Melbourne airport delays, why?

[aok47]

Noticed this week its been predominately N/S runway operations and alot of inbound flights delayed as a result.
Today I have seen flights landing to the east, thats got to be pretty rare!
can anyone shed some light on what's going on?
cheers
AK

[RAC/OPS]

Where have you been? We’ve been using 09 for arrivals and 16 for departures for some time now. When the wind is right of course.

I think the reason for single runway ops has been done to death on other threads. More than 20kt crosswind or 5kt tailwind (no tailwind if the runway is other than dry) precludes ATC from nominating a particular runway.

[The name is Porter]

Why, oh why?

Because Australian airports are about parking and retail outlets.

They're not about essential infrastructure and that attitude pervades to runway and taxyway infrastructure.

Thirdworld ****hole, dressed up all pretty on the outside.

[aok47]

Was chatting to cabin crew and they were spitting chips about Mel airport lol...
World's most liveable city eh?
:rolleyes:
cheers
AK

[Gear in transit]

Where have you been? We’ve been using 09 for arrivals and 16 for departures for some time now. When the wind is right of course.

Lately 09 often has a tailwind component.... which one has to wonder why you aren't using 27? The crosswind has to be the same on both, although the Melbourne anemometer sure does some funky stuff when it comes to the crosswind!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Why, oh why?

Because Australian airports are about parking and retail outlets.

They're not about essential infrastructure and that attitude pervades to runway and taxyway infrastructure.
At the risk of thread drift, Mr Approach, you listening? ;)

[RAC/OPS]

Lately 09 often has a tailwind component.... which one has to wonder why you aren't using 27? The crosswind has to be the same on both, although the Melbourne anemometer sure does some funky stuff when it comes to the crosswind!!

Since we can nominate a runway with up to 5kt tailwind, this might be the best option. There may well be a varying wind with overall more tailwind on 27. It would be good if we could use the central anemometer to decide on rwy configuration but we don’t have access to it so we assess each threshold indication and go from there. If we changed runways with each wind change I’m sure there’d be lots more complaints. Particularly with the delays incurred by changing from 09 for arrivals to 27 for departures and/or arrivals.

[Rated De]

Why, oh why?

Because Australian airports are about parking and retail outlets.

They're not about essential infrastructure and that attitude pervades to runway and taxyway infrastructure.

Thirdworld ****hole, dressed up all pretty on the outside.

Infrastructure sweated where the quick buck is for shops and carparks.
Aeronautical infrastructure, too expensive and takes too long to generate a return.

Ain't privatisation just grand!

Remember a monopoly isn't a bad thing when the government is dumb enough to give you one!

[Roj approved]

Can we fix the Lizzy arrival onto 09?

Why do we have to be 6000 so far out?

So many of the STARS (not just MEL) are so inefficient, getting the inbounds down low way to early, wasting fuel and time.

[Chris2303]

Can we fix the Lizzy arrival onto 09?

Why do we have to be 6000 so far out?

So many of the STARS (not just MEL) are so inefficient, getting the inbounds down low way to early, wasting fuel and time.

Tell Greta - she'll get it fixed in an instant

[maggot]

. More than 20kt crosswind or 5kt tailwind (no tailwind if the runway is other than dry) precludes ATC from nominating a particular runway.

interesting snippet from the q cp on that recently, alas, sydney only it seems at this point... must be costing actual money to get something looked at

[RAC/OPS]

Anecdotally, I’ve heard that the crosswind/tailwind issue has to get past the Pilots’ union regardless of Airservices’ or CASA’s will (or lack thereof) to make any changes. And the union’s position is that it will not be inclined to change. I hopefully stand to be corrected.

[Gear in transit]

Anecdotally, I’ve heard that the crosswind/tailwind issue has to get past the Pilots’ union regardless of Airservices’ or CASA’s will (or lack thereof) to make any changes. And the union’s position is that it will not be inclined to change. I hopefully stand to be corrected.

Not sure which union would need to approve, nor why they would even need to be involved. Its up to the pilot to accept it seeing they are the ones in the control seat. There's also more than one union......

