How does Melbourne Centre do the Impossible at Hobart?

[Dick Smith]

I note that the en route supplement states that after tower hours the Hobart airspace, both D and C, from 1500ft to 8500ft is operated by the Melbourne centre. How do controllers in the Melbourne centre – without radar or other surveillance equipment – operate D and C airspace at Hobart?

When I’ve tried to explain this to overseas controllers, they say it’s impossible and I must be mistaken.

Remember that Airservices claim that the multilateration system was never purchased for terminal airspace and doesn’t work below 6500ft.

Sounds to me as if the controllers are going to fed the wolves if there is an incident.

Unproven experiment not used anywhere else in the world.

Just asking and just interested.

[Capn Bloggs]

The same way you would have had hundreds of controllers run non-radar E back in 2004 when the mighty NAS 2b (was it) was going to be introduced, and exactly the same way every controller in the world used to run controlled airspace before radar: procedurally. I'm surprised at your lack of understanding of basic ATC principles, Dick.

The good thing about C is that it captures VFR. VFR Metal is just as unforgiving as IFR Metal... E airspace doesn't make the collision any softer or indeed make the VFR "go away".

[wishiwasupthere]

Is it really necessary to create a new thread when all of the current threads are related? How about a sticky at the top labeled 'Dicks Gripes' ala the Flying School thread?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re "Sounds to me as if the controllers are going to fed the wolves if there is an incident."

Our 'masters' told us, that as long as 'we' performed according to the various
'rules' as issued by them (AOI = Airways Operating Instructions, and AIP etc)
then we would be 'fully protected' by our employer......

In the 'good ole days', I don't think too many really wanted to test that though, against 'duty of care' in front of 'Milaud'....

Maybe things have changed...for the better.

Cheers:ok:

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

http://tabbycatmusicarchives.com/alicesanimations/00images2/afcarousel.gif

[Dick Smith]

Yes. But I reckon there are no proper rules for operating this airspace from the Melbourne centre.

Let's see!

And wish. It's a completely different subject. Sounds to me as if you don't want attention drawn to this issue.

And Bloggs. At least in the system I support controllers are protected from being held unfairly responsible for an accident and they are not forced to work without the proper tools for class C. That is a proper terminal radar service including secondary radar .

See the current ministers radar directive.

[wishiwasupthere]

Nope. Pprune used to be a source of valuable information for professionals about the aviation industry. Now it seems to have been hijacked by an enthusiastic amateur to use as a vehicle to push his own agenda. It gets harder and harder to sort the wheat from the chaff on here.

[Capn Bloggs]

But I reckon there are no proper rules for operating this airspace from the Melbourne centre.
So, here we have an eminent Australian, a high-profile individual who a lot of people not involved with aviation look up to, and who has "captured" journalists at The Australian, "reckoning" that there are no proper rules for this airspace? Howabout (sorry, Howabout), you do some research and get back to us with a proper assessment of the rules used there before scaring the uninformed?

See the current ministers radar directive.
That'd be the Dick Smith directive foisted upon John Anderson and handed on down through ministers since? The Yanks might like to run C with radar. There has never been any suggestion or edict that C can only be run with radar. In fact, as I have pointed out but which you refuse to even acknowledge, C has been run quite successfully without radar for eons. Less traffic capacity, but then, this is only Australia.

Anyway, don't worry, ADS-B will fix all that.

[Jabawocky]

Has CASA had international consultants examine the safety benefits of surveillance in airspace? And if so, what was learned or reported?

[BlockNotAvailable]

How do they do it? I would assume the same way that the towers do, with procedural control (minus the visual separation of course).

[ACMS]

Hey Dick, why don't you jump in your toy Jet and fly down there at 2 am and find out just how they work their magic.....

I'm sure you'll survive......

[fujii]

Dick, I used to do IFR climb and descent at Ayers Rock in the 80s and 90s from Alice Tower and there were proper rules. I guess the principle is much the same at Hobart. You mentioned no surveillance, how do you think the Class D towers operate a n Australia operate without surveillance? It doesn't matter where the controller is located, surveillance isn't necessarily a requirement.

[Dick Smith]

Ok a very simple scenario ; a Night VMC pilot without IFR equipment or rating is at about 15 nm north of Hobart at about 5000' . He could be inbound or outbound or simply crossing the airspace.

How does ATC in the Melbourne Centre provide a class C separation service to an IFR airline aircraft , also to the north , either inbound and outbound ,if the airline aircraft is going to be at about 5000' at 15 nm at the same time?

No , not a trick question - just a situation that could easily happen!

And what's the separation standard required as they pass through 500' of each other?

Fujji. That's before I made the AMATS changes and you would have been given a traffic information service at Ayers Rock in class G. Very different to " upside down" class C at Hobart.

