Pussies!

[TBM-Legend]

Planes at Melbourne Airport face 'higher risk' of mid-air collision, Senate hears - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-28/planes-at-melbourne-airport-face-higher-risk/5927094)


.....hiding behind Nick Xylophone..:p

[chimbu warrior]

I'm no pussy....nor puppy.....but if it is intersecting runways that they are concerned about (LAHSO I presume) then surely the greatest risk of collision is on the ground rather than in the air?

Either way, I hope it never occurs.

[kaz3g]

A go around due strong cross winds is the risk they appear to be focused on.

Kaz

[Arnold E]

Pussies!

You really are a legend aren't you? :ugh:

[Jabawocky]

The practice is banned in most parts of the world, but permitted in Australia, the United States and Canada.

But there are strict conditions governing when a pilot is allowed to land on a runway that intersects another that is in use.

Well perhaps the rest of the world is not capable of it, but if us the yanks and Canadians can do it……it can't be that bad surely!

[jas24zzk]

ABC gutter trash...

Cross winds have to be less than 20 knots and tail winds less than 5 knots.

My brief re-read of the rules, is that this part is dictated by the manufacturers POH, including demonstrated Xwind and performance data, closely followed by the operators handbooks and policy, at all times decided by the Pilot in command. Dang, I am ticketed on lighties with a better Xwind componant than this purported.

Greg Hood should have told em to get stuffed until they get a clue.

YMML cross runway ops have operated for years without seperation incidents. LAHSO is more risky, but the traffic levels see to it that LAHSO is rarely used.

This ABC left wing crap is saying the controllers cannot do their job and need further regulation.

Truth is, the ABC can't do their job and need another funding cut!

[le Pingouin]

jas24zzk, which bit do you object to? The general rule for LAHSO is 20 and 5. Surely the more adverse the conditions the higher the chance of a go-around and the greater the risk of a collision.

The article is saying nothing about controllers and everything about rules. The whole intention of such general rules is to operate well within the normal capabilities of any aircraft likely to be involved to minimise the risk.

You have an unusual definition of "rarely". It'd be a rare week we don't use it at some stage.

Methinks you need to go easy on the LNP anti-ABC Kool-Aid. It should carry a health warning as it rots the brain.

[Squawk7700]

Maybe they could spend some of the billions they make from car parks on another new runway. Would pay for it in no time.

[thorn bird]

"Maybe they could spend some of the billions they make from car parks on another new runway"

Not much left after paying Mc Bank management fees and directors bonuses mate, hell there's not even enough left to pay any tax.
Guess they have to pay tax in the Bahamas...oh yeah tax free zone aint it.:}

[rutan around]

Truth is, the ABC can't do their job and need another funding cut! Great idea Jaz. We can all see how wonderfully that approach has worked with commercial radio and TV.

Oh that the ABC could produce balanced and informative commentary such as that produced by brilliant and even-handed experts like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt. :yuk:

All that we'll be left with is 'A Current Affair' and shows like Big Brother and The Farmer Finds a Wife (if he hasn't found one yet). Average IQ of viewers of these shows is about 25, isn't it? Maybe Today Tonight can do a survey.

[topdrop]

jas24zzk,
Your statement about crosswinds shows a complete lack of comprehension of the increased risk of collision due go round in LAHSO operations. Perhaps you got it from Mr Bolt.

[Towering Q]

This ABC left wing crap...

So, Mel Clarke reports on a Senate Hearing, featuring Senator Nick Xenophon and Air Services Australia's Greg Hood, provides relevant quotes and researched facts in an impartial manner....and it's "left wing crap?":ugh:

What a bizarre world you live in.

[4 Holer]

Wake up down there on the Island go see how the grown ups do it and get ATC lessons in LHR/ATL/JFK/ORD/DFW.....


Inquiry, report, tribunal another report recommendation then Government change repeat all over again nothing happens, this is why Australia is an Island as all Islands are backward...

[currawong]

Misleading thread title...:(

[Pinky the pilot]

Misleading thread title...

Quite so, currawong. I thought it was about Cats!:confused::E


Taily; This one's going nowhere fast!

[Horatio Leafblower]

Wake up down there on the Island go see how the grown ups do it and get ATC lessons in LHR/ATL/JFK/ORD/DFW.....


Inquiry, report, tribunal another report recommendation then Government change repeat all over again nothing happens, this is why Australia is an Island as all Islands are backward...

So, so true and so bloody sad.

In every endeavour Banana Island is choking itself in brown tape and bureaucracy and taxes and fees and public servants and...

...If you fly into New York, how many SIDs/STARs/etc are published?
...if you fly into Melbourne or Perth, how many pages of crap are published?

