Google Earth

14 January 2014
Air India flight AI301
Boeing 787-8 VT-ANM

Photo by byeangel from Tsingtao, China, via Wikimedia Commons

From the Carry-on blog.

Operating AI301 from Sydney to Melbourne VT-ANM approached and crossed Melbourne from the east following usual tracking paths for aircraft inbound from the north-east to YMML’s active Runway 34.

The flight crew initiated a right turn to lining up for Essendon’s Runway 35 mistaking it for YMML’s Runway 34.

Sources in Airservices Australia confirm the flight crew discontinued the approach at roughly 1,050 ft after being notified by Melbourne Approach, made a left turn, climbed to 1,500 ft and re-established a second approach this time to Runway 34.

The missed approach is easy to see on the flight track.

FlightAware flight tracking log

31 March 1994
Australian Airlines
Boeing 737-300 VH-TJA

Photo by Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland, via Wikimedia Commons

Note: not the same 737 as this incident

From the ATSB investigation.

At about 18 NM from Melbourne, the crew were requested by air traffic control to report when the Melbourne runway was in sight. The crew reported they had that runway in sight and were cleared to track to join final inside 8 NM from Melbourne.

The crew requested and were given further track shortening until they were instructed to make a visual approach for runway 34 and to call Melbourne Tower. The Approach Controller then diverted his attention to other duties for a short period.

On rechecking the progress of the aircraft it appeared, to him, to be on final for runway 35 at Essendon. The aircraft was at an altitude of approximately 1500 feet. The Approach Controller advised Melbourne Tower who instructed the aircraft to turn left for Melbourne. The aircraft subsequently landed without further incident.

The flight crew subsequently advised that when they were given the visual approach they believed they had the Melbourne Airport in sight and its position was confirmed by checking the map displayed on the aircraft flight management computer. However, they had not used any other aircraft navigational systems to confirm their position in relation to Melbourne.

24 February 1991
Lufthansa
Boeing 747-400 D-ABTC

Photo by Aero Icarus from Zürich, Switzerland, via Wikimedia Commons

From the ATSB investigation.

The aircraft, which was approaching Melbourne Airport from the west, was radar vectored onto base leg and descended to 3000 feet.

At 1704 hours Melbourne Approach Control advised the crew that their position was nine miles south-west of the field. They were asked to advise when they had the runway in sight and also to say when the runway 34 lead in strobe lights were sighted.

Shortly after, the crew responded that they had the runway and strobe lights in sight. Approach Control gave the crew their position as six miles south-west of the field, told them to make a visual approach and not to descend below one thousand five hundred feet until established on final.

At 1706 hours the controller told the crew they were approaching the runway extended centre line. The Approach Controller noted that the aircraft was passing through the extended centre line and had not turned to line up with runway 34. He promptly issued instructions to the aircraft to climb to 2000 feet. At about the same stage the crew realised that the runway they had been looking at was too short for their operations and also decided to go around. Further radar vectors were given and the aircraft subsequently landed normally on runway 34 at Melbourne without any other problems.

Runway 35 at Essendon Airport was the runway sighted by the pilots. It does not have lead in strobe lights. The crew indicated they must have seen reflections near Essendon which they mistook for strobe lights.

On the approach the crew had seen a runway from a long way out, which they thought was the north/south runway for Melbourne Airport, but was in fact runway 35 at Essendon Airport. In the lighting conditions at the time they did not see Melbourne Airport, until on the go around.

On the approach the minimum height descended to was just over 1000 feet above the elevation of Essendon Airport.

8 August 1987
Singapore Airlines flight SQ31A
Boeing 747-200, 9V-SQM

Photo by Ted Quackenbush, via Wikimedia Commons

From the ATSB investigation.

On arrival in the Melbourne area the aircraft was vectored by Air Traffic Control (ATC) to a left base position for an approach to runway 34.

At a point 5 nautical miles (9.2 kilometres) south of the airport, and 1 mile (1.7 kilometres) to the left of the extended centreline of the runway, the aircraft was instructed to turn left to take up a north-easterly heading. The crew reported at this time that “we have the field visual.”

The aircraft was then instructed to make a visual approach, and to turn further left for a direct approach to the runway. The crew acknowledged this instruction, but the aircraft was observed to pass through the extended centreline. ATC advised the aircraft that it was now to the right of the centreline, and instructed it to turn left onto a north-westerly heading to intercept this line. The aircraft landed without further incident.

