Dick vs ADS-B vs AsA vs CASA vs Cambridge in Bad Wx

[Capn Bloggs]

From The Australian, 3Feb17:

Hobart approach stuck in manual, says Smith
By Paul Cleary

A hair-raising descent into Hobart airport last week has prompted veteran aviator Dick Smith to renew his calls for an overhaul of air traffic control at the popular destination.

At a time when air safety regulators say satellite-based technology is making Australia’s skies safer, Mr Smith says controllers at Hobart are still using a 1930s-style air traffic control system.

Mr Smith said Hobart controllers had the digital system known as automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B ) but were not using it. Instead, pilots are directed to manually descend using charts.

The ADS-B system is meant to replace “ambiguous radio instructions with data-linked screen messages in cockpits” for all aircraft operating in Australia from today, according to acting CASA chief Shane Carmody.

In letters to CASA, Air Services Australia, the ATSB, and Transport Minister Darren Chester, Mr Smith explains how he flew into Cambridge Airport at Hobart in a Cessna Caravan with six passengers on board and was told by traffic control to step down using a chart, rather than using ADS-B .

“At that time I was in cloud, in icing conditions and in quite severe turbulence,” Mr Smith writes.

“Locating the required chart is bad enough ... to work out that I was on the 186 degree approach, realise it was Sector B that was required , and then do the stepping down in accordance with that chart is complex — especially when flying single pilot in such weather conditions.’’

Mr Smith said that when he contacted the tower, he was told that “controllers are not rated for the ADS-B , and for them to try to step down a plane every 1000 feet or so would be far too great a workload” .

But Airservices Australia (ASA) said radio instructions were standard at all 29 control towers, including Hobart “and all aircraft are required to follow published instrument approach procedures” .

“An instrument approach is an International Civil Aviation Organisation safety procedure,” a spokesman said.

He said ADS-B was being used at Hobart for “increased situational awareness and enhanced decision making in relation to separation of aircraft” .

But Mr Smith likened air traffic control at Hobart to the circumstances that led to a crash at Lockhart River in Queensland in 2005, which killed 15 people.

Mr Smith told the minister that if nothing changed, there would be a serious accident and it would take a royal commission to bring about better safety.

After Mr Smith raised the issues last year, ASA introduced rules to tighten control of air traffic into Hobart following concerns about the state’s radar system, known as TASWAM.

A CASA spokeswoman said a “full airspace review” conducted last year did not identify any “significant” concerns about safety in the vicinity of Hobart.

The report on this review is being finalised. The spokeswoman said the report found “existing airspace classification and architecture is appropriate and should remain unchanged” .

Major airlines flying into Hobart seem relaxed about safety and efficiency. A Qantas spokesman said: “We’re very comfortable with the air traffic control systems in place at Hobart, both from a safety and an efficiency point of view.”

So Dick, to help us understand the issue, what was the weather? What did you want to have done/provided and what were you actually given/made to do?

Edit: What's wrong with a DME arrival between friends?? The profile's even on the chart!

[gerry111]

"A hair-raising descent into Hobart last week.."

Perhaps Dick, with six pax aboard your Caravan, you should have been thinking about landing elsewhere?

Or if the workload is all getting a bit too hard, that you find a 'safety pilot' to accompany you?

(Hopefully that wasn't that young family aboard, that constantly orbit dangerously at 500' near Anna Bay?)

[Arm out the window]

“Locating the required chart is bad enough ... to work out that I was on the 186 degree approach, realise it was Sector B that was required , and then do the stepping down in accordance with that chart is complex — especially when flying single pilot in such weather conditions.’’


That's incredible that you might be expected to read, interpret and fly an instrument approach chart. My god! The humanity.

[fujii]

Still don't know the difference between radar and TASWAM.

[holdingagain]

I'm with Gerry, delay / divert and use a safety pilot

A DME Arrival is a very practical approach and you make it sound as though you were struggling

Maybe your risk management needs some extra thought

[27/09]

I see the LPOD (Let's Pick On Dick) team are alive and well.

I'd be pretty sure Dick had no problems dealing with the approach.

No doubt that wonderfully quaint Aussie procedure, the DME Arrival, may have been a good choice as well.

Dick was making the point that there is now technology available (ADSB) that can enhance flight safety and reduce cockpit workload yet it isn't being used in a manner that utilises all of it's benefits.

He's making a bloody good point. 21st century technology, but last centuries procedures.

Instead of making fun of the way Dick has chosen to highlight the situation perhaps some support for him might help improve things for everyone.

[The name is Porter]

At a time when air safety regulators say satellite-based technology is making Australia’s skies safer, Mr Smith says controllers at Hobart are still using a 1930s-style air traffic control system.

Well it's certainly not making the skies safer in Hobart if it can't be used.

The ADS-B system is meant to replace “ambiguous radio instructions with data-linked screen messages in cockpits” for all aircraft operating in Australia from today, according to acting CASA chief Shane Carmody.