[Chief galah]

I would be asking - how many VFR at night do you get at Hobart?
I'm betting not too many, given the weather and terrain. That gets rid of 99.9% of the hazard,
leaving the IFR traffic, which can be sorted easily by time, distance, lateral and vertical separation..........as it has been for decades.
This doesn't mean it's antiquated, but PROVEN and simple.

[Capn Bloggs]

Read the Class C rules for CLASSES OF AIRSPACE--SERVICES AND REQUIREMENTS, Dick, then give us the answer to your question...

[Arm out the window]

A question best left to the air traffickers I guess, but you do know there are procedural separation standards, don't you, Dick?

The night VFR aircraft must be appropriately equipped and the pilot rated, so he or she will have at the very least a GNSS and therefore be able to report distance and bearing from the airfield. The airliner will know exactly where it is with heaps more gear and likewise report its position. Based on that, the controller will no doubt ensure they are not near one another's position without appropriate height separation.

It was a trick question, right?

[AmarokGTI]

How do you block an individual users posts on PPrune?

[Arm out the window]

Just an aside, but when I were a young lad, the air traffickers at Cairns were pretty good at doing the impossible all day long in very busy airspace before they got radar, but if overseas controllers say it's impossible it must be.

And before you say it's outdated 30 year old blah blah, you posed the question in those terms Dick. No, but hang on, it was unproven and experimental, so it can't have worked successfully then ...:confused:

[Capt Claret]

How does Melbourne Centre do the Impossible at Hobart?

Simple. It's not impossible, and even though it's not impossible, they do it fairly well, though one-in/one-out is a tad inefficient.

[le Pingouin]

They have an appropriate procedural approach rating.

[Mr.Buzzy]

While we're having a whinge about Hobart, can I just make mention of the horses arse that is Cambridge?

Bbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzzzz

[le Pingouin]

Here's a question for you Dick, how do the Hobart and Launy controllers do it during the day? How did I used to separate the jet traffic on descent or climb from the VFR Tassie hydro cloud seeder up at whatever flight level he was at?

[Chief galah]

E airspace doesn't change the one-in , one-out situation. I don't think the airlines, who are the most affected by this,
(I may be wrong, but it would be easy to do a statistical survey), would go for the "IFR pick-up".
What procedural E airspace does, is introduce unnotified VFR aircraft, a minority, into the equation.
This is the real hazard.

[Dick Smith]

Le Ping. During the day I suppose the tower controller says to the VFR pilot. " can you see a road below you? Stay to the east of it" and guesses it's the correct road.

At night time I am not sure how the Melbourne Centre controller would do that.

So far the most likely explanation is " one in one out". But that's hardly a professional service.

When will you Controllers realise that you have been conned . It's not possible to provide a class C service 20 miles away from a tower without a terminal radar system . FAA people have stated this in writing.

The only reason Class C allocated without an approach radar is to increase returns to the government . Why would you want to be part of such a dishonest scam?

The Ministers radar directive is to support ATCs. By not providing the proper tools to our controllers you are the ones who will be held accountable when an accident happens. What is your Union doing?

[Dick Smith]

Chief Galah. At the present time I am not talking about E.

I am talking about a system where the ASA Executive and Board say safety dictates class C but clearly don't provide the necessary tools to provide a class C service.

I wouldn't be a controller involved in that airspace for any amount of bribe money.

[Arm out the window]

During the day I suppose the tower controller says to the VFR pilot. " can you see a road below you? Stay to the east of it" and guesses it's the correct road.


Don't say bull**** like that in your press conference tomorrow, please.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Dick - you need to forget ifr v vfr in C and think of ifr v ifr in D which you've no doubt experienced in imc at Bankstown. It's pretty obvious from listening to the radio (and waiting) how procedural separation works - controller can't see you, you can't see the other guy, clearances reflect that.

Now, back to remote (or local) procedural C. Ifr v vfr - same concept - controller won't issue clearances to conflict traffic they can't see or can't separate itself. No problems - inefficient maybe - but safe.

In the Tobago v 737 story you're certain the vfr pilot was on top of his game and being a responsible airspace. Now suddenly the night VFR guy seems unable to know where he/she is and make a position report? You need to be consistent.

As was said earlier, these threads make it very possible CASA can reasonably ask you to reset exams based on your lack of understanding of the basics.

Like AOTW says - you've got a gig at a significant press conference tomorrow- please stick to the subject and not this embarrassing sideshow.

