PDA

View Full Version : Melbourne Air Traffic Control


Pages : [1] 2

EPIRB
10th Dec 2016, 02:50
What has happened to air traffic control in Melbourne? The performance has plummeted. You get a COBT (that system isn't particularly effective anyway) and then get holding. Some aircraft carry the required holding fuel and then have to divert as ATC gives them additional holding on top of that promulgated. The wind may be 150/10 and they are using one runway. The ATIS gives a ten knot tailwind (as do tower reports) but the tailwind isn't reflected on the TTF nor the windsocks. You get a delayed COBT by anywhere up to an hour then get track shortening and a high speed descent with the next closet aircraft ten miles ahead. The supposed congestion doesn't show on the TCAS nor on Flight Radar 24.
What is going on?

maggot
10th Dec 2016, 02:58
'G' n/a

One little thing like that and it collapses like a house of cards

EPIRB
10th Dec 2016, 03:04
'G' n/a ?????

triton140
10th Dec 2016, 03:05
No Golf for you!!

EPIRB
10th Dec 2016, 03:16
Of course, but it still doesn't preclude the use of runway 27. I don't understand why the tower reports such a strong tailwind on the ATIS but it isn't reflected elsewhere.
And it's an absolute disgrace that taxiway Golf is still out of action. Do those sort of runway works overseas and it would be completed in weeks, not years like here.

IsDon
10th Dec 2016, 03:47
Some time ago I was pushing the Sydney Curfew as we called for push in Melbourne.

There was a strong South Easterly at the time and 16 was the duty runway. The queue of taxiing aircraft extended along Alpha as far as Tango. There was no way we could join the queue and still make curfew.

I requested 09 and was promptly told, "Not Available". On querying why I was told Ambulance traffic into Essendon. I asked when it would be available and was told, basically, never. A quick spin of the figures and it transpired we could take 10 knots tail wind on 27 as our only hope of making it. This option was requested, and approved. Good ole overpowered 767.

The next day I was back in Melbourne and phoned the tower to find out why they don't use 09. I have used it, years ago on a classic 747. Why not use it any more? Admittedly Easterlies are rare, but why restrict to one runway with an Easterly? I was initially told, once again, it was ambulance traffic into Essendon. I have a finely tuned BS detector that went off at that point. Sure, ambulance traffic may be a restriction for 5-10 minutes, but that didn't account for the fact 09 hasn't been used in years.

Finally, after much friendly probing (over the phone, get your mind out of the gutter) he finally admitted that there was nobody left in tower/approach that knew how. It was used so infrequently, that the corporate knowledge had gone and nobody left had any idea how to run the sequences.

I was flabbergasted. How could one of Australia's major airports effectively halve its capacity during an Easterly just though lack of training, experience, exposure and corporate knowledge?

I hope things have improved.

maggot
10th Dec 2016, 04:10
Any sign of recent tailwind over 5kts and they'll can 27. Usually available on rqst, its helped me a bit in the recent weeks.
I'm also staggered how long Golf has been and but moreso the affect it has.

fujii
10th Dec 2016, 05:06
Essendon has a lot of RFDS traffic which gets priority. Your corporate story doesn't ring true. Often when there is an easterly wind, 09 only will be the duty runway and controllers know how to use it. 09 departures with 16 as the duty runway and as busy as you said poses a number of problems.

Not only may there be Essendon traffic on RWY 17 but a 09 departure to Sydney will have to cross the tracks from New Zealand, Tasmania, Canberra and Sydney.

You can only cross RWY 16 on E TWY. With 16 only operations, the Dash 8s and many QANTAS 737s will vacate at E, the exit must be kept open.

Finally, if you were to get RWY09, you may be waiting a long time to cross RWY 16 when busy
.

Berealgetreal
10th Dec 2016, 08:53
Couldn't agree more with the above.

I'm normally in the camp that defends ATC but I'm over Melbourne and I'm over both MEL and SYD incessant ATIS changes. Its to the point where its actually is a distraction and adversely affects safety. Thought about starting an identical thread many a time.

No doubt the COBT followed by LIZZI and ARBEY times and holding in CAVOK light winds is about staffing levels. Regardless, the Airlines pay top dollar for a cut price service and it seems to me that unless you are a pilot flying the line everyday then it doesn't matter. Everyday, every sector 365 days a year its the same story. COBT's have benefited Air Services and just added yet another item for pilots to deal with.

The ATIS changes has to be legal ar$e covering, as a 2 knot wind change unless a tailwind makes absolutely no difference whatsoever apart from the other pilot putting there head down to write it on a card thats covered in changes.

Another favourite on descent "reduce speed to 210 kts" at about 5 miles to a limiting altitude without offering a height waiver. We're over it. And don't talk to us when we're on the rollout with a fistful of max landing weight with yet another tailwind on a wet runway.

Maybe its just me..

IsDon
10th Dec 2016, 10:00
Couldn't agree more with the above.

I'm normally in the camp that defends ATC but I'm over Melbourne and I'm over both MEL and SYD incessant ATIS changes. Its to the point where its actually is a distraction and adversely affects safety. Thought about starting an identical thread many a time.

No doubt the COBT followed by LIZZI and ARBEY times and holding in CAVOK light winds is about staffing levels. Regardless, the Airlines pay top dollar for a cut price service and it seems to me that unless you are a pilot flying the line everyday then it doesn't matter. Everyday, every sector 365 days a year its the same story. COBT's have benefited Air Services and just added yet another item for pilots to deal with.

The ATIS changes has to be legal ar$e covering, as a 2 knot wind change unless a tailwind makes absolutely no difference whatsoever apart from the other pilot putting there head down to write it on a card thats covered in changes.

Another favourite on descent "reduce speed to 210 kts" at about 5 miles to a limiting altitude without offering a height waiver. We're over it. And don't talk to us when we're on the rollout with a fistful of max landing weight with yet another tailwind on a wet runway.

Maybe its just me..

Two words. "Unable" and "Require".

"I can go down, or I can slow down. Pick one!"

Oh and on the subject of ATIS changes. Many other countries outside the sheltered workshop that is Australia seem to manage just fine by changing the ATIS very half hour on the half hour. These are airports with four times the active runways and traffic the Melbourne or Sydney manage. Seems to work just fine.

The name is Porter
10th Dec 2016, 10:26
Is this industrial or have all the good controllers left? What is going on?

Yep, sorry, left about a year ago. Shit rosters, even poorer incompetent immediate managers.

Australian ATC will tell you anytime you ask them they are the best in the world. There is a severe lack of 'can do'

You'll notice one post above with a raft of excuses parading as reasons. Says it all really.

Mr Approach
10th Dec 2016, 10:47
Isdon - the majority of airports overseas do not train their Tower ATCs as Met Observers but Airservices does. Hence the ATIS you get overseas is just the current METAR spoken onto the tape. In Australia you get the controller observations but only changed in accordance with a set of instructions, not every two minutes as you contend. That's why Australian Towers were not in the habit of giving a wind with every landing or take off clearance. The ATIS wind is accurate not what the MET man saw 30 minutes ago.

Judd
10th Dec 2016, 11:42
Do those sort of runway works overseas and it would be completed in weeks, not years like here


It may depend which trade union is involved in the runway works. Some are very militant in Victoria.

le Pingouin
10th Dec 2016, 12:50
Industrial action? You really are an utterly uninformed peanut EPIRB.

And Porter, acceptance rates are the line controllers fault exactly how? You're a bloody peanut as well and should know better than to bag your former colleagues for nothing they have any control over.

I'll be telling anyone who asks in future that the pilots are on a go slow because they get paid by the minute so they stay aloft as long as possible. Makes about sense as the crap being piled on ATC.

Signed

The Grumpy Controller.

le Pingouin
10th Dec 2016, 13:09
EPIRB, do you understand the difference between strategic and tactical? Do you understand the idea behind COBT and that we as line controllers have neither access to nor influence on it.

We don't decide the acceptance rate, we don't decide all the rules, we just work with the traffic disposition we're given. Sure you might have been delayed by an hour but how does that position you with reference to the actual sequence? It doesn't does it? We have to tweak things to make it all fit.

We're as mystified as you as to where all the delays come from on some days.

If you've got a bitch about the way it all works get your bean counters to talk to our bean counters to talk and the airport bean counters. They're the ones controlling it all.

zkdli
10th Dec 2016, 19:11
You know, feedback is a gift! That's what the comments from the "customers" are. :O

EPIRB
10th Dec 2016, 19:23
My understanding is that COBTs are arranged in Canberra. What I fail to understand is why they delay aircraft when there is very little traffic. We can see it on our TCAS.
Have to agree about some pilots slowing down (not all get paid by the minute either). Some appear to not have any situational awareness - rolling through to Golf on 16 in a turboprop so your taxi isn't as far. Bugger the other aircraft waiting to take off that you have just prevented.
Still curious as to why Melbourne only uses 16 only in light winds when 27 is available.

morno
10th Dec 2016, 20:50
Why is the COBT system designed so that it favours airlines with big fleets, and those with small fleets are made to cop delays so huge, that it just ruins your day right from the start? 74mins one morning into Melbourne!!

I've been looking at taxiway Golf the last few days, scratching my head as to why it's still closed :confused:

morno

IsDon
10th Dec 2016, 21:05
Isdon - the majority of airports overseas do not train their Tower ATCs as Met Observers but Airservices does. Hence the ATIS you get overseas is just the current METAR spoken onto the tape. In Australia you get the controller observations but only changed in accordance with a set of instructions, not every two minutes as you contend. That's why Australian Towers were not in the habit of giving a wind with every landing or take off clearance. The ATIS wind is accurate not what the MET man saw 30 minutes ago.

Yes. That may be all true.

From an end user perspective. i.e. The pilot. It's just another embuggerance to efficient operation.

If we're on the limit of performance we'll ask for a wind check. If we're not then the average wind over the last 30 minutes is just fine.

And it's not me who contends that the ATIS changes every two minutes. Even if it did, what makes a two minute old ATIS more valid than one issued 30 minutes ago?

The fact is the ATIS can be incorrect 5 seconds after it's recorded.

Far better to have general conditions in the ATIS changed every 30 minutes and changes to that issued with takeoff and landing clearances.

You may think you're helping, but you're not. Take the feedback or not. It's up to you.

Slippery_Pete
10th Dec 2016, 21:05
Essendon has a lot of RFDS traffic which gets priority. Your corporate story doesn't ring true. Often when there is an easterly wind, 09 only will be the duty runway and controllers know how to use it. 09 departures with 16 as the duty runway and as busy as you said poses a number of problems.

Not only may there be Essendon traffic on RWY 17 but a 09 departure to Sydney will have to cross the tracks from New Zealand, Tasmania, Canberra and Sydney.

You can only cross RWY 16 on E TWY. With 16 only operations, the Dash 8s and many QANTAS 737s will vacate at E, the exit must be kept open.

Finally, if you were to get RWY09, you may be waiting a long time to cross RWY 16 when busy.

Bollocks.

1. Your arguments are departure based. None of this explains why 09 can't be used only for arrivals. Ie at least turboprops from the south and west.

2. QF can be directed to exit 16 at the high speed like every one else to keep Echo free for taxiing aircraft. Straw man argument.

3. Doesn't explain why you suddenly won't use 27 when there's a couple of knots downwind.

I've been told they won't do simultaneous ops on Rwy 09 and 16/34 because the tower position and height doesn't allow the tower controller to monitor both flight paths and runways. Or is that just another excuse?

Without a doubt the most inefficient traffic flow in Australia. Note I didn't say the most inefficient ATC, I guess they're just working within the constraints and procedures they are given.

Something needs to change.

DUXNUTZ
10th Dec 2016, 21:25
Agree with the ATIS changes being unnecessary. Last week flying into ML from Tassie it was changing quicker than a politician on the election circuit.

How on earth due major airports with much more extreme weather deal with it? Common sense!

That new RNP for 16 will back up the flow even more imo.

Berealgetreal
10th Dec 2016, 21:38
Sounds like the problem is the criteria for issuing the ATIS to me. Written by people that know nothing about flying.

What happens on final approach at Ballina and the wind changes? If it's a tailwind the Pilot Monitoring will be watching it on the FMC and telling the Pilot Flying any pertinent changes with a "less is more approach" (only tell me if it goes above X). Ultimately a picture paints a 1000 words and we just look out the window and have the information we need.

Go slow? Quite the opposite in fact.

Last 5 years has seen the introduction of COBT's, 230kts, 185kts, 160kts and feeder fix times, yet into Melbourne it seems to be actually getting harder. I think Sydney and Brisbane have improved.

The best is an arrival at night with all the associated delays with hardly another aircraft in the sky and one person covering all frequencies. Tell me thats not about staffing levels and KPI's!

Air Services look after their needs as any business does and its up to the airlines to go into bat for their mob which clearly isn't happening or working.

One question: Why do we have to ask for speed waivers or track shortening if either or both are available? We don't like wasting fuel and being late.

IsDon
10th Dec 2016, 21:41
Bollocks.

1. Your arguments are departure based. None of this explains why 09 can't be used only for arrivals. Ie at least turboprops from the south and west.

2. QF can be directed to exit 16 at the high speed like every one else to keep Echo free for taxiing aircraft. Straw man argument.

3. Doesn't explain why you suddenly won't use 27 when there's a couple of knots downwind.

I've been told they won't do simultaneous ops on Rwy 09 and 16/34 because the tower position and height doesn't allow the tower controller to monitor both flight paths and runways. Or is that just another excuse?

Without a doubt the most inefficient traffic flow in Australia. Note I didn't say the most inefficient ATC, I guess they're just working within the constraints and procedures they are given.

Something needs to change.

Also, if I may add to this, you contend that departures off 09 would create a queue trying to cross 16/34 as they taxi for the threshold of 09.

Aircraft currently arriving on 27 while 16 or 34 is in use also have to cross 16/34 after landing. How is this any different? You don't see a "queue" trying to cross from the other direction.

Seriously guys you really need to do some liaison visits to LHR or LAX or even DXB to see how to move aircraft around in a busy environment.

While you guys sweat the small sh1t. Like demanding a read back of "Line up and WAIT" or "Taxi to HOLDING POINT XY". You seem to have no idea whatsoever when it comes to the efficient movement of airframes when you compare the operations of MEL in particular, and every other Australian capital city airport more generally.

I know your only working within the constraints of the rules in this country so it's not entirely your fault. The problem is the rules have been added to over many years by every controller who has a thought bubble about yet another layer of safety, added to someone else's, this is the way I do it, to another's just a bit more fat for mum and the kids. These redundant layers then become law and the whole system falls down under the weight of its own bureaucracy.

Stationair8
10th Dec 2016, 22:00
Biggest problem with Melbourne ATC is not using the parallel runways at Tullamarine, must be a union thing, after all airport management have invested lots of dollars in car parks and terminal Siberia!

FL400
10th Dec 2016, 23:12
Wow do I regret stumbling into here!

As a controller, whenever I am at work I do my very best to get everybody to their destination as quickly, safely and in as orderly a manner as possible using the rules that are all intended to make things safer for the people in the risky seats. I get immense satisfaction from doing things as well as possible every time I'm at work so I'm sorry to hear that the service I provide is, in your eyes, so sub-standard.

t_cas
10th Dec 2016, 23:52
The cause for of these delays and inefficient practices can be squarely placed in the political/financial bucket. These days, operationally, we work With what we are given. It is a sign of the times when any group takes any type of IA, it is squarely directed at getting back some control and sanity into OPERATIONAL matters.
So, instead of taking shots at each other, let's support each other's endeavors to bring sense and efficiency back into aviation.

Slippery_Pete
10th Dec 2016, 23:57
FL400,

Read the thread again.

We aren't having a go at individual controllers. In fact, we specifically said you are probably doing your best stuck within the constraints.

We are having a go at the overall inefficiency of YMML. Sure, it has YMEN close by, but why are other airports around the world doing so many more movements with so much less?

Put your personal pride on the shelf for a minute and look from the outside. Why is YMML so inefficient? We'd like your input too because it needs to be fixed.

COBT, feeder fix times and holding, 230 at 20, 185-160, 160-150 - these things all make your job easier, yes? Well they make our job harder, sometimes much harder. To facilitate easing ATC workload, your management are piling work onto us.