[unobtanium]

Why, oh why?

Because Australian airports are about parking and retail outlets.

They're not about essential infrastructure and that attitude pervades to runway and taxyway infrastructure.

Thirdworld ****hole, dressed up all pretty on the outside.

Pretty? Not even close. And the longer the delays the more they earn from parking fees. Win win!

[Rabbitwear]

The majority of Australian airports are broken , the complete disregard for runway and terminal infrastructure is appalling to say the least .
I wish the government would seize a 50% stake in each airport and build the new runways and infrastructure.
I live in hope that Brisbane is the only airport on track ,

[RAC/OPS]

Not sure which union would need to approve, nor why they would even need to be involved. Its up to the pilot to accept it seeing they are the ones in the control seat. There's also more than one union......

.......which is why I said anecdotally. I haven’t checked for accuracy, so thanks for clearing that up.

[Mr Approach]

Hi Capn - I'm listening!
Arguably Melbourne is a classic example of a monopoly sweating their assets - the aircraft all end up landing there anyway, so they get their money, and as far as I am aware the airport does not have to compensate the airlines for loss of profit due diversion or holding.
Contrary to these posts, though, Melbourne has been doing a lot of taxiway building, voluntarily put in CAT III on RWY 16, and is actively planning a parallel runway. (To continue my parrying with you Capn, none of these things were required by CASA, although they all had to be approved by CASA!)
It is good to see Melbourne ATC getting some use out of RWY 09 - for years I seem to recall they claimed they could not use it, and admittedly taxiing aircraft for departure 09 would be a pain in the A with having to cross 16. Obviously traffic pressure is having it's inevitable effect.
So why the alleged delays? Melbourne has CAT II and CAT III approaches but only on 16 and 27, however if LAHSO cannot be used then it is a single runway airport. However Gatwick 2018 movements were 283,919 and Melbourne 245,766 so having only one runway is not the problem - perhaps our ATC procedures are not as slick as the UK - but that definitely is thread drift!

[Gear in transit]

and is actively planning a parallel runway.

Whoa whoa whoa, hold everything..... actively planning? Have the got the direction sorted yet??

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Whoa whoa whoa, hold everything..... actively planning? Have the got the direction sorted yet??

They've had the direction sorted for ages - not the same direction the whole time mind you - but the direction ....

[Car RAMROD]

Like the argument, it’s probably going to be circular!

[Mr Approach]

I believe that Melbourne airport originally planned on a parallel 16/34 but were advised by Airservices that this would create bottlenecks due to aircraft having to cross the current 16/34 to access the terminal areas.
A parallel 27L/09R seemed a perfect answer until they came up against the realities of noise sensitive areas, Essendon airport operations, loss of LAHSO, not being able to make either parallel 27/09 long enough for heavy long range departures, and so having to retain 16/34 for departures which would have to cross not one, but two, active 27/09 runways!

Hopefully they have re-thought the issue and will find the money to fill in the ravines to build 16R/34L and finance a taxiway that allows aircraft to taxi under the final approach path of 16L/34R as is the case in Frankfurt. In the meantime there is a perfectly good airport at Avalon to take airlines that do not need to interline with domestic flights.

[ESP eclipse II]

Hi Capn - I'm listening!
Arguably Melbourne is a classic example of a monopoly sweating their assets - the aircraft all end up landing there anyway, so they get their money, and as far as I am aware the airport does not have to compensate the airlines for loss of profit due diversion or holding.
Contrary to these posts, though, Melbourne has been doing a lot of taxiway building, voluntarily put in CAT III on RWY 16, and is actively planning a parallel runway. (To continue my parrying with you Capn, none of these things were required by CASA, although they all had to be approved by CASA!)
It is good to see Melbourne ATC getting some use out of RWY 09 - for years I seem to recall they claimed they could not use it, and admittedly taxiing aircraft for departure 09 would be a pain in the A with having to cross 16. Obviously traffic pressure is having it's inevitable effect.
So why the alleged delays? Melbourne has CAT II and CAT III approaches but only on 16 and 27, however if LAHSO cannot be used then it is a single runway airport. However Gatwick 2018 movements were 283,919 and Melbourne 245,766 so having only one runway is not the problem - perhaps our ATC procedures are not as slick as the UK - but that definitely is thread drift!

