Virgin ATR runs off runway
As time consuming and annoying as it may be Jaba, one of the only ways you can be guaranteed of making an impact is to put in paperwork. Furthermore, within your network, start gathering data, times, dates, flight numbers, actual weather conditions, circuit traffic. Otherwise there will be large levels of animosity towards the regional guys when they may in fact be following 'worlds best practice' as stipulated in their SOPs.
Reports are submitted between regional organisations also. Just like the dash 8 that took 30secs to go from a 10nm final to a 5nm final whille I was backtracking.
May I also make a point that in quite a lot of regional centres, good airmanship is lacking on the 'locals' side also. It might just be the case that the 'rude' captain of the dash has had more than his/her fair share of close calls and would rather accept a legal and perfectly safe tailwind than mix it with traffic doing half their speed on downwind that are an unknown quantity as far as airmanship is concerned. Just offering an alternative viewpoint.
j3
Reports are submitted between regional organisations also. Just like the dash 8 that took 30secs to go from a 10nm final to a 5nm final whille I was backtracking.
May I also make a point that in quite a lot of regional centres, good airmanship is lacking on the 'locals' side also. It might just be the case that the 'rude' captain of the dash has had more than his/her fair share of close calls and would rather accept a legal and perfectly safe tailwind than mix it with traffic doing half their speed on downwind that are an unknown quantity as far as airmanship is concerned. Just offering an alternative viewpoint.
j3
Why are they landing with a tailwind? Just doesnt make any sense to me. A circuit takes all of 5mins in a warrior, must take half that in a ATR or D8. For the sake of saving a tiny amount of fuel, why would they risk it?
'rookie' Commercial pressure & ego's, yr two main reasons.
A couple of mins saved on every other Arrival/Ldg per A/C over a year adds up especially with fuel guzzling turbo props/jets so I can see that commercialism has a huge impact on the Cmd'ers decision making that often overrides commonsense & good 'old Airmanship/courtesy.
Sure submit the paperwork as there is an avenue there for rectification but I think we all know that 'paperwork' does little at times & can in effect set up a culture of 'dob in yr mates', something Aussies are hard pressed to do, culture I guess, right or wrong it does exist.
As for poor Airmanship in the GA fraternity out there well it exists obviously (for a whole heap of reasons outside of the scope of this thread) but that's where a good skipper will factor in that anomaly & 'fit in' rather than display the same poor Airmanship.
Wmk2
A couple of mins saved on every other Arrival/Ldg per A/C over a year adds up especially with fuel guzzling turbo props/jets so I can see that commercialism has a huge impact on the Cmd'ers decision making that often overrides commonsense & good 'old Airmanship/courtesy.
Sure submit the paperwork as there is an avenue there for rectification but I think we all know that 'paperwork' does little at times & can in effect set up a culture of 'dob in yr mates', something Aussies are hard pressed to do, culture I guess, right or wrong it does exist.
As for poor Airmanship in the GA fraternity out there well it exists obviously (for a whole heap of reasons outside of the scope of this thread) but that's where a good skipper will factor in that anomaly & 'fit in' rather than display the same poor Airmanship.
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 10th Jul 2013 at 00:46. Reason: poor speeling:-)
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regards to this ATR incident, I think that it's best to wait for more information to become available before engaging in conjecture. From the available facts (ATSB), there is no evidence at the moment that a tailwind landing had anything to do with this.
Regarding landing with a tailwind, Airmanship 101 says that this is a bad idea. Landing with a tailwind and not performing a Landing Distance Required calculation (and factoring in 1.67/1.92 buffer) is pure negligence, even on a familiar RWY. Do these Dash-8 crews do this every time?
The AIP requirement for a straight in approach is that the actual wind be determined and that you don't conflict with other traffic. With regards the later, how many pilots actually do this? Airmanship, common courtesy and compliance with the rules state that you must give way to circuit traffic. You aren't being 'smart' by landing with a tailwind and conflicting with circuit traffic; you are being a prat.
Landing with a tailwind adds wear on brakes, airframe and tyres. In terms of risk management, it is a poor strategy. What will say at the inquest when you run off the end of the RWY? How will you defend your actions and decisions?
Good one Alph, you beat me to it. 
suttle
The is a subtle difference in how I spell this word.
Regarding landing with a tailwind, Airmanship 101 says that this is a bad idea. Landing with a tailwind and not performing a Landing Distance Required calculation (and factoring in 1.67/1.92 buffer) is pure negligence, even on a familiar RWY. Do these Dash-8 crews do this every time?
