View Full Version : Interesting Night At YPPH - 'EASTERLIES"....


Ex FSO GRIFFO
24th Jan 2012, 04:45
An 'Interesting' evening at YPPH on Tues. Jan 3rd, due 'Those Easterlies' and Cross Winds.

The Controller was very good in providing what he had...

From Radio Station 6PR in Perth this morning.....

The sfc wind reported as 110/40 and the w/v at 250ft reported as 100/38 gusting to 56 kts.

Video: Mid air drama revealed (http://www.6pr.com.au/blogs/6pr-perth-blog/video-mid-air-drama-revealed/20120124-1qeyx.html)

Sounds like the boys and gals in both ATC and the Aircraft ALL earned their pay....

Cheers:ok:



2Plus
24th Jan 2012, 05:06
Standard breezy Perth night.:rolleyes:

Jabawocky
24th Jan 2012, 06:09
Blow the fleas off a hairy dog!:ooh:

NZScion
24th Jan 2012, 06:13
Sounds like a normal day at NZWN...

framer
24th Jan 2012, 06:17
Sounds like a normal day at NZWN...

ha I was just thinking the same thing. The NZWN chaps would have thought it was ops normal.

Wedcue
24th Jan 2012, 06:33
Is this a game of how bug is your deck?

Might want to chuck a few tonnes on if you're heading to Perth in the next few weeks, with this heat wave, winds are likely to be similar.

spelling_nazi
24th Jan 2012, 07:16
Agreed! That's not a standard breezy night when rottnest island and gingin are being considered! Quoka island ain't 30m wide from memory! Nor does it have the pavement to take a 73' !

balance
24th Jan 2012, 07:31
The thing that worries me is this statement by the company:

A Virgin Australia spokesman said that on arrival in Perth, Flight 697 had sufficient fuel to reach an alternate airport, although fuel to reach an alternative destination was not required to meet the regulatory requirement.

That sure as sh1t wasn't what the pilots said in the recording. There is a huge difference between "we must land off this approach" and having an alternate. I'd love to know what the fuel remaining was on shut down...

I also shudder to think of the repercussions if this was Qantas... All hell would have broken loose.

PS! I just noticed that the other thread was closed with quote: "Slow News Day" by the mod... You are joking, right? This aircraft landed with what was described as vapours in the tanks and you believe this is nothing? Good lord!

Again, if this were Qantas the thread wouldn't be shut down with that kind of glib attitude.

For the younger aviators on the BB, I would have thought there was much to learn from this.

Slow news day indeed!

aussie027
24th Jan 2012, 07:37
My concern from reading the article and the low fuel condition getting more serious after altn fuel burnt off holding and then possibly starting to use the 30 min fixed reserve are the fact ATC mentioned rottnest, gin gin and jandakot as possible alternatives!!!
Pearce at least has a long(ish) runway and emerg RFFS on field.

Rottnest has only emerg portable lighting avail at night if I recall correctly??
Given the short, narrow runways at these 3 airports I would think a major runway over run accident would have been pretty much assured for a B737. Can you imagine what a disaster that would have been!!
Surprised ATC would have even suggested them. Especially in a world of Cover Your Ass and I accept no liability etc.

A bit different ATC suggesting nearby altns in a similar situation for eg in LA basin where there are numerous air carrier airports in close proximity that could handle an aircraft of that size with suitable rwy lengths avail etc. They wouldn't be suggesting a tiny GA airfield with a sub 1000m rwy in that situation.

If the sfc wind was approx110/40 as mentioned above at Perth and in excess of the max Xwind for the type on rwy 06 and an emerg landing was required due low fuel or impending exhaustion I would think Perth would have definitely been the place to attempt a landing given rwy lengths, RFFS & emerg services availability, 24/7 manned airport etc etc rather than any of the other places offered by ATC as possible altns.
Obviously up to PIC to ultimately decide and thankfully it didnt come to the worst case scenario.

Icarus2001
24th Jan 2012, 07:41
There is a huge difference between "we must land off this approach" and having an alternate. Try reading the article again S L O W L Y and have a think about the time of landing against the scheduled time.

Angle of Attack
24th Jan 2012, 07:58
We must land off this approach could mean minimum fuel to land then go to an alternate airport but from the discussions re Pearce Gin Gin etc there is no way they had fuel to diverte to a suitable airfield by that stage. Its pretty much a given they landed on vapours, but Perth is a pain in the butt place for this kind of stuff to happen whether windhear or unforecast fog. At least with the fog you can autoland the thing in a last ditch attempt, strong easterlies are another beast entirely, either way I think it is a bit of a storm in a teacup really!

David75
24th Jan 2012, 07:59
Quoka island ain't 30m wide from memory! Nor does it have the pavement to take a 73' !

Short, narrow, poor surface, hills at both ends - does have an rnav approach though. - but I'd imagine you'd cleanup the windsock and a couple of trees in a 73. Possibly a fire extinguisher in the terminal if your lucky.

Including a flight over water when low on fuel - wouldn't be my first choice.

Tidbinbilla
24th Jan 2012, 08:01
Who described the fuel status as "vapours", Balance? YOU did. I suggest you look at the fuel requirements prior to the flight departing ex ML. That flight was completely legal.

I wouldn't put too much credence into anything The author wrote .

After all, he is nothing more than a Qantas apologist :)

balance
24th Jan 2012, 08:01
Try reading my post again S L O W L Y, and maybe try thinking before you make a git of youself.

"On arrival", means arrival, shut down, end, nada, thats all folks. Otherwise they might have have the where-with-all to say "on arrival into holding near Perth".

Or has Virgin decided to redefine the term?

And I did say "vapours" but effectively so did the crew. "We must land off this approach" is pretty low fuel in my book.

I've done MEL to PER enough to suggest that after about 25 years I'm comfortable with the route, and I know its perils. That does not mean that I dont have anything more to learn, because each time I go flying I do learn.

I DID NOT SAY that the aircraft departed illegally. I DID say that your fellow mod shut down the other thread without considering what can be learned from this.

balance
24th Jan 2012, 08:10
And lastly, your comments about GT will not be disputed by me, but I am surprised to hear them from a mod... :D:D:D

2Plus
24th Jan 2012, 08:46
maybe try thinking before you make a git of youself.

Oh, the irony.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
24th Jan 2012, 09:13
Re 'Oh the irony'.......

YPPH used to have an E/W rwy, was it 10/28 (?) of about 1,700m length.

From Google Earth, it measures approx 104 deg T and the W/V was around 100deg. (M), so it is (was) virtually into the prevailing 'Easterly'.

However, that was decommissioned and made a taxiway, m a n y years ago....(early / mid 90's..?)

And yep! I too took the pilot's remarks to mean that 1 more would not have been on....

However, the crew voice in the background says in relation to what are your intents....that they will land rwy 06 and take taxiway W and call ground for taxy cnce....maybe this was just a good lesson for 'the other guy'..(?)

I also am led to understand that the w/v occurrence was unforecast.
However, I'm sure that having a rwy into wind would have helped everybody......

Interesting.....

Cheers:ok::ok:

balance
24th Jan 2012, 09:15
Ya-huh. And? Nice contribution.

I did forget how much I loathe some of the contributors on this forum.

Is it perhaps because this was Virgin that there is an automatic defensive air about this thread?

Tidbinbilla
24th Jan 2012, 09:16
S L O W L Y.... Not quite sure what that means, balance. I listened to the recording several times, and at no stage did I hear "vapours". Whoever described it as that is a drama queen. As is the person that suggested that the crew "considered" Rotto as a viable landing spot. The ATCO suggested it, but it appears the crew did not consider it.

And I suggest to you that the contingency was, that after a second missed approach they would be using their fixed reserve. Hence why they "had to land off this approach" (without declaring a fuel emergency).

My understanding is the fuel reserve requirements are on landing, not shutdown, as you wrote. But we're splitting hairs, aren't we?

The reality of me posting comments about an alleged "aviation expert" is simply the opinion of someone who has worked in the industry for over 30 years, and found little resemblance to the truth from this particular "reporter", as others have complained about in another thread. ;)

Irony. Kind of like "steely", or "bronzey". Only made of iron..........

balance
24th Jan 2012, 09:20
Tid, the SLOWLY remark was in response to Icarus' rather rude post.

As far as the rest of what you said, please reread my posts. I dont disagree with you.

But I am suggesting that everyone here takes a deep breath and considers this for what might be learned, not defensive idiotic, finger pointing.

