Melbourne Air Traffic Control

[DukeBen]

Some people do...and some types are worse than others, but I don't think it's helped by the procedures used.

For instance, tower won't give a conditional line up clearance. When I queried that via my company, the response was 'because of the stop bars'. Well, they exist in other places, and ATC there gives the clearance, and you move as soon as the bars go out. There's probably 15-20 seconds in that.

Even simple things, like giving a heads up that you'll be next will help. That will allow me to spool the engines up a couple of percent, which then shaves a few more seconds (the 380 spool up is very slow from ground idle).

The Australian Manual of Air Traffic Services does not allow us to give conditional line up clearances when stop bars are in use, this includes not being allowed to give the conditional line up, and then only dropping the stop bar when the landing aircraft passes the holding point. I'm aware that this is different overseas.

Most tower controllers agree with you that efficiency would be improved if conditional clearances were allowed, it would also reduce our workload and allow us to move on to other radio calls. This feedback has been passed up the chain many times but to no avail in terms of rule changes.

Given this, we do our best within the confines of the system to be efficient. Most controllers will give the heads up "be ready for immediate departure behind the landing 737" etc if they believe it will make a difference in the useability of a gap for departure.

If the gap isn't that tight, and only 1 departure will fit in it anyway, then there is less need for use of that phrase.

[Tankengine]

Not fly before midday? :}

I work arrivals and en-route at Melbourne and to be honest I can't think of anything that you guys regularly do that makes things difficult.

Sure, every now and then someone doesn't pay enough attention to a fix time, but then I'm paid to make it happen too. No point in getting uptight about it, just fix it and move on.

If you ever get the chance, drop in and see what we do - we get far too few visitors and most seem to find it of interest and learn a bit about the "big picture" view.

It would be great to get some controllers into the jumpseat for some bid window views, haven't seen it in my 29 years.
My biggest peeve is trying not to stop while taxying only to get an onwards clearance two seconds after setting the park brake! ;)

[underfire]

Even simple things, like giving a heads up that you'll be next will help. That will allow me to spool the engines up a couple of percent, which then shaves a few more seconds (the 380 spool up is very slow from ground idle).

Yes, this is very true, especially with the A380 which looks to take at least 20 seconds to spool up/balance.

Although, I did notice a few twins that were simply not ready and rolled at around 45 seconds....I can see how trying to balance Arr and DEP on crossing runways would be a bit of a challenge, hence increased spacing.

[missy]

It would be great to get some controllers into the jumpseat for some bid window views, haven't seen it in my 29 years.
My biggest peeve is trying not to stop while taxying only to get an onwards clearance two seconds after setting the park brake! ;)

It takes years of training to get that right!! Seriously, both of the majors have such restrictive policies and procedures applying to famil flights that it's almost impossible. Sydney Tower was using one-way famil flights when travelling to or from Compromised Separation training at the Melbourne Learning Academy (360deg radar simulator) but it all became too hard and so it is now a full price air fare both ways, go figure.

[Capt Fathom]

I seem to recall from the ATCers I knew in the 70's that flights in the jump seat with TAA and Ansett was a mandatory part of their ATC Training.

[40years]

I seem to recall from the ATCers I knew in the 70's that flights in the jump seat with TAA and Ansett was a mandatory part of their ATC Training.
Yes, correct!
Six weeks with Mainline (TAA or Ansett), and two weeks with a minor? Airline (EWA, ANSw, MMA). About 80 -100 hours flight deck exposure. Invaluable.

[tyler_durden_80]

That must have been nice! We can't even get a jump seat on the national carrier now.

Virgin have been most accommodating, but getting a day off the roster to take advantage of it is the issue.

[framer]

It really should be rostered.
I've been to a lot of Towers and two control centres and it is always good fun and I always learn something valuable. I am sure it would work both ways and make the industry both safer and more efficient.
I guess the only way it would happen is if it was a leagal requirement as part of training.

[GhostofGoose]

Melbourne Tower guys! Can you please put something on the atis when you know you're going to change the runway configuration especially early in the morning! Sydney does this and it's very much appreciated.
The amount of times we do figures for Runway 34 at 5:30am barely awake and waiting for the caffeine to kick in to be told by Delivery that it's now runway 27 is ridiculous. One extra line on the atis will save a lot of time and we would be very thankful. Cheers!

[IsDon]

Here's another thought.

If your ATIS is saying 340/6 we will do the takeoff figures based on this. In reality, for a takeoff from 34, we would also usually take a worst case and plan nil wind and accept that we then have a few knots of fat in the performance figures.

It is unacceptable to then state "Qantas 93, clear for takeoff, tailwind max 4 knots". Especially when the aircraft is already lined up. The time to volunteer this vital information is not with the takeoff clearance for a 565T aircraft in the lined up position on an active runway. Before lineup would have been prudent.

To the Virgin aircraft that was forced to go around due to this unbelievably poor controlling I offer our apologies. Unfortunately there was nothing we could do given the circumstances we were put in.

I'll add that all indications from the windsock at the upwind threshold indicated nil wind and I believe the wind volunteered by the tower is taken from tower height. There is no way we will know the tower wind unless you tell us, at an operationally opportune time, or put the actual wind on the ATIS. Not something you dream up. We are obliged to use the worst case scenario for our takeoff performance calculations. If you tell us the wind is actually worse than you've made public, by a significant margin, expect delays while we recalculate.

Out of morbid interest we printed out the next three ATISs. It wasn't until the third change, 14 minutes after we had departed, that the real tailwind conditions were actually made public.

Why the big fu<king secret?????

:mad:

[fujii]

Melbourne Tower guys! Can you please put something on the atis when you know you're going to change the runway configuration especially early in the morning! Sydney does this and it's very much appreciated.
The amount of times we do figures for Runway 34 at 5:30am barely awake and waiting for the caffeine to kick in to be told by Delivery that it's now runway 27 is ridiculous. One extra line on the atis will save a lot of time and we would be very thankful. Cheers!

Often the ML ATIS will include "from time .... expect RWY .. for departure."

[Lookleft]

But mostly it doesn't.:ugh:Melbourne doesn't have runway specific SIDs for a good reason-ATC can change the runway at a moments notice without changing the clearance. For the pilots it is not a simple process to change runways and as someone stated at 5:30 it is a PITA. I also note that on ACD some controllers will advise which runway you can expect and yet others don't. How about making it SOP to tell the crew what runway they can expect for departure Traditionally runway direction is dictated by the wind direction, not by the clock.:ugh:

[fujii]

The RWY configuration in ML is often driven by the clock or more correctly, the airline schedules. You don't use the most efficient arrival configuration during peak departures. E.g. There is a a departure peak commencing at 0600 when, wind permitting, 34 deps NE and others 27. As this peak tails off, LAHSO commences for the arrivals.

[Flava Saver]

I really believe all the major airlines flight ops departments NEED to get it approved that we can have ATC'ers sit in the jump FOC on famils on a regular basis. ATC always seem to have an open door for us techies to come visit, and it should be made vice versa.

Only way we can truly demonstrate we can't wave a magic wand when offered information that contradicts our take off performance numbers when given a clearance.

[DukeBen]

Ideally we could provide you with runway certainty as early as possible and we do endeavour to do this whenever we can.

In recent months there have been some complicating factors especially around the 5.30am-6.00am time.

1 - Taxiway Alpha North of Rwy 27 and Taxiway Charlie have often been closed overnight between 10pm and 5.30-6.00am for works.

This impacts on Runway selection as it causes any long runway requirement departures to need to backtrack Rwy 16 and turn around in the Bravo run up Bay. This becomes problematic with 16 arrivals, and even 27 arrivals vacating the runway and wanting to cross at Echo vs aircraft needing to enter at Echo to backtrack.

The usual solution being, if there is less than 5 knots tailwind on Rwy 34, we use Rwy 34 overnight rather than Rwy 16, and avoid needing to use the areas close to the closed taxiways.

As soon as these taxiways are returned to service in the morning, we can resume a more appropriate runway mode to the conditions. (eg, the 5 knot tailwind we've been living with overnight, is forecast to strengthen during the day, so we need to change to Rwy 16 for Arrivals, Rwy 27 for departures ASAP).

Unfortunately, the return to service time of these taxiways is not set in stone, and sometimes problems such as unserviceable lights etc rear their heads at the last minute (this happened last week). It makes the runway selection hard to predict and sometimes we are simply not able to tell at 5.30am, exactly what the runway selection will be at 6am.

2 - Runway closures at night. These have a similar impact to what's been listed above, and the return to service time on the NOTAM doesn't always match the reality. Unfortunately we have to manage these variables too and it does impact upon runway certainty.

I do get that it's a PITA for you guys/girls and it is for us too, we hate having to change runways on you at the last minute and do understand that it causes delays and recalculations.

We try to advise you as soon as we get the info, sometimes we'll be broadcasting on clearance delivery frequency and sometimes can't get in touch with various aircraft (understandably, we know you've got other things to do).

If it always as simple as putting an extra line on the ATIS to solve all the issues, believe me, we'd do it, and when we have the info, we do try to do this.

In terms of giving a different wind to what's on the ATIS after an aircraft is already lined up, yes it is not ideal, and we understand the impact it has on delaying take off roll etc. None of us want that, and I didn't witness the example cited so can't speak to the individual situation.

On some occasions, the wind changes in the time between the line up and the take off clearance. We the have a duty to pass it on, no matter the impact it has on delaying take off etc. Also sometimes our wind analysers in the tower do not match the wind socks. The winds are not taken from tower level, there are sensors near each threshold (but not co-incident with the wind socks).

[GA Driver]

1 - Taxiway Alpha North of Rwy 27 and Taxiway Charlie have often been closed overnight between 10pm and 5.30-6.00am for works.

What is ACTUALLY going on up there? Yes I have the notams, and read the method of works but whatever it is seems to be taking an awfully long time...

In terms of giving a different wind to what's on the ATIS after an aircraft is already lined up, yes it is not ideal,

I think this was bought up about the Melbourne some pages back. The wind quoted is often different to atis winds. The crosswind quoted though is often horrendously different. Rwy 34, 330/30kts x/wind 18?? Its very different to the calculators we are using.

[doug606]

Are aircraft tows the lowest priority on taxiway movements. Many times looking out the tug window waiting 5 mins to move forward on a taxiway that was clear the whole time:)

[Capt Fathom]

Unfortunately, the return to service time of these taxiways is not set in stone, and sometimes problems such as unserviceable lights etc rear their heads at the last minute (this happened last week). It makes the runway selection hard to predict and sometimes we are simply not able to tell at 5.30am, exactly what the runway selection will be at 6am.
Great! So the works programme takes precedence over the airport operation!!
Only in Australia......

[DukeBen]

What is ACTUALLY going on up there? Yes I have the notams, and read the method of works but whatever it is seems to be taking an awfully long time...



I think this was bought up about the Melbourne some pages back. The wind quoted is often different to atis winds. The crosswind quoted though is often horrendously different. Rwy 34, 330/30kts x/wind 18?? Its very different to the calculators we are using.


Alpha Works - I think it might be slab replacement but you'd have to contact Melbourne Airport to be sure.

Wind and Crosswind/Tailwind - Most of the confusion in this has stemmed from the ATIS wind direction/speed being quoted is an average, and the crosswind/tailwind component quoted is a maximum (the wind given with a landing clearance is an instant wind).

Having said that, we're trying to be clearer with this and so a 330/30 Max crosswind 18 kts would probably be better put as Wind Varying between 310 and 350 degrees, mnm 26 kts, max 36 kts, max crosswind 18 kts.

[GhostofGoose]

Ideally we could provide you with runway certainty as early as possible and we do endeavour to do this whenever we can.

In recent months there have been some complicating factors especially around the 5.30am-6.00am time.

1 - Taxiway Alpha North of Rwy 27 and Taxiway Charlie have often been closed overnight between 10pm and 5.30-6.00am for works.

This impacts on Runway selection as it causes any long runway requirement departures to need to backtrack Rwy 16 and turn around in the Bravo run up Bay. This becomes problematic with 16 arrivals, and even 27 arrivals vacating the runway and wanting to cross at Echo vs aircraft needing to enter at Echo to backtrack.

The usual solution being, if there is less than 5 knots tailwind on Rwy 34, we use Rwy 34 overnight rather than Rwy 16, and avoid needing to use the areas close to the closed taxiways.

As soon as these taxiways are returned to service in the morning, we can resume a more appropriate runway mode to the conditions. (eg, the 5 knot tailwind we've been living with overnight, is forecast to strengthen during the day, so we need to change to Rwy 16 for Arrivals, Rwy 27 for departures ASAP).

Unfortunately, the return to service time of these taxiways is not set in stone, and sometimes problems such as unserviceable lights etc rear their heads at the last minute (this happened last week). It makes the runway selection hard to predict and sometimes we are simply not able to tell at 5.30am, exactly what the runway selection will be at 6am.

2 - Runway closures at night. These have a similar impact to what's been listed above, and the return to service time on the NOTAM doesn't always match the reality. Unfortunately we have to manage these variables too and it does impact upon runway certainty.

I do get that it's a PITA for you guys/girls and it is for us too, we hate having to change runways on you at the last minute and do understand that it causes delays and recalculations.

We try to advise you as soon as we get the info, sometimes we'll be broadcasting on clearance delivery frequency and sometimes can't get in touch with various aircraft (understandably, we know you've got other things to do).

If it always as simple as putting an extra line on the ATIS to solve all the issues, believe me, we'd do it, and when we have the info, we do try to do this.

In terms of giving a different wind to what's on the ATIS after an aircraft is already lined up, yes it is not ideal, and we understand the impact it has on delaying take off roll etc. None of us want that, and I didn't witness the example cited so can't speak to the individual situation.

