Direct Tracking Not Available
 

From what I understand a Managerial instruction in the Brisbane Centre has not been communicated to the industry. In summary it states that unless it is for sequencing or separation direct tracking is not available. Expect to get knocked back if you ask for it.

I think there was a near miss recently somewhere in the 'Brisbane center' area.

arse covering
 

An arse covering exercise (surprise, surprise). We operate under the same restriction: Basically, you will be expected to give the same service (you can always invent a reason for direct), but when something goes wrong, the investigation goes as far as "the aircraft was off-track............" and bingo, you are hanging out to dry. "You weren't following an instruction." Managers certainly are adept at arse covering.

And Al, at least when we knock em back when we can blame 'the war' or 'military restrictions'. Blame Dick;)

To Roger Hope - Brisbane FIR OPS Manager :

Shame, shame, shame on you!

You’ve managed to take the black art of being a career bureaucrat to a new low in what can only be described as the most uninspired example of arse-covering and “Yes Minister-ship” I’ve seen for a very long time.

As Chimbu chuckles quite rightly pointed out (in honest john’s now removed thread on this same subject – if you’ve moved that thread to admin then can we have it back please Woomera?), by insisting that your air traffic controllers keep aircraft to flight planned tracks you are effectively funnelling all the aircraft down the same narrow piece of airspace – INCREASING the chance of a mid-air collision! This is complete lunacy!

By denying aircraft the benefit of shorter and more efficient direct routings you are not only wasting the operators money on increased fuel and maintenance costs, but by forcing aircraft to remain aloft for a longer period of time than is really necessary you are increasing the exposure of these aircraft to in flight perils. A better option would be to get these aircraft to their destination and on the ground as quickly as possible.

Modern avionics systems are able to navigate an aircraft from any point on the globe to any other point on the globe with extreme accuracy and reliability. But such systems are completely useless in the time-warped Brisbane FIR because YOU, Mr Roger Hope - Brisbane FIR OPS Manager, would have us all navigating our way from a 1950s technology VOR to a 1940s technology NDB as we are forced to take the circuitous scenic route across the great distances of this vast land.

You should be actively encouraging your controllers to issue MORE direct routings – not less. If your current work practices have difficulty coping with direct routings then it is your work practices that need changing – not the routes the aircraft fly!

The air traffic service that you manage exists to facilitate the safe and expeditious movement of air traffic – not the other way round.

The situation you have created is one where the proverbial tail is wagging the dog.

The sooner the provision of air traffic management in Australia is fully privatised the better (and I don’t mean the half-baked government owned structure of AsA).

Career bureaucrat arse-covering clowns like you wouldn’t last the first day in private enterprise.

Some airlines know how to get DCT
:E

Ohhhhh YEAhhhhhhhhh!

Bik,

having read your other post about random tracking and random altitudes being the way to avoid mid-airs, then I would rather have Roger Hope running the show than you.

Its fair enough for you to have your beliefs, however your post is quite slanderous in my opinion. Why do pilots seem to think they are experts at anything to do with aviation?

Im quite interested to hear what your ATC / Traffic Management qualifications are that allow you to make your quite strong assertions??

ATC in Australia is a long way better than a lot of other countries in this region.

When is all this ment to be starting ?, I got direct SGT last night out of BN and didn't even ask for it .

CDT4

I fly through BNE FIR on a very regular basis and have never had a problem getting DCT’s both asked for and not. I will see what happens over the next few weeks before I determine if this thread is a beat up or not. :)

Management policy is one thing but controllers will still use direct tracking as a tool for separation, traffic management etc. regardless. Not much will change as a result of this. The same sort of direction is published every six months or so. Any controller worth his money is always aware of the risks of direct tracking anyway. I really don't see what the big deal is. If it is enforced to the letter of the law by management.....no direct tracking then. No big deal is it?

404 Titan, I can assure you this is not a wind up. Heading northbound out of Sydney yesterday we were given direct tracking no problem.

Coming southbound, however, was a different story. Upon requesting direct SGT we were knocked back, and the reason given was that management have issued a directive that no direct tracking be given. We were then offered and amended route clearance direct to SGT!!

Can someone please help me out here, why can they give an amended route clearance but not direct tracking?

Sue,

Same here, on the way to YSCH via WLM, BN CEN said to us just before we got to WLM that a track direct to CH is not available, however, if we were to ask for an emended route clearance, he would see what he could do. We obliged...and presto we got it. Must be in the legallity of the phraseology.

Baby with the bath water..
 

