Near Miss @ YSSY ? virigin and cathay ?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: 3rd world Oz
Age: 54
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off Track?
Sub, if you want to know why ATC are constantly at you to get back on track, look no further than the Benalla incident. There, a controller was admonished for failing to notify the pilot that he was flying a course just a couple of miles off track!
I understand we get shagged if we don't advise pilots when they are off track.
I also don't understand why the long international and transcontinental routes aren't offset by a mile in opposite directions.
Most domestic routes are racetrack pattern and alleviates this problem.
Modern nav and seperation standards should be able to cope.
Flex tracks make this an anachronism but how many aircraft fly them?
AA
I also don't understand why the long international and transcontinental routes aren't offset by a mile in opposite directions.
Most domestic routes are racetrack pattern and alleviates this problem.
Modern nav and seperation standards should be able to cope.
Flex tracks make this an anachronism but how many aircraft fly them?
AA
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airway width
for goodness sake, how wide are these airways.
These days, you would assume it's 1mm given GPS capability.
Like I said, why aren't the airways 25 nm wide (don't tell me OZ is such a small place that we need airways 1mm wide - spare me)
Anywhere +/- 20 nm should be considered "on track".
And then we could divert "within the airway" without an ATC clearance.
Wouldn't need to get the ATC approval to divert due weather which quite frankly, we are going to do anyway "as my responsibility for the safety of the aircraft".
Would save us a lot of hassle.
Maybe we should all turn off CPDLC.
These days, you would assume it's 1mm given GPS capability.
Like I said, why aren't the airways 25 nm wide (don't tell me OZ is such a small place that we need airways 1mm wide - spare me)
Anywhere +/- 20 nm should be considered "on track".
And then we could divert "within the airway" without an ATC clearance.
Wouldn't need to get the ATC approval to divert due weather which quite frankly, we are going to do anyway "as my responsibility for the safety of the aircraft".
Would save us a lot of hassle.
Maybe we should all turn off CPDLC.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reply
direct.no.speed
You have missed the plot as well.
I have no argument with you or your colleges.
You do a great job within the constraints you are given.
Like us.
My comments are directed to the mindless bureaucrats who make these senseless decisions.
Go back to my original post.
You have missed the plot as well.
I have no argument with you or your colleges.
You do a great job within the constraints you are given.
Like us.
My comments are directed to the mindless bureaucrats who make these senseless decisions.
Go back to my original post.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Always changing
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody could possible disagree that ASA is filled with mindless bureaucrats. Have a look at the 2 pages worth of jobs ads on their website - almost all of them fill the above criteria. So many committee's and meetings yet rarely does a good decision get made.
Back to the original occurrence
Did I read anything in the report about Mode S Enhanced Surveillance? Thought not...
Did I read anything in the report about Mode S Enhanced Surveillance? Thought not...
Sub, I am with you all the way.
I fly 1nm right of track whilst oceanic and get pinged by ATC for non-conformance when crossing the continent.
Even in busy US or European airspace, most fly 1 mile right of track. No one else in the world has a problem with it. In fact it is encouraged in the interests of safety. The Chinese assign 1, 2 0r 3 nm right of track upon entry into their airspace. I think that is an excellent use of the technology we have on board and lowers or mitigates the risk if someone, pilot or controller, does make an error.
In the old days, airways were 10nm wide, ie 5nm either side of centre. We used to be able to maneurvre within it without getting clearances. When did that change and how wide is an airway these days?
Offsets obviously upset the ATC software. That's where the problem is!
(...and I have also considered selecting the ADS off!!)
I fly 1nm right of track whilst oceanic and get pinged by ATC for non-conformance when crossing the continent.
Even in busy US or European airspace, most fly 1 mile right of track. No one else in the world has a problem with it. In fact it is encouraged in the interests of safety. The Chinese assign 1, 2 0r 3 nm right of track upon entry into their airspace. I think that is an excellent use of the technology we have on board and lowers or mitigates the risk if someone, pilot or controller, does make an error.
In the old days, airways were 10nm wide, ie 5nm either side of centre. We used to be able to maneurvre within it without getting clearances. When did that change and how wide is an airway these days?
Offsets obviously upset the ATC software. That's where the problem is!
(...and I have also considered selecting the ADS off!!)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk about thread drift....
What you all seem to be missing is why offsets may complicate things. Lateral separation (not opposite direction) is based upon 1NM separation, it is always obviously larger than that, but when you factor out all the tolerances the minimum distance between two aircraft could be 1NM. Putting yourself off a track (within an airway) by 'up to 5NM' could be the last of the tolerances where you no longer have the 1NM separation...
RE talking about 'at cruising levels' at what point do you go back "on track", when descending/before gently to a waypoint, harsh turn and get back on ASAP??? Many routes in a busy terminal environment may have as little as .5NM tolerance with the minimum radar separation to the next track (ie tracks 3.5NM apart), or SID STAR cross over point where level changes occur, helping yourself to a 1NM offset (or less) is going to get the ATC a nice discussion with their manager and possibly you a please explain?
Airways still exist in some locations but in the modern world tracks are the norm. Flex tracks and User preferred etc are becoming more utilised, so this should help eliminate the constant directly on top of each other scenario, but as logic dictates what is good for one will be good for the next...
With ADS-B, ADS-C, CPDLC etc being off track causes problems, your machine is constantly updating the ATC system with 'off track advice' or non-compliance with the clearance advice.
I work in an environment where we have no tracks, yet the amount of times I see aircraft directly on top of each other is too numerous to count, each shift. Offsetting does very little IMHO to improve safety in many environments.
What you all seem to be missing is why offsets may complicate things. Lateral separation (not opposite direction) is based upon 1NM separation, it is always obviously larger than that, but when you factor out all the tolerances the minimum distance between two aircraft could be 1NM. Putting yourself off a track (within an airway) by 'up to 5NM' could be the last of the tolerances where you no longer have the 1NM separation...
RE talking about 'at cruising levels' at what point do you go back "on track", when descending/before gently to a waypoint, harsh turn and get back on ASAP??? Many routes in a busy terminal environment may have as little as .5NM tolerance with the minimum radar separation to the next track (ie tracks 3.5NM apart), or SID STAR cross over point where level changes occur, helping yourself to a 1NM offset (or less) is going to get the ATC a nice discussion with their manager and possibly you a please explain?
Airways still exist in some locations but in the modern world tracks are the norm. Flex tracks and User preferred etc are becoming more utilised, so this should help eliminate the constant directly on top of each other scenario, but as logic dictates what is good for one will be good for the next...
With ADS-B, ADS-C, CPDLC etc being off track causes problems, your machine is constantly updating the ATC system with 'off track advice' or non-compliance with the clearance advice.
I work in an environment where we have no tracks, yet the amount of times I see aircraft directly on top of each other is too numerous to count, each shift. Offsetting does very little IMHO to improve safety in many environments.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Totally Sub and Nil, I always "advise" ATC in OZ when on a track or not, that I will be deviating 1 or 2 miles right of track for an indefinite period, seems to tick their boxes and gives me a slightly warmer feeling
Blockla, your comments re offsetting mayby accurate in Europe, particularly over the UK, Germany, and in the various Mas sectors..but go a bit further south and east/west...and it certainly does.
Blockla, your comments re offsetting mayby accurate in Europe, particularly over the UK, Germany, and in the various Mas sectors..but go a bit further south and east/west...and it certainly does.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I fly 1 or 2 miles right of track but ATC hate it. Doesn't suit their system apparently.
In the old days, airways were 10nm wide, ie 5nm either side of centre. We used to be able to maneurvre within it without getting clearances. When did that change and how wide is an airway these days?
5.6.1 "In controlled airspace, separation standards are based on the pilot maintaining track as closely as possible at all times. Corrective action must be taken to regain track as soon as any deviation is observed"
5.6.2 d. "where track guidance is provided by an RNAV system - an indicated cross-track deviation of +/-2 NM or more"
and the sub note at the end of it all: "The values given above must not be interpreted as definining a sector within which the pilot is permitted to navigate." Which is followed by:
5.7.1 "In controlled airspace, any deviation from track requires prior clearance from ATC, except in emergency. The values given in paragraphs 5.6 and 5.11 must not be interpreted as tolerances within which deviations from track without clearance are permitted."
The current rules don't condone uncleared pilot initiated lateral offsets in CTA.
Last edited by Captain Nomad; 3rd Jul 2011 at 04:53.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a procedures point of view, I'm more interested in the bit about;
I'm trying to imagine the scenario they are describing here.
Are they saying different controllers were separating traffic on the basis of the CFL in the label not the AFL??
Sounds like it was only a matter of time before it went wrong.
The displayed cleared flight level (CFL) differed from the level assigned to the B737 by the controller," the report said.
"That assigned level was being used for separation by another air traffic controller."
"That assigned level was being used for separation by another air traffic controller."
Are they saying different controllers were separating traffic on the basis of the CFL in the label not the AFL??
Sounds like it was only a matter of time before it went wrong.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bekolblockage. Not sure what you are getting at?
In a very basic nutshell.
The Cleared Flight Level (CFL) is the level the aircraft is cleared to climb or descend to. For the controller not having jurisdiction, they will base their separation with their other aircraft on this (in most cases).
It is usual practice that when an aircraft is within a certain distance to your airspace the controller who will give you the aircraft cannot change the CFL without first checking with you. I see an aircraft approaching cleared to climb to FL130, the other controller cannot assign a higher level without checking with me first. I can assign FL140 on descent.
Is AFL Actual Flight Level? If so , on a quick think about it , I can't see any situation where I would separate on AFL? I would base separation on what the pilot is cleared to do, not what he is doing right now. How could I ever have separation assurance on aircraft nose to nose, if I didn't know what the climbing aircraft was going to stop off at.
Not being privy to this incident, it seems as if the receiving controller was separating based on a CFL that had been incorrectly entered. One aircraft was climbing/descending to a higher/lower level than thought. When that aircraft busted the CFL (not the pilots fault BTW) the incident happened.
In a very basic nutshell.
The Cleared Flight Level (CFL) is the level the aircraft is cleared to climb or descend to. For the controller not having jurisdiction, they will base their separation with their other aircraft on this (in most cases).
It is usual practice that when an aircraft is within a certain distance to your airspace the controller who will give you the aircraft cannot change the CFL without first checking with you. I see an aircraft approaching cleared to climb to FL130, the other controller cannot assign a higher level without checking with me first. I can assign FL140 on descent.
Is AFL Actual Flight Level? If so , on a quick think about it , I can't see any situation where I would separate on AFL? I would base separation on what the pilot is cleared to do, not what he is doing right now. How could I ever have separation assurance on aircraft nose to nose, if I didn't know what the climbing aircraft was going to stop off at.
Not being privy to this incident, it seems as if the receiving controller was separating based on a CFL that had been incorrectly entered. One aircraft was climbing/descending to a higher/lower level than thought. When that aircraft busted the CFL (not the pilots fault BTW) the incident happened.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wellconcerned but ill-informed:
Complete nonsense. Each TCU, SY, ML, BN, AD, PH and CS have a separate system "partition" - not because they all want to do things differently, but because it it is the basic system design. Nothing more than that. And for the record, SY had about the smoothest transition of all the ATC groups.
The HMI wasn't good enough for them - they had to have a special system partition built so that they could use the equipment the way they thought it should be used.
I fly in Africa. I fly in Asia. I fly in India and the Middle East. I have flown in Alaska, and dealt with 'Heathrow Director' and 'SOCAL (Southern California) Approach'. I deal with the boys and girls on 'Hong Kong Radar' during typhoon season.
In none of these places have I ever been 'chipped' for 1 mile offsets twelve kilometres above the earth's surface, had argy-bargy over 'readback requirements' before entering an active runway (non-Aussie FO just saying what we say everywhere else), been required to give other inane readbacks (weather deviation), or seen two successive go-rounds due to spacing foul ups; except in: AUSTRALIA! And, of course, this thread is about one of our aircraft head-to-head with Virgin in Australian airspace.
Like the isolated Galapagos Islands, Australia has evolved its own species; in this case an ATC system which seems to have a firm grasp of the non-essentials. As an Aussie myself, sometimes it's embarrassing operating into the place with British, European or North American crew as cockpit mates; other times it's just plain excruciating.
In none of these places have I ever been 'chipped' for 1 mile offsets twelve kilometres above the earth's surface, had argy-bargy over 'readback requirements' before entering an active runway (non-Aussie FO just saying what we say everywhere else), been required to give other inane readbacks (weather deviation), or seen two successive go-rounds due to spacing foul ups; except in: AUSTRALIA! And, of course, this thread is about one of our aircraft head-to-head with Virgin in Australian airspace.
Like the isolated Galapagos Islands, Australia has evolved its own species; in this case an ATC system which seems to have a firm grasp of the non-essentials. As an Aussie myself, sometimes it's embarrassing operating into the place with British, European or North American crew as cockpit mates; other times it's just plain excruciating.
Last edited by Captain Dart; 5th Jul 2011 at 04:33. Reason: Spelling nazism.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Dart,
I work here and understand, to a certain extent , what you are getting at.
My particular favourite is a change of QNH on the ATIS. I make an All Stations broadcast. There are multiple changes, including the QNH.
My understanding is that I then have to make a directed transmission to any aircraft I have previously given the QNH to. Sometimes it is like pulling teeth to get the pilot to read back the QNH.
I know that the pilot knows the new QNH, however I HAVE A REQUIREMENT to get a readback. It is anal but that is what I am required to do. You can't argue simple common sense with the powers that be. They WILL make an issue of it.
Captain, no use arguing with the poor mumpty on the headset, they probably agree with you. Welcome to the Galapagos, tie up the Beagle over there.
I work here and understand, to a certain extent , what you are getting at.
My particular favourite is a change of QNH on the ATIS. I make an All Stations broadcast. There are multiple changes, including the QNH.
My understanding is that I then have to make a directed transmission to any aircraft I have previously given the QNH to. Sometimes it is like pulling teeth to get the pilot to read back the QNH.
I know that the pilot knows the new QNH, however I HAVE A REQUIREMENT to get a readback. It is anal but that is what I am required to do. You can't argue simple common sense with the powers that be. They WILL make an issue of it.
Captain, no use arguing with the poor mumpty on the headset, they probably agree with you. Welcome to the Galapagos, tie up the Beagle over there.
