Slot times and Stars in Darwin

[RENURPP]

I can already hear NFR etc saying here we go again . Sorry guys.:rolleyes:

Guys, (Darwin ATC) you need to have a look at the stars you are issuing. I have phoned to discuss this, and got the usual excuses, nothing sensible unfortunately, as for slot times, if you have any pride in your jobs you would have to be the most dissapointed ATCers in Aus. What an absolute joke!:}

1 Use the Feegs south 2 as an example. The STAR gives an instruction to carry out a NDB or ILS approach. Now you guys have expect visual approach on your ATIS, and guess what, 10/10 times we are cleared for a VOR approach. Question. Do you understand anything about the procedures and set up involved in setting up for an approach? Issuing a VOR instead of an preplanned NDB with a few miles to go DOES NOT WORK SAFELY. Either clear us for an NDB or change the STAR.

2 Once issued, you do not need to issue an instruction to follow the STAR with every other transmission. e.g. descend to 3000 track via the STAR. We were told some thing similar no less than 4 times.

3 When within 200nm there is little point advising us slot times that are more than a minute or so earlier than our ETA. Infact without holding or vectoring we find it hard to lose more that a couple of mins at that distance.
We were within 200nm and told our slot time was 6 mins earlier. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Surely you have a vague idea of what speed we can give you and to save 6 mins we would need to increase our speeds by not much under 100 kts all the way to the runway???
And what does it mean anyway is that a requirement of some sort? By advising us of a slot time should we adjust our speed to meet it, should we exceed the 250 below 10,000 ft requirement. I personally ignore it. Given a slot time today, and guess what, we were the only aircraft within Coooeeee of the joint. So if I had been keen and "professional" I may have adjusted my speed to meet the slot time, waisting fuel and for absoluelty no reason!

4 Asked for a ndb the other day and was advised we would require 2 holding patterns. On approach we were advised the reason was another aircraft had a conflicting slot time. Not one other aircraft was on frequency.No aircraft landed or took off in excess of 20 mins I was there. Sunday afternoon in Darwin and they can't get it right. Unbelieveable.

Any way tell me again, training, low experience etc etc.

[ITCZ]

REN, save your breath. You are just a +15,000hr jet captain that operates all over oz with a swag of instructing/cfi/chief pilot/high cap aoc om author experience. What the fark would you know? That 25yo FLTLT in on the screen is a professional. Somebody with three or more pips on their shoulders told him so. Back in your box.

[PLovett]

Chaps, merely as a suggestion why not get the company to offer some jump seat experience to these guys so that they can appreciate the problems from the pointy end rather than the blunt. :ok:

[Capt Claret]

PLovett

Tried that. After much pushing got the OK, then DOTARs mandated only ASIC holders on the flight deck and the ATCOs at RAAF DRW don't hold an ASIC, they hold a military equivalent! :ugh: :ugh:

RENURPP

CNS is becoming similar.

Yesterday after modifying the descent IAW the STAR (Sunny 2, BIB Tx) and cancellation of the speed restriction below 10,000' and after commencing descent we were asked to slow to pass BIB at 38, meaning a loss of two minutes in something like 40odd miles, then 250kts from BIB. :eek:

A speed reduction of 110kts was required to meet the setcourse time but it left us somethig like 6000' high at BIB, with only 45nm to run.

[PLovett]

Tried that. After much pushing got the OK, then DOTARs mandated only ASIC holders on the flight deck and the ATCOs at RAAF DRW don't hold an ASIC, they hold a military equivalent!

Jesus wept clarrie. Words fail me. :oh:

[Capt Claret]

PLovett

Department Of Turkeys Against Reason (or) Sense!

[RENURPP]

You know all I am after is some one with a little common sense (from the RAAF) to discuss and if we feel the need make some changes!

I work for a "mob" that has ex military in control, I know what you are up against. EGO's with little ability, simply won't listen cause they already know every thing. I have not given up hope that some day things may change.

ATC accepting there is a problem, indicating that they will follow it up with the CO would be a start, then we can monitor and see what happens.

[No Further Requirements]

Geez, glad I'm not up there still! Sounds like lots of fun (not).

RAAFies don't have pips - that's army mate :ok:

Cheers all,

NFR.

[RENURPP]

Maybe you should still be here.
a STAR must end with an instrument approach (PANSOPS criteria - yes, there are a few exceptions
Agreed and was one of the points i tried to get across
At present and for quite some time the ILS is U/S.
The Star leads into either an ILS or a NDB approach. EVERY time we are we approach FEEGS or HWS we are cleared for a visual approach or a VOR approach???
When we set the BOX up, when the star is issued, (with ILS U/S) we set it up for an NDB. including minima's etc. Haven't looked at the VOR and it doesn't really matter but the altitude limitations and tracking can be quite different. It is the dry so no big deal, BUT when the wet arrives, not far now, and we have to do one for real then we are not set up. Apart from which the STAR says NDB or ILS so why on earth can't they read that and clear as it says?
The answer I got from ATC was, "just ask for an NDB if you don't want to do a VOR" they completely missed the point and I reckon complete lack of understanding of what it is all about.:sad:
Now i know its a systematical thing and thats fine, BUT how about, when questioned they simply don't offer excuses. They can listen and, heaven forbid THINK and then maybe they can go to the boss and say "hey boss,SIR, (smart salute shiny shoes and all) I think this may need addressing". If they question us I am bloody sure thats exactly what happens. Our problem being we have ex military no it alls running flight ops and they don't listen either.

I am very used to STARs etc, I am not familiar with being given a slot time as is issued here. Does a slot time = requirement? Is there a reference for that? You are joking suggesting requesting track shortening?
What is this slot time thing? Like I said they issue us with slot times, indicating go fast, and then nothing lands after us for over 20 mins. Go figure! Surely track shortening is taken for granted? As long as it is issued with sufficient notice of course?

[yowie]

Slot times in Darwin, you have to be joking? Sounds about as smart as the STAR's,maybe the mainline boys need to program the slot time into the box as well! I do remember something about the mil and civil systems not talking to each other and something else about DN ATC not being able to use radar info for sequencing,who really knows?

[maxgrad]

Got my first slot time to DN couple of days back, accepted(read said okydoky) and continued . Got to the field 4 mins ahead of my slot and you guessed it, was the only one about. Others were inbound behind but no conflicting times or modaplanes.

