Darwin ATC. Nothing to see here, move along
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: You know where the Opera House is? Well....no where near there.
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 38 Likes
on
11 Posts
There needs to be more weight added to civilian reports against military ATC.
This is an extract taken from the ATSB report:
"The ATSB is not satisfied that the DoD has adequately addressed the safety issues regarding the provision of refresher training to air traffic controllers for the scanning of green radar returns and in compromised separation recovery requirements and techniques. As a result, the ATSB has made formal recommendations to the DoD to take further safety action on these issues."
What's the bet that nothing's significant changes?
Operating into Townsville frequently for many years, I too brief TL ATC as a threat - I know it sounds ridiculous that we need to do this in Australia but unfortunately it is required. Knowing that this happens in Darwin too, I don't feel alone now.
What if the shoe was on the other foot - Imagine if ATC had to brief threats...then having to brief every aircraft coming into their CTA as a threat?
Often going into TL you just shake your head at ATC - because something always happens...not enough to warrant a report though, but enough to lower your confidence in their ability and heighten your alertness.
I've filed reports on occasion and I've seen very serious reports filed - with no improvements.
Professionals are supposed to take advice/critique and improve themselves or the system in which they operate - not take it as somebody trying to take their job (wtf?)
For me I find it safer operating in TL when ATC have closed for the night and it's a CTAF. It's a lot more efficient too. Yep - safer when they are not there!
I think what tends to happen with reports, is when there is constant and consistent need to report and there is no outcome to the reports, pilots stop reporting. There needs to be more weight added to these reports, then you will see more reports being filed and hopefully improvements will be made before the next serious incident. I'm just wondering which one will happen first
This is a serious problem.
This is an extract taken from the ATSB report:
"The ATSB is not satisfied that the DoD has adequately addressed the safety issues regarding the provision of refresher training to air traffic controllers for the scanning of green radar returns and in compromised separation recovery requirements and techniques. As a result, the ATSB has made formal recommendations to the DoD to take further safety action on these issues."
What's the bet that nothing's significant changes?
Operating into Townsville frequently for many years, I too brief TL ATC as a threat - I know it sounds ridiculous that we need to do this in Australia but unfortunately it is required. Knowing that this happens in Darwin too, I don't feel alone now.
What if the shoe was on the other foot - Imagine if ATC had to brief threats...then having to brief every aircraft coming into their CTA as a threat?
Often going into TL you just shake your head at ATC - because something always happens...not enough to warrant a report though, but enough to lower your confidence in their ability and heighten your alertness.
I've filed reports on occasion and I've seen very serious reports filed - with no improvements.
Professionals are supposed to take advice/critique and improve themselves or the system in which they operate - not take it as somebody trying to take their job (wtf?)
For me I find it safer operating in TL when ATC have closed for the night and it's a CTAF. It's a lot more efficient too. Yep - safer when they are not there!
I think what tends to happen with reports, is when there is constant and consistent need to report and there is no outcome to the reports, pilots stop reporting. There needs to be more weight added to these reports, then you will see more reports being filed and hopefully improvements will be made before the next serious incident. I'm just wondering which one will happen first
This is a serious problem.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For me I find it safer operating in TL when ATC have closed for the night and it's a CTAF. It's a lot more efficient too. Yep - safer when they are not there!
It's all the little things that add up. Nothing is really unsafe or radical, but it's the way things are done that is the problem. It'll be the intercept heading or the radar vector, the sequencing. Held high, slowed down and track shortened. Vectored to intercept an 'abbreviated ILS' at a 45 degree angle from above.
As pilots we do things the same way every time. That way we know pretty quickly when it's going pear shaped. In Millitaty CTA it's always different. There is no real standard flow. The civilian ATC generally operate a certain way and its predictable.
As pilots we do things the same way every time. That way we know pretty quickly when it's going pear shaped. In Millitaty CTA it's always different. There is no real standard flow. The civilian ATC generally operate a certain way and its predictable.
Doesn't matter whether you're driving an F18 or a 737. The sentiment is often the same.
