United mayday into YSSY 4thOct
Once upon a time long haul flights were exempt from traffic holding, what was the logic behind the change? As Snakecharma says the whole world knows they're coming for the last 15 hours why can't the flow be built around them?
Their scheduled arrival time is 7:45 local, try turning up in DXB, LHR, FRA 60-90 minutes early, they knew they were going to be early before they even pushed back. They started their descent into SYD before the airport had even opened and touched down around 6:35. The whole world knows Sydney has a curfew, delays are always expected when the runway opens while they clear the amount of traffic backed up because of the curfew. They are also aware of the updated forecasts including the SIGMET for conditions to get worse in the Sydney area for their arrival time.
Nev that would work well for a week . But then because the flights become more efficient they will be dispatched with less fuel . And the problem will return .
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS holding into Sydney is advisory not mandatory.
Of course, you can choose not to carry any holding whatsoever (wx, traffic etc) and carry an alternate but that sort of planning would be inane - arriving over your destination and immediately diverting
SWH, couple of points, it would not be unheard of for forecasts to change for the worse whilst enroute. Short of magicing up more fuel then there isn’t much that can be done about that.
Re the arriving early bit, you are right sometimes the winds work in favour of an early arrival, but even then the FMC arrival time is available for all to see in the system from departure so it shouldn’t be too hard to manage arrivals without holding. Work out times and send the inbounds a feeder fix time 10-12 hrs out not 10-12 minutes.
Re the arriving early bit, you are right sometimes the winds work in favour of an early arrival, but even then the FMC arrival time is available for all to see in the system from departure so it shouldn’t be too hard to manage arrivals without holding. Work out times and send the inbounds a feeder fix time 10-12 hrs out not 10-12 minutes.
PS holding into Sydney is advisory not mandatory.
Originally Posted by Zanzibar
Are you sure? AIP ENR 1.1, para 11.9.3.1 suggests otherwise.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:PS holding into Sydney is advisory not mandatory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZanzibarAre you sure? AIP ENR 1.1, para 11.9.3.1 suggests otherwise.
Bloggsy, a quick duck into Noumea or Brissie for a top up isn’t as easy or practical as it sounds.
By the time we land in either we are adding at least 90 minutes to the flight, getting a gas and go done on an unscheduled basis isn’t all that quick, and add that 90 or so minutes onto a duty period already sitting around 15-16 hrs and it is all turning to crap rapidly. LAX-SYD is already around the 15 hr block time mark, plus sign on and you can see it is a long day getting longer. LAX-MEL is much closer to 16.
getting flight plans, load sheets, fuel and a gate to park at on short notice isn’t all that easy a prospect and I reckon turning around in 90 mins is pretty good going.
there isn’t anything special about transpacific flying other than the fact that you tend to leave the US at max weight, so you can’t bung on too much more fuel, LA as an example has a thing about taking off into wind at night which further complicates things, and these issues make it a bit of a planning challenge, so throwing on a lot of extra gas for Mum and the kids isn’t all that practical in some cases (not always but a lot of the time) so while it isn’t a big drama to throw on 30 minutes of fuel in a 737, 320 or 717, putting on an extra 6-8 tonnes in order to have 30 or so mins available at the end of the flight is severely restrictive.
By the time we land in either we are adding at least 90 minutes to the flight, getting a gas and go done on an unscheduled basis isn’t all that quick, and add that 90 or so minutes onto a duty period already sitting around 15-16 hrs and it is all turning to crap rapidly. LAX-SYD is already around the 15 hr block time mark, plus sign on and you can see it is a long day getting longer. LAX-MEL is much closer to 16.
getting flight plans, load sheets, fuel and a gate to park at on short notice isn’t all that easy a prospect and I reckon turning around in 90 mins is pretty good going.
there isn’t anything special about transpacific flying other than the fact that you tend to leave the US at max weight, so you can’t bung on too much more fuel, LA as an example has a thing about taking off into wind at night which further complicates things, and these issues make it a bit of a planning challenge, so throwing on a lot of extra gas for Mum and the kids isn’t all that practical in some cases (not always but a lot of the time) so while it isn’t a big drama to throw on 30 minutes of fuel in a 737, 320 or 717, putting on an extra 6-8 tonnes in order to have 30 or so mins available at the end of the flight is severely restrictive.
SWH, couple of points, it would not be unheard of for forecasts to change for the worse whilst enroute. Short of magicing up more fuel then there isn’t much that can be done about that.
Re the arriving early bit, you are right sometimes the winds work in favour of an early arrival, but even then the FMC arrival time is available for all to see in the system from departure so it shouldn’t be too hard to manage arrivals without holding. Work out times and send the inbounds a feeder fix time 10-12 hrs out not 10-12 minutes.
