Simultaneous arrivals at Melbourne
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simultaneous arrivals at Melbourne
I don't work in aviation, but as a professional working with practically all other transport modes on land and water and a passenger by air at least weekly, I take more than a passing interest in my flights.
This morning whilst arriving in Melbourne on the Qantas redeye from Perth I was surprised to observe another aircraft simultaneously approaching the perpendicular runway from our right. It appeared that we both touched down at the same time, or within seconds of each other. It was dark, but I'm fairly sure the other aircraft was a Qantas 744.
Whilst we exited the runway before the intersection of the two runways, this didn't seem to me to be very satisfactory separation of aircraft. My question to the experts here is whether this was within normal operating procedure? I'm not prone to the safety hysteria beloved by the media, but I didn't feel too comfortable today.
This morning whilst arriving in Melbourne on the Qantas redeye from Perth I was surprised to observe another aircraft simultaneously approaching the perpendicular runway from our right. It appeared that we both touched down at the same time, or within seconds of each other. It was dark, but I'm fairly sure the other aircraft was a Qantas 744.
Whilst we exited the runway before the intersection of the two runways, this didn't seem to me to be very satisfactory separation of aircraft. My question to the experts here is whether this was within normal operating procedure? I'm not prone to the safety hysteria beloved by the media, but I didn't feel too comfortable today.
Theres a reason why people thought the world was flat.. observation of a certain perspective and all that.
A passenger looking out a 12"x8" hole in a metal tube might also make an observation from their perspective, like you have, that something you know very little about is unsafe.
Rest assured the guy in the tower knew exactly what was happening as did the pilots. If there was a breakdown in separation, it will be reported to the ATSB.
A passenger looking out a 12"x8" hole in a metal tube might also make an observation from their perspective, like you have, that something you know very little about is unsafe.
Rest assured the guy in the tower knew exactly what was happening as did the pilots. If there was a breakdown in separation, it will be reported to the ATSB.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, N.S.W. Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Morning,
Land and hold short operations (LAHSO) are used at Melbourne.
There is a brief description of LAHSO here:
LAHSO Operations - What is it?
Cheers.
Land and hold short operations (LAHSO) are used at Melbourne.
There is a brief description of LAHSO here:
LAHSO Operations - What is it?
Cheers.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't seem to be a very clever or safe idea.
Maybe in a perfect World, however what IF the aircraft that is holding short on touchdown has a brake failure or as it is about to touch HAS to go round, seems to be a dangerous idea.
Maybe in a perfect World, however what IF the aircraft that is holding short on touchdown has a brake failure or as it is about to touch HAS to go round, seems to be a dangerous idea.
UQB709, a good question and well-spotted from the 'hole' of the usual airline cabin! As previous posters explain, at Melbourne, this operation is normal due to the airport having to handle a volume of traffic it was never designed for. Simultanous parallel operations, used at many other airports around the world, are much safer and more efficient.
Melbourne Airport Corporation is too busy building duty free shops, car parks and fighting the light rail to the airport, to bother with a timely parallel runway system. There may be one eventually, but not in my lifetime!
Melbourne Airport Corporation is too busy building duty free shops, car parks and fighting the light rail to the airport, to bother with a timely parallel runway system. There may be one eventually, but not in my lifetime!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsupport
I bet you'd also take a swipe at the extra holding and delays caused by a reduction in the number of movements that would result if it wasn't allowed.
There are rules around its use and participants are trained. Works well.
I bet you'd also take a swipe at the extra holding and delays caused by a reduction in the number of movements that would result if it wasn't allowed.
There are rules around its use and participants are trained. Works well.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airsupport
I bet you'd also take a swipe at the extra holding and delays caused by a reduction in the number of movements that would result if it wasn't allowed.
There are rules around its use and participants are trained. Works well.
I bet you'd also take a swipe at the extra holding and delays caused by a reduction in the number of movements that would result if it wasn't allowed.
There are rules around its use and participants are trained. Works well.
After more than 40 years in the Industry, working all over the World, I assure you I would NOT complain about such delays, SAFETY is the main thing, always was in my career, and this idea we are talking about is just way too risky for my liking.
I know what you mean about pax, I wish I had a dollar for every pax I have ever heard whine about a delay, even delays caused by essential maintenance work, I used to say to them would you rather be 30 minutes late to your destination OR crash half way, that usually stopped them complaining.
I have seen many silly ideas in my Lifetime, but this is one of the silliest and most dangerous, an accident waiting to happen.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe in a perfect World, however what IF the aircraft that is holding short on touchdown has a brake failure or as it is about to touch HAS to go round, seems to be a dangerous idea.
