Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Ground & Other Ops Forums > ATC Issues
Reload this Page >

One for USA controllers.

ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

One for USA controllers.

Old 25th Mar 2016, 23:38
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
One for USA controllers.

Do US low level en-route controllers also hold terminal ratings. If so, do they provide the services concurrently or do they rotate through positions?
fujii is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2016, 21:19
  #2 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks VectorMe
fujii is offline  
Old 27th Mar 2016, 08:16
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
I understand that in the USA instrument approaches at non tower airports are in a minimum of class E airspace.

From my experience flying in the US system it is the en route controller who often provides the approach service when IMC exists at the airport.

Do en route controllers get special training for this? Do they get paid extra for providing approach services?

As a quick explanation I am an Australian pilot and a previous Chairman of the Australian CAA- sort of equivalent to the US FAA. I have attempted over many years to get the US NAS going in Australia as after five flights around the world I reckon it's the worlds best.

However I have failed. In fact got about half way there and it's now being reversed with a new requirement that pilots at airports not marked on charts must give their taxiing and circuit calls not on the multicom but on the frequency used by en route ATC in the area! And we have thousands of such airports.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2016, 06:00
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 4,067
Received 43 Likes on 28 Posts
I have attempted over many years to get the US NAS going in Australia as after five flights around the world I reckon it's the worlds best.
Not sure of the scope of what youre proposing, there are many enviable parts of the US aviation infrastructure and there are many hard working government officials...but whatever you adopt, make it more agile, open to change and not tied to a giant bureaucracy.
West Coast is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2016, 09:14
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
In Australia for over 25 years I have been attempting to get at least a trial of class E airspace down to 700 agl at one of our non tower airports with jet airline traffic.

I have failed.

At the present time our Class E does not go below 8500'. Below that in the terminal area IFR pilots in IMC are given traffic information on other IFR aircraft. Pilots must then change to the CTAF and arrange their own separation.

In many sectors the en route controllers do not appear to be as busy as controllers in other countries however they claim they would not be able to provide a class E service without extra approach console and extra approach trained controllers.

Our " do it yourself class G terminal airspace" has resulted in at least one fatal accident and numerous serious incidents but change is resisted .

Any suggestions on how we can get the class E terminal airspace system operated by en route controllers trialled in Australia?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 10:06
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Area controllers in the USA do provide a service to low level class E. However, they provide that service using a different set of rules (the Area rules) to those that terminal controllers use (who have less restrictive rules).
They also have a lot of radar coverage, and where they don't, it is extremely restrictive one-in, one-out type of service.
The environment is different in Australia, with much smaller aviation activity (as you well know). The sector sizes are huge in Australia, compared to the states, due to the lower activity levels.
But you have been told all this before.

I'd be interesting in hearing to which terminal accident you are referring to that could have been avoided by a procedural (non-radar) control service to low level?
ferris is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2016, 11:09
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 827
Received 76 Likes on 12 Posts
Dick...

One word: Canada

Check with Nav Canada, as they have a system and processes very close to what you are looking for -- and similar geographic, communication and traffic issues to your own.
grizzled is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2016, 13:46
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
The terminal accident was at Benalla where the pilot headed to a point about 8 miles away from the intended gps waypoint at the start of the approach. Very likely a faulty gps. It was IMC . The route monitor alarm went off many times in the en route ATC radar centre at Melbourne but because the pilot was heading towards un controlled airspace the controller did not inform the pilot. If it had been class E in the terminal area the pilot would have been informed. All five on board were killed with a CFIT accident and the subsequent ATSB report made no recommendation to consider upgrading the airspace to class E - such is the resistance to change.

We have many non tower airports in our busy airspace on the east coast where the radar coverage is as good as that provided in the USA. Yet not one non tower airspace has low level class E like the USA.

Grizzled. Yes Canada has it sorted out. Large areas without radar coverage yet low level class E in many terminal areas. I have flown extensively both IFR and VFR studying the airspace in Canada and the USA.

Some Australian ATCs come up with every reason why they can't offer a proper professional class E control service like North America . Mainly due to a total lack of wanting to know how a better system works and incompetent leadership.

We had one aircraft that crashed killing all five on board in solid radar coverage after going 50 miles at right angles to the correct direction.( see VH MDX report on the ATSB website ) The pilot was not told of his navigational error as he was forced under our rules to remain on a FS frequency .

Took me ten years of resistance to change to get all enroute traffic on radar frequencies . But now trying to get even one trial of low level class E before more fatalities.