I ask the same, if we miss our slot into DN (repeat DN and not SYD or another busier port) do we hold for the next available slot if we are unable to adjust profile and speed or as I did just get in, down and out the bluddy way so someone else can lob in?

Why does DN need a slot time system? Us? Them? Us and them?
Is there an us and them? Or is it everyone scratching their heads?

[787 Captain]

Hey everyone, leave them alone! The guys at Darwin need to feel important somehow! :ugh:

[RTB RFN]

Some information guys.

The Darwin Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is the result of consultation with all of the affected stakeholders. By consultation I mean involvement in the prescription of design and procedures. All except one of the stakeholders were constructive. That one stakeholder was not an aircraft operating company. If you were not there then you were or should have been represented.

The TMP does not only consider civvy jets. It is different to other TMP’s in that it does a good job of looking after the efficiency and safety interests of:

Civvy jets, domestic and international
GA operations
Military operations,
Mid level carriers, and
Helicopters

It is a compromise that looked at all options previously used in Australia and added some innovations to improve efficiency and effectiveness for all. There are some procedures that are invisible to pilots such as Autorelease for both FW and RW aircraft and internal ATC coordination practices. There are other visible procedures such as reduced RT for RW and direct tracking inbound and outbound and the provision of automatic lateral separation and increase safety levels. The intent was to limit ATC intervention where possible and increase predictability, particularly for jets. The ideal was to include tailored arrivals and this was a specific request from the red kangaroo however this was considered to not be a viable option by the adjoining ATS provider. The tailored arrivals system would require a jet pilot to be at a 15nm point on final at a specific time and further slots consider ALL other traffic in relation to sequencing, not just RPT jets. That time should be provided as soon as possible to enable crews to configure to achieve (1000NMs!!!). Ironically that other ATS provider is now conducting tailored arrivals and has accepted some kudos for their progressive outlook!

The early DAP issues were also not a function of the RAAF effort.

The TMP was a radical departure from the previous “tactical” method of ATC at Darwin and has improved efficiency and safety in this airspace – for all participants. The TMP system should continue to be refined to improve and constructive input by pilots is needed by ATC for this purpose.

The issues of what approach to conduct from Feegs or whatever may be a matter for the crew to also become involved in determining. If ATIS says expect VSA then plan VSA from 15nm final. If you are on a STAR then some sort of straight in approach is indicated. If you do not want a LLZ or ILS or VOR then speak up early, offer a solution and help not winge afterwards. Military ATC are taught that they are part of the team, part of the solution – have a think about it.

The most important point about the Darwin TMP is that it provides a compromise to improve safety and efficiency for all users, not just RPT jets, not just Military jets, not just GA etc. Remember this.

NB I am not a RAAF ATC although was once and was particularly proud of the effort we continued to provide in and external to Australia. I also have flying experience.

[podbreak]

While we're on this, whats the deal with (i'm well within 30nm) "descend to 3000, cleared visual approach rwy 11 contact tower at... miles" during the day? whats the point in clearing us to 3000 then clearing us for a visual approach in one instruction (LSALT is 2600 anyway)? not having a go, maybe i'm missing something.

Also, we were asked to cross a waypoint 70 or something miles from our position almost 5 minutes after we were due to arrive. There wasn't alot of traffic around, unless they had buggered radios. How the hell can we gain 5 minutes over 70 miles? aside from flying a freakin stall speed. And is it that busy really? I can understand this situation coming into singapore, or HKG, but darwin?

[RENURPP]

Thanks for the info, although it does not relate to any of the points I brought up.
I have no problems with the TMP plan. I have a problem with the way it is implemented.

Your answer is very close to the response I received when I phoned DN ATC.
The VOR approach is not an option UNLESS it is advised to us ith the STAR. Even then it is not part of the STAR, the NDB and ILS are so why not issue the STAR as is published.

Maybe the STAR needs to be revised to include a visual option as most STARs in other locations do?

As for the slot times, there is nothing above that answers my questions.

[RTB RFN]

I'm pretty sure I do understand your issues. There is an imperative to stick to the plan and that is reflected by airline company management but not always the preference of the pilot of the moment. Some want to shortcut the STAR others want VSA others want different approaches, some want vectors, some don't, none want speed control and of course every pilot is in the sky on their own and wants to be numero uno.

I agree that the STAR should conclude with the advertised approach but what is the difference between a final 15nm straight-in segment being flown visually or ILS or other (apart from your system set-up of course). A different straight in 15 nm final approach would be technically irrelevant to ATC unless the expected airspeed paramaters are altered significantly (and this variance should be a consideration by ATC regardless). If the plate says NDB or ILS I do not see the issue with ATC issuing an ATC instruction permitting any other approach (or cancelling STAR and permitting another approach). There is flexibility to give you what you want most of the time. Yes the STAR could list every possible approach to get you on the ground from a 15nm final point. Also a visual component is an option of refinement of design and/or an option for flight on the last 15nm final segment. No problems there.

So is your issue not having a heads up on what approach you will get or the fact that the words are not on the plate?

On slot times ...... airspace and traffic management always has a dynamic that may include weather, emergencies, unknown events etc and therefore some tactical air traffic control must at times be implemented (and expected/appreciated). The idea is to provide slot times for RPT jets and fit other inbound traffic and departures within those times.

Bottom line is that ATC do not know everything about all things as RPT jet pilots also do not. We need your input to adapt and impove and there is no unwillingness by ATC to do so. ATC attempt to provide the best and safest solution to the whole breadth of aviation operations at Darwin NOT JUST RPT. and often that is a complex and demanding task. Darwin is well known for its ATC challenges so please do not underestimate the ATC efforts to provide the best service they can. I suggest you transfer your thoughts from the PPRUNE page into a precise solution or suggestion and send that in writing to the execs at Darwin. They are good people and professionals and will consider this in relation to effect upon other operations and compliance. Some of these issues are not the domain of Darwin ATC and should be directed to Airsevices Australia. PM me if you need further assistance.

[IMHFO]

"REN, save your breath. You are just a +15,000hr jet captain that operates all over oz with a swag of instructing/cfi/chief pilot/high cap aoc om author experience. What the fark would you know? That 25yo FLTLT in on the screen is a professional. Somebody with three or more pips on their shoulders told him so. Back in your box."

