Ask The Pilot

[Julesmac]

It has nothing to do with what it is operationally desirable, and is all about politics.

JB, as I'm from Melbourne I'm not the full bottle on the situation re the third(?) runway in SYD. I don't know where it would be sited in relation to the other runways, I mean. In your opinion, if it went ahead, what would be the best orientation? And would it be run according to what was the best/safest/most sensible for the pilots, or to contain the political fallout. ie would you 'let' politicians dictate the layout. Would they think - ha ha- to consult the blokes who actually have to use the runways?

 

[alieninperth]

I think you already know the answer to that one.

 

[jb747]

Did you notice a compound or dwelling, stuck out in the middle of nowhere with what appeared to be the only grass in the entire UAE, on the final approach into DXB?

I've only flown in at night, but there was a very well lit area not too far out that I think was a palace...

 

[jb747]

What's the ATC like in Dubai, do they speak English well? are they easy to understand?

ATC that I've seen thus far is excellent. Given that they spoke with a mix of English, US, and Aussie accents, it would seem that many (most?) of the controllers are expats.

 

[jb747]

Regarding fuel dump, does it always have to be on the water ?

What if (I'm not sure if it is a reality) water is not available, what would you do then to get rid of the excess fuel ?

I guess you could always go looking for a body of water. Is that true or always possible ?

Fuel dumping can be done anywhere. The fuel won't reach the surface if the dump occurs above roughly 6,000 feet.

 

[jb747]

Westerly 13 gusting 18 at 1pm (we landed about 12.30). When i saw the sock it was all down the runway as downwind.

That would be outside the downwind limit for virtually all types....

 

[jb747]

JB, as I'm from Melbourne I'm not the full bottle on the situation re the third(?) runway in SYD. I don't know where it would be sited in relation to the other runways, I mean. In your opinion, if it went ahead, what would be the best orientation? And would it be run according to what was the best/safest/most sensible for the pilots, or to contain the political fallout. ie would you 'let' politicians dictate the layout. Would they think - ha ha- to consult the blokes who actually have to use the runways?

Melbourne airport was laid out with a plan of adding new runways in the future. My street directory even contained the planned runways at one time. To the south, there is a big gap in the airport buildings (just to the north of the QF hangar) that was reserved for a new east west runway. That area is still open, and is the obvious place for a 09/27 runway. The approach path is fairly heavily built up, but presumably the operating mode would use one runway for arrivals and the other for departures, so that shouldn't be a big issue.

A second 09/27 would help alleviate congestion for the smaller aircraft, but unless it's appreciably longer than the current runway, it still wouldn't be used often by the bigger stuff.

Even with another runway, the airport would still have problems on those days with the strong northerlies (i.e. most of summer), when all the aircraft are forced onto 34/16.

I very much doubt that there would be any pilots involved in the planning process.....

 

[Julesmac]

It has nothing to do with what it is operationally desirable, and is all about politics.

JB thanks for the answer re Melb runways, but my question was more about SYD - and this post by moa999. So does that mean there is a new runway 3 at SYD? I thought there was a proposal for a new one which has had the populace excited for years, and not yet proceeded with? My query re placement of runway is tied up with the above, and the approach etc . Thanks

 

[jb747]

JB thanks for the answer re Melb runways, but my question was more about SYD - and this post by moa999. So does that mean there is a new runway 3 at SYD? I thought there was a proposal for a new one which has had the populace excited for years, and not yet proceeded with? My query re placement of runway is tied up with the above, and the approach etc . Thanks

The 3rd runway was built about 10-15 years ago. It is narrow spaced ( I.e. relatively close to the parallel 34/16) and quite short.

 

[serfty]

The 3rd runway was built about 10-15 years ago. It is narrow spaced ( I.e. relatively close to the parallel 34/16) and quite short.

The "3rd runway" at SYD opened as early as late 1994 believe it or not (That's now getting on for 19 years ago).

IIRC, with the groundworks completed some months ahead of schedule it was opened even though the new equipment for ATC to effectively make use of such close parallel runways was not yet operational (state election?) - thereby for several months effectivly reducing SYD's peak capacity by at least 10%.

