Near Miss - Darwin

[Capt Claret]

A Qantas 738 and a Qantaslink 712 had a close call last week. 5 Dogs was perhaps too cryptic with his/her post - http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/497072-what-cracker.html. Less than 1000' separation, allegedly. :eek:

ATSB investigating. Investigation: AO-2012-131 - Loss of separation assurance VH-NXQ / QFA A839, near Darwin NT, 2 October 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-131.aspx)



Even though I wasn't present for their latest effort, (I am aware of the crews input) I strongly agree they (Darwin ATC) are a shambles, have been for many many years and I suspect nothing will change, after all it is the military.

This is a link to the ATSB report which should become interesting.
Investigation: AO-2012-131 - Loss of separation assurance VH-NXQ / QFA A839, near Darwin NT, 2 October 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-131.aspx)

Two aircraft allocated the one SSR code.
The aircraft past within 800 feet (possibly closer) vertically of each other.
Last minute runway changes with no supporting clearance, simply advised of a runway change and track direct Darwin.
Asked for more track miles only to be given a clearance to divert around weather.
Then after landing lectured on changing to ground. like that was the worst event that happened in the last 10 minutes

[chimbu warrior]

Cannot comment on the incident referred to, but am often irked by Darwin ATC issuing 4 instructions with the takeoff clearance, all delivered at machine-gun speed. The "fast-talking" seems to be a hallmark of military controllers. Apart from that, the place is decades overdue for a discrete VHF frequency for the ATIS; trying to listen to a crackly NDB at night is no fun, with the result that the approach controller gets asked to repeat/clarify several details.

[nitpicker330]

Yes I agree about the Darwin ATIS.

Maybe if you guys flying into/out of Darwin submitted a few Air Safety Reports about the ATIS it might get upgraded to VHF?

Put your thoughts in writing........:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Maybe if you guys flying into/out of Darwin submitted a few Air Safety Reports about the ATIS it might get upgraded to VHF?
Why on earth should we need to do that? Is there nobody around any more who could use their brains, commonsense or their ears and just do it instead of requiring endless pages of paper so they can justify to some beancounter somewhere buried in the bureaucracy that a VHF ATIS would be a great thing?

Last minute runway changes with no supporting clearance, simply advised of a runway change and track direct Darwin.
Asked for more track miles only to be given a clearance to divert around weather.

Oh toughen up, Renurpp. You need to spend more time in white. After all, it does rule! :ok:

[Oriana]

Late at night, ATC is a real risk for jets to arrive.

One officer to do Delivery, SMC, Tower and Approach is bollocks. Late runway changes, often for an NPA with tailwind to facilitate 'departing traffic' (one Kingair).

And FFS, fix the fukcing ATIS and put it on VOLMET and ACARS :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[maggot]

Near Miss Darwin? where's the pageant at? shenanigans? the ol vic is gone now right? :confused:

but yeah, darwin atc. heh. :hmm:

[4SPOOLED]

A while back I was cleared for immediate takeoff (at B2).

There was another aircraft short final.

I held position (the effo actually called clear right, :ugh:)

The aircraft short final stated xxx VERY SHORT final.

Tower cleared him to land, whilst never canceling my takeoff clearance or instructing me to hold short or even saying anything!

Darwin ATC at its finest!

[ConfigFull]

...am often irked by Darwin ATC issuing 4 instructions with the takeoff clearance, all delivered at machine-gun speed. The "fast-talking" seems to be a hallmark of military controllers. Apart from that, the place is decades overdue for a discrete VHF frequency for the ATIS; trying to listen to a crackly NDB at night is no fun, with the result that the approach controller gets asked to repeat/clarify several details.

Late at night, ATC is a real risk for jets to arrive.
One officer to do Delivery, SMC, Tower and Approach is bollocks. Late runway changes, often for an NPA with tailwind to facilitate 'departing traffic' (one Kingair).
And FFS, fix the fukcing ATIS and put it on VOLMET and ACARS.