Can't resist a well intentioned pi$$ing contest.:ok:

Not the greatest analogy - time doesn't always = well anything except ...time!:hmm:

The 25 y/o ATC probably has 8,000 hours up and could also hold every RADAR, enroute and tower rating and have experience at 5 locations (including brethtakingly busy locations in the Mid East), instructor, ATC supervisor, author, beer drinker, fishmonger etc. Probably 90% of those hours would be solid ATC with 10 % considering the fish or chicken options - not the other way around.

A senior FLtLT/SQNLDR would have 20-30K hours with simlar experience.:E

[RENURPP]

Firstly, i don't believe the problem lies with individuals, and I am not intending to put down individual ATCers. It appears to be in the system, and the culture within the system.
Over the last 17yrs up here, I have tried to communicate with RAAF about the way they do things, and how they affect us. The responses here are similar to the response I get on the phone, excuse and, its not us and why don't you simply do this.'Well not good enough guys.
It doesn't happen any where else WHY does it have to happen here???
I agree that the STAR should conclude with the advertised approach but what is the difference between a final 15nm straight-in segment being flown visually or ILS or other (apart from your system set-up of course).
There are some very major differences. The missed approach for starters.
Its the system set up. Exactly!
If I anticipate a particular instrument approach (because thats what the STAR says i will be doing)then i set up for that. That includes programming the box with MDA that the aircraft will automatically fly to.It will modify our descent profile and altitude limitations and speed acoordingly. Modifying the auto calls for the appropriate minima, set the go around altitiudes which control when thrust reduction takes place, as well as selecting the tracking and missed approach. This is all with out considering you may now have 2 pilots who have different ideas about what will happen in a go around. (diference between a a go around from VSA or instrument.) If you don't beleive me simply ask what guys would do if they were cleared for a visual approach at Cairns and had to go around? It some times needs to be discussed. i.e. "breifed"
If this is all inserted and we have to go around then it is simply a press of 1 button and the aircraft will fly the missed approach as selected, reduce thrust the lot. Have a guess why modern aircraft have all this computer stuff in them??
If I set up for an instrument approach in Darwin and you clear me for a visual appoach or vice versa then I may either get no thrust reduction as i don't reach the nominated altititude or it will reduce before I want it to.
My point still stands and I have seen not one reason from you guys to change my thinking.
The Darwin rwy 29 STARs finish with a NDB or ILS, the ILS is out for a considerable time, SO you should be clearing us for a 29 NDB, whats the bloody problem.
If an individual crew request a visual approach then great, different story. No problem at all.
What do ATC from say Perth think would be the response if you issued us with a JENNA Five arrival and on approaching SPUDO cleared us for a 24 VOR approach with no previous consultation?
or Cairns we were cleared for a CODIE TWO and approaching CODIE cleared for a runway 15 VOR?

[celeritas]

You have got to be f****ing kidding me!!! Darwin has a TMP!!! This has got to be the funniest joke I have heard in a long while. What 90000 (and I am sure this is generous) moves a year and your issuing slot times - I guess a lot has changed over the years!! RAAF needs to pull its head out of its a***e and have a reality check and see how things are done in different places and maybe different countries. RENURPP you are correct if the STAR ends in a published approach procedure then that is the only procedure that can be flown unless the STAR is cancelled. You cannot clear someone for a VOR approach via the STAR if the VOR approach is not part of the STAR. As for an expectation of a visual approach - it is just that an ATC expectation that you will get visual and be able to conduct a visual approach. Nothwithstanding such an IFR aircraft has the right to conduct the published IFR approach irrespective of the weather conditions (taking into account minimas and such things). RTB RFN you are missing the point here. You were a very good controller and you moved stuff in and around DN efficiently, safely and expeditiously back in the 90's but it sounds like the efficient and expeditious flow of traffic has taken a back seat. Maybe the equipment that they have up there isn't as good as it was supposed to be - that and the fact that anyone with a heartbeat in RAAF ATC over the last few years has moved on to other things!!!

[RTB RFN]

RENURPP and Celeritas this is good stuff.

Clearly this is all about predictability and of course that is why we included the STAR/SID module set for civvy jets and why the TMP exists - pureley for the strategic management of air traffic at Darwin to improve safety and the service. (You may not know but there is an interfacing STAR/SID set for military fast movers that integrates with your movements and with the other differing movements at Darwin - there are six TMP modules that integrate within the TMP).

So the learning point for ATC is that you need the final portion to remain predictable (per the STAR) unless there is unexpected/unplanned exigency from you, others or the ATC system.

I am familiar with the variability of different responses in certain circumstances and was involved with the action of crews in response to either a pilot or ATC initiated go-around from a visual approach AT NIGHT for an IFR aircraft (at Townsville) (what would you do? what will your co-pliot do? what do ATC think they can do and what do ATC think you will do!!!!). Perhaps another topic for discussion.

Regardless I know that this thread is receiving attention from interested parties and some constructive result should eventuate (I will make some enquiries). Keep us informed.

NB Celeritas it is not so much the numerical value of moves but the differing types, language factors and the incredible complexities/numerical values during large scale military exercises. I suspect you know this.

[RENURPP]

And vice versa would be appreciated as well.


Also don't get me wrong track shortening is always benificial, I guess its simply a case of knowing whats going to happen at the other end.

[celeritas]

I have found that if a pilot/ATC is put in the picture as to the why's and wherefore's then the unpredicability can be taken out of the picture. I am sure that RENURPP would agree that if he was told that the STAR is cancelled and given a reason and as to why (ie. due traffic, track shortening, vectors for an alternative approach other than that advertised) then we wouldn't be having this discussion. In this instance it seems that ATC need to be more aware that in this day and age of glass cockpits and smart nav systems, reprogramming for an approach other than what is advertised or planned (via the tie-in with the STAR) takes time and significant effort at a crucial stage of the flight. Two sides to every story I am sure but on this one RENURPP has a valid point. RTB RFN good to hear that you are alive and well and still trying to present a balanced argument; heard on the grapevine that you to moved on to other things; at least they named a STAR after you!!!!

[RTB RFN]

Celeritas and RENURPP, thank you both and yes still trying to find my nirvana however (and perhaps sadly) I suspect it resides at Darwin and with Northern Territory aviation and ATC. Too many years there and at Alice.

