Melbourne Air Traffic Control
Di Vosh, what else would you call 20 aircraft attempting to arrive in half an hour when the system is configured to handle 12 in that time? Because that's what happens and guess what? You cop a delay.
Is the concept of scheduling to fit within current capacity and if you exceed it there will be delays beyond an airline employee? We aren't employed by the government BTW. Capacity isn't some magic pudding that can miraculously expand to fit another couple of arrivals an hour on a whim. It's a whole bloody great cumbersome system.
What do you think I can do as an individual controller?
Is the concept of scheduling to fit within current capacity and if you exceed it there will be delays beyond an airline employee? We aren't employed by the government BTW. Capacity isn't some magic pudding that can miraculously expand to fit another couple of arrivals an hour on a whim. It's a whole bloody great cumbersome system.
What do you think I can do as an individual controller?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
G'day le Pingouin
My understanding at the time (and what I wrote) was 20 per HOUR not 20 in 30 min.
scheduling to fit within current capacity
The thing is, is that's what the whole COBT system is supposed to take care of. We shouldn't be departing on COBT and then get holding double the published traffic time. You're like a public servant again (or whatever ASA is).
The fact of the matter is, is that this deterioration of traffic into Melbourne has really only been noticeable since early November. Likewise the use of single runways in CAVOK with light and variable winds.
What do you think I can do as an individual controller?
I've not flown internationally, so I can't compare how ML operates compared with other countries airports, such as Gatwick, but from my own experience of ML as little as three months ago, ML is punching well below it's weight.
They won't give cross/tailwind for a non-duty runway.
Ah, my mention of 20 in 30 mins wasn't related to your 20 per hour - probably where I got the number from but it wasn't a deliberate choice.
I entirely agree that's the point of COBT - presumably the wheels fall off when the "model" they've used to generate the delays doesn't match reality very well. As I mentioned earlier it's working after a fashion as the peaks aren't don't seem as intense. Mind you go back 15 years and holding was routine quite often two or three times a day.
Fair enough, although it seems that people are taking attempts to explain how things work from the ATC perspective as defending it.
Ah, my mention of 20 in 30 mins wasn't related to your 20 per hour - probably where I got the number from but it wasn't a deliberate choice.
I entirely agree that's the point of COBT - presumably the wheels fall off when the "model" they've used to generate the delays doesn't match reality very well. As I mentioned earlier it's working after a fashion as the peaks aren't don't seem as intense. Mind you go back 15 years and holding was routine quite often two or three times a day.
Fair enough, although it seems that people are taking attempts to explain how things work from the ATC perspective as defending it.
When is Golf due to reopen? And why wasn't it completed as high priority?
Looking at it now, I struggle to understand why it's still shut.
Looking at it now, I struggle to understand why it's still shut.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The fact of the matter is, is that this deterioration of traffic into Melbourne has really only been noticeable since early November. Likewise the use of single runways in CAVOK with light and variable winds."
April through October ish, the most common winds at YMML are North Westerlies, hence lots of 27/34 operations. November through March the most common winds are Southerlies/South Easterlies with the occasional strong Northerly, so much more use of 16a/27d and 16 only with the occasional 34 only day.
Rapid Exit Taxiway Golf has only been closed in the last couple of months, and has the biggest impact upon Southerly/South Easterly wind days. I suspect this is the single biggest reason you've noticed a deterioration of traffic into Melbourne. There have been no other significant changes to procedures or console staffing.
If there is any way we can use a Runway mode including 2 runways, we do. We do not select single runway modes to be obstructionist. There is a controller constantly monitoring the weather and looking for the opportunity to use a 2 runway mode to increase efficiency.
Le Pingoin is correct in that we do not quote tailwind/crosswind conditions for a non duty runway on the ATIS. My example of wind 120-180 at 14 kts was poorly chosen for this purpose, as a wind varying by 60 degrees should be reported as varying between those figures on the ATIS, however below 60 degrees, eg 120-170 degrees, unless that wind results in significant crosswind or tailwind for the duty runway (Rwy 16 in this case), the wind is to be quoted as an average from a single direction (so probably 140 or 150 degrees at 14 kts).
April through October ish, the most common winds at YMML are North Westerlies, hence lots of 27/34 operations. November through March the most common winds are Southerlies/South Easterlies with the occasional strong Northerly, so much more use of 16a/27d and 16 only with the occasional 34 only day.
Rapid Exit Taxiway Golf has only been closed in the last couple of months, and has the biggest impact upon Southerly/South Easterly wind days. I suspect this is the single biggest reason you've noticed a deterioration of traffic into Melbourne. There have been no other significant changes to procedures or console staffing.
If there is any way we can use a Runway mode including 2 runways, we do. We do not select single runway modes to be obstructionist. There is a controller constantly monitoring the weather and looking for the opportunity to use a 2 runway mode to increase efficiency.
