BNE ATC Holding
haughtney1, it's simply a numbers game - once the number of arrivals exceeds the max arrival rate you get delays. Exceed it by a large number & you get large delays. Overall volume has little to do with it. Density does.
Maybe Gatwick enforces slot times?
A stiff headwind will blow out the acceptance rate as you're slower down final (ground speed) - 3NM radar separation gives longer time spacing into wind. It's also harder to judge turns because you're screaming along on down wind & screech to a halt as you turn.
Maybe Gatwick enforces slot times?
A stiff headwind will blow out the acceptance rate as you're slower down final (ground speed) - 3NM radar separation gives longer time spacing into wind. It's also harder to judge turns because you're screaming along on down wind & screech to a halt as you turn.
Last edited by le Pingouin; 30th Apr 2011 at 08:11. Reason: Wind!
K you around!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I understand arrivals to Gatwick, Heathrow and other major European destinations will have been subject to a slot time for departure, using a centralised computer system based in Brussels that determines capacity for a given piece of airspace or concrete and does not permit more than a set number of aircraft to arrive in a given hour. The delays are absorbed on the ground or schedules are adjusted accordingly preventing excessive airborne delays.
This kind of system is planned for Aus and has been patchily attempted, but has not been critical until recently as airborne delays into our major ports haven't been long enough to make the accountants cry or overload the ATC system. We are probably approaching that point now. Note - this will not increase the arrival rate, it just means the top of the peaks will be forcibly shoveled into the troughs with the scheduling complications to be dealt with by the companies. Its not all beer and skittles - In europe if you miss your ramp time well thats tough titty and back you taxi until another slot is available.
My experience is that too much less than 90 seconds between arrivals and number 2 will be going around. Something more than that will be required if tower is to have an opportunity to depart one occasionally. This places a practical upper limit on how many aircraft can arrive within an hour without someone having to wait, you can do it on the ground or in the air, but unless there is more concrete the delay will have to be absorbed somewhere.
WWT
This kind of system is planned for Aus and has been patchily attempted, but has not been critical until recently as airborne delays into our major ports haven't been long enough to make the accountants cry or overload the ATC system. We are probably approaching that point now. Note - this will not increase the arrival rate, it just means the top of the peaks will be forcibly shoveled into the troughs with the scheduling complications to be dealt with by the companies. Its not all beer and skittles - In europe if you miss your ramp time well thats tough titty and back you taxi until another slot is available.
My experience is that too much less than 90 seconds between arrivals and number 2 will be going around. Something more than that will be required if tower is to have an opportunity to depart one occasionally. This places a practical upper limit on how many aircraft can arrive within an hour without someone having to wait, you can do it on the ground or in the air, but unless there is more concrete the delay will have to be absorbed somewhere.
WWT
Australian ATC doesn't enforce slot times - we have no way of knowing & just takes you as you come. First in best dressed.
Last edited by le Pingouin; 30th Apr 2011 at 08:20. Reason: Clarity
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably slot times are enforced o/s, and maybe thats the main difference? Delay=demand-capacity, so cap the demand with slot times.
Slot times were introduced at PH awhile back as a temporary measure to cope with rwy outages. With some coaxing from at least one ML line manager, a light went on somewhere in the corridors of power, and they stayed. Stage two is that a/c early for their slots are being held to meet it, allowing those on time to come through. The current situation in BN would seem a good opportunity to follow suit.
This kind of system is planned for Aus and has been patchily attempted, but has not been critical until recently as airborne delays into our major ports haven't been long enough to make the accountants cry or overload the ATC system.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
Yes I can understand obviously that if the number of arriving aircraft exceeds capacity there will of course be delays but it has only happened in the last month or so, it has suddenly beconme extremely bad, in fact the worst Capital city airport by far for holding. Has there been a massive increase in the number of scheduled flights in and out of BNE recently? And yes it is bad when Instrument Aproaches are in use so it is about the weather, I guess greater seperation standards required. The other night when we had 20mins at 2130, the plane behind us got 25mins, we landed and there was no takeoff or landing for a further 6 mins??!! Something is going on its pretty obvious.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: brisbane
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BNE currently handling around 600-620 movements on Thursdays and Fridays with a further 10 movements a day to start over next 2-3 months and more to come with DJ ATR's, and Tiger planning to base 2 aircraft here later this year.Easily another 40 movements a day could be added by years end . The the FIFO will increase as well over the next 1-2 years.
