Separation issue involving Boeing 737, VH-VXH, and Airbus A320, VH-VGV, near Darwin

[Mr_App]

The ATSB is investigating a reported aircraft separation issue involving a Boeing 737 and an Airbus 320 near Darwin Airport on 5 April 2023.

It was reported that at 0017 local time, while the air traffic control tower was closed and Darwin Airport was operating with Traffic Information Broadcasts by Aircraft (TIBA) procedures, the Boeing 737 was outbound from runway 11 while the Airbus A320 was inbound to reciprocal runway 29.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will examine the available evidence to determine the extent of coordination between the two aircraft and the actions of the air traffic controller of the overlying airspace, through interviewing involved parties, examining recorded data, reviewing relevant procedures and collecting other evidence as required.

A final report will be released at the conclusion of the investigation. Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant parties, so that appropriate safety action can be taken.

[parishiltons]

The ATSB is investigating a reported aircraft separation issue involving a Boeing 737 and an Airbus 320 near Darwin Airport on 5 April 2023.

It was reported that at 0017 local time, while the air traffic control tower was closed and Darwin Airport was operating with Traffic Information Broadcasts by Aircraft (TIBA) procedures, the Boeing 737 was outbound from runway 11 while the Airbus A320 was inbound to reciprocal runway 29.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will examine the available evidence to determine the extent of coordination between the two aircraft and the actions of the air traffic controller of the overlying airspace, through interviewing involved parties, examining recorded data, reviewing relevant procedures and collecting other evidence as required.

A final report will be released at the conclusion of the investigation. Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant parties, so that appropriate safety action can be taken.
I thought Defence ATC was immune to this - just order someone to turn up for duty?

[Ollie Onion]

Who would have thought having RPT operations at non towered airfields was a bad idea?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Well, 'LOTS' of RPT ops into / out of many 'uncontrolled' / non towered airports in 'de good ole days'.......

Called 'AFIZ'.....Manned (&Womened) by.....F.S.

Even handled 'remotely' for a number of years or so......(in WA anyway)

[Lookleft]

And still the airline CEOs sleep soundly at night despite grand statements about safety being their number one priority.

[tossbag]

IFR Student: Why do you have to advise centre of your departure runway?
IFR Instructor: You need to know what runway any inbound traffic is using, if someone is inbound on an RNP, opposite direction it puts you head to head.
IFR Student: Makes sense.

IFR Student forgets to transmit departure runway to centre.
Centre doesn't ask IFR pilot what runway they're using.
Safety occurrence, never followed up by anybody, until it's two jets at a 3rd world airport in a first world country.

[Icarus2001]

Third world country but you can drink the water. Wait until the power fails.

[PoppaJo]

toss, generally the case.

having a quick look at the LiveATC archive, this one appears the opposite. All parties from what I can tell are aware of everyone else, Flightwatch advised the departing aircraft on the ground about the inbound traffic (x2 Jetstar), including minutes out, the fact they are inbound for the reciprocal, and also advised the same to the inbound aircraft around the intentions for the departure. Rolling call was made. So in this case, everyone appears to know about everyone else and who is going where as confirmed by each crew.

Flightwatch started questioning the departure aircraft on upwind around turning intentions due to aircraft ahead, seemed a bit of confusion also.

Certainly would have been a bit closer if nobody was watching. Perhaps we should just stop CTAF ops completely for large RPT. I recall Tiger put a ban on operations into such airspace at one point. The stupid thing is, when these events happen, PR departments come out with the template ‘safety never compromised, underpins everything we do’. Well complete bull**** as Flightwatch saved what would have been a safety compromised accident. If a Chief Pilot went to an executive tomorrow and advised they wish to stop all operations unless tower controlled, they would probably get pushed out. Margins, profits, bonus schemes are top of the chart. Adding extra costs to the airways bill to ensure a operator is running under control at all times will be shot down, ‘our operation is now unviable’…Jetstar pulled that one at Avalon when asked about extra tower charges by the media.

[missy]

The ATSB is investigating a reported aircraft separation issue involving a Boeing 737 and an Airbus 320 near Darwin Airport on 5 April 2023.

It was reported that at 0017 local time, while the air traffic control tower was closed and Darwin Airport was operating with Traffic Information Broadcasts by Aircraft (TIBA) procedures, the Boeing 737 was outbound from runway 11 while the Airbus A320 was inbound to reciprocal runway 29.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will examine the available evidence to determine the extent of coordination between the two aircraft and the actions of the air traffic controller of the overlying airspace, through interviewing involved parties, examining recorded data, reviewing relevant procedures and collecting other evidence as required.

A final report will be released at the conclusion of the investigation. Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant parties, so that appropriate safety action can be taken.

Seems ATSB isn't immune from data entry errors (IDDE).

Aircraft Details
Departure point Sydney Airport, New South Wales
Destination Melbourne Airport, Victoria
Model A320-232
Serial number 4229
Sector Jet
Registration VH-VGV
Operation type Part 121 Air transport operations - larger aeroplanes
Damage Nil
Manufacturer Airbus
Aircraft Operator JETSTAR AIRWAYS ASIA PTY LIMITED

[Petropavlovsk]

No mention of TCAS ? Any aural warnings from same?

[Gunner747400]

No mention of TCAS ? Any aural warnings from same?
Looking at the replay on the numerous ADSB sites, the two aircraft seem to be well apart (well, a lot further apart then aircraft have been at other RPT CTAF's without a concern in the world).

Seems like a bit of beat up by one of the crews to try prove a point I reckon.

[PoppaJo]

I think this is more about, what was potentially about to be, both continued as per normal, controller stepped in alerting the departure aircraft around upcoming conflict and they then tracked north east. If they didn't, they likely would have continued upwind until they got a TCAS, that is my impression after looking at the archive, did not seem to be any concern re conflict, and both seemed to be aware of each other, both continued on as normal. They only started talking to each other when a separation issue was about to be raised by the controller.

This one might be a good example around airmanship, communications between other aircraft within the TIBA. If the departure aircraft decided to wait until the Jetstar arrival had landed, they also had another one to deal with behind, would have been 15 minutes wait at least. Sometimes you just gotta wait.

I reckon the controller might have lodged the case around this one not the crews.

[DirectAnywhere]

The lack of a tower at Darwin overnight was suppose to have been rectified within 3-6 months. Well, it’s now 6 months and the NOTAM has been pushed out to the end of May at least. That makes it 8 months.

Townsville tower doesn’t open until 8am on weekends despite multiple early departures.

It’s pretty poor anyway you look it and is a recurring theme now in these kinds of incidents at CTAFs (or “TRAs”) around the place. It’s only a question of time until it goes badly wrong.

[43Inches]

This one might be a good example around airmanship, communications between other aircraft within the TIBA. If the departure aircraft decided to wait until the Jetstar arrival had landed, they also had another one to deal with behind, would have been 15 minutes wait at least. Sometimes you just gotta wait.


Or go off the other runway and climb above arriving traffic like everyone else does. Or coordinate to use the into wind runway if you need it and get the others to circle round for the into wind if that's why they had to use the reciprocal. Seriously who departs opposite direction to inbound traffic and does not arrange separation first. I almost get the feeling that Jet pilots seem to out of their depth if they have to visualize traffic and arrange safe passage without ATC. Worst case the pilots were assuming they could use TCAS to avoid the traffic as it got closer (I don't mean the alerting functions rather the display).

[PoppaJo]

43. Correct. Chief Pilots should just call it a day and it’s controlled or nothing. I know the pushback they will get from that with the C suite, but do we really need to wait for a mid air before the call is made?

[43Inches]

The whole TIBA thing complicates what should just be class G and CTAF procedures, after all it's just due to staff shortages, the repeaters, frequencies etc are all still operating. Just put out a NOTAM saying if ATS is available or not, and companies have to come up with suitable procedures for SARWATCH and traffic management if no ATS is available like it is at a lot of remote CTAFs out there. All you have to do is announce ATS not available, airspace is restricted to approved operators and CTAF procedures apply. All airports should then have a CTAF frequency based on tower in the ERSA and weather ATS is available on the ground in ERSA or via NOTAM where ATS is expected.

[Capn Bloggs]

"Darwin Airport MBZ". Good one (16 minutes into the tape).

[The Love Doctor]

The whole TIBA thing complicates what should just be class G and CTAF procedures, after all it's just due to staff shortages, the repeaters, frequencies etc are all still operating. Just put out a NOTAM saying if ATS is available or not, and companies have to come up with suitable procedures for SARWATCH and traffic management if no ATS is available like it is at a lot of remote CTAFs out there. All you have to do is announce ATS not available, airspace is restricted to approved operators and CTAF procedures apply. All airports should then have a CTAF frequency based on tower in the ERSA and weather ATS is available on the ground in ERSA or via NOTAM where ATS is expected.
Or ASA could maybe get some more staff? Just an idea.

[Capn Bloggs]

The QF says they are departing via, what sounds like, "the PEGVU departure" (18 minutes in). It appears no such departure exists in the DAPs on the ASA website. Is this a proprietary QF SID?

[43Inches]

The QF says they are departing via, what sounds like, "the PEGVU departure" (18 minutes in). It appears no such departure exists in the DAPs on the ASA website. Is this a proprietary QF SID?

There's a VEGPU waypoint and STAR, but no SID, can't say it would be a good idea to depart via an inbound waypoint. Having a waypoint PEGVU in the same area sounds like a disaster in the making, but AA doesn't seem to care at all what names are given to points these days. Using SIDs and STARs OCTA is fraught with danger, not the least of which is situational awareness, a departing aircraft will not have many details on arriving aircraft tracking and vv. Departing and arriving on fixed radials from the airport is much easier to organise and maintain a mental picture of where players are around you. STAR's and SIDs are really designed for use with ATC monitoring. At busy airports the combination of which SIDs are used with what STARs is controlled by ATC, in configurations, obviously without coordination some paths will conflict with traffic not covered by the crossing height/speed profiles. I'd say for sure that reciprocal runway SID/STARs would not be a normal configuration that ATC would use without massive gaps in the sequence.

[cLeArIcE]

After many experiences with Darwin ATC, it often runs better as a CTAF. Some controllers at Darwin seem to have no understanding of the profiles required for a large aircraft. Don't Start me on the ones giving 500 instructions in one Radio call either. :ugh:
But yes the idea that an international airport in Australia is TIBA Evey night during its busy period is a joke.
Not sure what the wind was at the time but, what complicates things is everyone wants to depart on 11 and arrive onto 29. I understand wanting to depart a place like Townsville etc on a SID due to terrain considerations (especially at night or in IMC). But it's hardly necessary in Darwin. If departing 29 follow the noise abatement proc and turn left to intercept track. If departing on 11 just intercept track it's not hard.
If the wind was favouring 11, I feel like the arriving aircraft also has to shoulder some responsibility. The amount of people who will insist on wanting to do the ILS onto 29 against departing traffic just to save 5 mins astounds me.
Just fly the RNP 11 FFS. Get to the hotel 5 mins later who cares?
Where it gets messy is when you have multiple aircraft holding due wx etc.

[Global Aviator]

WTF is an international airport that takes the occasional heavy diversion running on a CTAF, sorry TIBA?

Yeah the chance of a 777 from China/ Thailand/ insert country where CTAFs are not common making an emergency diversion into Darwin are low but.

Melbourne control tell aircraft to contact TIBA are or whatever the fook it’s called on 1XX.XX… Err what’s that? Ahh ok that’s it. Careflight have a departure and arrival, the late night Pornstar running late oh and farmer Joe has decided to depart, yeah lots of holes required but…..

