SQ and tailwind @ Sydney?
Nunc est bibendum
Thread Starter
SQ and tailwind @ Sydney?
After some info from ATCOs if you are in the know.
Heard a rumour that SQ may be up for a little fine for a pre curfew landing on 16R at Sydney yesterday (Monday) morning. The source reports that one SQ aircraft landed on 34L with 22 knots of tailwind and that another landed prior to 0600 local on 16R due to insufficient fuel to hold until curfew lifted.
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.
Regards,
Heard a rumour that SQ may be up for a little fine for a pre curfew landing on 16R at Sydney yesterday (Monday) morning. The source reports that one SQ aircraft landed on 34L with 22 knots of tailwind and that another landed prior to 0600 local on 16R due to insufficient fuel to hold until curfew lifted.
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.
Regards,
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was flying that night and had to divert and sit on the ground until after the end of the curfew period. I also heard the SQ aircraft inbound to SY (I think the ETA was around 5:30am), and he had been quoted a tailwind component of 27kts on 34L. Don't know what the max tailwind is for a 747, but I remember looking over to my right and seeing an equally puzzled face on the FO, when he continued his approach. All the other 747's (BA, QF etc) to my knowledge held until after 6am.
This tailwind was unforcast, and therefore the curfew in SY is a load of
under these curcumstances.... IMHO
This tailwind was unforcast, and therefore the curfew in SY is a load of
under these curcumstances.... IMHO
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure... I'll explain.
If the wind is un-forecast and the only available runway is one with excessive tailwind component, the options are simple. Hold, Divert, or land on 16 and except the massive fine.
I just don't think that any company should be penalised for conditions that are un-forecast. Therefore if the wind is un-forecast, 16 or 07/25 should be made available without penalty.
Sydney is the largest airport in Australia, yet it has the most restrictive noise abatement. I can't think of any airport of it's size and importance in the world with such a restrictive curfew.
Although Adelaide has a curfew, common sense allows the use of 23 during periods of adverse weather.
I realise that the curfew in Sydney will never change as long as we are stuck with politicians, doesn't mean I can't say it's
If the wind is un-forecast and the only available runway is one with excessive tailwind component, the options are simple. Hold, Divert, or land on 16 and except the massive fine.
I just don't think that any company should be penalised for conditions that are un-forecast. Therefore if the wind is un-forecast, 16 or 07/25 should be made available without penalty.
Sydney is the largest airport in Australia, yet it has the most restrictive noise abatement. I can't think of any airport of it's size and importance in the world with such a restrictive curfew.
Although Adelaide has a curfew, common sense allows the use of 23 during periods of adverse weather.
I realise that the curfew in Sydney will never change as long as we are stuck with politicians, doesn't mean I can't say it's
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night watch, I agree that no penalty should be incurred due to a forcast being way off the mark but is it not the case that the a/c commenced the approach at around 5.30 am, and are not SY ATC obligated to open 16R at 6 am if the actual conditions are such precluding the use of 34L......and there in lies the problem.
Perhaps if we could backtrack a bit.......actually about 8 hours when the SQ a/c dispatched from Singapore which subsequently arrived without the required fuel to hold till the cessation of the curfew.
There may be a reason for this.....ie the a/c may have had to cruise at a lower level due atc restrictions,which would incur a penalty of about 2.5% for 4000 ft below the planned level and in this case would come to about 2500 kg as the burn on this flight would be in the vicinity of 100 tons. However this would require a step below for the entire flight........extremely unlikely due minimal traffic on this route at that time of night and the use of RVSM airspace, plus the ability of Australian atc to issue non standard RVSM levels under radar control to help out a/c that are "caught" in a bind so to speak.
Also there could have been an extra burn associated with diverting around wx as the ITCZ is on it's march south but this would be minimal.
Cruise winds may have been way off resulting in a 30 minute earlier ETA....however this would require a mean tailwind of 35 knots above forcast for the entire 8 hour flight or, as winds in the equatorial region are quite light by comparison with their more temperate brothers, 75 knot t/w above forcast for the final 4 hours........possible but unlikely.
