Near Miss - Darwin
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing much has changed by the sound of it.
Several years ago I was flying a Chieftain and on final for 29 approaching 400' (my committal height) with a B200 stopped about halfway up the runway, conducting "stop and goes"when they clear an outbound B737 line up in front of me. I go around left and head for the approach end of 36. Tower acknowledges and clears me to left base 36, I answer " Confirm right base 36" he replies just in time "right base 36" just as I see a Conquest on final for 36 so I conduct a left orbit and reposition mid base 36 with then enough space between me and the Conquest just landed.
Very annoyed, I ring ATC to speak to the controller.The controller advises me that he had a trainee and he got away from him, making it difficult for him to rectify the situation
I told him that I would be submitting a 2593 (remember them?) to which he answers "go for your life mate, we don't do anything about them we're RAAF!"
To be fair, the problem then, and probably still is the two year posting cycle. By the time a controller is anywhere near proficient he is training his replacement (or attempting to).
I would be interested to hear if that is still the case.
Very annoyed, I ring ATC to speak to the controller.The controller advises me that he had a trainee and he got away from him, making it difficult for him to rectify the situation
I told him that I would be submitting a 2593 (remember them?) to which he answers "go for your life mate, we don't do anything about them we're RAAF!"
To be fair, the problem then, and probably still is the two year posting cycle. By the time a controller is anywhere near proficient he is training his replacement (or attempting to).
I would be interested to hear if that is still the case.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Investigation: AO-2012-119 - Loss of separation assurance - VH-ZZJ / VH-LOJ, Bombardier DHC-8-202 / Aerospatiale AS332L, Darwin Airport, NT, 4 September 2012
Seems they are still having problems managing two aircraft off two runways...
Seems they are still having problems managing two aircraft off two runways...
Bottums Up
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Sozjot
Seems they are still having problems managing two aircraft off two runways...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is Airservices Aust that tight for money that they can't provide an automated ATIS service on VHF frequency? Even a backwater domestic airport in third world Indonesia has this at Kupang 400 miles away. 127.55 for those overflying enroute to Darwin.
Probably wrong again!!
How many times have you seen the METAR from the BOM equipment different to the ATIS? Temp, Wind, Cloud etc.... Just the other week the YMML ATIS said 11c etc, the METAR said 9c.
Its my understanding from many visits that the Tower controllers compile the ATIS info from their equipment and own observations from the Tower. Some equipment is possibly supplied by the BOM but the ATIS is made up by the actual controllers observation of the Wind, Temp Vis and Cloud cover.
They are licensed Met observers.
How many times have you seen the METAR from the BOM equipment different to the ATIS? Temp, Wind, Cloud etc.... Just the other week the YMML ATIS said 11c etc, the METAR said 9c.
Its my understanding from many visits that the Tower controllers compile the ATIS info from their equipment and own observations from the Tower. Some equipment is possibly supplied by the BOM but the ATIS is made up by the actual controllers observation of the Wind, Temp Vis and Cloud cover.
They are licensed Met observers.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 9th Oct 2012 at 09:00.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nitpicker, correct. However its all derived from the same equipment. Tower will sometimes put temp up a degree or two in the morning knowing its going to rise. Cloud and viz is often different due to idiosyncracies of the met equipment.
Anyway, back on track - ATIS not owned by BOM.
Anyway, back on track - ATIS not owned by BOM.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tropical Australia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Darwin ATIS might be using equipment on the airfield rather than the BoM equipment near the highway. More representative of what is actually happening at the airport. Especially with regards to QNH. Cloud and vis from the Met office is nothing like what it is in the 'real world'!!
Probably the same for many other places too. Met offices are not always located where they can see or sense what aviation bods need.
Sorry for the off thread stuff. Isn't Darwin a training venue for ATC? Might explain some of the sub-standard goings on? I've noticed a lot of difficulty with allocation of parking bays at times. How hard is it to look out the window and see which one is vacant?
Probably the same for many other places too. Met offices are not always located where they can see or sense what aviation bods need.
Sorry for the off thread stuff. Isn't Darwin a training venue for ATC? Might explain some of the sub-standard goings on? I've noticed a lot of difficulty with allocation of parking bays at times. How hard is it to look out the window and see which one is vacant?
Unless the RAAF do it differently, we as ATC don't have a single thing to do with parking allocation. If we did, there would never be an empty bay. You may have problems getting the right stairs etc 
A few people have mentioned the ATIS stuff, we as ATC compile the ATIS (and a bit of local knowledge means that occasionally we add a few degrees to the temp, that sort of thing) however we do derive most of the data from the BoM gear at the airfield. Clouds and vis we have a few tricks but we do not rely soley on the BoM gear.
AWIS which I think someone alluded to earlier is not supplied by ASA. I believe it is an aerodrome operator issue but I am not 100% certain of that.
