Malindo Magic
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In the CRC
Age: 49
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
donpizmeov - I am actually an Aussie - it says so on my passport! Lol
The Bullwinkle - I agree. Just trying to block a hole in the swiss cheese, regardless of aircraft type. Poor crew discipline will always find new ones though....
The Bullwinkle - I agree. Just trying to block a hole in the swiss cheese, regardless of aircraft type. Poor crew discipline will always find new ones though....
I too find it odd that a SID designator for a particular runway may have one defined track that is different to the same named SID for another runway.
On another cultural note: I have wondered what technology Malindo has on their aircraft that allows them to reliably land in BNE during dense fog events that send other airliners to their alternates from the missed approach. One of their pilots assured me that it was solely the effect of the low fuel lights that sharpened the senses and honed the visual acuity. Maybe we should do that?
On another cultural note: I have wondered what technology Malindo has on their aircraft that allows them to reliably land in BNE during dense fog events that send other airliners to their alternates from the missed approach. One of their pilots assured me that it was solely the effect of the low fuel lights that sharpened the senses and honed the visual acuity. Maybe we should do that?
Thread Starter
I too find it odd that a SID designator for a particular runway may have one defined track that is different to the same named SID for another runway.
Tokyo, Narita airport clears the aircraft to the initial SID waypoint on departure when simultaneous parallel operations are in progress. Given the number of errors taking place, especially with a last minute runway change, it might be worth making it a standard practice.
Originally Posted by The Bullwinkle
Is there really a need for that on the Boeing 737-800?When the runway is entered into the FMC, the SID will show the appropriate legs for a departure off that runway.If you subsequently have a runway change, once you enter the new runway, the legs on the SID change accordingly. Of course, if you haven’t bothered changing the runway in the FMC, well that’s an entirely different story!
At least this way you know that you’ve got the first fix correct.
Tokyo, Narita airport clears the aircraft to the initial SID waypoint on departure when simultaneous parallel operations are in progress. Given the number of errors taking place, especially with a last minute runway change, it might be worth making it a standard practice.
"Via the Star to the IAF, thence the ILS to the Runway and then taxi on the taxiways to the stand... whilst not hitting anything enroute." "Just confirm cleared to land in there....."
The only good thing about not having the different identifier for each runway is when you get a runway change you don’t need to be issued with an entirely new SID clearance. Funnily enough it’s Melbourne that springs to mind when you plan on 34 but 27 becomes available at the last minute and can save time when heading west.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funnily enough it’s Melbourne that springs to mind when you plan on 34 but 27 becomes available at the last minute and can save time when heading west.
Track 340 degrees.
As soon as practicable turn LEFT, track direct to Atnol.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Eagles Nest
Posts: 485
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Track 340 degrees.
As soon as practicable turn LEFT, track direct to Atnol.
agree . Maintain RWY HDG and contact departures . Min radar vector alt and it’s direct to a point 300 nm away . Only thing I’d add is first cleared alt be terrain safe in case of failure .
As soon as practicable turn LEFT, track direct to Atnol.
agree . Maintain RWY HDG and contact departures . Min radar vector alt and it’s direct to a point 300 nm away . Only thing I’d add is first cleared alt be terrain safe in case of failure .
Just imagine what goes on that we don’t know about. Anyway I just hope they remembered to say climb via SID to 6000.
Surely additional calls or procedures are not needed to protect against this sort of incident. How about doing the basics like briefing the departure off the chart while the other pilot checks the legs?? There is no way you could make this error if they had done that. And what about the fact that when lining up on the runway the map display on the ND shows the runway icon about a mile north of you and perpendicular to your track!!
As mentioned, the MEL departures are not RWY specific and neither is the airways clearance, which may have something to do with the propensity for ATC to change runway configuration at the drop of a hat. But in the 737 all you need to do is change the runway in the FMC and it will change to the appropriate SID. Obviously you must still check and brief the current runway departure. (Plus performance, E/O procedure, etc)
You can’t just keep adding procedural backstops because some pilots can’t be bothered or can’t remember to do the basics of their job.
As mentioned, the MEL departures are not RWY specific and neither is the airways clearance, which may have something to do with the propensity for ATC to change runway configuration at the drop of a hat. But in the 737 all you need to do is change the runway in the FMC and it will change to the appropriate SID. Obviously you must still check and brief the current runway departure. (Plus performance, E/O procedure, etc)
You can’t just keep adding procedural backstops because some pilots can’t be bothered or can’t remember to do the basics of their job.
Last edited by Beer Baron; 1st Oct 2018 at 07:47.
I agree with Beer B.
If a crew is not getting the very basics of modern aviation right, then adding a specific band aid for a specific cock-up that’s already happened is achieving little more than increasing the ATCO’s workload and cluttering the frequency. They will continue not getting the very basics of modern aviation right, it will just show in other ways.
The answer is to boot Airlines out of our airspace if they have too many incidents but we can see from recent history that nobody has the courage to act.
If a crew is not getting the very basics of modern aviation right, then adding a specific band aid for a specific cock-up that’s already happened is achieving little more than increasing the ATCO’s workload and cluttering the frequency. They will continue not getting the very basics of modern aviation right, it will just show in other ways.
The answer is to boot Airlines out of our airspace if they have too many incidents but we can see from recent history that nobody has the courage to act.
