Request vs Require.

[ANCPER]

Some need to reread post 40. It doesn't come down to whether or not the smaller rwy is legal, but operational suitability and I'd say for ACMS/404Titan that doesn't mean convenience, but F@@@ing operational suitability; long enough given their LW, recency, BOC etc.

FFS, where else but Australia, the land of the pedant, 6 f,,,,,,, pages on REQUIRE/REQUEST. This place has gone to the dogs.

[PPRuNeUser0184]

I've 'required' the ILS on many a CAVOK day in Sydney when everyone else were accepting visual approaches. 99% of the time it was due to tiredness. Yes, it upset ATC and yes it pi#$ed off other pilots but do I care....nope. For reasons on the day, I decided it was the safest course of action. Not efficient for my company or ATC but at the end of the day as PIC I only have three parties that I have to satisfy 100% of the time.....CASA, my crew and the 180 pax down the back. Keeping the company and ATC happy come last.

This same argument applies to requiring the longer runway.

Thats my view anyway.

[Beer Baron]

Rex Havoc,
What is simple is that you made the statement in a post directed to me that;

Intersection departures when properly calculated, do not reduce the safety margin.

That statement is factually incorrect. Simple.

You can spin it with stats and likely hoods but it's still wrong.
How many times have you or someone you've known over-run the shorter of two runways? One in a million?
See, the low occurrence count doesn't diminish the point.

[Keg]

99% of the time it was due to tiredness.

Just playing devils advocate here.

Why were you tired? Did you not get sufficient rest before your tour of duty? If you're so tired that you 'require' the ILS then how would you have dealt with a non normal or an emergency? Should you have been there in the first place?

It's been a fascinating discussion to watch but the nuance lacking in some of the 'point scoring' has been interesting. If you 'require' the long runway then go for it. Sometimes that requirement demonstrates a highly professional and competent decision. On other occasions that requirement may be the complete opposite. The reality is that none of us not on the flight deck will know which one it is that day. That won't stop us passing judgement though!

[PPRuNeUser0184]

Why were you tired? Did you not get sufficient rest before your tour of duty? If you're so tired that you 'require' the ILS then how would you have dealt with a non normal or an emergency? Should you have been there in the first place?

You're right. I guess I must be the only pilot who finds relentless 4-5 sector days tiring.

I guess I need to find a new job.

Just to clarify.......requiring the ILS is not due to the fact that I am about to pass out with tiredness and finding myself falling into micro sleeps on approach. It simply means that it's been a long trip and I would rather use the automatics to their full capability to manage the threat of tiredness thus enabling the safest outcome to be achieved given the circumstances.

I doubt you will find many 380 skippers accepting visual approaches via a 5nm final at 6am onto 34L in Sydney.

[Keg]

For the same reasons that you have been tired after 4 sectors on the 767 on day 5 of a domestic pattern on min rest.

See this is what I find is interesting. I know the tiredness you speak of. I understand the jet lag, long tours of duty, as well as the accumulated tiredness from 4-5 days of early starts and long days. I've experienced it all.

I'm not sure it's ever made me require an ILS on a CAVOK day though. My logic being that if I can't function and do a visual approach on a day such as you describe then I probably shouldn't be there to start off with.

I have required 16 (or 34) in Melbourne at the end of a long day when 27 the duty runway but that was more about it being northerly with a variable tailwind and potential overshoot shear and a pretty heavy aeroplane rather than my tiredness levels alone.

Anyway, each to their own. Like I said in my last post. If you're requiring an ILS on a CAVOK day then the rest of us don't know what baggage you're carrying (metaphorically) but it won't stop us from saying 'WTF?' to each other across the flight deck when we hear it!

Require away to your heart's content. Now that I'm an A380 driver it's about a beer a minute for any delay!

(I note the edit as I was typing KZ Kiwi. I'll leave my comments as is. I understand the point you're trying to make. I'm not sure whether I'm just missing the nuance or perhaps just look at it a bit differently).

