Request vs Require.

[swh]

Originally Posted by oicur12.again

So your call to ATC when requiring the longer runway is based on an auto brake low calculation?

Where did I say that ?

I provided the numbers based upon autobrake low as that is our SOP (and the manufacturers), likewise our SOP has us fully configured a lot earlier than say a US domestic airlines. My job is to operate the aircraft in the way my company says it should be done, as that is what is approved by our regulator. I would expect other operators and regulators have similar requirements.

We come in a lot heavier than domestic carriers as often we carry BNE/MEL/ADL as our alternate. There are times we need to land at night with stupid amounts of fuel in Australia due to the SYD curfew, e.g. MEL using BNE as the alternate.

I cannot think of the last time I had to use "require" to get a different runway in Australia, never in the past 5 years, the only question I get asked these days going into MEL is if we want to do the NDB or RNAV approach. That is on an aircraft that has no ADF equipment listed on the filed ATC flight plan.

Naturally I can use MED if needed, and that was necessary for years operating into NRT before they extended it.

The max manual numbers in the QRH are also based upon being 5 kts below the normal approach speed, something I don't do in normal operations. There is no prize for needing a gear change as a result of a heavy landing, the fat controller would question my judgement when there is a perfectly good longer runway right next to it. There is no pat the back for saving 100 kg doing a reduced flap idle reverse landing on a wet runway and going off the end, people don't remember the 100 kg fuel saving.

CX for some time was the largest operator of A330s in the world, there is a reason behind the way the SOPs have evolved, there is a reason why so many airlines used the CX developed FCTM as the basis of how they train and operate the aircraft. I am not sure about QF, however VA had their pilots online with CX to gain their A330 initial operating experience.

Perhaps meeting with the various operators to discuss their runway occupancy and/or allocation could something that ASA needs to consider?

I believe other issues are in SYD that are actually driving this, last time I looked at the numbers, ATC had more aircraft using the short runway. I have never missed the high speed in SYD unless ATC have asked me to cross 25 to fit their plans.

I was on the receiving end of this a number of times in the last few months of 767 ops- probably 8 or 9 times? On 3 of those times when we taxied for 16L there was quite literally no one waiting for departure on 16R... and on two of those occasions only one arrival as we taxied out. On another 3 occasions there was only 1 aircraft awaiting a departure. Another time we were changed to 16R due to the lack of departures and on the other couple of times the change to 16L was probably justified.

What you are describing to me lacks common sense. People suggest that SYD is busy, it is no where near as busy as other airports around the world. Obviously there are other artificial constraints at play.

Both of the large domestic carriers have in the annual results pointed to excess domestic capacity. Hong Kong operates on an average of around 180 seats per movement, I would not be surprised if SYD was half that, i.e. they slots that are being used are not being used efficiently for other reasons.

If you want to start an slot efficiency drive, lets put all the variables onto the table and see where the real low hanging fruit is. This requires a definition what is means to be efficient, i.e. more passengers using the airport, or more aircraft.

What I am suggesting here is the business decision made by the domestic airlines to operate 737/A320 aircraft with such frequency between SYD-MEL may not be the most efficient use of the slots available.

The infrequency of foreign AOC aircraft are really a red herring in my view when evaluating utilization and efficiency of slots at SYD and MEL. Heavy traffic only make up around 20% of the movements.

[404 Titan]

Beer Baron

Some people need to get off their high(heavy) horse.

That includes you too. I suggest you sit down, take a Bex and reread carefully what ACMS, SWH and I have said. We are more than prepared to accept 16L/34R when we consider it safe to do so. It doesn't take much though to make this runway marginal at the weights we operate at our A330's. As I stated earlier I operated in to Sydney just the other day. ATIS indicated a damp runway with up to 3kts of tailwind on the duty runways 34L&R. At our expected landing weight this gave me 30m spare with medium auto brake. We advised centre just prior to the issue of our clearance that we "required" 34L. There was no issue from centre and we were thanked for advising them early. Well as it turned out as we crossed the threshold for 34L we were carrying 12kts of tailwind. If we had landed on 34R we would have needed 100m more bitumen than was available with "max manual" brakes. So if I "require" the longer runway I'll make it known. Likewise if I decide to "request" the longer runway for any other reason other than safety, I'll weigh up any conditions ATC may impose and if they reject my request I'll accept it.

[ACMS]

Beer baron:----

I'm intrigued by your post #32 earlier on where you seemed to have just pulled figures out of your *ss

Quote---

By your own figures of 1951m LDR you have an un-factored landing distance of 1169m. That leaves over a kilometer of excess runway on 16L/34R.

How in hell do you come to a safety factor of 67%
Still waiting for an apology and correction.

