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

Melbourne Air Traffic Control

Old 12th Dec 2016, 22:24
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 347
So first it was ambulance traffic to Essendon, then aircraft crossing 34, then "we don't know how to do it or have procedures", now it's noise abatement.

You must appreciate how this sounds to us, Penguin.
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 12th Dec 2016, 23:00
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 719
b.r.g.t. these problems are systemic - the airlines are the ones suffering the consequences and are the major "customer" and are the ones with all the evidence to back up their claims.
That's what I said wasn't it? You're part of a broken system and saying that you can do nothing about it is a little defeatist isn't it?

"Too many aircraft arriving at the same time" is exactly the problem.
It's not the only problem, these chaps are communicating this to you.

There is no time penalty involved in requiring - you should land at about the same time
Uhmm, cough, cough. You and I both know that is not the truth, there are some flows in there that will punish any operator that has the temerity to 'mess' with 'their' sequence.

Stop making excuses for a broken system that is third rate.
The name is Porter is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 02:53
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 54
Posts: 35
The planned parallel is 09/27 correct?
Personally prefer 16.
Yes, unfortunately....II to 16/34 would have been sooo good. (rumour has that the new tower would be in conflict with a 16R, so much for planning)
Now, with II to 09/27, more crosswinds and even more conflicts with Essendon with a new 27L to the south. Interesting that most of the time, single runway ops are because of strong winds from the South, negating 09/27 ops, yet the new runway is 27L/09L....(personally, I dislike using 27 as the crosswinds are always a struggle)

Aside from that, there are solutions for these winds, with winds aloft measurements and data. (while this data is gathered at MEL, the system is not in use in Oz. It is in use in the US, Europe, and Mid East by several airlines)

Right now, the AWOS is at 10m, but we gather wind data to 300m every 10 seconds for final. This is added to the winds from the aircraft, so a profile is built for final approach.
As shown by these winds from RW16 at MEL, the AWOS winds at 10m show a medium headwind from the SE,(lower right). Wind measurements show the winds moving to a medium/strong crosswind, to a medium tailwind at 300m. This is a very typical situation at MEL when winds are from the South. (this particular image shows the winds every 5m)


We gather the winds directly from the ac through several methods. Adding the winds from the aircraft to 5000m, we get a profile of winds for each procedure to a runway end.

For the individual aircraft, the program shows on the profile what the winds are, and if the winds exceed limits. This is sent to the EFB or directly to the FMS depending on the ac and what the airline has contracted. For the operators who calc this and make a determination, this has already been done, even as a profile for your ac given all of your parameters on final!

This is the profile down from 5000m at 500m increments...gathered directly from each ac on final. (all tailwind) Below 500m the finite data from the profile above is used. (note: this is the ATC profile to 5000m...for the ac, the winds are given to FL)



This is also available to ATC, which will show all of the ac, the individual limits, and show if the procedure for each aircraft exceeds limits. ATC can use this information for runways ops, and even help decide which procedure or rwy to use per ac.

Last edited by underfire; 13th Dec 2016 at 03:25.
underfire is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 04:55
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 25
Rwy 09 Usage - If this runway is requested by an aircraft during another Runway mode (eg Rwy 16 only), this is the process that occurs. The ground controller who takes the request assesses their ground traffic and whether they can process the aircraft on the ground through to the holding point.

If they can they then pass the request to the coordinator in the tower who assesses the overall traffic picture and asks the aerodrome controller (tower frequency) whether they can accept it.

The aerodrome controller assesses their traffic picture and makes a decision. If they decide yes, then the coordinator calls down to departures or approach to ask them if it's ok, the departures controller then has to coordinate with Essendon tower as a 09 departure abbutts the airspace that they own during Rwy 16 only operations.

Before the aircraft can actually get airborne off the non duty Runway 09, the tower controller must again contact departures controller to get instructions. All of this is additional workload and all is taken into account when assessing requests.

At any stage during this entire process, any of the above controllers can say "not available" and do not need to pass a reason to the controller requesting it. It is up to each individual controller to manage their own traffic levels and what they deem acceptable is different between different people and the traffic circumstances on the day. No debate is entered into as we do not have time to debate the merits of the decisions of other controllers and manage traffic at the same time.

Difficulties getting aircraft across Runway 16 are a valid reason for the ground controller to decide it's not available (it is not the same as a 27 arrival crossing after landing becuase on Rwy 16 Only there are arrivals and departures using that runway versus 27/34 LAHSO, mostly landing only using Rwy 34 and 27/34 departures north east, it's mostly departures only using Rwy 34, so the gaps for getting across Rwy 16 are smaller and less frequent.

