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

Request vs Require.

Old 20th Jan 2015, 06:01
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 13
Request vs Require.

Without wishing to be too much of a pedant, does anyone else get irked by our neighbours from the north forever requesting the longest runways.
When asked if they "require" the requested runway their level 6 English doesn't appear to know the difference. Knowing the performance of these aircraft, I very much doubt they have operational requirements without an un serviceability. The rest of us are in effect being displaced for their comfort, convenience or lack of airmanship knowing the difference between request and require.

If they tried that in the states and many other countries they would be held to account or delayed at the controllers convenience but ATC seems to bump everyone else to assist them?

Where is the accountability?
WAGM is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 06:42
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 179
I agree. Saw them screw over Cathay one night who got sent off to 16L which didn't go down to well.

Interestingly i have heard ATC challenge QF when they 'require' a runway (asking what the actual requirement is) but not Asian Airlines. Given it is now in the Notams maybe they need to stop them rorting the system.
ga_trojan is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 08:30
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,738
You do realize that Aircraft performance is only ONE part of the equation we consider after 10 hours flying all night and very little sleep don't you?

Yes I do agree that a lot of my colleagues ( even the English speaking ones ) don't know when to say require or request.

If I want the long runway then I shall get it, simple.

Without wishing to sound pompous ATC are supposed to provide a service to their end user, the Airline crews wishing to operate their Aircraft to the best safety standards they can.

Remember I'm the one with the ATPL in control of my Aircraft, not ATC.

Last edited by ACMS; 20th Jan 2015 at 11:48.
ACMS is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 08:38
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,738
I ask you this:--

Quite a few times my landing performance indicates I will need around 1,951 m on runway 27 in YMML which has an LDA of 2,286 m. However runway 34 is available with 3,657 m LDA and into wind.

After 10 hours all night when quite tired and landing at my body clock circadian low time which runway would you "require"

We are not in the business of close enough is good enough.

Last edited by ACMS; 20th Jan 2015 at 11:48.
ACMS is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 08:45
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,738
Not only that you are wrong anyway.

Quite often I hear MH EK SQ VN and others land on RWY 27 in YMML, even depart on it.

When it's dry and we have a headwind at low weights I've landed on it as well.

We do what we need to do.
ACMS is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 09:11
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Nearly there...
Posts: 12
Maybe "desire" would be a better word?
Just N Cider is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 09:44
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 13
Posts: 1,517
Is "require" an Australian thing? I seem to recall someone telling me the phraseology as we understand it is not valid in most other countries.

To be fair i never followed it up to see if it was true.

If it is, it may explain why foreign carriers are confused by the terminology and ATC query.

Does anyone know?
blueloo is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 09:46
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: OZ
Posts: 13
Desire.....

We all desire the most convenient runway.

ACMS
If I want the long runway then I shall get it, simple.
The thing is, do your "require" the runway or not.

I to have flown 16 hour sectors and 20 hours duties along with so many of my fellow pilots and we still know the difference of require and request........

What makes your operation any more special than ours!
WAGM is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 09:55
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 68
Posts: 505
Is "require" an Australian thing? I seem to recall someone telling me the phraseology as we understand it is not valid in most other countries
Having flown overseas for 15 years, I never heard of it until I returned home and therefore I believe "require" to be an Australian thing. Perhaps a hangover from many years ago when the CAA used to do things their own way, not a bad thing if you understand when to use it.
Offchocks is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 10:16
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: OZZZZZZZZZZZ
Posts: 101
We all desire the most convenient runway.

ACMS
Quote:
If I want the long runway then I shall get it, simple.
The thing is, do your "require" the runway or not.

I to have flown 16 hour sectors and 20 hours duties along with so many of my fellow pilots and we still know the difference of require and request........

What makes your operation any more special than ours!
This is an ongoing problem in YMML. Frequently there is a clear northerly blowing, yet we are stuck with 27 for arrivals. The problems still exists with 16 but appears to be less often. I'm not at all surprised some operators 'require' the into wind runway......
Gear in transit is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 10:23
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: dunno
Age: 47
Posts: 87
It is in the Australian AIP, nowhere else. (except wx deviation).
ICAO way is : Bigbird 123 request runway xx due yyy". Even the US uses that!
single chime is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 10:31
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: US via Oz, Honkers & Blighty.
Posts: 210
Is "require" an Australian thing? I seem to recall someone telling me the phraseology as we understand it is not valid in most other countries
Having flown overseas for 15 years, I never heard of it until I returned home and therefore I believe "require" to be an Australian thing. Perhaps a hangover from many years ago when the CAA used to do things their own way, not a bad thing if you understand when to use it.
Exactly what I was going to say. Theres a lot we do differently down here. Like reading back a complete clearance when issued a PDC and calling "ready".
Kenny is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 11:17
  #13 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 1,949
If they tried that in the states and many other countries they would be held to account or delayed at the controllers convenience but ATC seems to bump everyone else to assist them?
Do it all the other time in other countries as well, drive the train as the operator says you have to.