The AIP requirement for a straight in approach is that the actual wind be determined and that you don't conflict with other traffic. With regards the later, how many pilots actually do this? Airmanship, common courtesy and compliance with the rules state that you must give way to circuit traffic. You aren't being 'smart' by landing with a tailwind and conflicting with circuit traffic; you are being a prat.
Landing with a tailwind adds wear on brakes, airframe and tyres. In terms of risk management, it is a poor strategy. What will say at the inquest when you run off the end of the RWY? How will you defend your actions and decisions?
I would say that it is statistically safer to land with a head wind.
suttle
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seem to be two issues that are creeping into this discussion. I think they should be kept quite separate.
1) failing to conform to the existing traffic pattern, and
2) landing with a tail wind within (or not) aircraft performance limits.
Unless you have on-type competence, I dare say it's inappropriate to comment on the second point except in the most general terms.
Regarding DH8 ops Anthill, yes we do determine actual wind every time. No we don't do a landing distance calculation before landing, because apparently every runway we operate to, except emergency diversions, has been found to meet wet, ice protection on, flap 15, max tailwind, LDR criteria. It says so in the Book of Words, so it must be true!
Perhaps the ATR is the same, but it's inappropriate for me to comment...
1) failing to conform to the existing traffic pattern, and
2) landing with a tail wind within (or not) aircraft performance limits.
Unless you have on-type competence, I dare say it's inappropriate to comment on the second point except in the most general terms.
Regarding DH8 ops Anthill, yes we do determine actual wind every time. No we don't do a landing distance calculation before landing, because apparently every runway we operate to, except emergency diversions, has been found to meet wet, ice protection on, flap 15, max tailwind, LDR criteria. It says so in the Book of Words, so it must be true!
Perhaps the ATR is the same, but it's inappropriate for me to comment...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
j3, you are no doubt correct, some of the "locals" are terrible, have no idea where on the planet they are, and no doubt not transponder equipped so you cant blame the -8 guys for wanting to sneak in and land as quick as possible.
Other places like YBCV this is less an issue. But at places you and I know quite well, this is quite different, and some locals should not be in the air....period!
Fathom, you are correct, I circumvented that occurrence by making the prediction, playing clever posting like you do. At least your last post is more constructive to the conversation, so lets engage constructively.
Venting on pprune has not really made me feel better, but it has motivated me to take more notice, and perhaps make the effort to write to a CP, so this venting and dialogue is worth it after all.
I notice Jenna making the "Enough Said" comment. He too is correct, enough said...I have no data collected nor Met data, nor company limits....so what do I put in a REPCON? It would be pretty lame would it not? I am always hammering folk on data, so I openly declare when I have none. What I do have is a valid observation, and when other pilots, lets call them "Professional" pilots stand there and cringe saying....that should have been the other way, and it happens more than once or twice, you get a basis for the opinion shared here.
So....lets not get all our knickers in a knot....those who fly for several of the regionals, if you are not doing these things who cares, or if you are, all I ask is think a bit more about it. Is a shorter landing and a back track to the taxiway and terminal building that much of an inconvenience? What about when some tyre damage or something leaves you a bit compromised and you run off the end. How will that look?
Lastly, you guys who are the pro's can get on here and slag management (often deserving) or your competitors, or ultra lighters or Bonanza owners
or whoever, and that is all fair game. So a few constructive comments from observations should not raise such an amount of protest, unless of course you are the ones making the spectacular arrivals. This is all about discussion amongst peers for everyones benefit. I did not mean to create a slanging match, let alone a massive thread drift, so lets keep it sensible and if you are a Dash 8 pilot, why not bring it up internally yourself that folk outside the company have this observation. Its not a witch hunt, its constructive comment from the folk around you.
Other places like YBCV this is less an issue. But at places you and I know quite well, this is quite different, and some locals should not be in the air....period!
Fathom, you are correct, I circumvented that occurrence by making the prediction, playing clever posting like you do. At least your last post is more constructive to the conversation, so lets engage constructively.
Venting on pprune has not really made me feel better, but it has motivated me to take more notice, and perhaps make the effort to write to a CP, so this venting and dialogue is worth it after all.
I notice Jenna making the "Enough Said" comment. He too is correct, enough said...I have no data collected nor Met data, nor company limits....so what do I put in a REPCON? It would be pretty lame would it not? I am always hammering folk on data, so I openly declare when I have none. What I do have is a valid observation, and when other pilots, lets call them "Professional" pilots stand there and cringe saying....that should have been the other way, and it happens more than once or twice, you get a basis for the opinion shared here.
