Went to a major southern Indian airport recently - very impressive runways and facilities.

Flew into Melbourne recently and had to do a twin NDB on 16 as the ILS was U/S. A twin NDB in an international jet airliner - seriously??? Then had to wait 40 minutes because the few parking bays available at the Tullamarine Shopping Centre (otherwise know as a terminal) were occupied. And the lines for Immigration were backed-up past the Y junction in the arrivals area.

Which country is third world? As an Aussie, I'm embarrassed.

And why doesn't 34 have an ILS? Why is the 34 VOR offset? It can't be the gradient because the 34 RNAV arrival is lined-up perfectly?

Privatisation was clearly a mistake for this airport.

You can find it on webtrak, 09:40 Tues. Would have been interesting at Highpoint with him passing overhead at 600" agl!

Not the first time its happened, probably wont be the last either (well, until we give away with visuals completely anyway..)

p.s there is no 34 ILS because it's not needed. The northerly at ML is pre-frontal, whenever the crap sets it its always from the south.

Not so long ago there was no RNAV approach to MEL 16, at least not in our Jepps. There I was in a wide body doing a twin NDB when the ILS was out, the Canadian F/O had never seen anything like it.

Also, Melbourne Ground was an absolute shambles the other day, constant over-transmissions and an understandably cranky ground controller. This idiocy at Australian airports where the tugs are controlled on the same frequency has to stop. This doesn't even happen in India.

I share my cockpit with many different nationalities, and Melbourne Airport is becoming embarrassing.

maybe not from a wx point of view.

long established that anything with a managed vertical profile is many times safer than the old npa's. rnav's mitigate that nowadays but they are relatively recent things from that point of view.

and that depends on capability as paid for by the operator too.

is it true that tiger 320's still cannot fly a vor approach fully managed? word was they hadn't paid for the necessary database. what about the air india 787's?

just because a type can do something dont necessarily assume the operator has installed the necessary options or trained the crew to utilise same

There is an additional salient point regarding familiarisation and terminal areas:

Two actually...

1. Ipad based Jepp subscriptions do not have terminal area charts per se, just a scalable enroute chart. The latter lacks many terminal area features.

2. The database of useable airports in the aircraft does not include Essendon, or airports like it, so they do not show up as airport symbols on the nav displays.

As such, a crew can be forgiven for mistaking a runway in the correct orientation and approximately correct position for their intended destination.

Hell I did the same thing once: I was aiming for New York but instead landed in someplace called NYaaaawk.

Yes, you've noticed that the track for Rwy 34 should be 340 (per the RNAV 34 plates) but the VOR 34 letdown is offset at 346.

Logically the DVOR is placed on centreline at either end of the runway but as both 16/34 and 09/27 share the same navaid (114.1), it ended up being placed near the intersection of both runways on the north-east quadrant.

When the PF flies the VOR 34 approach, the aircraft tracks a line (346) which intersects 340 at an angle. As it descends, it will inevitably reach a point when it is directly on the 34 centreline. The altitude/height at this point is exactly 760'/430' which is the mandated MDA/MDH.

It was designed such that if you still cannot see the runway at this point, you must not descend further and you will have to go around. If you can see the runway, you are exactly on centreline and so you continue visually to land with minimal manoeuvring for a stabilised approach.

MERGED: Air India almost arrives at Essendon ...
 

.........and if we put the VOR down near 34 on the centerline who's to say the Emirate guys won't try knocking it off!

Anyway, absolutely appalling that this crew stuffed it up in my opinion. Full investigation required, keeping a close watch on this operator.

Reverse flight-----kind of stating the obvious there aren't you??? That's the intent of all approach minima, required visual reference then LAND not visual GO AROUND...!!

Oh and not that many Airfields have the VOR lined up at the end of the runway, in fact quite a few aren't even on the field!!

Report 34 strobes in sight
 

Someone asked the question.
Haven't heard the request to report strobes in sight for about 10 years.

I've managed a handful of RWY 34 Vis app in 4 years ( left circuit off the RNAV ) Each time they ask "confirm RWY 34 approach strobes in sight..."

Might be ATC ask if you're not a local operator?

Maybe?

I was told persoanlly by an App controller that they don't normally give Vis app to foreign operators. Maybe the Aussie accent and local lingo I used help!!

Saying "visual with RWY 34 and we can accept vectors inside the star..." Seems to do the trick..

Well maybe not now after AI:{

It seems that we need to install Cat111c on all runways at all aerodromes 'for safety'. Visual approaches are too dangerous in a modern airliner in 2014!!!

Need for additional Runway at MEL?
 

Did this almost incident just point out that MEL actually already has a parallel north south runway? :E Extend both of them and hey presto, two parallel runways.

Just sayin...

Gee, to misaim EWR for JFK ( or LGA ) is really something. One is an ewe, the other is a jack! Do something about your ovine obsession!

Seriously, unless you know the place like the back of your hand, do not accept a visual too early in the arrival/ approach phases. Stay on vectors or instruments until you are 100% sure of your destination runways!

All the bravados of yore whereby you manually do split arse turns, dive and aim for a super duper visual approach are best left to the local shuttle jockeys who do it almost everyday. Some of those feats were for anther past time period where air traffic was sparse, there wasn't any FOQA / AIMS spyware, pilots were valued in a forgiving management structure, etc. Sigh....:ugh::{:{

That was a joke, Son. I am quite able to discern Idlewild from LGA or that other abortion on the Jersey shore. I just can't understand their attempts at speech.

Galdom,

That's gold. We could just add a couple of taxiways up the middle of the freeway. Probably more likely to get the go ahead than a railway line to Tulla.

Austral-pith-taketh,

Don't worry, I got it

Clark,

A quick look at Google Earth shows extending 35 to to the north would put the 17 threshold almost at the western ring route.

Shame about that little neighborhood not to mention the 3 sets of power pylons. Still, it would allow for simultaneous ILS approaches from the north with plenty of offset.

That maintenance taxiway to the south east of MEL almost heads in the right direction though I am not sure what that neighborhood to the west of the freeway would think about a couple of taxiways through there...

Extending 08/26 looks to be more problematic :E

If that set up was in a couple of other countries I can think of it would have been done already with a lovely big terminal on top of the freeway :8

Someone with ATC background could confirm this but I believe the reason the Rwy34 VOR @ ML is offset and why ATC prefer its use is that it follows the course of the Maribynong River and so passes between built up areas and not over them which makes for a kind of pseudo noise abatement approach. The good residents of Keilor and others near the approach to Rwy34 have made a lot of noise about noise in the past apparently !