Flight Following and RHS
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Launceston
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rooter or SM4
I usually plan via NAIPS when I can get a line. However when I take off I am assigned a code, but, once radar services are terminated or in D when I am OCTA I am told 'squark 1200'.
I notice though, when I come back into Radar and either ask for service or Airways I am given the same code again.
Why shouldn't I just keep the same code all the way, wouldn't you then know it was me whenever I spoke???
Barry
I usually plan via NAIPS when I can get a line. However when I take off I am assigned a code, but, once radar services are terminated or in D when I am OCTA I am told 'squark 1200'.
I notice though, when I come back into Radar and either ask for service or Airways I am given the same code again.
Why shouldn't I just keep the same code all the way, wouldn't you then know it was me whenever I spoke???
Barry
Aargh gee, folks - do we have to engage in debate with this peanut again, providing him with information so he can make himself look like an expert? He's not going to change his mind as a result of anything reads here. It's a waste of time.
By all means discuss and debate the issue amongst ourselves, but as a result of all that we've said and experienced over the last 5 years - and the millions of $$$ wasted - my philosophy is to ignore him.
By all means discuss and debate the issue amongst ourselves, but as a result of all that we've said and experienced over the last 5 years - and the millions of $$$ wasted - my philosophy is to ignore him.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Barry,
From a Melbourne Centre point of view; if I inhibit you when you leave my sector; if I ask you to squawk 1200 on my Display I go from a label such as:
ABC L
065>065V12
YMEN C172
RIS
to this
1200
065
As you can see a significant difference in screen clutter; the other major reason is this:
If I inhibit your plan (put it in suspended state), because your not in CTA or no longer getting an ATS service (lets leave class D out of it) i.e. not getting a RIS, if you don't change code your label flies still attached to your transponder paint; this is fine if it were just a clutter issue. But, if you leave radar coverage even for one paint, next time you appear on radar the system 'posts' your plan to me, activates it and makes me accept it; which wouldn't be too distracting if you were the only one, but if I get 5-10 VFRs at anytime in my 16000NM sector, very possible, I'd spend my whole life accepting and inhibiting VFR tracks; not actually doing what I'm paid to do.
This is why we put you on 1200. Yes you should always get the same code next time you get assigned a code, because it's the same Flight data record; it's just not being processed, if you cross the fence (Brisbane to Melbourne regions etc.) you might get a new code, because its a different system, the systems do talk though, so sometimes you won't need a code change crossing the fence.
We don't generally inhibit IFRs cause they always get a service, so reposting doesn't happen with IFRs. The system was designed for IFRs.
System processing was also a major issue, but I think they fixed it with hardware upgrades about 6 months ago. Remember this is 1994 technology with patches, in computer terms that is ancient.
Remember those 'brick' mobile phones we couldn't afford in 1994?
From a Melbourne Centre point of view; if I inhibit you when you leave my sector; if I ask you to squawk 1200 on my Display I go from a label such as:
ABC L
065>065V12
YMEN C172
RIS
to this
1200
065
As you can see a significant difference in screen clutter; the other major reason is this:
If I inhibit your plan (put it in suspended state), because your not in CTA or no longer getting an ATS service (lets leave class D out of it) i.e. not getting a RIS, if you don't change code your label flies still attached to your transponder paint; this is fine if it were just a clutter issue. But, if you leave radar coverage even for one paint, next time you appear on radar the system 'posts' your plan to me, activates it and makes me accept it; which wouldn't be too distracting if you were the only one, but if I get 5-10 VFRs at anytime in my 16000NM sector, very possible, I'd spend my whole life accepting and inhibiting VFR tracks; not actually doing what I'm paid to do.
This is why we put you on 1200. Yes you should always get the same code next time you get assigned a code, because it's the same Flight data record; it's just not being processed, if you cross the fence (Brisbane to Melbourne regions etc.) you might get a new code, because its a different system, the systems do talk though, so sometimes you won't need a code change crossing the fence.
We don't generally inhibit IFRs cause they always get a service, so reposting doesn't happen with IFRs. The system was designed for IFRs.
System processing was also a major issue, but I think they fixed it with hardware upgrades about 6 months ago. Remember this is 1994 technology with patches, in computer terms that is ancient.
Remember those 'brick' mobile phones we couldn't afford in 1994?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As pointed out Barry / Dynamic, this is now an 'old' system - (despite all the PR about being worlds leading technology and all that kind of fluffy stuff used to win elections) - as such it has been adapted in different locations tio make it work, usually by differing procedures.
As SM4 points out in his/her sector they like to get you to squawk A1200. However, in my sector which is only 30nm wide we leave you on the code for our own situational awareness - this is due to the number of radar tracks operating close to CTA with a lot of training aircraft included as well as the ability to quickly grab you back if you need to get another clearance / diversion etc. Some locations do it different due to various limitations such as radar coverage as mentioned above.
There are 4096 possible codes (8 digits on transponder x 4 digits tf. 8 to the 4th power), so there are not enough to give each aircraft it's own permanent skin code, as well as leaving enough reserved for itinerant (International) aircraft.
However with the eventual 100% coverage using ADS-B, assuming the government subsidise the installation of the aircraft equipment (which actually makes economic sense for all concerned) for all Australian GA/RAA capable aircraft, I am led to understand there will be enough codes for each aircraft to have a permananent skin code.
Whilst convenient, and a great boost for safety, it will of course raise some privacy issues.
And it is probably a long way off yet.
