Slot times and Stars in Darwin
Bottums Up
Left Unrestricted
On first contact, IAW ENR1.1-19 para 11.1.6, I'd do one of the following:
If I wanted an instument approach I wouldn't call visual, because the AIP tells me, at ENR 1.1 - 23, para 11.5.7, that reporting VISUAL indicates that I "desire" a visual approach.
As to some of RENURPP's posts, I agree wholeheartedly with him, there is no restriction on calling visual outside 30 nm. To the best of my knowlege, there is no restriction on being cleared after calling visual at say 100nm, "from 30DME make visual approach".
On first contact, IAW ENR1.1-19 para 11.1.6, I'd do one of the following:
- If I wanted a visual approach, I'd call "visual".
- If I wanted an instrument approach, I'd report, "in VMC", or "in cloud", or "on top of cloud" as appropriate.
If I wanted an instument approach I wouldn't call visual, because the AIP tells me, at ENR 1.1 - 23, para 11.5.7, that reporting VISUAL indicates that I "desire" a visual approach.
As to some of RENURPP's posts, I agree wholeheartedly with him, there is no restriction on calling visual outside 30 nm. To the best of my knowlege, there is no restriction on being cleared after calling visual at say 100nm, "from 30DME make visual approach".
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read Unrestricted's reply I intend to change from the 30 nm advice of visual to ASAP, also meaning first contact if indeed I am visual.
I must admit though that I still expect a certain degree of extra RT to get the vis app.
Are you visual?
Would you like the approach or visual app? etc
Good work Unrest..d for your posts, appreciated.
I must admit though that I still expect a certain degree of extra RT to get the vis app.
Are you visual?
Would you like the approach or visual app? etc
Good work Unrest..d for your posts, appreciated.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Maxgrad,
It will happen and regularly. Having said they they still ask even if the "visual" report is made at 30nm so no big difference. I suspect the V is some times forgotten? To be noted that is.
I recall being asked 5 yes thats right 5 times one night. If you searched the circumstances would be here some where. Maybe the ATCer was winding me up?
Left Unrestricted
This one I find a little hard to accept.
My understanding from "within" the inner cirlce is that bugsmashers are booking a slot time up to 4hrs in advance. You don't get our estimate from BN CTR until around 30 mins. Automatically an aircraft which should have a higher priority is being penalised.
Are you aware that our estimates as soon as airborne at our departure point will generally be within a min or 2. Airborne Cairns we WILL be there within 2 mins of our estimate, not allowing for STAR simply based on our flight plan i the FMS. Are you able to receive our ETA any sooner to stik it in the flow slot time?
A bugsmasher from say E120 down will only use an estimate based on GPS and flight plan information. It doesn't really predict down the track it looks at current conditions, i.e. wind, altitude, TAS/GS etc. A jets info is FMS based and is predictive, hence more accurate.
Having spent several years flying bugsmashers in and out of Darwin, I can assure you there booking times are going to be more best wishes then any real intention to meet it. You could prove this fairly easily and charge a booking fee for each additional slot time they book or if more than ?? + or - 2 mins from their booked slot time. i.e. first one free, if you don't make the slot time you have to put a carton in the kitty for a joint RAAF ATC/Pilot xmas piss up. I guarantee it will be one huge party, or the GA industry will lift their act and request achievable slot times. .
These days were every one has a mobile phone, and were they don't work, like out in Arnhem land etc try VHF, HF, radio or land line from council office etc the slot time request should not be requested until the aircraft is ready to depart. Then allowance of whatever say 15 mins to load up taxi and depart and they will have a chance.
I have already been affected by the GA aircraft not turning up scenario and it pissed me off. Its the reason I started this post.
Well obviously Bloggs for one disagree's with me here, I would rather that, than the scenario we had the other day, described above.
With the FMS these days we can check what altitude we will be at certain distances before we even start our descent and pretty much forget it. Maybe monitor ones that may be close. In non radar environments we do it all the time and its not that hard.
Has the idea of light aircraft corridors had serious consideration?
keep them low until they leave CTR. You don't need to seperate them. Say to BTI Northbound 1000'until in "G" airspace and sounthound 1500ft. If there is no slot for them they can hold at a nominal position say Lee Point until there is one. Its nice and close so they can squeeze in at short notice?
