Melbourne Air Traffic Control
I'm sure everyone on both sides of the fence is earning their money this afternoon with the weather rolling through.
Last edited by clark y; 29th Dec 2016 at 04:23. Reason: Spelling.
Did you ever land on RW25?
Then why was he so worried about landing on 16L when 25 is pretty much exactly the same length?
Who said he was worried? Like I said earlier, every Captain has a different take on what is and what isn't an acceptable level of safety for the flight that they are responsible for. Some will find choosing a 2200m runway over a 3000m runway to be a poor trade if the reasons are purely commercial. It's a slippery slope to start judging other Captains safety related decisions unless you've already retired with a clean sheet.
Thanks for the Sydney figures, but I was referring to Melbourne seeing it's the Melbourne ATC thread.
I get it may not be about the jets, but I do fly one and I was asking with that it mind.
That applies to all towers. The 5kt tailwind allowance is for noise abatement (where it applies) or other situations where a bit of tailwind may be better (eg sunrise/sunset with an east/west runway).
What an interesting discussion.
On one hand we have complaints about Melbourne operating on a single runway causing delays. On the other, complaints about getting assigned a runway that isn't into wind or the shorter option.
If everyone required the long into wind runway then every day would be a single runway day and we'd all be screwed.
If you were flying your 767 into YSSY and 16L was the only option, would you divert to somewhere with a 3km runway?
Unfortunately we don't have long parallel runways everywhere so we make do the best we can.
On one hand we have complaints about Melbourne operating on a single runway causing delays. On the other, complaints about getting assigned a runway that isn't into wind or the shorter option.
If everyone required the long into wind runway then every day would be a single runway day and we'd all be screwed.
If you were flying your 767 into YSSY and 16L was the only option, would you divert to somewhere with a 3km runway?
Unfortunately we don't have long parallel runways everywhere so we make do the best we can.
1 Charlie
I don't think you are getting the concept here. If I am flying to the Seychelles, one runway, and its blowing (as it does regularly) nasty s..t, then you will do that pilot thing - and do your best.
If you are landing to a place with TWO runways - one long and into wind - then you would be a DICK - to accept the short one with the XWIND.
Just saying -
If you were flying your 767 into YSSY and 16L was the only option, would you divert to somewhere with a 3km runway?
If you are landing to a place with TWO runways - one long and into wind - then you would be a DICK - to accept the short one with the XWIND.
Just saying -
If you were flying your 767 into YSSY and 16L was the only option, would you divert to somewhere with a 3km runway?
If everyone required the long into wind runway then every day would be a single runway day and we'd all be screwed.
Situation A) CAVOK wind 350/5
Most people would be happy to land their 737 on runway 27 .
Situation B) CAVOK wind 350/45
Very few people ( any?) would land their 737 on 27
What this means is that somewhere between situation A and situation B the trade off ( commercial efficiency v's safety) becomes a bad deal. The system has decided that that point is the point where the crosswind exceeds 20kts or the downwind exceeds 5 kts on a dry runway. That's great , it is absolutely necessary to have rule based limits to prevent the small % who will make poor ego based decisions. Every Captain will have a slightly different assessment of where that line is though depending on many different factors affecting the particular flight and that is what they get paid for. In short, every day wouldn't be a single runway day, and if a day did become a single runway day that would be because all the inbound Captains decided that that was necessary for safety.......who's going to tell them they are wrong?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Framer, the logic as you present it, is perfectly reasonable and I don't think too many would argue with it.
I think the case of always refusing to land on the shorter of 2 parallel runways though, regardless of the prevailing conditions is more akin to stubbornness than good airmanship.
But as I mentioned, your example I agree 100% with.
I think the case of always refusing to land on the shorter of 2 parallel runways though, regardless of the prevailing conditions is more akin to stubbornness than good airmanship.
But as I mentioned, your example I agree 100% with.