Shouldn’t tower be subsidised? Or as it’s RAAF? Ok I’m just a little confused.

[Pastor of Muppets]

The closest airport to the countries security threat, the same town bombed during WW2, countless “important” military exercises and reacharaounds and its unmanned at night…… Is anyone taking this seriously?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Separation issue? It's OCTA. What separation standard are they investigating? The standard for OCTA is far enough apart they don't collide. They didn't collide, therefore separation maintained to the accepted standard for the airspace they are happy to apply (and companies operate in).
They want a separation standard, then supply an airspace where one applies.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The closest airport to the countries security threat, the same town bombed during WW2, countless “important” military exercises and reacharaounds and its unmanned at night…… Is anyone taking this seriously?
A manned TWR would alleviate any of these how exactly? Does the inbound airborne invasion or bomber fleet require a clearance to land?

[43Inches]

A manned TWR would alleviate any of these how exactly? Does the inbound airborne invasion or bomber fleet require a clearance to land?

China will just park its navy at the port of Darwin and unload while it's airforce flies to Merredin. Apparently because they own these facilities they can 'invade' and no one can do anything....

[Pastor of Muppets]

A manned TWR would alleviate any of these how exactly? Does the inbound airborne invasion or bomber fleet require a clearance to land?

Uuum maybe by showing the world that we actually give a ****?

[TBM-Legend]

Don’t mention an incident or accident on takeoff or landing plus it is said diversions. When I was a controller last century at Townsville and Darwin we had a controller in the tower all night and a fire guy coming up if the controller needed a leak or do a runway inspection. Fire guy taught to say standby xxx

[dr dre]

After many experiences with Darwin ATC, it often runs better as a CTAF. Some controllers at Darwin seem to have no understanding of the profiles required for a large aircraft. Don't Start me on the ones giving 500 instructions in one Radio call either. :ugh:

ATSB - Loss of separation between aircraft in Australian airspace (https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/4263407/ar-2012-034_final.pdf)
Pertinent charts on pages 34 and 38

Darwin has a higher rate of Loss of Separation (LOS) incidents than any other Australian airport, more than double the rate of the other capital city airports, and more raw incidents than Melbourne, Perth or Brisbane. Bar Cairns, every military controlled non Capital City Class C aerodrome has higher incident rate than equivalent civilian controlled like Essendon or Gold Coast, sometimes 10x the rate.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Well. when you get too close for missiles, we all know what to do next!

[parishiltons]

Or ASA could maybe get some more staff? Just an idea.
It's a Defence-operated tower. Nothing to do with Airservices.

[parishiltons]

There's a VEGPU waypoint and STAR, but no SID, can't say it would be a good idea to depart via an inbound waypoint. Having a waypoint PEGVU in the same area sounds like a disaster in the making, but AA doesn't seem to care at all what names are given to points these days. Using SIDs and STARs OCTA is fraught with danger, not the least of which is situational awareness, a departing aircraft will not have many details on arriving aircraft tracking and vv. Departing and arriving on fixed radials from the airport is much easier to organise and maintain a mental picture of where players are around you. STAR's and SIDs are really designed for use with ATC monitoring. At busy airports the combination of which SIDs are used with what STARs is controlled by ATC, in configurations, obviously without coordination some paths will conflict with traffic not covered by the crossing height/speed profiles. I'd say for sure that reciprocal runway SID/STARs would not be a normal configuration that ATC would use without massive gaps in the sequence.
Modern SID/STAR design has built in either segregation or separation assurance, and pilots are used to flying them (albeit for same runway, not for RRO). The safety issue arises when pilots start doing something what is not normal for them (the old fashioned radials, etc), such as NOT flying the SID/STARs that are already programmed into the aircraft and they are mentally attuned to using. The locals know which way the airline transport flights go but there's not many of the former overnight.

[The Banjo]

A key issue maybe the nominated preferred runway on the Zulu atis. Is it changed by the RAAF Flightwatch agent in a timely manner to fit in with traffic flow or is it an automatic computer generated change purely on the current wind? Dunno.
If the latter is the case then it is understandable how unintended conflicts occur.

One would need strong reasons to operate contrary to the preferred runway even in light winds, however the issue may be that changing after an arriving aircraft has committed to the approach and are unawre of the preferred runway change particularly if the flightwatch person does not broadcast it.

[43Inches]

Modern SID/STAR design has built in either segregation or separation assurance, and pilots are used to flying them (albeit for same runway, not for RRO). The safety issue arises when pilots start doing something what is not normal for them (the old fashioned radials, etc), such as NOT flying the SID/STARs that are already programmed into the aircraft and they are mentally attuned to using. The locals know which way the airline transport flights go but there's not many of the former overnight.

Lets just say that the QF used the RUSKA Six Departure RWY 11 and the Jestar was inbound on the VEGPU Seven arrival RWY 29 there is NO traffic separation provided by this SID/STAR. The tracks crossover between ITTSA- SARRE inbound and PAGSO-VABLI outbound whats more the departure is restricted to not above 6000 prior to VABLI while the arrival has to be below 8000 after VEGPU, further condensing the traffic into similar airspace considering the arrival is on a constant descent from VEGPU then it would probably pass very close to the departure climbing from 3000 to 6000 ft. These SID/STARs would never be used in actual combination without ATC restrictions. There is nothing on either SID/STAR that prevents the arrival and departure aircraft from being at the same altitude when transiting those tracks.

Hence these SID/STARs should not be used OCTA as pilots do not know what SID/STARs should be used in particular combinations. This is why controllers talk about runway configurations, it is referring to what is being used for arrival and departure paths and determines what SIDs/STARs will be used.

It is obvious that the RWY 29 RUSKA has a not below crossover to allow separation with inbounds to RWY 29. However OCTA an aircraft can choose to operate any runway it wants to, there is no runway configuration in place, so therefor the SID/STAR patterns are not going to ensure traffic separation.

Now what is the answer here, well first of all it needs to be understood when a SID/STAR will ensure separation, nothing in the documentation states that the RUSKA 11 and VEGPU 29 should not be used simultaneously. Remembering that a quick look has the departing aircraft turning at 900ft so it should be quickly out of the way of arrivals if they haven't started the ILS yet, but no, the conflict point is a number of miles from departure approaching the en-route phase. So an aircraft that is miles away suddenly becomes a conflict. None of this is saying that is what happened here, but it highlights how using opposite direction SID/STAR is not a good idea.

[sunnySA]

ATSB - Loss of separation between aircraft in Australian airspace (https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/4263407/ar-2012-034_final.pdf)
Pertinent charts on pages 34 and 38
Very old data - January 2008 to June 2012. Pity this sort of report of isn't routinely done by ATSB, every 2 years covering the previous 4 years would provide comparisons and trends.

[parishiltons]

Lets just say that the QF used the RUSKA Six Departure RWY 11 and the Jestar was inbound on the VEGPU Seven arrival RWY 29 there is NO traffic separation provided by this SID/STAR. The tracks crossover between ITTSA- SARRE inbound and PAGSO-VABLI outbound whats more the departure is restricted to not above 6000 prior to VABLI while the arrival has to be below 8000 after VEGPU, further condensing the traffic into similar airspace considering the arrival is on a constant descent from VEGPU then it would probably pass very close to the departure climbing from 3000 to 6000 ft. These SID/STARs would never be used in actual combination without ATC restrictions. There is nothing on either SID/STAR that prevents the arrival and departure aircraft from being at the same altitude when transiting those tracks.

Hence these SID/STARs should not be used OCTA as pilots do not know what SID/STARs should be used in particular combinations. This is why controllers talk about runway configurations, it is referring to what is being used for arrival and departure paths and determines what SIDs/STARs will be used.

It is obvious that the RWY 29 RUSKA has a not below crossover to allow separation with inbounds to RWY 29. However OCTA an aircraft can choose to operate any runway it wants to, there is no runway configuration in place, so therefor the SID/STAR patterns are not going to ensure traffic separation.

Now what is the answer here, well first of all it needs to be understood when a SID/STAR will ensure separation, nothing in the documentation states that the RUSKA 11 and VEGPU 29 should not be used simultaneously. Remembering that a quick look has the departing aircraft turning at 900ft so it should be quickly out of the way of arrivals if they haven't started the ILS yet, but no, the conflict point is a number of miles from departure approaching the en-route phase. So an aircraft that is miles away suddenly becomes a conflict. None of this is saying that is what happened here, but it highlights how using opposite direction SID/STAR is not a good idea.
There's almost never any segregation or separation by design in RRO! But if they were using the same runway the SID/STAR design does provide segregation/separation. And the aeroplane does not know whether or not an ATC service is available - it will fly what it is programmed to do regardless of the airspace status.

[Icarus2001]

There is a procedure to maintain runway track until contact and clearance from BN centre.

[parishiltons]

There is a procedure to maintain runway track until contact and clearance from BN centre.
I think the night time procedure off RWY 11 for aircraft not flying a SID is to maintain runway heading (rather than track) until 2DME/GPS until 1230UTC and 7DME/GPS after that time. Darwin NAP 2.2.2 refers. After that point then? until they get an ATC clearance.

[43Inches]

There's almost never any segregation or separation by design in RRO! But if they were using the same runway the SID/STAR design does provide segregation/separation. And the aeroplane does not know whether or not an ATC service is available - it will fly what it is programmed to do regardless of the airspace status.

That is my exact point and the only ones who really know what combinations of SID/STAR is compatible are the ATC responsible for the airspace. There is no guidance for pilots as to which SID/STAR are safe for traffic separation OCTA, even less protection if an aircraft flies a wrong altitude or track which would be alerted to a controller in CTA. So pilots assigning themselves SID/STAR OCTA is fraught with danger and assumptions that you have separation standards, when those standards only apply when the right selection of SID/STAR are assigned by a controller. You can say the QF pilot should have taken off in the other direction? Why if the Jetstar is still 50nm away, how would they know there is a SID conflict at 30nm, and there in lies the problem of using them OCTA (that being a theoretical case if the RUSKA vs VEGPU was the issue).

[morno]

Why can’t they just be pilots and fly the SID/STAR most appropriate to them and separate themselves vertically? :rolleyes:

[Capn Bloggs]

Why can’t they just be pilots and fly the SID/STAR most appropriate to them and separate themselves vertically?
Arrh, OK. Rolleyes indeed! :hmm:​​​​​​​

[43Inches]

Why can’t they just be pilots and fly the SID/STAR most appropriate to them and separate themselves vertically? https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies2/icon_rolleyes.gif

Because SID/STAR have vertical requirements that have to be met. As I pointed out earlier that particular SID/STAR combo would put you at the same place and similar altitudes should you comply with the stated procedures. If you are not applying the height requirements then you will have absolutely no traffic segregation/separation as those heights are usually for traffic purposes. That is if the right combination of procedures are being flown.

Then there is the problem that SID/STARs wonder all over the airspace, going away and sometimes back towards the field, as well as using totally separate waypoints. What do you use for separation datum? Nothing on the charts says where other procedures overlap, it's entirely meant to be used with ATC assigning procedures and monitoring separation and compliance.

[missy]

It's a Defence-operated tower. Nothing to do with Airservices.
I'd need to look at the NOTAM but who is the controlling authority of the TIBA airspace?

And, in this instance, isn't FlightWatch operated by AsA?

[missy]

Very old data - January 2008 to June 2012. Pity this sort of report of isn't routinely done by ATSB, every 2 years covering the previous 4 years would provide comparisons and trends.
There is probably an episode of Yes Minister or even Yes Prime Minister that covers this topic (Albanese was Minister for Transport from December 2007 to September 2013), the one Minister having oversight and responsibility for ATSB and AsA (and CASA). You can just imagine the conversation with the Ministers office, AsA "we don't need to the information collated as we have a robust safety reporting system". ATSB concurs. Yes Minister.