So....lets not get all our knickers in a knot....those who fly for several of the regionals, if you are not doing these things who cares, or if you are, all I ask is think a bit more about it. Is a shorter landing and a back track to the taxiway and terminal building that much of an inconvenience? What about when some tyre damage or something leaves you a bit compromised and you run off the end. How will that look?
Lastly, you guys who are the pro's can get on here and slag management (often deserving) or your competitors, or ultra lighters or Bonanza owners
or whoever, and that is all fair game. So a few constructive comments from observations should not raise such an amount of protest, unless of course you are the ones making the spectacular arrivals. This is all about discussion amongst peers for everyones benefit. I did not mean to create a slanging match, let alone a massive thread drift, so lets keep it sensible and if you are a Dash 8 pilot, why not bring it up internally yourself that folk outside the company have this observation. Its not a witch hunt, its constructive comment from the folk around you.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Oktas.....good post, and I do not believe they are way over the limit, but some must be awfully close.
In those cases, the spectacular ones, I do feel a far more conservative and fitting in with any point 1 approach would be safer and more sensible. It is also a nicer feeling for the punters down the back. You should listen to the "opinions" and "perceptions" of the uninformed pax who might well be scared of running off the end, not knowing they are on the limit of the aircraft and runway limits but still safe.
Passenger opinions right or wrong are what puts their bums on seats, and they keep you in a job.
So within limits Vs what is more sensible may well be poles apart.
Just helping keep you guys employed with happy customers
In those cases, the spectacular ones, I do feel a far more conservative and fitting in with any point 1 approach would be safer and more sensible. It is also a nicer feeling for the punters down the back. You should listen to the "opinions" and "perceptions" of the uninformed pax who might well be scared of running off the end, not knowing they are on the limit of the aircraft and runway limits but still safe.
Passenger opinions right or wrong are what puts their bums on seats, and they keep you in a job.
So within limits Vs what is more sensible may well be poles apart.
Just helping keep you guys employed with happy customers
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nahh mate.....I am just trying to help them, not wind them up, but as predicted it ruffled feathers and that is fine, it stimulates a good robust debate. Everyone learns stuff even us bugsmashers
Code:
Or you can attempt to join a circuit with an 80kt aircraft while travelling at 170kts yourself, then try and avoid flying over the top of them or in a position that they are likely to fly into your wake (Q400 is a Medium cat aircraft). You may also then need to backtrack after landing further delaying aircraft in the circuit.
Thanks for the reply wally
Last edited by the_rookie; 10th Jul 2013 at 01:53.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wherever seniority dictates
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some alternative airmanship points of view:
- The less time we spend in a CTAF mixing it with other aircraft, the lower the risk is to the 70 odd people behind us.
- We can usually only backtrack from the runway ends, and our taxi speed is limited to 25kts. In many places we operate (Emerald, Bundy are examples), if we join the circuit to land 06 or 14 at those airports, it will mean rolling through, turning around, backtracking at 25kts for up to 2km. The whole process from mid downwind to being clear of the runway may be up to 5 or 6 minutes. A straight in opposite direction approach may require someone to extend downwind but it won't be for that long because we'll just vacate at the taxiway and be out of your way.
- Straight in approaches allow us to fly with autopilot coupled most of the way down the approach. This leaves both pilots free to maintain a higher level of situational awareness than if we fly a circuit. Also assists us to ensure a stabilised approach as per ICAO's guidance.
- Any tailwind component we choose to accept will only be accepted if it is within all of the relevant performance limitations, and additionally does not require any additional braking compared to going the other way. Keep in mind that the landing performance of most turboprops is quite incredible considering their size. Braking requirements can be offset by considering different flap settings and/or propeller RPM settings for the landing.
- Jaba mentioned pax comfort. Firstly, see above - it is not going to be even noticeable to them. But secondly, pax comfort ranks below pax safety and if I feel a straight in is safer, we're doing it.
- The Q400 is a medium wake turbulence category aeroplane and having us fly around the circuit in front of you puts the responsibility for separation on to the pilots behind us, and often they seem blissfully unaware.
- On the pax comfort subject, buzzing around at 1500ft in summer is no more fun in a Dash than it is in a Jabiru. A straight in allows us to get through those bumps a bit quicker.
There are many reasons why a straight in approach (potentially with a tailwind component) is preferred by turboprop operators, and it has a lot less to do with time saving than you might think. And absolutely nothing to do with ego as suggested earlier.
Nobody can excuse the poor airmanship of people muscling their way in and ordering aircraft around but I really don't hear of that happening very often these days.
- The less time we spend in a CTAF mixing it with other aircraft, the lower the risk is to the 70 odd people behind us.
