PPRuNe Forums - 34R SYD Review ATSB

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific-90/)

- - 34R SYD Review ATSB (https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/628881-34r-syd-review-atsb.html)

Quote:

Gutsiest move I ever saw Mav.

Especially given it was 45 minutes after last light!

Quote:

Originally Posted by maggot (Post 10665254)

Track to the mapt. It's clear.
I've always been given a heading for the many GAs I've had in Sydney.

Ditto!!!!!

Quote:

if you go around from 2000’, the expectation is that you will track to the Mapt then turn. Not turn straight away.

I went around from about 1500' last year, told to 'make standard missed approach' and we turned pretty much straight away and everyone was happy. Also done it in the sim and not a word was said.

I would suggest that if you were to track straight ahead to .5NM RWY and climb to 3000 at the same time this may cause a breakdown of the separation on the parallel runway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs (Post 10665289)

Especially given it was 45 minutes after last light!

And this is a reasonable point - if ATC want you to turn before the MAPT they can issue you a visual heading to turn on to....

’QF123 Traffic Alert, turn right immediately heading 090 Visual, climb to 3000’. The issue in this case is that it was after last light so this option wasn’t available to ATC.

Nev - I’m not trying to be pedantic or having a go, but obstacle clearance on a missed approach is based on the turn starting from the MAPT (even on a precision approach). You can’t just turn whenever you like because it says “...at 600’. I doubt the entire eastern side of the runway is surveyed for a turn anywhere along the ILS (especially if you take into consideration a one engine missed approach where an aircraft may only achieve the 2.5% required).

I do take your point that ATC may very well want you to turn ASAP - but you cannot do that unless it’s day VMC.

The talk about the missed approach tracking instructions here reminds me of the misconceptions about when to commence the turn when conducting the Cairns ILS 15 missed approach (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-gener...airns-ils.html).

I believe that the confusion of people forgetting the requirement of tracking to the MAPt prior to "turning without delay" led to the introduction of the current statement of "turn as soon as practicable but not before ICS MM".

Although it may not of made a difference in this event between the A330 and B737 I wonder if due to the differing views of pilots a similar statement might be introduced on the Sydney ILS/GLS charts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 73qanda (Post 10665114)

I tend to agree with Porter. Crappy design.
A few rough estimates;
At 400 ft they’d be about 1200m from the MAPT as the crow flies.
They’d be doing maybe 82m/sec.
Time how long it takes you to say
ATC : “Qantas 123 this isn’t going to work, carry out the standard missed approach procedure”
QF: “ Ahhh understood standard missed approach procedure, Qantas 123 going round”
PF “ Righto, we’re gunna go round”
PM “ Yip”
PF “ Going round Flap fifteen”
three second pause for the actions
PM” positive rate”
PF “ gear up”

It takes me between 17 and 20 seconds if I do it at a pace I think is realistic/likely.
So now you’re 400m past the MAPT climbing back through 400ft and doing exactly as the procedure calls for, tracking 335 waiting for 600ft where you’ll begin your turn onto 070. How long does that take? 200ft at 1000fpm is another 12 seconds and 980m. So now, after flying the machine nicely, you’re 1.4km past the MAPT.
So my thoughts are that if everything goes really well, you’re going to be over the runway when you turn but very likely is that you’re going to be well down the runway as things rarely go exactly to plan. All it would take is one drawn out communication and you are turning where this aircraft turned having done the job very nicely.

Not to be pedantic, but there is a bit of a flaw with your theory. Your 17-20 second run of prep assumes the G/A around instruction was given at 400ft. The report shows they commenced the actual G/A at 400ft, which means all that stuff you've listed has already taken place by that point, and can't be included in your calculation of a reasonable position.

