Scurvy.D.Dog
13th Jul 2008, 13:30
Scurvy, from what I can understand .
… quite! from what you understand, which is very little from an ATCO point of view! .. even though, it has been explained to you over many years, by many people, both written and face to face!
you don’t actually know how the system in the USA (and other leading aviation countries) works when it comes to optimising the use of ATC and radar
Nup, have researched this issue over many years with many colleagues including 4 days here in Oz at a conference (with Senior Regional Tower controllers) with a Senior Controller from one of the towers mentioned! .. I and my colleagues know exactly how they work and why!
Have you ever actually sat in a tower in the USA?
Have you ever operated as an ATC? … in fact have you any idea of the specifics of which you purport to speak?
Here is a challenge for you RHS …. Provide here what you see as the differences between a regional US tower and an OZ Regional tower, and then the differences between a Capital City US tower and Capital city OZ tower …. Don’t forget to include resources, equipment and traffic movements and complexity factors i.e. terrain, weather and the rest
If you (or your sycophants) demonstrate that you have even the slightest clue about what you speak, and I will invest my time in return. Motherhood statements won’t cut it anymore!
By the way RHS you know who I am, and that I know what I am talking about!
Here is and example of why I am sure you are full of sh1t as far as ATC technical detail!
You said:
I stated:
the radar covered airspace remains with the Centre until the lower level of radar coverage
You then immediately said:
.. yes quite superb, for high volume surveillance TMA airspace
No Scurvy, that is not what I’m referring to.
You then go on to completely contradict yourself by confirming
I’m referring to all radar covered airspace – including airspace similar to what you have at Launceston,
1. Surveillance coverage to ground level such as at Launy, is not controlled from the centre for good reason, and that is that the overlying sector size extends from the southern coast of Victoria to south of Hobart and areas east and west over a vast area.
Thanks to you, that Centre controller is also a Flight Service officer for all OCTA areas below CTA and around the CTR’s of Launy and Hobart. On any given day, for large amounts of the day and night, those controllers are flat out on A/G (I know as we coordinate with them every day, and pilots who fly the airspace will attest) and Co-ord, not to mention all the other ‘transparent to you’ tasks they are undertaking, such as WX dissemination, Notam dissemination and a myriad of other tasks that crop up during the ongoing provision of services.
That’s workload
2. The second is a pretty basic concept RHS …. Screen scale! … or would you consider it acceptable for these wide area enroute controllers to be zooming in and out trying to watch high level vectoring and separation, as well as terrain clearance and vectors in the approach areas around Launy and Hobart concurrently (on the small scale)?
3. Do you have any idea (clearly not) how much extra coordination is required between tower and approach units when they are NOT collocated?? .. no thought not … and when the sector is that busy anyway being wide area ATC and FSO and everything else to everyone else … how do you reckon the delays would go by comparison??
and airspace for any instrument approach anywhere in the USA.
… so come on Guru of ATS, what is the average Square miles and altitudes administered by US Centre controllers?? Find me one combined high-low-multiple airport approach/departures sector in the US (or any other leading aviation country)
Mostly it is the enroute controllers doing the approach work at these airports.
… no you don’t …. Enroute High, and low approach are two different animals!
the tower controllers are not normally rated to do procedural IFR separation.
…. except in what circumstances? … hmmm …. Comon!?
In effect, the IFR “control” comes from the Centre or the TRACON, and the tower controller in Class D is responsible for runway separation and other duties.
Radar Approach/Departures (TMA) and tower (that administers little or no airspace) …. Hmm which brings us back to my original statement i.e.
.. yes quite superb, for high volume surveillance TMA airspace
And quite superb and expensive for regional airports in the US where user pays is not in force and being resisted at all costs!
It is a fantastic, superb and safe system. It means that in the USA (and most other aviation countries), an IFR aircraft in IMC remains with the radar controller.
… bit like at SY, BN, CG, CS, ML, AD and PH?
They don’t have the crazy Australian system where at a place like Albury at 9,500 feet when overflying – until I was able to bring in some changes – an enroute pilot was forced to change to the Albury tower and lose the advantage of radar control.
…. Yup, glad you brought that up actually, for a number of reasons:-
1. You accept responsibility for those changes .. Fabbie!
2. Now departures out of AY will only be assigned A080 until radar Identified (unless the enroute controller can separate procedurally) which means coordination and a number of level offs, when were it still tower/App responsibility, a separation plan without any additional Centre/tower coordination would have been planned and enacted before the departure was wheels off or shortly there after!
