TIBA?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TIBA?
I read this morning about a J* plane coming close to a US Learjet in ozzy airspace. A friend of mine whom is a 'bus driver' said it could happen more & more seeing that not enough ATC personel are available to monitor & regulate our airspace. I wonder if the US plane didn't know of our airspace rules enough to end up in this situation?
I'm not really exposed to TIBA but am sure some are in here, comments?
FG
I'm not really exposed to TIBA but am sure some are in here, comments?
FG
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisvegas
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read somewhere this morning that "they never got closer than 15 miles" which is 3 times the ATC separation standard. Looks like 5 miles is good enough for Airservices in TIBA airspace.
Ask any controller how often he/she uses 5 miles and they`ll say, basically never as i like to sleep at night! There is a time and a place wher i may use something between 5 and 10 miles but headings or speeds or both will be pegged.
From memory the Lear and a JST aircraft were at the same level ( FL240?) and never got closer than 15nm. Where they converging, diverging or just 15nm abeam as they passed? Either way it doesn`t sound good.
Ask any controller how often he/she uses 5 miles and they`ll say, basically never as i like to sleep at night! There is a time and a place wher i may use something between 5 and 10 miles but headings or speeds or both will be pegged.
From memory the Lear and a JST aircraft were at the same level ( FL240?) and never got closer than 15nm. Where they converging, diverging or just 15nm abeam as they passed? Either way it doesn`t sound good.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: About
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"US Learjet"
So was it a US registered Learjet or simply a US made Learjet? Sort of gives you the impression it wasn't Aussie crewed. If it was crewed by Americans then it certainly would have mentioned it in the article.
If you want to make a statement like that surely you must also say that the Airbus was French made? The way it was written, ie without clear facts such as the exact details of the supposed incident makes me think that there's mountains being made out of molehills. I know that ATC have been running bare bones but if this incident was as serious as it is made to sound, then it would have been on here the day it happened.
Once again I think our infomedia friends are making news out of nothing. Bring on the ripping if I'm wrong!
If you want to make a statement like that surely you must also say that the Airbus was French made? The way it was written, ie without clear facts such as the exact details of the supposed incident makes me think that there's mountains being made out of molehills. I know that ATC have been running bare bones but if this incident was as serious as it is made to sound, then it would have been on here the day it happened.
Once again I think our infomedia friends are making news out of nothing. Bring on the ripping if I'm wrong!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BNE
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come in spinner!
Yup. Gotta love the spin from Airservices. 5 nm may be correct, but only under radar control, right? Funny that the radar control bit was missed out. Misquoted perhaps? ???
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not read that article, a link anyone?
Were the aircraft in radio contact prior to 15 miles?
Did they get a RA or even a TA?
If they were going head to head they would have 1 to 2 min before impact so TA not really an option? check my maths on that one.
IF they were in contact, and they were aware of eachother then what is the conern? Where does this 15nm figure come from?
TIBA is a joke, however any examples used to further the cause need to be rock solid, this one appears not to be. More concerning the AsA and CASA's revelation that this is an "international practice". Lets say that the Lear was crewed by US pilots, how the hell would these guys know about TIBA? Sure its in the AsA published AIP, but why on earth would a US pilot have that? What about Jepps, well in the ATC "AU" pages its there, but once again the US pilots would not have those they would have the "AUSTRALIA" ATC pages which is a condensed version (and last time I looked no TIBA in there). Perhaps to address this there is now a YSHO notam listing TIBA, 10 out of 10 for tin plating but I'm not sure it will achieve much.
Were the aircraft in radio contact prior to 15 miles?
Did they get a RA or even a TA?
If they were going head to head they would have 1 to 2 min before impact so TA not really an option? check my maths on that one.
IF they were in contact, and they were aware of eachother then what is the conern? Where does this 15nm figure come from?
TIBA is a joke, however any examples used to further the cause need to be rock solid, this one appears not to be. More concerning the AsA and CASA's revelation that this is an "international practice". Lets say that the Lear was crewed by US pilots, how the hell would these guys know about TIBA? Sure its in the AsA published AIP, but why on earth would a US pilot have that? What about Jepps, well in the ATC "AU" pages its there, but once again the US pilots would not have those they would have the "AUSTRALIA" ATC pages which is a condensed version (and last time I looked no TIBA in there). Perhaps to address this there is now a YSHO notam listing TIBA, 10 out of 10 for tin plating but I'm not sure it will achieve much.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oztraylia
Age: 53
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Booree 3 said "Ask any controller how often he/she uses 5 miles and they`ll say, basically never as i like to sleep at night!"
I would say I use it every single day that I am controlling. You might want to stipulate what type of controller you are talking about. ie: Enroute, Approach, Tower etc.