UTR

[Chief galah]

Dick, honestly, you're giving mixed messages about this. You're confusing the operational with the political. It's your agenda.
By doing so, you are showing your ignorance and bias against the system
The average bograt controller could not give a flying f about the political.
When I was at it, the operational was the only consideration.
It was all Class C at major airports.
Having Class C protects controllers because, believe it or not, they have absolute control. I can't fathom your point about this.
At lower density airports, ATC can provide complete service without expensive surveillance. Surely this is good.
What was a travesty, was the lack of surveillance at places like Cooly and Cairns in the GA heydays,
when they were absolutely swamped with the complete mix of traffic. Regrettably, they paid the price at Cooly.
So, if you can put your point in terms that don't lambast ASA or the Military, I might be able to get a handle on it.

[BlockNotAvailable]

It's not possibleBut yet it is done...

And yes a TAR would be great for Tassie I'm sure, especially since it would provide no benefit to the procedural towers and a top notch radar service for the three that go in at night. If you compare the cost per flight where the TAR would be used within 30nm, it might come in comparable to Melbourne if you drink enough bath water. To be honest, that would be the kind of thing the government would fund instead of something useful...

[Dick Smith]

Under. Surely it's the rules that count. Is ATC allowed to accept an IFR position report from a VFR pilot and use that for separation purposes? I would not have thought so .

Can you explain to me how a Melbourne Centre controller would handle the situation I have described?

No one has -which makes me suspicious .

Would there be any objections if, with full notice, in conjunction with AOPA and local aero clubs we arranged for a series of IFR and VFR flights in and out of Hobart and Launy one night to see how the system works in practice?

Say only Three or four planes so workload is very low.

We could video the whole thing so we can learn how the unique Aussie " cheep " system works without a terminal radar system.

We could then tell the Americans how dopey they are to have a class C radar mandate!

[Hempy]

Dick, I've said this before (more than once...)

Instead of casting aspersions, get off your arse and 'sit in' with an ATC for a few hours. The contact numbers for ML and BN centres aren't hard to find, pm me and I'll provide them for you if need be.

I'm sure a man with your reputation would have no problems. Sit and talk. Ask questions. You'll be happily accommodated.

Then feel free to come on here with your wealth of knowledge..

[Stationair8]

Great idea Dick, but unfortunately the AIC when it was issued allows for one aircraft in or out at a time.

Mate drives the QF B737 freighter in and out of YMLT and YMHB in the dark hours reckons it strange system. Me mate is old school and reckons that him and his FO can seperate themselves from the Metro and the Flying Doc drivers!

He reckons Melbourne ATC guys and girls do their best with the system they have.

Perhaps get a jumpseat ride with them or sit at the centre console and observe?

[Dick Smith]

What was the use of spending $6 million for the multilateration system that the supplier stated worked down to the ground at Hobart and Launceston and then not use it in the terminal area at all?

Who is telling lies here?

Station air. Now the truth comes out. Tell us all more about the AIC? I want to discuss with my FAA experts.

Does it mean if I fly down one night I am liable to be held ? Where ? Incredible. Can't be true.

[Stationair8]

Looking at Flightaware history not many IFR movements at either place when the towers are closed.

The electronic AIC/AIP Supp list only goes back to the start of 2015.

[le Pingouin]

Dick. how do you think HB and LT do it now in the dark? Gets light late and dark early way down south.....

No body is interested in feeding the troll.......

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Is ATC allowed to accept an IFR position report from a VFR pilot and use that for separation purposes?

Why is it an IFR position report? What differentiates an IFR position report from a VFR one? A PPL with CTA endorsement needs to be able to identify and report where they are. A PPL without CTA endorsement needs to be able to identify and avoid CTA. A PPL with a NVFR needs to be able to navigate by navaids or GPS. A night VMC flight requires some "IFR equipment".

Where does this assumption that the VFR is blundering along without knowing where he is come from? Your question is unanswerable because it's based on an incorrect premise.

To answer your hypothetical.

a Night VMC pilot without IFR equipment or rating is at about 15 nm north of Hobart at about 5000' . He could be inbound or outbound or simply crossing the airspace.

How does ATC in the Melbourne Centre provide a class C separation service to an IFR airline aircraft , also to the north , either inbound and outbound ,if the airline aircraft is going to be at about 5000' at 15 nm at the same time?

Firstly, but facetiously, your VFR never got to 15nm north of Hobart at 5000' without a clearance. Lets say he's inbound and 25nm north at 5000' (and has calcuated a LSALT that avoids Mt Hobbs and has put in a flight plan).

VFR: Melbourne Centre, Victor Foxtrot Romeo is 25 miles GPS north of Hobart on the 000 radial at 5000'. Request clearance.
ML: Victor Foxtrot Romeo, Melbourne Centre. Clearance not available. Remain OCTA.
VFR: Remain OCTA, Victor Foxtrot Romeo.

There - impossible achieved - if ML Centre isn't busy I'm sure he'll also issue an expect onwards clearance time. Now, if traffic permits and our VFR guy just wants to transit say Strahan to Maira Island at 5000' and there is a northerly blowing.