[C441]

I've 'required' the ILS on many a CAVOK day in Sydney when everyone else were accepting visual approaches. 99% of the time it was due to tiredness.

Without opening a whole new thread direction, did you transit Sydney and head back to NZ on some/most/all of these occasions?

My interest is from a fatigue study perspective only.......no questioning of your decision-making intended. PM if you'd prefer.

[maggot]

Originally Posted by KZ Kiwi

I doubt you will find many 380 skippers accepting visual approaches via a 5nm final at 6am onto 34L in Sydney.

Cause you'll find yourself vectored for about 7nm regardless of your type.

And you're wrong.

because a visual onto yssy parallels via and ils/gls is as easy as it gets

[framer]

FFS, where else but Australia, the land of the pedant, 6 f,,,,,,, pages on REQUIRE/REQUEST. This place has gone to the dogs.

It certainly feels that way. If they say they want it, give it to them, if they don't say anything, shuffle them around as you see fit. Simple.

I'm not sure it's ever made me require an ILS on a CAVOK day though. My logic being that if I can't function and do a visual approach on a day such as you describe then I probably shouldn't be there to start off with.

Everyone will have their own way of managing risk though Keg as I'm sure you'l appreciate. Some folk may think to themselves " hmmm, I've never flown an aircraft without an autopilot in my whole career, I'm not that familiar with this place, my airline will sack me if the Foqa gets carried away, I'd lose the house if that happened, my sim training is a joke, I wish I had three sessions a year like Keg instead of two , geez these Ausi controllers speak fast......stuff it, I'll go the ILS and that way if we get a non normal I'll be in a slightly better place to manage it.
I don't think like that because I am fortunate enough to have flown airliners day in day out without an a/p for years and also have benefitted from excellent training systems, but I would understand if some folk did.

[Oakape]

Its really quite simple. Weather, runways, whatever.

If you want it, but its not a must have, its 'request'.

If you must have it for some reason, its 'require'.

Are some going to abuse that & require something that they really don't have to have? They sure are! Its just human nature.

Can you do anything about that? Not really, you can't even tell who's who.

So you have a choice. You can either get an ulcer or you can forget about it & work on what you can control.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Beer Baron -

You can spin it with stats and likely hoods but it's still wrong.
How many times have you or someone you've known over-run the shorter of two runways? One in a million?
See, the low occurrence count doesn't diminish the point.

I think the point you are missing is this -

The risks you are referring to involves a systems failure of some description e.g. an Engine failure- which is MECHANICAL in nature and not pilot controlled in its occurrence. IE the pilot doesn't cause the engine failure.

A landing on short, high x wind, runway after a long duty is a PILOT FLYING job without any systems failure.

Anyhow, this discussion has run its course with me. I shall continue to operate the way I operate around the world, making airmanship decisions depending on the situations I am faced with, and you do the same. I wish you all the best and safe flying no matter where you fly to.

[WhisprSYD]

From my side if you tell me you require something (or in the case of someone who doesn't converse in English naturally, at least imply that you require something) you'll get it without fuss and without care what your reason is..

But please, if you require the longer runway, when I say STAR available let me know before I give you the STAR and you read it back that you require the other one..

Most do.. Some dont.


On a side note it is interesting reading some using tiredness/fatigue etc as reasons for requiring non default rwys/arrivals. Definitely valid in a safety first environment, but I think from my side of the screen there would be hell to pay if it was aired that lengthy delays were the result of a reduced arrival rate because the approach controller was feeling tired at the end of a run of shifts and didn't feel capable of running the typical spacing.

Not trying to take the piss, just food for thought.

[ACMS]

Well mate as a Pilot relying your service ( basically so I don't hit another ) it would concern me greatly if you were knowingly fatigued to the point of impacting on your job and then continued to work at the same pace.

I would expect you to know better and take reasonable steps to prevent such a safety breakdown.