EPIRB
11th Dec 2016, 00:17
Remember the old days? Track to a three mile final runway 34, caution 3LO.

framer
11th Dec 2016, 00:41
The cause for of these delays and inefficient practices can be squarely placed in the political/financial bucket.
Spot on. It is the environment that we are operating in now days and it's a pain in the neck for controllers, pilots, engineers......everyone who is operational.
The teaching of "lean operations" at university, the health and safety rules, the noise sensitive folk who vote, self regulation, businesses operating as a series of 'silos', these things (and I'm sure many of you could add more) combine to create an environment that can be very frustrating to work in, especially if you remember other ways of operating.
I just make sure my end of the bargain is met and try to remember that most other operational folk are also operating with weak management and no leadership. Next time you taxi up to the gate and have to hold short because their is no guidance, instead of getting wound up, feel empathy for the bloke who is trying to do more with less and hold up your end of the bargain by letting ATC know. Next time there is nobody to drive the aerobridge, don't get wound up, feel empathy for the person who is running between flights due to the latest round of 'lean operations initiatives', and hold up your end of the bargain by explaining things to the pax.
And don't forget to put on enough fuel to be able to operate under little stress when the contractor who was engaged by the airports third party contractor to to oversee the 'improved ' maintenance schedule for some important piece of infrastructure goes on annual leave over Christmas :)

IsDon
11th Dec 2016, 00:47
FL400, TCAS, please, if you've taken my comments as a personal dig at the controllers I sincerely apologise. I do not, in any way, seek to impugn the professionalism of individual controllers. On re-reading my posts I can see how that could be assumed.

I know you're doing your best with what you have. Sadly what you have is not good enough by world standards.

Ever complex procedures for pilots to comply with in order to make your job easier because of inadequate resources, manpower, training, recency or facilities, is the thrust of this thread. We are on the same side.

le Pingouin
11th Dec 2016, 01:55
Slippery, pigs @rse. The thread started with "is it industrial action or have all the good controllers gone?". Nice way to start a civil conversation.....

What you call "inefficiencies" is the acceptance rate which is set by external factors, including your companies. Go moan at them. They have the power to try to change things.

I have no idea who introduced the extra speed restrictions on the STARs - it certainly wasn't the line controllers as it reduces flexibility for everyone.

CAR42ZE
11th Dec 2016, 02:00
Biggest problem with Melbourne ATC is not using the parallel runways at Tullamarine, must be a union thing, after all airport management have invested lots of dollars in car parks and terminal Siberia!

I'll stick up for ATC here. Unless someone is going to be vectored to a taxiway, it's a bit difficult to instigate parallel landings/takeoffs at Tulla.

le Pingouin
11th Dec 2016, 02:03
I think that was the point :)

The name is Porter
11th Dec 2016, 02:40
And Porter, acceptance rates are the line controllers fault exactly how? You're a bloody peanut as well and should know better than to bag your former colleagues for nothing they have any control over.

Penguin, you are all part of a system. The answer is to get out a little more, see what the rest of the world does. Go to a western country and compare the complete lack of service ASA provides. I have done so from both sides of the cockpit. It is embarrassing.

I'll say this for you very slow: I'm not bagging line controllers. I'm bagging the fools that tell you from above how so very good you are doing. You are brainwashed from above to only provide the service that legally protects ASA from action if things go wrong. You and I both know it. 25 years of contextuals constantly criticised me for going too far with the advice I provided to pilots.

Do you honestly think ASA does a good job compared to organisations that move similar or more amounts of traffic?

Next time I'm over in the States I'll record my flights and you can have a listen.

Stationair8
11th Dec 2016, 03:03
Getting back to reality, why haven't they built parellal runways at Melbourne yet?
Too hard for the owners, or does that cut into management bonuses, or just keep on milking the the golden goose? Which will come first the rail link or parallel runways?
The airport was opened 1970, what were the traffic numbers then compared to now?
Still got the same real estate to land them flying machines on.
Same applies to that cluster f&ck called Hobart- lets have an airspace review they say! Review it as many time as you like but until they put in parallel taxiways, nothing will improve- but management will spend big dollars to extend the runway for the single long range international flight!

sealear
11th Dec 2016, 03:09
My favourite is 25 knots xwind/5 knots tail on 27, basically all down the runway on 34 and they put you on 27 for arrivals even at night. I can count on one hand the number of into wind landings I have done in MEL.

Bula
11th Dec 2016, 03:39
With the number of foreign airlines running into Melbourne with no high speed, I reckon YMML ATC do a great job.

It is uncommon to not be lined up 5nm in trail.

The system and strategic flow could be better, but while we have commercial interests, schedules, passengers and machines, the situation is always dynamic and the present flexibility seems a compromise.

In my humble opinion, airlines reps should be based in the same room as those controlling the COBT's, with COBT's being more dynamic to the situation at the field on the day and this information relayed directly to the tower rather than the present Chinese whispers setup.

If traffic is backing up, COBT's should be pushed back. While slot availability should be predicated on the actual and expected arrival rates, managing real time.

It amazes me that the arrival rate increases or decreases prior to approach control, aircraft are entering holding patterns,, yet our COBT's are not dynamic.

Slippery_Pete
11th Dec 2016, 03:40
Slippery, pigs @rse. The thread started with "is it industrial action or have all the good controllers gone?". Nice way to start a civil conversation.....

What you call "inefficiencies" is the acceptance rate which is set by external factors, including your companies. Go moan at them. They have the power to try to change things.

I have no idea who introduced the extra speed restrictions on the STARs - it certainly wasn't the line controllers as it reduces flexibility for everyone.

Hi Penquin. The general gist of this thread has been pro-controller. If it was a controller issue, we'd have ridiculous delays at all airports, not just one. We aren't anti-controller.

The external factors? Can you please list them - because we don't understand. That's what the thread is about. And trust me, my airline is pissing away millions in ever increased delays and slow downs into Melbourne. If they had ANY ability to change this, they'd have done it because they are completely driven by bottom line and nothing else. Does our CEO just ring up and ask for 50 more movements an hour and it'll happen? I don't think so.

So if speed restrictions also make ATC's job more difficult, then
a) why aren't ATC jumping up and down about it to management
b) why don't you cancel them whenever you can. It's a constant theme on the radio all the time - Request track shortening or speed waiver - Bam, instantly approved. If it can be approved immediately (or without talking to another controller), then why do we have to ask for it?

We want to learn why the system is so slow when it's so fast everywhere else.

framer
11th Dec 2016, 05:31
My favourite is 25 knots xwind/5 knots tail on 27, basically all down the runway on 34 and they put you on 27 for arrivals even at night. I can count on one hand the number of into wind landings I have done in MEL.
That is a good point. How do you controllers feel about that and why does it happen?
Aviation is all about mitigating risks yet we have the above happening regularly.
As a controller do you guys think that a crew that is ending an 11 hour duty, has flown Melbourne -NZ- Melbourne and gets a gusty 25kt crosswind with 5 kts downwind on 27 at night is being exposed to a significantly greater risk of incident than if they landed into wind on 34? Or does the risk associated seem small and acceptable to you?
As a pilot I have accepted it in every instance except one where there were other factors at play on the flight deck , but each time it does make me think long and hard because my main driver is to expose my aircraft to as little risk as possible.
I hope it is clear that I am not whinging about controllers above, but rather interested to see any differences in how the two professions view the same situation.
Also, who decides which runway is used for landing and how?
Cheers

EPIRB
11th Dec 2016, 06:58
My opening line about it being industrial or if the old controllers had left was thoughtless. For that I apologise, no offence was intended.
I just fail to see why we have so many shortcomings. It just gets very frustrating. I believe airline management are aware of it but what about ATC management? Ultimately it damages the economy and damages company profitability.

UnderneathTheRadar
11th Dec 2016, 07:02
and damages company profitability

Who's profitability? Not Airservices!

The name is Porter
11th Dec 2016, 08:49
My opening line about it being industrial or if the old controllers had left was thoughtless. For that I apologise, no offence was intended.

Oh FFS :ugh: You can't make a comment without backing down to a monumental whinge from someone who should be there to deliver a service?

le Pingouin
11th Dec 2016, 09:22
framer, who decides the runway? - the tower and flow between them. How? - not in any particular order - noise abatement, wind, "mode" (as in more departures or more arrivals).

I say this in all seriousness - if you're unhappy with the assigned runway then utter the words "require" and you shall receive without question. We aren't on the flight deck with you so don't know how rested or otherwise you are, what other factors there are and what you feel comfortable with handling at the time. For all we know you're on your first leg so have only been in the air for 2 or 3 hours and feel fresh as a daisy.

SP, external factors such as wind - the stronger the headwind the slower your ground speed is down final and the more time we need to keep distance standards, whether we're on instrument or visual approaches, single or two runway ops, as has already been highlighted the availability of high speed taxiways, whether we're in departures or arrival mode.

Answering your other questions:

a) we work with the rules we're given. I was under the impression that similar speed restrictions apply at many places overseas.

b) we've been told you guys will ask if you want it and not to offer. That said if I see a big gap I'll shorten you up and ask the flow about cancelling speed (I work en-route and arrivals).

Lookleft
11th Dec 2016, 09:53
I say this in all seriousness - if you're unhappy with the assigned runway then utter the words "require" and you shall receive without question.

I am often unhappy with the runway offered but I can only "request". if I "require" a certain runway then the next question you are going to ask is "Is it due to an operational requirement?". If my happiness is the only criteria then I have wasted your time and mine.

here skip
11th Dec 2016, 10:27
I am often unhappy with the runway offered but I can only "request". if I "require" a certain runway then the next question you are going to ask is "Is it due to an operational requirement?". If my happiness is the only criteria then I have wasted your time and mine.
Exactly. Can I land with a quartering tailwind on a 2.3km runway in accordance with the aircraft performance and company SOP's - yes. Would I PREFER to land into wind if the runway was readily available - absolutely..

le Pingouin
11th Dec 2016, 10:44
Sigh. Lookleft, is it really that hard to understand? If you don't feel up to handling the prevailing conditions for the runway assigned because it's been a long and tiring day then require the less challenging runway option. I'm certainly not going to bag you out for it.

EPIRB, it all comes down to too many aircraft trying to arrive in a given time period. Line controllers can do absolutely nothing about that. I don't know if it's Metron being too optimistic, airlines preferring aircraft in the air so that their departure is logged as "on time" or what. From personal observation the peaks in traffic we were getting previously have been smeared out - the worst delays aren't as long and the peak isn't as intense.

Berealgetreal
11th Dec 2016, 11:53
Australian pilots don't want to stand out and say "require" and change the flow at a major airport. Everything we do and say is watched and analysed if something goes wrong. This is the culture.

The problem is, we really don't have a voice in the matter. You need to be flying the line everyday to understand it. Even a line pilot thats been away on annual leave takes a while to catch up with the latest such are the number of changes and such is the nature of the job. A management pilot might fly a few times in a month and think "hey this ain't so bad". When you are doing it over and over and over again day in day out 12 hours a day you start to question if the tail is waging the dog (RW27 at night 25 knots of cross and 5 of tail).

I guess its taken for granted but the reality is that most pilots find the above scenario quite challenging and pretty uncomfortable. At high weights theres very little margin.

Have a look how many replies in such a short space of time.

capt available
11th Dec 2016, 12:22
I'm not even going to start with who's at fault or why getting in and out of Tulla is a such a clusterf##k....
All I know is, that operating out of there for over 12 years it is an absolute joke.
60-90 min GDP times not uncommon, minimum speed once radar identified, given more than advertised holding, very rarely do the STAR spd restrictions and my favright is Melb owns......Track stretching and Delaying action......
Hi speed exit off 16 been out for over 7 months, Fri and Sat no works going on, a hint of tail wind BANG single Rwy, and if I had a buck every time I received a not available reply to a request......
SYD BRS ADL ten times better than MEL

How many airports have the Chinese built since work started on taxiway Golf ?

DukeBen
11th Dec 2016, 12:58
WIND 150/10 - The wind quoted on the ATIS is an average, if it was 150/10 and Rwy 16 only, quite often the wind may be flicking between 120 and 180 and 5 to 15 kts, worst case scenario, 120/15 and around 12 kts tailwind on Rwy 27, best case scenario 180/5 and no tailwind.

Unfortunately a Runway can't be nominated for use if there's a more suitable runway available if the tailwind component (including gusts) exceeds 5 kts (or any tailwind at all on a Runway that isn't dry). This is how a 150/10 wind could preclude the nomination of Rwy 27 on the ATIS.

The TTF METAR wind comes from a central anemometer, the tower uses the 4 anemometers near the runway thresholds to determine the wind quoted on the ATIS. Offering an off mode runway ad hoc to aircraft qualifies as runway nomination, so it can't be offered to aircraft under these conditions, but CAN be requested by aircraft.

Using Rwy 16A/27D is so much better for controllers as it is for pilots, and we use this mode as much as we possibly can, but are hamstrung by the rules for runway nomination. I believe the idea of a 10 kt max tailwind for a departure runway nomination is being considered and hopefully will be approved by CASA, allowing much more 16a/27d and less 16 only.

Rwy 09 USAGE - In terms of why Rwy 09 isn't used much in addition to Rwy 16 during easterly winds, there isn't a runway mode setup (with SIDS and STARS designed with inbuilt separation) to allow for this configuration.

As soon as 09 starts being used for arrivals or departures in combination with another runway, it sends workload through the roof and many arrivals and departures have to be ad hoc separated by controllers (this is how it used to be done before SIDS and STARS were around but made flight paths/speeds/profiles much less predictable and as far as I'm aware, airlines are not keen on this ).

It also has a negative flow on effect for safety and efficiency. A Rwy 09 Arrivals 16 Departures mode with built in separated SIDS and STARS has been looked at as a possible solution but I'm not sure where this is at presently.

Incessant ATIS Changes - A 2 kt wind change does not necessitate a new ATIS (5kts does), however, if another component of the ATIS required updating (temp,Qnh etc), and a 2 kt change to the wind more accurately reflects the average wind, then it may be updated as well.

Rapid Exit Golf Closure - Annoying us controllers as much as it is pilots, I don't really know why it is closed for so long but Melbourne Airport does seem to take an inordinately long time completing works.

Rwy34/09 LAHSO - This mode is no longer available to us. After a double go around at YMML during LAHSO, an investigation determined that departures from the Active LAHSO Runway 34 during LAHSO raised the risk of a double go around compared to departures from Rwy 27 (as an aircraft slow to roll on this runway would only cause the 27 arrival to go around compared to a slow rolling 34 departure causing both the 34 and 27 arrivals to go around. 34/09 LAHSO has all departures from Rwy 34, hence the mode was canned. This is also why only Rwy 34 requirements (not requests) are allowed during LAHSO.

I know these clarifications won't please everyone and may invite some more questions but we are trying our best with what we have to maximise efficiency. The infrastructure is lagging and holding us back. I have no experience of what is done overseas in terms of whether organisational culture is impacting on efficiency.

le Pingouin
11th Dec 2016, 14:22
Berealgetreal, we can't nominate a runway with greater than 20kts of crosswind when another one has less.
(http://www.pprune.org/members/407809-berealgetreal)

ramble on
11th Dec 2016, 14:48
The issue of Australian ATIS reporting deserves its own topic.
It too is just another sad joke in the system. I cant think of any other countries that do it this way (surprise!).

ATIS A issued at 1200 and then listened to again 30 minutes later is still ATIS A but issued at 1230 - why for Petes sake?

It adds to 'SA' to know that ATIS A was issued at 1200 and when listened to again at 1230 it is still ATIS A issued at 1200.

Oh, and Australian ATC are second best in the world.....

Plazbot
11th Dec 2016, 15:47
Yes yes, second best. Haha. If you actually think that us true, you don't get out much.

itsnotthatbloodyhard
11th Dec 2016, 20:30
we've been told you guys will ask if you want it and not to offer

That's funny. We were told not to ask - if it's available, it'll be offered! (Although I think most of us worked out a while ago that this isn't actually true).