The management directive for BN Centre states that direct tracking will not be permitted except for separation assurance or to assist in sequencing. Direct tracking for any other reason is not permitted. (A full quote was provided in another thread that has been removed)

From this one could assume that any direct tracking for the purposes of:

- medical priority
- minimising track miles
- minimising frequency transfers
- general traffic management
- workload management
- ease of navigation
etc

is not allowed, even if there are no aircraft or restricted areas to conflict with. For many (if not all) controllers this is patently against what they see to be a core part of their provision of a safe and expeditous flow of traffic.

The directive has apparently come about because the were some quite serious incidents in BN Centre where direct tracking was identified as a major factor (ie if the direct tracking didn't happen, then the incident would not have happened).

Without an operational document forthcoming to support the directive, some controllers have chosen various interpretations of the wording in order to provide the expeditious flow of traffic that the directive might otherwise disallow. This has resulted in inconsistencies in the way different controllers and sectors apply amended routes - if some do at all. This is evidently causing some confusion for pilots which can take up R/T time trying to find out what is going on.

Pilots shouldn't be wasting time worrying about what turn of phrase to use to make their flight safer or more expeditious. Controllers shouldn't be wasting time worrying about how to perform a balancing act with complying with the directive as it stands, and in providing a safe and expeditious service to aircraft. (BTW, has any controller yet dared to knock back direct tracking for a MED1 aircraft because it is disallowed by the directive?)

Tobzalp's original post suggests that the management directive has not been communicated with the industry. This is evidenced by the queries received by controllers from pilots when direct tracking is refused for reasons not given. Has any airline management or Chief Pilot received official word from Airservices regarding this matter?

They released the same directive probably 2 years ago in Melbourne care of BIG SUE, and some brown nosers on a particular Melbourne arrivals sector stuck to it blindly not allowing any direct tracking. The rest of us put it in the circular file and got on with our job the best we could.

You can always argue that the direct tracking was justified whether it be sequencing (which in turn is separation cos you got no separation if the sequence is screwed up royally), separation, or imaginary expected weather (had this QANTAS 737 pilot who used to always have to divert right around weather when we were on RWY 34 in melbourne which always took him over WENDY rather than CANTY, which was the way he was supposed to go. The weather cleared just in time for him to make a straight in approach on R34 from the sth rather than flying the ARBEY star. Very sneaky.)

The bottom line, the managers should stick to doing what they do best. That is trying to do half baked airspace reforms that fall flat on their face, and drinking coffee in the canteen, and leave the moving of aeroplanes to the guys who didn't scramble up the food chain to get away from traffic.:O

Taken to its' logical conclusion you could argue that the biggest single factor in aircraft accidents/incidents is aircraft on the move, therefore to prevent all accidents/incidents ban all aircraft. Of course absolutley ludicrious. What paper pushing desk jockeys in ASA have to remember is that ATC is there to provide pilots with quality service - not the other way round.

Darwin to Sydney, t'other night, enroute to the lurching cave in Melbourne, and the F/O advised in the pax brief that we were tracking direct to SYD. This would have been about overhead Adelaide River! :ok:

The difference is in the radio failure scenario.

BIK,

Disagree. Direct tracking using the phraseology "track direct to..." should track an aircraft to rejoin its flight-planned track (i.e. the point they are tracking to should be on their flight-planned track). "Recleared direct ...." is another variation; i.e. they in effect amend the route clearance of the aircraft.

In a radio fail scenario, the aircraft told to "track direct to..." will, I argue, continue to do so, and then track via FPL once rejoined at the next waypoint.

The difference between "track direct..." and "amended route clearance" which would effectively have the same effect to the route of the aircraft I maintain is in semantics only. I think legally they would be considered to be the same thing. :rolleyes:

Blastiod,

Totally agree, words words words, no difference in law or procedures; perhaps a smart asses approach that has caught on, but has no basis in reality, just like the instruction.

Note, it only applies to BN, so much for a standardised company position; we have dozens of admin staffers to ensure that we do things consistently; obviously ML management has more sense than we give them credit for.

SY management just wouldn't even consider this...

Bottle of Rum

I agree that an instruction such as "track direct to" constitutes an ammended clearance... in much the same way as an altitude change instruction is an ammended clearance.

So why the semantics? Is asking for an ammended route clearance essentially re-filing the flight plan, in which case the controller doesn't have to consider the reasons to approve or not, but rather simply whether thay can or not?

Lancer

The semantics difference between the phraseology of "track direct..." and "recleared amended route.." were, as I stated above, negligible difference.