Geez.

kellykelpie
24th Jan 2012, 09:24
Yes, Perth had a short runway 11/29 (I think...). I remember getting reported in 1995 or so by someone in the hills for flying "low and too fast" while on approach to RW29 in a Navajo. The runway was shut shortly after that:E

Capt Fathom
24th Jan 2012, 09:35
I see no report on the ATSB website. So the aircraft obviously landed with reserves intact.

Or failed to report it?

Dangnammit
24th Jan 2012, 09:59
heard a rumour that another carrier declared a fuel emergency a few months ago due to unforecast wx at the destination (not Perth)

never heard a peep about it in the mainstream.

myshoutcaptain
24th Jan 2012, 10:15
http://imgur.com/tCp90.gif

piston broke again
24th Jan 2012, 11:14
If I recall, a certain A330 a while back was considering ditching due fog at Perth...

I think the fact ATC even mentioning Rottnest as an alternate should warrant an investigation into ATC practices in such events.

But in any case, they landed with reserves in tact. If they broke any rules during such event, an incident report it is. Nothing more.

Capt Kremin
24th Jan 2012, 11:33
If I recall, a certain A330 a while back was considering ditching due fog at Perth...

Let me guess..... A QF A330?

Remarkable how that story has survived, been embellished and changed over the years.

It is wrong. Whatever you heard, it is wrong.

The The
24th Jan 2012, 11:44
Remarkable how that story has survived, been embellished and changed over the years.

Yes. For so long it was a QF 767, before that a B747 Classic.

nomorecatering
24th Jan 2012, 12:23
I heared that story of a Captain considering ditching off Perth 30 years ago, when QF had the first of the 524D powered 747's.

One has to wonder why taxiway W, which used to be a runway, isnt maintained as servicable emergency runway, surely it wouldnt cost huge $ as the tarmac is allready there. However, there is never a shortage of $ to expand the retail part of the terminal. Do we have our priorities wrong?

With 50kts on the nose, would Rottnest have been viable as a runway of last resort for a 737?. Forget about pavement strength etc, that can be sorted out later, repairs etc. Given that Perth has a long history of unforcast extream weather, why arent most runways around Perth, Jandakit, Rottnest etc made suitable for an emergency such as this.

Yeah, I already know the answer, any money around is being used to expand the retail precinct.

Jabawocky
24th Jan 2012, 12:26
Whatever you all argue over......it sounded easy as in my office at home....................


.................just as well those guys were doing it :D:D:D:D

I am in awe of the efforts some go to, the paying pax will never understand, I have only the limited knowlege to appreciate it, so this is when we all say.....you guys deserve he pay :ok:

Jaba:ok::ok::ok:

Keg
24th Jan 2012, 13:28
Yes. For so long it was a QF 767, before that a B747 Classic.


You forgot the bit where the paxing Ansett crew had to tell the QF 747/ 767/ A330 drivers to do an autoland! :E :ok:

Capt Basil Brush
24th Jan 2012, 13:37
Geez Balance take an Asprin and lie down for a while.

From what I have heard the aircraft arrived initially with just under 4000kg, and landed right on FR. Not vapours as you were suggesting must have been the case.

Johnny_56
24th Jan 2012, 13:48
This sounds like a sh1tty night!

What about Cunderdin? longish runways, no obstacles, away from the hills, lights (i think). Not sure about pavement etc.

Good luck trying to find accomodation for 150 pax though... or getting them off the A/C for that matter!!

Tangan
24th Jan 2012, 13:59
I don't get it with you guys....aircraft diverts to alternate (remote airport OCTA) and lands with reserves intact....great decision
Aircraft commits to destination (Capital city international CTA) and lands with reserves intact .......question the pilots and the airline

I think there are a lot of unqualified and uninformed posters on this subject.

sisemen
24th Jan 2012, 16:38
Northam was nearer ..... and we could have cranked up the barbie with a bit of a warning. :}

divingduck
24th Jan 2012, 17:42
Hey all, haven't been in Perth for a while, but was there something wrong with 06/24?
Off the top of my head 2163m long and pretty much into wind?
Thanks

aussie027
24th Jan 2012, 18:14
D/duck,
I think from earlier posts or the other closed thread, they were using 06 as the wind was reported as 110/40, I think it was, so obviously that means a lot of x wind.
I see max demo xwind limit is 33kts (with winglets)from the manual.

balance
24th Jan 2012, 19:52
Thanks for the advice Basil. I took panadol, and slept well, thanks mate.

Nice to have an accurate figure, even if it is "what you heard". If true, then FR is certainly not "vapours", but still doesn't quite coincide with "we must land off this approach..."

FR will give you another approach, at least. And without doubt this was a low fuel emergency. Low Fuel Checklists kick in at 907kg each tank, so 1800kg, and fair to assume they had less than that.

Dont get me wrong here, I'm not blaming the crew one little bit. They were legal and did things well. But this crap with Perth keeps happenning. IMHO it needs to be treated as an isolated airport.

Keg
24th Jan 2012, 20:51
divingduck, whilst the wind on the ground may have been close to x-wind limits, I think the greater issue was the shear. Quite frequently in Perth, when the easterlies are blowing in the summer (it happens in winter too though), the wind on the ground may be 20-40 knots, the wind at 250' AGL will be another 20-30 knots on top of that. So it can all be looking good and then go pear shaped in the last couple of hundred feet.

Sometimes the trick is understanding what 'stable for the prevailing conditions' means but there are occasions when even that won't help if the shear hits at the wrong time. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be in the shoes of the crews that night trying to go through that on min gas. That said, the masochist in me LOVES those types of days but only when you have enough gas for a couple of go arounds and a diversion. :ok:

piston broke again
24th Jan 2012, 22:02
They can take up to 40kts crosswind, DRY or WET under normal procedures.

LMFAO
24th Jan 2012, 22:14
What has become of Australia. You people sum us up quite nicely by bickering and carrying on over an issue that was reported by the media. Do you people actually fly as professionals? I very much doubt it. Isn't there a wannabe forum. Go and make a nuisance of yourselves there.

I have used fuel the statement consideration requirements to save me going back to number 10 in line when I would have 30 min reserve left after 2 missed approaches at my destination airport and 1 at the alternate which was not required at the time. ATC can offer whatever they like. They are not pilots and finally any clown with half a brain would take his chance on Perth rather than Rotto at night.

piston broke again
24th Jan 2012, 22:25
LMFAO....actually that doesn't warrant any kind of decent response...

mates rates
24th Jan 2012, 23:15
My understanding of this incident is that they arrived over the top with 3500 kgs.Got windshear warning on approach several times.This is a go around requirement at VA.Landed with 1100 kgs,this is below the normal FR (30 mts) of 1200 kgs.

This should be a lesson to all who are encouraging pilots to take less and less fuel down to flight plan fuel.And a message to pilots that you are more than covered by the CAR's to carry whatever fuel you feel you need for the safety of the flight.

Perth is a potentially dangerous place from the point of view of unpredictible weather and poor forecasting.I NEVER go there without Kalgoolie fuel.A lesson proven above.

balance
25th Jan 2012, 00:12
And finally, my point is drawn from the crowd.

Well said, mates rates. :D

Capn Bloggs
25th Jan 2012, 00:45
Perth is a potentially dangerous place from the point of view of unpredictible weather and poor forecasting.I NEVER go there without Kalgoolie fuel.A lesson proven above.
There's the rub. It sounds like they had KG fuel when they first arrived. The trick is to decide when enough is enough. To have a few goes then go to KG would have meant arriving with a whole lot more fuel. Where do you draw the line? If 6 aircraft ahead have already done GAs, should you divert without having a go? If you hold and then have a go, will you have enough fuel to then divert? Are the conditions going to improve? Probably not. Given the conditions aren't going to change (albeit they're pretty rough) do we just keep doing GAs because the Ops Manual says you must if you get a windshear warning? WS warning systems are OK but are they designed for this sort of weather, or the shear you get from thunderstorms/microbursts? When did we all do max-crosswind/mod turb landings (I mean a few of them in a row to get them down-pat) in the SIM? How confident are we hand-flying in such conditions? Could we predict this situation from the available forecast?

I must admit I am surprised ATC even mentioned the shorties. PEA 05 wouldn't have been any good as it's even closer to the hills than Perth.

Lots of juicy stuff to consider. :)

METARs (http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/94610/2012/1/3/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA&theprefset=SHOWMETAR&theprefvalue=1)

Tankengine
25th Jan 2012, 00:53
Consider previous diversions too!
If a few have already gone to YPKG [including perhaps A330s] then there may be no parking space - stay on the runway and the NEXT aircraft can't land!:E

Capt Claret
25th Jan 2012, 01:09
Couldn't agree more with mates rates.. Darwin RWY11/29 was closed twice yesterday, Aprox 40 mins in the aro and about 3+ hours in the evening. We found out taxiing at Gove for Darwin. Both closures due contaminated RWY.

