Emirates Approach into YMML

[CLEAR PROP]

I have recently noticed what I would call an unusual approach into YMML by EK 405, an Emirates 777..... It seems to approach from the north east of suburban Melbourne making its way over albert park lake and down to port melbourne before turning onto RWY 34. I just find it interesting as I have not seen this approach before and this aircraft seems to be doing it on a regular basis ..... any info guys ??

[Capt Fathom]

Looks like the 34 VORDME appr from the northeast via PLE & Pedro.

[ZK-NSJ]

i recently flew to melbourne on a emirates A340 we approached from the south towards 34 but didnt line up till very late in the piece (i was watching thru the front mounted camera and could see the runway lights)

[itchybum]

NSJ

I think that would be because the 34VOR approach is off-set a fair bit from the runway centreline.

[yarrayarra]

Both Emirates and Lufthansa are processed via the instrument approach star (PLE 2 arrival) for RWY 34 rather than the overhead Essendon Visual Approach

[CLEAR PROP]

Thanks YarraYarra, thats what I was looking for...... is there a particular reason why these 2 airlines are processed like this ? It would give quite a nice view of the city for those lucky enough to approach this way !!

[404 Titan]

Airservices Australia has a written policy not to give visual approaches to any foreign carrier unless they ask for one. This came about after several carriers, mainly from Asia stuffed up said clearances.

[Dale Harris]

Emirates also sometimes use the 34 GPS NPA into ml. Not a common request amongst operators yet.

[Uncommon Sense]

404 Titan

That is not an Airservices policy as stated.

Having said that the policies are fast flowing and often bewildering - usually they are not ASA policies, but requests from individual carriers - which makes for interesting flowing/sequencing.

One I would really like to know an answer to from any of the VB crew: why is an ILS required by VB to RWY 19 at BN at night, but not to RWY 01?

[Capt Fathom]

Black Hole Approach? (I'm not VB)

[Tiberius]

Uncommon Sense

404 Titian is partially correct

There is a MATS ref. which rules out issuing visual approaches to Heavy Internationals in most circumstances unless one is specifically asked for

[Uncommon Sense]

Yes, precisely.

I would suggest that the majority of Int'l arrivals these days are not Heavy's.

The Int'l crew who are infrequent to one prt or another seem a little bewildered at times why they are flying an extra 10+ track miles in severe CAVOK. Often by the time they ask for a visual it is too late to change the sequence. The regulars slowly seem to be realising to ask prior to to TOD.

Who decided Heavies exc Aust/NZ registered would be treated this way? Another faceless/nameless decision? Just curious.

(All seems a bit dumbed down when you see the 727 freighters joining 3 nm left base at 0300 local.)

[Tiberius]

At least into ML, nearly all the international traffic is Heavy. Exceptions are Air Nauru, Freedom and Air NZ (there could be others, but I can't think of any).

Agree with you on the sometimes odd rules that appear. I think many are developed in response to incidents, and sometimes that response is not entirely appropriate.

[Tagneah]

The RWY 19 ILS at BNE (via Leaky-Boats-Sinkk) is now given to both airlines. There is no restriction on DJ operations. I believe it was the QF 767's that were not permitted (company restrictions) to do the visual arrival by night or day but a QF driver might be able to shed some light on that.

I have heard that the current restrictions on the 19 viz approach at night are due to night time viz approach requirements leaving you high.

ATC seem to be quite happy to offer you a visual approach once on a rough downwind if available anyway but will not issue the 'Visual' STAR.

Tag

[Uncommon Sense]

Tagneah,

The only reason I asked is that there is a direction that VB are NOT to be offered VSA at night into BN on RWY 19. The reason given is 'company requirement'.

Shall be processed via the IAL STAR.

[Tagneah]

As far as we have been told, the policy has been agreed on between DJ, QF and BNE ATC.

This gives me the impression that it is not just a DJ requirement.

Tag

[yarrayarra]

Further to my previous: as of 2 Sep 2004 it's now a PLE 3 Arrival- which leads to the RWY34 VOR/DME approach. Both Emirates and Lufthansa requested that STAR- don't like the overhead Essendon VSA
Cheers all

[stable approach]

Uncommon sense,
With my current airline I have been rostered to MEL once in the past eighteen months - and that was my first flight into MEL for fifteen years. Arriving at night after eight hours in the cockpit, the dumbing down part sounds fine to me. As you said, the regulars are free to request a visual approach.
Seems like common sense, excuse the pun.