Insert "Williamtown" for "Darwin" and you have the same situation. I'd love to hear some war stories from other operators because every time we go there something goes wrong. It's like a workout for TCAS.

[nitpicker330]

Bloggsy, why should you do it?????? :D

Well mate, take 5 mins to actually complain through the correct channels about what could potentially be a flight safety hazzard. Then after mountains of paperwork they might actually be forced to do something about it.

I'm sick to death of Pilots bitching and moaning about a particular subject then later on you find that they haven't bothered to provide suitable feedback to the appropriate authority. Why? Because they couldn't be bothered!!!:ugh:

Basically if you don't ask then nothing will happen

[nitpicker330]

4spooled...... Ok well done but did you file an Air Safety Report?


Yes, today my pet subject seems to be Air Safety Reports!!

[nitpicker330]

Here's and idea regarding the ATIS.

If you don't want to submit a report then I'd suggest each and every one of you guys ask Brissy Centre to read you the ATIS each time, they'll soon get sick of it and pass the **** down the chain. :ok:

[4SPOOLED]

Yes, a report was submitted :D

[nitpicker330]

The ATIS is provided directly by Darwin Tower ATC, it's a "service" provided by them, directly relates to flight safety in Darwin and in my opinion is relevant to the overall topic of the standard of Air Traffic services provided by Darwin ATCO's .:ok:

[LeadSled]

often for an NPA with tailwind to facilitate 'departing traffic'

Oriana,
There is always the magic word "require".
Given the often sharp edge shears with a tailwind in Darwin, and the resultant record of heavy landings, "require" as is your responsibility as PIC.
Tootle pip!!

[Flying Bear]

Last time I telephoned DN ATC to ask if it was okay to bring a pilot out for a couple of circuits to qualify him for LAHSO, I got told in no uncertain terms that ATC was not there to pander to the whims of "you pilots" and the cheeky bugger (who big-noted himself as the senior tower controller) even had the hide to say that he was sick and tired of "you pilots" causing ATC to have ASORs!

Can't say I go for that attitude!

Needless to say, no training for the young pilot and, when I put my concerns to the RAAF liaison officer, although he was supportive and passed it up the chain, but his boss was less empathetic and although a response was promised, as yet nothing.

Junior controllers playing ego games with often inexperienced pilots - I fear someone is going to get hurt...

[4SPOOLED]

Last time I checked you are not required to do circuits for LAHSO.

It's just a brief with someone who is qualified to give it and a short exam (if at all).

[Ixixly]

4SPOOLED, I did mine about 2 years back now and was required then to do a practical examination as set out below:

1.5 The practical check must be conducted in an aeroplane at an aerodrome at
which LAHSO are authorised or in a synthetic flight trainer approved by
CASA as suitable for that purpose. LAHSO need not be in use at an
aerodrome during the test if the appropriate procedures are simulated by the
person conducting the check.

CAO40, Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 set it all out. Sorry for the thread drift...

[Jabawocky]

Summary
A Boeing 717 inbound to Darwin was cleared to descend through the level of an
outbound Boeing 737 near Darwin. ATC subsequently cancelled the clearance and
there was no breakdown of separation standards however a loss of separation
assurance occurred. The investigation is continuing.
*

Sounds like a big difference between leveling off at 800 from a crash and subsequent clearance issued to what is written above?

Is this some watering down so not to get a media frenzy going?

Two jets at 800' apart less altimitry errors is only a loss of separation assurance?:eek: :=

[Angle of Attack]

Darwin, Amberly, Townsville, they are all pathetic and quite frankly dangerous when it comes to ATC services, treat them as Class G and you may be safe. in fact class G would be safer than their service. As for the ATIS stuff it ask Bne centre for it the message will get through, but hey it's the NT always a croc attack somewhere lol!