Being the Geoff whose post to Ben Sandilands was quoted at the start of this thread I want to refute everything posted by anonymous persons about the quality or otherwise of the RAAF ATCs at Darwin. (or Townsville)
They will be (I do not know any of them) fine young Australians doing a great job for their country. The problem has nothing to do with them and everything to do with organizational issues. (See James Reason about latent conditions/systemic weaknesses)
It is my view:
1. That Australian bureaucracy is currently complacent about aviation safety because we have long history of success. (Evidence - almost any Government document you read about aviation safety will start with self-congratulation. Try reading the State Safety Plan and the Forsyth Report)
2. Airspace policy is non-existent in Australia. (if it exists somewhere then it is difficult to determine from observation.)
3. Because of this, the conflicting needs of the ADF and civil flyers are not determined logically. (That is - commonsense and the needs of the nation)
4. The ADF will always win the battle against civilian users for airspace because there is effectively no civilian voice. (Evidence - if there was this Darwin problem would have been fixed and this thread not exist)
5. Airservices does not exist to fulfill the above function although one of it's aims is to "identify potential cost savings". It is however simply a service provider. (ANSP)
6. CASA could be that agency but it is by definition a "safety" agency unlike the US FAA and UK CAA who are aviation administrators. (The closest we get to a civilian administrator is the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Affairs which has dropped any mention of Aviation and Transport from it's title)
7. The Forsyth Report has not grasped the nettle firmly because it only recommends (13) that Canberra bureaucrats "establish an agreed policy position on safety oversight of civil operations into joint-user airports". (Please see my points 1 and 2)
8. The ADF is not an appropriate agency to be providing ATC to civilian airliners for organizational and cultural reasons.
9. It would be a good idea if the Minister appoints someone to the CASA Board who knows about airspace and safety from the ATC point of view and who will have the job of championing the views of civilian airspace users.
Sorry to be so long winded but I hate to highlight problems without at least having a punt at solving them.
I have given my name because I believe in an exchange of ideas and if I am wrong I will be the first to admit it so please try and avoid personal insults
They will be (I do not know any of them) fine young Australians doing a great job for their country. The problem has nothing to do with them and everything to do with organizational issues. (See James Reason about latent conditions/systemic weaknesses)
It is my view:
1. That Australian bureaucracy is currently complacent about aviation safety because we have long history of success. (Evidence - almost any Government document you read about aviation safety will start with self-congratulation. Try reading the State Safety Plan and the Forsyth Report)
2. Airspace policy is non-existent in Australia. (if it exists somewhere then it is difficult to determine from observation.)
3. Because of this, the conflicting needs of the ADF and civil flyers are not determined logically. (That is - commonsense and the needs of the nation)
4. The ADF will always win the battle against civilian users for airspace because there is effectively no civilian voice. (Evidence - if there was this Darwin problem would have been fixed and this thread not exist)
5. Airservices does not exist to fulfill the above function although one of it's aims is to "identify potential cost savings". It is however simply a service provider. (ANSP)
6. CASA could be that agency but it is by definition a "safety" agency unlike the US FAA and UK CAA who are aviation administrators. (The closest we get to a civilian administrator is the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Affairs which has dropped any mention of Aviation and Transport from it's title)
7. The Forsyth Report has not grasped the nettle firmly because it only recommends (13) that Canberra bureaucrats "establish an agreed policy position on safety oversight of civil operations into joint-user airports". (Please see my points 1 and 2)
8. The ADF is not an appropriate agency to be providing ATC to civilian airliners for organizational and cultural reasons.
9. It would be a good idea if the Minister appoints someone to the CASA Board who knows about airspace and safety from the ATC point of view and who will have the job of championing the views of civilian airspace users.
Sorry to be so long winded but I hate to highlight problems without at least having a punt at solving them.
I have given my name because I believe in an exchange of ideas and if I am wrong I will be the first to admit it so please try and avoid personal insults
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WELL PUT GEOFF
As some of you may be aware I have worked at senior levels in both military and civil airspace management both in Australia and overseas. (This is being written as I prepare to depart Livingstone, Zambia after the CANSO Africa conference to return to my "day job" in DGCA Indonesia.)
Although Geoff and I have never totally agreed on aviation matters, as we have both progressed in the industry we have come closer to agreement. While I do not totally agree with all his points (above), most of them are well founded and appropriate to the wider discussion.
Well done Geoff.