The education progam must remain dynamic and that is what all of this is about. I have learned or been reminded of some flying issues here and others have also. I also think this has national implications so I am thinking of perhaps an article in one of the Flight Safety media forums - otherwise the effort was worthless.

I think I know you both but that is all part of the intrigue of PPRUNE.

Cheers - :)

[RENURPP]

Guys, and gals, (Darwin ATC)

Just to make my point a bit clearer, there may still be some confusion.

The only reason you should, (in my oppinion) be issuing 29 NDB approach instead of the 29 VOR off a STAR is that it is part of the published STAR, the VOR is not.

last night we were not issued a STAR and were radar vectored then given direct to FEEGS HWS then the 29 NDB.

In this case it should revert back to the AIP and I guess MATs priority of ILS, LLZ, VOR, then NDB last of all.

It wasn't a problem as the FMC basically flies the approach. how ever in a bugsmasher using the NDB for navigation, especially in the wet season the dam thing points at the closest TS, wich quite often hangs around over the top of HWS anyway, but makes the NDB's effectively useless for navigation.

It was quite busy on the radio last night but alot of the calls were not needed.
some body previously asked the question and I wonder as well.

Why rather than issue continual steps down don't you clear us to a lower level "not below DME steps"
Last night it went some thing lile this.
ABC descend F140.
F140 ABC
ABC approaching F140
ABC descend 130
ABC F130
ABC maintaining F130
ABC descend 10,000
10,000 left F130 ABC etc etc. Obviously we were not the only ones. This takes up a hell of a lot of radio time.

I am assuming some not all of the time the levels are due to CTA steps, as most of the time there are no aircraft around, within at least 40nm anyway, as thats the distance our TCAS can see.

[Capn Bloggs]

Why rather than issue continual steps down don't you clear us to a lower level "not below DME steps"
That would be a retrograde step. DME Arrivals/Steps went out with the ark. Too pilot-workload intensive, esp in today's environment of FMS and STARs. ATC should be good enough (ie sequence you away/slow you down from the traffic causing the problem) to not require the pilots to self-descend "not below the DME steps". This is 2006, with a $600m+ ATM system running the show. If the steps are so limiting, move them out. To hell with RHS. I'll bet the local VFRs wouldn't mind.
The system must do better than this.

[topdrop]

DME Arrivals are used regularly in Oz.
Come to think of it what's the difference between a DME Arrival and a LLZ/DME approach (apart from LLZ for azimuth guidance)?

[Whizzwheel]

Guys and gals, there are some very constructive points here that, I hope, will be looked at seriously by DN ATC... sad to see that there's also a bunch of moronic RAAF-bashing cr@p as well - confirm that DN ATC is manned jointly by RAAF and Civvys?

For what it's worth, we had some 'efficiency' issues with the same place during a big exercise a few years ago. Those concerns were raised, and DN did an amazing job changing the way it did business to make things work a whole lot better the next time.

Keep pushing this stuff up REN; if it's valid, I'm sure DN will start listening.

[Capt Claret]

Last night I had a similar experience to RENURPP's the previous night.

STAR clearance given 7nm before the STAR's transition (from BN CTR).
Descent clearance issued after TOPD
Cleared VAP from FEEGS which was good
Speed reduction to 230 KIAS due slow tracffic in front. Subscribing to a colleagues philosophy that if slowed in DRW alway go slower, we slowed to 210.
Speed reduction to min approach (we were already there)


TRB RFN

One thing I don't understand is, when a pilot calls "visual", IAW AIP ENR 1.1 - 23, para 11.5.7,
11.5.7 A pilot in command operating under the IFR who desires a visual approach and is satisfied that the visual conditions as per para 11.5.1 can be met must report ‘VISUAL’. A pilot who is unable to continue a visual approach which has been authorised by ATC must immediately advise ATC.

we still get cleared for an instrument approach, or asked do we want a visual approach or an instrument approach; all this when the ATIS says, "Expect visual approach".

Is there a reason that advice from the pilot that they are visual, means something different?

[Capn Bloggs]

topdrop,

DME Arrivals are used regularly in Oz.

I should have clarified. I meant that "descend to XXXX not below the DME steps" doesn't happen at any of our radar-towered airports. I agree that DME Arrivals (in the context of a full-blown instrument approach procedure) are still used, almost always only in Class G airpsace at CTAF airports. A DME Arrival or LLZ/DME is quite different to Renurpps descent problem at DRW.

[Left Unrestricted]

Capt Claret
Strictly speaking a report of visual only means that a VSA can be made. Obviously if you desire a VSA you must report visual first (as per your AIP quote), but by itself a report of visual doesn't indicate approach intentions.
Consider that you are required to report flight conditions on first contact with approach (ENR 1.1 11.1.6). Just becasue you may be visual on first contact (which is often the case in DN at this time of year) and report such doesn't necessarily mean you want a VSA.

Whizzwheel
Thanks for the positive feedback. A lot of work went into the procedures for PB06 and there was also substaintial simulator work for App controllers. While everything wasn't prefect it a hell of a lot better than in the past. Any FYI DN is all RAAF.

Remember at the end of the day the slot times at DN are only a trial. The system isn't perfect yet and changes have already been made as a result of feedback from customers. If you have constructive criticism or suggestions I'm sure they will be considered in the washup.

[RENURPP]

I have not got a copy of AIP or Jepps with me, so relying on memory and its a bit shot, and will only be worse on monday morning i can assure you, so please excuse me if I am mis quoting. Claret, maybe you can find the appropriate para and copy it for us.

My understanding is that there is no requirement to report in flight conditions on first contact. With that in mind...........

11.5.7 A pilot in command operating under the IFR who desires a visual approach and is satisfied that the visual conditions as per para 11.5.1 can be met must report ‘VISUAL’. A pilot who is unable to continue a visual approach which has been authorised by ATC must immediately advise ATC.


I can find no other way of reading it than to say, if a pilot reports visual he is requesting a visual approach. (note the bolding)

[Left Unrestricted]

Sorry, I should have put a quote in not just the ref.

ENR1.1-19 para 11.1.6
"11.1.6 When making first contact with Approach Control, the following
apply:
...
b. Identified -- report assigned level, flight conditions, if appropriate,
and receipt of ATIS (code)."
I know it says "if appropriate" but the way I read that is if you are visual you should report so on first contact.