In terms of requiring a more favourable runway, I can't remember ever being asked for justification. There might be an additional sequencing delay, but no discussion or argument. While ML leaves a fair bit to be desired, I reckon ATC there do a good job with what they're given.

sealear
11th Dec 2016, 20:50
Let's not attack the controller's, as others have said they do well with what they have. The combination of xwind and downwind on 27 at night does annoy the hell out of me but this is clearly a regulation issue that needs to be sorted rather than having a go at ATC. I'd suggest we submit asir's en masse if we want change in that department. You're right at the end of a 5 hr sector at 9pm that's the last thing you want...

Slippery_Pete
11th Dec 2016, 21:09
Thanks for the informed response, Duke Ben. It's much more helpful than people who can't put their pride away for a second.

Rwy 09 USAGE - In terms of why Rwy 09 isn't used much in addition to Rwy 16 during easterly winds, there isn't a runway mode setup (with SIDS and STARS designed with inbuilt separation) to allow for this configuration.

So, the scenario you posted with 150/10 prohibiting the nomination of 27 - the only reason they don't go to RWY 09 and 16 is because there's no procedures for this?

That's not the controller's fault, but what an absolute disgrace. An operational runway, sitting there that could be used - but no-one knows how? This is one of the reasons why a two runway airport has the delays and performance of a one runway airport.

A Rwy 09 Arrivals 16 Departures mode with built in separated SIDS and STARS has been looked at as a possible solution but I'm not sure where this is at presently.

So, in the mean time, millions of dollars in holding and delays and GDP is being pissed away by the airlines. ASA should make it an absolute priority to actually run Melbourne as a two runway airport. Currently, the airlines are getting screwed because no-one has sat down and thought about how to do it.

The infrastructure is lagging and holding us back.

Partly, yes. The inability of ASA management to come up with solutions is also a big factor.

we've been told you guys will ask if you want it and not to offer.

Well that's typical. We've been told not to ask - promulgated by a notice even. Sounds like ASA management are taking all of us for a ride. :=

Plus, after GDP, min spd cruise and descent, with a hold at the end, why would we think it's available? :ugh:

gonemissed
11th Dec 2016, 21:10
On the topic of COBTs: quite often airline reps are consulted when arrival rates (hence COBTs) need to be changed. It is not uncommon for the consensus amongst airlines to carry extra fuel and take the holding, as opposed to copping ground delay on their COBT. That way the airlines maintain OTP with respect to departure, and can blame ATC enroute when they are given holding.

Personally I would suggest (if time permits), ring your company and ask questions.

FL400
11th Dec 2016, 21:34
Pete, ask genuine questions in a polite manner and you'll find you get informative answers.

Everybody can put their pride to one side if they aren't asked to choose between being bad at their job or engaging in illegal industrial action.

Condition lever
11th Dec 2016, 21:41
Can you PLEASE offer cancel speed restriction on departure if you need to hold us at 5000'!!!!
It continually p!sses me off to ask and results in 3 unnecessary radio calls.........

Slippery_Pete
11th Dec 2016, 22:27
Hi FL400. Fair enough on the industrial action comments, they don't reflect the majority.

If I cop any delays or holding or COBT, I'm always polite. No matter how pissed I get, I'm always polite and professional and even force myself to sound happy on the radio. I never, ever ask for delay reasons on air like many pilots do - because it won't change the delay - and it's not the controller's fault. And my FOs get told not to hassle you, either.

But on the ground and in the realms of Pprune, being short is the only way to elicit a response. Had we been all best friends, I doubt DukeBen would have come along and explained that RWY 09 is a big white elephant that sits there and won't get used just because ASA management can't be bothered.

We are allowed to be annoyed that the country's second biggest airport comes to a grinding halt when it's CAVOK with a light easterly.

Here I am with solar power on my house because of climate change, and yet from the west I plow over Melbourne CBD at 12,000 to join downwind with still another 40 track miles to fly and more fuel to piss down the drain.

I'm sorry if we weren't polite enough, but what's it going to take? At least now we know the often touted "ambulance traffic into YMEN" is an excuse for not using 09 and at least the controllers and pilots both know they've been told not to offer/not to ask for shortening.

We want to work WITH you.

FL400
11th Dec 2016, 22:50
Sounds like we're in furious agreement.

cloudsurfng
11th Dec 2016, 22:53
Agreed, you ATC do a great job with the limited resources and I imagine excessive bureaucracy that is forced upon you. Well done.

For what it's worth, Adelaide is becoming increasingly bad as well. Not sure why, but lately seem to subjected to lots of delaying action, yet when arriving at the airfield, there is no other traffic anywhere. Has there been a change of procedure?



Cheers.

maggot
11th Dec 2016, 23:27
Where can we improve departure acceptance rates?

Thats the logjam excuse ive often heard of regarding what seems to be inefficient takeoff sequences... other busy ports just fire em off and sort it out enroute but here in oz they manage to squeeze a saab into a 7nm gap

mrdeux
11th Dec 2016, 23:51
Why won't you give conditional line up clearances? Waiting until the landing traffic reaches the gate and the crew have disembarked doesn't keep things flowing.

le Pingouin
12th Dec 2016, 02:16
SP, venting on PPrune is just that, venting. It will do nothing to improve things for you as we have no influence over things like Metron. It needs to come from your management kicking up a stink with our management. Or the minister saying "fix this". As I keep saying, it's too many aircraft arriving at the same time.

Slippery_Pete
12th Dec 2016, 02:59
As I keep saying, it's too many aircraft arriving at the same time.

No it's not. It's a two runway international airport that can't handle nearly as many movements as it should.

keepitrealok
12th Dec 2016, 03:14
As I keep saying, it's too many aircraft arriving at the same time

I know you meant that sincerely but it isn't accurate.

Many airports around the world deal with far greater movements and less runway options but do a better job than Melbourne ATC is allowed to do. As someone mentioned earlier, take a look at Dubai for instance. The airspace surrounding the airport is a severely restricted, due to the countries involved. Yet they now handle the massive amount of aircraft movements (#27 in the world) with aplomb.

ASA needs to pull their finger out and start providing the service which they think they are, but aren't. It is laughable.

Berealgetreal
12th Dec 2016, 03:23
Asking airline management or reps to address it? That's funny stuff.

Adelaide's favourite trick is RW05 with a 5 knot tailwind turning into RW23 on pushback. We love doing all the figures, the whole set up and brief again as we've got nothing better to do with our time and it carries no risk at all. Pushback should be the cut off for the runway change unless its outside performance figures.

Very few can be bothered asking for speed waivers on departure or arrival these days as it's gotten too hard. Saves fuel and time but that's neither here nor there in such a profitable non time critical industry.

Maybe the carpark and food court could throw a few dollars the airlines way!

neville_nobody
12th Dec 2016, 03:23
As I keep saying, it's too many aircraft arriving at the same time.

Are you seriously suggesting that airlines should change their schedules so to spread out the departures and arrivals over a longer time period?

KeepItRolling
12th Dec 2016, 04:54
..Can't be used with the stop bars active. Says so in about 6 different places in the manual. Big smacks.

KIR

underfire
12th Dec 2016, 04:55
Something is up on 09 arrivals, seldom, very, very seldom have I seen an arrival. The RNP procedures are really nice, but I seem to remember them being perm NOTAMd out of use. 09 seems far more logical to use, as you end at the terminal, so who knows...

AWOS winds are at 10m, so the terrain, especially for 27 and 16 makes those reading useless until you are at about 10m. Almost always see a 90 degree turn from ATIS in winds at around 150-200m on 16 depending on the prevailing direction, due to the valley off to the east of the airport. I heard that the use the dust from the gravel pit to determine runways rather than AWOS...

Almost always a good crosswind in 09/27, so it makes perfect sense to build the other runway parallel to 09/27, rather than 16/34...

love the single runway ops when the winds close either down...

Berealgetreal
12th Dec 2016, 05:33
The planned parallel is 09/27 correct?
Personally prefer 16.

le Pingouin
12th Dec 2016, 05:36
b.r.g.t. these problems are systemic - the airlines are the ones suffering the consequences and are the major "customer" and are the ones with all the evidence to back up their claims. Controllers certainly don't have access to any of those details, so who else is going to be able to push to get things fixed?

"Too many aircraft arriving at the same time" is exactly the problem. If it's costing too much money then push to do something about it. Don't just keep firing aircraft in at some theoretical rate you'd like to be able to knowing they'll be delayed by the actual conditions as they exist.

Shocking thought isn't it neville :}

Berealgetreal
12th Dec 2016, 05:54
Yes sounds the case and it won't get fixed as the people that are involved that make the decisions have little to no exposure to the coal face so it will continue on.

I think the thread however is good as I've learned a few things that are impossible to absorb on the pages and pages of diatribe in the various manuals.

From our point of view if you can offer a cancel speed/track shorten and avoid changing a runway as we push or after we've got the clearance then it makes the day that much easier. From where we sit a 1 minute delay can quickly turn into an hour so any of the above can make a big difference.

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.

Have a look at the DRW incident when considering RW27 in difficult conditions...
My three bobs worth.

framer
12th Dec 2016, 06:30
framer, who decides the runway? - the tower and flow between them. How? - not in any particular order - noise abatement, wind, "mode" (as in more departures or more arrivals).

I say this in all seriousness - if you're unhappy with the assigned runway then utter the words "require" and you shall receive without question. We aren't on the flight deck with you so don't know how rested or otherwise you are, what other factors there are and what you feel comfortable with handling at the time.
Thanks for the response Le P.
Like I said in my post I have 'required' another runway in this situation, but that was once out of probably 20 times and like I said, it always makes me think long and hard about the risk I am accepting on behalf of my passengers and crew. The reason for this is because I spend all day making decisions that create a comfortable trade off between efficiency and safety only to be faced with a trade off that is very close to what I consider unacceptable. If I elect to 'require ' an into wind runway I am increasing the workload of others in the system and also facing delays myself. The real question I was interested in was how do you controllers see the risk.ie do you see it as a significant risk or does it not even raise itself as an issue that you are choosing a hairy wind set up onto a shortish runway when there is an option with a lot more fat built into it?
I'm not having a go at controllers, just interested because the two professions are nowhere near as aware of each other's challenges as we used to be.
I think if the controller choosing the runways sat on the jump seat onto 27 at 10pm with a 25kt northerly quartering to tail a few times they might make different decisions in the future. Again, that's not a crack at controllers, more a crack at the system that doesn't roster you guys into the jump seat.

Berealgetreal
12th Dec 2016, 07:20
27 at 10pm with a 25kt northerly quartering to tail

Taken for granted by everyone except those that sit at the front 12 hours a day everyday.

framer
12th Dec 2016, 08:29
Well that is what I'm wondering. Is there a bit of a disconnect between what pilots are happy to accept risk wise and what is now considered normal by everyone else? If the wind is challenging then so be it, we'l do what is needed , but if the wind is challenging purely because someone on the ground chose that runway then things are more likely to come unstuck when there was another option.

Capt Claret
12th Dec 2016, 10:00
If a thread like this were to appear on the PATCRN, and have ATCers grumbling about how a request to various jets for best speed to the field, saw a range of speeds at 10-15 miles between 250 & 160 kts, from similarly capable aircraft. Or a request to reduce by 20 kts taking 20nm to be achieved. I suspect many professional pilots might be somewhat pissed off. :ugh:

Capt Fathom
12th Dec 2016, 10:11
No.
In the absence of a specific speed request, if ATC ask for best speed, it is just that.
Everyone's best speed will be different. Nothing to see here!

Claret, how would you know some take 20nm to slow 20knots? Do you see this as a Check Pilot?

mrdeux
12th Dec 2016, 15:35
Can't be used with the stop bars active. Says so in about 6 different places in the manual. Big smacks.

I didn't say anything about crossing the stop bars. Issue the conditional clearance, and turn off the bars as the landing aircraft passes the holding point. Works perfectly well in Dubai and London. But not in Melbourne obviously.

le Pingouin
12th Dec 2016, 20:05
b.r.g.r. I'll try to keep offering a lower level as early as possible in mind, although the problem is the controller giving you the level often has little idea what is going on in ML delay wise and won't initiate reduced speed without being told to by those closer to ML. And those closer in are often busy enough with their own traffic that looking at what's coming is rather low priority. That said you could always ask for a lower level to start with and ask about the delay later.

As to the runway selection - it's all noise abatement (so basically you're screwed). Betwixt 0600 and 2300 local thou shalt use R16 or R27 with equal priority. Only once the crosswind exceeds 20 knots or the tailwind exceeds 5 knots (including gusts for both and on a dry runway) then thou shalt resort to R34. R09 is the last option and only if nothing else is suitable by the 20kts cross and 5kts tail criteria.

If you get more than 20 knots tell the tower. If you don't want to accept 20 knots require another option. There is no time penalty involved in requiring - you should land at about the same time, although the flow might tweak things slightly to better suit the traffic disposition.

Slippery_Pete
12th Dec 2016, 21:24
So first it was ambulance traffic to Essendon, then aircraft crossing 34, then "we don't know how to do it or have procedures", now it's noise abatement.

You must appreciate how this sounds to us, Penguin.

The name is Porter
12th Dec 2016, 22:00
b.r.g.t. these problems are systemic - the airlines are the ones suffering the consequences and are the major "customer" and are the ones with all the evidence to back up their claims.

That's what I said wasn't it? You're part of a broken system and saying that you can do nothing about it is a little defeatist isn't it?

"Too many aircraft arriving at the same time" is exactly the problem.

It's not the only problem, these chaps are communicating this to you.

There is no time penalty involved in requiring - you should land at about the same time

Uhmm, cough, cough. You and I both know that is not the truth, ;) there are some flows in there that will punish any operator that has the temerity to 'mess' with 'their' sequence.

Stop making excuses for a broken system that is third rate.

underfire
13th Dec 2016, 01:53
The planned parallel is 09/27 correct?
Personally prefer 16.
Yes, unfortunately....II to 16/34 would have been sooo good. (rumour has that the new tower would be in conflict with a 16R, so much for planning)
Now, with II to 09/27, more crosswinds and even more conflicts with Essendon with a new 27L to the south. Interesting that most of the time, single runway ops are because of strong winds from the South, negating 09/27 ops, yet the new runway is 27L/09L....(personally, I dislike using 27 as the crosswinds are always a struggle)

Aside from that, there are solutions for these winds, with winds aloft measurements and data. (while this data is gathered at MEL, the system is not in use in Oz. It is in use in the US, Europe, and Mid East by several airlines)

Right now, the AWOS is at 10m, but we gather wind data to 300m every 10 seconds for final. This is added to the winds from the aircraft, so a profile is built for final approach.
As shown by these winds from RW16 at MEL, the AWOS winds at 10m show a medium headwind from the SE,(lower right). Wind measurements show the winds moving to a medium/strong crosswind, to a medium tailwind at 300m. This is a very typical situation at MEL when winds are from the South. (this particular image shows the winds every 5m)
http://aviationsystemsinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Wind1.jpg

We gather the winds directly from the ac through several methods. Adding the winds from the aircraft to 5000m, we get a profile of winds for each procedure to a runway end.

For the individual aircraft, the program shows on the profile what the winds are, and if the winds exceed limits. This is sent to the EFB or directly to the FMS depending on the ac and what the airline has contracted. For the operators who calc this and make a determination, this has already been done, even as a profile for your ac given all of your parameters on final!

This is the profile down from 5000m at 500m increments...gathered directly from each ac on final. (all tailwind) Below 500m the finite data from the profile above is used. (note: this is the ATC profile to 5000m...for the ac, the winds are given to FL)

http://i63.tinypic.com/oifzgw.jpg

This is also available to ATC, which will show all of the ac, the individual limits, and show if the procedure for each aircraft exceeds limits. ATC can use this information for runways ops, and even help decide which procedure or rwy to use per ac.

DukeBen
13th Dec 2016, 03:55
Rwy 09 Usage - If this runway is requested by an aircraft during another Runway mode (eg Rwy 16 only), this is the process that occurs. The ground controller who takes the request assesses their ground traffic and whether they can process the aircraft on the ground through to the holding point.

If they can they then pass the request to the coordinator in the tower who assesses the overall traffic picture and asks the aerodrome controller (tower frequency) whether they can accept it.