Cheers
I would say I use it every single day that I am controlling. You might want to stipulate what type of controller you are talking about. ie: Enroute, Approach, Tower etc.
Cheers
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Here and Now
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article in the Australian
THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority is investigating an air traffic control report that a US Learjet came within 60 seconds of a possible collision with a Jetstar Airbus because of confusion about uncontrolled airspace.
Robert Mason, the head of the air traffic control union Civil Air, last night described the incident as "very concerning" and an example of the havoc that uncontrolled airspace is causing.
However, a spokesman for the Government's air traffic control manager, Airservices Australia, played it down, saying there was "no safety occurrence and no breakdown of air traffic control safety standards".
An Electronic Safety Incident Report of the incident, written by the air traffic controller on duty and obtained by The Australian, states the incident occurred last Saturday after a section of airspace on the Melbourne to Sydney route suddenly became unmonitored at 7.30am due to an air traffic control staff shortage.
A shortage of controllers has increasingly forced large chunks of Australian skies to be left unmonitored in recent months, forcing pilots to rely on themselves and other pilots to avoid collisions.
The ESIR indicated the declaring of uncontrolled airspace on Saturday caused confusion among pilots of several aircraft.
The worst of these was when the pilot of an American-registered Learjet flying from Wollongong in NSW to Melbourne baulked at climbing up into uncontrolled airspace despite being cleared to do so. The report says the pilot failed to climb "apparently due to uncertainty with proximity traffic" in uncontrolled airspace.
As a result, the plane stayed on its course at 24,000ft, which caused it to veer into a different controlled airspace near Canberra. This alarmed controllers because Jetstar flight 720 from Hobart to Sydney was heading north at the same height, and time, through that sector.
The incident report says the Learjet was "briefly uncontactable" because the pilot was on a different frequency and that the controller was "concerned" about the risk to northbound air traffic, especially JS720.
"The two aircraft passed within 15 nautical miles abeam of each other southwest of Canberra," the ESIR said.
Mr Mason said yesterday; "Aeroplanes passing 15 miles apart may seem like a lot ... but they are travelling so fast that in some scenarios there can be less than 60 seconds to react and avoid an accident. This incident is a clear example that the current system related to (uncontrolled airspace) has an unacceptable safety level."
However, an Airservices spokesman said the 15nm separation was three times the required limit in that sector. A spokeswoman for Jetstar said the airline had not been notified about the ESIR.
CASA confirmed last night it was investigating the incident.
The Australian last week revealed warnings from air traffic controllers than many international pilots did not know the safety procedures for flying through uncontrolled airspace.
Civil Air has called for a sweeping review of the safety of passenger jets flying through uncontrolled airspace.
Few countries in the world have uncontrolled airspace. CASA maintains that flying through uncontrolled airspace -- while not ideal -- is safe, but Qantas and Jetstar pilots have been instructed to avoid flying through it when possible.
Robert Mason, the head of the air traffic control union Civil Air, last night described the incident as "very concerning" and an example of the havoc that uncontrolled airspace is causing.
However, a spokesman for the Government's air traffic control manager, Airservices Australia, played it down, saying there was "no safety occurrence and no breakdown of air traffic control safety standards".
An Electronic Safety Incident Report of the incident, written by the air traffic controller on duty and obtained by The Australian, states the incident occurred last Saturday after a section of airspace on the Melbourne to Sydney route suddenly became unmonitored at 7.30am due to an air traffic control staff shortage.
A shortage of controllers has increasingly forced large chunks of Australian skies to be left unmonitored in recent months, forcing pilots to rely on themselves and other pilots to avoid collisions.
The ESIR indicated the declaring of uncontrolled airspace on Saturday caused confusion among pilots of several aircraft.
The worst of these was when the pilot of an American-registered Learjet flying from Wollongong in NSW to Melbourne baulked at climbing up into uncontrolled airspace despite being cleared to do so. The report says the pilot failed to climb "apparently due to uncertainty with proximity traffic" in uncontrolled airspace.
As a result, the plane stayed on its course at 24,000ft, which caused it to veer into a different controlled airspace near Canberra. This alarmed controllers because Jetstar flight 720 from Hobart to Sydney was heading north at the same height, and time, through that sector.
The incident report says the Learjet was "briefly uncontactable" because the pilot was on a different frequency and that the controller was "concerned" about the risk to northbound air traffic, especially JS720.
"The two aircraft passed within 15 nautical miles abeam of each other southwest of Canberra," the ESIR said.
Mr Mason said yesterday; "Aeroplanes passing 15 miles apart may seem like a lot ... but they are travelling so fast that in some scenarios there can be less than 60 seconds to react and avoid an accident. This incident is a clear example that the current system related to (uncontrolled airspace) has an unacceptable safety level."
