SY ATIS. Is anyone home!!Long.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SY ATIS
G'day Ramjager
I wasn't there on the day, but I was the following and I can reasonably guess what might have happened ...
(Some quotes edited to reduce the length of the post to suit Pprune's rules)
The most likely reason for that is that when the ATIS went up advertising 4000m visibility, it should have included advice that
the HIALS were on and ithat info may have been left out. (We have a SOP that says if the vis is 5000m or less, then HIAL should be on and advertised on the ATIS.) If it wasn't on the ATIS that's an error and new ATIS including the HIAL advice would be required. Presence of the HIAL on the new ATIS would have been the only change and that's what Director passed on to you.
It's pretty hard to pick the difference between a grey and wet 4000m vis on final and a grey and wet 3000m vis, especially if it is the initial onset of the weather and moreso if it is not at the field itself but some distance out on the approach. Of course, by the time you fly through it it could be AT the field and by the time the next aircraft approaches it could have moved on, affecting departures or the other parallel approach. The ATIS has to satisfy both approaches and also both departures. We can gain accuracy on visibility with aircraft reports, but until the first aircraft can give us an update, our weather assessment is at best an estimate.
Also, our vis is more optimistic than yours - we don't have driving rain at 150kt on the window like you do, so it's quite likely that when we can see 4000m, you will only see 3000 or so. We report what we can see, not what we think you can see.
When all we can see is grey water falling from the sky, it's sometimes (not always) pretty hard to assess an associated
cloudbase unless we get aircraft reports or observe aircraft coming out of it. Outside the showers it could well be an observable 1000ft. Inside the showers, if we can't see it for the rain, we can't report it. Again, we rely on updates from pilots.
When you got visual the other day at 390ft, was that just the altitude that you acquired the runway/HIAL as they gradually came into view through the wall of water, or did you make a defined cloud-break? If the transition from cloud is obscured for you, so it is for us. Many times I have asked for a cloudbase, only to be told that it was indefinable, lost in the transition from murk to visual, so all we can do is make a best estimate.
The ATIS is a general meterological observation (defined in AIP and MATS). Due to local effects, very often half the sky can be relatively clear and the other half cruddy. Likewise showers can be and often are confined to a particular sector. But ATIS is specifically based on a general observation. We could quote vis 3000m, showers in area and scattered at 1000 because there is less than 4/8ths overall, but that cloud and those showers could be concentrated towards the approaches, making the base and the vis in that sector poor, with the bay and further south clear as a bell. It is often that way, and vice versa.
Perhaps MATS and AIP need to be amended to say that the ATIS should always reflect weather conditions on the approach, rather than an average, general observation.
That would suit Sydney's channelised traffic, but at other aerodromes that have 360 degree aproach patterns it could cause problems.
I wasn't there and I don't know the circumstances, but on the face of it, it probably should have been.
I would dispute that. A few hundred feet maybe. Occasionally more if we have had no reports. It's easy to miss a transition from a cloudbase of, say 3500 to 4500. I doubt we'd miss one from 800 to 1800, for example.
We don't think it's insignificant because we are told we have to update it, so we presume there is a reason. You are correct if
you think we don't know specifically how it affects the operation of the aircraft. We do not, other than in the most general and coarsest of terms. We update the wind because we get most complaints about the wind.
Equally, do you know how a pilot's operational requirement to use a non-operational crossing runway affects our operation? I'll bet you don't, but I can assure you that the effect can be grossly unfavourable to the integrity of aerodrome and terminal operations and that in many circumstances the safety factor the crew or company is picking up from reduced crosswind
(or whatever) is more than negated by the risk of failure of the system due to the added complexity and workload imposed with the requirement. I can tell you that on more than one occasion it has only been luck or secondary system defences that have prevented an accident.
I point this out not to score points but to supplement your demonstration that in general we just do not adequately understand each other's jobs. I don't believe that in general aircrew have a sufficient understanding of the ATC system, and readily acknowledge that we know little of yours. Part of ATC training used to be a significant attachment to an airline for flight deck familiarisation. Not any more. We used to have relatively easy access to jump-seat rides. Not any more. We used to occasionally socialise - not any more. Crew used to regularly visit ATC - not any more. I, and all the other controllers in this country would like to see that rectified. Both our managements seem recalcitrant in this regard, though at a local level aircrew are always welcome to vist Sy TWR, it's up to you - just a phone call or query via R/T is all that's needed.
OTOH, controllers, who have passed a security check to gain employment, have ID, licence, etc, cannot get a jump seat ride or visit the flight deck, even with formal application. A pretty one-sided situation, to your detriment if your post is an indication. Maybe all airline managements need a wake-up call more than ours does.
As for the wind - Sydney is so politicised that the wind and the ATIS is under constant scrutiny to justify the selected runway
combination. Are you aware that the noise lobby monitors the ATIS and that they have been given information and/or knowledge so that they regularly challenge us in regard to the runways we nominate vs the wind on the ATIS? We (not the TWR, but others) are harassed by phone if Joe Bloggs, "expert" in aviation noise, wind and runway selection, disagrees with our choice. The wind we quote is a composite of all the six threshold wind readouts, weighted for the landing thresholds. Very often the wind at the chosen landing threshold would indicate that a noise-sharing LTOP mode using other runways is available, whereas the wind at those particular runways precludes their
use. Do you think that Joe Bloggs, environmental activist, understands that? If he gets insufficient satisfaction from his initial enquiry he will often refer it to a political representative. We then have to justify what we have done with a written report. If you find our resulting emphasis on the wind onerous you will need to change the political and environmental climate surrounding Sydney Airport. Good luck!
I was there at the time. Was the 767 driver given a phone numer so that "HE could be sorted out" or so that "IT (the situation) could be sorted out"? Subtle but major difference, easily missed by angry people primed to pick a fight.
Agreed re the updates to approaching aircraft.
In this post I have probably appeared as an apologist, but that is not my intention and I don't really care if that's the way I'm seen. Some will choose to ignore the message, that's inevitable given the backbiting evident in this thread and another started by 375ml. I have tried to explain why an ATIS, a generalised observation, may seem less than than ideal for a particular flight in a particular sector.
Principally, we estimate some elements of the weather until we get pilot reports to update them. Also, more importantly, the weather observation for ATIS is a general observation, not a sector obs for the approach. Your whole complaint is based on the fact that the ATIS did not adequately reflect the weather on the approach. Our instructions are that the weather obs for an ATIS must encompass the whole horizon, not just the approach. (Except for the wind, which is weighted to the landing thresholds.)
I agree that estimates should be updated where there is better information. But if all you can say is "It's as black as the inside of a cow's guts", what use is that?
Provocative and less than conducive to sorting the problem. If I took such liberties while discussing operational requirements you'd be right up me, and rightly so.
Regards
AA
I wasn't there on the day, but I was the following and I can reasonably guess what might have happened ...
(Some quotes edited to reduce the length of the post to suit Pprune's rules)
Coming in from off the East Coast via shark we recieve the ATIS - Few at 1000 scattered at 1600 and vis reducing to 4000m in showers. On downwind for 16L and we get a message from director that the HIAL's are on. That's all, no weather update. Interesting!
the HIALS were on and ithat info may have been left out. (We have a SOP that says if the vis is 5000m or less, then HIAL should be on and advertised on the ATIS.) If it wasn't on the ATIS that's an error and new ATIS including the HIAL advice would be required. Presence of the HIAL on the new ATIS would have been the only change and that's what Director passed on to you.
Anyway over to the tower cleared to land with NO mention of any low cloud reduced vis on the app etc. We became visual at 170ft above the minima 390 on Qnh and with vis down around 3000m in heavy drizzle/low cloud. What is bloody going on up there!
Also, our vis is more optimistic than yours - we don't have driving rain at 150kt on the window like you do, so it's quite likely that when we can see 4000m, you will only see 3000 or so. We report what we can see, not what we think you can see.
When all we can see is grey water falling from the sky, it's sometimes (not always) pretty hard to assess an associated
cloudbase unless we get aircraft reports or observe aircraft coming out of it. Outside the showers it could well be an observable 1000ft. Inside the showers, if we can't see it for the rain, we can't report it. Again, we rely on updates from pilots.
When you got visual the other day at 390ft, was that just the altitude that you acquired the runway/HIAL as they gradually came into view through the wall of water, or did you make a defined cloud-break? If the transition from cloud is obscured for you, so it is for us. Many times I have asked for a cloudbase, only to be told that it was indefinable, lost in the transition from murk to visual, so all we can do is make a best estimate.
Provide an ATIS which at least gives some semblence of accuracy as to the real conditions at the field.
Perhaps MATS and AIP need to be amended to say that the ATIS should always reflect weather conditions on the approach, rather than an average, general observation.
That would suit Sydney's channelised traffic, but at other aerodromes that have 360 degree aproach patterns it could cause problems.
On taxiing in and passing advice to the tower that we became visual at approx 400 on QNH this was not passed on to
an a/c coming down the ILS.
an a/c coming down the ILS.
My experience now at Sy airport is that the ATIS is regularly innacurate in cloud base by up to 1000 feet.