On some occasions, the wind changes in the time between the line up and the take off clearance. We the have a duty to pass it on, no matter the impact it has on delaying take off etc. Also sometimes our wind analysers in the tower do not match the wind socks. The winds are not taken from tower level, there are sensors near each threshold (but not co-incident with the wind socks).

DukeBen, the last 3 or 4 times it's happened to me, it's been runway 34 departures 27 arrivals or 34 all ops at 5:15-5:30am changed to 27 for all departures by the time we get our clearance for the 6am departure..

If you could spread the word around that if it's possible to put something out on the atis at around 5:15 if you know you're going to change the runway it would be much appreciated. As someone said, sitting in the jump would be a great way to see the small things that make our life frustrating.. perhaps this forum is the next best thing. Cheers mate.

[DukeBen]

DukeBen, the last 3 or 4 times it's happened to me, it's been runway 34 departures 27 arrivals or 34 all ops at 5:15-5:30am changed to 27 for all departures by the time we get our clearance for the 6am departure..

If you could spread the word around that if it's possible to put something out on the atis at around 5:15 if you know you're going to change the runway it would be much appreciated. As someone said, sitting in the jump would be a great way to see the small things that make our life frustrating.. perhaps this forum is the next best thing. Cheers mate.


Totally understand and agree that having it on the ATIS at 5.15am would make it so much easier. Unfortunately we have to wait for the go ahead from the Works Safety Officer that the taxiway and/or runway is returned to service (they don't know that until the works vehicles have vacated and it has been inspected - sometime between 5.30am and 6.00am). We can't really pre-empt this either as it can result in go-arounds for arrivals if we commit them to a runway that ends up not being returned to service in time.

[DukeBen]

Having gone into detail explaining the impact of those taxiway works, I find out today that they're finished. Hopefully this means a lot less 6am runway changes!

[underfire]

Winds and why they are different.

Aviation winds are measured at a 10 meter height, that is fixed by criteria. There only has to be one sensor, but usually there are more.
Winds are reported typically reported in degrees true, but follow the rule "If you read it, it is true, if you hear it, it is magnetic"

ATIS
Wind velocity is based on a 2 minute average, reported at 10 minute intervals. Gusts are the highest and lowest gusts within a 10 minute period. It is updated if the wind direction changes more than 30 degrees or the 2 minute average changes by more than 5 kts. Winds are reported in degrees true.

ATC winds
Winds are based on a 2 minute average updated with measurements every minute. ATC also has instantaneous winds (1 minute measurement) that can be reported if there are greater fluctuations to speed and direction. ATC wind calls are the instant value and in degrees magnetic.

METAR winds
METAR winds are based on the 10 minute average, with 2 minute measurements. Winds are updated every 10 minutes. Winds are updated more frequently if the wind direction changes more than 60 degrees and/or mean windspeed changes by more than 10 kts. Reported in degrees true.

Winds Aloft
Winds aloft measurements are usually taken once a day (weather permitting) with an anemometer attached to a balloon. This usually in the middle of the night when there is little air traffic.

http://bafio.altervista.org/images/awos2.gif

That group of enclosures lined up before RW16 at Melbourne is for measuring the winds and wake turbulence. The wind column with wind direction, horizontal and vertical winds are measured up to 800 meters, reported in 5m intervals, measured every 20 seconds.

[Berealgetreal]

Silly question: wind read off ACARS true or magnetic?

[Derfred]

Sorry, underfire, but ATIS winds are magnetic.

[DukeBen]

How do you get on an Atis, runway 34, wind 250/22 max crosswind 18kts? See this a lot in Australia.

That would be an error and shouldn't be broadcast as with 90 degrees off runway direction, a 22kt avg would give at least a 22kt max crosswind and most likely more.

However it could conceivably be 250/18, max crosswind 22 kts, although we'd need to nominate another runway if it was available and had 20kts or less crosswind.

[underfire]

Sorry, underfire, but ATIS winds are magnetic.

Sorry, but that is not correct. ATIS winds are broadcast true.

That being said, there are 2 types of ATIS broadcast:
Data link-automatic terminal information service (D-ATIS). The provision of ATIS via data link through ACARS
Voice-automatic terminal information service (Voice-ATIS). The provision of ATIS by means of continued and repetetive voice broadcasts.

in the case of D-ATIS, it is broadcast in true
In the case of voice-ATIS, this is broadcast in magnetic.

This goes back to the saying, if it can be read it is true, if it is heard it is magnetic.

Here is a quick reference:

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Wind_Velocity_Reporting

[Capn Bloggs]

Sorry, but that is not correct. ATIS winds are broadcast true.
So, for the vast majority of us pilots operating on or near the airport (not ginning around with the ATIS via ACARS), they are magnetic.

This goes back to the saying, if it can be read it is true, if it is heard it is magnetic.
Printout on SPFIB/Update: ATIS wind True or Mag?

[underfire]

ICAO Standard:
Annex 3 — Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation
4.3 Routine observations and reports
Note.— Meteorological information used in ATIS (voice-ATIS and D-ATIS) is to be extracted from the local routine report, in accordance with Annex 11, 4.3.6.1 g).
4.6 Observing and reporting meteorological elements
4.6.1 Surface wind
4.6.1.1 The mean direction and the mean speed of the surface wind shall be measured, as well as significant variations of the wind direction and speed, and reported in degrees true and kilometres per hour (or knots), respectively.

If you call tower and get winds, they will be in magnetic.

Specific Pre-Flight Information Briefing enroute and terminal winds will be in true.

Believe me, this drove me crazy for a while. I have the measured wind data, which is always measured true, and the data from the ac from AMDAR for enroute, is true. The ac itself reports the winds in true.
Then, for the ATC screen you see above, this is what the controller sees in relation to each runway, which of course, is in mag. Mag is used to compute the crosswind/head-tailwind/etc component winds for each runway. As the system can be installed worldwide, built in to the interface in the settings, the magvar is input. This is then applied as applicable, but not globally to the wind output! Only the screens where ATC will provide the wind call. Other outputs, such as the METAR and ATIS do not have the magvar couple.
Thus, the surface winds (at 10m) that ATC reports shown are in mag, but virtually everything else is in true, (as are any forecasts)

[Capn Bloggs]

Search through AIP for "magnetic". Let us know what the ATIS and AWIS direction reference is.

[framer]

Something fishy going on here Underfire.
If I listen to ATIS Golf on vhf and the wind is 250/10, and then I order an ATIS via ACARS and golf pops out......it says 250/10.
They are either both magnetic or both true and the common understanding is they are both magnetic.
What's the go?

[underfire]

oi vey...

There are the ICAO and WMO standards.

METAR Wind Velocity

Wind velocity in a METAR is stated as the measured or estimated mean of each component over the 10 minutes prior to the time of issue of the METAR, unless there are significant variations during this 10 minute period. For direction, this means 60 degrees or more of arc but less than 180 degrees provided that the mean speed during the previous 10 minutes has been more than 3 knots. In the case of speed, variations from the mean wind speed (both above and below it) are reported when the variation from the mean speed has exceeded 10 kts. Such variations are expressed as the maximum and minimum speeds attained and must also be included if the maximum wind speed in a 10 minute period has exceeded the 2 minute average wind speed at the same location in that period. Any gust value which has occurred in the most recent two minute period will of course also be part of the calculation of average wind speed
Wind direction is recorded in degrees true. Whatever runway(s) is (are) in use, the wind velocity for the METAR is normally taken from one designated anemometer.

ATIS Wind Velocity

ATIS wind velocity is latest two minute average. The wind direction broadcast is given in degrees true. The mean wind speed is supplemented by the value of the highest and lowest gusts within the 10 minutes prior to issue time if either exceeds the METAR-specified minimum difference increment away from the mean.
ATIS broadcasts are usually only updated between the regular change times if the wind direction changes by more than 30 degrees or the 2 minute average wind speed changes by more than 5 kts over a five minute interval.

ATC Wind Velocity Reports

Display of wind velocity information to ATC at major airports usually allows at least the reporting by RTF of both the ‘average wind’ - that over a two minute period updated every minute - and ‘instant wind’ - the value at that exact time. The latter is usually used only where high wind speeds and their associated greater fluctuations in speed and direction prevail. ATC may pro-actively initiate such ‘wind checks’ or this action may be requested by a flight crew. The ATC TWR at most international and major domestic airports have digital displays of wind velocity which can be specific to sensor site or integrated from several sites and can show a selection of trend and extremes data. Smaller airports may still be limited to dual and plotted graphical displays from which to derive both required broadcast information and additional ad hoc assistance. ATC plain language ad hoc wind directions given during final approach or just prior to or during the take off roll are likely to be given in degrees magnetic.

Search through AIP for "magnetic".

Which AIP?

On a side note, what do your FMS and IRS winds use?

EDIT: Sorry that was a trick question. The FMS and IRS use the digital winds calculated in true. The ND winds are shown in mag. There is always a comparison going on between the input winds and the actual.
http://i64.tinypic.com/qx79ep.jpghttp://i64.tinypic.com/ve6nh2.jpg

[Capn Bloggs]

The Antarctic AIP. Whadya reckon? :ugh:

AIP GEN 2.1 Units of Measurement
Wind direction for runway operations: degrees magnetic

AIP GEN 3.5:
4.4.1 Take-off and landing reports are included on ATIS, where
available, or passed to aircraft reporting taxiing or inbound.
Take-off and landing reports contain, as available, the following:
a. wind velocity, with direction in degrees magnetic;

7.4.3 AWIS will provide some of the following information:
a. Message identifier e.g. “AWS AERODROME WEATHER” OR
“AUTOMATED WEATHER INFORMATION SERVICE”.
b. station identifier as a plain language station name,
c. wind direction in degrees Magnetic and speed in Knots,

[underfire]

Well, that is all good.

There are always interpretations of the ICAO standards, and interpretations of 'broadcast', in regards to D-ATIS vs V-ATIS. The AIP does not differentiate, but there is a difference. I know what I provide as far as wind data and to whom.

Back to the posts in this thread, I was responding to questions that wondered why the ATC winds were different than those reported on ATIS, and other difference noted.

[framer]

Underfire you post screeds of information ( copied from wiki?) and tout it as gospel even if it is completely wrong. You may mislead someone one day and for what?
In the context of this conversation ( YMML ATC) the ATIS wind is magnetic. You've stated it is True., probably best to own your mistake rather than talk about different interpretations.

[Tankengine]

ICAO Standard:
Annex 3 — Meteorological Service for International Air Navigation
4.3 Routine observations and reports
Note.— Meteorological information used in ATIS (voice-ATIS and D-ATIS) is to be extracted from the local routine report, in accordance with Annex 11, 4.3.6.1 g).
4.6 Observing and reporting meteorological elements
4.6.1 Surface wind
4.6.1.1 The mean direction and the mean speed of the surface wind shall be measured, as well as significant variations of the wind direction and speed, and reported in degrees true and kilometres per hour (or knots), respectively.

If you call tower and get winds, they will be in magnetic.

Specific Pre-Flight Information Briefing enroute and terminal winds will be in true.

Believe me, this drove me crazy for a while. I have the measured wind data, which is always measured true, and the data from the ac from AMDAR for enroute, is true. The ac itself reports the winds in true.
Then, for the ATC screen you see above, this is what the controller sees in relation to each runway, which of course, is in mag. Mag is used to compute the crosswind/head-tailwind/etc component winds for each runway. As the system can be installed worldwide, built in to the interface in the settings, the magvar is input. This is then applied as applicable, but not globally to the wind output! Only the screens where ATC will provide the wind call. Other outputs, such as the METAR and ATIS do not have the magvar couple.
Thus, the surface winds (at 10m) that ATC reports shown are in mag, but virtually everything else is in true, (as are any forecasts)

Interesting, never, ever, read or heard winds in km/hr anywhere. (/aviation related)
Knots pretty well everywhere, metres per second in China and Russia (not been to Russia for a while). .)

[underfire]

Underfire you post screeds of information ( copied from wiki?)

No, that is from the WMO standard for aviation.

Interesting, never, ever, read or heard winds in km/hr anywhere. (/aviation related) Well, at least they have knots included. Not sure why some of the ICAO stuff reads the way it does.

Bloggs, do the same search of the AIP for degrees true.

On the ATIS, does the broadcast provide crosswinds?

[Capn Bloggs]

On the ATIS, does the broadcast provide crosswinds?
A supposed aviation professional (an alleged RNP-AR designer, no less) asking if crosswind is broadcast on the ATIS. That's a worry.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Reading this page conjures up visions of some sort of skit that the highly entertaining, acerbic, abrasive, yet deadly serious Nassim N Taleb would have written to prove his point about "knowledge about knowledge".

Here is a quote from a recent piece (https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577):
The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited.


Suggested reading, his first two books, "Fooled by Randomness" and "The Black Swan", then you may realise where the problem lies.

[Capt Fathom]

What was the wind in Melbourne again?

[framer]

There is no wind in Melbourne. It's True.

[underfire]

A supposed aviation professional (an alleged RNP-AR designer, no less) asking if crosswind is broadcast on the ATIS. That's a worry.

Should you actually be AR qualified, you would have flown a procedure that I have designed.

It was not a question, I guess that was lost on you. Providing crosswinds is not a standard broadcast. IF crosswinds are provided, it has to be magnetic...as it is specific to a particular runway. (which, so you do not have to look it up, are in magnetic) that is why I was asking being facetious , not that you were actually able to provide the answer.

Not that there are the standards, and countries and airlines can have exemptions and modifications to the standards.
I can see by your typical responses, why Australia has had to provide as much detail as possible to the 'pilots' so they can figure out how to land the ac.
You call yourself a professional, yet appear to be a cut rate one. How is your AR qualification going? No matter, really.

Getting back to the original questions as to why AWOS, METAR, ATIS, and tower winds are different, I hope that has been answered.

