Separation issue involving Boeing 737, VH-VXH, and Airbus A320, VH-VGV, near Darwin
Why can’t they just be pilots and fly the SID/STAR most appropriate to them and separate themselves vertically? 
Then there is the problem that SID/STARs wonder all over the airspace, going away and sometimes back towards the field, as well as using totally separate waypoints. What do you use for separation datum? Nothing on the charts says where other procedures overlap, it's entirely meant to be used with ATC assigning procedures and monitoring separation and compliance.
Can someone show me where it stays TIBA? It is a temporary restricted area, clearance is required to operate within it.
Notes I have seen say maintain runway track until varied by BN centre. No reason to fly a SID.
Who would have thought having RPT operations at non towered airfields was a bad idea?
Can someone show me where it stays TIBA? It is a temporary restricted area, clearance is required to operate within it.
Notes I have seen say maintain runway track until varied by BN centre. No reason to fly a SID.
Like Kalgoorlie, Learmonth, et al? Also most mine sites.
It's not TIBA and yes it's a TRA. But no, there is no clearance required or involved because there is no ATC service provided. Access authority is no more an approval to operate in the TRA, using MBZ procedures.
Can you cite where these notes you have seen about runway track are published? If it's not official they are worth nothing.
And given it is MBZ procedures, pilots can choose to fly SID/STARs or not. It's up to them and whatever their company says. And contrary to other assertions on this thread, there is segregation built into, and between the SIDs and associated STARs serving the SAME runway. That is how they were designed. The VNAV requirements that are part of the procedures are there for that purpose. [Note it does NOT work for reciprocal runway operations (RRO), because that is not a normal runway operation mode, particularly when there is conflicting traffic.]
When an ATC service is provided, ATC will monitor to ensure it is working as designed, but when they are not there it's all back on the pilots, as the NOTAM says. Conducting RRO in MBZ procedures will add an additional hazard that pilots should take into account in their risk assessment when proposing to operate in that way.
Last edited by parishiltons; 12th Apr 2023 at 00:31.
Access authority is no more an approval to operate in the TRA, using MBZ
So can an aircraft enter WITHOUT authority? Mmmmmmmmm
It's a clear distinction. The authority to operate in this situation is no different to for example, one or more fire fighting aircraft being given authority to operate in a TRA created around a bushfire - it keeps out the sightseers. As to operating without authority, why would any responsible/professional pilot enter without authority? The intent of the authority is for safety - to limit the number of operations at any given time to those who have a genuine need to use the airspace.
How is that functionally different to a clearance to operate in the TRA?
Are you a pilot? Do you work for a company large enough that they generate Operational Notices? Believe me, they are “official”.
Can you cite where these notes you have seen about runway track are published? If it's not official they are worth nothing.
Originally Posted by Iccy
Are you a pilot? Do you work for a company large enough that they generate Operational Notices? Believe me, they are “official”.
Originally Posted by Iccy
There is a procedure to maintain runway track until contact and clearance from BN centre.
Originally Posted by Iccy
Notes I have seen say maintain runway track until varied by BN centre. No reason to fly a SID.
Back to the topic, what a dog's breakfast. Just downgrade it to Class G+ and CTAF.
Sure, I will post a reference to my company ops notice, thereby telling the world who I work for. No thanks.
It was an ops notice that explained operators had agreed at HFO, MFO level to adopt that procedure, runway track until in contact with BN centre and clearance given for continued climb above 8500’
It was an ops notice that explained operators had agreed at HFO, MFO level to adopt that procedure, runway track until in contact with BN centre and clearance given for continued climb above 8500’
You should have just come out and said that in the first place. In fact, that shines a completely different light on what happened.
By "was", I assume it's no longer current.
By "was", I assume it's no longer current.
The following 2 users liked this post by Capn Bloggs:
Because a clearance is only provided in airspace where there is a specified level air traffic control service provided, which in this case is clearly absent. So the only other way to enter and operate in a TRA is to obtain approval to do so from the 'controlling authority'. The OAR (Office of Airspace Regulation) in CASA will nominate who, or which organisation is that authority when they issue the Instrument that creates the TRA.
Well the Chief Pilot of a Qantas Group airline put out a Standing Order saying Group pilots were to fly a SID/STAR when operating in the MBZ. So not everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet.
It was presumably not written with the intent of reciprocal runway operations.
It was presumably not written with the intent of reciprocal runway operations.
Because a clearance is only provided in airspace where there is a specified level air traffic control service provided, which in this case is clearly absent. So the only other way to enter and operate in a TRA is to obtain approval to do so from the 'controlling authority'. The OAR (Office of Airspace Regulation) in CASA will nominate who, or which organisation is that authority when they issue the Instrument that creates the TRA.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
For information, the person performing the Darwin Flightwach function is a licenced RAAF ATC - pretty sure tower rated, but not sure if approach rated.
My $0.02 - a SID is a published procedure between published waypoints that definitely meets the requirements for an approved instrument departure procedure. Whilst the highest object in the vicinity of Darwin is below 700 feet, the simplest way to ensure the departure is legal is to fly a SID to the MSA.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
They certainly do now. When these procedures were first implemented, Darwin Flightwatch only provided a traffic statement. I remember on my first flight in the airspace after the TRA procedures were established, a taxying eJet stating that as it was restricted airspace they needed a clearance to operate in it. They were given a clearance, and since then all responses have included a clearance to operate in the TRA.
No aligned Swiss cheese holes to see here!
(What’s astonishing about so many aviation disasters is the bunch of unusual risks which were durr-obvious before the disaster happened.)
(What’s astonishing about so many aviation disasters is the bunch of unusual risks which were durr-obvious before the disaster happened.)
It’s an operational RAAF base and the RAAF needs to know who is coming and going, hence announcing yourselves and the acknowledgement to enter the ‘TRA’. Obviously it’s due to lack of staff and if it was required anywhere civil, due lack of staff, it would just be a TIBA.
My ops info says fly a STAR and SID, nothing about this straight ahead business. But as many have highlighted the reciprocal ops creates the problem. Not quite sure of the specifics of the ‘near miss’ but if it was on the centreline, then doesn’t the landing aircraft have right of way. It would appear to me that the departing aircraft was in a hurry to get away rather than wait 5 mins for the arrivals. As someone said, perhaps they could have departed of R29 via the very long SID but hit the MSA 1 minute after TO and then turned east to pick up the track. How much extra time would that have taken, rather than TO directly at an arriving aircraft.
Just my 2 cents worth…….we will see the investigation outcome in about 2 years when the TRA will be a long forgotten thing of the past (maybe).
My ops info says fly a STAR and SID, nothing about this straight ahead business. But as many have highlighted the reciprocal ops creates the problem. Not quite sure of the specifics of the ‘near miss’ but if it was on the centreline, then doesn’t the landing aircraft have right of way. It would appear to me that the departing aircraft was in a hurry to get away rather than wait 5 mins for the arrivals. As someone said, perhaps they could have departed of R29 via the very long SID but hit the MSA 1 minute after TO and then turned east to pick up the track. How much extra time would that have taken, rather than TO directly at an arriving aircraft.
Just my 2 cents worth…….we will see the investigation outcome in about 2 years when the TRA will be a long forgotten thing of the past (maybe).