Uhhmm...........what?? I'm not getting any of those 'data linked screen messages in cockpits.' I've got ADSB, ****, it's rooted already :confused:

He said ADS-B was being used at Hobart for “increased situational awareness and enhanced decision making in relation to separation of aircraft”

Australians doing awesome things with halfarsed equipment that is not good enough to separate with but is 'good enough' to provide 'increased situational awareness'

Standard Disclaimer: This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment, it's directed at the sub-standard management that are responsible for installing garbage that cannot be used for what it was installed to be used for.

After Mr Smith raised the issues last year, ASA introduced rules to tighten control of air traffic into Hobart following concerns about the state’s radar system, known as TASWAM.

Australians doing what they do best, implementing new rules, awesome, if in doubt or you don't know how to fix something, introduce new rules :ok:

Major airlines flying into Hobart seem relaxed about safety and efficiency. A Qantas spokesman said: “We’re very comfortable with the air traffic control systems in place at Hobart, both from a safety and an efficiency point of view.”

You don't think you and your passengers deserve better in the 21st century

Maybe the data-linked screen messages in cockpits has fixed everything :cool:

[Gne]

It is a pity this discussion will likely continue for several days with uninformed input from most posters. And it is also a pity the reporter was also not properly informed.

Both deficiencies would be remedied if someone (perhaps the regulatory agency) commissioned a report from a multi disciplinary group of experts on the safety benefit of surveillance in airspace. Such report should include a tutorial on the various surveillance technologies and be peer reviewed.

The report could then be published so that important discussions such as this could continue on an informed basis. Perhaps then we would see a mutually beneficial result and not nitpicking and personal attacks.



Oh... I understand CASA commissioned such a report some years ago. Perhaps it could be updated and the updated version made available. In the meantime does anyone have a link to the original report?

Gne

[topdrop]

Lets not forget the money wasted on having Mackay and Rocky Approach open when the Tower is shut. I wonder who was responsible for Minister Anderson putting out that directive.

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm... aged in his mid 70's ...how many working airline pilots are there flying into Hobart at that age?

Considering the many and varied interests of our Mr Smith, I wonder how he finds time to stay current in the demanding IFR game. As has been suggested, rather then this attempt to blame the 'tools' for the bad job it looks like it is time to have another full time pilot on board.






.

[alphacentauri]

Hang on a sec, what does ADS-B have to do with flying a DME/GNSS arrival? I have nothing against ADS-B and yes we should stop being a backwater country irt its implementation...but....whether Dick and ATC had access to a full ADS-B service is irrelevant to the 'woe is me' line Dick has chosen to report.

With or without ADS-B the following occurred and has no relevance to the use of ADS-B;

1. Dick chose to fly a DGA
2. If you consider this a higher workload approach, then Dick also chose to increase his workload.
3. Dick also (if reported correctly) chose to fly the 'dive and drive' method, rather than try to fly a stabilised approach as published on the chart.

How would any of this change if ADS-B had been in use? And what would he have preferred to have done in leui?

Why did he choose to decrease the level of safety for his passengers?

Alpha

[alphacentauri]

Educate me please

Dick was making the point that there is now technology available (ADSB) that can enhance flight safety and reduce cockpit workload yet it isn't being used in a manner that utilises all of it's benefits.

In this case as described by Dick, how?

[fujii]

"This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment."

Whenever I see this and similar, it reminds me of the other opener, "I'm not racist but...."

[The name is Porter]

"This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment."

Whenever I see this and similar, it reminds me of the other opener, "I'm not racist but...."

That's entirely up to you isn't it ;) read into it however you want.

It certainly doesn't phase me that you are reminded as such :)

[fujii]

Neither does it faze me. Keep up the good work.

[Dick Smith]

I understand that our last airline accident killing 15 people could have been caused by a simple mistake in relation to letting down to early.

Now I am not a professional pilot so I am even more likely to make an error .

That's why at every other capital city airport the descent is under surveillance control by a properly rated controller .

Sounds sensible to me

At Hobart I was given a descent to 2000 not below the DME steps. That's because the airspace was operated by a 1950s procedural procedure with a controller who is not rated to use the ADSB to do the approach.

In the USA all low level en route controllers are also approach rated to use the ADSB where it is available.

We need to do the same before more lives are lost like Lockhart River.

That is give the airspace under ADSB coverage to the qualified person in the Melbourne centre. Or do we have to wait for more deaths first?

[Capn Bloggs]

So Dick, what approach would you expect from an ATC who could use the ADS-B?

[The name is Porter]

Then we're all good and unfazed then :ok:

[sunnySA]

Is this the document you were referring to ?

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiu8PG1ifbRAhUFmZQKHYhdCDkQFgggMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.casa.gov.au%2Ffile%2F119231%2Fdownload %3Ftoken%3DR8hErORn&usg=AFQjCNHDpMHGeiX4qUgTxE-PrHr3rOIJag&sig2=mmKhkboG2rn3rNfj0Key9Q

Airspace capacity is determined by the combined capabilities of the communications, navigation, surveillance and air traffic management systems (CNS/ATM) in place. These include ground and aircraft-based systems and requirements vary according to the airspace being considered. (CASA)

Ore perhaps this little gem
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0ahUKEwiu8PG1ifbRAhUFmZQKHYhdCDkQFghIMAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Finfrastructure.gov.au%2Faviation%2Fatmpoli cy%2Ffiles%2FATMP-Draft-for-Public-Consultation.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGorFz8KTDXnUq209Zcr9TTnEj8xg&sig2=t1acawuEXrty1-msJxJoPw

[drpixie]

So Dick, what approach would you expect from an ATC who could use the ADS-B?

