Qantas/Jetstar no calls at Avalon
Werbil,
You are correct, although my caustic post was directed at RHS who has vehemently opposed the concept of pilots talking to each other to generate an acceptable outcome which he is now advocating in post of today at 0815, not the specifics of the type of airspace.
Of course (and I assume you have experience in this mutual traffic concept), there is little point me in being told about a VFR and then trying to keep out of his way while still following ATC instructions. It just wouldn't work unless I had the ability to manoeuvre to keep out of his way or better arrange a plan to get us both to where we wanted to go with minimum inconvenience.
You are correct, although my caustic post was directed at RHS who has vehemently opposed the concept of pilots talking to each other to generate an acceptable outcome which he is now advocating in post of today at 0815, not the specifics of the type of airspace.
Of course (and I assume you have experience in this mutual traffic concept), there is little point me in being told about a VFR and then trying to keep out of his way while still following ATC instructions. It just wouldn't work unless I had the ability to manoeuvre to keep out of his way or better arrange a plan to get us both to where we wanted to go with minimum inconvenience.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Scurvy.D.Dog
Given the extra services normally provided in D re VFR / IFR separation, I still don't get why we need 1,000ft / 1,500m clearance from cloud whilst it is D and are only required to be clear of cloud when it is G (such as when YBHM tower closes for lunch). It's the same airspace / topography / aircraft mix. Yes SVFR is available, but it is soooo restrictive - if under a low base (600') or not so low base (1400') procedural separation effectively only allows one aircraft in the zone at a time. Whilst IFR aircraft are about keep us out of the zone or separated from them, but with professional third party traffic information the VFR minima seem the wrong way around.
As I have stated before I'm quite happy with self segregating from other aircraft.
I agree there is very rarely a need to directly contact another aircraft for collision avoidance when TI provided - it's basic courtesy / respect / airmanship to avoid clogging the frequency.
Werbil
Given the extra services normally provided in D re VFR / IFR separation, I still don't get why we need 1,000ft / 1,500m clearance from cloud whilst it is D and are only required to be clear of cloud when it is G (such as when YBHM tower closes for lunch). It's the same airspace / topography / aircraft mix. Yes SVFR is available, but it is soooo restrictive - if under a low base (600') or not so low base (1400') procedural separation effectively only allows one aircraft in the zone at a time. Whilst IFR aircraft are about keep us out of the zone or separated from them, but with professional third party traffic information the VFR minima seem the wrong way around.
As I have stated before I'm quite happy with self segregating from other aircraft.
I agree there is very rarely a need to directly contact another aircraft for collision avoidance when TI provided - it's basic courtesy / respect / airmanship to avoid clogging the frequency.
Werbil
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries,
.
In short, most of those type of IFR/VFR conflicts will be best resolved by dropping the IFR to just below the cloudbase to get them into visual conditons. This enables resolution of the conflict by:-
.
- The IFR sighting the VFR (DTI whilst still vertically separated) then descending through using (the IFR) pilot asigned Visual separation, or;
- The VFR sighting the IFR (DTI whislt still vertically separated) then descending through using (the VFR) pilot asigned Visual separation, or;
- The controller can get the IFR in sight, and has the VFR in sight, and can provide visual separation for the IFR descent through the VFR (using azimuth).
.
the 1,000ft rule generally means there is the required 1,000ft available to facilitate the visual separation solution below the cloudbase. Of course it does not always workout that way and the IFR can be in cloud at the lowest assignable, for example
.
-IFR assigned A030 not below the DME STEP's, and you are in VMC at A020
.
.... and bugga me if the cloubbase isn't 2,900ft on QNH ... we generally
will always have a plan B just in case 
.
Generally in any arrival/departure/crossing transit type conflict the controller may (dependant on track, relative positions etc) use up to 3 different separation standards one after the other to continously reduce the actual distances between targets until a visual solution is achieved. Visual separation being the tightest of all as far as proximities go.
.
As for why clear of cloud in G ..... dunno .. I personally think that is daft becasue OCTA, IFR would want that breathing space below the CBase to get visual and get looking before they got up close and personal
.
Hope that helps ....
.
I'm off to the cot before me eyes fall out
.
Nite all
.
In short, most of those type of IFR/VFR conflicts will be best resolved by dropping the IFR to just below the cloudbase to get them into visual conditons. This enables resolution of the conflict by:-
.
- The IFR sighting the VFR (DTI whilst still vertically separated) then descending through using (the IFR) pilot asigned Visual separation, or;
- The VFR sighting the IFR (DTI whislt still vertically separated) then descending through using (the VFR) pilot asigned Visual separation, or;
- The controller can get the IFR in sight, and has the VFR in sight, and can provide visual separation for the IFR descent through the VFR (using azimuth).
.
the 1,000ft rule generally means there is the required 1,000ft available to facilitate the visual separation solution below the cloudbase. Of course it does not always workout that way and the IFR can be in cloud at the lowest assignable, for example
.
-IFR assigned A030 not below the DME STEP's, and you are in VMC at A020
.
.... and bugga me if the cloubbase isn't 2,900ft on QNH ... we generally
will always have a plan B just in case .
Generally in any arrival/departure/crossing transit type conflict the controller may (dependant on track, relative positions etc) use up to 3 different separation standards one after the other to continously reduce the actual distances between targets until a visual solution is achieved. Visual separation being the tightest of all as far as proximities go.
.
As for why clear of cloud in G ..... dunno .. I personally think that is daft becasue OCTA, IFR would want that breathing space below the CBase to get visual and get looking before they got up close and personal
.
Hope that helps ....
.
I'm off to the cot before me eyes fall out
.
Nite all
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Werbil
Class D conditions are the minimum you will receive in this type of airspace.
However the overriding function of ATC is to prevent collisions between aircraft and other aircraft, vehicles, terrain, etc, so if the controller believes that there is a high collision risk, a higher level of service can be provided. So a VFR, with IFR in the area might just get traffic, get a clearance that requires or allows a segregated flight path, or full separation.
As far as a class D Tower for all movements at Avalon, how about we get rid of location specific charging for ATS and return to a more sensible business model of network charging. Providing ATS at locations like Avalon, staff availability permitting, would then become less of a cost impost to all users.
Locally (YBHM D) IFR is always separated from VFR until traffic is sighted, dare I say more like the AIP suggests I should expect in C.
However the overriding function of ATC is to prevent collisions between aircraft and other aircraft, vehicles, terrain, etc, so if the controller believes that there is a high collision risk, a higher level of service can be provided. So a VFR, with IFR in the area might just get traffic, get a clearance that requires or allows a segregated flight path, or full separation.
As far as a class D Tower for all movements at Avalon, how about we get rid of location specific charging for ATS and return to a more sensible business model of network charging. Providing ATS at locations like Avalon, staff availability permitting, would then become less of a cost impost to all users.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
ScurvyDDog,
I understand the benefits of the separation from cloud and agree with that when the weather allows changing level or altering track to maintain that distance. However at A020 with a base of A029 I am not complying with standard VMC requirements. In this case I have the option of changing level, but if the base is below A015 the only legal option is to obtain a SVFR clearance.
The problem I have with SVFR due distance from cloud at low level is that it requires separation from other SVFR aircraft, which in a zone (like YBHM) which has high VFR and very low IFR traffic density things close down really, really quickly. As I have stated before, I very happy to be procedurally separated from IFR or even wait outside of the zone in conditions like this. SVFR due visibility is a completely different kettle of fish - even in 8km visibility I am edgy and appreciate the positive separation. When the tower is closed I am comfortable arranging segregation with IFR aircrew directly (I know we are discouraged from talking to them, but IMHO it is far safer when both parties confirm segregation arrangements). In a busy terminal environment with a number of IFR aircraft in average weather I'd definitely prefer ATC.
IMHO VFR to VFR has only small variation in see and avoid risk irrespective of distance from cloud providing the flight visbility is the same. Obviously VFR to IFR is a completely different kettle of fish. Safety is absolutely critical, but one segment of aviation should not be overly restricted because of another.
89 Steps
I have not problem with network charging providing the level of service provided is based on an objective, measurable safety basis (NOT political reasons) and charges are based on the level of service provided, and reflect the level of service required by the aircraft.
I understand the benefits of the separation from cloud and agree with that when the weather allows changing level or altering track to maintain that distance. However at A020 with a base of A029 I am not complying with standard VMC requirements. In this case I have the option of changing level, but if the base is below A015 the only legal option is to obtain a SVFR clearance.
The problem I have with SVFR due distance from cloud at low level is that it requires separation from other SVFR aircraft, which in a zone (like YBHM) which has high VFR and very low IFR traffic density things close down really, really quickly. As I have stated before, I very happy to be procedurally separated from IFR or even wait outside of the zone in conditions like this. SVFR due visibility is a completely different kettle of fish - even in 8km visibility I am edgy and appreciate the positive separation. When the tower is closed I am comfortable arranging segregation with IFR aircrew directly (I know we are discouraged from talking to them, but IMHO it is far safer when both parties confirm segregation arrangements). In a busy terminal environment with a number of IFR aircraft in average weather I'd definitely prefer ATC.
IMHO VFR to VFR has only small variation in see and avoid risk irrespective of distance from cloud providing the flight visbility is the same. Obviously VFR to IFR is a completely different kettle of fish. Safety is absolutely critical, but one segment of aviation should not be overly restricted because of another.
89 Steps
I have not problem with network charging providing the level of service provided is based on an objective, measurable safety basis (NOT political reasons) and charges are based on the level of service provided, and reflect the level of service required by the aircraft.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
werbil
.
are you or ATC going to able to discern 100ft or feet difference in actual cloudbase
.
SVFR is for the reason you suggest ... if the base is low enough to require a SVFR clearance, then full separation will be necessary anyway
.
I agree re network pricing LSP/user pays has cost industry a fortune!
.
I think it is more about a yappie Unicom .... even though he supported CA/GRS, he hates it now cause' he reckons it is for retired ATC's and FSO only .... which is bulldust ... but thats his view
.
Agree with your comments re association cooperative approach .... the ball is in his court .... he won't serve though
.
are you or ATC going to able to discern 100ft or feet difference in actual cloudbase
.
SVFR is for the reason you suggest ... if the base is low enough to require a SVFR clearance, then full separation will be necessary anyway
.
I agree re network pricing LSP/user pays has cost industry a fortune!
.
I think it is more about a yappie Unicom .... even though he supported CA/GRS, he hates it now cause' he reckons it is for retired ATC's and FSO only .... which is bulldust ... but thats his view
.
Agree with your comments re association cooperative approach .... the ball is in his court .... he won't serve though
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV TWR = bad; traffic levels don't justify it, guys & gals sitting doing little to nothing most of the time, thus overly restrictive and not cost effective
UNICOM = bad; untrained unqualified person not able to give relevant directed traffic info or weather obs; even FAA does not include them in any risk mitigation hierarchy for airspace and traffic services
CA/GRS = good; trained person a.k.a. flight service in an AFIZ from years past, directed and specific traffic info, MEL requirement for facility, able to give met obs. cloud & vis & approved source QNH able to be used for lower inst app minima.
UNICOM = bad; untrained unqualified person not able to give relevant directed traffic info or weather obs; even FAA does not include them in any risk mitigation hierarchy for airspace and traffic services
CA/GRS = good; trained person a.k.a. flight service in an AFIZ from years past, directed and specific traffic info, MEL requirement for facility, able to give met obs. cloud & vis & approved source QNH able to be used for lower inst app minima.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Scurvy.D.Dog,
If you remove IFR aircraft from the equation (ie procedurally), how does distance from cloud affect VFR to VFR collision risk? Low visibility does, distance from cloud does not as neither aircraft should be in cloud.
I am all for SVFR being separated from IFR, but I have not yet seen a convincing argument that justifies SVFR to SVFR procedural separation due to lack of distance from cloud alone. When low level in G distance from cloud alone only concerns me if there are IFR aircraft about.
GAAP control zones operate with very high density VFR operations with a significant number of low time pilots. Yet VFR aircraft are only required to operate clear of cloud. Correct me if I am wrong, but it wont be the distance a VFR aircraft is from cloud that stresses ATC in a GAAP, it will be the density of traffic, the distance (or lack of) between aircraft, the ability of pilots to follow instructions and the ability of pilots to develop SA of other traffic.
Werbil
If you remove IFR aircraft from the equation (ie procedurally), how does distance from cloud affect VFR to VFR collision risk? Low visibility does, distance from cloud does not as neither aircraft should be in cloud.
I am all for SVFR being separated from IFR, but I have not yet seen a convincing argument that justifies SVFR to SVFR procedural separation due to lack of distance from cloud alone. When low level in G distance from cloud alone only concerns me if there are IFR aircraft about.
GAAP control zones operate with very high density VFR operations with a significant number of low time pilots. Yet VFR aircraft are only required to operate clear of cloud.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it wont be the distance a VFR aircraft is from cloud that stresses ATC in a GAAP, it will be the density of traffic, the distance (or lack of) between aircraft, the ability of pilots to follow instructions and the ability of pilots to develop SA of other traffic.Werbil
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry cobba I should have explained further:-
.
SVFR due Cbase is treated differently VFR/VFR than due Vis.
.
See AIP ENR 1.4 2 2.1 (and specifically 2.1.3 for D)
.