The above coordination is done for any "off mode" runway request, and we don't say not available just for fun. Requests are always judged on their merits, but it does create extra workload for many controllers and increases the risk, which we are encouraged to minimise.

I'm not trying to make excuses and i can understand that it looks like the runway should be used a lot more, but just trying to put in context the process that needs to occur.
DukeBen is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 05:05
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by DukeBen View Post
Rwy 09 Usage - If this runway is requested by an aircraft during another Runway mode (eg Rwy 16 only), this is the process that occurs. The ground controller who takes the request assesses their ground traffic and whether they can process the aircraft on the ground through to the holding point.

If they can they then pass the request to the coordinator in the tower who assesses the overall traffic picture and asks the aerodrome controller (tower frequency) whether they can accept it.

The aerodrome controller assesses their traffic picture and makes a decision. If they decide yes, then the coordinator calls down to departures or approach to ask them if it's ok, the departures controller then has to coordinate with Essendon tower as a 09 departure abbutts the airspace that they own during Rwy 16 only operations.

Before the aircraft can actually get airborne off the non duty Runway 09, the tower controller must again contact departures controller to get instructions. All of this is additional workload and all is taken into account when assessing requests.

At any stage during this entire process, any of the above controllers can say "not available" and do not need to pass a reason to the controller requesting it. It is up to each individual controller to manage their own traffic levels and what they deem acceptable is different between different people and the traffic circumstances on the day. No debate is entered into as we do not have time to debate the merits of the decisions of other controllers and manage traffic at the same time.

Difficulties getting aircraft across Runway 16 are a valid reason for the ground controller to decide it's not available (it is not the same as a 27 arrival crossing after landing becuase on Rwy 16 Only there are arrivals and departures using that runway versus 27/34 LAHSO, mostly landing only using Rwy 34 and 27/34 departures north east, it's mostly departures only using Rwy 34, so the gaps for getting across Rwy 16 are smaller and less frequent.

The above coordination is done for any "off mode" runway request, and we don't say not available just for fun. Requests are always judged on their merits, but it does create extra workload for many controllers and increases the risk, which we are encouraged to minimise.

I'm not trying to make excuses and i can understand that it looks like the runway should be used a lot more, but just trying to put in context the process that needs to occur.
Thanks for that DB

That's for "requests", what about for requirements?
IsDon is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 05:16
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,694
S.P. the answers have been to different questions. "Why can't I have a particular runway?" is not the same question as "why is that the assigned runway?". Noise abatement procedures require us to assign particular runways:

AIP noise abatement procedures:

ENR 1.5-40, 9.1.2 (page 192 of the PDF):

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com...ip/enroute.pdf


ML specific noise abatement procedures:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...MLNA01-129.pdf


Porter
, explaining why things are the way they are isn't supporting it. If you don't know why things are how can you change them or realise there's a lot more to it than you thought?
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 06:21
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 67
Posts: 775
The new tower was built with parallel 16/34 runways in mind. There is ample room to install extra workstations to accommodate an extra ADC and SMC. In fact it was considered prior to the 09/27 decision. The real problem is only having one terminal building on the eastern side. Traffic taxiing to/from
16R / 34L would need to cross the eastern parallel runway or its undershoot area. Parallel 09/27 is much easier.

16/34 would probably involve flattening the hill north west of the runway intersection. This would have a huge environmental impact.
fujii is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 06:28
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 58
Mr Deux

The point is that MATS specifically prohibits the use of conditional clearances where stop bars are fitted and operational.

That is all I was trying to say.

Last edited by KeepItRolling; 13th Dec 2016 at 06:30. Reason: Addressing
KeepItRolling is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 07:30
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 25
Requirements vs Requests.

For a Rwy 09 requirement (i don't think I've ever seen one but it is possible) instead of a request, coordination still needs to be done between the same parties but it is phrased as a "requirement" instead so there is no need for approval from the parties, it is more of a heads up that this is coming up so be prepared for it.

There are still the same difficulties, getting across Rwy 16 to the holding point. There may be a few aircraft ready at Holding Point Echo, and depending on their number in the Rwy 16 departure sequence - possibly another 5-10 aircraft at Holding point C and B, it could take quite a while to get to the front of that queue to be able to cross Rwy 16.

The Rwy 09 departure will have to be managed through Essendon traffic. If YMML is on Rwy 16 only than YMEN could possibly be on Rwy 17 and the 09 departure would need to be processed through any Rwy 17 arrivals.

