Melbourne Air Traffic Control
The behavior is seen across the board, got a far north Tower offside recently. A330 6nm to run...so I called ready...standard reply back...still time to get two out...then called ready for an immediate....then got the whole #### remain in your current position until advised further and went on and on. I didn’t get a lineup call until the thing vacated I assume as punishment.
That being said - I do find that some aircraft after being told to line up and be ready for an immediate, then dawdle up to the lined up position, make a 90 degree turn (presumably with a company speed limit in turns of 10kts). The performance figures have a line up allowance which isn’t predicated on a 90 degree turn. You can then have the power already up so when ATC clears for takeoff you just hit the TOGA switches and away you go, rather than waiting for the engines to spool up first!
The performance figures have a line up allowance which isn’t predicated on a 90 degree turn.
I’ll be really interested to learn something here.
Seems they just want the Australian system to remain the laughing stock of the world.
89 degrees? 45? .....Airbus and Boeing?..... What does the OPT use?
I’ll be really interested to learn something here.
I’ll be really interested to learn something here.
Some of the mini backtracks at 34 J are just ridiculous. It probably did make a difference to the overloaded navajo but hardly does 4/5ths of F all in a transport category aircraft operating under CAO.
On what grounds? If the aircraft are certified to operate in crosswinds in excess of 25kts and we all go through CASA approved training and checking programs that expose us to operating the aircraft at their limits, what possible reason could CASA have to continue to restrict our operations?
Seems they just want the Australian system to remain the laughing stock of the world.
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: HKG
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bleat away all you like about this and that and the other being the myriad reasons why you had a bad day.
But please don't infer or outright state that this is due to go-slow or industrial action by ATC. It isn't.
And frankly it is offensive to ATC's when they are stuck in the same impossible and frustrating position that most of you professional pilots are.
But please don't infer or outright state that this is due to go-slow or industrial action by ATC. It isn't.
And frankly it is offensive to ATC's when they are stuck in the same impossible and frustrating position that most of you professional pilots are.
So, how do Pilots and ATC get this FIXED or change the system? Who do we lobby to as professionals to both achieve more efficiency and make the next 30 years of careers more enjoyable?
Idea 1: Let people take runway 27 with tailwind/xwind wind at their own comfort level. I believe all the narrow body’s can legally take 10kts tailwind for takeoff and some even 15. Would I rather take a headwind? Of Course! Would I take 10 kts tailwind in an aircraft rated at 15kts TW to save 30 mins? YES. Don’t get me wrong, better airmanship would be to takeoff in to wind but it’s no different to taking off on a short strip like Hamilton Island or Mackay which is marginal. If OPT says its legal its legal. (Unfortunate that the current system is pushing us to think like this).
Idea 2, and arguably better: Sort out a flow for runway 09 with dual runway ops.
Cheers
COBT works well if used properly, I can think of VTBS and WSSS where had to use it.
As for ATC in Asia??? Not sure how you can generalise and call them bad. WSSS does seem strangely inefficient considering the western society ways and the technology, then again remember three FIRs in DEP, ARR and APP.
Now I’m sure a lot of us have flown into Bali both airline and corporate, the sheer number of flights/types coming into a single runway and single taxiway...... I call brilliant, yeah the odd hold and if one goes tech on push back it can be a pain. Oh and yes short notice closed due VIP arrival... hmmm!
Manila, etc the list goes on....
As for ATC in Asia??? Not sure how you can generalise and call them bad. WSSS does seem strangely inefficient considering the western society ways and the technology, then again remember three FIRs in DEP, ARR and APP.
Now I’m sure a lot of us have flown into Bali both airline and corporate, the sheer number of flights/types coming into a single runway and single taxiway...... I call brilliant, yeah the odd hold and if one goes tech on push back it can be a pain. Oh and yes short notice closed due VIP arrival... hmmm!
Manila, etc the list goes on....
As a suggestion: all ATCs' KPIs should be linked to traffic efficiency, and without caveats - a flight takes either a COBT or airborne delay, ALL ATCs KPIs take a percentile hit. I am sure that will have their collective minds focused on safe, expeditious and EFFICIENT traffic management. And, do not get me started with traffic holding fuel and who pays for it, but who should pay for it when traffic holding invoked.
I think we focus on the extra runways and more flexible runway nomination criteria. Aircraft have a maximum crosswind allowance, and ATC has one too as per legislation. If the two are different, they need to be reviewed. Neither pilots or ATCs should be put in a position where they feel the only way to make things happen is to break the rules.
I think we focus on the extra runways and more flexible runway nomination criteria. Aircraft have a maximum crosswind allowance, and ATC has one too as per legislation.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a suggestion: all ATCs' KPIs should be linked to traffic efficiency, and without caveats - a flight takes either a COBT or airborne delay, ALL ATCs KPIs take a percentile hit. I am sure that will have their collective minds focused on safe, expeditious and EFFICIENT traffic management. And, do not get me started with traffic holding fuel and who pays for it, but who should pay for it when traffic holding invoked.
