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

748F into Wellcamp

Old 7th Nov 2015, 12:18
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,991
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
The CX 748 is Cat D and will have to do the RNAV 12 Y or the 30 Z.

Therefore straight in only for them, this curved Z app isn't applicable for them.

I'm told it will arrive from SYD tankering fuel.
ACMS is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2015, 12:52
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Eternal Beach
Posts: 1,086
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What will they carry?

Last month carried 68 tonnes of milk formula from SYD to HKG for some mainland customer.

halas
halas is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2015, 13:27
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Halas, how did you get a SYD freighter? I can't get one for love or......

All this talk of RNP would be right up the alley of the CX freighter mafia, splendid aviators those chaps, not an austronaught amongst em
haughtney1 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2015, 20:48
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
This particular RNAV has you pointing at the threshold at the maximum offset.
No it doesn't.

This approach puts you at the minima offset tracking 15 degrees, an easy fix in a baron, but in a 747? Think left turn 30deg at 600ft, followed by 45 deg right at about 200ft. At the FAF maintaining heading you will roll wings level at about 600ft onto center line, the rest of the approach will not take you there.
No!

Mike is on the centreline at 0.8nm. Look at the chart. All that is required is a 15° right turn at Mike. Other RNAVs are similar.

No approach has you "pointing at the threshold" (a lot of database coding strings have that, but they shouldn't). The charted approaches all require only one turn onto the CL.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2015, 23:11
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 494
Received 17 Likes on 7 Posts
Sorry I'm late, I missed this thread...

First bit of info is that these approaches are not Airservices, they are a 3rd party so this info comes second hand.

You will note the RNAV-Z 12 is not authorised for CAT D aeroplanes. It complies with PANS-OPS wrt to the criteria but is unflyable for CAT D aircraft. Was tested in a 747 sim, and found that they could not get stable for final approach.

That being said, the alignment criteria is max 15° offset from the CL, but cannot cross the CL any closer than 1400m. I don't know what the CL crossing distance is but with Oakey so close to the north my guess is that it would be at 1400m. This crossing point is also the common location for the missed approach point. This was the only way they could design the approach without requiring an exemption from CASA MOS173.

A lesson here for CASA...in complying with your bulls**t rules, you have forced the outcome which is that in order to comply, the procedure is unflyable. The only procedure that is flyable is unavailable most of the time. The airspace containment and separation criteria is a joke...

The RNAV-Y is the preferred approach (obviously) but has issues with Oakey....it got political in the end.

Alpha
alphacentauri is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 02:24
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 80
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wasn't Kai Tak something like 400 ft wings level off the checkerboard approach?
aussie1234 is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 03:26
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SE Qld, Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 1,165
Received 39 Likes on 26 Posts
Originally Posted by aussie1234
Wasn't Kai Tak something like 400 ft wings level off the checkerboard approach?

Possibly lower than that - the Rwy 13 IGS had a 675 ft DH for a Cat D aircraft with an ensuing turn required through 48 degrees at a sink rate in the order of 800 fpm (more with a B744F at MLW) - you do the maths....
Dora-9 is online now  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 07:49
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: byron bay
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
bad alt live

believe KLM flies 744 combis daily or 6 times a week AMS/HKG
TT738 is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 08:04
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Others with a close-in turn to final:

YGLA 10: Mike at 1.0nm, 10° turn
YNWN 05: Mike at 0.8nm (1480m), 7° turn
YPBO 24: Mike at 0.8nm, 10°.

Having done a few of these ones, one should to resist the temptation to turn towards the runway if one pops out fairly low. Just keep on trucking over to the CL and then do one small turn. The technique of turning towards the CL (ie away from the runway) and then jinking back when on the CL (as RMD describes above) is a bit sus and not necessary. If your Stab Approach rules don't allow a turn to track the CL at Mike below 500ft, get them changed.

As for Oakey, get on to your local RAPAC and get something sorted out. And don't forget to be on the CTAF at the same time... or was that the Area? (just kidding just kidding! Published, use the CTAF!)
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 09:44
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Not Syderknee
Posts: 1,011
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Stable approach is whatever you want it to be as long as you say "special briefing"
I just try to avoid making turns onto center line at 250ft.
Anyway it doesn't really matter, as its not for Cat D anyway, and so far I have been able to get off the approach at NF each time.
rmcdonal is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2015, 13:45
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: PPrune nominee 2011!
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hello BNE320!!!!!! Dont like your new username
Skystar320 is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2015, 11:55
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
alphacentauri
but cannot cross the CL any closer than 1400m. I don't know what the CL crossing distance is but with Oakey so close to the north my guess is that it would be at 1400m.
Capn Bloggs:
No it doesn't.
Perhaps you guys should take a trip to Wellcamp and shoot an approach or two.