Airborne traffic (including YMEN arrivals) has priority over traffic on the ground (including aircraft waiting to depart) so there may be some delay in getting airborne from Rwy 09 but it would be made to work if it was a requirement.

Don't assume that departing Rwy 09 when there's a large queue for Rwy 16 departures will get you away ahead of those departures.
DukeBen is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 07:45
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 719
Rwy 09 Usage - If this runway is requested by an aircraft during another Runway mode (eg Rwy 16 only), this is the process that occurs. The ground controller who takes the request assesses their ground traffic and whether they can process the aircraft on the ground through to the holding point.

If they can they then pass the request to the coordinator in the tower who assesses the overall traffic picture and asks the aerodrome controller (tower frequency) whether they can accept it.

The aerodrome controller assesses their traffic picture and makes a decision. If they decide yes, then the coordinator calls down to departures or approach to ask them if it's ok, the departures controller then has to coordinate with Essendon tower as a 09 departure abbutts the airspace that they own during Rwy 16 only operations.

Before the aircraft can actually get airborne off the non duty Runway 09, the tower controller must again contact departures controller to get instructions. All of this is additional workload and all is taken into account when assessing requests.

At any stage during this entire process, any of the above controllers can say "not available" and do not need to pass a reason to the controller requesting it. It is up to each individual controller to manage their own traffic levels and what they deem acceptable is different between different people and the traffic circumstances on the day. No debate is entered into as we do not have time to debate the merits of the decisions of other controllers and manage traffic at the same time.

Difficulties getting aircraft across Runway 16 are a valid reason for the ground controller to decide it's not available (it is not the same as a 27 arrival crossing after landing becuase on Rwy 16 Only there are arrivals and departures using that runway versus 27/34 LAHSO, mostly landing only using Rwy 34 and 27/34 departures north east, it's mostly departures only using Rwy 34, so the gaps for getting across Rwy 16 are smaller and less frequent.

The above coordination is done for any "off mode" runway request, and we don't say not available just for fun. Requests are always judged on their merits, but it does create extra workload for many controllers and increases the risk, which we are encouraged to minimise.

I'm not trying to make excuses and i can understand that it looks like the runway should be used a lot more, but just trying to put in context the process that needs to occur.
Excuses and lack of service parading behind 'safety' & 'workload'

Safety & workload doesn't preclude you from providing a service to customers who pay you good money for that service.
The name is Porter is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 07:56
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 52
Posts: 2,767
Ease up Porter, DB is taking the time to provide clear information about how the system operates. It would be a shame for us to end an informative conversation for want of basic civility. He/she is taking the time to provide good gen and I for one appreciate it.
framer is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 08:27
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by KeepItRolling View Post
Mr Deux

The point is that MATS specifically prohibits the use of conditional clearances where stop bars are fitted and operational.

That is all I was trying to say.
I hear what's you're saying, and I understand you must work within the constraints of what MATS dictates.

I think the thrust here though is that MATS is wrong by world standards.
IsDon is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 08:42
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dunnunda
Posts: 228
Thanks for some of the explanations, it certainly does explain some of the ML peculiarities from the drivers point of view..... I have a couple of questions.

Extended traffic holding. I have been held longer than the notamed or standard traffic holding advisories a heap of times. Several occasions it got a bit close for comfort so I have called after the flight to ask a few questions. I.e. Why not notamed or why no hazard alert? I've only ever gotten mixed answers such as 'its up to the flow controller' or 'generally we don't do anything unless the traffic holding exceeds the published amount by 10 mins.' I queried the last answer pretty hard and was told the flow controller had spoken to the airlines about reduced movements but 'were happy to run with it' (which doesn't get passed to the crew, why would we need to know???)
What's the story and when WILL you notify us aside from when you issue the star. This is critically important information we need to either load more fuel or make a diversion descision earlier.

Second is the crosswind on the ATIS.
Frequently it isn't even remotely close to actual or any calculations I was ever taught. Last month 330/40. X wind 15. 10 mins later and ATIS change with EXACTLY the same wind but now 18kts xwind. I think I calculated 4 from the ATIS wind and it was in fact straight down 34 on arrival.
To my understanding you report what had been recorded over 15mins? But if it's that bad why aren't we seeing wind varying between xxx and xxx?

On a side note, it's not often over the radio we can pass thanks or commend you guys for when things are going well but it ain't all terrible and we do appreciate the hard work that does get done.

