Darwin STARs: What is Going On Up There??

[Capn Bloggs]

Am I reading AIP SUPP 49/06 para 4.1 correctly? Why do all aircraft flying AS-DN have to plan on J251? Who is going to pay industry for this apparent waste of track miles?

Is the Darwin terminal area that busy?

And what about aircraft on A461 inbound from the North North West? Do they have to plan via AS as well?

[Yarbles]

It is part of a series of changes taking place around there. The amount STARS (and particularly transitions) are being rationalised to 5 with planning restrictions that apply to the east and southwest as well as A461. You will not get one from the north, just dir. VOR and vectors. TN restricted areas will probably be active more often so J251 is the standard route. Track shortening from AS (not that youse ever would ask) might be possible but don't ask unless you know the R areas aren't up. Next will be Flow! Apparently DN is boredom interspersed with the charge of the light horse (or twin) brigade, usually when the jets come in. Hence traffic management (slot times).
ps. inside 90 nm DN, a return code is no substitue for taxi on HF. :=

[Capn Bloggs]

TN restricted areas will probably be active more often so it J251 is the standard route.
I beg to differ. Every time I have planned A461 AS to DN in the last 12 months I have never been sent around or via TN. It costs us $15 a track mile to operate, so how can ATC justify always sending us via TN every time on the off-chance that the RAAF is active AND BN Centre cannot vector us around them? What about after 1500 on Fridays until 0800 on Mondays? In Perth, we talk to the RAAF controllers at PEA who actively manage us thru their airspace. Why can't this happen in the NT, especially since you have radar coverage over and south of TN?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... any comment Bob? :E

[No Further Requirements]

IIRC, the main reason Tindal would be different to Pearce is the airspace use. The aircraft training in Pearce are talking to ATC and ATC own the airspace. They can direct the aircraft away from each other and separate.

In places like Tindal and Williamtown, the people speaking to the aircraft in the restricted areas are NOT ATC - they are fighter controllers and cannot apply separation legally (I believe). Therefore, ATC release the airspace to the Fighter Controllers and then separate all traffic from the whole restricted area.

I am not saying that this is the ideal situation, just the reality of what is happening.

I know little of this latest round of re-jigging the Darwin arrivals procedures. God luck to the ATCers and to industry alike. I hope a happy medium is found!

Cheers,

NFR.

[4Greens]

Dual qualifying fighter controllers (ADO's) and Air Traffic controllers is long overdue and would save the airlines and the RAAF heaps. The same issue arises in Sydney when exercises are conducted off the coast.

Write to your friendly MP.

[señor_jones]

Dual qualifying fighter controllers (ADO's) and Air Traffic controllers is long overdue and would save the airlines and the RAAF heaps.

A fundamental problem with this idea - most GCI's didn't pass the aptitude testing for ATC candidates.

[Dave The Snail]

Capn Bloggs

I am particularly interested to know where the $15 a track mile cost comes from (seriously). I am in the industry and assessing aircraft/airborne/ground delays, costs, etc is an important part of what I do. While there ia a multitude of data written, we are always looking for credible and justifiable information like this.

Post here or PM if you like,

Kind regards

The Snail.

[bob55]

A fundamental problem with this idea - most GCI's didn't pass the aptitude testing for ATC candidates.

Aptitude testing for Air Defence and Air Traffic are exactly the same - or at least they are now.

[Capn Bloggs]

Snail,

I am particularly interested to know where the $15 a track mile cost comes from (seriously).

For a 100 seat jet: $6000 per hour/$100 per minute to operate at 390 KTAS average, measured of course with a micrometer, drawn with a greasy pencil and chopped with an axe. :ok:

[4Greens]

Aptitude testing for Air Defence and Air Traffic are exactly the same - or at least they are now.

Thanks for that info. Now, how can the problem be fixed? The ADO would only have to control in the sector that is being used for the exercise. Not that difficult surely. Long haul ops by Qantas from LA can be affected by this anomaly.