With 660-670 movements a day BNE would be on a par with KL,and a little bit busier than MEL.
With 660-670 movements a day BNE would be on a par with KL,and a little bit busier than MEL.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, can't explain that one. Following a/c could have been late out of the hold, but that seems excessive. The problem is that without pulling the tapes for three or four positions, there is no way of finding the reason (assuming it wasn't just a stuff up).
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oztrailea
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, Keg the Perth tower guys have been on fire recently with the single runway ops off 06/24.
We are up for it if you are. Gotta love the backtrack 06 from J1 or J2 into the teeth of the next arrival turning final at 4nm. 
Were getting good at maximising tarmac time, but everybody needs to be on there game!Seen some great work from the drivers as well. Although one 76 driver was concerned that he might break off his nose wheel on the turn around on 06 threshold!
He still took the gap and got away.... 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The Cirrus pilot didn't follow the missed approach procedures anyway, hence the close encounter. If it had done so, there would have been no incident.
.So no VFR CROPS, that should have been the end of the problem.
So are they no using 14 and 01/19 for IFR CROPS? Is that all over now?
Time for a few K's more concrete folks!
Or........ Brisbane is full of tunnels, build a high speed rail link under the city to YBAF and move all the turbo props out there
Out of interest flightfocus (and this is wayy off the topic of BNE here) but if RW06 is in use, approach tell us they need to give 5nm separation for arrivals to the tower. This often results in long downwind legs and a complete bugger up of the profile. Is this only done if there is a heavy taxiing to give them a chance to backtrack or is it done regardless? Seems a bit of a waste of time if there are no heavies waiting to go.
Chadzat
The backtrack is only part of the problem, runway occupancy time is also increased with most arrivals having to vacate at the end on TWY "W"
often the last third of the runway is taxied at quite slow speed, 5 miles is there to ensure everyone gets in and everyone gets out without having to wait long periods at the HP.
often the last third of the runway is taxied at quite slow speed, 5 miles is there to ensure everyone gets in and everyone gets out without having to wait long periods at the HP.
I appreciate the Aussie system is hampered by different separation rules
but surely it could be tightened up a little. To me LHR is the standard to
aim for. I know they have two parallel runways etc but they reallly shift
the traffic. It's not uncommon to get the landing clearance in the flare.
It seems to work OK providing everybody knows what he's doing. The
Yanks and most of Europe are more or less the same. In ORD (Chicago)
any pilot who slows up the system is sent into a 'sin-bin' an off-set
holding point and ignored for twenty minutes. It does wonders to house
train the slow to learn types.
One common procedure is the "not below 160knots until 4 miles" and to
"vacate on the first available high-speed". 40 knot exit speed is common
and quite safe if it's dry and uncontaminated.
Every time I come into Aus the tension is in the air but I never seem to
be looking up someone's bottom as much as elsewhere and the daisy-
chain is not as tight. As for a SR-22 causing problems they wouldn't
be allowed anywhere near the place. (in JFK it would be shot down). I'm
not saying that I agree with that but if you want to move 'big-iron' it's
'big-iron' only. Apart from the obvious second runway, maybe a few more
high speed exits are needed and bunch 'em up more.
but surely it could be tightened up a little. To me LHR is the standard to
aim for. I know they have two parallel runways etc but they reallly shift
the traffic. It's not uncommon to get the landing clearance in the flare.
It seems to work OK providing everybody knows what he's doing. The
Yanks and most of Europe are more or less the same. In ORD (Chicago)
any pilot who slows up the system is sent into a 'sin-bin' an off-set
holding point and ignored for twenty minutes. It does wonders to house
train the slow to learn types.
One common procedure is the "not below 160knots until 4 miles" and to
"vacate on the first available high-speed". 40 knot exit speed is common
and quite safe if it's dry and uncontaminated.
Every time I come into Aus the tension is in the air but I never seem to
be looking up someone's bottom as much as elsewhere and the daisy-
chain is not as tight. As for a SR-22 causing problems they wouldn't
be allowed anywhere near the place. (in JFK it would be shot down). I'm
not saying that I agree with that but if you want to move 'big-iron' it's
'big-iron' only. Apart from the obvious second runway, maybe a few more
high speed exits are needed and bunch 'em up more.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Australia Big iron only is hard or impossible to do without a change of legislation. As it currently stands, if you operate an airport you pretty much have to welcome anyone with a radio and VH rego. Presumably the States has different legislation.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Orstraylia
Age: 60
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies for a slight thread drift...