However, I also understand that the "amended route clearances" that were issued were actually issued as route designators (e.g. W636) rather than "recleared amended route SGT planned route" - hence the difference, as in an audio replay it doesn't sound like the aircraft are off a route and also therefore not tracking "direct" to a point (very important re: the management directive) - it just so happened that the new "amended" route coincided with the direct tracking that was requested.

I guess to argue a point if you have them on a published route it makes a difference in a radar fail scenario where there are far more likely to be published lateral separation diagrams than for arbitrary lines across the screen where the only quick way to establish separation is using levels.

Like I say, though, I think those issuing these "amended clearances" will still need to justtify such actions should anything untoward occur....

We have ways.....
 

Chaps,
This kind of thing has been around in one guise or another since Pontius was a pilut.

Time for a little lateral thinking. You are up against a serious CYA agency in the ASA (or whatever it's calling itself these days).

The controllers WANT to help, direct tracking gets you out of our patch quicker..then we can go back to reading the book, doing the crossword etc :}

Try the old chestnut of "for weather avoidance". work out what kind of a turn (or miles off nominal track) is required to get you direct to your desired point. Then call up the controller, ask for 15 degrees left or right, or 10 miles right or left of track to avoid weather... he knows it's twaddle, you know it's twaddle, everyone is legal and happy. You get direct, he gets to give it we all live happily ever after, management can go and tuck their heads up their fundament.:*

Cheers all.

BTW over here in the ME, direct tracking is given (at least on our side of the fence) in at least 80% of cases.

Direct tracking
 

"
Try the old chestnut of "for weather avoidance". work out what kind of a turn (or miles off nominal track) is required to get you direct to your desired point. Then call up the controller, ask for 15 degrees left or right, or 10 miles right or left of track to avoid weather... he knows it's twaddle, you know it's twaddle, everyone is legal and happy. You get direct, he gets to give it we all live happily ever after, management can go and tuck their heads up their fundament.


Bad idea divingduck. If this becomes more widespread than it already is controllers will start to look askance at requests for weather avoidance. You suggest game playing when there needs to be clarification from management.
The only workable instruction re: direct tracking should be that it will not be done without the concurrance of the receiving sector, full stop.

Don't know what you're all on about...I got "Track direct xxx then planned route" on Tuesday without even having to ask. YBHM-YBCG @ F290. Saved a few miles and made my life simpler than the blue lines seemed to permit...hardly brain surgery!!

Chuck.

Can't see the problem. Have had my share this week including today (2)! All within Brisbane airspace!

As a pilot it would be difficult to tell WHY you've been given track shortening, whether you've asked for it or not. Controllers may use an aircraft in reasonable proximity or a restricted area you didn't know about to approve or initiate track shortening prior to you recieving any restriction in your clearance. Others may just be doing it coz it feels good to pass on possible effieciencies, in accordance or not with letters from management.

This instruction has not been mandated in Melbourne.

Roger is certainly no rubber-stamping career bureaucrat. If you don't know the bloke you should keep your red-eyed foamy-mouthed rantings about him to yourself BIK.

The tricks about giving direct tracking:

:confused: The confliction you cause may be two sectors away, and that sector may be working flat out when it happens. You have no way of knowing this.

:ouch: When the sh*t hits the fan it is easier to spot conflicts (groundhog day effect), apply separation (rule-of-thumb principle) and recognise where coordination is required to other sectors (r-o-t again). You make yourself busy by giving away the world you start to miss things when everybody in the sector hears an ELT.

:yuk: Just the request from the releasing or next sector for direct tracking on one of your aircraft can be a significant distraction when you are working at a peak (even a momentary peak). Particularly irksome if the request is just because he/she is bored.

:ooh: Even if you asked a sector about a particular flight, if the effects of the tracking apply for more than 30min or so he/she will have no comprehensive idea what aircraft may conflict or what the workload will be by then. He/she has no real basis to approve the request in a lot of cases.

In my previous post I neglected to mention that the direct tracking was offered to us throughout the week without a request from us.

After a discussion with ATC prior to this topic hitting PPrune we agreed with them that a direct track wasn't always a good idea.

Our direct tracks during the week were obviously into areas of little potential conflict.

Plodmans post sums it up.

If your route contains a sizeable dogleg then you are candidate for conflict if you take a direct track. You just need those pieces of swiss cheese to line up!!

Not just BN Centre either! Yesterday morning out of YSSY at 0415, not exactly a busy time for conflicting traffic enroute (except for the arriving internationals inbound from flight levels) ML centre forbid direct tracking until I got to 45nm SY when queried the controller tipped me that I was OCTA and I could do what I wanted.