That is exactly the point - ADSB has nothing at all to do with what you see in the cockpit (unless you're the lucky one getting ADSB-IN traffic cluttering up your screen).

Was Dick really expecting to be given 500' descents all the way to the ground, by his own personal controller?

Sounds like a slightly confused attempt to revive his upset at the cost of adding equipment to his private jet :(

[Utradar]

What's wrong with a little progress? I think it's good. Sustainable progress though is the way to go, just as long as we don't gold plate everything.

Personally, I don't think airlines or pilots have a problem with the approaches at Hobart. You're either going to fly an ILS RWY 12 or a VOR/RNAV RWY 30 in bad weather or a DME/GPS arrival for a visual circuit under ATC guidance. It's not that difficult for jets to fly and the risks are relatively low. Perhaps different for other aircraft.

Re classes of airspace and risk levels, there's bigger fish to fry.

[Dick Smith]

Utraradar Yair. Our professional pilots don't make the mistakes of CFIT that have been made all around the world.

We are different here in Aus.

So good that at all uncontrolled airports with an ADSB transceiver mounted at the airport we don't even need to use this expensive technology to help prevent an Airline CFIT.

The "it won't happen to me " syndrome working well here. Another Lockhart River on the way?

[Utradar]

Lockhart was a different story.

In controlled airspace Class D, you've got CTA steps along with minimum descent altitudes and usually a controller monitoring what's going on. Relatively low risk.

WRT to Lockhart, I think that TAWS (forward looking) GPWS was introduced after the accident so we have a little more protection than we used to.

Operations at non controlled aerodromes, mix of traffic etc needs more attention in my opinion. Separating RPT from the little guy is what needs to be focussed on.

[Dick Smith]

Yair. Concentrate on perceived collision risk in vmc rather than real risk in IMC.

Class B everywhere for airlines.

No need for actual ATC vertical CONTROL and Responsibility and an automatic alarm system at places like Tasmania. It will never happen here due to the skill of our pilots not making human errors!

Re usual controller monitoring- I thought in Aus the class D controller was responsible for circuit and surface traffic - not a pilot making an error on a DME arrival.

I suppose time will tell.

[Dick Smith]

Those dopey Americans, Canadians and Europeans. There the pilot remains with the centre controller when in IMC on descent maximising the use of survailence coverage .

[The name is Porter]

At an FAA/FAST seminar today, I asked a regional ATC person if there is any communication I could provide to them to enhance air traffic safety. He responded a radio call to them would be good and they may provide a unique transponder code. He also noted that his job is a service provider, not a policeman.

In the US, as VFR, you are not a pain in the arse to a controller, you are their customer.

I work with Boston Approach on nearly every acro flight. They're excellent. I get plenty of calls for potential conflicts and can react accordingly. Rather than being an annoyance to traffic coming into or leaving KBED or KBOS we coordinate with brief breaks or altitude blocks.

I do the same as M***, and they seem to appreciate it. And I am grateful for their help!

Typical exchange:

Boston, Decathlon **45G, 7 miles northeast of Hanscom, two thousand seven hundred, request flight following

7145G, Boston altimeter 29.75, squawk 5163

29.75 and 5163 for 45G

45G, radar contact 6 miles west of the Lawrence VOR - where are you flying today?

45G will be doing acro outside the Bravo north of the Merrimack [river], between two thousand five hundred and six thousand feet

45G, roger

Sometimes they ask what aircraft type. I had to look up the ICAO id for the SuperD (it's BL8).

They'll give advisories and it always amuses me to key the mic to answer while inverted in a loop or on a down line.

I call up when I'm headed back, and they will advise me of relevant traffic headed to/from Hanscom and hand me back to BED tower.

Easy, helpful to me, and I feel I'm being helpful to them, too, as M*** said.

Once you experience a real system, you'll realise how little freedom you have here and how little value for dollar you're receiving.

[Utradar]

Yair. Concentrate on perceived collision risk in vmc rather than real risk in IMC.


The risks are real everywhere Dick, the risks are different for each scenario, some have more defences than others.

Human errors are normal, it's the risk mitigation factors that are put in place which kinda represent layers of cheese :E

[27/09]

alphacentauri: Educate me please

Dick was making the point that there is now technology available (ADSB) that can enhance flight safety and reduce cockpit workload yet it isn't being used in a manner that utilises all of it's benefits.


In this case as described by Dick, how?

Forgive me for making assumptions, I assumed some similarities to this side of the ditch. Over here if there is radar coverage then the controller looks after terrain clearance, if there's no radar then terrain avoidance/clearance responsibility falls onto the pilot which obviously increases workload.

Silly me, I figured as an enabler of new technology, ADSB would enhance radar coverage and give radar coverage where there was previously no coverage. Thus giving the opportunity for controllers to take over terrain clearance responsibilities and reduce cockpit workload.

At least that is what I thought Dick was getting at. Obviously not.

[fujii]

Once again, ADS-B is not radar.