It seems that ATC think cloud base is insignificant as to how we operate aircraft. If the wind changes by 5kts or 5 degrees a new atis will be out in seconds yet the cloud base can drop by hundreds of feet and vis can be way below quoted value's and no changes or advice from the tower is forthcoming.
you think we don't know specifically how it affects the operation of the aircraft. We do not, other than in the most general and coarsest of terms. We update the wind because we get most complaints about the wind.
Equally, do you know how a pilot's operational requirement to use a non-operational crossing runway affects our operation? I'll bet you don't, but I can assure you that the effect can be grossly unfavourable to the integrity of aerodrome and terminal operations and that in many circumstances the safety factor the crew or company is picking up from reduced crosswind
(or whatever) is more than negated by the risk of failure of the system due to the added complexity and workload imposed with the requirement. I can tell you that on more than one occasion it has only been luck or secondary system defences that have prevented an accident.
I point this out not to score points but to supplement your demonstration that in general we just do not adequately understand each other's jobs. I don't believe that in general aircrew have a sufficient understanding of the ATC system, and readily acknowledge that we know little of yours. Part of ATC training used to be a significant attachment to an airline for flight deck familiarisation. Not any more. We used to have relatively easy access to jump-seat rides. Not any more. We used to occasionally socialise - not any more. Crew used to regularly visit ATC - not any more. I, and all the other controllers in this country would like to see that rectified. Both our managements seem recalcitrant in this regard, though at a local level aircrew are always welcome to vist Sy TWR, it's up to you - just a phone call or query via R/T is all that's needed.
OTOH, controllers, who have passed a security check to gain employment, have ID, licence, etc, cannot get a jump seat ride or visit the flight deck, even with formal application. A pretty one-sided situation, to your detriment if your post is an indication. Maybe all airline managements need a wake-up call more than ours does.
As for the wind - Sydney is so politicised that the wind and the ATIS is under constant scrutiny to justify the selected runway
combination. Are you aware that the noise lobby monitors the ATIS and that they have been given information and/or knowledge so that they regularly challenge us in regard to the runways we nominate vs the wind on the ATIS? We (not the TWR, but others) are harassed by phone if Joe Bloggs, "expert" in aviation noise, wind and runway selection, disagrees with our choice. The wind we quote is a composite of all the six threshold wind readouts, weighted for the landing thresholds. Very often the wind at the chosen landing threshold would indicate that a noise-sharing LTOP mode using other runways is available, whereas the wind at those particular runways precludes their
use. Do you think that Joe Bloggs, environmental activist, understands that? If he gets insufficient satisfaction from his initial enquiry he will often refer it to a political representative. We then have to justify what we have done with a written report. If you find our resulting emphasis on the wind onerous you will need to change the political and environmental climate surrounding Sydney Airport. Good luck!
I even heard a QF 76 driver speak about the total innacuracy of the ATI only to be given a phone number so he could be "sorted out" by the appropriate person!!!
One of the major causes of the Bangkok overrun was a tower controller not passing on accurate wx info to a crew flying
an approach and getting something totally different than first thought and planned for. We use the ATIS for gaining a mental picture of what is happening with the wx at the field. If its not accurate then it should be changed or info passed on at the first oppurtunity so we can plan a/c configurations approach briefs etc. I would much prefer an ATIS update for a 600 ft reduction in cloud base than a 10degree change in wind direction anyday.
an approach and getting something totally different than first thought and planned for. We use the ATIS for gaining a mental picture of what is happening with the wx at the field. If its not accurate then it should be changed or info passed on at the first oppurtunity so we can plan a/c configurations approach briefs etc. I would much prefer an ATIS update for a 600 ft reduction in cloud base than a 10degree change in wind direction anyday.
In this post I have probably appeared as an apologist, but that is not my intention and I don't really care if that's the way I'm seen. Some will choose to ignore the message, that's inevitable given the backbiting evident in this thread and another started by 375ml. I have tried to explain why an ATIS, a generalised observation, may seem less than than ideal for a particular flight in a particular sector.
Principally, we estimate some elements of the weather until we get pilot reports to update them. Also, more importantly, the weather observation for ATIS is a general observation, not a sector obs for the approach. Your whole complaint is based on the fact that the ATIS did not adequately reflect the weather on the approach. Our instructions are that the weather obs for an ATIS must encompass the whole horizon, not just the approach. (Except for the wind, which is weighted to the landing thresholds.)
I agree that estimates should be updated where there is better information. But if all you can say is "It's as black as the inside of a cow's guts", what use is that?
Get it right.