This has nothing to do with Left/right wing crap, it has everything to do with the sheep-like character that typifies Australians in the 21st Century.

We are being manipulated by major corporations and media outlets and the average Aussie doesn't have a clue and doesn't give a ****.



....what was this thread about again? :mad:

NURSE!

[le Pingouin]

Sigh. Get off the "they don't don't do it in XXXX (substitute favourite major overseas aerodrome) so why should we here?" horse already. Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, they don't because they can't due to traffic levels and airspace structure?

We keep getting told the airlines like it this way so where are you coming from?

[sprocket check]

To quote Ren and Stimpy:

"EEDIOTS TO THE LEFT OF ME, EEEDIOTS TO THE RIGHT OF ME, AAAAGGGHHHHH EEEEDIOTS EVERYWHERE!!!!!!"

Yep. The thread has gone to the dogs.

As has the country, for the most part. The number of people happy to accept the crap dished out to them is phenomenal.

[Arnold E]

This ABC left wing crap

Tell me EXACTLY what is LEFT WING crap.
Dont hold back, but I want to know What is LEFT WING only, nothing else.

[Arnold E]

Taily; This one's going nowhere fast!

Then dont read it, simple. ( I cant do the mearkats squeak ) maybe only applicable to SA

[1Charlie]

Wake up down there on the Island go see how the grown ups do it and get ATC lessons in LHR/ATL/JFK/ORD/DFW.....


Every one of these airports has parallel RWYs longer than 3km. Something no airport in Australia has. That's why we end up with inefficient arrival and departure procedures, and modes of operation with increased levels of risk.

[Andy_RR]

I find it slightly hilarious, if a little depressing, when the enquiring senators crack a collective wobbly because someone, somewhere isn't doing their job to perfection. Its not as if the senate isn't something of a stuff up now, is it...?

[Horatio Leafblower]

Stupid pprune Android app... :ugh:

[framer]

I find it slightly hilarious, if a little depressing, when the enquiring senators crack a collective wobbly because someone, somewhere isn't doing their job to perfection. Its not as if the senate isn't something of a stuff up now, is it...?

Their jobs are " low validity" .
How do you determine ' expertise ' or ' perfection' ? It is easy in a job like flying or Air Traffic Control because all the parameters are measured and outcomes are obvious and assessed. These are ' high validity ' professions. People actually do become ' expert' .
In political roles, and psychology , there is very little immediate feedback to confirm if someone was correct or incorrect, ( low validity) if a decision was good or bad......who knows until ten years later, and even then only if someone bothers to check up......low validity roles deny the worker the opportunity to change the ways they do things because they don't get the feedback.........therefore they never....ever.....become expert in their role.

[Andy_RR]

What you're saying Framer, is that pollies with their "low validity" jobs are doing stuff where they have no clue about the outcome of their actions either before or for a long time after.

This to me is not a job as much as it is busybody meddling in affairs that they have no business to be involved in. Of course it is the pollies who define the importance of their roles themselves so the results are not surprising really.

[le Pingouin]

The MOS Part 172 is silent on the wind components for the passive runway and has been since at least 2005 (the earliest version shown on ComLaw):

10.13.5.8 LAHSO must only be permitted as follows:

(a) runways are equipped with standard LAHSO signs, lights and runway markings as specified in AIP Aerodromes (AD);

(b) the ceiling is not less than 1,000 FT and visibility is not less than 5,000 M;

(c) ‘active’ participation is restricted to runways where the crosswind component including gusts does not exceed 20 KT;

(d) simultaneous landings may be permitted by day and night;

(e) a simultaneous take-off and landing is only permitted by day;

(f) a “HOLD SHORT” requirement must not be given when low level wind shear of intensity greater than LIGHT is reported;

(g) when the runway is damp or wet, a “HOLD SHORT” requirement must only be issued if the braking characteristics are assessed as GOOD by a pilot of an aircraft in the same performance category.



Manual of Standards Part 172 - Air Traffic Services (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2007C00328)



On the surface there has never been any rule breach. The rule might be wrong but has been so for a long time.

I'm not familiar with the US legislative/regulatory process so have no idea where to find their definitive documentation stating wind requirements for LAHSO. Any takers?

[mikedreamer787]

Misleading thread title..

Damn right. I thought I was going to see some snatch! :(

[Chief galah]

Intriguing.

AIP ENR 1.1-61 33.1c says

"The ceiling is not less than the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA)
for the location where LAHSO are being conducted and visibility is
not less than 8km."

Either way, it's very dodgy if there's a double go round, where both aircraft
would go into cloud very quickly, without any spacing factored in at the intersection.

[parabellum]

Regardless of what the airport may be operating some airlines, (including my last employer), banned LHASO anywhere, particularly on the B744, just didn't like it.