EDIT: It appears Dick's supporting of www.bindook.com was to no avail - noticed that:
Bindook.com This domain name expired on Apr 14, 2005.
However, in a somewhat freudian manner it refers the viewer to the following 'related' links:
Trash cans
Garbage cans
Trash can
Garbage can
Trash bin
Oh the irony!
As SM4 points out in his/her sector they like to get you to squawk A1200. However, in my sector which is only 30nm wide we leave you on the code for our own situational awareness - this is due to the number of radar tracks operating close to CTA with a lot of training aircraft included as well as the ability to quickly grab you back if you need to get another clearance / diversion etc. Some locations do it different due to various limitations such as radar coverage as mentioned above.
There are 4096 possible codes (8 digits on transponder x 4 digits tf. 8 to the 4th power), so there are not enough to give each aircraft it's own permanent skin code, as well as leaving enough reserved for itinerant (International) aircraft.
However with the eventual 100% coverage using ADS-B, assuming the government subsidise the installation of the aircraft equipment (which actually makes economic sense for all concerned) for all Australian GA/RAA capable aircraft, I am led to understand there will be enough codes for each aircraft to have a permananent skin code.
Whilst convenient, and a great boost for safety, it will of course raise some privacy issues.
And it is probably a long way off yet.
EDIT: It appears Dick's supporting of www.bindook.com was to no avail - noticed that:
Bindook.com This domain name expired on Apr 14, 2005.
However, in a somewhat freudian manner it refers the viewer to the following 'related' links:
Trash cans
Garbage cans
Trash can
Garbage can
Trash bin
Oh the irony!
Aargh gee, folks - do we have to engage in debate with this peanut again, providing him with information so he can make himself look like an expert? He's not going to change his mind as a result of anything reads here. It's a waste of time.
Heed the last sentance of the warning appearing at the bottom of every page - "In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions"
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're damn straight about that.... nothing much has changed.....
It was a well known fact that once Dickman had got his way with killing off Flight Service that he'd turn his attention to ATC...
This whole cr@p Dickman spouts about world's best practice (read U.S. best practice) ad-nauseum is giving me the S**Ts...and has done since June 1990 when I first wrote him... funnily enough, the type of response has always been the same...sort of the same way my wife nags me to the point that I'll let her buy what she wants as long as she shuts up
Rather than bleating about how we should copy the septics, why not become WBP leaders OURselves and not constantly refer to systems that have evolved due to THEIR geography or THEIR traffic densities.....or is that too imaginative for the Dickman??
5 years past from talking to things with wings (both ATC and FS) and I'm very happy not having to deal with decsions made by people whose only mission in life is to create more problems for those guys who are still there at the coalface.
The Mining Industry - where you only get nervous flying in and flying out
It was a well known fact that once Dickman had got his way with killing off Flight Service that he'd turn his attention to ATC...
This whole cr@p Dickman spouts about world's best practice (read U.S. best practice) ad-nauseum is giving me the S**Ts...and has done since June 1990 when I first wrote him... funnily enough, the type of response has always been the same...sort of the same way my wife nags me to the point that I'll let her buy what she wants as long as she shuts up
Rather than bleating about how we should copy the septics, why not become WBP leaders OURselves and not constantly refer to systems that have evolved due to THEIR geography or THEIR traffic densities.....or is that too imaginative for the Dickman??
5 years past from talking to things with wings (both ATC and FS) and I'm very happy not having to deal with decsions made by people whose only mission in life is to create more problems for those guys who are still there at the coalface.
The Mining Industry - where you only get nervous flying in and flying out
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
World's Best Practice is just an accounting term for 'Next Cheapest'. It is self perpetuating and eventually will have ATC (or any other industry) being done by a boy scout with a flash light and loud hailer.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you meet this man you will realise how out of his depth he is. It doesn't worry me how the press or unscrupulous people use what's written here, (you'll never win the press battle when this fool is involved, he's Australia's herewo).
What I would hope is achieved is that the aviation fraternity realise what damage he's done with the NAS debacle and how much it cost. And to stop him having any more influence on future airspace design.
What I would hope is achieved is that the aviation fraternity realise what damage he's done with the NAS debacle and how much it cost. And to stop him having any more influence on future airspace design.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Perth
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"World's Best Practice is just an accounting term for 'Next Cheapest'."
You're right there Plazbot...it's a great idea in name, but it got hijacked somewhere along the way by the beanies, and by those who wish to see their name in lights together with an entry on their CV, that is until it all starts becoming unglued....... then watch them run for cover.
Now where's my tickets for the expedition to find the perfect world??
You're right there Plazbot...it's a great idea in name, but it got hijacked somewhere along the way by the beanies, and by those who wish to see their name in lights together with an entry on their CV, that is until it all starts becoming unglued....... then watch them run for cover.
Now where's my tickets for the expedition to find the perfect world??
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was just perusing the new issue of MATS, and it would seem he was talking complete bolloks anyhow:
You GOT IT EVEN WRONGER, Dick
5.1.3.8 Prior to providing a RIS, ATC must identify the aircraft and, unless the service requested is of a short duration and it would be impractical to do so, the pilot should be allocated a specific transponder code.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: FantasyLand
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will there be any controllers left to provide the service anyway?
The EBA is shaping up as a dogfight that will probably see those management types once again dusting off a headset and rolling the disaster dice whilst controllers stop work over the draconian proposals.
The EBA is shaping up as a dogfight that will probably see those management types once again dusting off a headset and rolling the disaster dice whilst controllers stop work over the draconian proposals.