Regards
AA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: YMML
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Ausatco
Thanks for taking the tie for such a comprehensive answere and all of your points are noted and taken on board.
You made many good points a major one this ridiculous situation re flight deck security and jump seat rides for ATC familiarisation.
I must say in general ATC do a very good job at YSSY given the restirictions and conditions under which the airport is requuired to operate.
On the following Sunday night we got great service from director with a large cell to the south of the field causing 5 rwy changes in less than 15mins.
It was great thinking on the run and very well done giventhe number of a/c coming in on thet Sunday night.
My personal opinion is i would like to see far more interaction b/w ATC and tech crew so we all get to see both sides of the fence as it would lead to a far greater understanding of each others jobs,our thinking and a better relationship in general.
Once again thats for your thoughts and the excellent reply.
All the best.
Thanks for taking the tie for such a comprehensive answere and all of your points are noted and taken on board.
You made many good points a major one this ridiculous situation re flight deck security and jump seat rides for ATC familiarisation.
I must say in general ATC do a very good job at YSSY given the restirictions and conditions under which the airport is requuired to operate.
On the following Sunday night we got great service from director with a large cell to the south of the field causing 5 rwy changes in less than 15mins.
It was great thinking on the run and very well done giventhe number of a/c coming in on thet Sunday night.
My personal opinion is i would like to see far more interaction b/w ATC and tech crew so we all get to see both sides of the fence as it would lead to a far greater understanding of each others jobs,our thinking and a better relationship in general.
Once again thats for your thoughts and the excellent reply.
All the best.
Grandpa Aerotart
Believe me guys the job done by Oz ATC is magnificent....wanna see bad try India, Bangladesh, Burma, Indonesia, Cambodia etc etc.
Some of the more vitriolic of you may say "So what?"
In answer I'd say you're being a little pedantic. When ATC nearly causes you to overrun because they told you the runway is dry and wind light and variable on a night circling approach to a one way runway then it's time to stand up and scream...not that that would have worried the Malaysian ATCs one wit. On that occassion a good mate came within a gnats whisker of overrunnng Bintulu in our company Falcon when he splashed down into several inches of water with a ten knot tailwind
When it is impossible to get weather reports that are even a little reliable/accurate then whinge...did you know in PNG every TAF was a joke? The word 'provisional' was dropped so F28s could operate without having to carry 'unreasonable' loads of fuel.
In 13+ years in PNG the ONLY TAFS I ever saw that reflected reality were ones that were pure fluke. The number of times when I was in the Met Office just after dawn on a glorious clear morning to see TAFS with TEMPO all over them...or the absolute reverse were MANY.
Or the classic "Why are there no TAFs available?" Grunt "Because it is dark!"
I tried to get a TAF at Madang changed once because it said TEMPO and there wasn't a cloud in the sky anywhere over PNG...I'd just flown from POM in an F28..we had to carry (but in the end just didn't) 4000lbs extra fuel because the 'accredited met observer' in the tower refused to even talk to us...simply refused to answer the radio until we requested taxi clearance.
Or the time I requested an actual on POM when 50nm out in a Bandit and at PNR for Lae/NZB at night and they told me it was clear at Moresby....I got in on the 4th ILS in TS by busting the minima.
Spend 8 or 10000 hours flying in a truly 'what you see is what you get' system with NO support from ATC (let alone several direct attempts on my life by ignorant ATCOs)...if nothing else it will teach you what is worth getting worked up about.
If you think an ATIS that is not precisely accurate cloud base & vis wise is worth all the BS in this thread then you REALLY need to get out more.
Chuck.
Some of the more vitriolic of you may say "So what?"
In answer I'd say you're being a little pedantic. When ATC nearly causes you to overrun because they told you the runway is dry and wind light and variable on a night circling approach to a one way runway then it's time to stand up and scream...not that that would have worried the Malaysian ATCs one wit. On that occassion a good mate came within a gnats whisker of overrunnng Bintulu in our company Falcon when he splashed down into several inches of water with a ten knot tailwind
When it is impossible to get weather reports that are even a little reliable/accurate then whinge...did you know in PNG every TAF was a joke? The word 'provisional' was dropped so F28s could operate without having to carry 'unreasonable' loads of fuel.
In 13+ years in PNG the ONLY TAFS I ever saw that reflected reality were ones that were pure fluke. The number of times when I was in the Met Office just after dawn on a glorious clear morning to see TAFS with TEMPO all over them...or the absolute reverse were MANY.
Or the classic "Why are there no TAFs available?" Grunt "Because it is dark!"
