|
Sydney ATIS: DO NOT PASS THRU ASSIGNED RWY CL
An interesting question came up recently, Sydney ATIS usually states: DO NOT PASS THRU ASSIGNED RWY CL The question is this: once assigned a radar vector towards the runway centreline (ie for “base”), but not yet cleared to intercept the localiser, should one make a pilot intercept of the localiser anyway, in the event a further heading and instruction to intercept is not provided? Such as in the event of frequency congestion, or distraction (eg another aircraft declaring an emergency), or simple ATC forgetfulness? One argument is “Lost Comms” procedures, which provide an answer, but maintaining the last vector for 2 mins could take you through the centreline. Another argument is that for parallel runway ops, the statement on the ATIS is there to tell you not to EVER fly through the centreline regardless of the reason. And a further argument is that this statement on the ATIS is simply provided to remind pilots not to overshoot during a normally cleared localiser intercept. Not for any other reason. And occasionally, I have had Director intentionally take me through the centreline, for sequencing. So I have heard three different pilot interpretations. For what it’s worth, as a pilot, I know what I would do, but I am interested in the ATC expectation. Anyone in Sydney Director or ATC care to comment? |
If ever I’ve been taken through the centreline they’ve told me before the event they were going to do it. Good question though. It’d be interesting to hear from ATCOs as to what they think we are going to do. |
The phrase “Do not pass through assigned runway centreline” in the ATIS gives authority to the crew to make a pilot intercept in the event of blocked comms, radio failure etc (Chart 10-9D for Sydney under ‘Radio Failure Procedures - IVA’) |
This is simple stuff guys, as stated above do not cross the assigned center line. It’s even in the Jepps pilot responsibility. |
Yep you’re supposed to begin a turn to intercept in absence of an instruction in time to not pass through. Any time you’ll be taken through for sequencing you’ll be advised. Passing through centreline with only 1000m between them is a very bad idea. SYD TWR/DIR |
It's all in the Jeppesen Charts IVA.
|
I cannot think of a time that I have been vectored through the localiser toward the adjacent approach where traffic was a factor. I did have to abandon a 34R approach on an RA. The offending traffic blew his turn onto 34L and went through both centrelines. |
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10154174)
<snip> The offending traffic blew his turn onto 34L and went through both centrelines.
|
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10154189)
Gosh. That’s a little untidy! |
Nah, it was a local widebody. Filthy belly too, from what I saw. Long time ago now...maybe 15 years or more. |
If you get a join final vector, join final.
If you get a 'taking you though final' vector, follow the vector. If you are approaching final without a turn, turn and join final before it's too late! |
Originally Posted by Australopithecus
(Post 10154174)
I cannot think of a time that I have been vectored through the localiser toward the adjacent approach where traffic was a factor. I did have to abandon a 34R approach on an RA. The offending traffic blew his turn onto 34L and went through both centrelines. DCA required the T-VASIS to be operational for aircraft flying up to 250 knots in case of faster overseas aircraft types like fighters. To meet this requirement the RAAF were asked to provide a Sabre fighter to make runs down the T-VASIS at night to check the flyability at varying speeds from 150 knots to 250 knots. . On one such run, the Sabre while turning steeply left to avoid crossing active Runway 16 at 200 knots plus, came close to crossing Runway 16 due its radius of turn at high speed. ATC stopped the trial because of danger to aircraft using 16. The Sabre pilot came up with a solution. At 200 feet instead of breaking left he would break vertically. And that is what he did; pulling lots of "G" at 200 feet going vertical with a roll of the top of the loop and then to re-position for another high speed run down the T-VASIS. That worked nicely even at night and the trials were then successfully concluded. |
Great question Derfred, This is something I often comment about to workmates and trainee directors. If your approaching centre line and nothing heard from director you are suppose to start a turn to final. As A pilot you would be well aware of how ugly things can get on base at parallel runway airports. This rule is in place should you or ATC suffer a comms failure at this crucial point of your flight. In 15 years of director I haven’t seen many cases where something has happen to prevent turning an aircraft to final at that point, but in all cases the pilots went through final. It would be very poor technique from director to take you right up to final for late turn or even take you through without telling you. You would be within your rights and expected to turn to final, especially if you saw another aircraft on the adjacent base. If your really concerned you may end up going through final perhaps a “approaching centreline” followed by a turn if no response from director. A breakdown of sep with the aircraft your following to the same runway is much preferable than one with the aircraft coming at you on opposite base! |
