Ask The Pilot

[RooFlyer]

Hobart has a single runway, with taxi-way entry and exit points about 1/3 the way down, from each end. Planes arriving and taking off taxi along the runway to the respective end, do a 180 and either head back to the exit point or depart.

Today I noticed a plane (737 I think) had just arrived and turned around and was taxiing back along the runway to the exit point. At the same time, a plane about to depart (a 717 I think) had entered the runway and was turning around at the other end. A few seconds delay in the arriving plane turning would have seen the 2 planes facing each other at opposite ends of the runway.

Does this surprise anyone? (I'm not suggesting there was a danger - it just seemed unusual). I was trying to think if I had seen 2 planes on the runway, at the same time (let alone facing each other) but I can't recall (although most of the time I'm in the back and can't see ). Most of the time the airport has entry and exit ways at the ends, saving planes having to do a 180, so its not the same situation as HBA, but is there a 'rule' in Australia about 2 planes being on the runway at the same time?

 

[Melburnian1]

Some of the pilots on AFF have at times made interesting comments about how they perceive airside infrastructure (for aircraft, not passenger facilities as such) at Australian airports.

Bearing in mind that some AFF pilots may not fly (except as a passenger) into some domestic airports but should still have excellent knowledge of most if not all of the following Australian major (always a bit subjective) airports, how would you rank them from best to worst in terms of airside arrangements (runways, taxiways and the like) for the amount of air traffic that they handle at present? In other words, which one do you believe is the most 'fit for purpose' and conversely which is the most deficient?

Those chosen are ADL, BNE, CBR, CNS, DRW, HBA, LST, MEL, OOL, PER, SYD and TSV. The inclusion of TSV (non capital city, and relatively low profile) is line ball but it serves a population larger than LST, so can arguably be included.

For simplicity and drawing a line in the sand, I have omitted ABX, ASP, AVV, AYQ, BNK, CFS, KGI, MKY, MQL, NTL, PHE, ROK, WGA and XRH among others. AVV, while an alternative to MEL, is small in flights handled while XRH if I recall lacks any regularly scheduled RPT flights.

 

[flychrisfly]

Our aircraft don't have it [brake to vacate].....

Okay thanks. In that case how are rapid exit runways (or whatever the current jargon is) managed so that the exit is rapid? Is it just max braking or do the pilots use their judgement and aim for an exit point and step on the brakes accordingly or...?

 

[jb747]

Does this surprise anyone? (I'm not suggesting there was a danger - it just seemed unusual). I was trying to think if I had seen 2 planes on the runway, at the same time (let alone facing each other) but I can't recall (although most of the time I'm in the back and can't see ). Most of the time the airport has entry and exit ways at the ends, saving planes having to do a 180, so its not the same situation as HBA, but is there a 'rule' in Australia about 2 planes being on the runway at the same time?

It's quite common. Generally it happens when one is at the end of the runway, and whilst it's lining up another lines up from a taxiway further down the runway. It's often used to create multiple queues on to the runway. It can also be used to allow smaller aircraft to get away before a larger one departs and imposes a wake delay. So, whilst you don't end up often looking at each other, two on the runway at once is nothing unusual

 

[jb747]

Okay thanks. In that case how are rapid exit runways (or whatever the current jargon is) managed so that the exit is rapid? Is it just max braking or do the pilots use their judgement and aim for an exit point and step on the brakes accordingly or...?

On most occasions we've operated to a runway many times in the past, and have a very good feel for the exact amount of runway we'll use. The landing calculations also give us quite accurate results for various levels of auto braking. Last time I landed on 16 Melbourne, we wanted the high speed...so for that we used Brake 2 (an automatic intermediate level), and that got us back to a comfortable speed in just about the right distance. Manual braking can be selected at any point, and is done if you want less (most common) or more.

You never use max braking. If it needs that much then either something is wrong, or you simply use the next turnoff.

 

[Harpoon]

Honored to have JB as my captain today flying QF93 to LA! Very exciting!

 

[QF WP]

I trust you'll make yourself known to him (via a message to FA's/CSM), as he may be able to visit you during the flight.

 

[QF WP]

A video of a microburst has reminded me of the issues of flying through one...although I understand that it is less likely these days with the advent of Doppler weather radar. Have any of the pilots here experienced them first hand?

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29367176/filmmakers-amazing-timelapse-of-microburst-thunderstorm/

 

[jpk]

Honored to have JB as my captain today flying QF93 to LA! Very exciting!

