Ask The Pilot

[jb747]

What landing aids are there for 09? Is there an ILS? How is it higher capacity with 16 and not 34? Thanks for your reply.

ILS is so old school. Looking at the CASA page, there's a GPS based arrival track that gets you down to about 500' AGL, and also a GLS, which is a synthetic ILS based on GPS signals. Good enough for auto land for some aircraft and runways.

 

[QFflyermelbourne]

For the aircraft that have got the equipment, a GLS is available. Similar to an ILS but no ground based aid. Otherwise, it’s just a straight RNAV (GPS based approach).

It allows for more flow, because you can have an arriving and departing at the same time. No other configuration allows this. There’s LAHSO (Land and hold short ops on 27/34 config, which allows 2 simultaneous landings, but not departures.

When 16 is in use we’ll often do our take off figures from taxiway E. This is south of the runway intersection so you can depart on 16 and have an aircraft landing on 09 at the same time behind you.

Thank AV! Plus I guess it has the benefit of landings on 09 can then taxi back to any of the terminals without having the hold up of crossing 16/34. The question becomes why the hell didn't they think of this sooner? Especially as there is little development on that side. If prevailing winds weren't typically favourable why can it suddenly work now?

 

[AviatorInsight]

The question becomes why the hell didn't they think of this sooner? Especially as there is little development on that side. If prevailing winds weren't typically favourable why can it suddenly work now?

I too have those same questions. They even had a 5kt tailwind on 09 the other day and they still didn’t change it to 27. I try to not let it get to me as much, I just accept it as being just MEL. As I mentioned in the previous reply “they’re slowly sorting their s*** out here”.

 

[woodborer]

I too have those same questions. They even had a 5kt tailwind on 09 the other day and they still didn’t change it to 27. I try to not let it get to me as much, I just accept it as being just MEL. As I mentioned in the previous reply “they’re slowly sorting their s*** out here”.

Do noise abatement procedure have an affect here?
http://aircraftnoiseinfo.bksv.com/melbourne/runways/

The Melbourne Noise Abatement Procedures outline that between 6.00 am and 11.00 pm, when there is not heavy traffic, Runways 16 and 27 are equally preferred for landing. Runway 27 used in combination with Runway 34, and Runway 27 used alone, are equally preferred for departures.

During busy periods between 6.00 am and 11.00 pm, Runways 27 and 34 used in combination and Runways 34 and 09 used in combination are equally preferred.

At night, between 11.00 pm and 6.00 am, the preferred runway for arrivals is Runway 16 and for departures is Runway 27.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Do noise abatement procedure have an affect here?
http://aircraftnoiseinfo.bksv.com/melbourne/runways/

You’re right it does. But as priority goes you’ll see that the combination of 09/16 is the second most preferred, behind the 2 that you stated which are equal first and definitely the most common.

 

[D747]

What happens if you accept a LAHSO on 34 and then you have an aborted landing, a go-around or a braking issue of some sort?

 

[QFflyermelbourne]

Interesting numbers on the airservices page. Between July and Sept only 69 arrivals and 39 departures on runway 09. It's the last three months where I've noticed aircraft arriving on it fairly frequently so I will be very curious to read the Oct-Dec numbers when they are published.

 

[jb747]

What happens if you accept a LAHSO on 34 and then you have an aborted landing, a go-around or a braking issue of some sort?

For starters, LAHSO is not available to all operators, aircraft types, and in all weather conditions. There is also a stagger to the landings, so that even if both aircraft go over the intersection, they should not do so at the same time. But, as is inherent in any intersection operation, there is a risk of it going wrong. That risk is low, but not zero. I expect the major risk though, is not a collision, but an infringement of the separation standards. That happened a year or ago. Nevertheless, getting rid of intersecting operations and having a proper parallel runway operation is much safer.

Ground collision is probably the greatest risk in any airport operation, and unless you have an airport design that does not need aircraft to cross operating runways, that risk will still be there. Perhaps even magnified.

The term “aborted landing” is a media invention. Go around is the correct term. A go around can be carried out up until the point that reverse thrust is selected, so it could be initiated from the ground, although the window for doing so is tiny, as reverse is selected immediately upon touchdown.

Runway 34 in Melbourne is almost the perfect place for LAHSO. The runway is uphill, and quite long. I think I would have had to add power to get an A380 to roll as far as the intersection.

 

[Major]

JB, as a matter of interest, how many hours did you end up with as a pilot ?

 

[AviatorInsight]

Runway 34 in Melbourne is almost the perfect place for LAHSO. The runway is uphill, and quite long. I think I would have had to add power to get an A380 to roll as far as the intersection.

That's pretty impressive with the momentum of the A380!

Landing on 34 with the rapid out for a few months meant a roll through to taxiway E. I regularly only went to idle reverse and auto brake off and still needed to add thrust to minimise runway occupancy time. Granted there were strong headwinds but still...

 

[jb747]

That's pretty impressive with the momentum of the A380!