Cheers
.
SVFR due Cbase is treated differently VFR/VFR than due Vis.
.
See AIP ENR 1.4 2 2.1 (and specifically 2.1.3 for D)
.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
Scurvy.D.Dog,
. 
- this makes a couple of dozens posts or so in this and other threads irrelevant. This comes back to your point about pilots understanding precisely what they can expect in the different classes of airspace.
Werbil
. - this makes a couple of dozens posts or so in this and other threads irrelevant. This comes back to your point about pilots understanding precisely what they can expect in the different classes of airspace.Werbil
As he pointed out to the loony lefty Fungus Faine on 774 the other day - QANTAS pilots can't hack it into Avalon unless the tower is manned
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australasia
Age: 60
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still don't understand how modern jet aircraft with nearly 200 people on board can be allowed to operate into uncontrolled airspace and aerodromes???? Flight safety concerns......just a bit! Not just Avalon, but Ballina, Maroochydore, Proserpine to name a few. Guess its something unique to Australia, just like its endangered species. Doesn't happen in the real world....outside Australia, that is. Safe flying comrades....and keep your eyes on that TCAS thingy in front of you!
Thread Starter
I think you will find this concerns some educated Aussie airline pilots however they have been threatened if they speak out.
The US NAS system does not have large jets flying around in less than class E approach airspace and class D terminal airspace.
I wonder how long we will get away with our system before there is a horrific accident?
Many pilots are obsessed with the lower collision risk "link" airspace and not so concerned about the higher risk airspace close to the airport - where, uniquely in the world, we rely on uncontrolled airspace with a "calling in the blind" "do it yourself " system.
Many airline pilots in Australia do not know where the risk is greatest so our airspace tends to be upside down.
Just look at Proserpine- large jets at the Aerodrome in G with C above in the lower risk link airspace.
The US NAS system does not have large jets flying around in less than class E approach airspace and class D terminal airspace.
I wonder how long we will get away with our system before there is a horrific accident?
Many pilots are obsessed with the lower collision risk "link" airspace and not so concerned about the higher risk airspace close to the airport - where, uniquely in the world, we rely on uncontrolled airspace with a "calling in the blind" "do it yourself " system.
Many airline pilots in Australia do not know where the risk is greatest so our airspace tends to be upside down.
Just look at Proserpine- large jets at the Aerodrome in G with C above in the lower risk link airspace.
Aus is a bit funny like that. Surely if a destination has gone beyond turbo-prop rpt and needs a jet service then a tower can be justified. If it can't afford the tower it really can't afford the jet rpt??
Thread Starter
Framer, be careful using the word "afford" here. Aviation is supposed to be funded from a giant cargo cult plane in the sky.
But you are correct. A typical class D contract tower in the USA costs less than a dollar per passenger per landing- pretty good value for money I would say.
If CASA still kept the NAS FAA Establishment and Discontinuence formula we would have more class D towers. For some reason- probably trying to please the Airlines (after pressure through the Department)-CASA have invented their own safety study which is subjective and allows them to dial up any answer that appeases their masters, just look at Williamtown.
But you are correct. A typical class D contract tower in the USA costs less than a dollar per passenger per landing- pretty good value for money I would say.
If CASA still kept the NAS FAA Establishment and Discontinuence formula we would have more class D towers. For some reason- probably trying to please the Airlines (after pressure through the Department)-CASA have invented their own safety study which is subjective and allows them to dial up any answer that appeases their masters, just look at Williamtown.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: vic
Age: 23
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the cagro services that are provided at some airports are a thinly veiled attempt to stave off the opening of a tower. While I applaud they attempts of the actual cagros, they have little authority and the the only real success they have is cluttering airwaves.
Questions I have and maybe Dick can answer: if avalon requires someone there 12 or 14 hours a day and the cagros are either atc or fso, whynot put the tower ntoto action?
Also who employees these guys and how are they charged out? In other words, I suspect that Linfox might employ them, charge the airlines or ASA fees and turn a profit while in the process resisting a tower and again putting profit before safety.
I hope its just me being a cynic but how many times do you see this going on?
Questions I have and maybe Dick can answer: if avalon requires someone there 12 or 14 hours a day and the cagros are either atc or fso, whynot put the tower ntoto action?
Also who employees these guys and how are they charged out? In other words, I suspect that Linfox might employ them, charge the airlines or ASA fees and turn a profit while in the process resisting a tower and again putting profit before safety.
I hope its just me being a cynic but how many times do you see this going on?