Nobody but me flying at that time in that airspace but costs my company an extra 0.2 on the flight for no benefit in safety.

Pointless really.

Chimbu chuckles,

Was that you in the Conquest? :confused:

MURPH-GAY always keeps aircraft away from the top of RK to allow jets unrestricted descent in from the South. Especially with SWB active to FL360, any aircraft north below that (most!!) are funneled along the RK-MK track, so the amended route is a good, laterally separated route (especially when you are non-RVSM!!!! ;)) with that route.

Keeping aircraft away from over the top of RK is usually a good, valid justification. Like Spodman said, a pilot won't necessarily know why he/she has been given direct tracking. In this case, it is all within one sector's airspace and the number of conflict reductions are far greater than those that it may create.

PS nice groundspeed, nearly 400 KTS at one stage if I remember.... :ok:

Agree with the weather avoidance game - management needs to be given the message. Leave the weather avoidance alone for when it is really needed, otherwise valid diversions for weather might become more restrictive...

Out of Ballina the other day, we asked for direct to Singleton and were told "not available".

For the last 2 years, we have always been either:

a) Given the status of Evans Head R areas so as to set up for either PLO or via CAS;

b) Automatically given an "expectation" of direct SGT unsolicited.

IMHO, good customer service :ok:

The other day it was like pulling teeth from the individual concerned. After the short "not available", we then had to ask for the status of R641 etc to ascertain as to whether we could go as per our standard FPL or not.

There is obviously something afoot in ATC to which we as customers are not privvy.

I'm not terribly impressed with the way we were treated, and from the feedback in the crew room, neither are a lot of my colleagues, who are receiving similar treatment out there.

It is astonshing that Aussie controllers, to this day, are still too lazy to offer good direct tracking services...:rolleyes: Spodman: Ever heard of radar vectoring ? Get given direct all the time in the US, no trouble at all, often over several hundreds of miles...Controllers seem pleased to give this service and are paying attention...any conflictions and a polite request to change heading twenty, thirty degrees until clear. Why Aussies always strive to make something simple complicated is a mystery. Sooner or later, Australia will follow the US in free flight. :ok:

sooner or later winstun will follow the shepherd and get the flock out of here.

ftrplt and Spodman,

Are you suggesting that Roger Hope – Brisbane FIR OPS Manager did NOT issue a management instruction telling air traffic controllers not to issue or authorise direct tracking unless it was required for spacing or sequencing or for a couple of other very specific things?

My information is that he did.

Badarse and Blastoid and others out there.....

rant on...

From what I gather we are discussing track shortening under Radar control??

From what I have heard (I grant you hearsay only) air traffic levels since the demise of Ansett have been way way down.

A friend recently told me that he hadn't held anyone going into Brizzy for ages....

If this is correct what on Earth is all this palaver about??

You have the tools...use the damned things! If you want everyone left on the lines, and play unders and overs, turn the radar off and go procedural, then at least you will have an excuse.

rant off...

You could always get Civilair to lean on management and issue a NOTAM advising the industry that direct tracking will not be allowed....that should toss the feline amongst the poultry.

To reiterate to all the pilots out there, the ATC on frequency probably would love to give the direct away, aim all your snipes at those sitting a few rungs above them on the ladder.

divingduck,

Correct about traffic levels; no dispute there.

We use the tools we have all the time to facilitate the "expeditious" flow of traffic ... but let me tell you if you do that, and somebody down the line completely unrelated has an incident, you will get fried whether or not it was a causal factor - wilful "non-compliance" is a hot potato.

Communications to the industry aside (no comment), the heavy hand will come down on those who willingly go against the management instruction. While I would like to facilitate the expeditious flow of traffic (safely of course), I don't fancy losing my job over it. :rolleyes:

This has got to be one of the biggest crocks of ****e for a long time.

I hope they scrub out the part about 'saving thousands of tons of greenhouse gases' on the ASA moronic dribble 'hold music' you have to endure waiting for one of the briefing dudes to get to you.

And whats even better - not having the balls to come out OFFICIALLY and tell the industry what they are doing - leaving it to the dudes at the consoles to do the explaining and take the heat.

It appears that the "management directive" has now been incorporated into the operating procedures for Brisbane Centre. Additionally, it has been determined that these restrictions on direct tracking do not override pre-existing allowances for direct tracking contained in ATC local instructions. As a result, more direct tracking will be given away, even if it is unsolicited. What routes/times of day are affected depend on the local instructions.

Alot of back and forth has taken place on the air with queries and explanations of if or why direct tracking is available or not. This increases the workload of both the pilot and controller, and can interfere with the use of R/T for others in the airspace. It has also served to increase tensions in an environment in which they should be minimised.