The TAF/TTF gave no indication of this, just tempo holding for TS.

At least two aircraft diverted, a 73 from SYD went back to ASP, and a 71 from CNS diverted into GOV for fuel then back to CNS.

The point is that fuel minimalists push the carriage of min fuel on the belief that it's legal with little regard to what might be sensible. :hmm:

balance
25th Jan 2012, 01:16
To the mods: the four posts above are the very reason I suggested that the previous thread was inappropriately closed.

These guys that have posted have shown by their words that they are the olds and bolds. If one young Captain happens upon their words and re-thinks his fuel order into PER because of what he has read and learned, how much safer might his operation be?

Slow news day indeed!

GAFA
25th Jan 2012, 02:25
GT really needs to get a hearing test.

He states "the pilots of a Virgin passenger airliner dangerously low on fuel condsidered landing at Rottnest Island or Jandakot". On the recording the only person who mentioned them was the controller. The crew did say they looked at Pearce and after the controller mentioned Gin Gin they did ask about the wind up there.

GT also forgot to mention the 717 NXI who said "we will have a problem if we have to go-around". That's right it's painted in QF colours so he can't say anything bad about them.

From the recordings it sounds like all the aircraft that night arrived in PH with similar fuel or enough for 2 approaches.

Perhaps it's time for PH to be treated like remote islands with the need to carry an Alternate at all times.

VC9
25th Jan 2012, 03:08
After many years of flying, with a considerable number into turbulent and gusty conditions on approach and landing, I have learnt that chasing airspeed can lead to unwelcome and dangerous situations. Unfortunately we have the blind adherance to the letter of the stabilised approach criteria. It doesn't work in some situations.

Capt Basil Brush
25th Jan 2012, 03:39
1100kg could well have been FR as there is no set figure - it is calculated for each individual flight depending on Ldg Wt.

1200kg FR would have to be around max Ldg Wt, which would be unlikely in this case.

G T was probably told by QF to dig some dirt on the opposition in order to keep his 'benefits'.

maggot
25th Jan 2012, 04:06
1100kg could well have been FR as there is no set figure - it is calculated for each individual flight depending on Ldg Wt.

1200kg FR would have to be around max Ldg Wt, which would be unlikely in this case.

yep, seen a 1.1t FR many a time in the... err... maggot. (800)

Keg
25th Jan 2012, 04:08
Unfortunately we have the blind adherance to the letter of the stabilised approach criteria.

Or is it a lack of understanding as to what the book actually says? Ours says this:

A stable approach exists when the aircraft is configured for landing, on the normal approach path, with correct thrust, rate of descent and airspeed required under the prevailing conditions.

(My highlight! ).

So the speed can be going up and down as much as it likes. If it's more than +20 then the PNF is required to make a call but that does NOT make it mandatory for the PF to make a go around if the thrust and rate of descent is required for the prevailing conditions.

It's sad that PPRUNE has come to this but I need to be blunt and say that I'm NOT advocating going into the flare at +30 knots but flying a reference ground speed that is the equivalent of about VRef +20 when you are expecting low level shear, and accepting speed excursions above VRef +20 when above the expected shear height. This still meets the stable approach criteria even if it means the PNF will be 'chirping' a bit making the mandatory calls regarding speed.

LMFAO
25th Jan 2012, 04:19
Sorry Piston. But you have to see it from my angle. I have been working in the industry for 20 plus years and currently flying a wide body aircraft. To hear this mindless dribble aimed at a professional and without knowing the full facts reeks of amateurism.

Go and fix your piston engine.

Capn Bloggs
25th Jan 2012, 04:36
Keg,
You'll find that other companies (and indeed some sections of CASA) have more prescriptive Stab Approach criteria, hence the apparent "emphasis" on speed control. ;)

Slasher
25th Jan 2012, 04:45
Strong Easterlies are a fact of Summer life at PER. In the 727
yonks ago we used a howgozit "PNR-ish" chart for the routes
MEL-PER and SYD-PER using KGI as enroute alternate. Only
once we did pull in there for PER x/winds as 06 was closed
due WIP.

BTW why wasn't bloody 06 offered to begin with?

VC9 true words. A good example was Kai Tak IGS13 on a bad
day. Nowadays its Chek Lap Kok with an approaching typhoon
and a strong Southerly.

megle2
25th Jan 2012, 05:17
Keg / Blogs
I wonder how many variations to a "stabilised Approach" there are
Maybe we should post a few

RingwayWrench
25th Jan 2012, 05:58
These wx events should really not come as a surprise, The BOM and Severe Storms Research have both published reports and advisories detailing the dangers of the Darling Scarp. Perth has historically seen dangerous conditions develop in the form of rotor streams when strong low-level easterly flows prevail. Perth, Jandakot and Pearce can be subject to large reversals over very short distances. When synoptics suggest a strong easterly flow, areas west of the Darling scarp may be subjected to exceptional gusts.

BOM info can be found here http://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/data/education/was-flying-sw.pdf

The SSR site is presently down but I will provide a link once available.

Regards

AnQrKa
25th Jan 2012, 06:47
Not sure about the Boeing but the Bus FCOM I currently fly clearly states in the event of KNOWN or SUSPECTED windshear - delay approach or divert.

We fly approaches in gusty conditions with windshear all the time, its what makes us tough blokes, right?

But be aware that many times, myself included, you are probably leaving yourself wide open in the event of a hard landing/blown tyre/bent spar etc.

What was the forecast for PER that night. My experience with a previous airline and the one I currently operate to PER with is viz/ceiling come into flight planning and xwind must be within limits but no one considers the huge am easterlies that can totally ruin your day.

Captain Nomad
25th Jan 2012, 06:53
Severe turbulence (not prob) along with strong gusting winds were on the forecasts that night.

framer
25th Jan 2012, 07:08
hence the apparent "emphasis" on speed control

I know what you're saying here, in reality it is 'energy management' but there is no 'energy-meter' in the flight deck so IAS is the next best thing. There is an 'energy-meter' in your bum, it works pretty well, but not everyone bothers to refer to it. I stick to the IAS limits re go-arounds but primarily to cover my 'energy-meter' in case something goes wrong .

Comoman
25th Jan 2012, 07:18
My mother was on the flight. I was tracking it via planefinder. She said it was not very pleasant! People was crying etc in the cabin.



http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9048/dj3rdjan.jpg

heated ice detector
25th Jan 2012, 08:39
I think the 330 incident Pisto was refering too was atsb incident no 200605473. I thought a major distress phase was declared but no mention in the report.

zone
25th Jan 2012, 09:11
Interesting post Comoman.
I had a pilot relate to me a arrival with strong easterlies creating a rotor off the hills. He said they were between idle and TOGa on their third approach.

piston broke again
25th Jan 2012, 10:22
LMFAO, I think we're on the same page here so not sure what you're having a go at me for. 20 years as a professional and you just sign up on here and start having a go at everyone? Professional seems to be by trade only...

FWIW, I know exactly what its like with the easterlies at that time of night in the summer months in Perth - it's certainly not pretty. Agree with the comments that the stable approach criteria needs to be adapted to suit the conditions. Brief it prior and all is good. As to whether it was a good decision to try and approach in the first place? Well who knows, but plenty of questions to ask the 6 other aircraft as well.

I'm with you and it annoys me armchair experts carry on, but I guess we should have expected it on this topic.

To the guys (or gals) on this flight and without knowing anything other than whats been put on here...good job!

Captain Nomad
25th Jan 2012, 10:58
Just to make things more interesting for some people that night the storms rolled in along the scarp over an hour earlier than forecast! Some nights it would be nicer to be punching out zzz's in your own bed instead... :zzz:

goose1
25th Jan 2012, 21:27
Some interesting comments here re fuel carriage.
There is a trend for the younger to follow the management push to not carry what they would consider, excessive fuel.
If this is your choice, then your options do become limited. You just have to manage what you put on in a sensible manner.
Perth deserves a lot of consideration in a number of possible wx events, also Brisbane.
If for example the TTF had a req'd for Tempo T/S's, my line of thought is to plan to use the 60mins then have another option remaining. This happened to me last year in Brissy, after 75mins holding down low due to giving away the first approach, we were on our last approach, then off to Sydney. We just landed prior to the next line of storms.
In that situation, we knew losing our divert option and staying longer to wait out the storms was not desirable.
Hence, having a few approaches up your sleeve at perth and then being able to proceed elsewhere would probably be a good pre flight consideration.
I concur with the previous comments regarding windshear detection systems.
For example, my last approach B737 (10years ago) into wellington, the wind was 320/48 gusting 65, in the final 20 feet after agressively managing the thrust to maintain an approp g/s, i selected TOGA and had max thrust but still going down, the windshear warning went off just prior to the main gear touching down, one of the smoothest landings ever, funnily.
Still had a few more approaches and altn fuel there as well.
YOU WANT IT? CARRY IT

ejectx3
25th Jan 2012, 23:40
But!....but! My flyspeck chart that shames me into carrying less fuel will be adversely affected! (the one that Olivia denies exists)

neville_nobody
26th Jan 2012, 00:34
Diverting out of Perth can bring its own problems anyway if there is a major issue both both YPKG and YGEL are going to fill up quickly so your alternate may not be available due to ramp congestion. Especially so if a unforecasted wx event happens and everybody gets caught out. What then? I am certainly coming around to the belief that something needs to be put in place legally for Perth. If it all goes bad over there you can run out of options very quickly.