ML: VFR, cleared Mangalore to Prossers Sugarloaf at 5000, remain outside 20DME Hobart.
ML: IFR, cleared to Hobart, descend to 6000' not below the DME steps, report 15DME Hobart.
IFR: 14DME Hobart.
ML: Descend to 4000' not below the DME steps, cleared VOR-Y runway 30.

There. Impossible achieved AGAIN and TWO aircraft in Class C at the SAME TIME without radar. Quick - ring the FAA and ask them how they process IFR movements into remote class E aerodromes without radar (hint - one in/one out - and IFRs are actively encouraged to depart VFR into G and try and pick-up a clearance - like we are in D)?

This is all distinct from the MLAT red-herring which again you are confusing the issue with. If ASA paid for MLAT coverage to TRA standard to ground level at HB and LT and didn't get it then that's a project management issue, not an operational one and I'd be as unhappy as you appear to be.

You forget that other airports in Australia work in similar ways. TW operates Class C without radar. AY operates Class C without radar etc etc. Whether the man in the tower or at centre operates that airspace, neither of them can see it and so it's procedural - day,night, VMC, IMC etc.

UTR

PS I apologise for the male-ification of all this - it's easier to type....

[topdrop]

Pre radar, Cairns ATC used to control more aircraft, using procedural standards, than Hobart will probably see in 50 years time. So you can tell your FAA mates that it can be done - but I guess you won't as it doesn't fit with your agenda.

[Slippery_Pete]

Nope. Pprune used to be a source of valuable information for professionals about the aviation industry. Now it seems to have been hijacked by an enthusiastic amateur to use as a vehicle to push his own agenda. It gets harder and harder to sort the wheat from the chaff on here.

Forget it mate.

Tail wheel et al see fit to sit back and allow PPrune to degenerate into Dick Smith's personal vendetta against CASA/Airservices.

Real issues for professional pilots in Australia like fatigue, the disastrous part 61 design and implementation, mental health for pilots, CASA's revenge against CVD, B scale pay on the 787, cadets allegedly signing who knows what on "motivation letters" to secure a job - this is the stuff that matters.... None of that on here.

It's restricted airspace this, Williamtown that, VH-MDX, inflexible military, ADSB too expensive, sensational/provocative thread after thread after thread... And on and on it goes.

Pprune in Australia is dying a quick death.

[Dwesty]

Dick,

I'll answer your question.

Separation is either lateral or vertical, if the procedural ATC was unsure of the VFR position, due to poor position reporting, ATC would use vertical separation and only allow the IFR aircraft to descend to 6000', he would then ascertain the DME distance, Radial and/or HDG of the VFR traffic and use Air Traffic Controlling to create lateral separation from the IFR aircraft. Too many options to list, but to keep it simple in my example, think of pure DME separation, i.e. VFR remain outside xxDME, IFR cleared to descend once inside xxDME, with the required buffer

Trust me procedural ATC have many tools and won't sacrifice vertical separation until lateral separation is assured.

So in summary, once ATC had created positive lateral separation the IFR aircraft then descends through the VFR aircrafts level.

In most cases this is easily achieved, but I have also had to enter a hold overhead a radio aid and descend in the hold before commencing a procedure, due to the unreliability of a VFR aircrafts reports.

I have also self separated in Class G whilst IFR from VFR many times and have also been subject to procedural IFR in Class C/D and also descents from Class C/D airspace into G whilst IFR.

Hope this helps, and I'm sure an ATC controller could elaborate...

[Dick Smith]

Underneath. A VFR pilot will not necessarily be able to report on a radial from Hobart .

Most have no training or qualification to do this.

And how do you require a VFR pilot to use a DME distance for separation? Bet that's not approved.

Dwesty. Once again surely it's not possible for a DME distance to be used to separate VFR.

Sounds to me as if "one at a time" is correct - only works because general aviation is almost destroyed in Australia.

Slippery Pete. Extraordinary post. Nothing to stop you starting threads on these issues if they are important for Australian aviation. No one is forced to look at any of my posts or answer them. And no, it's not a vendetta- just pointing out that both organisations are dysfunctional and are damaging our industry.

Nothing to stop them from coming on this site and explaining how I am wrong. Over the years I have had people criticise the organisations I have run. I have always openly answered my critics- sometimes they were correct

[Dick Smith]

I will ask again. Why was $6million plus of our industries money paid for a multilateration system if it can't be used by Melbourne Centre controllers to separate aircraft in the terminal area? Remember it's mandatory transponder for VFR in that Tasmanian C airspace. Surely not fair for VFR to have to spend that money when no service is provided.

Why can't the system be got working? If it requires one or two extra stations why not put them in? Who was responsible for this stuff up or does your organisation cover up all management incompetence. Must be good for morale.