[Capt Fathom]

Getting back to the original questions as to why AWOS, METAR, ATIS, and tower winds are different, I hope that has been answered.
The question was never asked!

[Derfred]

AWIS, ATIS and tower winds are not different.

They are all magnetic. Including D-ATIS.

Sorry.

[Bula]

So this is the person designing our approaches..... makes sense....

These things tend to get lost in translation.

There is no reason I want true winds on an ATIS... full stop.

[RAC/OPS]

In Melbourne we get the wind for the ATIS and the wind we broadcast by voice from the same source. So both are either true or magnetic....I suspect magnetic though

[underfire]

Getting back to the original questions as to why AWOS, METAR, ATIS, and tower winds are different, I hope that has been answered.
The question was never asked!

Actually, it was. The OP was asking why the winds from tower were different that ATIS and the changes while lining up.

I explained the different reporting standards, and why there are differences. Not only different between mag/true, but simply the differences and changes in the winds.

The difference between true and mag needs to be understood. Different Systems will add the magvar or not, so it is important to understand what to input and where.
As shown by many applications, the magvar for the aerodrome is a setting. The ac uses true when measuring the winds. Forecasts and enroute are in true.It must be understood when inputting winds to the ac, if the winds you are using include the magvar correction or not.

What needs to be understood is what the ANSP has decided to provide. That was the basis for my comment on crosswinds. IF it has been decided to include crosswinds in the broadcast, it is magvar, but this is not typical. When crosswinds are not provided, and up to the driver to compute, the winds are in true. From what I have experienced, most require the driver to calc the wind.
If Aus has decided that is too much, and has provided the crosswinds, that is all good, but it must be understood, when inputting the winds on the ac, if the FMS is going to correct the winds to the magvar in the database or not.

There is the worldwide standard for aviation, and I provided that as the standard, and required reporting back a few posts. Depending on conditions, there will be differences, due to the reporting frequency and averaging.
The provision if you read it it is true, if you hear it, it is mag, is what we use as a guide for the input to the FMS. When sharing wind data between aircraft, is is important to understand the format.

The AWOS winds are measured at the aerodrome in true, and at 10m, per the frequency, averaging and parameters stated in post 286. The AWOS system corrects the winds by magvar for the individual runways to report crosswinds.
The AUS AIP states for runway ops it is mag, and non-runways ops winds re true, it does not detail what runway ops means.

[Lookleft]

I shake my head at some of the stuff ATC do but today was an example of a Tower controller who was at the very peak of his game. Lined up the turbo-props at Golf, the domestic jets at Juliet and the internationals from the full length of 34 simultaneously. Bravo to whomever that ATC was.:D

[le Pingouin]

A lot of it comes down to the luck of the draw - you can only do so much when the disposition of the traffic is wrong, but when it's right you can shine. It's fun when it works :)

[Pavement]

I shake my head at some of the stuff ATC do but today was an example of a Tower controller who was at the very peak of his game. Lined up the turbo-props at Golf, the domestic jets at Juliet and the internationals from the full length of 34 simultaneously. Bravo to whomever that ATC was.:D

When he said "cleared for take-off" simultaneously his day went to the dogs 😀

[le Pingouin]

Nah, early left turn for the turbo-prop, early right turn for the domestic, and runway track for the international!

[EPIRB]

How do you work out priority for departure? Is it first to call ready or is it the amount of traffic in a given direction? Who makes the decision? Thanks.

[Awol57]

Generally it is the first to call ready, however the ADC can choose to alter that if it will suit the traffic flow better. For example a medium before a heavy to avoid a wake turbulence delay, or alternate turns on departure rather than same track, that sort of thing.

[Stardoggas]

however the ADC can choose to alter that if it will suit the traffic flow better. For example a medium before a heavy to avoid a wake turbulence delay, or alternate turns on departure rather than same track, that sort of thing.
Red tail, etc

[Awol57]

Why would we care what colour tail? No company gives us personally anything so there is no incentive there....

[Bula]

Hope it's not first to call ready given R27 and 34 taxi time differences, and the fact it was reiterated by Aerservices not to call ready until approaching the holding point the other month......

[Awol57]

Ok you are right, first to call ready at the actual holding point. And then subject to that other stuff I said.

[EPIRB]

I saw one aircraft report ready turning from Alpha into Echo. We reported ready at the holding point after their call but had to wait for nearly one minute for them to get to the holding point. I would have thought that it would have been more expeditious just to get aircraft away rather than have them wait for someone. Both heading northbound.

[framer]

Over the years Air Services has given reminders not to call ready until at the holding point a few times. From a controllers perspective does it bother you where we are when we call ready? Are there pros and cons to us calling ready before we get to the holding point ?

[EPIRB]

The AIP states at or approaching the holding point. Personally I think that it is unprofessional to call early. I have seen this happen in Melbourne at intersection Juliet when SMC had cleared aircraft X to Juliet who had been on taxiway Alpha and the tower cleared aircraft Y to Juliet who called ready whilst taxiing down Sierra. Aircraft Y had to break suddenly when X taxied in front of it as both thought they had right of way. Why would you call ready early if you still have taxiways to cross? Not a clever thing to do. Rules are there for a purpose - safety. Everybody gets their fair turn.

[Bula]

While the system uses ready calls for priority, in my humble opinion, Alpha turning into Echo is approaching the holding point and fair game.

Let's be real, a Short Taxi doesn't mean priority, and waiting 1 min may have been because of wake turb on a crossing runway, hence the person calling ready first had priority.

It's an average system. Perhaps those who taxi first should get priority at the holding point if traffic allows.

[EPIRB]

But why leave aircraft X waiting at Quebec who reported ready second to Aircraft Y who called ready turning into Echo when Aircraft Y still takes a minute to get to Papah. Wouldn't it be more efficient to let Aircraft X go rather than just have it sitting there?

[Bula]

But why leave aircraft X waiting at Quebec who reported ready second to Aircraft Y who called ready turning into Echo when Aircraft Y still takes a minute to get to Papah. Wouldn't it be more efficient to let Aircraft X go rather than just have it sitting there?

Assuming aircraft X can go. Wake turb, Traffic, Med Helicopter, etc etc etc.

[Showa Cho]

And I bet nobody is willing to say "This one time, I called ready after another flight, and I got to go first....but I declined and said, no no, after you". Swings and roundabouts. Just accept you don't have the full picture and what happens happens. Does it come out of your paycheck? No? Let it go.....ATC gives priority to whom it fits best, not by the colour of their tail. Nothing to see here.

[missy]

The AUS AIP states for runway ops it is mag, and non-runways ops winds re true, it does not detail what runway ops means.

In Sydney (and I presume elsewhere across the network) when I quote an upper wind (to highlight a wind gradient) e.g. 500ft, 1000ft, 1300ft or 1500ft wind then I simply use what the pilot has quoted, I don't apply magvar. Whether this is right or wrong I'm not too sure but no-one has ever complained or commented on it.

In terms of "priority for departure" then there are some debate going on at the moment as to what this means and how it should be applied.

(i) with equal priority, flights compliant with their ATFM requirements, flights exempt from ATFM measures and Medical Aircraft (HOSP) operations; and
(ii) flights not compliant with their ATFM requirements;
(iii) allotheraircraft.

Does it mean that that compliant aircraft depart ahead of other aircraft irrespective of the ready call - food for thought ??

[Slippery_Pete]

Swings and roundabouts. Just accept you don't have the full picture and what happens happens.

Yep. Completely agree. The man upstairs knows more then me about the flow, the wake, the arrivals, the priorities, Essendon... I don't know why people tie themselves up in knots worrying about ATC. I'm sure they don't sit there worrying about how we should be doing our job.

My beef with Melbourne is not with controllers but with the ASA procedures. Not using 09, single runway ops when two runways are suitable, etc etc

Also, the world's slowest runway and taxiway works. How those high speeds were out of action for month after month just beggars belief.

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

in my humble opinion, Alpha turning into Echo is approaching the holding point and fair game.
That's bull:mad:.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

That's bull:mad:.


And so is calling 'ready' for 27 on 'A', between 'T' and 'U', although that seems to be going out of fashion lately.

[Bula]

Approaching:

To come near or nearer to (someone or something) in distance or time.

Finishing to turn from Alpha onto Echo is approaching. I call bull. if you think otherwise.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Approaching:

To come near or nearer to (someone or something) in distance or time.



In that case we're 'approaching', and can call ready, as soon as we start taxiing from pretty much anywhere on the airfield. Which explains a fair bit.

[Lookleft]

The intent of the requirement to report ready approaching the holding point would be that you are not on the Tower frequency while you are still the responsibility of the SMC. I have heard Tower tell aircraft to go back to SMC when they are still on E but yet to cross A (this is at Melbourne) because taxiing traffic is still on SMC. I have also heard aircraft request that SMC tell Tower that they are ready! Ready in turn is another of my pet hates as there is no such call.

If ATC decide that another aircraft is going to be given a takeoff clearance before you then there is nothing you can do to change that decision.

[EPIRB]

The AIP states at or approaching the holding point. Personally I think that it is unprofessional to call early. I have seen this happen in Melbourne at intersection Juliet when SMC had cleared aircraft X to Juliet who had been on taxiway Alpha and the tower cleared aircraft Y to Juliet who called ready whilst taxiing down Sierra. Aircraft Y had to break suddenly when X taxied in front of it as both thought they had right of way. Why would you call ready early if you still have taxiways to cross? Not a clever thing to do. Rules are there for a purpose - safety. Everybody gets their fair turn.

A legal question. In the above case, if aircraft X had to break suddenly because aircraft Y had prematurely called ready and both the SMC and TWR controllers had cleared both aircraft to intersection Juliet, who is responsible if a flight attendant in aircraft X was moving around the cabin and fell over and was injured due to the sudden breaking?

[EPIRB]

Ready in turn is another of my pet hates as there is no such call.

Have to agree with you on that one. I've never heard anyone report ready out of turn. Of course ATC is going to clear you for take off in turn. What a stupid call.

[DukeBen]

A legal question. In the above case, if aircraft X had to break suddenly because aircraft Y had prematurely called ready and both the SMC and TWR controllers had cleared both aircraft to intersection Juliet, who is responsible if a flight attendant in aircraft X was moving around the cabin and fell over and was injured due to the sudden breaking?

The controller ideally should have made clear who was giving way or who was first to the holding point before the situation reaches this stage. Very occasionally, if they've missed the conflict or been caught up with other traffic there may be uncertainty.

In this case hopefully the pilot would query who was giving way before sudden braking was required. Separation on taxiways is a joint controller/pilot responsibility.

[fujii]

Did the aircraft break when the brakes were applied?

[EPIRB]

Did the aircraft break when the brakes were applied? I'm just a dumb, white, hetro sexual male.

[framer]

Don't beat yourself up, I know a dumb yellow bi-sexual female who makes the same mistake. She's the best wife I've ever had.

[The name is Porter]

bi-sexual female She's the best wife I've ever had.

You lucky bastard...........:cool:

[Lookleft]

Heard the following exchange recently at Melbourne:

Aircraft: "Qantas 787 could you pass on to the Tower we are ready."
ATC: "You are big boys now, do it yourself"

The QF aircraft was taking the whole calling ready first thing to new levels of ridiculous but the ATC response was childish. This is the same controller who will jump down the microphone and berate you for any small infraction but doesn't want to acknowledge his (and it is a he) own mistakes such as giving taxi instructions using the wrong flight number.:ugh:

[ACMS]

One of my pet hates is waiting until we either stop or slow down at a holding point/taxiway intersection before then giving us a clearance to continue.
Please if at all possible don't do that, especially on A crossing 27, it takes a while and a lot of power to get a heavy moving again.


One particular evening you did it to me 3 times after landing on 16 and on each occasion it wasn't necessary.

Generally however I find YMML ATC good.


:ok:

[CurtainTwitcher]

One of my pet hates is waiting until you either stop or slow down at a holding point/taxiway intersection before then giving clearance to continue.

Especially when you have tried to anticipate it by managing the speed. Bonus points for the inevitable "aircraft on short final EXPEDITE"

[Awol57]

I don't work at ML so I can't say for sure why the stopping happens but a likely cause is the ADC being busy with something else. The SMC has to coordinate the crossing, so if the ADC is tied up doing something else, that could be why you stop for no apparent reason. I'd like to think that most of us do try to keep you moving as much/often as we possibly can :ok:

[CurtainTwitcher]

I don't work at ML so I can't say for sure why the stopping happens but a likely cause is the ADC being busy with something else. The SMC has to coordinate the crossing, so if the ADC is tied up doing something else, that could be why you stop for no apparent reason. I'd like to think that most of us do try to keep you moving as much/often as we possibly can :ok:
Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to come across as having a go, I realise that a controller may have dozens of balls in the air at anyone time, most of them unseen to us.

It's just frustrating sometimes when you see the picture developing and attempt to put yourself in the position to maximise the opportunity to cross or keep it rolling for takeoff, then things come to a stop... immediately followed by go go go, hurry hurry hurry.

[PoppaJo]

Does anyone know when the taxiway works are meant to be completed? China has built new airports in the same timeframe diggers are still playing with dirt on Alpha.

Are they just milking the taxpayer?

[unobtanium]

Does anyone know when the taxiway works are meant to be completed? China has built new airports in the same timeframe diggers are still playing with dirt on Alpha.

Are they just milking the taxpayer?

Entire airports and supporting infrastructure (High speed rail, highways bridges etc) have appeared out of the ocean in the time it takes Australia to play with some sand.

[IsDon]

.
Are they just milking the taxpayer?

Is there any doubt?

I'll bet the bill for compliance alone would build a whole airport in any other country.

With any infrastructure project compliance with dreamt up rules, red tape and bureaucracy makes up roughly one third of the total cost of the project.

