SQ and tailwind @ Sydney?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Where people don't care
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't the terms of use of Rwy 34 between 0500 and 0600 local time require that ALL aircraft intnedning to arrive between five and six on 34 to carry sufficient fuel to hold until 0600 should a landing on Rwy 34 not be possible. Also, coming from Singapore at this time of year, track would have been fairly south and with a late change in forceast (if that in fact was experienced) then diversion from almost any point to MEL should have been a breeze (pardon the pun). Are SQ required to carry an alternate at all times? If they did not have diversion fuel and if they could not hold until 0600, then SQ must have some real questions to answer. 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Timmmmmeee, when I was on the -400 I always used to wonder how SQ did cruise so high until someone pointed out that a QF aircraft going SYD-SIN would always be carrying freight while SQ has dedicated freighters and hence were probably lighter even though fully loaded with pax.
The other variable is the one pointed out where they use 1.2 manoeuvre margin instead of the 1.3 most airlines use.
This may explain why, a few years ago, in the same crowded piece of European airspace over a period of 4 weeks.... two SQ jumbos stalled and proceeded to lose around 18000 feet before recovering and climbing back to the previous altitude...all without saying a word to ATC.
The other variable is the one pointed out where they use 1.2 manoeuvre margin instead of the 1.3 most airlines use.
This may explain why, a few years ago, in the same crowded piece of European airspace over a period of 4 weeks.... two SQ jumbos stalled and proceeded to lose around 18000 feet before recovering and climbing back to the previous altitude...all without saying a word to ATC.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunrise - Yes!
Kapt M - Your memory fails you! Yes, Paya Leba the alternate but with top-up to 60 minutes holding which, in effect, meant that KL was always legally possible, also with two useable runways available, good weather etc. then it was permissable to use diversion fuel as destination holding if required - and a lot of airlines do this. And no, no 'please explain' letters required on the -400, just a sensible note on the VR, 'Due Wx' was usually good enough. You're right about the water, officially, but there was always plenty available. As I said before, QF pilots who flew for SQ thought the SQ policy was generous
Don - SQ policy does require them to carry diversion fuel for an alternate. Some airlines don't carry diversion fuel to all destinations but they have a 'don't go beyond' en route airfield and they have to be assured of a no delay arrival at their intended destination to be able to pass that en route airfield.
Wasn't it QF that arrived at LHR once a bit light but still legal?
I know SQ did but they were declared still legal by the CAA once the proper numbers had been crunched.
C of Borg - Not good I grant you but I think you will find it was only one -400, (one too many) and it was questioned by ATC, Don't recall the figure of 18000' either but I may have missed that, I honestly thought it was nearer 5000', still not good.
According to Boeing more airlines world-wide use 1.2 than 1.3.
Kapt M - Your memory fails you! Yes, Paya Leba the alternate but with top-up to 60 minutes holding which, in effect, meant that KL was always legally possible, also with two useable runways available, good weather etc. then it was permissable to use diversion fuel as destination holding if required - and a lot of airlines do this. And no, no 'please explain' letters required on the -400, just a sensible note on the VR, 'Due Wx' was usually good enough. You're right about the water, officially, but there was always plenty available. As I said before, QF pilots who flew for SQ thought the SQ policy was generous
Don - SQ policy does require them to carry diversion fuel for an alternate. Some airlines don't carry diversion fuel to all destinations but they have a 'don't go beyond' en route airfield and they have to be assured of a no delay arrival at their intended destination to be able to pass that en route airfield.
Wasn't it QF that arrived at LHR once a bit light but still legal?
I know SQ did but they were declared still legal by the CAA once the proper numbers had been crunched.
C of Borg - Not good I grant you but I think you will find it was only one -400, (one too many) and it was questioned by ATC, Don't recall the figure of 18000' either but I may have missed that, I honestly thought it was nearer 5000', still not good.
According to Boeing more airlines world-wide use 1.2 than 1.3.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is more a question rather than statement concerning the 1.2 g vs the 1.3 g buffet margin restriction. It was explained to me that the US carriers and all that use US certification standards in relation to the issuance of country specific AOC's use the 1.2 g buffet margin whereas those aligned with the UK CAA use 1.3g. Reason gived way back in the past was that the UK CAA were unhappy with the ability of the a/c to potentially exceed MMO in an emergency decent with the higher cruising MNo's associated with the 1.2 g buffet boundary restriction and so wanted a greater margin for error built into their certification requirements....always thought something was missing in this explanation. However it explained why those US based 767's would eat us up years ago when we were trucking along flat cookie in our "UK certified 6"
Last edited by fire wall; 11th Sep 2003 at 20:57.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK,
Except that any operator who breaks the curfew gets not only a fine but a "please explain" letter....any persistent violations of curfew risk losing slots.