An Ansett A320 was nearly taken out by a foreign airline in Sydney using these procedures. Foreign airlines are now prohibited from taking part in these procedures.
There are many safeguards and much training done (in cockpit and control tower) there are set weather parameters that must be met i.e. crosswind, visibility and dryness of runways. And certain performance aircraft cannot take part as well i.e. B747, A380 etc.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many safeguards and much training done (in cockpit and control tower) there are set weather parameters that must be met i.e. crosswind, visibility and dryness of runways. And certain performance aircraft cannot take part as well i.e. B747, A380 etc.
I have seen many things in my Lifetime in the Industry, but this has to be one of the silliest and most dangerous.
Airsupport, you can compare all sorts of activities, by definition some will be more dangerous than others.
For example, comparing land transport, fatalities in rail travel are far lower compared to road transport (according to US govt. stats here). However, you won't see anyone advocating that everyone stop using cars because it is more dangerous than going on a train...
People, be that governments, organisations, or individuals will decide what is an acceptable risk and what is not. Obviously in this case it has been decided that LAHSO is sufficiently safe when conducted in accordance with certain procedures surrounding training, meteorological conditions, etc.
If CASA (the government) did not think it was sufficiently safe, LAHSO would be prohibited.
If air operators do not think it is sufficiently safe, they would not participate (I worked for a company who disallowed active LAHSO participation, Passive LAHSO was the maximum).
If individuals do not think LAHSO operations are sufficiently safe, they are not forced to fly on any air carrier. They can choose other methods of travel, or if they are really concerned about it, they can research what carriers participate in activities such as LAHSO and elect to fly on other carriers.
Looking at things another way, it is also dangerous to have more than one aircraft in the same piece of sky at the same time. Over time separation standards, and air traffic control systems have been developed to manage this risk. However, the system is still not fail-safe, nor do I think it possibly could be, however the risk is acceptable to most people. If you think it is unsafe you're perfectly entitled to voice your opinion and to lobby for the system to be changed or improved, chances are you'll be ignored, as the risk is acceptable to most people.
For example, comparing land transport, fatalities in rail travel are far lower compared to road transport (according to US govt. stats here). However, you won't see anyone advocating that everyone stop using cars because it is more dangerous than going on a train...
People, be that governments, organisations, or individuals will decide what is an acceptable risk and what is not. Obviously in this case it has been decided that LAHSO is sufficiently safe when conducted in accordance with certain procedures surrounding training, meteorological conditions, etc.
If CASA (the government) did not think it was sufficiently safe, LAHSO would be prohibited.
If air operators do not think it is sufficiently safe, they would not participate (I worked for a company who disallowed active LAHSO participation, Passive LAHSO was the maximum).
If individuals do not think LAHSO operations are sufficiently safe, they are not forced to fly on any air carrier. They can choose other methods of travel, or if they are really concerned about it, they can research what carriers participate in activities such as LAHSO and elect to fly on other carriers.
Looking at things another way, it is also dangerous to have more than one aircraft in the same piece of sky at the same time. Over time separation standards, and air traffic control systems have been developed to manage this risk. However, the system is still not fail-safe, nor do I think it possibly could be, however the risk is acceptable to most people. If you think it is unsafe you're perfectly entitled to voice your opinion and to lobby for the system to be changed or improved, chances are you'll be ignored, as the risk is acceptable to most people.
Hmmm. Another SLF here.
Just had a look at WebTrak. At 06:08:23, QF648 from Perth approaching from the south is committed and at 466 ft, whilst JST8 is similarily committed from the east and at 666 ft.
Obviously a good result, as there's no news of a catastrophic stuffup!
Just had a look at WebTrak. At 06:08:23, QF648 from Perth approaching from the south is committed and at 466 ft, whilst JST8 is similarily committed from the east and at 666 ft.
Obviously a good result, as there's no news of a catastrophic stuffup!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys can take the pi$$ as much as you like, doesn't worry me. 
I have seen some very odd things, particularly in many parts of the USA for some reason, also in Vietnam, Russia and many other places, and I still say that this is taking a risk with safety.
I have seen some very odd things, particularly in many parts of the USA for some reason, also in Vietnam, Russia and many other places, and I still say that this is taking a risk with safety.
When you live....
All this is true, however the fact that they feel the need to do all this extra training only reinforces the fact that it is NOT as safe a way of doing things.
CatIII should not be allowed, in fact IFR should not be allowed, actually ATPL really is unsafe, well then, CPL must be unsafe, as must PPL as must GFPT as must first solo (not to mention it being unsafe to drive to the airport - all that extra training to get a drivers license).
Airsupport - I'm not trying to take the p$$$ but I am trying to say everything in life since emerging from the cave has a risk to it and all risks can be assessed, mitigated and then reassessed to see if the level of safety is acceptable. For LAHSO the mitigation is the requirements and the training and the right of any party to decline to take part.
