VATJPN
By Scott DeWoody 1003218
#515899 Was flying into RJAA the other day, I was at 33000 ft, approximately 100 miles out and got pinged by the Approach controller to contact him. I noticed his ATIS, and it had : landing and departing rwys 34L and R, when the winds dictated landing south. So as to not cause trouble, I just logged off and landed on 16L.

Also not that familiar with the runway assignments there, and I prefer to land "into" the wind rather than with a tail wind.

So... is there a TRACON Ceiling? In most places I've seen, it's anywhere between 10K and 16K.

Thanks in advance for anyone that can provide this information.
By Markus Vitzethum 815055
#516010 Hi Scott,

I agree (from a pilot's point of view) that I would expect an approach control to look up to, say, 13000'-18000'. So, when near top of descent and being busy with descent I'm not in a rush to contact approach.

But I wondered why you disconnected then. Basically, as you surely now, as a pilot you can request anything to ensure the safety (even the efficiency) of its flight. So why not just request ILS16L? Especially when traffic is light, this is not causing trouble, I'm sure. 8)

Regards,
Markus

p.s.
And quite some time ago, with a controller I knew very well, I requested for the fun of it. :D
Me: "request direct King Abdulaziz"
Ctr: "say again"
Me "request direct King Abdulaziz"
Ctr: "say again
Ctr "ah - you want to go direct to Jeddah" :D
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#516011 Hi Scott,

sometimes the ceiling of APP-control can reach up to FL250. If a controller pings you earlier than that, then you should be grateful that he obviously is trying to extend his services and offer you more. We are here for active air traffic control, not to fly on unicom.

I found it strange that you logged off just based on the information of the controller's ATIS. Maybe he simply forgot to update the operating runways? The great thing of us human beings is the fact that we have mouths and we can use it to clarify or, if preferred, request a different runway. Please also note that several airports have a so called "preferential runway system" that dictates operations up to (usually) 5kts of tailwind. Airliners do not have any sort of problem to officially and safely land under these circumstances. Especially at the end of a flight you would have burnt most of your fuel and you will be light, so no problem with landing performance whatsoever.

So, next time, PLEASE PLEASE do not just logoff. Talk to the controller in question and clarify the information that you find dubious. And if you prefer another runway, just ask for it. If it is not possible, don't be too afraid to land with a little bit of tailwind as long as you have a long runway (>8,000ft) and the tailwind-component is 10kts or less. Even a B747 has no trouble under these circumstances.
By Sean Harrison 870618
#516018 I believe this is the reason why artcc's/divisions/regions should make their local policies clearly defined and readily available. To encourage people to fly in more places, it should be easier to find the differences.

After having an issue in Singapore artcc, I think not having documents to reference will only put people off. Would be interesting what the SUPs will utilise for reference, if contacted in similar situations.

My thoughts are that whenever a person controlling sends a "contact me" then you should so, but then call a SUP for clarification on the differences.

I think I would have contacted the controller, requested 16, and then maybe logged off if denied.
By Sean Harrison 870618
#516021 1. Runway is wet,
2. Runway is too short,
3. For any reason all the calculations indicate to the pilot that the POH does not support it.

I actually landed in an A380 on 34L Sunday night. Pooring rain, acft was 'light' (on its OW scale), prevailing wind was on the nose, and we needed every inch of that runway to safely land.

If it had been a tail wind, I reckon we would have been off the end.

IF a person flying an acft requests something, then a person providing control services should accomodate the request unless some extra-ordinary circumstance prevails.

When I control, I provide a service. That means to me I assist people flying, other people controlling.
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#516022
Sean Harrison 870618 wrote:1. Runway is wet,
2. Runway is too short,
3. For any reason all the calculations indicate to the pilot that the POH does not support it.
In Tokyo this is definitely not the case, both Haneda and Narita have long runways to support a SLIGHT tailwind.
Sean Harrison 870618 wrote:I actually landed in an A380 on 34L Sunday night. Pooring rain, acft was 'light' (on its OW scale), prevailing wind was on the nose, and we needed every inch of that runway to safely land.

