24 Times in a Row - Clearance Not Available.

[Ozgrade3]

Just had a look at my worksheets over the last 6 months.

24 times in a row. Airways clearance not available for YBLT to EN @A055. I have tried scheduling CPL navs away from peak periosds but to no avail. Nothing seems to work these days. I'm getting sick of putting up candidates for CPL tests with little or no CTA experiance because they cant get any time in CTA.

Just the other day, strong northely wind, ML was on Rwy34 only, CAVOK conditions, lunch time. Called for a clearance...all i got was a quick NOT AVAILABLE in a tone that basically said piss off. This, in Melbourne, a quiet little backwater in world aviation terms. Surely we can do better than this in 2012. Everywhere else in the world seems to manage traffic better than us.

The airlines aren't the only ones who have a job to do.

[Jabawocky]

I am sure the ATC's could do it. But there are not enough to do the workload as it is.

Go visit BN/ML CEN and see for yourself. You don't have to ask questions, just look. it is not good.

Navs to AY :ok: Or LT:}

[manymak]

Flying training is cost prohibitive enough without have to make the poor sod pay for a nav all the way to AY when MEL is on the doorstep.

[Homesick-Angel]

Probably not so much the issue of getting over ML at that height, more the descent into EN. I can't remember the height, but thought to transit it was min A065?

If the waypoint sheeds and some of the easterly STARs to 34 are in use you are doubly screwed.(Lizzy 5 victor I think?)
Your best bet for a CTA nav from there would be BLT AV YMPC YMNG and back. Make it high as possible.. Never been refused CTA clearance on the east side??
I'm sure there's other reasons I'm not aware of?

[JustJoinedToSearch]

During one of my PPL navs I got BLT-EN at some height like that (might have been 3500) just before the duty rwy at ML switched to 34. I could tell that gave the controller something of an issue as I ended up getting vectored all around the place before making it to EN.

That is the only time I have ever come anywhere near getting a clearance like that VFR around ML.

I can't remember the height, but thought to transit it was min A065?

IIRC that doesn't apply for ops to/from ML/EN.

[Plazbot]

24 times in a row? Sounds like you should have tried something else long ago. I suggest getting a phone number and calling directly to the Approach cell and asking them exactly what you have to do to get your desired outcome. I suggest doing this 22 attempts ago.

[5-in-50]

YBBN is now the same. They've recently removed from ERSA, the overfly option at 1500ft, leaving only an A070 option. Not often an option for VFR due cloud...

It's very apparent that GA is just too much trouble for the overworked and overregulated ATC systems.

[The Green Goblin]

Just tell them you require it 'due weather' lol

[VH-XXX]

Some would say that you are expecting a bit much. You are flying in from one of the busiest directions essentially straight over Tullamarine into Essendon only a few short miles away. Your descent would be right amongst the busy stuff. Where are you planning your descent into Essendon? 5500 is irrelevant isn't it because you would need to be below that over Tulla?

5500 is probably not high enough for a transit either and not being IFR doesn't help either. I was told I needed to be above 6 to get over Tulla, let alone descending into Essendon. Try tracking around to the North east near the VFR lane and entering Essendon from near GTV or alternatively via Melton to West Gate. There is more to learn for a student and more chance to demonstrate their skills remaining OCTA to the west of Melbourne versus finding and overflying one of the biggest airports in the country into Essendon - not much of a challenge really. I'd take a PPL over Tulla and a CPL via the outskirts because anyone can fly in Class C with the big boys without too much effort.

[Old Akro]

I would have thought a call to ML ATC would deliver a result. Whenever I've rung to ask advice or what their preferred procedure is, they have been excellent. BLT to EN @A055 cuts through a bunch of approach paths. There may be another route / altitude or time of day that gets you CTA experience without stressing the system. If all you want is CTA experience you can just glance down a "dead" edge of the CTA.

[Ozgrade3]

Unfortunately the lesson plan is very specific with the requirements that have to be met. We cant change the routing willy nilly. Yes we can go in via Station Pier or Westgate every time, but come the test, ATO's want to see a commercial plan. That is direct thru CTA.

I've seen the same rasons trotted out since I started flying in 84. Traffic volumes, lack of staff, SIDS, STARS, manual of standards, SOPs.........yada yada yada. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. Ive flown extensively in the US and the UK. never had the problems there, and we have 1% of the traffic they do.

Lastly, its in the ATCO's own interest to have newbys experianced and familiar with ATC by the time they start IFR training.. Straight after the CPL test, the cadets are into IFR training, then they really are in the system. The workload for the ATCO is greatly increased if you have a student in IMC who cant communicate proficiently with ATC.

Air Noservices Australia is still the 2nd best ATC provider in the world. Just eveyone else is in first place.

[Lasiorhinus]

Unfortunately the lesson plan is very specific with the requirements that have to be met. We cant change the routing willy nilly. Yes we can go in via Station Pier or Westgate every time, but come the test, ATO's want to see a commercial plan. That is direct thru CTA.

Of course you can change the lessons. Talk to your CFI, let them know of the problem. They will probably be able to suggest a solution to you straight away. It may be a problem affecting all the instructors from your school, in which case they need to do something about it, or it might be just you. If it is just you, they'll tell you how everyone else does it.


My thoughts are, it sounds like you're not putting in a flight plan to Essendon. Presumably you're filing a plan that has you tracking BLT-EN-MB. This way the controllers know you're on your way to Moorabbin, and the bit about going via Essendon isn't cruicial.
File a plan that lands in Essendon, and a second plan 15 minutes later for the return to Moorabbin leg. This says to the controllers that your destination is Essendon, and therefore telling you to land somewhere else isn't an option.

[AerocatS2A]

Unfortunately the lesson plan is very specific with the requirements that have to be met. We cant change the routing willy nilly. Yes we can go in via Station Pier or Westgate every time, but come the test, ATO's want to see a commercial plan. That is direct thru CTA.
A commercial plan is one that gets you to where you want to go. If that means tracking via C and D to get from A to B then that is what you do.

Are you aware of the STAR that uses waypoint SHEED almost directly over Essendon at 2500' for runway 34 at ML? Basically, when rwy 34 is in use, your track at 5500 is taking you straight through the ML IFR circuit and you will want to be descending to land. As mentioned above, ring the controllers and ask them what routing you need to use to get clearance from YBLT to YMEN. That is what a commercial pilot would do if there was some doubt over getting a VFR clearance and that is what you should be teaching your students.

To give it an IFR perspective, do you think an IFR pilot would be able to plan direct YBLT to YMEN, or do you think perhaps they might have to check the ERSA for the route requirements and follow them?

[TOUCH-AND-GO]

As previously mentioned in earlier posts, ML CNTR just don't have sufficient staff to cope with the traffic.! I've visited the air traffic center at Melbourne, great people and a wonderful job they do, but I guess we VFR pilots just don't get special treatment, when it comes to obtaining a clearance through Melbourne.
Ozgrade, another suggestion to get to EN from BLT is to track Bacchus-ROK-EN @ 4500.
Either way you'll end up most likely being vectored around or be told to p*ss off :}

[UnderneathTheRadar]

And finally - think about your request for 5500'. What height do all of the YMML SIDs finish at? What is the minimum clearance between IFR and VFR required to be provided in Class C?

Can you find the 500' problem?

Admittedly it was a long time ago since I tried it VFR but I've never ever been refused a clearance over Melbourne at 6000'.

Requesting VFR levels through Class C probably gets you labeled 'numpty' on first contact and far less likely to get you a favorable hearing.

[le Pingouin]

Ozgrade3, why do you think it's reasonable for you to track direct through the middle of a TMA when no-one else is? Every IFR aircraft is flying via a SID, STAR or route that is designed to ensure separation. And you want to fly right through the middle of it. Ain't going to happen.

You might have equal priority with any one of those aircraft but taken as a whole moving you solves all the problems, so that is what is done.

Why do you have to do the flight BLT-EN? Surely that's actually a matter of choice. Why on Earth would planning something that you know has almost no chance of actually happening make any commercial sense?

[Creampuff]

Requesting VFR levels through Class C probably gets you labeled 'numpty' on first contact and far less likely to get you a favorable hearing.If that’s true, that’s completely inappropriate.

[le Pingouin]

It's not true. It's totally expected that a VFR will request a clearance at a VFR level (you're VFR after all) and is perfectly acceptable. There's a good chance you'll end up at an IFR level to keep things simple for separation, but there is definitely no need to anticipate this by requesting an IFR level.

[heated ice detector]

Try asking how many aircraft are in the control zone, last time I tried to enter Perth I was told that there were two aircraft in the control area but was about to get busy.:ooh:

[outnabout]

Isn't doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result, a version of insanity?

It's way past time to start asking questions, Ozgrade3.

[Wan]

Flying IFR into EN from the West there are route planning reqts to go via Wendy etc. Even then, you will generally get vectored around to the South so that you end up coming in from around Westgate or a descent to Flemington for a reasonably long final. Think I have had a direct clearance once at night. Its got nothing to do with being VFR - only that they can't accommodate you.

One other thing to consider - if the student is sounding hesitant and, mmmnnnn, like he has some issues communicating in English when under the pump, it might well help tip the balance against you if the controller thinks it will be difficult to move you around if things get difficult.

Finally, if its about training, after the student is told to keep away why don't you tell the controller that you would appreciate vectors for student training purposes - they might then be able to keep you in controlled airspace close to the boundary and out of the way - then if you get vectored out over the bay (this will depend on your level) beyond gliding distance (SE) you will be able to teach the student a valuable lesson of not blindly doing something just because ATC tells them to do it.

[airag]

Up until 2 years ago we used to plan MB based CPL Nav's out around Western Vic then back via BLT for fuel then BLT direct EN in Class C with very few problems .... provided the initial Clearance Request call is made early and in the correct format and sounding competant the controllers are always as helpful as the traffic workloads permits , this may involve a few minor vectors however nine times out of ten we got the clearance and everyone is happy.

If controllers are no longer able to handle VFR AWK training flights direct into EN it's a poor outcome.

[le Pingouin]

Overflying EN for MB is a lot less of a problem as you're over the top of the traffic landing on R34. Landing at EN you're cutting across the VOR/RNAV approach from the north and west, and nose to nose with the visual approach from the SE and east.

Just look at the STAR plates - ARBEY, WENDY, WAREN, LIZZI:
YMML Charts (http://www.scribd.com/doc/76892394/YMML-Charts)

[Homesick-Angel]

This is pretty simple.
Call ATC and ssk them where the best chance of a successful clearance is and why the others havent been cleared.Id say some of the answers are already here... ATC work for and with us (the huge fees we pay etc), but they cannot put us or anyone else in harms way.

On the subject of what a CPL nav should entail. I would say that having to divert and find a way that was not expected is the best form of training the student will get. In a flight test, the ATO loves it when this happens because its one less scenario they have to create, and they can sit back and watch how the student deals with it.