The aerodrome controller assesses their traffic picture and makes a decision. If they decide yes, then the coordinator calls down to departures or approach to ask them if it's ok, the departures controller then has to coordinate with Essendon tower as a 09 departure abbutts the airspace that they own during Rwy 16 only operations.

Before the aircraft can actually get airborne off the non duty Runway 09, the tower controller must again contact departures controller to get instructions. All of this is additional workload and all is taken into account when assessing requests.

At any stage during this entire process, any of the above controllers can say "not available" and do not need to pass a reason to the controller requesting it. It is up to each individual controller to manage their own traffic levels and what they deem acceptable is different between different people and the traffic circumstances on the day. No debate is entered into as we do not have time to debate the merits of the decisions of other controllers and manage traffic at the same time.

Difficulties getting aircraft across Runway 16 are a valid reason for the ground controller to decide it's not available (it is not the same as a 27 arrival crossing after landing becuase on Rwy 16 Only there are arrivals and departures using that runway versus 27/34 LAHSO, mostly landing only using Rwy 34 and 27/34 departures north east, it's mostly departures only using Rwy 34, so the gaps for getting across Rwy 16 are smaller and less frequent.

The above coordination is done for any "off mode" runway request, and we don't say not available just for fun. Requests are always judged on their merits, but it does create extra workload for many controllers and increases the risk, which we are encouraged to minimise.

I'm not trying to make excuses and i can understand that it looks like the runway should be used a lot more, but just trying to put in context the process that needs to occur.

IsDon
13th Dec 2016, 04:05
Rwy 09 Usage - If this runway is requested by an aircraft during another Runway mode (eg Rwy 16 only), this is the process that occurs. The ground controller who takes the request assesses their ground traffic and whether they can process the aircraft on the ground through to the holding point.

If they can they then pass the request to the coordinator in the tower who assesses the overall traffic picture and asks the aerodrome controller (tower frequency) whether they can accept it.

The aerodrome controller assesses their traffic picture and makes a decision. If they decide yes, then the coordinator calls down to departures or approach to ask them if it's ok, the departures controller then has to coordinate with Essendon tower as a 09 departure abbutts the airspace that they own during Rwy 16 only operations.

Before the aircraft can actually get airborne off the non duty Runway 09, the tower controller must again contact departures controller to get instructions. All of this is additional workload and all is taken into account when assessing requests.

At any stage during this entire process, any of the above controllers can say "not available" and do not need to pass a reason to the controller requesting it. It is up to each individual controller to manage their own traffic levels and what they deem acceptable is different between different people and the traffic circumstances on the day. No debate is entered into as we do not have time to debate the merits of the decisions of other controllers and manage traffic at the same time.

Difficulties getting aircraft across Runway 16 are a valid reason for the ground controller to decide it's not available (it is not the same as a 27 arrival crossing after landing becuase on Rwy 16 Only there are arrivals and departures using that runway versus 27/34 LAHSO, mostly landing only using Rwy 34 and 27/34 departures north east, it's mostly departures only using Rwy 34, so the gaps for getting across Rwy 16 are smaller and less frequent.

The above coordination is done for any "off mode" runway request, and we don't say not available just for fun. Requests are always judged on their merits, but it does create extra workload for many controllers and increases the risk, which we are encouraged to minimise.

I'm not trying to make excuses and i can understand that it looks like the runway should be used a lot more, but just trying to put in context the process that needs to occur.

Thanks for that DB

That's for "requests", what about for requirements?

le Pingouin
13th Dec 2016, 04:16
S.P. the answers have been to different questions. "Why can't I have a particular runway?" is not the same question as "why is that the assigned runway?". Noise abatement procedures require us to assign particular runways:

AIP noise abatement procedures:

ENR 1.5-40, 9.1.2 (page 192 of the PDF):

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/aip/enroute.pdf


ML specific noise abatement procedures:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/dap/MMLNA01-129.pdf


Porter, explaining why things are the way they are isn't supporting it. If you don't know why things are how can you change them or realise there's a lot more to it than you thought?

fujii
13th Dec 2016, 05:21
The new tower was built with parallel 16/34 runways in mind. There is ample room to install extra workstations to accommodate an extra ADC and SMC. In fact it was considered prior to the 09/27 decision. The real problem is only having one terminal building on the eastern side. Traffic taxiing to/from
16R / 34L would need to cross the eastern parallel runway or its undershoot area. Parallel 09/27 is much easier.

16/34 would probably involve flattening the hill north west of the runway intersection. This would have a huge environmental impact.

KeepItRolling
13th Dec 2016, 05:28
Mr Deux

The point is that MATS specifically prohibits the use of conditional clearances where stop bars are fitted and operational.

That is all I was trying to say.

DukeBen
13th Dec 2016, 06:30
Requirements vs Requests.

For a Rwy 09 requirement (i don't think I've ever seen one but it is possible) instead of a request, coordination still needs to be done between the same parties but it is phrased as a "requirement" instead so there is no need for approval from the parties, it is more of a heads up that this is coming up so be prepared for it.

There are still the same difficulties, getting across Rwy 16 to the holding point. There may be a few aircraft ready at Holding Point Echo, and depending on their number in the Rwy 16 departure sequence - possibly another 5-10 aircraft at Holding point C and B, it could take quite a while to get to the front of that queue to be able to cross Rwy 16.

The Rwy 09 departure will have to be managed through Essendon traffic. If YMML is on Rwy 16 only than YMEN could possibly be on Rwy 17 and the 09 departure would need to be processed through any Rwy 17 arrivals.

Airborne traffic (including YMEN arrivals) has priority over traffic on the ground (including aircraft waiting to depart) so there may be some delay in getting airborne from Rwy 09 but it would be made to work if it was a requirement.

Don't assume that departing Rwy 09 when there's a large queue for Rwy 16 departures will get you away ahead of those departures.

The name is Porter
13th Dec 2016, 06:45
Rwy 09 Usage - If this runway is requested by an aircraft during another Runway mode (eg Rwy 16 only), this is the process that occurs. The ground controller who takes the request assesses their ground traffic and whether they can process the aircraft on the ground through to the holding point.

If they can they then pass the request to the coordinator in the tower who assesses the overall traffic picture and asks the aerodrome controller (tower frequency) whether they can accept it.

The aerodrome controller assesses their traffic picture and makes a decision. If they decide yes, then the coordinator calls down to departures or approach to ask them if it's ok, the departures controller then has to coordinate with Essendon tower as a 09 departure abbutts the airspace that they own during Rwy 16 only operations.

Before the aircraft can actually get airborne off the non duty Runway 09, the tower controller must again contact departures controller to get instructions. All of this is additional workload and all is taken into account when assessing requests.

At any stage during this entire process, any of the above controllers can say "not available" and do not need to pass a reason to the controller requesting it. It is up to each individual controller to manage their own traffic levels and what they deem acceptable is different between different people and the traffic circumstances on the day. No debate is entered into as we do not have time to debate the merits of the decisions of other controllers and manage traffic at the same time.

Difficulties getting aircraft across Runway 16 are a valid reason for the ground controller to decide it's not available (it is not the same as a 27 arrival crossing after landing becuase on Rwy 16 Only there are arrivals and departures using that runway versus 27/34 LAHSO, mostly landing only using Rwy 34 and 27/34 departures north east, it's mostly departures only using Rwy 34, so the gaps for getting across Rwy 16 are smaller and less frequent.

The above coordination is done for any "off mode" runway request, and we don't say not available just for fun. Requests are always judged on their merits, but it does create extra workload for many controllers and increases the risk, which we are encouraged to minimise.

I'm not trying to make excuses and i can understand that it looks like the runway should be used a lot more, but just trying to put in context the process that needs to occur.

Excuses and lack of service parading behind 'safety' & 'workload'

Safety & workload doesn't preclude you from providing a service to customers who pay you good money for that service.

framer
13th Dec 2016, 06:56
Ease up Porter, DB is taking the time to provide clear information about how the system operates. It would be a shame for us to end an informative conversation for want of basic civility. He/she is taking the time to provide good gen and I for one appreciate it.

IsDon
13th Dec 2016, 07:27
Mr Deux

The point is that MATS specifically prohibits the use of conditional clearances where stop bars are fitted and operational.

That is all I was trying to say.

I hear what's you're saying, and I understand you must work within the constraints of what MATS dictates.

I think the thrust here though is that MATS is wrong by world standards.

GA Driver
13th Dec 2016, 07:42
Thanks for some of the explanations, it certainly does explain some of the ML peculiarities from the drivers point of view..... I have a couple of questions.

Extended traffic holding. I have been held longer than the notamed or standard traffic holding advisories a heap of times. Several occasions it got a bit close for comfort so I have called after the flight to ask a few questions. I.e. Why not notamed or why no hazard alert? I've only ever gotten mixed answers such as 'its up to the flow controller' or 'generally we don't do anything unless the traffic holding exceeds the published amount by 10 mins.' I queried the last answer pretty hard and was told the flow controller had spoken to the airlines about reduced movements but 'were happy to run with it' (which doesn't get passed to the crew, why would we need to know???)
What's the story and when WILL you notify us aside from when you issue the star. This is critically important information we need to either load more fuel or make a diversion descision earlier.

Second is the crosswind on the ATIS.
Frequently it isn't even remotely close to actual or any calculations I was ever taught. Last month 330/40. X wind 15. 10 mins later and ATIS change with EXACTLY the same wind but now 18kts xwind. I think I calculated 4 from the ATIS wind and it was in fact straight down 34 on arrival.
To my understanding you report what had been recorded over 15mins? But if it's that bad why aren't we seeing wind varying between xxx and xxx?

On a side note, it's not often over the radio we can pass thanks or commend you guys for when things are going well but it ain't all terrible and we do appreciate the hard work that does get done.

fujii
13th Dec 2016, 08:29
IsDon,

Conditional clearances with stop bars were tried when the bars were commissioned but there were incidents with aircraft crossing a lit bar. Stop bars, when turned off, have an automatic reset time. There were incidents when aircraft having a conditional line up clearance didn't move quickly and the bar reset. There were also problems when the conditional may have been given and the ADC being interrupted, not deselecting the bar and the aircraft crossing the lit bar. If this were to occur now, A-SMGCS would produce an audio alarm as well which can be quite distracting.

It takes about a minute from a landing aircraft crossing the threshold to crossing the holding point on exit. That's plenty of time to line up and depart possibly without having to stop lined up.

I think overseas there may be an extra person in the tower to operate the bars.

DukeBen
13th Dec 2016, 09:30
Extended Holding - I'll leave this to an approach or en route controller who will know much more about this than me.

Crosswind on ATIS - Our anemometer readouts give us an instant wind (eg 330/40), instant crosswind, instant tailwind or headwind which all update every second, a maximum tailwind or headwind in last 5 minutes and a maximum crosswind in last 5 minutes.

By watching the anemometer readout over a period of time, the controller determines the mean wind and puts that on the ATIS. The crosswind figure is taken from the maximum crosswind readout in the last 5 minutes.

As the wind may sit on 330/40 for minute or two and then flick to 310/35 or 350/45, this is what can result in differing crosswind figures being quoted on the ATIS despite the mean wind remaining 330/40 on a new updated ATIS.

Di_Vosh
13th Dec 2016, 10:55
It's all a bit embarrassing really.

ML is the second busiest airport in Australia. Today we had 20 min holding when the conditions on the ground were CAVOK and the ATIS wind was 150/14 and only rwy 16 was being used. This is 5Kt tailwind on rwy 27!!

We even asked for a landing on 27 and that we could accept up to 10kts, but were told "Too much tailwind".

Over Onagi were plenty of aircraft holding and a jet informed ATC that if unless their Waren time improved they'd have to divert due not enough fuel.

Again, CAVOK conditions and 150/14 knots wind with only Rwy 16 available.

I forget the amount of times recently I've been 7 or 8 in line to take-off in CAVOK with less than 10 knots of wind, but only one runway in operation. Again, when requesting another runway to be told "Not available".

Last month we got told that our COBT delay was because 'the flow' was only accepting 20 per hour. Seriously? No cloud below 2500', and again less than 10 knots of wind on the ground. 20 arrivals per hour!

This is nothing to be proud of.

While some of the reasoning by ATC sounds plausible, some of the "reasons" are a little weak, and smack of a public service mentality that is becoming more pervasive in Australia. My favourite one on this thread was:

"Too many aircraft arriving at the same time."

Is the concept of schedules being driven by corporations trying to meet customer expectations a bit beyond someone who's on the public payroll?

Sounds to me like AirServices Australia is content to provide a crap service, and it's OUR fault for wanting something better.

Australia: The worlds fastest growing Mediocracy...

Capt Fathom
13th Dec 2016, 11:03
Too many aircraft arriving at the same time.
Those pesky aeroplanes all wanting to use the airport at once! Who'd have thought!

DUXNUTZ
13th Dec 2016, 11:07
Slowed down 20 mins today, winds VRB 3kts/CAVOK. Min speed from passing FL180 on climb. Initially given 16, then an umming and ahhhing the flow was going to 34. Landed on 27.

WTF MEL?

DukeBen
13th Dec 2016, 11:55
The 150/14 wind may give an instantaneous tailwind of 5 kts, but in my experience, this wind is usually flicking between 120 and 180, giving tailwind even above 10 kts on Rwy 27 at times. The quoted wind (150/14) is an average, the tailwind component that precludes a Runway being nominated is the maximum not the average.

The arrival rate during Rwy 16 only operations is severely hampered by the Rapid Exit Golf being shut, and i think many of the frustrations being reported on this board have been felt more widely in the last few months since it has been shut. I know working in the tower we've noticed longer than normal delays for Rwy 16 departures and the arrival gaps needing to be larger.

Today at times the wind was 340/8 at the northern end, 160/15 at the southern end and anyway in between at other points on the field. It does make runway selection challenging and delays are caused en route while runway changes are in progress. Unfortunately with the changeable nature of the winds we sometimes have to make multiple runway changes in a short period of time.

IsDon
13th Dec 2016, 12:42
Today at times the wind was 340/8 at the northern end, 160/15 at the southern end and anyway in between at other points on the field.

It's official then. Melbourne airport sucks!

The name is Porter
13th Dec 2016, 15:23
framer, yeah..........nah, sorry. Read Divosh's post :ok:

Plazbot
13th Dec 2016, 16:35
Just bow out and forget about it Porter. Don't waste the Chi.

le Pingouin
13th Dec 2016, 18:22
Di Vosh, what else would you call 20 aircraft attempting to arrive in half an hour when the system is configured to handle 12 in that time? Because that's what happens and guess what? You cop a delay.

Is the concept of scheduling to fit within current capacity and if you exceed it there will be delays beyond an airline employee? We aren't employed by the government BTW. Capacity isn't some magic pudding that can miraculously expand to fit another couple of arrivals an hour on a whim. It's a whole bloody great cumbersome system.

What do you think I can do as an individual controller?

Di_Vosh
13th Dec 2016, 18:57
The 150/14 wind may give an instantaneous tailwind of 5 kts, but in my experience, this wind is usually flicking between 120 and 180, giving tailwind even above 10 kts on Rwy 27 at times. The quoted wind (150/14) is an average, the tailwind component that precludes a Runway being nominated is the maximum not the average.

Seems to me then that the ATIS is either "150/14" or "Wind varying between 120 to 180, 14knots". Or even "Wind 150/14 knots, occasional tailwind greater than 10 knots runway 27".


G'day le Pingouin

My understanding at the time (and what I wrote) was 20 per HOUR not 20 in 30 min.

scheduling to fit within current capacity

ROFL! ASA had better pass that along to the various airlines scheduling departments.

The thing is, is that's what the whole COBT system is supposed to take care of. We shouldn't be departing on COBT and then get holding double the published traffic time. You're like a public servant again (or whatever ASA is).

The fact of the matter is, is that this deterioration of traffic into Melbourne has really only been noticeable since early November. Likewise the use of single runways in CAVOK with light and variable winds.

What do you think I can do as an individual controller?

At your job, nothing. Here on Prune, people like me will continue to question the efficiencies of what appears to have become a pretty crappy system, and we will question people who appear to defend said crappy system.

I've not flown internationally, so I can't compare how ML operates compared with other countries airports, such as Gatwick, but from my own experience of ML as little as three months ago, ML is punching well below it's weight.

le Pingouin
13th Dec 2016, 19:30
They won't give cross/tailwind for a non-duty runway.