I will keep exposing these issues until the truth is told . Fortunately it's still a Democracy with free speech provisions.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

I will keep exposing these issues until the truth is told . Fortunately it's still a Democracy with free speech provisions.

So now you're asking a totally different question to the OP? PPRune being filled with logical, technical types tends to answer the questions you ask and doesn't cope well with your media style attention seeking headline style. What could/should/can/does MLAT do? It's been done a million times before. Until you can prove ASA didn't get what they thought they were getting and prove if that was incompetence or criminal then give up. Extra stations at ML centre? At what cost for the bigger all traffic down there? If you want to save money for industry, put radar in at YBSU - procedural there costs time and money for s surprisingly busy GA airport.

As an aside, from memory, your night VFR guy needs GPS and/or NDB and/or VOR. If he can't fly a radial (or precise course) then he shouldn't be there.

[le Pingouin]

Dick, we don't tell you how to fly your assorted aircraft, how about you stop trying to tell us how to separate aircraft when you clearly don't have a clue. A professional give you an honest answer but because you don't understand it you bash him. Or worse still because it doesn't fit with your agenda. You're a right charmer.

[Arm out the window]

Can you explain to me how a Melbourne Centre controller would handle the situation I have described?
No one has -which makes me suspicious .


Only about 10 people have so far - very suspicious!

Tell us all more about the AIC? I want to discuss with my FAA experts.

Why not listen to the Aussies who have already answered your question a number of times, though clearly not in the way you were after? Or find and read the AIC yourself, heaven forbid, or the information that must be available if an AIC was issued and subsequently superseded by the next AIP amendment.

A PPL with a NVFR needs to be able to navigate by navaids or GPS. A night VMC flight requires some "IFR equipment".

Are you just ignoring statements like that, Dick? Go and read the AIP before coming out with more silliness like this:

A VFR pilot will not necessarily be able to report on a radial from Hobart.
Most have no training or qualification to do this.


You are a remarkably well informed aviation expert, aren't you? Again, read the bloody AIP and inform yourself rather than using this 'open mouth prior to engaging brain' approach.

[CaptainMidnight]

PPRuNe used to be a source of valuable information for professionals about the aviation industry. Now it seems to have been hijacked by an enthusiastic amateur to use as a vehicle to push his own agenda. It gets harder and harder to sort the wheat from the chaff on here. You got that right.

Same claims over the past 20+ years, all answered and explained over and over by professionals and those qualified to comment but on it goes, now multiple threads and new ones every few days.

[Slippery_Pete]

I will ask again

No, don't ask it again. You've asked your questions again and again and again - every answer you're given is not good enough. And then you just ask the same question again in a new thread.

Start your own airspace forum. Start legal action. Knock down the doors of parliament door if you really believe in it.
I and MANY OTHERS don't necessarily agree or disagree with what you are saying. Some of your causes we support. But it's just TOO MUCH.

You're just destroying PPrune Oz. Your ad nauseum repeats of the same thing over and over are pushing professional pilots away from this site. I'm not from CASA, I'm not from ATC, I'm not from the military, and I've never flown through Williamtown airspace. I just want PPrune's Australia sections returned to their former glory.

If you wish to respond to my post, I only want to respond to one thing - not your same old arguments about the same old ****. I want you to respond to why you think most professional Aussie pilots won't come here any more.

[Jabawocky]

Dick, I cannot be 100% sure of every detail I am about to write, because I am a nobody of aviation (refer ABC Radio) and what would I know? And it is true I am not a guru of airspace by any means. Happy to talk engine monitors all day, but this stuff requires hard work and learning from those who do know it.

My recollection goes something like this. As I understand it (Don't quote me as I do not have documented proof - yeah I know I harp on about data all the time). Years ago AsA were looking at Surveillance technologies that might reduce the cost of roll out of Radar (very expensive) to enroute areas. (Remember the ADSB subsidy days) They decided to trial 'Wide Area' Multilat in a green fields site to test it's abilities and accuracy. Bare in mind at that time there were really no other Wide area systems in use (certified) anywhere else in the world. Tasmania was selected as Enroute traffic was increasing, and being done fully procedurally (Vic radar at high level runs out on the Tas north coast). The idea was that should it prove successful, CASA would approve it for enroute 5 Nm separation, and therefore provide a huge improvement to enroute traffic processing. It did and it was.

The system was designed to provide enroute high level coverage, it struggles sometimes low down with Mode A/C TXPDR aircraft as it was never spec'd for that. Yes it is possible to put in more ground stations to improve reliability down low but CASA would be reluctant to then approve its use for 3NM Sep (terminal area). 5NM is not enough in close in the Terminal Areae, plus you would realistically need radar also as a NON-dependent back up.

