Australian ATC controllers world's worst?
Dirty Pierre,
1 kt / sec would be about right in level(ish) flight; i.e we would need to be below the 3 deg profile to allow for the deceleration (without using early gear and speedbrake, i.e comfortable decel for cabin)
It wont happen that quick if we are trying to slow down and go down at the same time; therefore any unexpected track shortening with a speed reduction will make it more difficult. It can be done but early gear and lots of speedbrake required - cockpit workload increases with PNF monitoring workload going up - potential for missing normal SOP stuff goes up. Not a big drama when wide awake but 4th sector or 4am arrivals can be an issue.
As a rule of thumb; we dont really like to be going down and slowing down at the same time!!
I find Singapore ATC to be the most frustrating of any of the places I fly to.
Japan seems to make it harder on the R/T with the extensive vectoring (you never fly a STAR and SIDS invariably end up in vectors) and the ATC read-back of the read-back. Also seem to get too many 'climb to FL340', a few seconds later followed by 'maintain FL300 for traffic' - potential here??
1 kt / sec would be about right in level(ish) flight; i.e we would need to be below the 3 deg profile to allow for the deceleration (without using early gear and speedbrake, i.e comfortable decel for cabin)
It wont happen that quick if we are trying to slow down and go down at the same time; therefore any unexpected track shortening with a speed reduction will make it more difficult. It can be done but early gear and lots of speedbrake required - cockpit workload increases with PNF monitoring workload going up - potential for missing normal SOP stuff goes up. Not a big drama when wide awake but 4th sector or 4am arrivals can be an issue.
As a rule of thumb; we dont really like to be going down and slowing down at the same time!!
I find Singapore ATC to be the most frustrating of any of the places I fly to.
Japan seems to make it harder on the R/T with the extensive vectoring (you never fly a STAR and SIDS invariably end up in vectors) and the ATC read-back of the read-back. Also seem to get too many 'climb to FL340', a few seconds later followed by 'maintain FL300 for traffic' - potential here??
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying in the US at major apts speedbrake and flap are always used early & high in the terminal area (ooh so scary for passengers!?! what the?). You don't comply with the speed US ATC want: rejoin at the end of the queue. It amazes me the how Oz ATC are working so hard on facilitating power-off from TOD yet get called backward! Admittedly maestro likes having fun bringing descent at 250 then max once past the feeder fix... but that's Airservices joke.
Grandpa Aerotart
Hmmm...well I've flown in and out of every country in Asia, including back blocks of China, all over the SWP, most of the middle east, 6 or 8 different spots in India, Nepal, Bhutan, across Europe to LHR via both northern routes and southern.
Agree Sin/Nippon controllers are a pain..not as bad as Frankfurt though!!!
Oz ATCOs are without doubt the equal of any anywhere and better than the vast majority. While the LHR guys and girls are fantastic I attribute that as much to the procedures as the individuals...and there are three runways at LHR, albeit only two in use at any one time and one when LVPs in force.
Props if the speed restriction remained you'd have been higher surely?
Personally I love coming into BNE from the north. I love it that Oz guys so often cancel speed restrictions below 10..I wanna get there not tool around at 250kts
Track shortening? Hey bring it on, if we can do it I we will..if not we'll tell you.
When I change from Karachi to Muscat it's just excellent hearing the Ozzie, or sometimes Kiwi
, at t'other end of da wireless
Oh...and I hate DS...A LOT
Chuckles
Agree Sin/Nippon controllers are a pain..not as bad as Frankfurt though!!!
Oz ATCOs are without doubt the equal of any anywhere and better than the vast majority. While the LHR guys and girls are fantastic I attribute that as much to the procedures as the individuals...and there are three runways at LHR, albeit only two in use at any one time and one when LVPs in force.
Props if the speed restriction remained you'd have been higher surely?
Personally I love coming into BNE from the north. I love it that Oz guys so often cancel speed restrictions below 10..I wanna get there not tool around at 250kts
Track shortening? Hey bring it on, if we can do it I we will..if not we'll tell you.
When I change from Karachi to Muscat it's just excellent hearing the Ozzie, or sometimes Kiwi
, at t'other end of da wireless Oh...and I hate DS...A LOT
Chuckles
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one knot per second for slowdown may be a fair fule of thumb to use, but only when the aircraft is straight and level and has actually got thrust on, which it can then take off to reduce speed.