Ah, my mention of 20 in 30 mins wasn't related to your 20 per hour - probably where I got the number from but it wasn't a deliberate choice.

I entirely agree that's the point of COBT - presumably the wheels fall off when the "model" they've used to generate the delays doesn't match reality very well. As I mentioned earlier it's working after a fashion as the peaks aren't don't seem as intense. Mind you go back 15 years and holding was routine quite often two or three times a day.

Fair enough, although it seems that people are taking attempts to explain how things work from the ATC perspective as defending it.

morno
13th Dec 2016, 19:59
When is Golf due to reopen? And why wasn't it completed as high priority?

Looking at it now, I struggle to understand why it's still shut.

DukeBen
13th Dec 2016, 20:01
"The fact of the matter is, is that this deterioration of traffic into Melbourne has really only been noticeable since early November. Likewise the use of single runways in CAVOK with light and variable winds."

April through October ish, the most common winds at YMML are North Westerlies, hence lots of 27/34 operations. November through March the most common winds are Southerlies/South Easterlies with the occasional strong Northerly, so much more use of 16a/27d and 16 only with the occasional 34 only day.

Rapid Exit Taxiway Golf has only been closed in the last couple of months, and has the biggest impact upon Southerly/South Easterly wind days. I suspect this is the single biggest reason you've noticed a deterioration of traffic into Melbourne. There have been no other significant changes to procedures or console staffing.

If there is any way we can use a Runway mode including 2 runways, we do. We do not select single runway modes to be obstructionist. There is a controller constantly monitoring the weather and looking for the opportunity to use a 2 runway mode to increase efficiency.

Le Pingoin is correct in that we do not quote tailwind/crosswind conditions for a non duty runway on the ATIS. My example of wind 120-180 at 14 kts was poorly chosen for this purpose, as a wind varying by 60 degrees should be reported as varying between those figures on the ATIS, however below 60 degrees, eg 120-170 degrees, unless that wind results in significant crosswind or tailwind for the duty runway (Rwy 16 in this case), the wind is to be quoted as an average from a single direction (so probably 140 or 150 degrees at 14 kts).

josephfeatherweight
13th Dec 2016, 20:25
I'm finding this discussion really interesting and it appears to me that it is a case of people doing their very best with an unnecessarily constrained system - be it Metron or whatever...
I have been fortunate to experience ATC providers worldwide - why is it that at KLAX we can be number 3 to land, yet "cleared to land" and not here in Aus? It is obvious to me that (granted that KLAX has MULTIPLE parallel runways and separate arrival and departure runways) they achieve significantly more movements per runway - indeed, on average they achieve a movement per runway per minute (over a whole 24 hour period!), which is significantly higher than the discussed 12 in 30 minutes??
Are our rules "too tight"? Is it simply due to the single runway situation?
Gatwick has a single runway and manages a maximum of 55 per hour.
I enjoy operating in Aus airspace and the service provided by our ATC brethren is directly very good - I'm not trying to agitate, just interested to know where our restrictions come from. Cheers.

underfire
13th Dec 2016, 21:12
DukeBen,

All, these issues mentioned for 09/27, wont that be the same for 09R/27L, and/or even worse with Essendon/LAHSO, etc? Not to mention the ever present crosswinds?

Gatwick has a single runway and manages a maximum of 55 per hour.
Use of the wind profiler at MEL could get the time based operations going and increase capacity substantially. The wake turbulence measurement system would support a recat for reduced sep on ARR and DEP.

The new tower was built with parallel 16/34 runways in mind.

I will have to check on that again, but is seems that you would end up with CSPR, but cant remember exactly. Looking at this, it looks like the new tower would have to be moved with a north/south runway.
http://i66.tinypic.com/dmqzrk.jpg

DukeBen
13th Dec 2016, 21:21
Underfire,

09/27 parallels will certain present some challenges. The biggest one in my opinion being how traffic from the Southern parallel interacts with YMEN traffic. Procedures will be developed to manage this but it remains to be seen how efficiently this runway can be used with YMEN operating simultaneously.

In terms of the wind issues. Having to go to Rwy 16 only is more commonly caused by too much tailwind on Rwy 27 rather than too much crosswind. With the parallels built and procedures in place, Rwy 09 left and right will be used almost as much as Rwy 27 left and right negating the issue of tailwind on Rwy 27.

On the odd occasion that there is a greater than 20 kt southerly, then yes we'll have to go to Rwy 16 only, which will be a pain if traffic levels have increased in line with what the parallels allow, and the more common occurrence of a greater than 20kt northerly will cause similar pain.

Modelling of taxiway movements have shown that building a 16/34 parallel instead has less gains for efficiency due to extra crossing required of the other parallel on the way to or from the western runway.

Ideally, the terminal would be in the middle with runways surrounding it, but the way it is, that's basically impossible and gives us the compromise options.

GA Driver
14th Dec 2016, 00:05
more common occurrence of a greater than 20kt northerly will cause similar pain.

This is the problem with a parallel 27/09. A roaring northerly in Melbourne is a far more common occurance than westerly (although we all know it happens)
So why are we going down that path?

neville_nobody
14th Dec 2016, 00:43
it appears to me that it is a case of people doing their very best with an unnecessarily constrained system

That is Australian aviation in a nutshell.

The Australian Government takes a bureaucratic approach to aviation not a pragmatic one.

Your whole question about being cleared to land is a classic one. In the US they give the responsibility to the PIC to not land on top of another aircraft. Over here a controller has to make that decision for the PIC which is just one more layer of bureaucracy but it costs time and runway space.

andrewr
14th Dec 2016, 01:11
The 150/14 wind may give an instantaneous tailwind of 5 kts, but in my experience, this wind is usually flicking between 120 and 180, giving tailwind even above 10 kts on Rwy 27 at times. The quoted wind (150/14) is an average, the tailwind component that precludes a Runway being nominated is the maximum not the average.

It sounds like a case of information overload. I suspect the people who set the tailwind limitations don't have this type of data resolution in mind.

My experience on warm-hot days with a light and variable wind is that the windsock isn't a reliable indication of the actual wind at any one time, it is just as likely pointing to the nearest thermal. The average over a period of time, and an awareness of the forecast wind is a better indicator.

I'm not a jet pilot, but I suspect they can handle a bit of windshear from thermals without difficulty, and you probably don't want to close a runway just because a thermal keeps popping off upwind of your anemometer.

Stronger winds of course are less affected by thermals - but this thread seems to be mostly referring to light wind days.

Today at times the wind was 340/8 at the northern end, 160/15 at the southern end and anyway in between at other points on the field.

Sounds like a classic case of effectively measuring vertical air movement, not horizontal.

Slippery_Pete
14th Dec 2016, 01:52
All excellent information on here, keep it coming.

Di Vosh, what else would you call 20 aircraft attempting to arrive in half an hour when the system is configured to handle 12 in that time

I'd call it a shit system.

20 aircraft arriving in 30 mins is a slow day for a lot of single runway airports the world over, even worse given Melbourne is actually a two runway airport.

While ATC debate 5 knots vs 6 knots downwind in light wind, CAVOK conditions, crews are madly crunching the numbers on fuel and diversions when they should be concentrating on arrival. The Melbourne procedures need to change.

Get Golf online, get runway 09 online especially for landings, prohibit QF exits onto echo when 09 being used for departures, seek an exemption from CASA which allows ATIS nomination of 27 with 5-10 tailwind.

Penalise ASA management every time an aircraft is required to hold beyond NOTAM holding for non weather related delays. Once some manager's KPI might get affected, watch the arrival rate magically increase.

Let's get serious and get YMML out of the 1980s.

Le Pingoin is correct in that we do not quote tailwind/crosswind conditions for a non duty runway on the ATIS. My example of wind 120-180 at 14 kts was poorly chosen for this purpose, as a wind varying by 60 degrees should be reported as varying between those figures on the ATIS, however below 60 degrees, eg 120-170 degrees, unless that wind results in significant crosswind or tailwind for the duty runway (Rwy 16 in this case), the wind is to be quoted as an average from a single direction (so probably 140 or 150 degrees at 14 kts).

Here's a completely bonkers idea, straight out of left field for 120-170/14 knots.... Runway 09!!!!

le Pingouin
14th Dec 2016, 02:24
R09? Just a small matter of noise abatement Pete........ Go speak to the politicians on that one.

aussie1234
14th Dec 2016, 02:38
And any talk of another ground freq or apron controller. Gets very hard to get in sometimes with many push back requests and taxi instructions.

UnderneathTheRadar
14th Dec 2016, 03:06
I will have to check on that again, but is seems that you would end up with CSPR, but cant remember exactly. Looking at this, it looks like the new tower would have to be moved with a north/south runway.

Where'd that picture come from UNDERFIRE? It seems to ignore T4 and associated carparks and other infrastructure that would sit right off the end of 09R and infringe on arrivals to 27L?

Slippery_Pete
14th Dec 2016, 05:42
Hi Penguin.

How does the noise abatement work? Surely the noise abatement is for departure at takeoff power over the suburbs to the east of the airport.

Rwy 09 for arrivals would have aircraft on approach from the west and no noise to the east. A go around would be a rare occurrence from a noise to the east perspective.

Ie
Easterly - arrivals 09, departures 16/34
Westerlies - arrivals and departures 27 and 16/34

Wouldn't that work from a noise point of view? We need glass half full sort of thinking to get this solved.

Berealgetreal
14th Dec 2016, 07:08
Am I seeing things or is 09R pointing into the terminal and roads?

Well planned: not into wind, short as buggery and pointing at a terminal.

Future proofing at its best.

I guess its easier to modify the runway overrun stats than get a good outcome in Australian infrastructure planning.

BNE and SYD have it planned properly both parallels north south and both have trains. Melbourne needs the government to step in.

angryrat
14th Dec 2016, 08:12
And any talk of another ground freq or apron controller. Gets very hard to get in sometimes with many push back requests and taxi instructions.
What about standardising MEL with SYD? When you tell Clearance that you are ready they tell you to monitor Ground as opposed to contacting Ground. Clearance slides over the control to Ground that you are ready and Ground issues pushback when available. Saves the pushback radio call per aircraft and stops the clogging of airwaves.

framer
14th Dec 2016, 08:19
Is that how it works on the domestic side in YSSY?

maggot
14th Dec 2016, 08:44
Yeah ive gotta say, after using it for a bit, the syd system works well, never stuck trying to get a word in these days

angryrat
14th Dec 2016, 08:54
Is that how it works on the domestic side in YSSY?
They have another frequency called Coordinator, it sits in between Clearance and Ground. It seems a bit of a waste to me, but I'm sure there is a good reason that I know nothing about. So domestically in SYD it goes:

Clearance: PDC readback

Coordinator: Call ready for push and they tell you your COBT time is good and to monitor ground.

Ground: you monitor ground until they issue a pushback clearance.

Saves 'two in at once' blocks and at least one extra radio call on the Ground frequency.

In MEL I think it could work the same but without the Coordinator frequency as you already contact Clearance ready and get told to contact Ground. All you have to do is change it from contact Ground to monitor Ground and Ground issues pushback when available without the request call. Simple.

Berealgetreal
14th Dec 2016, 09:27
What about standardising MEL with SYD? When you tell Clearance that you are ready they tell you to monitor Ground as opposed to contacting Ground. Clearance slides over the control to Ground that you are ready and Ground issues pushback when available. Saves the pushback radio call per aircraft and stops the clogging of airwaves.

Spot on.

To further clarify if I may angryrat:

127.60"Sydney Coordinator ABC123 Ready for pushback bay XX"
127.60"ABC123 you time is compliant, monitor ground"
121.70"ABC123 pushback approved"
121.70"ABC123"

It works well.


BNE & ADL even easier, just ask at the right time and you receive.
Can't remember how Perth works...who cares anyway lol..

DukeBen
14th Dec 2016, 11:15
I agree that the Ground frequency becomes overloaded at times and it's hard to get a word in edgewise.

Having a 2nd Ground controller/frequency is an option, and I'm sure it will be brought in by the time the parallel runway is built.

We have moved towing requests initial radio calls to the clearance delivery frequency rather than ground and they work on the "monitor ground" system and it has worked well.

The idea of doing the same thing with aircraft requesting pushback is a good one and has been looked at before and may need to be again. It is slightly trickier to change procedures like that with the computerised system Melbourne Tower has compared to Sydney Tower.

With the automation involved, currently as soon as an aircraft has correctly read back their airways clearance on delivery frequency, the electronic strip with all its details gets moved to the Ground Controllers console, and there's no way to stop it doing this. Hence, if an aircraft was to call back on delivery when they are ready to push back, there's no way for that controller to annotate on the strip that the aircraft is actually ready for pushback as they no longer have jurisdiction of that electronic strip.

With Sydney Tower's paper strips, the Delivery controller or Coordinator can hold onto the paper strip until the aircraft calls back and then physically pass the strip to the Ground Controller when they're ready - so much for technology hey!?

I'm certain this issue is not insurmountable and we can look at what can be done to modify the system to allow it to occur.

Capn Bloggs
14th Dec 2016, 12:07
Can't remember how Perth works...who cares anyway lol..
Toughen up, Bereal. EVERYTHING on 121.7. Oh hang on, now the peak has passed, they've split west and east SMCs. :ok:

le Pingouin
14th Dec 2016, 12:09
Pete, R09 is last choice for both arrivals and departures with noise abatement - them's the rules I'm afraid. And because it's noise abatement I'm sure it'd involve a whole lot of discussion with multiple "interested" parties. Politics with a capital "P".

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/dap/MMLNA01-129.pdf

1Charlie
14th Dec 2016, 12:34
KLAX does not average 1min per movement per runway during its best hour let alone consistently. You may be confused with the stat one departure and one arrival per minute (on all four runways). Segregated arrival and departure runways is actually the most ineffiecent way of operating a multi runway airport. This is because gaps need to be put in for wake turbulence that a departure could fit into. So you lose 4 or 5 slots per hour. But it is however noise friendly and much much easier to manage from an ATC perspective. Especially with four runways; mixed mode at LAX would be very complex.

20 arrivals in half an hour into a single runway operation a quiet day? Well certainly quiet for departures because there wouldn't have been a single one; that would equate to arrival spacing of around 2.5nm. The most efficient mode is one arrival, then 1 departure. The theoretical minimum is 2 minutes between arrivals (30 per hour {4NM gaps}) and a departure in the gap (total of 60 per hour). Remembering that this is a perfect world scenario with 0 margin for error. Single runway rates across Australia are running arrival rates between 28-30 per hour for total movement rates of 55+

Melbourne 16 only is particularly painful at the moment because they need to allow 3mins between arrivals (20per hour {7NM gaps}) to allow the arrival to roll through. Bearing in mind that this also slows the departure rate down to 3 mins. So now you're only moving 40 per hour. This doesn't sound like a lot but it makes a HUGE impact on delays when you're at capacity.

In any case don't be comparing Melbourne with airports like Heathrow and Los Angeles, that's a bit rediculous. They're nothing alike. I feel your beef needs to be with the CASA runway nomination criteria. It really should allow for 10kts tailwind and 30kts crosswind. Seeing places like Sydney grind to a halt because of a 25kt crosswind ruins the flow across whole country, and seems a bit conservative.

Slippery_Pete
14th Dec 2016, 20:48
Thanks penguin, you've been very helpful.

Seems ludicrous, and an area which could be probed for improvements. Arrivals on RWY 09 would have large noise benefits for eastern suburbs residents over tailwind approaches to RWY 27.

And yes, no doubt the red tape attached with a procedural change in the name of progress will typify Australian bureaucracy.

underfire
14th Dec 2016, 22:19
Where'd that picture come from UNDERFIRE? It seems to ignore T4 and associated carparks and other infrastructure that would sit right off the end of 09R and infringe on arrivals to 27L?

Image was from some public meeting documents when all sorts of things were being discussed., a 4th rwy being a 16L..still, looks like the new tower would be in the way. Not sure how many airports have towers between the runways, but there must be a few.