Finally..If your CFI is not willing to make a change to the syllabus that leads to successful outcomes for the CTA part of training, then I would find that perplexing to say the least.

Good luck

[le Pingouin]

There's probably no point in ringing now about a specific explanation for specific previous occurrences - memory is short and quite possibly won't be answered by someone who was actually on. I would ring up and discuss your options in general. Also ringing up on the day to find out what is likely and when would probably help you. If nothing else talk to EN tower.

[ollie_a]

If conducting AWK with ML terminal airspace, you had a booking as per ERSA of course?

[Jack Ranga]

Navs to AY Or LT

Clearance available brother, come right on in :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Oz 3, You do need to know 'how things work' to make it work for you. There are some clearances you are just not going to get, mostly due to runway configurations. Things you you NEED to do are make sure a plan is in. It doesn't matter a rats arse if the ERSA says call 10 miles prior to the boundary. When they are short staffed and you are giving them minimum notice with no plan, quite rightly, they will tell you to piss off. Call 20 miles prior to the boundary on the area frequency, with a plan in and get the code at least, they can get you identified at least before you call Radar (which is now called centre but should be called Radar).

It pays to ring the terminal phone number prior to airborne and ask the the dood which track is the most likely to get you a clearance. Ask them if the runway configuration changes what should I plan on? If you keep getting knock backs, complain, complain, complain. Nothing will change if you keep taking it up the jaxie. There are a few pilots on radar, they want to give you a clearance but staffing often dictates not.

Weasel words:

Operational Requirement = Staff shortage. Email Nick Xenephon and tell him you have had a gutfull of short staffing. You pay for a service through the avgas surcharge, demand a friggin' service.

The 'service' ASA 'provides' VFR is pathetic. I have talked to many pilots GA and RPT who are sick and tired of the bull****. I had to change a feeder fix 4 times this morning and their star twice, all within 140 miles Melbourne. Try doing a pre approach brief when you are copping that bull****. It's embarrassing after a while. It's embarrassing sometimes to admit who I work for. You need to get a delegation of like minded instructors to make noises.

The 'service' provided is just not good enough. There are reasons behind the scenes that this is happening. Too many to discuss here. Don't whinge on prune food, it will do nothing. PM me if you want a phone number to discuss :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Three Tanks used to be the go. Someone must have stuffed up big time to have that transit removed from the books.

[FokkerInYour12]

Rather than
"Request clearance"
use
"Require clearance"
if not available
"Require explanation"

[darkroomsource]

Rather than
"Request clearance"
use
"Require clearance"
if not available
"Require explanation"
Often this will get
"remain clear of my airspace"

[Roger Greendeck]

Using require inappropriately like that is going to draw more attention than your after.

[andrewr]

Expecting VFR pilots to look up SIDs and STARs and plan around them according to the runways in use at YMML is asking a bit much I would have thought.

In general, the pilot should tell ATC where they want to go, ATC should work out how to get them there while avoiding other traffic, SIDs STARs in use etc.

In the OP's case, what is wrong with ATC giving them something along the lines of Rockbank - Flemington - Essendon, with vectors as required, descending to 3000 by Rockbank then 2000? Are ATC required to give you exactly the route asked for or "clearance not available"?

I'm sure it makes life easier for ATC to keep GA/VFR traffic out of controlled airspace, but it is not the service they are supposed to be supplying (whether that is due to staffing or other issues).

[TriMedGroup]

The Essendon stuff around is not limited to VFR traffic, normally arriving at ARBEY I am given a heading of around 110 and told to expect a visual approach straight in 26 or right base 35. This heading is normally for around 15 miles at which point the vectors start, if you are lucky you may be cleared to descend even though you advised TOD 20 miles ago. The vectors will then take you on a nice scenic flight covering kilmore, whittlesea and lilydale. Somewhere around the Yarra Valley direct to PLE for the ILS, despite not being ADF equipped on the flight plan, being told to expect a visual approach, and reporting visual with the field in sight.

I notice there is a note in ERSA stating to expect 10 mins holding for a 1 hour period each day. I have never been held just vectored for up to 30 mins - this is a significantly different amout of fuel that a person who doesnt fly there very often may not have.

Surely some type of arrival could be designed that can be planned for, that will make life easier for both pilot and controller and perhaps provide somewhere to hold where you can burn less fuel than just flying 50 extra track miles?

Departing early morning with the GAM aircraft and the ML traffic is also good fun, right turn off 35 heading 150 until through 5000 when your plan is via MNG or OWENS. Request visual dep vis westgate and I get told that will increase the delay?

[le Pingouin]

andrewr, no one is expecting that, but they are germane to the discussion.

As a controller if you anticipate being very busy then you start knocking stuff back that will unnecessarily increase workload and you keep things simple. Vectoring VFR is discouraged - we don't know for certain that we'll be able to vector a VFR everywhere we need, for instance through cloud. How does a VFR navigate once the vector is terminated?

As a pilot would you voluntarily take on a task when you're already in a high workload situation or expecting to be so? Yes, we're there to provide a service, but it's not at all cost. I regularly get knock backs from pilots because they're busy and don't want more workload.

Was the aircraft prevented from getting to EN? No.

[andrewr]

Was the aircraft prevented from getting to EN? No.

However, getting to Essendon was not necessarily the primary objective of the flight, and possibly they were prevented from achieving that objective. But my main disagreement is with the argument that the pilot should know better than to request a clearance at that location.