As for the debate about the G/A procedure. I too believe that ones pretty clear. You must commence the MAP from the MAPt, which is clearly defined as the intercept of the glidepath with the DA, about 0.5nm IKN. You cannot turn before then. Surely if ATC want you to do something in contravention to the AIP, they don't have to issue the published missed approach and can simply give you an alternative instruction.

Lastly, what are peoples thoughts on the readback of a G/A instruction? Typically I perform the G/A actions first, then read back later, especially if it is a time critical defensive action. I figure ATC can see what I'm doing, (similar to a PRM breakout where no readback is given).. Do people delay the G/A to make the radio call? I suppose if there is plenty of time there is no harm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Check_Thrust (Post 10665641)

In over twenty years I've never flown with anyone that has even remotely suggested that flying to the Mapt in YSSY before the turn wasn't required.
Since YSSY has special visual approach missed approach rules (follow ILS MApp) compared to elsewhere in the country this is looked at frequently.

But, you're probably right, standby for them to insert *another* caution/warning/boxed text note on the chart

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paddleboat (Post 10665660)

Lastly, what are peoples thoughts on the readback of a G/A instruction? Typically I perform the G/A actions first, then read back later, especially if it is a time critical defensive action. I figure ATC can see what I'm doing, (similar to a PRM breakout where no readback is given).. Do people delay the G/A to make the radio call? I suppose if there is plenty of time there is no harm.

It Depends (tm).

If theres an urgent need to get moving, sure delay. My preference, given time, would be to read back, make sure we're both clear/quick breath and Go Round Flaps 15. There's rarely such a rush so there's no point in unnecessarily compressing oneself, IMO. Many ways to skin the many, various cats. :)

Quote:

Ahhh good point. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neville_nobody (Post 10665227)

They want you to turn at the altitude.

This is from our company documentation on sydney.

“For a turning Missed Approach, e.g. ILS DME Rwy 16L, the turn should not be commenced until reaching the published Missed Approach Point unless instructed by ATC. The use of the term ‘Mandatory’ with the turning altitude does not override this requirement.”

GLS runway waypoint is also a fly over waypoint as others have noted.

Quote:

For a turning Missed Approach, e.g. ILS DME Rwy 16L, the turn should not be commenced until reaching the published Missed Approach Point unless instructed by ATC. The use of the term ‘Mandatory’ with the turning altitude does not override this requirement.”

That was my understanding too until I did it in real life one day and had ATC getting excited about us not turning ASAP. We reported it but nothing was said subsequent.

This needs consideration too....

If initial manoeuvring is required during the missed approach, do the missed
approach procedure through gear up before initiating the turn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parrot Pilot (Post 10665809)

Question for the ATCs.... Where does the wake turb separation get considered for these kind of set ups?

I’ve been on a short final in a turboprop with an “expect late clearance” a number of times with a preceding heavy aircraft rolling. Doesn’t really fill you with a warm and fuzzy when you start considering your go around options from low level...

Wake is a thing from when the proceeding is airborne, touchdown zone not affected. Maybe some jetblast

I think Parrot is talking about in the event of a go around and flying through the wake of the departing heavy in a medium.

Ah, rightoThats still ~1500m up field
but yeah, thats why we're paid the big bucks ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parrot Pilot (Post 10665809)

There's no defined/required wake turbulence separation between a departing aircraft, and a following landing aircraft on the same runway (unless opposite). Noone has put into the rules that we shall consider a go-around in this case. If that is the case, it would be a "local rule".

But:
"Go around!"
"Going around"
"TCAS RA"
"Roger" (I not responsible for separation anymore)

PS: I'm joking!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmoric (Post 10667424)

I not responsible for separation anymore)

No, just responsible for putting them there in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by IsDon01 (Post 10667587)

No, just responsible for putting them there in the first place.

I know, I was joking.

And no, I'll never put them there in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmoric (Post 10667883)

I know, I was joking.

And no, I'll never put them there in the first place.

So was I mate. No offence intended.

I see the Sydney Visual Go Around procedure has been removed from AIP.