Melbourne Air Traffic Control
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we'll just clear you for an ILS approach on 16 or 27 and an RNAV on 34 or 09 if you don't ask.
Atc used to be thingy about it years back when qf asked us to do em in syd in nice weather (IVA time) ... ended up just asking for a 'visual via the gls' as (i suspect) they lost a lot of flexibility giving us a formal approach (not really what we were after any ways but, semantics.)
DIRECTOR
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have not been to Melbourne for years . Do they still have that system of using Essenden ILS initially and then breaking off to land on R/W 34? Usually in crappy weather I seem to recall.
Crazy system for a major airport. Have they got around to installing an ILS to R/W 34 yet?
Crazy system for a major airport. Have they got around to installing an ILS to R/W 34 yet?
Do they still have that system of using Essenden ILS initially and then breaking off to land on R/W 34? Usually in crappy weather I seem to recall.
Although it has changed somewhat, whilst it does track down the EN 26 LLZ, the LLZ isn't part of the approach anymore. Seems to be used in 'good' weather nowadays (Although usually associated with howling 50kt northerlys)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some foreign operators have banned that approach being used also. One of our own has also banned the approach on a triple after royally screwing it up. That report is a must read for those who fly into Mel.
Something to do with a deterioration in pilots being capable of hand flying an approach.
Something to do with a deterioration in pilots being capable of hand flying an approach.
DIRECTOR
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: U.K.
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately I grew up on the B737-200 and B 707-320C so hand flying was the norm below 10000ft. It stood me in good stead into places like Melbourne etc on the B767 .
Would save the drivers a few calls and greatly ease the load on the SYD Ground controller, arguably the hardest working ATCO in the land.
Lookleft, more than 8 tonnes an hour and between 4-500 kg per tonne to carry over the flight, more often than not departing at structural, so having even a tonne at the end of the flight is a big impost at the beginning.
I understand the difficulties but you are still left with the problem that what is stated in the AIP is not binding by ATC. Your choice seems to be stick with the AIP holding fuel and see what happens at the other end or squeeze on another 5 minutes of traffic fuel. The other alternative is to declare a fuel emergency if your fuel will go below statutory reserves. The airlines and Airservices have once again put all the responsibility on the crew to come up with a solution to the problem of what should be carried for traffic holding. Good luck!
Having held for close to 40 minutes, when the requirement was 20, we suggested that at the next passage over the holding fix we'd be continuing. The ATC response was to ask our latest divert time. How much fuel do they think we have?
We don't know how much fuel you have, what your alternate currently is or what your options are. All we know is you won't be given priority until you declare a fuel emergency.
Which begs the question. How much fuel do you think people actually carry? If no diversion fuel is required, we're unlikely to have it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kyeemagh
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Atc used to be thingy about it years back when qf asked us to do em in syd in nice weather (IVA time) ... ended up just asking for a 'visual via the gls' as (i suspect) they lost a lot of flexibility giving us a formal approach (not really what we were after any ways but, semantics.)
Why does it beg the question? How much fuel you have is of no use to me to separate you - until you tell me it's a problem it's irrelevant to me. You either have plenty or you don't. The vast majority of the time you all seem to have plenty. I don't mean to sound callous but as a line controller there is absolutely nothing I can do.
I reckon if ATC holding times have been exceeded then every holding a/c should give their endurance in minutes as they turn outbound. Ie " Velocity 124 Saver outbound, endurance 120 " Every once in a while you'd get someone with significantly less than the others and then the info is out there and can be managed. I know it won't happen 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bugger that, if you start sequencing aircraft according to how much fuel they chose (not) to carry, it's not going to lead to a particularly desirable conclusion.
If so-called professional pilots can't work out how much fuel they need to carry then maybe they need to start re-thinking their profession.
Or call a fuel emergency and put your airline on the front page of the newspaper. It's your call. Not ATC's problem.
If so-called professional pilots can't work out how much fuel they need to carry then maybe they need to start re-thinking their profession.
Or call a fuel emergency and put your airline on the front page of the newspaper. It's your call. Not ATC's problem.
Fair enough, I have to admit that as I typed I was aware I hadn't thought it through very well.
We do alright most of the time, as do controllers. No need to bring attitude to the bar.
If so-called professional pilots can't work out how much fuel they need to carry then maybe they need to start re-thinking their profession.