Ferris. How do the rules vary and why wouldn't we copy those rules if they are proven safe?

Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Apr 2016 at 00:27.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 11:44
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Obviously not many US FAA controllers read this site. Anyone know of a forum where US controllers are more involved?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2016, 06:41
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Plenty of helpful U.S controllers and info here...
StuckMic - Air Traffic Control - ATC Forums
tyler_durden_80 is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2016, 07:25
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick, if you are going to post on an ATC forum, I suggest you use the correct language lest you get the wrong answer. Benalla was not a terminal accident as an ATC would understand the term.

A terminal control area (TMA, or TCA in the U.S. and Canada), also known as a terminal manoeuvring area (TMA) in Europe, is an aviation term to describe a designated area of controlled airspace surrounding a major airport where there is a high volume of traffic.
fujii is offline  
Old 18th Apr 2016, 11:03
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Ok. It was a non tower airport with an IFR GPS RNAV approach. In Aus it was in class G and still is. In many other countries it is class E
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 04:25
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Age: 64
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some En Route controllers in the US do work Terminal like airspace and also the other sectors including high altitude. One example is ZOA (Oakland Center) sector 40. When I retired (the airspace was supposed to go to NCT but had not when I retired.) sector 40 is 8000 feet and below and handles the following airports, Napa (KAPC) daytime tower 5 IAPs 3DPs, Santa Rosa (KSTS) daytime tower 5 IAPs 3DPs,, Gnoss (KDVO) 1 IAP, Petaluma (069) 2 IAPs, Sonoma Skypark (0Q9), Sonoma Valley Airport (0Q3), Healdsburg (HES), and a few other public and private airports. Sector 40 uses all terminal rules available to an approach control. This includes 3 mile lateral separation due to a single radar site adaptation in the mosaic radar for part of the sector. We vectored for the ILS at STS and the LOC at APC. we were fortunate to have great radio and radar coverage. it was anything but a one in one out operation. Sector 23 used to work SCK approach at night. When the B146 came to AirCal and PSA it was normal to have 4 or 5 in a radar pattern for 3 hours. Unfortunately we had to use 5 miles on that one.
slatch is offline  
Old 21st Apr 2016, 04:38
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Age: 64
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And to answer the question even though we did exactly the same work as the terminal controllers we only had an En Route rating.
slatch is offline  
Old 4th May 2016, 11:29
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Thanks. Is it true that in Alaska in the remote areas like Nome there is no stratification and the sector goes from 700 agl to flight levels?

Does that mean the high level en route controller also does the approach work?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 6th May 2016, 02:14
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Silicon Hills
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was a tower/approach controller in the States, but to answer your question, during evenings/nights when traffic was slow, was not at all unusual For low and high sectors at Center to be combined, and that controller offering vectors to small airport approaches while also working airliners at flight levels. US Center controllers were certified on 6-8 sectors in their area, some high, some low, could be working any or all, depending on traffic levels.
vector4fun is offline  
Old 10th May 2016, 08:55
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Age: 64
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Like V4F stated, it is standard procedure for areas in enroute centers, usually 6-8 sectors to be combined to one position at night. Normally 10 pm to 6 am. The controller would work 700 AGL to above 60,000. We worked the SR71's in the day and still work TR2's and other U2 models out of Beale not to mention the drones. Many times at night while working area D you would be vectoring for the ILS at STS and running a refueling track near RBL, while also handling the enroute traffic etc. not unusual to have 25 AC on Freq. But the airspace was Hugh, not many conflicts.
slatch is offline  
Old 10th May 2016, 13:28
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Melbourne
Age: 37
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What are the sector sizes like in the USA? My CTA sectors are in the order of 950NM top to bottom, 20 frequencies combined from SFC to FL600 and when it's quiet I'll also be controlling my OCA sectors from 75E to 163E - equator to Antarctica.
For my group in particular, zooming in the screen range to suit terminal approach type vectoring would be displaying somewhere less then 10% of the airspace (less than 1% when combined).
Kieran17 is offline  
Old 12th May 2016, 08:28
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Us airspace at night would be very similar to a lot of Aussie airspace during the day for workload purposes.

Last time I checked Australia had a peak of 140 IFR aircraft operating over the mainland while the US equivalent number was over 4,000.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 12th May 2016, 08:53
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,837
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
Total bull Dick, total bull. There are currently 300+
le Pingouin is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.