They shoudn't use that phraseology. If that's the case it's a re-education or standardisation issue for the operator/s concerned.

Can you fly a SID or STAR without ATC surveillance? The AIP ENR references are very ATC heavy.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....adb966d87.jpeg
Very poorly worded NOTAM.

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.

​​​​​​​Yes, we can.

Yes, but as stated earlier the SID/STAR will only provide terrain clearance. Traffic clearance can not be assured as the design requires to be used in conjunction with a particular configuration of runways, airspace and so on. The easiest way to explain that is that other aircraft need not be on the SID/STAR procedures at all and could just be direct tracking so they are in no way compliant with the SID/STAR traffic altitudes. So without ATC traffic could be anywhere they want to be and you need to have good SA to separate when following random STAR/SIDs that the traffic may have no awareness of. Telling someone that you are 7 GPS to run UPBUM when the departing aircraft is 5 to run POOBA is really not going to be easy to resolve.

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.

Depends who has issued the clearance or approval. When you are a Civvy operating missions within military restricted airspace you usually get approval from the authority that controls the restricted zone, say when target towing etc... The overlaying ATC will just query if you have approval to do so, then you just communicate with the guys shooting at you.

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...."

Again, what is the legal difference?

​​​​​​​The level of service provided is governed by the alphabet designator but it is still a clearance.

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.

And the converse point to that is that in a TRA with MBZ procedures instead of a controlled Class C environment, pilots have enough things to deal with that are very different to the norm without also altering the accustomed way of arriving and departing. Just flying the SID/STAR is one thing that is normal without having to add it to the list of things that are different in this situation. But at the end of the day it is up to the pilot on command/their company to determine what they will do.

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.

Except it's not "the company" sitting in the front seats trying to work out who is where.

Flightwatch definitely says "Jetstar 672 cleared to operate within the TRA", and to the 737 when it taxied.

For info: NT MATS Supplement Section 4.9 cleary says Flightwatch give authorization, not clearance. The RAAF chappies are overstepping a mite.

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 :ugh:

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.

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...

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!

Middle of the night up there, I can safely say that MOST aircraft have that ability. Those Airmed King Airs are all glass and have the ability to do it. Any that can’t would be the exception.

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.

Entirely possible, but this is when people need to reassess and go back to basics.

However, in the most likely scenario, I don’t see how it couldn’t work.

I didn't say it was stupid, but...

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.