3. At A095, whether a pilot is speaking to radar or procedural control is largely irrelevant when transiting in the cruise!
But good on you though Guru!
I will try to explain to the thousands of pilots who read this how a professional system should work.
The Thoooooooousands of pilots reading this (no doubt all glued to their computer screens for the received wisdom)!
In Australia we appear to have inherited a system where various groups “control” and “own” their airspace. For example, if you put a block of airspace around Alice Springs to 12,500 feet, it “belongs” to the tower – not to the Centre, and never the twain shall meet.
…. WTF? …. Are you suggesting airspace by committee?
In other countries, Class D airspace is small – that is, normally 4.3 miles radius and up to 2,500 feet AGL.
… in countries with lots of surveillance and centre controllers responsible for comparatively smaller chucks of airspace .. but lets not let facts get in the way of a good fire side sermon to Thooooosaunds of riveted Pilots!
That is basically the distance that a controller can see – even if using binoculars.
… garbage, on a clear day, a boeing or bus can be seen through the Bino’s at 30nm, at night out to 100nm
The advantages of the Centre or the TRACON controlling the airspace when IMC exists are great. For example, when the local tower controller is off duty, the airspace reverts to Class E, and the advantages of an IFR separation service remain.
… and that would in the case of approach and departure airspace be a … WAIT FOR IT …. A ONE IN, ONE OUT service!
The difficulty I have found in Australia is that the controllers in our non-radar Class D towers (which mostly operate like Class C)
… nup .. don’t try to dilute OZ D rules RHS (where a collision must be avoided IFR/VFR/VFR) with full ICAO C … it is mischievous of you to suggest it!
maintain that they should keep their “block” of airspace – once to 12,500 feet, now in some places to 8,500 or 4,500 feet – whether or not there is radar coverage.
… partly due the issued raised above, and a myriad of others such as well … HMMMM … I dunno maybe 200 radar approach controllers would need to be grown and funded (by industry) were your plan to get legs …
This appears to me to be based mainly on resistance to change.
… resistance to ill-conceived change by enthusiastic amateurs!
Thus my challenge to you RHS .. unless and until you ask something sensible, I will not be bothering unless the public good requires a contrary view!
As for your and your mate MJ’s magnanimous offer re Hawaii, fortunately I am not able to enter into arrangements such as you offer as that would of course be a conflict of interest given your airspace and political agendas and my current employment. Any any report I wrote (however accurate and impartial) would have a ‘funded by RHS’ stench to it! … that said, the rosters in Launy would not permit my absence for any period of time O/S.
What could be considered/arranged, is AsA organising for one of the senior controllers (employed by Airservices O/S), to be flown to Launy for a few days, to see how we do it with the resources available locally and in the centre!?
MJBow 11th July 2008, 13:40
Scurvy, unless I have misread, I understand that you are a tower controller in LST. Is this the case? Do you have radar information in the tower like they do in many US class D towers?
No, no misreading, and yes we do (the earlier comment was regarding WAMLat data not radar, which I might add has been ‘clarified’ since in the affirmative), never said we didn’t have ‘radar’ data!
What does it cost the industry to have expensive enroute radar sitting idle below 8,500ft, despite offering fantastic coverage?
.. it is not sitting idle below A085, it is utilised effectively … its expensive though (1mill+ per head, installation, ongoing maint etc) .. a ****e load more per annum than a fridge sized solid state ADS-B unit would be!
As far as costs are concerned for allowing the centre controller to give radar separation to low levels (like the do in the US), I cannot answer that Scurvy, I dont have that information.
.. you and RHS are in good company then!
What would it cost the industry to have tower controllers being radar rated and the industry not being able to use it after the tower closes? Again, the radar is sitting idle for the lower levels, where it is most useful.
It is ‘used’ more when the tower is open, than when it is closed … read into that what you will!
Re your magnanimous offer MJ ….. same applies, I am not interested in freebies or being bought!