It was only after enroute approval that you made a big song and dance about the two jets in Launy in G (running late tower was closed), that enroute started doing CTA/R in to the tower airspace PROCEDURALLY). But of course, it is one in one out as they cannot use tower standards as they cannot see out Windows, and have no ability to control the surface aerodrome environment.

I remember something on the wireless about this….some others watching may too :E

[peuce]

Dick, just a few facts.

I have a NVFR rating and, in accordance with CASA CAAP, NVFR Rating, Section 3.2.1, I am REQUIRED to navigate by "visual navigation, augmented by the use of radio navigation aids".

Therefore, the controller will seperate me from IFRS exactly as he or she would in daytime Procedural Class C.

No magic here .....

[buckshot1777]

So $6M to provide enroute coverage over Tasmania and beyond would appear to be good value compared to $30-50m for a couple of SSR facilities.

Interesting that it is claimed that $100M+ has been wasted on aviation reform attempts over the years - source para 7 here:

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/140808-responsibility-accountability-redux.html

[Trevor the lover]

Under The Radar - you said beautifully what I wanted to say.


Guys give up - Dick, you posted a question - it has been answered many many times here. But you are sooooo pigheaded. You will accept no-one else's views, just your own.


A VFR machine in class C is subject to ATC instructions, as simple as that. And those instructions have been explained many many times on this post. For God's sake, accept the expert ATC opinions on here.


And I can already see your next post coming - the Senior RAAF officer in Tassie, Wing Commander Stuffup, is ultimately to blame.


I for one would just once like to see you post "OK guys, I stand to be corrected. Thanks."

[Dick Smith]

Peuce. From what I can see there is no CASA requirement for NVMC to have any nav aids

So how does this unique Australian system work if a no nav aid aircraft wants a clearance?

Of course I already know. " remain OCTA"

Also I bet you can't show me any other country in the world that has class C terminal airspace without radar.


Stupid other countries- they could save a fortune if they exploited their ATCs like AsA do.

[Capn Bloggs]

He's back... already! :{

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

From what I can see there is no CASA requirement for NVMC to have any nav aids

CAO 40.2.2

Took me 5 minutes to find it.

Next question?

[fujii]

You'll also find it in AIP GEN 1.5-5 and 1.5-6. To bring you right up to the 21st century, it hasn't been called NGT VMC for at least twenty years. It is NGT VFR.

[Jabawocky]

From what I can see there is no CASA requirement for NVMC to have any nav aids

Has for the last ….I dunno….long long time. ;)

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Also I bet you can't show me any other country in the world that has class C terminal airspace without radar.

Ireland....

[PDR1]

How do you block an individual users posts on PPrune?
Best to take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

PDR

[Dick Smith]

What airport in Ireland?

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Waterford and Derry (technically in the North but under IAA control I believe) at least. Control zones are 25NM wide and controlled by the tower. Class C and Shannon Radar finishes at 5000' (actually FL050) or FL080 (can't remember which).

Derry is even more Australian/Tasmanian - it too has a railway on the undershoot of a runway - the Tower controls railway signals to protect RPT movements and prevents GA while trains are passing.

[Lookleft]

That would make the guy in the Tower the Fat Controller then?

[Capn Bloggs]

http://s26.postimg.org/u055xx5ft/fatcontroller.png (http://postimage.org/)

[CaptainMidnight]

Also I bet you can't show me any other country in the world that has class C terminal airspace without radar. RADAR is not mandatory for Class C airspace (as I think Voices of Reason and others have previously said).

There are many examples around the world.

[Dick Smith]

Slippery Pete – you make the extraordinary statement, “You're just destroying PPRuNe Oz. Your ad nauseam repeats of the same thing over and over are pushing professional pilots away from this site”.

Slippery, it’s actually a free country and no one has to click on the particular thread. They can easily see the terrible ‘Dick Smith’ name and give it a miss. You might note there has been 3735 views on this particular thread since I started it on the 11th April – 3 days ago.

I know if I was selling advertising on PPRuNe I would be delighted.

And to everyone who is reading this site, who has a rational mind – it’s pretty obvious that at Hobart, after tower hours it’s going to be a “one in and one out” system in terminal airspace.

I note no one has made a comment about test flights with the local aero club and AOPA. I feel sure if this was done, it would show that it is impossible to run class C terminal airspace and actually separate IFR from night VFR aircraft.

The whole thing is another crock.

It’s all based on furiously resisting change as Prime Minister, Billy Hughes so capably mentioned – trying to go back to the 1950s.

[fujii]

Dick, you have been proven wrong re navaids for night VFR and class C requiring radar, how about acknowledging you were wrong?