The safety, security, greenies, local government departments, state government departments federal government departments all parasites with their fingers in the till.

[topdrop]

The safety, security, greenies, local government departments, state government departments federal government departments all parasites with their fingers in the till
Now there is a well balanced argument!!

[RAC/OPS]

Originally Posted by Bula
in my humble opinion, Alpha turning into Echo is approaching the holding point and fair game.

That's bull.

So is turning from Echo onto Alpha (for 34) and calling ready also bull?

You all do it guys, so don't get too narky when the opposition does it to you.

In all seriousness, it's usually first come, first served. But there are times when, to reduce overall delays we'll go out of sequence. For example, traffic inbound to T1 with a queue building for departure at Papa. To help SMC out we might try and clear those ones first.

Or we'll go with left turner/right turner if we can apply visual separation upwind til the radar guys get 3nm. We can then clear the second acft when the first is 1800m down the runway and airborne. We can do that with traffic on the same SID but we can't guarantee visual separation all the way to Sydney. Or a heavy may have called ready first but with traffic on final, we would only get the heavy away, but if we go Medium first then Heavy, we'll get both away.

In 27/34 mode (with deps to the NE off 34), it's better sequencing to go with a 27 dep then a 34 then a 27 etc to ensure acft don't get bunched up on similar tracks.

With the A380's runway occupancy time, its best to get them going in a suitable gap - we might not get another for a while, so it causes a bit of pain short term with wake turbulence but at least they're out of the way.

Believe me, we DO NOT give preferential treatment to anybody. All we are interested in is getting everyone off our frequency as soon as possible!

[Pera]

It's just frustrating sometimes

And you're on PPRUNE whining about it. Good work.

[ACMS]

Well actually there are ATCO's contributing here in addition to Pilots so it is indeed a good place to ask and discuss.

[EPIRB]

Why do Melbourne and Sydney have seperate frequencies to call when departing to a COBT controlled port yet other airports don't? Is this due to a higher rate of traffic movements that would impede the function of the SMC?

[GA Driver]

When I asked that question awhile back I got told Melbourne was a 'digital tower' and Sydney still had the old strips. No idea if that's still the case.


Today's fun arrivals into Melbourne, us and several others were given 20mins holding. Tigoz infront started to query why they were given 20mins when the notams indicated 10. There wasn't much explanation other than there's now 20 mins holding. I thought it was a fair question seeing we base our fuel figures on the destination requirements....

So what has to happen for the Notam to get updated or at least a hazard alert announced?
An additional 10mins traffic after the Marub6 AKL transition starts to add up.

[Fatguyinalittlecoat]

So is turning from Echo onto Alpha (for 34) and calling ready also bull?

You all do it guys, so don't get too narky when the opposition does it to you.


What utter rubbish.

[DukeBen]

Why do Melbourne and Sydney have seperate frequencies to call when departing to a COBT controlled port yet other airports don't? Is this due to a higher rate of traffic movements that would impede the function of the SMC?

I can only speak for Melbourne but yes you are correct. The SMC has enough to do, as you can probably tell from the frequency congestion at times, without also having to search through a list for a callsign and COBT for certain departures before responding to pushback requests.

Pushing this task onto the clearance delivery controller works much better for us as they have more time and don't need their eyes out the window as much as the SMC.

Melbourne does use the INTAS system which doesn't use paper strips and Sydney is still on the old paper strip system but will be transitioning to INTAS as well sometime in the near future I believe.

[le Pingouin]

GA Driver, while it might be a fair question it's unlikely the en-route controller you're addressing it to will be able to provide an authoritative answer. You're asking the wrong person.

8.10.3.5 All traffic holding advisories are estimates only and are based on the best information available. Actual holding may differ from the estimate, including to allow for effective traffic management. Operators should use their own judgement on fuel carriage decisions.

[Snakecharma]

Le Ping,

With respect that is a bull**** response and you know it.

Granted 10 minutes (as discussed in this instance) isnt too much in the grand scheme of things (on face value, but in my aircraft it is close to 1 and a bit tonnes) but seriously where do we conjure extra fuel from if we get unexpected holding?

As an operator there is no rhyme or reason when delays occur, so using your "own judgement" is difficult.

Fuel decisions are made an hour or so prior to departure (in some cases earlier, in some cases later, but I doubt inside 30 minutes in most cases), and these decisions are based on info in many cases a further hour older, at least.

I do appreciate that stuff happens and sometimes delays just happen, but more info when you have the abacus out trying to figure out what your plan is is better than less info, so perhaps a means of telling the enroute guys/gals who are delivering the delaying info to aircraft the background would be helpful.

[Lookleft]

but seriously where do we conjure extra fuel from if we get unexpected holding?

You double the stated traffic holding. This is a battle the airlines need to fight if they don't want crews to carry the extra fuel, its not something the frontline ATC can change. If its an extra 1 and a bit tonnes then so be it. Its similar to carrying weather holding. The current state of forecasting is not what I would expect in the 21st century but my mitigation of the problem is to carry the fuel when I can. There has been more than a few occasions when the extra fuel I have carried has saved me from a diversion. There is no change to my schedule if I divert it just makes my day longer so I carry the fuel. Once again if the airlines don't like it then it is up to them to battle it out with the various agencies it is not up to me and my fuel decision.

[willadvise]

I do appreciate that stuff happens and sometimes delays just happen, but more info when you have the abacus out trying to figure out what your plan is is better than less info, so perhaps a means of telling the enroute guys/gals who are delivering the delaying info to aircraft the background would be helpful.

Why does it matter? A delay is a delay. You either have the fuel or you don't?

You must also be aware that Airline management pester Airservices to keep the recommended traffic delay advisory to an absolute minimum to save money.

[GA Driver]

Traffic holding is only an advisory and I am well versed in that paragraph you recited contained in the jepp. I do appreciate things can change in a blink of an eyelid particularly when it comes to Melbourne weather. The operator (well my operator) plans on known data. So that's why I pose the question. What has to happen to get the notam amended? It's all well and good to say it's up the the operator to take more, but if I start adding more and more for each of the Melbourne factors I'm not sure where we'd stop really.

The reason I mentioned it was because it does happen a bit into Melbourne (additional traffic holding.) Knowing about this earlier rather than later would be helpful, particularly before I've burnt fuel heading towards the holding pattern. Notams or hazard alerts could at least alert us to a problem BEFOREHAND so we can decide if we need to pop into Canberra (shudder) or head back from whence we came.

[Lookleft]

You must also be aware that Airline management pester Airservices to keep the recommended traffic delay advisory to an absolute minimum to save money.

As I thought which is why the AIP states what le ping posted (my bolding).

8.10.3.5 All traffic holding advisories are estimates only and are based on the best information available. Actual holding may differ from the estimate, including to allow for effective traffic management. Operators should use their own judgement on fuel carriage decisions.

The great bureaucratic arse covering. Who wears it in the end? You guessed it:cool: Who gets to have the final say as to how much fuel will be actually put in the tanks?:cool: Well done, two out of two.

[willadvise]

So that's why I pose the question. What has to happen to get the notam amended? It's all well and good to say it's up the the operator to take more, but if I start adding more and more for each of the Melbourne factors I'm not sure where we'd stop really.

The reason I mentioned it was because it does happen a bit into Melbourne (additional traffic holding.) Knowing about this earlier rather than later would be helpful, particularly before I've burnt fuel heading towards the holding pattern. Notams or hazard alerts could at least alert us to a problem BEFOREHAND so we can decide if we need to pop into Canberra (shudder) or head back from whence we came.

The problem is that it is very difficult to predict when delays are going to be in excess of the advisory. I'm not sure if you are aware but the COBT system is not meant to remove delays, but to keep them to a maximum of 15mins. This is to keep pressure on the system to ensure slots are not lost and so that international aircraft, which are not subject to COBT, cop some of the delays. So with this in mind it is not to difficult to imagine how easily a 20min delay can occur (missed approach, change of runway, MEDEVAC, controller/pilot stuffing up the sequence) Most often these 20 min plus delays are just a very short term thing. Only half a dozen or so aircraft are affected then it is back to normal. Often you are sitting there watching MAESTRO (the ATC flow control tool) and the delays are at a constant 5-10 mins and then a couple of aircraft depart from close by airports and there is a missed approach and suddenly you have your 20min+ delay out of nowhere. If this happens NOTAMS are not going to be amended and I fail to see the point in hazard alerting when all affected aircraft are told of there delay anyway. A NOTAM and hazard alerts will only be raised if long term delays are expected .

[GA Driver]

I fail to see the point in hazard alerting when all affected aircraft are told of there delay anyway
And there in lies the problem, its too late by then. You're notifying us of a delay via the enroute controller as we get the star. This is usually 100nm(ish) prior to descent and past the halfway point if I wanted to do a U turn. We need to know about this earlier
Ignore the hazardalert or notam question if it really is that hard, but surely this could be passed down the line, 'expect 20min traffic delay!'
I completely understand what you are suggesting and respect your statements about runway changes, go-arounds (I was one of them) stuff ups etc. But its equally as dynamic for us with the changes, we just sit behind a different console however the consequences and decision making is a bit differnt.

A NOTAM and hazard alerts will only be raised if long term delays are expected
And here is the $64,000.... WHAT is a long term delay? I have had plenty of flow controllers opinions but never found anything that constitutes LONG TERM.
We have to find the fuel to cover this question.

Im not trying to finger point at anyone, but the earlier this stuff gets to us the better. A go around is going to effect all those aircraft behind, so why can't this information be passed down? Ive had it from the dep/app controller as it happens but thats usually it.

[willadvise]

And there in lies the problem, its too late by then. You're notifying us of a delay via the enroute controller as we get the star. This is usually 100nm(ish) prior to descent and past the halfway point if I wanted to do a U turn. We need to know about this earlier
Ignore the hazardalert or notam question if it really is that hard, but surely this could be passed down the line, 'expect 20min traffic delay!'
I completely understand what you are suggesting and respect your statements about runway changes, go-arounds (I was one of them) stuff ups etc. But its equally as dynamic for us with the changes, we just sit behind a different console however the consequences and decision making is a bit differnt.


And here is the $64,000.... WHAT is a long term delay? I have had plenty of flow controllers opinions but never found anything that constitutes LONG TERM.
We have to find the fuel to cover this question.

Im not trying to finger point at anyone, but the earlier this stuff gets to us the better. A go around is going to effect all those aircraft behind, so why can't this information be passed down? Ive had it from the dep/app controller as it happens but thats usually it.

I guess my point is, and I should have made it clearer, is that often the controller at the half way point, where you would want to divert, doesn't know what your delay is going to be. Often at this point your delay may only be 5-10 mins and the delay blows out closer to destination. I suggest you have a good read of this (http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/561644-do-you-know-how-can-happen.html) thread as it has a lot of good info about how delays occur and why you don't get notification earlier.

[le Pingouin]

The problem with NOTAMs is the extent of delays often doesn't become evident until relatively late in the piece and then it's pointless issuing one - you're already in the air and either have the fuel or you don't. By the time aircraft on the ground who could load more fuel get airborne those delays will be long gone.

You can cop an extra 10 minutes delay just from traffic disposition - if five of you have the same estimate unlucky last gets an extra 10 minute delay.

[Snakecharma]

Lookleft, double the traffic advisory fuel is a nice sentiment but not practical in some cases.

I add fuel when I reckon I need to but sometimes I really need to justify in my own mind the trade off between fuel and payload and a couple of tonnes for "mum and the kids" isnt really a reasonable justification in my mind.

Willadvise - why does it matter? Well because the earlier I know the more options I have. In the machine I fly there are not all that many options so the more thinking music I have the better it is.

More to the point, the further I go down track the more options I give away until I get to the point where a diversion to the alternate is the only option. Given we always carry an alternate and we plan to land at the alternate with 2/10th of 5/8th of bugger all fuel it isnt a situation I would willingly put myself into unless I got pushed into a corner.

The earlier I make the decision to pull the pin and divert to somewhere which can more easily handle the machine I fly then the easier my life is, particularly after 14-16 hrs.

[Lookleft]

I would be surprised if carrying an extra 15 minutes results in a couple of tonnes but I don't know what you are flying. Its not for Mum and the kids either, its for the scenario you are describing. ATC are telling you here that they can't give you notice for extra holding due to various reasons so it is extra contingency fuel that is possibly or even probably going to be required.

[EPIRB]

Just to change the subject a little, two questions:

Why do we have to request a GLS?

What is the old tower used for? I noticed there were some lights in it tonight.

[le Pingouin]

I think we'll just clear you for an ILS approach on 16 or 27 and an RNAV on 34 or 09 if you don't ask.

[sunnySA]

Why do Melbourne and Sydney have seperate frequencies to call when departing to a COBT controlled port yet other airports don't? Is this due to a higher rate of traffic movements that would impede the function of the SMC?
Many of colleagues think that ATC should have nothing to do with COBT and that the airlines should manage it themselves. But we have what we have.
At Sydney there are discussions that ALL domestic aircraft should call Coordinator 24/7 (not just those with a COBT).

[RAC/OPS]

What is the old tower used for? I noticed there were some lights in it tonight.

Not used for anything as far as I know. Gradually decommissioning it.

[Derfred]

I think we'll just clear you for an ILS approach on 16 or 27 and an RNAV on 34 or 09 if you don't ask.

Who should we ask? Melb Centre (when issued with STAR), or Melb App?

[le Pingouin]

You can ask either - if you ask Centre we'll say "approach will advise" and put the request in your label.

[EPIRB]

Is there a difference between the approaches from an ATC perspective?

[maggot]

Is there a difference between the approaches from an ATC perspective?

Atc used to be thingy about it years back when qf asked us to do em in syd in nice weather (IVA time) ... ended up just asking for a 'visual via the gls' as (i suspect) they lost a lot of flexibility giving us a formal approach (not really what we were after any ways but, semantics.)