Current maps from the MEL website show about the same rwy, but without all of the taxiways. Interesting that if the prevailing end is 27L, you are still crossing 16/34 twice to terminal. The direct route is 09R, which as with current ops, seems unlikely to be used for ARR. With all of the new construction, obstacles will be interesting.

http://i67.tinypic.com/v6snet.jpg

In looking at this a little more closely, RW09L is far from a II runway to 09R. It doesnt look like the merge point between centerlines is met.

Here is the proposed overlayed on the existing MEL site...

http://i68.tinypic.com/29vkzs0.jpg

Chief galah
15th Dec 2016, 02:35
It appears to me the rapid exits for 09L and 09R are a waste of concrete.

angryrat
15th Dec 2016, 03:57
I agree that the Ground frequency becomes overloaded at times and it's hard to get a word in edgewise.

Having a 2nd Ground controller/frequency is an option, and I'm sure it will be brought in by the time the parallel runway is built.

We have moved towing requests initial radio calls to the clearance delivery frequency rather than ground and they work on the "monitor ground" system and it has worked well.

The idea of doing the same thing with aircraft requesting pushback is a good one and has been looked at before and may need to be again. It is slightly trickier to change procedures like that with the computerised system Melbourne Tower has compared to Sydney Tower.

With the automation involved, currently as soon as an aircraft has correctly read back their airways clearance on delivery frequency, the electronic strip with all its details gets moved to the Ground Controllers console, and there's no way to stop it doing this. Hence, if an aircraft was to call back on delivery when they are ready to push back, there's no way for that controller to annotate on the strip that the aircraft is actually ready for pushback as they no longer have jurisdiction of that electronic strip.

With Sydney Tower's paper strips, the Delivery controller or Coordinator can hold onto the paper strip until the aircraft calls back and then physically pass the strip to the Ground Controller when they're ready - so much for technology hey!?

I'm certain this issue is not insurmountable and we can look at what can be done to modify the system to allow it to occur.

Awesome, some can do! I hope you can convince the powers that be and can get some minor software changes. It will work well for all.

underfire
15th Dec 2016, 05:43
It appears to me the rapid exits for 09L and 09R are a waste of concrete.

funny how they say that 09L gets you to the terminal, where 16R would involve crossings! With the exits, looks like the plan is much more for ARR on 27R than anything else

Seems like the winds are always a bit strong from the south, everytime I go into 27, I get rocked.

EPIRB
15th Dec 2016, 07:40
The thing that erks me is pilots who report ready to Tower well before the holding point (in breach of the AIP). It takes others out of the loop, in particular when there are taxiways they have to cross. Saw a near miss when two 737s tried to taxi to Juliet one day as one reported too early to tower. I would have thought that this increases ATC workload if they have to communicate to aircraft that prematurely calls Tower. After ATC thoughts on this?

DukeBen
15th Dec 2016, 08:05
Reporting Ready Too Early

AIP says - Domestic aircraft should change to tower frequency
A) In the holding bay, or
B) Close to, or at, the holding point of the nominated runway, when ready for takeoff.

I suppose the definition of "close to" to the holding point isn't really nailed down and can be debated.

Having said that, if i'm moving an aircraft close to the holding point but holding short of a taxiway prior to the holding point, I usually add "remain on this frequency".

This shouldn't be necessary as if an aircraft hasn't been cleared to the holding point, they should stay on ground frequency as a matter of course. It is extra radio airtime wasted on a call that SHOULD be unnecessary, but unfortunately I've seen too many aircraft switch to tower frequency whilst holding short of a taxiway such that i feel it works better if i say it.

I understand the temptation to make an early ready call, as the order that aircraft call ready in does have some influence on the order in which they depart - it's not the be all and end all and many other factors are taken into account, but all other things being equal, it does play a role.

If aircraft would at least not switch frequencies whilst instructed to hold short of a taxiway, that would be a start. Not sure what the solution is beyond that.

EPIRB
15th Dec 2016, 08:24
Personally I like to see things done by the book. Not only is reporting early unprofessional, it also decreases situational awareness and increases workload. I heard Brisbane TWR give an aircraft a serve and told them to go back to SMC when they went to TWR early.

Lead Balloon
15th Dec 2016, 22:41
Thanks for your contributions to this thread, DukeBen. :D

MrWooby
15th Dec 2016, 23:48
Worst I have seen at MEL was sitting at Q hold point for 27, Virgin 737 called ready just before us when he was turning from A into E. We sat there waiting at the 737 taxied down E, was given a a take off clearance, by the time we lined up we had to wait for a landing aircraft on 16. We could have got airborne, by the time Virgin lined up.

Another thing that annoys me at MEL is the WENDY arrival for 27, I've had numerous times where after crossing KEELA at 6000, I cannot get descent due to congestion on the radio. On once instance we were at 6000 at ROCEL, I requested to continue heading east for extra track miles to enable descent, ATC replied NEGATIVE due to the SEQUENCE, we turned and did a very messy approach ending up having to cross the centreline and intercept from the north, unprofessional and unsafe and nearly unstable.

My fix is to now anticipate not getting descent and slowing to around 180 kts passing NOMID (instead of 230 kts) to enable a safe and stable descent when I finally do get to descend.

ramble on
16th Dec 2016, 00:21
That IS the reason its called the "Wendy" arrival....

missy
16th Dec 2016, 01:24
Named after Wendy D

maggot
16th Dec 2016, 02:09
Yeah I've had the virgin wait off 27 before a few time
"Stby, you're number two" ... "uhh to whom?"... 5 minutes later...

EPIRB
16th Dec 2016, 02:30
And Rex and Tiger reporting ready whilst taxiing up Alpha for 27 and they haven't even turned into Echo yet. That's really clever.
And also the aircraft that pull up short of the holding point with their tail hanging on to the taxiway behind blocking the taxiway for no apparent reason. That's clever too.

Bula
16th Dec 2016, 03:08
Seriously, if departure priority can take into account who calls ready first, a TWY E ready call is fair game if cleared to the holding point.

Didn't BNE use to stipulate call as early as possible? I can't find it anymore but I'm sure it used to be there.

maggot
16th Dec 2016, 06:59
Yeah nah


12345

morno
16th Dec 2016, 17:22
But getting in a ready call before Gods gift to Australian aviation calls ready from their apron area near 27 is the most satisfying part of my day :)

maggot
16th Dec 2016, 19:10
As long as ya wait til at least after push back eh

Tuck Mach
16th Dec 2016, 19:19
In privatisation parlance, sweating the asset is just that.

Australia lacks critical infrastructure, the sell off of airports made with no consideration of the future, only maximising the price (selling public assets to the public, what genius!)

YMML had the space and plan in place 30 years ago to build a third runway.
Much easier for the private owners to build carparks and shops for a quick return to their shareholders(often foreign), rather than a runway thereby serving the community...

From memory, it was Crikey that lamented the sector travel time by air YSSY-YMML in 1968 was 65 minutes, now it is 90(ish)

fl610
16th Dec 2016, 19:53
TM it used to be 90 minutes in the Electra......progress I guess! ��

RAC/OPS
17th Dec 2016, 00:41
DukeBen has done a great job explaining things from our point of view, so I'll address some of the later comments. Yes, the airlines from the southern side of the airport do sometimes call ready too early for 27, but so does the other one. How about calling ready for 34 from abeam D20 (tango/alpha intersection)? Seen that several times. And it's that airline in particular who complains about early ready calls.

A ready call indicates to us that you are ready for departure, and we will assess that accordingly in deciding the departure order. We are concerned with reducing the overall delays to departing aircraft, so you may not always depart in the order you think you should. For instance, in 16A/27D with a 16 departure to the northwest, it may be better to depart an aircraft off 27 who is not turning left, ie CORRS, SUNTI, ESDIG.

If we can get two aircraft away in a tight gap, one turning right and one turning left, again it is more beneficial to do this than send two on the same SID in quick succession.

If we can depart similar WT category aircraft, it may be beneficial to send the Heavy departure last, prior to a landing on the same or crossing runway to eat up the WT time. This way we are not twiddling our thumbs for two minutes with nobody moving. Or depart two Heavies or Supers out of order, again to minimise WT. These examples are, I believe in accordance with being first able to use the airspace.

You will appreciate that we mostly advise "going one out of sequence due....". We are not obliged to do this but it does save being asked "confirm you got my ready call" and then having to explain why you are not going when you think you should be, and wasting sometimes valuable r/t time.

GA Driver
17th Dec 2016, 00:54
On that note out of sequence, a number of times (more than once!) I've called for taxi and asked for Juliet and been sent down to kilo 'for the sequence.' No prob.
But then another aircraft from the g, e or f apron calls for taxi with the same Juliet request AFTER us and gets to Juliet before we reach kilo. By the time we reach kilo they've already rolled?! It's really annoying.

RAC/OPS
17th Dec 2016, 01:25
I agree that must be annoying! Could be a number of reasons though. A heavy approaching Kilo has called ready, or is anticipated calling ready, and you are sent there to reduce WT. Or, a heavy is about to taxi and with more than 2 acft at Juliet, he would have to wait until they go before he can continue on to Kilo, so JST, VOZ and TGG all go Sierra/Kilo and QFA to Juliet. We don't always anticipate correctly when the heavy will call ready so that may be why you get stuffed about sometimes. Also the ADC might spot a gap that can be used by a Medium at Juliet, but isn't sufficient to get the heavy away, so again you miss out. It might be that the one at Juliet is an early left turner (turbo prop going left 260 or a jet on a CRENA/ESDIG) - again we can usually get two away with reduced separation upwind as opposed to two both on a DOSEL (this scenario is 34 only, but works similarly for 34 deps to NE with an off mode 34 dep). In your situation above, you might be given Juliet after all if you tell ground you'd be ready at Juliet - they may be able to offer it to you. If you've already switched to tower and call ready approaching Juliet, we have to check with ground to make sure you can have it, otherwise we might upset their sequence, and they may be busy so there would be a delay in us getting back to you.

EPIRB
19th Dec 2016, 05:33
Wonder how many airlines disseminated this newsletter from Airservices? Obviously some people are concerned about the hazard of reporting early..

kev2002
19th Dec 2016, 07:03
In defence of those that call early to tower it is generally because the previous instruction from ground is..."when ready contact tower in 120.5". (Or words to that effect)

DukeBen
19th Dec 2016, 07:12
Directed frequency transfer to tower is mandated for international flights but not domestic. Only about 15% of flights at YMML are International so the other 85% decide for themselves when to contact tower ready.

kev2002
19th Dec 2016, 07:19
Directed frequency transfer to tower is mandated for international flights but not domestic. Only about 15% of flights at YMML are International so the other 85% decide for themselves when to contact tower ready.

Well that makes sense then. My bad

RAC/OPS
21st Dec 2016, 03:43
Lookleft said (ages ago),I am often unhappy with the runway offered but I can only "request". if I "require" a certain runway then the next question you are going to ask is "Is it due to an operational requirement?"

Most definitely not. If you require it, as Le Pingouin has said, you will not be questioned. If you request you may get asked if it is an operational requirement.

mcgrath50
21st Dec 2016, 23:18
Most definitely not. If you require it, as Le Pingouin has said, you will not be questioned. If you request you may get asked if it is an operational requirement.


Is there a difference between saying "require runway 01" and answering affirm to "is runway 01 an operational requirement?"

le Pingouin
22nd Dec 2016, 00:00
No difference.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was
22nd Dec 2016, 02:49
Apart from two more radio transmissions.

Transition Layer
22nd Dec 2016, 12:33
But getting in a ready call before Gods gift to Australian aviation calls ready from their apron area near 27 is the most satisfying part of my day :)

Not too late to apply, applications are open! Any chips on shoulders can be removed during training :ok:

morno
22nd Dec 2016, 19:14
No thanks TL, I don't fancy sitting in the jump seat for 10 years. How can that possibly be satisfying?

Maybe 10 years ago, but it's too late now for me.

maggot
22nd Dec 2016, 19:57
Paycheck and lifestyle go a long way to help

We'd all prefer to go straight to a window but unfortunately thats the system.

GA Driver
23rd Dec 2016, 08:01
Forgetting the squabble and back to request vs require..... I tend to 'require' things when the performance calculator won't let us use the duty runway. It appears the reason I 'require' a runway doest seem to matter at all?

framer
23rd Dec 2016, 08:11
For me, I require something if for any reason it is needed to maintain what I think is an acceptable level of safety. Every crew will have a different opinion of what is an acceptable level of safety. You can't put figures on it as there are so many variables, are you training? Have you been awake for 19 hours? Is it the first time in in 10 years into that port? Is your anti-skid inop?
Do you have all reversers a working?
It just comes down to personal opinion as does most everything.

Marauder
23rd Dec 2016, 09:24
First time in there for a while, moderate traffic

Track shortening, speeds waived, etc

Take a bow

And Merry Christmas Ladies and Gents in ML ATC

RAC/OPS
24th Dec 2016, 02:30
Forgetting the squabble and back to request vs require..... I tend to 'require' things when the performance calculator won't let us use the duty runway. It appears the reason I 'require' a runway doest seem to matter at all?

Exactly. And no controller, certainly in ML tower will question you. I think 'require' is an Australian thing, so you might hear foreign crews requesting an off mode runway. In their case most of us would take that as a requirement too.

le Pingouin
25th Dec 2016, 00:47
Thanks Marauder, to you & yours too. We don't just screw you guys around for the fun of it.

GA Driver, if you require it you get it. A domestic might get asked "why?" by the flow if the reason isn't evident just in case you have a problem that might affect the way we handle you or if we need to allow a bit more time behind you.

I don't play the "request" vs "require" game for foreign carriers either - I just tell the flow "require". I tried in my earlier days and all it does is confuse the pilots and waste a huge amount of time. As one guy I work with said, we'd look pretty stupid if they drive off the far end of a short runway.

White Knight
25th Dec 2016, 02:45
we'd look pretty stupid if they drive off the far end of a short runway.

Not half as stupid as the guys/gals who are actually in control of the thing:eek:

Lookleft
26th Dec 2016, 21:27
Exactly. And no controller, certainly in ML tower will question you. I think 'require' is an Australian thing, so you might hear foreign crews requesting an off mode runway. In their case most of us would take that as a requirement too.

The point I was making is that to require a runway because of a preference to land into wind and not have to land with a quartering tailwind will not be an acceptable reason to have the flow changed. I might be able to get it approved for the first couple of times but ATC will be on to my employer PDQ to have my thinking changed. I am fully aware that if I require a runway because of some sort of technical issue then there will be no questions asked, it will just be provided. LP was suggesting that if I was the technical issue and it was the end of a long day then that would be acceptable as well. The problem with that is that the pilots of a certain brightly coloured LCC are always tired especially at the end of an 11 hour duty approaching midnight. So I go back to my original point that it wouldn't take long for ATC to tell the LCC to stop their pilots requiring runway configurations that are contrary to their flow just because they are tired or have had a long day in the saddle. As a case in point, in the early 90's when QF 767s started operating domestically they were always requiring runway 16R. It didn't take very long before that was stopped as it was pointed out that other widebody operators were quite capable of landing on 16L without having to use any test pilot techniques.

RAC/OPS
26th Dec 2016, 23:57
The point I was making is that to require a runway because of a preference to land into wind and not have to land with a quartering tailwind will not be an acceptable reason to have the flow changed.

But my point was that you won't be asked for a reason. I don't know whether the TMA or en route sectors keep a log of requirements - but we certainly don't in the tower. I'm not familiar with the QF 767 case you mentioned so maybe things do get filtered back to the airlines.

sunnySA
26th Dec 2016, 23:57
Now that the QG 767s have gone (all but 1 freighter) can we go back to using 25 knots as the crosswind criteria.

Lookleft
27th Dec 2016, 00:38
You wont be asked for a reason the first time but my point is that it would be bought to the attention of the airline concerned if a requirement for a particular runway was made each time I had a preference for an into wind runway. So far this month I have arrived 14 times into Melbourne.

RAC/OPS
27th Dec 2016, 01:48
As I said, I can't speak for TMA and en route. If you require a non duty runway for departure we change the runway in your strip. We give a 'next' call to Deps and they'll usually say 'unrestricted'. They may well have a scratch pad and tick your airline or flight number off but I seriously doubt it.