[Capn Bloggs]

I doubt any high performance jet could achieve such a feat.
I reckon your time-honoured technique of preventing an overspeed would have just about achieved it, Claret! :} :D

[flying-spike]

Several years ago I was flying a Chieftain and on final for 29 approaching 400' (my committal height) with a B200 stopped about halfway up the runway, conducting "stop and goes"when they clear an outbound B737 line up in front of me. I go around left and head for the approach end of 36. Tower acknowledges and clears me to left base 36, I answer " Confirm right base 36" he replies just in time "right base 36" just as I see a Conquest on final for 36 so I conduct a left orbit and reposition mid base 36 with then enough space between me and the Conquest just landed.

Very annoyed, I ring ATC to speak to the controller.The controller advises me that he had a trainee and he got away from him, making it difficult for him to rectify the situation
I told him that I would be submitting a 2593 (remember them?) to which he answers "go for your life mate, we don't do anything about them we're RAAF!"

To be fair, the problem then, and probably still is the two year posting cycle. By the time a controller is anywhere near proficient he is training his replacement (or attempting to).
I would be interested to hear if that is still the case.

[Sozjot]

Investigation: AO-2012-119 - Loss of separation assurance - VH-ZZJ / VH-LOJ, Bombardier DHC-8-202 / Aerospatiale AS332L, Darwin Airport, NT, 4 September 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-119.aspx)

Seems they are still having problems managing two aircraft off two runways...:eek:

[RENURPP]

I might start asking for danger money for every sector into/out of Darwin. :mad:

[Capt Claret]

Seems they are still having problems managing two aircraft off two runways... :eek:

As my old man used to say, couldn't drive a red hot needle into butter. :{:sad:

[training wheels]

Is Airservices Aust that tight for money that they can't provide an automated ATIS service on VHF frequency? Even a backwater domestic airport in third world Indonesia has this at Kupang 400 miles away. 127.55 for those overflying enroute to Darwin.

[RENURPP]

Delete Airservices Aust

Insert
RAAF

[Robbovic]

ATIS belongum BOM

[Pavement]

ATIS and all associated equipment belongs to ASA/Defence. Met equipment used for ATIS information belongs to BOM.

[nitpicker330]

Probably wrong again!!

How many times have you seen the METAR from the BOM equipment different to the ATIS? Temp, Wind, Cloud etc.... Just the other week the YMML ATIS said 11c etc, the METAR said 9c.

Its my understanding from many visits that the Tower controllers compile the ATIS info from their equipment and own observations from the Tower. Some equipment is possibly supplied by the BOM but the ATIS is made up by the actual controllers observation of the Wind, Temp Vis and Cloud cover.

They are licensed Met observers.:ok:

[Pavement]

Nitpicker, correct. However its all derived from the same equipment. Tower will sometimes put temp up a degree or two in the morning knowing its going to rise. Cloud and viz is often different due to idiosyncracies of the met equipment.
Anyway, back on track - ATIS not owned by BOM.

[Cirronimbus]

I think Darwin ATIS might be using equipment on the airfield rather than the BoM equipment near the highway. More representative of what is actually happening at the airport. Especially with regards to QNH. Cloud and vis from the Met office is nothing like what it is in the 'real world'!!

Probably the same for many other places too. Met offices are not always located where they can see or sense what aviation bods need.

Sorry for the off thread stuff. Isn't Darwin a training venue for ATC? Might explain some of the sub-standard goings on? I've noticed a lot of difficulty with allocation of parking bays at times. How hard is it to look out the window and see which one is vacant?

[Showa Cho]

All ATC units are 'training venues'. You don't just rock up and plug in.

I think as someone else said, constant posting cycles don't help things.

[Awol57]

Unless the RAAF do it differently, we as ATC don't have a single thing to do with parking allocation. If we did, there would never be an empty bay. You may have problems getting the right stairs etc :E

A few people have mentioned the ATIS stuff, we as ATC compile the ATIS (and a bit of local knowledge means that occasionally we add a few degrees to the temp, that sort of thing) however we do derive most of the data from the BoM gear at the airfield. Clouds and vis we have a few tricks but we do not rely soley on the BoM gear.