A few people have mentioned the ATIS stuff, we as ATC compile the ATIS (and a bit of local knowledge means that occasionally we add a few degrees to the temp, that sort of thing) however we do derive most of the data from the BoM gear at the airfield. Clouds and vis we have a few tricks but we do not rely soley on the BoM gear.
AWIS which I think someone alluded to earlier is not supplied by ASA. I believe it is an aerodrome operator issue but I am not 100% certain of that.
Front page of the NT news today, "seconds from disaster!" stand by for media circus.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/
http://www.ntnews.com.au/
Last edited by SpyderPig; 9th Oct 2012 at 23:45.
Bottums Up
Thread Starter
SpyderPig, surely you're mistaken, there was no croc involved, so how could it be on the FRONT page? 
Last edited by Capt Claret; 10th Oct 2012 at 01:50. Reason: Typo
From abc.net news:
Good load factors. Need another 10 seats!
Controller suspended after mid-air collision scare
By Bridget Brennan
Photo: The Qantas planes came within 200 metres of colliding.
An air traffic controller has been suspended over a mid-air incident in which two planes carrying 270 passengers came within 200 metres of colliding near Darwin International Airport.
The Australian Department of Defence and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau are investigating last Tuesday's incident.
An ADF spokeswoman says it is believed an air traffic controller directed a Qantas Boeing 717 flight from Alice Springs, that was on course to land, and a Qantas Boeing 737, that had just taken off en route to Melbourne, on to a path that would have taken them through the same height.
The ABC understands that a RAAF Hercules C-130 transport plane also flying in the area at the time had been assigned the same air traffic control system tag as one of the two passenger airliners.
This is believed to have caused confusion about the aircraft in the air traffic control tower.
The traffic collision avoidance system aboard the Boeing 717, carrying 115 passengers, is believed to have indicated that the two aircraft were on the same path and separated by about 200 metres in altitude.
There were 155 passengers on board the Boeing 737.
One plane is reported to have passed directly below the other.
President of the Australian and International Pilots Association president Barry Jackson says the pilots worked quickly to avoid a collision.
"Air traffic (controllers), as pilots, are under pressure and there are incidents like this that happen," he said.
"The investigation process is designed such that we find out if there are any failings."
The controller has been suspended temporarily while the investigation takes place.
By Bridget Brennan
Photo: The Qantas planes came within 200 metres of colliding.
An air traffic controller has been suspended over a mid-air incident in which two planes carrying 270 passengers came within 200 metres of colliding near Darwin International Airport.
The Australian Department of Defence and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau are investigating last Tuesday's incident.
An ADF spokeswoman says it is believed an air traffic controller directed a Qantas Boeing 717 flight from Alice Springs, that was on course to land, and a Qantas Boeing 737, that had just taken off en route to Melbourne, on to a path that would have taken them through the same height.
The ABC understands that a RAAF Hercules C-130 transport plane also flying in the area at the time had been assigned the same air traffic control system tag as one of the two passenger airliners.
This is believed to have caused confusion about the aircraft in the air traffic control tower.
The traffic collision avoidance system aboard the Boeing 717, carrying 115 passengers, is believed to have indicated that the two aircraft were on the same path and separated by about 200 metres in altitude.
There were 155 passengers on board the Boeing 737.
One plane is reported to have passed directly below the other.
President of the Australian and International Pilots Association president Barry Jackson says the pilots worked quickly to avoid a collision.
"Air traffic (controllers), as pilots, are under pressure and there are incidents like this that happen," he said.
"The investigation process is designed such that we find out if there are any failings."
The controller has been suspended temporarily while the investigation takes place.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 10th Oct 2012 at 02:16.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a organisational problem
G'day all,
I read this thread with interest having RAAF and AsA ATC experience and alsothe other side of the mic.
I need to start by not excusing the actions of the ATC involved but Ibelieve there is a bigger problem contributing to this.
This problem involves the RAAF ATC's bigger mission and whether or not itinvolves providing civil ATS at joint user aerodromes.
We only need to head over to www.defencejobs.gov.auto see that you can no longer apply to become an ATC, but now something calleda JBAC. In general, what I am saying is that if the RAAF ATC mission is to be aJBAC, then they should hand over the Monday to Friday ATC duties to AsA andfocus on what they do best - deploying to crappy places around the world andbeing a JBAC.
People have identified the posting cycles that ADF people do as a contributingfactor in that yes, as soon as people get familiar with the aircraft types andthe nature of the operations, they are posted to other bases. Airservices doesnot have this problem (generally speaking). Airservices is able to retain theircorporate knowledge at each Tower, Approach cell or Enroute sector. Most of theRAAF ATC do move around every 3-4 years. The RAAF also do not collect TerminalNav charges. Some people raise the issue of the ATIS and a separate VHF freq.Well pay the TNC and you get some better facilities. Speaking of facilities,have a look at the system differences between RAAF and Airservices. You willnotice one of the companies has spent A LOT of money improving their system toimprove the service they can deliver.
