not accepting runway?
 

Hi.

As I'm a GA driver, I wanted to ask a question regarding RPT runway acceptance at YMML and similar airports

On centre a few days ago RWY 27 at Melbourne was the active, and an emirates (didn't hear if it was heavy or not) wouldn't take that runway with wind at 230/10-15??

Is this purely due to their SOPs
Aircraft too heavy (380 perhaps)?
I assumed its a weight vs distance vs wind issue but I honestly have no idea why?

It sounded as though it threw a spanner in the works for ATC as there were delays and people holding everywhere etc etc.

Thanks in advance.

Take off or landing?

Landing. Won't allow one word in reply so il write useless waffle

Ever seen anA380 land on 27, no. It uses full length 34

As you heard it on centre it was presumably for an arrival.

The "Heavy" suffix to ATC isn't dependant on the actual weight of an aircraft, only which category the aircraft fits in to at MTOW. So for Emirates they're always either Heavy for a 777 or Super for a 380.

Refusing to accept 27 in Melbourne could be to any combination of factors. The aircraft may have dispatched with a thrust reverser out, auto speed brake out, a brake locked out etc, all of which affect stopping distance. Or perhaps they were close to MLW and didn't want to land on a limiting runway after being up all night, when there's another option that is 1400m longer.

At the end of the day the decision rests with the PIC, and ATC are there to pull the resultant "spanner" out of the works if the duty runway is deemed unsuitable.

:ok:

Unless you've got a really strong pair of binos, from Perth you're probably not going to see it... ;)

Everything is bigger in WA - even in binocs.

A380 can land on RWY 27 at MEL,but i believe a runway inspection is done after it has landed.

Use the words "require runway 34" and ATC will oblige without question as they should. You may incur a slight delay but it's never a problem.

Personally even in my A330 we much prefer the longer runway when able, unless there is a headwind component on 27 we always "require 34"

No problem on a dry runway but the factored landing distance on a wet runway became an issue* some months back when Airbus altered their method of calculating the landing performance…..* for the Australian A380 operator anyway ; not sure about the others.

This issue is now resolved but if 27 is in use and 34 is available without a significant crosswind, many would prefer/require 16/34. There is also a note on the Melbourne A380 taxi chart that a runway inspection is required after a 09/27 arrival or departure, probably as it is a 45m runway.

HSA, I doubt it would have caused the delays and holding you noted - that was most likely to due to an increasing number arrivals on a single runway.

Often it's hard to extract "require" from international heavies: "Request RWY 16. Is that an operational requirement? Affirm, request RWY 16". I generally don't bother - if they request it I interpret that as require. They're asking for a reason and we'd look silly if they ran off the end after requesting something longer.

As 441 noted RWY 27 requires an inspection after taking an A380 so they get the long one if possible.

For smaller aircraft the flow might be curious as to the reason for requiring the long one as it's unusual and might indicate a problem with the aircraft. Your call of course, but your problem might affect our ops.

You mean you actually comply with what the rest of the world does? Can I nominate you as the best ATCer in Australia????

Feel free, as long as it entails a case of red ;-)

I can't say all of the group I work in does the same but it's not just me.

It's not worth the bull**** question 'do you request or require'?

They request it they get it.

Xxxxxxxxxx

Thanks for the replies.

The delays already existed and I wasn't suggesting the request caused them, however I was perplexed. I thought 2000+ metres would have cut it.

Out of interest to the ATC ers out there, does this sort of thing make matters any more difficult for your workload? I would have though on 34 they could exit before 27, but 16 would be more of a pain.?

I obviously need to find other things to think about during my flights.:}

Foreign registered aircraft, A380s and 747s can't participate in land and hold shorts ops so get the full length of 34 regardless. 16 is probably better as they're through the intersection sooner.

It can increase workload if the sequencing means you're putting aircraft for different runways through the same fixes at the same time, but that's luck of the draw.

Lots of factors for them to consider HA, despite the slightly favourable wind on 27.

Runway surface condition, landing weight (which can be highly variable), MELs (were they dispatched with one reverser out?), what brake setting they want to use, is the plane going straight back out and are brake temps going to be a problem? And so on.

27 doesn't have huge amounts of landing distance to spare for a big jet under some circumstances. Even at domestic weights in the B767, which is no slouch when it comes to stopping, every so often I'd miss the 2nd last exit and have to roll through to the end (others are happy to slam the brakes on and throw the pax into the seat in front of them, but I generally tried to avoid that).

Request vs require - I always say "require" so it's crystal clear! Most often in SYD, where politics can make landing into wind a rarity and occasionally you just get sick of it.

Do any of the full timers state an abbreviated reason for "request/require"?

Does that brief addition assist the ATC's in a practical way?

I was given a taxi and departure clearance for RWY 35 at Canberra that exceeded my SOP crosswind max. I don't fly often enough to work out how to get the best out of the poor ATC but my natural reply was… "Negative" "Require 20 due to cross-wind maximums". That seemed to be the kind of information that got the job done.

They generally don't, but particularly if the reason may not be obvious it puts our minds at ease and we're not left wondering if there's a problem. What you said sounds good to me!