[thegypsy]

Have not been to Melbourne for years . Do they still have that system of using Essenden ILS initially and then breaking off to land on R/W 34? Usually in crappy weather I seem to recall.

Crazy system for a major airport. Have they got around to installing an ILS to R/W 34 yet?

[GA Driver]

Do they still have that system of using Essenden ILS initially and then breaking off to land on R/W 34? Usually in crappy weather I seem to recall.


The Lizzi4V approach.... yes.
Although it has changed somewhat, whilst it does track down the EN 26 LLZ, the LLZ isn't part of the approach anymore. Seems to be used in 'good' weather nowadays (Although usually associated with howling 50kt northerlys)

[wheels_down]

Some foreign operators have banned that approach being used also. One of our own has also banned the approach on a triple after royally screwing it up. That report is a must read for those who fly into Mel.

Something to do with a deterioration in pilots being capable of hand flying an approach.

[thegypsy]

Fortunately I grew up on the B737-200 and B 707-320C so hand flying was the norm below 10000ft. It stood me in good stead into places like Melbourne etc on the B767 .

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

At Sydney there are discussions that ALL domestic aircraft should call Coordinator 24/7 (not just those with a COBT).
Surely it's time for ramp controllers at SYD? One for T2 and one for T3. They can look after COBTs, pushbacks, QLink movements, and other movements in the vicinity.
Would save the drivers a few calls and greatly ease the load on the SYD Ground controller, arguably the hardest working ATCO in the land.

[Snakecharma]

Lookleft, more than 8 tonnes an hour and between 4-500 kg per tonne to carry over the flight, more often than not departing at structural, so having even a tonne at the end of the flight is a big impost at the beginning.

[Lookleft]

I understand the difficulties but you are still left with the problem that what is stated in the AIP is not binding by ATC. Your choice seems to be stick with the AIP holding fuel and see what happens at the other end or squeeze on another 5 minutes of traffic fuel. The other alternative is to declare a fuel emergency if your fuel will go below statutory reserves. The airlines and Airservices have once again put all the responsibility on the crew to come up with a solution to the problem of what should be carried for traffic holding. Good luck!

[mrdeux]

..... Tigoz infront started to query why they were given 20mins when the notams indicated 10. There wasn't much explanation other than there's now 20 mins holding. I thought it was a fair question seeing we base our fuel figures on the destination requirements....

Having held for close to 40 minutes, when the requirement was 20, we suggested that at the next passage over the holding fix we'd be continuing. The ATC response was to ask our latest divert time. How much fuel do they think we have?

[framer]

Had you already past your latest divert time?

[le Pingouin]

We don't know how much fuel you have, what your alternate currently is or what your options are. All we know is you won't be given priority until you declare a fuel emergency.

[mrdeux]

We don't know how much fuel you have, what your alternate currently is or what your options are. All we know is you won't be given priority until you declare a fuel emergency.

Which begs the question. How much fuel do you think people actually carry? If no diversion fuel is required, we're unlikely to have it.

[Ivasrus]

Atc used to be thingy about it years back when qf asked us to do em in syd in nice weather (IVA time) ... ended up just asking for a 'visual via the gls' as (i suspect) they lost a lot of flexibility giving us a formal approach (not really what we were after any ways but, semantics.)

It's really just a phraseology thing for ATC. During IVAs it's generally expected you'll notify us about using the GLS for tracking but we could vector for a 4NM intercept. If you want the approach via IAF for practice or renewal then be clear with the request.

[le Pingouin]

Why does it beg the question? How much fuel you have is of no use to me to separate you - until you tell me it's a problem it's irrelevant to me. You either have plenty or you don't. The vast majority of the time you all seem to have plenty. I don't mean to sound callous but as a line controller there is absolutely nothing I can do.

[framer]

I reckon if ATC holding times have been exceeded then every holding a/c should give their endurance in minutes as they turn outbound. Ie " Velocity 124 Saver outbound, endurance 120 " Every once in a while you'd get someone with significantly less than the others and then the info is out there and can be managed. I know it won't happen :)

[Derfred]

Bugger that, if you start sequencing aircraft according to how much fuel they chose (not) to carry, it's not going to lead to a particularly desirable conclusion.

If so-called professional pilots can't work out how much fuel they need to carry then maybe they need to start re-thinking their profession.

Or call a fuel emergency and put your airline on the front page of the newspaper. It's your call. Not ATC's problem.

[framer]

Fair enough, I have to admit that as I typed I was aware I hadn't thought it through very well.
If so-called professional pilots can't work out how much fuel they need to carry then maybe they need to start re-thinking their profession.
We do alright most of the time, as do controllers. No need to bring attitude to the bar.

[Tankengine]

If there is no WX holding then our airline plans for ATC hold + fixed reserve + variable (which may already be gone if held low, etc.)
Unless we put on extra that is it.
If ATC want us to have more fuel then they should mandate it!
Haven't done much holding for some time though. :)

[Tankengine]

Bugger that, if you start sequencing aircraft according to how much fuel they chose (not) to carry, it's not going to lead to a particularly desirable conclusion.

If so-called professional pilots can't work out how much fuel they need to carry then maybe they need to start re-thinking their profession.

Or call a fuel emergency and put your airline on the front page of the newspaper. It's your call. Not ATC's problem.

I have told ATC in the past that I was now turning for downwind! When they enquired how much holding fuel we had I replied "two minutes"! They vectored away another aircraft and we landed with maybe enough for a quick circuit above fixed reserve.
This was overseas, no emergency call, no front page, no "call the tower" even. I doubt it could get that bad here.
ATC had vectored us around for nearly an hour with zero info before I made the call to land regardless of them!
If fuel is low, I MAKE it ATCs problem! (As a professional pilot should!) ;)

[skkm]

If so-called professional pilots can't work out how much fuel they need to carry then maybe they need to start re-thinking their profession.

We worked out how much fuel we needed to carry based on advisory traffic holding information and weather forecasts ten hours ago. If we turn up and due to some unexpected development in the intervening several hours there is now bulk holding, it’s not really our fault we haven’t turned up with hours of extra gas. I think it’s quite reasonable to advise holding endurance if major delays have developed.

[le Pingouin]

There's not really much point in telling us until it's becoming an issue as there's nothing we can do with it.

[Tankengine]

There's not really much point in telling us until it's becoming an issue as there's nothing we can do with it.

Which shows one of the problems with ATC.

[le Pingouin]

What would you have us do with it?

[skkm]

What would you have us do with it?

If someone is capable of substantially less holding than everyone else, bump them up the queue?

Some hub carriers outside Australia provide their short-haul flights with extra holding fuel when major holding is expected to enable their long-haul arrivals to go in front, as it's much cheaper to carry the fuel on a shorter flight, as long as ATC plays ball.

[maggot]

Cause that won't get exploited
LOL

[le Pingouin]

Surely that decision would be better handled by your company ops? Delaying the wrong flight by an extra 30 minutes (or whatever) might prove rather unpopular. Swapping same company flights does happen occasionally but in the cases I've seen the company nominates the loser.

[Beer Baron]

An arrival slot swapping arrangement within an airline is a novel idea that could well have benefits from time to time for the major users of an airport. However any arrangement that favours the aircraft that turns up at the holding pattern with the least amount of fuel is a terrible idea.
A considered crew puts on extra gas, accepts the payload penalty, wears the added fuel burn but then cops a delay as another operator jumps the queue as they didn't bother to put the fuel on. Can't see that plan working.

[maggot]

I've had a slot swapped in our favour from a generous 737 crew when arriving in vapours from la :)

[CurtainTwitcher]

A considered crew puts on extra gas, accepts the payload penalty, wears the added fuel burn but then cops a delay as another operator jumps the queue as they didn't bother to put the fuel on.
Ryanair have been accused of doing exactly that in the past: See the 2012 Valencia incident: Ryanair ordered to 'review' fuel policy after making THREE emergency landings because planes almost ran out | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206322/Ryanair-ordered-review-fuel-policy-making-THREE-emergency-landings-planes-ran-out.html)


Ryanair investigation prompts call for new fuel guidelines (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/ryanair/Ryanair-investigation-prompts-call-for-new-fuel-guidelines/)
Although the Madrid-based Civil Aviation Accident and Incident Investigation Commission (CIAIAC) confirmed that Ryanair had not breached air safety regulations, it noted that the airline operates flights with minimal fuel to save money, which “leaves none for contingencies”, the industry magazine Travel Weekly reports.

It added that Ryanair’s policy was putting it at an economic advantage, which was encouraging other airlines to follow suit – a situation which might result in airports facing “simultaneous emergency declarations for lack of fuel”.

[BlockNotAvailable]

Another one that I do hear occasionally is "large delays lower levels available" on first contact. Makes a HUGE difference to fuel and workload to level off at 300 rather than blast up to FLRidiculous only to come back down.


That makes me happy to hear. Us enroute controllers don't have any influence on delay, but if we can make your life easier when delays get crap, all the better I guess. Although we toe a bit of a fine line with delays, if we get in early before everything else has settled, the chance of it changing is pretty high (especially if they go to LAHSO at short notice :ugh:). But everything is pretty sturdy at about 250-200 from ML, so I tend to leave the smaller delays until then. If the delays are 10+, some of us will jump in early to give a time before props level out or to the jets with a "min speed, lower levels available." I've seen plenty of jets with enough time absorb the whole 10+ mins when that's done. It makes everyone life easier I hope.

Is there an amount of delay that you would like to be given the option for lower levels? Delays are pretty crap, not much we can do to change them, but we can at least make it a bit easier for you guys.

[Tankengine]

That makes me happy to hear. Us enroute controllers don't have any influence on delay, but if we can make your life easier when delays get crap, all the better I guess. Although we toe a bit of a fine line with delays, if we get in early before everything else has settled, the chance of it changing is pretty high (especially if they go to LAHSO at short notice :ugh:). But everything is pretty sturdy at about 250-200 from ML, so I tend to leave the smaller delays until then. If the delays are 10+, some of us will jump in early to give a time before props level out or to the jets with a "min speed, lower levels available." I've seen plenty of jets with enough time absorb the whole 10+ mins when that's done. It makes everyone life easier I hope.

Is there an amount of delay that you would like to be given the option for lower levels? Delays are pretty crap, not much we can do to change them, but we can at least make it a bit easier for you guys.

The biggest thing for us is time. With enough notice then we can do either lower level (25-30K) slow cruise or at least if holding required we can do it at higher levels to save fuel, the last thing we want is fast cruise to the fsirly fast descent then given holding down low.

[Bula]

I'll speak for the A320, but the same applies "mostly" to all jets.

The holding "sweet spot" is FL250, up to FL300 where above compressibility can substantially increases the fuel burn at "holding speeds" by a small percent, as we need to fly at faster air speeds to stay aloft. This usually equates to 1% more up to FL 300, 4% FL350 and 11% FL398.

Conversely, 5% increase FL200 and below.

However this doesn't always mean descent is preferable. With Anti Ice on full, the penalty is between 5% and 7%.

The goal in general is for Linear holding I.e. Holding in a straight line as every turn increases fuel burn, so selecting an altitude whereby this can be achieved for a given TAS and wind forecast is the preference.

To do this, personally, I would want a minimum holding time. the actual holding time would be the beez neez, but the absolute minimum we are going to expect, on first contact, on climb.

"Minimum holding time of 10 minutes, lower altitude available, speed reduction approved"

Just helps limit the negative consequences of the system we have to live with.

[Capn Bloggs]

Bula + one. :ok:

[EPIRB]

What happened this morning with Hainan landing on 34 and vacating at Charlie? The wind was up to a thirty knot northerly and at least four aircraft waiting to take off. Virgin ended up being sent around. No fire trucks or anything. No doubt this slowed everything up. Not sure why he didn't take Echo. Anyone know?

[DukeBen]

What happened this morning with Hainan landing on 34 and vacating at Charlie? The wind was up to a thirty knot northerly and at least four aircraft waiting to take off. Virgin ended up being sent around. No fire trucks or anything. No doubt this slowed everything up. Not sure why he didn't take Echo. Anyone know?

There was no advice from the crew that they would need to roll through and no explanation as to why they did roll through to Charlie. We were fairly surprised given the wind conditions that it occurred.

Attempts were made to get them to vacate via the crossing runway after missing Echo but to no avail.

There may be a response from a company with reasons for an occurrence but not always and I'd say we'll probably never know in this case.

[EPIRB]

Thanks for that. They certainly didn't display any situational awareness given the que at the the threshold! How does this sort of incident affect flow management?

[DukeBen]

Thanks for that. They certainly didn't display any situational awareness given the que at the the threshold! How does this sort of incident affect flow management?

It depends how tight the sequence is I suppose. Sometimes there may be a natural gap for the missed approach aircraft to slot straight back into with no effect on others but this wouldn't be the norm.

Some vectors for the next 3-4 aircraft usually to make some extra space for the extra landing is common in the event of a missed approach.

In terms of what happens further out and whether flow control is impacted, i'd have to leave it to an approach/flow/arrivals controller to answer that.

[haughtney1]

Thanks for that. They certainly didn't display any situational awareness given the que at the the threshold! How does this sort of incident affect flow management?

To be honest, the last thing you ought to be thinking about on short final is the number sat at the holding point waiting to depart.
On the other hand crews should be cognisant of the need to vacate the active runway expeditiously which in the case of YMML may or may not include a company restriction to use a crossing runway.
All that being said, even on a calm hot day going into MEL I've never had a problem taking "E" on 34 at MLW, AB3 and blast of reverse keeps the brake temps ok on the 77W.

[maggot]

Need to power up to E

[le Pingouin]

Assuming conditions are visual the flow will pick a likely looking spot to squeeze them in - jam up the arrivals ahead and slow the few behind to open up enough of a hole to fit the go around in. If weather conditions are poor a full slot needs to be added pushing everyone back a slot. Again the flow will try to pick the least disruptive place to fit them in.