[Chief galah]

Area70 (70)
area qnh 07/10
area 70: 1028

amend area forecast 130500 to 131700 area 70.
Amd overview:
Isolated showers ne of marr/mrl. Areas of smoke/haze. Isolated fog
patches after 14z.
Wind:
2000 5000 7000 10000 14000 18500
vrb/10 030/10 350/10 300/10 ps04 280/15 ms04 270/20 ms13
remark: Winds at all levels tending 250 degrees se of lrp/edp until
09z.
Cloud:
Sct st 1000/2500 e of cpld/stte/yswa extending ne of ydpo/yswa after
09z, bkn base 0500 with shra.
Bkn cu/sc 2000/8000 e of cpld/irons/mrl extending ne of
ysmi/irons/mrl after 09z, sct base 4000 elsewhere. Bkn base 1500 with
shra.
Bkn cu/sc 3000/6000 w of ykii/ysrn/ybyi.
Amd weather:
Fu, fg after 14z, hz, shra.
Visibility:
0500m fg, 4000m shra/fu, 6km hz.
Freezing level:
12000ft.
Icing:
Nil significant.
Turbulence:
Mod in cu.

Hobart (ymhb)
taf ymhb 130507z 1306/1406
16012kt 9999 sct040
fm131000 01005kt 9999 sct020 bkn035
fm132000 36008kt 9999 sct025
rmk
t 15 13 12 10 q 1028 1029 1029 1029

metar ymhb 130830z 19007kt 9999 few040 12/05 q1029
rmk rf00.0/000.0

launceston (ymlt)
taf ymlt 130508z 1306/1406
vrb05kt 9999 few030 bkn050
fm131200 vrb05kt 9999 sct020 bkn030
fm140000 01010kt 9999 sct025 bkn040
rmk
t 17 15 12 10 q 1026 1027 1029 1028

metar ymlt 130830z auto 33009kt 9999 // sct035 ovc053 15/08 q1027
rmk rf00.0

Launy to Hobart shouldn't be a problem NVFR.............:eek:

[Dick Smith]

Fujji. I said nav aids are not required for night VMC. ( or VFR). Others said they are.

I understand I am correct.

My point is that if a non nav aid fitted aircraft wants to fly in the terminal C , Melbourne Centre will have great difficulty in providing a meaningful separation service with an IFR approaching or departing aircraft.

My proposed "test" everyone remains silent about will show the truth. Or would such a test not meet acceptable levels of safety ?

Under NAS class C requires terminal radar. I understand this policy has not been reversed. That's why the Ministers Class C directive remains current. Why else would it remain current?

[UnderneathTheRadar]

I understand I am correct

No you're not - on anything you've said on this thread. You might find your 4000 views come from those eager to see what dreamland you're living in and how many more feet you can fit in your mouth.

No one believes that your proposed test would work. And, in determining the proper allocation of scarce resources, it's entirely correct that it should fail (don't start talking MLAT).

For all of our sanity's sake - please describe in plain English the point you are trying to make?

[Ia8825]

As per the current AIP, at least one navaid is required for night VFR flight, and the pilot must be qualified to use it. Otherwise why would there be an alternate requirement for night VFR if the aerodrome doesn't have a navaid?

Additionally, aircraft flying visually still have a tolerance in which they must be able to maintain track, and in Class C a pilot must adhere to the clearance. This tracking tolerance is then used to create a lateral separation point as per the table from MATS shown earlier. Additionally, ATC can use things like clearance limits etc to ensure separation.

[fujii]

The "others" being CAP 40.2.2 published in Commonwealth Law under the authority of the the Australian Attorney General.

As for the night VFR aircraft in the ML CTR, the police air wing does it almost every night. Although fitted with navaids, those aids are not used for separation.

[Capn Bloggs]

it’s pretty obvious that at Hobart, after tower hours it’s going to be a “one in and one out” system in terminal airspace.

I note no one has made a comment about test flights with the local aero club and AOPA. I feel sure if this was done, it would show that it is impossible to run class C terminal airspace and actually separate IFR from night VFR aircraft.

The whole thing is another crock.

It’s all based on furiously resisting change as Prime Minister, Billy Hughes so capably mentioned – trying to go back to the 1950s.

Did Tony give you a gun in Tamworth, coz you just shot yourself in the foot. All the dramas you have described apply equally to terminal ClassE, and are even worse because you're only going to give us 700ft of Class G to sort it all out... :=

[Dick Smith]

The point is why wouldn't Airservices have the Broome Airspace at a place like Hobart ?

Only overflying VFR would be an occasional adventurer off to the South Pole.

If it's safe at Broome, why not Hobart? Don't the controllers ever point this out!

And Bloggs is from Western Australia and he would have taken action if it was unsafe.

And bloody big jets go to Broome.

And it would be NAS compliant ( like Broome) and not hold ATCs liable for the impossible .

Why can't we standardise our airspace above D like the rest of the world?

Oh. I know. If you once mis allocated airspace it must never be corrected. Concrete. Concrete Resist change in every way.

