centre not in a tower and it's been a good few years since I had a look at the Aerodrome section in the MATS so this isn't gospel!