If it had been a tail wind, I reckon we would have been off the end.
If you needed "every inch of that runway" then your aircraft model is faulty. A light A380 will stop within 5,000ft easily, if you use medium autobrake. I would have to look up a performance manual of that bird to give you the exact value. Legally you need to be able to stop within 67% of the available runway length, that's why we need to apply a factor of 1.67 to the actual landing distance. So, landing distance * 1.67 = minimum runway length for your planning.

But I can subscribe to the rest of your message whereas ATC provides a service and should try to accommodate requests by pilots. On the other hand some ATC-units are trying to emulate the real world and if that means that a preferential runway system is used, then us pilots should TRY to also be part of that game.
By Sean Harrison 870618
#516023
Andreas Fuchs 810809 wrote:If you needed "every inch of that runway" then your aircraft model is faulty.


It was a real world flight http://flightaware.com/live/flight/DLH7 ... /EDDF/VHHH

Not sure, as I wasn't the pilot, but it could have been any number of things that added to the need for reverse thrust until J3, and extra braking. We exited at J2, just.

At J5, he increased braking and things started falling out of lockers. Few screams from passengers, but we got off the runway. I haven't checked the performance figures either, but it showed to me how runway length etc can be very important. "runway behind you is useless!"
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#516033 Hi Sean,

that could be explained with a function on the A380 that is called "brake to vacate (BTV)". Basically, before landing the crew selects an exit that they intend to use and the plane will decelerate accordingly, all by itself. Now, if the crew thinks that it is a bit too slippery or if they get told to use another exit and expedite vacating, then they can simply override BTV (or the normal Auto Brake System) by braking manually. This can result in quite some deceleration, as those wheel brakes are very powerful. That's why you must keep you seatbelt fastened until the plane has reached its parking position and the seatbelt signs get turned off: in case that the crew needs to brake sharply for a ground vehicle or similar, you'll be thrown into the seat in front of you. Hardly any passenger has experienced a maximum brake maneuver and it is really impressive! Those brakes look so small, but they are evil.

Btw: the flight you linked landed in Hongkong, not Tokyo!?

Back to our specific case: it would have been interesting to know whether the choice of runway was intentional or not. I myself have forgotten to update the runway configuration more than once and I was happy for a pilot to question the information on my ATIS. So, ladies and gents, don't be afraid to confirm the information given!
By Sean Harrison 870618
#516052 Scott,

I feel your frustration, VATASIA does not appear to publish many of their policies and procedures like other Regions. Even some of their division have web pages that have been dead for months.

I would suggest that if the online community can't provide the information then revert to real world documents. I recently had an issue further south, but still in VATASIA, and they couldn't provide any documented evidence on why a controller was making ascertains.

Applicable region website is http://www.vatjpn.org/en/index.php

Real world Japan AIS is available here https://aisjapan.mlit.go.jp/LoginAction.do

I have a login and will find the info for you, however that won't mean that VATJPN will accept it.
By Andreas Fuchs 810809
#516053
Scott DeWoody 1003218 wrote:These replies are all informative, but didn't answer my question.

What is the tracon ceiling, and lateral boundries?
It does not really matter. If an ATCO pings you to contact him, just do it. You should be grateful to have someone offering ATC services.
By Sean Harrison 870618
#516055
Andreas Fuchs 810809 wrote:
Scott DeWoody 1003218 wrote:These replies are all informative, but didn't answer my question.

What is the tracon ceiling, and lateral boundries?
It does not really matter. If an ATCO pings you to contact him, just do it. You should be grateful to have someone offering ATC services.


No. If someone asks you to jump off a cliff, do you do it. Or do it, and then ask questions.

I agree that if a person controlling send you a "contact me" then you should contact them, But if they can't substantiate why they are doing so, then it's SUP time. People are people, and whether they are controlling or flying they make mistakes, or in minor cases blatantly do the wrong thing. Just because someone online or even on these forums says something doesn't make it right.
By Sean Harrison 870618
#516057 Scott,

Real world it appears to be FL270 and below. Lateral boundary isn't easy, but it mentions 40Nm radius, but also 60Nm but nor sure for what.

If I find more detail, I'll post.