Finally, after correctly entering the winds for the flight in the FMC, had the progress page shown an arrival time 30 minutes before the cessation of the cerfew then a simple entering of LRC in the cruise page or a cost index of 0 in the performance page would have made this a non issue. Even in the enroute stage a change of alternate from Melb to Canberra would have given them another 4 tons in hand assuming CB was suitable. The required 30 minutes hold till the end of the curfew is of the order of 5 tons....less if holding enroute at altitude though not by much.
What about diverting enroute to top up...Darwin/Cairns/Townsville/Brisbane all spring to mind.
So now we arrive in SY without the required fuel as specified under the ANO's.....How about using the word require RX 16 R and screw the fine.....far better than putting your a/c and passengers in a position outside the certified limits of the a/c.
Lastly, he could have declared a mayday ("fuel emergency" went out when Jesus last played fullback for Jerusalem) and demanded 16R.
Granted the curfew is a crock of sh!t, but I think I have demonstrated that this should never have happened....or been allowed to happen in the first place if the crew was on the ball and used all options available to them.
Finally BIK, LHR does allow a certain # of "earlys"....actually I understand they have a quota per month otherwise the obligatory hold at LAM.
Perhaps if we could backtrack a bit.......actually about 8 hours when the SQ a/c dispatched from Singapore which subsequently arrived without the required fuel to hold till the cessation of the curfew.
There may be a reason for this.....ie the a/c may have had to cruise at a lower level due atc restrictions,which would incur a penalty of about 2.5% for 4000 ft below the planned level and in this case would come to about 2500 kg as the burn on this flight would be in the vicinity of 100 tons. However this would require a step below for the entire flight........extremely unlikely due minimal traffic on this route at that time of night and the use of RVSM airspace, plus the ability of Australian atc to issue non standard RVSM levels under radar control to help out a/c that are "caught" in a bind so to speak.
Also there could have been an extra burn associated with diverting around wx as the ITCZ is on it's march south but this would be minimal.
Cruise winds may have been way off resulting in a 30 minute earlier ETA....however this would require a mean tailwind of 35 knots above forcast for the entire 8 hour flight or, as winds in the equatorial region are quite light by comparison with their more temperate brothers, 75 knot t/w above forcast for the final 4 hours........possible but unlikely.
Finally, after correctly entering the winds for the flight in the FMC, had the progress page shown an arrival time 30 minutes before the cessation of the cerfew then a simple entering of LRC in the cruise page or a cost index of 0 in the performance page would have made this a non issue. Even in the enroute stage a change of alternate from Melb to Canberra would have given them another 4 tons in hand assuming CB was suitable. The required 30 minutes hold till the end of the curfew is of the order of 5 tons....less if holding enroute at altitude though not by much.
What about diverting enroute to top up...Darwin/Cairns/Townsville/Brisbane all spring to mind.
So now we arrive in SY without the required fuel as specified under the ANO's.....How about using the word require RX 16 R and screw the fine.....far better than putting your a/c and passengers in a position outside the certified limits of the a/c.
Lastly, he could have declared a mayday ("fuel emergency" went out when Jesus last played fullback for Jerusalem) and demanded 16R.
Granted the curfew is a crock of sh!t, but I think I have demonstrated that this should never have happened....or been allowed to happen in the first place if the crew was on the ball and used all options available to them.
Finally BIK, LHR does allow a certain # of "earlys"....actually I understand they have a quota per month otherwise the obligatory hold at LAM.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firewall - what you say is spot on but in my opinion any Captain worth his pay should be able to anticipate a tailwind with the curfew, or at worst have the common sense to carry a few extra tonnes of fuel (lets call it 6 tonnes to carry the 5 odd tonnes for 30 holding and a bit extra burn to carry it) especially with the curfew limitations of using 34L between 0530-0600.