Funny how you can read exactly the same paragraph differently. I read 11.5.7 as if you want a VSA you must report visual (obviously because you must be visual before you can have a VSA), but I don't think it says (nor can I find it anywhere else) that if you report visual you want a VSA. A subtle difference, but just the way I read it.

GEN 3.4 says that "pilot to advise when able to conduct a visual approach" (my underline) should be instructed to "report visual". IMHO reporting visual means you can do a VSA, not necessarily that you want one. Perhaps just a difference of opinion here.

I can accept though that most pilots reporting visual want a VSA (or have been instructed to report visual).

[RENURPP]

We regularly monitor our descent with regards to CTA steps, as you well know. It requires less workload than levelling off, waiting for an opportunity to get further descent down we go. In the event I described above we levelled off, i.e. altitude captured no less than three times. All due to radio conjestion.
ATC should be good enough (ie sequence you away/slow you down from the traffic causing the problem)
I don't believe they are doing it due traffic. They do it all the time. I recall a DN ATCer a while back making a comment on here that 146 drivers regularly busted the CTA steps, and not long after the procedure described above started happening.

I would be interested in hearing from ATC as to why they do it?

[RENURPP]

Well there's the problem. You read it like an ATCer, and I read it like a pilot.

The way I understand, and I have to say it works a treat in other ATC environments is.
If I am visual and desire a visual approach I call visual on first contact.
If I subsequently become visual and desire a visual approach I call visual.

If I am visual and prefer to carry out an instrument approach, e.g one attached to a STAR, I won't say anything unless asked.

but I don't think it says (nor can I find it anywhere else) that if you report visual you want a VSA. A subtle difference, but just the way I read it.


doesn't the following say exactly that?
11.5.7 A pilot in command operating under the IFR who desires a visual approach and is satisfied that the visual conditions as per para 11.5.1 can be met must report ‘VISUAL’. A pilot who is unable to continue a visual approach which has been authorised by ATC must immediately advise ATC.


As an aside, A few pilots won't report visual until they are within 30nm. There thinking is you cannot be issued or carry out a visual approach until within 30nm.
Reporting visual, indicates your desire to conduct the approach when permitted as per 11.5.1 (I am guessing).
You must notice alot of people waiting until right on 30nm to report visual.
I am not one of them, not that its a problem I guess.

[podbreak]

Just becasue you may be visual on first contact (which is often the case in DN at this time of year) and report such doesn't necessarily mean you want a VSA..

I have NEVER heard or met anyone who would call visual if they didn't want a visual approach. Whats the point? Into DN, we never bother reporting visual if we are going to do an instrument approach. Moreover the handover to approach normally occurs well outside 30nm, so we never call visual on first contact. It seems that approach EXPECT you to want a visual approach at this time of year, and if you want an instrument approach you've gotta ask for it. Which brings us back to the issue, if the star is issued, then the expectation should be for the approach on the star, and a visual approach would be the requested, not expected.... perhaps the issue here is the instruction on the stars...

[RENURPP]

There you go, Podbreak is one of those pilots I speak of.
The way I read it. You don't have to be within 30nm to report visual you just can't carry out or be issued a visual approach until you are.

If you are visual and wish to conduct a visual approach then on first contact you say so.

Mind you, this ones not worth worrying about.

[podbreak]

renurpp, the only reason we do it this way is because like you said, their hands are tied until we are within 30nm, so theres no need for us to call UNTIL we are there. Don't really think ATC need the forewarning. My idea of reporting visual (at 30nm if i am visual) is like telling them I satisfy all the vis app requirements right NOW. It has happened to me before, reporting visual at 70nm, and being asked at 25nm "are you visual?".

[maxgrad]

concur with podbreak. I wait until 30 miles to advise visual when I want a vis app.

[RENURPP]

Thats fine, I don't know what ATC really want.
I would have thought following guidance in AIP would have been best,(on first contact)if you are visual of course, if ATC don't like it, they can put in a submission to change it.
I may be wrong, (again) in the past, when we reported visual wasn't our strip notated with a V, and then you could plan accordingly? For planning purposes isn't early notice of our request an advantage?

Anyway. It has been good to get responses from DN ATC guys and gals, Too many times in the past it ends up in a slanging match. I hope you find the time to continue discussing some of these issues with us. I find it good value.

I would still like some input on the following.

How do the slot times work?
The NOTAM said it was intended for aircraft departing within 200nm (I think), it appears now to include every body?

Lighties phone up for slot times, jets don't, does our late notice affect our slot time?

Is there still a priority system. RPT/non schedule etc involved in the slot system?

What happens if an aircraft cannot meet its slot time?

When on a STAR, can you advise the reason you clear us in steps rather than descent to say 3000ft, traffic being an obvious reason, is there another?
Seems to create a lot of chatter.

[Left Unrestricted]

I can try to answer a few of those.

1. When you report visual the strip (yes we do still use them...) will be annotated with a V. From personal preference I like to know you are visual as soon as you are. I know I can't give you a VSA before 30nm so if you give it to me early I'm not going to clear you immediately or anything like that. I know not everyone is visual before 30nm, but reporting as soon as you are is good, it saves me having to ask.

2. The reference to the slot times being for aircraft within 200nm DN refers to aircraft having to call for one, either by phone or flightwatch (probably could be worded a little better). Slot times still apply to RPT and the like coming from outside 200nm, it just means you don't have to ask for one. It is calculated and booked automatically when BN advise us of you estimate for the field and is why you may possibly get a not before time for your 40nm transition point.

3. If an aircraft cannot make its slot time, it will be given the next closest available slot and sequenced (vectored, slowed, orbited) in order to meet this slot. Having said that though most larger aircraft are meeting slots within a couple of minutes and rather than stuff everyone around controllers are just tweaking the sequence to make it work. Generally this involves moving the GA guys around to accommodate the aircraft on STARs (usually because they are the ones having trouble meeting their slots). Strictly speaking though if you are late (or early for that matter) you should be given additional track miles or told to enter the hold until the next slot becomes available (can't wait for the reaction to the first controller who actually does that....)

4. The later notice we receive for aircraft on STARs is creating a situation where their estimate clashes with a slot already booked by a GA aircraft and so the STAR aircraft is slowed, effectively giving the GA aircraft higher priority. This is particularly frustrating when the GA aircraft doesn't show and the STAR aircraft is left saying what the hell was I slowed for? GA aircraft are doing the right thing by booking slots early (some booking arrival times before even departing DN), but the nature of most GA ops means that they are having trouble meeting these times inbound. This problem is known and has been raised, not sure what the solution will be.