I have seen it maybe twice over the last 12 years where either ATC was busy/ distracted/ mis calculated/ whatever and I began a turn for final without having had the instruction. I think I had a strong tailwind and groundspeed high ( I should have configured earlier) both times. I have read a report where pilots relied 100% on automation to begin the turn and it hasn’t done a good job ( probably tailwind again). My thoughts are that you stay aware of your groundspeed on base ( during the brief it’ll be obvious if there is a likely tailwind based on the ATIS) and configure to ensure you are not smoking along at 250kts groundspeed ( 220 is ok) and turn on unless told not to. I was a slow learner on this and do see new pilots making the same mistakes I did quite regularly. Good topic because when you first start flying jets to Sydney it can take a while to pick up these things if it isn’t specifically covered during training. This from the ATSB website; A review of the ATSB database indicated that about 30 per cent of all reported TCAS RA occurrences in Australia, or involving Australian aircraft overseas, occurred at Sydney Airport. Data provided by Airservices indicated that about 62 per cent of all RAs in the Sydney terminal area occurred during IVA procedures. The other 38 per cent included other approaches, departures and overflying aircraft. In certain situations, two aircraft can be flown on IVAs at Sydney in a manner consistent with the required procedures, yet both aircraft’s TCAS can generate an RA. For example, of the 277 reported RA occurrences during IVAs at Sydney during 2008–2013, 30 involved one of the aircraft passing through the extended centre-line. For many of the other occurrences there was insufficient information to determine whether a deviation occurred. |
Based on the data above , every 60 days an aircraft passes through the assigned runway centerline and an RA occurs during IVA’s in Sydney. Who knows how many aircraft fly through the centerline and no RA results? |
I was quite often told by captains flying into Sydney that you did not turn until told to by ATC. Even when I pointed out the wording on the ATIS, “yeah but you’re turning without a clearance then”. The more sensible approach in the Airbus would be to leave it in NAV Blue when you extend the centreline, that way the aircraft will turn you to avoid going through the centreline based on your ground speed etc. But I was often berated for trying to do it. morno |
Yep morno there's definitely some conflicting opinions out there. As you say, it's on the atis; it's an atc instruction.
|
I have had director (rarely I’ll admit) give headings that won’t actually make an intercept or an intercept very close to the runway due to strong headwinds on base (you know, the 30kt x-wind days) Ive queried the heading which has the given me an “extra” 10 degrees intercept, but still not pretty. Like said above, configuring earlier and reducing the g/s has been the only way to make it work. As stated earlier, the Jepps state not to go through the Centre line even in the absence of an instruction. Not sure how you can really argue against that. |
277 reported RA occurrences during IVAs at Sydney during 2008–2013 Yes, the Jepp instructions are quite clear. Thanks for all the responses, folks. |
Yip. That’s why it’s important to watch your groundspeed and make sure it’s reasonable. There can be RA’s triggered when both parties are complying with procedures/ instructions. |
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
(Post 10154261)
Probably a 146. |
Originally Posted by wb727d
(Post 10157040)
that’s a bit harsh |
No it's not, the autopilot on those things is ****. I have extensive first hand experience. Even then it's not a guarantee. After LOC capture, you still have to be prepared to disengage and hand-fly in case you drift too far off centreline. I was once called "Tracking" with the ILS captured, AP engaged (had been for a while) and we were almost half-scale deflection with a 15kt quartering tailwind. Luckily for 34R and the wind blowing us away from 34L. DIVOSH! |
No it's not, the autopilot on those things is ****. I have extensive first hand experience. |
Judd, I have found that some aircraft simply have pretty average autopilots - they're not suffering from a "fault" as such, they're just not that flash!
The CL604 couldn't maintain the localiser (particularly well) with any more than an 18 knot crosswind - it wasn't broken or faulty, it was how it was... What's with the whole high and mighty "Naturally, you would have done the right thing by writing up the perceived autopilot defect in great detail in the maintenance document." attitude? (Interesting note - both aircraft produced by Bombardier!) |
Originally Posted by Judd
(Post 10157488)
Naturally, you would have done the right thing by writing up the perceived autopilot defect in great detail in the maintenance document. Did the technicians fix the fault?
Originally Posted by DIVOSH!
Same for the Q400. Most pilots hand-fly onto the Localiser and then (possibly) re-engaging the autopilot.