7x7, my experience with 0600 arrivals is the first in the stack arrives on time. If you plan to land at 0601 the only way is to fly to arrive at 0550 (or earlier!)
Except that any operator who breaks the curfew gets not only a fine but a "please explain" letter....any persistent violations of curfew risk losing slots.
7x7, my experience with 0600 arrivals is the first in the stack arrives on time. If you plan to land at 0601 the only way is to fly to arrive at 0550 (or earlier!)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The pub!
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK ....in some ways I agree with you, however if the aircraft had an alternate, which I gather is a company requirement, then landing on 16R before the end of curfew would cost mega bucks, rumoured to be over $500,000!
And if the other aircraft landed with a tailwind in excess of the limitation.......I'm sure if the pax the knew, then they would not be too impressed.
And if the other aircraft landed with a tailwind in excess of the limitation.......I'm sure if the pax the knew, then they would not be too impressed.
Last edited by Sunrise; 12th Sep 2003 at 08:39.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try getting outta the place during curfew!
I never understand why when ready to depart, an arriving aircraft in the terminal area necessitates a 10 minute delay at the holding point until the arriving aircraft has landed - even if the arrival is from the North/East and the departure is to the South/West.
Can someone explain the procedures/rationale??
Can someone explain the procedures/rationale??
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Landing with 20-30kts tailwind is just irresponsible and probably in violation of their operations manual. All large aircraft ops manuals I have seen have a maximum 10kt tailwind component.
I am sure the operators won’t thank you for landing under the said conditions but if you have an incident, I suspect you would be criminally negligent. Being “practical” won’t help you in a court of law.
A smart operator would have delayed his departure out of Singapore or adjusted his inflight cruise speed so as to arrive around the time the curfew is lifted and or hold if necessary until he could use a favorable runway, or even diverted if the procedure was beyond the scope of the operations limitations. This is common practice when operating into other countries that have strict curfews.
If the incident is true, as reported here, I see it as just another questionable decision degrading our profession in the eyes of law enforcement authorities and the public if they know what goes on ……. Sad indeed.
I am sure the operators won’t thank you for landing under the said conditions but if you have an incident, I suspect you would be criminally negligent. Being “practical” won’t help you in a court of law.
A smart operator would have delayed his departure out of Singapore or adjusted his inflight cruise speed so as to arrive around the time the curfew is lifted and or hold if necessary until he could use a favorable runway, or even diverted if the procedure was beyond the scope of the operations limitations. This is common practice when operating into other countries that have strict curfews.
If the incident is true, as reported here, I see it as just another questionable decision degrading our profession in the eyes of law enforcement authorities and the public if they know what goes on ……. Sad indeed.
Last edited by Snowballs; 12th Sep 2003 at 15:04.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no experience of SQ, international long haul, or wide body jets, though I have travelled domestically on a 74 once or twice. 
Why are many of the posts on this thread in the vane that the crew stuffed up, either through negligence or company pressure?
Is it not possible that forecast winds/wx and/or some operational consideration conspired to have the aircraft arrive too early with insufficient fuel to hold?
The suggestions that "I would have slown down in the cruise so as to not arrive early" etc. seem far too obvious to be realistic reflections on such a high profile airline.
Why are many of the posts on this thread in the vane that the crew stuffed up, either through negligence or company pressure?
Is it not possible that forecast winds/wx and/or some operational consideration conspired to have the aircraft arrive too early with insufficient fuel to hold?
The suggestions that "I would have slown down in the cruise so as to not arrive early" etc. seem far too obvious to be realistic reflections on such a high profile airline.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keg,
I just saw your thread starter.
No penalties are imposed for an operation contrary to curfew if it is an emergency. The Sydney Airport Curfew Act (most of which is repeated in AIP DAP NAP Sydney pages) defines inability to divert to a suitable alternate as one such emergency for curfew purposes. I don't know how SIA stand in relation to this event. It depends on what they "knowingly did" (more about that in the Act) and the discussion your post generated covers the subject pretty well.
Also, you asked
No, most definitely not. Along with many other things, operation in crosswind and downwind is 100% a pilot responsibility. We tell you the info, you decide what to do. We don't report or log anything in this regard, other than standard recording of R/T. No special "notes" or log entries.
ATC does not. We have a standing order to log in our journal any operation contrary to curfew so that there's a ready record of basic details (callsign, runway, landing or take-off time) in case someone asks for details at a later date, but we do not police the curfew or originate reports.
If a flight is about to breach the curfew we advise the pilot "Curfew in operation, penalties may apply. Advise intentions." If the pilot wants to continue, we provide the necessary clearances and log the event, as above.
