Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Interesting argument for a new runway....

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

Interesting argument for a new runway....

Old 7th Feb 2016, 19:17
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,837
Interesting argument for a new runway....

'Near miss' at Melbourne's Tullamarine Airport prompts safety concerns - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
ferris is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 20:02
  #2 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 399
These guys need to do a few flights into San Francisco..

PS... Nice PA at the end
slamer. is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2016, 21:44
  #3 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 13
Or 'shooting the gap' at New York's LaGuardia Airport?
Cat on a PC© is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 00:25
  #4 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: some dive
Posts: 449
"The pilots didn't proceed with their take-off when they should have"
An all knowing operator and real bright statement to passengers.
ratpoison is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 00:29
  #5 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 366
Ah Senator X - the instant expert at everything at it again.
On eyre is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 00:54
  #6 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Here's a bit more detail..

News: Land And Hold Short Operations in Melbourne under review or how media blow an occurrence completely out of proportion
Biggles27G is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 01:16
  #7 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Now officially on Life's scrap heap, now being an Age Pensioner and not liking it one little bit! I'd rather be flying but in the meantime still continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 66
Posts: 2,650
And it took six months for this to surface?

On eyre; 'Aint it the truth! How are ya btw?
Pinky the pilot is online now  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 02:55
  #8 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 861
No, it just took you 6 months to find out about it.
ozbiggles is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 03:39
  #9 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Why does Xenophon say the right turn over the terminal (which doesn't look like it went over the terminal anyway, from the track) was at an unsafe altitude?
VH-Cheer Up is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 03:58
  #10 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2006
Location: codsville
Posts: 36
LAHSO is a safe and efficient way for multiple aircraft to approach and land at many airports throughout the world. It has been said before and will no doubt be said again, that a passenger with a camera does not have all the required details and knowledge of a particular situation, to be able to correctly pass information to a minister - who himself does not have the required knowledge to make a correct or even plausible statement, which news media then pass on to millions of people.
For a professional pilot to make a PA like the QANTAS pilot did is a bit of a joke. The aircraft did not take off when it should have........ Not only sounds unprofessional but it is unprofessional. All aircraft approaching would have been aware of the converging traffic and all would have accepted a continuing of the approaches. Maybe the EK aircraft was slow to accelerate... Maybe. Maybe the QF aircraft did not slow to the correct approach speed early enough in anticipation of a heavy departure ? Maybe ATC did not provide all that information ? There is no such issue at Heathrow, jFK, and numerous other airports. Australian airports and ATC are very good, but at times they do indeed make things harder than need be.... ( going on experience of operating into other worldy airports ) and as a consequence this sort of thing comes about as a result of a passenger and a poor pa. What about " due to an air traffic control requirement we completed a go around" or due to shifting winds, or due to a multitude of other things.....No need to tell the complete truth and therefore give people a reason to worry. Don't lie, but use common sense and reasonableness.
Not only does that particular pa make professional pilots look like they themselves are playing the blame game instead of flying the aircraft and using airmanship to either slow early in anticipation of a heavy departure or just having general suspicion to what may unfold - instead of being completely reactive in actions. This I fear is what the industry is coming to with the general level of experience in aviation reducing in all fields and " street smarts " therefore being reduced in favour of the blame game and immature pilots contacting the minister !!!
booskins is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 04:21
  #11 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Delete me
Age: 54
Posts: 28
Disgusting journalism for a change... here's the ATSB report ;

Investigation: AO-2015-084 - Simultaneous missed approaches from crossing runways involving two Boeing 737-800s, VH-VXS and VH-VYE, Melbourne Airport, Victoria on 5 July 2015

In a nutshell ;

- there was no loss of separation
- the first landing was aborted by the pilot who misunderstood a trainee controller's recommendation to expidite his climb IF he aborts
- there was no need to abort the second landing in the ATSB's opinion
Infieldg is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 04:39
  #12 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2006
Location: codsville
Posts: 36
So in the end the 777 did take off when it was supposed to and the 737 went around pre maturely ? Mmmmm makes the QF pa seem even more child like.........
All is well in aviation.
The rest of the world can do it but we in OZ can't. Go to Mumbai and see the separation and even though ATC is extremely busy, the airmanship of pilots and suspicion of pilots is greater than that in other parts of the world.
booskins is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 04:58
  #13 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,953
Another reason why FOs should be kept away from the PA.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 05:08
  #14 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2006
Location: codsville
Posts: 36
But just realise that " voice is vital "
A coherent pa is the only thing that is between a crash and a safe and efficient go around...... As far as the SLF is concerned. Just get it right !
booskins is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 06:23
  #15 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 474
The ATSB report doesn't state what the lateral separation was. It looks like it would have been close (one aircraft at 4nm final, one turning base at 3.5 NM to run).

Was there a difference in cleared altitude to ensure separation?

It looks like the problem was that both aircraft were cleared for the same altitude (block), and crossed paths without any assurance of lateral separation.

Just because they didn't come close doesn't mean it was safe. It appears that part of the reason they weren't closer was the ATC misunderstanding.

ATC also instructed "minimum speed" to the aircraft on final - is there any leeway to vary speed on final at <4NM?

According to one report Airservices risk management assessed the likelihood of simultaneous go arounds as 1 in 175 years for LAHSO, but it has happened twice in 5 years?

It doesn't sound like things were working as designed.

60 seconds time difference at ‹berlingen and people would be saying that there was no issue, the aircraft never came close to each other.
andrewr is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 06:35
  #16 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 774
What lateral separation are you looking for. If the ADC can provide visual separation, radar isn't needed.
fujii is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 07:06
  #17 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 474
I'm interested to know what the actual minimum values were. Presumably that information is available from radar tapes (one report I think said 800m?)

The issue is that there is some doubt whether the ADC did provide separation.

Could the aircraft have collided without deviating from their clearances? Is that how class C is supposed to work?
andrewr is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 07:22
  #18 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 774
From the ATSB report:

There was no loss of separation between any of the aircraft.
fujii is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 08:41
  #19 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Karratha,Western Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 446
There is no value for visual separation. That's why I can assign you to follow another aircraft. If we had to maintain a set criteria other than you can see them and won't hit them, you would never be given a sight and follow.

We rely primarily on azimuth. I haven't read the whole report but I imagine the tower would have had it through out the incident for the ATSB to state there was no loss of separation.
Awol57 is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2016, 09:57
  #20 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 474
Read the report. It's just the summary of what happened at the moment, so it's short.

The primary reason there was no loss of separation seems to be that one aircraft started a climb to 4000 because they misunderstood an ATC instruction. Pure luck.

The scenario:
At night, trainee controller, 2 737s approaching intersecting runways. One at 4 miles when the other is at 3.5 miles. A 777 about to take off from one of the runways.

The supervisor's comment: "This is not going to work". But there doesn't appear to have been positive action to fix it.

The 777 takes off and both 737s go around. In that situation, did ATC have a plan to separate the aircraft? It doesn't sound like it.

I have my doubts that tower controllers visually separate aircraft at night, or that an aircraft would be assigned visual separation from another aircraft crossing their path at 90 degrees - particularly during a landing/missed approach.
andrewr 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.