PDA

View Full Version : Request vs Require.


WAGM
20th Jan 2015, 05:01
Without wishing to be too much of a pedant, does anyone else get irked by our neighbours from the north forever requesting the longest runways.
When asked if they "require" the requested runway their level 6 English doesn't appear to know the difference. Knowing the performance of these aircraft, I very much doubt they have operational requirements without an un serviceability. The rest of us are in effect being displaced for their comfort, convenience or lack of airmanship knowing the difference between request and require.

If they tried that in the states and many other countries they would be held to account or delayed at the controllers convenience but ATC seems to bump everyone else to assist them?

Where is the accountability?:hmm:

ga_trojan
20th Jan 2015, 05:42
I agree. Saw them screw over Cathay one night who got sent off to 16L which didn't go down to well.:hmm:

Interestingly i have heard ATC challenge QF when they 'require' a runway (asking what the actual requirement is) but not Asian Airlines. Given it is now in the Notams maybe they need to stop them rorting the system.

ACMS
20th Jan 2015, 07:30
You do realize that Aircraft performance is only ONE part of the equation we consider after 10 hours flying all night and very little sleep don't you?

Yes I do agree that a lot of my colleagues ( even the English speaking ones ) don't know when to say require or request.

If I want the long runway then I shall get it, simple.

Without wishing to sound pompous ATC are supposed to provide a service to their end user, the Airline crews wishing to operate their Aircraft to the best safety standards they can.

Remember I'm the one with the ATPL in control of my Aircraft, not ATC.

ACMS
20th Jan 2015, 07:38
I ask you this:--

Quite a few times my landing performance indicates I will need around 1,951 m on runway 27 in YMML which has an LDA of 2,286 m. However runway 34 is available with 3,657 m LDA and into wind.

After 10 hours all night when quite tired and landing at my body clock circadian low time which runway would you "require"

We are not in the business of close enough is good enough.

ACMS
20th Jan 2015, 07:45
Not only that you are wrong anyway.

Quite often I hear MH EK SQ VN and others land on RWY 27 in YMML, even depart on it.

When it's dry and we have a headwind at low weights I've landed on it as well.

We do what we need to do.

Just N Cider
20th Jan 2015, 08:11
Maybe "desire" would be a better word?

blueloo
20th Jan 2015, 08:44
Is "require" an Australian thing? I seem to recall someone telling me the phraseology as we understand it is not valid in most other countries.

To be fair i never followed it up to see if it was true.

If it is, it may explain why foreign carriers are confused by the terminology and ATC query.

Does anyone know?

WAGM
20th Jan 2015, 08:46
We all desire the most convenient runway.

ACMS
If I want the long runway then I shall get it, simple.

The thing is, do your "require" the runway or not.

I to have flown 16 hour sectors and 20 hours duties along with so many of my fellow pilots and we still know the difference of require and request........

What makes your operation any more special than ours!

Offchocks
20th Jan 2015, 08:55
Is "require" an Australian thing? I seem to recall someone telling me the phraseology as we understand it is not valid in most other countries
Having flown overseas for 15 years, I never heard of it until I returned home and therefore I believe "require" to be an Australian thing. Perhaps a hangover from many years ago when the CAA used to do things their own way, not a bad thing if you understand when to use it.

Gear in transit
20th Jan 2015, 09:16
We all desire the most convenient runway.

ACMS
Quote:
If I want the long runway then I shall get it, simple.
The thing is, do your "require" the runway or not.

I to have flown 16 hour sectors and 20 hours duties along with so many of my fellow pilots and we still know the difference of require and request........

What makes your operation any more special than ours!

This is an ongoing problem in YMML. Frequently there is a clear northerly blowing, yet we are stuck with 27 for arrivals. The problems still exists with 16 but appears to be less often. I'm not at all surprised some operators 'require' the into wind runway......

single chime
20th Jan 2015, 09:23
It is in the Australian AIP, nowhere else. (except wx deviation).
ICAO way is : Bigbird 123 request runway xx due yyy". Even the US uses that!

Kenny
20th Jan 2015, 09:31
Is "require" an Australian thing? I seem to recall someone telling me the phraseology as we understand it is not valid in most other countries
Having flown overseas for 15 years, I never heard of it until I returned home and therefore I believe "require" to be an Australian thing. Perhaps a hangover from many years ago when the CAA used to do things their own way, not a bad thing if you understand when to use it.

Exactly what I was going to say. Theres a lot we do differently down here. Like reading back a complete clearance when issued a PDC and calling "ready".

swh
20th Jan 2015, 10:17
If they tried that in the states and many other countries they would be held to account or delayed at the controllers convenience but ATC seems to bump everyone else to assist them?

Do it all the other time in other countries as well, drive the train as the operator says you have to.

Different certification bases, different regulator, no NDB approaches, no circling approaches, no ATC holding fuel, different fuel policy.

ASA I believe is also not permitted by their own internal policies to clear an international arrival for a visual, it can be requested by the crew.

Saw them screw over Cathay one night who got sent off to 16L which didn't go down to well.

It took years for CX to get ASA approval to use that runway, it was only obtained last year.

I never heard of it until I returned home and therefore I believe "require" to be an Australian thing.

It is in the ICAO docs.

Theres a lot we do differently down here. Like reading back a complete clearance when issued a PDC and calling "ready".

That happens outside Australia as well.

ACMS
20th Jan 2015, 10:35
WAGM--- nothing to do with convenience of runway exit location and nothing to do with being "special" you are a professional.

Mate it's simple:---- if I consider the runway is marginal for my landing, if I'm tired or for any other reason I consider it's safer to use the long bitumen into wind:--

then "I require RWY 34"

End of story full stop.

The buck stops with me.

I've never been given any grief from ATC or never been delayed unduly.

If you chose to land on a 2,286 m runway when your LDR is 2,000 m that's your call and I support you in making it. But if you stuff it up and bend something you can expect the insurance company to ask why you didn't avail yourself of the 3,000 m runway that was also available especially if it was into wind!!

Our job is to minimize risk and get the job done to the highest level of safety AT ALL TIMES, it's your call where you draw the line on the day.

BlackPrince77
20th Jan 2015, 12:04
If you chose to land on a 2,286 m runway when your LDR is 2,000 m that's your call and I support you in making it. But if you stuff it up and bend something you can expect the insurance company to ask why you didn't avail yourself of the 3,000 m runway that was also available especially if it was into wind!!

Our job is to minimize risk and get the job done to the highest level of safety AT ALL TIMES, it's your call where you draw the line on the day.

I assume you don't do an autoland on every single ILS you fly either because technically, the autopilot flies the approach better than you and thus, is a higher level of safety than you manually flying it?

We are pilots after all, where's the fun in making things too easy for ourselves...

TwoFiftyBelowTen
20th Jan 2015, 12:05
"Request" is a preference
"Require" is imperative
SYD operating guidelines require equal noise sharing on the parallel runways. ATC are required to try to balance the movements on both, not simply optimize use of the preferred runway 16R/34L. SYD tower would like to be able to have most international landings on 16R/34L so they can exit west and not need to cross the other active parallel runway, (other than at certain times when there are "departure bursts" when main runway use is weighted in favor of departures) but there are so many other stakeholders ATC is hamstrung by the SYD LTOP (Long Term Operating Plan) rules that try to appease everyone.

towerboy
20th Jan 2015, 13:18
Good discussion.
If you re-read the thread you will realise that ACSM originally believed that WAGM was ATC, and went into chest beating mode, subsequently reaffirming the points of WAGM's post!
And for the record, I drive a Sherman tank at 1km/hr to maximise safety margins on the way to work! If you spot my personalised number plates you'll know it's me, so give me a wave next time...that's not a requirement, just a request!
BTW, I've had the turret tied in a knot, so as not to intimidate.
Happy New Year.

donpizmeov
20th Jan 2015, 14:04
Very good discussion. If you read it without attitude, you would see that ACMS and SWH make some good points.
The rest seems emotional drivel.

Fluke
20th Jan 2015, 20:06
I would suggest the misunderstanding is more in ATC offering a choice of runways rather than a justification for one runway or approach over another.
They simply see it as a question of which runway would you prefer.

This " choice" rarely happens in Asia, where crews expect ATC to decide the runway and then configure accordingly.

Also while these terms, require/request may be ICAO terminology, they are not used in the EASA communications or the LIDO documents my airline uses. Still not an excuse for not observing Australian differences but just a thought to why the confusion happens.

Australopithecus
20th Jan 2015, 20:45
The term "require", seems to be unique to Australia whether its in the ICAO docs or not. I do understand its use here, and I do get that ATC is hamstrung by the noise folks.

Like ACMS I believe in optimisation of my operation, but am willing to compromise on 34R (not 16L, for obvious reasons). What does make me feel used is landing in the rain on 16L while a Saab 340 is using 16R. Nothing against commuter planes, but c'mon!

At around $50/km for taxi fuel there is also a slight penalty for the longer taxi route to the terminal, assuming all airborne burn is the same.

Kelly Slater
20th Jan 2015, 21:40
If you "request" a runway you should do it early in the piece. The response should be to either expect the requested runway or that it is unavailable unless operationally required. Another response might be that it will be available but with a delay. Other aircraft should not be penalised because an aircraft wants the convenience of a different runway.
Arriving at night after a long duty and facing a runway that is adequate but has no great margin would probably justify the pilot "requiring" the longer or more user friendly runway.

1Charlie
21st Jan 2015, 00:01
ATC can't unduly delay an aircraft that requires a non duty runway for operational reasons.

If it is for other than operational reasons, aircraft using the duty runway will have priority.

Ollie Onion
21st Jan 2015, 00:37
What counts as 'operational reasons', the fact that I am running late and that RWY34L would save me 15 minutes taxi. :}

LeadSled
21st Jan 2015, 01:20
What counts as 'operational reasons',

The decision of the pilot in command, full stop, end of story. There is no "list".

What irks me is ATC coming back and questioning is my "require" for operational reasons.
The only answer they ever get is: "I say again, require ----".

Tootle pip!!

ACMS
21st Jan 2015, 01:53
Yep precisely, at least you understand.

The others are just white noise.

ACMS
21st Jan 2015, 04:04
You either can't read the posts above or there is a good reason you only fly light twins.....:mad:

I've said it before as have others, we don't require the long runway just to save time or for fun.

Ok.

Capn Rex Havoc
21st Jan 2015, 06:18
I'm with ACMS. If you are landing a heavy or super after 14 hrs I will require the runway with the best landing performance results. Isnt that just sound airmanship?

Nautilus Blue
21st Jan 2015, 06:47
I find it easier to ask the question the other way round, "Can you accept RWY(short)?" Then if I get anything other than an affirm (request/prefer/like/rather have RWY(long) or rather not/we are a triple seven today/we'll give it a go) I am happy to take that as a negative, and issue the long one.

What irks me is ATC coming back and questioning is my "require" for operational reasons.

I can't imagine why anyone would question it. I like getting a "require", it's unambiguous, ends the discussion and means I don't have to decide anything (my inner public servant loves that).

Beer Baron
21st Jan 2015, 07:22
ACMS I hope I am misreading your comments but you come across as very self-important. Why shouldn't you accept the shorter parallel runway in SYD?

Why is your fatigue any more important than the next guy, why is your fuel burn on taxi more vital than the next carrier or why is your delay more critical than another pilot who does accept the duty runway?

Having 'only' a 300m surplus is a weak excuse. The performance figures that you derive are factored so you'd know full well that as long as you put it down on the aiming point you have far more runway in surplus. By your own figures of 1951m LDR you have an un-factored landing distance of 1169m. That leaves over a kilometer of excess runway on 16L/34R.
You say "we are not in the business of close enough is good enough" but if a pilot can not land within a Km of the aim point then that is not good enough to be in this business. Regardless of whether they have been flying for 10 hours.

I understand your statement that it is our job to minimise risk but it must be within reason. If every pilot flying into Sydney wants to completely minimise risk and pull off the runway after landing with 2Km of unused tarmac ahead of them then Sydney will become a single runway airport.
But you know that won't happen, because someone else will land (quite safely) on the shorter runway, it just won't be you because you are saying your needs take priority over other pilots needs.

It is not a battle between you and ATC because ATC don't lose in this situation, it's the other pilots who comply with the rules who suffer from your "requirement".

*Obviously there are certain circumstances where requiring a runway is entirely appropriate, I accept that. *

S70IP
21st Jan 2015, 07:30
The performance figures that you derive are factored

Not sure what you fly but figures from Boeing QRH are NOT factored.

2Plus
21st Jan 2015, 08:08
Absolute classic from Air Asia and CTR today, gave us a good laugh. Can't remember exact statements but the conversation went vaguely something like this...

(XAX)"Request 34 Arrival."
(CTR)"Requirement?"
(XAX)"Affirm, request runway 34."
(CTR)"Confirm requiring 34?"
(XAX)"Affirm, request runway 34."

Xanadu eventually accepted runway 27 albeit somewhat reluctantly judging by the tone.

Approx. 10mins pass....

(XAX New voice) "Xanadu XXX we're unable 27, require 34."

Now, I'm not having a dig at ATC at all but it sounded like the Air Asia guys may have initially been pressured into accepting something they weren't entirely happy with, be it through lack of understanding of local procedures or difficulties with English. So my question to the ATC guys and gals out there is...do you folks have any scope for interpreting situations like this as a "requirement" without the magic words being spoken verbatim, or are your hands pretty much tied?

Nautilus Blue
21st Jan 2015, 08:25
do you folks have any scope for interpreting situations like this as a "requirement" without the magic words being spoken verbatim, or are your hands pretty much tied?

In that situation (non native english speaker, international, and not intimately familiar with our procedures) I would probably have given 34 after the first request, and certainly after the second. What the books and powers that be say may be different however.

swh
21st Jan 2015, 08:42
why is your fuel burn on taxi more vital than the next carrier or why is your delay more critical than another pilot who does accept the duty runway?