IFR aircraft heading North have a restriction simialr to the Darwin 2, but make the turn 2500 for vertical seperation.
It will happen and regularly. Having said they they still ask even if the "visual" report is made at 30nm so no big difference. I suspect the V is some times forgotten? To be noted that is.
I recall being asked 5 yes thats right 5 times one night. If you searched the circumstances would be here some where. Maybe the ATCer was winding me up?
Left Unrestricted
. 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.
My understanding from "within" the inner cirlce is that bugsmashers are booking a slot time up to 4hrs in advance. You don't get our estimate from BN CTR until around 30 mins. Automatically an aircraft which should have a higher priority is being penalised.
Are you aware that our estimates as soon as airborne at our departure point will generally be within a min or 2. Airborne Cairns we WILL be there within 2 mins of our estimate, not allowing for STAR simply based on our flight plan i the FMS. Are you able to receive our ETA any sooner to stik it in the flow slot time?
A bugsmasher from say E120 down will only use an estimate based on GPS and flight plan information. It doesn't really predict down the track it looks at current conditions, i.e. wind, altitude, TAS/GS etc. A jets info is FMS based and is predictive, hence more accurate.
Having spent several years flying bugsmashers in and out of Darwin, I can assure you there booking times are going to be more best wishes then any real intention to meet it. You could prove this fairly easily and charge a booking fee for each additional slot time they book or if more than ?? + or - 2 mins from their booked slot time. i.e. first one free, if you don't make the slot time you have to put a carton in the kitty for a joint RAAF ATC/Pilot xmas piss up. I guarantee it will be one huge party, or the GA industry will lift their act and request achievable slot times. .
These days were every one has a mobile phone, and were they don't work, like out in Arnhem land etc try VHF, HF, radio or land line from council office etc the slot time request should not be requested until the aircraft is ready to depart. Then allowance of whatever say 15 mins to load up taxi and depart and they will have a chance.
I have already been affected by the GA aircraft not turning up scenario and it pissed me off. Its the reason I started this post.
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.
With the FMS these days we can check what altitude we will be at certain distances before we even start our descent and pretty much forget it. Maybe monitor ones that may be close. In non radar environments we do it all the time and its not that hard.
Has the idea of light aircraft corridors had serious consideration?
keep them low until they leave CTR. You don't need to seperate them. Say to BTI Northbound 1000'until in "G" airspace and sounthound 1500ft. If there is no slot for them they can hold at a nominal position say Lee Point until there is one. Its nice and close so they can squeeze in at short notice?
IFR aircraft heading North have a restriction simialr to the Darwin 2, but make the turn 2500 for vertical seperation.
Last edited by RENURPP; 15th Sep 2006 at 13:20.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't get our estimate from BN CTR until around 30 mins. Automatically an aircraft which should have a higher priority is being penalised.
I have already been affected by the GA aircraft not turning up scenario and it pissed me off. Its the reason I started this post.
Are you aware that our estimates as soon as airborne at our departure point will generally be within a min or 2. Airborne Cairns we WILL be there within 2 mins of our estimate, not allowing for STAR simply based on our flight plan i the FMS.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RENURRP
As NIMFLT as already said, an earlier estimate would be fantastic. Currently we get estimates about 45min to 1h before landing. There is a way for us to calculate your estimate base on departure time plus flight plan time (not always the best estimate, but close) but we would need to know you have actually departed. Unfortunately our system doesn't tell us you are on the way until even later than we get the estimate from BN.
NIMFLT
Any aircraft, regardless of category and priority, should arrive at, or at least close to its assigned slot and when they don't turn up it is a pain for everyone. Not just the guys following who had to slow for an aircraft that doesn't arrive but the planner who now needs to fix the slots when that aircraft calls for another slot time or the approach controller when they turn up an hour late without a slot.
As NIMFLT as already said, an earlier estimate would be fantastic. Currently we get estimates about 45min to 1h before landing. There is a way for us to calculate your estimate base on departure time plus flight plan time (not always the best estimate, but close) but we would need to know you have actually departed. Unfortunately our system doesn't tell us you are on the way until even later than we get the estimate from BN.