Coincidentally I was sitting in the lounge watching that take off today, and I idly wondered if JB was flying it

 

[mjt57]

Tell ya what, the guys at LAX ATC can be a tad abrupt. Listening to the ATC Net web site and LAX Ground. QF guys gets on the horn to request a tug or something, maybe pushback, not sure. ATC responds rather tersely to wait til he gets to him or words to that effect.

 

[Boca68]

A video of a microburst has reminded me of the issues of flying through one...although I understand that it is less likely these days with the advent of Doppler weather radar. Have any of the pilots here experienced them first hand?

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/29367176/filmmakers-amazing-timelapse-of-microburst-thunderstorm/

That is some incredible vision.

 

[kermatu]

It's quite common. Generally it happens when one is at the end of the runway, and whilst it's lining up another lines up from a taxiway further down the runway. It's often used to create multiple queues on to the runway. It can also be used to allow smaller aircraft to get away before a larger one departs and imposes a wake delay. So, whilst you don't end up often looking at each other, two on the runway at once is nothing unusual

landing in Cairns today - as we turned 180 degrees on the runway, a tiger aircraft had already lined up for takeoff. So two aircraft moving toward one another on the runway. Presumably very common. But agree it looks odd!

 

[por930]

landing in Cairns today - as we turned 180 degrees on the runway, a tiger aircraft had already lined up for takeoff. So two aircraft moving toward one another on the runway. Presumably very common. But agree it looks odd!

I have landed at Cairns many times in a light aircraft. The cairns runway has its taxiways some considerable distance from either end of the runway. So if the aircraft landing goes past the last taxiway, it has to turn around at the runway end and back track to the taxiway. Usually, as soon as the landing aircraft has passed a waiting aircraft for runway entry, assuming safe to do so, ATC will clear them to enter the runway and they make their way down to the opposite end and turn around and await the recently landed aircraft to vacate the runway.

 

[day-heg]

I have landed at Cairns many times in a light aircraft. The cairns runway has its taxiways some considerable distance from either end of the runway. So if the aircraft landing goes past the last taxiway, it has to turn around at the runway end and back track to the taxiway. Usually, as soon as the landing aircraft has passed a waiting aircraft for runway entry, assuming safe to do so, ATC will clear them to enter the runway and they make their way down to the opposite end and turn around and await the recently landed aircraft to vacate the runway.

Worth noting that there is lots of different terminology on the radio all designed to keep aircraft apart, but also to expedite the flow of traffic... for example "behind the landing 737, line up runway 33 and wait behind" which needs to be read back in full, including both "behinds"!

You need permission to enter or cross any runway, and you also need permission to backtrack on a runway - ie taxi along the runway in the opposite direction of take-off and landing; this applies when lining up to depart ("behind departing 737, back track, line up runway 33 and wait, behind") and also if you miss the last taxiway turn off and need to do a 180, eg "Velocity 999, back track and vacate at Delta"

Finally, to help reduce confusion, the word departure ("request departure clearance", "cleared Detling 2 Foxtrot departure", "ready for departure" etc etc) is used much more often than takeoff. The only time the words "take off" are used is when ATC issues a clearance - "Speedbird 10, cleared take off runway 27 Left, wind 290 10 knots" - which is then read back "Cleared take off 27 Left, Speedbird 10".

 

[QF WP]

Just listening to this again now, so for those that are interested: Episode 6: John Bartels & QF30 : Flight Podcast

 

[Boris spatsky]

Some of the pilots on AFF have at times made interesting comments about how they perceive airside infrastructure (for aircraft, not passenger facilities as such) at Australian airports.

Bearing in mind that some AFF pilots may not fly (except as a passenger) into some domestic airports but should still have excellent knowledge of most if not all of the following Australian major (always a bit subjective) airports, how would you rank them from best to worst in terms of airside arrangements (runways, taxiways and the like) for the amount of air traffic that they handle at present? In other words, which one do you believe is the most 'fit for purpose' and conversely which is the most deficient?

Those chosen are ADL, BNE, CBR, CNS, DRW, HBA, LST, MEL, OOL, PER, SYD and TSV. The inclusion of TSV (non capital city, and relatively low profile) is line ball but it serves a population larger than LST, so can arguably be included.

From a pilot's perspective, I like CBR as it has a new terminal and everything seems to work. I dislike MEL as the terminals are old and the aerobridges problematic, as are SYD. Of course those locations without aerobridges we generally dislike as everything is just harder - e.g. wheel chair passengers require a separate lift mechanism on some of those bays which takes extra time to load or unload compared to an aerobridge.

