Slot times and Stars in Darwin
Thread Starter
And vice versa would be appreciated as well.
Also don't get me wrong track shortening is always benificial, I guess its simply a case of knowing whats going to happen at the other end.
Also don't get me wrong track shortening is always benificial, I guess its simply a case of knowing whats going to happen at the other end.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: @home
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have found that if a pilot/ATC is put in the picture as to the why's and wherefore's then the unpredicability can be taken out of the picture. I am sure that RENURPP would agree that if he was told that the STAR is cancelled and given a reason and as to why (ie. due traffic, track shortening, vectors for an alternative approach other than that advertised) then we wouldn't be having this discussion. In this instance it seems that ATC need to be more aware that in this day and age of glass cockpits and smart nav systems, reprogramming for an approach other than what is advertised or planned (via the tie-in with the STAR) takes time and significant effort at a crucial stage of the flight. Two sides to every story I am sure but on this one RENURPP has a valid point. RTB RFN good to hear that you are alive and well and still trying to present a balanced argument; heard on the grapevine that you to moved on to other things; at least they named a STAR after you!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Celeritas and RENURPP, thank you both and yes still trying to find my nirvana however (and perhaps sadly) I suspect it resides at Darwin and with Northern Territory aviation and ATC. Too many years there and at Alice.
The education progam must remain dynamic and that is what all of this is about. I have learned or been reminded of some flying issues here and others have also. I also think this has national implications so I am thinking of perhaps an article in one of the Flight Safety media forums - otherwise the effort was worthless.
I think I know you both but that is all part of the intrigue of PPRUNE.
Cheers -
The education progam must remain dynamic and that is what all of this is about. I have learned or been reminded of some flying issues here and others have also. I also think this has national implications so I am thinking of perhaps an article in one of the Flight Safety media forums - otherwise the effort was worthless.
I think I know you both but that is all part of the intrigue of PPRUNE.
Cheers -
Thread Starter
Guys, and gals, (Darwin ATC)
Just to make my point a bit clearer, there may still be some confusion.
The only reason you should, (in my oppinion) be issuing 29 NDB approach instead of the 29 VOR off a STAR is that it is part of the published STAR, the VOR is not.
last night we were not issued a STAR and were radar vectored then given direct to FEEGS HWS then the 29 NDB.
In this case it should revert back to the AIP and I guess MATs priority of ILS, LLZ, VOR, then NDB last of all.
It wasn't a problem as the FMC basically flies the approach. how ever in a bugsmasher using the NDB for navigation, especially in the wet season the dam thing points at the closest TS, wich quite often hangs around over the top of HWS anyway, but makes the NDB's effectively useless for navigation.
It was quite busy on the radio last night but alot of the calls were not needed.
some body previously asked the question and I wonder as well.
Why rather than issue continual steps down don't you clear us to a lower level "not below DME steps"
Last night it went some thing lile this.
ABC descend F140.
F140 ABC
ABC approaching F140
ABC descend 130
ABC F130
ABC maintaining F130
ABC descend 10,000
10,000 left F130 ABC etc etc. Obviously we were not the only ones. This takes up a hell of a lot of radio time.
I am assuming some not all of the time the levels are due to CTA steps, as most of the time there are no aircraft around, within at least 40nm anyway, as thats the distance our TCAS can see.
Just to make my point a bit clearer, there may still be some confusion.
The only reason you should, (in my oppinion) be issuing 29 NDB approach instead of the 29 VOR off a STAR is that it is part of the published STAR, the VOR is not.
last night we were not issued a STAR and were radar vectored then given direct to FEEGS HWS then the 29 NDB.
In this case it should revert back to the AIP and I guess MATs priority of ILS, LLZ, VOR, then NDB last of all.
It wasn't a problem as the FMC basically flies the approach. how ever in a bugsmasher using the NDB for navigation, especially in the wet season the dam thing points at the closest TS, wich quite often hangs around over the top of HWS anyway, but makes the NDB's effectively useless for navigation.
It was quite busy on the radio last night but alot of the calls were not needed.
some body previously asked the question and I wonder as well.
Why rather than issue continual steps down don't you clear us to a lower level "not below DME steps"
Last night it went some thing lile this.
ABC descend F140.
F140 ABC
ABC approaching F140
ABC descend 130
ABC F130
ABC maintaining F130
ABC descend 10,000
10,000 left F130 ABC etc etc. Obviously we were not the only ones. This takes up a hell of a lot of radio time.