[Icarus2001]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/895x822/b3ca0550_f7a2_49cd_bf29_0d5a77f4b61b_614005ba3780ba79bbcf218 33d68465adb966d87.jpeg
Can someone show me where it stays TIBA? It is a temporary restricted area, clearance is required to operate within it.

Notes I have seen say maintain runway track until varied by BN centre. No reason to fly a SID.

Who would have thought having RPT operations at non towered airfields was a bad idea?

Like Kalgoorlie, Learmonth, et al? Also most mine sites.

[parishiltons]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/895x822/b3ca0550_f7a2_49cd_bf29_0d5a77f4b61b_614005ba3780ba79bbcf218 33d68465adb966d87.jpeg
Can someone show me where it stays TIBA? It is a temporary restricted area, clearance is required to operate within it.

Notes I have seen say maintain runway track until varied by BN centre. No reason to fly a SID.



Like Kalgoorlie, Learmonth, et al? Also most mine sites.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about this.

It's not TIBA and yes it's a TRA. But no, there is no clearance required or involved because there is no ATC service provided. Access authority is no more an approval to operate in the TRA, using MBZ procedures.

Can you cite where these notes you have seen about runway track are published? If it's not official they are worth nothing.

And given it is MBZ procedures, pilots can choose to fly SID/STARs or not. It's up to them and whatever their company says. And contrary to other assertions on this thread, there is segregation built into, and between the SIDs and associated STARs serving the SAME runway. That is how they were designed. The VNAV requirements that are part of the procedures are there for that purpose. [Note it does NOT work for reciprocal runway operations (RRO), because that is not a normal runway operation mode, particularly when there is conflicting traffic.]

When an ATC service is provided, ATC will monitor to ensure it is working as designed, but when they are not there it's all back on the pilots, as the NOTAM says. Conducting RRO in MBZ procedures will add an additional hazard that pilots should take into account in their risk assessment when proposing to operate in that way.

[Icarus2001]

Access authority is no more an approval to operate in the TRA, using MBZ

Would love to get a KC or two around a table with a nice bottle of red to split the hell out of that distinction.

​​​​​​​So can an aircraft enter WITHOUT authority? Mmmmmmmmm

[parishiltons]

Would love to get a KC or two around a table with a nice bottle of red to split the hell out of that distinction.

So can an aircraft enter WITHOUT authority? Mmmmmmmmm
It's a clear distinction. The authority to operate in this situation is no different to for example, one or more fire fighting aircraft being given authority to operate in a TRA created around a bushfire - it keeps out the sightseers. As to operating without authority, why would any responsible/professional pilot enter without authority? The intent of the authority is for safety - to limit the number of operations at any given time to those who have a genuine need to use the airspace.

[Icarus2001]

How is that functionally different to a clearance to operate in the TRA?

Can you cite where these notes you have seen about runway track are published? If it's not official they are worth nothing.

​​​​​​​Are you a pilot? Do you work for a company large enough that they generate Operational Notices? Believe me, they are “official”.

[Capn Bloggs]

Are you a pilot? Do you work for a company large enough that they generate Operational Notices? Believe me, they are “official”.
To be fair, all you've done is drop little titbits about this "maintain runway track until in contact with centre":

​​​​​​​There is a procedure to maintain runway track until contact and clearance from BN centre.
and
​​​​​​​Notes I have seen say maintain runway track until varied by BN centre. No reason to fly a SID.

And quite rightly, these were questioned. If it's in a company instruction/OM, just come out and say it with a reference. There's enough rubbish, red herrings and BS on Prune as it is without "notes I have seen".

Back to the topic, what a dog's breakfast. Just downgrade it to Class G+ and CTAF.

[Icarus2001]

Sure, I will post a reference to my company ops notice, thereby telling the world who I work for. No thanks.

It was an ops notice that explained operators had agreed at HFO, MFO level to adopt that procedure, runway track until in contact with BN centre and clearance given for continued climb above 8500’

[Capn Bloggs]

You should have just come out and said that in the first place. In fact, that shines a completely different light on what happened.

By "was", I assume it's no longer current. :confused:

[parishiltons]

How is that functionally different to a clearance to operate in the TRA?




Because a clearance is only provided in airspace where there is a specified level air traffic control service provided, which in this case is clearly absent. So the only other way to enter and operate in a TRA is to obtain approval to do so from the 'controlling authority'. The OAR (Office of Airspace Regulation) in CASA will nominate who, or which organisation is that authority when they issue the Instrument that creates the TRA.

[Beer Baron]

Well the Chief Pilot of a Qantas Group airline put out a Standing Order saying Group pilots were to fly a SID/STAR when operating in the MBZ. So not everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.
It was presumably not written with the intent of reciprocal runway operations.

[missy]

Because a clearance is only provided in airspace where there is a specified level air traffic control service provided, which in this case is clearly absent. So the only other way to enter and operate in a TRA is to obtain approval to do so from the 'controlling authority'. The OAR (Office of Airspace Regulation) in CASA will nominate who, or which organisation is that authority when they issue the Instrument that creates the TRA.
But Darwin Flightwatch says "cleared to operate in the TRA".

[werbil]

It was an ops notice that explained operators had agreed at HFO, MFO level to adopt that procedure, runway track until in contact with BN centre and clearance given for continued climb above 8500’

That is news to me. Given my position with a Part 121 operator based in Darwin the word "select" needs to be included prior to the word "operators". When ringing Darwin Flightwatch on the number in the NOTAM they didn't mention anything about that procedure either (which I have done on a number of occasions as the NOTAMs have evolved over time).

For information, the person performing the Darwin Flightwach function is a licenced RAAF ATC - pretty sure tower rated, but not sure if approach rated.

My $0.02 - a SID is a published procedure between published waypoints that definitely meets the requirements for an approved instrument departure procedure. Whilst the highest object in the vicinity of Darwin is below 700 feet, the simplest way to ensure the departure is legal is to fly a SID to the MSA.

[werbil]

But Darwin Flightwatch says "cleared to operate in the TRA".

They certainly do now. When these procedures were first implemented, Darwin Flightwatch only provided a traffic statement. I remember on my first flight in the airspace after the TRA procedures were established, a taxying eJet stating that as it was restricted airspace they needed a clearance to operate in it. They were given a clearance, and since then all responses have included a clearance to operate in the TRA.

[Lead Balloon]

No aligned Swiss cheese holes to see here!

(What’s astonishing about so many aviation disasters is the bunch of unusual risks which were durr-obvious before the disaster happened.)

[Icarus2001]

Safety is our number one priority.

[No Idea Either]

It’s an operational RAAF base and the RAAF needs to know who is coming and going, hence announcing yourselves and the acknowledgement to enter the ‘TRA’. Obviously it’s due to lack of staff and if it was required anywhere civil, due lack of staff, it would just be a TIBA.

My ops info says fly a STAR and SID, nothing about this straight ahead business. But as many have highlighted the reciprocal ops creates the problem. Not quite sure of the specifics of the ‘near miss’ but if it was on the centreline, then doesn’t the landing aircraft have right of way. It would appear to me that the departing aircraft was in a hurry to get away rather than wait 5 mins for the arrivals. As someone said, perhaps they could have departed of R29 via the very long SID but hit the MSA 1 minute after TO and then turned east to pick up the track. How much extra time would that have taken, rather than TO directly at an arriving aircraft.

Just my 2 cents worth…….we will see the investigation outcome in about 2 years when the TRA will be a long forgotten thing of the past (maybe).

[parishiltons]

But Darwin Flightwatch says "cleared to operate in the TRA".
They shoudn't use that phraseology. If that's the case it's a re-education or standardisation issue for the operator/s concerned.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Can you fly a SID or STAR without ATC surveillance? The AIP ENR references are very ATC heavy.

[sunnySA]

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/895x822/b3ca0550_f7a2_49cd_bf29_0d5a77f4b61b_614005ba3780ba79bbcf218 33d68465adb966d87.jpeg
Very poorly worded NOTAM.

[Bula]

They shoudn't use that phraseology. If that's the case it's a re-education or standardisation issue for the operator/s concerned.

Are you sure? JEPPs is very specific that a clearance to operate in a restricted area is given in the same form as a controlled airspace clearance.

[Icarus2001]

Can you fly a SID or STAR without ATC surveillance?

​​​​​​​Yes, we can.

[43Inches]

Can you fly a SID or STAR without ATC surveillance? The AIP ENR references are very ATC heavy.

Yes, but as stated earlier the SID/STAR will only provide terrain clearance. Traffic clearance can not be assured as the design requires to be used in conjunction with a particular configuration of runways, airspace and so on. The easiest way to explain that is that other aircraft need not be on the SID/STAR procedures at all and could just be direct tracking so they are in no way compliant with the SID/STAR traffic altitudes. So without ATC traffic could be anywhere they want to be and you need to have good SA to separate when following random STAR/SIDs that the traffic may have no awareness of. Telling someone that you are 7 GPS to run UPBUM when the departing aircraft is 5 to run POOBA is really not going to be easy to resolve.

Also RADAR SIDs do not afford any terrain clearance on reaching the vector height, you obviously need ATC on these as you will still be below MSA as the altitude is predicated on MVA and vectors to remain terrain clear until MSA.

Are you sure? JEPPs is very specific that a clearance to operate in a restricted area is given in the same form as a controlled airspace clearance.

Depends who has issued the clearance or approval. When you are a Civvy operating missions within military restricted airspace you usually get approval from the authority that controls the restricted zone, say when target towing etc... The overlaying ATC will just query if you have approval to do so, then you just communicate with the guys shooting at you.

[parishiltons]

Are you sure? JEPPs is very specific that a clearance to operate in a restricted area is given in the same form as a controlled airspace clearance.
Yes, I'm sure. It is an authority to operate in the TRA. It is not a clearance and should not be worded as such by the Flightwatch or other communicator.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Yes, we can.
Interesting. So you can't in the USA?
AIM 5-2-9 (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap5_section_2.html#:~:text=ATC%20clearance%20must%20be%20r eceived,the%20en%20route%20structure%20safely.)
you need to have good SA to separate when following random STAR/SIDs that the traffic may have no awareness of. Telling someone that you are 7 GPS to run UPBUM when the departing aircraft is 5 to run POOBA is really not going to be easy to resolve.
I guess that was sort of what I was alluding to. If you were operating OCTA when you would normally be operating in CTA, wouldn't you be trying to keep things as simple as possible, rather than just carrying on as normal and hoping? I guess my question should have been "Should you...."

[Icarus2001]

It is an authority to operate in the TRA. It is not a clearance

Again, what is the legal difference?

​​​​​​​The level of service provided is governed by the alphabet designator but it is still a clearance.

[43Inches]

I guess that was sort of what I was alluding to. If you were operating OCTA when you would normally be operating in CTA, wouldn't you be trying to keep things as simple as possible, rather than just carrying on as normal and hoping? I guess my question should have been "Should you...."

Basically what I've been saying in this thread all along. It is far easier to fly radials and use distance from the aerodrome fix when in high traffic scenarios OCTA than to con-volute the situation with random tracks and waypoints via SID/STARs. I've been flying high performance aircraft in and out of CTAFs for years and there's nothing worse than trying to separate with someone flying randomly to RNAV waypoints across your track than somebody just tracking to/from the airfield. What then has to happen is altitude separation over a wide area, rather than some mildly inconvenient level off. Then if you have several aircraft in the mix, how do you organize that when you are all flying different patterns.

[parishiltons]

Basically what I've been saying in this thread all along. It is far easier to fly radials and use distance from the aerodrome fix when in high traffic scenarios OCTA than to con-volute the situation with random tracks and waypoints via SID/STARs. I've been flying high performance aircraft in and out of CTAFs for years and there's nothing worse than trying to separate with someone flying randomly to RNAV waypoints across your track than somebody just tracking to/from the airfield. What then has to happen is altitude separation over a wide area, rather than some mildly inconvenient level off. Then if you have several aircraft in the mix, how do you organize that when you are all flying different patterns.
And the converse point to that is that in a TRA with MBZ procedures instead of a controlled Class C environment, pilots have enough things to deal with that are very different to the norm without also altering the accustomed way of arriving and departing. Just flying the SID/STAR is one thing that is normal without having to add it to the list of things that are different in this situation. But at the end of the day it is up to the pilot on command/their company to determine what they will do.

[parishiltons]

Again, what is the legal difference?

The level of service provided is governed by the alphabet designator but it is still a clearance.
Again, no it's not a clearance. Clearances are only applicable where a level of air traffic control service is provided. There is none provided in this situation. If you have any doubt about the definition of 'Clearance' refer to AIP GEN 2.2 - 3. From a legal perspective, the pilot is given an approval to operate in the TRA. Whatever they do in the TRA is up to them and not subject to any air traffic control clearance. With MBZ procedures extant, it a pilot responsibility to separate themselves from other traffic, navigate and maintain terrain clearance on their own. There is no one else responsible. They're the legal differences.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

..... But at the end of the day it is up to the pilot on command/their company to determine what they will do.
Except it's not "the company" sitting in the front seats trying to work out who is where.

[Capn Bloggs]

Flightwatch definitely says "Jetstar 672 cleared to operate within the TRA", and to the 737 when it taxied.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

For info: NT MATS Supplement (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/mats/mats_supps/ats-proc-0005.pdf) Section 4.9 cleary says Flightwatch give authorization, not clearance. The RAAF chappies are overstepping a mite.

[morno]

Like I said, and Bloggs I don’t understand why you think it’s stupid, fly the SID’s/STAR’s and be a frigging pilot. It’s not hard to build a mental picture and if you really need to, spend 3 seconds bringing up the relevant chart (with own ship display, fancy that) to build even more of a picture. If it’s all getting too hard, then revert back to basics.

FFS, we’re talking about maybe 2-3 aircraft max :ugh:

If you can’t separate yourself from another aircraft in a CTAF using your head, maybe best you not be there.

43inches, why would you not use the VOR/DME for position as well? Plus it’s very easy to display a waypoint on your Nav Display with most modern aircraft if you really need to.

[43Inches]

Like I said, and Bloggs I don’t understand why you think it’s stupid, fly the SID’s/STAR’s and be a frigging pilot. It’s not hard to build a mental picture and if you really need to, spend 3 seconds bringing up the relevant chart (with own ship display, fancy that) to build even more of a picture. If it’s all getting too hard, then revert back to basics.

FFS, we’re talking about maybe 2-3 aircraft max :ugh:

If you can’t separate yourself from another aircraft in a CTAF using your head, maybe best you not be there.

43inches, why would you not use the VOR/DME for position as well? Plus it’s very easy to display a waypoint on your Nav Display with most modern aircraft if you really need to.

Again you are assuming the other aircraft have that capability when many aircraft operating to/from Darwin do not. However the two aircraft involved had all that and still managed to end up in an incident, so what does that say?

It all goes back to they lacked SA even with all the tools, regardless of whether they flew a SID/STAR or not. The SID/STAR just adds complication when theres no need. Are you really saying you need a STAR or SID to operate from a place that has no significant terrain? Maybe CASA realy needs to take a look at QF group pilots abilities...

[Global Aviator]

FFS, we’re talking about maybe 2-3 aircraft max :ugh:

If you can’t separate yourself from another aircraft in a CTAF using your head, maybe best you not be there.



Ok this maybe a little far fetched but……….

That JQ delayed from Sydney and Bali, throw in an SQ A380 diversion, Airmed coming back from Port Keats, another Airmed lining up to go and why not Atlas and the Antonov all coming in / out within 15 minutes.

Likely? Prob not, possible definitely. Haven’t read the NOTAM but could tower be quickly spun up in a scenario like this? A lot of Swiss cheese!

[morno]

Again you are assuming the other aircraft have that capability when many aircraft operating to/from Darwin do not. However the two aircraft involved had all that and still managed to end up in an incident, so what does that say?

It all goes back to they lacked SA even with all the tools, regardless of whether they flew a SID/STAR or not. The SID/STAR just adds complication when theres no need. Are you really saying you need a STAR or SID to operate from a place that has no significant terrain? Maybe CASA realy needs to take a look at QF group pilots abilities...

Middle of the night up there, I can safely say that MOST aircraft have that ability. Those Airmed King Airs are all glass and have the ability to do it. Any that can’t would be the exception.

However maybe you’re right, perhaps the offending aircrew do need the question asked. Or we could just get the bloody ATC back! I’m not saying that you need to use a SID/STAR, but there’s numerous scenarios where it’s the better choice.

Ok this maybe a little far fetched but……….

That JQ delayed from Sydney and Bali, throw in an SQ A380 diversion, Airmed coming back from Port Keats, another Airmed lining up to go and why not Atlas and the Antonov all coming in / out within 15 minutes.

Likely? Prob not, possible definitely. Haven’t read the NOTAM but could tower be quickly spun up in a scenario like this? A lot of Swiss cheese!

Entirely possible, but this is when people need to reassess and go back to basics.

However, in the most likely scenario, I don’t see how it couldn’t work.

[Capn Bloggs]

Why can’t they just be pilots and fly the SID/STAR most appropriate to them and separate themselves vertically?
I didn't say it was stupid, but...

Think about this scenario. The 737 stays on his SID, the A320 stays on his STAR, the 737 levels at say 5000ft, the A320 levels at 6000ft, and goes over the top of DRW at 6000ft! You cannot separate simply by altitude when on self-flown SIDs and STARs. It's a bit of a worry Morno you think otherwise.

And if you think I'm going to pull out my EFB, when I'm taxiing out, to see where the JQ A320 could be on his STAR, I've got news for you. Building a mental picture of a STAR when you're departing. Rediculous. Or I suppose I could get the FO to load in SYD-DRW in the secondary, load in the STAR the other jet was doing and look at it on the PLAN page. Yea right.

@43Inches is right. Radials, distance and vertical segregation, just like in a CTAF. KISS. I mean, all those pilots are CTAF experts (or should be). If you're worried about terrain and you can't work it out, fly your company special procedure/EOSID.

I'll bet all this nonsense has been caused by one thing: ASA are sh!t scared an international will come in and balls-up Class G/CTAF procedures, if they are even allowed into that type of airspace. So ASA/CASA make it a TRA and all responsibility is absolved.

[morno]

I didn't say it was stupid, but...

Think about this scenario. The 737 stays on his SID, the A320 stays on his STAR, the 737 levels at say 5000ft, the A320 levels at 6000ft, and goes over the top of DRW at 6000ft! You cannot separate simply by altitude when on self-flown SIDs and STARs. It's a bit of a worry Morno you think otherwise.

And if you think I'm going to pull out my EFB, when I'm taxiing out, to see where the JQ A320 could be on his STAR, I've got news for you. Building a mental picture of a STAR when you're departing. Rediculous. Or I suppose I could get the FO to load in SYD-DRW in the secondary, load in the STAR the other jet was doing and look at it on the PLAN page. Yea right.

@43Inches is right. Radials, distance and vertical segregation, just like in a CTAF. KISS. I mean, all those pilots are CTAF experts (or should be). If you're worried about terrain and you can't work it out, fly your company special procedure/EOSID.

I'll bet all this nonsense has been caused by one thing: ASA are sh!t scared an international will come in and balls-up Class G/CTAF procedures, if they are even allowed into that type of airspace. So ASA/CASA make it a TRA and all responsibility is absolved.

So in one sentence you’re telling me to only use a distance, radial and altitude, and then you’re telling me to fly my company EOSID? How is the other guy supposed to know what that is?

And you don’t have your EFB out and open when you fly?

There is plenty of safe ways to fly using SID’s and STAR’s without ATC intervention, and a bit of thought process can go a long way. The altitude restrictions on some of those SID’s certainly aren’t there for terrain, so why not just use the SID for tracking and ensure you’re well seperated vertically before you get anywhere near old mate arriving from the south?

You’re just making it more complicated than it need be. And yes I know the irony in that sentence

[Capn Bloggs]

and then you’re telling me to fly my company EOSID? How is the other guy supposed to know what that is?
Oh for goodness sake, if you're doing something non-standard such as turning left at DER for terrain then you broadcast it.

​​​​​​​And you don’t have your EFB out and open when you fly?
When I'm taxiing out, NO! Are you seriously suggesting I pull out my ipad, call up the whoop whoop STAR, and use my own-ship to keep myself clear??

​​​​​​​The altitude restrictions on some of those SID’s certainly aren’t there for terrain, so why not just use the SID for tracking and ensure you’re well seperated vertically before you get anywhere near old mate arriving from the south?
Seriously? They're using different runways. As explained previously, that doesn't work.

​​​​​​​You’re just making it more complicated than it need be.
No, you are.

[morno]

Opposite runways, of course it’s not going to work :ugh::rolleyes:. Why on earth would I be doing that when they’re using the opposite runway :hmm:

So how do you display your charts? You don’t have an EFB holder in the cockpit? :bored:

[Phil Errup]

Jeeez what an absolute flogg fest this has turned into.

How about this -

1. Provide the control service it’s MEANT to have!!! It’s a fugging international airport, with a LARGE amount of movements between 11pm and 2am

2. If they SOOO desperately can’t provide the control, how about everyone use the same bloody runway instead of being spastics and trying to attempt RRO.

It’s definitely not the first incident in Darwin since this s#*% fight was created, and it won’t be the last.

[parishiltons]

Again you are assuming the other aircraft have that capability when many aircraft operating to/from Darwin do not. However the two aircraft involved had all that and still managed to end up in an incident, so what does that say?

It all goes back to they lacked SA even with all the tools, regardless of whether they flew a SID/STAR or not. The SID/STAR just adds complication when theres no need. Are you really saying you need a STAR or SID to operate from a place that has no significant terrain? Maybe CASA realy needs to take a look at QF group pilots abilities...
:ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

If they SOOO desperately can’t provide the control, how about everyone use the same bloody runway instead of being spastics and trying to attempt RRO.
Why would you? The aim is making money (or not wasting it). Melb's that way, I'm not going to takeoff the other way (29) if I don't need to (esp when I have to go to 5 DME before turning. The 737 took the obvious choice, 11, because they didn't even know the 320 was coming until they (737) taxied. Maybe they should have waited at the 11 HP for 10+ minutes until the 320 landed and cleared, but in the end they went nowhere near each other.

[Phil Errup]

Why would you? The aim is making money (or not wasting it). Melb's that way, I'm not going to takeoff the other way (29) if I don't need to (esp when I have to go to 5 DME before turning. The 737 took the obvious choice, 11, because they didn't even know the 320 was coming until they (737) taxied. Maybe they should have waited at the 11 HP for 10+ minutes until the 320 landed and cleared, but in the end they went nowhere near each other.

If YOUR aim is “making money or not wasting it” as PIC of a commercial Jet at 1am in the morning in a unfamiliar pseudo CTAF environment, (never mind the other complexities that are often associated with Darwin) I hope I never end up in a cabin with you up the front.

[Capn Bloggs]

And looking at the charts, anybody who chose to fly a Palga SID heading to Melbourne in those conditions would be merely collecting overtime.

Did you understand anything I wrote, Phil? I hope you are speaking from experience here.

[Phil Errup]

And looking at the charts, anybody who chose to fly a Palga SID heading to Melbourne in those conditions would be merely collecting overtime.

Did you understand anything I wrote, Phil? I hope you are speaking from experience here.


If you’ve been in there enough to experience the absolute cluster **** that can result from your exact attitude, you’d know that coming around to land on RWY 11…..or holding to depart off RWY 29 is a TINY price (:yuk::yuk:) to pay.

over and out

[kitchen bench]

over and out


IF you’re a pilot and feel qualified to comment on operational matters, you’d also know it’s either “over” or “out” - not both.

[sunnySA]

The 737 took the obvious choice, 11, because they didn't even know the 320 was coming until they (737) taxied.
I've listened to an audio once ( I was going to type "the" audio ) but it could be incomplete, IDK. Anyways what I recall was the first call by the 737 was at pushback at which point Darwin Flightwatch advises of the inbound traffic to RWY 29, the second call by the 737 was rolling RWY 11.

[Lookleft]

The advice from my Company is to treat it like a CTAF when it comes to radio calls. The problem is that it is not a CTAF so there are no required calls other than letting Darwin Fllightwatch know you want to operate in the TRA. The 737 was not required to make any calls after the initial one but it would have been a good idea to have made something between pushback and rolling on 11. I only get paid for the flying my company schedules me to fly so if landing on 11 or taking off on 29 incurs extra track miles and fuel burn I RDGAF as I would rather stay out of everyone else's RA envelope. Airspace in Australia is rapidly turning into something akin to Africa with the only difference being I don't need armed guards to get me to the hotel, although the other night in Darwin there had been a stabbing outside my hotel's front door.

[Gentle_flyer]

Coming to this a bit late but…

Bloggs, like you I’ve listened and watched, audio via Live ATC and display by FR24, albeit at 12X (minimum on playback) Even made a little movie of it.

Hmmm, dog’s breakfast that and all, cat’s vomit and also in rodent droppings as well. Not sure the “breakfast” comment refers to the incident or the 5 pages of bulls$#t, stupid, irrelevant and occasionally intelligent, logical factual posts.

To start with the posted copy of the NOTAM seems to indicate at the bottom this TRA is happening for a couple of months, not just a one off with a RAAF controller having a shandy in the Darwin officers mess a couple of hours before the start of duty. Guess I’ll have a listen tonight to confirm.

With regard to alleged / rumoured TCAS, if what I observed n FR24 is correct if I got a TA or RA involving QFA839/JST672 I’d be faulting the equipment. Wouldn’t even have triggered a STCA in ATC land, Shirley… They never got within cooee of each other either in a vertical/lateral context. QANTAS asked JETSTAR did he want to play verticals. JETSTAR replied keep climbing. When QANTAS out of A080 on climb before going to BN Centre QANTAS checked JETSTAR‘S altitude and he was out of A060 on descent…and after a quick goodnight the tapes were silent.

So my click bait headlines QANTAS and JETSTAR try SODPROPS at Darwin in a TRA with only one runway will be saved for another time…

The ghost controller P. Rovidence smiled on aviation again. Had QANTAS pushed backed 2 mis later and JETSTAR inbound 1 or 2 mins earlier then it may have been more instructional to have a listen on how the professionals do it!

Just still not sure why QANTAS did a large left turn towards North East in the middle of it all.

Hope I’m still alive in 3 years when ATSB explains that and why and who submitted the occurrence to them in the first place.

[sunnySA]

Hope I’m still alive in 3 years when ATSB explains that and why and who submitted the occurrence to them in the first place.

My thinks ATSB will not proceed with the investigation, and not sure who submitted the report in the first instance. I fail to see how (and perhaps ATSB will confirm) the occurrence meets the criterion for Immediately Reportable or Routine Reportable matters. It probably fits "Other separation issues" where aircraft separation is a concern but does not meet the definition of near collision, and includes separation issues inside and outside controlled airspace.

Darwin Noise Abatement Procedures includes the following
PREFERRED RUNWAYS
LANDING Runway 29 for arrival tracks within the sector 021 through SOUTH to 199
TAKE-OFF Runway 11 for departure tracks within the sector 021 through SOUTH to 199
Jetstar is arriving from the south, Qantas is departing to the south. Both aircraft are compliant with Noise Abatement Procedures.

Unless cleared via SID*, all JET and TURBOPROP aircraft above 25,000KG are to maintain runway heading until 2000ft and 7 DME (GPS) off RWY 11 between 1230 and 2030. UTC So that deals with that discussion about 7 DME. *Cleared by SID, cleared by whom one might ask?

The NOTAM statesTCAS AND TRANSPONDER EQPT MUST BE SELECTED ON AT ALL TIMES.
Given TCAS was designed to operate as a last-resort safety net, when did TCAS switch to being a primary defence?

I think it's appalling that RAAF staffing is such that Darwin ATC isn't providing a service nightly between 1230 and 2030 for nearly 2 months. Seriously, how can this be the case? Have the ATCs been allocated to another location, overseas deployment or OneSky testing or training?

Hopefully ATSB will be able to find a definition for FLIGHTWATCH as AIP has no definition of FLIGHWATCH; and determine what is meant by FLIGHT INFORMATION AND SAR SERVICE as once again these terms aren't clear, especially when dealing with a TRA.

[werbil]

I think it's appalling that RAAF staffing is such that Darwin ATC isn't providing a service nightly between 1230 and 2030 for nearly 2 months.

NIght TIBA started near the beginning of COVID, and if there's been a middle of the night ATC service since then it's only been for relaively short periods of time. So that'd be about three years.

[Gentle_flyer]

Sunny SA…Re TCAS…

so the following questions arise to clarify your query further…

a/. Would an aircraft not equipped with TCAS get approval to operate in the TRA?

b/. Would an RPT jet with unserviceable TCAS get approval to operate in the TRA?

And finally the control questions…

c/. Can an RPT jet with unserviceable TCAS fly from YMML to YSSY wholly contained in A/C airspace with no TRA/TIBA?

d/. Can an RPT jet with unserviceable TCAS fly from YSSY to YMIA where last segment is Class E/G airspace and CTAF?

Some interesting things arose in AsA after Uberlingen,

TCAS was not supposed to be used in target level of safety determination, only resultant level of safety determination ie a true airborne safety net akin to the STCA in the ground based system. One could be forgiven if it appears the distinction is somewhat blurred?

Mind you, senior executive management and the board after Uberlingen were supposedly assured that a controller in OZ would never resolve compromised separation by a level change. Yeah right, good luck with that!

When we start using safety nets to mitigate staffing issues / traffic levels or just basic air traffic control then the threads don’t save anyone from the high wire act, no matter how easy it looks when done by professionals… and we might as well be in Africa!

Isn’t there a company called Landbridge that already does leasing work in Darwin, maybe they would help out with a contract doing the ATC night shift in Darwin?

I am pretty sure China uses similar ATC equipment.

Maybe just the script of another Utopia episode…

Sigh!

[missy]

NIght TIBA started near the beginning of COVID, and if there's been a middle of the night ATC service since then it's only been for relaively short periods of time. So that'd be about three years.
I understand that COVID or short term unexpected absences could reduce services to TIBA but 3 years. Time for SERCO, NATS, Airways Intentional or Acme Corporation.

[missy]

I think it's appalling that RAAF staffing is such that Darwin ATC isn't providing a service nightly between 1230 and 2030 for nearly 2 months. Seriously, how can this be the case? Have the ATCs been allocated to another location, overseas deployment or OneSky testing or training?

Perhaps RAAF resources have been diverted to this project Deployable Air Traffic Solutions (https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/04/19/australia-deployable-air-traffic-indra/)

Perhaps 452 Squadron isn't operating with a full complement of personnel.

[jetstar1]

Without meaning to downplay the seriousness of the issue… if I recall correctly, the nighttime closure/TRA has ‘only’ been going since July 2022.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Classic normalisation of deviance?

[dr dre]

Perhaps RAAF resources have been diverted to this project Deployable Air Traffic Solutions (https://www.thedefensepost.com/2023/04/19/australia-deployable-air-traffic-indra/)

Perhaps 452 Squadron isn't operating with a full complement of personnel.

Well they should relinquish providing control services at a mostly civilian airport then.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Except that it was a military airport first, and always has been. Maybe the Civvies should move to a civil airport if they are that concerned with the way it's run...........Oh wait.

[missy]

Classic normalisation of deviance?
Agreed.

[missy]

Except that it was a military airport first, and always has been.
Yes and no. DCA took over air traffic control responsibility at Darwin's military aerodrome from the RAAF when civil operations moved there during the 1950's (from the nearby Parap Aerodrome).
DCA (http:// airwaysmuseum.com/DN%20TWR%20no2%2050s.htm).

[Lead Balloon]

And….

It’s either Commonwealth owned or it’s … Commonwealth owned.

Playing pass-the-risk-parcel between Commonwealth entities for risks in Commonwealth airspace and on Commonwealth-owned airports is so very Australian.

[dr dre]

Except that it was a military airport first, and always has been. Maybe the Civvies should move to a civil airport if they are that concerned with the way it's run...........Oh wait.

96% (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/airport-movements-2023-Financial-Year-Totals-As-at-FEB-2023.pdf) of movements at YPDN are non-military. I’m sure they’d cope with an Airservices tower. Whilst AA may have issues in enroute centres at least they can keep their 24/7 towers actually open 24/7.

If they won’t relinquish control then drop the ongoing Restricted Area nonsense and declare it a permanent CTAF after hours.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Yes and no. DCA took over air traffic control responsibility at Darwin's military aerodrome from the RAAF when civil operations moved there during the 1950's (from the nearby Parap Aerodrome).
DCA (http:// airwaysmuseum.com/DN%20TWR%20no2%2050s.htm).
But still always RAAF Darwin. DCA only did TWR ATC mid 50's-1965.

[maggot]

96% (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/airport-movements-2023-Financial-Year-Totals-As-at-FEB-2023.pdf) of movements at YPDN are non-military. I’m sure they’d cope with an Airservices tower. Whilst AA may have issues in enroute centres at least they can keep their 24/7 towers actually open 24/7.

If they won’t relinquish control then drop the ongoing Restricted Area nonsense and declare it a permanent CTAF after hours.

Yes please, one or the other

Control services or completely GTFO and have a pure ctaf not this half baked BS

[Gentle_flyer]

And if `YPDN was a CTAF at night between 1230 and 2030 who would you like to provide the IFR traffic info, etc?

RAAF DN or BN Centre?

and what service would that be?

- like MNG CTAF,
- Ballina.SFIS
- like RAAF Darwin Flightwatch as per TRA
- None of the above…feel free to nominate service desired

[Capn Bloggs]

GF, either RAAF DN or BN Centre, however BN CTR would be preferable given the poor standard of Flight Information Service+DTI provided by the RAAFie (assuming she was RAAF) on the night in question.

The service would be the same as that provided at hundreds of other standard Class G+ plus CTAFs we have in Aus.

But as I said before, I suspect that Internationals can't/won't operate into Class G/CTAFs (International JQ was inbound just after this non-event) so the powers that be had to come up with something else (that ended up being more convoluted).

[Angle of Attack]

Oztronauts can whinge all they like here but the fact was it’s F,ing Class G, there is no f’ing separation requirements, so it’s a non issue, ATSB should not be investigating loss of separation as it was Class G, unless there was a TCAS event. It is that simple….

[sunnySA]

Oztronauts can whinge all they like here but the fact was it’s F,ing Class G, there is no f’ing separation requirements, so it’s a non issue, ATSB should not be investigating loss of separation as it was Class G, unless there was a TCAS event. It is that simple….
Except it isn't G.

[Angle of Attack]

What the hell is it then? You get a clearance to enter uncontrolled airspace, that’s pretty much G in my mind.

[Lead Balloon]

sunnySA is correct. It’s not G. It’s a Romeo.

Since when did anyone need an ‘approval’ or ‘authority’ or the ‘c’ word to enter class G? I’ve heard the ‘c’ word used when an aircraft is going to temporarily leave G then return to controlled airspace, but never to merely enter G. Who is required to be equipped with TCAS in G?

There are plenty of places that are advertised as being G outside TWR HRS. This isn’t one of those places.

Your question: “What the hell is it then?”, points up part of the problem, albeit inadvertently I suspect.

[Capn Bloggs]

Oztronauts can whinge all they like
Oztronauts got nothing to do with it. We're the ones complaining about the messed-up setup. If we Ozstranauts were in charge we wouldn't be having this discussion. I strongly suspect the perpetrator of this "catastrophe" will have egg on their face when the performance of "Flightwatch" is analysed.

[missy]

...when the performance of "Flightwatch" is analysed.
Interesting, what is the performance "standard"?

I've listened to 30 minutes or so around the "occurrence" and then another 30 minutes from a couple of nights later, and the R/T of FLIGHTWATCH is very different, as is the R/T of a number of the flight crew.

If we applied LOSA and NOSS to TRA operations (impossible I know), then I'm sure we'd discover vast differences in the way individual pilots, and Flightwatchers operate.
LOSA (https://skybrary.aero/articles/line-operations-safety-audit-losa)
NOSS (https://skybrary.aero/articles/normal-operations-safety-survey-noss)

LOSA and NOSS are both based on the Threat and Error Management (TEM) framework.
What are the threats? What are the errors?
Has an Australian airline conducted LOSA on the flight into DRW? Has RAAF (or AsA) conducted NOSS for airspaces operating TIBA?

[Capn Bloggs]

Interesting, what is the performance "standard"?
The ICAO "Flight Information Service", as stated in the NOTAM. Plus DTI?

I've listened to 30 minutes or so around the "occurrence" and then another 30 minutes from a couple of nights later, and the R/T of FLIGHTWATCH is very different
Maybe somebody had a re-think. ;)

I doubt that LOSA would apply here; I understand LOSA is more of a systemic assessment of the overall operation of a company, not a individual incident investigation. That said, it should have been risk-assessed and procedures published (as Iccy has mentioned).

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

What are the standards used by RAAF Flightwatch? There's no such thing in the civil sphere anymore.

[missy]

The ICAO "Flight Information Service", as stated in the NOTAM. Plus DTI?
FIS (https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/flight-information-service)
Flight Information service is a service provided for the purpose of giving advice and information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of flights.
(ICAO Annex 11: Air Traffic Services)
A flight information service may be provided on its own or in conjunction with an air traffic control service.

Flight information service includes the provision of pertinent:
-SIGMET and AIRMET information;
-Information concerning pre-eruption volcanic activity, volcanic eruptions and volcanic ash clouds;
-Information concerning the release into the atmosphere of radioactive materials or toxic chemicals;
-Information on changes in the serviceability of navigation aids;
-Information on changes in condition of aerodromes and associated facilities, including information on the state of the aerodrome movement areas when they are affected by snow, ice or significant depth of water;
-Information on unmanned free balloons; and,
-Any other information likely to affect safety.

as well as information concerning:
-Weather conditions reported or forecast at departure, destination and alternate aerodromes;
-Collision hazards, to aircraft operating in airspace Classes C, D, E, F and G;
-For flight over water areas, in so far as practicable and when requested by a pilot, any available information such as radio call sign, position, true track, speed, etc., of surface vessels in the area.

So, the relevant ones appear to be "in conjunction with an air traffic control service, "any other information likely to affect safety" and "collision hazards, to aircraft operating in airspace Classes C, D, E, F and G".

I'm not sure we (collective we) have established the class of airspace, G plus TCAS?

Maybe somebody had a re-think. ;)
More likely the individual differences in technique, experience, interpretation, projection, prioritisation, judgement.

I doubt that LOSA would apply here; I understand LOSA is more of a systemic assessment of the overall operation of a company, not an individual incident investigation.
Fair point. Perhaps it's an issue for CASA, or DASA.

DASA (https://defence.gov.au/DASP/)
But DASA is responsible for enhancing and promoting the safety of military aviation. This is achieved through a Defence Aviation Safety Program (DASP), which supports compliance with statutory safety obligations and assures the effective management of aviation-safety risks. (my bolding)

That said, it should have been risk-assessed and procedures published (as Iccy has mentioned).
Agreed. TRA, SID/STAR, NAP, RRO. What could go wrong? The latter two are certainly based on normal operations with ATC providing a control service. Given the majority of the traffic appears to be to/from the south then 29 only operations would provide more opportunities for profile separation segregation.

[Capn Bloggs]

"Mr Hart, What a mess!". :{

[Gentle_flyer]

Stainmaster used re Mr Hart….

Bloggs?/Lead Balloon / anyone.

I love asking dumb questions on a Sunday morning….but usually they elicit fascinating answers…

Assuming we are in Romeo airspace ie YPDN and not G with a CTAF (yet) where does it say pilots will be given DTI (as well as themselves making broadcasts as per AIP ENR 1.1 SECTION 12 MBZ)? Listening to many nights of LiveATC we seem to be in a version of Ballina SFIS with surveillance down to ground and a physical tower at location to “assist” further. Or is it assumed as part of FLIGHT INFORMATION as per NOTAM…

and yes I have a life…downloading the 30 min files as .mp3(s) it’s easy to jump to where the frequency is live…quite handy when listening to “voice tapes”…

[Roller Merlin]

Flew in there the other evening - 3 am Eastern time so we really all should be in bed, but no here we are with six jets all arriving or departing or pushing back and trying to establish what the others are going to do. It’s great that we all have a single frequency to talk on so the radio is going constantly while we are dodging a buildup, configuring the jet, calling checklists over the constant chatter and making sure we are safe to land at a frikin uncontrolled international airport in crap weather with perhaps 1000 souls involved blissfully unaware of the situation and that their government wants to blame the PIC if they are placed at risk. Yeah right.

[Capn Bloggs]

I love asking dumb questions on a Sunday morning….but usually they elicit fascinating answers…

Assuming we are in Romeo airspace ie YPDN and not G with a CTAF (yet) where does it say pilots will be given DTI (as well as themselves making broadcasts as per AIP ENR 1.1 SECTION 12 MBZ)?
Good questions that I don't have the answer for.

​​​​​​​Roller, I hope your Safety department knows about it by now.

[ozbiggles]

Maybe the real issue here is RPT scheduling ops at o dark early into an aerodrome at o dark hours in the morning. I for one love airports with curfew. Even crewing can’t get you then.

[Gentle_flyer]

Bloggs, no problem, thank you for your honesty, obviously neither do I.

Roller, agree it Bollicks! I’ll be looking at FR24 for all evenings in April already so might work out the night and then get the comms for interest. Then again 0300 most nights might be as bad

Only in Australia! There’s a perfectly good radar at facilitating surveillance within 45 nm YPDN and we are not using it; instead imposing ridiculous extra workloads / distractions on pilots. I’m sure the Darwin Flightwatch staff ain’t exactly happy watching this farce either.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I’m sure the Darwin Flightwatch staff ain’t exactly happy watching this farce either.
I'd have a guess they're the same people not providing the ATC service.

[Gentle_flyer]

TIEW, yep I was guessing the same, hence my comment. As a controller I’d be feeling the same…

[Gentle_flyer]

Does anyone in BN Centre know if the TAAATS Eurocat Safety Net data, configuration and selections such as STCA have been modified so the Short Term Conflict Alert relevant to Darwin Approach will be displayed to the relevant overlying sectors in BN Centre?

[missy]

I'd have a guess they're the same people not providing the ATC service.
AsA have published procedures for Tower available, Approach not available. The decision by the RAAF to operate FLIGHTWATCH appears to be a conscious decision, the risk assessment would be an interesting document.

Having listened to a couple of 30 minute audios (different nights), if the Tower was operating at the least the traffic on the manoeuvring area would be controlled, and therefore one less thing for the aircrew to manage. As Roller Merlin said "It's bollocks".

[Pastor of Muppets]

Go sick. Go sick and go sick.
Make the same people sending us there fix this pile of **** before someone gets hurt.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

From the ASA NT MATS Supplement:
When ATS are not available at Darwin due to operational restrictions, apply the following procedures.
a) AFIS procedures apply within the DN Temporary Restricted Airspace (TRA) within 40NM A085 and below. Darwin Flightwatch will be provided – frequency 133.1MHz......
The NOTAM doesn't say AFIS procedures apply, it just says Flight information and SAR will be provided. What are AFIS procedures these days?
[Creaky voice] Back in my day, AFIS and FIS were two different levels of service. You needed a separate rating to provide AFIS.[/Creaky voice off] Which is Flightwatch providing as opposed to what they are supposed to be providing?

[Chronic Snoozer]

A large swathe of SW airspace outside Perth was also turned into TRA recently, in the wee hours of the day. “Authorisation” for entry required and TIBA procedures applied, all levels. The aviation equivalent of supermarket self-checkouts.

[Gentle_flyer]

Chronic, classic idea! “Are you using you own radar?” Etc etc…

Do you think you could tell the difference between a REAL controller and a GPT4 chat bot located inside a Mumbai computer “call centre”.

Then AsA really could have the second best control system in the world! Oh hang on where’s that United pilot?

[tossbag]

Flew in there the other evening - 3 am Eastern time so we really all should be in bed, but no here we are with six jets all arriving or departing or pushing back and trying to establish what the others are going to do.

I can't understand 1. how the airlines are allowing this, and 2. why your pilot unions are allowing this? Sorry, I know why the unions are, they're gutless and weak.

[Lookleft]

I can't understand 1. how the airlines are allowing this, and 2. why your pilot unions are allowing this? Sorry, I know why the unions are, they're gutless and weak.

So you answered your own question regarding the unions, clearly you are not a fan and don't understand the limitations of the unions in the current industrial environment, yet you can't understand why the airlines are allowing this. I would suggest that your answer to the second group applies to the Flight Departments of the first. Airlines have more capacity to deal with this than the unions.

[tossbag]

current industrial climate..........cop out.

If 1 doesn't do something about it 2 must.

[aussieflyboy]

Quick phone call to Nine News Darwin and they’ll happily air an interview with a rep from the pilot union saying Pilots are concerned about what is occurring every night at Darwin International Airport.

Follow it up with a front page article in the NT Times “Croc could have near miss with landing Jet due lack of Air Traffic Control”

[Lookleft]

Really? Unless aircraft actually hit each other then the general public could not care less.

current industrial climate..........cop out.

Rightio then, when was the last time there was successful pilot industrial action taken?

[missy]

From the ASA NT MATS Supplement:
When ATS are not available at Darwin due to operational restrictions, apply the following procedures.
a) AFIS procedures apply within the DN Temporary Restricted Airspace (TRA) within 40NM A085 and below. Darwin Flightwatch will be provided – frequency 133.1MHz......

Applied by whom? RAAF, AsA?


The NOTAM doesn't say AFIS procedures apply, it just says Flight information and SAR (Service) will be provided.

Flight information service includes the provision of pertinent:
-SIGMET and AIRMET information;
-Information concerning pre-eruption volcanic activity, volcanic eruptions and volcanic ash clouds;
-Information concerning the release into the atmosphere of radioactive materials or toxic chemicals;
-Information on changes in the serviceability of navigation aids;
-Information on changes in condition of aerodromes and associated facilities, including information on the state of the aerodrome movement areas when they are affected by snow, ice or significant depth of water;
-Information on unmanned free balloons; and,
-Any other information likely to affect safety.

as well as information concerning:
-Weather conditions reported or forecast at departure, destination and alternate aerodromes;
-Collision hazards, to aircraft operating in airspace Classes C, D, E, F and G;
-For flight over water areas, in so far as practicable and when requested by a pilot, any available information such as radio call sign, position, true track, speed, etc., of surface vessels in the area.

From Skylibrary SAR (https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/search-and-rescue-sar)
Search and rescue service. The performance of distress monitoring, communication, coordination and search and rescue functions, initial medical assistance or medical evacuation, through the use of public and private resources, including cooperating aircraft, vessels and other craft and installations.

So what exactly is this SAR Service being provided - is it a SARTIME?

I'm interested to know what information DN FLIGHTWATCH has on each aircraft. Are they receiving flight plan information? Is BN CENTRE providing specific coordination on each inbound aircraft? What surveillance tools do they have and what limitations apply (acting as FLIGHTWATCHer versus operating as a licensed and qualified Tower ATC)? If BN CENTRE is issuing a SSR Code for IFR Departures then how does FLIGHTWATCH know the code/callsign, or do they assume? On the night of the "occurrence", on what basis did FLIGHTWATCH query the tracking of VXH?

Seems to be a major disconnect between what the documents say (NOTAM, AsA NT MATS Supplement), what "service" pilots are expecting in the TRA and potentially what FLIGHTWATCH is actually doing (or not doing). Get 6 ATCs in the room and there are likely to be 7 different opinions. Then factor in individual differences in technique, experience, interpretation, projection, prioritisation, judgement, what could go wrong?

And to digress, from the NOTAM
AUTHORISATION TO ENTER THIS TEMPO RESTRICTED AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CLEARANCE TO ENTER ANY ADJ OR EMBEDDED RESTRICTED AREAS.

Which specific Restricted Areas does this apply to? And how would a pilot obtain a clearance to enter these adjacent or embedded Restricted Areas? Controlling Authority is FLTCDR (Flight Commander?) 452SQN DARWIN? Given 452 Squadron is a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) air traffic control unit, and ATC SER NOT AVBL, then how does this happen?
According to Wikipedia "FLTCDR" doesn't exist! RAAF Ranks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_of_the_Royal_Australian_Air_Force). Perhaps this FLTCDR is the same person who authorised the TRA, and the very same person who will assist ATSB with their investigation into the "occurrence".

[dejapoo]

As I heard the other week… “gotchya on Flight Radar”

[tossbag]

Rightio then, when was the last time there was successful pilot industrial action taken?
2021
2022
2023

​​​​​​​In the US, where pilot unions have nuts.

[Lookleft]

Apologies tossbag I mistook you for someone who was relevant to the discussion.

[MickG0105]

...
According to Wikipedia "FLTCDR" doesn't exist! RAAF Ranks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_of_the_Royal_Australian_Air_Force).
Flight Commander (FLTCDR) is not a rank, it is a position title. 452 Squadron is made up of a number of Flights (one each for Darwin, Tindal, Townsville and Oakey), each Flight is headed up by a FLTCDR.

[tossbag]

Apologies tossbag I mistook you for someone who was relevant to the discussion.

That's a mighty comeback lefty, took me a few days and I still can't come up with anything.....................:ok:​​​​​​​

[Lookleft]

All good tossbag, it took me a few days to think of it! Glad you enjoyed it. Nice to to see some sportsmanship on pprune. Keep the blue side up.

[missy]

Perhaps this FLTCDR is the same person who authorised the TRA, and the very same person who will assist ATSB with their investigation into the "occurrence".

My bad. Perhaps this FLTCDR is the same person position who authorised the TRA, and the very same person position who will assist ATSB with their investigation into the "occurrence".

[Capn Bloggs]

Was the FLTCDR a WGCDR? :E

[MickG0105]

Was the FLTCDR a WGCDR? :E
The FLTCDR would be a SQNLDR.

[Gne]

Bloggs,

How soon you forget: Flights are commanded by SQNLDRs, Squadrons by WGCDRs and Wings by GPCAPTs.

Gne

[Lookleft]

And ATC is commanded by Oompaloompas.

[missy]

B18/23
ATS SUBJECT TO CONTINGENCY DUE TO OPR RESTRICTIONS
AD CTL SER NOT AVBL. AERODROME FLIGHT INFORMATION AND SAR SERVICE
PROVIDED BY DARWIN FLIGHTWATCH ON 133.1MHZ.

PRIOR TO OPERATING ON THE MANOEUVRING AREA OPERATORS MUST CONTACT
DARWIN FLIGHTWATCH BY TEL ON 618 7929 4816 OR ON FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR
ACCESS AUTHORITY TO THE AD AND ASSOCIATED TRA. SEPARATE YBBB NOTAM
REFERS

MANDATORY BROADCAST PROCEDURES DETAILED IN AIP ENR 1.1 SECTION 12
APPLY ON 133.1MHZ. DEP IFR ACFT CTC BN CEN 118.15MHZ WITH TAXI CALL.
TCAS AND TRANSPONDER EQPT MUST BE SELECTED ON AT ALL TIMES.

PILOTS-IN-COMMAND AND AD OPERATORS ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
COLLISION AVOIDANCE ON THE AD.

AD WX INFO AVBL ON ATIS FREQ 128.25MHZ. AD FREQ RESPONSE UNIT (AFRU)
AVBL ON FREQ 133.1MHZ. FIRE AND RESCUE WILL MNT FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR
ACFT REQUIRING EMERG SERVICES AND CAN BE CONTACTED BY TEL ON 618 8920
4810.
FROM 05 221230 TO 08 182030
DAILY 1230/2030
Extended by 3 months.

[Gentle_flyer]

Wot’s the problem? No one has died…yet.

And even if they did, nothing would change…

MNG proves that, why have air traffic control at all in Australia?

Cancel OneSky, nothing new anyway… after 15 years of planning nothing.!!

Just put in AI and a call centre in Bangalore…

Hey, it might upset the frogs…but this could be the crowning glory for Albo and his relationship with Modi, … bewdiful

[Global Aviator]

Was it a TIBA the other night when the SQ A380 dropped in?

Must admit haven’t read up on what the procedures actually call for as I don’t fly down this way. Does it become like a CTAF with no clear to land etc? Yes very basic question!

I know it shouldn’t effect professional pilots but a crew used to controlled airspace 99.99% of the time it would become interesting.

[PoppaJo]

Was it a TIBA the other night when the SQ A380 dropped in?


I would be interested to hear an answer to that.

I have seen in the past, when something similar happens, ATC suddenly appear and provide a normal service to the said international movement.

[Global Aviator]

The answer is -

Controllers stayed on duty for the 380.

🤷🏽‍♂️

[Gentle_flyer]

Well, if it wan’t such a big farce before it is now.

Australian Aviation is having the piss taken out of it by the RAAF and CASA….

And we just let it happen …. Says a lot about the real Australia …

Just give the contract to Landbridge!

[missy]

B19/23 REVIEW B18/23
ATS SUBJECT TO CONTINGENCY DUE TO OPR RESTRICTIONS
AD CTL SER NOT AVBL. AERODROME FLIGHT INFORMATION AND SAR SERVICE
PROVIDED BY DARWIN FLIGHTWATCH ON 133.1MHZ.

PRIOR TO OPERATING ON THE MANOEUVRING AREA OPERATORS MUST CONTACT
DARWIN FLIGHTWATCH BY TEL ON 618 7929 4816 OR ON FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR
ACCESS AUTHORITY TO THE AD AND ASSOCIATED TRA. SEPARATE YBBB NOTAM REFERS

MANDATORY BROADCAST PROCEDURES DETAILED IN AIP ENR 1.1 SECTION 12
APPLY ON 133.1MHZ. DEP IFR ACFT CTC BN CEN 118.15MHZ WITH TAXI CALL.
TCAS AND TRANSPONDER EQPT MUST BE SELECTED ON AT ALL TIMES.

PILOTS-IN-COMMAND AND AD OPERATORS ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
COLLISION AVOIDANCE ON THE AD.

AD WX INFO AVBL ON ATIS FREQ 128.25MHZ. AD FREQ RESPONSE UNIT (AFRU)
AVBL ON FREQ 133.1MHZ. FIRE AND RESCUE WILL MNT FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR
ACFT REQUIRING EMERG SERVICES AND CAN BE CONTACTED BY
TEL ON 618 8920 4810.
FROM 06 070352 TO 06 141600
DAILY 1230/2030

ATIS YPDN Z 081232
TEMPO RESTRICTED AREA ACT 8500FT AND BELOW
ATS NOT AVBL
MBZ PROC APPLY WITHIN TEMPO RESTRICTED AREA ON FREQ 133.1
DARWIN FLIGHTWATCH AND AFRU AVBL ON FREQ 133.1
PREFERRED RWY 11
INFO AVBL ON NOTAM B0018/23

Seems like DN ATC are living in the past!

[sunnySA]

Seems like DN ATC are living in the past!
Seems like some good news, a reduction in the duration of the NOTAM, from August 182030 to June 141600.

[Lead Balloon]

Maybe it's June 2024... :E

[sunnySA]

Maybe it's June 2024... :E
Perhaps someone has returned from a secondment, or extended sick leave, or someone has been or will be endorsed.
Mind you the 1600 UTC timing is interesting. The middle of a night shift, very odd. Perhaps there is a planned VIP arrival? Defence moves in mysteriously ways.

[missy]

Seems like some good news, a reduction in the duration of the NOTAM, from August 182030 to June 141600.

Seems the NOTAM was amended - AIRAC date on 15/6, 14/6 1600 UTC.
B20/23
ATS SUBJECT TO CONTINGENCY DUE TO OPR RESTRICTIONS
AD CTL SER NOT AVBL. AERODROME FLIGHT INFORMATION AND SAR SERVICE
PROVIDED BY DARWIN INFORMATION ON 133.1MHZ.

PRIOR TO OPERATING ON THE MANOEUVRING AREA OPERATORS MUST CONTACT
DARWIN INFORMATION BY TEL ON 618 7929 4816 OR ON FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR
ACCESS AUTHORITY TO THE AD AND ASSOCIATED TRA. SEPARATE YBBB NOTAM
REFERS

MANDATORY BROADCAST PROCEDURES DETAILED IN AIP ENR 1.1 SECTION 12
APPLY ON 133.1MHZ. DEP IFR ACFT CTC BN CEN 118.15MHZ WITH TAXI CALL.
TCAS AND TRANSPONDER EQPT MUST BE SELECTED ON AT ALL TIMES.

PILOTS-IN-COMMAND AND AD OPERATORS ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
COLLISION AVOIDANCE ON THE AD.

AD WX INFO AVBL ON ATIS FREQ 128.25MHZ. AD FREQ RESPONSE UNIT (AFRU)
AVBL ON FREQ 133.1MHZ. FIRE AND RESCUE WILL MNT FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR
ACFT REQUIRING EMERG SERVICES AND CAN BE CONTACTED BY
TEL ON 618 8920 4810.
FROM 06 141600 TO 09 132030
DAILY 1230/2030

End date now September, however I hear that a number of RAAF ATCs have resigned and will be starting with AsA...