AWIS which I think someone alluded to earlier is not supplied by ASA. I believe it is an aerodrome operator issue but I am not 100% certain of that.

[SpyderPig]

Front page of the NT news today, "seconds from disaster!" stand by for media circus.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/

[Capt Claret]

SpyderPig, surely you're mistaken, there was no croc involved, so how could it be on the FRONT page? :yuk:

[compressor stall]

CC - it's not all about Crocs! This one might have been about F-111s....?

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/541298_10151038929781537_1338111741_n.jpg

[Capn Bloggs]

From abc.net news:Controller suspended after mid-air collision scare
By Bridget Brennan

Photo: The Qantas planes came within 200 metres of colliding.

An air traffic controller has been suspended over a mid-air incident in which two planes carrying 270 passengers came within 200 metres of colliding near Darwin International Airport.

The Australian Department of Defence and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau are investigating last Tuesday's incident.

An ADF spokeswoman says it is believed an air traffic controller directed a Qantas Boeing 717 flight from Alice Springs, that was on course to land, and a Qantas Boeing 737, that had just taken off en route to Melbourne, on to a path that would have taken them through the same height.

The ABC understands that a RAAF Hercules C-130 transport plane also flying in the area at the time had been assigned the same air traffic control system tag as one of the two passenger airliners.

This is believed to have caused confusion about the aircraft in the air traffic control tower.

The traffic collision avoidance system aboard the Boeing 717, carrying 115 passengers, is believed to have indicated that the two aircraft were on the same path and separated by about 200 metres in altitude.

There were 155 passengers on board the Boeing 737.

One plane is reported to have passed directly below the other.

President of the Australian and International Pilots Association president Barry Jackson says the pilots worked quickly to avoid a collision.

"Air traffic (controllers), as pilots, are under pressure and there are incidents like this that happen," he said.

"The investigation process is designed such that we find out if there are any failings."

The controller has been suspended temporarily while the investigation takes place.


Good load factors. Need another 10 seats! :E

[SpyderPig]

I know CC, I had to double take when I saw it! Must be a quite day for real NT style news:cool:

[Genisis Dreaming]

G'day all,

I read this thread with interest having RAAF and AsA ATC experience and alsothe other side of the mic.

I need to start by not excusing the actions of the ATC involved but Ibelieve there is a bigger problem contributing to this.

This problem involves the RAAF ATC's bigger mission and whether or not itinvolves providing civil ATS at joint user aerodromes.

We only need to head over to www.defencejobs.gov.au (http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/)to see that you can no longer apply to become an ATC, but now something calleda JBAC. In general, what I am saying is that if the RAAF ATC mission is to be aJBAC, then they should hand over the Monday to Friday ATC duties to AsA andfocus on what they do best - deploying to crappy places around the world andbeing a JBAC.

People have identified the posting cycles that ADF people do as a contributingfactor in that yes, as soon as people get familiar with the aircraft types andthe nature of the operations, they are posted to other bases. Airservices doesnot have this problem (generally speaking). Airservices is able to retain theircorporate knowledge at each Tower, Approach cell or Enroute sector. Most of theRAAF ATC do move around every 3-4 years. The RAAF also do not collect TerminalNav charges. Some people raise the issue of the ATIS and a separate VHF freq.Well pay the TNC and you get some better facilities. Speaking of facilities,have a look at the system differences between RAAF and Airservices. You willnotice one of the companies has spent A LOT of money improving their system toimprove the service they can deliver.
Some have raised the tone and manner that they have been spoken to on thephone by particular ATC's. I would remind the callers, that they are speakingto public servants. They have a responsibility to provide a service, ATS, andto best represent the public service sector for which they work. If you, as thecaller, feel as though you have been mistreated, or that your message has notbeen actioned, then, as someone earlier remarked, do something about it. Takepen to paper, or write an email, or request the person's name and their boss'contact details and make a complaint. If you're not satisfied, then ask tospeak to HQ of RAAF ATC at Williamtown.