In a descent, a big jet's thrust is going to be idle for most of the descent, this is how the FMC and pilots plan it to be. If the aircraft is trying to descend at 3000 fpm and slow down at the same time one of them is simply not going to happen. Speed can be reduced but so will rate of descent and vice versa.
I do agree that the speedbrake (spoilers) are there for a reason, but they can't always be used just because ATC stuffed them around.
I'm not on anyones side. I think ATC worldwide do a fantastic job, and after flying around the world there is no doubt that Aussie ATC is world class.
In a descent, a big jet's thrust is going to be idle for most of the descent, this is how the FMC and pilots plan it to be. If the aircraft is trying to descend at 3000 fpm and slow down at the same time one of them is simply not going to happen. Speed can be reduced but so will rate of descent and vice versa.
I do agree that the speedbrake (spoilers) are there for a reason, but they can't always be used just because ATC stuffed them around.
I'm not on anyones side. I think ATC worldwide do a fantastic job, and after flying around the world there is no doubt that Aussie ATC is world class.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did a famil flight into ML a while ago, the crew were under the pump. They weren't regular visitors to ML apparently, and seemed apprehensive about landing RWY09, which neither had done before. With a howling westerly they were concerned about meeting 9000 by BUNKY, and after that getting on the ground. They were offered max & track shortening by enroute, inners and approach (twice) and knocked it back, in a calm and professional voice, but never explained why.
I have always considered since then that if a crew lets any concern or consternation creep into their voice then I've really p1ssed them off.
Erm, Lodown, do you mean something like the requirements on STAR, or holding when your clearance runs out? I wouldn't have thought there was enuf holding here to make the latter work. Or does the STAR over there constitute the entire descent instruction as well?
Props, happy to chat, here or elsewhere. I'll also point out that I'm particularly keen to learn as I'm not that experienced on arrivals. The MAESTRO is a blunt instrument, regularly leaving work for the approach controller to do that previously would have earned grief for the Flow. Your track shortening inside the STAR could have been considered an easy fix, either to fill an untidy hole, or avoid delaying the whole rest of the sequence. If the easy fix doesn't work then he gets to do the hard. Neither of these "require" you to accept it if you can't.
The "aircraft" in our simulator usually increase to 320K when put on a heading, even when they've been told to do min. Does this apply to real aircraft also? I'd told the guy I mentioned to continue at MIN & I'd give him the extra miles to meet the time. Didn't work real good.
I have always considered since then that if a crew lets any concern or consternation creep into their voice then I've really p1ssed them off.
Erm, Lodown, do you mean something like the requirements on STAR, or holding when your clearance runs out? I wouldn't have thought there was enuf holding here to make the latter work. Or does the STAR over there constitute the entire descent instruction as well?
Props, happy to chat, here or elsewhere. I'll also point out that I'm particularly keen to learn as I'm not that experienced on arrivals. The MAESTRO is a blunt instrument, regularly leaving work for the approach controller to do that previously would have earned grief for the Flow. Your track shortening inside the STAR could have been considered an easy fix, either to fill an untidy hole, or avoid delaying the whole rest of the sequence. If the easy fix doesn't work then he gets to do the hard. Neither of these "require" you to accept it if you can't.
The "aircraft" in our simulator usually increase to 320K when put on a heading, even when they've been told to do min. Does this apply to real aircraft also? I'd told the guy I mentioned to continue at MIN & I'd give him the extra miles to meet the time. Didn't work real good.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Perth, W.A.
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This might put the discussion into perspective!
Qantas pilots avert disaster
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
June 30, 2004
SHARP-EYED Qantas pilots who ignored air traffic control instructions may have prevented another near-collision between two planes in Indonesian airspace.
Qantas flight QF83, carrying 225 passengers, was flying from Melbourne to Hong Kong on June 19 when air traffic controllers cleared the plane to descend.
But the pilots of the Boeing 767-300 ignored the clearance after spotting another Qantas plane heading in the opposite direction, and kept the aircraft at its original flight level.
Although there was no breakdown of separation between the two aircraft, Qantas was sufficiently concerned to report the event to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
"The flight crew observed another Qantas aircraft, which was a Hong Kong-Brisbane flight, travelling southbound below them," Qantas spokesman Michael Sharp said.
"And the flight crew on QF83 made the correct decision not to descend."