I am never pressured by our company on operational decision making, OTP and trying to save 400 kg is not a high consideration for me, its the last consideration after safety and comfort. Likewise I will rather go off track 100 nm if necessary, and not worry about the additional fuel or time penalty.

Why shouldn't you accept the shorter parallel runway in SYD?

As I mentioned before, CX had to "communicate" for years with ASA in order to be able to use 16L/34R, CX were only recently granted permission to use it. ASA have different internal rules for international carriers than they do for domestic. International arrivals have different fuel requirements (and alternates available) to the local carriers, often CX will land heavier with more fuel than say a QF flight of the same type on the same route as CX has to use a further away alternate.

Having 'only' a 300m surplus is a weak excuse.

No its not, everyone knows MEL often when 27 is in use, the wind often has a 20 kt plus crosswind wind with low level mechanical turbulence. It takes very little additional speed due to a low level wind change to eat up 300m, wind change to a tailwind, increased IAS due low level wind shift, ground spoilers failing to arm, crossing the threshold slightly high, miss the hump and have a slightly longer flare, or wet all eat up around 300m on an A330 when heavy.

The performance figures that you derive are factored so you'd know full well that as long as you put it down on the aiming point you have far more runway in surplus

How do you know if he used before flight or in flight numbers ?

You say "we are not in the business of close enough is good enough" but if a pilot can not land within a Km of the aim point then that is not good enough to be in this business.

Transport aircraft use a touch down zone. It takes very little additional height crossing the threshold to eat up 300m.

It is not a battle between you and ATC because ATC don't lose in this situation, it's the other pilots who comply with the rules who suffer from your "requirement".

Often I see domestic carriers use A, E, J for departures "jumping the queue" ahead of of aircraft that taxied before them, or land well before an international carrier after ATC gave them a visual approach. Funny how like with most things in aviation, there is always a bit of give and take, you don't seem to mention the savings you get at times.

I dont harp on when domestic carriers sit so far back on E so that traffic cannot pass behind to get to A. I put the park brake on, let them move forward when they are ready, and then resume my taxi.

More often than not the reason for multiple runway use in Australia is a political one, not ATC operational, its the shared noise model.

So my question to the ATC guys and gals out there is...do you folks have any scope for interpreting situations like this as a "requirement" without the magic words being spoken verbatim, or are your hands pretty much tied?

I heard a very similar thing going into MEL with China Southern following CX, they could not understand the subtle difference, in the end they said something along the lines, "whatever CX said, we need the same".

Capt Fathom
21st Jan 2015, 08:51
Welcome to Australia everyone.

Our sole purpose is to make landing here the most confronting experience you'll ever have!

FFS. No wonder this country is going down the gurgler! :ugh:

Creampuff
21st Jan 2015, 08:55
More often than not the reason for multiple runway use in Australia is a political one, not ATC operational, its the shared noise model.Correct.

Like most things aviation regulatory in Australia, it's just politics dressed up as safety.

Bug Smasher Smasher
21st Jan 2015, 09:30
Not surprised there's confusion. Even ASA doesn't understand that there's a difference. From the AIP:
AIP ENR 14.2 Selection of Landing Direction
The pilot in command must ensure that the nominated runway or direction is operationally suitable. If the nominated runway or direction is not suitable then ATC must be advised using the phrase “REQUIRE RUNWAY (number)”. Such a request will not result in loss of priority provided it is made:
a. before reaching 80NM (120NM for jets) from a capital city aero-drome (including Essendon) or 30NM from other controlled aerodromes, for arriving aircraft wholly within controlled air-space; or
b. on first contact with ATC for arriving aircraft entering controlled airspace within the distance specified above or a control area step or a control zone. The decision to land rests solely with the pilot in command.

ga_trojan
21st Jan 2015, 10:10
As I mentioned before, CX had to "communicate" for years with ASA in order to be able to use 16L/34R, CX were only recently granted permission to use it. ASA have different internal rules for international carriers than they do for domestic.

I find that a little hard to believe given that I have seen QF and foreign B744 arrive and depart on 16L/34R.

In YSSY it is NOTAMed that 330/787 can be processed onto 16L. If you want to hold for 16R and fit in thats fine, but you should not be cutting in on some other guy who now gets sent over to 16L just because youre not comfortable landing on a 2000m+ runway.

It remains though that some Asian airlines in particular flatly refuse to land on 16L/34R which is basically giving themselves a competitive advantage even though their aircraft is more than able to handle it.

(a 737/A320 doesn’t qualify as anything more than a light twin)

Except the braking action in your 'heavy' is actually better than my light twin so maybe we should start requiring 16R and 34 in YMML all the time.

parabellum
21st Jan 2015, 10:48
no NDB approaches

I may be a bit out of date but why not? Provided that you can fly a simple instrument approach there should be no problem? The NDB minima are such that you shouldn't get into trouble, either you see it or you don't and if you don't there is a nice big safety margin. Have done the NDB approach into Durban in a B744 in poor viz but would have had a job to explain had I refused. (Durban just one example).

Have heard some really interesting conversations pilot to ATC at Amsterdam when the wind is from the West at around 10 to 15knots and ATC are using R/Way 18! Usually early in the morning.

Australopithecus
21st Jan 2015, 11:00
For decades the FAR landing field length required was the actual landing distance divided by 0.60 for destinations and 0.33 for alternates. A hang over from the old CAR regulatory regime. It was 0.70 for piston transports from memory.

Suddenly we are getting 15% margins, zero margins for emergencies, confusion about what constitutes an emergency for landing field calculation purposes, and now this prevarication about which runway is optimum, and which is rolling the statistical dice.

(Think you have a career? Try overrunning the shorter of two runways by ten feet...oh, you were trying to be fair to the other guys? Thanks. Bye. Seriously, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out)

I have had lots of years in the "light twin" arena (what a put-down). I have had the red headed step-child experience of being often shunted over to the drag strip so that my heavy-driving betters could have a leisurely arrival on the real runway. It galled then, a little, when I let it.

Now I am one of those heavieset wankers issuing media releases about my impending stately arrival. I have a fraction of the easy type familiarity that I enjoyed when I used to wear a 737. I am almost always tired, and always cranky. I try not to let that interfere with the timely and efficient flow of traffic such that I am requiring undue excess runway or expeditious arrival taxi. But sometimes I just need it, other times I am rubbed raw after listening to my English level six cohorts all night and just want it in a fit of pique.

In an earlier post I alluded to taxi costs, but that was as a matter of information only. I typically do not give a rat's about incremental savings which will be awarded to some bonus monkey anyway.

By the way...other guys have commented on making 300 metres go away quickly. I am left wondering how they keep their margin of error so tight. :confused: they must fly Boeings?

le Pingouin
21st Jan 2015, 11:09
I'm with Nautilus Blue - the to-and-fro of trying to extract "require" from an International just ain't worth the palaver. If nothing else we'd look right wallies if they went off the end.

Re. domestics requiring a longer runway and being questioned. When the previous however many 737s/A320s have accepted the shorter runway and you don't it strikes us as rather odd and we begin to wonder if you have a problem. Fine if you don't want to tell us but it helps our planning if we know the reason so we can plan around it accordingly if necessary.

If the sequence goes to poo it helps if we know not to even bother trying to max you up for instance. Sure, we can go to plan "B" but why waste time trying for "A" if we already know there's no point? Giving us a bit of information helps us provide a better service to you and to everyone else around you.

404 Titan
21st Jan 2015, 11:16
ga_trojan

I find that a little hard to believe given that I have seen QF and foreign B744 arrive and depart on 16L/34R.
Last time I looked QF wasn’t a foreign airline. The truth of the matter is that CX and other foreign carriers weren’t allowed to use 16L/34R up until last year. That is a fact. If you have any doubt, go and ask ASA. They were the ones that somehow thought domestic A330’s were different from international.
It remains though that some Asian airlines in particular flatly refuse to land on 16L/34R which is basically giving themselves a competitive advantage even though their aircraft is more than able to handle it.
Horse sh*t. You clearly have a short haul domestic mentality. Some of those Asian carriers you ignorantly berate have just flown 10 hours through the night two crew. Last time I came into Sydney which was very recently I had 30m spare on 34R with medium auto brake. There was no way in hell I was going to accept 34R. And don’t get me started on the A330 brakes and there tendency to get hot especially with medium auto brake.
Except the braking action in your 'heavy' is actually better than my light twin
You must live in a different universe to most of us but I haven’t found a single B737/A320 that needs more landing distance than a “heavy” given the same environmental conditions and MLW.

parabellum

I may be a bit out of date but why not?
Very simply all our newer aircraft aren't fitted with ADF's and as such because of the lack of recency and the lack of aircraft capable of doing them and airports we fly to that actually have NDB approaches the company has removed them as an approved approach.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
21st Jan 2015, 11:25
Re. domestics requiring a longer runway and being questioned. When the previous however many 737s/A320s have accepted the shorter runway and you don't it strikes us as rather odd and we begin to wonder if you have a problem. Fine if you don't want to tell us but it helps our planning if we know the reason so we can plan around it accordingly if necessary.

Fair enough - but it could be that compared to the previous similar types, we're 20 tonnes heavier, got a couple of brakes and a reverser MEL'd out, and it's the end of a long day. Not a problem as such, but we still need the longer runway. Do we really have to explain all that, or can you just take our word for it? :)

Not that I'm complaining - I don't think I've ever had ATC query it when we've required a different runway to the one they want to give us.

And it is a bit embarrassing when you hear:
XYZ: "XYZ require 16R"
ATC: "XYZ, understood, expect a 12 minute delay for 16R"
XYZ: "Oh in that case, we'll take 16L then" :ugh:

Australopithecus
21st Jan 2015, 11:30
Towerboy:Careful with the spray of invective, old boy. You might hit one of us.

I have nothing but the utmost respect (really) for the job you guys do. And the way that you usually do it. I have an unhappy ignorance of the methods, procedures and realities of your job. Apparently that is mutual.

Some of things that get posted here are couched in the time honoured tradition of understatement. Other things are just ego parades. That does not change the fact that sometimes we need all the pavement, sometimes we just would rather have it. Other times? Meh. You'll just have to take our word for it.

le Pingouin
21st Jan 2015, 11:54
Jeeeeezus towerboy, blow a gasket!! As a controller if I'm feeling less than fabulous I'll leave a bit of extra space and keep it as simple as I can. I have absolutely no problem with someone at the pointy end of several hundred pax doing exactly the same. Far better than the alternative.


itsnotthatbloodyhard, a wry "it's been a long day" or "minor brake issues" would suffice. You might get a follow up "confirm normal approach and landing?" with the brakes or asking which taxiway you can take, but you'll get the runway. It's handy for us to know so we don't try to jam one up too close behind as you dawdle past the rapid exit :)

haughtney1
21st Jan 2015, 12:57
"Request Rwy 34 due performance" seems to work every time, and as has been said, if I'm offered a shorter alternative, I will assess the pros and cons of that alternative.
Specifically, I'm loathe after an all night trip to expose myself, my crew and my passengers to any increased risk. When the time comes for me to show superior airmanship and use a shorter runway in less than ideal and optimal circumstances it will be when I have no other option.
It's a team effort, but it's my decision, political and internal policy decisions have absolutely no place in my thought process, so unless it's notamed as closed I'll ask politely and if I don't get a positive response I will advise of my intentions.
This is not a discussion about egos or otherwise, it's merely a symptom of having to operate in a less than perfect environment and maintaining a sufficient safety margin. Regrettably it seems that this gets lost at times on both sides of the mic.
I can also confirm that Australia, and australian ATC attitudes are viewed with something less than enthusiasm where I work, yes the weather is generally good, but people prefer the traffic of LHR, JFK, LAX and FRA etc rather than SYD or MEL purely because of the negative perception created over the years....sad but true.

Derfred
21st Jan 2015, 14:53
And yet....

Just tried to aggregate all the heavy jet runway overrun statistics at Australian International airports and came up with.... ?

haughtney1
21st Jan 2015, 15:04
And yet....

Just tried to aggregate all the heavy jet runway overrun statistics at Australian International airports and came up with.... ?

Which proves or disproves what exactly?

swh
21st Jan 2015, 15:53
Except the braking action in your 'heavy' is actually better than my light twin so maybe we should start requiring 16R and 34 in YMML all the time.

The deceleration rate on an A330 is exactly the same as a A320, except the A330 can land at twice the mass with a higher approach speed.

Do the simple physics, which needs more distance ? (1/2*m*v^2)

I find that a little hard to believe given that I have seen QF and foreign B744 arrive and depart on 16L/34R.

Fine, ring ASA tower managers in SYD and report back what they say. I have never seen an international heavy land on the short runway, not saying it does not happen, never seen it myself.

Just like international carriers are not allowed to be cleared visual approaches (pilot must request it), or use many of the alternates QF/VA use.

If you want to hold for 16R and fit in thats fine, but you should not be cutting in on some other guy who now gets sent over to 16L just because youre not comfortable landing on a 2000m+ runway.

You have totally misunderstood what I previously posted, I don't care if I have to hold, to take extra miles to achieve the outcome I want. I NEVER get questioned by the employer for operational decisions even if they cost extra money, and it troubles me that some people looks like they are.

I have de-iced many times when our procedures says well shall, and locals happily take off at -15 degC with dry snow falling off the airframe. I don't make the local rules, I drive the train like the fat controller says I should.

I may be a bit out of date but why not?

Main issue is that many aircraft today are not delivered with an ADF receiver.

By the way...other guys have commented on making 300 metres go away quickly. I am left wondering how they keep their margin of error so tight. they must fly Boeings?

When they start using a MPL pilot as the person flying the approach for calculating the distances after probably close to 20 hours without sleep (which apparently is similar to having 6 beers), instead of a test pilot ontop of his/her game fresh out of bed with no turbulence, I will start operating to minimum book figures and not apply my own personal airperosnship.

