Interesting argument for a new runway....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting argument for a new runway....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,965
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
And it took six months for this to surface?
On eyre; 'Aint it the truth! How are ya btw?
On eyre; 'Aint it the truth! How are ya btw?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: codsville
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !!!
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 !!!
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Delete me
Age: 58
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: May 2006
Location: codsville
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Another reason why FOs should be kept away from the PA.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: codsville
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe
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 !
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 !
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 Überlingen and people would be saying that there was no issue, the aircraft never came close to each other.
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 Überlingen and people would be saying that there was no issue, the aircraft never came close to each other.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
