Choosing Runway at Destination Airport

[ferratini]

Hi,

Can you please share some hints on how to choose the runway for landing on an airport with multiple ones (except parallel runways)?

E.g. in Amsterdam (AMS), I can always rely on the published preferential rwy's but I find it quite confuse due to the amount of runways crossing each others extended runway centerline.

Thanks in advance.

[no sig]

ferratini

You might get a more comprehensive answer by posting this one the ATC forum- however, in general ATC/Airport Ops will select the runway/s to be use based on the wind of course, approach aids/lighting availability, any work on the airfield and at many major airports, noise abatement restrictions often affect their choice, especially at places like AMS. It is common for large airports to have local procedures to reduce noise exposure for local communities which may alternate the use of the runway in use.

But, your question is, how can you choose which runway will be in use for your arrival? At most airports you can do so with a high degree of certainty by considering the above. But if this something you need to do regularly for any given airport, you need to know local ATC procedures- read their AIP and/or speak with them; better still, visit the airports operations/ATC people and discuss your issues. Also, many airports have their ATIS, which will give you the runways in use, available on a telephone number, or dare I say you can pick it up off the internet at some.

However, if ever you have a operational restriction and need to use a specific runway, you should call ATC at your destination before departure and try and negotiate directly with them in order that they can plan that runway for your arrival, or tell you they can't. Remember to apply the same thought processes to your alternate/s.

But one important thing to remember- if you're trying to figure out which runway will be in use or working crosswind components based on the wind from a METAR (true winds), do remember to apply magnetic variation where appropriate. Not such an issue in most European countries, but take a look at KEF and you'll see what I mean, in some parts of the world it can make all the difference.

[mad_jock]

You won't get many pilots complain if you pick the one that requires the largest fuel burn.

If that compromises your load stick on the Plog the lowest and the highest burn and let the pilot choose using the Wx given.

I am a TP pilot so it might be different for the Jet boys. But I would be chuffed as hell if ops had the fore thought to included both figures and which runway they were for.

Eventually after a couple of cancelled flights in a month of LVP's my old company ops managed to get pilot brief to include the sector fuel for 8 different alternates. I don't think they even realised how useful it was.

[Airbus_a321]

You won't get many pilots complain if you pick the one that requires the largest fuel burn. :ok: ...and add the longest STAR, (or SID on dep) :ok:

I hate those beancounters in the office, obviously most of them no clue about the real flying life, giving OFP to pilots, taking ALWAYS the shortest DEP and shortest ARR route, if they take any at all, but a DIRECT only from/to the RWY.
May be they are proud having "built" an OFP with such low MIN FUEL.
So if you go out with their MIN FUEL "calculated", already at the end of the "planned" DEP you missing a couple of minutes and some 100 kgs of fuel. :ugh:

[ab33t]

Yes and when it comes down to the crunch , the choice of runway will not be the issue but you as pilot in command with the final decision

[Kiltie]

"Hate" is a strong word to use Airbus A321. The "beancounters" have just as important a function in an airline as Ops controllers, pilots, engineers, cabin crew etc. I expect you are correct that they have "no idea about the flying life", the same as I have no idea about the methods they use to finance the day to day running of a multi million pound company. Frankly I am glad I am provided with a statistically accurate minimum trip fuel burn. This is a God-send when it comes to departing on a performance limiting runway. It is up to us, the pilots, to increase (or on some occasions decrease) the published trip fuel by mainpulating the briefing information furnished to us on the day. This includes parameters which you mention as different SIDs / STARs. Adding extra (or additional depending on the circumstances) is a privilege freely afforded to the commander, and I have never worked for an employer who has denied me the requirement I stipulate. Yes there is usually a maximum extra or additional amount that can be carried without providing an explanation, but sadly I have come across a handful of individuals over the years who refuse point-blank to record a reason for extra or additional fuel uplift on the plog. I can only assume this is some kind of pathetic crusade against their superiors, a feeble disguise of their deep nervousness or ignorance of the fuel planning regime?

For the benefit of the original poster; I am not professionally versed in Dispatch or Operations but I would assume you select the local ATC preferred landing runway & STAR for planning, although now I see you have a predicament when there are multiples available....

[no sig]

The 'accuracy' of your OFP, is more often dependant on your Nav office or whoever has responsibility for the maintenance and set-up of your flight planning system and route builds, than it is the day to day operations/flight dispatch people- although of course they should have the ability to adjust that as required on the day. The 'default' settings for fuel requirements/bias/aircraft registration in the flight planning system are rarely communicated to the crews in my experience, let alone the operations/dispatchers. Direct routings in place of SIDS/STARS may often (should) have an increased distance bias which in fact considers the longest track distances for a given airport/runway, which is of course conservative and correct. Further, your nav people should be monitoring the completed flight PLOGS to ensure the OFP's going out are accurate and any fuel degradation for a given airframe is built into the system. But crucially, pilots must give their feedback regarding routings, fuel burns etc. in order to refine the data in the system, and on the otherhand, I think it is important for you to understand the system defaults.

[Cascone]

you can add 50 mins extra of fuel to the minimum fuel required.