Landing on 34 with the rapid out for a few months meant a roll through to taxiway E. I regularly only went to idle reverse and auto brake off and still needed to add thrust to minimise runway occupancy time. Granted there were strong headwinds but still...

We normally didn't use the high speed unless we were prepared to put a lot of heat into the brakes. So, we could, but it was undesirable. E, even with idle reverse, was easy.

Many years ago, I did some research on the 747's reverse thrust. One of the interesting things I found was that the wheel drag, no brakes, just drag, was in the order of 12,000 lbs. The 380 is likely to have even more than that, simply because it has another bogey set. Plus, for the huge aircraft that it is, the approach speeds are quite low. Around 132 knots, so quite a bit slower than the 747, and I expect the 737 too.

 

[opusman]

One of the interesting things I found was that the wheel drag, no brakes, just drag, was in the order of 12,000 lbs.

Even more if the tyres burst!

 

[AviatorInsight]

Plus, for the huge aircraft that it is, the approach speeds are quite low. Around 132 knots, so quite a bit slower than the 747, and I expect the 737 too.

Wow, that is slow! Our normal flap 30 landings are around the 145-150kt mark at a normal 60-65t landing weight.

 

[jb747]

Even more if the tyres burst!

Probably less...but hopefully that's not a LAHSO consideration.

 

[Captain Halliday]

Speaking of tyres bursting...

Q-Link DHC-8 returns to CBR after blowing a tyre on takeoff

My questions from this video are about CRM and procedures.

In normal circumstances does the PM handles radio comms as part of the monitoring duties?

If so, does the alternating of the voices from the downwind leg to final in this video indicate control of the aircraft was being passed back an forth? Or would the least busy person at the time respond to ATC?

Is it a company requirement that the captain handle the landing in circumstances like this, regardless of who was flying the sector?

 

[jb747]

JB, as a matter of interest, how many hours did you end up with as a pilot ?

22,398.

That's a little less than I thought I had, but Excel won't lie, I'm sure. There's another 1,100 or so in the back seat, but I never did digitise that....

 

[jb747]

Speaking of tyres bursting...

Q-Link DHC-8 returns to CBR after blowing a tyre on takeoff

My questions from this video are about CRM and procedures.

In normal circumstances does the PM handles radio comms as part of the monitoring duties?

The supporting pilot does the radio normally...until the Captain decides to intervene.

If so, does the alternating of the voices from the downwind leg to final in this video indicate control of the aircraft was being passed back an forth? Or would the least busy person at the time respond to ATC?

Well, you can tell the FO what you want him to tell ATC, or you can do it yourself. Rules don't necessarily cover all scenarios equally. Most of us can fly and talk at the same time. Not all though.

Is it a company requirement that the captain handle the landing in circumstances like this, regardless of who was flying the sector?

It was a Qantas requirement that the Captain do all non normal landings. QLink is not Qantas, and whilst it's likely their rules are similar, they are not necessarily the same.

Irrespective of what company rules say, once you are in any sort of emergency situation, it is up to the Captain to manage it as best he can. If that means the FO should land, then so be it.

 

[Saab34]

AI. I was in Cairns the other week and noted on departure limited ability for EFATO should you lose both at or during the upwind low level left turn (15 departure)

Would you attempt a field return (dis used runway?) or put it down with the crocs?

I also noted 50/50 of crew backtrack or not. It’s not a whole lot of distance but I’d imagine that little bit extra could get you back down on firm land.

 

[AviatorInsight]

AI. I was in Cairns the other week and noted on departure limited ability for EFATO should you lose both at or during the upwind low level left turn (15 departure)

Would you attempt a field return (dis used runway?) or put it down with the crocs?

I also noted 50/50 of crew backtrack or not. It’s not a whole lot of distance but I’d imagine that little bit extra could get you back down on firm land.

Trying to put it down on an immediate return to the field would depend on the amount of altitude you gained. If you lost both of them before the low level turn (which for us occurs at the departure end of the runway and depending on how heavy you are, you could be below 400ft) then you may end up swimming with the crocs although I would definitely try and get as close as I could to land and hopefully pull it up before the lagoon on the beach there.

With regards to the backtracking, it's all got to do with performance. If it's before 6am local time then it's full length for noise abatement. After that it really becomes a case of performance and time. We almost always accept the intersection if we can. It saves a lot of time. The discussion of runway behind you is really a moot point because at V1, you're going regardless. Your V1 speed at the intersection will be less than the full length. So you reach that speed quicker and are committed to continue earlier. If you were to try put it back down on the remaining runway, you wouldn't be able to stop in time anyway and of course overrun. Now at the upwind end of 15, you've got built up houses and a car park which you most certainly would hit.

So at the end of the day it's a judgement call but you'd definitely avoid the built up area at all costs.

 

[Saab34]

Thanks. The last three flights out I had were 7pm departures and A321 (every seat taken). All took the full length. All VA flights I have taken have taken the intersection.

What’s the glide performance like on the 73 ? You think at this point you would make the disused runway/taxiways etc...