Melbourne Air Traffic Control
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
On the other hand crews should be cognisant of the need to vacate the active runway expeditiously which in the case of YMML may or may not include a company restriction to use a crossing runway.
All that being said, even on a calm hot day going into MEL I've never had a problem taking "E" on 34 at MLW, AB3 and blast of reverse keeps the brake temps ok on the 77W.
Need to power up to E
Assuming conditions are visual the flow will pick a likely looking spot to squeeze them in - jam up the arrivals ahead and slow the few behind to open up enough of a hole to fit the go around in. If weather conditions are poor a full slot needs to be added pushing everyone back a slot. Again the flow will try to pick the least disruptive place to fit them in.
Hearing rumours with the yanks in town for the Airshow and current fires going on in the Dandenong, certain frequencies are becoming chammed and thus not being able to talk to aircraft...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What happened this morning with Hainan landing on 34 and vacating at Charlie? The wind was up to a thirty knot northerly and at least four aircraft waiting to take off. Virgin ended up being sent around. No fire trucks or anything. No doubt this slowed everything up. Not sure why he didn't take Echo. Anyone know?
Regarding RWY09 usage. My understanding is the old tower did not a view of the threshold. They are currently designing new STARS to start using 09 more often; particularly for arrivals as good for noise abatement. A good time to get into the designers ear to incorporate CTA steps into the STAR design!!
Originally Posted by Midnight
Airservices don't have authority to change airspace, only CASA.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC cant handle departures/go-rounds off 09 simultaneously with arrivals and departures into Essendon or arrivals from the east if 16 or 34 are in use. Whats really going to be a laugh is that when the new 27L/09R is built there will be NO increase in capacity under certain conditions for the same reason. Just like the debacle when there is 6 knots tailwind on 27 and holding goes to 45 minutes with single runway ops.Gotta love aviation in Australia.....Worlds best practice......... except for everywhere else.
Oh, and the rumour is 27L will be built with a displaced threshold from day1.....due noise abatement.
Oh, and the rumour is 27L will be built with a displaced threshold from day1.....due noise abatement.
Theoretically when CASA do airspace audits (which they did of the Melbourne basin some years back) those sort of issues are supposed to be raised when they consult operators etc.
Airspace Reviews - CASA
I recall when Airservices proposed the lower step north of Melbourne I mentioned in another post, they were asked for written evidence from all the operators requesting the change.
As for the Class E business, I assume Airservices have had their hands smacked by putting something out to industry before doing their homework and following "due process"
Airspace Reviews - CASA
I recall when Airservices proposed the lower step north of Melbourne I mentioned in another post, they were asked for written evidence from all the operators requesting the change.
As for the Class E business, I assume Airservices have had their hands smacked by putting something out to industry before doing their homework and following "due process"
QF took off with 15 of tail RW27 the other day. Rest of us off 34 with a long wait.
My point being that 09/34 would have saved us a lot of time. Surprising in the greeny/labor Victoria that they’d happily have us burning fuel no end at holding point. Offsider said it was more related to noise off 09. Who knows.
My point being that 09/34 would have saved us a lot of time. Surprising in the greeny/labor Victoria that they’d happily have us burning fuel no end at holding point. Offsider said it was more related to noise off 09. Who knows.
Last edited by Berealgetreal; 5th Mar 2019 at 08:39.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember you are talking about the SkyGods, they get preferential treatment! Out of all the Ozzy major bases I dislike ML & BN the most! SY despite their hands being tied behind their backs due utter stupidity do a pretty good job, well done guys:-)
Oi
thats Mr First Officer Sky God, esq. to you, peasant
thats Mr First Officer Sky God, esq. to you, peasant
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find BN pretty good now. MEL is a right royal pain. Given the costs incurred by the airlines for delays in flying into MEL, I’m surprised that nothing has been done by either airline or Air Services / CASA management to improve the situation.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bereal, if you think QF has any pull with flow control you are sadly mistaken. Why not ring them up and have a chat? They will be happy to deflate your conspiracy theories.
Its not the "skygods" fault if you have no imagination.
Its not the "skygods" fault if you have no imagination.
Nor would I care who has pull with who, no diff to me. Good evening.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I said on another post ATC will not use 09 if another runway is available due to the complexity of coordinating with Essendon and arrivals from the east. Why Essendon wags the tail of the dog is a mystery.
Similarly, ATC rules preclude any runway as duty runway with more than 5 knots tailwind dry and zero wet, regardless of aircraft performance capability.
Once 34 or 16 are designated as single runway ops. departures of 27 to the north and east conflict with departures off 27 to the north and east. Hence departures of 27 are prohibited, hence 45 minutes holding, hence 30 minute queues on 34/16.
You might, however, get lucky departing to the west off 27 if there is a gap in the sequence. Its lazy, its third world but thats aviation in Australia in 2019.
Maybe there is an ATC apologist out there who can better explain why this lunacy continues?
Similarly, ATC rules preclude any runway as duty runway with more than 5 knots tailwind dry and zero wet, regardless of aircraft performance capability.
Once 34 or 16 are designated as single runway ops. departures of 27 to the north and east conflict with departures off 27 to the north and east. Hence departures of 27 are prohibited, hence 45 minutes holding, hence 30 minute queues on 34/16.
You might, however, get lucky departing to the west off 27 if there is a gap in the sequence. Its lazy, its third world but thats aviation in Australia in 2019.
Maybe there is an ATC apologist out there who can better explain why this lunacy continues?