- We can usually only backtrack from the runway ends, and our taxi speed is limited to 25kts. In many places we operate (Emerald, Bundy are examples), if we join the circuit to land 06 or 14 at those airports, it will mean rolling through, turning around, backtracking at 25kts for up to 2km. The whole process from mid downwind to being clear of the runway may be up to 5 or 6 minutes. A straight in opposite direction approach may require someone to extend downwind but it won't be for that long because we'll just vacate at the taxiway and be out of your way.
- Straight in approaches allow us to fly with autopilot coupled most of the way down the approach. This leaves both pilots free to maintain a higher level of situational awareness than if we fly a circuit. Also assists us to ensure a stabilised approach as per ICAO's guidance.
- Any tailwind component we choose to accept will only be accepted if it is within all of the relevant performance limitations, and additionally does not require any additional braking compared to going the other way. Keep in mind that the landing performance of most turboprops is quite incredible considering their size. Braking requirements can be offset by considering different flap settings and/or propeller RPM settings for the landing.
- Jaba mentioned pax comfort. Firstly, see above - it is not going to be even noticeable to them. But secondly, pax comfort ranks below pax safety and if I feel a straight in is safer, we're doing it.
- The Q400 is a medium wake turbulence category aeroplane and having us fly around the circuit in front of you puts the responsibility for separation on to the pilots behind us, and often they seem blissfully unaware.
- On the pax comfort subject, buzzing around at 1500ft in summer is no more fun in a Dash than it is in a Jabiru. A straight in allows us to get through those bumps a bit quicker.
There are many reasons why a straight in approach (potentially with a tailwind component) is preferred by turboprop operators, and it has a lot less to do with time saving than you might think. And absolutely nothing to do with ego as suggested earlier.
Nobody can excuse the poor airmanship of people muscling their way in and ordering aircraft around but I really don't hear of that happening very often these days.
I think the answer to this is plain and simple airmanship. Provided the straight in approach is legal and in compliance with company sops, all is needed is some courtesy and a request to circuit traffic to fit in. If that cannot be accommodated then just join the normal circuit with some speed control for separation.
Wagga is a good example where an arrival from Sydney is easier for a straight in landing on runway 23. If there is an aircraft conducting circuits on 05 then a polite request to extend the downwind leg is usually accommodated. If more than 1 or 2 aircraft in the circuit then don't ask as it gets too difficult and just join the normal circuit.
As for just barging in
As for the ATR, there is no evidence of a tail wind or even a straight in approach at this stage.
Wagga is a good example where an arrival from Sydney is easier for a straight in landing on runway 23. If there is an aircraft conducting circuits on 05 then a polite request to extend the downwind leg is usually accommodated. If more than 1 or 2 aircraft in the circuit then don't ask as it gets too difficult and just join the normal circuit.
As for just barging in
As for the ATR, there is no evidence of a tail wind or even a straight in approach at this stage.
Jaba, admittedly your experiences are a little more current than mine as I have not been out and about as much in the last couple of years as I have in the previous 10 or so. However, my experience does not agree with yours.
I have always found Qlink and FlyDoc crews to operate to a very high standard of professionalism. Haven't had much to do with Virgin ATRs.
I always try to make way for these guys as it is no skin off my nose to do so, but have never got the impression that they expected me to.
Perhaps things have deteriorated somewhat in more recent times.
Dr
PS: Oh yeah, ..... and I fly straight-in approaches whenever it is appropriate to do so.
I have always found Qlink and FlyDoc crews to operate to a very high standard of professionalism. Haven't had much to do with Virgin ATRs.
I always try to make way for these guys as it is no skin off my nose to do so, but have never got the impression that they expected me to.
Perhaps things have deteriorated somewhat in more recent times.
Dr
PS: Oh yeah, ..... and I fly straight-in approaches whenever it is appropriate to do so.
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 10th Jul 2013 at 02:29.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Trentham Vic
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my day (here we go again) the General Manager or Boss was often an ex Pilot (Frank Ball etc) but today he or she is more often from an accounting background, so forgive my cynicism but I can't help thinking straight in approaches are mostly dictated by economic reasoning rather than safety!!!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 58
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding of the ICAO comparison of circling vs. instrument approaches refers to circling at the MDA after an instrument approach, not a visual circuit. It is true that a straight-in instrument approach is safer than a circling manuoever, that is beyond doubt. The ICAO comparison assumes landing into wind I take it? Landing with a tail-wind entails more risk than a head-wind; there can be no arguments there.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Jenna
Yep...that works fine. But that is not all the time. The exceptions are rare no doubt, but the odd ones do happen.