There are a multitude of reasons why direct tracking is or isn't available at any one time, and a controller is not always going to give a reason. It's made even more complicated because direct tracking will be available under some circumstances. Second guessing each other's requests/motives can only lead to an unsafe situation.

Pilots concerned with controller actions in these matters should talk to their management who should talk to ASA management. That is where the discussion of policies should (and should have) take place.

You live in the stone age Winstun. Apart from jets I don't have the radar coverage to vector anyone anywhere useful. When I offer vectors pilots whine and whinge, I expect they can do it better with their gear. I have offered vectors for track shortening when there is no convenient waypoint to "DCT" to, this offer was accepted for the first time last Friday.:)

There is an operator who used to regularly request such, I believe his company told him to stop.

BIK. I didn't say the instruction doesn't exist, I believe it does and in fact we have a watered-down version in effect in Melbourne now as well. I just objected to your unwarranted personal attack.

I have never, and would never, offer track shortening OCTA. If a pilot asks I tell him no traffic and advise intentions.

Ahhhh Winstun finally arrives. Took him longer than usual this time. The man who believes the big sky theory is a scientific fact we should base our whole air traffic system around.

I agree with Spodman, and many of the others that there are times where the dogleg serves a purpose ie. stops nose to nose situations with aircraft on climb and descent. Winstun may say why not use vectors, but he forgets that we as controllers should always work with the worst case scenario in the back of our mind. Three bad scenarios that could happen after having given direct tracking with the backup that you'll radar vector them if need be later.

1. RADIO FAILURE, if the guy had taken that dogleg and was now 10 NM laterally clear of the inbound no problem, but now he's nose to nose and you have no way of contacting him...oops.

2. LEVEL BUST, again if laterally clear right now, he'd get a slap on the wrist and everyone would go home happy, now you hope his TCAS is working.

3. Emergency Descent, you are busy enough with the emergency without having to try and vector the guy who is nose to nose due to the direct tracking, that is if you have time to even consider that.

When you go out into the big bad world of Aviation, you soon realise that if the Americans do something a certain way, then find a different way to do it. Their pilots are a disgrace, they never listen out, they never readback clearances and then help themselves to a track shortened route. I've had two level busts here, and both were yanks. Free flight as the Americans do, you gotta be kidding.

I am not a fan of a blanket NO DIRECT TRACKING directive, as it takes away a tool that a controller may use to their and also the aircrafts advantage. The problem is the rule comes in cos some people go too far (eg. 100NM Perth dct to CANTY, through 1000's of NM's of non radar airspace...scary) and management works on the lowest common denominator. Management and/or fellow controllers needs to sort out these rogue controllers rather than bringing out restrictions that leave the rest of the controllers hamstrung.

A few years back when direct tracking and requests therefore came up for discussion the major airlines of the day said that as a matter of policy they plan all their operations on established tracks and flying the full SID or STAR as applicable and do NOT encourage their pilots to seek direct tracking in any form.

ASA was of the belief that safety assurance would be maximised especially in terminal areas if direct tracking was not provided - the everything on rails policy.. The airlines stopped short of instructing their pilots not to seek direct tracking but from an official position they did not seek same.... leaving it up to the pilot.

The best person in the system to judge if direct tracking or any other tracking is best for an aircraft is the ATCO or Flow controller and if it does not conflict and serves to expedite traffic flow in a safe manner then perhaps it is the ATCO that should "offer" the direct tracking in every case. That would mean that if is not available it would not be offered, and of course if it worked right the pilot would never have to ask. (if the pilots trusted ATC to always offer when available that is..)

But that is not the culture that our system works on as the communication at a high level seems to not have worked as it should have.

Perhaps "amended route" is the way to go...?

Brisbane Missive?
 

Whilst there has been much bashing of the Brisbane Manager who put his name to this "Management Instruction" the topic to hand actually came from a national procedures meeting. The requirement was to have been the focus of an imminent National Instruction but suddenly things seem to have gone quiet and Brisbane is left to carry the can as far as the industry is concerned. Melbourne have recorded a wishy-washy watered down version in their procedures and Brisbane has now followed the management instruction with something that at least fits within SOP documentation, but the national voice seems to have gone quiet.

Could it be that the stony silence from Canberra has something to do with the amount of fuss the customers are kicking up?

There is some wisdom in the theory that you should never volunteer and never go first. Methinks that Brisbane going first left everybody else a chance to see the reaction and back quietly away hoping not attract any attention.