5. Aircraft are cleared by the steps usually to keep them in CTA (sometimes for traffic). Except when it is really busy a controller should be scanning the radar and issuing descent early enough so that aircraft don't report approaching their cleared level (except for the step huggers, we can't give descent until the blip is actually across the line). Unfortunately when it is busy is when these things sometimes get missed and you end up requesting descent, thereby increasing RT and making it even more busy!
As an aside I imagine an aircraft tracking by the STAR would have a huge workload monitoring descent if told to descend not below the DME steps. Depending on the particular STAR you could pass though all three sectors at varying distances. A bit easier if you are tracking direct.

[Capt Claret]

Left Unrestricted

On first contact, IAW ENR1.1-19 para 11.1.6, I'd do one of the following:

If I wanted a visual approach, I'd call "visual".
If I wanted an instrument approach, I'd report, "in VMC", or "in cloud", or "on top of cloud" as appropriate.


If I wanted an instument approach I wouldn't call visual, because the AIP tells me, at ENR 1.1 - 23, para 11.5.7, that reporting VISUAL indicates that I "desire" a visual approach.

As to some of RENURPP's posts, I agree wholeheartedly with him, there is no restriction on calling visual outside 30 nm. To the best of my knowlege, there is no restriction on being cleared after calling visual at say 100nm, "from 30DME make visual approach".

[maxgrad]

Having read Unrestricted's reply I intend to change from the 30 nm advice of visual to ASAP, also meaning first contact if indeed I am visual.

I must admit though that I still expect a certain degree of extra RT to get the vis app.
Are you visual?
Would you like the approach or visual app? etc


Good work Unrest..d for your posts, appreciated.

[Left Unrestricted]

To the best of my knowlege, there is no restriction on being cleared after calling visual at say 100nm, "from 30DME make visual approach".
I would agree with that. Chances are I haven't got the sequence worked out that early though!:}

[RENURPP]

Maxgrad,
It will happen and regularly. Having said they they still ask even if the "visual" report is made at 30nm so no big difference. I suspect the V is some times forgotten? To be noted that is.
I recall being asked 5 yes thats right 5 times one night. If you searched the circumstances would be here some where. Maybe the ATCer was winding me up?:confused: :*

Left Unrestricted

. The later notice we receive for aircraft on STARs is creating a situation where their estimate clashes with a slot already booked by a GA aircraft and so the STAR aircraft is slowed, effectively giving the GA aircraft higher priority. This is particularly frustrating when the GA aircraft doesn't show and the STAR aircraft is left saying what the hell was I slowed for? GA aircraft are doing the right thing by booking slots early (some booking arrival times before even departing DN), but the nature of most GA ops means that they are having trouble meeting these times inbound. This problem is known and has been raised, not sure what the solution will be.

This one I find a little hard to accept.
My understanding from "within" the inner cirlce is that bugsmashers are booking a slot time up to 4hrs in advance. You don't get our estimate from BN CTR until around 30 mins. Automatically an aircraft which should have a higher priority is being penalised.
Are you aware that our estimates as soon as airborne at our departure point will generally be within a min or 2. Airborne Cairns we WILL be there within 2 mins of our estimate, not allowing for STAR simply based on our flight plan i the FMS. Are you able to receive our ETA any sooner to stik it in the flow slot time?
A bugsmasher from say E120 down will only use an estimate based on GPS and flight plan information. It doesn't really predict down the track it looks at current conditions, i.e. wind, altitude, TAS/GS etc. A jets info is FMS based and is predictive, hence more accurate.

Having spent several years flying bugsmashers in and out of Darwin, I can assure you there booking times are going to be more best wishes then any real intention to meet it. You could prove this fairly easily and charge a booking fee for each additional slot time they book or if more than ?? + or - 2 mins from their booked slot time. i.e. first one free, if you don't make the slot time you have to put a carton in the kitty for a joint RAAF ATC/Pilot xmas piss up. I guarantee it will be one huge party, or the GA industry will lift their act and request achievable slot times. .

These days were every one has a mobile phone, and were they don't work, like out in Arnhem land etc try VHF, HF, radio or land line from council office etc the slot time request should not be requested until the aircraft is ready to depart. Then allowance of whatever say 15 mins to load up taxi and depart and they will have a chance.

I have already been affected by the GA aircraft not turning up scenario and it pissed me off. Its the reason I started this post.

As an aside I imagine an aircraft tracking by the STAR would have a huge workload monitoring descent if told to descend not below the DME steps.

Well obviously Bloggs for one disagree's with me here, I would rather that, than the scenario we had the other day, described above.

With the FMS these days we can check what altitude we will be at certain distances before we even start our descent and pretty much forget it. Maybe monitor ones that may be close. In non radar environments we do it all the time and its not that hard.

Has the idea of light aircraft corridors had serious consideration?
keep them low until they leave CTR. You don't need to seperate them. Say to BTI Northbound 1000'until in "G" airspace and sounthound 1500ft. If there is no slot for them they can hold at a nominal position say Lee Point until there is one. Its nice and close so they can squeeze in at short notice?
IFR aircraft heading North have a restriction simialr to the Darwin 2, but make the turn 2500 for vertical seperation.

[NIMFLT]

You don't get our estimate from BN CTR until around 30 mins. Automatically an aircraft which should have a higher priority is being penalised.
Not true. Priorities only kick in if all aircraft cannot be accommodated. Sequencing is not denying priority.
I have already been affected by the GA aircraft not turning up scenario and it pissed me off. Its the reason I started this post.
This presumes that the other aircraft was a lower priority. S, N, and M have the same priority.
Are you aware that our estimates as soon as airborne at our departure point will generally be within a min or 2. Airborne Cairns we WILL be there within 2 mins of our estimate, not allowing for STAR simply based on our flight plan i the FMS.
This is a great point. It should be worked into any slot time procedure. The earlier and more accurate ETA (based on the STAR), the better it will be for any aircraft on a STAR.

[Left Unrestricted]

RENURRP
As NIMFLT as already said, an earlier estimate would be fantastic. Currently we get estimates about 45min to 1h before landing. There is a way for us to calculate your estimate base on departure time plus flight plan time (not always the best estimate, but close) but we would need to know you have actually departed. Unfortunately our system doesn't tell us you are on the way until even later than we get the estimate from BN.

