Separation issue involving Boeing 737, VH-VXH, and Airbus A320, VH-VGV, near Darwin
Can you fly a SID or STAR without ATC surveillance? The AIP ENR references are very ATC heavy.
The following users liked this post:
Are you sure? JEPPs is very specific that a clearance to operate in a restricted area is given in the same form as a controlled airspace clearance.
The following users liked this post:
Can you fly a SID or STAR without ATC surveillance? The AIP ENR references are very ATC heavy.
Also RADAR SIDs do not afford any terrain clearance on reaching the vector height, you obviously need ATC on these as you will still be below MSA as the altitude is predicated on MVA and vectors to remain terrain clear until MSA.
Are you sure? JEPPs is very specific that a clearance to operate in a restricted area is given in the same form as a controlled airspace clearance.
Last edited by 43Inches; 15th Apr 2023 at 07:02.
Yes, I'm sure. It is an authority to operate in the TRA. It is not a clearance and should not be worded as such by the Flightwatch or other communicator.
Interesting. So you can't in the USA?
AIM 5-2-9
I guess that was sort of what I was alluding to. If you were operating OCTA when you would normally be operating in CTA, wouldn't you be trying to keep things as simple as possible, rather than just carrying on as normal and hoping? I guess my question should have been "Should you...."
AIM 5-2-9
I guess that was sort of what I was alluding to. If you were operating OCTA when you would normally be operating in CTA, wouldn't you be trying to keep things as simple as possible, rather than just carrying on as normal and hoping? I guess my question should have been "Should you...."
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 15th Apr 2023 at 10:34.
It is an authority to operate in the TRA. It is not a clearance
The level of service provided is governed by the alphabet designator but it is still a clearance.
I guess that was sort of what I was alluding to. If you were operating OCTA when you would normally be operating in CTA, wouldn't you be trying to keep things as simple as possible, rather than just carrying on as normal and hoping? I guess my question should have been "Should you...."
The following users liked this post:
Basically what I've been saying in this thread all along. It is far easier to fly radials and use distance from the aerodrome fix when in high traffic scenarios OCTA than to con-volute the situation with random tracks and waypoints via SID/STARs. I've been flying high performance aircraft in and out of CTAFs for years and there's nothing worse than trying to separate with someone flying randomly to RNAV waypoints across your track than somebody just tracking to/from the airfield. What then has to happen is altitude separation over a wide area, rather than some mildly inconvenient level off. Then if you have several aircraft in the mix, how do you organize that when you are all flying different patterns.
Again, no it's not a clearance. Clearances are only applicable where a level of air traffic control service is provided. There is none provided in this situation. If you have any doubt about the definition of 'Clearance' refer to AIP GEN 2.2 - 3. From a legal perspective, the pilot is given an approval to operate in the TRA. Whatever they do in the TRA is up to them and not subject to any air traffic control clearance. With MBZ procedures extant, it a pilot responsibility to separate themselves from other traffic, navigate and maintain terrain clearance on their own. There is no one else responsible. They're the legal differences.
Last edited by parishiltons; 15th Apr 2023 at 12:46.
For info: NT MATS Supplement Section 4.9 cleary says Flightwatch give authorization, not clearance. The RAAF chappies are overstepping a mite.
The following users liked this post:
Like I said, and Bloggs I don’t understand why you think it’s stupid, fly the SID’s/STAR’s and be a frigging pilot. It’s not hard to build a mental picture and if you really need to, spend 3 seconds bringing up the relevant chart (with own ship display, fancy that) to build even more of a picture. If it’s all getting too hard, then revert back to basics.
FFS, we’re talking about maybe 2-3 aircraft max
If you can’t separate yourself from another aircraft in a CTAF using your head, maybe best you not be there.
43inches, why would you not use the VOR/DME for position as well? Plus it’s very easy to display a waypoint on your Nav Display with most modern aircraft if you really need to.
FFS, we’re talking about maybe 2-3 aircraft max
If you can’t separate yourself from another aircraft in a CTAF using your head, maybe best you not be there.
43inches, why would you not use the VOR/DME for position as well? Plus it’s very easy to display a waypoint on your Nav Display with most modern aircraft if you really need to.
The following users liked this post:
Like I said, and Bloggs I don’t understand why you think it’s stupid, fly the SID’s/STAR’s and be a frigging pilot. It’s not hard to build a mental picture and if you really need to, spend 3 seconds bringing up the relevant chart (with own ship display, fancy that) to build even more of a picture. If it’s all getting too hard, then revert back to basics.