Muffie
When done with that in mind, I have no problem, heck I will take a tail wind component when it is suitable too. It makes sense.
But when the Dash 8 is using the whole strip and a lot of brakes and reversing the fan, the pax notice. I have been one, and lets just say my wife is one critic who is informed enough to know the difference. She did not get Silver status in a matter of months with the big Q from flying QL alone. So a lot of flights in regional Q. The anecdotal comments come from colleagues who clearly can tell the difference. So the PAX effect is real.
Notwithstanding, the SI may well be safe and within parameters, just the odd one here and there might be the lesser of the two choices. Maybe it is only ever someone else.
My observations have all been on the ground.
As for specific sites, how about YHBA, tail wind on 29.....long landing, and a long taxi back. And it usually is not the Q400's that I have noticed.
Basically though your kind of approach to things sounds fair and reasonable.
As Forkie has noted, in the air I find the various crews from RFDS, QF, VA all quite good be they prop or jet, so no problems there. The level of co-operation has been great. But that was not the topic of my massive thread drift.
As usual, if you can take something from the thread ...great, if not...so be it.
I think the answer to this is plain and simple airmanship. Provided the straight in approach is legal and in compliance with company sops, all is needed is some courtesy and a request to circuit traffic to fit in. If that cannot be accommodated then just join the normal circuit with some speed control for separation.
Wagga is a good example where an arrival from Sydney is easier for a straight in landing on runway 23. If there is an aircraft conducting circuits on 05 then a polite request to extend the downwind leg is usually accommodated. If more than 1 or 2 aircraft in the circuit then don't ask as it gets too difficult and just join the normal circuit.
As for just barging in
Wagga is a good example where an arrival from Sydney is easier for a straight in landing on runway 23. If there is an aircraft conducting circuits on 05 then a polite request to extend the downwind leg is usually accommodated. If more than 1 or 2 aircraft in the circuit then don't ask as it gets too difficult and just join the normal circuit.
As for just barging in
But that is not all the time. The exceptions are rare no doubt, but the odd ones do happen.Muffie
- Jaba mentioned pax comfort. Firstly, see above - it is not going to be even noticeable to them. But secondly, pax comfort ranks below pax safety and if I feel a straight in is safer, we're doing it.
But when the Dash 8 is using the whole strip and a lot of brakes and reversing the fan, the pax notice. I have been one, and lets just say my wife is one critic who is informed enough to know the difference. She did not get Silver status in a matter of months with the big Q from flying QL alone. So a lot of flights in regional Q. The anecdotal comments come from colleagues who clearly can tell the difference. So the PAX effect is real.
Notwithstanding, the SI may well be safe and within parameters, just the odd one here and there might be the lesser of the two choices. Maybe it is only ever someone else.
My observations have all been on the ground.
As for specific sites, how about YHBA, tail wind on 29.....long landing, and a long taxi back. And it usually is not the Q400's that I have noticed.
Basically though your kind of approach to things sounds fair and reasonable.
As Forkie has noted, in the air I find the various crews from RFDS, QF, VA all quite good be they prop or jet, so no problems there. The level of co-operation has been great. But that was not the topic of my massive thread drift.
As usual, if you can take something from the thread ...great, if not...so be it.
This thread started with a report that the ATR had an excursion to one SIDE of the runway. How did we get to straight-in approaches, landing in tailwinds and circuit protocols?
If the thing had speared off the far end, I could understand a debate about the risks of landing with a tailwind. But off to one side - unless he tried to ground-loop it to stop - is an unlikely outcome from any of the above.
Steering failures are not unknown; neither are brake lock-ups, flat tyres etc etc, so wouldn't we be better to await the final report?
If the thing had speared off the far end, I could understand a debate about the risks of landing with a tailwind. But off to one side - unless he tried to ground-loop it to stop - is an unlikely outcome from any of the above.
Steering failures are not unknown; neither are brake lock-ups, flat tyres etc etc, so wouldn't we be better to await the final report?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightaware Track
Well guys to dispel some theories here is the info from Flightaware.
11:08AM -22.0684 148.0790 Course 354° North Speed128 Kts or 237Kmh ALT 900 -720 FPM Descending Aus ATC (RADAR)
So that is landing on Runway 34 which has an elevation of 770 feet. Someone out there could provide the WX at the time and we could then all be armchair experts.
Groggy
11:08AM -22.0684 148.0790 Course 354° North Speed128 Kts or 237Kmh ALT 900 -720 FPM Descending Aus ATC (RADAR)
So that is landing on Runway 34 which has an elevation of 770 feet. Someone out there could provide the WX at the time and we could then all be armchair experts.
Groggy