This is the second time this year Indonesian air traffic controllers have issued questionable instructions to a Qantas plane.
In March, a Sydney-bound Qantas jetliner was placed on a collision course with an Air New Zealand plane near the island of Biak, off Irian Jaya.
The two Boeing 767-300s involved in that incident took evasive action after onboard computers alerted crews to the danger.
Qantas pilots avert disaster
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
June 30, 2004
SHARP-EYED Qantas pilots who ignored air traffic control instructions may have prevented another near-collision between two planes in Indonesian airspace.
Qantas flight QF83, carrying 225 passengers, was flying from Melbourne to Hong Kong on June 19 when air traffic controllers cleared the plane to descend.
But the pilots of the Boeing 767-300 ignored the clearance after spotting another Qantas plane heading in the opposite direction, and kept the aircraft at its original flight level.
Although there was no breakdown of separation between the two aircraft, Qantas was sufficiently concerned to report the event to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
"The flight crew observed another Qantas aircraft, which was a Hong Kong-Brisbane flight, travelling southbound below them," Qantas spokesman Michael Sharp said.
"And the flight crew on QF83 made the correct decision not to descend."
This is the second time this year Indonesian air traffic controllers have issued questionable instructions to a Qantas plane.
In March, a Sydney-bound Qantas jetliner was placed on a collision course with an Air New Zealand plane near the island of Biak, off Irian Jaya.
The two Boeing 767-300s involved in that incident took evasive action after onboard computers alerted crews to the danger.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Some place over on the other side of Mos Eisley I think
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Churchall..
You want to go home and rethink your life.
Unecessary holding, overseperation, situational awareless, inept at vectoring, serviceless, lazy, tardy, ignorant...have I missed anything?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obi, I would'nt be too tough on churchall, you obviously have'nt flown into Perth mid-morning recently.
Loozr, absobluddylutely spot on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These turkeys that don't know how to operate their A/C ( jet or otherwise ) should be given a speed or speeds to maintain and if not ( as with many O/S destinations ) it's to the back of the q.
I for one, am sick of being routed ( pun intended ) around because some moron thinks that best speed to the field is 250 to 20miles then back at 160 by 10
Loozr, absobluddylutely spot on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These turkeys that don't know how to operate their A/C ( jet or otherwise ) should be given a speed or speeds to maintain and if not ( as with many O/S destinations ) it's to the back of the q.
I for one, am sick of being routed ( pun intended ) around because some moron thinks that best speed to the field is 250 to 20miles then back at 160 by 10
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Godzone
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I agree that Oz ATC is not the worst in the world, I do believe they can be better. Can I give a couple of examples.
Using R25 for departures at SYD because big CB just passed through and crosswind with wet runway ruled out 16. However, after the CB had passed and the wind had abated, I was about number six in the list for departure. I asked if 16 was available for departure. Answer "Yes but you won't get airborne any quicker." This might be becuase of Union rules or whatever but it gives absolutely no consideration for the efficient movement of aircraft.
Number 2. Coming from NZ we are always given the eastern complex for arrivals (unless operationally required otherwise). Not too much of a problem but most airports would put you closest to your gate to minimise ground traffic. When I asked for the eastern complex for departure, was advised that I couldn't have it unless operationally required. I asked for the reason and was told that crossing to the far side held up traffic on the ground too much. "So" I asked "why don't we get the western complex for arrivals." Ground controller said that as far as they were concerned, that was the ideal situation but they couldn't convince the approach controllers to see it that way.
There has been an improvement since the olympics but things could still improve. I do appreciate that they have to operate within the current regulations but I can't understand why we get holding patterns instead of radar vectors. Track shortening under radar is often turned down in the high altitude transit phase. I would like to hear why this is so.
Using R25 for departures at SYD because big CB just passed through and crosswind with wet runway ruled out 16. However, after the CB had passed and the wind had abated, I was about number six in the list for departure. I asked if 16 was available for departure. Answer "Yes but you won't get airborne any quicker." This might be becuase of Union rules or whatever but it gives absolutely no consideration for the efficient movement of aircraft.
Number 2. Coming from NZ we are always given the eastern complex for arrivals (unless operationally required otherwise). Not too much of a problem but most airports would put you closest to your gate to minimise ground traffic. When I asked for the eastern complex for departure, was advised that I couldn't have it unless operationally required. I asked for the reason and was told that crossing to the far side held up traffic on the ground too much. "So" I asked "why don't we get the western complex for arrivals." Ground controller said that as far as they were concerned, that was the ideal situation but they couldn't convince the approach controllers to see it that way.