I'm not saying you should be landing on an unsuitable runway. And 45kts xw is clearly unsuitable. I'm reacting to the 767 pilot who says he always required the long runway because why wouldn't you. It's the safest option.
The "somewhere" between A and B is the key. Unfortunately you have to be conservative to account for all aircraft types, but I think it could be airport specific. Why should YSSY grind to a halt on 25 only when the crosswind is 20kts, is 20kts really significant for the majority of aircraft types landing at YSSY? There would be a massive benefit to making this airport specific.
For example the crosswind component for converging arrivals on 01/14 at Brisbane is 20kts. Which is appropriate given the much shorter length, 30m width and nasty double go around confliction. But with parallels at YSSY, raising the threshold by only 5 kts or so could save millions of dollars, is more than safe, and done at many other airports around the world.
The "somewhere" between A and B is the key. Unfortunately you have to be conservative to account for all aircraft types, but I think it could be airport specific. Why should YSSY grind to a halt on 25 only when the crosswind is 20kts, is 20kts really significant for the majority of aircraft types landing at YSSY? There would be a massive benefit to making this airport specific.
For example the crosswind component for converging arrivals on 01/14 at Brisbane is 20kts. Which is appropriate given the much shorter length, 30m width and nasty double go around confliction. But with parallels at YSSY, raising the threshold by only 5 kts or so could save millions of dollars, is more than safe, and done at many other airports around the world.
Last edited by 1Charlie; 29th Dec 2016 at 23:43.
I'm not saying you should be landing on an unsuitable runway
The "somewhere" between A and B is the key.
As long as that is the case, and as long as we are generally making progress with accident rates, then we are doing ok. The thing that I don't like to see is less conservative people ( especially those who don't have to make the call) judging the more conservative people who do make the call. As an example, I have taken 27 with a gusty 20kt crosswind and some downwind at night maybe 20 times and required 34 once, I feel like I am getting the decisions right, but am I? Maybe in my last year of work I'll bounce one and crack someone's back and realise I've spent 30 years not being conservative enough.....meanwhile Mrdeux tootles off to his farewell party having never hurt one of his pax...... who knows? That's my thoughts anyway, thanks for the discussion.
I'll be sure to require 16R/34L every time I land in Sydney from now on, even though I'm more than capable of landing on 16L/34R. But it's safer isn't it?
Look I can understand there's times when 16L is not suitable. I've had scenarios like that in my much smaller narrow body, let alone a wide body. Even one night when we had a couple of inop spoilers on the last leg of a long day. The figures said we could have landed 16L, but we chose 16R because of the factors.
But to outright refuse a runway every time when you could have done it with plenty of margin in most scenarios....? Hope you never had to 'require' the long runway in Narita. You would have been met on arrival asking to show your figures.
Look I can understand there's times when 16L is not suitable. I've had scenarios like that in my much smaller narrow body, let alone a wide body. Even one night when we had a couple of inop spoilers on the last leg of a long day. The figures said we could have landed 16L, but we chose 16R because of the factors.
But to outright refuse a runway every time when you could have done it with plenty of margin in most scenarios....? Hope you never had to 'require' the long runway in Narita. You would have been met on arrival asking to show your figures.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are landing to a place with TWO runways - one long and into wind - then you would be a DICK - to accept the short one with the XWIND.
Ok next question,
Ordinary weather in Melb the other day requiring low vis procedures. Wasn't so bad at the field only on approach. The twy/runway edge intensity was WAY too high. When asked if they could knock it down a stage the reply was 'We aren't allowed during low vis procedures.'
Whats the story, you can't adjust between arrivals and departures? Isn't it just a switch?
Ordinary weather in Melb the other day requiring low vis procedures. Wasn't so bad at the field only on approach. The twy/runway edge intensity was WAY too high. When asked if they could knock it down a stage the reply was 'We aren't allowed during low vis procedures.'
Whats the story, you can't adjust between arrivals and departures? Isn't it just a switch?