View Full Version : Perth STARs and ATC

20th Jan 2004, 03:30
This is for general comment and peoples thoughts:

Perth ILS Rwy 03 has been up and running for over a year and a bit now, and yet there are still no (STAR) arrivals for this runway from some routes from the North. It seems odd that a major airport such as this with new facilities (the ILS 03) has not created a new arrival.

After all what is the purpose of a STAR?
(I always thought it facilitated a transition from a route to an arrival, with the benefits of being abale to plan your descent arrival etc - Jepp definitions aside)

Currently from experience an arrival from the North gets (say original track is via BIU) tracking to Pinja (on an adjacent route) for a Pinja Arrival for the instrument procedure (which according to the arrival is a VOR approach).

This times that I have seen this, the weather has not been terrible in Perth, but it has not been sufficient for a visual approach - it has certainly favoured using the ILS.

This solution so far has to been to request the ILS 03 - which results in vectors for the ILS. (This of course is an easy solution).

SO For those in the know - why
(a) has no STAR been created (or is it due soon)
and secondly:
(b) why do ATC tend to utilise a second grade approach in preference to an ILS approach even in marginal/average weather conditions. (I always thought the order of accuracy went ILS, VOR, NDB - and most people I would assume would prefer the safest, most accurate approach possible. )
(c) how do ATC get trained - in terms of what are they told about arrivals to give - vs what is generally preferred by the pilots?

Capt Claret
20th Jan 2004, 06:08
The powers that be are still working on the design of the STARs to feed into the 03 ILS. They can't quite get enough convolutions and useless turns into it yet! :E

Capn Bloggs
20th Jan 2004, 06:56
You're being a little harsh. To address your questions:

(a) has no STAR been created (or is it due soon)
They are being designed. There are a range of difficult issues, not the least of which are our beloved Dick Smithites at YPJT. The current airspace arrangement makes it very difficult to squeeze in a proper/standard arc-join onto 10nm final for the ILS. If you're happy with the mad-house arc approach onto the 21ILS from the east then good for you: I'm not and wouldn't like to see such a tight approach onto 03, thanks very much.

(b) why do ATC tend to utilise a second grade approach in preference to an ILS approach even in marginal/average weather conditions. (I always thought the order of accuracy went ILS, VOR, NDB - and most people I would assume would prefer the safest, most accurate approach possible. )

They don't "tend" to do anything of the sort. I have NEVER been told to/offered an 03 VOR/DME in preference to the 03 ILS since it has been put in.

(c) how do ATC get trained - in terms of what are they told about arrivals to give - vs what is generally preferred by the pilots?

Dunno, but I do know that what local ATC would like to do (and what we'd like as well) and what they have to do due to rules from those "in the east", are two different things.

I do admit it would make life a bit easier if, when the 03 ILS was in use, that that was on the ATIS with the advice that aircraft would be radar vectored inside 30nm to give us a bit more warning.

cirrus driver
20th Jan 2004, 07:11
Hang on a bit Capn Bloggs.
Who is now a "bit harsh" to paraphrase you.
YPJT is a busy airport where the basic training of many local and overseas ATPL holders took place.
I know many who fly there and to label them all as "Dick Smithites" is wrong. Most are professional in their approach and do not favour a cavalier approach,nor do they have the public image of the above mentioned person.
The 03 ILS approach will be tight because of the limited airspace available.
I agree the 21 ILS approach is difficult especially with a tail wind, but should be no problem for a professional sitting in 0A especially with another professional to help out.


20th Jan 2004, 07:22
Wasn't meant to be hash, just merely asking for thoughts & comments.

As for arrivals onto 03, the last 4 times I have been in (arriving from the North) have been cleared direct Pinja, for the Pinja 2 arrival, Instrument Procedure. (Which means the VOR according to the jepp chart) Each time in average weather conditions. Each time, we have requested a change to the ILS.

I just assumed it was odd to get this, as the ILS in my opinion (humble of course :} ) is better in average weather (and in good weather too).

And yes it would be nice if it could be designed a tad more user friendly than the ILS 21.