However, an Airservices spokesman said the 15nm separation was three times the required limit in that sector. A spokeswoman for Jetstar said the airline had not been notified about the ESIR.
CASA confirmed last night it was investigating the incident.
The Australian last week revealed warnings from air traffic controllers than many international pilots did not know the safety procedures for flying through uncontrolled airspace.
Civil Air has called for a sweeping review of the safety of passenger jets flying through uncontrolled airspace.
Few countries in the world have uncontrolled airspace. CASA maintains that flying through uncontrolled airspace -- while not ideal -- is safe, but Qantas and Jetstar pilots have been instructed to avoid flying through it when possible.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisvegas
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Greater Safety, last time i looked it was 5 miles in en-route, which, and i stand to be corrected, was the type of airspace that the JST aircraft and the Lear would have been in at FL240.
The point i was making. albeit poorly ( off doggo ) is that the article implied 5nm is good enough in TIBA. Well, i`d say someone is smokin something if aircraft "miss" by 5nm is good enough. Tell that to the pax. down the back.
Without knowing the full details of the ESIR ( i don`t have access but i`m sure a copy or two is floating around by now ) 15nm abeam and no closer is near enough for me if both aircrew were aware of each other. Now if for some reason this was not the case then 15nm is not safe enough for me or my family to fly. Whats your 'margin of safety'.
The point i was making. albeit poorly ( off doggo ) is that the article implied 5nm is good enough in TIBA. Well, i`d say someone is smokin something if aircraft "miss" by 5nm is good enough. Tell that to the pax. down the back.
Without knowing the full details of the ESIR ( i don`t have access but i`m sure a copy or two is floating around by now ) 15nm abeam and no closer is near enough for me if both aircrew were aware of each other. Now if for some reason this was not the case then 15nm is not safe enough for me or my family to fly. Whats your 'margin of safety'.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For Greater Safety,
The standard is 5 miles, 4.9 miles is not a standard it is tea and bickies time to explain what went wrong.
What boree3 is saying that you would not run aircraft ONLY 5 miles apart in enroute airspace as you would have no wriggle room if the speeds changed.
It seemed pretty obvious what they were on about to me.
The standard is 5 miles, 4.9 miles is not a standard it is tea and bickies time to explain what went wrong.
What boree3 is saying that you would not run aircraft ONLY 5 miles apart in enroute airspace as you would have no wriggle room if the speeds changed.
It seemed pretty obvious what they were on about to me.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icao Tiba
Ozmasheer,
I had the same concerns re availability of TIBA broadcast info in International documents.
TIBA is an approved ICAO procedure (ICAO Annex 11 Attachment C). It is also reproduced in the Jepp World Wide Text document that I had a look at yesterday (ATC page 475 for those interested if my document was not a company tailored one). It is not only in the AU pages as far as I am aware.
Whether all overseas pilots operating in Australian airspace have access to the information I do not know. Perhaps given recent publicity the various operators will take steps to ensure they do.
I do agree that the TIBA procedures are insufficient for ensuring separation in airspace without ATS being provided. 5nm sep IMHO is waaay too close in TIBA airspace and to claim it is the standard, as a spokesman did, is decpetive.
The bottom line is that it should not be happening in Australia and the fact that it is is a great indictment on the long term management of Airservices and CASA.
I had the same concerns re availability of TIBA broadcast info in International documents.
TIBA is an approved ICAO procedure (ICAO Annex 11 Attachment C). It is also reproduced in the Jepp World Wide Text document that I had a look at yesterday (ATC page 475 for those interested if my document was not a company tailored one). It is not only in the AU pages as far as I am aware.
Whether all overseas pilots operating in Australian airspace have access to the information I do not know. Perhaps given recent publicity the various operators will take steps to ensure they do.
I do agree that the TIBA procedures are insufficient for ensuring separation in airspace without ATS being provided. 5nm sep IMHO is waaay too close in TIBA airspace and to claim it is the standard, as a spokesman did, is decpetive.
The bottom line is that it should not be happening in Australia and the fact that it is is a great indictment on the long term management of Airservices and CASA.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sandpit
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to CASA and AsA the 10 years I spent as an Area Controller were a complete waste of time and I really wasn't needed. Can someone just pass that on to the flying school at Coffs where I spoked to the young vfr student lost in IMC west of Coffs...I could go with a littany of lost pilots, helping guys (GA & RPT Jets) trying to find their way through the crap weather to get north of Casino. But hey my colleages and I (alongwith AsA) were taking money under false pretences as we were not really needed.
When you're sitting in your cockit at M.83 at FL320 I hope you're comfortable with someone at the same level who may or may not be on your frequency and may or may not have a working TCAS passing 15nm in front
When you're sitting in your cockit at M.83 at FL320 I hope you're comfortable with someone at the same level who may or may not be on your frequency and may or may not have a working TCAS passing 15nm in front
Actually the separation standard is 1 nm.
