Thai 777 NDB into MEL
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could even take this argument further and ask why there is not at least one CATII/III approach into Mel (or for that fact any airport in Aust).
ILS onto 34??
Sand Man,
Perhaps a little local knowledge will help with this:
Mate, if using RWY 34 in MEL, you will obviously have a wind from the north
, with a wind from the north, coming over the hills, there is bugger all chance of VIZ/base getting down to the levels that an ILS would be useful. Therefore there is no need for an ILS approach to 34. There are three other approaches to 34, VOR, RNAV and mmm, visual!
You might have noticed that when 34 is in use, it is usually a windy day in MEL, and VIZ/CLD base are not an issue.
If you can't let your aircraft fly you onto either an RNAV or VOR for 34, then you need some more SIM time.
Really p's me off that people always complain about having to 'fly' anything other than an ILS....
Safe Flying
Perhaps a little local knowledge will help with this:
ILS 16, 27
VOR 09, 27, 34
NDB 16
RNAV 09, 34
That fact there is only an ILS available to 16 and not to 34 is crazy.
VOR 09, 27, 34
NDB 16
RNAV 09, 34
That fact there is only an ILS available to 16 and not to 34 is crazy.
, with a wind from the north, coming over the hills, there is bugger all chance of VIZ/base getting down to the levels that an ILS would be useful. Therefore there is no need for an ILS approach to 34. There are three other approaches to 34, VOR, RNAV and mmm, visual!You might have noticed that when 34 is in use, it is usually a windy day in MEL, and VIZ/CLD base are not an issue.
If you can't let your aircraft fly you onto either an RNAV or VOR for 34, then you need some more SIM time.
Really p's me off that people always complain about having to 'fly' anything other than an ILS....
Safe Flying
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Therefore there is no need for an ILS approach to 34.
Melbourne is a major gateway it should have an ILS on every runway including the crappy 09 which is used only once a year.
Luckily aircraft manufacturers and airlines are progressing with RNP/GLS because airports and their respective owners be they govt or private are to cheap to put in appropriate infrastructure.
How hard is it to make a runway extension and a 3 degree slope in the FMC really??
Generally not that hard, but some major airlines refuse to upgrade their FMCs to allow this, let alone put GPSs in for accurate vertical and lateral profiles. --> this is where CASA need to get their act together.
Easy to pick all the "domestic aces" with their contempt for the poor blokes who got caught out. Try flying all night to arrive at your destination so tired all you want to do is fall down the ILS and go to bed. NDB's are no big deal, but require a higher level of alertness. Even India is at least CAT II. In the US there are no NDB's. As an Australian working offshore it always embarasses me to fly into my own country with third world facilities. All this talk of "building the approach" makes my blood run cold, too easy to make a mistake. All you need is ROC on 1 and BOL on 2 and a black coffee.
For the record I wasn't suggest people build approaches and fly them in IMC I was referring to doing visual approaches onto 34.
Unfortunately in Australia airports are political minefields so that is why progress is never made. Just have a look at what is going on at Canberra Airport at the moment it typifies what you're battling against.
Unfortunately in Australia airports are political minefields so that is why progress is never made. Just have a look at what is going on at Canberra Airport at the moment it typifies what you're battling against.
How hard is it to make a runway extension and a 3 degree slope in the FMC really??
Can the 777 fly a full NBD procedure on the autopilot ?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: australia
Age: 59
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just off the thread a little. I'm surprised that the back up approach for the primary instrumented runway at Melbourne is a twin NDB approach with a ridiculously high minina. All the other runways have VOR approaches published with reasonable MDAs. Whay can't such an approach be designed for runway 16? It would enable a non FMS coupled lateral approach so more attention could be given to profile monitoring. It would also allow the NDBs to be decommissined there by paying for the new approach design, & ultimately, saving money on maintence, replacement etc.
Worked to Death,
I suspect that it is because the VOR is laterally offset too much. Because of the track difference, you'd have to have the MDA so high that it would be of no benefit as an approach. I'm sure AsA would have designed it if they could have.
