AUS_ATC

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

MX727

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.

sandman2122

I agree with what MX727 said.

Buzzard

Inbound from the east, 27 is preferred. Unless its a hard time trip.

AUS_ATC

Buzzard,

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

Buzzard

That’s 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 it’s 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.

R1200RT

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

Not may FedEx trips get paid this way.

BoxFlyer

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.

HoursHore

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.

AUS_ATC

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