NIMFLT
Any aircraft, regardless of category and priority, should arrive at, or at least close to its assigned slot and when they don't turn up it is a pain for everyone. Not just the guys following who had to slow for an aircraft that doesn't arrive but the planner who now needs to fix the slots when that aircraft calls for another slot time or the approach controller when they turn up an hour late without a slot.

[NIMFLT]

Any aircraft, regardless of category and priority, should arrive at, or at least close to its assigned slot and when they don't turn up it is a pain for everyone. Not just the guys following who had to slow for an aircraft that doesn't arrive but the planner who now needs to fix the slots when that aircraft calls for another slot time or the approach controller when they turn up an hour late without a slot.
Totally agree.
RENURRP was more concerned that he is disadvantaged because he is allocated a slot later than the lighties. The fact that the aircraft didn't turn up is incidental because if RENURRP had been issued a slot time earlier, he wouldn't have been slowed for the lightie - he would have got the slot he wanted.
if you don't make the slot time you have to put a carton in the kitty for a joint RAAF ATC/Pilot xmas piss up
While RENURRP doesn't have greater priority than a lot of the lighties, he certainly should have a fighting chance at getting his preferred slot time especially as he can virtually guarantee meeting it. (Or else he has to donate beers to the tower party....:) ) When is that by the way...

[podbreak]

(Or else he has to donate beers to the tower party....:) ) When is that by the way...

was going to ask the same question! :)

[Left Unrestricted]

No date set yet for TWR party as far as I am aware, shouldn't be too far away though.

[RENURPP]

Not true. Priorities only kick in if all aircraft cannot be accommodated. Sequencing is not denying priority.

Ok I was basing that on Left Unrestricteds comment ". The later notice we receive for aircraft on STARs is creating a situation where their estimate clashes with a slot already booked by a GA aircraft and so the STAR aircraft is slowed, effectively giving the GA aircraft higher priority."
Maybe I have missunderstood what he means here?
This presumes that the other aircraft was a lower priority. S, N, and M have the same priority.
a. with equal status:--
(1) scheduled commercial air transport operations;
(2) non-scheduled commercial air transport operations;
(3) military aircraft (other than training flights);
(4) aircraft engaged in the personal transport of
-- State Governors or the Administrator of the Northern
Territory,
-- State Premiers or Chief Ministers of Territories;
(5) aircraft participating in Medical (MED 2) operations;
AIP Australia ENR 1.4 -- 17 16 MAR 06
b. with equal status:
(1) general aviation aircraft proceeding to a primary aerodrome;
(2) military and civil training flights; and
c. other operations.
Yes you are correct. I was assuming it was a lower priority. It is likely I was wrong!
It was a non scheduled or what ever private is? single from BTI.
The advice I got from App was that there was a lighty from the island which had a conflicting slot time which didn't turn up.
I wasn't concerned that we would arrive later or slow down, I requested a 11NDB and we were told we would require 2 holding patterns, i.e. 8mins.
Runway in use 29, so we wanted the cirlcing app. We would have gone overhead around 5-6000, the BTI traffic would have joined on a right base, I assume, even if he turned up on time, were is the 8 mins?
We elected not to carry out the NDB, and later were advised of the above. Now considering we don't talk to you guys until we are well and truly on descent I would have thought that you may have an idea of whats happening in the next 10 mins or so?? Thats what bugged me. There ended up being no other arrivals or departures for at least 20 mins??
I have no idea how this system works, it appears though, that once issued, there is no follow up on "NO Shows" for slot times. 33nm to BTI, say a 210, it would have to take 13 mins minimum. When do you guys hear of their departure and imminent arrival?
So from my point of view thats not good enough and the system isn't working efficiently, at the moment!

[celeritas]

Am I missing something here?!?! Does DN still have a radar or are the controller's there doing procedural approach these days? This is a legitimate question and I am not trying to be funny. If DN does still have a radar for its Terminal control functions then I fail to see the need for slot times in that part of the world.

[IMHFO]

PRIORITIES

That list of priorities only applies after the original list (read the "notwihtstanding notwithstanding" sentence for clarity!!!) applies. Basically the sequence is set and adjusted using knowns, probabilities, commonsense and mutual (shared ) inconvenience only if absolutely necessary.

SLOT TIMES

That is why I thought slot times only apply to fast movers who can make minute adjustments over hundreds of miles but get a guarantee of a landing without further inconvenience/ATC intevention. The lighties then fit in around these aircraft or use crossing runway/s. That was how it was meant to work. Clearly some operators will abuse the system of slots for all. Don't do it - it's dopey and will not work. Keep it simple, set it up early as poss for the fast/big guys and work the small stuff to fit.

VISUAL APPROACH

If I call visual I want a visual approach. If I want an instrument appoach I will not say visual and will not expect to be asked if I am visual (just like I don't need to be asked to report when ready). For IFR an instrument approach is the default and an entitlement regardless of the weather conditions. If I want a visual approach and am too dopey to work out that I need to say visual to get out of ATC/AIP terrain clearance protection then I deserved to be processed via an approach.Yes a visual approach can be assigned at any time and an aircraft doesn't need to trip over 30 miles for that (particularly at night).

[Left Unrestricted]

When all aircraft cannot be accommodated then priorities will be applied. Obviously all aircraft get in in the end so one could argue that priorities never kick in and aircraft are just delayed for sequencing.
I have seen the situation already where an RPT aircraft was slowed by 6min to accommodate GA aircraft that had booked the clashing slots hours in advance. It would have perhaps been a larger delay had LAHSO not allowed us to double book a slot. In my opinion this goes beyond sequencing and into application of priorities. All 4 aircraft wanted to arrive at DN at pretty much the same time, all could not be accommodated and so the RPT aircraft was delayed. To me sequencing is what I do inside 40nm when I give a small vector or a bit of speed control to make sure I have x miles on final.

RENURPP
Without knowing the specifics of what was going on at the time can I suggest that if you wanted a 11 NDB with 29 as the duty RWY you perhaps may have been delayed due to a departure off the duty RYW? Just guessing but this is not unusual. Also TWR may have required the delay because they had something going on and couldn't immeadiately accept a non-duty approach. Again just speculating without knowing the specifics.