FFS, we’re talking about maybe 2-3 aircraft max
If you can’t separate yourself from another aircraft in a CTAF using your head, maybe best you not be there.
43inches, why would you not use the VOR/DME for position as well? Plus it’s very easy to display a waypoint on your Nav Display with most modern aircraft if you really need to.
FFS, we’re talking about maybe 2-3 aircraft max
If you can’t separate yourself from another aircraft in a CTAF using your head, maybe best you not be there.
43inches, why would you not use the VOR/DME for position as well? Plus it’s very easy to display a waypoint on your Nav Display with most modern aircraft if you really need to.
It all goes back to they lacked SA even with all the tools, regardless of whether they flew a SID/STAR or not. The SID/STAR just adds complication when theres no need. Are you really saying you need a STAR or SID to operate from a place that has no significant terrain? Maybe CASA realy needs to take a look at QF group pilots abilities...
That JQ delayed from Sydney and Bali, throw in an SQ A380 diversion, Airmed coming back from Port Keats, another Airmed lining up to go and why not Atlas and the Antonov all coming in / out within 15 minutes.
Likely? Prob not, possible definitely. Haven’t read the NOTAM but could tower be quickly spun up in a scenario like this? A lot of Swiss cheese!
Again you are assuming the other aircraft have that capability when many aircraft operating to/from Darwin do not. However the two aircraft involved had all that and still managed to end up in an incident, so what does that say?
It all goes back to they lacked SA even with all the tools, regardless of whether they flew a SID/STAR or not. The SID/STAR just adds complication when theres no need. Are you really saying you need a STAR or SID to operate from a place that has no significant terrain? Maybe CASA realy needs to take a look at QF group pilots abilities...
It all goes back to they lacked SA even with all the tools, regardless of whether they flew a SID/STAR or not. The SID/STAR just adds complication when theres no need. Are you really saying you need a STAR or SID to operate from a place that has no significant terrain? Maybe CASA realy needs to take a look at QF group pilots abilities...
However maybe you’re right, perhaps the offending aircrew do need the question asked. Or we could just get the bloody ATC back! I’m not saying that you need to use a SID/STAR, but there’s numerous scenarios where it’s the better choice.
Ok this maybe a little far fetched but……….
That JQ delayed from Sydney and Bali, throw in an SQ A380 diversion, Airmed coming back from Port Keats, another Airmed lining up to go and why not Atlas and the Antonov all coming in / out within 15 minutes.
Likely? Prob not, possible definitely. Haven’t read the NOTAM but could tower be quickly spun up in a scenario like this? A lot of Swiss cheese!
That JQ delayed from Sydney and Bali, throw in an SQ A380 diversion, Airmed coming back from Port Keats, another Airmed lining up to go and why not Atlas and the Antonov all coming in / out within 15 minutes.
Likely? Prob not, possible definitely. Haven’t read the NOTAM but could tower be quickly spun up in a scenario like this? A lot of Swiss cheese!
However, in the most likely scenario, I don’t see how it couldn’t work.
Originally Posted by Morno said
Why can’t they just be pilots and fly the SID/STAR most appropriate to them and separate themselves vertically?
Think about this scenario. The 737 stays on his SID, the A320 stays on his STAR, the 737 levels at say 5000ft, the A320 levels at 6000ft, and goes over the top of DRW at 6000ft! You cannot separate simply by altitude when on self-flown SIDs and STARs. It's a bit of a worry Morno you think otherwise.
And if you think I'm going to pull out my EFB, when I'm taxiing out, to see where the JQ A320 could be on his STAR, I've got news for you. Building a mental picture of a STAR when you're departing. Rediculous. Or I suppose I could get the FO to load in SYD-DRW in the secondary, load in the STAR the other jet was doing and look at it on the PLAN page. Yea right.
@43Inches is right. Radials, distance and vertical segregation, just like in a CTAF. KISS. I mean, all those pilots are CTAF experts (or should be). If you're worried about terrain and you can't work it out, fly your company special procedure/EOSID.
I'll bet all this nonsense has been caused by one thing: ASA are sh!t scared an international will come in and balls-up Class G/CTAF procedures, if they are even allowed into that type of airspace. So ASA/CASA make it a TRA and all responsibility is absolved.