[flywatcher]

“At that time I was in cloud, in icing conditions and in quite severe turbulence,” Mr Smith writes.

Sounds you had a normal day into Hobart, Dick, at least you didn't have to hold as well because there was another aircraft in the airspace.

[sunnySA]

Over here if there is radar coverage then the controller looks after terrain clearance, if there's no radar then terrain avoidance/clearance responsibility falls onto the pilot which obviously increases workload

Is the controller is responsible for terrain clearance in a radar environment in all cases? Specifically, is a controller responsible for terrain clearance in a radar environment when the pilot has been issued with a visual approach?

[Dick Smith]

27/09. Exactly what I was getting at.

At airports in Aus with an ADSB transceiver on the ground and mountains in the vicinity you would expect to get a proper approach service with ATC provided terrain protection.

No way. It's strictly do it yourself at many airports frequented by airline aircraft.

That's how we did it in the 50's so why change?

[27/09]

fujii: Once again, ADS-B is not radar.

Correct. But it is a technology enabler.

See here, Multilateration.com | ADS-B and Multilateration (http://www.multilateration.com/ads-b.html)

My use of the term radar was generic in the sense I was referring to a surveillance system.

[27/09]

sunnySA: Is the controller is responsible for terrain clearance in a radar environment in all cases? Specifically, is a controller responsible for terrain clearance in a radar environment when the pilot has been issued with a visual approach?

sunny, I'm struggling to understand what you're getting at.

Of course the controller is no longer responsible for terrain clearance on a visual approach, isn't that the whole point of the visual approach. The pilot unless instructed otherwise has unrestricted tracking and descent to position the aircraft on finals. At least that's the way it is over here. I have heard you guys may have a much more complicated visual approach.

[27/09]

Dick, I feel your pain.

[Capn Bloggs]

At Hobart I was given a descent to 2000 not below the DME steps. That's because the airspace was operated by a 1950s procedural procedure with a controller who is not rated to use the ADSB to do the approach.

In the USA all low level en route controllers are also approach rated to use the ADSB where it is available.

Dick, precisely HOW is ATC expected to use ADS-B to "do the approach"? You make grandiose statements in the national press but won't answer simple questions. Something's dodgy here.

[Mr Approach]

Radar is not a term used these days, the term used is surveillance and ADS-B is surveillance. Airservices has deployed ADS-B to avoid the cost of installing radar for en-route control. This is where Airservices makes money for the Federal Government - En Route and Oceanic above FL 250. ADS-B is not is use in terminal areas (TMA) although Class D tower controllers can see the returns on a device called TSAD. This is a situaltional awareness tool hence the Airservices response to Dick's newspaper article. ADS-B is only available for the provision of 5 NM separation, it is not displayed in Class C TMA where 3NM or less is normal. Eventually it will be used in Class C TMA however all the radars have just been replaced so there is no rush. (Typical life of radar is 15 years)

ADS-B can be detected at levels below FL 290 where there is a ground station because it is a"line-of-sight" receiver. (Space Based ADS-B could be available everywhere) As above there is no incentive for the use of ADS-B in Class C TMA, and there is also no incentive for the use of ADS-B in Class D TMA but for a different reason; that is cost. Airservices staffs Class D TMAs with controllers who are dual rated as Approach and Tower controllers. This means that they perform both functions from the Class D Towers, but have to be able to see outside; this is very cost effective. Under the Australian system to perform surveillance based Approach requires a dedicated controller staring at a surveillance display. Dick is correct when he says the FAA allows en-route controllers to perform this work for a Class D TMA from a Control Centre. They have the added advantage of surrounding Class E airspace so IFR aircraft are always in controlled airspace.

So to be different we have to emulate the Class E environment, have truckloads more surveillance and a complete mind-set change among aviators. (The last time this was tried back in the 90s it crashed and burned) We also would need an ATC provider that is either subject to competition (as in Europe) or is ordered by Government not to make a profit but to provide separation for all IFR aircraft (as in the US and Canada). While the government continues to want a return on the assets it "gave" to Airservices then Airservices needs to make money; it cannot do that providing separation and surveillance based approach control services in Hobart.

This problem cannot be placed at the feet of Airservices or CASA, they are both part of Executive Government and take their orders from the Government of the day.

[Mr Approach]

Dick, precisely HOW is ATC expected to use ADS-B to "do the approach"? You make grandiose statements in the national press but won't answer simple questions. Something's dodgy here.
Bloggs - During a surveillance approach the controller gives descent based on observing the aircraft pass the control area steps. There is no requirement for the pilot to have a chart available however it would probably be good practice as controllers are not infallible and we should always be backing each other up.

[Capn Bloggs]

Mr Approach, this appears to be not about staying in controlled airspace. This is about descent to well below the MSA using the ADS-B. Hence my question.

Don't get me started on crews having to monitor the CTA steps during a descent! :{

[The name is Porter]

Class E & Class D Towers work. But they need surveillance, not half arsed surveillance but surveillance that covers all of the E airspace. Asking a controller in Australia to separate IFR procedurally in E when they have no idea whether a VFR is in that airspace is asking for trouble.

Either provide surveillance or don't. But as the approach dood says, money talks, ASA certainly won't spend the money to fix it, the government hasn't got 2 bob to rub together and Tassie deserves a whole lot better than they're getting.

