Ask The Pilot

[mjt57]

As I've said previously, the day I had my 120 gr of toothpaste taken off me by security was the same day the aircraft blew up. Didn't seem to help, though I might have liked to have had that tube later.

QF30?

 

[Saab34]

though all I had to do was call the company.

That seems helpful. So you call an internal security team and the deal with the offload via the police?

 

[jb747]

That seems helpful. So you call an internal security team and the deal with the offload via the police?

You don't generally go straight to security. You speak to the local company agent. They'll have all of the necessary contacts. Very rare for things to elevate to this sort of level though. Perhaps certain nationalities, and football fans, are the most prone to it.....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Hi pilots… interested to know what happens in a situation like this?

On approach to Muscat, ATC advises pilot to descend to 2200 feet, pilot responds the company charts indicate the minimum is 3600 feet.

Turkish Airlines Pilot & Muscat ATC Argue: "I Don't Follow Anyone's Orders"

A Turkish Airlines pilot and Muscat air traffic controller got into a heated argument over minimum safe altitude, and it escalated.

onemileatatime.com

 

[Rabs97]

Hi pilots… interested to know what happens in a situation like this?

On approach to Muscat, ATC advises pilot to descend to 2200 feet, pilot responds the company charts indicate the minimum is 3600 feet.

Turkish Airlines Pilot & Muscat ATC Argue: "I Don't Follow Anyone's Orders"

A Turkish Airlines pilot and Muscat air traffic controller got into a heated argument over minimum safe altitude, and it escalated.

onemileatatime.com

Just what happened in the clip. The Turkish pilot wouldn’t accept a lower radar lowest safe altitude below the published chart Minimum Safe Altitude due to what he said were his company’s SOPs. So instead of being vectored to intercept the ILS closer to the runway (necessitating a lower altitude) they were instead vectored to intercept final further back as number two. The Turkish crew will probably file a safety report back to their company so they can look at it, consult with Oman ATC and possibly amend their procedures. Or not. That’s exactly how the safety management system is supposed to work.

As the article pointed out it was actually handled quite professionally between the two parties. If it had of been in the USA you would’ve heard aggression, ego and “copy this number”.

 

[AviatorInsight]

Hi pilots… interested to know what happens in a situation like this?

On approach to Muscat, ATC advises pilot to descend to 2200 feet, pilot responds the company charts indicate the minimum is 3600 feet.

Turkish Airlines Pilot & Muscat ATC Argue: "I Don't Follow Anyone's Orders"

A Turkish Airlines pilot and Muscat air traffic controller got into a heated argument over minimum safe altitude, and it escalated.

onemileatatime.com

This is good situational awareness from the pilot. A similar situation happens to us coming into NAN.

They will clear us to 3000ft to join the ILS for runway 02. The Minimum Sector Altitude (MSA) in that sector is 3400ft so, if we were to just accept this the we would be joining above the glideslope and a constant battle of trying to slow down and go down would be happening all the way down.

So instead we ask to track to a waypoint a couple of miles south of the initial approach fix. This allows us a bit of extra time to fly a level segment to slow down and then join the glideslope while we are above the MSA.

After a while of this happening, NAN ATC now just clear us to the waypoint we need and it gets rid of that extra step of us having to constantly ask.

In this case, the pilot was being radar vectored. There is also what’s known as a minimum vectoring altitude (MVA) as opposed to MSA. These aren’t always published on the Jeppesen charts and if you are being radar vectored then it is the lowest assigned altitude that ATC can give.

In the end, they might clear you down to 2500ft but it doesn’t mean you need to drive straight down to that altitude. I will always do my own maths to check my profile on the way down.

 

[markis10]

There is also what’s known as a minimum vectoring altitude (MVA) as opposed to MSA. These aren’t always published on the Jeppesen charts and if you are being radar vectored then it is the lowest assigned altitude that ATC can give.

ATCOs need to be across them as part of their sector rating like the back of their hand.. Each MVA chart contains sectors large enough to accommodate the vectoring of aircraft within the sector at the MVA. Each sector boundary is at least 3 miles from the obstruction used to determine the MVA in that sector. In order to avoid cases of large sectors with an excessively high MVA because of isolated prominent obstacles, the obstacle may be enclosed in a buffer area which boundaries are at least 3 miles from the obstacle.