It would be a good combination of extending the range of ADO skills and saving money for the ADF and the Airlines.

[control snatch]

What about after 1500 on Fridays until 0800 on Mondays? In Perth, we talk to the RAAF controllers at PEA who actively manage us thru their airspace. Why can't this happen in the NT, especially since you have radar coverage over and south of TN?

I have spent 4.5 years at TN and as far as i can remember TN restricted areas were never active during these times.

PEA ops are a little different from TN ops. In PEA ATC can get traffic over the top of a bunch of PC9s buzzing around below 10,000ft. In TN they need a hundred miles of airspace from SFC to the moon if fighters are going to get any effective training. Trust me when I say airlines dont want their airctraft flying through the middle of an 8 ship merge.

[Yarbles]

As Control snatch states, the ops at TN are such that you cannot separate aircraft from the fast Mil jet stuff, just segregate the other traffic away from it. If the activity means that part of the airspace can be released for civvie traffic then it usually is but only at short notice, which wouldn't be enough for flight planning requirements. Waiting untill you are identified and vectoring around is, given the coverage to the south, poor technique and would be more track miles than by J251. The RAAF are flat out getting enough TWR and Approach controllers so you won't see anymore enroute rated RAAF ATC, especially given the $ and time involved. However Cap'n Bloggs is generally right about the hours mentioned re; activation of those R areas (as well as the dark bits of the a.m. during the week) so if you operate between AS and DN during those hours, then speak to someone in Airservices in Brisbane and see if you can get a dispensation to plan A461. Given that A461 is about 20 or so miles shorter than J251 I don't fancy the chances but if you pays your money that makes you a "stakeholder" and service delivery is the latest buzzword, so you never know.:rolleyes:

[bob55]

Thanks for that info. Now, how can the problem be fixed? The ADO would only have to control in the sector that is being used for the exercise. Not that difficult surely. Long haul ops by Qantas from LA can be affected by this anomaly.

It would be a good combination of extending the range of ADO skills and saving money for the ADF and the Airlines.

No, it's not difficult at all. Would require either AIRDEF to cross train as ATC, or ATC to cross train as AIRDEF. The latter is probably the easier option, as ATC course is more than twice as long as AIRDEF. A mixture of the two would be the prefered option, so as not to be seen as one category taken over the other.

The cultural change would be the biggest problem. (A little like telling Pilots and Navigators they can do each other's jobs - probably true but you'd never hear the end of it).

[señor_jones]

(A little like telling Pilots and Navigators they can do each other's jobs - probably true but you'd never hear the end of it).

If navigators could do a pilot's job, there wouldn't be any navigators...

[drshmoo]

Senor Jones, you got nuthin, you 2 post hero. WTF would you know about what a navigator could do. Go back to swimming in that shallow gene pool of yours:ok:
long live the navigators.....the backbone of the raaf.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/badges-asstd/raaf-badge.jpg
http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/clangley/nav7.jpg

[BurglarsDog]

