jj232 said:
PRM appraoches allow us to have aircraft side by side in IMC where as ILS's require min 2nm between the finals thus reducing the arrival rate. Even though your downwinds are longer we are excepting more aircraft on PRM so the actual delays are less.
I cannot reconcile how a 20 mile downwind followed by base then a 20 mile final at min speed, twice the distances normally applied to an ILS/IVA, even with the min 2nm spacing, provides actual less delays. I can tell you it does not feel like it from a pilot's perspective who have to do this approach regularly, particularly after flying at min speed since entering Class E very shortly after takeoff. I am yet to meet another pilot who say they would much rather a PRM than an ILS/IVA. Everyone I know hates hearing those dreaded letters 'PRM' on the ATIS.
I also arrived into Sydney that same morning where we were visual at 4,000 and still had to contend with this approach. Can you please advise what criteria you guys use when applying the PRM approach and why we would have had to suffer this when visual at 4,000? You could just about hear the frustration in everyone's voice,
"Visual at 4,000." (Why the f*ck are we doing this?)
Please understand I am not having a go. I know it is here to stay and would just like your or any ATC's take on the issues I have raised.
Thanks