AIP ENR 1.1 para 3.11:
ATC is responsible for issuing clearances that will enable an aircraft to remain within controlled airspace if the pilot has planned to do so.

It sounds like they planned to be in controlled airspace from 30nm from Melbourne. Controlled airspace isn't restricted to IFR, commercial or RPT aircraft. By the book, they are entitled to do that and the request was not unreasonable.

As for cloud, that is always something VFR aircraft in CTA have to work around. What happens if there is a cloud between Westgate and Essendon?

I take your point about workload, but that is my main point as well - ATC are supposed to be able to deal with VFR aircraft. If 24 times in a row ATC have been unable to deliver service due to workload it suggests a problem inside ATC. If I am repeatedly too busy to help someone in my job, pretty soon management start getting pointed questions about staff levels. It is reasonable for users of the service to ask why it is not available.

I have seen much material produced by CASA and/or Airservices about violations of controlled airspace, and complaints about people skirting the boundaries. Does it occur to them that the prime cause of VCAs is discouraging VFR aircraft from getting a clearance through, and having them go around instead? Would you rather someone be 1 mile inside with a clearance and talking to you, or 1 mile outside and not? (Or if you prefer 500' above the step with a clearance vs. at the level of the step without?)

[fujii]

I am sure the instructor is familiar with AIP ENR 1.4 - 16 & 17. This type of operation is at the bottom of the list. How far into the 24 knock backs does this become a student rip off? Some how other schools manage to put through commercial students.

[darkroomsource]

I am just not understanding what the problem is.
VFR into a highly congested airspace for a COMMERCIAL candidate?
Don't they have their IF rating already? if not, work on that first. They need as much practice IF as possible.
If they request an IFR clearance and are denied, then I understand the issue.
If they are VFR landing at an airport within the airspace, and are being denied, then I understand the issue.
But VFR into a congested airspace - everywhere I've ever flown, if you request a VFR 'clearance' (technically that's not the right word) to pass through an airspace, I've been told to stay clear. This includes several countries, but to be specific in the US alone, Portland Oregon, Seattle Washington, Los Angeles California, San Diego California, San Francisco California, Cleveland Ohio, Dayton Ohio, Indiannapolis Indiana, Chicago Illinois. Try flying 'through' any of those VFR, at almost any time day or night, and you'll hear 'calling aircraft stay clear of my airspace' - they won't read back your registration because if they do then it's a two-way communication and for some of those airspaces that's enough to allow you to enter.

If I file IFR and get a different route from clearance delivery, then the next time I file I will use the route they seem to prefer. After just one or two trips I know the preferred route (even though it can be different from the published preferred route)

[porch monkey]

No requirement for an I/R to hold CPL in Australia, unlike most other countries. That's why you have many students doing CPL first, and adding an I/R when they can afford/actually require one.

[VH-XXX]

From my Australian military airspace days, it was called VFR arrival and VFR departure - is that terminology used these days by Civilian ATC?

[FokkerInYour12]

My "require" comments were tongue-in-cheek.

In the air (when under pressure to finish the navex) Perhaps a "request advice on any available alternative to traverse CTA due training requirement destination YXYZ" might also help rather than just a simple request.

If advice/clearance still not available then "pretty please with cherries on top" is your only possible reply.

The original poster clearly needs to open alternative lines of communication - both with ATC (via phone) and instructor/CFI if he cannot find a way of clearance in the air.

OP please report back and let us know how you get on.

[le Pingouin]

andrewr, I'm afraid objectives additional to getting from A to B will be accommodated where possible but there's no guarantee, particularly when it's not even notified. IFR training into EN gets knocked back regularly, particularly if it's not been booked beforehand. We aren't mind readers.

That reference in AIP means the clearances we issue will keep the flight wholly within CTA if that's what's been planned and not vector or amend tracking to take the flight OCTA. It says we're responsible for issuing clearances, not that we must. So no, they aren't entitled to a clearance.

[Wan]

Having read Le Pingouin's explanation, I now agree with him. Didn't occur to me that vectoring VFR traffic around the place could cause get messy with cloud and the chap keeping his bearings so to speak. All possible, but lots of extra work if he has to refuse a vector due to cloud, or then ask for info on where he now is after being told to track direct to the field (or whatever).

The VFR approach points are there for a reason, so use them. What I don't know is whether the Rockbank VFR approach direct to EN is restricted by ML ops? Presumably if 16/34 in use it would have to be. But if the objective is to avoid going the long way around, that would do it, and I suspect that EN tower are more likely to have more time, or more inclination to help, than an approach controller.

[KeepItRolling]

The VFR approach points are there for a reason, so use them. What I don't know is whether the Rockbank VFR approach direct to EN is restricted by ML ops? Presumably if 16/34 in use it would have to be. But if the objective is to avoid going the long way around, that would do it, and I suspect that EN tower are more likely to have more time, or more inclination to help, than an approach controller.

EN TWR operate a defined block of airspace to the SE of EN up to A020. Any thing outside of that area and clearances from EN TWR need to be arranged with an airspace release from approach. This will depend on traffic disposition at both EN and ML.

I wouldn't be too harsh on ML Approach, the priority for them is RPT Jets into and out of ML and the Book of Rules makes it clear that VFR training flights are a fair way down the list. Taking jets off STAR for such a reason as that would not be treated a s a trivial exercise.