Tolerences are then added to this dependant on the airspace and surveilance system.
So in TMA within 50 nm of a radar head the tolerences applied to each "paint" are 0.8 nm.
0.8 + 0.8 = 1.6 + 1nm for the separation = 2.6. This is rounded up to 3nm.
In enroute the tolerences are 1.6.
1.6 + 1.6 = 3.2 + 1nm sep =4.2. Rounded up to 5nm.
Those tolerence figures are approximate. I'm a long way from my copy of the books but you should get the idea.
Outside of radar/ADSB coverage the standards are 20nm or 10 minutes longitudinal.
Lateral [I think, it's been a long time since wielded a spanner]
30nm either side of track for DR.
That is 61nm between aircraft tracks at the same level.
8nm either side of track for Rnav
That's 17nm between aircraft tracks at the same level.
If no one is looking at the radar which standard should it be gauged on?
AA
Tolerences are then added to this dependant on the airspace and surveilance system.
So in TMA within 50 nm of a radar head the tolerences applied to each "paint" are 0.8 nm.
0.8 + 0.8 = 1.6 + 1nm for the separation = 2.6. This is rounded up to 3nm.
In enroute the tolerences are 1.6.
1.6 + 1.6 = 3.2 + 1nm sep =4.2. Rounded up to 5nm.
Those tolerence figures are approximate. I'm a long way from my copy of the books but you should get the idea.
Outside of radar/ADSB coverage the standards are 20nm or 10 minutes longitudinal.
Lateral [I think, it's been a long time since wielded a spanner]
30nm either side of track for DR.
That is 61nm between aircraft tracks at the same level.
8nm either side of track for Rnav
That's 17nm between aircraft tracks at the same level.
If no one is looking at the radar which standard should it be gauged on?
AA
Last edited by amberale; 18th Jul 2008 at 10:58.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Oztraylia
Age: 53
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boree and Max 1, all you did is reinforce my point. Yes, the standard is rounded up to 5 miles (thanks Amberale) but not in all airspace and not everyone who reads this is a controller. So when boree said that if you asked any controller if when he used less than 5 miles, he would reply never. Well, that is incorrect and I was suggesting that he should clarify his arguement by saying what controller in what airspace. So asking about my margin of error is really a moot point. I am talking about no controller ever using less than 5 miles. No agro here just suggesting a clarification.
Cheers
FGS
Cheers
FGS
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Anywhere but here
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Word getting around the traps:
CB APP have lost/are loosing a number of controllers, AsA looks at the College instructors to jump into the hot seat (APP), if only there was someone there to train them.
Next Radar course starting in August will not actually commence the 'course' till next year due to lack of instructors. They will most likely assist TGOs, take out the rubbish each arvo etc.
If anyone sees this improving, take a closer look.
CB APP have lost/are loosing a number of controllers, AsA looks at the College instructors to jump into the hot seat (APP), if only there was someone there to train them.
Next Radar course starting in August will not actually commence the 'course' till next year due to lack of instructors. They will most likely assist TGOs, take out the rubbish each arvo etc.
If anyone sees this improving, take a closer look.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so now we are talking about a Cessna instead of a Learjet. Almost every time the press refer to a small jet it's a "Learjet". One often hears a US rego plane, I wonder how long they can operate here in Oz as US reg?
So with TIBA there are no seperation standards? I guess not to some degree 'cause yr not under any radar control etc. Not being involved in that level of flight I'm learning at others mistakes.
FG
So with TIBA there are no seperation standards? I guess not to some degree 'cause yr not under any radar control etc. Not being involved in that level of flight I'm learning at others mistakes.
FG
FGS no worries.
I thank dog for 3nm every shift.
"I've got 3.2"
"you need 5 for wake turb you idiot"
I understand the sector folks being reluctant to monitor 5nm for 30 minutes on a 1000nm scale screen though.
AA
I thank dog for 3nm every shift.
"I've got 3.2"
"you need 5 for wake turb you idiot"
I understand the sector folks being reluctant to monitor 5nm for 30 minutes on a 1000nm scale screen though.
AA
High Surveillance separation on a large range
AA,
Concerns are right....
Do you really think AsA has ever had any evidence that 5nm is safe at a range greater than 500nm??
I don't think so!!
Controllers are separating without a standard every day.
Would CASA care, I doubt it??
ER_BN
Concerns are right....
Do you really think AsA has ever had any evidence that 5nm is safe at a range greater than 500nm??
I don't think so!!
Controllers are separating without a standard every day.
Would CASA care, I doubt it??
ER_BN