After an 8 hour night shift I do the f#cking job that I am paid good money for! Yes I am tired, yes I have a wife and children, and yes I take pride in doing the job that I am capable of. I don't come up with poor me bul!**** .If you want to require orbits on 1 mile final 16R YSSY then do it, I don't give a sh!t. The delays you cause because you are so full of yourselves is something to be discussed amongst yourselves!
A 3 minute delay is a 3 minute delay for every aircraft thereafter, compounded (if you know what 'compounded' means?)
If you have a hair appointment then do what you will! It's time to start looking big picture style. "I get the runway I want"... Your mirror must be massive, don't complain when some other "pilot" says the same thing, and delays you!

We are cut from the same cloth, I will never require anything unless I need it. I will never ask for anything like a longer runway unless I need it, and never just to save time or fuel. I really would not give a toss if you asked me to hold for 20 minutes, you have your job, and a bigger picture, and I have my job, and a bigger picture. It would be mutual respect at our stage of our careers, rather than a pi$$ing contest.

Correct me if I am wrong, MEL has seen multiple heavy landings due to environmental conditions in the past years ? I seem to recall one which closed both runways as debris was located on the intersection.

Just tried to aggregate all the heavy jet runway overrun statistics at Australian International airports and came up with.... ?

Did you do the same statistic for Australian operators in Asia ? Would like to see your figures normalized upon the frequency per airport.

I believe CX according to LOSA has the highest operational threat index out of any participating airline worldwide.

ACMS
21st Jan 2015, 23:04
Beer baron:---

I think you numbers with regards to factoring need looking at, you've obviously used a much higher factor..:ugh: ( 1169 m to get 1951 m you've used a factor of nearly 70% !!! )

Our mob use 15% on top of the figure and my numbers included that amount only. Also I used a typical landing weight of 175 T, dry runway, medium autobrake, no reverse and nil wind. So the answer would have been close to actual achieved with only 300m excess ( yes I know there is that safety factor )

As I said, I make my operational decision on the day considering ALL factors including crew fatigue and body clock.

If there is a strong crosswind, wet runway, heavy weight, tired crew then the use of the longest into wind runway is a no brainer...

Have I used 27 in YMML? Yes probably around 20% of the time when it was the duty landing runway.

I'm happy with my decision and can confidently back it up on the day as safe and acceptable.

And I'll say it again in capitals for you lot just to make it crystal clear, WE DO NOT REQUIRE THE LONG RUNWAY TO EXPEDITE OUR ARRIVAL OR SAVE FUEL...:ok:

RAC/OPS
21st Jan 2015, 23:28
I worked overseas for a few years and never had 'requirement' from any pilot or other controller, a refreshing change after leaving Oz.
Now back here and a mere tower controller, if a foreign operator requests an alternative runway I'll treat that as a requirement, and knowing that local pilots are force fed the difference, I'll confirm with them requirement or request.

Nuthinondaclock
22nd Jan 2015, 00:50
The deceleration rate on an A330 is exactly the same as a A320, except the A330 can land at twice the mass with a higher approach speed.

Do the simple physics, which needs more distance ? (1/2*m*v^2)

It doesn't actually work this way. Yes, there is more energy to be absorbed which is why they also have bigger brakes, bigger wheels and more of them. At "typical" landing weights a 737 has a longer LDR than a 767 or even a 380.

Keg
22nd Jan 2015, 01:51
Fine, ring ASA tower managers in SYD and report back what they say. I have never seen an international heavy land on the short runway, not saying it does not happen, never seen it myself.


Um, QF 767s and A330s from HNL and other places, ANZ 767s from anywhere. I think I've seen Garuda A330 on 16L recently too.

I suspect it's a lot more common these days and that ain't a bad thing if it helps improve the traffic flow.

Derfred
22nd Jan 2015, 01:59
Which proves or disproves what exactly?

Which doesn't prove or disprove anything but it does indicate a lack of evidence that a problem currently exists that needs to be resolved.

Are international operators being forced to land on runways they don't consider acceptable?

haughtney1
22nd Jan 2015, 02:35
Which doesn't prove or disprove anything but it does indicate a lack of evidence that a problem currently exists that needs to be resolved.

Are international operators being forced to land on runways they don't consider acceptable?

I'm not sure how you can reach that conclusion given the anecdotal evidence that's been presented on this thread. Just because there hasn't been any over-runs doesn't mean that the potential isn't there. Most of us who operate in and out of Oz airports where the duty runway often differs from the one we need to use are aware of the limitations and plan accordingly, but that doesn't mean because it hasn't happened that it wont happen.
As for being forced? I don't think this is happening, but there can be a subtle pressure, generally reinforced through poor decision (on the pilots part) making and a lack of experience, as others have said, certain cultures a mere few hours flying time away from Oz seem to find it more difficult or are less able to challenge/query ATC instructions.

swh
22nd Jan 2015, 02:57
Keg,

International was in reference to the Foreign Aircraft AOC, Australian and NZ carriers have different rules.

Foreign aircraft AOC holders can now use both runways at SYD, it took a lot of convincing to be approved to do so, it only has been a recent change.

Keg
22nd Jan 2015, 03:14
Fair enough. I didn't think it was too long ago.

I know that every now and then the operators at Heathrow get a briefing about how their respective companies are going in comparison to others. Qantas tends to get some grief about runway occupancy on landing with the A380 because we didn't take the 'brake to vacate' option. Does ASA do a similar thing with operators into Sydney? IE talk to a particular operator about how they're always requiring the long runway and the impact on traffic flow such a request has?

Rolloffthetop
22nd Jan 2015, 08:02
From my perspective...

Callsign: "we require RWY whatever for departure/arrival/anything"

My response: "expect that. Current conditions are..."

No further questions needed. On with the job!

glekichi
22nd Jan 2015, 11:02
ACMS:
If the runway you 'require' is not available, are you going to divert elsewhere or will you suddenly be capable of landing safely on the other runway?

Whispering T-Jet
22nd Jan 2015, 11:10
Apart from outrageously high costs, the problem in Oz for Heavy jets is the appalling lack of infrastructure.

For those of us that fly around the world, we consider 24R @ LAX ,the outer pairs at CDG shortish as is 4R at the notoriously underfunded JFK . 16L in SYD and 27 in MEL are both 1000' shorter than those.

While technically legal/possible, these cheapo 45m postage stamps are inferior, from an airmanship point of view, to 90% of runways most long haul pilots land on.

Don't worry though - you can buy unlimited grog in the shopping mall that blocks access to immigration.

As we said back in the 70s: Wake up Ostraya.

ACMS
22nd Jan 2015, 11:22
Glekichi----


The fact is that if there is a long runway available that affords extra SAFETY margin I will make a judgement call on the day considering ALL factors, I think I've said that a few times already.

If it's not available then we will still use 100% of our professionalism to make a informed safe judgement call on the day pertaining to the circumstances I find myself in at the time.

Your basis of your question is just plain stupid and your ignorance of the operational issues is astounding.

glekichi
22nd Jan 2015, 11:46
Im well aware of operational issues.
I'd also request the longer runway in the scenario you describe.
If not available the shorter is also a safe, acceptable alternative.

What you are describing is a request not a requirement.
If you can accept another runway, you're misusing the phrase.

benttrees
22nd Jan 2015, 12:04
ACMS, it was a fair question, do you care to answer ?

haughtney1
22nd Jan 2015, 12:08
Glekichi, that answer sounds suspiciously pedantic......and besides if you don't get what you want, you can always do this....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4wXSkdMX1Vs

sunnySA
22nd Jan 2015, 12:21
Does ASA do a similar thing with operators into Sydney?
No but they should. The NATS Review of Sydney included runway occupancy times and it some of the statistics were astonishing, Singapore Airlines had the longest runway occupancy times by a long margin. Sadly nothing has changed.

Keg, the 767 is already being missed, being able to fling them in a tight gap, I guess in a few years we will look fondly on the 330 (or hopefully the 787).

Back to topic, balancing the runways at Sydney is vital to increasing capacity/reducing delays, all 330's and 787's being able to use RWY 16L/34R is a recent change. Jets via Wollongong from RWY 16L is another. For a while Air New Zealand and Qantas aircraft across the ditch were pushed over to depart RWY 16L/34R, now it is all carriers.

If a pilot uses the magic word "REQUIRE" then no problem, it ain't that hard. Perhaps when pilots ask "REQUEST" the response should be "is that a preference or an operational requirement?".

RWY 34L long haul departures to mainland USA and South America routinely REQUIRE a SID RADAR and a RIGHT TURN. Do I believe it to be the case 100% of the time? No, but if they say "REQUIRE" then they get processed accordingly.

le Pingouin
22nd Jan 2015, 13:27
sunny, surely the Sydney movement cap renders such discussion moot?

Mud Skipper
22nd Jan 2015, 18:33
Maybe it would help resolve the issue if ATC stopped asking if they are requesting or do they require the longer runway, spoon feeding them the words?

If the aircraft then advise they are unable to land on 16L/34R or 27 then well and good, they require the longer runway. If they over-run the runway then why did they land if it was not long enough or why were they unable to land on an adequate runway. Airlines are not suppose to be flaming ab initio flying schools, 500 hour pilots in control seats is no excuse for taking the longer runway.

ACMS, many of us also operate Heavy's and Super's (175T is a fuel order btw) and a more than a few of us also work outside the hours of 9-5 but we also understand the difference between request and require. Going into LAX in a Super for the Northern Complex and telling them you require 25L, it would be like one of those Mastercard moments..... priceless.

Time for a big spoon of concrete for some people.

But seriously it always seems to be the same operators pulling this stunt and gazumping the long runway by abusing the system either by ignorance or inability, I don't know which. Perhaps they should train more on their landings to have confidence in their aircraft's capability.

donpizmeov
22nd Jan 2015, 19:47
Mud Skipper,


At no time has ACMS stated he would take the longer runway for convenience sake. And he has been very patient on multiple occasions on this thread to say so.
Is the comprehension of Australian based pilots so poor, that a well explained argument by several experienced long haul widebodied commanders (and Haughtney as well) and several experienced ATCers not be understood?
In a nutshell, on some occasions, due to particular circumstances, the offered short runway is not long enough. It is the commanders job to decide what the circumstances and conditions are. That's his job. Not really all that hard to work out is it.


PS. Have been offered 25L twice into LAX, a change from 24R but nothing too earth moving. Perhaps you don't get out much?

oicur12.again
22nd Jan 2015, 21:34
Does anybody out there have a QRH for the A321? I would be interested to know how much runway it would require at typical landing weight compared to a 330.

The 330 at a landing weight of 170t requires a distance of 1230m (only corrected for weight below 190t) using max manual braking. This is without any margin added and is reflective of a -200 at a landing weight 90% of max allowable.

swh
22nd Jan 2015, 23:10
A330-300 at 187t, 2690m approach speed 143 kt, A321-200 at 75.7 2579m approach speed 145 kt. That is for autobrake low, as that how our fat controller says the train set will be used.

oicur12.again
22nd Jan 2015, 23:47
So your call to ATC when requiring the longer runway is based on an auto brake low calculation?

maggot
22nd Jan 2015, 23:58
Which autobrake setting would you suggest as a cut off for not using a political runway allocation? Max manual? For day to day ops? :)

oicur12.again
23rd Jan 2015, 00:03
"Which autobrake setting would you suggest"

Max pedal, probably not. I used max pedal in my post above just as an example.

But a requirement based on lo autobrake is hardly even trying. Maybe med?

LeadSled
23rd Jan 2015, 01:39
I can't imagine why anyone would question it. I like getting a "require", it's unambiguous, ends the discussion and means I don't have to decide anything (my inner public servant loves that).

Nautilus Blue,
A very reasoned and logical approach.

Unfortunately, quite a number of your colleagues do not see it that way.

Slightly off thread is a controller (in Australia) suggesting I could not deviate from track to avoid going smack into a Cb --- "Clearance not available, maintain current heading".
In this case the reply was "I did not request a clearance, we are advising you of our intentions".

Tootle pip!!

Keg
23rd Jan 2015, 02:00
Thanks SunnySA. Perhaps meeting with the various operators to discuss their runway occupancy and/or allocation could something that ASA needs to consider?

I do have one query:

Jets via Wollongong from RWY 16L is another.

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.

I get the logic of it (less delays for everyone due to being able to spread the load across both runways) however the execution of it appeared to be very hit and miss....... mostly 'miss' from where I was sitting!

(Please don't anyone shoot the messenger. I understand the noise sharing, political interference, lack of resources points. That shouldn't stop us from pointing out the flaws in the system).

LeadSled
23rd Jan 2015, 02:13
Just tried to aggregate all the heavy jet runway overrun statistics at Australian International airports and came up with.... ?

Look harder, Lufthansa off the end of 07 in Sydney, PanAm off the end of 25 in Sydney. There have been some very close goes on 07, and some scary missed approaches after touchdown. From memory, there were a few off the end of 26 at Essendon, and several off the end of the short runway in Perth --- two in one day about 1989 or thereabouts. They are just the ones that come to mind without any research.

From many of the posts, it seems few of you, who are obviously not commanders of heavy transport aircraft, understand the legal authority (and responsibilities) of the pilot in command, and exercising those legal rights has nothing to do with ego, or the various pejorative suggestion emanating from those who simply have no idea.

One of the great difficulties I have had, in relatively recent years, is getting the message across to Australian ex-GA pilots, that the legal authority of the pilot in command mean exactly what it says.

It will be interesting when CASA put Part 91 in place, these rights will be thoroughly obscured, to the degree that it will be arguable whether they still exist, and to the degree that it can be said that, in this area, Australia will not be ICAO compliant, and completely out of step with most of the aviation world.

In most country's regulations (and in Australia's current regulations) the matter is one short paragraph, in the best of current Australian aviation regulatory practice, the subject in Part 91 covers many pages, most of which, on examination have nothing to do with the authority of the pilot in command.