I tried to get a TAF at Madang changed once because it said TEMPO and there wasn't a cloud in the sky anywhere over PNG...I'd just flown from POM in an F28..we had to carry (but in the end just didn't) 4000lbs extra fuel because the 'accredited met observer' in the tower refused to even talk to us...simply refused to answer the radio until we requested taxi clearance.
Or the time I requested an actual on POM when 50nm out in a Bandit and at PNR for Lae/NZB at night and they told me it was clear at Moresby....I got in on the 4th ILS in TS by busting the minima.
Spend 8 or 10000 hours flying in a truly 'what you see is what you get' system with NO support from ATC (let alone several direct attempts on my life by ignorant ATCOs)...if nothing else it will teach you what is worth getting worked up about.
If you think an ATIS that is not precisely accurate cloud base & vis wise is worth all the BS in this thread then you REALLY need to get out more.
Chuck.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 2nd Dec 2002 at 11:22.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: YMML
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Chimbu Chuckles
Having flown for the RFDS for some years blasting round to strips in the middle of central Australia where there is no weather and peoples lives depend on MY decisions is pretty familiar territory for me.
I don't know what kind of operation you come from but down here we do things relatively proffessionally and that means we actually use the ATIS as a tool.
Rocking up to an airport configured for a visual approach and to find the cloud base id 350AGL is a rude shock to most people probably even to you a PNG veteran.
At least with NO weather report you can be prepared for the worst as opposed to incorrect information leading you down the garden path.
Bad info is worse than no info.
Having flown for the RFDS for some years blasting round to strips in the middle of central Australia where there is no weather and peoples lives depend on MY decisions is pretty familiar territory for me.
I don't know what kind of operation you come from but down here we do things relatively proffessionally and that means we actually use the ATIS as a tool.
Rocking up to an airport configured for a visual approach and to find the cloud base id 350AGL is a rude shock to most people probably even to you a PNG veteran.
At least with NO weather report you can be prepared for the worst as opposed to incorrect information leading you down the garden path.
Bad info is worse than no info.
Ramjager
Why not brief the ILS even for visual conditions? You have to brief the ILS missed approach anyway!
Some international airlines require this when operating into busy international airports, such as Singapore. Works real well when the unexpected happends, bases covered.
When the wx deteriorates quickly, as common in busy Sydney International, I imagine ATC gets real busy too. Aircraft wanting further descent, guys slowing due turbulence with another right behind, vector requests due cells,missed approachs and the odd bloke moaning about ATIS accuracy.
Appreciate your School Of Hard Knocks weening, but aren't you being a bit spoon fed here?
Clive
What's this I'm the customer condescending garbage? Professional courtesy thanks! How did you like it when Bob Hawke made the spiteful "Bus Driver" analogy?
And on the checking of the ATIS prior pushback. You guys are kidding? Countdown to pushback, even when busy, is not a Lunar Moonshot! Can't believe it is not standard practice to check. Don't you get professionally embarrassed when making a taxi call with the incorrect ATIS? I do on the occassions I have had my thumb in bum and forgot to check.
What's happening to our aviation traditions built on initiative? Seems everyone is or wants to be spoon fed these days. The standard dropping? Can't even be trusted with a high speed descent!
Why not brief the ILS even for visual conditions? You have to brief the ILS missed approach anyway!
Some international airlines require this when operating into busy international airports, such as Singapore. Works real well when the unexpected happends, bases covered.
When the wx deteriorates quickly, as common in busy Sydney International, I imagine ATC gets real busy too. Aircraft wanting further descent, guys slowing due turbulence with another right behind, vector requests due cells,missed approachs and the odd bloke moaning about ATIS accuracy.
Appreciate your School Of Hard Knocks weening, but aren't you being a bit spoon fed here?
Clive
What's this I'm the customer condescending garbage? Professional courtesy thanks! How did you like it when Bob Hawke made the spiteful "Bus Driver" analogy?
And on the checking of the ATIS prior pushback. You guys are kidding? Countdown to pushback, even when busy, is not a Lunar Moonshot! Can't believe it is not standard practice to check. Don't you get professionally embarrassed when making a taxi call with the incorrect ATIS? I do on the occassions I have had my thumb in bum and forgot to check.
What's happening to our aviation traditions built on initiative? Seems everyone is or wants to be spoon fed these days. The standard dropping? Can't even be trusted with a high speed descent!
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 3rd Dec 2002 at 02:53.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: YMML
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Gnadenburg
All we are asking for is an "Accurate" reporting of the ATIS or if conditions are changing an update from the tower as to conditions on the app path.
Given how quiet it was that Friday and my report of the base to the tower i would have thought proffesional courtesy would have dictated that the info is passed on.