The thing about flying in Australia is that we have very limited options due to a lack of infrastructure and facilities and generally poor and unpredictable ATC. This is usually brought about by archaic rules and procedures. Unlike the rest of the world where you have multiple options everywhere Australia often you have one option and thats it.

Hopefully much is learnt from this incident and maybe the min fuel brigade will consider their options.

Chuck Canuck
26th Jan 2012, 00:51
The thing about flying in Australia is that we have very limited options due to a lack of infrastructure and facilities and generally poor and unpredictable ATC. This is usually brought about by archaic rules and procedures. Unlike the rest of the world where you have multiple options everywhere Australia often you have one option and thats it

My former colleagues at KAL from dunnunda would certain dispute this. To them, everyone else is sh*t and Oz is the best! It goes something like this " we invented the DME, we instituted the best DME steps & arc procedures, and a whole litany of complaints about other countries procedures, yad, yada, yada:zzz:

Updraft
26th Jan 2012, 01:25
Bidding to "Avoid station turn in PER" works for me:)

Capt Kremin
26th Jan 2012, 01:40
Heated Ice detector, there is no mention of the crew in that incident contemplating ditching. The fact is they did not and neither did the crew in the apocryphal actual incident which occurred in the 80's.

VH-ABC
26th Jan 2012, 02:51
Apocryphal... Nice. Will try and use that on words with friends.

Spotlight
26th Jan 2012, 06:52
Means nothing if you use the word 'actual' after it. Good word though when used properly and in context.

Capt Kremin
26th Jan 2012, 09:59
It was an actual incident. The details have become apocryphal.

Capn Bloggs
28th Jan 2012, 06:38
From The West today (by GT):

Passengers held hands, whispered "I love you" and prayed when the second attempt by pilots of a Virgin Australia Boeing 737 to land at Perth Airport on January 3 ended abruptly with a roar of engines as go-around power was applied.

For soon-to-be-married couple Brian Cherry and Sue Oldfield, Flight 697 from Melbourne to Perth that required three attempts to land was the "worst flight of their lives".

On Tuesday, _The West Australian _revealed details of the freak weather conditions that caused chaos for controllers as they tried to get planes down safely.

The incident has prompted Virgin to review its fuel policy for Perth flights after Flight 697 was caught dangerously low on fuel.

"The turbulence was incredible and if you weren't strapped in you would have been on the ceiling," Mr Cherry said.

"On the second attempt the turbulence was so bad you couldn't focus visually with all the buffeting," Ms Oldfield said.

"Everything then went very quiet and there were just faint whispers of 'I love you'.

"Suddenly you realised what was important in life."

Unbeknown to the couple, their flight's fuel state was critical and the controllers and pilots in the same predicament were contemplating other options away from the Hills, including Rottnest and Gingin.

That predicament was wind gusts of more than 100km/h above 80m (altitude) and 60km/h on the runway with a significant crosswind on all runways. There was severe windshear off the Hills.

The freak winds - and turbulence - increased in strength about 9.20pm, 10 minutes before Flight 697 was due to land.

The pilot's first attempt was on the main north-to-south runway 21. It was aborted and the plane directed to a holding pattern.

About 10pm, Flight 697 was directed to a landing on runway 06, but it was forced to abort at 10.15pm.

At that time the Virgin captain advised controllers he only had fuel "for one more approach". The airline says there was enough for another 20 to 30 minutes of flying.

But the passengers were oblivious to the dramas unfolding.

"Understandably, we had no idea," Mr Cherry said. "However, the crew were so professional and calm and reassuring. There was cheering and clapping for them when we finally touched down."

http://i521.photobucket.com/albums/w334/capnbloggs/vb737ypph3jan2012.jpg

Hugh Jarse
28th Jan 2012, 07:35
Perhaps Geoffrey Thomas should be a reporter for Today Tonight or A Current Affair. That's where his credibility lies ;)

Better still, as he now sounds like more like a drama queen than a reporter, he might be more suited as a script writer for Neighbours or Home and Away.

Aviation expert, MY ARSE! :}

Ex FSO GRIFFO
28th Jan 2012, 09:21
So, begs the question.....

What ARE the fuel reqs for a 'typical' flight SY/ML/BN - PH as the 'norm'..??

Different Co's = diff. 'requirements'???

Captain's decision entirely? i.e. No 'Co. Policy'...

i.e. Nil Inter/Tempo, Nil ATC req's holding, etc etc.....

He did 'hold' basically for the hour....

Just curious is all......NO dispersions....

Cheers:ok::ok:

Capn Bloggs
28th Jan 2012, 09:43
With the benefit of hindsight, Runway 21 for the first attempt was not a good idea; all cross with a bit of downwind.

Perhaps 06 will be used more often with strong easterlies and turbulence...

Jarse, dramatic, yes, but good lessons for the aviation community, nevertheless. How would we have found out about it had it not been for GT's articles? I have no doubt that the safety of ops to Perth has benefitted from this event. I have certainly re-jigged my level of air in the tanks in this scenario.

Griffo, no requirements at all that night. Captain decides but not below the company minimums.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
28th Jan 2012, 09:52
Aye Aye Cap'n!

And for HJ....


NOPE!!

No Names / No 'Packdrill'.....(I'm NOT 'GT'..):}

Any differences will be apparent......
e.g. someone might say 30 mins + 'Island Reserve'...
Someone else might say 'looking at' YPKG ALL the time.

Flights in from the N - 'Asia' - used to nominate YPLM - but...its a 'fair stretch' back....if you've 'held' a bit too long....

Nil 'real' facilities at Meeka....apart from the rwy...& Jet A1....

I've had a couple of 727's pop into YPKG in the 'late hrs' for 'more' fuel, when I was FSO'ing there - usually due FOG in PH.....sometimes...NOT fcst!!:uhoh::eek:

Cheers:ok::ok:

framer
28th Jan 2012, 10:52
Personally, the bare bones minimum I want to plan to turn up with on a nice day is one hour of fuel in the tanks. My reasoning for that is that there are quite a few non-normals that will take you a good half hour to work through. I will normally plan for more than that as things are rarely forecast to be perfect. I agree that this being public has increased safety.

FlareArmed
28th Jan 2012, 12:27
I recall an A320 FO telling me about an approach into Perth in Ansett days. The 1000' wind (yes one thousand feet) was 120 kts. The turbulence was so bad, coming over the hills, eyeball-bounce meant they could not read any instruments, but the auto-pilot kept them on the rails.

I've seen many crappy days, but the worst was 70 kts of cross-wind at 500' (30 kts on the ground). The drift on becoming visual at 500' was something to behold. The FO called out that he couldn't see the runway. I told him to look out his side window, and sure enough... :)

Ex FSO GRIFFO
28th Jan 2012, 12:50
So, Didja...'Land'..??

Or...'Commit to the Earth' due turb..!!:}

Cheers:ok:

FlareArmed
28th Jan 2012, 21:58
The A320 landed without more drama. I think the Captain was the Fleet Manager. My approach was uneventful if not peculiar to see 30 or 40 degrees of drift when popping out of the cloud. It helped having a path-finder B737 a couple of minutes ahead :ok:

The The
29th Jan 2012, 06:23
Don't worry Wang, the Carbon Tax will fix any weather anomalies, it'll be min fuel all the time, no drama!

inandout
30th Jan 2012, 10:10
for VA 737 max xwind dry 45m RW is 40kts, if wind was 110/40 x wind is only 30kts, below max for RW 06.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
30th Jan 2012, 11:46
Heard on the audio,
Twr is reporting max x/wind 40 kts RWY 06....