The Captain of the aircraft later advised that he was familiar with the Melbourne/Essendon area. Appropriate navigation aids had been selected to monitor the approach.

The Captain reported that he had initially mistaken Essendon for Melbourne, because the latter had been obscured by rain and low clouds. However, the crew became suspicious when the navigation aids did not confirm the visual indications. They were in the process of correcting the situation when ATC instructed the aircraft to turn to the left as it had passed the extended centreline. The crew had then sighted the Melbourne runway complex and had proceeded visually.

13 May 1987
Air New Zealand
Boeing 767-200ER, ZK-NBC

Photo by Ken Fielding, via Wikimedia Commons

From the ATSB investigation.

The aircraft was radar-vectored for an approach to Melbourne (Tullamarine) Runway 34. The flight crew reported they were “visual” when at 2000 feet and about 17 kilometres (9 nautical miles [nm]) south east of Melbourne.

The Approach Controller advised the flight of its radar position in relation to Melbourne and requested confirmation that the crew had Runway 34 in sight. When this was acknowledged, instructions were given for the flight to take up a heading of 320 degrees; to intercept the extended centre line of Runway 34 from this heading; and to make a visual approach.

Shortly afterwards the Tower Controller at Essendon Airport (5 nm south east of Melbourne) called the Melbourne Approach Controller and reported that a heavy aircraft was on approach for (Runway 35) Essendon.

The Approach Controller called the aircraft, requested its present altitude and, on being advised it was “through fifteen hundred” (feet), instructed the flight to climb to 2000 feet and turn left onto a heading of 320 degrees. He also advised that the aircraft was 7 nm south east of Melbourne and still two miles to the right of the runway centre line.

Shortly afterwards, the flight crew reported they were at 2000 feet and had “Runway 34 Melbourne in sight”. The aircraft was then cleared for a straight in approach and for transfer to the tower frequency. The aircraft landed without further incident.

The flight crew have confirmed that they initially turned towards Essendon but detected their error at about the time the Approach Controller instructed them to turn (back) to 320 degrees and to climb.

30 December 1985
Qantas flight QF36
Boeing 767-200, VH-EAJ

Photo by Ken Fielding, via Wikimedia Commons

From the ATSB investigation.

Air Traffic Control of the aircraft was being exercised by Melbourne Approach, which was directing the aircraft for a landing on Runway 27 at Tullamarine. The controller obtained approval from the Essendon controllers to vector QF36 through Essendon airspace.

The aircraft was progressively descended and when clearing the aircraft to descend to 2000 feet the controller advised the crew that the aircraft was 4 miles to the left of the runway extended centre line. The crew advised that they had visual contact with the ground and were then cleared to continue a visual approach.

Shortly afterwards, the crew sighted a runway and commenced a turn to the left, during which visibility reduced as the aircraft entered a rain shower.

On passing through the shower, the crew immediately realised that they had turned towards Essendon, and a right turn was carried out to continue tracking towards Tullamarine.

When the premature turn was commenced, it was observed on radar by the Approach controller and visually by both the Melbourne and Essendon Tower controllers. The Approach controller queried the aircraft intentions at about the same time as the crew commenced the turn back towards Tullamarine.

A normal landing was carried out about 3 minutes later.

19 June 1985
Garuda flight GA898
Boeing 747-200, PK-GSB

Photo by Peter Bakema, via Wikimedia Commons

From the ATSB investigation.

Garuda Flight 898, was being radar vectored by Melbourne Air Traffic Control (ATC) for a landing on runway 34 at Tullamarine Airport. Shortly after the pilot acknowledged an instruction to call Melbourne Tower the aircraft was seen to turn and descend as though making an approach to runway 35 at Essendon Airport.

The Melbourne Tower controller instructed the aircraft to climb to 3000 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), and a few seconds later the aircraft was seen to be established in this climb. After further radar vectors were given, an uneventful landing was carried out at Melbourne.

It was subsequently determined that the aircraft had descended to a minimum height of approximately 350 feet above the level of Essendon Airport, and was about 1.5 kilometres from the runway threshold before the climb was commenced.

So why is it confusing?

Until the 1960s Essendon Airport was Melbourne’s main international gateway.

Photo by Peter Hough, via Wikimedia Commons

But today it is mainly used by business jets and light aircraft.

But mid-sized jets such as the Fokker F70 can also safely operate into the airport.

