Stroppy ATC and Sartime Cancelling

[nomorecatering]

Several times in the last week I've cancelled SARTIME on Melb Centre 122.4 only to be given the terse reply ......in future please cancell on the phone.

Its just not allways practical, we are in a remote area, 1 phone line which is frequently busy or down. Aften running very close to our SARTIME, I try to stay off the air as much as possible.

First they take Flightwatch off us, now they dont want us cancelling on centre, how many SAR phoses do they want.

The only solution is to ammend our SARTIME before each arriveal to give us an extra hour. Either way it involves a radio call to ATC.

[ksa5223]

hey yeah i always cancel it with radar in Syd, i don't know if they get pissed off?

What actually happened to flight watch? LOL I remember a couple of months ago trying to contact them like 20 times to amend a Sartime.

[Jabawocky]

Maybe your reply could be something like...........

"In Future - How about you tell the minister":E

I do feel for the poor buggers but its not the pilots fault either. No need to take it out on him.

I recently asked for some wx details (and it was a crappy patch of wx around) and I was snidely replied to with something like, is your internet off line today?

Now to be fair the Optus thing had happend a day or so before in SEQ and I had just left Adels Grove..... where the internet would not work.... perhaps too thick a cloud cover for the SATNET!

J

[Zhaadum]

Next time tell them politely *cough* to provide the service. ATC are there to provide services for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft, pilots and their passengers, not the other way round. :mad:

[aileron_69]

If they suggest you cancel on the phone again just call back in your best captains/battle of Britain RAF voice, "Ah, thats a negative Melbourne Centre, we only use smoke signals out here, and the smoke machine has been out of action for weeks"

[Roger Standby]

I would simply suggest to the controller that if they are not happy taking the SARTIME cancellation, would they mind taking an amended SARTIME? This actually requires slightly more writing on the controllers part and I'm sure they'd be happy to take the cancellation then. A whole lot more satisfying than spraying over the air.:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Roger

Good point.

I have to say that 99% of the time the service is excellent, its the overload thats causing the rpoblems. I have several mates who are ATCers and I understand what their lot in life has been of late.

Maybe us pilots should report these problems to the minister! See if it actually gets through!

[apache]

I recently asked for some wx details (and it was a crappy patch of wx around) and I was snidely replied to with something like, is your internet off line today?


HANG ON!!!!!.....

so this internet thing... you can do porn, emails AND weather ?????


when did this happen?

[nomorecatering]

Owen Stanly,

Its not that I;m unhappy, i;ll happily cancel by phone, smoke signals or carrier pigeon. Its all the same to me. I;m just thinking from a practical standpoint.

Dispite the best laid plans, I seem to loose that buffer on every nav. Allways getting back an hr lateer than I thought I would.
the solo students are the same, most cancel with a minute to spare. All up, only 1 call to ATC.

Waiting for the phone method tends to allow them to forget. By the time they frigging around refueling, putting away the a/c etc.

Just rying to be practical.

Does anyone know what actions the controller does to cancel a sartime?

[Awol57]

From a tower perspective we ring CENSAR on the 1800 number. Unless they called us first looking for you. (Yes I know there is an extension we can use but its the same bloke). Not sure how the centres/TCU's do it, but they have a fancy VCSC thing.

[Pera]

Several times in the last week

ATC is your last resort for cancelling SARTIME. They don't have any magic button, they ring CENSAR. It's not a seamless system.

No need for grumpyness on the controller's behalf, but don't you have a mobile.

[Hempy]

No need for grumpyness on the controller's behalf,No, but hes probably on the back end of a 10 hour shift having worked the last nine days (and is expecting a phone call in the morning)

[equal]

what a sad state of affairs this has turned out to be.

i admit that i didn't know that centre actually just ring and cancel for you, i would have thought there was a computer system for them to cancel or amend SAR.

i usually use the phone or HF anyway.

[Capt Wally]

Everyone in this industry gets grumpy from time to time, who wouldn't it's flawed in many ways with less & less services & higher fees etc. I've been lucky have not had too many 'grumpy "service' guys on the other end of the R/T. Hopefully on yr flt pln you have 2 Ph No's for ATC to contact should you forget or are unable to cancel sar for any reason. I believe ATC do a great job considering the 'tool's they are given to use by the regulators. My point is who hasn't been grumpy sometime in this industry?


CW

[james michael]

One of the reasons the associations agreed to FW moving to the en route sectors was that services would not be diminished.

There was also a safety value in cancelling on the frequency you were using en route as you did not lose SA for what was happening by being off freq, and you were on the right freq for a call if something went amiss.

Certainly we should use phone if available as best to NOT rely on third-party handling but as pointed out at the start - phone may NOT be available/reliable therefore it may be better to inconvenience one ATC for 30 seconds than the entire system going into uncertainty phase and a lot more effort.

We all accept that the current (mis) management of ATC staffing has created problems - that is an Airservices issue and should not be allowed to remove the services they are meant to provide.

My suggestion - advise the ATC "facility not available, kindly accept the cancellation".

[Pera]

that is an Airservices issue and should not be allowed to remove the services they are meant to provide.

In other words, the controllers should just cope. I suggest that the burden of ASA mismanagement should be shared over a greater number of aviation participants. Maybe something could then get done.

[james michael]

Pera

I'm not suggesting they should "just cope". Re-read what I said please.

If the sartime expires, the effect on ATC is higher workload of higher priority (than if the ATC handles the cancellation first up) once the uncertainty phase is declared.

The burden is already shared across industry by TIBA, lack of flight following, reduced training timeslots at locations like CB in the mid arvo, and so on.

If industry does NOT ask for the services that ATC can provide, ATC and Civil Air have no leverage to push for fair staff numbers. If we keep reducing the entitlement, it is a logical consequence that less demand work = less ATC.

Think strategic. Industry supports the ATC position - grumpy knockbacks don't help the cause. If the sector is busy, adopt the usual procedure of passing the service request to a nearby quieter sector (and reciprocating at some later time).

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Grumpy ATC does nobody no good. I think most in the industry support the need for appropriate manpower to provide the basic level of ATC and support services required for us all to function in the business with a base level of safety.

We all have issues that we have to deal with! Grumpiness just provokes more negative responses.

I have nothing but praise and respect for 99% of my interactions with ATC, unfortunately its the 1% that sticks in your head.

Some time ago, while flying YROM-YBTL on a VFR flight plan (yeah, Jabba, I know - unusual for me!), I requested the latest TL weather because I was contemplating upgrading to IFR because of the appearance of the weather ahead.

The response from Centre was "call Flightwatch". Unable to raise FW, I again requested the TL weather from Centre - and was told "not at this time".

My next response to Centre was going to be an upgrade to IFR, a further request for the TL weather (with "require" if necessary), and if/when successful - a downgrade back to VFR just to make my point!

As it turned out I got the TL weather via inflight internet !!!!! So I let it go at that time! I did however make a formal complaint - which later tied up a chunk of someone's time investigating!

My point? Being rude to people like me will not necessarily make the problem go away - it will likely just escalate it!

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

HANG ON!!!!!.....

so this internet thing... you can do porn, emails AND weather ?????


when did this happen?

Apache

If you are well set up like the Dr :8 you can do all that and more.....from the flight deck!:}

[Miraz]

I'd prefer that they said no, rather than confirm receipt of an amendment/cancellation and then do nothing with it.

I made a trip earlier this year where both BN and MEL center acknowledged receipt of instructions but did not pass them onto CENSAR on four different legs, phone coverage wasn't available in the remote areas at the far end of the trip...and then to top it off I returned after 5 hours of dodging under and around bad weather to find the CP standing outside the hangar waiting for me, after hours, on the phone to CENSAR after an inflight amendment had got lost in the system too.

All very embarassing and a waste of time for a fair number of people...

[Spodman]

Zardumb suggests: Next time tell them politely *cough* to provide the service. ATC are there to provide services for the safe and efficient movement of aircraft, pilots and their passengers, not the other way round.There is nothing in The Manual Of Air Traffic Services (MATS) indicating ATC should have anything at all to do with SARTIMES. Your SARTIME is an arrangement between yourself and those that manage the CENSAR database, and they are not ATC. ATC does not monitor or act on SARTIMES. My response to your suggestion would be, "fu*cough*".James Michael said: If the sartime expires, the effect on ATC is higher workload of higher priority (than if the ATC handles the cancellation first up) once the uncertainty phase is declared.If a SARTIME expires there is no effect on ATC workload. Those that manage the CENSAR database will commence communication checks (ring the phone number on the flight plan) then declare an Uncertainty Phase. Further checks would be made, ATC more-or-less not involved. Ftdk said: Unable to raise FW, I again requested the TL weather from Centre - and was told "not at this time".

My next response to Centre was going to be an upgrade to IFR, a further request for the TL weather (with "require" if necessary), and if/when successful - a downgrade back to VFR just to make my point!Sounds like your naughty controller was doing exactly what MATS suggests. If workload does not permit taking your IFR details he is under no obligation to do so either.

The Manual Of Air Traffic Services says:
9-10-340 Precedence
Where air traffic service units provide both flight information and air traffic control services , give precedence to the provision of air traffic control over flight information, unless doing so would compromise safety.

9-10-350 Pilot access to information
Advise pilots to access information on the FLIGHTWATCH frequency if your workload or frequency congestion makes it more practical.

[james michael]

Spodman

First, discrete FW frequencies were provided. They had the function of MET and SAR amongst other things. They were withdrawn by ASA and transferred to the en route ATC frequencies - no?

For aircraft NOT HF equipped the arrangement was to ask for FW on the en route freq - no? How do you suggest such aircraft can be sent to a non-existent VHF frequency for FW information?

Second, no effect on ATC with an expired sartime? Who are those people I hear looking up CTAF frequencies and contacting overflyers to try and make contact with a/c on the ground with expired sartime? Less effort than passing on a SAR cancel or amend?

MATS certainly provides "precedence". Don't misread that as "refusal" - unless you can demonstrate being indefinitely flat out like a lizard drinking it actually means "There will be a delay in providing the requested service".

Have I misunderstood all this?

[makespeed250kt]

You can't get blood from a stone!

If the controller does not have the time to give you the information what do you expect him /her to do?

If you have a problem with the current situation regarding FW, I'm sure there are plenty of avenues for voicing your concerns...

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Just to excite the thread a touch, is ADSB going to be in the sorts of aerodromes you guys a canceling SAR on? If so then won't the ADSB be able to be used as the backup database for Censar? The aircraft are Identified and they have Position/Trend/Alt reports so could reduce a fair bit of the current systems workload. I know it won't be infallible and there will no doubt be instances where it can't work, but if we can reduce ATC's involvement then that would be a good thing for all.

Another interesting aside would be equipping the ADSB with an emergency Txer like inmarsat C where you can send a mayday with position and let everyone around you know there is a problem. Just a thought.

P.S. Sorry if this turns into an anti - Pro ADSB debate, we've had enough of them but ADSB could be used in a SAR capacity given the type and range of data displayed. Better off using all the features of the tech.

Regards

[james michael]

250 Kt

Let's just check how much blood the stone needs to give the Red Cross first.

The statistics on FW at the time of transfer were:

Over a 12 week period 25% of FW traffic was VHF.

Over another 6 week period 6% of FW traffic was VHF.

That means between 75 and 94% of FW traffic would still be dealt with by the DEDICATED FW positions handling HF.

Looking at VHF FW only, the average calls per frequency per day over the two major sample periods were 2 and 3 respectively.

That is one request on each ATC frequency per 12 hours or per 8 hours respectively.

Perhaps it has changed? If not, the Blood Bank ain't looking busy. Not denigrating the ATC, perhaps suggesting that hurting little fellas out there is not as effective for the cause as TIBA etc.

[james michael]

Whisky

We cross posted. Good concept but I understand there are limitations on the info 1090ES can send. Even UAT seems to be receive focussed rather than xmit.

Also, not always ADS-B cover expected at the remote locations where SAR most important.

Right tool for the job - 406 Mhz beacon with embedded GPS and user code. :)

[Whiskey Oscar Golf]

Mr. Michael, Agreed on the 406 with gps, makes my life easier, but we won't go there. I was just looking at how we can evolve any new tech we bring in to get the most out of it and neaten the system. I think it would be useful for Censar on phase declarations given the type of data txed. Could be used as a database type deal where things can be checked. May save some overworked saro or ATCer some time and trouble as well as the odd red face.

Regards

[Desert Flower]

No need for grumpyness on the controller's behalf, but don't you have a mobile.

Having a mobile is all well & good, but what happens if you're in an area where there is only one type of system that works plus only one carrier? The public telephone has been removed from the airport in my location as well.

i usually use the phone or HF anyway.

What happens if you don't have HF, or if the nearest flightwatch outlet is too far away to be contacted?

DF.

[Nautilus Blue]

nomorecatering (http://www.pprune.org/members/73124-nomorecatering) someone once said ATC units always have one insanely cheerful one, one miserable grumpy one and everyone else in the middle somewhere. I work 122.4 and it sounds like you got Mr Grumpy on a bad day everytime.

Does anyone know what actions the controller does to cancel a sartime?

In ML we write callsign (sorry, ACID) and destination on rectangular pink piece of paper (emphatically NOT a 'strip' though). Then record which console (sorry, Workstation) so they know which tapes to pull if it goes wrong and your name so they know which controller (sorry, Air Traffic Facillitator) to stand down if it goes wrong. We then ring the flight data's and give them the cancelation so they can give it to CENSAR, and file said piece of paper.

Workload wise the timing of a call is as important as the length. One call at the wrong time can be a big deal if you are vectoring, many DTI positions are also have controlled airspace.

Still no excuse for being grumpy with the customers though.

[james michael]

Whiskey

From the JCP -
AMSA expects improved search and rescue response times, through more accurate and timely location of aircraft, from ADS-B transmitted data, especially in areas not presently under radar coverage. Based on historical accident data, AMSA has estimated 2-3 fatalities could be prevented per annum, assuming wide geographical
coverage of ADS-B base stations and a high proportion of the general aviation fleet
fitted7.Basically it allows an extension of the current analysis of the console radar recorded data in backtracking the aircraft flight and possible arrival to earth - so you are on the money with that thinking :ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Hey, this is fun, isn't it! In the best spirit of Ppr*ne!

Sounds like your naughty controller was doing exactly what MATS suggests. If workload does not permit taking your IFR details he is under no obligation to do so either

Then my next transmission would have been:

"Centre, XXX unable to remain in VMC, upgrading to IFR due weather, maintaining eight thousand five hundred, request clearance at ammended one zero thousand"!

Dr :8

[UnderneathTheRadar]

From the JCP -

Quote:
AMSA expects improved search and rescue response times, through more accurate and timely location of aircraft, from ADS-B transmitted data, especially in areas not presently under radar coverage. Based on historical accident data, AMSA has estimated 2-3 fatalities could be prevented per annum, assuming wide geographical
coverage of ADS-B base stations and a high proportion of the general aviation fleet
fitted7.


This seems a little optomistic doesn't it? There was the case earlier this year(?) where the fact that the a/c was missing for a week or so wasn't noticed but I didn't think that affected the outcome.

Does anyone else know of incidents where fatalities could have been avoided?

UTR

[bushy]

The coverage will be where the major airlines land. I would not expect more coverage that that.

[kaptaan]

I don't know how it is down south. But up in nth Qld I've been cancelling SAR with Brisbane centre, In fact almost everyone up here does it.. with no complains..

[james michael]

Bushy

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/flying/updates/adsb/images/Coverage_A100.jpg

As I understand it, the lilac shapes are coverage at 10000' - obviously lesser coverage below but it's a lot more than radar - and a lot more than where the airlines fly.

UTR

I believe the principle was response time more that detection. Although, I commend the ATC for a failure we had over water of comms and txpdr and they tracked us back on primary and checked the office to make sure we were home.

Extended surveillance offers extended flight following - possibly at a fee - that should provide benefit in those lilac squiggels.

[Pera]

JM,

I'm not suggesting they should "just cope". Re-read what I said please.

One of the reasons the associations agreed to FW moving to the en route sectors was that services would not be diminished.

That is one request on each ATC frequency per 12 hours or per 8 hours respectively.

It does sound like you're telling ATC just to cope.

ASA has duped you. This thread demonstrates that the service has diminished and controllers will only provide FW when time permits.

[Howard Hughes]

If the controller does not have the time to give you the information what do you expect him /her to do?
"All stations hold in your current position, right hand turns, one minute patterns, now FTDK the weather at TL is"...;)

[Unhinged]

But up in nth Qld I've been cancelling SAR with Brisbane centre, In fact almost everyone up here does it.. with no complains..

We're obviously in very different parts of North Queensland ...

Been told many times by BN CEN to contact FW on HF (don't have it) or by phone (where I fly, NextG is marginal or non-existent on the ground in many places). I always thought putting a flight plan in would make it easier for them, but it doesn't seem to have any effect.

On the other hand, one good thing has come out of it - I bought a LightSpeed Zulu and extension aerial for the phone, and now I can contact FW (and everyone else :-) by phone once I'm in the air.

[Chapi]

The problem is really about expectations.


ATC has usually provided pilots with services above and beyond what they are required to provide - over servicing. Pilots have come to expect the (higher) level of service that they received in the past, and expect that service to continue.

Reduced staff numbers, combined sectors, loss of facilities, loss of staff and service delivery means that ATC workload is such that providing services above and beyond what is required to be provided is a luxury that they can no longer afford.

Expect to see more of ATC providing the minimum services they are required to provide.

The times and services delivery levels they are a changin'

[Roger Standby]

FTDK,
Then my next transmission would have been:

"Centre, XXX unable to remain in VMC, upgrading to IFR due weather, maintaining eight thousand five hundred, request clearance at ammended one zero thousand"!

In that case, The Manual Of Air Traffic Services says:
9-10-340 Precedence ...
..., unless doing so would compromise safety your request would be assessed and details more than likely taken as soon as practicable.



James Michael (We know about you guys with two first names, btw:}),

When you hear us following up with requests for broadcasts on CTAFs, we are following up on IFR a/c, OUR responsibility. For an overdue SARTIME (VFR), the only impact on us is maybe a phone call from CENSAR asking if we have heard from ABC overdue at XXXX. The total list of our actions is usually to broadcast once for the a/c, check the scratchpad to see if anyone had jotted down any VFR banter and respond to CENSAR "Sorry, no joy"


Just on a side note, can anyone guess what strategies were put in place,(extra staff?training?), when FW was closed up and handed to the controllers? If you haven't been able to come up with an answer, then ...CORRECT :ugh::*

[Spodman]

Just to put this into perspective, It has been a reasonably quiet afternoon, and I've taken 2 amended SARTIMES, cancelled 1 and passed an Area QNH as FLIGHTWATCH. At no time was my ATC workload at such a level that I could not attend to such requests, but I did leave one guy standing by for a couple of minutes. FTDK's request would have been attended to promptly as well, as was some VFR pop-up who wanted FL200 over CWS without a flight plan.

But if workload did not permit during a busy bit of sequencing I may respond with a "Nup!" for periods of 30 minutes or so, and I wouldn't log the spuds requesting to get back to them. If you had tried:"Centre, XXX unable to remain in VMC, upgrading to IFR due weather, maintaining eight thousand five hundred, request clearance at ammended one zero thousand"!
during such a period, the answer would have been, "Clearance not available..."

[Hempy]

"...no reported IFR traffic at 8000"

[Unhinged]

who wanted FL200 over CWS without a flight plan

Spodman, it's good to hear the other side. Question for you:

Where I fly, FW is available on a discrete frequency, except for a few hours a day. During that time the notams say ... "ON-REQUEST FLIGHT INFORMATION (FIS), SARTIME AND EMERG ALERTING SERVICES AVAILABLE ON FIA FREQUENCIES OR HF"

In a possibly misguided attempt to ease things through the system, when flying vfr I always put in a flight plan with a TBA sartime.

So, does having the plan in make any (useful) difference to you if I call BN CEN to nominate or cancel the sartime ?, or is it all the same and you have no direct access to the information I've put in ?

[james michael]

This one looks like an 'all stations' post

Pera
I am NOT telling ATC to cope. I have seen the detailed statistics. I have suggested precedence does not mean NO it means DELAY.

What is the crisis with Looking at VHF FW only, the average calls per frequency per day over the two major sample periods were 2 and 3 respectively.Pick on the biggies via TIBA - gets media, pollies and airlines putting on pressure. We tonka toys don't have the clout - trust me, I do have some IR expertise - including a lot of time helping one of your number down south where I didn't tell him 'service unavailable' :ok:

Roger

No TFN this lad :)

Looking at what you have to do for the missing VFR sartime - I still think the balance of work is less than the stat I mentioned to Pera. And, yes, I agree the handover of FW was not well done. But, until I am elevated to the next TFN, I cannot change the internals of ASA.

Spodman

Spot on and no argument. I think that is exactly what I proposed earlier. Also have no time for people who will not put in FP via NAIPS where available. Examined a recent case at PF where person wanted to regularly drive to airport and jump into a/c and lodge FP over radio for convenience - told him to expect a long long wait :mad:

I'll be at ML CEN again on 8 Sept further enhancing my understanding of how the other half lives - lots to take in :ok:

[peuce]

I know most of the Controlers on here probably weren't even born at the time, but in the not too distant past, your Union was creaming itself over the prospect of "taking over" Flight Service ...

Now you have DTI and FIS and Sartimes ...

The moral of the story ... be careful what you ask for ...:{

[oldbull youngbull]

Haven't got a problem in the world accepting your sar cancellation :ok:

I may tell you to standby every now and again though :hmm:

And I may need an interpreter every now and again as well :}

[Spodman]

Unhinged says:In a possibly misguided attempt to ease things through the system, when flying vfr I always put in a flight plan with a TBA sartime.

So, does having the plan in make any (useful) difference to you if I call BN CEN to nominate or cancel the sartime ?, or is it all the same and you have no direct access to the information I've put in ?It makes no difference at all to ATC whether there is a FPL or not when processing SARTIME. The FPL will only help us if you are requesting a clearance or flight following. If our system has a VFR FPL in it that will not be activated it is just hogging a SSR code from the VFR bin, but don't you worry about that...

The advantage of the FPL for a SARTIME is for your own protection: the greater information you have recorded in it, particularly the SPL & contact numbers for finding you if it expires.your Union was creaming itself over the prospect of "taking over" Flight Service ...Hardly, and I'm a veteran on both sides of that divide. There was a determination that the final structure would only include ATC, in the face of the confused and impractical hybrid systems proposed by the f@#$wits, erm, I mean management of the day. Many, like myself were able to convert ourselves from FS to ATC, and I work today with another 4 guys of my 1982 Flight Service course!

[Unhinged]

If our system has a VFR FPL in it that will not be activated it is just hogging a SSR code from the VFR bin, but don't you worry about that...

Why would it be "hogging a SSR code" for a flight entirely contained in an area without any radar coverage ? Even when I go IFR there's no code issued, since there's no radar !

Do I take it from that, you'd rather I didn't put in a VFR plan ?

Since the same code can be assigned to multiple aircraft simultaneously, why is this even an issue ?

[Awol57]

I think he might have actually really meant, don't worry about that.

I heard Perth Radar cancel one today with no problems or issues. Perhaps the guy was just having a bad day when this thread was started?

[makespeed250kt]

The cancellation of the odd SARTIME wouldn't normally be a problem, and I think most controllers would be happy to relay this for you to CENSAR.

However, I do recall not long after the removal of the dedicated FW freq near Adelaide (I think it was 133.95 but I'm guessing), there was a constant stream of SARTIME cancellations being made to the surrounding enroute sectors by a/c landing at Parafield.

That in itself should not really be a problem, but it was, because the comms were so bad, and some of the accents so thick, that it was not unsual to make 3 or 4 calls before you were confindent you'd copied their details correctly, or, they were simply just unreadable.

In the middle of a busy gaggle, this would tie up the freq and did at times cause real problems for the sector controllers.

James Michael, sometimes statistics don't tell the whole story,

Cheers.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

It USED to be all about the 'Service'..........

Yeah! I know! T'aint the same now...................

However, knowing wot I know, those of you who can = those of you who are able to at the time = DO!

(When workload permits etc etc etc.)

PPRuneR's ....Just T'aint the same these days... 'Tis called 'Priorities'....and VFR's just ain't in it at times!! ASK DICK!!

Cheers....:ok::ok:

[Spodman]

Why would it be "hogging a SSR code" for a flight entirely contained in an area without any radar coverage ? Even when I go IFR there's no code issued, since there's no radar !Bit off topic I suppose, the Eurocat system assigns an SSR code to the flight plan 30 minutes before the ETD, and the flight plan is automatically cancelled 180 minutes after the ETD, if it is not activated. Whether you are issued a code or not your flight plan is allocated a code if you plan as having SSR. So each unactivated VFR plan ties up a code for 3.5 hours.Do I take it from that, you'd rather I didn't put in a VFR plan ? /QUOTE]Not at all, I said don't worry about that. [quote]Since the same code can be assigned to multiple aircraft simultaneously, why is this even an issue ?There are reasons for this. Codes are only allocated simultaneously if the coupling corridors (+/- 8NM, with some other fiddles) do not overlap. If the same codes are allocated in the Perth and Melbourne terminal areas and the system goes into local coupling due to a system failure my labels will all whizz over to Perth, leaving me blinking worriedly at BDG trying to remember if there was an aircraft there or not... There are only 4096 codes, and plenty of them are reserved for other stuff. But don't worry about that either.and VFR's just ain't in it at times!! Ah! Mounds of white strips with crap written on them you haven't heard of, names too long to fit in the boxes, where the hell is Mummaloo Wye-Bubba Hill anyway...

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ahh Spodie,
Ah! Mounds of white strips with crap written on them you haven't heard of, names too long to fit in the boxes, where the hell is Mummaloo Wye-Bubba Hill anyway...

If you were in the local FSU, you'd even know who was good for a beer or four at each one of them:ok:

[nafai]

James Michael stated:

I am NOT telling ATC to cope. I have seen the detailed statistics. I have suggested precedence does not mean NO it means DELAY.

What is the crisis with

Looking at VHF FW only, the average calls per frequency per day over the two major sample periods were 2 and 3 respectively.

JM, I thought your thorough research would of identified that statistics are up for interpretation especially upon the agenda of those supplying them. At a guess VHF frequencies used for the average included both the lower level (area/DTI sfc-A085/F125/F245) and upper level (control F245+). You wouldn't expect VFR's to call on the upper level frequency but I'd say it has been included to dilute the overall ratio.

Arrivals airspace closer to major city aerodromes are usually one sector with both frequencies combined. Coincidentally this is also a place of increased VFR activity and need of FW services. So in the middle of holding, vectoring, sequencing, traffic alerts and providing service to fee paying customers, the FW function takes a lower priority especially when other communication methods are available.

I can understand the need for training flights to become familar with communications to ATC but some responsibility needs to be used by the pilot and/or instructor as to the timing - tip holding, vectoring, traffic alerts etc is not a real good time.

[james michael]

Nafai

Have a think about the statistic - yes it was for all 29 frequencies and yes it was high and low level - but that still does not alter the validity, particularly as the highest request was for location specific met not SAR c/s.

Requests on arrivals airspace near the capital cities are regularly handled as I suggested earlier - transfer to a sector further out that is not heavily loaded at the moment. That's whwre the 'average' can be balanced.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that VFR should load up inner sectors with tfc, nav etc requests - not sure where that idea came from but not mine.

[nafai]

JM,

I respect your drive for fact and debate on these threads however:

Have a think about the statistic - yes it was for all 29 frequencies and yes it was high and low level - but that still does not alter the validity, particularly as the highest request was for location specific met not SAR c/s.

I think it does alter the validity as there is probably 5-6 arrivals type frequencies handling upward of 70-80% of the FW requests causing congestion to already busy frequencies. I don't have any stats to back this up just first hand and current experience in a range of sectors/frequencies.

Requests on arrivals airspace near the capital cities are regularly handled as I suggested earlier - transfer to a sector further out that is not heavily loaded at the moment. That's whwre the 'average' can be balanced.

Great concept and probably used as mitigator in a safety/risk assessment but not realistic due to VHF coverage especially around major AD's.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that VFR should load up inner sectors with tfc, nav etc requests - not sure where that idea came from but not mine.

Nor I but I'm guessing someone seeking more 'efficiencies' from the ATC system came up with idea, received a bonus and probably an Australia day award. Regardless of where it came from the impact is occurring daily and is another factor putting the ATC, their licence and the traffic under their control under greater risk for the recurring theme of efficiencies ie saving $$$$'s.

[james michael]

Nafai

Re the first and second - not sure what sector/s you are but I hear it very regularly around my capital city and working well.

The point is that GA is attuned to your situation and all I speak to are supportive. By ATC refusing requests rather than looking for a delay or alternative means, in the ultimate demand drops off and workload is shed - but ultimately it must affect justification for staffing. Probably doesn't seem that way now while draining the croc filled swamp :)

[peuce]

The problem is, many people think ASA are dumb. They are not.

I'll probably hate myself for using this phrase again, but here goes .... ASA are very "tricky" !:oh:


Problem is ... GA still receiving FIS from FW
FW costs money
Load FW onto ATC
ATC are busy and knock back some requests
ATC get more busier and knock back more requests
GA get sick of asking and don't try anymore
Great ... hardly any requests ... service not needed
FIS removed from ATC
Problem solved !

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I think the vast majority of requests seem to be coming from the larger pilot training organisations. There is no reason to be calling us on final at Mangalore or Hamilton and cancelling a VFR SARTIME, when a phone call is minutes away

I wonder if this is indicative of yet further decline in training standards or some attempt to make like "real" pilots.

I rarely fly VFR, but when I don't think I have ever cancelled sartime on the radio. Everybody carries a mobile phone these days and ringing the 1800 number generally does the job quickly and easily.

Dr :8

[Quokka]

So I let it go at that time! I did however make a formal complaint - which later tied up a chunk of someone's time investigating!

You're on the right path... the more reports and formal (legitimate) complaints go in from pilots... the greater the chance that problems will be addressed. Otherwise, the person responsible for responding to the reports is up against the wall come the day it goes bad... not the ATC or pilot who failed to report.

"Letting it go"... and nothing will change.

Prop up a failed system and it will stay a failed system.