The CX 748 is Cat D and will have to do the RNAV 12 Y or the 30 Z.

Therefore straight in only for them, this curved Z app isn't applicable for them.

I'm told it will arrive from SYD tankering fuel.

What will they carry?
 

Last month carried 68 tonnes of milk formula from SYD to HKG for some mainland customer.

halas

Halas, how did you get a SYD freighter? I can't get one for love or......

All this talk of RNP would be right up the alley of the CX freighter mafia, splendid aviators those chaps, not an austronaught amongst em :E

No it doesn't.

No!

Mike is on the centreline at 0.8nm. Look at the chart. All that is required is a 15° right turn at Mike. Other RNAVs are similar.

No approach has you "pointing at the threshold" (a lot of database coding strings have that, but they shouldn't). The charted approaches all require only one turn onto the CL.

Sorry I'm late, I missed this thread...

First bit of info is that these approaches are not Airservices, they are a 3rd party so this info comes second hand.

You will note the RNAV-Z 12 is not authorised for CAT D aeroplanes. It complies with PANS-OPS wrt to the criteria but is unflyable for CAT D aircraft. Was tested in a 747 sim, and found that they could not get stable for final approach.

That being said, the alignment criteria is max 15° offset from the CL, but cannot cross the CL any closer than 1400m. I don't know what the CL crossing distance is but with Oakey so close to the north my guess is that it would be at 1400m. This crossing point is also the common location for the missed approach point. This was the only way they could design the approach without requiring an exemption from CASA MOS173.

A lesson here for CASA...in complying with your bulls**t rules, you have forced the outcome which is that in order to comply, the procedure is unflyable. The only procedure that is flyable is unavailable most of the time. The airspace containment and separation criteria is a joke...

The RNAV-Y is the preferred approach (obviously) but has issues with Oakey....it got political in the end.

Alpha

Wasn't Kai Tak something like 400 ft wings level off the checkerboard approach?

Possibly lower than that - the Rwy 13 IGS had a 675 ft DH for a Cat D aircraft with an ensuing turn required through 48 degrees at a sink rate in the order of 800 fpm (more with a B744F at MLW) - you do the maths....

bad alt live

believe KLM flies 744 combis daily or 6 times a week AMS/HKG

Others with a close-in turn to final:

YGLA 10: Mike at 1.0nm, 10° turn
YNWN 05: Mike at 0.8nm (1480m), 7° turn
YPBO 24: Mike at 0.8nm, 10°.

Having done a few of these ones, one should to resist the temptation to turn towards the runway if one pops out fairly low. Just keep on trucking over to the CL and then do one small turn. The technique of turning towards the CL (ie away from the runway) and then jinking back when on the CL (as RMD describes above) is a bit sus and not necessary. If your Stab Approach rules don't allow a turn to track the CL at Mike below 500ft, get them changed.

As for Oakey, get on to your local RAPAC and get something sorted out. And don't forget to be on the CTAF at the same time... or was that the Area? (just kidding just kidding! Published, use the CTAF!) :}

Stable approach is whatever you want it to be as long as you say "special briefing" :E
I just try to avoid making turns onto center line at 250ft.
Anyway it doesn't really matter, as its not for Cat D anyway, and so far I have been able to get off the approach at NF each time. :ok:

Hello BNE320!!!!!! Dont like your new username

alphacentauri
Capn Bloggs:
Perhaps you guys should take a trip to Wellcamp and shoot an approach or two.

:ugh:Now that's amazing. You're trying to tell people who actually fly this approach what they should be seeing based on a "not to scale" chart. I think you can trust us when we say we are looking directly at the threshold and we're way off centreline.

Given that the PAPIs at this airport have been garbage from day one despite CASA requirements for accuracy, don't go thinking any other aspects of these approaches is by the book.:rolleyes: (In the past I've said to my offsider on the 30 RNAV "If I give you slope calls it will be based on the PAPI on the left because the one on the right is wrong" and they were very wrong for a long time)

I doubt the 748F is anything but a Cat D aircraft and if this is the case, as it has already been mentioned, it would mean for an instrument approach onto runway 12 they would have to conduct the RNAV-Y procedure (with compliance from Oakey) which makes a lot of this discussion about the RNAV-Z procedure moot.

I acknowledge that you may have first hand experience of conducting these approaches, however I have reservations about your statement. Since when are approach charts (not SIDs and STARs) "not to scale"? If you use Jepps I suggest you look at the left side of the chart, if you use DAPs I suggest you look slightly right of the MSA diagram (where it states "Scale 1:500,000").

Given that both the RNAV-Z and RNAV-Y share the same MAPt (BWWNM) and that the RNAV-Y has an inbound course of 122° which matches the runway track of 122°, unless the approach course is offset from the centreline (which I doubt, but I don't have first hand experience at YBWW) resulting in the approach being parallel to it rather than on it, I can't see some of these manoeuvres described previously being required. Given that BWWNM is 0.8nm from the threshold (as stated on the chart) I'd say these manoeuvres are being conducted due people interpreting the visual cues in a way that makes them think that they won't intercept the centreline prior to the threshold rather than a fault with the approach design (however these approaches are designed by humans therefore it is possible that there could be errors).

As for the comments about the PAPI, I could easily believe that as it wouldn't be the first place and probably won't be the last to experience that issue.

If you're looking at the threshold before you get to Mike, then yes, you will, by definition, still be off the centreline at that point. You've got to go all the way in to 0.8nm from the threshold before you'll be on the CL. That's 250ft AAL.

Which is why we are trying to get the Z approved for CATD.
Won't be just Cargo CX going there next year, some pax charters to.

With all this discussion about how why and what kind of approach the boys can do into this joint they will have to start their CTWO brief somewhere close to MAVRA jeeeezus

Nah, a standard "Nike" brief ought to do it!

:ok:

Notes for Wellcamp:

I flew in and out of there quite a few times this year, but not since late August, so if things have changed I apologise.

The 12 RNAV has been covered quite extensively, and though tempted I wont add any more.

The 30 RNAV is more mundane. However, as of last time I flew in there the PAPI doesn't line up with the touchdown zone.

If you're coming up from Sydney and Amberley airspace is active you can expect an ATC requirement to be at or below 10,000' by 60Nm to run.

For you Cathay guys, I'd suggest that you get the ground staff to activate the lighting. The PAL system isn't standard.

At Qlink we're required to broadcast on the glider frequency but in all my times in and out of there I never even got a response. Far more hazardous are the other aircraft in the vicinity. It can get very busy in the terminal area.

Enjoy.

Yes, MEHT 75ft. Big 'plane setting. :ok:

Better than the 'NIKE' Briefing...
 

I find the better briefing is the 'mini-skirt' briefing...

"long enough to cover the essentials... short enough to keep me interested!"