Tootle pip!!

ga_trojan
23rd Jan 2015, 02:48
From many of the posts, it seems few of you, who are obviously not commanders of heavy transport aircraft, understand the legal authority (and responsibilities) of the pilot in command, and exercising those legal rights has nothing to do with ego, or the various pejorative suggestion emanating from those who simply have no idea.No it sounds like a bunch of princesses who aren't capable of flying their aircraft anywhere near its capablilities and as a result are gaining a competitive advantage whilst I'm coming in from RIVET doing an extra 30 something track miles onto 16L becuase someone is to scared to land on it. Which in theory at Low Autobrakes and Max weight I can't legally plan to land on either!:ugh:

If you want the longer runways because you think it's necessary that's fine you can hold for that 'requirement', just don't make it more inefficient than it already is for everybody else just because you can't find the touchdown zone.

AnQrKa
23rd Jan 2015, 03:21
"That is for autobrake low, as that how our fat controller says the train set will be used."

Wow, so are you suggesting that when you require the longer runway its because you have only looked at ab low as the stopping factor?

Its an interesting debate. I would have thought that you can only "require" the longer runway when you have insufficient runway using max braking effort. Anything less than max braking effort and technically its not a requirement.

Spotlight
23rd Jan 2015, 03:32
Well NQrKa, runways should only be built that long then!

ACMS
23rd Jan 2015, 04:25
I hope some of you in here don't fly anything bigger than a C-150, if you do then please tell me which flights to avoid...:eek:

Now back to the stuff that matters.

Cricket..:ok: and beating the Poms:E

Beer Baron
23rd Jan 2015, 05:04
Some people need to get off their high(heavy) horse.

We all understand that it is the commanders prerogative to do what he feels he needs to do. We all get that it increases your safety margin to land on a longer runway. And we all understand that if you say you need it you will get it.
This is not some special knowledge that only heavy drivers are privi too. The argument is whether that demand is justified.

Our job is full of safety margins and people use their personal buffers within reason but just because you are the Captain and you are allowed too isn't a reason to go over the top.

Do you fill the fuel tanks to the brim (or MTOW) for every flight? Surely that is safer?
Do you refuse all intersection departures (LHR 09R-N10, LAX 25R-F)? Why accept it, it reduces your safety margin and you are the Captain!

To say "I'm the captain of the ship, I call the shots and I demand the long runway (because my company tells me what autobrake setting I'm allowed to use)", is hypocrisy at its best.

swh
23rd Jan 2015, 06:12
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.

404 Titan
23rd Jan 2015, 06:31
Beer Baron

Some people need to get off their high(heavy) horse.

That includes you too. I suggest you sit down, take a Bex and reread carefully what ACMS, SWH and I have said. We are more than prepared to accept 16L/34R when we consider it safe to do so. It doesn't take much though to make this runway marginal at the weights we operate at our A330's. As I stated earlier I operated in to Sydney just the other day. ATIS indicated a damp runway with up to 3kts of tailwind on the duty runways 34L&R. At our expected landing weight this gave me 30m spare with medium auto brake. We advised centre just prior to the issue of our clearance that we "required" 34L. There was no issue from centre and we were thanked for advising them early. Well as it turned out as we crossed the threshold for 34L we were carrying 12kts of tailwind. If we had landed on 34R we would have needed 100m more bitumen than was available with "max manual" brakes. So if I "require" the longer runway I'll make it known. Likewise if I decide to "request" the longer runway for any other reason other than safety, I'll weigh up any conditions ATC may impose and if they reject my request I'll accept it.

ACMS
23rd Jan 2015, 07:52
Beer baron:----

I'm intrigued by your post #32 earlier on where you seemed to have just pulled figures out of your *ss

Quote---

By your own figures of 1951m LDR you have an un-factored landing distance of 1169m. That leaves over a kilometer of excess runway on 16L/34R.

How in hell do you come to a safety factor of 67%
Still waiting for an apology and correction.

Thanks

Capn Rex Havoc
23rd Jan 2015, 07:57
Beer Baron-

Do you fill the fuel tanks to the brim (or MTOW) for every flight? Surely that is safer?
Do you refuse all intersection departures (LHR 09R-N10, LAX 25R-F)? Why accept it, it reduces your safety margin and you are the Captain!


Filling the tanks to brim (or MTOW) makes no difference to the safety margin.
Intersection departures when properly calculated, do not reduce the safety margin.

There is no difference in flying technique in take off of you are doing a flex or Toga takeoff- however the flying techniques in landing with xwind/tailwind with a heavy aircraft after a ULR flight is a completely different kettle of fish.

hikoushi
23rd Jan 2015, 08:01
Also, for a little "big picture". We often will ask for 34L at SYD. Reason being, when your company plans to quick-turn your jet around in an hour and a half or less on the ground, it is best for the poor guys who are going to take your airplane back where you just came from, if you don't leave them with hot brakes. A medium autobrake light tailwind landing on 34R coupled with a long taxi with a lot of brake applications can really screw the outbound crew, not to mention cause ground handling delays. Facilitating the next flight's on-time departure is big-picture "operational necessity", and sometimes generates a request for the closer, longer runway. If the controller says no, then oh well, the next guy just has to deal with it and we try our best.

sunnySA
23rd Jan 2015, 08:08
le Pingouin
sunny, surely the Sydney movement cap renders such discussion moot?
Yes and no, on the one level yes there is a movement cap that is IMHO being mismanaged. Perhaps another thread is warranted, the original application of the cap was based on scheduled movements, the current application is actual movements. I guess I was trying to point out the obvious. If all the aircraft operating to/from the International terminal operated from RWY 16R then the traffic balance would be roughly 70/30, the departure delays would be rather excessive hour by hour. And, with aircraft queueing for departure RWY 16R the SMCs soon start running out of real estate, especially at peak towing times when Qantas need to tow the A380 east/west or west/east. My take on efficiency is balancing the delays, keeping everyone moving.

Keg
Thanks SunnySA. Perhaps meeting with the various operators to discuss their runway occupancy and/or allocation could something that ASA needs to consider?
Couldn't agree more, as far as I know the NATS Report on Sydney hasn't been released, probably more to do with political issues, SACL sensitivities. As le Pingouin pointed out the movement cap makes it a moot discussion point but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't happen. I think it was put in the "too hard basket" prior to the previous federal election and the basket still hasn't been opened.

Jets via Wollongong from RWY 16L

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.

I get the logic of it (less delays for everyone due to being able to spread the load across both runways) however the execution of it appeared to be very hit and miss....... mostly 'miss' from where I was sitting!

(Please don't anyone shoot the messenger. I understand the noise sharing, political interference, lack of resources points. That shouldn't stop us from pointing out the flaws in the system).


Yes, its in imprecise science, based on trying to balance the departure demand, the procedure involves all WOL jets off RWY 16L (up to an including A333/B789) and all EAST bound jets off RWY 16L (once again, up to an including A333/B789). It does involve additional runway crossings however this is balanced against a reduction in overall delay. Some of the initial data suggested that some International aircraft (East bound B777s, jets via KAT/RIC) had an average reduction in delay of about 20 minutes (balanced departures versus everything from RWY 16R).

If simultaneous WOL jets present off both runways then the RWY 16R WOL needs to be either immediately ahead of the parallel departure or 4 minutes after. This spacing puts the aircraft in-trail for MEL ENR.

What we try to do is avoid "flip-flopping" into/out of the procedure, that is chopping and changing, re-issuing clearances at pushback or taxi due to the briefing requirements, A320's in particular seem to take an inordinate amount of time to re-brief.

It might work better if Qantas and Jetstar WOL jets departed RWY 16R and Virgin, Tiger and corporate WOL jets departed RWY 16L.

I have no issue with aircraft requiring this or that runway, but please be beware there are consequences, imbalances between the runways, at times lengthy delays to other aircraft, increased (ATC) coordination, increased (ATC) workload and at times an increase in risk/lowered safety margins/potential for error.

Beer Baron
23rd Jan 2015, 09:12
How in hell do you come to a safety factor of 67%

Well ACMS, I may be going out on a limb here but I got the impression you had perhaps learnt to fly in Australia, if I am wrong about that then I apologise. If I am correct then you may recall CAO 20.7.1B, it outlines the performance requirements governing runway use in normal conditions. Here is an excerpt;
11​ Landing distance required
​11.1​ For subparagraph 5.1 (a), the landing distance for a jet-engined aeroplane is:
(a) ​for an aeroplane engaged in regular public transport operations when landing on a dry runway, or in charter operations when landing on a dry or wet runway — 1.67 times the distance required to bring the aeroplane to a stop on a dry runway


If I recall from the A380 Landing Performance Application there would be 2 options for deriving landing distance, 'Enroute' and 'Dispatch'. The 'dispatch' figure would need to be factored. Ie. increased by 67%.
Now I was not aware what figure you were quoting and I assumed it was the dispatch figure. Even if you were not, it is a legal requirement to comply with this rule so that buffer must be available if you are to attempt a landing on the runway. Albeit this figure is derived from a non standard landing technique.

Again I acknowledge these are Australian rules and we are talking about foreign carriers but I have neither the time nor inclination to research the equivalent FAA, JAR or Hong Kong legislation.


404 Titan;
Your approach to the decision is EXACTLY what I would hope all pilots would do. I completely agree with what you said in terms of the decision making process and your right to reject the runway.
It is the carriers or pilots who appear to just flatly refuse to land on the shorter runway in ALL circumstances that infuriate me (and I think others). And anecdotally there seem to be a few out there and possibly on this forum too.

ACMS
23rd Jan 2015, 09:35
Ok fair enough, it's been 30 years since ATPL in Oz but now you jog my memory 1.67 does sound familiar.

Our mob use a safety factor of 15% on top of the distance for in flight calculations from the Airbus approved QRH tables simply because we are not test Pilots operating in a test environment day to day after flying all night with no sleep.

I used the Airbus Fly smart App which also adds 15%

I can also use the ACARS landing data request function as well which also includes 15%

In an emergency we can ignore the 15% if the commander wishes.

From our FCOM Perf section:--

IN-FLIGHT LANDING DISTANCE The flight crew should use the Landing Distances published in the QRH as the reference for In-Flight landing performance computation. The In-Flight Landing Distances reflect the performance achievable in a typical operational landing without margin, assuming realistic airborne phase from threshold to touchdown and deceleration on ground to full stop. The In-Flight Landing Distances consider: ‐ Touchdown within the touchdown zone ‐ Maximum manual braking initiated immediately after main gear touchdown ‐ Normal system delays in braking activation in case of autobrake ‐ Prompt selection of max reverse thrust, maintained to 70kt, and idle thrust to full stop (when credit is used) ‐ Antiskid and all spoilers operative.

swh
23rd Jan 2015, 09:40
If I recall from the A380 Landing Performance Application there would be 2 options for deriving landing distance, 'Enroute' and 'Dispatch'. The 'dispatch' figure would need to be factored. Ie. increased by 67%.
Now I was not aware what figure you were quoting and I assumed it was the dispatch figure. Even if you were not, it is a legal requirement to comply with this rule so that buffer must be available if you are to attempt a landing on the runway. Albeit this figure is derived from a non standard landing technique.

Again I acknowledge these are Australian rules and we are talking about foreign carriers but I have neither the time nor inclination to research the equivalent FAA, JAR or Hong Kong legislation.

This is what Australia says......

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/ops/235_5.pdf

5.3.3 Two major manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus, have introduced a new reference for in-flight landing distance performance, catering for both normal and abnormal system operations. The new distances are referred to by Airbus as Operational Landing Distances (OLD) and In-flight Landing Distance (IFLD) whereas Boeing incorporates the actual landing distance in the Performance Inflight section of the Quick Reference Handbook. Both manufacturers have included this data in their respective performance applications. The actual landing distances are a realistic representation of operationally achievable landing performance. The representation of this information is generally “unfactored” unless otherwise stated. The CAO 20.7.1B amendment facilitates the adoption of manufacturers’ performance applications along with the application of the 1.15 safety factor. TheCAAP 235-5(0) New performance provisions for CAO 20.7.1B and CAO 20.7.4 5
May 2014 FAA and EASA have adopted the in-flight landing distance factoring as policy, and along with ICAO are in the process of rulemaking.

It is the carriers or pilots who appear to just flatly refuse to land on the shorter runway in ALL circumstances that infuriate me (and I think others). And anecdotally there seem to be a few out there and possibly on this forum too.

There is no evidence that that is the case, esp with CX. Not a single CX pilot on this thread has suggested that is the case. CX has actively been working with ASA for years on ways to make flying into Australia more efficient, and have been been one of the main drivers behind getting 16L/34R opened up to foreign AOC holders.

ACMS
23rd Jan 2015, 09:47
Yep Beer Baron like we've tried to explain to you and over again.
Landing on 27 in YMML doesn't afford a lot of margin unless you are light and the runway is dry with a headwind.

So I'll REQUIRE 34 thanks and request the RNAV, go ahead the star...

That'll be the ARBEY 5Z arr RWY 34 FL390.....

I can't speak about YSSY as I hardly ever land there. :ok:


p.s. Yes I know he's not ATC..

missy
23rd Jan 2015, 10:33
Perhaps the non release is more to do with ACE being Airport Capacity Enhancement. Why would you bother enhancing the capacity of a capped airport (80 movements per hour)?

http://http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/ACE_Program.pdf

http://http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/airport-capacity-enhancement-ace/

Beer Baron
23rd Jan 2015, 23:16
ACMS, swh, you don't need to explain anything to me over and over again.
You will see from my first post I never mentioned MEL 27, I clearly made reference to the SYD parallel runways. MEL 27 is a different issue and I fully understand not wanting to land on a short RWY with a tailwind when a long into-wind RWY is available. And there are not the other beneficial factors that perhaps cloud some pilots decision making, (I'm not saying yours). Those being a reduced track miles and taxi time and their associated benefits.
And I certainly never suggested CX were guilty of this behaviour. In fact in my experience I have observed CX crew operating as consummate professionals at all times.