Thanks

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Beer Baron-

Do you fill the fuel tanks to the brim (or MTOW) for every flight? Surely that is safer?
Do you refuse all intersection departures (LHR 09R-N10, LAX 25R-F)? Why accept it, it reduces your safety margin and you are the Captain!

Filling the tanks to brim (or MTOW) makes no difference to the safety margin.
Intersection departures when properly calculated, do not reduce the safety margin.

There is no difference in flying technique in take off of you are doing a flex or Toga takeoff- however the flying techniques in landing with xwind/tailwind with a heavy aircraft after a ULR flight is a completely different kettle of fish.

[hikoushi]

Also, for a little "big picture". We often will ask for 34L at SYD. Reason being, when your company plans to quick-turn your jet around in an hour and a half or less on the ground, it is best for the poor guys who are going to take your airplane back where you just came from, if you don't leave them with hot brakes. A medium autobrake light tailwind landing on 34R coupled with a long taxi with a lot of brake applications can really screw the outbound crew, not to mention cause ground handling delays. Facilitating the next flight's on-time departure is big-picture "operational necessity", and sometimes generates a request for the closer, longer runway. If the controller says no, then oh well, the next guy just has to deal with it and we try our best.

[sunnySA]

le Pingouin

sunny, surely the Sydney movement cap renders such discussion moot?

Yes and no, on the one level yes there is a movement cap that is IMHO being mismanaged. Perhaps another thread is warranted, the original application of the cap was based on scheduled movements, the current application is actual movements. I guess I was trying to point out the obvious. If all the aircraft operating to/from the International terminal operated from RWY 16R then the traffic balance would be roughly 70/30, the departure delays would be rather excessive hour by hour. And, with aircraft queueing for departure RWY 16R the SMCs soon start running out of real estate, especially at peak towing times when Qantas need to tow the A380 east/west or west/east. My take on efficiency is balancing the delays, keeping everyone moving.

Keg

Thanks SunnySA. Perhaps meeting with the various operators to discuss their runway occupancy and/or allocation could something that ASA needs to consider?

Couldn't agree more, as far as I know the NATS Report on Sydney hasn't been released, probably more to do with political issues, SACL sensitivities. As le Pingouin pointed out the movement cap makes it a moot discussion point but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen. I think it was put in the "too hard basket" prior to the previous federal election and the basket still hasn't been opened.

Jets via Wollongong from RWY 16L

I was on the receiving end of this a number of times in the last few months of 767 ops- probably 8 or 9 times? On 3 of those times when we taxied for 16L there was quite literally no one waiting for departure on 16R... and on two of those occasions only one arrival as we taxied out. On another 3 occasions there was only 1 aircraft awaiting a departure. Another time we were changed to 16R due to the lack of departures and on the other couple of times the change to 16L was probably justified.

I get the logic of it (less delays for everyone due to being able to spread the load across both runways) however the execution of it appeared to be very hit and miss....... mostly 'miss' from where I was sitting!

(Please don't anyone shoot the messenger. I understand the noise sharing, political interference, lack of resources points. That shouldn't stop us from pointing out the flaws in the system).

Yes, its in imprecise science, based on trying to balance the departure demand, the procedure involves all WOL jets off RWY 16L (up to an including A333/B789) and all EAST bound jets off RWY 16L (once again, up to an including A333/B789). It does involve additional runway crossings however this is balanced against a reduction in overall delay. Some of the initial data suggested that some International aircraft (East bound B777s, jets via KAT/RIC) had an average reduction in delay of about 20 minutes (balanced departures versus everything from RWY 16R).

If simultaneous WOL jets present off both runways then the RWY 16R WOL needs to be either immediately ahead of the parallel departure or 4 minutes after. This spacing puts the aircraft in-trail for MEL ENR.

What we try to do is avoid "flip-flopping" into/out of the procedure, that is chopping and changing, re-issuing clearances at pushback or taxi due to the briefing requirements, A320's in particular seem to take an inordinate amount of time to re-brief.

It might work better if Qantas and Jetstar WOL jets departed RWY 16R and Virgin, Tiger and corporate WOL jets departed RWY 16L.

I have no issue with aircraft requiring this or that runway, but please be beware there are consequences, imbalances between the runways, at times lengthy delays to other aircraft, increased (ATC) coordination, increased (ATC) workload and at times an increase in risk/lowered safety margins/potential for error.