There will be a lot of silence from everybody except Bloggs.

[Capn Bloggs]

Just shot yourself in the other foot! Lower level of E at Broome, no tower, is 5500ft, leaving the RPT and the "adventurer" to sort it out amoungst themselves in, OH MY GOD, Class G! How dangerous is that! Bang bang...

[Dick Smith]

Ok. It's nearly NAS. All we have to do it drop the E a bit lower to 700'

I would support that extra level,of safety at Broome. Would you?

[Capn Bloggs]

"Nearly" indeed. You don't even know the airspace you're trying to lecture us on.

What's safe about an IFR being hobbled by an ATC clearance and simultaneously trying to negotiate an arrival with a VFR, who may or may not appear on TCAS depending on when he last checked his transponder?

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs. I wish you could talk with an open mind to an experienced US Airline pilot. You would find that they consider they are just as " professional " as you and just as obsessed with safety as you are.

They don't consider they are being unnecessarily " hobbled" and really like their airspace system. It's evolved with about 30 times the number of aircraft and sometimes atrocious weather that you would be unlikely to get in WA.

Bloggs. Have you ever flown a US designed airline aircraft? Their airspace system is similar - as good as any advanced system in the world.

Maybe you just don't like change.

[Capn Bloggs]

I like change, Dick. I like ADS-B and I like transponders. Why don't you lobby your VFR mates fit to them so that ATC can use them to maximise safety and efficiency for me and the VFR? It really is pretty pathetic that RPT jets mix it with aircraft that don't have transponders. This isn't 1950, is it?

I would also like you to change your tune and find the few extra million $$ a year to fund Class E approach services everywhere I fly...

[Capt Claret]

If the US pilots, ATC, and FAA are the be all of aviation Dick, why don't you pack up & move?

[topdrop]

Please explain how you extrapolate the USA to the rest of the world.

[Jabawocky]

The US system would be fine here, IF and I mean IF we had, all the surveillance all the VHF coms and all the same towers services etc.

I would rather have my Toyota 86 on 4 wheels than a Ferrari on 3.

YMMV

[Dick Smith]

Why not try the US system at an airport where we do have the radar and the VHF coms?

Everyone may be pleasantly surprised that it actually works really well.

[Jabawocky]

We do, Avalon. :ok:

[UnderneathTheRadar]

We do, Avalon.

Except it's not the 'US System' as VFR are required to contact Avalon approach to transit class E.

[Capn Bloggs]

VFR are required to contact Avalon approach to transit class E.
And so they should be. Any aircraft swanning through terminal RPT airspace unannounced, even with a transponder fitted, is 1950's lunacy.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Reluctant to stick an oar in here but some points from this preliminary report are relevant to this discussions going on at the moment I think.

http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/GeneratePDF.aspx?id=ERA15FA259A&rpt=p

IFR, VFR mid-air, within radar coverage, in VMC, VFR aircraft not mandated to call ATC. For the duration of its flight, the pilot of the Cessna did not contact CHS approach control, nor was he required to do so. No system is infallible. (Not even TAWS!)

[Capn Bloggs]

Further, Dick Smith and Leadsled have been uncharacteristically quiet on my oft-proposed scenario of an uncontrolled lighty swanning around in terminal E airpsace, mixing it with A380s. Perhaps they think that that isn't a bad idea...

[fujii]

Well, who would have thought. WAM for the YSSY PRM has been failing regularly but at least they have primary and secondary radar backup whereas Dick wanted to use a very similar system in Hobart for enroute controllers to provide some sort of terminal service with no radar backup. Procedural control may be slower but it doesn't fail.

[Dick Smith]

Does WAM work anywhere else in the world as a stand alone certified system for Terminal airspace?

Is it just in Aus that it doesn't work properly? Could the failure be caused by too many negative thought waves?

And I just wanted to know why $6 m of our industries money should be wasted- re Tasmania.

[triton140]

... VFR are required to contact Avalon approach to transit class E.

Not according to CAsA - monitor Avalon Approach on 133.55 only, consistent with AIP.

[le Pingouin]

So how much is a radar Dick? Considerably more than $6million and worse coverage.

[fujii]

It wasn't $6M wasted. WAM was installed in Tasmania to do a certain job which it does.

[Dick Smith]

Yes it was to provide surveillance to the ground at Launy and Hobart if you believe the suppliers media statements.

Why wouldn't you want such a service if spending $6 m?

There is no measurable collision risk above 6000' in Tasmania so procedural is ok.

[Lookleft]

Those who operated into LST last night with 40kt+ winds and aircraft having to be parallel parked on the apron, got to witness a very professional display by an ATC coordinating ground operations and managing to separate several aircraft doing ILSs. The safety officer also did a sterling job. New equipment would not have made much difference.