ATC don't make the rules, just work by them.:cool:

[andrewr]

andrewr, I'm afraid objectives additional to getting from A to B will be accommodated where possible but there's no guarantee, particularly when it's not even notified. IFR training into EN gets knocked back regularly, particularly if it's not been booked beforehand. We aren't mind readers.

I would dispute that the objective of getting from A to B was even satisfied by ATC. A to B was "Not available". It was up to the pilot to figure out that they could get C to B, and make their own way from A to C to get to B.

To me, if you put in a flight plan to travel to an airport inside class C, it doesn't seem unreasonable to call up > 30 miles out and request clearance. "You can't get there from here" is not a helpful response. If ATC can't give you a clearance with CAVOK and 30 miles to work with, that seems to be a problem. I can understand it in unusual circumstances, but not every time.

You talk about workload - "Clearance not available" creates a lot of work for the pilot. At best, it means you need to plan 2 different routes, and once you plan a route OCTA why bother with CTA? People will skirt the edges, and occasionally make errors and end up with a VCA. At worst, it is the same as the "resume own navigation" example you gave, where you have to work out a new route on the fly - except without assistance from ATC, in proximity to CTA without a clearance.

I am a strong believer that difficulty getting clearances through CTA (with the result that instructors teach people to track around the edge in preference to asking for clearance) is one of the first links in the error chain that results in VCAs - and in any breakdown of separation that results from a VCA.

[darkroomsource]

No requirement for an I/R to hold CPL in Australia, unlike most other countries. That's why you have many students doing CPL first, and adding an I/R when they can afford/actually require one.
Nor is it required in the USA, I don't think it's required anywhere actually.
But what use is a CPL without an IR?
Additionally, you have to build hours to get enough for the CPL, why not build them doing IR work? two birds, one stone kind of thing.
Seems silly to get the CPL first, then spend more money getting the IR, when you could have got the IR on the way to the CPL and be a better pilot for it.

But still, not the real point of this discussion.

MOST congested airspaces require specific procedures for traversing VFR. If you want to travel through congested airspace, take the time to learn what is expected, then request that, and most of the time you'll be accommodated.

[le Pingouin]

The aircraft in question was VFR so there are other alternatives to CTA for most of the way. They weren't prevented from returning to EN.

Are you seriously telling me you would plan to fly into CTA, knowing full well a clearance is not guaranteed, without a plan B? The term "airmanship" comes to mind.

You have to realise that the airspace, SIDs, STARs, procedures, etc & so forth are designed as an integrated system to be safe by default. When aircraft start deviating from those things because of controller choice or pilot requirement the risk increases.

Introducing an aircraft that is doing none of that negates all the built in system safeguards and increases workload and risk. Yes, this system is heavily biased towards the traffic in and out of ML, but then that's what the vast majority of the traffic is. It's all very structured because it needs to be.

[andrewr]

Are you seriously telling me you would plan to fly into CTA, knowing full well a clearance is not guaranteed, without a plan B? The term "airmanship" comes to mind.

No, I am saying that most pilots having made plan B don't bother with plan A, then we have CASA and Airservices complaining about VFR aircraft too close to CTA, and occasionally screwing up and violating controlled airspace. CASA and Airservices complain about people doing what the system trains them to do.

Compared to e.g. the USA, Melbourne airport has low traffic, and a massive amount of airspace allocated to it. The OPs description of Melbourne as a "quiet little backwater in world aviation terms" is perhaps harsh but not completely inaccurate. I did try to compare the traffic levels, but it was off the bottom of the busiest airport lists I could find.

The airspace is class C, not class A so in theory VFR should be able to use it. I'm not suggesting that jets be taken off their SIDs and STARs, but surely there is some way for VFR to go over, under or around? Or do you not generally specify an altitude for the jet traffic on a STAR e.g above (or below) x thousand by point y?

Fujii referred to AIP ENR 1.4 16&17 and says this type of operation is at the bottom of the list.

In fact, AIP says:
10.2 Training flights will be given the same priority as other flights

And to summarize 10.3 (priorities when the CTA/CTR is too busy):
Highest:
Commercial air transport and various other operations with priority equal to commercial air transport

Then, with equal priority:
General aviation aircraft proceeding to a primary aerodrome, and civil and military training flights.

Then: other operations

So saying that a training flight to Essendon is at the bottom of the list is wrong. It is right up there, just under the priority of commercial air transport. Nor do I see anything giving (GA) IFR priority over VFR.

Now I understand that in the real world, priorities get set differently. But if we can't get anything close to what AIP says should be done, isn't that a problem?

And should we be criticizing a pilot for expecting the system to operate as specified in AIP?

[Awol57]

I thought this post was about getting into EN, not ML, which is the primary aerodrome. I am sure that if you could maintain A070 or A060 perhaps you could overfly ML as a VFR. How much use that is to you when you wish to land at EN I am not sure unless you have a ballistic parachute.

I don't think there is much point arguing the finer points of ATC, as you will not convince either party.

Andrew, have a read of lots of the ASA threads and you will see plenty of ATC saying there isn't enough staff. You aren't pointing anything new out to us.

Best advice to the OP is call the guys up and ask what the best way to do it is.

[andrewr]

I thought this post was about getting into EN, not ML, which is the primary aerodrome.

I couldn't find a definition of primary aerodrome, so I gave Essendon the benefit of the doubt. If it is not a primary aerodrome, then according to AIP civil and military training flights appear to have higher priority than other general aviation traffic to Essendon ("other operations").

Andrew, have a read of lots of the ASA threads and you will see plenty of ATC saying there isn't enough staff. You aren't pointing anything new out to us.