There has been an improvement since the olympics but things could still improve. I do appreciate that they have to operate within the current regulations but I can't understand why we get holding patterns instead of radar vectors. Track shortening under radar is often turned down in the high altitude transit phase. I would like to hear why this is so.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balding Eagle,
The only union rule is that Oz ATCs operate in accordance with the relevant documents and procedures. Ie. AIP, MATS, ERSA, etc.
ATC: Freedom numbers turn left for controller amusement.
Not ever done, always done for a reason, often not obvious to the pilots being vectored.
The only union rule is that Oz ATCs operate in accordance with the relevant documents and procedures. Ie. AIP, MATS, ERSA, etc.
ATC: Freedom numbers turn left for controller amusement.
Not ever done, always done for a reason, often not obvious to the pilots being vectored.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balding Eagle, I haven't worked in Oz for a couple of years now (working in UAE,Middle East now), but its the same world over. Sometimes radar vectors just won't do it. If you have 4 or 5 aircraft all needing to lose a couple of minutes, you can try and give each of those aircraft 3 nasty vectors each, all the while stepping them down on top of each other, which results in at least 40 transmissions and sky high workload, or you can pop all in the hold and calmly bring them out as required. End result is the same, the aircraft has probably covered less track miles as he has pulled speed back to hold, and there are at least half as many transmissions. I know which one I would prefer as a controller, and having spoken to a lot of pilots here, most say they would prefer one or two patterns than a few hard turns. Cheers.
Hey Chimbu! I'm sure Steve will be happy to know you appreciate his dulcit tones in Muscat. Half of UAE centre is Aussie these days (much to the Sth Africans annoyance), and a fair whack of Dubai App is kiwi. I guess if we are the worst in the world that would explain why we are employed over here to move some pretty busy traffic. I guess incompetence is in demand overseas.
Oh and as far as track shortening being turned down. A thousand reasons, but most likely, 1. Will bring you into conflict with opposite direction climbing or descending traffic (just cos you\'re in level flight don\'t mean everyone else is), 2. Workload. When you give direct tracking, you have to call and get approval from next controller to make sure you aren\'t setting him up. 3. Management directive at Airservices Australia not to give direct tracking, as they want everyone on the rails (litigation reasons maybe??). Air Routes are designed to minimise conflicts in the climb descent stages of flight, so when you give a guy direct tracking you may be quiet. 10 minutes later it blows up in your face and you have a guy tracking nose to nose with traffic instead of being a comfortable 10 nm abeam the traffic. As I said a million reasons.
Hey Chimbu! I'm sure Steve will be happy to know you appreciate his dulcit tones in Muscat. Half of UAE centre is Aussie these days (much to the Sth Africans annoyance), and a fair whack of Dubai App is kiwi. I guess if we are the worst in the world that would explain why we are employed over here to move some pretty busy traffic. I guess incompetence is in demand overseas.
Oh and as far as track shortening being turned down. A thousand reasons, but most likely, 1. Will bring you into conflict with opposite direction climbing or descending traffic (just cos you\'re in level flight don\'t mean everyone else is), 2. Workload. When you give direct tracking, you have to call and get approval from next controller to make sure you aren\'t setting him up. 3. Management directive at Airservices Australia not to give direct tracking, as they want everyone on the rails (litigation reasons maybe??). Air Routes are designed to minimise conflicts in the climb descent stages of flight, so when you give a guy direct tracking you may be quiet. 10 minutes later it blows up in your face and you have a guy tracking nose to nose with traffic instead of being a comfortable 10 nm abeam the traffic. As I said a million reasons.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Godzone
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DP Thanks for the reply. Can you explain to me what rule is applied that would prevent an early departure on R16 while R25 is still being used. It seemed that there was only one departure controller on and there was a limit to the number of aircraft he could accept regardless of the runway.
I don't understand your comment with regard to Freedom numbers.
ANSA. I understand your argument with regard to the holding patterns and I have no problem with it. It just seems to be used a lot more in Oz than NZ, HKG, SIN, Japan, USA etc.
I don't understand your comment with regard to Freedom numbers.
