PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Sydney ATC and PRM approaches
View Single Post
Old 15th Feb 2012, 22:09
  #22 (permalink)  
KRUSTY 34
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,306
Received 9 Likes on 4 Posts
Qestions

Thanks for the insight ferris. Any chance of clearing some things up?

Why is it that even when CTMS is met to the minute, an inbound flight will often still encounter slow downs, vectors, holding, or in fact all of the above. Is CTMS merely one layer in managing delays, or doesn't the CTMS system provide a viable solution?

Are ILS PRM approaches more efficient in processing arrivals than independent visual approaches? I ask because on the morning in question, even though aircraft were calling visual at 12 miles and around 4000 feet ( and I can tell you, at that point there was a clear run to both runways) why weren't they then instructed to make a visual approach.

Based on haughtney1's comments, he was thankful that his flight was processed in an expeditious manner so as to avoid the onset of the PRM's. Did he have a fuel problem? If according to ATC, PRM's are more efficient than ILS/IVA's, why was there a desire for him to be shortcutted? Why were other RPT flights who would have quite easily arrived before the onset of the PRM's for that morning delayed to the extent that they arrived in time for the PRM's ?
KRUSTY 34 is offline