From the 1,921 metre long east-west and 1,504 metre long north-south runways.

Google Earth

Which just so happen to be a similar orientation to the 2,286 metre long east-west and 3,657 metre long north-south runways at Melbourne Tullamarine.

Google Earth

This similarity has been noted by ATSB investigators.

There have been a number of instances where Essendon has been mistaken for Melbourne. The two airports are in close proximity and have similar runway configurations. In this instance the flight crew members were not very familiar with the Melbourne area or with the approach to Runway 34.

Who recommended the following back in 1987.

It is recommended that consideration be given to the following

– 1 Operators briefing the relevant flight crews on the real possibility of misidentifying the two airports.
– 2 Operators instructing flight crew to make full use of available radio aids on visual approaches to Melbourne.
– 3 The Department of Aviation providing visual and/or radio aids to assist ready identification of Runway 34, such as sequenced strobe lights leading to the threshold and/or an instrument approach facility to the south of the airport.

The largest aircraft ever to land at Essendon Airport were a handful of Boeing 707s back in the 1960s – I’d hate to see what would happen to a Boeing 747 that tried to do the same.

Spot the difference

One spotting feature is the different strobe lights pattern at each airport – Essendon Airport’s beacon flashes white every four seconds – Melbourne Airport’s beacon flashes alternate white/green.

While the aerodrome charts also feature a warning – “WARNING: Secondary airport (Essendon) 5NM south-east”.

Airservices Australia – Aerodrome Charts

And Melbourne Airport runway 34 now has a distinctive identifier – three sets of sequenced white strobe lights commencing 485 metres from the end of the runway, and aligned with runway 34 centreline.

Airservices Australia – Aerodrome Charts

Footnote: freeway confusion

A hazard for pilots landing at Essendon Airport at night is the freeways that surround the airport.

An issue raised by the ATSB in a 2017 investigation.

The airport has two runways aligned 17/35 and 08/26, and it is bounded on two sides by freeways with substantial amber lighting and well-lit residential areas. At night, the lights around the airport present a complex picture. The published aerodrome chart had a caution note describing that amber freeway lighting may confuse flight crews when attempting to identify runway 08/26 lighting.

Computer confusion too

On 10 March 2015 an AirAsia flight from Sydney to Malaysia ended up having to divert to Melbourne when the pilot entered the wrong initial coordinates into the inertial navigation system.

Photo by byeangel from Tsingtao, China, via Wikimedia Commons

And some unsourced stories

I found this story online referring a supposed incident around 1996.

About 5 years ago I was flying in the circuit in a little PA-28 at Moorabbin. It appeared to me that there was a B747 on long final. My flight instructor flicked the freq to Melbourne International, and sure enough, Alitalia 747 was lined up on the Moorabbin runway (which is less than 1.6 km long!) and complaining that he had visual but his navaids were all wrong. Melbourne Airport cleared him for a visual landing but then cancelled the clearance when they saw where he was on radar!

And this one from the 1970s.

They were also aware of anecdotal accounts of a DC-10 lining up to land on the Essendon runway sometime in the 70s, and being warned off at the last minute.

• An even longer list of mistaken approaches to Essendon Airport
• Boeing 737 at Essendon Airport? –
  Sydney Airport Message Board
• 100th Anniversary of Essendon Airport – Aviation Spotters Online
• Flightpaths and building heights around Melbourne Airports
• Wrong Runway, Wrong Airport, Wrong Country – OpsGroup
• Runway confusion – Flight Safety Australia

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Pilots confusing Essendon Airport for Melbourne Airport appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Some history

Until the 1960s Essendon Airport was Melbourne’s main airport, seeing a wide range of piston-powered airliners.

Photo by Peter Hough, via Wikimedia Commons

But today mid-sized jets such as the Fokker F70 can also safely operate into the airport.

From a 1,921 metre long east-west and 1,504 metre long north-south runway.

Google Earth

And the candidates

Boeing 727 jets were the largest aircraft to operate normal passenger services into Essendon Airport during it’s heyday.

Essendon Airport postcard

With a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 76,700 kg, length of 40.59 m, and wingspan of 32.92m.

Photo by clipperarctic, via Wikimedia Commons

The first 727 flew into Essendon Airport in 1964.

Australia’s domestic airlines entered the jet age on October 16, 1964 when a pair of Boeing 727-100s landed at Melbourne’s Essendon Airport.