SYD has a terrible taxiway arrangement for the volume of traffic on the domestic side. CBR needs an additional taxiway on the western side up to the threshold of runway 17 to minimise the current delays that require you to cross the main active runway all the time. Same for HBA where extended taxiways would negate the need to backtrack all the time.

MEL needs a parallel runway of some type because the current cross runway setup cannot handle the volume of traffic it gets, especially in bad weather. SYD from the runway perspective is not actually too bad. ADL has issues with its cross runway setup (frequently have to hold to cross the cross runway due to landing propeller aircraft). BNE needs another runway (coming in 2020!!) as the single runway for use by jets cannot handle the volume of traffic. PER just has too much traffic in peak hour for the cross runway ops.

TSV is one of the better airports to operate to as there is ample taxiway/runway space for the traffic volume.

So I suppose my summary is:
1) most of our major airports need a parallel runway to maximise efficiency (cross runway design is outdated and not efficient, especially in bad weather).
2) most of our airports need to have their taxiways either a) redesigned or b) extended to maximise ground ops efficiency
3) aerobridges should be maximised where possible as use of stairs is problematic at times
4) terminals need to be updated or refreshed

We are really living about 20 years beyond our means; if only we had the forethought of the US where even secondary and tertiary airports have good infrastructure and parallel runways!

 

[Boris spatsky]

Okay thanks. In that case how are rapid exit runways (or whatever the current jargon is) managed so that the exit is rapid? Is it just max braking or do the pilots use their judgement and aim for an exit point and step on the brakes accordingly or...?

To add to JBs comments, some of our aircraft are fitted with auto brake and some are not. In those that aren't, it is a matter of judgement as to when to apply the brakes and how much. Most of the major airports have a required taxiway that you have to make for Runway Occupancy Time (hence some pretty assertive braking on some of those landings). Some exapmples of the tight ones are MEL runway 27 and SYD runway 16R. Normally they are very achievable at the weights we operate at, but on days where you get heavy weight/tailwind/long touchdown you might get some very assertive braking. Of course it is only a recommended taxiway to take and if you miss it you tell ATC. Sometimes you might know you can't make it and advise ATC on first contact that you will need to roll through (normally when you are carrying an issue such as a thrust reverser out).

 

[Melburnian1]

Boris spatsky, many, many thanks for this incredibly interesting and informative summary in post 8396 above - well it's more than a 'summary.'

Perceptive that in your third paragraph you made exactly the same point about 'MEL...in bad weather' that jb747 commented upon a few pages back. This tells me that this must be an area of major concern for pilots and air traffic controllers as you and jb747 have I assume not had a conference to decide what you'd say.

When you say that the aerobridges are 'problematic' in MEL and SYD are you referring to their operating speed being too slow, do they not always align with the aircraft in the exact way that you would like to see or do they sometimes simply fail, making alighting or boarding slower? As a passenger I have never noticed any particular problems but of course this is one of the many things of which travellers may be unaware. You didn't mention CNS, DRW, LST or OOL so either you regard these as broadly acceptable or perhaps do not visit there often, or are they (exception of OOL) too small to matter?

 

[Boris spatsky]

A video of a microburst has reminded me of the issues of flying through one...although I understand that it is less likely these days with the advent of Doppler weather radar. Have any of the pilots here experienced them first hand?

We fly in all sorts of weather. Sometimes the thunderstorm cells are embedded in other cloud layers and you cannot see them with the naked eye. I have seen them whilst parked on the ground (overseas ports, not in Aus). I have a had a few instances of significant windshear on final approach (including the aircraft detecting it) which was most probably a microburst due to the nature of the shear and its characteristics.

A friend of mine had a very heavy landing overseas in a narrow body jet when caught in a microburst. They initiated the go around with TOGA power and still touched down on the runway at 1000 feet per minute rate of descent.

The windshear modes of the aircraft are fairly advanced, but sometimes you get little warning until you are already in it.

 

[jb747]

A friend of mine had a very heavy landing overseas in a narrow body jet when caught in a microburst. They initiated the go around with TOGA power and still touched down on the runway at 1000 feet per minute rate of descent.

The windshear modes of the aircraft are fairly advanced, but sometimes you get little warning until you are already in it.

On one landing in Sydney 25, the windshear warning went off just as the thrust was pulled to idle in the flare. Even with an immediate selection of TOGA, we lost 30 knots of airspeed in 1.5 seconds. Thankfully this all happened about 5 feet above the ground, and it was a 767....so very powerful, and built like a brick outhouse. The arrival was very solid...I won't call it a landing. The conditions were extremely windy but the sky was totally clear of cloud. That's a reactive windshear warning. There was no cloud/moisture for the predictive system to work on.