If a pilot says he has a curfew dispensation we accept that and do not seek verification.
Airservices is directed by the government to monitor noise. Airservice's Noise Unit has monitoring systems in place. That unit reports curfew breaches, not ATC.
Jet A Knight asked
Because curfew procedures (cast in law, there is no discretion available for ATC) say that you can't be turned southwest out of the arrival's way until you have cleared the curfew flight corridor to the south, which puts you fair and square in conflict with the arrival. (AIP DAP NAP Sydney pages 5, 6 and 9 refer - no links, sorry, the doc is not on line.)
AA
(Edited a few times for grama, spelin etc)
I just saw your thread starter.
No penalties are imposed for an operation contrary to curfew if it is an emergency. The Sydney Airport Curfew Act (most of which is repeated in AIP DAP NAP Sydney pages) defines inability to divert to a suitable alternate as one such emergency for curfew purposes. I don't know how SIA stand in relation to this event. It depends on what they "knowingly did" (more about that in the Act) and the discussion your post generated covers the subject pretty well.
Also, you asked
Just after a confirmation and a couple of questions. Does an aircraft that lands with such a tailwind get reported by ATC or is ATC not into that sort of stuff?
Also, who reports the curfew breach. Does ATC do that? Just interested in the mechanics of it.
If a flight is about to breach the curfew we advise the pilot "Curfew in operation, penalties may apply. Advise intentions." If the pilot wants to continue, we provide the necessary clearances and log the event, as above.
If a pilot says he has a curfew dispensation we accept that and do not seek verification.
Airservices is directed by the government to monitor noise. Airservice's Noise Unit has monitoring systems in place. That unit reports curfew breaches, not ATC.
Jet A Knight asked
I never understand why when ready to depart, an arriving aircraft in the terminal area necessitates a 10 minute delay at the holding point until the arriving aircraft has landed - even if the arrival is from the North/East and the departure is to the South/West.
AA
(Edited a few times for grama, spelin etc)
Last edited by Ausatco; 14th Sep 2003 at 21:31.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Want to lose 30 minutes on a 744 on an 8 hour sector.
Simple go to F/L290 cut back as required to hold speed. Fuel cost about a ton.
Better still RTA to 5 minutes before curfew step climb zero in the box and you arrive at Sydney below the mob, a 250kt descent and land 1 minute after curfew!
Simple go to F/L290 cut back as required to hold speed. Fuel cost about a ton.
Better still RTA to 5 minutes before curfew step climb zero in the box and you arrive at Sydney below the mob, a 250kt descent and land 1 minute after curfew!
Snowballs
The Boeing standard tail wind limit is 10 knots however airlines can pay additional money to increase the limit to 15 knots. All QF B747's and B767's (possibly the B737's as well) have had the limit increased. It would obviously be worthwhile for any carrier operating into SYD using one of the limited number of pre - curfew slots to have the higher tailwind limit.
Dan
QF policy is that the services that have approval to land in SYD prior to 0600lt have to arrive with sufficient fuel to hold to 0600 in case of weather conditions being outside limits to land on 34L. I believe that if SQ are not carrying this additional fuel then they are in breach of the conditions that were defined when they were offered a pre 0600 slot.
Ausatco - Great post, thanks for the gen.
GB
The Boeing standard tail wind limit is 10 knots however airlines can pay additional money to increase the limit to 15 knots. All QF B747's and B767's (possibly the B737's as well) have had the limit increased. It would obviously be worthwhile for any carrier operating into SYD using one of the limited number of pre - curfew slots to have the higher tailwind limit.
Dan
QF policy is that the services that have approval to land in SYD prior to 0600lt have to arrive with sufficient fuel to hold to 0600 in case of weather conditions being outside limits to land on 34L. I believe that if SQ are not carrying this additional fuel then they are in breach of the conditions that were defined when they were offered a pre 0600 slot.
Ausatco - Great post, thanks for the gen.
GB
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J_A_K and GB, you're welcome.
J_A_K, The wait does seem excessive, but when we try to reduce it things can go pear-shaped pretty quickly and we (the royal "we") end up in a recovery situation - I've seen it happen.
If we try to play unders and overs by holding the departure down, then obviously the departure's climb is inhibited which then restricts when and where it can turn and track over built-up areas because of noise abatement minimum altitude requirements. It also may run out of controlled airspace, which is a no-no for us. If you let the departure climb then you have to push the arrival down to slip under him, usually well below profile height miles away from the airport, over water.
It's extremely poor technique to have piston lighties miles out over water at low level, so within the procedures we're given we minimise that as much as we can. A Sy-Cootamundra flight is not an over-water flight - you wouldn't be carrying life jackets, would you?
