Melbourne Air Traffic Control

[framer]

For me, I require something if for any reason it is needed to maintain what I think is an acceptable level of safety. Every crew will have a different opinion of what is an acceptable level of safety. You can't put figures on it as there are so many variables, are you training? Have you been awake for 19 hours? Is it the first time in in 10 years into that port? Is your anti-skid inop?
Do you have all reversers a working?
It just comes down to personal opinion as does most everything.

[Marauder]

First time in there for a while, moderate traffic

Track shortening, speeds waived, etc

Take a bow

And Merry Christmas Ladies and Gents in ML ATC

[RAC/OPS]

Forgetting the squabble and back to request vs require..... I tend to 'require' things when the performance calculator won't let us use the duty runway. It appears the reason I 'require' a runway doest seem to matter at all?

Exactly. And no controller, certainly in ML tower will question you. I think 'require' is an Australian thing, so you might hear foreign crews requesting an off mode runway. In their case most of us would take that as a requirement too.

[le Pingouin]

Thanks Marauder, to you & yours too. We don't just screw you guys around for the fun of it.

GA Driver, if you require it you get it. A domestic might get asked "why?" by the flow if the reason isn't evident just in case you have a problem that might affect the way we handle you or if we need to allow a bit more time behind you.

I don't play the "request" vs "require" game for foreign carriers either - I just tell the flow "require". I tried in my earlier days and all it does is confuse the pilots and waste a huge amount of time. As one guy I work with said, we'd look pretty stupid if they drive off the far end of a short runway.

[White Knight]

Originally Posted by le Pingouin

we'd look pretty stupid if they drive off the far end of a short runway.

Not half as stupid as the guys/gals who are actually in control of the thing

[Lookleft]

Exactly. And no controller, certainly in ML tower will question you. I think 'require' is an Australian thing, so you might hear foreign crews requesting an off mode runway. In their case most of us would take that as a requirement too.

The point I was making is that to require a runway because of a preference to land into wind and not have to land with a quartering tailwind will not be an acceptable reason to have the flow changed. I might be able to get it approved for the first couple of times but ATC will be on to my employer PDQ to have my thinking changed. I am fully aware that if I require a runway because of some sort of technical issue then there will be no questions asked, it will just be provided. LP was suggesting that if I was the technical issue and it was the end of a long day then that would be acceptable as well. The problem with that is that the pilots of a certain brightly coloured LCC are always tired especially at the end of an 11 hour duty approaching midnight. So I go back to my original point that it wouldn't take long for ATC to tell the LCC to stop their pilots requiring runway configurations that are contrary to their flow just because they are tired or have had a long day in the saddle. As a case in point, in the early 90's when QF 767s started operating domestically they were always requiring runway 16R. It didn't take very long before that was stopped as it was pointed out that other widebody operators were quite capable of landing on 16L without having to use any test pilot techniques.

[RAC/OPS]

The point I was making is that to require a runway because of a preference to land into wind and not have to land with a quartering tailwind will not be an acceptable reason to have the flow changed.

But my point was that you won't be asked for a reason. I don't know whether the TMA or en route sectors keep a log of requirements - but we certainly don't in the tower. I'm not familiar with the QF 767 case you mentioned so maybe things do get filtered back to the airlines.

[sunnySA]

Now that the QG 767s have gone (all but 1 freighter) can we go back to using 25 knots as the crosswind criteria.

[Lookleft]

You wont be asked for a reason the first time but my point is that it would be bought to the attention of the airline concerned if a requirement for a particular runway was made each time I had a preference for an into wind runway. So far this month I have arrived 14 times into Melbourne.

[RAC/OPS]

As I said, I can't speak for TMA and en route. If you require a non duty runway for departure we change the runway in your strip. We give a 'next' call to Deps and they'll usually say 'unrestricted'. They may well have a scratch pad and tick your airline or flight number off but I seriously doubt it.

[Lead Balloon]

Scenario: You finish Year 10 first, then post again.

[fujii]

Scenario: An F111 goes past the tower ar 600 kts and you don't look up, you'd get a kick in the arse for not monitoring your traffic.

[DUXNUTZ]

Well MEL atc must read pprune. 09 in use for several hrs today.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

@lookleft

You wont be asked for a reason the first time but my point is that it would be bought to the attention of the airline concerned if a requirement for a particular runway was made each time I had a preference for an into wind runway. So far this month I have arrived 14 times into Melbourne.

I always "require" the long runway and have always been given it. But then again I have about a 5 Kt crosswind limit. (I'm not a very good pilot). I'm pretty sure every EK flight uses the long one Ops haven't sent us any nasty grams yet (well not in the last 15 years that I'm aware of).

[mrdeux]

I was flying the QF767s when 16L came into service, and did so for some years after. I landed on it once, and then required 16R for every landing thereafter. The margins are for my use, not the convenience of flow or a manager hidden away in an office.

The aircraft I've flown since are also landed on the runway that suits me with regard to crosswind and length.

Nothing has ever been said, nor will it.

[Lookleft]

CRH-very different scenario for widebody. Mel ATC will actually ask the widebodies if they require the long runway. Its not a question that ever gets asked of narrow body pilots by ATC.

[framer]

The point is that Mrdeux technically/ legally could have landed on 16L, but chose to require 16R. There is a line which is different for every Captain, and when that line is crossed they start looking for ways to stack the deck in their own favour. That is good. That is how it should be. I imagine every single pax that Mrdeux has flown has landed and taxied in safely. Job done. The risk we run now days is that the noise abatement and flow control etc etc is so prescriptive and so common that we get used to the tail wagging the dog and feel we have to fit in to the system in all cases except an emergency. In my opinion the safest runway should be used regardless the of the time of day or which suburb we fly over.

[DukeBen]

Originally Posted by framer

The point is that Mrdeux technically/ legally could have landed on 16L, but chose to require 16R. There is a line which is different for every Captain, and when that line is crossed they start looking for ways to stack the deck in their own favour. That is good. That is how it should be. I imagine every single pax that Mrdeux has flown has landed and taxied in safely. Job done. The risk we run now days is that the noise abatement and flow control etc etc is so prescriptive and so common that we get used to the tail wagging the dog and feel we have to fit in to the system in all cases except an emergency. In my opinion the safest runway should be used regardless the of the time of day or which suburb we fly over.

It is an interesting debate in that if the safest runway was used all the time, then during single runway operations due to too much tailwind on the other runways (max 5kts dry runway or 0 kts for other than dry), the other runway could not even be used for requests.

ATC do not ask for a reason on air for an operational requirement because we don't have the skills, knowledge and all the information the pilot has in determining whether this is the case. We trust the pilot's judgement in this.

I would suggest it is similar when ATC advise that a certain runway is "not available". Pilots do not have the information that ATC has in assessing this. Sometimes the ATC who advises the unavailability also doesn't have the information in the reason why either. It's about trusting the knowledge and judgement of others who do and moving on to the next task to keep the whole show moving.

Forums like this are good for digging into the issues a little and famil time in ATC & cockpit environments are even better.

[GA Driver]

On the note of the crosswind..... Is 20kts dry the max you'll use before a runway change? Most jets are up in the 30's and above.

[Brakerider]

On the note of the crosswind..... Is 20kts dry the max you'll use before a runway change? Most jets are up in the 30's and above.

As per the Sydney Noise Abatement Procedures

DRY- Max Crosswind 20, Max Downwind 5
WET- Max Crosswind 20, No downwind
Max Crosswind 15, Max Downwind 5


Believe it or not its not all about the jets.