20th Jan 2004, 09:54
This "Instrument procedure" came in some time back for arrivals that had the option (Inst Vs Visual). This happens even in "beautiful blue days". Then on tfer to App at around 45 dme you normally get confirmation of the app,make visual proc or vectoring for the 03 ILS if it is in use.

I think it is preferable for FMC aircraft to convert from an Inst proc to a Vis proc at that dist/ht (generally right in the danger zone of E airspace ) rather than have one set of eyes (sometimes two :cool: ) inside modifying the box.

When the Star for 03 includes the ILS as an Inst Proc then all the angst of "OH NO a VOR APPROACH......REQUEST THE ILS" will go away.

Agree with Bloggs that the ATIS could include "expect RV for ILS" when weather dictates an approach is necessary.

Capt Fathom
20th Jan 2004, 10:00
Only in Australia can we make approaching and landing at an airport so difficult!!

Capn Bloggs
20th Jan 2004, 21:36
Cirrus Driver,
Sorry old chap. That was being a bit generalising. But unfortunately, it would be the ratbag few that would kick up a stink and stall/prevent any changes to the airspace to accomodate a half-safe STAR and 03 ILS that may have to be performed by a crew who had just flown for 10 hours (how about 16 from London on a tera-bus??!!), back of the clock. Hence my "Dick Smithites" comment.

You can say that again! Apparently the word is that Canberra won't allow ATC to give a Visual Procedure to a heavy, just in case they got confused and thought it was a Visual Approach. Now I thought I was conservative, but that is ridiculous!

Capt Claret
20th Jan 2004, 21:56
Being given a Star at 150nm apended with Instrument Procedure does make for interesting descent planning.

Will they change it to the visual procedure as I pass through 10,000', thus knocking 10 or more nm off my track, thus leaving me too high? Or, will I descend early to accommodate the possible change to visual procedure, only to actually fly the instrument procedure and gobble a whole lot of fuel down low?

And what farkin' approach WILL I brief?????? :{

21st Jan 2004, 05:22
When they give you the STAR clearance 150 miles out just tell them you REQUIRE the ILS approach. That puts the ball back in ATCs court.

If anyone is going to tire of this game first it will be ATC handling this extra RT verbalisation every time they hand out a STAR and telling the Perth Aproach what the requirement is.

Play the game people.

21st Jan 2004, 16:51
STAR design is particularly difficult in OZ with Labor Govts in most states and Libs in Canberra:E

21st Jan 2004, 17:52
Perth SIDS and STARS are a joke........full stop.

Capn Bloggs
21st Jan 2004, 23:08
Claret's a drama queen! "10 or more miles"??? Try about 5. Nothing to worry about! Just whack out the fixit stick and kill a bit of energy, "bloggs"! That's what you're paid the big bucks for, aint it?

22nd Jan 2004, 07:13
I can assure you that controllers are just as frustrated with PH airspace and procedures as are pilots. I understand that the 03ILS STAR has been held up by the need for an environmental assessment due to the change in tracks. Sounds crazy to me that we can vector acft all over the sky but need an environmental assessment for a STAR.

However, this has all become tangled up in the Breakdown of Separation (BOS) review, which holds that PH procedures don't comply with current guidlines. The complexity of the airspace redesign is due to the numerous tracks out of PH to mines and the eastern states, the RAAF airspace, the proximity of Pearce and JT (and its training area), the lack of C airspace south of PH, the need to have aircraft procedurally separated before radar coverage is lost, the need to force 80% of the traffic through a small sector east of PH (with all the consequent crossovers), etc. Wait 'til E airspace drops to FL140 (or thereabouts) later this year. Traffic departing PH will have to have a requirement to be above this inbound traffic because they wont yet be within radar coverage! Not a problem for B737 and there ilk, but definitely a problem for other aircraft.

I agree with one of the other posts - if you want the 03 ILS, just ask for it - preferably before I issue those convoluted STARs and transitions!

22nd Jan 2004, 07:27
Wow, Knackers, things certainly are more complex than they look from inside the jet. Very informative to read your post - I'm in and out of PER a lot.

Yup, as others have said: night-time or dodgy wx, I ask for the ILS, thanks. That's it. Day-time+good wx, I'm happy to track straight for a 5nm final.