Depending on aircraft types, wake turbulence separation can be a factor - the margin by which we aim to make them miss has to be bigger - 2 minutes at 240kt is 8 miles, nearly 3 times the normal radar standard, and that has to be fed into the equation.
In the traffic situation you described the mix of types is significant just for the timing. A PA31 or C310 departing with a BA146 coming down the coast, the cut-off would be on or north of the 07 extended centreline, so you're looking at about 30 track miles for the 146 at least, about 8 minutes.
A Westwind departing with a 146 or something slower coming down the coast, you could play it tighter - WWs go like $%^& off a shiny shovel and will quickly be out of conflict.
Now there's an interesting aircraft! I've seen one of them on a 12 mile base leg at 400kt GS.
'course, if there's a few arrivals in succession there's not much we can do, except maybe try to bunch the arrivals up and get them on the ground as quickly as possible to give the departures a run.
No-one likes the curfew procedures. The inefficiency you speak of (long delays on the ground) is an issue for all of us, except, apparently, for the pollies and noise lobby. They don't care.
I've heard a suggestion that the curfew hours be divided into arrival blocks and departure blocks which would be published and you time your operation to suit - I guess that's one way of managing the situation but I don't know how well it would work. I can see problems with it.
There are safety issues in the present set-up as well, regardless of how the delays are managed - human factors for us as ATCs and, for aircraft, low level over water a long way from land.
What we would like to see is 16L for departures, with a turn out through Botany Bay heads, and 34L arrivals. We already have procedures and standards to allow simultaneous arrivals and departures in that configuration. However, the environmentalists at this stage say no. They see it as the industry applying the thin edge of the wedge and they won't give ground. They have a huge mistrust of all of us in the industry and seem to forget that their own legislation won't allow the wedge to be driven and the situation to get out of hand - all the "noisy" aircraft are defined and on a legislated movement quota.
There are no votes in it, so it's difficult to get a good hearing in the corridors where it matters.
AA
J_A_K, The wait does seem excessive, but when we try to reduce it things can go pear-shaped pretty quickly and we (the royal "we") end up in a recovery situation - I've seen it happen.
If we try to play unders and overs by holding the departure down, then obviously the departure's climb is inhibited which then restricts when and where it can turn and track over built-up areas because of noise abatement minimum altitude requirements. It also may run out of controlled airspace, which is a no-no for us. If you let the departure climb then you have to push the arrival down to slip under him, usually well below profile height miles away from the airport, over water.
It's extremely poor technique to have piston lighties miles out over water at low level, so within the procedures we're given we minimise that as much as we can. A Sy-Cootamundra flight is not an over-water flight - you wouldn't be carrying life jackets, would you?
Depending on aircraft types, wake turbulence separation can be a factor - the margin by which we aim to make them miss has to be bigger - 2 minutes at 240kt is 8 miles, nearly 3 times the normal radar standard, and that has to be fed into the equation.
In the traffic situation you described the mix of types is significant just for the timing. A PA31 or C310 departing with a BA146 coming down the coast, the cut-off would be on or north of the 07 extended centreline, so you're looking at about 30 track miles for the 146 at least, about 8 minutes.
A Westwind departing with a 146 or something slower coming down the coast, you could play it tighter - WWs go like $%^& off a shiny shovel and will quickly be out of conflict.
Now there's an interesting aircraft! I've seen one of them on a 12 mile base leg at 400kt GS.
'course, if there's a few arrivals in succession there's not much we can do, except maybe try to bunch the arrivals up and get them on the ground as quickly as possible to give the departures a run.
No-one likes the curfew procedures. The inefficiency you speak of (long delays on the ground) is an issue for all of us, except, apparently, for the pollies and noise lobby. They don't care.
I've heard a suggestion that the curfew hours be divided into arrival blocks and departure blocks which would be published and you time your operation to suit - I guess that's one way of managing the situation but I don't know how well it would work. I can see problems with it.
There are safety issues in the present set-up as well, regardless of how the delays are managed - human factors for us as ATCs and, for aircraft, low level over water a long way from land.
What we would like to see is 16L for departures, with a turn out through Botany Bay heads, and 34L arrivals. We already have procedures and standards to allow simultaneous arrivals and departures in that configuration. However, the environmentalists at this stage say no. They see it as the industry applying the thin edge of the wedge and they won't give ground. They have a huge mistrust of all of us in the industry and seem to forget that their own legislation won't allow the wedge to be driven and the situation to get out of hand - all the "noisy" aircraft are defined and on a legislated movement quota.
There are no votes in it, so it's difficult to get a good hearing in the corridors where it matters.
AA
Last edited by Ausatco; 15th Sep 2003 at 15:28.