Different certification bases, different regulator, no NDB approaches, no circling approaches, no ATC holding fuel, different fuel policy.

ASA I believe is also not permitted by their own internal policies to clear an international arrival for a visual, it can be requested by the crew.

Saw them screw over Cathay one night who got sent off to 16L which didn't go down to well.
It took years for CX to get ASA approval to use that runway, it was only obtained last year.

I never heard of it until I returned home and therefore I believe "require" to be an Australian thing.
It is in the ICAO docs.

Theres a lot we do differently down here. Like reading back a complete clearance when issued a PDC and calling "ready".
That happens outside Australia as well.
swh is online now  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 11:35
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,738
WAGM--- nothing to do with convenience of runway exit location and nothing to do with being "special" you are a professional.

Mate it's simple:---- if I consider the runway is marginal for my landing, if I'm tired or for any other reason I consider it's safer to use the long bitumen into wind:--

then "I require RWY 34"

End of story full stop.

The buck stops with me.

I've never been given any grief from ATC or never been delayed unduly.

If you chose to land on a 2,286 m runway when your LDR is 2,000 m that's your call and I support you in making it. But if you stuff it up and bend something you can expect the insurance company to ask why you didn't avail yourself of the 3,000 m runway that was also available especially if it was into wind!!

Our job is to minimize risk and get the job done to the highest level of safety AT ALL TIMES, it's your call where you draw the line on the day.

Last edited by ACMS; 20th Jan 2015 at 11:50.
ACMS is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 13:04
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: FL510
Posts: 54
If you chose to land on a 2,286 m runway when your LDR is 2,000 m that's your call and I support you in making it. But if you stuff it up and bend something you can expect the insurance company to ask why you didn't avail yourself of the 3,000 m runway that was also available especially if it was into wind!!

Our job is to minimize risk and get the job done to the highest level of safety AT ALL TIMES, it's your call where you draw the line on the day.
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?

We are pilots after all, where's the fun in making things too easy for ourselves...
BlackPrince77 is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 13:05
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Left base, RWY01
Posts: 163
Request vs Require.

"Request" is a preference
"Require" is imperative
SYD operating guidelines require equal noise sharing on the parallel runways. ATC are required to try to balance the movements on both, not simply optimize use of the preferred runway 16R/34L. SYD tower would like to be able to have most international landings on 16R/34L so they can exit west and not need to cross the other active parallel runway, (other than at certain times when there are "departure bursts" when main runway use is weighted in favor of departures) but there are so many other stakeholders ATC is hamstrung by the SYD LTOP (Long Term Operating Plan) rules that try to appease everyone.
TwoFiftyBelowTen is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 14:18
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Good discussion.
If you re-read the thread you will realise that ACSM originally believed that WAGM was ATC, and went into chest beating mode, subsequently reaffirming the points of WAGM's post!
And for the record, I drive a Sherman tank at 1km/hr to maximise safety margins on the way to work! If you spot my personalised number plates you'll know it's me, so give me a wave next time...that's not a requirement, just a request!
BTW, I've had the turret tied in a knot, so as not to intimidate.
Happy New Year.
towerboy is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 15:04
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,880
Very good discussion. If you read it without attitude, you would see that ACMS and SWH make some good points.
The rest seems emotional drivel.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 21:06
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 182
I would suggest the misunderstanding is more in ATC offering a choice of runways rather than a justification for one runway or approach over another.
They simply see it as a question of which runway would you prefer.

This " choice" rarely happens in Asia, where crews expect ATC to decide the runway and then configure accordingly.

Also while these terms, require/request may be ICAO terminology, they are not used in the EASA communications or the LIDO documents my airline uses. Still not an excuse for not observing Australian differences but just a thought to why the confusion happens.
Fluke is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 21:45
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 797
The term "require", seems to be unique to Australia whether its in the ICAO docs or not. I do understand its use here, and I do get that ATC is hamstrung by the noise folks.

Like ACMS I believe in optimisation of my operation, but am willing to compromise on 34R (not 16L, for obvious reasons). What does make me feel used is landing in the rain on 16L while a Saab 340 is using 16R. Nothing against commuter planes, but c'mon!

At around $50/km for taxi fuel there is also a slight penalty for the longer taxi route to the terminal, assuming all airborne burn is the same.
Australopithecus 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.