[Mhayli]

So lets say a surveillance service was available in to Cambridge/Hobart (be it SSR or ADS-B). I give you descent to the MVA as depicted on the RTCC. Due to the bad wx, you are still not visual at the MVA and you go around. However, if I had cleared you for an instrument approach (be it a VOR, ILS, DME) which generally has a minima much lower than what I could descend you to on the RTCC, you become visual prior to the minima and land. Yes, you had to interpret an instrument approach chart in order to do so, but as an IFR pilot, I would expect that wouldn't be an issue. Indeed I would expect that, having briefed wx for arrival prior to departure, the approach charts would have been reviewed en route or prior to the flight.

That's how I see it, but maybe I am a little misguided.

[The name is Porter]

Well, the tower guy (who's usually got a pretty good idea) talks to the en-route guy and tells them the likelihood of getting visual on a surveillance approach. Works in lots of places. You give the ATC the tools and rules and you get a pretty good service. Why shouldn't Dick put forward these options? Truth is, Tassie is getting ripped off.

[Capn Bloggs]

a surveillance approach.
Porter, perhaps that is what Dick is on about, but since he has gone to ground, you'll do! :)

What exactly is such an approach?

[Vref+5]

Ahh, so it is a money making exercise for the government!! Just as I mentioned months ago in another post.

By installing the gold plated model and then mandating ADSB for all comercial IFR aircraft, even those operating from places where there is no ADSB (because they MIGHT go to somewhere where there is coverage), everyone's Nav charges can be increased accordingly to cover the installation, plus of course the mandatory percentage profit. The more expensive the installation cost, the more the actual value of the percentage becomes.

No intent to improve services at low level,but merely to use at levels above F250. So the small end of town cops it.

See, Dick is right.

[Capn Bloggs]

No intent to improve services at low level
"So and So is taxiing, So and So is in the circuit, So and so is in a right turn off... So and so is passing 7000ft and is well clear, "traffic alert...". You're right; services at low level haven't improved. :rolleyes:

I want to know what a surveillance approach is! Surely there's someone out there who knows... :{

[The name is Porter]

Captain, The approach controller will have a radar lowest safe on his/her display, quite often (not always) it will be a lower altitude then the grid lowest safe (if you are off a published track). The aerodrome I operate in and out of doesn't have any IFR tracks in or out, therefore no track lowest safe altitudes or approaches, often the controller (one in particular!) will offer vectors into these gridded areas to step down rather than having to do a GNSS Arrival via another airport.

Surveillance approach is not an official term by the way, I made that bit up, I can't remember the official term for it, if there is one!

You won't get this service from an en-route controller or a procedural tower controller.

Standard Disclaimer: This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment, it's directed at the sub-standard management that are responsible for procedures, equipment and tools that don't work.

[The name is Porter]

You're right; services at low level haven't improved.

And they won't improve because there's no money in it for ASA. Trust me, they couldn't give a rats about GA and by extension if you fellas happen to mix it with lighties you're going to be affected. If they could wipe their hands of GA they would.

Standard Disclaimer: This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment, it's directed at the sub-standard management that are responsible for procedures, equipment and tools that don't work.

[Capn Bloggs]

Rojer Porter, thanks. Dick obviously is using his extensive USA experience to criticise our system. It would be nice if he could point us to the procedure used there.

C'mon Dick, out with it!

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

“At that time I was in cloud, in icing conditions and in quite severe turbulence,” Mr Smith writes.

“Locating the required chart is bad enough ... to work out that I was on the 186 degree approach, realise it was Sector B that was required , and then do the stepping down in accordance with that chart is complex — especially when flying single pilot in such weather conditions.’’

I dunno - surely none of this was a surprise? Surely, as a well-prepared and experienced pilot, you'd know what weather to expect, what ATC services you'd be receiving, and what type of arrival you could expect to be flying? Surely you'd have the chart readily to hand, and you'd have had a think about the arrival and what radial you'd be inbound on before you even departed? And surely, if you'd done your preparation properly (as Dick presumably did) and decided that any of this posed an unacceptable risk to you and your passengers, then you wouldn't be there in the first place? Or am I being unrealistic? Not saying that ATC services in Hobart couldn't possibly be improved (after all, there's virtually nothing that couldn't be improved), but I really don't see the issue here for a pilot that's done his or her homework before departing.

[The name is Porter]

Dick obviously is using his extensive USA experience to criticise our system. It would be nice if he could point us to the procedure used there

Cap'n, if you haven't flown there and you ever get the chance, do so. It is a service attitude over there. The traffic densities boggle and they make it work. Fly into a real Class D tower, not a Class D that is named as a Class D but operates as a Class C. Whilst I guess no system is ever perfect Class E (with surveillance) down to a Class D tower works a treat. :ok:

Australian minds are fairly closed to this sort of stuff, I was to a certain degree until I flew over there!

Standard Disclaimer: This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment, it's directed at the sub-standard management that are responsible for procedures, equipment and tools that don't work.

[haydnc]

I think the point is that using this technology should reduce pilots work load.