Many forget that Airspace - like water is a Resource and needs to be managed as such - effectively. Unfortunately there is sometimes / always a conflict of interest between the two Main players; Mil demands Tactical Freedom, and huge blocks of airspace -often just in case its needed - whilst RPT needs direct safe, expeditious fuel saving routings. If the airspace is owned/ managed by one or other party, the other is basically bugger*d as any change in the status quo has to cut through far too much red tape and a belief that for one side to gain the other has to loose!! But this doesnt have to be the case. In UK the RAF use Military training areas SFC - 44000 and the traffic is far busier than Oz !! Aircraft operate with or without an ATC service. In the Welsh MTA for example an airway tracks NW from West of London and goes right through the middle. With prior co-ordination the MTA can be restricted either laterally or vertically and this airway activated, allowing acft departing EGLL and EGKK or anywhwer for that matter, to cut the corner when routing across the pond to the US. Failing that they can just call up the area controller covering that area and get a radar service through the MTA - getting basic traffic and avoiding action where necessary. Not the Oz way but it allows more flexible use of the airspace for both users. As traffic loads have increased generally, many of the mil training areas in Europe have come under scrutiny and a programme called EATCHIP - European Airspace or ATC Harmonisation Implementation Programme was introduced (10 years + back). If an area wasnt being used a lot , and most werent since the Americans and Brits drew down acft from Germany etc, then it was thought prudent to offer more direct and less congested routings to RPT. From memory this process has been on going. Forgive factual errors as I havent been mixing RPT with the odd 4 ship for nearly a decade! Dont know the TN / DN airpsace without looking at a map but Im sure more could be done along similar lines if the jets arent actually using all that airpsace all the time -which they aint! Bit like the TVL resticted areas. Most areas restricted most of the time - when very little of the actual Restricted area is being used with or without suitable tolerances. About time someone had a closer look!:ugh: We could of course just keep everyone including DS,flying around around them -after all its not our time and fuel. Defence can be a bit like that - someone elses money so why change anything!

DogGone!

[bushy]

It is necessary for our military people to believe they are the best of the best, and huge resources are put into fostering this philosophy. It is very sucessful.

It is also one of the reasons why there is often friction and misunderstandings when civil aviation and military aviation mix.

[BurglarsDog]

Mil controllers like their civil counterparts are merely products of their environment. No better of no worse in my many years experience! The culture ( look that definition up if youve got a few hours to spare ) of the RAAF (and ASA no doubt) dictates that the moral high ground is always worth fighting for; particularly as its often the only high ground of any type on the horizon. Anyone not seeking it (i.e knowing the correct reference!!!) will get more than just their feet wet! Best of the best? Complete bollocks! The best would have to be anyone who can provide/ meet the aviation needs of his/her customer at the lowest cost with complete assured safety! - that in itself is an impossibility bearing in mind human error! Cant say that either the RAAF or ASA can honestly (or otherwise) put their hand up and say 'Pick me - its us"! ATC in Oz is a bit of a shambles in many areas. When compared to European skies the customers need are not always met: in this respect I sympathise with Mr Dick Smith - lack of flex for GA - and many a fast jet pilot who cant do what they want/need to do - Tactical Freedom - just because ATC have to isssue a clearance and first prove a standard! Even though, often with no crossing tracks, their is no real confliction in the first place! The luxury of having so much airpsace has dulled a few edges around the bizarres me thinks! Has ESL still got restsricted areas out to 50 miles for example? Thats half the size of Belgium!! And for what ? The Roulettes and a few king airs who often do their own thing anyway!!
( Have seen the R's do an airfiled show practice MBZ witth bugsmashers flying in and out of the CCT area with less than 1nm sep! Very interesting calls by the lead!! Not what I would call safe or professional - but just shows that with or without airspace protection the Must Do - Can Do attitude prevails; just because ESL cant man over the airspace over lunch due to manning shortages doesnt stop the operational effort!! Bit like TIBA!!

Also consider this: US Marine Cor deploy to Northern Mil base in QLD. 4 ship IFR taxi for dep. Cloudbase below MSA @ approx 1300 ' so no day visual deps allowed! SIDS based on VOR/DME only. Acft all TACAN eqpt only (F18 cheapskate Homeguard basic model no GPS / MP3 etc) so no radial info avlble. So cant legaly fly SID ( designed for civvies anyway!!!) Maybe they can - (you argue the case if you wish - we didnt have time in the TWR to consult the local Devils Avoquate!!) Therefore cant depart- what nonsense!! Or something very similar. Of course being able to outclimb any SID by about 500% means they'e got little chance of hitting any local terrain (Maggie)! In parts of Europe, IFR dep is allocated own terrain clearance cleared for dep and wished Bon chance. Has worked for the RAF for about 70 years !! Approach isssue a heading which pilot picks up when above terrain (within a few miles ) and everyone is happy!