Le Pingoin is correct in that we do not quote tailwind/crosswind conditions for a non duty runway on the ATIS. My example of wind 120-180 at 14 kts was poorly chosen for this purpose, as a wind varying by 60 degrees should be reported as varying between those figures on the ATIS, however below 60 degrees, eg 120-170 degrees, unless that wind results in significant crosswind or tailwind for the duty runway (Rwy 16 in this case), the wind is to be quoted as an average from a single direction (so probably 140 or 150 degrees at 14 kts).
I'm finding this discussion really interesting and it appears to me that it is a case of people doing their very best with an unnecessarily constrained system - be it Metron or whatever...
I have been fortunate to experience ATC providers worldwide - why is it that at KLAX we can be number 3 to land, yet "cleared to land" and not here in Aus? It is obvious to me that (granted that KLAX has MULTIPLE parallel runways and separate arrival and departure runways) they achieve significantly more movements per runway - indeed, on average they achieve a movement per runway per minute (over a whole 24 hour period!), which is significantly higher than the discussed 12 in 30 minutes??
Are our rules "too tight"? Is it simply due to the single runway situation?
Gatwick has a single runway and manages a maximum of 55 per hour.
I enjoy operating in Aus airspace and the service provided by our ATC brethren is directly very good - I'm not trying to agitate, just interested to know where our restrictions come from. Cheers.
I have been fortunate to experience ATC providers worldwide - why is it that at KLAX we can be number 3 to land, yet "cleared to land" and not here in Aus? It is obvious to me that (granted that KLAX has MULTIPLE parallel runways and separate arrival and departure runways) they achieve significantly more movements per runway - indeed, on average they achieve a movement per runway per minute (over a whole 24 hour period!), which is significantly higher than the discussed 12 in 30 minutes??
Are our rules "too tight"? Is it simply due to the single runway situation?
Gatwick has a single runway and manages a maximum of 55 per hour.
I enjoy operating in Aus airspace and the service provided by our ATC brethren is directly very good - I'm not trying to agitate, just interested to know where our restrictions come from. Cheers.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DukeBen,
All, these issues mentioned for 09/27, wont that be the same for 09R/27L, and/or even worse with Essendon/LAHSO, etc? Not to mention the ever present crosswinds?
Use of the wind profiler at MEL could get the time based operations going and increase capacity substantially. The wake turbulence measurement system would support a recat for reduced sep on ARR and DEP.
I will have to check on that again, but is seems that you would end up with CSPR, but cant remember exactly. Looking at this, it looks like the new tower would have to be moved with a north/south runway.
All, these issues mentioned for 09/27, wont that be the same for 09R/27L, and/or even worse with Essendon/LAHSO, etc? Not to mention the ever present crosswinds?
Gatwick has a single runway and manages a maximum of 55 per hour.
The new tower was built with parallel 16/34 runways in mind.
Last edited by underfire; 13th Dec 2016 at 21:30.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Underfire,
09/27 parallels will certain present some challenges. The biggest one in my opinion being how traffic from the Southern parallel interacts with YMEN traffic. Procedures will be developed to manage this but it remains to be seen how efficiently this runway can be used with YMEN operating simultaneously.
In terms of the wind issues. Having to go to Rwy 16 only is more commonly caused by too much tailwind on Rwy 27 rather than too much crosswind. With the parallels built and procedures in place, Rwy 09 left and right will be used almost as much as Rwy 27 left and right negating the issue of tailwind on Rwy 27.
On the odd occasion that there is a greater than 20 kt southerly, then yes we'll have to go to Rwy 16 only, which will be a pain if traffic levels have increased in line with what the parallels allow, and the more common occurrence of a greater than 20kt northerly will cause similar pain.
Modelling of taxiway movements have shown that building a 16/34 parallel instead has less gains for efficiency due to extra crossing required of the other parallel on the way to or from the western runway.
Ideally, the terminal would be in the middle with runways surrounding it, but the way it is, that's basically impossible and gives us the compromise options.
09/27 parallels will certain present some challenges. The biggest one in my opinion being how traffic from the Southern parallel interacts with YMEN traffic. Procedures will be developed to manage this but it remains to be seen how efficiently this runway can be used with YMEN operating simultaneously.
In terms of the wind issues. Having to go to Rwy 16 only is more commonly caused by too much tailwind on Rwy 27 rather than too much crosswind. With the parallels built and procedures in place, Rwy 09 left and right will be used almost as much as Rwy 27 left and right negating the issue of tailwind on Rwy 27.
On the odd occasion that there is a greater than 20 kt southerly, then yes we'll have to go to Rwy 16 only, which will be a pain if traffic levels have increased in line with what the parallels allow, and the more common occurrence of a greater than 20kt northerly will cause similar pain.
Modelling of taxiway movements have shown that building a 16/34 parallel instead has less gains for efficiency due to extra crossing required of the other parallel on the way to or from the western runway.
Ideally, the terminal would be in the middle with runways surrounding it, but the way it is, that's basically impossible and gives us the compromise options.
more common occurrence of a greater than 20kt northerly will cause similar pain.