15 kts TW on a B744 isnt alot lets face it.
SIN-SYD shouldnt be limiting fuel wise but SQ seems very adverse to crew carrying extra fuel - anywhere.
The gentleman Captain for a particular asian carrier being escorted by police (supposedly under arrest for landing with 1600kg total fuel in a 747-400 at LHR) from the a particular hotel in Kensington London should be used as a pin-up boy for fuel management courses.
Unfortunately with the advent of accurate flight plans and pressure from bean-counters alot of crews seem hesitant in taking any extra fuel and seem to using less of the experience gained over the years anticipating unforecasted weather at the destination requiring additionall fuel or an alternate which a computer just cant do.
15 kts TW on a B744 isnt alot lets face it.
SIN-SYD shouldnt be limiting fuel wise but SQ seems very adverse to crew carrying extra fuel - anywhere.
The gentleman Captain for a particular asian carrier being escorted by police (supposedly under arrest for landing with 1600kg total fuel in a 747-400 at LHR) from the a particular hotel in Kensington London should be used as a pin-up boy for fuel management courses.
Unfortunately with the advent of accurate flight plans and pressure from bean-counters alot of crews seem hesitant in taking any extra fuel and seem to using less of the experience gained over the years anticipating unforecasted weather at the destination requiring additionall fuel or an alternate which a computer just cant do.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone got a copy of the TAF that would have been available to the crew prior to departure? Would be interesting to see by just how much the tailwind was unexpected and whether it would be reasonable to expect a wind shift of, say, 90 to 180 degrees.
For this trip contingency would have been approx. 4,500kgs.
Not sure if things have changed recently but, unless it was a dire emergency a diversion to Canberra was a big No No for the SQ744 and certainly not available as an alternate for fuel planning purposes. Usual alternate was MEL but I could be out of date by now.
For this trip contingency would have been approx. 4,500kgs.
Not sure if things have changed recently but, unless it was a dire emergency a diversion to Canberra was a big No No for the SQ744 and certainly not available as an alternate for fuel planning purposes. Usual alternate was MEL but I could be out of date by now.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about the TAF at departure time but I was flying that night (not to SYD) and heard some A/C (BA and few QF) reducing cruise speed due to the forecast tailwind on 34L.
Pulled up an ATIS and TTF on the ACARS and there was a wind of around 25 kts from the south.
I would have thought the fuel required for 30 minutes was closer to 4 tonnes but either way he must have been very "thin".
Pulled up an ATIS and TTF on the ACARS and there was a wind of around 25 kts from the south.
I would have thought the fuel required for 30 minutes was closer to 4 tonnes but either way he must have been very "thin".
Guest
Posts: n/a
It's not so hard to delay departure for 30 mins if you have a curfew problem. ETA is presented on the flight plan and anyone who operates to SYD must know of the curfew restrictions. I understand that SQ operate on a BAM(bare ass minimum) fuel policy with "please explains" issued to those who tanker a bit more.
Canberra as an Alternate, I'd like to see that
.
They'd probably have to brush up on there MBZ procedures and I think the ILS is NOTAMed at the moment. It would be interesting to watch from Mt Majura as they go for Rwy 17
.
Out of interest how often do Qantas actually divert to Learmonth over in the west, anyone had to go there?
.They'd probably have to brush up on there MBZ procedures and I think the ILS is NOTAMed at the moment. It would be interesting to watch from Mt Majura as they go for Rwy 17
.Out of interest how often do Qantas actually divert to Learmonth over in the west, anyone had to go there?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Ralph, they certainly didn't operate a "BAM" policy during my ten years there! Ask any of the ex QF pilots who came to fly for them, they thought it was a generous fuel policy. I never had a single 'please explain' letter despite carrying more than FP fuel when I thought it appropriate, the secret was to be sure and give an explanation in the VR, not just load it on.
Woftam - SQ contingency fuel was 5% of burn or 5000kgs, whichever was less, on top of this they would carry diversion fuel, alternate holding fuel, taxi fuel etc.
