Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Request vs Require.

Old 20th Jan 2015, 21:40
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 261
If you "request" a runway you should do it early in the piece. The response should be to either expect the requested runway or that it is unavailable unless operationally required. Another response might be that it will be available but with a delay. Other aircraft should not be penalised because an aircraft wants the convenience of a different runway.
Arriving at night after a long duty and facing a runway that is adequate but has no great margin would probably justify the pilot "requiring" the longer or more user friendly runway.
Kelly Slater is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 00:01
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: at the computer
Posts: 153
Request vs Require.

ATC can't unduly delay an aircraft that requires a non duty runway for operational reasons.

If it is for other than operational reasons, aircraft using the duty runway will have priority.
1Charlie is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 00:37
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 944
What counts as 'operational reasons', the fact that I am running late and that RWY34L would save me 15 minutes taxi.
Ollie Onion is online now  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 01:20
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
What counts as 'operational reasons',
The decision of the pilot in command, full stop, end of story. There is no "list".

What irks me is ATC coming back and questioning is my "require" for operational reasons.
The only answer they ever get is: "I say again, require ----".

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 01:53
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,768
Yep precisely, at least you understand.

The others are just white noise.
ACMS is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 04:04
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,768
You either can't read the posts above or there is a good reason you only fly light twins.....

I've said it before as have others, we don't require the long runway just to save time or for fun.

Ok.
ACMS is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 06:18
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Doomadgee
Posts: 3
I'm with ACMS. If you are landing a heavy or super after 14 hrs I will require the runway with the best landing performance results. Isnt that just sound airmanship?
Capn Rex Havoc is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 06:47
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
I find it easier to ask the question the other way round, "Can you accept RWY(short)?" Then if I get anything other than an affirm (request/prefer/like/rather have RWY(long) or rather not/we are a triple seven today/we'll give it a go) I am happy to take that as a negative, and issue the long one.

What irks me is ATC coming back and questioning is my "require" for operational reasons.
I can't imagine why anyone would question it. I like getting a "require", it's unambiguous, ends the discussion and means I don't have to decide anything (my inner public servant loves that).
Nautilus Blue is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 07:22
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 448
ACMS I hope I am misreading your comments but you come across as very self-important. Why shouldn't you accept the shorter parallel runway in SYD?

Why is your fatigue any more important than the next guy, why is your fuel burn on taxi more vital than the next carrier or why is your delay more critical than another pilot who does accept the duty runway?

Having 'only' a 300m surplus is a weak excuse. The performance figures that you derive are factored so you'd know full well that as long as you put it down on the aiming point you have far more runway in surplus. By your own figures of 1951m LDR you have an un-factored landing distance of 1169m. That leaves over a kilometer of excess runway on 16L/34R.
You say "we are not in the business of close enough is good enough" but if a pilot can not land within a Km of the aim point then that is not good enough to be in this business. Regardless of whether they have been flying for 10 hours.

I understand your statement that it is our job to minimise risk but it must be within reason. If every pilot flying into Sydney wants to completely minimise risk and pull off the runway after landing with 2Km of unused tarmac ahead of them then Sydney will become a single runway airport.
But you know that won't happen, because someone else will land (quite safely) on the shorter runway, it just won't be you because you are saying your needs take priority over other pilots needs.

It is not a battle between you and ATC because ATC don't lose in this situation, it's the other pilots who comply with the rules who suffer from your "requirement".

*Obviously there are certain circumstances where requiring a runway is entirely appropriate, I accept that. *
Beer Baron is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 07:30
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
The performance figures that you derive are factored
Not sure what you fly but figures from Boeing QRH are NOT factored.
S70IP is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 08:08
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Absolute classic from Air Asia and CTR today, gave us a good laugh. Can't remember exact statements but the conversation went vaguely something like this...

(XAX)"Request 34 Arrival."
(CTR)"Requirement?"
(XAX)"Affirm, request runway 34."
(CTR)"Confirm requiring 34?"
(XAX)"Affirm, request runway 34."

Xanadu eventually accepted runway 27 albeit somewhat reluctantly judging by the tone.

Approx. 10mins pass....

(XAX New voice) "Xanadu XXX we're unable 27, require 34."