So why are we going down that path?
it appears to me that it is a case of people doing their very best with an unnecessarily constrained system
The Australian Government takes a bureaucratic approach to aviation not a pragmatic one.
Your whole question about being cleared to land is a classic one. In the US they give the responsibility to the PIC to not land on top of another aircraft. Over here a controller has to make that decision for the PIC which is just one more layer of bureaucracy but it costs time and runway space.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
My experience on warm-hot days with a light and variable wind is that the windsock isn't a reliable indication of the actual wind at any one time, it is just as likely pointing to the nearest thermal. The average over a period of time, and an awareness of the forecast wind is a better indicator.
I'm not a jet pilot, but I suspect they can handle a bit of windshear from thermals without difficulty, and you probably don't want to close a runway just because a thermal keeps popping off upwind of your anemometer.
Stronger winds of course are less affected by thermals - but this thread seems to be mostly referring to light wind days.
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.
All excellent information on here, keep it coming.
I'd call it a **** system.
20 aircraft arriving in 30 mins is a slow day for a lot of single runway airports the world over, even worse given Melbourne is actually a two runway airport.
While ATC debate 5 knots vs 6 knots downwind in light wind, CAVOK conditions, crews are madly crunching the numbers on fuel and diversions when they should be concentrating on arrival. The Melbourne procedures need to change.
Get Golf online, get runway 09 online especially for landings, prohibit QF exits onto echo when 09 being used for departures, seek an exemption from CASA which allows ATIS nomination of 27 with 5-10 tailwind.
Penalise ASA management every time an aircraft is required to hold beyond NOTAM holding for non weather related delays. Once some manager's KPI might get affected, watch the arrival rate magically increase.
Let's get serious and get YMML out of the 1980s.
Here's a completely bonkers idea, straight out of left field for 120-170/14 knots.... Runway 09!!!!
Di Vosh, what else would you call 20 aircraft attempting to arrive in half an hour when the system is configured to handle 12 in that time
20 aircraft arriving in 30 mins is a slow day for a lot of single runway airports the world over, even worse given Melbourne is actually a two runway airport.
While ATC debate 5 knots vs 6 knots downwind in light wind, CAVOK conditions, crews are madly crunching the numbers on fuel and diversions when they should be concentrating on arrival. The Melbourne procedures need to change.
Get Golf online, get runway 09 online especially for landings, prohibit QF exits onto echo when 09 being used for departures, seek an exemption from CASA which allows ATIS nomination of 27 with 5-10 tailwind.
Penalise ASA management every time an aircraft is required to hold beyond NOTAM holding for non weather related delays. Once some manager's KPI might get affected, watch the arrival rate magically increase.
Let's get serious and get YMML out of the 1980s.
Le Pingoin is correct in that we do not quote tailwind/crosswind conditions for a non duty runway on the ATIS. My example of wind 120-180 at 14 kts was poorly chosen for this purpose, as a wind varying by 60 degrees should be reported as varying between those figures on the ATIS, however below 60 degrees, eg 120-170 degrees, unless that wind results in significant crosswind or tailwind for the duty runway (Rwy 16 in this case), the wind is to be quoted as an average from a single direction (so probably 140 or 150 degrees at 14 kts).
When you live....
I will have to check on that again, but is seems that you would end up with CSPR, but cant remember exactly. Looking at this, it looks like the new tower would have to be moved with a north/south runway.
Hi Penguin.
How does the noise abatement work? Surely the noise abatement is for departure at takeoff power over the suburbs to the east of the airport.
Rwy 09 for arrivals would have aircraft on approach from the west and no noise to the east. A go around would be a rare occurrence from a noise to the east perspective.
Ie
Easterly - arrivals 09, departures 16/34
Westerlies - arrivals and departures 27 and 16/34
Wouldn't that work from a noise point of view? We need glass half full sort of thinking to get this solved.
How does the noise abatement work? Surely the noise abatement is for departure at takeoff power over the suburbs to the east of the airport.
Rwy 09 for arrivals would have aircraft on approach from the west and no noise to the east. A go around would be a rare occurrence from a noise to the east perspective.
Ie
Easterly - arrivals 09, departures 16/34
Westerlies - arrivals and departures 27 and 16/34
Wouldn't that work from a noise point of view? We need glass half full sort of thinking to get this solved.
Am I seeing things or is 09R pointing into the terminal and roads?
Well planned: not into wind, short as buggery and pointing at a terminal.
Future proofing at its best.
I guess its easier to modify the runway overrun stats than get a good outcome in Australian infrastructure planning.
BNE and SYD have it planned properly both parallels north south and both have trains. Melbourne needs the government to step in.
Well planned: not into wind, short as buggery and pointing at a terminal.
Future proofing at its best.
I guess its easier to modify the runway overrun stats than get a good outcome in Australian infrastructure planning.
BNE and SYD have it planned properly both parallels north south and both have trains. Melbourne needs the government to step in.