Some have raised the tone and manner that they have been spoken to on thephone by particular ATC's. I would remind the callers, that they are speakingto public servants. They have a responsibility to provide a service, ATS, andto best represent the public service sector for which they work. If you, as thecaller, feel as though you have been mistreated, or that your message has notbeen actioned, then, as someone earlier remarked, do something about it. Takepen to paper, or write an email, or request the person's name and their boss'contact details and make a complaint. If you're not satisfied, then ask tospeak to HQ of RAAF ATC at Williamtown.
I realise that all this takes time, and that most of the time you are onlyon the ground for a short turnaround and all you have time for is one quickcall, but record the details and pass it to your companies government or ATC liaisonperson for them to action. It is not good enough to be palmed off when you havea legitimate operational complaint.
And finally, everyone in aviation, at times, will make a mistake. I have hadcalls from pilots calling to acknowledge that they were at fault in inputtingan incorrect STAR clearance, after it had been alleged that it was my fault andI had issued them the incorrect STAR. It's why we have many layers of defencesin aviation. And I too have made incorrect sequencing decisions and throughhindsight, there was a better way. But each day all the pilots and ATC do theirbest to provide the best service they can, with the equipment, and support theyhave. Just like there are incidents reported at Darwin and Williamtown, thereare also incidents at Brisbane and Melbourne.
Anyway, this might seem like a long ramble, but just some thoughts. I haveadvocated long from the ATC side that the Traffic Management Plan needs toevolve and be updated, and I believe that is finally happening. And if the RAAF are serious in providing ATS at joint user aerodromes, then step up to the mark. Improve the equipment and change the organisation to ensure that the staff you have are there for the long run. And charge the bucks if you need to pay for it.
I read this thread with interest having RAAF and AsA ATC experience and alsothe other side of the mic.
I need to start by not excusing the actions of the ATC involved but Ibelieve there is a bigger problem contributing to this.
This problem involves the RAAF ATC's bigger mission and whether or not itinvolves providing civil ATS at joint user aerodromes.
We only need to head over to www.defencejobs.gov.auto see that you can no longer apply to become an ATC, but now something calleda JBAC. In general, what I am saying is that if the RAAF ATC mission is to be aJBAC, then they should hand over the Monday to Friday ATC duties to AsA andfocus on what they do best - deploying to crappy places around the world andbeing a JBAC.
People have identified the posting cycles that ADF people do as a contributingfactor in that yes, as soon as people get familiar with the aircraft types andthe nature of the operations, they are posted to other bases. Airservices doesnot have this problem (generally speaking). Airservices is able to retain theircorporate knowledge at each Tower, Approach cell or Enroute sector. Most of theRAAF ATC do move around every 3-4 years. The RAAF also do not collect TerminalNav charges. Some people raise the issue of the ATIS and a separate VHF freq.Well pay the TNC and you get some better facilities. Speaking of facilities,have a look at the system differences between RAAF and Airservices. You willnotice one of the companies has spent A LOT of money improving their system toimprove the service they can deliver.
Some have raised the tone and manner that they have been spoken to on thephone by particular ATC's. I would remind the callers, that they are speakingto public servants. They have a responsibility to provide a service, ATS, andto best represent the public service sector for which they work. If you, as thecaller, feel as though you have been mistreated, or that your message has notbeen actioned, then, as someone earlier remarked, do something about it. Takepen to paper, or write an email, or request the person's name and their boss'contact details and make a complaint. If you're not satisfied, then ask tospeak to HQ of RAAF ATC at Williamtown.
I realise that all this takes time, and that most of the time you are onlyon the ground for a short turnaround and all you have time for is one quickcall, but record the details and pass it to your companies government or ATC liaisonperson for them to action. It is not good enough to be palmed off when you havea legitimate operational complaint.
And finally, everyone in aviation, at times, will make a mistake. I have hadcalls from pilots calling to acknowledge that they were at fault in inputtingan incorrect STAR clearance, after it had been alleged that it was my fault andI had issued them the incorrect STAR. It's why we have many layers of defencesin aviation. And I too have made incorrect sequencing decisions and throughhindsight, there was a better way. But each day all the pilots and ATC do theirbest to provide the best service they can, with the equipment, and support theyhave. Just like there are incidents reported at Darwin and Williamtown, thereare also incidents at Brisbane and Melbourne.
Anyway, this might seem like a long ramble, but just some thoughts. I haveadvocated long from the ATC side that the Traffic Management Plan needs toevolve and be updated, and I believe that is finally happening. And if the RAAF are serious in providing ATS at joint user aerodromes, then step up to the mark. Improve the equipment and change the organisation to ensure that the staff you have are there for the long run. And charge the bucks if you need to pay for it.