Also remember that on several occassions when information regarding wx at the field has been significantly different from what is reprted that there have been major problems.
IE Bangkok,woops we forgot to tell you it has been raining.
Dallas Fort worth Sorry guys but there is a cell parked
overhead the field.
Sorry guys but i'm getting a bit tired of asking someone to simply do there job properly.
Its relatively easy for ATC to drop tech crew in it with the auto reporting of incidents however menial,yet at the moment at YSSY we can't get an accurate report of the cloud base for an approach.
As i originally said you get great service from time to time when required and my experience with other towers (ie ML,En AD etc) is that when conditions have deteriorated you get a call saying so.
What is so difficult about that?
All we are asking for is an "Accurate" reporting of the ATIS or if conditions are changing an update from the tower as to conditions on the app path.
Given how quiet it was that Friday and my report of the base to the tower i would have thought proffesional courtesy would have dictated that the info is passed on.
Also remember that on several occassions when information regarding wx at the field has been significantly different from what is reprted that there have been major problems.
IE Bangkok,woops we forgot to tell you it has been raining.
Dallas Fort worth Sorry guys but there is a cell parked
overhead the field.
Sorry guys but i'm getting a bit tired of asking someone to simply do there job properly.
Its relatively easy for ATC to drop tech crew in it with the auto reporting of incidents however menial,yet at the moment at YSSY we can't get an accurate report of the cloud base for an approach.
As i originally said you get great service from time to time when required and my experience with other towers (ie ML,En AD etc) is that when conditions have deteriorated you get a call saying so.
What is so difficult about that?
Grandpa Aerotart
Ramjammer,
My background is Bush flying, airline flying (PNG & Oz), Corporate (Asia) and hopefully soon back to airline again.
I've never 'rocked up configured for a vis approach' in any aircraft, let alone a jet, unless,
1/. I was OCTA and the weather was CAVOK, or
2/. The ATIS said CAVOK...even then I'd usually brief the ILS...even if it's just "We'll be for a visual straight in via vectors & the rwy XX ILS".
It seems to me that the big complaint here is that the ATIS said cloudbase 1000 odd feet, showers in area, vis blah blah and someone didn't break vis until the minima. If they made an approach in these marginal VMC conditions without briefing the approach and flying it then they're crazy...it must have been obvious for miles back that a vis approach was not on!!
It's like the young Dragonair F/O I was having beers with in HK one night whinging about the Chinese controllers never giving visual approaches. I asked him how often he'd seen VMC in eastern China...all I'd ever experienced there was vis 4000m or less in haze/pollution? The KA captains at the table agreed...just beause it's not cloudy/raining doesn't mean it's VMC...and it certainly doesn't mean you don't need to plan for an ILS.
Gnadenburgh's point about the missed approach is well made...they can happen for many reasons...and the options in busy airspace are limited to published procedures surely?
Chuck.
My background is Bush flying, airline flying (PNG & Oz), Corporate (Asia) and hopefully soon back to airline again.
I've never 'rocked up configured for a vis approach' in any aircraft, let alone a jet, unless,
1/. I was OCTA and the weather was CAVOK, or
2/. The ATIS said CAVOK...even then I'd usually brief the ILS...even if it's just "We'll be for a visual straight in via vectors & the rwy XX ILS".
It seems to me that the big complaint here is that the ATIS said cloudbase 1000 odd feet, showers in area, vis blah blah and someone didn't break vis until the minima. If they made an approach in these marginal VMC conditions without briefing the approach and flying it then they're crazy...it must have been obvious for miles back that a vis approach was not on!!
It's like the young Dragonair F/O I was having beers with in HK one night whinging about the Chinese controllers never giving visual approaches. I asked him how often he'd seen VMC in eastern China...all I'd ever experienced there was vis 4000m or less in haze/pollution? The KA captains at the table agreed...just beause it's not cloudy/raining doesn't mean it's VMC...and it certainly doesn't mean you don't need to plan for an ILS.
Gnadenburgh's point about the missed approach is well made...they can happen for many reasons...and the options in busy airspace are limited to published procedures surely?
Chuck.
Ramjager
You had your thumb in your bum to not brief an ILS at a busy international airport in those ATIS reported conditions.
But don't worry, we have all flown airliners on the shark patrol and due bordem become somewhat complacent.
But to be caught out and proceed to blame ATC a bit of a Skypig attitude don't you think?
No, I didn't think you would see my point, because the guys in QF 1 didn't have their thums in their bums either, it was mostly ATCs fault!
Did you contact ATC to voice your concerns? Or did you just post an officious and hostile thread( all those angry little faces) only to give the industry a further insight into the QF 767 community.