ATC have been pushing more tin than allowed in Sydney! The legislated "cap" of 80 movements per hour has been exceeded so the "fix" is to marginally reduce the acceptance rate under certain conditions. The best case scenario of 34 parallels has an acceptance rate that will be reduced by ( i think ) 2 movements per hour. i.e. from 46 to 44 landings per hour.
My point is that we , ATC that is, are capable of moving more heavy metal but there are numerous reasons, many of which are not apparent to all, why we don`t.
If you`ve got questions then ask away! Don`t expect a quick response from the official channels though.
ATC have been pushing more tin than allowed in Sydney! The legislated "cap" of 80 movements per hour has been exceeded so the "fix" is to marginally reduce the acceptance rate under certain conditions. The best case scenario of 34 parallels has an acceptance rate that will be reduced by ( i think ) 2 movements per hour. i.e. from 46 to 44 landings per hour.
My point is that we , ATC that is, are capable of moving more heavy metal but there are numerous reasons, many of which are not apparent to all, why we don`t.
If you`ve got questions then ask away! Don`t expect a quick response from the official channels though.
In Australia Big iron only is hard or impossible to do without a change of legislation. As it currently stands, if you operate an airport you pretty much have to welcome anyone with a radio and VH rego. Presumably the States has different legislation.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't they just do what Sydney does and charge landing fees that make it prohibitively expensive to land your bugsmasher at Brissy?
Brissy never got all that many bugsmashers anyway, and even the fine upstanding metro freighter fleet
tends to operate at night when it's not all that busy. What 14 used to take a lot of was peak hour Q'link and Skytrans Dash 8s. I would guess that putting them onto 01/19 due to the new restrictions is having an impact on traffic.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I had a buck for the times I have been asked why we are on Rwy07 instead of Rwy 16 parallels in SY when the wind is 160/10 and everyone is holding, well then I would have lots of bucks. Qantas 767 drivers tend to be the most chirpy.
I hope the pilots out there understand that as controllers our lives would be a lot easier without the holding. A few minutes to lose soaked up in the cruise or descent, maybe a couple of minutes vectoring and away you go.
We do not enjoy reading where it is seen as something special that the LA flyer , through the 'efforts' of an army of suits talking, liaising, flying to meetings,lunching, expense accounting,etc was given unrestricted climb and direct tracking saving X tonnes of fuel. FFS we aim to do that everyday.We then plug in, with no relief, holding aircraft for in excess of 20 minutes each so we dont upset KSAs neighbours who have no idea they have bought near an airport that has been in existence for 80-90 years.
I shake my head when I see the LA 'ASPIRE' flyer depart off R34 wiping out landing slots off R07 and then watch as a collective 2-300 minutes of holding is dumped on the jets and turboprops as the suits go off to a round of backslapping and beers because of the greenhouse gas they just saved.
Other countries ANSPs want Aussie controllers, another 5 'youngsters' from BN FIR have just signed contracts with Germany.
I hope the pilots out there understand that as controllers our lives would be a lot easier without the holding. A few minutes to lose soaked up in the cruise or descent, maybe a couple of minutes vectoring and away you go.
We do not enjoy reading where it is seen as something special that the LA flyer , through the 'efforts' of an army of suits talking, liaising, flying to meetings,lunching, expense accounting,etc was given unrestricted climb and direct tracking saving X tonnes of fuel. FFS we aim to do that everyday.We then plug in, with no relief, holding aircraft for in excess of 20 minutes each so we dont upset KSAs neighbours who have no idea they have bought near an airport that has been in existence for 80-90 years.
I shake my head when I see the LA 'ASPIRE' flyer depart off R34 wiping out landing slots off R07 and then watch as a collective 2-300 minutes of holding is dumped on the jets and turboprops as the suits go off to a round of backslapping and beers because of the greenhouse gas they just saved.
Other countries ANSPs want Aussie controllers, another 5 'youngsters' from BN FIR have just signed contracts with Germany.