Now, I'm not having a dig at ATC at all but it sounded like the Air Asia guys may have initially been pressured into accepting something they weren't entirely happy with, be it through lack of understanding of local procedures or difficulties with English. So my question to the ATC guys and gals out there is...do you folks have any scope for interpreting situations like this as a "requirement" without the magic words being spoken verbatim, or are your hands pretty much tied?
2Plus is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 08:25
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
do you folks have any scope for interpreting situations like this as a "requirement" without the magic words being spoken verbatim, or are your hands pretty much tied?
In that situation (non native english speaker, international, and not intimately familiar with our procedures) I would probably have given 34 after the first request, and certainly after the second. What the books and powers that be say may be different however.
Nautilus Blue is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 08:42
  #33 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,960
why is your fuel burn on taxi more vital than the next carrier or why is your delay more critical than another pilot who does accept the duty runway?
I am never pressured by our company on operational decision making, OTP and trying to save 400 kg is not a high consideration for me, its the last consideration after safety and comfort. Likewise I will rather go off track 100 nm if necessary, and not worry about the additional fuel or time penalty.

Why shouldn't you accept the shorter parallel runway in SYD?
As I mentioned before, CX had to "communicate" for years with ASA in order to be able to use 16L/34R, CX were only recently granted permission to use it. ASA have different internal rules for international carriers than they do for domestic. International arrivals have different fuel requirements (and alternates available) to the local carriers, often CX will land heavier with more fuel than say a QF flight of the same type on the same route as CX has to use a further away alternate.

Having 'only' a 300m surplus is a weak excuse.
No its not, everyone knows MEL often when 27 is in use, the wind often has a 20 kt plus crosswind wind with low level mechanical turbulence. It takes very little additional speed due to a low level wind change to eat up 300m, wind change to a tailwind, increased IAS due low level wind shift, ground spoilers failing to arm, crossing the threshold slightly high, miss the hump and have a slightly longer flare, or wet all eat up around 300m on an A330 when heavy.

The performance figures that you derive are factored so you'd know full well that as long as you put it down on the aiming point you have far more runway in surplus
How do you know if he used before flight or in flight numbers ?

You say "we are not in the business of close enough is good enough" but if a pilot can not land within a Km of the aim point then that is not good enough to be in this business.
Transport aircraft use a touch down zone. It takes very little additional height crossing the threshold to eat up 300m.

It is not a battle between you and ATC because ATC don't lose in this situation, it's the other pilots who comply with the rules who suffer from your "requirement".
Often I see domestic carriers use A, E, J for departures "jumping the queue" ahead of of aircraft that taxied before them, or land well before an international carrier after ATC gave them a visual approach. Funny how like with most things in aviation, there is always a bit of give and take, you don't seem to mention the savings you get at times.

I dont harp on when domestic carriers sit so far back on E so that traffic cannot pass behind to get to A. I put the park brake on, let them move forward when they are ready, and then resume my taxi.

More often than not the reason for multiple runway use in Australia is a political one, not ATC operational, its the shared noise model.

So my question to the ATC guys and gals out there is...do you folks have any scope for interpreting situations like this as a "requirement" without the magic words being spoken verbatim, or are your hands pretty much tied?
I heard a very similar thing going into MEL with China Southern following CX, they could not understand the subtle difference, in the end they said something along the lines, "whatever CX said, we need the same".
swh is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 08:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 3,498
Welcome to Australia everyone.

Our sole purpose is to make landing here the most confronting experience you'll ever have!

FFS. No wonder this country is going down the gurgler!
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 08:55
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
More often than not the reason for multiple runway use in Australia is a political one, not ATC operational, its the shared noise model.
Correct.

