What do you have to do to get a clearance these days?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

RE 'Airservices receives no taxation funding. Income is derived from enroute and terminal fees. '

Is not Airservices 'structured' to pay a 'dividend' to the Fed Gummint...As a Govt Business Enterprise, or is there another name for that now??

i.e. a 'profit margin'.... = a tax on each and every passenger....??

No Cheers

[CaptainMidnight]

Isn't a "published route" an issue if you're in a bug smasher...? You certainly aren't going to follow an RPT route.

My post was in response to uncle8's IFR flight, and Porter's response.

If operating to the IFR in CTA, you need to follow the published route structure unless you have prior ATC approval.

ERSA GEN FPR section 5 covers the preferred flight planning in the Melbourne area, including VFR overflight of the ML CTR.

[PA39]

clearances

Lodge a flight plan with accurate ETA'S

[andrewr]

Squawk7700:

In my head it seems to work like this and has always worked well for me

CaptainMidnight

ERSA GEN FPR section 5 covers the preferred flight planning in the Melbourne area, including VFR overflight of the ML CTR.

This is what I remember too from when I did it, but these guys seemed to have set up for this exactly and had the clearance denied.

I suspect they were trying to do CTA navs and have a box that needs to be ticked in the syllabus. They probably paid ~$1000 for the nav and will have to try again another day. They might have waited a number of weeks to get weather where 6000+ over Melbourne was possible.

It's easy to deny a clearance, but it can have a big impact on the requestor. It's not necessarily just the minor inconvenience of diverting OCTA.

[andrewr]

ML tower clears all departures to 5000. When transferred they usually get unrestricted climb to FL240 or their planned level if lower.

I have joked in the past that ATC forget that aviation is 3D, but this sounds like it is true.

Does this mean that altitude is not normally used for separation, and aircraft at different altitudes will not be permitted to cross paths without horizontal separation?

I'm guessing that levelling off at 5000 is not usually necessary, so FL240 is given before 5000 is reached. This means clearance for a 20000' block of airspace, which certainly would make it difficult to get other aircraft through.

It makes sense to clear directly to high levels if there are no conflicts, but perhaps when there are other aircraft wanting to transit the airspace a more specific clearance might be helpful - either above or below the other aircraft path.

[CaptainMidnight]

I have joked in the past that ATC forget that aviation is 3D, but this sounds like it is true.

Does this mean that altitude is not normally used for separation, and aircraft at different altitudes will not be permitted to cross paths without horizontal separation?

Vertical separation is a key component of ATC's toolset.

Within a terminal area there may be altitude limits designed into certain SIDs & STARs that provide that vertical separation. Example: an aircraft departing on a SID being vertically separated from another arriving on a STAR where there is a crossover. There are other traffic management practices that may be involved as well.

A visit to an ATSC is worthwhile to understand how it all works, ATC practices and the constraints they work with.

ERSA GEN FPR section 5.7 was indeed added some years back to advise the minimum overflight altitude that is most likely to facilitate a clearance. Availability is of course always subject to traffic at the time of the request, and RWY use at ML is also a factor.

Before filing a flight plan for a CTR/TMA transit it would be worthwhile calling the relevant TMA Traffic Manager (phone numbers are in ERSA) to discuss your requirements, determine the appropriate route/tracking and the likelihood of clearance availability.

And as PA39 has said, filing a flight plan instead of just calling up assists ATC.

[The name is Porter]

If you plot all the SID tracks on a map with unrestricted climb to 5000 you'll see it is very difficult to get an opposite direction light aircraft through that.

ATC's are paid very good money to separate aircraft. There is full radar coverage in all capital cities with most of them having ADSB coverage. There are plenty of options available to the situation described by nosewheel. Seriously, who cares if there's an opposite direction scenario. It may be difficult, is it impossible? Digitus extractus comes to mind.

[le Pingouin]

ATC's are paid very good money to separate aircraft.

That's correct and one of the tools we use is workload management. You seem to think that because it's possible it should be accommodated, regardless of the risk. Sorry, that's not the way it works. If I think there's a reasonable chance the extra dozen conflicts and additional complexity you'll create by wandering across my airspace contrary to the general traffic flow will up the workload to potentially unsafe levels then I'd be mad to let you in.

Sure there are options but unless you're there on the day and have the whole picture how can you say which if any were available?

[Nose_Wheel]

Originally Posted by le Pingouin

Sorry, that's not the way it works. If I think there's a reasonable chance the extra dozen conflicts and additional complexity you'll create by wandering across my airspace contrary to the general traffic flow will up the workload to potentially unsafe levels then I'd be mad to let you in.

Perhaps an option would be to have our controllers trained on higher volume scenarios. With a mix of GA and RPT.

If we don't have enough controllers say something. Don't use that as an excuse to provide a poor service, instead speak up and say something or how could anything change?

Isn't there a national traffic Center in Canberra that is supposed to be looking at volume and controller numbers? Obviously not working out to the benefit of service paying customers. Why is my $ worth less than someone else's?

[The name is Porter]

You seem to think that because it's possible it should be accommodated, regardless of the risk.

