Originally Posted by oicur12.again
So your call to ATC when requiring the longer runway is based on an auto brake low calculation?
Where did I say that ?
I provided the numbers based upon autobrake low as that is our SOP (and the manufacturers), likewise our SOP has us fully configured a lot earlier than say a US domestic airlines. My job is to operate the aircraft in the way my company says it should be done, as that is what is approved by our regulator. I would expect other operators and regulators have similar requirements.
We come in a lot heavier than domestic carriers as often we carry BNE/MEL/ADL as our alternate. There are times we need to land at night with stupid amounts of fuel in Australia due to the SYD curfew, e.g. MEL using BNE as the alternate.
I cannot think of the last time I had to use "require" to get a different runway in Australia, never in the past 5 years, the only question I get asked these days going into MEL is if we want to do the NDB or RNAV approach. That is on an aircraft that has no ADF equipment listed on the filed ATC flight plan.
Naturally I can use MED if needed, and that was necessary for years operating into NRT before they extended it.
The max manual numbers in the QRH are also based upon being 5 kts below the normal approach speed, something I don't do in normal operations. There is no prize for needing a gear change as a result of a heavy landing, the fat controller would question my judgement when there is a perfectly good longer runway right next to it. There is no pat the back for saving 100 kg doing a reduced flap idle reverse landing on a wet runway and going off the end, people don't remember the 100 kg fuel saving.
CX for some time was the largest operator of A330s in the world, there is a reason behind the way the SOPs have evolved, there is a reason why so many airlines used the CX developed FCTM as the basis of how they train and operate the aircraft. I am not sure about QF, however VA had their pilots online with CX to gain their A330 initial operating experience.
Perhaps meeting with the various operators to discuss their runway occupancy and/or allocation could something that ASA needs to consider?
I believe other issues are in SYD that are actually driving this, last time I looked at the numbers, ATC had more aircraft using the short runway. I have never missed the high speed in SYD unless ATC have asked me to cross 25 to fit their plans.
I was on the receiving end of this a number of times in the last few months of 767 ops- probably 8 or 9 times? On 3 of those times when we taxied for 16L there was quite literally no one waiting for departure on 16R... and on two of those occasions only one arrival as we taxied out. On another 3 occasions there was only 1 aircraft awaiting a departure. Another time we were changed to 16R due to the lack of departures and on the other couple of times the change to 16L was probably justified.
What you are describing to me lacks common sense. People suggest that SYD is busy, it is no where near as busy as other airports around the world. Obviously there are other artificial constraints at play.
Both of the large domestic carriers have in the annual results pointed to excess domestic capacity. Hong Kong operates on an average of around 180 seats per movement, I would not be surprised if SYD was half that, i.e. they slots that are being used are not being used efficiently for other reasons.
If you want to start an slot efficiency drive, lets put all the variables onto the table and see where the real low hanging fruit is. This requires a definition what is means to be efficient, i.e. more passengers using the airport, or more aircraft.
What I am suggesting here is the business decision made by the domestic airlines to operate 737/A320 aircraft with such frequency between SYD-MEL may not be the most efficient use of the slots available.
The infrequency of foreign AOC aircraft are really a red herring in my view when evaluating utilization and efficiency of slots at SYD and MEL. Heavy traffic only make up around 20% of the movements.