How about you and RHS put the equivalent amount of money into a donation to the RFDS or a scholarship through AOPA or the WPA for a youngun to learn to fly! Or perhaps you could donate your time (to an equivalent amount) to help organisers of regional airshows and fly-ins, they would love the help I am sure! :ok:
… quite! from what you understand, which is very little from an ATCO point of view! .. even though, it has been explained to you over many years, by many people, both written and face to face!
you don’t actually know how the system in the USA (and other leading aviation countries) works when it comes to optimising the use of ATC and radar
Nup, have researched this issue over many years with many colleagues including 4 days here in Oz at a conference (with Senior Regional Tower controllers) with a Senior Controller from one of the towers mentioned! .. I and my colleagues know exactly how they work and why!
Have you ever actually sat in a tower in the USA?
Have you ever operated as an ATC? … in fact have you any idea of the specifics of which you purport to speak?
Here is a challenge for you RHS …. Provide here what you see as the differences between a regional US tower and an OZ Regional tower, and then the differences between a Capital City US tower and Capital city OZ tower …. Don’t forget to include resources, equipment and traffic movements and complexity factors i.e. terrain, weather and the rest
If you (or your sycophants) demonstrate that you have even the slightest clue about what you speak, and I will invest my time in return. Motherhood statements won’t cut it anymore!
By the way RHS you know who I am, and that I know what I am talking about!
Here is and example of why I am sure you are full of sh1t as far as ATC technical detail!
You said:
I stated:
the radar covered airspace remains with the Centre until the lower level of radar coverage
You then immediately said:
.. yes quite superb, for high volume surveillance TMA airspace
No Scurvy, that is not what I’m referring to.
You then go on to completely contradict yourself by confirming
I’m referring to all radar covered airspace – including airspace similar to what you have at Launceston,
1. Surveillance coverage to ground level such as at Launy, is not controlled from the centre for good reason, and that is that the overlying sector size extends from the southern coast of Victoria to south of Hobart and areas east and west over a vast area.
Thanks to you, that Centre controller is also a Flight Service officer for all OCTA areas below CTA and around the CTR’s of Launy and Hobart. On any given day, for large amounts of the day and night, those controllers are flat out on A/G (I know as we coordinate with them every day, and pilots who fly the airspace will attest) and Co-ord, not to mention all the other ‘transparent to you’ tasks they are undertaking, such as WX dissemination, Notam dissemination and a myriad of other tasks that crop up during the ongoing provision of services.
That’s workload
2. The second is a pretty basic concept RHS …. Screen scale! … or would you consider it acceptable for these wide area enroute controllers to be zooming in and out trying to watch high level vectoring and separation, as well as terrain clearance and vectors in the approach areas around Launy and Hobart concurrently (on the small scale)?
3. Do you have any idea (clearly not) how much extra coordination is required between tower and approach units when they are NOT collocated?? .. no thought not … and when the sector is that busy anyway being wide area ATC and FSO and everything else to everyone else … how do you reckon the delays would go by comparison??
and airspace for any instrument approach anywhere in the USA.
… so come on Guru of ATS, what is the average Square miles and altitudes administered by US Centre controllers?? Find me one combined high-low-multiple airport approach/departures sector in the US (or any other leading aviation country)
Mostly it is the enroute controllers doing the approach work at these airports.
… no you don’t …. Enroute High, and low approach are two different animals!
the tower controllers are not normally rated to do procedural IFR separation.
…. except in what circumstances? … hmmm …. Comon!?
In effect, the IFR “control” comes from the Centre or the TRACON, and the tower controller in Class D is responsible for runway separation and other duties.
Radar Approach/Departures (TMA) and tower (that administers little or no airspace) …. Hmm which brings us back to my original statement i.e.
.. yes quite superb, for high volume surveillance TMA airspace
And quite superb and expensive for regional airports in the US where user pays is not in force and being resisted at all costs!
It is a fantastic, superb and safe system. It means that in the USA (and most other aviation countries), an IFR aircraft in IMC remains with the radar controller.
… bit like at SY, BN, CG, CS, ML, AD and PH?
They don’t have the crazy Australian system where at a place like Albury at 9,500 feet when overflying – until I was able to bring in some changes – an enroute pilot was forced to change to the Albury tower and lose the advantage of radar control.
…. Yup, glad you brought that up actually, for a number of reasons:-
1. You accept responsibility for those changes .. Fabbie!
2. Now departures out of AY will only be assigned A080 until radar Identified (unless the enroute controller can separate procedurally) which means coordination and a number of level offs, when were it still tower/App responsibility, a separation plan without any additional Centre/tower coordination would have been planned and enacted before the departure was wheels off or shortly there after!
