Ask The Pilot

[JessicaTam]

March is still in the blank line, so I’ll never know with more than 2 days notice. But, that last QF9 is being flown by a Sydney crew, so very unlikely to come to anyone based in Melbourne, unless they have sickness on the day.

Was that something they bid for, or just that they will have to come back on QF2?

 

[eric2011]

It will take a while, but I suspect the ultimate answer will be to blow in a bag before every flight.

Us as passengers don't have a problem with that but how do you as a pilot feel about it

 

[jb747]

Was that something they bid for, or just that they will have to come back on QF2?

Just the way the patterns were built. They were never offered to Melbourne based people.

 

[jb747]

Us as passengers don't have a problem with that but how do you as a pilot feel about it

I don't care. But I'd like to see it extended to any form of management...especially after lunch!

 

[Quickstatus]

On the "checkerboard" approach into Kai Tak (old HKG) the aircraft had to intersect some radio beacons called outer (OM) and middle marker (MM). MM was also the MAP.

Do you remember what was the indication confirming interception of the radio beacon?

There was also a warning on the chart - " continued flight on the instrument guidance system' after the middle marker will result in the loss of terrain clearance". What does this mean?

 

[kookaburra75]

Just landed into Dubai on QF2, and due to the fog (300m visibility) they came in on auto-land, which was quite cool. I was waiting for the flare, but we just trundled onto the runway smoothly. Is there a lower limit to using auto-land?

 

[Quickstatus]

Would appreciate an Aviators’ perspective on the OneSky project - integration of military and civilian ATC

 

[RooFlyer]

Would appreciate an Aviators’ perspective on the OneSky project - integration of military and civilian ATC

Beat me to it. This article in today's Australian: Flying off course: how OneSKY failed to launch (May be pay-walled; Google the headline).

In part:

The Australian National Audit Office reported that OneSKY won’t even get near the 2021 completion target — full operational capability is tentatively put down for 2025, but even that remains in doubt because that contract with Thales was not signed in October 2015. In fact, it still has not been signed, though Airservices says it will be by the end of next month.

“The offer and negotiation process has been protracted, in part due to misalignment of customer approval processes through two separate governance structures, but also due to Thales not yet producing an acceptable offer that represents value for money for Defence and Airservices,” ANAO says. It notes that there is no way Defence will get what it wants out of OneSKY on its current budget, and it would need “a significant real cost increase” bailout from the federal government.

A big part of the problem, ANAO found, was that what Airservices and Defence were attempting had never been tried before, anywhere. “The joint civil-military acquisition originally intended to procure a largely commercial off-the-shelf (or military off-the-shelf) system; however, the only compliant and viable solutions tendered all required significant development and integration effort to deliver the specified capability.

“Furthermore, there are no similar civil-military air traffic management systems fielded elsewhere in the world.”

 

[jb747]

On the "checkerboard" approach into Kai Tak (old HKG) the aircraft had to intersect some radio beacons called outer (OM) and middle marker (MM). MM was also the MAP.

Do you remember what was the indication confirming interception of the radio beacon?

The markers are really relics of history. They had a audio component (a tone that would appear as you passed over them) and also set off some form of indicator in the coughpit. The outer marker was approximately at the start of the the descent on the ILS, and it's still used as a height check (actually an altimetry QNH check). Middle markers were basically at the point of Cat I minima, and inner pretty much at the threshold. Almost all approaches now have either a co-located DME for the checks, or have GPS positions.

There was also a warning on the chart - " continued flight on the instrument guidance system' after the middle marker will result in the loss of terrain clearance". What does this mean?

The IGS pointed you on a 3º descent, straight at the hill the held the checkerboard. If you continued on that course after the minima (middle marker), you'd impact that hill about 35 seconds later. A turn through 47º was required to line up with the runway....or to go around. It was great fun, but potentially very dangerous.

 

[jb747]

Just landed into Dubai on QF2, and due to the fog (300m visibility) they came in on auto-land, which was quite cool. I was waiting for the flare, but we just trundled onto the runway smoothly. Is there a lower limit to using auto-land?

You should have been there earlier. The visibility, and length of holding, were appreciably worse.

Fog only ever appears in calm conditions, so the approaches are always lovely and stable. This morning we were visual on top of the fog/cloud until about 300' (i.e. we hadn't even entered the gloop until then). The auto land system flares a bit differently to the pilots, basically integrating the radar altitude and thrust to give a more gradual flare and thrust reduction. The downside is that it uses up more runway in the flare.

Autoland is pretty useless in gusty conditions.