ANSA. I understand your argument with regard to the holding patterns and I have no problem with it. It just seems to be used a lot more in Oz than NZ, HKG, SIN, Japan, USA etc.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Speed control
Long time Melbourne people will recall a certain droll approach controller's words of wisdom to new trainees:
" There's only one speed mate, 210, its just a matter of when you give it."
(OK, LHR Directors running 2.5 miles excepted, before I'm flamed)
Long time Melbourne people will recall a certain droll approach controller's words of wisdom to new trainees:
" There's only one speed mate, 210, its just a matter of when you give it."
(OK, LHR Directors running 2.5 miles excepted, before I'm flamed)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balding Eagle:
You raised a point about being vectored (not enough). This is a classic example of the gripes raised against ATC. What YOU want and what OTHERS want are rarely the same. On almost every occasion a gripe is raised, there will be a counter-argument. This is simply because ATC is usually there to balance competing wishes.
RE; the holding vs vectoring thing.
There was recently a thread on the ME forum about ATC into Dubai. EK pilots were bitching about NOT BEING HELD ENOUGH, and wanted to be vectored less. This was because at places like LHR, they come out of the hold and know exactly how many miles they have to run, and can let the 'puter do it very efficiently. They complained that being vectored all over the place was inefficient (longer at lower), infringed SA (how many more miles/where are we?), and was potentially dangerous (fuel critical ops in these days of fiscal 'control' meant they they may exceed min divert times).
Do you see my point- that there are many points?
RE; the departure controller not being able to accept more aircraft.
I believe, these days, that sector loading rules are universally applied. ie if the ATS provider decides that control position X can only have Y number of aircraft at any one time, then that's it. You will sit on the ground until he can take you. It's not a 'union' thing. It's a safety management thing. Just like how many tonnes/pax you can carry.
You raised a point about being vectored (not enough). This is a classic example of the gripes raised against ATC. What YOU want and what OTHERS want are rarely the same. On almost every occasion a gripe is raised, there will be a counter-argument. This is simply because ATC is usually there to balance competing wishes.
RE; the holding vs vectoring thing.
There was recently a thread on the ME forum about ATC into Dubai. EK pilots were bitching about NOT BEING HELD ENOUGH, and wanted to be vectored less. This was because at places like LHR, they come out of the hold and know exactly how many miles they have to run, and can let the 'puter do it very efficiently. They complained that being vectored all over the place was inefficient (longer at lower), infringed SA (how many more miles/where are we?), and was potentially dangerous (fuel critical ops in these days of fiscal 'control' meant they they may exceed min divert times).
Do you see my point- that there are many points?
RE; the departure controller not being able to accept more aircraft.
I believe, these days, that sector loading rules are universally applied. ie if the ATS provider decides that control position X can only have Y number of aircraft at any one time, then that's it. You will sit on the ground until he can take you. It's not a 'union' thing. It's a safety management thing. Just like how many tonnes/pax you can carry.
Balding Eagle:
The use of RWY 16R for departure when using RWY 25 for arrivals and departures can be advantageous. This is especially so when the departure is from TWY B4. The distance from the B4 to the runway intersection is minimal and in fact if is possible to get the departure away before the preceeding arrival has vacated RWY 25. Obviously if the departure is from TWY A1,B1 or B2 as runway occupancy goes into play. Also if it is heavy from TWY A1, B1 or B2 then wake turbulence goes into play. If the heavy rotates before the interesection then the RWY 25 departure would require 2 minutes.
Departures are processed accordingly to minimising the departure delay and the controller may considered the above in making his/her decision. There may have been other considerations including the activation of RWY 16R as an active runway (increase in co-ordination between ground and tower), auto-release procedures may have been in operation which permitted operations on RWY 25 but the RWY 16R departure would have required co-ordination), the CB's although no longer at the field may have been affecting departures airspace.
Come and have a look at our operation. It may provide you answers to the questions you ask. Alternatively it might confirm every suspicion you have. Who would know?
The use of RWY 16R for departure when using RWY 25 for arrivals and departures can be advantageous. This is especially so when the departure is from TWY B4. The distance from the B4 to the runway intersection is minimal and in fact if is possible to get the departure away before the preceeding arrival has vacated RWY 25. Obviously if the departure is from TWY A1,B1 or B2 as runway occupancy goes into play. Also if it is heavy from TWY A1, B1 or B2 then wake turbulence goes into play. If the heavy rotates before the interesection then the RWY 25 departure would require 2 minutes.
