It was :ok:

Wow! You mean the curfew can actually be eased to allow for "acts of god". Probably took an emergency sitting of parliament to do it pushed by SACL complaining about lack of revenue caused by reduction in movements.

Dispensations are occasionally given though I believe they cost a bit of money. You still have to use the curfew runways during curfew though, so if the wind doesn't allow for take-off on 16R, you're out of luck.

Another thing to keep in mind with regional flight cancellations is the destination winds. Think narrow runways and 25Kt xwinds. Sometimes the departure is not your problem.

Aussie FO, perhaps you want too recalculate that brilliant load of tripe to allow for the relative velocity of the aircraft for apparent crosswind. I hazard a guess your calculations might be slightly off by a fair bit. 67% percent of the time, all the time logic.

20kt crosswind for runway preference is a little crazy, but I respect the fact that the into wind runway does have its advantages in allowing for Sod's law.

I feel the procedures need to be changed to allow operations on the other runways should the PIC make that request.

Ha! Where would you propose they build this? In the middle of the Bay? :rolleyes:

Coming to the seat on your right soon...

As happens elsewhere?

Sure, but this is Australia. Yesterday's infrastructure tomorrow. Maybe. But probably not.

Considering the max component is upwards of 40knts for most aircraft, increasing the limit from an average of 20, to an average of 25 or even 30 before single rwy ops are enforced in my opinion is more than reasonable. Everyone I've flown with over the last week has been dismayed that the line is so conservative. Whilst we do usually go for more conservative options in flight , this seems excessive.

How many aircraft have 40+kt xwind certification??

Biatch said "upwards of 40"; that means approaching 40.

Agree. FDAP will have a field day though...

I beg to differ....
 

Er.... NO! In my upbringing such a phrase, put another way, meant 41 or more.

I'm with PW1830 on this! ;)

OK, just checked, my GGS English is not as good as I thought. Point taken!

Let's say the "max demonstrated crosswind is 38kt". That makes Biatch's idea quite plausible.

Give me the 25-30 knot crosswind on runways 34L&R any day in preference to the mechanical turbulence on runway 25.

It'd be interesting to see how it worked in practise with winds north of 25-30 knots. With a 240/30 gives 3 knots downwind on 34L. 250/30 gives 3 knots headwind. So I'm not accepting 16L when I'm likely to face what is likely to be at least 6 knots undershoot or overshoot on top of the crosswind and potential downwind. I'd be very surprised if there were many other heavy jet drivers who would. Never flown the 737 so can't speak for those drivers.

So already we've started to reduce the capacity of the airport by putting most jet arrivals onto the long runway.

Mechanical turbulence on 16R approaching the flare with the wind at the 220-240 degree mark would be diabolical too. I wonder how many go-arounds that may generate further reducing the runway capacity.

Anyway, something to consider.

How on earth do they manage overseas with parallel runways and no crossing rwy?

LAX doesn't get northerlies. ;) :D

The current 20kts runway nomination criteria came about because QF 767 drivers pushed for it, plain and simple. It could be 15kts, it could be 30kts. ATC don't care but play by the rules. The problem is that there can be 15kts at the northern end of the field and 30kts across the bay, therefore 25 only.

If the pilot union(s) want a higher crosswind criteria then have a word to CASA.

Spent a long time on the 767 from intro on- nothing to do with us entirely. Probably something to do with the Minister of Aviation - Brereton I recall - forbidding the use of 07/25 that involved his electorate unless extreme circumstances. Saw some ugly scenarios with his policy.

Runway nomination is not at ATC discretion it's in the regs.
Curfew dispensation at the ministers discretion.