Anyway...its all 'academic'. The aircraft landed, the PIC took taxiway W and called 'ground' for taxy cnce. - exactly as he said he would....

'Twas an 'interesting' night none-the-less......:cool:

:ok:

Transition Layer
30th Jan 2012, 14:29
Interesting inandout...at QF it's a 33kt limit for the 738 (and the Classic is slightly higher at 35kt due no winglets).

porch monkey
30th Jan 2012, 22:37
I think 33 kts is the max demonstrated. Think that's what appears in the fcom. As usual, each airline does whatever it wants to, or can get away with I guess.

Capt Basil Brush
31st Jan 2012, 00:19
Are you guys talking about take off or landing Xwind limits? They are different.

737NG landing Xwind limit is 40kts wet or dry, take off with winglets 34kts dry, 25kts wet.

heated ice detector
31st Jan 2012, 00:58
Quite agree with you Captain k, I think you are mixing up the fictional alledged talked about ditching with the 330 incident which sounds like a very similar situation as the DJ one.
Whenever as a fare paying passenger I do expect the airline I am with to carry enough fuel so that it does not involve a " down to the last approach senario ".
Is there a mechanism in place which reminds pilots of Perth's local pear shaped weather

Capt Claret
31st Jan 2012, 01:26
Is there a mechanism in place which reminds pilots of Perth's local pear shaped weather

Yep, it's having to fly for hours over the GAFA just to get there. ;)

Ex FSO GRIFFO
31st Jan 2012, 08:04
Re; - 'Is there a mechanism in place which reminds pilots of Perth's local pear shaped weather'

TTF METAR YPPH......Trend type Fcst...can be obtained 'en route'....

:ok:

Capn Bloggs
31st Jan 2012, 08:09
There is also a note in ERSA.

Captain Nomad
31st Jan 2012, 08:26
Re; - 'Is there a mechanism in place which reminds pilots of Perth's local pear shaped weather'

TTF METAR YPPH......Trend type Fcst...can be obtained 'en route'....


Ah yes, and then there are the times when I was glad I wasn't relying on that when the forecast had PROB FG because the TTFs were updated with no fog, no fog, no fog, then BANG - fog! Not with a from period but here right now with viz down to X metres - no warning provided by TTF.

Fog, she be a fickle wiley foe... :uhoh:

Ex FSO GRIFFO
31st Jan 2012, 13:48
Aye Capt N,

As I've said elsewhere....
Had a couple of 727's into YPKG from time to time, 'in dem good ole days of F.S.', to pick up more 'go juice' because of the unforecast fog in PH....

They were 'interesting' nights as well. And 'Profitable' for the O/T of being called out....

And on one particular night, post midnight, on the T/O towards Boulder (Old airport / runway) it fairly 'CRACKLED" as it went over the fence at a very low level after rotation, and crackled its way into the crisp night air....

Half the lights of Boulder came on immediately!!

Then the phone started....LUVLY IT WERE!!!

Cheers:ok:

Fred Gassit
1st Feb 2012, 03:45
As a kid growing up under that old runway I learnt very early when fog was forming.

LMFAO
2nd Feb 2012, 06:14
Come on fellas. The fictionally ditching of a 330 was incorrect. It was a 767 on its way to Perth and it is fact. It has spoken about in CRM courses. When the wx are bad due fog you can always autoland.

neville_nobody
2nd Feb 2012, 06:55
Care to substantiate your comments about ATC being generally poor and unpredictable compared to.... The rest of the world?

Unannounced holding; speed up slow down; min speed in the cruise to 10000' followed by track shortening and keep your speed up for as long a possible; excessive separation limitations, no speed control to speak of, 20 to run that ends up being 35, traffic holding on a quiet blue skies Saturday Afternoon......

If you look at what goes on in Europe and the USA Australia is a joke. Now they handle all their traffic through weather that we don't even get in Australia. We should have one the best countries in the world to fly in. Great weather, Massive land area and low density of traffic. Instead we have to many stupid rules and regulations and not enough smart rules and very little infrastructure which just increases the stress levels for all involved.

The fact that legally this flight could have planned to land at Perth with fixed reserve should make us question what we are doing.

Red Jet
2nd Feb 2012, 07:12
As a kid growing up under that old runway I learnt very early when fog was forming.


Growing up in Yorkshire must 'ave been harder then we could have imagined:}

Capn Bloggs
2nd Feb 2012, 08:14
Nice rant that one, NN. You almost had me convinced until I read this gem:

Massive land area and low density of traffic.
You must have read "what's wrong with Australian Aviation" by Dick Smith/LeadSlead!

Icarus2001
2nd Feb 2012, 09:03
Come on Bloggs. Must be Stockholm Syndrome from all those RAPAC meetings.

Gatwick in the UK averages 52 movements per hour on a SINGLE runway.

Now one argument is that aircraft arrive and depart there from all around the compass whereas YPPH has traffic arriving and departing in about 200 degrees of arc.

Even allowing for this, add in slow turboprops (but we are all 250 below 10,000) and then allow for TWO active runways at YPPH what do you think the runway movement rate should be? Any idea?

EDIT to add: YPPH annual movements is approaching 134,00 pa
Gatwick did 244,741 last year with ONE RUNWAY and UK weather.

Awol57
2nd Feb 2012, 09:14
The tower could more than likely launch you at a rate similar to that. Just means that Departures and Centre will be slowing you all down at a massive rate to get the 20nm required as you all drop out of Radar coverage. If we had radar coverage across this vast brown (red) land then it might be a different story. Until that changes though, it will be an ongoing issue.

Then west radar and west p will just need more staff :ok::sad:

Icarus2001
2nd Feb 2012, 09:24
slowing you all down at a massive rate to get the 20nm required as you all drop out of Radar coverageADSB required by end of 2013.

Another reason for the tower to process aircraft at "READY" by direction of departure as well as type of aircraft. If aircraft A is going North the next departure should be on an Easterly track (if possible)etc, 20nm at 250K is 4.8 minutes.

What about vertical sep if longitudinal not established by end of radar at 250nm?

Start using 24 for departures, this noise abatement needs challenging. What about an early right turn off 24 to assist? Or turboprops only?

I find it hard to believe that we cannot improve the situation even without changing the FIFO schedules.

Awol57
2nd Feb 2012, 09:44
I don't do Centre so I am not sure why they don't use verts (though getting them on the other end with the high one as number one isn't very useful). ADSB will help for the high stuff.

I am but a lowly tower controller that operates with the confines of the rules. If only I could make the rules :ok:

Sequencer
2nd Feb 2012, 10:04
I am but a lowly tower controller that operates with the confines of the rules. If only I could make the rules

Don't worry Awol57 and P-Dubby, NN & Icarus2001 are probably just GA pilots in jets. They are ones taking 30 seconds to roll every time and forever to get off the runway. 47 in an hour the other day and several 40+ in the last 6 weeks. Not a high speed exit in sight....

It will all be fixed after the wise men from NATS have been here late Feb but we digress from the topic....

josephfeatherweight
2nd Feb 2012, 10:10
Unannounced holding; speed up slow down; min speed in the cruise to 10000' followed by track shortening and keep your speed up for as long a possible; excessive separation limitations, no speed control to speak of, 20 to run that ends up being 35, traffic holding on a quiet blue skies Saturday Afternoon......

I do have to agree with NN - I have experienced similar games into YPPH over the last 24 months. The standard prediction when given min speed on descent is "What's the bet we get max speed when we switch to Approach AND track shortening???" Often, we are correct...

Nobody's ever died from pressing...

Icarus2001
2nd Feb 2012, 10:17
Awol57 and P-Dubby, NN & Icarus2001 are probably just GA pilots in jetsWhat does that even mean?

They are ones taking 30 seconds to roll every timeFrom entering the flight strip, sounds about right. Perhaps we could have been lined up on 03 whilst the crossing on 06 was thinking about rolling, then we would have been ready to go.

and forever to get off the runway.When we are heavy and it is hot, it definately takes longer to get into the air.;) The 3-5 knots of downwind does not help but we cannot even consider a runway change, best you guys just land long and fast, but make sure you get off soon.

47 in an hour the other day and several 40+ in the last 6 weeksGreat to hear. What is the average?

:ok:

Sequencer
2nd Feb 2012, 10:37
NN - you still haven't substantiated your comments.

He can't, just war stories. He's the only one flying you know, that's why he gets all the bad ATC.

I'am probably not helping here but it's fun :)

le Pingouin
2nd Feb 2012, 10:44
EDIT to add: YPPH annual movements is approaching 134,00 pa
Gatwick did 244,741 last year with ONE RUNWAY and UK weather.