Lead Balloon
27th Dec 2016, 07:12
Scenario: You finish Year 10 first, then post again. :ok:

fujii
27th Dec 2016, 08:36
Scenario: An F111 goes past the tower ar 600 kts and you don't look up, you'd get a kick in the arse for not monitoring your traffic.

DUXNUTZ
27th Dec 2016, 11:48
Well MEL atc must read pprune. 09 in use for several hrs today.

Capn Rex Havoc
27th Dec 2016, 15:30
@lookleft
You wont be asked for a reason the first time but my point is that it would be bought to the attention of the airline concerned if a requirement for a particular runway was made each time I had a preference for an into wind runway. So far this month I have arrived 14 times into Melbourne.

I always "require" the long runway and have always been given it. But then again I have about a 5 Kt crosswind limit. (I'm not a very good pilot). I'm pretty sure every EK flight uses the long one :) Ops haven't sent us any nasty grams yet (well not in the last 15 years that I'm aware of).

mrdeux
27th Dec 2016, 20:54
I was flying the QF767s when 16L came into service, and did so for some years after. I landed on it once, and then required 16R for every landing thereafter. The margins are for my use, not the convenience of flow or a manager hidden away in an office.

The aircraft I've flown since are also landed on the runway that suits me with regard to crosswind and length.

Nothing has ever been said, nor will it.

Lookleft
27th Dec 2016, 23:17
CRH-very different scenario for widebody. Mel ATC will actually ask the widebodies if they require the long runway. Its not a question that ever gets asked of narrow body pilots by ATC.

framer
28th Dec 2016, 04:17
The point is that Mrdeux technically/ legally could have landed on 16L, but chose to require 16R. There is a line which is different for every Captain, and when that line is crossed they start looking for ways to stack the deck in their own favour. That is good. That is how it should be. I imagine every single pax that Mrdeux has flown has landed and taxied in safely. Job done. The risk we run now days is that the noise abatement and flow control etc etc is so prescriptive and so common that we get used to the tail wagging the dog and feel we have to fit in to the system in all cases except an emergency. In my opinion the safest runway should be used regardless the of the time of day or which suburb we fly over.

DukeBen
28th Dec 2016, 04:58
The point is that Mrdeux technically/ legally could have landed on 16L, but chose to require 16R. There is a line which is different for every Captain, and when that line is crossed they start looking for ways to stack the deck in their own favour. That is good. That is how it should be. I imagine every single pax that Mrdeux has flown has landed and taxied in safely. Job done. The risk we run now days is that the noise abatement and flow control etc etc is so prescriptive and so common that we get used to the tail wagging the dog and feel we have to fit in to the system in all cases except an emergency. In my opinion the safest runway should be used regardless the of the time of day or which suburb we fly over.

It is an interesting debate in that if the safest runway was used all the time, then during single runway operations due to too much tailwind on the other runways (max 5kts dry runway or 0 kts for other than dry), the other runway could not even be used for requests.

ATC do not ask for a reason on air for an operational requirement because we don't have the skills, knowledge and all the information the pilot has in determining whether this is the case. We trust the pilot's judgement in this.

I would suggest it is similar when ATC advise that a certain runway is "not available". Pilots do not have the information that ATC has in assessing this. Sometimes the ATC who advises the unavailability also doesn't have the information in the reason why either. It's about trusting the knowledge and judgement of others who do and moving on to the next task to keep the whole show moving.

Forums like this are good for digging into the issues a little and famil time in ATC & cockpit environments are even better.

GA Driver
28th Dec 2016, 19:00
On the note of the crosswind..... Is 20kts dry the max you'll use before a runway change? Most jets are up in the 30's and above.

Brakerider
28th Dec 2016, 19:59
On the note of the crosswind..... Is 20kts dry the max you'll use before a runway change? Most jets are up in the 30's and above.

As per the Sydney Noise Abatement Procedures

DRY- Max Crosswind 20, Max Downwind 5
WET- Max Crosswind 20, No downwind
Max Crosswind 15, Max Downwind 5


Believe it or not its not all about the jets. :rolleyes:

Open Descent
28th Dec 2016, 22:29
mrdeux's aversion to using 16L would have had more to do with being outraged at the extra 10 minutes of taxi time than it would the safety margins of the 767 ;)

clark y
29th Dec 2016, 04:23
I'm sure everyone on both sides of the fence is earning their money this afternoon with the weather rolling through.

mrdeux
29th Dec 2016, 06:04
open descent ... I will take the longer runway. I don't care how long it takes to drive there.

morno
29th Dec 2016, 06:23
Did you ever land on RW25?

framer
29th Dec 2016, 08:32
I imagine he did as it would have been the most favourable runway if it was in use.

morno
29th Dec 2016, 08:35
Then why was he so worried about landing on 16L when 25 is pretty much exactly the same length?

framer
29th Dec 2016, 08:53
Who said he was worried? Like I said earlier, every Captain has a different take on what is and what isn't an acceptable level of safety for the flight that they are responsible for. Some will find choosing a 2200m runway over a 3000m runway to be a poor trade if the reasons are purely commercial. It's a slippery slope to start judging other Captains safety related decisions unless you've already retired with a clean sheet.

GA Driver
29th Dec 2016, 08:57
As per the Sydney Noise Abatement Procedures

DRY- Max Crosswind 20, Max Downwind 5
WET- Max Crosswind 20, No downwind
Max Crosswind 15, Max Downwind 5


Believe it or not its not all about the jets. :rolleyes:


Thanks for the Sydney figures, but I was referring to Melbourne seeing it's the Melbourne ATC thread.
I get it may not be about the jets, but I do fly one and I was asking with that it mind.

maggot
29th Dec 2016, 09:05
Then why was he so worried about landing on 16L when 25 is pretty much exactly the same length?

How's that LD?

RAC/OPS
29th Dec 2016, 10:23
The 20kt crosswind and 5/0kts tailwind dry/wet applies to Melbourne too.

Awol57
29th Dec 2016, 13:19
That applies to all towers. The 5kt tailwind allowance is for noise abatement (where it applies) or other situations where a bit of tailwind may be better (eg sunrise/sunset with an east/west runway).

1Charlie
29th Dec 2016, 14:32
What an interesting discussion.

On one hand we have complaints about Melbourne operating on a single runway causing delays. On the other, complaints about getting assigned a runway that isn't into wind or the shorter option.

If everyone required the long into wind runway then every day would be a single runway day and we'd all be screwed.

If you were flying your 767 into YSSY and 16L was the only option, would you divert to somewhere with a 3km runway?

Unfortunately we don't have long parallel runways everywhere so we make do the best we can.

Capn Rex Havoc
29th Dec 2016, 14:49
1 Charlie
If you were flying your 767 into YSSY and 16L was the only option, would you divert to somewhere with a 3km runway?

I don't think you are getting the concept here. If I am flying to the Seychelles, one runway, and its blowing (as it does regularly) nasty s..t, then you will do that pilot thing - and do your best.

If you are landing to a place with TWO runways - one long and into wind - then you would be a DICK - to accept the short one with the XWIND.

Just saying -

:uhoh:

framer
29th Dec 2016, 19:31
If you were flying your 767 into YSSY and 16L was the only option, would you divert to somewhere with a 3km runway?
When first officers are coming up for command you often see them using this kind of logic. An all or nothing kind of logic that seeks rules to keep one safe. It is not a bad thing, it means they have recognised the responsibility approaching and are setting about making sure they have all their ducks lined up. A few months of upgrade training helps them realise there are few decisions where all the inputs act in isolation and the decision is simple.

If everyone required the long into wind runway then every day would be a single runway day and we'd all be screwed.
Again the logic is too simple and doesn't reflect real life.
Situation A) CAVOK wind 350/5
Most people would be happy to land their 737 on runway 27 .
Situation B) CAVOK wind 350/45
Very few people ( any?) would land their 737 on 27
What this means is that somewhere between situation A and situation B the trade off ( commercial efficiency v's safety) becomes a bad deal. The system has decided that that point is the point where the crosswind exceeds 20kts or the downwind exceeds 5 kts on a dry runway. That's great , it is absolutely necessary to have rule based limits to prevent the small % who will make poor ego based decisions. Every Captain will have a slightly different assessment of where that line is though depending on many different factors affecting the particular flight and that is what they get paid for. In short, every day wouldn't be a single runway day, and if a day did become a single runway day that would be because all the inbound Captains decided that that was necessary for safety.......who's going to tell them they are wrong?

Open Descent
29th Dec 2016, 22:53
Framer, the logic as you present it, is perfectly reasonable and I don't think too many would argue with it.

I think the case of always refusing to land on the shorter of 2 parallel runways though, regardless of the prevailing conditions is more akin to stubbornness than good airmanship.

But as I mentioned, your example I agree 100% with.

1Charlie
29th Dec 2016, 23:15
I'm not saying you should be landing on an unsuitable runway. And 45kts xw is clearly unsuitable. I'm reacting to the 767 pilot who says he always required the long runway because why wouldn't you. It's the safest option.

The "somewhere" between A and B is the key. Unfortunately you have to be conservative to account for all aircraft types, but I think it could be airport specific. Why should YSSY grind to a halt on 25 only when the crosswind is 20kts, is 20kts really significant for the majority of aircraft types landing at YSSY? There would be a massive benefit to making this airport specific.

For example the crosswind component for converging arrivals on 01/14 at Brisbane is 20kts. Which is appropriate given the much shorter length, 30m width and nasty double go around confliction. But with parallels at YSSY, raising the threshold by only 5 kts or so could save millions of dollars, is more than safe, and done at many other airports around the world.

framer
30th Dec 2016, 01:18
I'm not saying you should be landing on an unsuitable runway
I understand that.
The "somewhere" between A and B is the key.
Yes. And what is a natural truth is that at the end of the day we ( the system) rely on individual humans to make that decision. Ultimately those individuals are the thousands of Captains charged with the responsibility and as such we will get hundreds of different opinions on what is acceptable on a particular day and what is not. We can't get away from that in 2016.
As long as that is the case, and as long as we are generally making progress with accident rates, then we are doing ok. The thing that I don't like to see is less conservative people ( especially those who don't have to make the call) judging the more conservative people who do make the call. As an example, I have taken 27 with a gusty 20kt crosswind and some downwind at night maybe 20 times and required 34 once, I feel like I am getting the decisions right, but am I? Maybe in my last year of work I'll bounce one and crack someone's back and realise I've spent 30 years not being conservative enough.....meanwhile Mrdeux tootles off to his farewell party having never hurt one of his pax...... who knows? That's my thoughts anyway, thanks for the discussion.

morno
30th Dec 2016, 01:27
I'll be sure to require 16R/34L every time I land in Sydney from now on, even though I'm more than capable of landing on 16L/34R. But it's safer isn't it?

Look I can understand there's times when 16L is not suitable. I've had scenarios like that in my much smaller narrow body, let alone a wide body. Even one night when we had a couple of inop spoilers on the last leg of a long day. The figures said we could have landed 16L, but we chose 16R because of the factors.

But to outright refuse a runway every time when you could have done it with plenty of margin in most scenarios....? Hope you never had to 'require' the long runway in Narita. You would have been met on arrival asking to show your figures.

Derfred
30th Dec 2016, 06:31
If you are landing to a place with TWO runways - one long and into wind - then you would be a DICK - to accept the short one with the XWIND.

Must be a lot of dicks out there then.

GA Driver
2nd Jan 2017, 03:30
Ok next question,

Ordinary weather in Melb the other day requiring low vis procedures. Wasn't so bad at the field only on approach. The twy/runway edge intensity was WAY too high. When asked if they could knock it down a stage the reply was 'We aren't allowed during low vis procedures.'

Whats the story, you can't adjust between arrivals and departures? Isn't it just a switch?

KeepItRolling
2nd Jan 2017, 03:48
Like the issue earlier with Stop Bars, the intensity of runway lights during LVO is carved in stone..

ANY deviation from the prescribed settings/procedures can have untold consequences for those who exercise their own judgement rather than follow the Word Of The Lord(s).

Several controllers have been made an example of.... end result is GA Drivers' post above.

fujii
2nd Jan 2017, 06:15
The reason for not changing intensity was relayed to the airlines when installed. The high intensity lights are linked to the transmissometers which provide the RVR. If the intensity is lowered, the RVR readout in the tower. I.e. Brighter lights, better penetration, duller lights, less penetration. With lower intensity, the RVR readout may be less than your minimum. ATC is not permitted to lower the intensity when you break visual as this could affect the following aircraft. When changing from low to high, the readout does not immediately update as the system needs about 15 seconds to compute the readings from the three transmissometers for that runway.

GA Driver
2nd Jan 2017, 06:58
Last time it was this way, I departed with the visors down to cut out the glare it was so bad. Surely this has to constitute a safety issue?? Who hewed the stone? Casa or Airservices?

The runway lighting I can understand, but does the taxi way lighting have that much impact on the transmissometers??

Also, arrivals on 16, departures on 27 (as in my sunvisor case) surely this could be adjusted for the departure rwy as it has no Impact on arrivals? It just doesn't make sense.

AerocatS2A
2nd Jan 2017, 08:11
GA Driver, if you feel it is a safety issue, submit an incident report to ATSB and your company. If enough people do this they might be forced to look at a solution.

RAC/OPS
2nd Jan 2017, 09:07
Yet 20 years ago at my previous airport the lights could be set at any range between 10% and 100% (stage 2-6 I believe). The transmissometers knew what the intensity was and calculated the RVR accordingly.

GA Driver
2nd Jan 2017, 09:21
AerocatS2A Done. But I'm not holding my breath..... On a side note, do you recall the s/e climb gradient of the shrike? ;) That might get you thinking.....

Now back to my question!

AerocatS2A
2nd Jan 2017, 11:56
I have data dumped the Shrike! I remember it went up, but not much.

EPIRB
14th Jan 2017, 08:24
What's happening to the old control tower?

DukeBen
15th Jan 2017, 07:05
It has "concrete cancer" and I have heard that it will be demolished but not sure when.

fujii
15th Jan 2017, 07:37
Before retirement one of my tasks was training ML ATC for the INTAS. As such I came into contact with just about every other part of the new tower project and I queried the fate of the old tower.

The old tower does have heritage value but this doesn't mean that it has to be preserved. Some artefacts Will be and there are also photographic records.

The new tower was built using a slip ring which moved up as concrete was poured. The new tower will probably be demolished in reverse. I.e. A ring will move down and carry the rubble.

As DB said, the old tower has concrete cancer. It was never painted when constructed thereby allowing the concrete to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide which eventually reaches the steel rods causing the cancer. The cancer was treated in the mid 90s and the tower painted.

To prevent cancer in the new tower, the builders used the same technique used on road bridges and painted it.

EPIRB
23rd Jan 2017, 04:37
The reason for not changing intensity was relayed to the airlines when installed. The high intensity lights are linked to the transmissometers which provide the RVR. If the intensity is lowered, the RVR readout in the tower. I.e. Brighter lights, better penetration, duller lights, less penetration. With lower intensity, the RVR readout may be less than your minimum. ATC is not permitted to lower the intensity when you break visual as this could affect the following aircraft. When changing from low to high, the readout does not immediately update as the system needs about 15 seconds to compute the readings from the three transmissometers for that runway.
Unfortunately the AIP doesn't seem to have kept up with technology. Reference AD 1.1-31 para. 5.12.5.

planeloader
23rd Jan 2017, 07:26
I Believe the concrete cancer was caused by a halt of the concrete pour during construction.

fujii
23rd Jan 2017, 09:46
Although there was a pause in the pour, that's not what caused the cancer. It was quite extensive from the ground up. Atmospheric CO2 permeates the concrete at about one mm per year and reacts with the steel reinforcing. The tower wasn't painted until the cancer was removed.

fujii
23rd Jan 2017, 09:54
EPIRB
Nothing contradictory in AIP. Those are the normal setttings. They are over ridden when LVP are in force at a CAT II or CAT III ILS airport.

EPIRB
23rd Jan 2017, 20:58
Okay, thanks.

underfire
24th Jan 2017, 05:34
As DB said, the old tower has concrete cancer. It was never painted when constructed thereby allowing the concrete to absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide which eventually reaches the steel rods causing the cancer. The cancer was treated in the mid 90s and the tower painted.