Departures are processed accordingly to minimising the departure delay and the controller may considered the above in making his/her decision. There may have been other considerations including the activation of RWY 16R as an active runway (increase in co-ordination between ground and tower), auto-release procedures may have been in operation which permitted operations on RWY 25 but the RWY 16R departure would have required co-ordination), the CB's although no longer at the field may have been affecting departures airspace.
Come and have a look at our operation. It may provide you answers to the questions you ask. Alternatively it might confirm every suspicion you have. Who would know?
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope, OZ ATC have a long way to go before they reach the "jobsworth" of Irish ATC or UK ATC for that matter.
For my money the US used to be the most accomodating, but that was before 911, have not flown there since then. I have no idea what they are like now....... ?
As an occasional user of controlled, I think the aussies are very helpful and accomodating. <despite being VFR & forgotten about under an ndb step at coffs a few years ago>
For my money the US used to be the most accomodating, but that was before 911, have not flown there since then. I have no idea what they are like now....... ?
As an occasional user of controlled, I think the aussies are very helpful and accomodating. <despite being VFR & forgotten about under an ndb step at coffs a few years ago>
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
an ndb step? 
Never mind. What I am fascinated about here is that a thread started by the only person I have ever put on "ignore" can, without his "look at me I'm a friggin hero with a bone" input turn into a useful thread whereby people on both sides can learn something.
My only specific input here is to suggest that from my experience a pilot's definition of a good controller is one who gets him/her airborne or on the ground in the shortest possible time. Those who grant us permission to continue holding a licence don't always agree with that criterion.
From the point of view of a procedural tower/approach controller who's seen a few landings in his time, my number one rule for all concerned remains that if two aircraft want to be in the same place (final for the duty runway) at the same time, one of them is not going to achieve it. If it's you, don't take it personally.
Sometimes I despair at the stupidity and ignorance occasionally on display in D&G. At other times it's a pleasant surprise to read. Ladies and gentlemen, can I suggest we continue this thread with everybody's best interests at heart rather than egos?
Friggin' bone here!
Never mind. What I am fascinated about here is that a thread started by the only person I have ever put on "ignore" can, without his "look at me I'm a friggin hero with a bone" input turn into a useful thread whereby people on both sides can learn something.
My only specific input here is to suggest that from my experience a pilot's definition of a good controller is one who gets him/her airborne or on the ground in the shortest possible time. Those who grant us permission to continue holding a licence don't always agree with that criterion.
From the point of view of a procedural tower/approach controller who's seen a few landings in his time, my number one rule for all concerned remains that if two aircraft want to be in the same place (final for the duty runway) at the same time, one of them is not going to achieve it. If it's you, don't take it personally.
Sometimes I despair at the stupidity and ignorance occasionally on display in D&G. At other times it's a pleasant surprise to read. Ladies and gentlemen, can I suggest we continue this thread with everybody's best interests at heart rather than egos?
Friggin' bone here!
Registered User **
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ndb step, 
my bad dawg....
descending under each sucessive CTA "cake" until you absolutely have to fly through *cough* CTR, and perish the thought talk to some one....
seems someone forgot about me holding, but then again I'm grateful for the ATC at ******** for disregarding my entry onto an active 5 years ago [exhuberance of youth and 60 hours and all that]
my bad dawg....descending under each sucessive CTA "cake" until you absolutely have to fly through *cough* CTR, and perish the thought talk to some one....
seems someone forgot about me holding, but then again I'm grateful for the ATC at ******** for disregarding my entry onto an active 5 years ago [exhuberance of youth and 60 hours and all that]
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Karrank, you asked about clearance limits. I’m no authority on the subject (just an observer) and perhaps Chris Higgins would like to make a few comments if he reads this thread, but I am impressed how US controllers use these limits. The US controllers provide a place for a clearance limit, with other instructions as required and an ‘expect further clearance at/by…’ time. In my experience it’s a great way to regulate traffic in flight. I’m sure Australian controllers do a similar thing, but maybe not so formalised and it tends to keep pilots a little out of the loop.
