Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
Crossing RWY 27 at MEM >

Crossing RWY 27 at MEM

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines
View Poll Results: Would you like to see RWY 27 removed from FDX inbound/outbound midnight operation?
Yes. Multiple crossings of RWY 27 during the inbound and outbound operation are unsafe.
6
10.71%
No. MEM ATC and FDX Pilots do a fine job. Safety is never compromised.
38
67.86%
I'm not sure. Let's talk about this some more. I need more information.
9
16.07%
No one has died yet. Let's keep crossing RWY 27 until someone get's clobbered.
3
5.36%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

Crossing RWY 27 at MEM

Old 02-10-2007, 10:27 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Austin Tower
Posts: 175
Question Crossing RWY 27 at MEM

Some questions for all of you FDX drivers at MEM:

1. What are your thoughts regarding the fact that 100 or more of you must cross an active Runway (RWY 27) during each inbound AND each outbound operation while other aircraft are using this runway for arrival and departure operations?

2. Does FDX save money with aircraft landing or departing RWY 27, as opposed to all FDX aircraft landing/departing the parallel runways?

3. Is anyone at FDX concerned about the safety aspects of landing and departing RWY 27 with all of the other parallel runway traffic that must cross RWY 27 enroute to/from the FDX Hub?

4. Have any of you ever experienced or witnessed a go around, aborted takeoff or botched crossing clearance due to some confusion or error involving RWY 27 operations at MEM?

5. Would you be willing to taxi farther in order to be more safe, thus avoiding some of the possible dangers associated with crossing an active runway?

Just curious... there's a big debate brewing at work right now.



Thanks,

MEM_ATC
AUS_ATC is offline  
Old 02-11-2007, 05:36 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 1559
Posts: 1,517
Default

1. I like getting 27 when I can.

2. Probably. Time is our money though.

3. Yes, and our FOM directs us to be very vigilant when crossing active runways.

4. No

5. No, I don't feel that it is that unsafe. if we start getting into too many hypothetical situations, everything is unsafe and we should all stay in bed. Hey, that might be OK after all.

Last edited by MX727; 02-11-2007 at 03:44 PM.
MX727 is offline  
Old 02-11-2007, 06:12 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
sandman2122's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A300 F/O
Posts: 193
Default

I agree with what MX727 said.
sandman2122 is offline  
Old 02-11-2007, 07:18 AM
  #4  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: C
Posts: 35
Default

Inbound from the east, 27 is preferred. Unless its a hard time trip.
Buzzard is offline  
Old 02-11-2007, 07:37 AM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Austin Tower
Posts: 175
Default

Buzzard,

Originally Posted by Buzzard View Post
Inbound from the east, 27 is preferred. Unless its a hard time trip.
What's a "hard time trip"?

Another interesting aspect to the RWY 27 operation at MEM, is that only certain aircraft are allowed by our local procedures to land on RWY 27 while other aircraft are landing RWYs 18L and 18C. The list is long and extensive, but CRJ's, Lears, Citations, ATRs, DeHavilands, Challengers, Falcons (except for the F900) and so forth... are all allowed to land RWY 27 while other aircraft are landing RWY 18L and 18C.

Our Training Department fluctuates on the reasoning behind this. Since I've been here, I've been informed that this restriction is due to 1) the tail height of the aircraft landing RWY 27; 2) the approach speed of the aircraft landing RWY 27; 3) the landing speed of the aircraft landing RWY 27 and 4) other variations or combinations of the above. We've also been informed that "the users" all got together and agreed on what aircraft would be allowed to use RWY 27 in a South Configuration.

If you're flying a Boeing, Mad Dog or a Bus, you will not be allowed to land RWY 27 if we are in a "South Configuration".

There's not a National 7110.65 rule that prevents Large or Heavy Aircraft from landing RWY 27 while other aircraft land RWY 18R. However... there was a go-around years ago involving an AirTrans on RWY 27 and a Heavy on RWY 18R. Apparently the AirTrans went underneath the FDX Heavy that was landing RWY 18R. One Local Controller told AirTrans to "stay low", the other Local Controller told the Heavy to "go around". The folks in the Tower Cab who saw this incident, say that it was the closest one that they've ever seen. We are discouraged from sequencing Large and Heavy aircraft simultaneously to RWY 18R and 27.

MEM_ATC
AUS_ATC is offline  
Old 02-11-2007, 10:43 AM
  #6  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: C
Posts: 35
Default

Thatís a trip that pays by block time verses time away from base. Its kind of complicated, Id be glad to explain it if your interested. Basically itís a trip that pays more because we are flying more then three hours in duty period. The trip begins to pay extra for the amount of time it exceeds three hours of block.
Buzzard is offline  
Old 02-11-2007, 03:56 PM
  #7  
Living the dream!
 
R1200RT's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD-11 Capt
Posts: 915
Default

Hard time trip = getting paid by the minute, so the longer the better.

Not may FedEx trips get paid this way.
R1200RT is offline  
Old 02-11-2007, 05:14 PM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BoxFlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: B-767
Posts: 207
Default

Having 27 helps, giving us a three runway set-up vice two for arrivals and departures. It hurts our ops when they are landing to the south or departing to the north, cause now 27 is out of the picture. More runways = more airplanes in/out in the same time.
BoxFlyer is offline  
Old 02-11-2007, 05:50 PM
  #9  
Thx Age 65
 
HoursHore's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: MD11CAP
Posts: 897
Default

Seems to me that during the Morning lauch, 36c/18c is underutilized. 36 R will have 10 planes lined up, while 36 C has only Intl and ops req'd planes lined up. I know the the Wake turbulence criteria have to be met, but surely there has to be a way to launch more off the Center.
HoursHore is online now  
Old 02-11-2007, 07:04 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Austin Tower
Posts: 175
Default

Originally Posted by HoursHore View Post
Seems to me that during the Morning lauch, 36c/18c is underutilized. 36 R will have 10 planes lined up, while 36 C has only Intl and ops req'd planes lined up. I know the the Wake turbulence criteria have to be met, but surely there has to be a way to launch more off the Center.
Depending on who is running the show in the Tower Cab, the Supervisor may instruct the Ground Controllers to take FDX aircraft routed over XXX to the Center Runway or to the other parallel Runway. This is a rare thing for some reason, but my guess is that it involves some risk on the Supervisor's part.

If the Supervisor makes the call to take specific "Departure Gates" to the Center Runway or the other parallel runway -- the Supervisor runs the risk of looking like a fool if 20 other aircraft suddenly call for taxi and the other side of the airport experiences a log jam. If the move works, and traffic flows smoothly -- the Supervisor is a hero for the day.

Unfortunately, our suggestions to do this are rarely acted upon.

MEM_ATC
AUS_ATC is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ABK MAN
Cargo
18
02-03-2007 07:57 PM
AUS_ATC
Cargo
18
12-12-2006 07:22 PM
AUS_ATC
Cargo
5
11-28-2006 10:03 AM
MaydayMark
Cargo
0
08-22-2006 12:51 PM
Fedex999999
Cargo
10
08-05-2006 10:21 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread