En route controllers do approach in USA

[Dick Smith]

On a recent thread there were statements in relation to ICAO licensing and en route controllers in Australia not being rated for approach work. I asked an FAA expert regarding advice on this and here is his answer:

In the U.S., an en route controller receives an area rating. If the area has one or more airports where the controller provides an approach clearance to the airport, then the procedures are trained and those responsibilities are included in the area rating. This is very common in the U.S. as there are 5,233 public use airports, many of which have published instrument approach procedures. If radar coverage exists down to the approach altitude, then the controller may vector the aircraft at or above the Minimum IFR Altitude and clear the aircraft for the approach. This is also a common practice.

ICAO Annex 1, Personnel Licensing contains the requirements for air traffic control ratings. There are provisions for concurrent issuance of two air traffic controller ratings. This includes guidance on determining the applicable requirements on the basis on the requirements for each rating. I believe this would be sufficient to allow the training and rating of a controller to perform both en route and approach control duties.

Remember in the USA all instrument approaches are in a minimum of Class E controlled airspace. I would estimate that over 80% of the approaches in the USA are in en route airspace and not “controlled” by an approach controller.

It is extraordinary just how different our two systems are. Perhaps we could try this higher level of safety at least at one airport where we presently have radar coverage to low levels and airline traffic – say Proserpine.

[peuce]

Dick,

I think you are confused a bit and you've managed to get things out of context. I'm sure some Controllers will provide more detailed information, but from a layman:

1. You quoted ... " If the area has one or more airports where the controller provides an approach clearance to the airport, then the procedures are trained and those responsibilities are included in the area rating."

And so they should. If a Controller provides an Approach Service , he should be trained and rated to do so.... as we do in Australia.


2. You said ... "I would estimate that over 80% of the approaches in the USA are in en route airspace and not “controlled” by an approach controller.
"

Your estimate would be wrong ... Controlled Approaches are conducted in Approach Airspace ... not Enroute. You are confusing the Airspace Type with who does it.


I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think the point you are trying to make is that ... Australian Enroute Controllers should be providing an Approach Service to aerodromes covered by Radar.

The short answer is ... they can ... if they are trained and rated to provide an Approach Service (as well as their Enroute Service) ... just as in the USA.

The BIG question remains .. and hasn't changed since all your previous threads ... as long as the staff training and facilities are provided ... as well as pilot awareness training and procedures and documentation changes are completed.

If you can provide that ... fill your boots.

[Jabawocky]

Sounds great...... but when ASA have stuffed up the ADSB programme and seem to have lost millions of dollars in dodgey dealings in the USA...........whats the chances of funding this? :ooh:

J:ok:

[Willoz269]

An "FAA EXPERT"???? who exactly? I fear this person is branded an expert because he shares some ideas with Dick himself.

[morno]

Dick, if you love the US System so much, why don't you move over there and stay there? It'd certainly be good for Australia.

morno

[Spodman]

An "FAA EXPERT"???? who exactly? Shame on you!!!:* This is an anonymus forum and I'm sure everybody here would heartily disapprove of attempts to reveal the identity of those involved, or suggest that a valid opinion can be held without a name next to it. It is just unthinkable to suggest otherwise.in the USA all instrument approaches are in a minimum of Class E controlled airspaceYep! I agree. An ATC service should apply for all instrument approaches in controlled airspace. To suggest an ATC service is appropriate OUTSIDE controlled airspace is not logical.

[bushy]

Morno
How can we respect the opinions of someone who posts outbursts like your last one?

[Dick Smith]

CASA appears to only take on the weak.

To stand up to AsA would, at the present time, result in a shortened career path at CASA I fear.

Spodman, we have instument approaches outside controlled airspace, in the USA they don't take that risk.

[Hempy]

Spodman, we have instument approaches outside controlled airspace, in the USA they don't take that risk. So, in a nutshell, you are suggesting that for every aerodrome with a published instrument approach within radar/ADSB(?) coverage that class E should extend around it to the ground AND sector controllers should provide an approach service to said airspace?

[No Further Requirements]

West (P) would be a blast when/if they get ADSB.

As I have said earlier, in SE Australia on the sectors there, we have about 70 to 80 approaches to about 25 aerodromes. That's a lot for one person to be doing.

Resource first, then make the changes.

Cheers,

NFR.

[mjbow2]

Hempy

you are suggesting that for every aerodrome with a published instrument approach within radar/ADSB(?) coverage that class E should extend around it to the ground AND sector controllers should provide an approach service to said airspace?

Over the last year or two there has been some healthy debate about airspace design in Australia. To my surprise, last week there were a number of Air Traffic Controllers who commented positively on the US system.

Perhaps it is time some folks had a refresher read of the proposed NAS document (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/nasfinal_001.doc) now that the main objection really seems to be about the allocation of resources to provide the NAS/US style of ATC.

You will see Hempy that in the executive summary it states:

Provides an IFR separation service to 700’ AGL at non tower terminal airspace at selected locations.

My Bolding.

[morno]

Bushy,
I respect your opinion, but it seems every time Mr Smith expresses his it's always "The US does this, the US does that, why can't we be like the US?".

If he likes their system so much, and hates ours, why doesn't he switch countries?

Sure, SOME of his idea's could work well, but we are NOT the US. We are Australia. We have a completely different aviation environment, and it appears to be working to an extent. I'd be stupid to deny that there are big problems in some area's, but overall the system works fine.

Dick, give it a rest, please.

morno

[Dick Smith]

Hempy. No not every aerodrome- but why not try just one?

Morno, I have made it very clear - only copy the best parts.

I have never suggested that every IFR approach in Australia should be in a minimum of class E.

At least we are moving forward. A few years ago on this site posters were denying how the US system worked, now many are saying that it is possible to bring in a few of the safety advantages of the US system- we just need the correct training, procedures and resources. I agree.

And our aviation environment is actually very similar- especially between Melbourne and Cairns where most of our aircraft operate.

[89 steps to heaven]

I think the main difference is the scale of the display being used by the radar controllers. In the US, they have many more sectors, generally with a display area less than 100nm. Compare this with the screens that are used here where a controller may have from North of Cairns to South of Rockhampton on the display.

Approach work needs a small range and a controller that can concentrate on this, not someone covering such a wide area and fielding flightwatch duties as well.

It's the same answer to the other items floated by Dick recently, all it takes is controllers and money. We don't have the controllers :ugh:. Talk to the Minister about the money.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

...

T'aint all that good - and it ain't ALL suited to OZ ops.

(Our population base - distances - facilities / resources / no 'wall to wall' VHF / RADAR etc etc.

We DID have a good HF net to cover all of this - at one time.
Horses for courses! Our 'then' system evolved to what it was because of necessity. Not idealology - is THAT the word??
Anyway - you get the drift.....)

Regards to all.....:}

[Spodman]

Provides an IFR separation service to 700’ AGL at non tower terminal airspace at selected locations. My Bolding....and 1200' AGL at all the others. If you are going to quote that sh1tty document get it right and don't mislead peopleSpodman, we have instument approaches outside controlled airspace, in the USA they don't take that risk.So, if you want a controlled service, first you need controlled airspace. Nothing to talk about until that is organised.

[Dick Smith]

Spodman, read the document.

It makes it clear that it would be impractical at this stage to introduce low level class E at all locations as per the USA.

[mjbow2]

Spodman
and 1200' AGL at all the others. If you are going to quote that sh1tty document get it right and don't mislead people

Just so neither of us mislead the readers, I have supplied the paragraph that deals with the limited use of class E 1200ft AGL airways (corridors).



Interim design model

While universal IFR/IFR separation provision is the desirable end state, the current costs of service and training implications make the universal application of Class E to low altitudes impractical at this stage.

[FL400]

The groups in Melbourne away from the J curve, when all combined, can run at a screen range of 1600 NM and have surveillance coverage to the ground at ADS-B sites. At that range, the aircraft symbols are wider than the surveillance separation standard itself.

So a controller has 20-30 aircraft under his/her jurisdiction and is accepting aircraft from Sydney, Melbourne, Adeladie and Perth Arrivals sectors, or is controlling airspace from Perth north to Indonesia and out into the ocean, and is also expected to monitor a surveillance separation standard in an approach role. Hmm. Running a standard at anything other than, say, 20 NM would be impossible. But then, that would be a greater tolerance than procedural separation :bored:

1. Surveilance (if that be in a trial area first, so be it)

2. Re-sectorisation (if that be in a trial area first, so be it)

3. Appropriate ATC staff numbers (if that be in a trial area first, so be it)

4. Appropriate ATC training

5. Pilot education

That's the only way this would work. Just dropping class E to the ground around instrument approaches might sound simple but in the current environment it would be nigh impossible to implement and even if it were implemented, the service provided would probably be nothing more than a TRA.

[rmcdonal]

Sounds like a whole heap more work for the ATCrs. I thought they had their own problems as it is?
Also how would this work into a CTAF environment where VFR acft in class E inside the CTAF would not be on COM?




Not having a go, just not understanding :\

[K-941]

No, you are understanding rmcd ;)

[Plazbot]

Is it 2003 again? We already shot this duck.

[K-941]

It was a donkey, not duck ;)

[SNS3Guppy]

U.S. 'System' manages to mismanage the whole World's Financial Affairs.

That's how good the U.S 'System' is.



Gents, Much as the world loves to blame us "yanks," the world financial model has collapsed all by it's lonesome. The US has ample financial troubles...but so does everyone else, and it's hardly the fault of the USA.

More to the point, in a discussion regarding air traffic control, why would you introduce a discussion about world finance...which has nothing to do with the national airspace system?

The us national airspace system is very, very good. I lived for several years in Australia. I fly all over the world. Without particular bias, the US system is among the best there is, if not the best air traffic control system out there.

That said, one can't simply translate one entire system to another. While the US does have a fair amount of areas out of radar coverage and in Class G airspace, Australia has far more, fewer navaids, fewer alternates, and pilots frequently have fewer options. I don't think anybody ought suggest that Australia should model itself after anyone, including the US. However, one also ought not suggest that there isn't room for improvement. There always is. Even in Oz.

I'll tell you, I loved my time in Australia, and enjoyed the people and the country more than any other I've visited or lived in...I'd have been happy to call Oz my home for the rest of my life...and very nearly did. The country and the people will always hold a spot very near and dear to my heart, and I miss being there. I really do.

The gradual process globally is for all ATC and airspace systems to harmonize with ICAO standards. This is taking place in methods of operation, radio procedures, airspace, terminology, pilot certification, etc. There are still significant differences. However, the US system is changing as much as any, as it gradually alters to conform to an international standard. Flight plans are now filed using the ICAO format as the FAA format is replaced. The US uses TAF's and METARs instead of sequence reports and terminals...and even pilot certification has changed to align with ICAO. You can expect this where ever you go...differences are there, but gradually fading away as one system becomes more like another.

[Much Ado]

Getting the hint? :rolleyes:

[K-941]

Yanks! :=
Увеличьте к фланку. ныряет шлюпка! :E

[Much Ado]

You people really that thick?

NOTHING to do with anything other than staying on topic and not straying into xenophobia...but to prove my point...click

[Much Ado]

Owen Stanley has asked me to re open the thead...done...stay on topic.

[Dick Smith]

One of the reasons our sectors are so large is that we “stratify” the airspace – i.e. the sector over Benalla doesn’t go from ground level to FL600 (as per most equivalent traffic density areas in Alaska) but has a division between high and low level. That doubles the number of sectors – or doubles the size of the sectors.

Can anyone advise why we can’t have a sector from ground level to FL600? Aircraft flying between Melbourne and Sydney at flight levels have to change the VHF frequency regularly anyway, so why not put a frequency change on the sector boundary and have smaller sectors in dimension?

I look forward to the experts advice.

[Plazbot]

As traffic dictates sectors are combined and decombined to create exactly what you propose. in some instances, low combine with low and high with high. Your question shows a lack of understanding at a very basic level and for a person that is very much a proponent of not having the attention taken away from the most important part of the job, ie separation by idle background 'noise'. Your question is also fairly obviously mischevious and interestingly, completely off the topic of the thread that wants to see ATC enroute doing an approach function that would require lower upper limits as per your 2500 for D towers keeping the focus towards the area where obviously more safety occurances arise don't you agree.

[peuce]

Dick,

I've dug deep in to my metaphor satchel for this one ...

Which of the following do you think is more efficient?


A School Teacher in charge of 40 students ... ranging from Preps to Grade 6
A School Teacher in charge of 40 Grade 6 students


Which group of students do you think will get a better education ?