My solution to the Breakdown of Separation review: just make all of PER airspace Class E. I'm told by experts that you cannot have breaches of separation in airspace where there is no prescribed separation standard............ :hmm:

22nd Jan 2004, 16:26
Just a simple question - why can't we go from "Spudo" DCT to the FAF instead of via an arc? I have yet to encounter traffic so busy at Perth to in fact (appear) to require the complexity and number of prescribed arrival procedures. It would seem to me to be ijn line with the general principle of "why make a simple job difficult wheh with a bit of thought and effort we could make it bloody near impossible" that pervades Australian aviation philosophy. NOTE - Philosophy, NOT practice. In practice Aussies are in my direct experience practical, accomplished, and decent pilots, to man/woman. It is the bureaucracy/complexity of the "system" I am querying.

22nd Jan 2004, 16:53
its worse when the Pinja star puts you straight through the Brooklands PJE (Class E) area with a requirement to be A090 at 30DME...........

Capn Bloggs
22nd Jan 2004, 20:26
You're obviously a blowin from The East. You meant to type "Peppa", I hope. And perhaps you could advise what type you fly, and what height you would normally be at 30DME? I suspect you wouldn't much higher than that, unless of course you're a wimp and can't land your light twin on 24...

For a landing on 24 from MEL, I would have thought the Peppa STAR was a pretty bloody good one. Don't blame the boys in ATC for creating E airspace at Peppa: Dick and his sycophants know/knew it all, remember, and didn't tell anyone what they were going to do. I know for a fact that ATC at PER told them about the 'chutists at Brooklands, but nothing was done. 'Coz in the states, class E always goes from 36-90DME, doesn't it??

23rd Jan 2004, 04:56
Peppa, Pinja, it all starts with P....... oh, and I didn't "blame" anyone, I was merely stating that the PH Stars are bad. The A090 requirement means you have to fly "through" the meat bombers and not over them. And they are so verbose you get writers cramp :{

Capn Bloggs
23rd Jan 2004, 07:38
WHAT HEIGHT DO YOU WANT TO BE AT 30DME? The real problem is the 15k at 52DME, not 9k at 30.
It would help matters greatly if you submit a CAIR or ASIR to get the situation fixed. It's very hard for the few of us that complain and try to get things changed when nobody goes to print.

23rd Jan 2004, 11:57

Thanks for the good post. Good to hear the background to this mess, and the view from your side of the fence.


23rd Jan 2004, 12:40
Absolutely correct Bloggsy,

Used to be able to get a waiver to that rather interesting requirement but not any more. Can anyone tell us why that restriction is in there at all, it seems a bit strange. Have tried to work it out, but my logic is obviously different to the boys in Canberra.


23rd Jan 2004, 16:26
The 52nm requirement is there to provide some opportunity for acft departing on the CLIFFY and KAJUN SIDs to climb above the inbound traffic. There are no reciprocal requirements on these SIDs so we usually give departing acft a requirement to reach FL160 by 36PH or 5miles to run PEPPA, or some such. Most aircraft seem to be able to do this, except in summer. The FK50's, in particular can struggle, but so too can the others. If we got rid of the 52nm reqmt, departing traffic would have to maintain FL130 until nearly CUN before we could give them climb. This would then cause all kinds of problems with inbound traffic, especially those not yet on radar.

Our discretion to remove the 52 rqmt was taken away from us about 12 months ago. My recollection is that an inbound acft asked for it to be cancelled but this was denied due departing traffic. Non-the-less, the acft failed to meet the requirement resulting in someone copping a hard vector. The powers that be decided that we could no longer cancel the reqmt unless it was need for separation.

It can get quite congested around PEPPA. It is not unusual to have 2 or 3 turbos on the KAJUN SID, 2 Ba146's on the CLIFFY SID and two jets inbound on the PEPPA STAR. The CLIFFY SID turns and meets the other at KAJUN and all acft are assigned FL130! Thats why the SIDs are sometimes cancelled and you get vectored to the east and southeast.

24th Jan 2004, 08:02
I'm a fan of the 03ILS no matter how tight...

The tighter the better ;)