MJG
Although Geoff and I have never totally agreed on aviation matters, as we have both progressed in the industry we have come closer to agreement. While I do not totally agree with all his points (above), most of them are well founded and appropriate to the wider discussion.
Well done Geoff.
MJG
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Love this Qantas guy! this happened a few months back...
QF793: "Darwin tower gday Qantas 793 ready"
Darwin TWR "Qantas 793 hold short runway 29"
QF793: "Holding short runway 29"
......
traffic we were waiting for is a C210 on a 5 mile final on 29... keep in mind 36 is available...
......
QF793: "tower just out of curiosity, do you always hold heavy aircraft up for lighties landing on the main runway?"
few moments later...
Darwin TWR "ABC change of runway track for right base 36"
... "qantas 793 line up rwy 29"...
This happens all the time though... they dont seem to improve unfortunately as much as I try to stay optimistic!
QF793: "Darwin tower gday Qantas 793 ready"
Darwin TWR "Qantas 793 hold short runway 29"
QF793: "Holding short runway 29"
......
traffic we were waiting for is a C210 on a 5 mile final on 29... keep in mind 36 is available...
......
QF793: "tower just out of curiosity, do you always hold heavy aircraft up for lighties landing on the main runway?"
few moments later...
Darwin TWR "ABC change of runway track for right base 36"
... "qantas 793 line up rwy 29"...
This happens all the time though... they dont seem to improve unfortunately as much as I try to stay optimistic!
5 mile final!
1. The Cessna will take two and a half minutes at 120 kts to reach the threshold of RWY 29 and could slow down if he/she was asked.
2. There is no wake turbulence standard required, only runway separation
3. B737 cleared for take off will take about 30 secs to enter runway and 30-40 seconds to become airborne
4. There will be then be a minute and a half left before the Cessna reaches RWY 29
5. Almost enough to get a second B737 airborne provided there was an outbound track split with the one already airborne, a medium weight turbo-prop would also fit nicely in the gap no track split required.
6. Re: previous posts about departure instructions, these can be obtained in advance or introduce auto-release procedures. (That is, the TWR controller does not have to ask for departure instructions)
2. There is no wake turbulence standard required, only runway separation
3. B737 cleared for take off will take about 30 secs to enter runway and 30-40 seconds to become airborne
4. There will be then be a minute and a half left before the Cessna reaches RWY 29
5. Almost enough to get a second B737 airborne provided there was an outbound track split with the one already airborne, a medium weight turbo-prop would also fit nicely in the gap no track split required.
6. Re: previous posts about departure instructions, these can be obtained in advance or introduce auto-release procedures. (That is, the TWR controller does not have to ask for departure instructions)
Basically what Geoff said. 5nm I can get 2 away if there is no backtrack required.
Could be any number of reasons why there was a delay.. Dep may not have had something with the "Next" call straight away - assuming they don't have auto releases in Darwin.
Could be any number of reasons why there was a delay.. Dep may not have had something with the "Next" call straight away - assuming they don't have auto releases in Darwin.
It would appear Darwin is not the sole domain of idiocy in the ranks of ATC.
After a close-call-that-wasn't at Cooly today, we have an Airservices spokeswoman come out with this pearler:
Just because they're common doesn't mean they're of no concern you peckerhead. 
After a close-call-that-wasn't at Cooly today, we have an Airservices spokeswoman come out with this pearler:
Originally Posted by Airservices Australia
...loss of separation assurances were commonplace in Australian aviation and generally of no concern.
The Virgin flight then performed a loop before landing without incident behind a Qantas aircraft.
Not only DN or TL
Landed one night at WLM rwy 30 while a C152 was conducting circuits. C152 was upwind having just completed a touch and go. Us: "Request backtrack to first taxiway on right" Rottweiler in the tower : "Negative. Roll out, take next taxiway right" (approx 500m), then having to taxi back parallel to full runway length followed by further holding for the C152 to land in order to cross the runway at the threshold.