All the other runways have VOR approaches published with reasonable MDAs. Whay can't such an approach be designed for runway 16?
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 1st Jul 2009 at 03:31. Reason: inserted "it" in last sentence
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: HK MTR
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
allthecoolnamesarego
So on a windless night with low cloud (<400'agl) in a heavy aircraft at the end of a long haul flight with ILS16 U/S you would be happy to land on 27 when there is a much longer rwy available?
There is a difference between what we (pilots) should be able to do and what would be the smart thing to do. As far as I'm concerned I would take an ILS over a VOR with low cloud around any day but I would also like that to be onto a runway that is not length critical.
Therefore there is no need for an ILS approach to 34. There are three other approaches to 34, VOR, RNAV and mmm, visual!
There is a difference between what we (pilots) should be able to do and what would be the smart thing to do. As far as I'm concerned I would take an ILS over a VOR with low cloud around any day but I would also like that to be onto a runway that is not length critical.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: YMML
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty typical we blame the crew totally...
A crew who spend 99.9% of there time flying into well infrastructured airports with multiple ILS appoaches on pretty much all runways.
Then send them on a 9.5 Hr back of the clock flight into an airport they may not have been into for ages and yep its all there fault.
Never mind the fact that the airport wants to claim to be Australias second gateway and and we cant even get an ILS onto the the second most used runway. Then throw in a side step at the bottome which the RNAV doesnt have to make life more interesting.
Having flown that approach in 45kt gusting winds after 9 hr flights home from Bangkok its a f***up waiting to happen again.
Totally the last thing you need after 10 hours and cant imagine how the QF guys from LAX put up with either that crap high sink rate approach over Essendon or a sidestep VOR after maybe 15 hours on the job.
Like the Goldcoast cheapskate airport owners who wont put in the facilities to cater for the crowd they want to attract and again we the professional pilot community carry the can for accountants putting safety a sad fifteenth place.
What a disgrace....
Pity we cant get our s**t together and get rid of this crap.
An aviation backwater we have become...
A crew who spend 99.9% of there time flying into well infrastructured airports with multiple ILS appoaches on pretty much all runways.
Then send them on a 9.5 Hr back of the clock flight into an airport they may not have been into for ages and yep its all there fault.
Never mind the fact that the airport wants to claim to be Australias second gateway and and we cant even get an ILS onto the the second most used runway. Then throw in a side step at the bottome which the RNAV doesnt have to make life more interesting.
Having flown that approach in 45kt gusting winds after 9 hr flights home from Bangkok its a f***up waiting to happen again.
Totally the last thing you need after 10 hours and cant imagine how the QF guys from LAX put up with either that crap high sink rate approach over Essendon or a sidestep VOR after maybe 15 hours on the job.
Like the Goldcoast cheapskate airport owners who wont put in the facilities to cater for the crowd they want to attract and again we the professional pilot community carry the can for accountants putting safety a sad fifteenth place.
What a disgrace....
Pity we cant get our s**t together and get rid of this crap.
An aviation backwater we have become...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think of the outdated Npa onto 34 as an appropriate introduction to Australian aviation. Tiba airspace, poor terminals, rude Ciq staff, Cat 1 only Ils's. The Npa onto 34 is simply part of a below average system.
You jet jockey princesses need to harden up a little. It's called Affordable Safety! None of you would have jobs if we had spent the money a world-class aviation system! 
Wow, the 380 doesn't have "NDB" fitted 
Sounds fishy
With regard to the offset problem....why not install another VOR or two?
Some airports are literally littered with VOR's. Have one on the extended centre line of each runway. No offset and lower minima, with a back-up if another aerial gets wiped out.
halas
Sounds fishy
With regard to the offset problem....why not install another VOR or two?
Some airports are literally littered with VOR's. Have one on the extended centre line of each runway. No offset and lower minima, with a back-up if another aerial gets wiped out.
halas
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, China
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How easy is it for Air Services Australia to publish a 16 VOR approach in the event that the ILS is US? Surely VORs are more accurate and much more preferred over NDBs?