[Compylot]

What an interesting discussion gentlemen.

It is providing a fascinating insight into the different personality types evident within the cockpit.

First we have the "Commander". As epitomized by ACMS, leadsled
(tootlepip!), Rex havoc, 404 titan etc. I AM the COMMANDER, I AM in
control and I AM THE CAPTAIN! Whatever I request or require I WILL GET because I AM THE COMMANDER! And I will back my decisions by pointing you to the fact that as COMMANDER I need to find the path of least resistance to minimise the threats on my operation AS COMMANDER! Most often these personality types are the result of early CRM training and are a product of having been told over and over that effective CRM is the result of being assertive, speaking up, being in control etc. I can imagine these blokes are likely in the twilight of their careers, mid 50s, approaching retirement and whatever they have to say to make them squint less out the window when trying to fly the PAPI is fair game!

Then we have the 'cobbers", (beer baron, glekichi, bentrees, GA trojan) probably mid 30s, working for 'the other domestic' new "commanders", no nonsense but not so much as to take it to the 'nth' degree to use any excuse to get what they want. Unlike the "Commanders" the cobbers are looking at making maximum use of efficiency because they won't be browsing airliners.net or pprune at the hotel but are still probably young enough to have a mistress waiting for them in the lobby lounge.

Then you have the Kegs, brought up from day one on 'effective' crew management - the peacekeepers. A bit like Schrödinger's cat, both
agreeing and disagreeing with you until you ask. (Bless the Qantas psychometric testing!)

Whatever gentlemen, 6 pages of fascinating discussion yet I haven't seen one Jepp reference..please can someone paste a detailed AIP reference complete with italics and "my bolds"...?

(but I must say I was heartened to see at least one put down regarding flying C150s, yes 10 points to you ACMS!)

Looking forward to the next 6 pages

[ACMS]

Sorry pardon my ignorance but I didn't think it was rocket science.

There are some in here that just don't get it.

It reminds me of the joke about the old Bull and the young Bull at the top of the hill looking down at all young Heifers......anyway.

[Fishbowl]

bunch of fairies

How do you know a pilot is in the room..because ACMS will come and tell you that he/she is there.

What a bunch of princesses. Are you lot getting bent fingernails from all of your button pushing?

ACMS.. I took up an experience airline captain the other day in a 152..a size 20 frozen chook from the supermarket had better flying skills..so don't beat down on anyone about what plan they fly.

It's good to know that any ATCO can be a commercial pilot but a very small select few commercial pilots could be ATCO's.

[ga_trojan]

GA Trojan,
Those are word revealing the attitude of a person who, in my opinion, should not be on the flight deck of an aircraft.

Well if the attitude of some of these guys prevailed in my airline you'd have to cancel about 50% of our flights as they would be to scared to land on a runway that might be remotely close to the landing limit. (which has a safety factor in them anyway)

The thing is in Sydney the braking action is good 99.98% of the time, it doesn't snow or get ice. If it's heavy rain or poor viz then maybe it is a requirement, but most of the time really there shouldn't be an issue if you cross the fence at 50' and land in the TDZ.

MEL I don't find to much of an issue as the penalty of getting moved around is not that severe, SYD is a killer as you add an extra 10+minutes (even more if you're international) in taxi and anything up to 30 miles if you get moved because of someone's 'requirement'.

[ACMS]

So tell me, would you be happy to have your wife and kids on an Aircraft that was crewed by a fatigued crew landing on a runway with only a few hundred meters margin at 03:30 body clock time.....

Or the same Aircraft landing on a runway with 1,300 m margin.

Which one would you rather your loved ones be on?

[LeadSled]

ACMS,
I think that GA Trojan is one of those balanced personalities --- a chip on both shoulders.
An actual professional pilot, who has made command in a serious airline will have absolutely know trouble sorting request and require.
Tootle pip!!

[OzSync]

Yep you two are definitely old school. And not in a good way.