Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Direct Tracking Not Available

Old 2nd Sep 2003, 05:09
  #41 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 21
On the other hand...

Given that the intent of the instruction has been held within mandated procedures since Adam was a boy the current furore seems a little misplaced. Have the management of AsA felt the need to be seen to be doing something?

Yes there has been a review of Breakdown of Separation, and yes a common theme is aircraft on direct (call it amended if you want) tracking. The interesting thing would be to break it down and look at how in what proportion of incidents direct tracking was a CONTRIBUTORY factor. Lots more aircraft are availing themselves of improved navigation and airspace management tools available to ATC - therefore the proportion of aircraft tracking via other than ERC routes is higher. Ergo more of the aircraft involved in incidents will be tracking this way. We could also argue that breakdown of separation incidents are contributed to by aircraft using FMS. 20 years ago there were none.

Get the drift?
DickyBaby is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2003, 05:41
  #42 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Right on, DickyBaby

The problem with QA in general is that they will look for any hole in the swiss cheese (including mouse teeth marks...) - "but if this hadn't happened, then that wouldn't have happened" etc. etc. We could draw the conclusion that 99% of incidents occur to aircraft while airborne, therefore that is a contributory factor.

Often incidents simply occur because somebody makes a mistake. We have now gone to the other extreme where there is a need to spread the contributing factors to minimise the culpability on any one individual or organisation. Not to say that there isn't real value in identifying real contributory factors (e.g. the controller's attention was distracted from separating aircraft because he/she was concerned about the direct tracking policy and its implications on the overall traffic picture ) when they are there.

Buck passing if you ask me.
Blastoid is offline  
Old 2nd Sep 2003, 07:41
  #43 (permalink)  

Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457

Adelaide has SID/STAR separation of a sort to the East. The only reason to make an aircraft track via the SID is if there is somebody on the STAR. If direct tracking is banned the only reason we could take a flight inside the SID is if the SID track (which the flight does not have to be on) conflicts with non-STAR traffic. Giant leap forward.

The track GTH UVUPU WHA ABTOD goes where it does for two reasons, to avoid R265 and for practical separation with AD WHA WR. If the radar is working and the military aren't using R265 for testing either GTH or UVUPU DCT ABTOD can be given. Well, for now anyhow...

What I'm saying is, we can safely pass on efficiencies like this. The flights given DCT need more attention and discretion needs to be applied. The controller needs to use judgement, and not weaken when pilots like "The Rogue" bleat for DCT at every freq change or change of voice at the console. Everybody DCT and suddenly its really hard to figure out what happening...
karrank is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 02:53
  #44 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Ahhh bought a tear to the eye hearing the names UVUPU and ABTOD again. I still have my favourites, which were NONAX and WENER. Oh and TA(M)PAX. I know this is supposed to be about the evils of direct tracking, but is Adelaide Approach any closer to being moved to Melbourne Centre, or are the Adelaide guys still holding out.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 06:47
  #45 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
ANSA. 2012 for all. No staff movements before 2008. (this is for all TCUs)
tobzalp is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 18:26
  #46 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: BN196R @ 20nm
Age: 55
Posts: 79
Between Melbourne and Hong Kong the other night. Around abeam Syd area we asked for direct to a point abeam Townsville (roughly parallelled the radar coverage), as the airways route was a zig zag path. Got told by controller that direct tracking not available due to a directive issued on 27 Aug. We asked for reference and the controller took the time to read it to us. We have since made a report via our compnay channels.
Shouldn't TAAATS be able to handle this?
Razor is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 21:07
  #47 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Razor, this is not about technology....but evolution.. Development of Aussie ATC is retarded by ignorance, laziness, and the aptitude of the lowest common denominator (tobzalp, ANSA, Spodman and others)... This is a classic replay of the 70s archaic dinosaur clutching for a credibility that does not exist... One small request for John and Martha to do a 180 in their Navajo and compulsory educate these lads...ATC 101
Winstun is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2003, 23:16
  #48 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Winstun, you're one to talk about evolution! You're proof of Darwins theory that we evolved from monkeys. Unfortunately you missed a few of the steps in the chain of evolution and your nuckles are still dragging along the ground.

Whether its in the Middle East or in Australia, direct tracking can be a good thing SOMETIMES, but there are a lot of times where military restricted areas or traffic load make blanket direct tracking a very dangerous practice.

One question Winstun, have you ever been in an ATC centre and sat with a controller for a shift. If after doing that, and seeing all the things going on other than talking to aeroplanes, you still feel the same way then so be it.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2003, 05:02
  #49 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 21
Winstun - cunning stunt

Dear Winnie,

Lovely to hear reasoned debate from you yet again. Obviously all ATCs are lazy and ineffective per your recurring theme that everything that's wrong with Australian aviation is a direct result of myself and my peers.