I am assuming some not all of the time the levels are due to CTA steps, as most of the time there are no aircraft around, within at least 40nm anyway, as thats the distance our TCAS can see.
Why rather than issue continual steps down don't you clear us to a lower level "not below DME steps"
The system must do better than this.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Somewhere near here
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys and gals, there are some very constructive points here that, I hope, will be looked at seriously by DN ATC... sad to see that there's also a bunch of moronic RAAF-bashing cr@p as well - confirm that DN ATC is manned jointly by RAAF and Civvys?
For what it's worth, we had some 'efficiency' issues with the same place during a big exercise a few years ago. Those concerns were raised, and DN did an amazing job changing the way it did business to make things work a whole lot better the next time.
Keep pushing this stuff up REN; if it's valid, I'm sure DN will start listening.
For what it's worth, we had some 'efficiency' issues with the same place during a big exercise a few years ago. Those concerns were raised, and DN did an amazing job changing the way it did business to make things work a whole lot better the next time.
Keep pushing this stuff up REN; if it's valid, I'm sure DN will start listening.
Bottums Up
Last night I had a similar experience to RENURPP's the previous night.
TRB RFN
One thing I don't understand is, when a pilot calls "visual", IAW AIP ENR 1.1 - 23, para 11.5.7,
we still get cleared for an instrument approach, or asked do we want a visual approach or an instrument approach; all this when the ATIS says, "Expect visual approach".
Is there a reason that advice from the pilot that they are visual, means something different?
- STAR clearance given 7nm before the STAR's transition (from BN CTR).
- Descent clearance issued after TOPD
- Cleared VAP from FEEGS which was good
- Speed reduction to 230 KIAS due slow tracffic in front. Subscribing to a colleagues philosophy that if slowed in DRW alway go slower, we slowed to 210.
- Speed reduction to min approach (we were already there)
TRB RFN
One thing I don't understand is, when a pilot calls "visual", IAW AIP ENR 1.1 - 23, para 11.5.7,
11.5.7 A pilot in command operating under the IFR who desires a visual approach and is satisfied that the visual conditions as per para 11.5.1 can be met must report ‘VISUAL’. A pilot who is unable to continue a visual approach which has been authorised by ATC must immediately advise ATC.
Is there a reason that advice from the pilot that they are visual, means something different?
topdrop,
I should have clarified. I meant that "descend to XXXX not below the DME steps" doesn't happen at any of our radar-towered airports. I agree that DME Arrivals (in the context of a full-blown instrument approach procedure) are still used, almost always only in Class G airpsace at CTAF airports. A DME Arrival or LLZ/DME is quite different to Renurpps descent problem at DRW.
DME Arrivals are used regularly in Oz.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Claret
Strictly speaking a report of visual only means that a VSA can be made. Obviously if you desire a VSA you must report visual first (as per your AIP quote), but by itself a report of visual doesn't indicate approach intentions.
Consider that you are required to report flight conditions on first contact with approach (ENR 1.1 11.1.6). Just becasue you may be visual on first contact (which is often the case in DN at this time of year) and report such doesn't necessarily mean you want a VSA.
Whizzwheel
Thanks for the positive feedback. A lot of work went into the procedures for PB06 and there was also substaintial simulator work for App controllers. While everything wasn't prefect it a hell of a lot better than in the past. Any FYI DN is all RAAF.
Remember at the end of the day the slot times at DN are only a trial. The system isn't perfect yet and changes have already been made as a result of feedback from customers. If you have constructive criticism or suggestions I'm sure they will be considered in the washup.
Strictly speaking a report of visual only means that a VSA can be made. Obviously if you desire a VSA you must report visual first (as per your AIP quote), but by itself a report of visual doesn't indicate approach intentions.
Consider that you are required to report flight conditions on first contact with approach (ENR 1.1 11.1.6). Just becasue you may be visual on first contact (which is often the case in DN at this time of year) and report such doesn't necessarily mean you want a VSA.
Whizzwheel
Thanks for the positive feedback. A lot of work went into the procedures for PB06 and there was also substaintial simulator work for App controllers. While everything wasn't prefect it a hell of a lot better than in the past. Any FYI DN is all RAAF.
Remember at the end of the day the slot times at DN are only a trial. The system isn't perfect yet and changes have already been made as a result of feedback from customers. If you have constructive criticism or suggestions I'm sure they will be considered in the washup.