[Beer Baron]

How in hell do you come to a safety factor of 67%

Well ACMS, I may be going out on a limb here but I got the impression you had perhaps learnt to fly in Australia, if I am wrong about that then I apologise. If I am correct then you may recall CAO 20.7.1B, it outlines the performance requirements governing runway use in normal conditions. Here is an excerpt;

11​ Landing distance required
​11.1​ For subparagraph 5.1 (a), the landing distance for a jet-engined aeroplane is:
(a) ​for an aeroplane engaged in regular public transport operations when landing on a dry runway, or in charter operations when landing on a dry or wet runway — 1.67 times the distance required to bring the aeroplane to a stop on a dry runway

If I recall from the A380 Landing Performance Application there would be 2 options for deriving landing distance, 'Enroute' and 'Dispatch'. The 'dispatch' figure would need to be factored. Ie. increased by 67%.
Now I was not aware what figure you were quoting and I assumed it was the dispatch figure. Even if you were not, it is a legal requirement to comply with this rule so that buffer must be available if you are to attempt a landing on the runway. Albeit this figure is derived from a non standard landing technique.

Again I acknowledge these are Australian rules and we are talking about foreign carriers but I have neither the time nor inclination to research the equivalent FAA, JAR or Hong Kong legislation.


404 Titan;
Your approach to the decision is EXACTLY what I would hope all pilots would do. I completely agree with what you said in terms of the decision making process and your right to reject the runway.
It is the carriers or pilots who appear to just flatly refuse to land on the shorter runway in ALL circumstances that infuriate me (and I think others). And anecdotally there seem to be a few out there and possibly on this forum too.

[ACMS]

Ok fair enough, it's been 30 years since ATPL in Oz but now you jog my memory 1.67 does sound familiar.

Our mob use a safety factor of 15% on top of the distance for in flight calculations from the Airbus approved QRH tables simply because we are not test Pilots operating in a test environment day to day after flying all night with no sleep.

I used the Airbus Fly smart App which also adds 15%

I can also use the ACARS landing data request function as well which also includes 15%

In an emergency we can ignore the 15% if the commander wishes.

From our FCOM Perf section:--

IN-FLIGHT LANDING DISTANCE The flight crew should use the Landing Distances published in the QRH as the reference for In-Flight landing performance computation. The In-Flight Landing Distances reflect the performance achievable in a typical operational landing without margin, assuming realistic airborne phase from threshold to touchdown and deceleration on ground to full stop. The In-Flight Landing Distances consider: ‐ Touchdown within the touchdown zone ‐ Maximum manual braking initiated immediately after main gear touchdown ‐ Normal system delays in braking activation in case of autobrake ‐ Prompt selection of max reverse thrust, maintained to 70kt, and idle thrust to full stop (when credit is used) ‐ Antiskid and all spoilers operative.

[swh]

If I recall from the A380 Landing Performance Application there would be 2 options for deriving landing distance, 'Enroute' and 'Dispatch'. The 'dispatch' figure would need to be factored. Ie. increased by 67%.
Now I was not aware what figure you were quoting and I assumed it was the dispatch figure. Even if you were not, it is a legal requirement to comply with this rule so that buffer must be available if you are to attempt a landing on the runway. Albeit this figure is derived from a non standard landing technique.

Again I acknowledge these are Australian rules and we are talking about foreign carriers but I have neither the time nor inclination to research the equivalent FAA, JAR or Hong Kong legislation.

This is what Australia says......

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset.../ops/235_5.pdf

5.3.3 Two major manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus, have introduced a new reference for in-flight landing distance performance, catering for both normal and abnormal system operations. The new distances are referred to by Airbus as Operational Landing Distances (OLD) and In-flight Landing Distance (IFLD) whereas Boeing incorporates the actual landing distance in the Performance Inflight section of the Quick Reference Handbook. Both manufacturers have included this data in their respective performance applications. The actual landing distances are a realistic representation of operationally achievable landing performance. The representation of this information is generally “unfactored” unless otherwise stated. The CAO 20.7.1B amendment facilitates the adoption of manufacturers’ performance applications along with the application of the 1.15 safety factor. TheCAAP 235-5(0) New performance provisions for CAO 20.7.1B and CAO 20.7.4 5
May 2014 FAA and EASA have adopted the in-flight landing distance factoring as policy, and along with ICAO are in the process of rulemaking.

It is the carriers or pilots who appear to just flatly refuse to land on the shorter runway in ALL circumstances that infuriate me (and I think others). And anecdotally there seem to be a few out there and possibly on this forum too.

There is no evidence that that is the case, esp with CX. Not a single CX pilot on this thread has suggested that is the case. CX has actively been working with ASA for years on ways to make flying into Australia more efficient, and have been been one of the main drivers behind getting 16L/34R opened up to foreign AOC holders.

[ACMS]

Yep Beer Baron like we've tried to explain to you and over again.
Landing on 27 in YMML doesn't afford a lot of margin unless you are light and the runway is dry with a headwind.

So I'll REQUIRE 34 thanks and request the RNAV, go ahead the star...