I realise that all this takes time, and that most of the time you are onlyon the ground for a short turnaround and all you have time for is one quickcall, but record the details and pass it to your companies government or ATC liaisonperson for them to action. It is not good enough to be palmed off when you havea legitimate operational complaint.

And finally, everyone in aviation, at times, will make a mistake. I have hadcalls from pilots calling to acknowledge that they were at fault in inputtingan incorrect STAR clearance, after it had been alleged that it was my fault andI had issued them the incorrect STAR. It's why we have many layers of defencesin aviation. And I too have made incorrect sequencing decisions and throughhindsight, there was a better way. But each day all the pilots and ATC do theirbest to provide the best service they can, with the equipment, and support theyhave. Just like there are incidents reported at Darwin and Williamtown, thereare also incidents at Brisbane and Melbourne.

Anyway, this might seem like a long ramble, but just some thoughts. I haveadvocated long from the ATC side that the Traffic Management Plan needs toevolve and be updated, and I believe that is finally happening. And if the RAAF are serious in providing ATS at joint user aerodromes, then step up to the mark. Improve the equipment and change the organisation to ensure that the staff you have are there for the long run. And charge the bucks if you need to pay for it.

[Roger Standby]

First new bit of equipment we need is a keyboard with an operational spacebar :}

[Capn Bloggs]

First new bit of equipment we need is a keyboard with an operational spacebar
I thought might have been "posted from my ipad"! :}:}

[C-change]

First new bit of equipment we need is a keyboard with an operational spacebar
I'd be happy if we just had some more staff !

[Sarcs]

I'd be happy if we just had some more staff !

Just like the ASA ATC frontline staff have indicated time and time again on numerous threads it would appear that there are some systemic work place issues also at play within the defence ATC.

Till now Ben Sandilands blog 'Planetalking' has been a lone voice on these issues, see here..Virgin Blue jet nearly wiped out by RAAF air controllers | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/03/07/how-raaf-controllers-put-a-virgin-737-and-a-westwind-on-a-head-on-course-at-newcastle/) ....and this event...Darwin ATC sent two Qantas jets on collision course | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/10/10/darwin-atc-sent-two-jets-on-head-on-collision-course/comment-page-1/#comment-13830)

This incident is getting a bit more mainstream media coverage but there still seems to be a disconnect to the 'how' and 'why'!

As Ben points out we currently have a Minister who is totally dis-enfranchised from his portfolio, see here:
It is clear for a number of reasons that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, is acutely aware of the issues that are compromising public safety in air transport in this country. But as well as running a very complex and important portfolio, Anthony Albanese is also the leader of government business in the House of Representatives, a work load that seems designed to either fail or break anyone in his position.

Whatever PM Kevin Rudd was thinking when he devised this ministry structure, or whatever the current PM Julia Gillard was thinking when she left it untouched, it is one that is more than capable of failing or breaking aviation safety in Australia.


While this 'status quo' continues with Albo wearing many hats there will be no urgency given to this apparent rise in 'BOS' events. Not to mention the other aviation safety alarm bells tolling away, which apparently as far as the Minister is concerned is all just 'white noise' and nothing to be concerned about!

Some of the comments from the PT blog highlight the very real safety issues at play with this event:
comet
Posted October 10, 2012 at 8:17 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/10/10/darwin-atc-sent-two-jets-on-head-on-collision-course/comment-page-1/#comment-13825)
I think civilian lives come before any military needs.
The near misses and close-calls have gone from being a monthly event to a weekly event in Australia. The coming aviation disaster is inevitable, just on probability.

