Melbourne Air Traffic Control
Yeah ive gotta say, after using it for a bit, the syd system works well, never stuck trying to get a word in these days
What about standardising MEL with SYD? When you tell Clearance that you are ready they tell you to monitor Ground as opposed to contacting Ground. Clearance slides over the control to Ground that you are ready and Ground issues pushback when available. Saves the pushback radio call per aircraft and stops the clogging of airwaves.
To further clarify if I may angryrat:
127.60"Sydney Coordinator ABC123 Ready for pushback bay XX"
127.60"ABC123 you time is compliant, monitor ground"
121.70"ABC123 pushback approved"
121.70"ABC123"
It works well.
BNE & ADL even easier, just ask at the right time and you receive.
Can't remember how Perth works...who cares anyway lol..
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that the Ground frequency becomes overloaded at times and it's hard to get a word in edgewise.
Having a 2nd Ground controller/frequency is an option, and I'm sure it will be brought in by the time the parallel runway is built.
We have moved towing requests initial radio calls to the clearance delivery frequency rather than ground and they work on the "monitor ground" system and it has worked well.
The idea of doing the same thing with aircraft requesting pushback is a good one and has been looked at before and may need to be again. It is slightly trickier to change procedures like that with the computerised system Melbourne Tower has compared to Sydney Tower.
With the automation involved, currently as soon as an aircraft has correctly read back their airways clearance on delivery frequency, the electronic strip with all its details gets moved to the Ground Controllers console, and there's no way to stop it doing this. Hence, if an aircraft was to call back on delivery when they are ready to push back, there's no way for that controller to annotate on the strip that the aircraft is actually ready for pushback as they no longer have jurisdiction of that electronic strip.
With Sydney Tower's paper strips, the Delivery controller or Coordinator can hold onto the paper strip until the aircraft calls back and then physically pass the strip to the Ground Controller when they're ready - so much for technology hey!?
I'm certain this issue is not insurmountable and we can look at what can be done to modify the system to allow it to occur.
Having a 2nd Ground controller/frequency is an option, and I'm sure it will be brought in by the time the parallel runway is built.
We have moved towing requests initial radio calls to the clearance delivery frequency rather than ground and they work on the "monitor ground" system and it has worked well.
The idea of doing the same thing with aircraft requesting pushback is a good one and has been looked at before and may need to be again. It is slightly trickier to change procedures like that with the computerised system Melbourne Tower has compared to Sydney Tower.
With the automation involved, currently as soon as an aircraft has correctly read back their airways clearance on delivery frequency, the electronic strip with all its details gets moved to the Ground Controllers console, and there's no way to stop it doing this. Hence, if an aircraft was to call back on delivery when they are ready to push back, there's no way for that controller to annotate on the strip that the aircraft is actually ready for pushback as they no longer have jurisdiction of that electronic strip.
With Sydney Tower's paper strips, the Delivery controller or Coordinator can hold onto the paper strip until the aircraft calls back and then physically pass the strip to the Ground Controller when they're ready - so much for technology hey!?
I'm certain this issue is not insurmountable and we can look at what can be done to modify the system to allow it to occur.
Can't remember how Perth works...who cares anyway lol..
Pete, R09 is last choice for both arrivals and departures with noise abatement - them's the rules I'm afraid. And because it's noise abatement I'm sure it'd involve a whole lot of discussion with multiple "interested" parties. Politics with a capital "P".
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...MLNA01-129.pdf
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...MLNA01-129.pdf
Last edited by le Pingouin; 14th Dec 2016 at 12:12. Reason: Inserting clickable link
KLAX does not average 1min per movement per runway during its best hour let alone consistently. You may be confused with the stat one departure and one arrival per minute (on all four runways). Segregated arrival and departure runways is actually the most ineffiecent way of operating a multi runway airport. This is because gaps need to be put in for wake turbulence that a departure could fit into. So you lose 4 or 5 slots per hour. But it is however noise friendly and much much easier to manage from an ATC perspective. Especially with four runways; mixed mode at LAX would be very complex.