Re the arriving early bit, you are right sometimes the winds work in favour of an early arrival, but even then the FMC arrival time is available for all to see in the system from departure so it shouldn’t be too hard to manage arrivals without holding. Work out times and send the inbounds a feeder fix time 10-12 hrs out not 10-12 minutes.
Between 5:17 am and 5:38 am they were within 30 minutes of Brisbane, at 5:47 they passed their ETP between Brisbane and Sydney. Top of descent for Sydney was was at 5:59 am. Arriving 15 minutes early is a bit early, arriving 70 minutes early is into a curfew restricted airport poor planning. Their FMC and flight plan would have told them it was a quick sector time, sometimes it is two hours longer which the 787 can also do without stopping. They should have adjusted their departure time to suit. SYD is not going to open up early and get rid of the traffic backlog just because they come early.
getting flight plans, load sheets, fuel and a gate to park at on short notice isn’t all that easy a prospect and I reckon turning around in 90 mins is pretty good going.
there isn’t anything special about transpacific flying other than the fact that you tend to leave the US at max weight, so you can’t bung on too much more fuel, LA as an example has a thing about taking off into wind at night which further complicates things, and these issues make it a bit of a planning challenge, so throwing on a lot of extra gas for Mum and the kids isn’t all that practical in some cases (not always but a lot of the time) so while it isn’t a big drama to throw on 30 minutes of fuel in a 737, 320 or 717, putting on an extra 6-8 tonnes in order to have 30 or so mins available at the end of the flight is severely restrictive.
there isn’t anything special about transpacific flying other than the fact that you tend to leave the US at max weight, so you can’t bung on too much more fuel, LA as an example has a thing about taking off into wind at night which further complicates things, and these issues make it a bit of a planning challenge, so throwing on a lot of extra gas for Mum and the kids isn’t all that practical in some cases (not always but a lot of the time) so while it isn’t a big drama to throw on 30 minutes of fuel in a 737, 320 or 717, putting on an extra 6-8 tonnes in order to have 30 or so mins available at the end of the flight is severely restrictive.
You would be looking at under 3 tonnes on the 787 for 30 minutes at departure, not 6, 2+ tonnes for 30 minutes, plus around 500 kg to carry it. They only had a 5 pilot crew, other airlines operating 14+ hr flights into Sydney are doing it with 3 pilots.
SWH, I was talking generically not to the specifics of the United Flight, as I don’t know what they are, but if they need 3 tonnes to arrive with 30 mins at the end of that length sector I am impressed!
The delta burn must be negligible because I would have thought that it burns around the 4-5 tonnes an hour, though not having flown a 787 I don’t know.
As for doing a splash and dash in 25-45 minutes then it must be a different mob to the one I work for as I can’t see us getting everything sorted in that time.
The delta burn must be negligible because I would have thought that it burns around the 4-5 tonnes an hour, though not having flown a 787 I don’t know.
As for doing a splash and dash in 25-45 minutes then it must be a different mob to the one I work for as I can’t see us getting everything sorted in that time.
SWH, I was talking generically not to the specifics of the United Flight, as I don’t know what they are, but if they need 3 tonnes to arrive with 30 mins at the end of that length sector I am impressed!
The delta burn must be negligible because I would have thought that it burns around the 4-5 tonnes an hour, though not having flown a 787 I don’t know.
As for doing a splash and dash in 25-45 minutes then it must be a different mob to the one I work for as I can’t see us getting everything sorted in that time.
The delta burn must be negligible because I would have thought that it burns around the 4-5 tonnes an hour, though not having flown a 787 I don’t know.
As for doing a splash and dash in 25-45 minutes then it must be a different mob to the one I work for as I can’t see us getting everything sorted in that time.
No reason everything could not be in place in a 2 hour transit to Brisbane, a normal turn around is under an hour.
SWH, if you have any numbers I am keen to see them, I am genuinely interested. Not flown the 78, but the bigger Boeings are a lot more, though it would be expected that the newer machines are more efficient
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 030503Z TAF which was available at the time of departure had FM031600 18015G25KT 9999 -RA SCT020 BKN050 FM032000 18018KT 9999 -RA SCT015 BKN025 INTER 0322/0324 5000 SHRA BKN010 TEMPO 0400/0412 4000 RA BKN010. When they arrived at Sydney it was SPECI YSSY 032230Z 20012KT 9999 -RA BKN006 BKN035 16/15 Q1018. The forecast at time of departure was pretty close to what it turned out to be.
Between 5:17 am and 5:38 am they were within 30 minutes of Brisbane, at 5:47 they passed their ETP between Brisbane and Sydney. Top of descent for Sydney was was at 5:59 am. Arriving 15 minutes early is a bit early, arriving 70 minutes early is into a curfew restricted airport poor planning. Their FMC and flight plan would have told them it was a quick sector time, sometimes it is two hours longer which the 787 can also do without stopping. They should have adjusted their departure time to suit. SYD is not going to open up early and get rid of the traffic backlog just because they come early.