A few nights later same scenario except no aircraft in the circuit and none inbound. Same Rottweiler. Requested back track after landing with the same response, so I ask: "just curious, is this constant denial for back tracks a local rule or SOPS?" About 30 seconds later comes the reply, "Only if operationally required"
Months later inbound at night from the south at 10 miles with CB's to the southeast broadcast on ATIS. Instructed to turn right onto a heading that would take us directly into the CB approx 8 miles away due to inbound Challenger 30 miles out (WTF?) Us: "Unable to accept right turns due to a cell at 8 miles" (that you yourself broadcast on the ATIS
), followed by this pearler of a question from her, "Which way is the cell moving?" (Oh FFS!) The best is yet to come; After advising we cannot answer her asinine question she instructs, "Make a RIGHT hand, 1 minute holding pattern." Us: "I say again, unable to accept right turns due to the storm cell." Reply, "Make a left hand holding pattern."
All of this over an aircraft 30 miles out
There are many other idiotic instances into and out of WLM over the years that I care to forget.
Mil ATC are nothing more than a joke and embarrassment.
A few nights later same scenario except no aircraft in the circuit and none inbound. Same Rottweiler. Requested back track after landing with the same response, so I ask: "just curious, is this constant denial for back tracks a local rule or SOPS?" About 30 seconds later comes the reply, "Only if operationally required"
Months later inbound at night from the south at 10 miles with CB's to the southeast broadcast on ATIS. Instructed to turn right onto a heading that would take us directly into the CB approx 8 miles away due to inbound Challenger 30 miles out (WTF?) Us: "Unable to accept right turns due to a cell at 8 miles" (that you yourself broadcast on the ATIS
), followed by this pearler of a question from her, "Which way is the cell moving?" (Oh FFS!) The best is yet to come; After advising we cannot answer her asinine question she instructs, "Make a RIGHT hand, 1 minute holding pattern." Us: "I say again, unable to accept right turns due to the storm cell." Reply, "Make a left hand holding pattern."All of this over an aircraft 30 miles out
There are many other idiotic instances into and out of WLM over the years that I care to forget.
Mil ATC are nothing more than a joke and embarrassment.
Last edited by Jenna Talia; 13th Oct 2014 at 17:51.
Thread Starter
Thats a stupid comment. I'm sure the RAAF guys (as individuals) are very similar in standard to the ASA guys. My reason in highlighting this report was to question the RAAF system which I believe creates these problems, and the fact that they have not and will not accept there is any problem.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In defence of my military colleagues, anyone who has been a pilot or ATC for more than five minutes will have stories of the other side being daft or less than perfect. And ATC do have the equivalent of 'briefing as a threat' for certain operators and/or aircraft.
Leaving aside the performance of ATC, isn't a major issue that we are trying to use a single pice of tarmac and sky as both military base and a civil airport? With a low enough number of movements that can work (and does all over the world I gather). One a certain level is reached one side is going to suffer, and as the military own the place it will be civil.
Since OneSky will probably involve relocating all civil TCUs except PH to ML or BN, it will be interesting to see what happens to DN, TL etc. When PEA moved into PH centre everyones lives became easier.
Leaving aside the performance of ATC, isn't a major issue that we are trying to use a single pice of tarmac and sky as both military base and a civil airport? With a low enough number of movements that can work (and does all over the world I gather). One a certain level is reached one side is going to suffer, and as the military own the place it will be civil.
Since OneSky will probably involve relocating all civil TCUs except PH to ML or BN, it will be interesting to see what happens to DN, TL etc. When PEA moved into PH centre everyones lives became easier.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Under
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure the RAAF guys (as individuals) are very similar in standard to the ASA guys. My reason in highlighting this report was to question the RAAF system which I believe creates these problems, and the fact that they have not and will not accept there is any problem.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: You know where the Opera House is? Well....no where near there.
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 38 Likes
on
11 Posts
nautilus blue
I really don't think we need to get into discussions about who wins if there are a certain amount of aircraft movements ie. Military or Civil
What we need to see is increased safety for aircraft operating in Military CTA - both military and civil.
To make a huge step in the right direction, the DoD need to approach ASA and ask them to contract some trainers for a certain period. The civi contractors could advise and supervise improvements.
The military use civilian contractors all the time - why not in ATC consultation?
What we need to see is increased safety for aircraft operating in Military CTA - both military and civil.
To make a huge step in the right direction, the DoD need to approach ASA and ask them to contract some trainers for a certain period. The civi contractors could advise and supervise improvements.
The military use civilian contractors all the time - why not in ATC consultation?