Best advice to the OP is call the guys up and ask what the best way to do it is.

The way to get more staff is not for people to shut up and work around it, which is basically what people here told the OP. The way to get more staff is for people to speak up when staff shortages prevent them from doing what they should be able to do.

Ballarat has recently invested a lot of money in infrastructure for a flight training organization. That means that local politicians are invested in its success. Attention at the political level is probably the most effective way to pressure for more staff - but it will only happen if people speak up when problems occur.

[Awol57]

I agree, but I question if pprune is the place to raise it as an issue.

[Chu Mai Huang]

Andrew is the customer. Is he up there for ATC's benefit? NO.
ATC exists to provide a service, not just to airlines.
My CFI has the same trouble. He has an operational requirement for a clearance in order to get his students their CTA tick, and he can't get it!

"Workload" my ass. Compared to overseas, our sky is empty. Our ATC does not have 30nm to work with, they have 2827.43343 square miles of perfectly usable air within the terminal area alone! And they can't fit in ONE VFR aeroplane?? It's a disgrace.:eek:

[Jack Ranga]

The aircraft in question was VFR so there are other alternatives to CTA for most of the way.

Ahhhh, the dood needs to get his students into CTA as part of PPL Syllabus. I think you'll find him and most of his students will avoid CTA like the plague once they have the CTA endorsement.

When I was doing my PPL my instructor went through all possible scenarios when actually in CTA:

What if the ATC gives you a vector that will put you into cloud?
Advise the ATC unable as vector will put me in cloud.

What if the ATC offers you direct to the next way point?
If it's an NDB or VOR and it's in range I will accept.

What if there's no AID?
I can calculate a 1 in 60. If I'm over a prominent landmark I will draw the new track on my map and use my protractor to calculate the new track. I can ask the ATC for a heading for the tracking point. I can ask the ATC if an intercept of planned track is available. If none of that is possible I'm going to ask you to turn the GPS back on and press direct to :}

[tyler_durden_80]

QUOTE: "He has an operational requirement for a clearence in order to get his students their CTA tick..."

Without having AIP to hand, is that the correct context for an 'operational requirement' to be used? Being VFR OCTA, with potentially no details known to ATC, i'm not sure it would even be relevant. Would you not have to be in reciept of a service to begin with to start throwing 'require' around? Requiring a certain runway at a controlled aerodrome...yes? VFR 'require' clearence for student training...? Not sure. I know it is an essential part of PPL training, but not sure it is the best way to approach it.

[fujii]

Quote: "He has an operational requirement for a clearance in order to get his students their CTA tick, and he can't get it!"

No, there is no operational requirement. There may be a licensing requirement to complete the CPL syllabus but no operational requirement. The safety of the flight was not affected. The aircraft was probably performing correctly. No alternate was required. Etc.

[VH-XXX]

I had a friend that did his PPL flight test years ago fully outside CTA. His instructor pretended to be the Essendon tower ATC and put him through the ringer with vectors and the works all whilst under the hood and lifting the hood on late final. He did all radio calls by isolating the pilot from hearing them so there was no distraction and he had no idea where he was.

Legal? Dunno, but a good bit of country airfield ingenuity :ok:

[Jack Ranga]

Whatever the reasons for clearance denial, what are the affected going to do about it? Whinge on prune?

Complain to ASA, (not whinge) ask for the reasons why? Remind them that their students 'require' access to controlled airspace. Ask them why, ask them the REAL reasons why? Ask them what 'operational requirement' means. When they spin you the bull**** weasel words, tell them you don't understand what they are saying?

For chrissake, document your 24 knockbacks with dates, submit them to Ben Sandilands, submit them to Senator Nick.

Submit repcons, tell them that pilots without controlled airspace access represents a longterm safety issue. Bombard these public servants with genuine safety reports, don't bull**** them. If you need help composing letters or reports ask for help from some of the guys on here that are actually doing something, PM me if you need details.

[CaptainMidnight]

andrewr

You seem to be missing the point, hunting through AIP for definitions of priorities and primary aerodromes.

Look at the ML TAC. BLT > EN is opposite direction to V223 H345 Q158 & V126. Ditto various SID/STAR depending on RWY usage. You also have AV arrivals and departures in the mix. You would get the same result opposite direction to the route structure anywhere.

Rather than blame ATC, you would be better educating your students what the air route structure means, route restriction arrows, using ERSA GEN-FPR and how to work within the system of traffic patterns with other aircraft.

Teach them to plan in accordance with the route structure, and by all means when airborne request direct, and the result will either be accommodation if traffic permits, or fly as expected per FPL.

And visit a CEN to give yourself and students an appreciation of ATC's job and issues :ok:

[andrewr]

I only went to AIP to disagree with an earlier poster:
I am sure the instructor is familiar with AIP ENR 1.4 - 16 & 17. This type of operation is at the bottom of the list.

I am not the instructor or the student or even a commercial pilot. I don't think I have even seen a TAC - VTC: of course, TAC: no. As far as I know they are not the preferred chart VFR.

But now we have come full circle - we are back to the point where VFR pilots are supposed to know where the IFR routes are and plan around them - which is the original point I disagreed with. As I said then, the pilot should tell ATC where they want to go, ATC should keep them out of the way of other traffic, while getting them to their destination. It doesn't have to be direct!

My interest is essentially the access or lack of it for VFR aircraft to class C airspace. Melbourne has a massive amount of airspace for the level of traffic, compared to e.g the USA, and a corresponding lack of access. Why? Aircraft are the same around the world. Why do we use airspace so inefficiently?