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

To be honest, the last thing you ought to be thinking about on short final is the number sat at the holding point waiting to depart. That's often the ONLY thing I'm thinking of. They've got front row seats for my landing!

[EPIRB]

The ML ATIS at 010807 today had the wind at 040/18 but only 34 was
being used. Why wasn’t 09 being used as well in order to alleviate holding?

[TurningFinalRWY36]

Apparently no controllers have experience in 09 so they dont use it

[onehitwonder]

Hearing rumours with the yanks in town for the Airshow and current fires going on in the Dandenong, certain frequencies are becoming chammed and thus not being able to talk to aircraft...

[Outtahere]

What happened this morning with Hainan landing on 34 and vacating at Charlie? The wind was up to a thirty knot northerly and at least four aircraft waiting to take off. Virgin ended up being sent around. No fire trucks or anything. No doubt this slowed everything up. Not sure why he didn't take Echo. Anyone know?

A glance at the 211 CAAC/ airline imposed penalties (financial & other) derived from the Hainan QAR may provide an insight. Items no western professional pilot would dream of feature in this annually reviewed & expanding document. Such beauties as Lateral G > 0.28 or > 3 degrees AOB on touchdown have the pilots flying by fear of the QAR with little awareness of much else.

[The Banjo]

Regarding RWY09 usage. My understanding is the old tower did not a view of the threshold. They are currently designing new STARS to start using 09 more often; particularly for arrivals as good for noise abatement. A good time to get into the designers ear to incorporate CTA steps into the STAR design!!

[CaptainMidnight]

A good time to get into the designers ear to incorporate CTA steps into the STAR design!!

They will design the STARs within the existing CTA.

Airservices don't have authority to change airspace, only CASA.

[Capn Bloggs]

Airservices don't have authority to change airspace, only CASA.

But it is quite happy to ram low level class E down our throats (allegedly for our own good); but no guts to tackle lowering the terminal steps to stop the nonsensical hangups of big jets when it is blindingly obvious that controller and crew workload and therefore safety would be improved by doing so...

[George Glass]

ATC cant handle departures/go-rounds off 09 simultaneously with arrivals and departures into Essendon or arrivals from the east if 16 or 34 are in use. Whats really going to be a laugh is that when the new 27L/09R is built there will be NO increase in capacity under certain conditions for the same reason. Just like the debacle when there is 6 knots tailwind on 27 and holding goes to 45 minutes with single runway ops.Gotta love aviation in Australia.....Worlds best practice......... except for everywhere else.
Oh, and the rumour is 27L will be built with a displaced threshold from day1.....due noise abatement.

[CaptainMidnight]

Theoretically when CASA do airspace audits (which they did of the Melbourne basin some years back) those sort of issues are supposed to be raised when they consult operators etc.

Airspace Reviews - CASA (https://www.casa.gov.au/airspace/standard-page/airspace-reviews)

I recall when Airservices proposed the lower step north of Melbourne I mentioned in another post, they were asked for written evidence from all the operators requesting the change.

As for the Class E business, I assume Airservices have had their hands smacked by putting something out to industry before doing their homework and following "due process" :)

[Berealgetreal]

QF took off with 15 of tail RW27 the other day. Rest of us off 34 with a long wait.

My point being that 09/34 would have saved us a lot of time. Surprising in the greeny/labor Victoria that they’d happily have us burning fuel no end at holding point. Offsider said it was more related to noise off 09. Who knows.

[machtuk]

Remember you are talking about the SkyGods, they get preferential treatment! Out of all the Ozzy major bases I dislike ML & BN the most! SY despite their hands being tied behind their backs due utter stupidity do a pretty good job, well done guys:-)

[maggot]

Oi
thats Mr First Officer Sky God, esq. to you, peasant

:zzz:

[EPIRB]

I find BN pretty good now. MEL is a right royal pain. Given the costs incurred by the airlines for delays in flying into MEL, I’m surprised that nothing has been done by either airline or Air Services / CASA management to improve the situation.

[George Glass]

Bereal, if you think QF has any pull with flow control you are sadly mistaken. Why not ring them up and have a chat? They will be happy to deflate your conspiracy theories.
Its not the "skygods" fault if you have no imagination.

[Berealgetreal]

Bereal, if you think QF has any pull with flow control you are sadly mistaken. Why not ring them up and have a chat? They will be happy to deflate your conspiracy theories.
Its not the "skygods" fault if you have no imagination.

I don’t actually, my post was about using 09 and reducing wait times.

Nor would I care who has pull with who, no diff to me. Good evening.

[George Glass]

As I said on another post ATC will not use 09 if another runway is available due to the complexity of coordinating with Essendon and arrivals from the east. Why Essendon wags the tail of the dog is a mystery.
Similarly, ATC rules preclude any runway as duty runway with more than 5 knots tailwind dry and zero wet, regardless of aircraft performance capability.
Once 34 or 16 are designated as single runway ops. departures of 27 to the north and east conflict with departures off 27 to the north and east. Hence departures of 27 are prohibited, hence 45 minutes holding, hence 30 minute queues on 34/16.
You might, however, get lucky departing to the west off 27 if there is a gap in the sequence. Its lazy, its third world but thats aviation in Australia in 2019.
Maybe there is an ATC apologist out there who can better explain why this lunacy continues?

[DukeBen]

As I said on another post ATC will not use 09 if another runway is available due to the complexity of coordinating with Essendon and arrivals from the east. Why Essendon wags the tail of the dog is a mystery.
Similarly, ATC rules preclude any runway as duty runway with more than 5 knots tailwind dry and zero wet, regardless of aircraft performance capability.
Once 34 or 16 are designated as single runway ops. departures of 27 to the north and east conflict with departures off 27 to the north and east. Hence departures of 27 are prohibited, hence 45 minutes holding, hence 30 minute queues on 34/16.
You might, however, get lucky departing to the west off 27 if there is a gap in the sequence. Its lazy, its third world but thats aviation in Australia in 2019.
Maybe there is an ATC apologist out there who can better explain why this lunacy continues?

Airservices has previously approached airlines & CASA to suggest increasing the tailwind limit to 10 kts dry for runway nomination, but has been knocked back. Pressure from pilots through official channels might help to get this changed, although i won't hold my breath. Most ATCs I know would like this limit increased just as much as pilots would. If any aircraft couldn't accept 10 kts tailwind, they could simply require the other runway.

A new runway mode is due to be introduced in May 2019, Rwy 09 Arrivals and Rwy 16 Departures, there's more information on that in this link: http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Melbourne-Airport-Runway-Mode-and-Flight-Path-Changes-%E2%80%93-Western-Community-Fact-Sheet-%E2%80%93-February-2019-v2.pdf

This new runway mode should at least increase efficiency on all those days, which previously would have been Rwy 16 only due to excessive tailwind on Rwy 27. Since most departures go from intersection Echo, which is South of Rwy 09, it should be a highly efficient mode, allowing the two runways to operate mainly independently.

During Rwy 16 only or 34 only operations, requests for Rwy 27 departures will always be considered, with more chance of approval if departing via CRENA, ESDIG, SUNTI CORRS during 34 ops and NEVIS, KEPPA, MNG, NONIX and DOSEL during 16 ops, due to being in less conflict with duty runway departures.

Requests for 09 departures during these modes are less likely to be approved, as aircraft need to cross the duty runway on taxi and take off roll rather than just take off roll for 27, all the SIDS on 09 are radar departures and the airspace does not work so well for this set up.

[Good Business Sense]

Australian ATC will tell you anytime you ask them they are the best in the world.



Actually, second best !

[RAC/OPS]

I think you’re wasting your breath Dukeben; every time an ATC tries to explain, the old and trite “second best” is rolled out. I’ve come to the conclusion that since back in the DCA days, the department was mostly run by ex pilots, Air Force or civil who made the rules. As a result today we have the aviation infrastructure that we deserve.

[Berealgetreal]

Thanks Duke Ben answers my question. Whats the word on the new Runway, did a quick google couldn't see anything.

[ESP eclipse II]

The latest Ive heard regarding Rwy27L/09R at Melbourne is that it has been canned. Due to community concerns. (election year and spineless politicians in my opinion)
The airport is now exploring the possibility for a 34L/16R. The longterm owner of the land involved has left us and there is uncertainty as to who inherits that land.
For an airport that allows anyone and everyone they need to get building quick.

[KeepItRolling]

George Glass,

In my 9 years as an EN controller I can Assure you that EN was never the tail that wagged the dog!!

The decision to use 09 or not for anything was only ever up to Approach and ML tower and subject to wind components discussed elsewhere. The processing of MED traffic into EN was the only impact from EN.

I’m no longer in the ATC game so am an apologist for no one but fair crack of the whip - ATCs everywhere and every day work the rule set they are handed.

KIR

[machtuk]

Watch 'Pushing Tin' (sure it's Hollywood), if we had 1/10th of that expertise & handling rates here we'd have zero to bitch about!:-)

[George Glass]

ESP, 34L/16R wont happen either. The copse of trees west of the 16 threshold is subject to an environmental overlay!!!! The Greens will go ballistic! Seriously, you couldnt make this stuff up, but its true. Australia's glory days are over. No vision, no political courage. Now just a long slide into mediocrity.

[George Glass]

Duke, understand all that, but it doesnt help much when youre trying explain to a bunch of passengers who got up at 4 oclock to make a connection why they are holding for 45 minutes on a one hour flight.

[Angle of Attack]

No NSW and VIC glory days are over George, the so-called power houses of the country are stagnating in political empathy and mass population rises with useless infrastructure to support them. BNE will soon have by far the best airport in the country with parallel 3.5 km runways, not the half arsed SYD solution with a main and a mini me, ( although it’s better than nothing of course) , Perth although several years off looks to be the next that will have a proper dual runway setup. This is not demeaning to MEL controllers at all but MEL airport really is a useless basket case of a place if you compare it to any population size city airport within a few thousand miles radius, and I mean just the setup of it not the controlling. I’m always reminded of the late 1960’s when taxiing on that corrugated taxiway Echo........oh yeah it is still the same taxiway from the late 60’s...

[George Glass]

AoA. I stand corrected.

[t_cas]

No NSW and VIC glory days are over George, the so-called power houses of the country are stagnating in political empathy and mass population rises with useless infrastructure to support them. BNE will soon have by far the best airport in the country with parallel 3.5 km runways, not the half arsed SYD solution with a main and a mini me, ( although it’s better than nothing of course) , Perth although several years off looks to be the next that will have a proper dual runway setup. This is not demeaning to MEL controllers at all but MEL airport really is a useless basket case of a place if you compare it to any population size city airport within a few thousand miles radius, and I mean just the setup of it not lling. I’m always reminded of the late 1960’s when taxiing on that corrugated taxiway Echo........oh yeah it is still the same taxiway from the late 60’s...

Gorton officially opened “Tullamarine” 1 July 1970.



https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00002247.pdf

https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/original/00002247.pdf

[Liklik balus]

Apparently no controllers have experience in 09 so they dont use it

Stop press! Shock, horror for yourself et al. Come May you will find (subject to suitable weather conditions) a new configuration of 09 Arrivals/16 Departures will be implemented. Hopefully this will placate the disbelievers and remember your sunnies for a.m. arrivals on 09.

Check wheels.

[machtuk]

Some years ago we where inbound to ML & got a STAR terminating with a 09 VOR Approach, we both looked at each other dumbfounded & said, is there even charts for that? This is Straya after all!...………..so flicking thru the Jepps charts with the challenge of learning something new that day we found charts relating to Rwy 09 in pristine condition, in fact stuck together, never been used:-):-)

[Berealgetreal]

Landed on it twice, felt odd, had a head wind as well.

[Oriana]

What's with restarting that track shortening inside the STAR, track to DABOG for visapp after being delayed for 15 minutes.

Increases work load for arriving crews, suits ATC, hurts everyone else.

or here's a novel idea - set up an RNP that works that way. Sheesh.

ADDENDUM: Or sort the stupid CTA steps to the East.

[George Glass]

No no no, Oriana. ATC sees RNP as the problem, not the solution. Not all carriers can use them so GNSS is the default. Thats why they got rid of the SHORTER RNP on Rwy 34. It increased ATC workload.
Youve got to laugh or you would cry. Australian aviation in the 21st century.........

[Pera]

It increased ATC workload

You don't really get it do you George.

[George Glass]

Well Pera, came straight from the Flow Controllers mouth in response to direct question. So why did they get rid of RNP on 34 then?
When RNP approaches were first introduced a few years back by Australias largest carrier there were curved approaches to a 3 mile final to a minima of 250 feet at every major airport in Australia, including secondary airports. Then they evaporated. Why?
Aviation in Australia in 2019....Worlds best practice.......not.

[George Glass]

etrust, only a public servant could think thats an answer. I never thought that in almost 40 years in aviation I'd see the system go backwards and apologists try and explain it away. And its only going to get worse. Pretty sad really.

[Rated De]

With the same strips of bitumen at Melbourne and a promised new runway for the last 35 years, it is only logical that congestion is an issue.
That an RNP approach could be flown with a range of speeds meant flow control was degraded.

Frequent visitors to London will be well aware that standard speeds and profile with related distance profiles are something that is used to enhance flow control, reduce confusion from different profiles and ultimately allows the airport to function at high capacity.
Add in neighbours, buffoon political 'idocracy' and other vested interests it is surprising anything happens at all.