I experienced this first hand as I commuted betwixt MEL & SYD 8 times in November/December that year, generally booked to depart MEL 6pm Sundays and SYD 6pm Fridays.

The average delay for that set of eight flights was 50 minutes; two of the flights left on time.

I am quite aware of the timing/year as it's on my QFF card. I had just joined QP (and hence QFF) in October anticipating those eight flights. Good thing I did too with the near 7 hours in total delays I experienced.

(FWIW, It was in the halcyon days of the "Two Airline system"; back then QP catering was immensely better in comparison with today's offering so it was quite a nice environment to spend an extra 400 minutes.)

 

[Awesom Andy]

Even with another runway, the airport would still have problems on those days with the strong northerlies (i.e. most of summer), when all the aircraft are forced onto 34/16.

Any chance of a parallel 34/16, perhaps to the west of the airport? The land looks quite flat there.

 

[markis10]

Any chance of a parallel 34/16, perhaps to the west of the airport? The land looks quite flat there.

The approach is not flat with the earlwood hill coming into play, not to mention the development at the ITB.

 

[Boris spatsky]

That would be outside the downwind limit for virtually all types....

Yep, and 30 mins later they were on the 24/25s. Seems weird that they even used 06/07 in the first place.

 

[Julesmac]

I think my queries about a third runway at Sydney might have been getting muddled with a 3rd airport!

 

[jb747]

Any chance of a parallel 34/16, perhaps to the west of the airport? The land looks quite flat there.

There's a couple of gullies and a hill, but nothing that would slow a Chinese construction company down. Sadly, Australia seems sadly lacking when it comes to finishing anything other than shops at airports, so no matter what the need, nothing will happen until it is decades overdue, and then it will be half done.

I guess the problem is that the airport owners have no incentive to do anything, as delays and extra fuel burns are costs that are not incurred by them. Of course, if we could send them the fuel bill each time we hold, that might light a fire....but I doubt it, as they'd just increase all of the other costs, and still do nothing.

 

[mjt57]

Watching an A380 approaching LHR yesterday from my hotel in Earls Court it seemed like it was doing about a hundred Kay's. obviously it wasn't. It's gear was still up. Based on my location what sort of speed and height would it have been doing?

also interesting to watch another one do a slow left just over Buck Palace to line up with LHR. I got a video of it but it looked like a slow moving sparrow, unfortunately...

 

[moa999]

I think my queries about a third runway at Sydney might have been getting muddled with a 3rd airport!

Assume 2nd airport will do!

 

[jb747]

Watching an A380 approaching LHR yesterday from my hotel in Earls Court it seemed like it was doing about a hundred Kay's. obviously it wasn't. It's gear was still up. Based on my location what sort of speed and height would it have been doing?

About 9 nautical miles to run. At that point he'd be around 180 knots, slowing back to 160k (min speed until 4-5 nm). I didn't notice the wind at altitude when I departed, but coming in the other day, the wind was about 20 knots stronger at 2,500 feet than it was on the ground.

 

[Tortuga]

Is it possible for turbulence to be so strong that the autopilot cannot deal with the sudden movements? Are there any situations where turbulence may put the plane in danger when at cruising altitude or is it simply an annoyance?

 

[jb747]

Is it possible for turbulence to be so strong that the autopilot cannot deal with the sudden movements? Are there any situations where turbulence may put the plane in danger when at cruising altitude or is it simply an annoyance?

Aircraft have been brought down by extraordinary conditions, but turbulence normally only represents a danger to those who don't like seat belts.

There are certainly scenarios that will be problematic. For instance, when cruising at very high altitudes, right up at the max for the aircraft weight, there is very little airspeed between your target, the max, and min drag. Any speed excursion that takes you below min drag may well put into a situation where you don't have sufficient power to accelerate again, and the only way to get the speed back will be to descend. That's one of the reasons why, if we have no choice but to transit some weather, that we may descend before getting into it.....better margins.

As an aside, it's currently 6 am in Dubai, and the view out the hotel window (only a couple of kms from the airport) is of thick fog.