What sort of BS is this? Concrete cancer...concrete absorbs Co2 and degrades in a few years...!?!?!?!

You dont need to paint concrete, look how many structures, walls and bridges have been built and lasted.

If you provide the minimum cover over the bars, there will not be any issues when exposed. Look at the concrete poured on water fronts, and in the water...see any paint?

fujii
24th Jan 2017, 06:01
i worked in the old tower when the cancer was treated and painted. I worked on the new tower project. I'm only going by what the engineers told me.

From an architecture site:

Poor workmanship during construction, low concrete cover to reinforcement, ingress of carbon dioxide to the rebar level causing corrosion due to concrete carbonation, or ingress of chloride into the concrete causing reinforcement corrosion are some of the causes of concrete cancer, indicated initially by concrete spalling and cracking.

Note the mention of CO2.

bekolblockage
25th Jan 2017, 03:01
Worked there for a number of years myself fujii. Might have worked together!

May or may not be a wive's tale but I recall the story had something to do with the concrete pour being stopped half way up for a lengthy period due to a BLF dispute at the time. Didn't help the situation apparently. You could definitely see the join before it was painted.

fujii
25th Jan 2017, 05:00
bekoblockage, I was in the TWR 1994 - 2008 then moved to train TWR staff on ASMGCS, CAT II / III ILS along with LVP then the new tower technology. Did we cross paths?

bekolblockage
25th Jan 2017, 08:00
Check your PMs fujii

EPIRB
25th May 2017, 02:11
What happened in Melbourne last night? Up to fifteen minute delays, two runways in use, a light northerly and VMC and this was at 2200. One area controller thought that there were staff shortages in the tower but there didn't seem to be excessive traffic.
If this is the case, are Airservices management aware of the cost impact on these delays?

le Pingouin
25th May 2017, 06:32
What does ERSA say?

ANTICIPATED AIRBORNE TRAFFIC DELAYS FOR ARR ACFT due to terminal area traffic
density and/or expected single RWY operations:
DAILY 2100-2300 (1 HR Earlier HDS): All Traffic 15MIN.
DAILY 2300-0700 (1 HR Earlier HDS): All Traffic 10MIN.
DAILY 0700-1200 (1 HR Earlier HDS): All Traffic 15MIN.

EPIRB
25th May 2017, 07:02
Yes, that is exactly what ERSA says but isn't the COBT program designed to reduce en-route delays? COBT was on time. I just found it a bit odd that at 10.00 PM at night, mid week holding and delays were required (which doesn't usually happen). Given the fact that the weather conditions were benign, two runways were in use but only RW27 was taking landings, according to the ATIS, I was just wondering as to why the unusual delay.
I believe the holding is designed for traffic sequencing and not to cover alleged staff shortages which was the reason alluded to by one of the en-route controllers.
This also makes me curious as to ask a few questions.
- Is there a shortage of controllers at the moment?
- Are Airservices recruiting?
- How long does it take to train a controller?
- How many controllers are required to run the tower?
Thanks.

DukeBen
25th May 2017, 07:44
I can only speak for the tower.
Rostered Staffing for consoles at various times:

0600-0615 - 3 controllers.
0615-2100 - 4 controllers (plus 1 on a break)
2100-2130 - 3 controllers
2130-0600 - 2 controllers

Shift manager rostered from 0630 to 2200 each day.

There is currently no shortage in the tower and there were 2 controllers on (as rostered) at 2200 on the night you mention. No idea why there may have been unusual delays that night.

Not sure if Airservices are recruiting at present.

It takes approximately one year in the learning academy (training college) and then about another three months in the tower to gain the first two endorsements (Ground and Clearance Delivery). Then there'd usually be a consolidation period on those positions of anywhere between three and twelve months before training for another 3 months on the next two endorsements (Tower and Coordinator).

The training and consolidation periods can be reduced if training a controller with previous experience as opposed to an ab initio.

le Pingouin
25th May 2017, 11:56
COBTs won't stop a dozen aircraft all trying to arrive at the same time - depends on exactly when they depart, how much they're vectored on departure, how long they actually take to fly the leg, how many internationals are in the mix (they could easily be 30 minutes late or early).

The aim of COBT is to keep the average rate of arrivals within the set acceptance rate.

le Pingouin
25th May 2017, 13:49
Airservices is currently not recruiting but the training continues at a reduced rate - as far as I'm aware there will still be some ab initio courses run. FWIW the group I'm with has rated several ab initos over the last six months.

As to shortages, I don't think we're particularly short in general at present, but that doesn't mean certain units aren't short.

cessnapete
25th May 2017, 17:17
Airservices is currently not recruiting but the training continues at a reduced rate - as far as I'm aware there will still be some ab initio courses run. FWIW the group I'm with has rated several ab initos over the last six months.

As to shortages, I don't think we're particularly short in general at present, but that doesn't mean certain units aren't short.

On a slightly different tack. Reading about delays in Brisbane with a bit of foggy weather. I'm surprised that the major airports are not CAT III equipped. Although Aus wether generally a load better than Europe , arriving for instance at Perth in my new QF 787 non stop from Lhr, not a lot of excess fuel, poor alternates, and only a CAT I runway.
Minimal cost to Airlines, as modern airliners are delivered 'out of the box' CAT III. The pilots are CAT III qualified during the Conversion Course.

Capn Bloggs
25th May 2017, 23:32
arriving for instance at Perth in my new QF 787 non stop from Lhr, not a lot of excess fuel, poor alternates, and only a CAT I runway.
No, Perth will be Cat 3 well before the 787 gets here. The upgrade is almost finished.

Minimal cost to Airlines, as modern airliners are delivered 'out of the box' CAT III.
So who's going to pay for the millions it takes to install/upgrade the airport? Perth airport has been at it for 18 months now and still going on.

EPIRB
26th May 2017, 00:00
Thanks for the info fellas.
I believe that SYD does not meet the requirements for CAT III due to the proximity of the taxiways to the runway. From what I understand is that they are too close.
Good to see the GLS in operation in MEL too. I was told that RW 34 can't have one due to airspace to the south and confliction with traffic OCTA. Not sure on the criteria that is applied but they still have other approaches commencing with around a ten mile final for RW 34.

maggot
26th May 2017, 02:55
The 787 lhr-per will use the cat3 rarely if at all. Arvo arrival. Tight northbound but more plentiful alts.

Berealgetreal
26th May 2017, 03:01
Why is it these days we can on most occasions get in and out of SYD (as big as it is) without feeder fix or holding carry on but MEL is every single arrival. Flying all over the country it stands out to me that MEL has something different. Even when there's hardly anyone flying you get a fix time which is then changed to cancel speed etc.

SYD and BNE copped it for years and the act got cleaned up well and truly.

717tech
26th May 2017, 10:13
Why is it these days we can on most occasions get in and out of SYD (as big as it is) without feeder fix or holding carry on but MEL is every single arrival. Flying all over the country it stands out to me that MEL has something different. Even when there's hardly anyone flying you get a fix time which is then changed to cancel speed etc.

SYD and BNE copped it for years and the act got cleaned up well and truly.

Honest question: Do you fly out of Perth? If so, is Melbourne worse?

le Pingouin
26th May 2017, 13:40
Why is it these days we can on most occasions get in and out of SYD (as big as it is) without feeder fix or holding carry on but MEL is every single arrival. Flying all over the country it stands out to me that MEL has something different. Even when there's hardly anyone flying you get a fix time which is then changed to cancel speed etc.

SYD and BNE copped it for years and the act got cleaned up well and truly.

They do have parallel runways in SY.... Last year SY had 332,000 fixed wing movements and ML had 238,000 - so SY has only 1.4 times the traffic. Call it 1.5 due to no curfew at ML.

As to the delays, umm what do you think the "turn right heading 140" for 10 minutes at 250kts is achieving?

le Pingouin
26th May 2017, 14:58
One area controller thought that there were staff shortages in the tower but there didn't seem to be excessive traffic.
If this is the case, are Airservices management aware of the cost impact on these delays?

To clarify this particular point - tonight I happened to talk to the en-route controller you mentioned. His comment about tower staffing was specifically in relation to LAHSO. Due to the review of LAHSO after the double go-around we had a while back we now have much stricter rules relating to the manning of various positions (tower, TMA, en-route and supervisors) before we can use LAHSO. This basically means day time staffing levels.

For better or worse our bean counters don't like having staffing above what is needed to handle "the usual" so at 2200 the numbers are well and truly winding down. Anything more ain't going to happen unless your bean counters demand it. And pay for it.

underfire
26th May 2017, 22:49
I believe that SYD does not meet the requirements for CAT III due to the proximity of the taxiways to the runway.

The large aircraft, especially the A380's play hell with the system.

missy
27th May 2017, 01:27
The large aircraft, especially the A380's play hell with the system.

True, even with CAT II the A380 is problematic, can't tow a A380 from International to Maintenance during CAT II ops.

sunnySA
27th May 2017, 03:16
They do have parallel runways in SY.... Last year SY had 332,000 fixed wing movements and ML had 238,000 - so SY has only 1.4 times the traffic. Call it 1.5 due to no curfew at ML.

As to the delays, umm what do you think the "turn right heading 140" for 10 minutes at 250kts is achieving?

Sydney's 3rd runway opened in 1994, in that year YSSY did about 213,000 movements. 1993 was about 204,000 movements and 1995 was 228,000 movements. In 1995 YSSY was 241,000 which is comparable to YMML (current figure). YMML has a much better configuration (terminal location) than YSSY but there comes a point when the staffing levels need to increase to safely handle more traffic. That is, ATC & Supervisor positions open earlier and later. Perhaps its at that point now (or will be soon).

Staffing at YSSY increased with the parallel runway. Director positions required, PRM positions required and more staff to allow TWR and TCU positions to be open longer (earlier and later).

YBBN has started planning for the increased staffing requirements that the parallel runway will demand.

EPIRB
27th May 2017, 04:16
To clarify this particular point - tonight I happened to talk to the en-route controller you mentioned. His comment about tower staffing was specifically in relation to LAHSO. Due to the review of LAHSO after the double go-around we had a while back we now have much stricter rules relating to the manning of various positions (tower, TMA, en-route and supervisors) before we can use LAHSO. This basically means day time staffing levels.

For better or worse our bean counters don't like having staffing above what is needed to handle "the usual" so at 2200 the numbers are well and truly winding down. Anything more ain't going to happen unless your bean counters demand it. And pay for it.

Thanks for the heads up on that.

As pilots we don't see the big picture and don't understand what the delays may be caused by. What we do see sometimes though is minimum separation and we see that as a good thing but other times we get slowed right down and the closest aircraft may be 15 miles ahead and we don't understand how this occurs and why we had to slow down so much, disregarding aircraft categories.

What sort of separation do you use on approach for aircraft of the same category?

Does it increase the workload when you have to separate aircraft of different categories?

Thanks.

le Pingouin
27th May 2017, 13:22
Without looking at the actual traffic at the time the gap could be there for a variety of reasons - the tower might want a gap to get a departure away, there might be a medevac chopper into EN that needs the gap, the traffic disposition might have been just right to allow some track shortening, perhaps the controller was being cautious and thought the front aircraft would be slow when it wasn't.

Unless it's a sight and follow approach needs to keep wake-turbulence separation as well as radar separation - for a pair of heavies that's 4NM and for a pair of mediums it's 3NM. Of course time is also needed to vacate the runway - high speed exits versus full length.

A 15 mile gap isn't particularly excessive if you're a medium following an international heavy - anything less than 12 miles (with matching ground speeds) when I hand you off at ARBEY for RWY34 or 27 and approach will have to slow you further to keep 5 miles wake turbulence on final. A medium following a super needs 7 miles, plus whatever for the super to vacate.

It's not an exact science - different aircraft types fly differently (Airbuses are generally slower than Boeings for similar sized aircraft) and different airlines fly differently. To an extent we're trying to predict (guessing) how each aircraft will be performing however many minutes into the future and planning the sequencing accordingly, along with accommodating random events intruding.

Mixing types and categories does increase the workload mainly due to different performance characteristics - a domestic 737 might be 10,000ft higher than an international A330 on profile at 100 miles, and still several 1000ft higher at ARBEY.

Berealgetreal
27th May 2017, 13:50
717tech, not enough these days to accurately say.

I guess the taxiway works may be also be a pretty big factor. I only say it as it stands out as "different" to the rest of the country. Having said that MEL does give a lot of notice to sort out a time whereas BNE like to leave it til the last minute.

EPIRB
28th May 2017, 02:39
Thanks for the explanations Le Pingouin. What can we as pilots do to help to make it easier for you blokes?

maggot
28th May 2017, 03:07
Why cant we get things sorted, enroute acceptance etc, to be able to punch off waaaay closer spaced departures like other major aeroports? Ie LHR and DXB. Obviously they have dedicated departure runways but their airspace is way more convoluted

bekolblockage
28th May 2017, 07:08
Why cant we get things sorted, enroute acceptance etc, to be able to punch off waaaay closer spaced departures like other major aeroports? Ie LHR and DXB. Obviously they have dedicated departure runways but their airspace is way more convoluted

Do you have "auto-release" yet or the ADC still have to call "next" to DEP?

DukeBen
28th May 2017, 07:55
Do you have "auto-release" yet or the ADC still have to call "next" to DEP?

We do have auto-release and if the cloud base allows and there is no arrival in between departures, we can and do fire off departures on minimum separation (ie first aircraft is 1800 metres ahead and airborne).

Obviously arrivals in between departures, or wake turbulence separation between different weight categories, or turbo-prop in front of a jet (sometimes unavoidable) can negatively affect our ability to do this.

We need to keep a visual separation standard until another standard exists that approach/departures controllers can use (3nm or 1000 feet), if the first aircraft is disappearing into cloud before they reach 1nm upwind, we have to adjust departure spacing accordingly.

For example, instead of firing two 737s 1800m apart, we may need to wait until the first aircraft has reached just past 1nm, to ensure we have 3nm by the time the second aircraft is airborne (as we no longer have both in sight and can't apply visual separation.)

GA Driver
28th May 2017, 08:32
Seeing we're discussing separation, Lizzi3v for 34 with a heavy on the arbey arrival also for 34. We get asked to reduce to 220, then 180 then back to min approach speed. It looks pretty tight, so we comply promptly and then get asked to sight the heavy on a 3 mile final. Ok, traffic sighted.
Then it comes..... Roger, maintain own separation, cleared visual approach, contact tower, ciaaaaao.

This instruction to maintain own separation doesn't actually give US any more track miles, in fact it can make things a royal PIA. Ontop of the approach, we're trying to shed energy, make a 'square turn on to final' and now trying to stay behind something that we're probably already too close to anyway. It can add a bit of workload at a busy time.

I have just presumed it changes your separation standard between arrivals, is this why it's done because it just seems to lob the separation back onto us.

Bleve
28th May 2017, 09:21
.... It looks pretty tight, so we comply promptly and then get asked to sight the heavy on a 3 mile final. Ok, traffic sighted.
Then it comes..... Roger, maintain own separation, cleared visual approach, contact tower, ciaaaaao.

This instruction to maintain own separation doesn't actually give US any more track miles, in fact it can make things a royal PIA. Ontop of the approach, we're trying to shed energy, make a 'square turn on to final' and now trying to stay behind something that we're probably already too close to anyway. It can add a bit of workload at a busy time. ...

When you call 'Traffic Sighted' YOU are initiating the transfer of responsibility for traffic separation (ie workload) from ATC to yourself. Solution: Don't call Traffic Sighted (even if it is).

bekolblockage
28th May 2017, 10:18
When you call 'Traffic Sighted' YOU are initiating the transfer of responsibility for traffic separation (ie workload) from ATC to yourself. Solution: Don't call Traffic Sighted (even if it is).

That seems to be a bit of a cop-out.
The poster indicated they were asked to sight the traffic.
Regardless the transfer of responsibility, you still have to put the aircraft in a position where appropriate wake turbulence avoidance can be achieved by the pilot, albeit now visually.
Using sight and follow as a "get out of jail free card" for making the sequence work is not quite in the spirit of its use. (And yes I worked ML APP for a number of years, so am aware of the scenarios where it can be seen as a saviour)