I welcome any opportunity to visit a centre - I have actually been twice, but it only seems to be allowed when it is not busy e.g. evening so nothing much was happening.

[le Pingouin]

Sigh. What does or does not happen overseas is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It could be that way but you'd need to fund and resource it accordingly. And you probably think flying is already expensive enough.....

Lots of aircraft mean smaller sectors, means more controllers. Less traffic means bigger sectors means fewer controllers. Lower density but similar workload.

I'm sorry, but the flying school is not operating in isolation out in the sticks where there are minimal other users. They are operating in close proximity to a major aerodrome and if the can't be bothered finding out that sort of information and try to help themselves to work within the system then they'll likely continue to get shafted.

You'd see even less when it's busy because you wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a console to avoid distractions. At least when it's quiet you usually get a chance for a reasonably close look.

[Philthy]

Jeez there's some garbage written on here...

1. GA gets lower priority than commercial per AIP. There's always commercial in the Melbourne TMA during the day.

2. Traffic to the primary airport has priority over traffic to any of the secondaries. There's always traffic in and out of Tulla during the day.

3. Tulla has auto-release for departures and everything gets a standard maintain A050. Therefore, to assure separation the minimum altitude for entry into the Melbourne TMA is A060 or above except in exceptional circumstances.

4. If you're at or above A060 you can be vectored anywhere if necessary without the Controller having to worry about whether a departure might clean you up.

5. Try ringing ATC for advice. Don't expect a clearance inbound on an outbound route, or below A060.

6. If you don't like the priority rules, feel free to ask CASA to change them.

[Capt Fathom]

AirServices Australia!

Airservices is a government-owned corporation providing safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible services to the aviation industry.

They really do need to rethink their direction! :yuk:

[Awol57]

AIP ENR 1.4 2.1.2 Specifies that IFR are separated from VFR. Given Melbourne tower does not own any airspace (like most radar towers) that makes your typical C172/M20 3 miles around and 2000' big (1000' above and below). No dramas. Now add in a whole lot of jets doing 3x your speed. Still no worries. Now put you heading right to where all those jets want to land. Getting a bit more interesting.

So whilst you as a VFR aircraft are not separated from anyone and only get traffic, all the IFR traffic is separated from you.

I am not radar approach controller but I suspect this is why it is so challenging.

If you think that's bad, all my aircraft are 20nm long. Luckily if you are VFR you are just traffic and good luck to you :E:ok:

[CHAIRMAN]

Who does own the airspace then Awol?

[Awol57]

Approach. The tower can organize an airspace release for circuits when required. Well most can, I presume Melbourne is no different

[Philthy]

Haven't seen circuits at Tulla in 20 years... :sad:

[Lasiorhinus]

Haven't seen circuits at Tulla in 20 years... :sad:

Right, I know what I'm up to tomorrow arvo... :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

So far, there hasn't been any site specific info for any ops inbound from BLT or BDG to EN. It cannot be the case that ML is just an inpenetrable wall resulting in entry only from Westgate, Doncaster or KalKallo(if 27 isn't in use)?

I would have thought some info would have been forthcoming as to gaining a transit to EN when there is a block of departures at ML. Surely, DEP, TWR and EN TWR could co-ordinate an outcome that would not result in such a denial of service.

Cummmon gang, it is only a couple of minutes in transit time. Inbound to intersection at 2000, then direct EN 1500. That inbound track could easily be accomodated Sunbury(7nm) or around Rockbank (8nm) both OCTA LL1500 at the inbound point, then 4nm to EN. 7 minutes total elapsed time for C172. It can be done, it just requires trust...... Why is it, that all these years, the same argument is espoused from ATC. ATC cannot trust GA pilots (and now it is CPL level) not to stuff up in their airspace. The ATS holds the keys and always will. Just maybe, there will come a bit of trust if there is a bit more communication of intentions and requirments (requests:}) on both sides.

Surely, it hasn't fallen in a heap since I used to operate out of EN on a very regular basis....jees...ten years already?:eek: ATS trusted me then to stick to a track and time, why is it any different now?

[Awol57]

I don't work anywhere near ML so I can only make general observations about what some of the issues might or might not be.

If the tower has spare people to spot you (unlikely) then there is no reason I can imagine that it couldn't be done. But it would have to be done visually.

But again that is just a general observation, I don't know the specifics of the ML area well enough.

[airag]

Why is everyone making such an issue of VFR clearances through ML class C CTA ?

IFR planning requirements / tracks etc. are completely irrelevant to a VFR operation ( Day VFR Syllabus is just that ! ) from any direction at altitude unless planning to track directly over Tulla in which case the 6000ft planning as per ERSA applies , if higher priority IFR RPT traffic makes it unworkable for the controller he/she will let you know and may offer diversions left or right of track whilst keeping you high and above the mechanical turb' often found around the Southern edge of the ranges.

The VFR pilot simply has to call early and have as plan B a suitable OCTA track remaining clear of the Zone.

If you've planned into EN for a landing they make it work.

If departing EN into Class C again they make it work as best they can ... some situational awareness of pevailing winds and runways in use at Tulla' allow the student to anticipate clearances and have an alternate plan ready to go.

[andrewr]

Where is your evidence to support that ML has low traffic compared to the amount of airspace they control?

It is difficult to compare to Melbourne with other airports by number of movements because it doesn't make the lists of top airports by movements. However, going by number of passengers, Boston is similar with around 27-28 million.