And Rex havoc, as the performance course is a pain and not an issue I can be bothered delving too far into I won't get too technical. Suffice to say that I am sure you will find that the margin (let's call it a safety margin) to the and of the runway will be reduced in your accelerate stop distance or the screen height you would achieve at the end of the runway would be lower if you use the intersection.
Yes it's safe, yes it's legal but the margin is reduced.

ACMS
23rd Jan 2015, 23:48
Beer Baron:-- as you should have also seen from my posts I've always been referring to YMML 27 v 34. That's the operational threat I'm faced with most often, not YSSY 34R

Track Shortener
24th Jan 2015, 07:28
I think it was put in the "too hard basket" prior to the previous federal election and the basket still hasn't been opened.
That'll be one of those locked Silos of Excellence, then?

...quick, we need the Man with Large Hands!

TwoFiftyBelowTen
24th Jan 2015, 08:59
For yonks all aircraft larger than an A300/B767 was automatically assigned 16R/34L for landing. Then QF and JQ A330s on domestic legs became eligible for 16L/34R. Since then we were told it was QF that approached Airservices to say that actually about 80% of their A330 movements (incl international) could accept 16L/34R... Sometimes they were going around in racetracks in the queue for 16R/34L when they could be on the ground much earlier using the less fancied shorter runway. This seemed to bring about a change late last year that all A330 and B787 international movements through the MARLIN (east) and BOREE (north) gates would routinely be assigned the east (shorter) parallel runway. The acceptance of this routine runway allocation for these types is very low, so it is farcical.

Capn Rex Havoc
24th Jan 2015, 09:19
Beer baron- Ill simplify it for you-

Take off - put thrust levers in designated position, pull back at designated speed.
Take off done at beginning for journey - therefore very little fatigue

Landing - Hands, eyes,legs, moving. etc etc. Much more difficult,more so after 14 hours and 7 time zones.


:ugh::ugh:

Beer Baron
24th Jan 2015, 10:44
Oh thank you Capn Rex. Now please simplify a high speed rejected takeoff or an engine failure at V1 for me please.

willadvise
24th Jan 2015, 12:38
Been reading this one with some interest and have come to the conclusion there needs to be a 3rd option. Obviously this is never going to happen but I would be interested in comments.

Here are some rough thoughts on the what should be the definitions:-

Request = Something nice to have which if refused does not result in any increased risk to safety) Eg.Level change for fuel effeciency or improved winds or light turb. Direct tracking for track shortening or to an approach fix. Rwy which has less track miles or taxi time to terminal.

Desire = my request should be granted as the current clearance/rwy assignment creates an increased risk to the operation of the aircraft. Eg Level change for mod turb or fuel burn reasons which if not granted may result in fuel exhaustion or diversion. The proposed rwy is within the performance limits of the aircraft but due to fatigue or other matters, safety is reduced. I am understand that I may be required to hold to fit into the traffic pattern to facilitate my desired RWY.

Require = my request/require must be granted. For example severe turbulence (passengers may be injured or the structural integrity or control of the aircraft is about to be compromised). Weather deviation (again passengers may be injured or the structural integrity or control of the aircraft is about to be compromised). Runway, the assigned runway is not long enough under the current wx condition using max autobrake/reverse etc. NB fatigue not a reason to use require. If the longer rwy is not available I will divert to my alternate or declare PAN/MAYDAY.

LeadSled
24th Jan 2015, 12:38
No it sounds like a bunch of princesses who aren't capable of flying their aircraft anywhere near its capablilities(sic) and as a result are gaining a competitive advantage

GA Trojan,
Those are word revealing the attitude of a person who, in my opinion, should not be on the flight deck of an aircraft.
Tootle pip!!

Capn Rex Havoc
24th Jan 2015, 13:43
Beer Baron,

Come on now- A landing is done after every take off. How many Engine Failures at V1 have you done? or have you known anyone to do? One in a million?



I really do think you missing the forest for the trees here.

Here is it. After 14 hours I'm tired. :zzz: I require the long runway. Very simple.:ok:

ANCPER
24th Jan 2015, 15:36
Some need to reread post 40. It doesn't come down to whether or not the smaller rwy is legal, but operational suitability and I'd say for ACMS/404Titan that doesn't mean convenience, but F@@@ing operational suitability; long enough given their LW, recency, BOC etc.

FFS, where else but Australia, the land of the pedant, 6 f,,,,,,, pages on REQUIRE/REQUEST. This place has gone to the dogs. :ugh:

PPRuNeUser0184
24th Jan 2015, 20:31
I've 'required' the ILS on many a CAVOK day in Sydney when everyone else were accepting visual approaches. 99% of the time it was due to tiredness. Yes, it upset ATC and yes it pi#$ed off other pilots but do I care....nope. For reasons on the day, I decided it was the safest course of action. Not efficient for my company or ATC but at the end of the day as PIC I only have three parties that I have to satisfy 100% of the time.....CASA, my crew and the 180 pax down the back. Keeping the company and ATC happy come last.

This same argument applies to requiring the longer runway.

Thats my view anyway.

Beer Baron
24th Jan 2015, 20:33
Rex Havoc,
What is simple is that you made the statement in a post directed to me that;
Intersection departures when properly calculated, do not reduce the safety margin.

That statement is factually incorrect. Simple.

You can spin it with stats and likely hoods but it's still wrong.
How many times have you or someone you've known over-run the shorter of two runways? One in a million?
See, the low occurrence count doesn't diminish the point.

Keg
24th Jan 2015, 22:11
99% of the time it was due to tiredness.

Just playing devils advocate here.

Why were you tired? Did you not get sufficient rest before your tour of duty? If you're so tired that you 'require' the ILS then how would you have dealt with a non normal or an emergency? Should you have been there in the first place?

It's been a fascinating discussion to watch but the nuance lacking in some of the 'point scoring' has been interesting. If you 'require' the long runway then go for it. Sometimes that requirement demonstrates a highly professional and competent decision. On other occasions that requirement may be the complete opposite. The reality is that none of us not on the flight deck will know which one it is that day. That won't stop us passing judgement though! :E :ok:

PPRuNeUser0184
24th Jan 2015, 22:28
Why were you tired? Did you not get sufficient rest before your tour of duty? If you're so tired that you 'require' the ILS then how would you have dealt with a non normal or an emergency? Should you have been there in the first place?You're right. I guess I must be the only pilot who finds relentless 4-5 sector days tiring.

I guess I need to find a new job.

Just to clarify.......requiring the ILS is not due to the fact that I am about to pass out with tiredness and finding myself falling into micro sleeps on approach. It simply means that it's been a long trip and I would rather use the automatics to their full capability to manage the threat of tiredness thus enabling the safest outcome to be achieved given the circumstances.

I doubt you will find many 380 skippers accepting visual approaches via a 5nm final at 6am onto 34L in Sydney.

Keg
24th Jan 2015, 22:48
For the same reasons that you have been tired after 4 sectors on the 767 on day 5 of a domestic pattern on min rest.

See this is what I find is interesting. I know the tiredness you speak of. I understand the jet lag, long tours of duty, as well as the accumulated tiredness from 4-5 days of early starts and long days. I've experienced it all.

I'm not sure it's ever made me require an ILS on a CAVOK day though. My logic being that if I can't function and do a visual approach on a day such as you describe then I probably shouldn't be there to start off with.

I have required 16 (or 34) in Melbourne at the end of a long day when 27 the duty runway but that was more about it being northerly with a variable tailwind and potential overshoot shear and a pretty heavy aeroplane rather than my tiredness levels alone.

Anyway, each to their own. Like I said in my last post. If you're requiring an ILS on a CAVOK day then the rest of us don't know what baggage you're carrying (metaphorically) but it won't stop us from saying 'WTF?' to each other across the flight deck when we hear it! :} :D :E

Require away to your heart's content. Now that I'm an A380 driver it's about a beer a minute for any delay! :ok:

(I note the edit as I was typing KZ Kiwi. I'll leave my comments as is. I understand the point you're trying to make. I'm not sure whether I'm just missing the nuance or perhaps just look at it a bit differently).

C441
25th Jan 2015, 00:05
I've 'required' the ILS on many a CAVOK day in Sydney when everyone else were accepting visual approaches. 99% of the time it was due to tiredness.

Without opening a whole new thread direction, did you transit Sydney and head back to NZ on some/most/all of these occasions?

My interest is from a fatigue study perspective only.......no questioning of your decision-making intended. PM if you'd prefer.

maggot
25th Jan 2015, 00:30
I doubt you will find many 380 skippers accepting visual approaches via a 5nm final at 6am onto 34L in Sydney.

Cause you'll find yourself vectored for about 7nm regardless of your type.

And you're wrong.

because a visual onto yssy parallels via and ils/gls is as easy as it gets

framer
25th Jan 2015, 01:10
FFS, where else but Australia, the land of the pedant, 6 f,,,,,,, pages on REQUIRE/REQUEST. This place has gone to the dogs.
It certainly feels that way. If they say they want it, give it to them, if they don't say anything, shuffle them around as you see fit. Simple.
I'm not sure it's ever made me require an ILS on a CAVOK day though. My logic being that if I can't function and do a visual approach on a day such as you describe then I probably shouldn't be there to start off with.
Everyone will have their own way of managing risk though Keg as I'm sure you'l appreciate. Some folk may think to themselves " hmmm, I've never flown an aircraft without an autopilot in my whole career, I'm not that familiar with this place, my airline will sack me if the Foqa gets carried away, I'd lose the house if that happened, my sim training is a joke, I wish I had three sessions a year like Keg instead of two , geez these Ausi controllers speak fast......stuff it, I'll go the ILS and that way if we get a non normal I'll be in a slightly better place to manage it.
I don't think like that because I am fortunate enough to have flown airliners day in day out without an a/p for years and also have benefitted from excellent training systems, but I would understand if some folk did.

Oakape
25th Jan 2015, 01:51
Its really quite simple. Weather, runways, whatever.

If you want it, but its not a must have, its 'request'.

If you must have it for some reason, its 'require'.

Are some going to abuse that & require something that they really don't have to have? They sure are! Its just human nature.

Can you do anything about that? Not really, you can't even tell who's who.

So you have a choice. You can either get an ulcer or you can forget about it & work on what you can control.

Capn Rex Havoc
25th Jan 2015, 03:50
Beer Baron - You can spin it with stats and likely hoods but it's still wrong.
How many times have you or someone you've known over-run the shorter of two runways? One in a million?
See, the low occurrence count doesn't diminish the point.

I think the point you are missing is this -

The risks you are referring to involves a systems failure of some description e.g. an Engine failure- which is MECHANICAL in nature and not pilot controlled in its occurrence. IE the pilot doesn't cause the engine failure.

A landing on short, high x wind, runway after a long duty is a PILOT FLYING job without any systems failure.

Anyhow, this discussion has run its course with me. I shall continue to operate the way I operate around the world, making airmanship decisions depending on the situations I am faced with, and you do the same. I wish you all the best and safe flying no matter where you fly to.:ok:

WhisprSYD
25th Jan 2015, 04:36
From my side if you tell me you require something (or in the case of someone who doesn't converse in English naturally, at least imply that you require something) you'll get it without fuss and without care what your reason is..

But please, if you require the longer runway, when I say STAR available let me know before I give you the STAR and you read it back that you require the other one..

Most do.. Some dont.


On a side note it is interesting reading some using tiredness/fatigue etc as reasons for requiring non default rwys/arrivals. Definitely valid in a safety first environment, but I think from my side of the screen there would be hell to pay if it was aired that lengthy delays were the result of a reduced arrival rate because the approach controller was feeling tired at the end of a run of shifts and didn't feel capable of running the typical spacing.

Not trying to take the piss, just food for thought.

ACMS
25th Jan 2015, 04:53
Well mate as a Pilot relying your service ( basically so I don't hit another ) it would concern me greatly if you were knowingly fatigued to the point of impacting on your job and then continued to work at the same pace.

I would expect you to know better and take reasonable steps to prevent such a safety breakdown.

Compylot
25th Jan 2015, 09:14
What an interesting discussion gentlemen.

It is providing a fascinating insight into the different personality types evident within the cockpit.

First we have the "Commander". As epitomized by ACMS, leadsled
(tootlepip!), Rex havoc, 404 titan etc. I AM the COMMANDER, I AM in
control and I AM THE CAPTAIN! Whatever I request or require I WILL GET because I AM THE COMMANDER! And I will back my decisions by pointing you to the fact that as COMMANDER I need to find the path of least resistance to minimise the threats on my operation AS COMMANDER! Most often these personality types are the result of early CRM training and are a product of having been told over and over that effective CRM is the result of being assertive, speaking up, being in control etc. I can imagine these blokes are likely in the twilight of their careers, mid 50s, approaching retirement and whatever they have to say to make them squint less out the window when trying to fly the PAPI is fair game!

Then we have the 'cobbers", (beer baron, glekichi, bentrees, GA trojan) probably mid 30s, working for 'the other domestic' new "commanders", no nonsense but not so much as to take it to the 'nth' degree to use any excuse to get what they want. Unlike the "Commanders" the cobbers are looking at making maximum use of efficiency because they won't be browsing airliners.net or pprune at the hotel but are still probably young enough to have a mistress waiting for them in the lobby lounge.

Then you have the Kegs, brought up from day one on 'effective' crew management - the peacekeepers. A bit like Schrödinger's cat, both
agreeing and disagreeing with you until you ask. (Bless the Qantas psychometric testing!)

Whatever gentlemen, 6 pages of fascinating discussion yet I haven't seen one Jepp reference..please can someone paste a detailed AIP reference complete with italics and "my bolds"...?

(but I must say I was heartened to see at least one put down regarding flying C150s, yes 10 points to you ACMS!)

