grand coup de gueule contre l'ATC de Marrakech
je l'ai toujours dis, décoller en QFU 28 et alors que des avions sont dans le Sackk en train de tourner n'est pas une situation confortable
désormais tout ceci est du passé, on n'a pas eu de crash à GMMX, mais certains récits font froid dans le dos...
aujourd'hui GMMX a un taxiway, des procédure normalisés SID et STAR et le radar sera bientôt opérationnel
de même la grand majorité des TO se font QFU 10
par contre pour les atterrissages QFU 28; je pense que ( je ne suis pas sûr) seuls les avions RAM ont une une approche construite dans leurs FMC,avec la chart jeppesen...
Citation:
In my own personal opinion, Marrakech is by far the most dangerous destination in our network.
1. Most of the time they use opposite RWY’s for landing and takeoff (10 for landing and 28 for takeoff)
2. No published app for rwy 28, not even circling minima, so just visual app available for 28
3. No published SID’s or STAR’s
4. ATC is done in (poor) English and French at the same time.
5. No radar available
6. Presence of small, slow military training a/c flying with transponder switched off
7. ATCO’s with very questionable capabilities and situational awareness
8. Apparent lack of coordination between different controllers
To illustrate this, let me tell what recently happened to me flying there:
I approached MAK vor from the North in clear CAVOK weather. The ATIS announced rwy 28 center (sic) (they only have one rwy) as active with wind at 280/4.
I was told by APP that we were nr 2 for landing with nr 1 ten miles ahead of us. As usual the APP was unwilling or unable to clearly state which rwy we would be getting. ( experience in RAK learns that information provided in their recently installed ATIS means nothing!)
When we were in the MAK hold at FL 70 turning inbound to the VOR, we were told by APP to descent to alt 3200’ and to contact TWR. In our readback we requested once more which RWY we would be getting and got a reply that we would be told by TWR.
As we saw that the nr 1 was on left base for rwy 28, to avoid further delay, we contacted the TWR with the message: "Marrakech Tower, bonjour, charter 123, turning inbound to the VOR, leaving FL70, descending 3200 ft, requesting visual approach rwy 28."
(MAK VOR is located on the centreline a few miles before rwy 10, so when turning inbound to the vor, you are on final course for rwy 10)
TWR’s reply was: “charter 123, cleared for visual approach 28, report left downwind 28”
So there I was, happily descending to 3000’ (=circuit altitude, 1500’ AGL) descending through 4500’ when joining left downwind. At that time I heard someone call TWR (in French): “TWR, callsign, at what alt is the Airbus that just flew right over me?” TWR: “he’s at 3200’. A/C (French): “ strange, because he just flew over me”
I can tell you we immediately felt very uncomfortable in our cockpit and doubled the sharp lookout we were already doing. As it was clear that the danger was behind us we continued the circuit an landed on 28 without further event.
During taxi I asked TWR for the position of the traffic that reported seeing us. It turned out it was light mil. a/c orbiting at 4000’ at the beginning of left downwind for 28. When I repeated the instruction that had been given to me by himself and by APP, he stuttered that in that case I should have been at 3200’ when starting downwind.
I told him that was wrong since no such instruction was ever issued. I complained about the presence of the a/c at that location while I was cleared for the visual, and the fact that, whatever my altitude was, at least such traffic should have been called out to me.
I never saw the other traffic, nor did I have something on the TCAS display, but with hindsight I think we came very close to a mid air collision.
Most of my colleagues share my opinion about RAK and can tell similar stories about this airport.
I can assure you that I am extremely careful when I fly to Marrakech and advise everybody to be the same when going there!
Safe landings,
Sabenaboy