I did a rough calculation of volume below 10,000 and below 5,000, as well as the dimensions. (If anybody wants to check these I welcome any corrections)

Below 10,000
Melbourne: 90 miles across
Boston: 40 miles
Melbourne: 4,000 cubic miles
Boston: 1000 cubic miles

Below 5,000
Melbourne: 60 miles across
Boston: 40 miles
Melbourne: 1,000 cubic miles
Boston: 500 cubic miles

Melbourne has 4 times as much airspace below 10,000, and twice as much below 5,000.
Boston has about 70% more movements.

To compare with some larger airports:

Dallas

Below 10,000
60 miles across
3000 cubic miles

Below 5,000
60 miles across
800 cubic miles

Melbourne has about 30% more airspace below 10,000, and about 25% more below 5,000.
Dallas has about 3 times the number of movements.

Atlanta

(This calculation assumes Atlanta airspace is cylindrical, which it is not due to the runway configuration. The actual numbers are I think about 30% less, but these are a fairer comparison to airports with multiple runway directions.)

Below 10,000
58 miles across
2400 cubic miles

Below 5,000
50 miles across
600 cubic miles

Melbourne has about 60% more airspace below 10,000 and below 5,000.
Atlanta has about 4.5 times the number of movements.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

That's a ridiculous comparison. What's relevant is how many controllers exist for that airspace.

As far as I can tell, in the area around Tullamarine, there is usually Departures/Approach North and South (i.e two positions) who seem to do pretty much everything in the airspace you describe. Melbourne Radar (centre) takes some of the controlled airspace too although I can't quite figure out which traffic is given to them.

I found a pdf on google - pilots guide to Boston Airspace (dated 2006) which seems to show 10 separate Boston Approach frequencies (and so presumably 10 separate controllers).

Using your maths, Melbourne controllers process 5 times as many passenger movements per year.

We're still back to, like it or not, VFR or not, common sense says that you need to have an appreciation of how Melbourne works before attempting to blast over the top. Asking for clearances at A055 tells the controller you haven't thought about it and so are probably not worth the risk for the adding of 2 to Melbournes total passenger numbers.

I will concede that ERSA specifically doesn't require A060 or above for EN arrivals (like it does for over-flys) - ERSA should be updated with what will be accepted.

UTR.

[le Pingouin]

andrewr, ML TMA only owns CTA out to 30NM, not 45NM. ML TMA has 4 radar positions (one has no CTA). Boston TRACON has 13 of which 8-10 are normally open according to Wikipedia. Simply comparing volumes tells very little of the story and is next to pointless.

airag, the IFR requirements are entirely relevant to understanding the situation because they occupy the same airspace the VFR is flying through.

[andrewr]

It's not a pointless or ridiculous comparison. It is the size of the obstacle that you have to plan to go around, if a clearance is not available. The previous poster asked me to justify my statement that the Melbourne controlled airspace was very large in relation to the number of movements. That is what the data appears to show.

From the pilot's point of view it doesn't matter who controls it, how many controllers there are etc. if a clearance is not available - just how big the area is that you have to go around.

[AerocatS2A]

What is the point of planning around it? The OP wanted a clearance to Essendon which is within the YMML CTA. If he doesn't get a clearance then he's not going anywhere. However, if you did want to plan around it, just fly under the thing, it's not 30nm down to the ground you know.

[VH-XXX]

On my second last AFR the instructor wanted me to ask for a clearange over Tulla knowing that I wouldn't get it. He knew this, but wanted me to do it because he wanted to hear my use of the radio and how I asked for the clearance. Once denied, we just went elsewhere. I wonder how many instructors use this method thus annoying ATC !

[CaptainMidnight]

It is the size of the obstacle that you have to plan to go around, I'm begining to wonder if you are even a Melbourne area pilot with local charts.

What is the difference in track miles between BLT DCT EN or BLT ML EN vs. BLT Rockbank EN?
just how big the area is that you have to go around.
Stuff all. It is certainly not huge as you seem to think.

My interest is essentially the access or lack of it for VFR aircraft to class C airspace.Examples, when you've been knocked back?

My experience is that ATC accommodates VFR when they can, traffic permitting.

[jas24zzk]

My experience is that ATC accommodates VFR when they can, traffic permitting.

I don't get it!............something is amiss.

I have never been refused VFR transit of the ML CTR, VFR(except once in my training when my instructor rang to ensure that is was denied). I go east to west and vica versa (my home strip is YCEM) sometimes stopping in the middle at YMEN.

I will say tho, that I have always had a plan filed, and when departing YCEM, (given its close proximity) I always call (mostly radia comms to ML CTR are not available on the ground) before engine start to give them a ten minute warning. I have once been asked to have another coffee to give them an extra ten minutes for traffic.

I always plan via one of the reporting points, and never make first contact at that point...always earlier.

e.g.

ML CTR, AAA, is Ballaraat 5500 expect pykes creek time 44, request airways as filed.

and it works damm good.
often you get a standby, and you just keep doing what you were doing. Most times the controller comes back to you with a code, and occasionally tells you to expect X mins holding.

That as filed on the end of your contact Tx is IMPORTANT!, it tells the guy in the shed that you have a plan in the system, and that he can look it up without tying up the airbands. The fact you have called early, gives him time to look it up, and co-ordinate with the other controllers.

You might get vectored about the space, but for the original poster, that should not be a problem, because in his case, time in CTR is important for the student.