Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

I've noticed that some days later in the week, and in the mornings,aircraft seem to fly low over the city from the SE suburbs (I live in East Malvern) and do a low (it appears from the ground) sweep to the right over the city. One day we happened to be driving in on the SE freeway and had a heart stopping moment when one aircraft flew behind the Rialto - this was after 9/11 and it looked as though it was flying right into the building. But that flight path must give a fabulous view of Melbournbe

That's a standard arrival that joins the RNAV approach to 34. You pass over the city at about 3,500, descending to 3,200 as you turn onto finals. It looks to be straight down the river and over "Jeff's shed".

 

[Julesmac]

That's a standard arrival that joins the RNAV approach to 34. You pass over the city at about 3,500, descending to 3,200 as you turn onto finals. It looks to be straight down the river and over "Jeff's shed".

Thanks JB. It'd be a lovely view coming home to Melbourne.

 

[serfty]

In winter I often hear the 94 (and occasionally see it) heading "down the river" while I am changing trains at South Yarra shortly after 8am ... (at that configuration speed and height the A388's have a unique sound).

 

[pagingjoan]

That's a standard arrival that joins the RNAV approach to 34. You pass over the city at about 3,500, descending to 3,200 as you turn onto finals. It looks to be straight down the river and over "Jeff's shed".

Is this for QF 94, JB?
Ive seen it from the ground recently (home is in the CBD) but can't recall it from the air, although it's a while since I've flown 94. Will look forward to that mid-year, if so.

 

[pagingjoan]

Ah, missed the later responses, when posting my question.
Obviously it is QF94. Any others that use that approach?

 

[welltravelled]

Yes, plenty of other aircraft use this approach, but as discussed previously, to keep movements up ATC issue the visual approach over head Essendon.
Bear in mind, this in not the preferred runway configuration for Melbourne, 16 arrivals, 27 departures is the preferred and most efficient configuration.

The instrument approach onto 34 either the RNAV or VOR both commence further out {about 10nm from memory} so this "slows" up the ATC sequence of traffic flow.
Similarly coming in to 34 from the west, quite often issued the RNAV onto 34 but is abbreviated to a 5nm final to fit in with other arrivals coming in from East eg over Essendon.
Of course, if the weather clags in then it al reverts to full instrument approaches!

 

[jb747]

PrincessFiona seemed rather at home in the left hand seat.....

 

[Dmac6345]

PrincessFiona seemed rather at home in the left hand seat.....

Pf is a very lucky woman !!!!

 

[QF WP]

PrincessFiona seemed rather at home in the left hand seat.....

Was a nice photograph she posted on FB . Did you take the photo jb747?

 

[jb747]

Was a nice photograph she posted on FB . Did you take the photo jb747?

No, the FO.

 

[por930]

PrincessFiona seemed rather at home in the left hand seat.....

any link???

 

[QF WP]

I'm sure that if Princess Fiona wants to share the photo with the general membership, she will. She did post a nice photo of her [breakfast?] Champagne and Olives during that DXB/LHR sector on another topic.

Actually, here's the one she posted in "the view from my office": http://www.australianfrequentflyer....view-from-my-office-63414-29.html#post1217966

 

[por930]

I'm sure that if Princess Fiona wants to share the photo with the general membership, she will. She did post a nice photo of her [breakfast?] Champagne and Olives during that DXB/LHR sector on another topic.

Actually, here's the one she posted in "the view from my office": http://www.australianfrequentflyer....view-from-my-office-63414-29.html#post1217966

Thanks for that QF WP. I guess whether you are in my Cessna or JB's A380, always kind of squeezy up the front.

 

[Himeno]

That's a standard arrival that joins the RNAV approach to 34. You pass over the city at about 3,500, descending to 3,200 as you turn onto finals. It looks to be straight down the river and over "Jeff's shed".

A few times in the morning, I've been sitting at Federation Square when I saw a A380 make a turn over Eureka Tower towards MEL. Would that have been this approach?