How would you feel if the ATC guys slagged off at your communities inability to fly a good speed profile on descent? Have a mailbag full of private sentiments!
But then again, even your management isn't confident in your abilities. Witness your new "Nancy Boy" speed restrictions.
Apologise for the terminology, but I know for a fact such restrictive speed restictions in the third world reserved for those who have experience in CFIT!
You had your thumb in your bum to not brief an ILS at a busy international airport in those ATIS reported conditions.
But don't worry, we have all flown airliners on the shark patrol and due bordem become somewhat complacent.
But to be caught out and proceed to blame ATC a bit of a Skypig attitude don't you think?
No, I didn't think you would see my point, because the guys in QF 1 didn't have their thums in their bums either, it was mostly ATCs fault!
Did you contact ATC to voice your concerns? Or did you just post an officious and hostile thread( all those angry little faces) only to give the industry a further insight into the QF 767 community.
How would you feel if the ATC guys slagged off at your communities inability to fly a good speed profile on descent? Have a mailbag full of private sentiments!
But then again, even your management isn't confident in your abilities. Witness your new "Nancy Boy" speed restrictions.
Apologise for the terminology, but I know for a fact such restrictive speed restictions in the third world reserved for those who have experience in CFIT!
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 3rd Dec 2002 at 11:08.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: YMML
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gnadenberg and Chimbu
Just trying to figure out why you think we did not brief the approach?
We configured(ie briefed!) for a visual landing off the bottom of the ILS and configured accordingly.
It was not until we were told by DIR that we reconfigured the app for a full ILS all the way to the bottom.
So as for your thumb in bum you may like to practice your reading.
As for skypig we are only asking ATC to do there job after we took a punt on the wx being worse than we were told.
As for slagging off ATC from my last couple of posts you will notice i did say that given the restrictions they have to ooperate in they do a good job and from time to time a great job given bad wx etc!
Also please point out where i stated we didn't brief the missed approach as that is PART of the ILS brief were we come from!
Just for you Gnadenberg a quick review.
1)The a/c was configured (and breifed!!) for a visual last segment off the ILS as per the ATIS.
2)On DIR Freq we are told now the HIALS are on.
3)We "REBREIF and reconfigure for a full ILS"
4)We break visual at 360-380ft out of cloud.
700 ft doesn't make much difference at FL370 but it does below 1000ft.
If you can't see that then YOU should be briefing CAT3B approaches every time you fly!
Just trying to figure out why you think we did not brief the approach?
We configured(ie briefed!) for a visual landing off the bottom of the ILS and configured accordingly.
It was not until we were told by DIR that we reconfigured the app for a full ILS all the way to the bottom.
So as for your thumb in bum you may like to practice your reading.
As for skypig we are only asking ATC to do there job after we took a punt on the wx being worse than we were told.
As for slagging off ATC from my last couple of posts you will notice i did say that given the restrictions they have to ooperate in they do a good job and from time to time a great job given bad wx etc!
Also please point out where i stated we didn't brief the missed approach as that is PART of the ILS brief were we come from!
Just for you Gnadenberg a quick review.
1)The a/c was configured (and breifed!!) for a visual last segment off the ILS as per the ATIS.
2)On DIR Freq we are told now the HIALS are on.
3)We "REBREIF and reconfigure for a full ILS"
4)We break visual at 360-380ft out of cloud.
700 ft doesn't make much difference at FL370 but it does below 1000ft.
If you can't see that then YOU should be briefing CAT3B approaches every time you fly!
Well what's the big deal drama queen?
You briefed and you adapted to a fluid situation. That's why you wear those pretty gold bars.
Polite phone call, professional to professional, might be more appropriate in the future. A lot more achieved out of this professional courtesy than a thread telling people they are not doing their jobs properly on Pprune.
Because you are QF 767, can I re-emphasise "polite phone call".
You briefed and you adapted to a fluid situation. That's why you wear those pretty gold bars.
Polite phone call, professional to professional, might be more appropriate in the future. A lot more achieved out of this professional courtesy than a thread telling people they are not doing their jobs properly on Pprune.
Because you are QF 767, can I re-emphasise "polite phone call".
Rammy,
what is the difference in configuration or procedure between your 'visual landing off the bottom of the ILS' and a 'reconfigured approach for a full ILS all the way to the bottom'????
Others,
why the assumption that this post is from a 767 driver?? Rammy might care to enlighten you.
what is the difference in configuration or procedure between your 'visual landing off the bottom of the ILS' and a 'reconfigured approach for a full ILS all the way to the bottom'????
Others,
why the assumption that this post is from a 767 driver?? Rammy might care to enlighten you.