As both airlines were required to bring their aircraft into the country at the same time, a coin was tossed to determine which airline should have the right to land first at Melbourne’s Essendon Airport, the headquarters of both airlines. Ansett-ANA won. VH-RME under the command of Capt A. Lovell landed first, with T.A.A.’s VH-TJA under the command of Capt D.A. Winch arriving a few minutes later.

A few years later Lyndon B. Johnson flew into Essendon onboard Air Force One – a Boeing C-137 Stratoliner – first on his 1966 tour of Australia, and again in 1967 for the funeral of Australian Prime Minister, Harold Holt.

Fairfax Media photo

It had MTOW of 148,325 kg, length of of 46.61 m, and wingspan of 44.42 m.

The press corp following the tour was transported onboard Boeing 707s operated by TWA and Pan Am.

Photo by AlainDurand, via Wikimedia Commons

With a MTOW of around 142,000 kg, length of 46.61 m and wingspan of 43.41 m.

And a US Air Force Lockheed C141 Starlifter also assisted with the tour logistics.

Photo by William Keith Nelson (Rosswnelson at English Wikipedia), via Wikimedia Commons

With a MTOW of 147,000 kg, length of 51.3 m and wingspan of 48.8 m.

And finally another odd move – in November 1984 Ansett flew Boeing 767-277 VH-RMH into Essendon Airport for an open day, but had to tow it to and from the runway!

With a MTOW of 142,900 kg, length of 48.51 m and wingspan of 47.57 m.

So who is the winner?

With a MTOW of 148,325 kg Air Force One was the heaviest aircraft to land at Essendon, but the Lockheed C141 Starlifter was the longest and widest to visit.

Footnote: Qantas 707s

Despite the “Boeing 707s were not permitted to operate from Essendon Airport” factoid that does the rounds, Qantas did fly into Melbourne’s old airport on a handful of occasions.

Photo by John Wheatley, via Wikimedia Commons

The first being a training flight with 707-138 VH-EBB from Sydney to Essendon Airport on 6 July 1959, the other being VH-EBA on 18 July 1964 to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the first Australian Air Mail flight.

And an oddball

In 1962 a Sud Aviation Caravelle VII flew into Essendon Airport on a sales tour of the Asia Pacific region.

Photo by Michel Gilliand, via Wikimedia Commons

With a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 51,000 kg, length of 32 m, and wingspan of 34.3 m.

Further reading

• Essendon Airport photos from the 1967 presidential visit
• USAF C-141 StarLifters in Australia

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post What is the biggest aircraft to land at Essendon Airport? appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

Photo from The Age archives

And here is the same spot in 2013.

Pole 18 might still be there, but plenty of things have changed.

• Melbourne Airport replaced Essendon in 1970, with longer runways and larger terminals able to handle the explosion in air travel,
• The Two Airlines Policy was finally abolished in 1990 following deregulation of Australian domestic air travel,
• Ansett Australia changed logos a few times, until it went into liquidation in 2002,
• Essendon Airport was granted national heritage status in 2003.

But there the story ends – the terminal has since undergone a $4 million renovation completed in 2019, that converted much of the main arrival hall into office space.

Essendon Fields photo

It’s a sympathetic nod to the past, but the time capsule from the 1960s is now gone.

Further reading

• Essendon Airport listing in the Australian Heritage Database.

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Essendon Airport then and now appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.

The Yarra Trams website calls out the fact.

Route 59 begins outside Flinders Street Station, then heads north-west through North Melbourne, Moonee Ponds, Essendon and Keilor, until it finally arrives at the Airport West terminus.

Where Airport West is the name of the suburb – given because the location west of Essendon Airport. Melbourne Airport is five kilometres further north-west from the tram terminus.

Footnote

Today route 59 just passes by Essendon Airport, but until 1976 it actually ran along Vaughan Street to the passenger terminal. Some photos from that time:

• Tram VR 53 poses on Matthews Avenue as Ansett Boeing 727 on final approach passes overhead
• Trams on an enthusiast tour shunt at the Essendon Airport terminus
• Tram W2 370 at the old Essendon Aerodrome terminus
• Track and overhead wire removed along Vaughan Street, following the commissioning of the new terminus on Matthews Avenue
• Trams pass on Matthews Avenue following the closure of the Vaughan Street tracks

Post retrieved by 35.215.163.46 using

The post Route 59 tram to Airport West does not serve Melbourne Airport appeared first on Waking up in Geelong.