They knew when they were at Vanuatu they were short and burning more than planned, an early decision there at 3:25 am could have had them in Brisbane at 5:25 am, and out again easily by 6:15 am. They do not need a gate, a remote stand and stairs is just fine to get fuel. The load sheet is simple, just the new fuel load no change to the ZFW. Flight plan can be sent to the aircraft via ACARS, all the new paperwork could have been on the aircraft in the 2 hours between Vanuatu and Brisbane. You can easily do a splash and go in 30-45 minutes, another airline did one in Brisbane in under 25 minutes recently, fuel goes in at over 2 tonnes per minute, you can load over 20 tonnes in 10 minutes.
You would be looking at under 3 tonnes on the 787 for 30 minutes at departure, not 6, 2+ tonnes for 30 minutes, plus around 500 kg to carry it. They only had a 5 pilot crew, other airlines operating 14+ hr flights into Sydney are doing it with 3 pilots.
Between 5:17 am and 5:38 am they were within 30 minutes of Brisbane, at 5:47 they passed their ETP between Brisbane and Sydney. Top of descent for Sydney was was at 5:59 am. Arriving 15 minutes early is a bit early, arriving 70 minutes early is into a curfew restricted airport poor planning. Their FMC and flight plan would have told them it was a quick sector time, sometimes it is two hours longer which the 787 can also do without stopping. They should have adjusted their departure time to suit. SYD is not going to open up early and get rid of the traffic backlog just because they come early.
They knew when they were at Vanuatu they were short and burning more than planned, an early decision there at 3:25 am could have had them in Brisbane at 5:25 am, and out again easily by 6:15 am. They do not need a gate, a remote stand and stairs is just fine to get fuel. The load sheet is simple, just the new fuel load no change to the ZFW. Flight plan can be sent to the aircraft via ACARS, all the new paperwork could have been on the aircraft in the 2 hours between Vanuatu and Brisbane. You can easily do a splash and go in 30-45 minutes, another airline did one in Brisbane in under 25 minutes recently, fuel goes in at over 2 tonnes per minute, you can load over 20 tonnes in 10 minutes.
You would be looking at under 3 tonnes on the 787 for 30 minutes at departure, not 6, 2+ tonnes for 30 minutes, plus around 500 kg to carry it. They only had a 5 pilot crew, other airlines operating 14+ hr flights into Sydney are doing it with 3 pilots.
all of that.
maybe or maybe not, he could have managed the flight better or even to your satisfaction.
that does not get away from my point that “ I don’t have enough fuel to accept your vectors and your holding “ statement to Australian ATC has to turn into a full blown emergency with roads being closed, ambos and fireys being diverted from other more important tasks.
BTW statements that long range fights should divert to get a quick topup of fuel in changed circumstances are puerile and ignore the realities of aviation life.
Originally Posted by Wombat
BTW statements that long range fights should divert to get a quick topup of fuel in changed circumstances are puerile and ignore the realities of aviation life.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in the aviation world of today there are a number of operations where that is not a practical option.
Fortunately there are not too many pigheaded insular pilots who think the way you do. Most try to accommodate each others needs.
We should not be bashing Aussie ATC if one particular operator cannot manage to get their arrival time even close to the ballpark. Many other operators are scheduled to arrive at that time, they should not be displaced and put at a competitive disadvantage because one airline cannot manage their arrival time or their own fuel policy.
United is a serial offender is causing additional congestion at that time of the morning, I am not sure if you were aware one of the aircraft infront of United from from LAX was the United flight from SFO, both turning up at SYD well before they are scheduled. That is two arrival slots and two bays being taken away from aircraft that are arriving at their scheduled arrival time.
The problems are not only on arrival, they are also causing enroute issues by taking away levels from aircraft that are on schedule.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I disagree, they operate under number of exemptions and deviations in their OpsSpec to reduces the amount of fuel carried than is prescribed in the FARs. The aircraft physically has the ability to carry more fuel, this was a relatively fast sector time. They just didn’t carry the fuel from the outset to give them a competitive advantage. Then during the flight they were aware they had burnt through their alternate and contingency fuel and decided to press on.
We should not be bashing Aussie ATC if one particular operator cannot manage to get their arrival time even close to the ballpark. Many other operators are scheduled to arrive at that time, they should not be displaced and put at a competitive disadvantage because one airline cannot manage their arrival time or their own fuel policy.
United is a serial offender is causing additional congestion at that time of the morning, I am not sure if you were aware one of the aircraft infront of United from from LAX was the United flight from SFO, both turning up at SYD well before they are scheduled. That is two arrival slots and two bays being taken away from aircraft that are arriving at their scheduled arrival time.
The problems are not only on arrival, they are also causing enroute issues by taking away levels from aircraft that are on schedule.
if you have a fast flight plan and take all the optimum levels , how can you burn through your alternate fuel and contingency fuel? That’s a helluva lot of fuel to go down.