If you watch some of the flights of Stevo1kinevo (https://www.youtube.com/c/steveo1kinevo/) on youtube who is a corporate pilot in the US, you'll see they mostly be cleared to a limit on decent 5000, 3000, etc then cleared onto the ILS and not "not below DME steps". There is no flipping between DME arrival pages and approach pages.

Once in the past flying into Hobart, a clearance was given to track outbound on a particular radial from overhead, then cleared for the VOR. At no time was I given an "expect RWY 30 VOR/DME (at the time) so it was a bit of a scurry through approach plates to work out what they were talking about. It could have just been head / track this - descend to ... that simple

Maintaining track and being cleared to a height based on a radar return (ADS-B) would reduce the work load significantly! You could almost sit there fat dumb and happy!

It must be really hard to implement!

[Capn Bloggs]

you'll see they mostly be cleared to a limit on decent 5000, 3000, etc then cleared onto the ILS
Precisely what happens at any of our big airports. And at places like Hobart/Alice/Mackay, the tower just clears you to whatever IAF you want. It's not hard.

There is no flipping between DME arrival pages and approach pages.

There is no suggestion that he was cleared like that. Assuming the wx was relatively cr@p at Hobart, the requirement for an instrument approach would have been on the ATIS. Was it? If it was, he should have asked what approach was expected (ATC obviously aren't going to give you the 30nm ILS if you can get in off a DGA straight to the field), and if that was unacceptable (eg DGA), asked for something else.

Once in the past flying into Hobart, a clearance was given to track outbound on a particular radial from overhead, then cleared for the VOR. At no time was I given an "expect RWY 30 VOR/DME (at the time) so it was a bit of a scurry through approach plates to work out what they were talking about.
Are you seriously telling us that you were overhead the airfield, obviously in IMC, having not decided/told ATC what approach you were going to do?

Maintaining track and being cleared to a height based on a radar return (ADS-B) would reduce the work load significantly! You could almost sit there fat dumb and happy!
I think that would hardly work in the Sector B at Hobart. There are 4 steps within 4nm! Surely you are not suggesting ATC step you down those? 1900ft in 4nm. I would suspect the accuracy of the ADS-B/M-Lat wouldn't allow it anyway.

The longer the silence, the more this appears to be yet another a Dick Smith Class E beatup. Every fare-paying pax flight has EGPWS. If he wants to set up the system to protect his type of operation from CFIT ie approach control at all of our non-capital city airports, who's going to pay?

[Dick Smith]

Cost is negligible to train the existing enroute controller to do the hobart approach work.

Fixed in your mind is a separate approach console when this is not necessary . Most non tower IFR approaches in the USA a performed by existing en route controllers. Why not try one here ?

[Capn Bloggs]

Ar, Dick. Can you answer my question. How would like the ADS-B driven arrival and approach to work at Hobart?

[Utradar]

Dick, yup I agree. Why not try it here.

Does that mean more scrutiny WRT traffic at non-controlled AD's. If so, I'm all for it.

Haydnc - good points!

[le Pingouin]

Cost is negligible is it? We've been down this road before, you and I. As the regs currently stand we need a full approach course and rating. Who is going to man the consoles while the relevant controllers go and do that?

How many sectors are there in the US and what area does each typically cover? We've been here before too.

[topdrop]

Why bother - he didn't answer the questions last time or the time before or before that.

[Dick Smith]

You change the current regs of course.

In the USA over Kansas in the we small hours all of the lateration of sectors is removed and the en route controller of FL450 also does IFR class E approaches at small non tower airports below .

Traffic loading is a bit like Australia at busy times.

Could be tried here! No separate approach cell is reqired

[Capn Bloggs]

Hey Dick, how was the ADS-B going to be used by ATC to (help you to) do your approach into Cambridge? Are you now going to issue a retraction to the national newspaper that it was all a furphy?

[haydnc]

Quote:
There is no flipping between DME arrival pages and approach pages.

There is no suggestion that he was cleared like that.

Um, yes there was Dick Said:
At Hobart I was given a descent to 2000 not below the DME steps. That's because the airspace was operated by a 1950s procedural procedure with a controller who is not rated to use the ADSB to do the approach.

Are you seriously telling us that you were overhead the airfield, obviously in IMC, having not decided/told ATC what approach you were going to do?

Kept high 6-7k overhead in IMC with the cloud base not that low, yes that is correct. You've never planned an approach and had the tower change the plan at last minute? Things are very simple in your armchair.

I think that would hardly work in the Sector B at Hobart. There are 4 steps within 4nm!

I'm sorry, you want to pay the controller just to sip coffee? No one is saying the controller 'fly' the profile for you, rather use the service as a "cloud break". If the WX really is that bad, safety would say you should be on a RWY approach flying the profile and not just descending enroute to minima! (RNAV / ILS at HB).

What seems to be missed is that we are PAYING for a service but not getting any SERVICE! Its like paying for a big mac and not getting the burger.

[Capn Bloggs]

Cost is negligible to train the existing enroute controller to do the hobart approach work.