A plain average is next to useless - without being able to analyse the distribution of arrivals & departures or considering other influential factors it's rather difficult to compare.

Sequencer
2nd Feb 2012, 10:52
What does that even mean

Not an airline pilot.

From entering the flight strip, sounds about right. Perhaps we could have been lined up on 03 whilst the crossing on 06 was thinking about rolling, then we would have been ready to go.

I am talking about from lined up, it happens regularly.

When we are heavy and it is hot, it definately takes longer to get into the air

I am talking about after landing, there is one operator who is required to be below 5 kts before turning off the runway, very frustrating. The ROT (runway occupancy time) at PH is woeful, we lose 2-4 slots an hour.

Great to hear. What is the average?

From memory about 34 (2230-2330) during the morning departure burst, that includes the Christmas/New Year period for weekdays only. You'll never get 52 unless you all start flying medium jets and pull your finger out. It could be improved by ATC (just more consistent performance) and pilots (better compliance with slots and better ROT discipline) but it's hard to get the human element out of it.

nitpicker330
2nd Feb 2012, 11:30
Sorry but you can make all the excuses you like but sit by the side of RWY 27R in LHR one day with a scanner and see how it's done by the pros.

I accept that there will be differences, runway exits available, radar accuracy etc but........they are bloody amazing day in day out in all kinds of weather.

I had the privilege if sitting in their Tower for 4 hrs one day plugged in to watch close up. Couldn't have met a nicer bunch of blokes working their asses off for their entire shift.


Edited:--- I must add that I don't blame our Aust ATCO's. They work well within the system they've been given. :ok:

Awol57
2nd Feb 2012, 11:36
Why not go visit Perth tower and see what the constraints are from the other side of the microphone? Compare LHR and Perth. We don't (or at least we didn't when I was there) just sit around wandering how we can delay the next aircraft :) Or do we :E

Just out of curiousity does LHR have auto release?

nitpicker330
2nd Feb 2012, 11:38
I don't know if they have "auto release" or "auto anything" :bored:

All I know is that their system seems to work efficiently much much harder day in day out in all kinds of weather with all kinds of Aircraft.

Yes they do have the odd missed approach due to very close spacing but it works.:ok:

Awol57
2nd Feb 2012, 11:39
Did they have to call Departures prior to them clearing everyone for takeoff?

nitpicker330
2nd Feb 2012, 11:42
I guess they stick rigidly to set arrival and departure tracks so the Tower controller doesn't have to get a release for each Aircraft. It was 10 years ago but I don't think he spoke on the intercom to downstairs? He just used common sense in regards to Aircraft types and which way it was going and then fired em off!!

Seems to work.

Awol57
2nd Feb 2012, 11:45
Cool, sorry I simplified it a bit but that's the easiest way to find out about auto release - which it sounds like they did. That can also help speed things up. I think Perth tower has tried for it a couple of times but the IFR traffic into Jandakot (and at Pearce to an extent) affects it I believe. A TMA or Centre person could probably elaborate on that more.

nitpicker330
2nd Feb 2012, 11:47
Change arrival and departure tracks so there is no conflict initially. Then you could fire em off too!! Surely if they can do it in LHR and LGW all of the time we could too. Might take some rule changes but hey...........

Where there's a will there's a way. :ok:

Awol57
2nd Feb 2012, 11:49
I have no argument there. Pity none of us are in a position to make those rule changes! :ugh:

nitpicker330
2nd Feb 2012, 11:53
Well they will have to get serious if they want to fix the problem.

Re design the airspace
Re design SIDS and STARS
More Rapid exits on the RWY
Education program to operators regarding ROT and Speed control on app
Strict speed control on app to fit more in.

Auto release....:ok:

Capn Bloggs
2nd Feb 2012, 12:20
I do have to agree with NN - I have experienced similar games into YPPH over the last 24 months. The standard prediction when given min speed on descent is "What's the bet we get max speed when we switch to Approach AND track shortening???" Often, we are correct...

You must have been the chap in the that missed their Feeder Fix time by over a minute (late) and messed me around this morning. ;)

So Nev, when do you hit the Feeder Fix? At Time+0, Time+30, or Time+55? That's 5 track miles between those, which means a hell of a lot of dicking around of the bloke behind you if you're at +55 and he's doing the right thing at Time+0.

For those of you who can't stand speed control, what [I]do you do in the cockpit on descent? Still playing on your ipads and don't want to be interrupted??

Iccy, rave on, son. Most of your points have been shot down. Please explain the value of using 24 when it crosses 21, costs more in fuel to taxi-to compared to using 21 to the west, and half the jets departing turn right off 21 anyway?

ADSB? Come back and have a whinge about departure rates after it has been introduced. BTW, I was going to say about 45 mph but got beaten to it.

Give us high speed taxiways, ground to ionosphere indentification across the country, a real slot system, remove most of the boats, get pilots to fly properly and then we can fairly compare your beloved Gatwick.

Icarus2001
2nd Feb 2012, 13:04
Please explain the value of using 24 when it crosses 21, costs more in fuel to taxi-to compared to using 21 to the west,Come on, you know it would work. The departing aircraft taking off on 21 rolls past the intersection and the one ALREADY lined up and WAITING on 24 can blast off. Diverging tracks. The 21 departure ideally is a left turn and 24 is the right turn. Arranged that way on clearance receipt.
costs more in fuel to taxi-to compared to using 21 to the west, and half the jets departing turn right off 21 anyway? What more fuel than waiting 8-15 minutes in line? Yeah sure.
Do the Northbound jets ALWAYS NEED to turn right? Some imagination is needed here. Not your rigid military type approach :O It is doable.

Most of your points have been shot down.Let me know which ones YOU THINK have been shot down and those with a chance, in your obviously perfect knowledge of the world. Just because the people at the table convinced you it cannot work does not make YOU or THEM correct does it?

And yes I have sat in the tower in the last couple of years and plugged in at the bunker to watch an arrival sequence. It is pretty obvious as stated above that the ATCOs do their best with one arm tied behind their backs.

Listen to the people who make it work overseas, everyday, it can be different but someone has to WANT it to change. WAC/PAP don't care and AsA are dysfunctional, that leaves the operators to band together. Yeah right, what fun RAPAC meetings are.:eek:

direct.no.speed
2nd Feb 2012, 13:24
Sit with a scanner next to RWY 27R in LHR! Priceless.

We already have ex-EGLL controllers as well as SOCAL controllers working the airspace mate.

So do you think it might be other factors that your Dick Smith scanner can't pick up?

Sequencer
2nd Feb 2012, 13:26
Come on, you know it would work. The departing aircraft taking off on 21 rolls past the intersection and the one ALREADY lined up and WAITING on 24 can blast off. Diverging tracks. The 21 departure ideally is a left turn and 24 is the right turn. Arranged that way on clearance receipt.

Good luck with that, we'll get you to negotiate the environmental issues (noise) with all and sundry. Wouldn't take long to have every MP, Councilor etc up for re-election to make it their mission to have restrictions and a curfew for PH.

Getting back to the actual suggestion, how does the 24 departure get to the threshold? Cross 21, another chance for pilots to take their sweet time, doodling along. It would just create more apron conflictions around D or if they come out B or W you would lose slots while they cross, you really have no idea.

Sequencer
2nd Feb 2012, 13:28
Sit with a scanner next to RWY 27R in LHR! Priceless.


Probably got the propeller on his head too!!

yowieII
2nd Feb 2012, 14:10
So if 21 is in use, how do you think you can get them lining up at 24??
Seriously, get rid of the ridiculous taxi slot time, halve(or better) the ATC workload by all the negotiating of taxi slot time, we early, we late, jamming Delivery with slot time requests because you have to get the time as soon as you get in the A/C, which, for us at least, is way out of our SOP for obtaining an airways(doubling up the calls...).
Does Perth need slot times?? NO

Capn Bloggs
2nd Feb 2012, 14:23
Does Perth need slot times?? NO
The fuel's obviously not coming out of your pocket! :} You might like sitting in a queue for 30 minutes after startup; I don't.

Icarus2001
2nd Feb 2012, 14:23
how does the 24 departure get to the threshold? Cross 21, another chance for pilots to take their sweet time, doodling alongSo if 21 is in use, how do you think you can get them lining up at 24??
All I see are people looking for ways it cannot change and that is why it cannot change. I bet you hate daylight saving and Sunday trading too.:confused:

Does every aircraft need 3444 metres to take off on 21? No of course not. So a roll forward procedure with an increased line up allowance for RTOW charts could work with aircraft off W or B passing behind any lined up traffic waiting on 21 for the preceding airborne aircraft to clear. Some operators already use RTOW figures for a D departure when using full length on 21 thereby negating a slower line up and standing start requirement. So as not to upset the tower by " taking their sweet time, doodling along"

Yet another way... since D departures are apready waiting why can't they cross over 21 there and up C and W to 24?