Even then it's not a guarantee. After LOC capture, you still have to be prepared to disengage and hand-fly in case you drift too far off centreline. I was once called "Tracking" with the ILS captured, AP engaged (had been for a while) and we were almost half-scale deflection with a 15kt quartering tailwind. Luckily for 34R and the wind blowing us away from 34L. |
Interesting. I've only flown the classic Dash 8s and thought the autopilot was pretty good apart from a tendency to porpoise in a VNAV descent, but I did very few ILSs. I do remember the porpoising (spelling?) on VNAV descents. Sometimes just went down in V/S to stop it. JUDD, love the sarcastic comment! DIVOSH! |
the Q400 doesn't do a great job of turning the corner on an RNAV either. |
The procedure is an independent visual approach (IVA);
The pilot has been assigned a visual approach, has confirmed that the runway is in sight and been given a 30 degree or less intercept of final; So why is everyone on this thread referring to the localiser? No clearance for an ILS approach has been issued because the ILS is an instrument approach with tolerances that can take the aircraft through final; (In some circumstances the pilot may have been previously assigned tracking via the localiser, however once the visual approach is commenced the pilot is expected to track the centerline visually) AIP Page ENR 1.1-61 starting at paragraph 7.4.2 (Available on the Airservices web site) explains all. |
We talk about the loc cause that's what we'll use if its there
|
Not a bad point Mr Approach. I think the reality is that pilots are so used to ‘ maximum use of automation’ policies that they engage the localiser pick up as a matter of course ( so to speak). It could be easily argued that it is more reliable than a human looking Out the window and choosing the correct runway. What we really want IMO is utilisation of the automation combined with a willingness to intervene if doubt exists about its effectiveness. Eg sometimes it is wise to amend the ATC heading towards the inbound heading as the aircraft approaches the loc if the groundspeed is high or the angle is greater than 30 degrees, a reluctance to do this is symptomatic of how we train pilots now days. ( bare minimum type rating, bare minimum number of line sectors etc) and what is now normal on the line. |
Below is the current Sydney ATIS. Note that you can be initially cleared for an ILS or GLS approach but still are not to fly through the RWY CL.
ATIS YSSY O 291114 APCH: EXP GLS OR ILS APCH THEN INDEPENDENT VISUAL APCH WHEN VISUAL.DO NOT PASS THRU, ASSIGNED RWY CL RWY: 16L AND R FOR ARRS AND DEPS + SFC COND: WET OPR INFO: PARL RWY OPS IN PROGRESS. INDEPENDENT DEPS IN PROGRESS + WIND: 220/15KTS, XW14KTS VIS: GT 10KM WX: SHOWERS IN AREA CLD: SCT040 TMP: 18 + QNH: 1018 |
Originally Posted by framer
(Post 10159691)
combined with a willingness to intervene if doubt exists about its effectiveness. Eg sometimes it is wise to amend the ATC heading towards the inbound heading as the aircraft approaches the loc if the groundspeed is high or the angle is greater than 30 degrees, a reluctance to do this is symptomatic of how we train pilots now days. ( bare minimum type rating, bare minimum number of line sectors etc) and what is now normal on the line. Uptight automation policies. Lays at the foot of the managers. |
So why is everyone on this thread referring to the localiser? No clearance for an ILS approach has been issued If we didn’t use the Loc, it would leave very little options for automation should you still want to use it. It’s a visual approach, whatever tracking guidance the crew choose is their choice, but they need to make sure it contains the aircraft within the IVA tolerance which I’m certain a LOC would. 16L for example, can be cleared way out. If we didn’t follow the loc we could only do it in HDG (shudder) or switch everything off and do it visually which is fine, but not always appropriate. |
Course inbound to the CF 155 and nav
if you're way out is a good option |
How about the elephant in the room or in this case Sydney Terminal Area. STARs joining onto final and this thread wouldn’t have started. Perhaps ASA need to lift their game, get with the program and operate like the rest of the world. Tic Toc. |
Actually that’s a good point too. Why doesnt Jakln join up to Endev and then if ATC want to increase spacing they can vector you a mile past Jakln before turning you in? there may be a good reason for it.....anyone know? |
Originally Posted by hoss
(Post 10160140)
How about the elephant in the room or in this case Sydney Terminal Area. STARs joining onto final and this thread wouldn’t have started. Perhaps ASA need to lift their game, get with the program and operate like the rest of the world. Tic Toc. |
Originally Posted by hoss
(Post 10160140)
How about the elephant in the room or in this case Sydney Terminal Area. STARs joining onto final and this thread wouldn’t have started. Perhaps ASA need to lift their game, get with the program and operate like the rest of the world. Tic Toc. I don't know about that, the ARBEY STAR on to RWY 27 in Melbourne is ripe for flying through the centreline if your equipment isn't great and you don't get your speed right. It's not just dodgy BAe146s either, I've been passenger in a B737 that's had the wobbles hooking on to the 27 LOC. |
Sure, I think the PAULA to VISAS intercept is about 90 degrees and could perhaps get screwed up with poor speed control. It wouldn’t be difficult to design the Sydney intercepts at 30 degrees. It’s just another waypoint, but agreed we are dealing with ASA in 2018. There really is no excuse. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:05. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.