But maybe Im just getting old / older !!
Some of it was more fun than just fetching a ball back - which is what many Supervisors appear to demand of their subordinates these days!!
Did someone say "Fetch??????"
DogGone:rolleyes:

[Green on, Go!]

Also consider this: US Marine Cor deploy to Northern Mil base in QLD. 4 ship IFR taxi for dep. Cloudbase below MSA @ approx 1300 ' so no day visual deps allowed! SIDS based on VOR/DME only. Acft all TACAN eqpt only (F18 cheapskate Homeguard basic model no GPS / MP3 etc) so no radial info avlble. So cant legaly fly SID ( designed for civvies anyway!!!) Maybe they can - (you argue the case if you wish - we didnt have time in the TWR to consult the local Devils Avoquate!!) Therefore cant depart- what nonsense!! Or something very similar. Of course being able to outclimb any SID by about 500% means they'e got little chance of hitting any local terrain (Maggie)! In parts of Europe, IFR dep is allocated own terrain clearance cleared for dep and wished Bon chance. Has worked for the RAF for about 70 years !! Approach isssue a heading which pilot picks up when above terrain (within a few miles ) and everyone is happy!




BD, I agree, what nonsense. Below from MATS:

6.2.1.4 ATC may issue a VISUAL departure in lieu of a SID:
a. by day;
b. in VMC; and
c. provided that the cloud base is such that the pilot can maintain flight in
VMC below the MVA (ATS surveillance system environment) or MSA/LSALT (procedural environment).

6.2.1.5 Tracking Instructions shall be specified when:
a. SIDS are not published; or
b. a SID is cancelled; or
c. a visual departure clearance is issued in VMC by day in lieu of a SID; or
d. aircraft or ground based navigation aid(s) are not available.

My bolding. Based on that, I'm pretty sure they could have departed. It's been in MATS for years too...

[BurglarsDog]

GOG

They did eventually depart ' 30 sec stream I think. Lead also quoted MARSA which didnt really apply and wasnt notified etc and off they went (range time pressure an all that) cant remember exactly what was issued at the time but was probably in line with tracking instructions (though not sure how they managed their initial tracking with no radial info avlbl to them) along with some requirements to mantain a certain min gradient of climb to at least stay at or above the vertical element of the SID. Appreciate that many bits of MATS are open to interpretation sometimes, as discussed many times in many other posts, so have no wish to get too involved here. Point of the post was really to try and show that the current set up doesnt always benefit all parties most of the time; as was the issue raised by thread starter. As an aside Im sure that there are often still instances with foreign aircrew where what is said / issued by ATC is not what the pilots expected or understood from their interpretation of the rules and vice versa.


DogGone

[señor_jones]

Senor Jones, you got nuthin, you 2 post hero. WTF would you know about what a navigator could do. Go back to swimming in that shallow gene pool of yours:ok:
long live the navigators.....the backbone of the raaf.


pfff schmoo. nice try champ. just coz you could have used a nav to stop you from getting lost in the bungles pattern doesn't make them the backbone of anything.

i'd suspect you were a right-seater yourself, but you'd know that it looks more like this these days..

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o2/senor_jones/nav.jpg?t=1166049509

p.s my gene pool is that shallow i can wade through it.

[Fox3snapshot]

'Aptitude testing for Air Defence and Air Traffic are exactly the same - or at least they are now."

Ummmm yes maybe, but if you bang out of an Airdefendo course you will not get offered an ATC course. The natural progression through the chain of events if you get scrubbed (if you are still seen as an asset to the system) is from Pilots course to Nav, Nav to ATC and well unfortunately if all goes to a complete can of poop you can always be an AirDefendo. If that doesn't work out then you are back down at BP pumping gas and thinking about what could have been....

My instructors probably still claim to this day I would have been a better AirDefendo (putting them together is much easier than keeping them apart!) but 5 countries later thankfully nobody has cottened onto it yet!
:E