Brett karran
Posted October 10, 2012 at 11:52 pm | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/10/10/darwin-atc-sent-two-jets-on-head-on-collision-course/comment-page-1/#comment-13826)
As a 14 year Military ATC and now working within the SMS and Emergency Management environment, I respect your right to report incidents that have arisen in the course of the ATC duties. Why don’t you try and balance this by showing the statistics for the number of ‘controlled’ hours v number of incidents.

Everyday, worldwide, our ATC both civil and military do a fantastic job keeping our skies safe. Yes, issues occur, yes – if not detected, they could be catastrophic. ATC and Aircrew work in partnership to keep our skies safe and Australia has some of the safest airspace in the world. Report that!!!

Ben Sandilands
Posted October 11, 2012 at 6:37 am | Permalink (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/10/10/darwin-atc-sent-two-jets-on-head-on-collision-course/comment-page-1/#comment-13830)

Brett,


I’m surprised that you haven’t read the ATSB report I linked to concerning the Newcastle incident of February 2011 between a chartered defence Westwind that was on approach to Williamtown and the Virgin Blue 737-700 that was climbed away from Williamtown.


Not only were the jets placed on a collision course, but deliberately done so, because as the report says, the controller assumed they would miss.

They only missed because of the TCAS alert and advisory generated in the Virgin cockpit.


This report also deals with 9 other then recent examples of defective military air traffic control at Williamtown. That is a very high rate of serial incompetency by military control at that airport.

If you go back through the file of ATSB notifications of investigations currently displayed on its website you will find that incidents at Darwin whether in the ground operations or when aircraft are in the air display an alarming and persistent rate of failure on the part of the terminal and approach control.


This performance is not keeping our skies safe. It is exposing us to unacceptably inferior levels of competency.


Not even the minister has been able to get the operational figures you suggest that I publish. Early this year he instigated up an ATSB investigation into the rate of proximity incidents in Australian controlled airspace, which includes both military control of civil movements, and civil control of civil movements, in order to get such figures and other important data.

[RENURPP]

And two days later......Summary
The Bombardier DHC-8 was cleared for takeoff on runway 29 and the Aerospatiale AS332 being cleared for takeoff on runway 36. The crew of the DHC-8 elected to delay takeoff until the AS332 had crossed runway 29. The investigation is continuing.
*
Investigation: AO-2012-119 - Loss of separation assurance - VH-ZZJ / VH-LOJ, Bombardier DHC-8-202 / Aerospatiale AS332L, Darwin Airport, NT, 4 September 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-119.aspx)

:=

[A. Le Rhone]

CRIKEY August 3, 2012
Qantas, Air China jets flew too close after Australian ATC forgot they were converging at same altitude
by Ben Sandilands
Another day, another third world screw up by Australian air traffic control.

This time an ATSB report out this morning highlights how on an Air China A330-200, flying from Melbourne to Shanghai, and a Qantas 737-800 flying from Sydney to Darwin, were known to Airservices to be flying at the same altitude of 36,000 feet and on converging paths as they entered airspace above Tindal, south of the NT capital, and then forgot about them until an air traffic control system alert went off.

The incident happened on 6 April this year, and would have put the lives of more than 400 people at risk had each jet been flying full.

The lapse occurred when one controller was handing over the area he was controlling to a replacement.

When the conflict alert drew the attention of the replacement controller to the situation the jets were separated by the minimum required lateral space of five nautical mile.

However momentum and reaction time saw that distance shrink to 3.5 nautical miles before orders to one aircraft to climb and another to descend to different levels restored the distance between them to levels required by the safety regulations.

On Tuesday the ATSB dissected an incident in which an air traffic control with a ‘mental model problem’ sent a Crown Casino Gulfstream G-IV jet headlong in a descent path under the nose of an approaching Virgin Australia Boeing 737 while both jets were vectored under professional control into the same part of the sky near Armidale last October.