Thread Starter
Left Unrestricted
I have not got a copy of AIP or Jepps with me, so relying on memory and its a bit shot, and will only be worse on monday morning i can assure you, so please excuse me if I am mis quoting. Claret, maybe you can find the appropriate para and copy it for us.
My understanding is that there is no requirement to report in flight conditions on first contact. With that in mind...........
I can find no other way of reading it than to say, if a pilot reports visual he is requesting a visual approach. (note the bolding)
My understanding is that there is no requirement to report in flight conditions on first contact. With that in mind...........
11.5.7 A pilot in command operating under the IFR who desires a visual approach and is satisfied that the visual conditions as per para 11.5.1 can be met must report ‘VISUAL’. A pilot who is unable to continue a visual approach which has been authorised by ATC must immediately advise ATC.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I should have put a quote in not just the ref.
ENR1.1-19 para 11.1.6
"11.1.6 When making first contact with Approach Control, the following
apply:
...
b. Identified -- report assigned level, flight conditions, if appropriate,
and receipt of ATIS (code)."
I know it says "if appropriate" but the way I read that is if you are visual you should report so on first contact.
Funny how you can read exactly the same paragraph differently. I read 11.5.7 as if you want a VSA you must report visual (obviously because you must be visual before you can have a VSA), but I don't think it says (nor can I find it anywhere else) that if you report visual you want a VSA. A subtle difference, but just the way I read it.
GEN 3.4 says that "pilot to advise when able to conduct a visual approach" (my underline) should be instructed to "report visual". IMHO reporting visual means you can do a VSA, not necessarily that you want one. Perhaps just a difference of opinion here.
I can accept though that most pilots reporting visual want a VSA (or have been instructed to report visual).
ENR1.1-19 para 11.1.6
"11.1.6 When making first contact with Approach Control, the following
apply:
...
b. Identified -- report assigned level, flight conditions, if appropriate,
and receipt of ATIS (code)."
I know it says "if appropriate" but the way I read that is if you are visual you should report so on first contact.
Funny how you can read exactly the same paragraph differently. I read 11.5.7 as if you want a VSA you must report visual (obviously because you must be visual before you can have a VSA), but I don't think it says (nor can I find it anywhere else) that if you report visual you want a VSA. A subtle difference, but just the way I read it.
GEN 3.4 says that "pilot to advise when able to conduct a visual approach" (my underline) should be instructed to "report visual". IMHO reporting visual means you can do a VSA, not necessarily that you want one. Perhaps just a difference of opinion here.
I can accept though that most pilots reporting visual want a VSA (or have been instructed to report visual).
Thread Starter
Bloggs
We regularly monitor our descent with regards to CTA steps, as you well know. It requires less workload than levelling off, waiting for an opportunity to get further descent down we go. In the event I described above we levelled off, i.e. altitude captured no less than three times. All due to radio conjestion.
I don't believe they are doing it due traffic. They do it all the time. I recall a DN ATCer a while back making a comment on here that 146 drivers regularly busted the CTA steps, and not long after the procedure described above started happening.
I would be interested in hearing from ATC as to why they do it?
ATC should be good enough (ie sequence you away/slow you down from the traffic causing the problem)
I would be interested in hearing from ATC as to why they do it?
Thread Starter
Left Unrestricted
Well there's the problem. You read it like an ATCer, and I read it like a pilot.
The way I understand, and I have to say it works a treat in other ATC environments is.
If I am visual and desire a visual approach I call visual on first contact.
If I subsequently become visual and desire a visual approach I call visual.
If I am visual and prefer to carry out an instrument approach, e.g one attached to a STAR, I won't say anything unless asked.
doesn't the following say exactly that?
As an aside, A few pilots won't report visual until they are within 30nm. There thinking is you cannot be issued or carry out a visual approach until within 30nm.
Reporting visual, indicates your desire to conduct the approach when permitted as per 11.5.1 (I am guessing).
You must notice alot of people waiting until right on 30nm to report visual.
I am not one of them, not that its a problem I guess.
The way I understand, and I have to say it works a treat in other ATC environments is.
If I am visual and desire a visual approach I call visual on first contact.
If I subsequently become visual and desire a visual approach I call visual.
If I am visual and prefer to carry out an instrument approach, e.g one attached to a STAR, I won't say anything unless asked.
but I don't think it says (nor can I find it anywhere else) that if you report visual you want a VSA. A subtle difference, but just the way I read it.