Later ...

Not that there's anything wrong in mixing the classes ... but the poor old Teacher is constantly having to "change her head space" ... to cope with the differing requirements of the different ages and techniques. Human nature says that the Teacher is, at some time, going to zig, when she should have zagged.

[Tiberius]

Dick Smith you state:

One of the reasons our sectors are so large is that we “stratify” the airspace – i.e. the sector over Benalla doesn’t go from ground level to FL600 (as per most equivalent traffic density areas in Alaska) but has a division between high and low level. That doubles the number of sectors – or doubles the size of the sectors.

I wasn't aware that Alaskan airspace was so busy! I have seen it quoted that the SY-ML route is the 3rd busiest in the world. Were you aware that this route is in the airspace above Benalla?

Can anyone advise why we can’t have a sector from ground level to FL600? Aircraft flying between Melbourne and Sydney at flight levels have to change the VHF frequency regularly anyway, so why not put a frequency change on the sector boundary and have smaller sectors in dimension?

Anything can be done if you resource it correctly, as I'm sure you will agree.
If there are to be more sectors, there needs to be more staff. It seems that you have agreed previously that this is the case, and it seems that you consider that it is a problem easily remedied. Have you contacted Airservices and Civilair with your suggestion?

I look forward to the experts advice.

When you receive it, I trust you will post it for us all to see, as clearly you do not consider any of the regular posters here to be experts.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

"from ground level to FL600 "......

Why stop there? Why not Ground Level to UNLIM?

I used to LUV IT when Concorde flew in - OCTA - ABV FL600 and we 'handed him over' at 30nm PH when inbound from the SW. (YEP. 'Tis true!)
Well, it was, then.

Not much of a 'thread drift' - as this whole subject is purely 'theoretical'.

Dick, Just arrange to provide the money for the training, and the time for those resources...er staff...and ANYTHING is POSSIBLE!
Suitably Rated Staff working Rated Positions etc. etc.

(Do the UAV's need a cnce? Who ya gonna talk to?)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

L U V L Y ................Ain't it!!

As Concorde flew further and the fuel burn allowed, naturally he requested higher levels. You'd have to be a real 'up yourself' to say 'Standby For Traffic'.

Although it did amuse us to sometimes ask for a 'Wind and Temp' tks...

We'd never had them from those alts before, and they were interesting.
The MET guys enjoyed that too.
The 'chuckle' in the pilot's voice as he read them back was pure camaraderie, as were many other memorable exchanges.

L U V L Y times.............

Cheers:ok::ok:

[Hempy]

Hempy. No not every aerodrome- but why not try just one?

I am not adverse to change nor do I think that in an ideal world a study into a trial of something like this wouldn't be warranted, but the fact is that it's not an ideal world and in reality what you are suggesting is a pipe dream. Regardless of what CASA might think about it, Airservices will be struggling to provide a basic air traffic service for the forseeable future, despite what you might hear. Come back in 2020*.

p.s. I do like how you keep throwing up ideas around here; each idea you propose deprives the next ASA CEO of an opportunity of coming up with something original for his "Vision". :ok:

[GetTheFlick]

Can anyone advise why we can’t have a sector from ground level to FL600?

Hey Dick. I didn't know you hung around these parts. Good to see.

Actually, you can have a sector designed like that. As a matter of fact, legend has it that when we wrote the Flight Data Processing (FDP) software in the U.S. they had to make a choice -- from the ground up to FL600 or stratified. The FAA went with from the ground up. When circumstances led us to stratify, the programmers had to come up with a work-around for the software. As far as I know, the work-around still lives in the programming. I know it did as of two years ago anyway. I think you know it but most don't -- the original programming is mostly still in place. It's been translated and whatnot -- but it's still 40+ year-old programming logic.

More to the point, high altitude control and Terminal work involve two different mindsets. You can do both -- it's done every day (or more precisely every midnight) -- it's just mentally difficult and therefore less desirable.

Perhaps a bit off topic but allow me to say how refreshing it is to see a "bigwig" participate in an open forum. I can't imagine an opporitunity to talk with an ex-FAA administrator here in the States. It's a good thing that you're looking for what works. As a safety rep., I spent a lot of time looking for what didn't work. There's plenty of both in the U.S. system.

Don Brown