[mr hanky]

From Tagneah: "The RWY 19 ILS at BNE (via Leaky-Boats-Sinkk) is now given to both airlines. There is no restriction on DJ operations. I believe it was the QF 767's that were not permitted (company restrictions) to do the visual arrival by night or day but a QF driver might be able to shed some light on that.

I have heard that the current restrictions on the 19 viz approach at night are due to night time viz approach requirements leaving you high."

If there's any restriction on QF 767 vis approaches to 19 it's news to me. The approach comfortably complies with QF stable approach requirements, also there's no problem with being left high at night since ATC can get you down to 1500' on radar, which means you're well within the Cat D circling area before commencing descent on a 3 degree path.

It does seem to be standard that the 767 gets assigned the Moovi/Leaky STARS, but ATC seems quite happy to give us the visual one if we ask.

This probably goes back a couple of years to when QF was concerned about stable approaches, and the old 19 visual approach (with about a 120 degree turn onto final combined with the usual 20kt tailwind on base) occasionally got stuffed up. It became normal for us to join via the full ILS or vectors for a shorter final if you asked - but like I say, there's never been a prohibition on 767 visual approaches.

[Tagneah]

Thanks for your reply Mr Hanky,

Do you get offered the viz STAR at night now or out via Leaky?

The night time Viz App minium altitude requirements are something along the lines of:

maintain an altitude of not less than the route segment LSALT/MSA etc OR

If being redar vectored operate not below the last asigned altitude.

Since the A/C is cleared via the STAR then it must adhere to the LSALT from POODL to KOUPA of 2100' till about 5 or so miles fom touchdown leaving it a little high. That combined with the usual tailwind means high rates of descent at night etc...

I cannot remember where you enter the circling area on the Star. I think its a little after KOUPA but not sure.

If it was under radar vectors then 1500 is the go till in the circling area

Im not sure if Im correct but thats my take on the situation

Tag

[mr hanky]

Hi Tagneah

We always get issued the Leaky 1 STAR initially, but if we want they seem happy to amend it to the CG8 (ie visual) STAR.

As far as night visual approach requirements go, if we had to maintain 2100' till the circling area it would make things a bit interesting (although bear in mind it's via a base leg rather than straight in, so you actually get more than 5.28 track miles from entering the circling area to the threshold. I can't remember exactly how many track miles it works out at - lately BN seems to be on 01 every time I go there!).

You're correct about the distinction between being vectored versus descending to LSALT/MSA. The practical interpretation is that even though we're following a STAR track rather than a radar heading, effectively we're under vectors as far as altitude is concerned and are therefore OK to descend to the MVA of 1500'.

If you were unhappy with that interpretation (and I've never met anyone who was), I suppose you could always get Approach to give you a radar track of 275 from Koupa to within the circling area, instead of following the STAR track of 275 ... which would achieve exactly the same thing but would probably make ATC think you were a bit of a prat!

[Tagneah]

I suppose you could always get Approach to give you a radar track of 275 from Koupa to within the circling area, instead of following the STAR track of 275 ... which would achieve exactly the same thing but would probably make ATC think you were a bit of a prat!

Too much like hard work!!

Not trying to split the atom here just trying to find the reason why its no longer offered at night.

I will say it is great to have some usefull comments on here instead of the usual!

Safe landings Hank!

Tag

[Towering Cu]

In reply to CLEAR PROP's original question, it is indeed as some others have mentioned, i.e. Heavy aircraft from foreign operators are issued an instrument approach unless they specifically request a visual.

AIP refers:

ENR (2 SEP 04)
11.5.2 In addition to the requirements of para 11.5.1, with the exception of
Australian and New Zealand operators and aircraft conducting independent visual approaches at Sydney, HEAVY jet aircraft will
only be assigned a visual approach when:

a. specifically requested by the pilot, and the pilot has reported
the landing runway in sight; or

b. the straight-in approach aid is unserviceable.

[6100]

EK SOP's do not allow a visual approach to be requested if a straight in instrument approach is available, except on training flights.

Mystery solved

[Arctaurus]

6100 is correct.

EK Flight Operations Manual categorically states no visual approaches when an instrument approach is available.

[Roger Standby]

Wasn't too long ago you'd issue the visual star and the DLH guys would help themselves to an instrument star regardless! Simple answer, isuue them an intstrument star straight up, lol. Beside the company policy, I also believe the restriction on descent overhead EN and the split a$$ turn onto final may not be popular with some pilots (I could be wrong on that one).

RS.