There are serious issues of professional and managerial competency in Airservices. They are being addressed in part by a broader study by the ATSB ordered by the Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, in February, and various changes in command in the air navigation services provider.

The question as to whether they are being addressed with sufficient urgency and depth remains unanswered, as jets continue to be mishandled in Australian airspace with unacceptable frequency.

[denabol]

Ben has published a screen grab of the Virgin Australia incident report and the attempt to downplay the incident. Wonder if the same details gonna come out of Darwin.

Airservices 'lost Virgin jet' screen grab unmasks its lies | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2012/10/12/airservices-lost-virgin-jet-screen-grab-unmasks-its-lies/)

[Pavement]

How about this for a plan:

- Darwin is basically a civilian aerodrome and ATC should be handed to AsA
- There are no base squadrons at Darwin to relocate
- AsA increase their revenue
- Defence reduce their costs
- Training exercises can still be held at Darwin ala similar to Rockhampton
- Maybe conduct the winter exercises at Learmonth, Curtin or Scherger away from high volumes of civilian traffic (beneath high level oveffliers obviously)

A lot of the work has already been done in the past. Having said all this if I was Albo Id want AsA to get their own *stuff* in a pile before trusting them with anything more than what they have at the moment.

[Duane]

How short some peoples memories are...

the very reason (other than being a nice tactical location) that defence does ATC at Darwin is because when cyclone Tracy hit all those years ago, all the civil ATC went walkabout, leaving Darwin in a bit of a mess when it came to the recovery operation.

that is why military ATC operate there and why they will continue to do so.

[RENURPP]

How short some peoples memories are...

the very reason (other than being a nice tactical location) that defence does ATC at Darwin is because when cyclone Tracy hit all those years ago, all the civil ATC went walkabout, leaving Darwin in a bit of a mess when it came to the recovery operation.

that is why military ATC operate there and why they will continue to do so.

A rediculous argument if ever I heard one!

If that's the case why aren't RAAF screwing up the controlling in Cairns, Rocky, McKay etc, they all get cyclones.

[Duane]

They have a base to operate out of in the far north (Townsville).

Remember that Darwin is a capital city, you cant just have controllers walk out on the job and expect no fallout from it.

Its not an arguement I am making, its just the facts; thats why RAAF control Darwin. That and the fact it is a military base. some people tend to forget that.

[Pavement]

Leave the tower with the RAAF and civil do approach from Brizzie. Simple then you dont have to worry about civilians facing up to a cyclone.

[500N]

"How short some peoples memories are...
the very reason (other than being a nice tactical location) that defence does ATC at Darwin is because when cyclone Tracy hit all those years ago, all the civil ATC went walkabout, leaving Darwin in a bit of a mess when it came to the recovery operation.
that is why military ATC operate there and why they will continue to do so."

Went "walkabout" or couldn't get in or when they could,
were ordered to evacuate ?

What about the thought that
1. Their wasn't much left of Darwin Airport after Tracy went through.
2. All official radio communication from Darwin was cut because
all the radio transmitters and aerials had been destroyed.
3. Anyone would have been out in the suburbs might not have been able
to get to the airport.

The first plane into Darwin was a Fokker F27 after the aircraft
was contacted by a RAAF safety officer from his vehicle radio
while they were circling the city trying to work out what to do
or where to land. The RAAF officer then cleared enough of the
runway so they could land.

Another F27 arrived an hour later and then the RAAF C-130
with General Stretton aboard so from then on the city was under
Stretton's control.


Not many people in Darwin were at their posts at the
start of Christmas Day !

[micknt8]

As a radio tech working for ASA in Darwin, I am surprised that a discrete VHF outlet isn't provided for this facility. The service on NDB is low Fi, the one on VOR is low level(due to modulation constraints). Would be easy to set up a VHF service from Knuckeys Lagoon. Anyway a happy new year to all you guys.

[F.Nose]

It has been done...it's just that nobody has been told about it. For ATIS in Darwin try 128.25