11.5.7 A pilot in command operating under the IFR who desires a visual approach and is satisfied that the visual conditions as per para 11.5.1 can be met must report ‘VISUAL’. A pilot who is unable to continue a visual approach which has been authorised by ATC must immediately advise ATC.
Reporting visual, indicates your desire to conduct the approach when permitted as per 11.5.1 (I am guessing).
You must notice alot of people waiting until right on 30nm to report visual.
I am not one of them, not that its a problem I guess.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have NEVER heard or met anyone who would call visual if they didn't want a visual approach. Whats the point? Into DN, we never bother reporting visual if we are going to do an instrument approach. Moreover the handover to approach normally occurs well outside 30nm, so we never call visual on first contact. It seems that approach EXPECT you to want a visual approach at this time of year, and if you want an instrument approach you've gotta ask for it. Which brings us back to the issue, if the star is issued, then the expectation should be for the approach on the star, and a visual approach would be the requested, not expected.... perhaps the issue here is the instruction on the stars...
Thread Starter
There you go, Podbreak is one of those pilots I speak of.
The way I read it. You don't have to be within 30nm to report visual you just can't carry out or be issued a visual approach until you are.
If you are visual and wish to conduct a visual approach then on first contact you say so.
Mind you, this ones not worth worrying about.
The way I read it. You don't have to be within 30nm to report visual you just can't carry out or be issued a visual approach until you are.
If you are visual and wish to conduct a visual approach then on first contact you say so.
Mind you, this ones not worth worrying about.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
renurpp, the only reason we do it this way is because like you said, their hands are tied until we are within 30nm, so theres no need for us to call UNTIL we are there. Don't really think ATC need the forewarning. My idea of reporting visual (at 30nm if i am visual) is like telling them I satisfy all the vis app requirements right NOW. It has happened to me before, reporting visual at 70nm, and being asked at 25nm "are you visual?".
Thread Starter
Thats fine, I don't know what ATC really want.
I would have thought following guidance in AIP would have been best,(on first contact)if you are visual of course, if ATC don't like it, they can put in a submission to change it.
I may be wrong, (again) in the past, when we reported visual wasn't our strip notated with a V, and then you could plan accordingly? For planning purposes isn't early notice of our request an advantage?
Anyway. It has been good to get responses from DN ATC guys and gals, Too many times in the past it ends up in a slanging match. I hope you find the time to continue discussing some of these issues with us. I find it good value.
I would still like some input on the following.
How do the slot times work?
The NOTAM said it was intended for aircraft departing within 200nm (I think), it appears now to include every body?
Lighties phone up for slot times, jets don't, does our late notice affect our slot time?
Is there still a priority system. RPT/non schedule etc involved in the slot system?
What happens if an aircraft cannot meet its slot time?
When on a STAR, can you advise the reason you clear us in steps rather than descent to say 3000ft, traffic being an obvious reason, is there another?
Seems to create a lot of chatter.
I would have thought following guidance in AIP would have been best,(on first contact)if you are visual of course, if ATC don't like it, they can put in a submission to change it.
I may be wrong, (again) in the past, when we reported visual wasn't our strip notated with a V, and then you could plan accordingly? For planning purposes isn't early notice of our request an advantage?
Anyway. It has been good to get responses from DN ATC guys and gals, Too many times in the past it ends up in a slanging match. I hope you find the time to continue discussing some of these issues with us. I find it good value.
I would still like some input on the following.
How do the slot times work?
The NOTAM said it was intended for aircraft departing within 200nm (I think), it appears now to include every body?
Lighties phone up for slot times, jets don't, does our late notice affect our slot time?
Is there still a priority system. RPT/non schedule etc involved in the slot system?
What happens if an aircraft cannot meet its slot time?
When on a STAR, can you advise the reason you clear us in steps rather than descent to say 3000ft, traffic being an obvious reason, is there another?
Seems to create a lot of chatter.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can try to answer a few of those.
1. When you report visual the strip (yes we do still use them...) will be annotated with a V. From personal preference I like to know you are visual as soon as you are. I know I can't give you a VSA before 30nm so if you give it to me early I'm not going to clear you immediately or anything like that. I know not everyone is visual before 30nm, but reporting as soon as you are is good, it saves me having to ask.