Anyway I'll stop now as you already have made up your minds it cannot be done and anyone who says differently doesn't know what they are talking about. Truly disappointing.

yowieII
2nd Feb 2012, 14:59
So can you tell us how the taxi slots are working so that we save fuel??
My point was that the lack of taxi options are the problem, ever had to get an aircraft towed when 03/06 is in operation? I know that there is work in progress and it does seem to be getting better..
And BTW, I can't believe that we don't have daylight savings and Sunday trading, I also can't understand why major road and RUNWAY works need to start at the beginning of a peak period, but that's just the WA way I guess...

And..
Throw a heavy into the mix, why sit at an intersection for a whole extra minute if you don't have to...

le Pingouin
2nd Feb 2012, 15:36
Icarus, a lot of the problem is integration. ATC is still at the stage where everything is handled to the lowest common denominator, because that will succeed.

Can you guarantee you'll take be able to take track shortening prior to top of descent, even when conditions are marginal? Can you guarantee prior to pushback that you'll be at the holding point X minutes later?

Even if you could we don't have the system integration to take advantage of it. The problem is we have to formulate a plan many minutes ahead of knowing exactly what will happen. If we don't leave a bit of wriggle room it goes to shit real quick. That flexibility has an overhead.

Creativity comes at the cost of workload - sure I can achieve the triple somersault with pike & other fancy bits but what about the poor bugger on the receiving end who is going under? It's a whole system you need to consider, not just a departure or two. You can't build a system around always achieving the optimal solution.

yowieII
2nd Feb 2012, 15:55
And Bloggs, when was the last time that you have flown out of anywhere other than Perth, sim currency doesn't count:confused:

Capn Bloggs
2nd Feb 2012, 23:03
So can you tell us how the taxi slots are working so that we save fuel??

You're joking, aren't you? Instead of wasting your breath here, run along to Europe and tell them they are wasting their time using a slot system.

If you want daylight saving, bugger off somewhere else. We already get 40 minutes more sun than Sydney. It's hot enough at 1600 as it is; you want to make it hotter?? Besides, a good (and increasing) majority of sandgropers don't want it. :ok:

All I see are people looking for ways it cannot change and that is why it cannot change.
Wrong. What you are getting are counter points of view that debunk your ideas. That's all. Anybody is quite entitled to their opinion; others are quite entitled to a possibly counter-opinion. Perhaps it is you who is so blinkered you can't see reason; you can't accept why this stuff has been done to death many times over.

nitpicker330
3rd Feb 2012, 00:08
Direct no speed and Sequencer:-- Is that the best you can come up with fellas? really?

Its not just the wanna bees that have scanners and sit beside the runway watching. I've been employed by 3 different Airlines up the pointy end for nearly 30 years and take a keen interest in all things Aviation. If that means sitting beside the runway in LHR with a scanner on my LHR layovers then so be it. Over 30 years I've made a point of visiting MEL, SYD, OOL, BNE, ROK, PER, HKG, LAX, SEA Towers and Area/App centres many times and have a few friends that are ATCO's. Not to mention attending the last ATC/Airline Pilot evening at MEL ATC centre 2 years ago. Didn't see you there? How many times have you travelled in a jump seat to see it from our perspective?

So keep your smart comments to yourself please, as a frequent end user I'm very well qualified to comment on ATC and the job they do.

Maybe ask some of those x EGLL ATCO's how they did it in LHR and LEARN from their experience instead of belittling people here.:mad:

Sequencer
3rd Feb 2012, 00:31
So a roll forward procedure

Not a bad idea but I think it would became very complex, R/T intense and almost certainly less safe. Some aircraft at B/W crossing for 24, some not, crossing at D in front of aircraft lining up, some not. But you will still have to do the environmental assessment for us and answer all the noise complaints :ok:

Welcome any ideas but throwing a few off the cuff ideas on this forum is far easier than actually implementing them, especially when they are rubbish or been tried before.

So can you tell us how the taxi slots are working so that we save fuel??

With slots you will be only #6 or so in the queue, without you could be #16, it happened regularly.

Come early March new slot system being introduced, you'll know the night before your slot. Miss it and it's down the back of the queue.

RUNWAY works need to start at the beginning of a peak period

They don't, 0000 when hopefully most of it is over.

why sit at an intersection for a whole extra minute

Ask CASA, something to do with a SW4 behind an A380 in SY.

Not your rigid military type approach

Nothing military about the people doing most of this, you may have something to really moan about if there was. It's the military that wouldn't consider a jet and a non-jet route through their airspace, hence everyone on the GURAK.

Re design the airspace
Re design SIDS and STARS
More Rapid exits on the RWY
Education program to operators regarding ROT and Speed control on app
Strict speed control on app to fit more in.

This is all being done, except high speed exits, as part of ACE but it won't happen overnight. Redesign SIDs and STARs with no RAAF and no noise issues a piece of cake however that is not the world we live in.

Sequencer
3rd Feb 2012, 00:40
Its not just the wanna bees that have scanners and sit beside the runway watching

Wanna bees and tragics...

How many times have you travelled in a jump seat

In my 30 years plus I have lost count and amazingly I have pilots as friends :O

I'm very well qualified to comment on ATC and the job they do.

Ditto but insert pilots.

Now enough of the p!$$!ng contest

nitpicker330
3rd Feb 2012, 01:15
Not a pissing contest bud, I don't like the belittling tone of your holier than thou post.....

Would you rather have Airline crews that took an interest in all things Aviation or ones that went home and didn't give a toss?? I know which ones I'd prefer.
Plenty of ATCO's that Plane spot beside the Runway as well, a few post their pictures online.

nitpicker330
3rd Feb 2012, 01:26
Yes I can see how Perth Airspace with Janadakot and Pearce makes it impossible to flow smoothly...

How LHR manage to do it with really busy Gatwick, Stansted and Luton in such close proximity AND lots of noise sensitive areas is an absolute wonder to behold!!

Either that or they just hope like hell..........

Let's face it, it's not the Airspace that can't be fixed it's the outdated proceedures you guys are forced to use? :{

Capt Claret
3rd Feb 2012, 02:10
I don't understand why the assumption is that the problem is all ATC's. I regularly fly with guys who accept "max speed to the field, cancel STAR speed restrictions" and are back at 210 or sometimes even 190 kias, with 20 nm to run, when the only regulatory speed limit is 240 kias at the IAF. 240 kias could easily be held to 12ish miles without contravening any SOP, or stabilised criteria.

I often wonder at ATC's ability to cope with such wide ranging performance criteria. It's a bit like driving on the open road, speed limit 110 kph, and having a long line of cars stuck behind the dawdler doing 80. :eek:

nitpicker330
3rd Feb 2012, 03:54
Well I'm not an Airspace expert, only a humble end user but I've already suggested a few very basic things earlier.
VHHH CAD and the CAAC are currently re-designing the whole Pearl River Delta airspace to improve the flow and amount if traffic between VHHH VMMC ZGSZ and ZGGG. They have real problems with layout and different countries proceedures all in a 50 mile congested plot of land, but are trying to work them out to mke it smoother ( one eg is Aircraft arriving into VHHH fom the mainland are currently faced with 100 extra track miles )

Surely Perth ( as one Aussie eg ) with only 1 major and 2 very minor Airports could better design their airspace layout with regards to SIDS STARS to better flow the traffic????

Anyway, I guess the ATCO's in here dismiss my thoughts as amateur but I'm still entitled to express my thoughts because it seems to me and many other Airline crews that those places seem to move it along much better.

I guess like most other things in this world it comes down to dollars.......

Capn Bloggs
3rd Feb 2012, 03:54
I regularly fly with guys who accept "max speed to the field, cancel STAR speed restrictions" and are back at 210 or sometimes even 190 kias, with 20 nm to run, when the only regulatory speed limit is 240 kias at the IAF.
That, Claret, is because of training, experience and supervision. In the context of the current rather off-topic discussion here, this issue will increasingly drive the performance of aircraft in the system. Pilots and SOPs will become even more "conservative" as time goes on and this will further hobble the system, reducing it's flexibility and overall performance. Further, as le Pingouin mentioned, ATC are likely to add buffers to allow for the variations in pilot technique.

Yes I can see how Perth Airspace with Janadakot and Pearce makes it impossible to flow smoothly...

How LHR manage to do it with really busy Gatwick, Stansted and Luton in such close proximity AND lots of noise sensitive areas is an absolute wonder to behold!!

Either that or they just hope like hell..........

I don't like the belittling tone of your holier than thou post.....
Pot...kettle...black.

Slasher
3rd Feb 2012, 03:58
Claret its an ATC problem where an aircraft approaching final
is instructed to maintain say 180kts till say five miles but will
be back to bug+adds well before then due to the silly archaic
"punishment" cultures of some Asian mobs. Don't forget that
bloody QAR is simply a Company stool pigeon for outfits like
these.

This happens a lot in places like SIN, and one will learn what
carriers are going to slow down very early, despite any ATC
instruction and one needs to adjusts one's speed (if following
behind) accordingly to avoid a pileup or GA.

nitpicker330
3rd Feb 2012, 04:21
Yes I agree there are some Asian carriers that slow down way too early or don't follow speed control requirements but they seem to get into LHR ok without problem and they have the tightest most enforced speed control requirements in the world.

nitpicker330
3rd Feb 2012, 05:01
Yes they have F50's in EGLL, I watched one with a gear collapse close 09R about 10 years ago, had a ringside seat from the hatch of my 400.:uhoh:

All those things you mention above could be implemented in Australia. Most Turboprops are faster inside 10 miles anyway so that shouldn't slow it down and they shouldn't be slower below 10,000' either and in any holding patterns needed. Kick the pistons back to Jandakot, landing fees would be too high for them anyway?

I agree our Aussie ATCO's are some of the best in the industry and do a good job world wide. I've never said they were to blame. :ok:

nitpicker330
3rd Feb 2012, 07:29
Sounds like a start :ok:

Capn Bloggs
3rd Feb 2012, 11:59
As a warrior of the air-routes of the WHOLE wide world, Nitpicker probably didn't notice... ;)

nitpicker330
3rd Feb 2012, 12:45
Well then if you guys in Perth are correct the Routes around Perth still don't work well enough.......

Never thought of myself as a warrior!! :E

Of the whole world too!! :}

Good document, if they've done all that then the only things left are those posted above and better Pilot training as to ROT. More rapid exits and tighter vectors etc.

Oh, and build another Runway!!

Interesting read on the Brisbane delays thread too. Maybe that will improve things a little. :ok: it all helps.

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/450166-bne-atc-holding-10.html

Sequencer
3rd Feb 2012, 13:38
Perth still don't work well enough.......


Correct but a whole lot better then they did, believe that or not, and safer. As I have had said before we got knocked back on a jet and non-jet through the RAAF airspace, they have far too much pull. The project also got a little hijacked into solving the air route structure for the whole of the west rather than improve the terminal area. It was the tail wagging the dog.

The noise lobby is still hugely influential in this debate, there as been a Senate Inquiry in 2010. Check out this http://www.fairskies.com.au/JUDY%20MOYLAN%27S%20BILL%202011

Also see Trial of new flight route, Perth | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/perth-flight-route-trial/)

Impossible to change or add anything within 10-12 nm PH without alot of grief.

only things left are those posted above and better Pilot training as to ROT

Being worked on now in the ACE project. Without bias, believe that or not, most immediate improvement will come from pilot behavior. I am yet to see the same aircraft from the same company be flown consistently in the same manner. Further route reviews and high speed exits are long term items.

nitpicker330
3rd Feb 2012, 13:53
As a rule SOP's ( stabilized criteria ) dictate how we fly the beast but having said that there will be differences between crews on the same type to fit the circumstances of the day ( a lot of variables with regards to experience, motivation etc ) so to mitigate it or indeed fix it you'll have to become very specific in regards to speed control and ENFORCE it strictly like they seem to do well in the UK. :ok:

All CX crews brief any speed control requirements for each approach and in my experience we always follow them carefully. I'm sure most others do the same.
( can't vouch for crews from non English speaking areas!! )

Sequencer
3rd Feb 2012, 14:10
Not really talking about real airlines, the variation there is less. But the majority of PH traffic is the FIFO type smaller jets (F100, BA46 etc) and turbo props (DHC8, E120 etc) and the variation of technique/performance is huge. I am sure attitude, motivation and experience as alot to do with it.

Set approach speeds are coming. We tried to introduce them a couple years ago, can't remember exactly why it didn't happen but something to do with VOZ not being happy with them.

Ex FSO GRIFFO
3rd Feb 2012, 14:18
Hey 'NP330'....

Reur - " Kick the pistons back to Jandakot, landing fees would be too high for them anyway?" (Post #148).

Can't think of too many 'pistons' left at YPPH these days.....:hmm:

CAN remember a few of the 'originals' in GA though.....'Murchison Air Services' run by Bob Oliver being the FIRST to have a base there....I would think? :D:D

Mid to late 60's....:)

Cheers:ok:

sunnySA
6th Feb 2012, 11:30
Airport Capacity Enhancement (ACE)

Background

The projected strong growth in aviation traffic, including passenger numbers and aircraft movements, presents challenges for airlines, airports, and air navigation service providers. Constraints at a number of airports, particularly during peak traffic periods, have the potential to adversely affect growth in the aviation industry.

Improving runway efficiency and optimising the use of existing infrastructure, particularly during peak periods, is critical to the efficient operation of the national airspace system and managing the impact of aviation on the environment.

Purpose

Airservices has introduced the Airport Capacity Enhancement (ACE) program to help meet these challenges. The ACE program will be a collaborative activity involving Airservices, major airports & airline operators.

The ACE program aims to make the best use of existing infrastructure to maximise efficiency. This will involve improving the processes and practices of air traffic controllers (ATC), airport operators and airlines.

Overview

Airport efficiency can be constrained by route structures & traffic flows, runways, taxiways and aprons. However, these constraints do not operate in isolation and, while the initial focus of the program will be runway efficiency, other constraints will also be considered.

This program is based around a EUROCONTROL initiative and we expect to be guided by the experience of these airports where significant capacity improvements have been delivered.

Program Initiation

Airservices has established ACE as a national program to provide support, coordination and standardisation in delivering the benefits to airports.

Each participating airport will have an executive steering group which will in turn guide the development and implementation of the program and appoint an ACE Management Team.

ACE Management Teams should ideally include ATC supervisors and experienced operational controllers, senior pilots, flight operations staff and representatives from airport operations. Each also has a role in delivering improvement activities within their specialist operational area.

Following industry consultation, Melbourne and Perth have been selected as the initial Australian airports for ACE introduction. The program will then be progressively implemented at other Australian airport.

Communication

The objectives of the ACE program must be communicated to pilots, air traffic controllers and airport staff, and their engagement actively sought. Joint forums will allow identification of ideas, initiatives and plans which may deliver operational improvements.

The early involvement of airport partners on all levels is the key to improving airside and airspace efficiency.

Measuring performance

The national program team and each airport ACE Management team will determine the measurements necessary to assist capacity improvement. The European program has developed a list of intervals that can be used as the basis for common performance measurement at Australian airports.

These measurements will support the identification of areas where ATC, airlines & airports can deliver efficiency gains within current safety standards.

Safety

Safety remains the aviation industry’s over-riding priority. ACE will introduce measures that improve overall safety by ensuring smooth, planned operations with enhances situational awareness.

This will provide opportunities to safely anticipate events and better manage air traffic controller (ATC) and pilot workload during busy periods.

For further information
Chris Henry, ACE Program Director
Email: chris.henry@<hidden>

Rod Lee, ACE ATC Advisor
Email: rodney.lee@<hidden>

Understand that UK NATS is participating as a consultant ($$) and that one of the first airports to be challenged is YPPH.

Plazbot
6th Feb 2012, 12:52
A program being run by two guys with two first names......

boree3
6th Feb 2012, 23:59
A program being run by two guys with two first names......


Finally, the secret to progression in ASA is there for all to see!:D

John Thomas....

Capn Bloggs
7th Feb 2012, 10:34
Also from the other thread...Assuming a non arrivals manager type program (eg Meastro), the arrivals guy from the North gets a rate he has to give the approach guy, the guy from the South a rate (directions may vary) and then the appproach guy catches them. The arrivals guys make those rates happen however they can. Speed ups for number one then varying degrees of slow down for everyone else. The approach guy then has to put these two (or three or more) streams on the runway. This means that perhaps the number one from the North may not be number one for the runway and hence, has to slow down after going fast..... and vice versa from the South who was number two there but is now number two to the runway beating number one from the other end....

Didn't realise that. But I don't complain. I like being "dicked around". Gives me something to think about! ;)

bekolblockage
7th Feb 2012, 11:13
A program being run by two guys with two first names......

One of them who used to be known as "Muhammad" on ML APP. :E