We had NO say with the advent of this directive. You have the freedom to do what you want, we do not. Like it or not we're forced to comply unless we can think of a clever reason not to. Pull your head out of your nether regions and take a look around. The world is full of rules we have to follow even if they don't suit us personally. I like to drive at better than 200km/h but keep running out of points...
DickyBaby is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2003, 20:33
  #50 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 54
Grrr Wintsun

Wintsun, you are indeed sir, a fool.

Anyone else notice a very close resemblence to the rantings of another rabid anti atc muppet called Ulm??

As ANSA and Winnie quite rightly pointed out to you, albeit in far too subtle a way, the ATC's on the coal face have no say in the directives of management.

Obviously this is just a bit hard for you, so come back when you have finished high school and have another go.

BTW, there are loads of Aussie controllers currently stationed overseas that are very highly regarded for their professionalism, flexibility and sense of humour.
Do you suppose that they get that once we leave the sheltered workshop that is Australian aviation, of have we always had it.

To quote some of my Euro mates...sod off you git.
piniped is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2003, 18:25
  #51 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
You could always ask the controllers what they think about it:
Open Mike is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2003, 19:23
  #52 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 194
How does this " directive" cope with flights between places that do not have a practical ERC-endorsed route between them?

For example, would this affect planning Kempsey to Tamworth in Class E/C/D? Surely we wouldn't be expected to double back to Port Macquarie on W106 then on to Tamworth on W821???!!! How about Coffs Harbour to Glen Innes to Stanthorpe etc etc or any combination of these?

Or is it RPT only? Can't quite get my head around when it applies and when it doesn't apply.

Fly safely

NOtimTAMs is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2003, 20:36
  #53 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
NoTemptins: I think you have kind of answered your own question in how to best solve this. Plan DCT.

On the TAAATS screen your route will simply show a perfectly straight line from DEP PT to DEST. Therefore no 'track shortening' need be applied by the controller.

Obviously a problem where ERSA/AIP FPL requirements are published.

Not dissimilar to the amended route clearance I suppose.

As said elsewhere, there is quite a lot of semantics in all this. The underlying theme is supposed to be risk reduction, and tracking direct has been identified as increasing risk - whilst it may only be minimal, in what is essentially a very safe system it is a risk multiplier nonetheless.

But of course the real deciders will be the 'stakeholders' who pay the most for the service - so if QF and VB make noises in the tut-tut fashion I guess it will be watered down (which brings us to NAS ..... sigh.....who 'WILL' be the first to blink!?....Minister?)
Open Mike is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2003, 11:22
  #54 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Stats stats stats

The problem here is that 90% of breakdowns have one or both aircraft involved with track shortening; conclusion don't do it unless for specific separation type reasons.

Problem: How many aircraft get track shortnening (of any knind); if its higher than 90% then it might just be safer to track shorten?

Bottle of Rum
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2003, 17:10
  #55 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: [email protected]$#ing distance from 2 borders
Posts: 111
I can't see for the life of me why direct tracking under a RADAR environment is not allowed in Australia.
I think it comes down to the mentality of management and the unwillingness of the customers to push the issue.
I have worked in Australia and currently work in one of the busiest centres in Europe. From day one when training in Europe we have been encouraged to offer direct tracking to all aircraft depending on Military restricted areas etc.Oh, and there is a lot less restricted airspace in Aus than in Europe. It definitely is a satisfying experience to realise that you are doing your best to help the customers. It is not uncommon to have 29 to 30 aircraft on frequency and all of them tracking direct to the best point outside of my airspace.

The problem here is that 90% of breakdowns have one or both aircraft involved with track shortening; conclusion don't do it unless for specific separation type reasons

Sorry, but I disagree with this totally. It only takes a short amount of time to learn the conflict points when tracking normally and when tracking direct. The more times it is done the more times the conflict points will be determined. Last time I looked Brisbane,Sydney and Melbourne have been at the same lat/long everyday of the year since they were settled. Therefore aircraft tracking direct will go over the same conflict points every single day. By direct tracking , yes , you may make a conflict in your airspace but who is to say that you haven't alleviated 2 or 3 in someone else's airspace.

Australia has one of the best systems in the world but in not being used to its full potential by this I mean TAAATS and the controllers.
The Euronator is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2003, 15:01
  #56 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a
Was that track shortening I hear going on around Brisbane today?

Don't say the "managerial instruction" has been given the flick as it deserved.

Any ATCOs up on whats going on there?

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.