Woftam - SQ contingency fuel was 5% of burn or 5000kgs, whichever was less, on top of this they would carry diversion fuel, alternate holding fuel, taxi fuel etc.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Ozmate
Posts: 376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BlueEagle,
Just stating that the actual burn for 30 minutes holding would be closer to 4 tonnes (based on an "average" 250,000 kgs at FL200) from memory.
I know nothing of SQ policy.
Just stating that the actual burn for 30 minutes holding would be closer to 4 tonnes (based on an "average" 250,000 kgs at FL200) from memory.
I know nothing of SQ policy.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went into SYD recently for the first time in a while and was promptly reminded why I avoid the place as much as possible – (the airport, I mean, not the city). Tailwinds would have had us getting in ahead of the 6.00am curfew, so we delayed departure and played with speed enroute to arrive after 6.00. (I left slightly ahead of the calculated ETD so as to get ahead of [and more importantly, above] the pack who all had the same idea.) With a slightly slower cruise Mach, and with the (bloody ridiculous) Rivet 8 arrival inserted, we were planning to land at 6.01am.
The pack behind me (four of them – BA, SQ, MH and Skippy) all blasted on past me doing .84+ and were promptly put into the hold. (Which in most cases costs more fuel than a slower enroute cruise speed, doesn’t it? But I know Sydney operates (or once did operate) on a ‘first into the hold first served’ basis, so there’s some sense in what they did.) Add to them United coming in from the east and the predictable occurred – holding and loooooong vectors, (including a 270 degree long way round turn), to the point where we were only a couple of hundred kilos above min divert fuel when we finally landed.
Downwind at 9000’ over Georges River, (we’d been excused the below 9000’ restriction at whatever the waypoint is), and with **** miiiiiiles to go on the Rivet 8, it became evident that there wasn’t another aircraft anywhere between us and the runway. Asked for track shortening, was given it (“Oh, you want track shortening? Quelle shock horror and surprise!”), and carved about ten minutes off or landing time – with the runway unoccupied, by landing OR departing aircraft, from the time we could see it, passing 7000’ on descent. Without that track shortening, we’d have been right on min divert fuel for Melbourne. And of course, min divert fuel into Melbourne would have been an interesting exercise at 7.30am!!! (Canberra wasn't an option due Wx.)
What sets my teeth on edge about Sydney is the (apparent lack of) flow control. The Rivet 8 arrival is an extended tour of coastal south eastern New South Wales. If we’re going to pander to the politicians and the noise police pressure groups, (who all bought their houses near the airport cheaply BECAUSE of the **** airport noise, which with today’s high bypass engines, is a fraction of what it was in the 60’s), why in world can’t Sydney ATC, (or Melbourne ATC, since they handle you until short finals, thanks to Dickie Smith’s ‘cost savings’), get some sort of flow control going that’s even a pale shadow of what the guys at Heathrow achieve every day of the year? Or are they forced to space the aircraft so widely so the darlings under the flight path can finish their cornflakes between aircraft passing overhead and curdling the milk?
The pack behind me (four of them – BA, SQ, MH and Skippy) all blasted on past me doing .84+ and were promptly put into the hold. (Which in most cases costs more fuel than a slower enroute cruise speed, doesn’t it? But I know Sydney operates (or once did operate) on a ‘first into the hold first served’ basis, so there’s some sense in what they did.) Add to them United coming in from the east and the predictable occurred – holding and loooooong vectors, (including a 270 degree long way round turn), to the point where we were only a couple of hundred kilos above min divert fuel when we finally landed.
Downwind at 9000’ over Georges River, (we’d been excused the below 9000’ restriction at whatever the waypoint is), and with **** miiiiiiles to go on the Rivet 8, it became evident that there wasn’t another aircraft anywhere between us and the runway. Asked for track shortening, was given it (“Oh, you want track shortening? Quelle shock horror and surprise!”), and carved about ten minutes off or landing time – with the runway unoccupied, by landing OR departing aircraft, from the time we could see it, passing 7000’ on descent. Without that track shortening, we’d have been right on min divert fuel for Melbourne. And of course, min divert fuel into Melbourne would have been an interesting exercise at 7.30am!!! (Canberra wasn't an option due Wx.)