[VHOED191006]

Investigation has been discontinued.

[PoppaJo]

I can’t find the bit in the report ‘The ATSB is becoming increasingly concerned around the use of CTAF and TRA procedures across large scale areas in Australian airspace, an urgent review is currently underway’

[VHOED191006]

I can’t find the bit in the report ‘The ATSB is becoming increasingly concerned around the use of CTAF and TRA procedures across large scale areas in Australian airspace, an urgent review is currently underway’
Nowhere to be seen indeed. The "will continue to monitor for any related occurrences that may indicate a need to undertake a further safety investigation" part of the notice is akin to the twaddle you hear when you're on hold with a company's call centre.

[dejapoo]

Nowhere to be seen indeed. The "will continue to monitor for any related occurrences that may indicate a need to undertake a further safety investigation" part of the notice is akin to the twaddle you hear when you're on hold with a company's call centre.

Why would they? That separation looked fine by me. Just another day flying a jet in a ctaf? Surely safer than having Darwin ATC involved? Third world Oztralia yeah? Any clown flying with wifi who doesn't pay $60 / year for Flight Radar is mental.

[sunnySA]

B20/23
ATS SUBJECT TO CONTINGENCY DUE TO OPR RESTRICTIONS
AD CTL SER NOT AVBL. AERODROME FLIGHT INFORMATION AND SAR SERVICE
PROVIDED BY DARWIN INFORMATION ON 133.1MHZ.

PRIOR TO OPERATING ON THE MANOEUVRING AREA OPERATORS MUST CONTACT
DARWIN INFORMATION BY TEL ON 618 7929 4816 OR ON FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR
ACCESS AUTHORITY TO THE AD AND ASSOCIATED TRA. SEPARATE YBBB NOTAM
REFERS

MANDATORY BROADCAST PROCEDURES DETAILED IN AIP ENR 1.1 SECTION 12
APPLY ON 133.1MHZ. DEP IFR ACFT CTC BN CEN 118.15MHZ WITH TAXI CALL.
TCAS AND TRANSPONDER EQPT MUST BE SELECTED ON AT ALL TIMES.

PILOTS-IN-COMMAND AND AD OPERATORS ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
COLLISION AVOIDANCE ON THE AD.

AD WX INFO AVBL ON ATIS FREQ 128.25MHZ. AD FREQ RESPONSE UNIT (AFRU)
AVBL ON FREQ 133.1MHZ. FIRE AND RESCUE WILL MNT FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR
ACFT REQUIRING EMERG SERVICES AND CAN BE CONTACTED BY
TEL ON 618 8920 4810.
FROM 06 141600 TO 09 132030
DAILY 1230/2030

C948/23 REVIEW C879/23
TEMPO RESTRICTED AREA ACT
IN CLASS C AIRSPACE INCLUDING CTR C. DESIGNATED AIRSPACE HANDBOOK
(DAH) SECTOR VOLUME NAMES AFFECTED ARE: 'DARWIN CONTROL ZONE' (C),
'DARWIN CTA C1', 'DARWIN CTA C2', 'DARWIN CTA C3', AND 'DARWIN CTA
C4' (NOT ABV A085).
ATS IN THIS AIRSPACE SUBJECT TO CONTINGENCY DUE TO OPR RESTRICTIONS.
ATC SER NOT AVBL IN CLASS C AIRSPACE. APPROACH AND AD CTL SER NOT
AVBL. FLIGHT INFORMATION AND SAR SERVICE WILL BE PROVIDED FROM SFC TO
8500FT AMSL BY DARWIN INFORMATION ON 133.1MHZ. FOR OPERATIONS ABOVE
A085 CTC BN CEN 129.85MHZ.
PRIOR TO OPERATING ON THE MANOEUVRING AREA OR IN THE TEMPO RESTRICTED
AREA PILOTS/OPERATORS MUST CONTACT DARWIN INFORMATION BY TEL ON 618
7929 4816 OR ON FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR ACCESS AUTHORITY. AUTHORISATION TO
ENTER THIS TEMPO RESTRICTED AREA DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CLEARANCE TO
ENTER ANY ADJ OR EMBEDDED RESTRICTED AREAS. THE CARRIAGE AND USE OF
TWO RADIOS IS REQUIRED FOR ENTRY TO THE TEMPO RESTRICTED AREA.
MANDATORY BROADCAST PROCEDURES DETAILED IN AIP ENR 1.1 SECTION 12
APPLY WI TEMPO RESTRICTED AREA ON 133.1MHZ. DEP IFR ACFT CTC BN CEN
118.15MHZ WITH TAXI CALL. TCAS AND TRANSPONDER EQPT MUST BE SELECTED
ON AT ALL TIMES.
PILOTS-IN-COMMAND ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR TERRAIN AND COLLISION
AVOIDANCE WITHIN THE AFFECTED AIRSPACE.
AD WX INFO AVBL ON ATIS FREQ 128.25MHZ. AD FREQ RESPONSE UNIT (AFRU)
AVBL ON FREQ 133.1MHZ. FIRE AND RESCUE WILL MNT FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR
ACFT REQUIRING EMERG SERVICES AND CAN BE CONTACTED BY TEL ON 618 8920
4810.
APRX AREA: CTA WI 40NM RADIUS OF YPDN
SFC TO 8500FT AMSL
FROM 06 182215 TO 09 112030
DAILY 1230/2030
ATSB are saying it's 2024, not September 11 (or 13th).

[sunnySA]

Darwin Airport, 5 months on and the cheese has more holes.

TIBA, Reduced runway length, ungrooved, weather
TAF AMD YPDN 061234Z 0612/0718
32005KT 9999 SCT020
FM061300 11005KT 9999 SCT020
FM070200 33012KT 9999 SCT025
FM071200 33005KT 9999 SCT020
TEMPO 0614/0617 VRB25G40KT 1000 THUNDERSTORMS WITH MODERATE RAIN
BKN010 SCT020CB
PROB30 TEMPO 0617/0618 VRB25G40KT 1000 THUNDERSTORMS WITH MODERATE
RAIN BKN010 SCT020CB
PROB30 TEMPO 0703/0709 VRB25G40KT 1000 THUNDERSTORMS WITH MODERATE
RAIN BKN010 SCT030CB
RMK
T 30 28 27 26 Q 1010 1009 1008 1010
TAF3

YPDN AD WRNG 3 VALID 061400/061700
AERODROME WARNING NUMBER 3 FOR DARWIN VALID 062330/070230 LOCAL
ISSUED 061236 (062206 LOCAL)
THUNDERSTORMS APPROACHING FROM THE EAST ARE EXPECTED TO AFFECT THE
AERODROME WITHIN VALIDITY PERIOD.

METAR YPDN 061230Z 01006KT 9999 FEW020 BKN350 30/25 Q1010 RMK
RF00.0/000.0 DL-E

ATIS YPDN Z 061230
TEMPO RESTRICTED AREA ACT 8500FT AND BELOW
ATS NOT AVBL
MBZ PROC APPLY WITHIN TEMPO RESTRICTED AREA ON FREQ 133.1
DARWIN INFORMATION AND AFRU AVBL ON FREQ 133.1
PREFERRED RWY 29 DTHR AS PER STAGE 1
INFO AVBL ON NOTAM B0029/23**

C802/23 REVIEW C765/23
THR RWY 29 DISPLACED 765M DUE WIP
RWY 11/29 OPR LEN REDUCED BY 705M EASTERN END
DISPLACED THR MARKED BY GREEN THR LGT EACH SIDE OF RWY HN AND
RWY THR IDENT LGT HJ, PILOT MNT
OBST 17FT AGL ON RWY 2889M FM START OF TORA RWY 11
DECLARED DISTANCE AND GRADIENT CHANGES
RWY TORA TODA ASDA LDA
11 2589(8494) 2649(8691)(2.0) 2589(8494) 2589(8494)
29 2649(8691) 2739(8987)(1.2) 2649(8691) 2589(8494)
SUPPLEMENTARY TKOF DISTANCES
RWY11- 2598(8524)(1.6) 2639(8658)(1.9)
LDA FOR LAND AND HOLD SHORT OPS (LAHSO) AMD DISTANCE WHEN RWY 29 THR
DISPLACED 765M - RWY 29 1922(6306)
GP INFRINGES APCH BY 11FT WHEN THR DISPLACED
RWY 29 TKOF TO COMMENCE AT RED LGT HN AND RED AND WHITE CONES HJ
RWY 29 PAPI NOT AVBL WHEN THR DISPLACED
RWY 29 TEMPO PAPI AVBL 3.0 DEG 61FT
RWY THR IDENT LGT AND TEMPO PAPI PILOT MNT
RWY 11 DIST TO RUN MARKERS NOT AVBL WHEN 29 THR DISPLACED
RWY 11 TWY B1, TWY B2, TWY E1, TWY E2, TWY C3 AND TWY C4 TKOF RUN
AVBL SIGNS NOT AVBL WHEN 29 THR DISPLACED
TWY A6 CLOSED
AVBL INST APCH PROCEDURES ARE LOC-T, VOR-T, NDB-T, RNP T, RNP Y, AND
RNP S
OTHER INST APCH PROCEDURES AVBL TO CIRCLING MINIMA ONLY
ADVISE DN APCH ON FIRST CTC OF APCH INTENTION
REFER METHOD OF WORKING PLAN YPDN 23/02 STAGE 1
FROM 12 060602 TO 12 130730

B43/23 REVIEW B42/23
ATS SUBJECT TO CONTINGENCY DUE TO OPR RESTRICTIONS
AD CTL SER NOT AVBL. AERODROME FLIGHT INFORMATION AND SAR SERVICE
PROVIDED BY DARWIN INFORMATION ON 133.1MHZ.

PRIOR TO OPERATING ON THE MANOEUVRING AREA OPERATORS MUST CONTACT
DARWIN INFORMATION BY TEL ON 618 7929 4816 OR ON FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR
ACCESS AUTHORITY TO THE AD AND ASSOCIATED TRA. SEPARATE YBBB NOTAM
REFERS

MANDATORY BROADCAST PROCEDURES DETAILED IN AIP ENR 1.1 SECTION 12
APPLY ON 133.1MHZ. DEP IFR ACFT CTC BN CEN 118.15MHZ WITH TAXI CALL.
TCAS AND TRANSPONDER EQPT MUST BE SELECTED ON AT ALL TIMES.

PILOTS-IN-COMMAND AND AD OPERATORS ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR
COLLISION AVOIDANCE ON THE AD. ACFT SHOULD DISPLAY ALL EXTERNAL
LIGHTING TO ASSIST WITH VISUAL IDENTIFICATION

AD WX INFO AVBL ON ATIS FREQ 128.25MHZ. AD FREQ RESPONSE UNIT (AFRU)
AVBL ON FREQ 133.1MHZ. FIRE AND RESCUE WILL MNT FREQ 133.1MHZ FOR
ACFT REQUIRING EMERG SERVICES AND CAN BE CONTACTED BY
TEL ON 618 8920 4810.
FROM 12 061230 TO 12 062030 EST

C785/23
RWY 11/29 SFC NOT TO STD (UNGROOVED SECTION)
PSN 500M WEST OF RWY 29 THR DISPLACEMENT, APRX 1265M FM RWY 29 THR
FROM 12 010634 TO 12 130830 EST

** there is no NOTAM B0029/23.