Chinese carriers on 16L/34R

[Glorified Dus Briver]

Can someone please enlighten me on why some of the Asian widebody carriers prefer landing on 16L/34R despite having 16R/34L available (which would also shorten their taxi time)?

Thanks!

[le Pingouin]

I very much doubt it's a preference. They either accept the assigned runway or require the other.

[aussie1234]

I've always thought in this environment of threat and error management, on a purely language barrier reason, why they have airliners with a cockpit crew that one would guess have English as their second language taxi a further distance than nessisary plus cross an active runway that often has a requirement to expedite the crossing. All this while a Saab is landing on the runway right next to international. The computer may slot the 330 or 787 onto 16L/34R after a 10hr flight but can't it be overridden for the sake of common sense?

[IsDon]

If they have the required English skills to operate as crew then not a problem.

If they don't have the required English competency then they shouldn't be acting as crew.

Why should other airlines have to be disadvantaged because a Chinese crew can't uphold the regulatory requirement to have an acceptable level of English?

[WhisprSYD]

I've always thought in this environment of threat and error management, on a purely language barrier reason, why they have airliners with a cockpit crew that one would guess have English as their second language taxi a further distance than nessisary plus cross an active runway that often has a requirement to expedite the crossing. All this while a Saab is landing on the runway right next to international. The computer may slot the 330 or 787 onto 16L/34R after a 10hr flight but can't it be overridden for the sake of common sense?

All about the inbound route they've arrived from.. if you tried to put all the props from the south west on the short runway and all the international jets from the north on the long runway you'd end up with about 4x the number of airborne cross overs and opposite direction circuits than you currently have. Would be a nightmare..

[clark y]

Given a choice, no-one would land on 16L/34R.

[Jetsbest]

The Sydney arrivals are sequenced by ATC to share the runways most evenly & expeditiously. Aircraft up to A330/787 are expected to be able to use 16L/34R and are assigned that runway as & when required.

If that runway is not acceptable for any reason then the captain may "require" (for operational reasons) the much longer 16R/34L with the understanding that the flight may have to endure significant delays in order to be sequenced to that runway.

I've never heard ATC gripe about it; they just make it happen as smoothly as possible when a flight "requires" the long runway. And I've heard flights from all airlines operating the same equipment (eg A330 & 787) either accept the short or "require" the long runway depending upon what each crew determine to be operational necessity. ATC even note, and try to accommodate, each "request" for the long runway as it is made after assigning the short runway to any given flight.

The system works.👍 I hope that answers your question.

[Tankengine]

I've always thought in this environment of threat and error management, on a purely language barrier reason, why they have airliners with a cockpit crew that one would guess have English as their second language taxi a further distance than nessisary plus cross an active runway that often has a requirement to expedite the crossing. All this while a Saab is landing on the runway right next to international. The computer may slot the 330 or 787 onto 16L/34R after a 10hr flight but can't it be overridden for the sake of common sense?

Beijing sent us on a 30 min taxy crossing an active runway a few weeks ago. ;)
Why delay Aussie carriers (and everyone else) just because you think certain carriers are a problem?

[Glorified Dus Briver]

The Sydney arrivals are sequenced by ATC to share the runways most evenly & expeditiously. Aircraft up to A330/787 are expected to be able to use 16L/34R and are assigned that runway as & when required.

If that runway is not acceptable for any reason then the captain may "require" (for operational reasons) the much longer 16R/34L with the understanding that the flight may have to endure significant delays in order to be sequenced to that runway.

I've never heard ATC gripe about it; they just make it happen as smoothly as possible when a flight "requires" the long runway. And I've heard flights from all airlines operating the same equipment (eg A330 & 787) either accept the short or "require" the long runway depending upon what each crew determine to be operational necessity. ATC even note, and try to accommodate, each "request" for the long runway as it is made after assigning the short runway to any given flight.

The system works.👍 I hope that answers your question.


Thanks for the explanation, much appreciated :ok:

I was thinking there must be some sort of foreign investment discounts for all the Asian carriers landing on 34R :E:ugh::ugh:

[AB335]

16L/34R is considered to be a "short" runway for us on the A330.

If we are doing a regional patten in day-time when everyone on the flight deck is reasonably awake then yea sure we will use a short runway.

However after a red-eye 9 hours sector, 2 hours inflight sleep (if you're lucky) and landing at 4-6am body clock time we believe it's a bit silly to land on the short runway when there's a long runway available, just in case we misjudge the flare and need to land further into the runway.

In regards to the longer taxi time... it's a great thing if we are on overtime :}

[Hugh Mungus]

I have a feeling its all to do with the understanding of the difference between "REQUIRE" and "REQUEST"
To most Foreign Operators there is none....they think a request for something is equivalent to a requirement for it,hence they dont push the issue when advised that the duty Runway is less than optimal.
The phenomina is a particularly Australian ATC thing and to my view there is an inherent danger in the process,its all part of the "bandaid" fix adopted in Australian ATC proceedures.

LAHSO,Idependant opposite direction Runway Ops,PRM ILS,are all proceedures adopted to compensate for a less than optimal infrastructure overlay,and as such compromise safety.

You can understand that for a crew whos mother tongue is not English the subtleties of the difference between Require and Request are often lost, ATC should be more pro active in understanding this,and in conditions which could be considered at the very least "Sporting" but at worst down right Trying ie Crosswinds,Shortish Runways,Wet Runways etc particularly after a long haul flight,some common sense needs to prevail.

[neville_nobody]

This topic was hotly debated here http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/554958-request-vs-require.html?highlight=Require

[Willie Nelson]

I can forsee some circumstances in which a strong sou'wester is coming over the international terminal and a crew might prefer 16L rather than 16 R. I doubt it's what's really being discussed here but there would be much less windshear on 16L I would imagine.

[The Banjo]

Me thinks an extra ~1500m of runway on 16R would outweigh wind shear and most other operational considerations. A displaced threshold on 16L is another.

[tyler_durden_80]

In the group I once worked, we got a lot of Asian/middle eastern carriers. A non-Aussie/nz carrier 'requesting' rw16R/34L equalled 'require' in my understanding.

I always cringed when I heard colleagues pestering Asian/middle eastern carriers for the magic word.