3. At A095, whether a pilot is speaking to radar or procedural control is largely irrelevant when transiting in the cruise!
But good on you though Guru!
I will try to explain to the thousands of pilots who read this how a professional system should work.
The Thoooooooousands of pilots reading this (no doubt all glued to their computer screens for the received wisdom)!
In Australia we appear to have inherited a system where various groups “control” and “own” their airspace. For example, if you put a block of airspace around Alice Springs to 12,500 feet, it “belongs” to the tower – not to the Centre, and never the twain shall meet.
…. WTF? …. Are you suggesting airspace by committee?
In other countries, Class D airspace is small – that is, normally 4.3 miles radius and up to 2,500 feet AGL.
… in countries with lots of surveillance and centre controllers responsible for comparatively smaller chucks of airspace .. but lets not let facts get in the way of a good fire side sermon to Thooooosaunds of riveted Pilots!
That is basically the distance that a controller can see – even if using binoculars.
… garbage, on a clear day, a boeing or bus can be seen through the Bino’s at 30nm, at night out to 100nm
The advantages of the Centre or the TRACON controlling the airspace when IMC exists are great. For example, when the local tower controller is off duty, the airspace reverts to Class E, and the advantages of an IFR separation service remain.
… and that would in the case of approach and departure airspace be a … WAIT FOR IT …. A ONE IN, ONE OUT service!
The difficulty I have found in Australia is that the controllers in our non-radar Class D towers (which mostly operate like Class C)
… nup .. don’t try to dilute OZ D rules RHS (where a collision must be avoided IFR/VFR/VFR) with full ICAO C … it is mischievous of you to suggest it!
maintain that they should keep their “block” of airspace – once to 12,500 feet, now in some places to 8,500 or 4,500 feet – whether or not there is radar coverage.
… partly due the issued raised above, and a myriad of others such as well … HMMMM … I dunno maybe 200 radar approach controllers would need to be grown and funded (by industry) were your plan to get legs …
This appears to me to be based mainly on resistance to change.
… resistance to ill-conceived change by enthusiastic amateurs!
Thus my challenge to you RHS .. unless and until you ask something sensible, I will not be bothering unless the public good requires a contrary view!
As for your and your mate MJ’s magnanimous offer re Hawaii, fortunately I am not able to enter into arrangements such as you offer as that would of course be a conflict of interest given your airspace and political agendas and my current employment. Any any report I wrote (however accurate and impartial) would have a ‘funded by RHS’ stench to it! … that said, the rosters in Launy would not permit my absence for any period of time O/S.
What could be considered/arranged, is AsA organising for one of the senior controllers (employed by Airservices O/S), to be flown to Launy for a few days, to see how we do it with the resources available locally and in the centre!?
MJBow 11th July 2008, 13:40
Scurvy, unless I have misread, I understand that you are a tower controller in LST. Is this the case? Do you have radar information in the tower like they do in many US class D towers?
No, no misreading, and yes we do (the earlier comment was regarding WAMLat data not radar, which I might add has been ‘clarified’ since in the affirmative), never said we didn’t have ‘radar’ data!
What does it cost the industry to have expensive enroute radar sitting idle below 8,500ft, despite offering fantastic coverage?
.. it is not sitting idle below A085, it is utilised effectively … its expensive though (1mill+ per head, installation, ongoing maint etc) .. a ****e load more per annum than a fridge sized solid state ADS-B unit would be!
As far as costs are concerned for allowing the centre controller to give radar separation to low levels (like the do in the US), I cannot answer that Scurvy, I dont have that information.
.. you and RHS are in good company then!
What would it cost the industry to have tower controllers being radar rated and the industry not being able to use it after the tower closes? Again, the radar is sitting idle for the lower levels, where it is most useful.
It is ‘used’ more when the tower is open, than when it is closed … read into that what you will!
Re your magnanimous offer MJ ….. same applies, I am not interested in freebies or being bought!
How about you and RHS put the equivalent amount of money into a donation to the RFDS or a scholarship through AOPA or the WPA for a youngun to learn to fly! Or perhaps you could donate your time (to an equivalent amount) to help organisers of regional airshows and fly-ins, they would love the help I am sure! :ok: