Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Mohd Azizul Ramli

MAS Current Fleet Withdrawal Thread

Recommended Posts

If this bit about the Lion's ATC not allowing 'our' 734s across Laut Cina Selatan is true and reaches attention of our politicians, you can be pretty sure a diplomatic storm is there in the brewing :)

(bearing in mind there are many pressing issues at home nowadays for which a foreign diversion will surely afford respite of sorts) :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should accelerate the suspension of all the remaining old 734s.

 

From the MH Rumour Department:

 

Flight between KUL and BKI doesn't pass thru Singapore ATC, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Flight between KUL and BKI doesn't pass thru Singapore ATC, does it?

Singapore controls most the airspace in the southern part of South China Sea. After that is Manila Control. A typical flight from KUL-BKI will have you be in Lumpur airspace till Somewhere around Pekan in Pahang. Then you will be with Sngapore up till a rough estimate 200 miles from KK where you will be passed on to Kinabalu Control.

Edited by Walter Sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Singapore controls most the airspace in the southern part of South China Sea. After that is Manila Control. A typical flight from KUL-BKI will have you be in Lumpur airspace till Somewhere around Pekan in Pahang. Then you will be with Sngapore up till a rough estimate 200 miles from KK where you will be passed on to Kinabalu Control.

 

Yup.. Please refer to skyvector that charts out ATC areas excellently if interested Wai Ping.

 

But question is why SIN ATC make such request so B734 are not allowed in their airspace? Because as Jingkai Seah mentioned, Gading Sari operates B734 between west malaysia and east Malaysia. How about transmile air's old B722? I might be wrong but that should be even older than MAS's B734? (and for your info those B722 definitely is audible when they take off from WBKK... so noisy!) Or is it just passenger a/c affected by this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many B734 are left now and what route are they plying that's more important. Should MWings-er do a last flight to mark the end of MH's B737 Classic era?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many B734 are left now and what route are they plying that's more important. Should MWings-er do a last flight to mark the end of MH's B737 Classic era?

 

According to the latest GoingPlaces, there are 14 734 in service, and 54 (wow...that's a lot) 738.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WMFC Airspace is GND-FL260 over South China Sea IIRC. WSJC FIR is FL260:UNL. The possible reason why such aircraft may be barred from RVSM airspace (FL290-FL410) over the South China Sea is the implementation of LORANDS III with ADS-B requirement. I'm not sure, but perhaps the 734 fleet are not ADS-B equipped. At the moment, there is no CPDLC (ADS-C) in WSJC FIR during the transition to LORANDS III. It won't just be the 737s, those Transmile 727s and 732s will also face problems. The entire region is moving towards total Performance Based Navigation (PBN) in line with ICAO SARPs. DCA Malaysia has implemented a program that is being trialed with AirAsia I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WMFC Airspace is GND-FL260 over South China Sea IIRC. WSJC FIR is FL260:UNL. The possible reason why such aircraft may be barred from RVSM airspace (FL290-FL410) over the South China Sea is the implementation of LORANDS III with ADS-B requirement. I'm not sure, but perhaps the 734 fleet are not ADS-B equipped. At the moment, there is no CPDLC (ADS-C) in WSJC FIR during the transition to LORANDS III. It won't just be the 737s, those Transmile 727s and 732s will also face problems. The entire region is moving towards total Performance Based Navigation (PBN) in line with ICAO SARPs. DCA Malaysia has implemented a program that is being trialed with AirAsia I believe.

 

ahaa...so nothing to do with ETOPS lah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware, there is no ETOPS Segment over the South China Sea between the Peninsula and Borneo as plenty of airports to be within 60 minutes of.... A B734 driver would have to confirm that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware, there is no ETOPS Segment over the South China Sea between the Peninsula and Borneo as plenty of airports to be within 60 minutes of.... A B734 driver would have to confirm that though.

 

But your first explanation sounds very very technical.

Hahaha...hard for me to translate into layman language...

 

:)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But your first explanation sounds very very technical.

Hahaha...hard for me to translate into layman language...

 

:)

 

 

 

It's technical reasons and not safety or political reasons for the B734 airspace restriction.

 

In a nutshell, (and I'm honestly speculating) the on-board navigation systems in a 734 may not comply with the new standards of navigation under PBN and LORADS III in WSJC FIR. Hence, during testing ofthe system, a tempo restriction of the aircraft may be sourced during certain hours of the day to test system capability and management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm aware, there is no ETOPS Segment over the South China Sea between the Peninsula and Borneo as plenty of airports to be within 60 minutes of.... A B734 driver would have to confirm that though.

No ETOPS anywhere over the South China Sea; any point will have a suitable landing airport within one hour at single engine speed.

 

There are many routes, however, where the B734 cannot fly due to the inaccuracies of its navigation system and lack of redundancy of its system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many routes, however, where the B734 cannot fly due to the inaccuracies of its navigation system and lack of redundancy of its system.

Would that be a thing from day one or some restriction brought about by newly implemented regulations/technologies ?

Find it a bit worrisome if the aircraft had been certified fit to fly despite knowing it can get itself lost up in the air :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that be a thing from day one or some restriction brought about by newly implemented regulations/technologies ?

Find it a bit worrisome if the aircraft had been certified fit to fly despite knowing it can get itself lost up in the air :)

The restrictions are brought about by newly implemented regulations, based on new technologies. It is possible to update the older aircraft, but it won't be cost effective.

 

The B732 (at least the MH version, from what I heard) fly along using VOR radials. They don't even have INS.

The B734 have IRS, a better version of INS. Good for enroute navigation but not accurate enough for approach.

The B738 use GPS for navigation. They are good enough to be used for approach.

 

That is just an example of how technology improves in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WMFC Airspace is GND-FL260 over South China Sea IIRC. WSJC FIR is FL260:UNL. The possible reason why such aircraft may be barred from RVSM airspace (FL290-FL410) over the South China Sea is the implementation of LORANDS III with ADS-B requirement. I'm not sure, but perhaps the 734 fleet are not ADS-B equipped. At the moment, there is no CPDLC (ADS-C) in WSJC FIR during the transition to LORANDS III. It won't just be the 737s, those Transmile 727s and 732s will also face problems. The entire region is moving towards total Performance Based Navigation (PBN) in line with ICAO SARPs. DCA Malaysia has implemented a program that is being trialed with AirAsia I believe.

 

With PBN implementation, MH 734 is not approved for RNP 4 nav spec ops in oceanic airspace due to requirement to use CPDLC/ ADS-C surveillance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rnav 4 / rnp 4 did not have any req for cpdlc or even ads. Its just the type of onboard navigational equipment je. 2 fmc 2 lorans n so on. Nothing to do with communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rnav 4 / rnp 4 did not have any req for cpdlc or even ads. Its just the type of onboard navigational equipment je. 2 fmc 2 lorans n so on. Nothing to do with communication.

 

Agreed RNP4 req at least 2 indpnt LRNSs fitted to aircraft which form the basis for ops approval grant. For this RNP4, GNSS is a must and the nav sensor per ICAO standards which lack in B734 is GPS. By the way RNAV and RNP is different, RNP is more retrict where onboard performance monitoring and alerting cap req. i believe there is no RNAV4.

 

with PBN there will be PBCS, and the CPDLC/ ADS-C are req for comm, surveillance and ATM to couple with RNP4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is ATM is automated teller machine, and the GPS means Guna Pun Sesat (use also lost). :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is ATM is automated teller machine, and the GPS means Guna Pun Sesat (use also lost). :D

 

I was beginning to think IRS is Internal Revenue Service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...