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

Request vs Require.

Old 30th Jan 2015, 03:21
  #161 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Asperger syndrome is still alive and well in the pilot body.

Wingoes, I thought it was funny
WAGM is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2015, 05:47
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 3,067
Received 138 Likes on 63 Posts
Normal international practice.
Would also end 'innovative' solutions like SODPROPS on safety grounds so we can't dare have any of that
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2015, 07:37
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 694
Received 63 Likes on 37 Posts
Keg
Or that 16L/ 34R is too short.... and the taxiways leading to/from it don't have adequate wing tip clearance to permit 'super' or even 744/ 777 arrivals from east to land on it. That's what creates many of the over flys from the east.
744 and 777 can operate to/from 16L/34R, with the 773 there are restrictions, with the 744/772 there are none (well hardly any).
The reason 744 don't operate is three-fold,
1/. SACL wanted the taxiway shoulders to settle after the runway opened (1994);
2/. SOP for the local 744 operator effectively "banned" ops to/from the runway;
3/. Noise issues

wingoes
Normal international practice for rwy assignment is according to the direction of approach.
IE at sydney, from the east 16L/34R and from the west 16R/34
Might work if Melbourne was deemed to be east of Sydney.
missy is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2015, 09:32
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
744 and 777 can operate to/from 16L/34R, with the 773 there are restrictions, with the 744/772 there are none (well hardly any).
The 777-300ER takes a 40 tonne payload hit on a standard day with APU-pack and t/o bump

777-200LR takes a 20 tonne hit.

777-200ER RR powered takes a 5 tonne hit.

16L is too short to lift any meaningful payload for anything more than about 8 hrs in a 300ER
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2015, 12:07
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
tower,

leaving you high because 34R traffic want to stay high due track miles,
I'm not familiar with your SOPS but it shouldn't trouble a jet operator to be asked to "expedite descent to xxxx". My jet won't burn any appreciable amount of fuel flying level at 3000 feet vs 6000 feet, nor will it burn any appreciable amount of fuel descending at 500 fpm vs descending at idle thrust then flying level at 3000 feet.

The pilots might prefer one or the other due convective layers and turbulence, but that doesn't preclude you asking.

But as I said, your SOPS are your SOPS. I'm not suggesting you vary them, but maybe there is latitude for frequent operators to your airfield to engage in discussion behind the scenes about what might help with minimising delays.
Derfred is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2015, 00:54
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think wingoes' suggestion of reducing the length of 34L/16R for an advantage at Foxtrot Alpha is easily achievable for people taking the Papa 1 Sierra Sierra exit.

(I got it, too, wingoes. )
Creampuff is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2015, 04:00
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Puff
Papa 1 Sierra Sierra exit
Which one's that? My Jepp chart doesn't show it...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2015, 05:44
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sincity
Posts: 1,192
Received 27 Likes on 15 Posts
it's near Uniform Papa
maggot is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2015, 05:52
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BlackPrince77
I assume you don't do an autoland on every single ILS you fly either because technically, the autopilot flies the approach better than you and thus, is a higher level of safety than you manually flying it?
It may fly the approach better but the autoland can be cr@p without LVP protections... Just ask SQ about their 777 in Munich a while back
White Knight is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2015, 18:50
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kyeemagh
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
chairman's award for wingoes! (is that a Knighthood now?)

I've seen 744 from SIN and MD11 from HNL land 16L. Only because it'd been offered to save 15-20 min airborne delay.

Arrival delays to 16R/34L are almost universally higher than 16L/34R. This becomes acute at 6am when daylight saving time ends. Extra requirements to use the longer runway during peak arrival times will add to the cumulative airborne delay for ALL operators. I've seen the cost to industry of several hours additional airborne delay due to a single requirement.

ATC prefer to process int'l arrivals to the long runway to reduce ground delays and complexity however with too many requirements of the "other side" it can become quite the airshow over the top of the CTR.

Visit the SYD TCU one day. Most keen crews who do find it an eye opener.
Ivasrus is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.