Cat IIIB approaches were in force in Dubai this morning, which meant that there was no minimum altitude, and the visibility requirement was 75 metres. Taxiing becomes more of an issue than the landing.

There were also a number of diversions, especially of 737s which were not IIIB capable. Rather messily there was also one emergency call due to low fuel. Most of the nearby diversion fields also had fog.

 

[Quickstatus]

Was checkerboard the only approach into Kai Tak?.

 

[jb747]

Dubai this morning....

 

[jb747]

Was checkerboard the only approach into Kai Tak?.

The checkerboard was a 'target' on the hill. At the end of the approach you had to continue visually towards the board until you reached a position from which you'd turn to line up with the runway. Minima was about 675', and I think you started the turn at about 470'. You'd roll out on finals at about 200'. You had to get the line up right, as there was no time/room to fix it. Most of the coughpy landings there were caused by poor line up, and not being willing to admit it and go around. The IGS was a precision approach down towards the checkerboard, but it did not lead you to the runway. There was also at least one other (non precision) approach that brought you through the harbour to about the same end point. There was an ILS on to the the other runway. The IGS/checkerboard related to landings on 13, whilst the ILS was to 31.

 

[jb747]

Would appreciate an Aviators’ perspective on the OneSky project - integration of military and civilian ATC

I don't know anything about it, but I have zero faith in the ability of government organisations to effectively conclude any large projects. About the only thing the military gets right are those projects that are not Australianised. Buy a standard aircraft, with normal weaponry and support, and it works well. Modify it to suit Oz, and you end up with the disaster that was Seasprite. Air Services fall much lower on the scale than DoD.

 

[Strategic Aviation]

you end up with the disaster that was Seahawk.

Did you mean Super Seasprite?

 

[jb747]

Did you mean Super Seasprite?

Oops. Seahawk good. Seasprite rubbish.

Edited.

 

[Quickstatus]

Were you able to carry extra fuel into foggy DXB.

.....

Would a flight like SCL-IPC (Easter a island) plan to carry enough fuel to return to origin in case it is unable to land at IPC? What are the alternates for IPC?

 

[iRobbo]

Would appreciate an Aviators’ perspective on the OneSky project - integration of military and civilian ATC

The current systems (civil and military) are close to end of life. They bought their own systems back in the 90’s and they don’t communicate well with each other, so they’re trying to solve that problem with one system for both. There is enough media coverage on the tendering process so far for you to make your own mind up. I doubt I’ll see the new system and I’m in my late 40’s....

 

[jb747]

Were you able to carry extra fuel into foggy DXB.

We carried extra fuel, right up to maximum brakes release, out of Melbourne. That gave us about 90 minutes of available holding in Dubai, before we'd have to go to Muscat, which was the alternate that I intended using. Given the conditions, you actually needed to carry that alternate all the way to touchdown, which we did with about 3 tonnes margin.

The trap is that once diversions start, the alternate airfields may simply refuse to accept any arrivals, or may themselves start imposing significant holding. All of the nearby fields, with the exception of Fujairah, also had fog. Whilst we can use FJ for planning, it's not a smart move. It refused to accept any heavies....which is not surprising given its very limited aprons. The aircraft that declared the emergency had been planning to use it. When you start hearing people talking about landing with 200 kgs (!) of fuel, the ability to get buses for the passengers isn't at the top of the list of things to be thought about.

Would a flight like SCL-IPC (Easter a island) plan to carry enough fuel to return to origin in case it is unable to land at IPC? What are the alternates for IPC?

Isolated airports are handled in a couple of ways. One is to have an arbitrary additional holding fuel (90 minutes or so) on top of any normal requirements. The regulator would have to decide whether that was acceptable. Having a look at the docs for IPC shows that the Chileans limit the number of aircraft that could potentially be using it, by ensuring that no aircraft has passed the point of no return, if there is another closer to the island...they risk one aircraft at a time. Carrying enough fuel to return to your start point, or in fact, ANY point, simply may not be possible. Contrary to popular opinion, in fine weather, most aircraft do not have enough fuel to go very far when landing. Aircraft landing at Melbourne might be able to get to Avalon, but unless forced by the weather, will not be able to go to Adelaide/Sydney/Canberra.

 

[JohnM]

The current systems (civil and military) are close to end of life. They bought their own systems back in the 90’s and they don’t communicate well with each other, so they’re trying to solve that problem with one system for both. There is enough media coverage on the tendering process so far for you to make your own mind up. I doubt I’ll see the new system and I’m in my late 40’s....

What happens in the US where the amount of both civil and military traffic would massively dwarf that in the roughly similar land area of Australia?