YMML queue rwy 16 yesterday

[cessnapete]

Originally Posted by keepemseperated

Back in the day, it was 25 kts crosswind (not much better than 20, but did make quite a difference as to how often single runway ops were required), until the local carriers got fed up of landing on a short runway with 25 kts of crosswind due to noise sharing.

The 20 kts was supposed to be introduced only for noise sharing modes, but it got f@rked up somewhere along the line and 20kts was adopted across the board.

Not sure if it was ASA/CASA/QFA or AAA - probably a combination of all 4.

From this thread it appears that ATC in Melbourne tell the aircraft crew what their crosswind limit is? Surely that is a decision for the Pilot in charge, according to the aircraft certification and handling pilots qualification.

[Mr Approach]

A couple of issues perhaps worth commenting on:

1. Stop Bars - these are a great mitigator of the single point of failure, pilots lining up due to radio misunderstandings, however:

In Australia, they are used without much thought for the consequences on aircraft flow (see comments about line up behind). This means they enhance safety but reduce efficiency.
The FAA took the concept but automated it so that the basic rule is correct, do not line up when the stop lights are red, but the stop lights operate off the A/SMGCS (we have this installed in MEL. SYD, BNE and PER), they do not require a controller to press a button. This means that the stop bars are only red when the A/SMGCS detects RWY activity. The system can also warn a pilot on final of RWY activity by turning the approach lighting red!

2. Cross wind limits - Australia is non-compliant with the ICAO 15 Kt crosswind limit, allowing RWY nomination with a 20 kt crosswind, however:

This is only an issue if airports hang onto, or are forced to hang onto (Sydney) the "old-fashioned" idea that there should be an into wind runway.
By this I mean that ATC can therefore nominate a runway with a lesser crosswind, because there is one! In Sydney and Melbourne, this often reduces the airports to single-runway operations, absolutely cruelling their efficiency.

Brisbane smartly got rid of their cross-wind runway when the parallel 01L/19R was opened, hence no runway nomination problems. (Except during nighttime low wind conditions, but that is another subject)

So, we are safe, but very inefficient. The airports and Airservices management don't care, because all of those aircraft will land and take-off anyway, so they get their money.
Who suffers? Airline bottom-lines, pilots, ATC's running holding patterns, the environment as more fuel gets burned - but, hey, who cares?

[cessnapete]

[QUOTE=Mr Approach;11556387]A couple of issues perhaps worth commenting on:

1. Stop Bars - these are a great mitigator of the single point of failure, pilots lining up due to radio misunderstandings, however:

In Australia, they are used without much thought for the consequences on aircraft flow (see comments about line up behind). This means they enhance safety but reduce efficiency.
The FAA took the concept but automated it so that the basic rule is correct, do not line up when the stop lights are red, but the stop lights operate off the A/SMGCS (we have this installed in MEL. SYD, BNE and PER), they do not require a controller to press a button. This means that the stop bars are only red when the A/SMGCS detects RWY activity. The system can also warn a pilot on final of RWY activity by turning the approach lighting red!

2. Cross wind limits - Australia is non-compliant with the ICAO 15 Kt crosswind limit, allowing RWY nomination with a 20 kt crosswind, however:

This is only an issue if airports hang onto, or are forced to hang onto (Sydney) the "old-fashioned" idea that there should be an into wind runway.
By this I mean that ATC can therefore nominate a runway with a lesser crosswind, because there is one! In Sydney and Melbourne, this often reduces the airports to single-runway operations, absolutely cruelling their efficiency.

Brisbane smartly got rid of their cross-wind runway when the parallel 01L/19R was opened, hence no runway nomination problems. (Except during nighttime low wind conditions, but that is another subject)

So, we are safe, but very inefficient. The airports and Airservices management don't care, because all of those aircraft will land and take-off anyway, so they get their money.
Who suffers? Airline bottom-lines, pilots, ATC's running holding patterns, the environment as more fuel gets burned - but, hey, who cares?

(Quote)

What an odd concept. Here in Europe/USA a pilot has aircraft Manufacturers/ Company performance limits to work with. And of course weather minima appropriate to the landing aids/weather conditions at the time. ATC does not stop me starting an Approach due to some ATC dictat.
Also my last Type had a dry X Wind limit of 35K gusting 40, so I would be stopped from landing in Sydney if the X Wind was 20kts> ?

[Awol57]

You won't be stopped, we just can't nominate the runway. Require it all you like, no problems.

[RAC/OPS]

Originally Posted by keepemseperated

Back in the day, it was 25 kts crosswind (not much better than 20, but did make quite a difference as to how often single runway ops were required), until the local carriers got fed up of landing on a short runway with 25 kts of crosswind due to noise sharing.

The 20 kts was supposed to be introduced only for noise sharing modes, but it got f@rked up somewhere along the line and 20kts was adopted across the board.

Not sure if it was ASA/CASA/QFA or AAA - probably a combination of all 4.

airlines throughout the world seem to manage on parallel runways with well in excess of 20kts. I guess it’s “Australian conditions”. The wind must be tougher here.