20 arrivals in half an hour into a single runway operation a quiet day? Well certainly quiet for departures because there wouldn't have been a single one; that would equate to arrival spacing of around 2.5nm. The most efficient mode is one arrival, then 1 departure. The theoretical minimum is 2 minutes between arrivals (30 per hour {4NM gaps}) and a departure in the gap (total of 60 per hour). Remembering that this is a perfect world scenario with 0 margin for error. Single runway rates across Australia are running arrival rates between 28-30 per hour for total movement rates of 55+
Melbourne 16 only is particularly painful at the moment because they need to allow 3mins between arrivals (20per hour {7NM gaps}) to allow the arrival to roll through. Bearing in mind that this also slows the departure rate down to 3 mins. So now you're only moving 40 per hour. This doesn't sound like a lot but it makes a HUGE impact on delays when you're at capacity.
In any case don't be comparing Melbourne with airports like Heathrow and Los Angeles, that's a bit rediculous. They're nothing alike. I feel your beef needs to be with the CASA runway nomination criteria. It really should allow for 10kts tailwind and 30kts crosswind. Seeing places like Sydney grind to a halt because of a 25kt crosswind ruins the flow across whole country, and seems a bit conservative.
20 arrivals in half an hour into a single runway operation a quiet day? Well certainly quiet for departures because there wouldn't have been a single one; that would equate to arrival spacing of around 2.5nm. The most efficient mode is one arrival, then 1 departure. The theoretical minimum is 2 minutes between arrivals (30 per hour {4NM gaps}) and a departure in the gap (total of 60 per hour). Remembering that this is a perfect world scenario with 0 margin for error. Single runway rates across Australia are running arrival rates between 28-30 per hour for total movement rates of 55+
Melbourne 16 only is particularly painful at the moment because they need to allow 3mins between arrivals (20per hour {7NM gaps}) to allow the arrival to roll through. Bearing in mind that this also slows the departure rate down to 3 mins. So now you're only moving 40 per hour. This doesn't sound like a lot but it makes a HUGE impact on delays when you're at capacity.
In any case don't be comparing Melbourne with airports like Heathrow and Los Angeles, that's a bit rediculous. They're nothing alike. I feel your beef needs to be with the CASA runway nomination criteria. It really should allow for 10kts tailwind and 30kts crosswind. Seeing places like Sydney grind to a halt because of a 25kt crosswind ruins the flow across whole country, and seems a bit conservative.
Thanks penguin, you've been very helpful.
Seems ludicrous, and an area which could be probed for improvements. Arrivals on RWY 09 would have large noise benefits for eastern suburbs residents over tailwind approaches to RWY 27.
And yes, no doubt the red tape attached with a procedural change in the name of progress will typify Australian bureaucracy.
Seems ludicrous, and an area which could be probed for improvements. Arrivals on RWY 09 would have large noise benefits for eastern suburbs residents over tailwind approaches to RWY 27.
And yes, no doubt the red tape attached with a procedural change in the name of progress will typify Australian bureaucracy.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where'd that picture come from UNDERFIRE? It seems to ignore T4 and associated carparks and other infrastructure that would sit right off the end of 09R and infringe on arrivals to 27L?
Current maps from the MEL website show about the same rwy, but without all of the taxiways. Interesting that if the prevailing end is 27L, you are still crossing 16/34 twice to terminal. The direct route is 09R, which as with current ops, seems unlikely to be used for ARR. With all of the new construction, obstacles will be interesting.
In looking at this a little more closely, RW09L is far from a II runway to 09R. It doesnt look like the merge point between centerlines is met.
Here is the proposed overlayed on the existing MEL site...
Last edited by underfire; 14th Dec 2016 at 22:39.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 59
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears to me the rapid exits for 09L and 09R are a waste of concrete.
Seems like the winds are always a bit strong from the south, everytime I go into 27, I get rocked.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that erks me is pilots who report ready to Tower well before the holding point (in breach of the AIP). It takes others out of the loop, in particular when there are taxiways they have to cross. Saw a near miss when two 737s tried to taxi to Juliet one day as one reported too early to tower. I would have thought that this increases ATC workload if they have to communicate to aircraft that prematurely calls Tower. After ATC thoughts on this?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reporting Ready Too Early
AIP says - Domestic aircraft should change to tower frequency
A) In the holding bay, or
B) Close to, or at, the holding point of the nominated runway, when ready for takeoff.
I suppose the definition of "close to" to the holding point isn't really nailed down and can be debated.
Having said that, if i'm moving an aircraft close to the holding point but holding short of a taxiway prior to the holding point, I usually add "remain on this frequency".