Could be tried here! No separate approach cell is reqired
I'm going to call BS on this. The cost to train may be negligible, but what about the cost of the extra controllers? Controllers have said their screen coverage during normal ops is massive. How is it possible to run an approach service all over the country at every IFR airfield without extra controllers? Where I fly, the enroute controllers are working flat out as it is based on the R/T. It would be impossible for the same people to do approach work as well. There would need to be extra controllers. What is it, $1m per console (numbers form ten years ago)? How many aeroplanes per controller here and in the US? And don't peddle the 20x stuff: the US has effectively 20 times the airspace.

You're a businessman. Show us the numbers.

[Capn Bloggs]

Um, yes there was Dick Said:
Umm, no Dick was not cleared to descend to 2000ft not below then DME steps "then cleared for the 30 ILS" (or some other approach). Do you even understand what is meant by "descend to 2000ft not below the DME steps"? There was no instrument approach involved after that. As you said before, "There is no flipping between DME arrival pages and approach pages."

You've never planned an approach and had the tower change the plan at last minute? Things are very simple in your armchair.
Hold it. There was no suggestion from you that ATC changed the approach on you. You said "At no time was I given an "expect RWY 30 VOR/DME (at the time) so it was a bit of a scurry through approach plates to work out what they were talking about". You didn't even plan the approach in the first place (or at least ask what they were going to give you so you could prepare). That's pretty bad airmanship.

And yes, I have had the plan change on me at the last minute, by ATC or myself.

If the WX really is that bad, safety would say you should be on a RWY approach flying the profile and not just descending enroute to minima! (RNAV / ILS at HB).
Now that's a really clever idea, why didn't Dick think of that... :rolleyes:

Looking at Flight Aware and weather sites, it appears that the weather at the time of his arrival was CAVOK (previous hour or so SCT @ 5500).

[haydnc]

Bloggs, i'd be careful your Guide Dog doesn't choke on you in your sleep. You cant really be helped if you take what is said out of context.

Umm, no Dick was not cleared to descend to 2000ft not below then DME steps "then cleared for the 30 ILS" (or some other approach)

That comment had nothing to do with Dick's flight in to HB. It was however explaining how descents apper to work in a US Radar environment, if your were to read my post correctly.

I cant be bothered looking through your posts, are you just a compulsive winger?

Whats with the chip on your shoulder? Do you think Dick explanation of his arrival is an exaggeration? How many tall stories have you told down at the club?

Like I said previously, why all the carry on? If we have they gear (ground equipment etc), why not sort out the system so we can use the service?

At my home airport in class G, I can get flight following all the way down to 500 feet in the circuit until I cancel it (yes i know ADS-B coverage in a fair bit of the country is poor). Why not spend the time and money and improve what we have in CTA?

I remember not long after the Benalla accident enroute controllers were really on edge. Even after changing to the CTAF flying into Young one stormy night they kept on my case whilst maneuvering inside MSA to make sure I wasn't going to go all Monarch on them. But what a great service, actually monitoring flight.

Now Bloggs, I dont know how many engines the armchair has the you fly, for me, my use of class E is limited to 1500 feet. The service of surveillance in that airspace I thought was great. Why not bring this down and have a "Service" where it is needed? There are no hills in Australia to hit higher then 8500 feet where class E exists!

[Capn Bloggs]

Based at a class G airport, max 1500ft. Says it all really.

[Lead Balloon]

On some other blogs it's possible to post a popcorn eating emoticon. Its use connotes that the poster is looking forward to the cyber-space stoush that's being engaged in, or about to be engaged in, by other posters. I wish I could use that emoticon now.

My only suggestions, haydnc, is that you (1) do a spell and grammar check of what you post before you post it and (2) note the number of posts that the Cap'n has made.

Tent bell: Ding! Ding!

[Ia8825]

It would be lovely if we could avoid the usually slagging festival that anything like this seems to devolve into. Some of what Dick says has merit, although as usual dick has presented it with all the subtlety of a dynamite tipped sledgehammer.

I'm not really sure whether or not what dick is proposing could actually work, however it seems like there could be some value to giving it a fair go at least? If the technology and infrastructure exists, it really should be used to its maximum capability. I believe the procedure Dick and others have hinted at is known as a radar vectors to cloud break procedure. Its not used in civil ATC in Australia, however the military does use it and it was actually quite a nice procedure. Basically the approach controller descends the aircraft to a RADAR/Surveillance lowest safe until the aircraft breaks clear of cloud and can conduct a visual approach. It has a higher MDA than other procedures, however it could likely be more safe and efficient than a DME/GNSS approach, and you then have the benefit of two people watching out for terrain separation.

As for changes to class E airspace, I think we should give it a try somewhere and see how it goes. It will require more controllers, more training and a change in the way we do air traffic control, however if we can get an appreciable safety benefit then I am all for it. Ultimately when I'm controlling if there is something I can do to provide a better service then I am all for it.

[Capn Bloggs]

Yes, it does become tiresome refuting the red herrings, BS, nonsense and all other manner of #$%^ that appears on here, but somebody's got to do it. Don Chipp The Second.

Its use connotes
Spell and grammar check indeed.

http://www.smilies.our-local.co.uk/index_files/popcorn.gif

[Lead Balloon]

Where did you get that emoticon?

I dips me lid on this occasion. :D

PS: "Its use connotes..." is perfectly correct spelling and grammar.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It will require more controllers, more training and a change in the way we do air traffic control,

= very large cost...who pays?

if we can get an appreciable safety benefit

If hardly anyone crashes now, how do we quantify the safety benefit if hardly anyone crashes after?