Looking forward to the next 6 pages :ok:

ACMS
25th Jan 2015, 10:36
Sorry pardon my ignorance but I didn't think it was rocket science.

There are some in here that just don't get it.

It reminds me of the joke about the old Bull and the young Bull at the top of the hill looking down at all young Heifers......anyway.

Fishbowl
26th Jan 2015, 02:05
How do you know a pilot is in the room..because ACMS will come and tell you that he/she is there.

What a bunch of princesses. Are you lot getting bent fingernails from all of your button pushing?

ACMS.. I took up an experience airline captain the other day in a 152..a size 20 frozen chook from the supermarket had better flying skills..so don't beat down on anyone about what plan they fly.

It's good to know that any ATCO can be a commercial pilot but a very small select few commercial pilots could be ATCO's.

ga_trojan
26th Jan 2015, 02:17
GA Trojan,
Those are word revealing the attitude of a person who, in my opinion, should not be on the flight deck of an aircraft.Well if the attitude of some of these guys prevailed in my airline you'd have to cancel about 50% of our flights as they would be to scared to land on a runway that might be remotely close to the landing limit. (which has a safety factor in them anyway)

The thing is in Sydney the braking action is good 99.98% of the time, it doesn't snow or get ice. If it's heavy rain or poor viz then maybe it is a requirement, but most of the time really there shouldn't be an issue if you cross the fence at 50' and land in the TDZ.

MEL I don't find to much of an issue as the penalty of getting moved around is not that severe, SYD is a killer as you add an extra 10+minutes (even more if you're international) in taxi and anything up to 30 miles if you get moved because of someone's 'requirement'.

ACMS
26th Jan 2015, 04:02
So tell me, would you be happy to have your wife and kids on an Aircraft that was crewed by a fatigued crew landing on a runway with only a few hundred meters margin at 03:30 body clock time.....

Or the same Aircraft landing on a runway with 1,300 m margin.

Which one would you rather your loved ones be on?

LeadSled
26th Jan 2015, 04:56
ACMS,
I think that GA Trojan is one of those balanced personalities --- a chip on both shoulders.
An actual professional pilot, who has made command in a serious airline will have absolutely know trouble sorting request and require.
Tootle pip!!

OzSync
26th Jan 2015, 06:19
Yep you two are definitely old school. And not in a good way.

ACMS
26th Jan 2015, 06:51
Hey I resemble that remark.....!!!

What was that saying, old bold Pilots?

I'm not old yet and I'm certainly not bold.

Willing to learn? Yep everyday.

But I've been around Airline aviation a long time and seen a fair bit without putting any scratches on the paintwork. I know generally what works and what doesn't, I know my limits and how to try and avoid the Swiss cheese holes lining up.....

Have I made mistakes? You betcha... Have I scared myself? You betcha....

That's how we live and learn.


That's why whenever there is a longer runway available into wind instead of a runway just long enough with a crosswind I REQUIRE the longer runway. ( if there is a choice available )

You?

Oh and by the way, Aviation is a marathon not a sprint. The goal is to finish your career on a high and enjoy a nice retirement preferably without the boss or the ATSB knowing who you are.

WAGM
26th Jan 2015, 07:40
I REQUIRE the longer runway. ( if there is a choice available )

ACMS, sorry to quote you in particular, but that sums up my starting the thread.

You may correctly use professional discretion when you REQUIRE a certain runway but where is that line and how do we deal with certain airlines simply not understanding a difference in terminology but by lack of experience or training they subsequently gain a commercial advantage through lack of basic ability.

The question was intended for a broad response in the first instance, not just how one crew may chose to operates on the day if they are caught out fatigued after a long duty.
BTW I don't believe after a long duty you should be fatigue, if your operator is professional enough to put in place correct mitigators.
Fortunately I can sleep well on board having faith in the other crew and sleeping before call having normally been accommodated in appropriate accommodation.

I understand not all days are like this, hence this is a generic question.

Personally I often felt more rested after a 16 hour flight than 4 or 5 domestic sectors on an 11+ hour day in a noisy "light twin" as some like to call it.

ACMS
26th Jan 2015, 07:46
Mate really? I've always achieved as much rest as possible pre flight and during the flight where possible BUT how can you not be fatigued at the time of your circadian low body clock? Im-bloody-possible.

I know you mention that you have but you've obviously not done long haul overnight sectors......

It's impossible not to be tired. You do know being tired at that time is the same a being DRUNK to in excess of the .05 limit for driving....proven fact.

Personally after having done multi sector day flights causing tiredness versus overnight long haul jet lag I find the overnight to be more dangerous....our bodies just weren't designed to stay awake all night long AND be alert to land at 5:30 am

If you are different then lucky you...

Personally I do whatever I can to keep the operation safe and simple after being awake all night.

WAGM
26th Jan 2015, 08:07
ACMS,

I don't really care for your tone, you carry on like a troll,

If every long haul pilot, and we are many, carried on like you the system would shut down.

I prostrate myself before you and say you are a far better pilot than myself if that makes yourself feel better.

I'll keep my powder dry and when Ozzie controllers here me say "require" they had better believe it.

ACMS
26th Jan 2015, 08:36
Whatever floats ya Boat young fella.:ok:

Enjoy.

( just don't F*** up )

Oh and where did I say or imply I was a better Pilot than you?

This thread has more than lived it's useful life and should be locked.

NowThatsFunny
26th Jan 2015, 09:14
Yes, please lock it because I've seen enough of ACMS' superior intellect.:rolleyes:

If only I was as good a pilot as he.

I'd imagine he flies his heavy as single pilot, because there's not enough room in the flight deck for his ego and anyone else.

Biatch
26th Jan 2015, 09:22
Aren't most of the carriers, implied in this thread, flying A330's? Aren't they fairly/relatively light at the end of a 10 hour duty/8 hour sector from Asia? Is their LDR really that close to 2000m as to be so concerned? Esp on Sydney where all runways are more than adequate... If they overshoot the landing zone by 300-400 m ... Shouldn't the risk mitigation, regardless of rwy in use/rwy length, be a go around???

LOSA'd a 777 into Sydney on RWY 07.... All crosswind, No issue... They even accounted for tailwind... Either it's possible... Or it's not. Risk mitigation is one thing.... But not simply being able to perform to a standard on EVERY (or ANY) sector you fly and hence REQUIRING the longest RWY everytime... Maybe you should be handing over?? Maybe you should be going fatigued? Maybe you should be flying the less risky/stressful/fatiguing short haul....

What say you are flying said same fatiguing sector to a destination where the luxury of multiple long runways isn't available, or have to divert to a non standard "short" runway... Are you going to refuse said flight/landing because you can't employ your risk mitigation?

To me this smells of a skipper I flew with once who wanted to refuse a STAR (... Yes a STAR... ) becuase he hadn't flown it before.... Despite the fact that the only difference was simply being from the east rather than from the north that he was used to.... 😳😳:ugh:

ACMS
26th Jan 2015, 09:22
Nowthatsfunny---But you've missed all of my points.

I'm not saying that at all, quite the opposite in fact.

Can you read English and comprehend at all???

One could say I'm admitting my shortcomings and being human...

Biatch---no no and no, please read all of the thread, some of us in here have said quite a few times that some operators ( like mine ) always arrive with Alternate Fuel and land at quite heavy weights ( @ 180 T,,,MLW is only 187 ) thus in SOME circumstances we have only 300m margin under LDA using YMML 27 or YSSY 34R. It's along thread but please read it all.

Biatch
26th Jan 2015, 09:29
Can you?? WAGM's questions are more than relevant and you've seemingly missed his points...

ACMS
26th Jan 2015, 09:43
No not at all.

He's happy to land at 5:30 am on a limiting runway after flying all night maintaining he copes well with long haul patterns. As are you it seems?

That's fine and I accept his opinion, it's just that in some circumstances I would make a different choice. Not that he's right or wrong, he's allowed to make his command decision BUT so am I.

Compylot
26th Jan 2015, 10:49
Not that he's right or wrong, he's allowed to make his command decision BUT so am I.

You are the COMMANDER! :ok:

ANCPER
26th Jan 2015, 11:55
Keg,

Would you ever request a vis app into HK on a normal HK day with a normal HK 10k haze with a base at 5100', or what about into LA? As you should know, a vis app is pretty much an Australian and US (dom) thing.

Let me know when you're down to 4 handling sectors per month with constant BOC and you'll accept the minimum requirement on everything!

Complylot,

Your age (24) shows, as does your immaturity. I doubt you have anywhere near the experience needed to comment on something you haven't done.

Fishbowl,

Another no nothing commenting about something he's not anywhere close to even doing. Ask any airline pilot who hasn't flown a lighty how he'd go in a cessna. A d***h*** comment.

Biatch,

Way to miss the point, since when did any of them say they couldn't or wouldn't land on a short rwy if it was the only option. It is risk mitigation if the circumstances are right.

Some here don't seem to understand the difference between tiredness and fatigue and for those who haven't done a lot of flying where BOC is like 60-70% of your flying you are tired most of the time.

WAGM,

Quote:
Personally I often felt more rested after a 16 hour flight than 4 or 5 domestic sectors on an 11+ hour day in a noisy "light twin" as some like to call it.

What, a 16 hr day trip starting at 8.00am, sure. A 16 hr duty starting at 9.00pm and I'd likely call you a liar, stupid or delusional as to your true "conscious" state. Btw, that type of flying is likely to make up to 50-60% of their flying and for HK based crew 60-70% as it would for ME crew, mostly late evening S/Ons and 6-7.00am S/offs with time zone changes of 16 hrs.

Btw, when next your operator DEMANDS you start to take min fuel DON'T argue, remember it's legal! :ugh:

Car RAMROD
26th Jan 2015, 13:10
Here's a thought. If you think people are trying to queue jump by requiring a different runway because it suits them better all the time and trying to gain a commercial advantage from it, how about you have your company contact ASA and ask them to formally investigate why one carrier is always doing it?

Or is that too much of a simple and logical idea?

donpizmeov
26th Jan 2015, 13:53
Experienced commanders, like ACMS, certainly have the ability to bring their aircraft to stop on a short runway. But he has been trained effectively, and uses his experience to understand it is not always wise to do so.
When you other fellas gain some experience you will probably see the light too.
I do understand it must be as boring as batsh@t flying the Ozzie J, day in and day out, with only a handful of destinations. But everyone has to start somewhere. Keep up the good work, listen and learn from types like ACMS, and maybe one day to, you may join an airline where you don't need to pay for your type rating, you get fly around the world, and don't need to prove anything to anybody.

swh
26th Jan 2015, 13:59
ACMS,

They are winding you up.

It has been clearly explained on this thread what the landing distance is factored by, it has been clearly explained that it takes very little to eat into margins. A recent example has been provided where ATIS reported conditions ("worlds best practice") understated the tailwind (how very common) which could have resulted in an overrun at that landing weight.

It has also been explained that we dont care being vectored to fit into the sequence to get what we want, it is not about saving time or fuel, they are always our lowest priorities.

It has also been explained the queue jumping domestic carriers are a regular beneficiary of by taking intersection departures when we taxi for full length. They never seem to complain if they jump the sequence to land on a shorter runway.

They dont seem to complain when entering the Australian FIR we are asked to drop 30 minutes of flight time before top of descent. People are judging the dicking around they are getting by the last 5-10 minutes in the TMA, they dont look outside their playpen, others have been screwed over with a smile for hours. We are gone beyond caring about saving a minute by the time we get to the TMA.

It has also been explained that the domestic carriers have made a business decision to reduce aircraft size between trunk routes and increase frequency. The 20% of slots being used by all heavies in SYD and MEL is not where the slots gone to, the inefficiency of the slots is coming from the low load factor domestic carriers. If the domestic carriers did not decide to go down that business model, they would not have needed as many pilots.

It has also been explained that CX will not ALWAYS require the longest runway, I would say the majority of ADL-MEL flights I have done I have landed on 27. I have also explained that we land a lot heavier than domestic carriers as foreign AOC airlines are not allowed to use the same alternates as domestic carriers.

A lot has been explained in detail on this thread, many have been too quick to engage the mouth before the brain.

You may correctly use professional discretion when you REQUIRE a certain runway but where is that line and how do we deal with certain airlines simply not understanding a difference in terminology but by lack of experience or training they subsequently gain a commercial advantage through lack of basic ability.

WAGM,

I dont know where you get this sense of "commercial advantage", none of us give a toss about saving 400 kg of fuel or 10 minutes. My experience is the opposite. Just looked at the last 90 days, we had a cracker that burned an extra 25 minutes of fuel going into SYD, about 20% of our flights are delayed by more than 10 minutes or more going into SYD.

Before you make unfounded claims, how about documenting the "commercial advantage" of the domestic carriers using intersection departures, or being put ahead in the sequence on landing, or looking at how the slots are being used by low load factor domestic carriers.

CX have 4 flights a day to SYD, that represents 0.87% of the movements in SYD (December had 28,444 movements in total, of that CX contributed 248).


The question was intended for a broad response in the first instance, not just how one crew may chose to operates on the day if they are caught out fatigued after a long duty.
BTW I don't believe after a long duty you should be fatigue, if your operator is professional enough to put in place correct mitigators.
Fortunately I can sleep well on board having faith in the other crew and sleeping before call having normally been accommodated in appropriate accommodation.

Under the HKG equivalency of CAO 48, none of the flights out of HKG to Australia require a sleep opportunity. None of the CX A330 have bunks, the "leg stretch" as it is defied in our operation is done on a business class passenger seat without a curtin. Where this leg stretch is not required, they may sell the passenger seat and the leg stretch is on the jump seat in the cockpit. The current push from management is to move all flights where possible to 2 crew to Australia which is legal under the HKG equivilant of CAO 48. CX have a rostering practices which sits ontop of the CAD regulatory minimums, this is supposed to be the circuit breaker between what is the regulatory legal maximum, and rostering norms.