ATC are entirely trying their best every single time that there are delays in the network. They have no control AT ALL over the magnitude or configuration of the delays. To say that the runway wind limits (CASA regulation) or inefficient ground delay usage (Airservices NCC in consultation with airlines) are causing havoc is an entirely fair statement. But both of these have zero to do with licenced ATC. The single exception of flow controllers is basically irrelevant too. They only improve the 'flow' of traffic (It's kinda in the name), not generate delays.
If we put 'safety' to the side (I know, that sounds like a weird statement) and forget the CASA issue with the runway winds, there are still dozens of different factors that come into play with network delays. I could easily write a 5000 word essay on them and still come up short.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be the usual half arsed, 'worlds best practice' garbage. And before all you decrepid old ATC wankas that couldn't stand an ATC leaving before 'retirement' carry on, not blaming console controllers, blaming the clowns that put a crap COBT system in place, there's NO excuse for a ground delay then 'maxing' someone to the field when airborne. Amateur and an international embarrassment.
Ever thought guys, that maybe the COBT system is just a layer to try and ensure a set amount of aircraft “targeting” the same 20 minute window, and not to get you to the gate at an exact minute? How on earth do you think it’s going to work unless you’re airborne?
It was explained to me that the reason why you get max speed to the field sometimes is because the enroute controllers are merely working off a feeder time. Whereas the terminal controllers see the whole situation in close and can close up those gaps.
It was explained to me that the reason why you get max speed to the field sometimes is because the enroute controllers are merely working off a feeder time. Whereas the terminal controllers see the whole situation in close and can close up those gaps.
I signed up to the forum purely to reply to this. What an unbelievably misinformed and juvenile comment. Take the blinkers off and think again.
ATC are entirely trying their best every single time that there are delays in the network. They have no control AT ALL over the magnitude or configuration of the delays. To say that the runway wind limits (CASA regulation) or inefficient ground delay usage (Airservices NCC in consultation with airlines) are causing havoc is an entirely fair statement. But both of these have zero to do with licenced ATC. The single exception of flow controllers is basically irrelevant too. They only improve the 'flow' of traffic (It's kinda in the name), not generate delays.
If we put 'safety' to the side (I know, that sounds like a weird statement) and forget the CASA issue with the runway winds, there are still dozens of different factors that come into play with network delays. I could easily write a 5000 word essay on them and still come up short.
ATC are entirely trying their best every single time that there are delays in the network. They have no control AT ALL over the magnitude or configuration of the delays. To say that the runway wind limits (CASA regulation) or inefficient ground delay usage (Airservices NCC in consultation with airlines) are causing havoc is an entirely fair statement. But both of these have zero to do with licenced ATC. The single exception of flow controllers is basically irrelevant too. They only improve the 'flow' of traffic (It's kinda in the name), not generate delays.
If we put 'safety' to the side (I know, that sounds like a weird statement) and forget the CASA issue with the runway winds, there are still dozens of different factors that come into play with network delays. I could easily write a 5000 word essay on them and still come up short.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Removing downwind limitations is certainly an option that would have a large positive impact.
In reference to ground delays, you have to remember that the airlines have a 'seat at the table'. If there were say, a low probability of fog or storms, the airlines are consulted with a view to ground delay, however sometimes their own met people decide to accept the risk in running a "visuals" rate. They have to play the probabiltiies. Most of the time it will be fine and max capacity is achieved, however when this doesn't pan out, the s**t really hits the fan. The opposite is identical. Sometimes, when storms are predicted and a ground delay is created, the storms don't eventuate and you end up in 'max speed' situations you mentioned because ATC are able to run a high rate tactically because of good weather.
The whole concept is unbelievably dynamic. I can assure you that once you take off, ATC are always optimising for the lowest overall delay.
In reference to ground delays, you have to remember that the airlines have a 'seat at the table'. If there were say, a low probability of fog or storms, the airlines are consulted with a view to ground delay, however sometimes their own met people decide to accept the risk in running a "visuals" rate. They have to play the probabiltiies. Most of the time it will be fine and max capacity is achieved, however when this doesn't pan out, the s**t really hits the fan. The opposite is identical. Sometimes, when storms are predicted and a ground delay is created, the storms don't eventuate and you end up in 'max speed' situations you mentioned because ATC are able to run a high rate tactically because of good weather.
The whole concept is unbelievably dynamic. I can assure you that once you take off, ATC are always optimising for the lowest overall delay.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisvegas
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ever thought guys, that maybe the COBT system is just a layer to try and ensure a set amount of aircraft “targeting” the same 20 minute window, and not to get you to the gate at an exact minute? How on earth do you think it’s going to work unless you’re airborne?
It was explained to me that the reason why you get max speed to the field sometimes is because the enroute controllers are merely working off a feeder time. Whereas the terminal controllers see the whole situation in close and can close up those gaps.
It was explained to me that the reason why you get max speed to the field sometimes is because the enroute controllers are merely working off a feeder time. Whereas the terminal controllers see the whole situation in close and can close up those gaps.