Affordable safety says we are doing ok now. I've posted it before. Our controllers handle twice the number of movements per head per annum than their US counterparts. Perhaps they should be looking at our system if you want to talk efficiencies? You want their service, you need their numbers and infrastructure. See point one above.

Dick didn't crash, he didn't even nearly crash. He just flew an approach. He's just upset he had to exercise his IFR rating to do it. I thought that's what it was for.

[haydnc]

Based at a class G airport, max 1500ft. Says it all really.

What that should tell you, is that the part of the industry I have operated in RPT/CHTR below 5700 kgs, single pilot IFR, without the bells and whistles or the radar screens, is the part of the industry that would see a significant improvement in safety if radar services were available closer to the ground.

[Dick Smith]

Blogs. No. No need for me to issue an apology.

In many places our ATCs can perform with an extra workload. Sometimes we fly in almost complete silence .

Last figure I head is that there is normally less than 150 IFR aircraft in the air over the Aus mainland at any given time . Can someone update this?

If the enroute controllers can do approach work at the smaller airports in Canada and the USA why not do a trial here. Would have saved lives at Benalla

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

is the part of the industry that would see a significant improvement in safety

Take it away from just your opinion, quantify that. Subject it to a cost/benefit analysis. What is significant? Would you be able to measure anything? How much do you spend before it gets to measurable, let alone significant. In the big picture, is it really that dangerous out there, that often. These are legitimate questions. Does that "part of the industry" contribute enough funds to pay for the increased services they wish for. Maybe other sections of the industry don't want to pay for services they won't use, or are generally happy with the service they are getting for their type of ops.

Sometime we fly in almost complete silence .

So when you are not talking on the radio while flying, you are doing nothing else?

If that figure of 150 IFRs is correct, I'd wager that 80-90% of them are in 10% of the airspace. Maybe that means our ATC are doing a good job. Nobody has hit any one yet, and the pilots of them must be doing a pretty good job too, as none of them fly into each other or hills very often either.

[fujii]

I just looked at Plane Finder. The counter showed around 330 aircraft.

[wasbones]

I believe the procedure Dick and others have hinted at is known as a radar vectors to cloud break procedure. Its not used in civil ATC in Australia

What you're referring to is done by civil radar approach units, it's just not named anything special. If you're going to get visual you'll be told expect visual approach and assigned progressively lower levels as CTA & RTCC permit until you call visual.

Not talking about Hobart here, but there are circumstances where descent in accordance with the DME steps will get you lower than RTCC levels allow at which point you'll get visual and be cleared visual approach.

[Showa Cho]

wasbones, if I recall correctly, the military cloud break procedure allowed 500ft terrain clearance in certain conditions, as opposed to 1000ft on a 'normal' RTCC plate.

[Ia8825]

Dick, a controller can be busy from things other than sheer numbers of aircraft on frequency. There is a lot we do in the background that you wont hear it on frequency There have been times where I have only had a handful of aircraft yet being working like a one armed bandit. All it takes is a few unusual things and you end up very busy very quickly.

Most low airspace controllers will monitor the descent profiles of aircraft when they have the spare capacity. For example, there have been several times where I have questioned an aircraft that was 0.5NM off track after the initial fix on an RNAV. More often than not they are just doing a visual approach, but if I see it I will ask.

Ultimately I genuinely believe there is some room for improvement in the system, especially now we have ADSB. We don't really want to be the people that waited for an accident to happen before we changed things, even if the chance may be small. If we have the technology, use it to its capability. My ultimate question is what do we really have to lose by giving some of dicks suggestions a go? Every time I plug in at an ATC console I try and do a little bit better every time, perhaps the overall system could do with the same approach.

[Dick Smith]

1a 88. Thanks for a positive view.

A bit of leadership at the top is all that is needed.

The AMATS decision of 1991 was bringing in terminal E. Not even one trial of the North American system

[Capn Bloggs]

For example, there have been several times where I have questioned an aircraft that was 0.5NM off track after the initial fix on an RNAV. More often than not they are just doing a visual approach, but if I see it I will ask.
The first thought that came to my mind when I read that was those guys in that EJet at Mildura and their near-miss with the Airvan. A call from Centre about their tracking when they could have been flat out on the CTAF.

That, Dick, is where and why your next accident is going to occur.

There would be nothing worse than being controlled by ATC on one frequency and sorting myself out with bugsmashers on the other frequency. And no, I'm not allowed to change to VFR.

SHOW US THE MONEY.

[Ia8825]

So what do you suggest we do? Ignore the fact that their tracking does not match up with what we expect? 0.5nm is a long way off track on an RNAV approach (I believe full scale deflection is 0.3NM) and the mountains near Armidale are pretty big. If we are in doubt we have an obligation to do something about it, and quite frankly I'm not willing to just sit there and let something go wrong.

[27/09]

(I believe full scale deflection is 0.3NM)

1 nm outside the FF and 0.3 or 2 degrees depending on whether or not TSO 129 or TSO 146 units inside FF.

So if outside FF 0.5 is right on the tracking limit.