Just ask JQ management about the process of risk assessments (A320 go-round at MEL).
UTR
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at Google Earth, there seems to be plenty of open space west of the airfield for a 16/34 parallel runway. Is it too costly to purchase the land beside the airfield to build a parallel runway?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
training wheels - yes. Cost to build new RWY, $some. Increased revenue, $0. Like all capital city airports it is a privately owned monopoly with govt regulated landing fees.
airsupport - I think we can agree SIMOPS is less safe than not SIMOPS. However the increased risk is mitigated and acceptable. I know how you feel though, I instinctively feel uncomfortable about ETOPS, despite intellectually knowing the all scientific evidence says its safe.
An example of how rigorous the risk management is, when SIMOPS was tried at PH, one airline declined to let is B737's use the procedure because the landing distance available was 4 meters less than they required (over something like 2000m of rwy).
airsupport - I think we can agree SIMOPS is less safe than not SIMOPS. However the increased risk is mitigated and acceptable. I know how you feel though, I instinctively feel uncomfortable about ETOPS, despite intellectually knowing the all scientific evidence says its safe.
An example of how rigorous the risk management is, when SIMOPS was tried at PH, one airline declined to let is B737's use the procedure because the landing distance available was 4 meters less than they required (over something like 2000m of rwy).
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nautilus Blue refers to SIMOPS which was the early version of LAHSO.
SIMOPS was pretty much open slather. From memory there were landing distances published that were linked to the aircraft's performance category.
1167m comes to mind for Cat A/B.
There were no hold short lights across runways. I think the procedures were published in AIP, so it was expected that everyone should know the drill
The Sydney incident referred to by Jack Ranga was when some serious focus was applied to SIMOPS. Also, possible rorting and illegal use of the procedure at various locations probably hastened it's demise.
As an aside, and this was in the 90's I believe, controllers at Sydney and Melbourne (and possibly other suitable airports) received a SIMOPS allowance for their trouble. So SIMOPS was used as much it could.
LASHO is son of SIMOPS and is much more controlled. It is laid down in
AIP ENR 1.1-59 29 and AD 1.1-26 4.10.9. At Melbourne, a good LAHSO sequence is fascinating to watch. Check out WebTrack any weekdays when the weather's suitable
For me the only dodgy bit are the weather requirements.
Ceiling not less than 1000ft
A double go-round with both parties in cloud over the intersection would have an interesting outcome. (Yo TCAS!!) It would be the only thing to save the day, and even then it would be close.
SIMOPS was pretty much open slather. From memory there were landing distances published that were linked to the aircraft's performance category.
1167m comes to mind for Cat A/B.
There were no hold short lights across runways. I think the procedures were published in AIP, so it was expected that everyone should know the drill
The Sydney incident referred to by Jack Ranga was when some serious focus was applied to SIMOPS. Also, possible rorting and illegal use of the procedure at various locations probably hastened it's demise.
As an aside, and this was in the 90's I believe, controllers at Sydney and Melbourne (and possibly other suitable airports) received a SIMOPS allowance for their trouble. So SIMOPS was used as much it could.
LASHO is son of SIMOPS and is much more controlled. It is laid down in
AIP ENR 1.1-59 29 and AD 1.1-26 4.10.9. At Melbourne, a good LAHSO sequence is fascinating to watch. Check out WebTrack any weekdays when the weather's suitable
For me the only dodgy bit are the weather requirements.
Ceiling not less than 1000ft
A double go-round with both parties in cloud over the intersection would have an interesting outcome. (Yo TCAS!!) It would be the only thing to save the day, and even then it would be close.
Let's not forget that the Ansett A320 incident with LASHO ops was made a lot worse by the Pilots in A320 flighting on the Sidesticks!! One guy pushed forward and the other pulled back. Dual input and the Aircraft didn't climb steep enough, just missed the International wide body stopped in the intersection. The Pilots were x 89 and on the other side of the fence so to speak!!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airsupport - I think we can agree SIMOPS is less safe than not SIMOPS. However the increased risk is mitigated and acceptable. I know how you feel though, I instinctively feel uncomfortable about ETOPS, despite intellectually knowing the all scientific evidence says its safe.
Who said your gut feeling about ETOPS is wrong.
I will never forget at Boeing Seattle when Ansett were getting their first B767s, the Boeing Instructor gave us the official Boeing policy, then his personal thoughts on it.
He said just remember when you are out over the middle of the Pacific someone and one engine fails, that the other engine came out of the same factory, assembled by the same people using the same components, he reckoned the odds of the other engine failing too were very short.