Frozo
TMP applies to all aircraft at or above FL130, so you would have to be cruising at FL120 to dodge a STAR.

[celeritas]

Sorry but I can't resist - are you saying that you can not have four acft with the same estimate for the field in one breath and the next that you have a 40nm terminal area?!! Again I ask the question, are you guys and gals doing procedural control into DN these days; or is it still a radar environment??

[Left Unrestricted]

are you saying that you can not have four acft with the same estimate for the field in one breath and the next that you have a 40nm terminal area?!!
Ahhh, yes. Thats kinda the who idea of slot times...The only time two aircraft may have the same estimate is when we can use LAHSO.
DN is still radar, however I think you are missing what I was saying. My comments were nothing to do with being able to handle that many aircraft at once, it was with regards to the slot time system and allocation of priorities versus sequencing.

[celeritas]

Thanks LU. Tried to see both sides of the argument and remain neutral(ish) but that's it for me; I am bailing out of this discussion as I have nothing further to say that will be nice, constructive or neutral. Best of luck to all parties concerned! YHGTBFKM!!!

[RENURPP]

Another question for ATC types out there.
Was radar vectored this evening, and advised by ATC that as he had given us a radar vector he would have to vector us until we were established on the vasis.

I questioned the availablity of a visual approach, i.e. heading for downwind and then VSA from there, even track direct DN (VOR) and VSA?

Was advised can't do that due reason above.

Would appreciate the section in MATs that covers this. Copy and pasted here if possible, other wise a reference will do. I may still have access to MATs, not sure.

Another quick one, What is the radar LSALT within 15nm Darwin?

[No Further Requirements]

Here's the MATS reference:

6.2.6.6 When being vectored at night, an IFR aircraft other than a HEAVY jet
aircraft as described at 6.2.6.4, may be assigned a visual approach at any distance
from an aerodrome if:
a. the aircraft has been assigned the MVA; and
b. the aircraft is given heading instructions to intercept final or to position
the aircraft within the circling area of the aerodrome; and
c. the following phraseology is used to assign the visual approach:
1. “WHEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CIRCLING AREA CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”; or
2. “WHEN ESTABLISHED ON THE VASIS/GLIDEPATH CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”.

The reason for the continued vector may have been that the ATC had more control of your track with regards to separation in case of departures etc. Don't know. Did it hold you up at all or was the positioning reasonable for your aircraft type and profile?

When I was in Darwin (4 years ago) the Radar LSALT was 1500ft to the west, and 1600ft to the east (straight down the centreline of 18/36). May have changed now (hills growing....?)

Cheers,

NFR.

[RENURPP]

The reason for the continued vector may have been that the ATC had more control of your track with regards to separation in case of departures etc. Don't know. Did it hold you up at all or was the positioning reasonable for your aircraft type and profile?


Thats pretty much what i thought it said, thanks for that NFR.

Try and make it brief.
11 was duty rwy. 9.45 pm so quiet. At 200nm we requested 29 with a slight downwind, being good company employee's, as arriving after 9.45 (even one min) will require us to have another day off!
We were given direct Feegs for 29. Great.
Around 50nm 29 not available due traffic slower than expected on 11, OK. No probs.
The aircraft was landing 11 as we were around 5 nm east so no real conflict after that.

Vectors for what ever reason. Would have been happier with direct tracking and joining downwind or own Nav clear or the city, (built up areas) for base. What ever.
At around 10nm we start getting more vectors for final.
Now thats no big problem its just messy. Unless we have a known track, i.e. known track miles and can stick it in the box then we don't have access to a V Nav profile.
Just neater in the aircraft and I couldn't see the need for all the interference.
If it was busy I could understand it, however we were the only traffic once the other one landed.
My main point is that I asked for any of the above and the statement was made, "once I have given you a vector I have to continue with vectors until you are established on the vasis, its in the book" which I didn't believe and hence asked the question here.

[No Further Requirements]

In the past I have been told that it is kind of messy to vector someone to a point where they weren't going to and them expect them to resume their own nav to the field at night for a VSA.

The reason given (and this in Canberra mind you, where terrain is everywhere) is that the crew may be in a position that their new inbound track may be different terrain wise to their planned track and it's a lot to expect the crew to re-brief and check the appropriate descent/terrain restrictions. Better to take hold of the navigation and terrain clearance yourself and provided a radar vectored service to the VASIS/final.

Cheers,

NFR.

[NIMFLT]

"Request track miles to run" would be the appropriate request in this situation, however the controller should give you this info or other info that helps you control your descent profile. ie: "vectors for a 5 mile base".

[RENURPP]

G'day NIMFLT,
as I said below its a known distance we can stick in the box. To do that we need tracking details not random vectors.
Its another scenario where we are making it easier for the controller, when I thought the idea was for controllers to provide us with logical and safe tracking so we can concentrate on whats really important, flying the aircraft.
A simple turn left hdg 210 when established in the circling area make VSA or some thing similar would have been alot easier for both of us I suggest. Even track for a 5 mile final, its just alot easier if we know where we are going and can track there ourselves.

Unless we have a known track, i.e. known track miles and can stick it in the box then we don't have access to a V Nav profile.


We can fly around without V NAV, how ever its there for a reason and should be used where possible. There were 2 aircraft initially then 1.
The controller was increasing the workload for both of us unnecessarily.

As I said my main reason for posting was to get the reference that NFR so kindly provided.

[NIMFLT]

Hi Renurpp,

as I said below its a known distance we can stick in the box.
The controller's responsibility is to provide track miles to run and position information.
To do that we need tracking details not random vectors.
Vectors via a circuit pattern are not random. It's a common and valid control technique.
Its another scenario where we are making it easier for the controller, when I thought the idea was for controllers to provide us with logical and safe tracking so we can concentrate on whats really important, flying the aircraft.
Vectors via a circuit pattern are both safe and logical.
Even track for a 5 mile final, its just alot easier if we know where we are going and can track there ourselves.
This is the reason for STARS. They offer predicted tracking and decent profile. A request to be taken off a STAR will greatly increase the chances of vectors.
I hope some of this helps but perhaps a little kudo's to the controller for trying to help you fly an approach to the non duty runway is in order. The next time you hear "not available" don't be surprised.

PS. New SIDs and STARs out soon which are more efficient. See AIP Sups.