Rumour: ANZ crew refuses to fly through TIBA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour: ANZ crew refuses to fly through TIBA
A rumour has been cast that an ANZ flight, having not been notified of TIBA procedures in OZ oceanic airspace prior to departure, elected to turn the flight around and return rather than fly through the non-airspace.
Anyone able to shed some light or shoot this one down?
Anyone able to shed some light or shoot this one down?
Domestically we operate outside controlled airspace occasionally so it is not that unusual. If it was a widebody then maybe it was too scary for them 
The beauty of rumours is that they don't have to have any fact attached so they can make for great stories.
The beauty of rumours is that they don't have to have any fact attached so they can make for great stories.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
belowMDA - a TIBA isn't uncontrolled airspace - it is NOTHING. No ATC, no Traffic Information, and no SAR. That's why people don't want to fly through them. There are no ATC services provided.
Cheers,
NFR.
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, in Class G you still have SAR, traffic info, and someone actually monitoring the progress of your flight. TIBA has none of these. You are on your own. If you scream, no one can hear you.......I wonder if the punters down the back know that?
Cheers,
NFR.
Cheers,
NFR.
Class G you still have SAR, traffic info, and someone actually monitoring the progress of your flight
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That may be so in NZ, but in Australia, if you are IFR, you still get monitored where there is radar coverage, and directed traffic information on other IFR and known VFR aircraft.
Cheers,
NFR.
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queenland, Australia
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few weeks ago I have heard an NZ B767 diverting around the Melbourne region to remain in CTA on a PER-AKL flight. The crew had been ACARS'd with an updated Notam regarding TIBA being introduced in certain airspace where the B767 just happened to be tracking to.
belowMda, is this a company requirement that international ops cannot operate through TIBA airspace?
belowMda, is this a company requirement that international ops cannot operate through TIBA airspace?
Originally Posted by 27/09
I don't think so. Yes, there might be someone you can talk to who can tell you about any known traffic but there is no one monitoring the progress of your flight. Once you're clear of controlled airspace you're on your own. You work out separation by soley by talking with other traffic, which is what would happen in TIBA.
- Glass G = Information/SAR service provided
- TIBA = For when the s hit hits the fan.... (Severed comms link/ATC centre evacuated/lack of staff at ASA)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Traffic information is provided before the onset of TIBA procedures/entry into TIBA region.
Who holds SAR exiting a TIBA?
How do they know they plane is coming; thus know when and where to go looking?
How's about calling your company ops on SAT phone or even HF and giving them your position reports. Wouldn't that be good enough for SAR purposes?
And calling the next FIR and advising them of your ETA at their boundary?
That would be a good idea as well.
I'm not sure I'd be worried about SAR coverage.
And calling the next FIR and advising them of your ETA at their boundary?
That would be a good idea as well.
I'm not sure I'd be worried about SAR coverage.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I know there are quite a few aircraft going back and forth across the Tasman at any one time, but 99% of them are being driven by experienced, competent professionals. So with TCAS fitted and operating why would it not be safe to fly quadrantally, using the correct TIBA procedures across the Tasman? I mean you could even offset your track by 5 miles to the right if you wanted to add another layer of safety!
Seems like overkill to me, unless it's company mandated!
Seems like overkill to me, unless it's company mandated!
The point is not whether a crew can call their company, or the next FIR. The point is that AsA are not providing an ATC service. And it is happening far too often. I have seen aircraft add many, many mile to their journey to avoid TIBA areas - QF will not fly through them, where as Jetstar will. I suppose it is up to each company's risk management people to determine the response.
In the case of Ocean Sector being TIBA, I am unaware of any way that the outgoing NZ sector could provide any traffic information - there's no one on the other end of the line. They can't see into the airspace - no radar coverage. The sector to the West of Ocean would perhaps know they are coming, but would have no firm estimate apart from the AFTN generated departure message. And when the aircraft is in the TIBA, they would have to rely on the rest of the traffic doing the right thing with their broadcasts. Including foreign crew who would most likely not have a clue about operating in a TIBA and would have to brief themselves on the run, if that information was available!
If I were Joe public, I would not wish tor travel though such airspace. However, I don't think Mr and Mrs Public even know that they are in a TIBA. If they did, I think I know what the reaction would mostly be.....
Thanks,
Showa
In the case of Ocean Sector being TIBA, I am unaware of any way that the outgoing NZ sector could provide any traffic information - there's no one on the other end of the line. They can't see into the airspace - no radar coverage. The sector to the West of Ocean would perhaps know they are coming, but would have no firm estimate apart from the AFTN generated departure message. And when the aircraft is in the TIBA, they would have to rely on the rest of the traffic doing the right thing with their broadcasts. Including foreign crew who would most likely not have a clue about operating in a TIBA and would have to brief themselves on the run, if that information was available!
If I were Joe public, I would not wish tor travel though such airspace. However, I don't think Mr and Mrs Public even know that they are in a TIBA. If they did, I think I know what the reaction would mostly be.....
Thanks,
Showa
There is not going to be any aircraft up there in the declared TIBA airspace that has not submitted a flight plan so that is one way ATC at either end can look ahead and see what is out there for passing on traffic information purposes if required.
And as stated earlier why not offset some distance and perhaps fly 100 ft below or above the standard level e.g. FL349.
It is not true to say that Qantas do not fly through TIBA airspace. There was TIBA airspace outside Perth some weeks ago and flights continued through it without incident.
By the way I think it is disgraceful that it has come to this.
And as stated earlier why not offset some distance and perhaps fly 100 ft below or above the standard level e.g. FL349.
It is not true to say that Qantas do not fly through TIBA airspace. There was TIBA airspace outside Perth some weeks ago and flights continued through it without incident.
By the way I think it is disgraceful that it has come to this.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is not going to be any aircraft up there in the declared TIBA airspace that has not submitted a flight plan so that is one way ATC at either end can look ahead and see what is out there for passing on traffic information purposes if required.
Getting a Snapshot from Melbourne Sectors or SY TCU about what's over the OCN is totally a no no, and as an ATC I can state we have not had any training in what is or isn't appropriate to say. I wouldn't be giving you any advice about what's over the water, cause I don't know, and probably anything I did say could give you a false sense of security.
As for offsets etc; everything is fine until the conflict is also offsetting the same altitude difference or the other side of track; and then it offsets only solve opposite traffic really. With crossing tracks offsets count for zip.
OK Thanks for the info SM4 Pirate.
When it comes to offsets, yes they are only a defense against opposite direction traffic. Basic rules of the air (CAR's) say to veer to the right when passing opposite direction traffic so there shouldn't be a conflict there between left and right offsets. To mitigate this risk that someone does choose to offset to the left, I would be offsetting by some random amount say 1.7 nm or whatever.
Here is some of the relevant CAR...
162 Rules for prevention of collision
(1) When 2 aircraft are on converging headings at approximately the same
height, the aircraft that has the other on its right shall give way, except
that:
(a) power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft shall give way to airships,
gliders and balloons;
(b) airships shall give way to gliders and balloons;
(c) gliders shall give way to balloons; and
(d) power-driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft that are seen to be
towing other aircraft or objects.
(2) When two aircraft are approaching head-on or approximately so and
there is danger of collision, each shall alter its heading to the right.
I suppose all you can do is try your best to reduce the chances of conflict. You can never eliminate them.
When it comes to offsets, yes they are only a defense against opposite direction traffic. Basic rules of the air (CAR's) say to veer to the right when passing opposite direction traffic so there shouldn't be a conflict there between left and right offsets. To mitigate this risk that someone does choose to offset to the left, I would be offsetting by some random amount say 1.7 nm or whatever.
Here is some of the relevant CAR...
162 Rules for prevention of collision
(1) When 2 aircraft are on converging headings at approximately the same
height, the aircraft that has the other on its right shall give way, except
that:
(a) power-driven heavier-than-air aircraft shall give way to airships,
gliders and balloons;
(b) airships shall give way to gliders and balloons;
(c) gliders shall give way to balloons; and
(d) power-driven aircraft shall give way to aircraft that are seen to be
towing other aircraft or objects.
(2) When two aircraft are approaching head-on or approximately so and
there is danger of collision, each shall alter its heading to the right.
I suppose all you can do is try your best to reduce the chances of conflict. You can never eliminate them.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: OZ
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a bunch of girls ! What diff does it make? You have the same humans in airspace that's uncontrolled day in day out as in CTA. What makes thier lives any less than the high rollers? ZERO ! Big joke it is, with all the modern alerting stuff in planes these days I hardly think that a TIBA CRZ sector is any less dangerous than flying at night below LSALT when allowed to, like I said bunch of girls. We Ozzies do it all the time thes e days!
We have all been spoilt, welcome to the new world where the 'security' pillow isn't always at hand to suck !
F
What diff does it make? You have the same humans in airspace that's uncontrolled day in day out as in CTA. What makes thier lives any less than the high rollers? ZERO ! Big joke it is, with all the modern alerting stuff in planes these days I hardly think that a TIBA CRZ sector is any less dangerous than flying at night below LSALT when allowed to, like I said bunch of girls. We Ozzies do it all the time thes e days!We have all been spoilt, welcome to the new world where the 'security' pillow isn't always at hand to suck !
F