A question for the Oz controllers

[Green on, Go!]

Does anyone remember a paragragh that used to be in the 'separation standards' chapter of MATS prior to the re-format relating to VFR AWK helos, CASA approved to operate below 300FT AGL and outside 4NM of a runway threshold and how these aircraft could be disregarded for separation between aircraft arriving to and departing from the subject runway?
If so, this paragraph was moved to a different section of MATS (not separation) in the re-format and in the latest amendment removed all together. I know myself, my unit and other terminal units I know of were using this for separation regularly and now clearly can't. (DOH!) Furthermore, my standards manager said today that separation was never the intent of this paragraph and alluded to something about 2 way comms between these aircraft and ATS.

Can anyone shed any light?

------------------
...he pushed them and they flew

[DownUnder111]

No Further I am impressed that you can find anything in the new MATS. We(ATC's) on the whole find the new MATS to be a dogs breakfast with important stuff missing or placed in chapters that would be the last place you look. Ah well have to get used to it I suppose..

[RTB RFN]

This apathy has got to stop you lot. No we don't have to get used to it because the bloke/ette (or boss thereof) who turned something quite useable into the scrambled egg version should be dragged out of the lime pit and put to forced labour to rectify the problem. Or we could cut his/her ... off
or we could wait while the wheel turns and the next version arrives better or worse.
It's called accountability. (and who the hell approved this anyway? did anybody?)

On the matter of the Helo's - what we're really talking about is the bit recently placed under the rules for alphabet airspace which had a dispo (concession) against VFR to IFR sep and R/T requirements. Yep it's been stupidly removed probably by someone who hasn't controlled for a milleniulm and noticed that the converse IFR to VFR sep requirement remained.

Of course what we are talking about is the chopper which is operating below 100 feet or more likely below 50 feet or more likely below 20 feet in CTA airspace where an IFR aircraft would never be unless it was conducting moonlight tree lopping (gotta make that extra buck). So, let me guess - the chopper doesn't want ATC services and restrictions, the IFR doesn't want ATC restrictions/requirements, ATC want to provide a service which is warranted (regulation with intelligence) and provide a service which is desired by airspace users.

Where do we go from here people - is there a plan or is that it

Goodnight.

[Green on, Go!]

It's good to see other folks treat the MATS re-format with the same level cynicism as most people I know do. Speaking of going full circle, I see MATS is incorporated back into one volume, funny that.
I'm probably going out on a limb here but anyway, in this instance (or for any number of other foolish changes to useable and SAFE standards over the years) was there any consultation with the coal face users? Probably not.

It's not my real name but call me A Cynic.

------------------
...he pushed them and they flew

[This message has been edited by Green on, Go! (edited 30 April 2001).]

[Zarg]

Green on, Go! Or should I say, A Cynic, I may have a partial answer for you!

Having dug deep in our Aviation bookshelf, I stumbled upon a marble slab engraved with the cypher Manual of Air Traffic Services. Dusting off this archaelogical edifice inscribed with the slogan, "This document is out of date WEF 13 July 2000", I found the following entry under Separation Standards: -

"The provisions of para 24 and 26 above (references to VFR aircraft in Class C+D)do not apply in the case of VFR AWK helicopters that have been specifically approved by CASA to operate below 500FT AGL. In the application of this exception, it must be confirmed that the helicopter is operating not above 300FT AGL, and at a distance greater than 4NM from the runway threshold."

Interestingly, near an airport not a million miles from my location, a helicopter operator is in the process of negotiating a dispensation with the regulator to obtain just such a dispensation! :)

Ah what it is to belong to an organisation so in front of technological advance that we still have access to BOOKS! :)

------------------
Be CAREFUL out there!

[RTB RFN]

G'day Zarg,

I guess CASA can provide a dispo (concession) to just about anything however the applicability of reducing separation to those helo's operating on that dispo was thrown out of MATS last week. Fact is, the MATS entry was ambiguous and if you went for worst case scenario it was useless anyway.

See you in a coupla weeks

[Spodman]

MATS still does say it, hidden under Airspace Management:

"9.1.1.2 The VFR requirements in Class C & D airspace do not apply to VFR AWK helicopters that have been specially approved by CASA to
operate below 500FT AGL. In the application of this exception, it must be confirmed that the helicopter is operating not above 300FT AGL, and
at a distance greater then 4NM from the runway threshold."

Then along came a NI

"Delete existing MATS 9.1.1.2 in toto. Insert new MATS 9.1.1.2:
9.1.1.2 ATSOs may exempt VFR AWK aircraft operating below 300 FT AGL
in Class C & D airspace from the requirement to maintain continuous two-way
radio communication."

------------------
I am not an animal, I am an ATC.

[375ml]

A new annual award will be issued by each FIRM for:

The person who takes less than six days to find a reference in the new MATS

The award will be known as The Spodman Trophy.

[Four Seven Eleven]

And a Special Merit Spodman goes to the first person to successfully negotiate the Request for Change process and get a common sense amendment incorporated into MATS from the coal face. No time limits on this one.



------------------
Regards
4711

"The bulk of mankind is as well equipped for flying as thinking." — Jonathon Swift