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

Request vs Require.

Old 22nd Jan 2015, 11:46
  #61 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South Island
Age: 39
Posts: 511
Im well aware of operational issues.
I'd also request the longer runway in the scenario you describe.
If not available the shorter is also a safe, acceptable alternative.

What you are describing is a request not a requirement.
If you can accept another runway, you're misusing the phrase.
glekichi is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 12:04
  #62 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 37
ACMS, it was a fair question, do you care to answer ?
benttrees is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 12:08
  #63 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Glekichi, that answer sounds suspiciously pedantic......and besides if you don't get what you want, you can always do this....
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 12:21
  #64 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 59
Posts: 322
Does ASA do a similar thing with operators into Sydney?
No but they should. The NATS Review of Sydney included runway occupancy times and it some of the statistics were astonishing, Singapore Airlines had the longest runway occupancy times by a long margin. Sadly nothing has changed.

Keg, the 767 is already being missed, being able to fling them in a tight gap, I guess in a few years we will look fondly on the 330 (or hopefully the 787).

Back to topic, balancing the runways at Sydney is vital to increasing capacity/reducing delays, all 330's and 787's being able to use RWY 16L/34R is a recent change. Jets via Wollongong from RWY 16L is another. For a while Air New Zealand and Qantas aircraft across the ditch were pushed over to depart RWY 16L/34R, now it is all carriers.

If a pilot uses the magic word "REQUIRE" then no problem, it ain't that hard. Perhaps when pilots ask "REQUEST" the response should be "is that a preference or an operational requirement?".

RWY 34L long haul departures to mainland USA and South America routinely REQUIRE a SID RADAR and a RIGHT TURN. Do I believe it to be the case 100% of the time? No, but if they say "REQUIRE" then they get processed accordingly.
sunnySA is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 13:27
  #65 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,695
sunny, surely the Sydney movement cap renders such discussion moot?
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 18:33
  #66 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 356
Maybe it would help resolve the issue if ATC stopped asking if they are requesting or do they require the longer runway, spoon feeding them the words?

If the aircraft then advise they are unable to land on 16L/34R or 27 then well and good, they require the longer runway. If they over-run the runway then why did they land if it was not long enough or why were they unable to land on an adequate runway. Airlines are not suppose to be flaming ab initio flying schools, 500 hour pilots in control seats is no excuse for taking the longer runway.

ACMS, many of us also operate Heavy's and Super's (175T is a fuel order btw) and a more than a few of us also work outside the hours of 9-5 but we also understand the difference between request and require. Going into LAX in a Super for the Northern Complex and telling them you require 25L, it would be like one of those Mastercard moments..... priceless.

Time for a big spoon of concrete for some people.

But seriously it always seems to be the same operators pulling this stunt and gazumping the long runway by abusing the system either by ignorance or inability, I don't know which. Perhaps they should train more on their landings to have confidence in their aircraft's capability.
Mud Skipper is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 19:47
  #67 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,894
Mud Skipper,

At no time has ACMS stated he would take the longer runway for convenience sake. And he has been very patient on multiple occasions on this thread to say so.
Is the comprehension of Australian based pilots so poor, that a well explained argument by several experienced long haul widebodied commanders (and Haughtney as well) and several experienced ATCers not be understood?
In a nutshell, on some occasions, due to particular circumstances, the offered short runway is not long enough. It is the commanders job to decide what the circumstances and conditions are. That's his job. Not really all that hard to work out is it.

PS. Have been offered 25L twice into LAX, a change from 24R but nothing too earth moving. Perhaps you don't get out much?
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 21:34
  #68 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 52
Posts: 447
Does anybody out there have a QRH for the A321? I would be interested to know how much runway it would require at typical landing weight compared to a 330.

The 330 at a landing weight of 170t requires a distance of 1230m (only corrected for weight below 190t) using max manual braking. This is without any margin added and is reflective of a -200 at a landing weight 90% of max allowable.
oicur12.again is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 23:10
  #69 (permalink)  

Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,960
A330-300 at 187t, 2690m approach speed 143 kt, A321-200 at 75.7 2579m approach speed 145 kt. That is for autobrake low, as that how our fat controller says the train set will be used.
swh is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 23:47
  #70 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 52
Posts: 447
So your call to ATC when requiring the longer runway is based on an auto brake low calculation?
oicur12.again is offline  
Old 22nd Jan 2015, 23:58
  #71 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,018
Which autobrake setting would you suggest as a cut off for not using a political runway allocation? Max manual? For day to day ops?
maggot is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2015, 00:03
  #72 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 52
Posts: 447
"Which autobrake setting would you suggest"

Max pedal, probably not. I used max pedal in my post above just as an example.

But a requirement based on lo autobrake is hardly even trying. Maybe med?
oicur12.again is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2015, 01:39
  #73 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
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,
A very reasoned and logical approach.

Unfortunately, quite a number of your colleagues do not see it that way.