It is most definitely the issue. It is as much a cultural issue as opposed to an ability/talent issue. What we all need to understand about aviation is that 'things' always change. No matter how we all yearn things to remain the same. "We" that live in the aviation industry are not immune to what is occurring in all other industries.

Embrace change people.

[DukeBen]

It is most definitely the issue. It is as much a cultural issue as opposed to an ability/talent issue. What we all need to understand about aviation is that 'things' always change. No matter how we all yearn things to remain the same. "We" that live in the aviation industry are not immune to what is occurring in all other industries.

Embrace change people.

Whilst I agree there is always room to improve the ATC procedures to increase efficiency, I'd also argue that much of the difference in aircraft movements between Gatwick and Melbourne, can be attributed to infrastructure, and in particular the difference in rapid exit taxiways.

With only 1 rapid exit on Rwy 27, 16 and 34, and none on Rwy 09 at Melbourne, if an aircraft misses the RET, the extra time on the runway has large impacts on movement rates. Missing the RET would occur most on Rwy 27, where I'd estimate it happens for 20% of movements. Gatwick has 3 RETs in each direction.

Another factor explaining some of there difference is the aircraft types in use at each airport. A quick dig through airport movement records showed that Melbourne had about 80% medium aircraft (with no wake turbulence separation needed between them and other mediums) and 20% heavy or super, with the additional wake turbulence separation needed, increasing spacing and reducing movement capability.

Gatwick had around 90% medium aircraft and 10% heavy or super. Mediums generally make the RET taxiways more often (especially if there are 3 of them!), plus have less requirement for spacing behind them. Heavy and Super aircraft also generally take longer to line up and depart, with follow on impacts on spacing and movement capability.

So yes, I'm sure there are lessons to be learned from overseas ATC operators on efficiency, but the differences in movements rates between these two airports in particular definitely involve other factors as well.




https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x132/screen_shot_2020_01_21_at_11_23_22_am_0af86a99df8f02e6dd0b80 f3d54a000543943a24.png
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/680x810/screen_shot_2020_01_21_at_11_24_50_am_99bd484fe11c71c6c43fd6 e5318f359d2ff7e4cb.png

[Mr Approach]

Absolutely concur DukeBen - but only so much room in a post for discussion. The subject requires volumes!

[C441]

08R/26L at Gatwick is almost 1000m longer too. Adding another 1000m to 09/27 at Melbourne would make a huge difference, starting with heavier aircraft being more inclined to use it.

[missy]

Adding another 1000m to 09/27 at Melbourne would make a huge difference, starting with heavier aircraft being more inclined to use it.

Agreed, extend 09/27 to the west. And they should've moved the International terminal south of TWY J, shouldn't have built TWY V.
Another RET on RWY 27, a RET on RWY 09 east of TWY A. Parallel TWY west of 16/34 (south of TWY E) to link across at TWY J, and extend TWY Y across 16/34 as well. A couple more entry points within 150m would help with the mix and match capabilities TWY B, TWY K, TWY J, TWY C - in order of preference).

[Mr Approach]

I believe the plan was (is) to extend 27R/09L at both ends. The 27 end would go back to the highway with a bridge for approach lighting and 09 as far as possible without filling in the ravine. However it would still not be long enough for the long range heavy departures.
27L/09R would not be parallel due to noise concerns near Essendon so the 09 centrelines would cross somewhere west of Melbourne airport. This required new precision approaches for curved intercepts inside the crossover point and probably precision runway monitoring of mid final!
27L would also require a displaced threshold due to the same noise issues making the runway of limited value for the investment required. And all of this so that taxiing aircraft do not have to cross 16/34, which must remain due to aforementioned heavy long range departures - a horses breakfast if I ever saw one.
As I posted Frankfurt had the same problem so go have look at what they did.