That'll be the ARBEY 5Z arr RWY 34 FL390.....

I can't speak about YSSY as I hardly ever land there.


p.s. Yes I know he's not ATC..

[missy]

Perhaps the non release is more to do with ACE being Airport Capacity Enhancement. Why would you bother enhancing the capacity of a capped airport (80 movements per hour)?

http://http://www.airservicesaustral...CE_Program.pdf

http://http://www.airservicesaustral...hancement-ace/

[Beer Baron]

ACMS, swh, you don't need to explain anything to me over and over again.
You will see from my first post I never mentioned MEL 27, I clearly made reference to the SYD parallel runways. MEL 27 is a different issue and I fully understand not wanting to land on a short RWY with a tailwind when a long into-wind RWY is available. And there are not the other beneficial factors that perhaps cloud some pilots decision making, (I'm not saying yours). Those being a reduced track miles and taxi time and their associated benefits.
And I certainly never suggested CX were guilty of this behaviour. In fact in my experience I have observed CX crew operating as consummate professionals at all times.

And Rex havoc, as the performance course is a pain and not an issue I can be bothered delving too far into I won't get too technical. Suffice to say that I am sure you will find that the margin (let's call it a safety margin) to the and of the runway will be reduced in your accelerate stop distance or the screen height you would achieve at the end of the runway would be lower if you use the intersection.
Yes it's safe, yes it's legal but the margin is reduced.

[ACMS]

Beer Baron:-- as you should have also seen from my posts I've always been referring to YMML 27 v 34. That's the operational threat I'm faced with most often, not YSSY 34R

[Track Shortener]

Originally Posted by SunnySA

I think it was put in the "too hard basket" prior to the previous federal election and the basket still hasn't been opened.

That'll be one of those locked Silos of Excellence, then?

...quick, we need the Man with Large Hands!

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

For yonks all aircraft larger than an A300/B767 was automatically assigned 16R/34L for landing. Then QF and JQ A330s on domestic legs became eligible for 16L/34R. Since then we were told it was QF that approached Airservices to say that actually about 80% of their A330 movements (incl international) could accept 16L/34R... Sometimes they were going around in racetracks in the queue for 16R/34L when they could be on the ground much earlier using the less fancied shorter runway. This seemed to bring about a change late last year that all A330 and B787 international movements through the MARLIN (east) and BOREE (north) gates would routinely be assigned the east (shorter) parallel runway. The acceptance of this routine runway allocation for these types is very low, so it is farcical.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Beer baron- Ill simplify it for you-

Take off - put thrust levers in designated position, pull back at designated speed.
Take off done at beginning for journey - therefore very little fatigue

Landing - Hands, eyes,legs, moving. etc etc. Much more difficult,more so after 14 hours and 7 time zones.

[Beer Baron]

Oh thank you Capn Rex. Now please simplify a high speed rejected takeoff or an engine failure at V1 for me please.

[willadvise]

Been reading this one with some interest and have come to the conclusion there needs to be a 3rd option. Obviously this is never going to happen but I would be interested in comments.

Here are some rough thoughts on the what should be the definitions:-

Request = Something nice to have which if refused does not result in any increased risk to safety) Eg.Level change for fuel effeciency or improved winds or light turb. Direct tracking for track shortening or to an approach fix. Rwy which has less track miles or taxi time to terminal.

Desire = my request should be granted as the current clearance/rwy assignment creates an increased risk to the operation of the aircraft. Eg Level change for mod turb or fuel burn reasons which if not granted may result in fuel exhaustion or diversion. The proposed rwy is within the performance limits of the aircraft but due to fatigue or other matters, safety is reduced. I am understand that I may be required to hold to fit into the traffic pattern to facilitate my desired RWY.

Require = my request/require must be granted. For example severe turbulence (passengers may be injured or the structural integrity or control of the aircraft is about to be compromised). Weather deviation (again passengers may be injured or the structural integrity or control of the aircraft is about to be compromised). Runway, the assigned runway is not long enough under the current wx condition using max autobrake/reverse etc. NB fatigue not a reason to use require. If the longer rwy is not available I will divert to my alternate or declare PAN/MAYDAY.

[LeadSled]

No it sounds like a bunch of princesses who aren't capable of flying their aircraft anywhere near its capablilities(sic) and as a result are gaining a competitive advantage

GA Trojan,
Those are word revealing the attitude of a person who, in my opinion, should not be on the flight deck of an aircraft.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Beer Baron,

Come on now- A landing is done after every take off. How many Engine Failures at V1 have you done? or have you known anyone to do? One in a million?



I really do think you missing the forest for the trees here.

Here is it. After 14 hours I'm tired. I require the long runway. Very simple.