[sunnySA]

Monday 8-Jan

More on Melbourne. Significant disruption. THIS ARR IS UNACHIEVABLE and is for slot manipulation only.

MELBOURNE (YMML)
TAF AMD YMML 071354Z 0713/0818
02005KT 9999 LIGHT RAIN SCT020 BKN035
BECMG 0717/0719 18005KT 9999 LIGHT DRIZZLE BKN005
BECMG 0801/0803 19012KT 9999 LIGHT DRIZZLE BKN010
BECMG 0806/0808 21010KT 9999 LIGHT DRIZZLE BKN005
FM081200 17006KT 9999 LIGHT RAIN BKN010
TEMPO 0713/0716 VRB20G30KT 1000 THUNDERSTORMS WITH MODERATE RAIN
BKN010 SCT090CB
INTER 0716/0718 4000 MODERATE RAIN SCT020 BKN050
TEMPO 0718/0803 2000 MODERATE DRIZZLE OVC003
TEMPO 0803/0807 4000 MODERATE DRIZZLE BKN006
TEMPO 0807/0812 2000 MODERATE DRIZZLE OVC003
PROB30 TEMPO 0716/0722 VRB20G30KT 1000 THUNDERSTORMS WITH MODERATE
RAIN BKN010 SCT090CB
PROB30 0720/0800 1000 MIST BKN002
RMK
T 20 20 20 20 Q 1007 1006 1006 1008
TAF3

YMML AD WRNG 1 VALID 071400/071600
AERODROME WARNING NUMBER 1 FOR MELBOURNE VALID 080100/080300 LOCAL
ISSUED 071353 (080053 LOCAL)
EMBEDED THUNDERSTORMS AND HEAVY RAIN APPROACHING FROM THE NORTH

[Lookleft]

I am very happy that today I am on the ground not even wishing I was in the air.

[1000fps]

Well it was great!
You missed a chance to demonstrate your competency to yourself.

Tanker to close to MLW, performance limited, as you calculated only to have extra passengers jump aboard.

A missed approach from 400’ agl on an RNP approach to a narrow strip back into a hold ( emergency turn if you like).
Land next approach. No ATC here.

Wait. The return needs a performance limited MTOW calculation for max fuel as destination has BKN 400’ with an Altn requirement.

Inbound holding, recalculate minimum bingo fuel. Check all weathers…oops Printer failure!

Shoot an ILS approach - visual 100’ above.

Park it, go home, satisfied that I am capable enough to best the usual problems and thumb my nose at those higher up with their gold stars trapped in their glass cages.

I am a Line Pilot!

Enjoy the challenges fellow Pilots.

[Lookleft]

You missed a chance to demonstrate your competency to yourself.

I have had plenty of days like you just experienced and no longer have to prove anything to anyone least of all myself. At the time though I felt just as you did that I was on top of my game.

[C441]

Brisbane smartly got rid of their cross-wind runway when the parallel 01L/19R was opened, hence no runway nomination problems. (Except during nighttime low wind conditions, but that is another subject)

Even if there were still a 14/32 in Brisbane, ATC probably wouldn't 'nominate' it as it was too short for most widebody ops and probably heavier weight 737/320 departures, especially as the really strong westerlies in Brissy would produce a downwind on 14. Whilst I recall it being used for arrivals, I don't recall it being used too often for departures of the airline's domestic fleets, even in a rare strong north-westerly.

[DROPS]

Originally Posted by C441

Even if there were still a 14/32 in Brisbane, ATC probably wouldn't 'nominate' it as it was too short for most widebody ops and probably heavier weight 737/320 departures, especially as the really strong westerlies in Brissy would produce a downwind on 14. Whilst I recall it being used for arrivals, I don't recall it being used too often for departures of the airline's domestic fleets, even in a rare strong north-westerly.

Was great for TP departures however.

And NAP Nightime freighters.

Was not supposed to close when it did. CV19 made it a carpark and BAC hastily painted out the markings, hence it remains an unused often in to wind crumbling exclamation point.

[Mr Approach]

RWY 14/32 BNE

Originally Posted by C441

Even if there were still a 14/32 in Brisbane, ATC probably wouldn't 'nominate' it as it was too short for most widebody ops and probably heavier weight 737/320 departures, especially as the really strong westerlies in Brissy would produce a downwind on 14. Whilst I recall it being used for arrivals, I don't recall it being used too often for departures of the airline's domestic fleets, even in a rare strong north-westerly.

Not quite correct, it could be nominated for simultaneous 01/14 arrivals and either 19 or 01/32 Departures. That allowed a lot of smaller aircraft to jump the airborne or taxiway queues.

[missy]

Perhaps the issue is the amount of on the job training being conducted on busy ATC frequencies, complex traffic including taxiway works and traffic ramping up. Continual training reduces the efficiency of operations. MEL TWR have had 8 trainees in a row have failed to rate.

MEL ATC College has Tower simulators, are these being used for basic introductory training prior to on the job training?