Originally Posted by
George Glass
No Missy. If its crosswind 25 Kts gusting 30 on 16R I want a clearance to land and I will decide whether or not it will work out at 200’. I know, bizarre idea. It’s called aviating.
George, I understand where you're coming from as I have tried numerous times to have the following restriction changed -
For jet arrivals, ATC will not nominate runways other than 16R or 34L when the runways are wet with a tailwind component" I believe that the acceptance of RWY 16L or 34R for arrival (or 07 or 25) with tailwind on a wet runway is a pilot responsibility.
The problem with what you are suggesting is 2 fold.
1. Increased possibility of a missed approach (probability given the probable wind shear and/or mechanical turbulence across short final from the international terminal and containers stack west of the approach)
2. Aircraft requiring RWY 25. Mixed operations involving parallel operations and other aircraft requiring RWY 25 for arrival are not safe and introduce delays and frustrations all around. Consider 25 arrivals versus RWY 34R operations. The increased complexity is difficult to manage.
The rule-set used to be 25 knots, it was changed to 20 knots, change it back to 25 knots or increase it to 30 knots. But as I and others have said, it's up to CASA. But if its 30 knots then you can't have a system that then allows an aircraft to then require RWY 07 or 25 and then there be with no delay to that aircraft but the whole system gets messed about.
The other option is build 25L or decommission 07/25 and turn it into a taxiway. This was suggested in 1994 when RWY 16L/34R was opened (25 years ago) but it didn't happen, perhaps this needs to be re-visited.