I enjoy having that part of flight responsibility in the cockpit rather than the tower/centre. Instead of me tootling along at cruise speed and then getting shoved into a holding pattern; if I have a clearance limit with the ‘expect further clearance…’ time, I can adjust my cruise/descent accordingly to coordinate arrival at that location. Calculating ETAs seems to be something that Australian controllers like to do, but wouldn't it make more sense in periods of high workload to dump that responsibility back in the cockpit? If I arrive at the clearance limit early, I can enter my own holding pattern and coordinate myself and the pattern legs to return to the clearance limit at the precise time. Clearance limits seem to work well on STARs and enroute.
Not being a controller, from observation Australian procedures work well up to a point and then these procedures actively appear to conspire against handling additional traffic. For example, once the traffic level gets to the point where aircraft are required to enter holding patterns, then the additional procedures for controlling aircraft to, in and back out of the holding patterns, or shuffling about on track lengthening routes, seem to require extra workload. It's almost a situation where a controller can process say 25 aircraft in a sector, but as soon as 1 aircraft goes into a holding pattern, then the controller is down to processing 23 or 24. If 2 aircraft enter the holding pattern, the controller is down to processing 22 or 23.
Clearance limits might be a little more work in periods of light traffic, but they seem to be able to facilitate the handling of a greater volume of traffic during periods of high workload. If a controller can process 25 aircraft, then clearance limits appear to allow that number to be maintained.
I would imagine the benefits to ATC are that other than monitoring compliance, they have aircraft with clearance limits that they know will be out of the way of other traffic. If there is a comm failure, the pilot/s will commence the remainder of their flight as planned at that ‘expect further clearance…’ time. The official holding points used in Australia perhaps wouldn’t get so congested at times as a result. In addition, if the controller gets slammed by workload, he/she has clearance limits on aircraft so that the pilots are not going to continue to fly into a busy section of airspace and make matters worse.
Anyway, it’s probably a little difficult to make sense of my words. It might not be applicable to Australian conditions, but I think the practice would be well worth consideration. If I'm speaking out of my butt, then I'm sure someone will only be too delighted to bring this to my attention.
I enjoy having that part of flight responsibility in the cockpit rather than the tower/centre. Instead of me tootling along at cruise speed and then getting shoved into a holding pattern; if I have a clearance limit with the ‘expect further clearance…’ time, I can adjust my cruise/descent accordingly to coordinate arrival at that location. Calculating ETAs seems to be something that Australian controllers like to do, but wouldn't it make more sense in periods of high workload to dump that responsibility back in the cockpit? If I arrive at the clearance limit early, I can enter my own holding pattern and coordinate myself and the pattern legs to return to the clearance limit at the precise time. Clearance limits seem to work well on STARs and enroute.
Not being a controller, from observation Australian procedures work well up to a point and then these procedures actively appear to conspire against handling additional traffic. For example, once the traffic level gets to the point where aircraft are required to enter holding patterns, then the additional procedures for controlling aircraft to, in and back out of the holding patterns, or shuffling about on track lengthening routes, seem to require extra workload. It's almost a situation where a controller can process say 25 aircraft in a sector, but as soon as 1 aircraft goes into a holding pattern, then the controller is down to processing 23 or 24. If 2 aircraft enter the holding pattern, the controller is down to processing 22 or 23.
Clearance limits might be a little more work in periods of light traffic, but they seem to be able to facilitate the handling of a greater volume of traffic during periods of high workload. If a controller can process 25 aircraft, then clearance limits appear to allow that number to be maintained.
I would imagine the benefits to ATC are that other than monitoring compliance, they have aircraft with clearance limits that they know will be out of the way of other traffic. If there is a comm failure, the pilot/s will commence the remainder of their flight as planned at that ‘expect further clearance…’ time. The official holding points used in Australia perhaps wouldn’t get so congested at times as a result. In addition, if the controller gets slammed by workload, he/she has clearance limits on aircraft so that the pilots are not going to continue to fly into a busy section of airspace and make matters worse.
Anyway, it’s probably a little difficult to make sense of my words. It might not be applicable to Australian conditions, but I think the practice would be well worth consideration. If I'm speaking out of my butt, then I'm sure someone will only be too delighted to bring this to my attention.
Last edited by Lodown; 1st Jul 2004 at 17:37.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Aussie controllers do a pretty good job generally now they have good equipment to work with.
But with all these posts good old Darwin doesn't rate a mention. I'm amazed. The sooner they dump those clowns and replace them with Airservices people the better.
But with all these posts good old Darwin doesn't rate a mention. I'm amazed. The sooner they dump those clowns and replace them with Airservices people the better.