The minimum vectoring altitude in each sector provides 1000 ft above the highest obstruction in non-mountainous areas and 2000 ft above the highest obstacle in designated mountainous areas.

The MVA is the lowest altitude that meets obstacle clearance requirements in the airspace specified. The MVA is temperature corrected . ICAO PANS ATM, 8.6.5.2, Note 2

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Thanks Rabs97 and Aviatorinsight.

Another question… not sure if this has been posted previously on this thread?

What’s going on here… is it safer to line up directly behind than side on? (as in why continue onto the runway instead of just stopping where they were?)

 

[markis10]

Obviously they were given line up clearance and what we cannot see is what’s on approach. There would be no wake turbulence issues, maybe a bit of jet blast at most. We don’t have ATC audio, maybe the A350 was given a line up, expect expedited departure clearance, or just a simple A320 departing, line up behind that aircraft.

 

[jb747]

What’s going on here… is it safer to line up directly behind than side on? (as in why continue onto the runway instead of just stopping where they were?)

Stupid. Way too close.

 

[mjt57]

Stupid. Way too close.

I wonder how much exhaust fumes were sucked in and distributed to the pax on the following aircraft.

 

[jb747]

Obviously they were given line up clearance and what we cannot see is what’s on approach. There would be no wake turbulence issues, maybe a bit of jet blast at most. We don’t have ATC audio, maybe the A350 was given a line up, expect expedited departure clearance, or just a simple A320 departing, line up behind that aircraft.

London, Heathrow. It’s normal to be cleared to line up behind the departing traffic, and there can be multiple taxiways all feeding on to the runway at the same time. There’s no hurry for arriving traffic. You just juggle your speed so that you don’t actually enter the runway before the other aircraft is gone. You do not want to be in the blast, especially side on.

 

[RSD]

@AviatorInsight - was told by a flight attendant on my flight home tonight that the reason MEL is down to single runway ops at the moment is due to there not being enough air traffic controllers to operate both runways at the moment - have you been told the same?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

London, Heathrow. It’s normal to be cleared to line up behind the departing traffic, and there can be multiple taxiways all feeding on to the runway at the same time. There’s no hurry for arriving traffic. You just juggle your speed so that you don’t actually enter the runway before the other aircraft is gone. You do not want to be in the blast, especially side on.

Thanks!

So on the off chance the pilot didnt see the a320 ready for takeoff… better they lined up directly behind than side on (ie with the front half of the aircraft directly in the blast range?)

Is something like that easy to miss?

 

[Brissy1]

Thanks Rabs97 and Aviatorinsight.

Another question… not sure if this has been posted previously on this thread?

What’s going on here… is it safer to line up directly behind than side on? (as in why continue onto the runway instead of just stopping where they were?)

Maybe he took the instruction "... behind that aircraft line up" too literally. ESL issue?

 

[jb747]

So on the off chance the pilot didnt see the a320 ready for takeoff… better they lined up directly behind than side on (ie with the front half of the aircraft directly in the blast range?).

Better to tell ATC. I expect they’d just get the 320 to roll forward a bit. UK ATC are helpful, in exactly the same way that JFK’s aren’t.

Is something like that easy to miss?

His clearance would have been predicated on it, so I wouldn’t think so.

Maybe he took the instruction "... behind that aircraft line up" too literally. ESL issue?

It’s the normal clearance from that spot…

 

[markis10]

single runway ops at the moment is due to there not being enough air traffic controllers to operate both runways at the moment - have you been told the same?

One controller operates both runways, after all can you imagine how hard it would be with two given they cross? Where there is more than one runway /apron controller they will have seperate frequencies.

 

[AviatorInsight]

@AviatorInsight - was told by a flight attendant on my flight home tonight that the reason MEL is down to single runway ops at the moment is due to there not being enough air traffic controllers to operate both runways at the moment - have you been told the same?

Like Markis10 mentioned, only one controller operates both runways given they intersect each other. It’s not like Sydney and Brisbane. I believe it was windy yesterday, so that would be my guess as to the single runway ops. I could hear aircraft getting slowed down into MEL.

 

[Major]

AV
Do you have to request flights to NAN or is it part of your normal roster ?