What sets my teeth on edge about Sydney is the (apparent lack of) flow control. The Rivet 8 arrival is an extended tour of coastal south eastern New South Wales. If we’re going to pander to the politicians and the noise police pressure groups, (who all bought their houses near the airport cheaply BECAUSE of the **** airport noise, which with today’s high bypass engines, is a fraction of what it was in the 60’s), why in world can’t Sydney ATC, (or Melbourne ATC, since they handle you until short finals, thanks to Dickie Smith’s ‘cost savings’), get some sort of flow control going that’s even a pale shadow of what the guys at Heathrow achieve every day of the year? Or are they forced to space the aircraft so widely so the darlings under the flight path can finish their cornflakes between aircraft passing overhead and curdling the milk?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Eagle that was true when you were working there under contract some years back but at the moment things are radically different apparently.
The thing that used to make me laugh was that we would depart ahead of SQ on a SYD-SIN sector and be at 1000ft above optimum doing M0.845 in smooth air and sitting reasonably close to the barbers pole.
SQ who was loaded similarly also would be flying 2000-3000ft above us doing M0.86!!!
Now thats a big difference.
Similar things on SIN-LHR where we took off at MTOW, these guys would always be a few thousand feet above and doing a much higher speed.
I wonder what software updates/upgrades their FMC's used?
The thing that used to make me laugh was that we would depart ahead of SQ on a SYD-SIN sector and be at 1000ft above optimum doing M0.845 in smooth air and sitting reasonably close to the barbers pole.
SQ who was loaded similarly also would be flying 2000-3000ft above us doing M0.86!!!
Now thats a big difference.
Similar things on SIN-LHR where we took off at MTOW, these guys would always be a few thousand feet above and doing a much higher speed.
I wonder what software updates/upgrades their FMC's used?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, they use 1.2Vs and not 1.3 for a start! And don't forget the heavier you are the faster the FMC tells you to go. Just from memory, subject to no forecast bad weather/turbulence etc. we would often climb when the FMC showed the max. alt. to be 1000' above what we were wanting, I stress, NO bad wx! From a fuel consumption point of view, with the PW engines, from my experience, it is less of a penalty to be high early and fly into optimum than to be trapped at a lower level and getting lighter all the time, watching optimum alt. spiral upwards and away from you, with all higher levels occupied by the remainder of the South East Asian nightly armada! (Never had a problem with levels SIN/SYD/MEL personally, non-standard often available, room for everyone).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The pub!
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Eagle
Would I be correct in thinking their fuel policy would require them to arrive at destination with an alternate, and if this was not going to be possible then an enroute diversion should be carried out?
Would I be correct in thinking their fuel policy would require them to arrive at destination with an alternate, and if this was not going to be possible then an enroute diversion should be carried out?
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Is SQ's fuel policy still unchanged from when I was last there in '96? Any additional fuel above a ton (1,000 kgs) had to be accompanied by a "please explain" from the Skipper.
Additionally the alternates were changed during my tenure there (you probably remember that, Blue) to what were really only alternates, inasmuch as the suitability beggared belief, eg, the alternate for SIN was changed (from KUL or JHB) to Paya Lebar!!
I'm surprised that they didn't change the SYD alt to Bankstown - such was the mentality. And only 1 bottle of water for the cockpit - to save costs.
Additionally the alternates were changed during my tenure there (you probably remember that, Blue) to what were really only alternates, inasmuch as the suitability beggared belief, eg, the alternate for SIN was changed (from KUL or JHB) to Paya Lebar!!
I'm surprised that they didn't change the SYD alt to Bankstown - such was the mentality. And only 1 bottle of water for the cockpit - to save costs.