Fighterpilot
If you were a little more engrossed in his war story you may have picked up his reference.
Some would say all that attitude and hubris would leave no doubts as to his fraternity!
If you were a little more engrossed in his war story you may have picked up his reference.
Some would say all that attitude and hubris would leave no doubts as to his fraternity!
Gnadenburg,
Only a narrow mind would paint all members of a fraternity with the same brush based on the actions of a vocal and obvious minority. Its a bit rough tarring all 640 QF 767 pilots with the same brush dont you think? (Qantas has as many 767 pilots as the Air Force has total pilots, maybe there might just be a spread of personalitites in a group that size)
Rammy mentioned 767's twice, never did he say that he was in a 767.
My reasons for the questions to Rammy;
1) There is no difference to the landing configuration for a 767 whether its a 'full ILS all the way to the bottom' or a 'visual landing of the bottom of the ILS' (Rammys words). As you mentioned there should be no difference to the briefing content of a 767 crew in this scenario and I would be suprised if the full profile would not have been briefed, complete to MAPP. I would not have expected a QF 767 crew to be counting on a 'visual approach' in the scenario provided.
2) This post subject was started on Qrewroom, where the persons profile who started the post states he is a Dash 8 FO. (This may or may not be the same person, or the info old or incorrect but I am after clarification)
Only a narrow mind would paint all members of a fraternity with the same brush based on the actions of a vocal and obvious minority. Its a bit rough tarring all 640 QF 767 pilots with the same brush dont you think? (Qantas has as many 767 pilots as the Air Force has total pilots, maybe there might just be a spread of personalitites in a group that size)
Rammy mentioned 767's twice, never did he say that he was in a 767.
My reasons for the questions to Rammy;
1) There is no difference to the landing configuration for a 767 whether its a 'full ILS all the way to the bottom' or a 'visual landing of the bottom of the ILS' (Rammys words). As you mentioned there should be no difference to the briefing content of a 767 crew in this scenario and I would be suprised if the full profile would not have been briefed, complete to MAPP. I would not have expected a QF 767 crew to be counting on a 'visual approach' in the scenario provided.
2) This post subject was started on Qrewroom, where the persons profile who started the post states he is a Dash 8 FO. (This may or may not be the same person, or the info old or incorrect but I am after clarification)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are 2 N.Ops landing configurations for the Dash-8: Flap 15 and 35. Flap 15 is normally used for IAL.
Perhaps the point Ramjager is trying to make is that the crew, placing its faith in the ATI, had planned and briefed a flap 35 landing with the fair and reasonable expectation of completing a visual approach. SOPs note that flap 35 is the preferred landing configuration for visual approaches.
I might suggest that it is normal practice to only record 1 set of landing speeds on the TOLD card, and it would be virtually impossible (and imprudent) to look up the revised speeds so late in the approach.
That brings into consideration of the need for a go-around?
Perhaps the point Ramjager is trying to make is that the crew, placing its faith in the ATI, had planned and briefed a flap 35 landing with the fair and reasonable expectation of completing a visual approach. SOPs note that flap 35 is the preferred landing configuration for visual approaches.
I might suggest that it is normal practice to only record 1 set of landing speeds on the TOLD card, and it would be virtually impossible (and imprudent) to look up the revised speeds so late in the approach.
That brings into consideration of the need for a go-around?
ftrplt
Some would say that wherever Ramjager is, he is serving a damn fine apprentiership for a QF 767 pilot.
I was confused with the scene where he empathises with ATC and in third party, seems to refer to himself as a 767 coming down the ILS
I take your point but that is the problem.
The industry wide perceptions of the QF 767 community are, no doubt, coming from a smaller perentage of the pilot group. Is it 1%, 5% or 10% of QF 767s pilots giving the bad, peer judged, professional reputation? Doesn't matter.
What about guilt by association? It is their culture, yet nobody seems too concerned to change it. Is it a management fault? Partly, as some of this behaviour has been with us for some time and should have been stamped out.
Some would say that wherever Ramjager is, he is serving a damn fine apprentiership for a QF 767 pilot.
I was confused with the scene where he empathises with ATC and in third party, seems to refer to himself as a 767 coming down the ILS
I take your point but that is the problem.
The industry wide perceptions of the QF 767 community are, no doubt, coming from a smaller perentage of the pilot group. Is it 1%, 5% or 10% of QF 767s pilots giving the bad, peer judged, professional reputation? Doesn't matter.
What about guilt by association? It is their culture, yet nobody seems too concerned to change it. Is it a management fault? Partly, as some of this behaviour has been with us for some time and should have been stamped out.