Like most things aviation regulatory in Australia, it's just politics dressed up as safety.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 09:30
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: M.I.A.
Posts: 147
Not surprised there's confusion. Even ASA doesn't understand that there's a difference. From the AIP:
AIP ENR 14.2 Selection of Landing Direction
The pilot in command must ensure that the nominated runway or direction is operationally suitable. If the nominated runway or direction is not suitable then ATC must be advised using the phrase REQUIRE RUNWAY (number). Such a request will not result in loss of priority provided it is made:
a. before reaching 80NM (120NM for jets) from a capital city aero-drome (including Essendon) or 30NM from other controlled aerodromes, for arriving aircraft wholly within controlled air-space; or
b. on first contact with ATC for arriving aircraft entering controlled airspace within the distance specified above or a control area step or a control zone. The decision to land rests solely with the pilot in command.
Bug Smasher Smasher is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 10:10
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
As I mentioned before, CX had to "communicate" for years with ASA in order to be able to use 16L/34R, CX were only recently granted permission to use it. ASA have different internal rules for international carriers than they do for domestic.
I find that a little hard to believe given that I have seen QF and foreign B744 arrive and depart on 16L/34R.

In YSSY it is NOTAMed that 330/787 can be processed onto 16L. If you want to hold for 16R and fit in thats fine, but you should not be cutting in on some other guy who now gets sent over to 16L just because youre not comfortable landing on a 2000m+ runway.

It remains though that some Asian airlines in particular flatly refuse to land on 16L/34R which is basically giving themselves a competitive advantage even though their aircraft is more than able to handle it.

(a 737/A320 doesn’t qualify as anything more than a light twin)
Except the braking action in your 'heavy' is actually better than my light twin so maybe we should start requiring 16R and 34 in YMML all the time.
ga_trojan is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 10:48
  #38 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,057
no NDB approaches
I may be a bit out of date but why not? Provided that you can fly a simple instrument approach there should be no problem? The NDB minima are such that you shouldn't get into trouble, either you see it or you don't and if you don't there is a nice big safety margin. Have done the NDB approach into Durban in a B744 in poor viz but would have had a job to explain had I refused. (Durban just one example).

Have heard some really interesting conversations pilot to ATC at Amsterdam when the wind is from the West at around 10 to 15knots and ATC are using R/Way 18! Usually early in the morning.
parabellum is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 11:00
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 834
Required field length

For decades the FAR landing field length required was the actual landing distance divided by 0.60 for destinations and 0.33 for alternates. A hang over from the old CAR regulatory regime. It was 0.70 for piston transports from memory.

Suddenly we are getting 15% margins, zero margins for emergencies, confusion about what constitutes an emergency for landing field calculation purposes, and now this prevarication about which runway is optimum, and which is rolling the statistical dice.

(Think you have a career? Try overrunning the shorter of two runways by ten feet...oh, you were trying to be fair to the other guys? Thanks. Bye. Seriously, don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out)

I have had lots of years in the "light twin" arena (what a put-down). I have had the red headed step-child experience of being often shunted over to the drag strip so that my heavy-driving betters could have a leisurely arrival on the real runway. It galled then, a little, when I let it.

Now I am one of those heavieset wankers issuing media releases about my impending stately arrival. I have a fraction of the easy type familiarity that I enjoyed when I used to wear a 737. I am almost always tired, and always cranky. I try not to let that interfere with the timely and efficient flow of traffic such that I am requiring undue excess runway or expeditious arrival taxi. But sometimes I just need it, other times I am rubbed raw after listening to my English level six cohorts all night and just want it in a fit of pique.

In an earlier post I alluded to taxi costs, but that was as a matter of information only. I typically do not give a rat's about incremental savings which will be awarded to some bonus monkey anyway.

By the way...other guys have commented on making 300 metres go away quickly. I am left wondering how they keep their margin of error so tight. they must fly Boeings?

Last edited by Australopithecus; 21st Jan 2015 at 11:16.
Australopithecus is online now  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 11:09
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
I'm with Nautilus Blue - the to-and-fro of trying to extract "require" from an International just ain't worth the palaver. If nothing else we'd look right wallies if they went off the end.

Re. domestics requiring a longer runway and being questioned. When the previous however many 737s/A320s have accepted the shorter runway and you don't it strikes us as rather odd and we begin to wonder if you have a problem. Fine if you don't want to tell us but it helps our planning if we know the reason so we can plan around it accordingly if necessary.

If the sequence goes to poo it helps if we know not to even bother trying to max you up for instance. Sure, we can go to plan "B" but why waste time trying for "A" if we already know there's no point? Giving us a bit of information helps us provide a better service to you and to everyone else around you.
le Pingouin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.