2. The reference to the slot times being for aircraft within 200nm DN refers to aircraft having to call for one, either by phone or flightwatch (probably could be worded a little better). Slot times still apply to RPT and the like coming from outside 200nm, it just means you don't have to ask for one. It is calculated and booked automatically when BN advise us of you estimate for the field and is why you may possibly get a not before time for your 40nm transition point.
3. If an aircraft cannot make its slot time, it will be given the next closest available slot and sequenced (vectored, slowed, orbited) in order to meet this slot. Having said that though most larger aircraft are meeting slots within a couple of minutes and rather than stuff everyone around controllers are just tweaking the sequence to make it work. Generally this involves moving the GA guys around to accommodate the aircraft on STARs (usually because they are the ones having trouble meeting their slots). Strictly speaking though if you are late (or early for that matter) you should be given additional track miles or told to enter the hold until the next slot becomes available (can't wait for the reaction to the first controller who actually does that....)
4. The later notice we receive for aircraft on STARs is creating a situation where their estimate clashes with a slot already booked by a GA aircraft and so the STAR aircraft is slowed, effectively giving the GA aircraft higher priority. This is particularly frustrating when the GA aircraft doesn't show and the STAR aircraft is left saying what the hell was I slowed for? GA aircraft are doing the right thing by booking slots early (some booking arrival times before even departing DN), but the nature of most GA ops means that they are having trouble meeting these times inbound. This problem is known and has been raised, not sure what the solution will be.
5. Aircraft are cleared by the steps usually to keep them in CTA (sometimes for traffic). Except when it is really busy a controller should be scanning the radar and issuing descent early enough so that aircraft don't report approaching their cleared level (except for the step huggers, we can't give descent until the blip is actually across the line). Unfortunately when it is busy is when these things sometimes get missed and you end up requesting descent, thereby increasing RT and making it even more busy!
As an aside I imagine an aircraft tracking by the STAR would have a huge workload monitoring descent if told to descend not below the DME steps. Depending on the particular STAR you could pass though all three sectors at varying distances. A bit easier if you are tracking direct.
1. When you report visual the strip (yes we do still use them...) will be annotated with a V. From personal preference I like to know you are visual as soon as you are. I know I can't give you a VSA before 30nm so if you give it to me early I'm not going to clear you immediately or anything like that. I know not everyone is visual before 30nm, but reporting as soon as you are is good, it saves me having to ask.
2. The reference to the slot times being for aircraft within 200nm DN refers to aircraft having to call for one, either by phone or flightwatch (probably could be worded a little better). Slot times still apply to RPT and the like coming from outside 200nm, it just means you don't have to ask for one. It is calculated and booked automatically when BN advise us of you estimate for the field and is why you may possibly get a not before time for your 40nm transition point.
3. If an aircraft cannot make its slot time, it will be given the next closest available slot and sequenced (vectored, slowed, orbited) in order to meet this slot. Having said that though most larger aircraft are meeting slots within a couple of minutes and rather than stuff everyone around controllers are just tweaking the sequence to make it work. Generally this involves moving the GA guys around to accommodate the aircraft on STARs (usually because they are the ones having trouble meeting their slots). Strictly speaking though if you are late (or early for that matter) you should be given additional track miles or told to enter the hold until the next slot becomes available (can't wait for the reaction to the first controller who actually does that....)
4. The later notice we receive for aircraft on STARs is creating a situation where their estimate clashes with a slot already booked by a GA aircraft and so the STAR aircraft is slowed, effectively giving the GA aircraft higher priority. This is particularly frustrating when the GA aircraft doesn't show and the STAR aircraft is left saying what the hell was I slowed for? GA aircraft are doing the right thing by booking slots early (some booking arrival times before even departing DN), but the nature of most GA ops means that they are having trouble meeting these times inbound. This problem is known and has been raised, not sure what the solution will be.
5. Aircraft are cleared by the steps usually to keep them in CTA (sometimes for traffic). Except when it is really busy a controller should be scanning the radar and issuing descent early enough so that aircraft don't report approaching their cleared level (except for the step huggers, we can't give descent until the blip is actually across the line). Unfortunately when it is busy is when these things sometimes get missed and you end up requesting descent, thereby increasing RT and making it even more busy!
As an aside I imagine an aircraft tracking by the STAR would have a huge workload monitoring descent if told to descend not below the DME steps. Depending on the particular STAR you could pass though all three sectors at varying distances. A bit easier if you are tracking direct.