I myself always like youself felt more rested after 3 long haul flights month where I have a bunk and a sleep even if that was 100 hours, 75-95 hrs regional/medium haul missing 8-10 nights sleep is no fun. You must also understand only a small portion of the Airbus flying is done into Australia where Wx and terrain hardly exist. I love departing HKG when there is a typhoon approaching HKG going to Australia. We have lovely patterns on the Airbus like CGK/SIN/BKK/ICN return through the night dealing with dodgy Wx and ATC which is fatiguing. You can go through the same typhoon twice in the same day.

Aren't most of the carriers, implied in this thread, flying A330's? Aren't they fairly/relatively light at the end of a 10 hour duty/8 hour sector from Asia?

Biatch,

You will find the mainland Chinese carriers are operated 4 crew into Australia, CX operate either 2 or 3 crew (depending on day/night and city pair, CX operate into 6 ports) into Australia.

The A330 can be at MLW on arrival. I have also landed at MLW with less than 60 passengers on-board, it has the same cargo volume (LD3s) as a 744. It would be not that unusual on say a HKG-SYD flight to be landing 5-10t below MLW, where a regional flight like TPE-HKG you could be landing 50t below MLW.

Flight time alone is not a good indication of landing weight.

haughtney1
26th Jan 2015, 14:26
Experienced commanders, like ACMS, certainly have the ability to bring their aircraft to stop on a short runway. But he has been trained effectively, and uses his experience to understand it is not always wise to do so.
When you other fellas gain some experience you will probably see the light too.
I do understand it must be as boring as batsh@t flying the Ozzie J, day in and day out, with only a handful of destinations. But everyone has to start somewhere. Keep up the good work, listen and learn from types like ACMS, and maybe one day to, you may join an airline where you don't need to pay for your type rating, you get fly around the world, and don't need to prove anything to anybody.

Post of the year Don (Pains me to agree with you....but:ok:)

Fishbowl
26th Jan 2015, 17:22
ANCPER

"Another no nothing commenting about something he's not anywhere close to even doing."

Luckily for me I have absolutely no interest in what you are doing. I don't think I could grow my ego large enough to be a COMMANDER like you. I'm glad 99% of the captains out there are not like the select few on here.

Luckily I have had quite a bit of life experience and would bet that you wouldn't last 2 mins in my former occupation. I fly the small bug smashers as a hobby and for the enjoyment of it.

I suggest most of you lot go visit a radar centre/tower so you can appreciate what it is like being responsible for 20 or so aircraft.

It's quite staggering how a simple question can attract the hordes of the egocentric.

Keg
26th Jan 2015, 19:19
Keg,

Let me know when you're down to 4 handling sectors per month with constant BOC and you'll accept the minimum requirement on everything

Lol. I love how you presume that I've never done such a thing previously. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. Like you blokes I'm comfortable in how to require when appropriate and I don't use it for commercial advantage.

I don't want to get too bogged down in the semantics of this one. For the most part I don't have an issue with CX or ANZ or most other carriers requiring whatever runway they want. I trust that they know how to operate their aircraft appropriately. It's when some particular carriers on reflex always require the long runway- laughably at times when it's not very suitable at all.... recall hearing one of the China carriers request 16 in MEL when the wind was a 30+ knot westerly with up to 10 knots of downwind.

My point was specifically to the 'tired/ require ILS' point and nothing more.

t has also been explained the queue jumping domestic carriers are a regular beneficiary of by taking intersection departures when we taxi for full length. They never seem to complain if they jump the sequence to land on a shorter runway.

How are they queue jumping if they'r ready before you? If they're not ready before you but it assists ATC with the traffic flow due to the wake separation requirements or the departure tracking issues then that's not queue jumping either.

Anyway.....

ACMS
26th Jan 2015, 21:32
I am active in GA quite regularly. And yes I do visit the YMML ATC centre a lot, more so in the past but my last visit was 2 years ago.
I take an active interest in all things Aviation and always will, a bit sad really!!

itsnotthatbloodyhard
26th Jan 2015, 22:16
I really don't care that much what other operators do, it doesn't affect me enough to be worth worrying about. (Although it would be nice if certain individuals, holding for intersection departures off 16R, would move up close enough to the holding point to be in the same postcode, and stop blocking everyone on B.:rolleyes:)

But this 'commercial advantage' thing? On the few occasions where we've required a longer runway, it's usually entailed a delay of 10-15 minutes. And that's just fine, we weren't requiring it in order to save time anyway. The only commercial advantage was in avoiding the potential for repair bills and bad publicity.

neville_nobody
27th Jan 2015, 00:09
it has also been explained the queue jumping domestic carriers are a regular beneficiary of by taking intersection departures when we taxi for full length. They never seem to complain if they jump the sequence to land on a shorter runway.

For those who are unaware the departure sequence is based on the 'ready' call not taxi clearance.

Marvin Martian
27th Jan 2015, 00:19
So that would be the "Ready on reaching" call or even worse still....
"Fully ready on reaching"...

ANCPER
27th Jan 2015, 00:56
Keg,

No offence Keg, but where did ACMS/404 et al say they did it for commercial advantage? I'm pretty certain the Chinese carriers don't do it for commercial advantage either, but I'm sure you've worked out the possibilities there. And yes, I knew you'd been there done that, which makes your harping on about it surprising.

Btw , are you going to accept the min requirement. :)

Fishbowl,

Looks like I was right about you! Where have I said anything of the sort for you to make those conclusions about me? And where FFSs has anyone said ANYTHING derogatory about those who do ATC and the skills required for it? And yes, I've been "up there" and also appreciate the skills required.

You have a habit of jumping to conclusions as well, again you no nothing about me and my ability to do/not do your previous job.

The reason you got up my nose is you're attacking people about something you have very little knowledge/experience about. ACMS/404 etc haven't been coming across all hoity toity, they have just said when it comes down to rwy requirement it is THEIR decision to make on the day as they are the ones who will be doing the answering.

ACMS
27th Jan 2015, 01:37
Still chasing our tails......

How long can this go on for.....

swh
27th Jan 2015, 01:46
How are they queue jumping if they'r ready before you? If they're not ready before you but it assists ATC with the traffic flow due to the wake separation requirements or the departure tracking issues then that's not queue jumping either.

Keg I have been ready many times in SYD when you have a 737, DHC-8, and SF340 call ready after me and use the various intersections on 16R to get way before me. Thats life, I just wait until ATC says I can go. I dont bleat commercial advantage, or start singling out operators because I have to wait a few minutes. I want full length, so I wait, no problems.

Now because I want full length, are people going to start complaining that we are inept by not using intersection departures ? You know a Qantas or Virgin domestic A330 uses the short runway or an intersection for departure, that is the benchmark everyone should follow ?

When it suits, "traffic flow", "separation requirements", "departure tracking" are acceptable reasons to be put ahead, and similar happens on the arrival, but somehow the occasional heavy is the cause of all of the problems that started this thread off ?

The sad Australian sense of entitlement and needing someone to blame has raised its ugly head again, I go when ATC says I can. I don't give a toss if I woke up first, got to the airport first, got my coffee first, get my ATIS first, got my PDC first, push-back first, taxi first, or ready first, it is not a competition to me. The reality is, those using intersection departures will often get put ahead as ATC can plug holes with them. Fair enough, ATC have the big picture, not me.

ATC have their plan, and their big picture, my job it to convey what I need from them. I dont tell them how to do their job, nor do I think I am any more or less important than any of their other customers. I just go with the flow, with traffic density increasing, delays are going to get worse. Those bitching bettys who cannot adapt to the way things are now, lookout in 5-10 years when its even worse.

For those who are unaware the departure sequence is based on the 'ready' call not taxi clearance.

No, its not. We would wait a lot longer if that was the case. The departure sequence is based upon what ATC sees as being the best fit and their priorities, hence the C in ATC is not a four letter word. The first skygod to call ready does not win a prize. The number of times I have seen in my career numnuts call ready thinking that is the case, then being caught out when ATC in reply says line up for an immediate thinking they would have more time (not actually being ready) because their perception is who calls ready first gets added in that order. Ready means ready, not add me to the list.

So that would be the "Ready on reaching" call or even worse still....
"Fully ready on reaching"...

It does not happen in Australia often, overseas if they have traffic on final ATC may ask you if you are "Fully ready on reaching" etc on the way to the hold to get you away before the arrival lands.

I love it even more overseas when ground tells an aircraft to monitor tower on frequency xyz.abc, then on the frequency change numnuts transmits their callsign being fully ready. Its great to hear the wit of some controllers when they explain in no uncertain terms what the word monitor means, apparently it is not the thing ontop of your computer.

Keg
27th Jan 2015, 02:49
No offence Keg, but where did ACMS/404 et al say they did it for commercial advantage?

They didn't.... but nor did I suggest they did. Though the 'commercial advantage' theme has popped up at various times so I thought that I'd throw it in that I didn't do it and nor have I seen any of the CXs/ ANZs/ etc do it either.

Btw , are you going to accept the min requirement. :)


Maybe. Min requirement for what? Visual approaches? Sure, why not.

Keg I have been ready many times in SYD when you have a 737, DHC-8, and SF340 call ready after me and use the various intersections on 16R to get way before me.

Really? I've not seen it many times at all. When it's occurred ATC have been very clear about it being related to wake separation and/ or the ability to get a both of us away (Dash out in front of me turning right shortly after takeoff and then me before the next arrival) instead of just getting me away due to their not being enough for the Dash to get 2 minutes behind me. As you say, it's about 'plugging holes'. I reckon it's a much more efficient use of the airspace and thus I rail against the term 'commercial advantage' as though they're gaming the system- at least in the way that we've been discussing throughout

Apart from those relatively few times (and it's always been explained) I've never seen the departure queue go in anything other than the 'ready' call to ATC even for intersection traffic.

Not disputing that it hasn't occurred, just it's not been my experience in the last 6 years ops into/ out of SYD, MEL or BNE.

I don't give a toss... or ready first, it is not a competition to me.

I care. If I get (unfairly) put behind an A320 or 737 on the same route as me it can mean having to fly slower than ECON climbs, cruises and descents- burn more fuel. It's got issues for turn arounds times at my destination when I'm scheduled on the next sector in min time. I've seen a 30 second delay in a 'ready' call transmit to a 27 minute delay on arrival between MEL and SYD.

ATC have their plan, and their big picture, my job it to convey what I need from them. I dont tell them how to do their job, nor do I think I am any more or less important than any of their other customers.

On this point we agree completely.

I suspect that most of us are coming at this from more or less the same direction. I certainly don't see ACMS/ 404 or ANCPER as trolling as perhaps others have indicated.

Anyway, all good. Where's my beer and popcorn for this arvo? :}

ANCPER
27th Jan 2015, 03:02
"How long can this go on for....."

This is Australia, another 8 pages at least! :O

WAGM
27th Jan 2015, 04:01
Whatever floats ya Boat young fella.

Enjoy.

( just don't F*** up )

Oh and where did I say or imply I was a better Pilot than you?

ACMS, before you amended post #128 you called me an "AMATURE" (your uppercase).
I think that's really where you lost me "young fella"!

Strewth, I wasn't even having a swipe against Cathay pilots, settle sport.

Just as I don't use MAYDAY when a PAN PAN or severe when moderate is more appropriate, my question was simply do these operators even understand the basic difference between Request and Require and should they be coached by ATC or simply processed according to their request.

I'm not questioning a Commanders unfailing unflappable unquestionable right to require a certain runway when he happens to feel like it.:rolleyes:

swh
27th Jan 2015, 05:21
Really? I've not seen it many times at all. When it's occurred ATC have been very clear about it being related to wake separation and/ or the ability to get a both of us away (Dash out in front of me turning right shortly after takeoff and then me before the next arrival) instead of just getting me away due to their not being enough for the Dash to get 2 minutes behind me. As you say, it's about 'plugging holes'. I reckon it's a much more efficient use of the airspace and thus I rail against the term 'commercial advantage' as though they're gaming the system- at least in the way that we've been discussing throughout

Yeah of course, the Saab was going to somewhere like Bathurst, the Dash to Canberra, 73 to Adelaide, they had multiple aircraft lined up on the runway. Both of the turboprops had their SID cancelled and radar headings assigned. I dont ask why or complain, I let ATC get on with their job. They can see me waiting, nothing is achieved by carrying on like a pork chop.

I care. If I get (unfairly) put behind an A320 or 737 on the same route as me it can mean having to fly slower than ECON climbs, cruises and descents- burn more fuel.

Niff naff, absolute trivia, you have no control over that stuff why the artificial care factor ?

I dont know if the ATC sequence is fair or not, I dont have their big picture. I would like to think in Australia ATC treat all of their customers the same, there is a bit of give and take for all.

It's got issues for turn arounds times at my destination when I'm scheduled on the next sector in min time.

What paces the turn around for me is when everyone has done their job properly. We go when we are ready, not when a timetable says we should. Blaming others is becoming a world recognized Australian trait. No one is to blame if you have done you job professionally, you have to adapt to the hand that is dealt.

If there is a tree in the way in the takeoff splay, they cut the tree down, not the way you take off. If the schedule does not work, change the schedule, not the way you work.

I've seen a 30 second delay in a 'ready' call transmit to a 27 minute delay on arrival between MEL and SYD.

That is a point I have raised a number of times, it is the domestic carriers business decision to fly something like 4 narrow body aircraft between SYD/MEL an hour. What you are describing is a first world problem like not having free wifi at the coffee shop. It has nothing to do with foreign AOC holders.

Just as I don't use MAYDAY when a PAN PAN or severe when moderate is more appropriate, my question was simply do these operators even understand the basic difference between Request and Require and should they be coached by ATC or simply processed according to their request.

I think the more obvious conclusion to draw is that pilots of domestic carriers are of the view everyone operates under the same rules. What has been pointed out numerous times is that foreign AOC holders even when operating the same type, are operating that type to a different framework and have different requirements.