Mike is on the centreline at 0.8nm. Look at the chart.
Now that's amazing. You're trying to tell people who actually fly this approach what they should be seeing based on a "not to scale" chart. I think you can trust us when we say we are looking directly at the threshold and we're way off centreline.

Given that the PAPIs at this airport have been garbage from day one despite CASA requirements for accuracy, don't go thinking any other aspects of these approaches is by the book. (In the past I've said to my offsider on the 30 RNAV "If I give you slope calls it will be based on the PAPI on the left because the one on the right is wrong" and they were very wrong for a long time)
NowThatsFunny is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2015, 21:24
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Queensland
Age: 40
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 5 Posts
I doubt the 748F is anything but a Cat D aircraft and if this is the case, as it has already been mentioned, it would mean for an instrument approach onto runway 12 they would have to conduct the RNAV-Y procedure (with compliance from Oakey) which makes a lot of this discussion about the RNAV-Z procedure moot.

NowThatsFunny:
You're trying to tell people who actually fly this approach what they should be seeing based on a "not to scale" chart.
I acknowledge that you may have first hand experience of conducting these approaches, however I have reservations about your statement. Since when are approach charts (not SIDs and STARs) "not to scale"? If you use Jepps I suggest you look at the left side of the chart, if you use DAPs I suggest you look slightly right of the MSA diagram (where it states "Scale 1:500,000").

Given that both the RNAV-Z and RNAV-Y share the same MAPt (BWWNM) and that the RNAV-Y has an inbound course of 122° which matches the runway track of 122°, unless the approach course is offset from the centreline (which I doubt, but I don't have first hand experience at YBWW) resulting in the approach being parallel to it rather than on it, I can't see some of these manoeuvres described previously being required. Given that BWWNM is 0.8nm from the threshold (as stated on the chart) I'd say these manoeuvres are being conducted due people interpreting the visual cues in a way that makes them think that they won't intercept the centreline prior to the threshold rather than a fault with the approach design (however these approaches are designed by humans therefore it is possible that there could be errors).

As for the comments about the PAPI, I could easily believe that as it wouldn't be the first place and probably won't be the last to experience that issue.
Check_Thrust is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2015, 10:11
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Originally Posted by NowThatsFunny
I think you can trust us when we say we are looking directly at the threshold and we're way off centreline.
If you're looking at the threshold before you get to Mike, then yes, you will, by definition, still be off the centreline at that point. You've got to go all the way in to 0.8nm from the threshold before you'll be on the CL. That's 250ft AAL.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2015, 02:23
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Oztrailia
Posts: 2,991
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Which is why we are trying to get the Z approved for CATD.
Won't be just Cargo CX going there next year, some pax charters to.
ACMS is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2015, 02:49
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: around
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
With all this discussion about how why and what kind of approach the boys can do into this joint they will have to start their CTWO brief somewhere close to MAVRA jeeeezus
HEALY is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2015, 02:52
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nah, a standard "Nike" brief ought to do it!

OK4Wire is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2015, 05:09
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Notes for Wellcamp:

I flew in and out of there quite a few times this year, but not since late August, so if things have changed I apologise.

The 12 RNAV has been covered quite extensively, and though tempted I wont add any more.

The 30 RNAV is more mundane. However, as of last time I flew in there the PAPI doesn't line up with the touchdown zone.

If you're coming up from Sydney and Amberley airspace is active you can expect an ATC requirement to be at or below 10,000' by 60Nm to run.

For you Cathay guys, I'd suggest that you get the ground staff to activate the lighting. The PAL system isn't standard.

At Qlink we're required to broadcast on the glider frequency but in all my times in and out of there I never even got a response. Far more hazardous are the other aircraft in the vicinity. It can get very busy in the terminal area.

Enjoy.
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2015, 11:19
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
The 30 RNAV is more mundane. However, as of last time I flew in there the PAPI doesn't line up with the touchdown zone.
Yes, MEHT 75ft. Big 'plane setting.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2015, 13:59
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Wherever the moment takes me!
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Better than the 'NIKE' Briefing...

I find the better briefing is the 'mini-skirt' briefing...

"long enough to cover the essentials... short enough to keep me interested!"
Rotaiva is offline  

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.