This shouldn't be necessary as if an aircraft hasn't been cleared to the holding point, they should stay on ground frequency as a matter of course. It is extra radio airtime wasted on a call that SHOULD be unnecessary, but unfortunately I've seen too many aircraft switch to tower frequency whilst holding short of a taxiway such that i feel it works better if i say it.
I understand the temptation to make an early ready call, as the order that aircraft call ready in does have some influence on the order in which they depart - it's not the be all and end all and many other factors are taken into account, but all other things being equal, it does play a role.
If aircraft would at least not switch frequencies whilst instructed to hold short of a taxiway, that would be a start. Not sure what the solution is beyond that.
AIP says - Domestic aircraft should change to tower frequency
A) In the holding bay, or
B) Close to, or at, the holding point of the nominated runway, when ready for takeoff.
I suppose the definition of "close to" to the holding point isn't really nailed down and can be debated.
Having said that, if i'm moving an aircraft close to the holding point but holding short of a taxiway prior to the holding point, I usually add "remain on this frequency".
This shouldn't be necessary as if an aircraft hasn't been cleared to the holding point, they should stay on ground frequency as a matter of course. It is extra radio airtime wasted on a call that SHOULD be unnecessary, but unfortunately I've seen too many aircraft switch to tower frequency whilst holding short of a taxiway such that i feel it works better if i say it.
I understand the temptation to make an early ready call, as the order that aircraft call ready in does have some influence on the order in which they depart - it's not the be all and end all and many other factors are taken into account, but all other things being equal, it does play a role.
If aircraft would at least not switch frequencies whilst instructed to hold short of a taxiway, that would be a start. Not sure what the solution is beyond that.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I like to see things done by the book. Not only is reporting early unprofessional, it also decreases situational awareness and increases workload. I heard Brisbane TWR give an aircraft a serve and told them to go back to SMC when they went to TWR early.
Thanks for your contributions to this thread, DukeBen. 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worst I have seen at MEL was sitting at Q hold point for 27, Virgin 737 called ready just before us when he was turning from A into E. We sat there waiting at the 737 taxied down E, was given a a take off clearance, by the time we lined up we had to wait for a landing aircraft on 16. We could have got airborne, by the time Virgin lined up.
Another thing that annoys me at MEL is the WENDY arrival for 27, I've had numerous times where after crossing KEELA at 6000, I cannot get descent due to congestion on the radio. On once instance we were at 6000 at ROCEL, I requested to continue heading east for extra track miles to enable descent, ATC replied NEGATIVE due to the SEQUENCE, we turned and did a very messy approach ending up having to cross the centreline and intercept from the north, unprofessional and unsafe and nearly unstable.
My fix is to now anticipate not getting descent and slowing to around 180 kts passing NOMID (instead of 230 kts) to enable a safe and stable descent when I finally do get to descend.
Another thing that annoys me at MEL is the WENDY arrival for 27, I've had numerous times where after crossing KEELA at 6000, I cannot get descent due to congestion on the radio. On once instance we were at 6000 at ROCEL, I requested to continue heading east for extra track miles to enable descent, ATC replied NEGATIVE due to the SEQUENCE, we turned and did a very messy approach ending up having to cross the centreline and intercept from the north, unprofessional and unsafe and nearly unstable.
My fix is to now anticipate not getting descent and slowing to around 180 kts passing NOMID (instead of 230 kts) to enable a safe and stable descent when I finally do get to descend.
Last edited by MrWooby; 16th Dec 2016 at 00:39.
Yeah I've had the virgin wait off 27 before a few time
"Stby, you're number two" ... "uhh to whom?"... 5 minutes later...
"Stby, you're number two" ... "uhh to whom?"... 5 minutes later...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Brisbane Australia
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Rex and Tiger reporting ready whilst taxiing up Alpha for 27 and they haven't even turned into Echo yet. That's really clever.
And also the aircraft that pull up short of the holding point with their tail hanging on to the taxiway behind blocking the taxiway for no apparent reason. That's clever too.
And also the aircraft that pull up short of the holding point with their tail hanging on to the taxiway behind blocking the taxiway for no apparent reason. That's clever too.
Seriously, if departure priority can take into account who calls ready first, a TWY E ready call is fair game if cleared to the holding point.
Didn't BNE use to stipulate call as early as possible? I can't find it anymore but I'm sure it used to be there.
Didn't BNE use to stipulate call as early as possible? I can't find it anymore but I'm sure it used to be there.
Last edited by Bula; 16th Dec 2016 at 18:01.