 

[badseed]

I guess one good thing about flying overhead Essendon is that you don't mistakenly line-up with Runway 36 at YMEN ;-) It happened to Air India shortly after they commenced service into Melbourne: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/17/air-india-787-warned-off-wrong-melbourne-airport-landing/

Last year I was flying into Essendon with a mates brother who was ferrying a repaired Beechcraft back from King Island, and as we touched down on RW36 a QF 763 flew overhead - it was certainly a sight to see. But I can certainly appreciate that it may be an unnecessarily challenging approach after 15 hours airborne.

 

[jb747]

I guess one good thing about flying overhead Essendon is that you don't mistakenly line-up with Runway 36 at YMEN ;-) It happened to Air India shortly after they commenced service into Melbourne: http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/01/17/air-india-787-warned-off-wrong-melbourne-airport-landing/

Sort of amusing, but not a surprise. The aircraft displays would have been quite upset.... There is very little excuse for this sort of event in a modern aircraft.

Last year I was flying into Essendon with a mates brother who was ferrying a repaired Beechcraft back from King Island, and as we touched down on RW36 a QF 763 flew overhead - it was certainly a sight to see. But I can certainly appreciate that it may be an unnecessarily challenging approach after 15 hours airborne.

The approach over Essendon 26 has issues on a number of levels. Firstly it opens up the possibility that a crew will select 'approach' when flying it, instead of LOC, in which case the aircraft would want to descend to the runway (and would ignore the height in the MCP) window, as it would see that as the go around height. I don't know if that error has ever happened, and I've not heard of it, but it's an obvious set up.

The biggest problem though, is that it is not on a 3º glide path. The fact that you have to turn isn't a particular issue, but it is about 500 feet high (compared to where you want to be) as you cross Essendon. And that's assuming you've got it perfectly right and cross over Essendon (still in the descent) at 2,500'. If you've come down earlier, and levelled off, that will actually tend up put you even higher as you start the descent again, as the aircraft takes time to establish the desired descent rate. One of the factors behind accidents, world wide, has been approaches that are designed with either steps, or higher than normal rates of descent. It stops the crew from establishing a stable approach, and makes undesirable outcomes much more likely. Even visual procedures (like circling approaches) have been redesigned to incorporate a continuous 3º descent. And quite honestly, anything that is "unnecessarily challenging", has no place in aviation. Someone will eventually get it wrong.

ATC, worldwide, often vector aircraft onto finals but do so in such a way that they are left with substantial vertical offsets prior to establishing on the ILS. Almost any time the vectors take you on a track that is more or less reciprocal, the opportunity exists for them to 'cut the corner', and in so doing remove a substantial number of track miles from your flight....and so leave you high. This was one of the ways in which Aseana were set up in SFO.

 

[RooFlyer]

I recently saw a replay of the Four Corners rendition of the QF32 incident and investigation. It reminded me of something I wondered when I first saw it, and also the 'Air Crash Investigation' portrayal.

I obviously take these with several grains of salt, but both stated one conclusion from the investigation in pretty much the same way.

That is, the oil pipe broke, spraying oil on very hot components of the engine. A fire broke out, and this fire heated/soften/affected theturbine disc (and other components) and this ultimately caused the turbine to spin faster than design, to ultimately fail and fly apart.

The time between the fire starting and the failure and then the 'uncontained failure' (AKA 'explosion') wasn't mentioned, but I imagine it must have been at least some seconds, to heat the turbine disc, then affect its performance andthen ultimately fail.

My question is - if the time between the fire and the 'explosion' was any more than a second or so, whywould there not have been an engine fire alarm, as the first indication that something was amiss, rather than the "boom ... boom" that RdC reported? (Put another way, how long would you expect between such an oil fuelled engine fire and an alarm sounding?) Can anyone enlighten me what the time between the start of the fire and the failure was estimated to be (I know I could look up the report, but I ask in the context of my main question)?

 

[Mattg]

I currently live under the flight path aircraft use on approach to runway 25 in SYD. Just had a Qantas A380 fly over. I wasn't aware that A380s were capable of landing on this runway? (And it's not even that windy outside right now.)

 

[serfty]

ISTR upthread that jb indicated landing with a much reduced fuel load e.g. (at the end of a longhaul) is less of an issue than it for taking off with a full fuel load; consequently shorter runways can often be used so.

 

[drross]

horrible crash in the French Alps this morning. Black box recovered. it will be interesting to find out what went wrong. how long before the info from the recorders will be available???