Slightly off thread is a controller (in Australia) suggesting I could not deviate from track to avoid going smack into a Cb --- "Clearance not available, maintain current heading".
In this case the reply was "I did not request a clearance, we are advising you of our intentions".

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2015, 02:00
  #74 (permalink)  

Nunc est bibendum
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,201

Thanks SunnySA. Perhaps meeting with the various operators to discuss their runway occupancy and/or allocation could something that ASA needs to consider?

I do have one query:

Jets via Wollongong from RWY 16L is another.
I was on the receiving end of this a number of times in the last few months of 767 ops- probably 8 or 9 times? On 3 of those times when we taxied for 16L there was quite literally no one waiting for departure on 16R... and on two of those occasions only one arrival as we taxied out. On another 3 occasions there was only 1 aircraft awaiting a departure. Another time we were changed to 16R due to the lack of departures and on the other couple of times the change to 16L was probably justified.

I get the logic of it (less delays for everyone due to being able to spread the load across both runways) however the execution of it appeared to be very hit and miss....... mostly 'miss' from where I was sitting!

(Please don't anyone shoot the messenger. I understand the noise sharing, political interference, lack of resources points. That shouldn't stop us from pointing out the flaws in the system).
Keg is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2015, 02:13
  #75 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Just tried to aggregate all the heavy jet runway overrun statistics at Australian International airports and came up with.... ?
Look harder, Lufthansa off the end of 07 in Sydney, PanAm off the end of 25 in Sydney. There have been some very close goes on 07, and some scary missed approaches after touchdown. From memory, there were a few off the end of 26 at Essendon, and several off the end of the short runway in Perth --- two in one day about 1989 or thereabouts. They are just the ones that come to mind without any research.

From many of the posts, it seems few of you, who are obviously not commanders of heavy transport aircraft, understand the legal authority (and responsibilities) of the pilot in command, and exercising those legal rights has nothing to do with ego, or the various pejorative suggestion emanating from those who simply have no idea.

One of the great difficulties I have had, in relatively recent years, is getting the message across to Australian ex-GA pilots, that the legal authority of the pilot in command mean exactly what it says.

It will be interesting when CASA put Part 91 in place, these rights will be thoroughly obscured, to the degree that it will be arguable whether they still exist, and to the degree that it can be said that, in this area, Australia will not be ICAO compliant, and completely out of step with most of the aviation world.

In most country's regulations (and in Australia's current regulations) the matter is one short paragraph, in the best of current Australian aviation regulatory practice, the subject in Part 91 covers many pages, most of which, on examination have nothing to do with the authority of the pilot in command.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2015, 02:48
  #76 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
From many of the posts, it seems few of you, who are obviously not commanders of heavy transport aircraft, understand the legal authority (and responsibilities) of the pilot in command, and exercising those legal rights has nothing to do with ego, or the various pejorative suggestion emanating from those who simply have no idea.
No it sounds like a bunch of princesses who aren't capable of flying their aircraft anywhere near its capablilities and as a result are gaining a competitive advantage whilst I'm coming in from RIVET doing an extra 30 something track miles onto 16L becuase someone is to scared to land on it. Which in theory at Low Autobrakes and Max weight I can't legally plan to land on either!

If you want the longer runways because you think it's necessary that's fine you can hold for that 'requirement', just don't make it more inefficient than it already is for everybody else just because you can't find the touchdown zone.
ga_trojan is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2015, 03:21
  #77 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
"That is for autobrake low, as that how our fat controller says the train set will be used."

Wow, so are you suggesting that when you require the longer runway its because you have only looked at ab low as the stopping factor?

Its an interesting debate. I would have thought that you can only "require" the longer runway when you have insufficient runway using max braking effort. Anything less than max braking effort and technically its not a requirement.
AnQrKa is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2015, 03:32
  #78 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Well NQrKa, runways should only be built that long then!
Spotlight is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2015, 04:25
  #79 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,768
I hope some of you in here don't fly anything bigger than a C-150, if you do then please tell me which flights to avoid...

Now back to the stuff that matters.

Cricket.. and beating the Poms
ACMS is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2015, 05:04
  #80 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 448
Some people need to get off their high(heavy) horse.

We all understand that it is the commanders prerogative to do what he feels he needs to do. We all get that it increases your safety margin to land on a longer runway. And we all understand that if you say you need it you will get it.
This is not some special knowledge that only heavy drivers are privi too. The argument is whether that demand is justified.

Our job is full of safety margins and people use their personal buffers within reason but just because you are the Captain and you are allowed too isn't a reason to go over the top.

Do you fill the fuel tanks to the brim (or MTOW) for every flight? Surely that is safer?
Do you refuse all intersection departures (LHR 09R-N10, LAX 25R-F)? Why accept it, it reduces your safety margin and you are the Captain!

To say "I'm the captain of the ship, I call the shots and I demand the long runway (because my company tells me what autobrake setting I'm allowed to use)", is hypocrisy at its best.
Beer Baron 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.