[George Glass]

etrust,
- Wind back the privatization of Australian airports.
- Abandon full cost recovery at Airservices and allow them to actually provide, whats it called again? oh thats right, a service.
- Build the two parallel runways that Tullamarine was originally designed with ASAP.
- Re-institute the monthly consultations between ATC and Airline operations that used to workshop issues.
- Stop accepting mediocrity
Now I am well aware none of this is within the control of any one individual but right now Airservices and Airline Operations are like two non-intersecting Venn diagrams. Bit like the hospital that gets an award for administrative efficiency even though its got no patients.
Where do you see the system in ten years time?
End of rant.

[Gear in transit]

3 mile final to a minima of 250 feet at every major airport in Australia, including secondary airports. Then they evaporated. Why?
With the exception of the 34RNP, the rest of them were utter crap at YMML. The minima's were SIGNIFICANTLY higher for 16 + 27. The shorter 16RNP nowadays is pretty good, but the likelyhood of getting it is pretty low.

Seeing theres a few ATC'ers watching the thread, what's the go with track shortening when its quiet? 3 times last month I noticed minimal radio chatter and requested track shortening to both 16 and 34. Approved it was, but I was surprised no one really seems to offer any more. Are you waiting for us to ask cause it does feel that way?

[George Glass]

Gear, I dont know what type you're on but the B737-800 approaches worked just fine. Everywhere. ATC was the issue. The approaches into airports like Hobart were a dream. All now a distant memory. Go figure......

[morno]

Perhaps in the interest of maximum capacity, they found them too difficult to be able to sequence with everyone who can’t do them?

There are other people in the world to worry about other than yourself at Qantas buddy. Or is that how you all think?

[George Glass]

No morno, just that there is a thing called progress. Havent seen any lately.

[wasbones]

I don’t know Melbourne’s specifics. But in my experience elsewhere short curved RNPs are great for number one in the sequence or multiple in a row, but the moment you get someone unable to accept the RNP or are trying to use them from different directions (see YPAD RWY 05 RNAV X / W) you will lose capacity.

Because the approach is curved, you have to pull the trigger on the approach clearance before the aircraft has turned into the final approach wind. You then don’t have the ability to vector without canceling the approach. It’s very difficult to use speed control effectively when aircraft are pointing in different directions experiencing different winds and different closure rates. Thus you need to play it conservatively and that reduces capacity.

Ask for direct tracking if you want it. We’ve been told
numerous times just leave you alone unless it’s needed.

[Capt Fathom]

It’s an interesting concept these days.
Doesn’t seem to matter if you can see the runway or not. ATC decide how you are going to get to it!
It wasn’t always that way!

[machtuk]

With all the technology of today considering the capability of what NASA did in '69 we struggle to arrange to have the latest techno machines sequenced to land during lousy weather in sucsession, you would think by now that it should be safer & easier than ever, but I regress, this is 'Straya' after all!

[machtuk]

Actually, I think it is worldwide , not just 'straya'

Oh I don't know, I do fly international Ops & to my mind we are two centuries behind efficiency never lone professional rules!
We have the most benign WX, we have two fifths of stuff all traffic in the air compared to the rest of the educated world yet we have several brick walls in which we bang up against daily, one being corrupt politicians, another our aviation regulators who are hell bent on making Straya the best 3rd word country for ALL forms of transport & we are GOOD at it, in fact we excel in stupidity!!!!!

[patty50]

Oh I don't know, I do fly international Ops & to my mind we are two centuries behind efficiency never lone professional rules!


Its the whole western world infected with the same disease.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_under_construction/ (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_under_construction)

We at least have one new major airport under construction, Brisbane’s new runway and the winner at Wellcamp. The only major new airport in the west, Berlin, has been an unmitigated disaster.

[Green.Dot]

Looks like Melbourne ATC is at it again. Work to Rule, Industrial Action? Last night wind 140/12, cloud no factor, no use of runway 27= 30 min delay. Even when the ATIS wind changed to 160/12 still no utilisation of runway 27. When questioned ATC just said “not tonight”. This is ridiculous. Not only are the public impacted but also the pilots and cabin crew who deserve more time with their families at home. I bet the guys and gals in the tower sign off on time. I haven’t signed off once on time in the last month in Melb. Time to get the greenies involved and highlight the extra CO2 emissions MELBOURNE ATC or even AirServices Australia are responsible for? When the weather is sh&te no reasonable pilot should ever question ATC and delays, but when it’s good weather this BS has to stop.

[t_cas]

Time to get the greenies involved and highlight the extra CO2 emissions

It is because of the “Greenies” that we are in this situation in the first place.

Left leaning politics and endless bureaucracy.

infrastructure hold ups driven by do gooders with no concept of the collateral damage that they are causing every day.

[Beer Baron]

It is because of the “Greenies” that we are in this situation in the first place.

Left leaning politics and endless bureaucracy.

infrastructure hold ups driven by do gooders with no concept of the collateral damage that they are causing every day.
Rubbish!
The problems in MEL are related to the Airservices ruleset for runway allocation with tailwind and a lack of investment in a second north/south runway by the airport owner because it costs more than and brings in less cash than a new carpark/terminal shops.

Greenies have caused their their share of issues around the place but I can’t see their hand in the current YMML mess.

[neville_nobody]

a lack of investment in a second north/south runway by the airport owner because it costs more than and brings in less cash than a new carpark/terminal shops.

That's only because the airports are not penalised for being inefficient. If airports were held accountable for airborne/ground delays there'd be runways and aerobridges popping up everywhere. Brisbane got to 60 minute airborne delays in severe CAVOK before they even made mention of building a second runway. Even then it was only because they were publically shamed into taking action that something got done.

[clark y]

About 10 days ago we were stuck with extended holding with a wind of 040/10. An enquiry was made as to the availability of landing on Rwy 09 with the response being that the flow was fixed for the next few hours. To be sort of fair it was a busy Friday evening and the northerly wind was forecast to increase.
What are the real reasons for not using RWY 09?

Also, I can’t believe the taxiway works are not 24hrs a day, seven days a week. This is a major road block at the moment for pilots and controllers alike.

[Berealgetreal]

Same again tonight.

[le Pingouin]

clark y, I'm not sure what advantage you think would be gained by you using R09 when everyone else is using R16. It doesn't create an additional landing slot so there's no advantage to the overall sequence meaning your landing time will remain the same. You won't be given a better landing time because it would mean pushing everyone else back a slot which isn't fair. You very definitely wouldn't suddenly jump forward in the landing sequence. If there was some advantage to the overall sequence it would be a different mater.

[das Uber Soldat]

ML has to be the most painful place to fly into on the face of the earth. I dont know what the rules and policies are that create this issue, but something has to give. CAVOK, **** all wind, min speed, 250 on descent hold at Lizzy.

GDP needs to go in the bin too. LST-MEL. Sit on the ground waiting for your slot time, meet it, take off, climbing through 8000 ft "min speed, time at Waren X + 20 mins". If you knew that early I had 20 minutes holding, why the F did you not adjust my COBT?! Its a 40 minute flight!

Honestly it'd be faster rowing a canoe.

[Berealgetreal]

ML has to be the most painful place to fly into on the face of the earth. I dont know what the rules and policies are that create this issue, but something has to give. CAVOK, **** all wind, min speed, 250 on descent hold at Lizzy.

GDP needs to go in the bin too. LST-MEL. Sit on the ground waiting for your slot time, meet it, take off, climbing through 8000 ft "min speed, time at Waren X + 20 mins". If you knew that early I had 20 minutes holding, why the F did you not adjust my COBT?! Its a 40 minute flight!

Honestly it'd be faster rowing a canoe.

Gold.

I just want to have a push back without re doing the figures for a different runway. One day someone’s going to get hung for missing a step in the runway change.

I’m certain it’s the system and not the workers at the coal face but I doubt people (airlines included) realise the risks associated with incessant runway and ATIS changes.

Coming in the other night from Sydney listening to the ARBEY this speed up slow down I thought “this has to be one of the biggest contributors to fatigue in flight I can think of”. Next it was us, on decent heads down trying to make the box give us the numbers, awful. Heads need to be up but we had no option.

[Rated De]

Sweating formerly public infrastructure is an Australian specialty.

Much more profitable to build carparks and shops.

Genius foresight that allowed the game of mates to sell infrastructure with no requirement for it to ever be updated.

Melbourne Airport has had a "plan" for another runway for at least thirty years..

[DirectAnywhere]

Next it was us, on decent heads down trying to make the box give us the numbers, awful. Heads need to be up but we had no option.

I sometimes wonder what would happen if every inbound aircraft with a WENDY, ARBEY, WAREN or LIZZI time simply replied ‘Unable. Require vectors’.

[The Bullwinkle]

ML has to be the most painful place to fly into on the face of the earth. I dont know what the rules and policies are that create this issue, but something has to give. CAVOK, **** all wind, min speed, 250 on descent hold at Lizzy.

GDP needs to go in the bin too. LST-MEL. Sit on the ground waiting for your slot time, meet it, take off, climbing through 8000 ft "min speed, time at Waren X + 20 mins". If you knew that early I had 20 minutes holding, why the F did you not adjust my COBT?! Its a 40 minute flight!

Honestly it'd be faster rowing a canoe.

We had exactly the same scenario from Canberra. (apart from the canoe not being a valid alternative for us :ok:)
Delayed on the ground and as soon as we were handed off to centre, “minimum speed, 21 minute delay into Melbourne”.
The entire COBT program is a farce.

[TimmyTee]

I just want to have a push back without re doing the figures for a different runway. One day someone’s going to get hung for missing a step in the runway change.

Malindo did (27 to 34... "back to" 27).
The carpet was promptly lifted to have it swept under.

[TimmyTee]

Currently, when 16 is in action and CAVOK conditions, departure gaps are routinely being missed which sees guys and girls on final at 1800' agl being cleared to land, while plenty wait at the holding points..

[t_cas]

Greenies have caused their their share of issues around the place but I can’t see their hand in the current YMML mess.

Current issues are the collateral damage being alluded to.
The hurdles created by lobbyists to prevent infrastructure upgrades are a large part of mess we are living. The bureaucracy is created by people. ATC are like Flight Crew, and are the meat in what is an absolute excrement sandwich of epic proportion. The solution to this is unpalatable to so many “vested” interests that want both am airport to escape via AND no noise pollution, carbon pollution, fauna and flora pollution etc etc...... and also be politically attractive to the most influential voting demographic.

To be clear, it is not just airports. Look around you every day. Roads, rail, base load power. We are living in an ecosystem that restricts productivity, efficiency and stymies economic growth.

Thanks to the swinging votie in this country and the greens achieving a following based on poor assumption of policy, we find ourselves where we are today. In economic and infrastructure limbo.

”votie” was a typographical error that actually works in this context. So I’ll leave it.

[clark y]

Le Pingouin, the day of our issues it was RWY 34 in use with no high speed taxiway. I know departures off RWY 09 could not be done as taxiway E is required form vacating RWY 34, but why are landings on RWY 09 not done? Why not LAHSO 34/09? I did read somewhere previously that the tower can’t do it because of the tower location and set up. A large percentage of operators would benefit.

As for a RWY16 and RWY09sequence, I would have thought 09 arrivals would be very efficient with a roll through to Q taxiway and a large percentage blasting off RWY 16 at taxiway E.

[Flava Saver]

Whilst we are “sledging the system” here, how’s about Adelaide?

We call ready for a departure off 23, and there’s a 737 on a 6 mile final....no reply, and then they get cleared to land. (With no departure right before us either so it’s not like it’s a departure separation issue). This has happened multiple times in the last 6 months. At least Melbourne churn you out with 3 mile separation a fair amount of the time.

[Dan Dare]

You guys REALLY need to take the time to visit your local ATC unit. I guarantee there will be answers to each of these issues (not Oz an ATCO, so I can only guess). Whichever part of the world you’re in ATC just want you off their frequency as quickly as possible so you’re not delayed for their benefit.

[AviatoR21]

You guys should come fly in SE Asia, you have no clue what bad ATC is like. I can’t wait to fly back in Oz.

[George Glass]

An Ethiopian marathon runner just ran 2:01 for 42 km in the Berlin Marathon. Perhaps we should all take up running. It would be quicker. The stupidity and concrete like immobility of Airservices is not funny anymore. I recently had a ground hold of 40 minutes CBR-MEL only to get airborne to find 45 minutes holding at Bulla. Reason? 6 knots tailwind on RWY 27. Its not funny anymore. It’s not even beyond a joke. It’s a national scandal.
The only way anything will change is when the general public becomes aware of what a debacle it is. Sadly, they assume somebody knows what they are doing.

[morno]

You guys should come fly in SE Asia, you have no clue what bad ATC is like. I can’t wait to fly back in Oz.

Oh god yes! I think there’s an Australian controller at Hong Kong (before I continue, HKG ATC is some of the best around here), he was on ground the other day, and geez it made me miss Australian ATC. There might be some downfalls, but at least I didn’t have to make all stations calls as I pass through Australian airspace, because of the standard of infrastructure and skill of ATC like when you passed through Myanmar for a while there.

[Weapons Grade]

You guys REALLY need to take the time to visit your local ATC unit. I guarantee there will be answers to each of these issues (not Oz an ATCO, so I can only guess). Whichever part of the world you’re in ATC just want you off their frequency as quickly as possible so you’re not delayed for their benefit.

I agree that ATC generally wants to process traffic SAFELY and EXPEDITIOUSLY.
So why the hell does Australian ATC make it so bloody complicated? It is not as though Australia has a lot of traffic; abominable weather; challenging terrain, etc.
What I have found over many, many years of being in this worldly game, is that Australian ATC is constantly stymied by all manner of negative-resulting assessments. The rest of the world "makes it happen"; Aust ATC makes a science of "why it can't happen". Different mind-set, different rules-set - however, the result is the same in Australia.
As a suggestion: all ATCs' KPIs should be linked to traffic efficiency, and without caveats - a flight takes either a COBT or airborne delay, ALL ATCs KPIs take a percentile hit. I am sure that will have their collective minds focused on safe, expeditious and EFFICIENT traffic management. And, do not get me started with traffic holding fuel and who pays for it, but who should pay for it when traffic holding invoked.