Last edited by GA Driver; 13th Dec 2016 at 08:53.
GA Driver is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 09:29
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 67
Posts: 775
IsDon,

Conditional clearances with stop bars were tried when the bars were commissioned but there were incidents with aircraft crossing a lit bar. Stop bars, when turned off, have an automatic reset time. There were incidents when aircraft having a conditional line up clearance didn't move quickly and the bar reset. There were also problems when the conditional may have been given and the ADC being interrupted, not deselecting the bar and the aircraft crossing the lit bar. If this were to occur now, A-SMGCS would produce an audio alarm as well which can be quite distracting.

It takes about a minute from a landing aircraft crossing the threshold to crossing the holding point on exit. That's plenty of time to line up and depart possibly without having to stop lined up.

I think overseas there may be an extra person in the tower to operate the bars.
fujii is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 10:30
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 25
Extended Holding - I'll leave this to an approach or en route controller who will know much more about this than me.

Crosswind on ATIS - Our anemometer readouts give us an instant wind (eg 330/40), instant crosswind, instant tailwind or headwind which all update every second, a maximum tailwind or headwind in last 5 minutes and a maximum crosswind in last 5 minutes.

By watching the anemometer readout over a period of time, the controller determines the mean wind and puts that on the ATIS. The crosswind figure is taken from the maximum crosswind readout in the last 5 minutes.

As the wind may sit on 330/40 for minute or two and then flick to 310/35 or 350/45, this is what can result in differing crosswind figures being quoted on the ATIS despite the mean wind remaining 330/40 on a new updated ATIS.
DukeBen is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 11:55
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 56
Posts: 952
It's all a bit embarrassing really.

ML is the second busiest airport in Australia. Today we had 20 min holding when the conditions on the ground were CAVOK and the ATIS wind was 150/14 and only rwy 16 was being used. This is 5Kt tailwind on rwy 27!!

We even asked for a landing on 27 and that we could accept up to 10kts, but were told "Too much tailwind".

Over Onagi were plenty of aircraft holding and a jet informed ATC that if unless their Waren time improved they'd have to divert due not enough fuel.

Again, CAVOK conditions and 150/14 knots wind with only Rwy 16 available.

I forget the amount of times recently I've been 7 or 8 in line to take-off in CAVOK with less than 10 knots of wind, but only one runway in operation. Again, when requesting another runway to be told "Not available".

Last month we got told that our COBT delay was because 'the flow' was only accepting 20 per hour. Seriously? No cloud below 2500', and again less than 10 knots of wind on the ground. 20 arrivals per hour!

This is nothing to be proud of.

While some of the reasoning by ATC sounds plausible, some of the "reasons" are a little weak, and smack of a public service mentality that is becoming more pervasive in Australia. My favourite one on this thread was:

"Too many aircraft arriving at the same time."

Is the concept of schedules being driven by corporations trying to meet customer expectations a bit beyond someone who's on the public payroll?

Sounds to me like AirServices Australia is content to provide a crap service, and it's OUR fault for wanting something better.

Australia: The worlds fastest growing Mediocracy...
Di_Vosh is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 12:03
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... Still!
Posts: 3,362
Too many aircraft arriving at the same time.
Those pesky aeroplanes all wanting to use the airport at once! Who'd have thought!
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 12:07
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 468
Slowed down 20 mins today, winds VRB 3kts/CAVOK. Min speed from passing FL180 on climb. Initially given 16, then an umming and ahhhing the flow was going to 34. Landed on 27.

WTF MEL?
DUXNUTZ is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 12:55
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 25
The 150/14 wind may give an instantaneous tailwind of 5 kts, but in my experience, this wind is usually flicking between 120 and 180, giving tailwind even above 10 kts on Rwy 27 at times. The quoted wind (150/14) is an average, the tailwind component that precludes a Runway being nominated is the maximum not the average.

The arrival rate during Rwy 16 only operations is severely hampered by the Rapid Exit Golf being shut, and i think many of the frustrations being reported on this board have been felt more widely in the last few months since it has been shut. I know working in the tower we've noticed longer than normal delays for Rwy 16 departures and the arrival gaps needing to be larger.

Today at times the wind was 340/8 at the northern end, 160/15 at the southern end and anyway in between at other points on the field. It does make runway selection challenging and delays are caused en route while runway changes are in progress. Unfortunately with the changeable nature of the winds we sometimes have to make multiple runway changes in a short period of time.
DukeBen is offline  
Old 13th Dec 2016, 13:42
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 470
Originally Posted by DukeBen View Post
Today at times the wind was 340/8 at the northern end, 160/15 at the southern end and anyway in between at other points on the field.
It's official then. Melbourne airport sucks!
IsDon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.