Expand on YMMB, add helicopters, add missing waypoints, add duty runways

[glennawatson]

Summary

Expand MB to include preferred duty runways, missing inbound waypoint SHOAL, and helicopter details

Changes

Fixes:

• Duty runway preferences is 17/35 at MB

Changes:

• Cleaned sections up to read a bit clearer.

Additions:

• Helicopter overview.

[glennawatson]

Images incoming

[glennawatson]

Would like some clarification what we'd like to do with helicopters

Real life MB controller indicates they don't use the aiming points due to them infringing on the runway environment but it's in the ERSA. Do we want to follow the ERSA or MB controller or something else?

[mattkelly4]

Looks like a heap of work has gone into this, thanks as always Glenn. Just a few discussion points from my end, mainly standardisation items or queries based on my lack of experience with the aerodrome. Feel free to reach out to discuss any points if you wish!

[mattkelly4]

Can probably remove, since this section details departures into CTA

[glennawatson]

Yeah can do, this is just what was there made into more bullet point form

[mattkelly4]

Can probably remove as we have Next coordination in the Coordination section currently

[mattkelly4]

I know that the metro D's have very specific local instructions but it might be beneficial to leave this as the standard crosswind limitation that all S1s and S2s learn from the Academy. Additionally, while circuit training isn't available IRL, given our traffic levels, it might be detrimental to deny an aircraft circuits despite being the only aircraft online, because the wind favours runway 04/22. Happy to discuss, but would probably lean towards allowing circuits to improve the pilot experience, and have ATC apply normal discretion in terms of workload, etc to determine whether circuits are available or not.

[mattkelly4]

I'm assuming based on the example below that these areas are outside ADC's jurisdiction. Would we be able to indicate as such, so that controllers don't issue takeoff/landing clearances?

[glennawatson]

Western triangle and eastern grass are parts of the runway/active environment and include grass areas . Essentially they land in the unused area not used by current traffic. Similar to how at Essendon they have an eastern grass which is a portion of the aerodrome area for helicopters to train.

So it's part of the adc controller area. I'm doing a diagram based on vatsys. I have some Mac (Moorabbin corporation) materials I am converting to vatsys based diagrams

Western triangle is extended A to the boundary fence, up to the centreline of A4, then across to the edge of B and runs parallel B to the boundary fence
Eastern grass is basically everything east of 35R
I’ll put that in the doc too tho along with the diagram

[mattkelly4]

I'm sure this is based off the IRL procedure, but for simplicity on VATSIM, I'd support this initial clearance call being handled by ADC. Otherwise, we will need to write coordination rules for SMC to advise ADC that an aircraft is being processed for circuits. And even just a 'cleared to operate in the circuit area, not above A010, eastern grass, report airborne', for standardisation with how it's taught in the Academy.

[glennawatson]

MB changed their real life procedures this week. Before helicopters would just report to ADC their intentions for circuits.

Now they handed it off to SMC so a slip can be made. As VATPAC doesn't deal with slips its likely less of a concern, do we want to go old school helicopter rules here?

[mattkelly4]

Looks great, could we possibly get an example so controllers can see how this works in practice?

[mattkelly4]

Would like some clarification what we'd like to do with helicopters

Real life MB controller indicates they don't use the aiming points due to them infringing on the runway environment but it's in the ERSA. Do we want to follow the ERSA or MB controller or something else?

Have replied via discord but for everyone else's visibility, I think we'll stick with what the ERSA says so that pilots and controllers are operating with a common source of information. If this becomes problematic, we can look at amending the procedure and including the changes in the Pilot Procedures site.

[alphadelta332]

Further to Matt's other comments, could you please perhaps expand on what "operationally" means?

[glennawatson]

Dunno, that's pre-existing text that was there in the old version :)

Usually in real life I know they tend to never use 22 in practicality.

[glennawatson]

Any preference on the wording here. They have never used 22 in my couple years of going in and out. The runway now has warehouses on one side. They tend to favour cross winds for 13/17 etc over ever using this runway.

17/35 is preferred since it lines up with the tower. Easier to see out which is why I listed it as preferred. Also matches the ersa

[glennawatson]

Just had a discussion with a real world MB controller

He has indicated

It can't be nominated, only used on request/requirement
Even when xw is over tolerance for all other rwys, i believe 22/04 will still not be nominated
I've been at MB almost a year, seen it used once on request

I asked what would be a example of a requirement or request:

Requirement would be emergency/pan, request is basically just shits and gigs
Outside no traffic random requests, it's only used in emergencies
Request would only be granted if no traffic
Runway 04 likely not be used due to vacating on a runway but likely be ok vacate B on request but no-one ever asks for 04 usually

Maybe something like:

Runway 04/22 is not nominated by default and is only available on request or when operationally required for emergencies. Requests for Runway 22 may be granted if traffic conditions allow. Runway 04 is less likely to be approved due the need to vacate onto an intersecting runway.

[alphadelta332]

I echo Matt's sentiments. A lot of great detail here, that I sure is accurate to the real-world operations. However, I do have concern the the added complexity and specificity might be a hindrance to online controlling, given how we try to standardise operations between towers as much as possible.

I'll have to have a think of some ways we can standardise this.

Thanks for your great work in getting this started

[glennawatson]

Worth noting that the helicopter operations are actually very similar to almost all Class D airports I've flown to in helicopters. So that isn't specific to per sae with Moorabbin. At least with the radio phraseology of calling airborne etc.

[glennawatson]

Worth noting I'm getting reviewed on and asked to clarifying existing text in the current version of the MD live, and then getting told "it's additional details we don't worry about". I think its just the MB document is out of date compared to your expectations elsewhere maybe.

Only section I've expanded on is helicopters which apart from where you take off is in line with every metro D I've departed from

[alphadelta332]

Worth noting that the helicopter operations are actually very similar to almost all Class D airports I've flown to in helicopters. So that isn't specific to per sae with Moorabbin. At least with the radio phraseology of calling airborne etc.

Absolutely taking no issue with how close to RL operations what you've done up is, it's all great. Unfortunately we do have to make some concessions from RL operations, and this does end up affecting Metro D's more than most, as they are the most vulnerable to having more local variations to procedures, which isn't suitable for VATSIM at times.

I apologise if I've requested changes on anything that's not your work, just trying to get it in to a state where we're all happy.