Foreign AOC holders operate to the regulations of the country of registration, not CASA. Your Australian licence does not permit you to operate those aircraft even if the type appears on your Australian licence.

Keg
27th Jan 2015, 06:39
They can see me waiting, nothing is achieved by carrying on like a pork chop.

I agree on this point. I'm not sure I've ever suggested that carrying on like a pork chop is either an adequate way of doing business or something that will achieve anything. I'm not sure anyone has suggested that so I find it a bit weird that you even make the point.

Niff naff, absolute trivia, you have no control over that stuff why the artificial care factor ?

I dont know if the ATC sequence is fair or not, I dont have their big picture. I would like to think in Australia ATC treat all of their customers the same, there is a bit of give and take for all.



Because if it's happening on a regular basis then we can feed that back to the company and they can do something about it. Everyone makes mistakes at times. EG at one stage there was an arbitrary call to sequence all heavies via the full ILS into BNE. It gave us a commercial disadvantage with being slowed to allow other aircraft on the visual in front of us- to maximise the airspace use. We fed that back up the chain and it was resolved. Using the logic you've articulated here I just 'suck it up' and do nothing about it- to the detriment of my airline when doing it's best to reduce costs. This is an 'easy win'.

What paces the turn around for me is when everyone has done their job properly. We go when we are ready, not when a timetable says we should.


Again there is an underlying implication here that I rush things. I too am happy to cop the delay when it occurs. However I also know that sometimes the delay on the ground in MEL is caused by something that happened ex Sydney and if I can manage to avoid it then so much the better. At the end of the day my passengers want to be safe but they also expect me to be as on time as possible. Therefore I DO care if there are systemic issues that cause me to be late. If I can assist in feeding back the info to solve those issues then job done. In the mean time I manage the delay accordingly.

That is a point I have raised a number of times, it is the domestic carriers business decision to fly something like 4 narrow body aircraft between SYD/MEL an hour. What you are describing is a first world problem like not having free wifi at the coffee shop. It has nothing to do with foreign AOC holders.


Now we really are going around in circles. I've never made such a suggestion that it is the fault of the foreign AOC holders. I'm not sure anyone else has either. That was in response to someone else saying 'who cares' where you are in the sequence. I was simply pointing out that where you are in the sequence can have significant issues down the track.

Were I to make some implications of my own I would suggest that your comments allude to a quite blasé attitude to operating a commercial service or an ignorance of the multiple things that impact on whether a domestic network provides the service the passengers pay for as well as whether it's making money. I'll just put it down instead to some crossed wires in the comms and suspect that we're a lot closer in our thinking than what your comments imply.

Anyway, I'm done. Better things to do this evening.... and tomorrow... and the day after that is looking pretty busy too! :D :E

LeadSled
27th Jan 2015, 07:09
recall hearing one of the China carriers request 16 in MEL when the wind was a 30+ knot westerly with up to 10 knots of downwind.

Keg,
There is a reason for this, BA used to get into the same situation with their B747.

Some NAA (like UK CAA) set up the takeoff calculations such that a balanced field length, even at relatively low weights, cannot be achieved --- like B767 on less than (from memory) 1700m.
The other reason is that the YMML wind was more likely south westerly, giving a crosswind on RW 27 as well as RW16.

Again, an NAA problem, if Vmcg limited V1 has to take into account increased minimum Vmcg limited V1 in (even a quite small) crosswind, this will again eliminate using RW 27, for some carriers, because you cannot fit in a balanced field length.

The CAAC are really quite conservative.

There was an example of this sort of thing, years ago, in operating the B747SP into Wellington, you could not use full thrust on takeoff on such a short runway, because of the full rating Vmcg limited V1. However, with Rating 1 Vmcg limited V1, you could get a balanced field length with reasonable payloads. Sounds a bit counter intuitive, but there are some strange wrinkles in performance engineering.

Tootle pip!!

ACMS
27th Jan 2015, 08:34
WAGM:---- yes I did call you AMATEUR for a grand total of 5 mins before I cooled off and changed it.

You must have been bloody quick.:eek:

A lot of comments in here have been plain stupid and I was quite annoyed to say the least.:mad:

An example would be you last comment:--

" I'm not questioning a Commanders unfailing unflappable unquestionable right to require a certain runway when he happens to feel like it." You also included a smart ass rolling eyes emoticon.

You see there you go again casting aspersions........you just can't help yourself can you!!

Keg
27th Jan 2015, 08:38
Keg,
There is a reason for this, BA used to get into the same situation with their B747.

G'day Lead. My apologies. I should have been more clear. That was for arrival! :eek: :ok: Up to 10 knots downwind and 30 knots x-wind when a long enough (particularly with that wind) into wind runway available.

swh
27th Jan 2015, 08:49
I'm not sure anyone has suggested that so I find it a bit weird that you even make the point.

ATC has never said anything to me to the effect "being related to wake separation and/ or the ability to get a both of us away (Dash out in front of me turning right shortly after takeoff and then me before the next arrival) instead of just getting me away due to their not being enough for the Dash to get 2 minutes behind me" unless people carry on about it.

Because if it's happening on a regular basis then we can feed that back to the company and they can do something about it.

Which illustrates my previous point exactly, you have no control over it, it is niff naff. Sure give the company feedback, and there will be the correct channels for something maybe done, maybe not. It is an artificial to think you have some control over it, ATC control you, not the other way around.

It gave us a commercial disadvantage with being slowed to allow other aircraft on the visual in front of us- to maximise the airspace use.

Foreign AOC holders are not even offered visual approaches, they can be requested.

Using the logic you've articulated here I just 'suck it up' and do nothing about it- to the detriment of my airline when doing it's best to reduce costs. This is an 'easy win'.

I am not suggesting doing nothing about it, all you can do on the flight deck is to provide your company feedback, nothing more.

However I also know that sometimes the delay on the ground in MEL is caused by something that happened ex Sydney and if I can manage to avoid it then so much the better.

Sure the delay happened ex SYD, right out scheduling/planning in QCC. You cannot schedule a 767 after two A320s and a 737 to the same destination and expect to think you will not be slowed down by the slower traffic infront of you.

I've never made such a suggestion that it is the fault of the foreign AOC holders.

It was in the first post of this thread, not by you, but that is what the topic is about, dumping on the people from up north.

"Without wishing to be too much of a pedant, does anyone else get irked by our neighbours from the north forever requesting the longest runways.
When asked if they "require" the requested runway their level 6 English doesn't appear to know the difference. Knowing the performance of these aircraft, I very much doubt they have operational requirements without an un serviceability. The rest of us are in effect being displaced for their comfort, convenience or lack of airmanship knowing the difference between request and require."

Were I to make some implications of my own I would suggest that your comments allude to a quite blasé attitude to operating a commercial service or an ignorance of the multiple things that impact on whether a domestic network provides the service the passengers pay for as well as whether it's making money.

All I can do is to facilitate what I have direct control over, scheduling, ATC, facility and procedures design etc is not part of that. I dont pretend to get upset/worry/care about things I have no control over, you might call that a "blasé attitude" (cup half full), I call it a realist attitude (cup half empty).

Both of the large domestic carriers have stated in their recent annual results that there is a glut of excess domestic capacity, that is a self inflicted race for market share. The real cost saving is not generated by saving 10 minutes on one flight, it is by consolidating schedules to improve yields.

Derfred
27th Jan 2015, 12:30
I have a funny feeling you are all agreeing with each other.

1Charlie
28th Jan 2015, 02:01
Regarding departure order. ATCs like pilots are paid to make use of their best judgement. Otherwise you may as well stick a traffic light at the threshold.

All things being equal, he who is ready at the holding point goes first. If in the controllers judgement, they can increase the runway utilisation by massaging the departure sequence without significant penalty to others they will. Please don't take it personally.

Like someone else said. "Ready is ready" it's not the arbiter of the sequence.

Note: Some people have developed a habit of seeing a large queue and calling ready miles back from the holding point to presumably lock in their departure order. Be aware that the tower controller won't have your strip yet, as its is still with the ground controller, and can't mark it as ready. If their memory is as bad as mine, they'll forget if you called ready or not because they're busy, and there are 15 aircraft ahead of you.

On the original issue, does anyone here know why Cobham won't accept RWY14 during converging operations at YBBN. At the airport capacity meeting the chief pilot when asked just said "we won't be using it, and that's that."
If RWY01 were to close, would they divert or land on 14?

Edit: by Cobham I mean their B717 operations.

Compylot
28th Jan 2015, 07:46
Complylot,

Your age (24) shows, as does your immaturity. I doubt you have anywhere near the experience needed to comment on something you haven't done.

As Winston Churchill once said..

"If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again, then hit it a third time, a tremendous whack.. because you can never believe everything you read on the internet"

9 pages.. can we get to 15?

What blows my mind is the time that some people have on their hands to provide such detailed twaddle.

There must be more than a few wives/girlfriends lacking attention.

"Hang on Dear, I need to clarify my point regarding request vs require! What?! Say again I can't hear you?! Oh, you have a warm ovaltine and Eggheads is about to start......ahhh, ummmm, sorry I'll be another 5 minutes I promise!"

wingoes
29th Jan 2015, 22:10
The real problem at Sydney is that 34L/16R is far too long.
It should be shortened to make it a less favorable choice.
Reduce its length, say, to "F"
The added benefit would be uninterrupted crossings at "A"

Normal international practice for rwy assignment is according to the direction of approach.
IE at sydney, from the east 16L/34R and from the west 16R/34L
The use of overfly circuits are discouraged because they create airborne conflict and reduce safety margins.

Keg
29th Jan 2015, 22:25
The real problem at Sydney is that 34L/16R is far too long.


Or that 16L/ 34R is too short.... and the taxiways leading to/from it don't have adequate wing tip clearance to permit 'super' or even 744/ 777 arrivals from east to land on it. That's what creates many of the over flys from the east.

ACMS
29th Jan 2015, 23:15
What Pilot would come in here and say a runway was "too long"

You must be kidding me. :ugh::{:D:mad:

( maybe you're not a Pilot at all? )

WAGM
30th Jan 2015, 03:21
Asperger syndrome is still alive and well in the pilot body.

Wingoes, I thought it was funny:}

neville_nobody
30th Jan 2015, 05:47
Normal international practice.

Would also end 'innovative' solutions like SODPROPS on safety grounds so we can't dare have any of that

missy
30th Jan 2015, 07:37
Keg
Or that 16L/ 34R is too short.... and the taxiways leading to/from it don't have adequate wing tip clearance to permit 'super' or even 744/ 777 arrivals from east to land on it. That's what creates many of the over flys from the east.
744 and 777 can operate to/from 16L/34R, with the 773 there are restrictions, with the 744/772 there are none (well hardly any).
The reason 744 don't operate is three-fold,
1/. SACL wanted the taxiway shoulders to settle after the runway opened (1994);
2/. SOP for the local 744 operator effectively "banned" ops to/from the runway;
3/. Noise issues

wingoes
Normal international practice for rwy assignment is according to the direction of approach.
IE at sydney, from the east 16L/34R and from the west 16R/34
Might work if Melbourne was deemed to be east of Sydney.

haughtney1
31st Jan 2015, 09:32
744 and 777 can operate to/from 16L/34R, with the 773 there are restrictions, with the 744/772 there are none (well hardly any).


The 777-300ER takes a 40 tonne payload hit on a standard day with APU-pack and t/o bump

777-200LR takes a 20 tonne hit.

777-200ER RR powered takes a 5 tonne hit.

16L is too short to lift any meaningful payload for anything more than about 8 hrs in a 300ER

Derfred
31st Jan 2015, 12:07
tower,

leaving you high because 34R traffic want to stay high due track miles,

I'm not familiar with your SOPS but it shouldn't trouble a jet operator to be asked to "expedite descent to xxxx". My jet won't burn any appreciable amount of fuel flying level at 3000 feet vs 6000 feet, nor will it burn any appreciable amount of fuel descending at 500 fpm vs descending at idle thrust then flying level at 3000 feet.

The pilots might prefer one or the other due convective layers and turbulence, but that doesn't preclude you asking.

But as I said, your SOPS are your SOPS. I'm not suggesting you vary them, but maybe there is latitude for frequent operators to your airfield to engage in discussion behind the scenes about what might help with minimising delays.

Creampuff
1st Feb 2015, 00:54
I think wingoes' suggestion of reducing the length of 34L/16R for an advantage at Foxtrot Alpha is easily achievable for people taking the Papa 1 Sierra Sierra exit.

(I got it, too, wingoes. :ok:)

Capn Bloggs
1st Feb 2015, 04:00
Papa 1 Sierra Sierra exit
Which one's that? My Jepp chart doesn't show it...

maggot
1st Feb 2015, 05:44
it's near Uniform Papa

White Knight
1st Feb 2015, 05:52
I assume you don't do an autoland on every single ILS you fly either because technically, the autopilot flies the approach better than you and thus, is a higher level of safety than you manually flying it?


It may fly the approach better but the autoland can be cr@p without LVP protections... Just ask SQ about their 777 in Munich a while back:D

Ivasrus
1st Feb 2015, 18:50
:ok: chairman's award for wingoes! (is that a Knighthood now?)

I've seen 744 from SIN and MD11 from HNL land 16L. Only because it'd been offered to save 15-20 min airborne delay.

Arrival delays to 16R/34L are almost universally higher than 16L/34R. This becomes acute at 6am when daylight saving time ends. Extra requirements to use the longer runway during peak arrival times will add to the cumulative airborne delay for ALL operators. I've seen the cost to industry of several hours additional airborne delay due to a single requirement.

ATC prefer to process int'l arrivals to the long runway to reduce ground delays and complexity however with too many requirements of the "other side" it can become quite the airshow over the top of the CTR.

Visit the SYD TCU one day. Most keen crews who do find it an eye opener.