No, what I think is there are many tools in your arsenal to deal with risk. If this particular aircraft entering your airspace has saturated it to the point where you can accept no more, than fair enough. Was that the case on this day? I doubt it. Australia slaps itself on the back incessantly about how good it is. I doubt that too. Australia thinks it is the world leading ANSP, that's bull****. There is serious cultural change that needs to take place in there.

Sorry, that's not the way it works.

I've a pretty fair idea how it works.

Sure there are options but unless you're there on the day and have the whole picture how can you say which if any were available?

Was the aircraft offered transit at a lower level? Was the aircraft offered transit OCTA?

[le Pingouin]

Perhaps an option would be to have our controllers trained on higher volume scenarios. With a mix of GA and RPT.

You can train as much as you want. That doesn't particularly change the level where saying "no" is sensible.

If we don't have enough controllers say something. Don't use that as an excuse to provide a poor service, instead speak up and say something or how could anything change?

You're talking to the wrong end of the animal. We know we need more. It just ain't going to happen because the accountants are simpletons and understand nothing other than averages.

Isn't there a national traffic Center in Canberra that is supposed to be looking at volume and controller numbers? Obviously not working out to the benefit of service paying customers. Why is my $ worth less than someone else's?

Because it's so much smaller? The problem is the system is built around what the vast majority of the customers are doing. RPT & such flying SIDs and STARs which make an integrated system with built in safety features such as level requirements. I'm sure you'll agree this is a "good thing" as it makes things safer for the flying public. Unfortunately it makes things less flexible for those wanting to do something different. The vast majority win and the small minority lose.

[le Pingouin]

No, what I think is there are many tools in your arsenal to deal with risk. If this particular aircraft entering your airspace has saturated it to the point where you can accept no more, than fair enough. Was that the case on this day? I doubt it. Australia slaps itself on the back incessantly about how good it is. I doubt that too. Australia thinks it is the world leading ANSP, that's bull****. There is serious cultural change that needs to take place in there.

No idea of the circumstances on the day. Have you considered the possibility that we work within the limited resources we have at our disposal?

I've a pretty fair idea how it works.

In the part of the world you inhabit. I'm not saying we're special or you're special but maybe, just maybe we make do with a system that's tailored for the level of traffic we usually deal with? We don't usually have a zillion aircraft so don't have the facilities to handle that many. Double the size of the sectors you have in the US and halve the number of controllers. Would that make any difference?

Was the aircraft offered transit at a lower level? Was the aircraft offered transit OCTA?

Transit OCTA? That's up to them - in class G they can fill their boots. I think the point was they were specifically wanting a clearance.

[Homesick-Angel]

If you really need to get CTA done as part of a course, do it at night..

And I don't know what you guys are doing (or trying to request), but ATC have always done everything they can to help IFR or VFR..

[Super Cecil]

Never been through Tamworth or passed Williamtown then Angel?

[The name is Porter]

I think everyone is aware that ASA is chronically short of controllers, that's what the main issue is. Thing is, with the new Part 61 PPL a CTA endorsement is required meaning more VFR clearance requests. ASA costs these candidates 5-600 dollars every time a 'request' is knocked back, more if it's a test not including the stuff around of coming back and doing it again. VFR pilots are **** scared of requesting clearances and petrified of operating in CTA. Great culture that we've developed here.

[Squawk7700]

ASA costs these candidates 5-600 dollars every time a 'request' is knocked back,

Surely not; can't they just head into Essendon instead...? It's still Class C.

[The name is Porter]

Do you want to do an airways clearance properly or via some dinky shortcut into Essendon?

[Nose_Wheel]

Originally Posted by The name is Porter

Do you want to do an airways clearance properly or via some dinky shortcut into Essendon?

Couldn't agree more. If you are going to be trained on a procedure it needs to be done properly. And yes it's very expensive to have to do it all again because of a denied request. Happened to me.

If students are not getting the experience or knowledge they need we are breeding a a bad culture.

Whilst ASA is significantly understaffed it also depends on the controller you get. You occasionally get a good controller who knows the GA landscape and isn't afraid to use the tools to accomodate a request. Flight plan or not. The tools are there to allow it to all work.

[Squawk7700]

We were talking about Nav's from Bendigo to Moorabbin being forced to transit OCTA. I then suggested going into Essendon.

Going into Essendon CTA / Class C and landing or not (cheaper if you don't) is far more complex than obtaining a VFR transit from Bendigo to Melb in Class C. There would be far better value to depart Moorabbin for Essendon, depart out to the east and then whatever, than a VFR transit over the top of Melbourne.

Getting knocked back on a clearance in the aforementioned scenario does not sound like grounds for a repeat NAV. The school that I do my AFR's at doesn't even actually mandate entry into CTA to comply; they simply assess you on your ability to set yourself up for it and request the clearance.

If a school forced you to re-do a NAV based on the opening posters scenario, then that school is run by money-hungry low-lifes and the student should find another school.

[The name is Porter]

Squawk 7700, you are not an flying school provider, you don't know what you are talking about. Clearances into & out of Essendon without going into Class C above Essendon's zone do not incorporate level or heading changes. Quite often you are processed out via Kalkallo or Westgate bridge because your planned track cannot be accommodated.

There is a culture of 'fark GA, they don't pay' within ASA. It's justified by the table of priorities in AIP.