[neville_nobody]

You guys REALLY need to take the time to visit your local ATC unit. I guarantee there will be answers to each of these issues (not Oz an ATCO, so I can only guess). Whichever part of the world you’re in ATC just want you off their frequency as quickly as possible so you’re not delayed for their benefit.

The issue has never been the local ATC it's ultimately CASA's rules. If those same rules were applied somewhere like the USA or Europe aviation would grind to a halt. The only reason that aviation works here is that there is virtually no weather 90% of the time and low traffic density by a world standard.

Combined with that is the real lack of infrastructure and competition in the airport space. Australia will never see real economic growth in Aviation as it will be stifled by the lack of airports.
This extends to government. If a billionaire wanted to build a second Melbourne Airport the government would shoot it down with red tape long before the first sod is turned.

[sunnySA]

Currently, when 16 is in action and CAVOK conditions, departure gaps are routinely being missed which sees guys and girls on final at 1800' agl being cleared to land, while plenty wait at the holding points..
Are the waiting aircraft at the full length or at an intersection?

[sunnySA]

An Ethiopian marathon runner just ran 2:01 for 42 km in the Berlin Marathon. Perhaps we should all take up running. It would be quicker. The stupidity and concrete like immobility of Airservices is not funny anymore. I recently had a ground hold of 40 minutes CBR-MEL only to get airborne to find 45 minutes holding at Bulla. Reason? 6 knots tailwind on RWY 27. Its not funny anymore. It’s not even beyond a joke. It’s a national scandal.
The only way anything will change is when the general public becomes aware of what a debacle it is. Sadly, they assume somebody knows what they are doing.
Let's get the runway selection criteria changed, 25 knots crosswind and up to 10 knots tail wind for runways > 2,285m - there you go - fixed.

[PoppaJo]

Are the waiting aircraft at the full length or at an intersection?
I have raised this within our company to pass on this feedback as it’s been more evident in recent time and I find it very inefficient.

Last week A380 waiting at Bravo, myself at Echo. Myself and the guy behind could have got airborne before the widebody landed. The super then took its sweet time rolling and end result was 8 minutes of unnecessary waiting. Higher up peeps raised heads when I started throwing multiple examples and fuel costs about.

[Flava Saver]

118.9 tonight was awkward. QF guy gives a slight poke back to the controller... then that got the feathers ruffled.

I’m surprised airline management aren’t banging on ASA doors over this nonsense. The discretionary fuel uplift for a trip to MEL these days is certainly elevated.

[sunnySA]

I’m surprised airline management aren’t banging on ASA doors over this nonsense. The discretionary fuel uplift for a trip to MEL these days is certainly elevated.
The word on the floor is that the airlines want to hold more so there's "pressure" on the system to keep the movement rates steady (up/high), so there's no missed opportunities (as there'll always be an arrival on offer). I guess as the price of oil changes this "balance" is likely to change (again).

[PoppaJo]

The behavior is seen across the board, got a far north Tower offside recently. A330 6nm to run...so I called ready...standard reply back...still time to get two out...then called ready for an immediate....then got the whole #### remain in your current position until advised further and went on and on. I didn’t get a lineup call until the thing vacated I assume as punishment.

[Awol57]

Alternatively maybe auto release was off and there were no departure instructions for you?

[Colonel_Klink]

The behavior is seen across the board, got a far north Tower offside recently. A330 6nm to run...so I called ready...standard reply back...still time to get two out...then called ready for an immediate....then got the whole #### remain in your current position until advised further and went on and on. I didn’t get a lineup call until the thing vacated I assume as punishment.

In all my years flying when Tower asks if an aircraft is ready for an immediate departure - I’ve never heard anyone say No!

That being said - I do find that some aircraft after being told to line up and be ready for an immediate, then dawdle up to the lined up position, make a 90 degree turn (presumably with a company speed limit in turns of 10kts). The performance figures have a line up allowance which isn’t predicated on a 90 degree turn. You can then have the power already up so when ATC clears for takeoff you just hit the TOGA switches and away you go, rather than waiting for the engines to spool up first!

[73qanda]

The performance figures have a line up allowance which isn’t predicated on a 90 degree turn.
89 degrees? 45? .....Airbus and Boeing?..... What does the OPT use?
I’ll be really interested to learn something here.

[Sparrows.]

Let's get the runway selection criteria changed, 25 knots crosswind and up to 10 knots tail wind for runways > 2,285m - there you go - fixed.

I believe the airlines meet with CASA this week asking for 25kts crosswind. They’re all for it, except CASA isn’t....

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

I believe the airlines meet with CASA this week asking for 25kts crosswind. They’re all for it, except CASA isn’t....
On what grounds? If the aircraft are certified to operate in crosswinds in excess of 25kts and we all go through CASA approved training and checking programs that expose us to operating the aircraft at their limits, what possible reason could CASA have to continue to restrict our operations?

Seems they just want the Australian system to remain the laughing stock of the world.

[Gear in transit]

89 degrees? 45? .....Airbus and Boeing?..... What does the OPT use?
I’ll be really interested to learn something here.

My airline (airbus) this is all calculated by the runway you’re using and intersection you’ve selected. So all runways YMML are 90 degree line up allowances, YBCS + YWLM 30 full length is 180 (2 examples that come to mind) It’s all taken care of.

Some of the mini backtracks at 34 J are just ridiculous. It probably did make a difference to the overloaded navajo but hardly does 4/5ths of F all in a transport category aircraft operating under CAO.

[Sparrows.]

On what grounds? If the aircraft are certified to operate in crosswinds in excess of 25kts and we all go through CASA approved training and checking programs that expose us to operating the aircraft at their limits, what possible reason could CASA have to continue to restrict our operations?

Seems they just want the Australian system to remain the laughing stock of the world.

Unjustifiable risk or some other lame excuse, I don’t have an offical response to quote.

[Green.Dot]

Bleat away all you like about this and that and the other being the myriad reasons why you had a bad day.

But please don't infer or outright state that this is due to go-slow or industrial action by ATC. It isn't.

And frankly it is offensive to ATC's when they are stuck in the same impossible and frustrating position that most of you professional pilots are.

Ok, sorry if the industrial action bit is inaccurate. I am only going off rumours in the past so please accept my apology. It’s good to see Pilots and ATC are in agreeance that this is lunacy.

So, how do Pilots and ATC get this FIXED or change the system? Who do we lobby to as professionals to both achieve more efficiency and make the next 30 years of careers more enjoyable?

Idea 1: Let people take runway 27 with tailwind/xwind wind at their own comfort level. I believe all the narrow body’s can legally take 10kts tailwind for takeoff and some even 15. Would I rather take a headwind? Of Course! Would I take 10 kts tailwind in an aircraft rated at 15kts TW to save 30 mins? YES. Don’t get me wrong, better airmanship would be to takeoff in to wind but it’s no different to taking off on a short strip like Hamilton Island or Mackay which is marginal. If OPT says its legal its legal. (Unfortunate that the current system is pushing us to think like this).

Idea 2, and arguably better: Sort out a flow for runway 09 with dual runway ops.

Cheers

[Global Aviator]

COBT works well if used properly, I can think of VTBS and WSSS where had to use it.

As for ATC in Asia??? Not sure how you can generalise and call them bad. WSSS does seem strangely inefficient considering the western society ways and the technology, then again remember three FIRs in DEP, ARR and APP.

Now I’m sure a lot of us have flown into Bali both airline and corporate, the sheer number of flights/types coming into a single runway and single taxiway...... I call brilliant, yeah the odd hold and if one goes tech on push back it can be a pain. Oh and yes short notice closed due VIP arrival... hmmm!

Manila, etc the list goes on....

[Showa Cho]

As a suggestion: all ATCs' KPIs should be linked to traffic efficiency, and without caveats - a flight takes either a COBT or airborne delay, ALL ATCs KPIs take a percentile hit. I am sure that will have their collective minds focused on safe, expeditious and EFFICIENT traffic management. And, do not get me started with traffic holding fuel and who pays for it, but who should pay for it when traffic holding invoked.

Do you really think the coal face ATCs have anything to do with COBTs apart from issuing them? How about we link pilot pays to mechanical performance - if you declare a plane U/S, you take percentile hit. ATC has about the same influence on COBTs as pilots have on mechanical/technical unserviceability of their aircraft.

I think we focus on the extra runways and more flexible runway nomination criteria. Aircraft have a maximum crosswind allowance, and ATC has one too as per legislation. If the two are different, they need to be reviewed. Neither pilots or ATCs should be put in a position where they feel the only way to make things happen is to break the rules.

[Lead Balloon]

I think we focus on the extra runways and more flexible runway nomination criteria. Aircraft have a maximum crosswind allowance, and ATC has one too as per legislation.What is the legislated crosswind and downwind maximum and the legislated priority of noise abatement over any other factor, at e.g Melbourne.

[Showa Cho]

What is the legislated crosswind and downwind maximum and the legislated priority of noise abatement over any other factor, at e.g Melbourne.

20kts crosswind and 5kts tailwind, like every other towered airport in Australia. Not familiar with NAP at Melbourne sorry.

[Showa Cho]

What is the legislated crosswind and downwind maximum and the legislated priority of noise abatement over any other factor, at e.g Melbourne.

CASA MOS Part 172, para 10.3.1.1

[BlackPanther]

As a suggestion: all ATCs' KPIs should be linked to traffic efficiency, and without caveats - a flight takes either a COBT or airborne delay, ALL ATCs KPIs take a percentile hit. I am sure that will have their collective minds focused on safe, expeditious and EFFICIENT traffic management. And, do not get me started with traffic holding fuel and who pays for it, but who should pay for it when traffic holding invoked.

I signed up to the forum purely to reply to this. What an unbelievably misinformed and juvenile comment. Take the blinkers off and think again.

ATC are entirely trying their best every single time that there are delays in the network. They have no control AT ALL over the magnitude or configuration of the delays. To say that the runway wind limits (CASA regulation) or inefficient ground delay usage (Airservices NCC in consultation with airlines) are causing havoc is an entirely fair statement. But both of these have zero to do with licenced ATC. The single exception of flow controllers is basically irrelevant too. They only improve the 'flow' of traffic (It's kinda in the name), not generate delays.

If we put 'safety' to the side (I know, that sounds like a weird statement) and forget the CASA issue with the runway winds, there are still dozens of different factors that come into play with network delays. I could easily write a 5000 word essay on them and still come up short.

[The name is Porter]

It will be the usual half arsed, 'worlds best practice' garbage. And before all you decrepid old ATC wankas that couldn't stand an ATC leaving before 'retirement' carry on, not blaming console controllers, blaming the clowns that put a crap COBT system in place, there's NO excuse for a ground delay then 'maxing' someone to the field when airborne. Amateur and an international embarrassment.

[morno]

Ever thought guys, that maybe the COBT system is just a layer to try and ensure a set amount of aircraft “targeting” the same 20 minute window, and not to get you to the gate at an exact minute? How on earth do you think it’s going to work unless you’re airborne?

It was explained to me that the reason why you get max speed to the field sometimes is because the enroute controllers are merely working off a feeder time. Whereas the terminal controllers see the whole situation in close and can close up those gaps.

[Chronic Snoozer]

I signed up to the forum purely to reply to this. What an unbelievably misinformed and juvenile comment. Take the blinkers off and think again.

ATC are entirely trying their best every single time that there are delays in the network. They have no control AT ALL over the magnitude or configuration of the delays. To say that the runway wind limits (CASA regulation) or inefficient ground delay usage (Airservices NCC in consultation with airlines) are causing havoc is an entirely fair statement. But both of these have zero to do with licenced ATC. The single exception of flow controllers is basically irrelevant too. They only improve the 'flow' of traffic (It's kinda in the name), not generate delays.

If we put 'safety' to the side (I know, that sounds like a weird statement) and forget the CASA issue with the runway winds, there are still dozens of different factors that come into play with network delays. I could easily write a 5000 word essay on them and still come up short.

Sounds overly complicated. Surely there is a simpler solution.

[BlackPanther]

Sounds overly complicated. Surely there is a simpler solution.

Removing downwind limitations is certainly an option that would have a large positive impact.

In reference to ground delays, you have to remember that the airlines have a 'seat at the table'. If there were say, a low probability of fog or storms, the airlines are consulted with a view to ground delay, however sometimes their own met people decide to accept the risk in running a "visuals" rate. They have to play the probabiltiies. Most of the time it will be fine and max capacity is achieved, however when this doesn't pan out, the s**t really hits the fan. The opposite is identical. Sometimes, when storms are predicted and a ground delay is created, the storms don't eventuate and you end up in 'max speed' situations you mentioned because ATC are able to run a high rate tactically because of good weather.

The whole concept is unbelievably dynamic. I can assure you that once you take off, ATC are always optimising for the lowest overall delay.

[Bug Smasher Smasher]

Sounds overly complicated. Surely there is a simpler solution.
Yeah, trains.

[boree3]

Ever thought guys, that maybe the COBT system is just a layer to try and ensure a set amount of aircraft “targeting” the same 20 minute window, and not to get you to the gate at an exact minute? How on earth do you think it’s going to work unless you’re airborne?

It was explained to me that the reason why you get max speed to the field sometimes is because the enroute controllers are merely working off a feeder time. Whereas the terminal controllers see the whole situation in close and can close up those gaps.

Fair assumption of how it works. One minor point, if I may? The better enroute controllers have generally have a look at the sequence and speak to the flow about a better solution than that proposed by Maestro. Maestro never speeds anyone up. It merely proposes a sequence order, and possibly delays, behind the natural number one. Speeding up number one and sometimes number two in a sequence can minimise delays for those following. It’s not rocket science...😉