NIMFLT
Any aircraft, regardless of category and priority, should arrive at, or at least close to its assigned slot and when they don't turn up it is a pain for everyone. Not just the guys following who had to slow for an aircraft that doesn't arrive but the planner who now needs to fix the slots when that aircraft calls for another slot time or the approach controller when they turn up an hour late without a slot.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any aircraft, regardless of category and priority, should arrive at, or at least close to its assigned slot and when they don't turn up it is a pain for everyone. Not just the guys following who had to slow for an aircraft that doesn't arrive but the planner who now needs to fix the slots when that aircraft calls for another slot time or the approach controller when they turn up an hour late without a slot.
RENURRP was more concerned that he is disadvantaged because he is allocated a slot later than the lighties. The fact that the aircraft didn't turn up is incidental because if RENURRP had been issued a slot time earlier, he wouldn't have been slowed for the lightie - he would have got the slot he wanted.
if you don't make the slot time you have to put a carton in the kitty for a joint RAAF ATC/Pilot xmas piss up
) When is that by the way...
Thread Starter
Not true. Priorities only kick in if all aircraft cannot be accommodated. Sequencing is not denying priority.
Maybe I have missunderstood what he means here?
This presumes that the other aircraft was a lower priority. S, N, and M have the same priority.
a. with equal status:--
(1) scheduled commercial air transport operations;
(2) non-scheduled commercial air transport operations;
(3) military aircraft (other than training flights);
(4) aircraft engaged in the personal transport of
-- State Governors or the Administrator of the Northern
Territory,
-- State Premiers or Chief Ministers of Territories;
(5) aircraft participating in Medical (MED 2) operations;
AIP Australia ENR 1.4 -- 17 16 MAR 06
b. with equal status:
(1) general aviation aircraft proceeding to a primary aerodrome;
(2) military and civil training flights; and
c. other operations.
(1) scheduled commercial air transport operations;
(2) non-scheduled commercial air transport operations;
(3) military aircraft (other than training flights);
(4) aircraft engaged in the personal transport of
-- State Governors or the Administrator of the Northern
Territory,
-- State Premiers or Chief Ministers of Territories;
(5) aircraft participating in Medical (MED 2) operations;
AIP Australia ENR 1.4 -- 17 16 MAR 06
b. with equal status:
(1) general aviation aircraft proceeding to a primary aerodrome;
(2) military and civil training flights; and
c. other operations.
It was a non scheduled or what ever private is? single from BTI.
The advice I got from App was that there was a lighty from the island which had a conflicting slot time which didn't turn up.
I wasn't concerned that we would arrive later or slow down, I requested a 11NDB and we were told we would require 2 holding patterns, i.e. 8mins.
Runway in use 29, so we wanted the cirlcing app. We would have gone overhead around 5-6000, the BTI traffic would have joined on a right base, I assume, even if he turned up on time, were is the 8 mins?
We elected not to carry out the NDB, and later were advised of the above. Now considering we don't talk to you guys until we are well and truly on descent I would have thought that you may have an idea of whats happening in the next 10 mins or so?? Thats what bugged me. There ended up being no other arrivals or departures for at least 20 mins??
I have no idea how this system works, it appears though, that once issued, there is no follow up on "NO Shows" for slot times. 33nm to BTI, say a 210, it would have to take 13 mins minimum. When do you guys hear of their departure and imminent arrival?
So from my point of view thats not good enough and the system isn't working efficiently, at the moment!
Last edited by RENURPP; 15th Sep 2006 at 20:24.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: @home
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something here?!?! Does DN still have a radar or are the controller's there doing procedural approach these days? This is a legitimate question and I am not trying to be funny. If DN does still have a radar for its Terminal control functions then I fail to see the need for slot times in that part of the world.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PRIORITIES
That list of priorities only applies after the original list (read the "notwihtstanding notwithstanding" sentence for clarity!!!) applies. Basically the sequence is set and adjusted using knowns, probabilities, commonsense and mutual (shared ) inconvenience only if absolutely necessary.
SLOT TIMES
That is why I thought slot times only apply to fast movers who can make minute adjustments over hundreds of miles but get a guarantee of a landing without further inconvenience/ATC intevention. The lighties then fit in around these aircraft or use crossing runway/s. That was how it was meant to work. Clearly some operators will abuse the system of slots for all. Don't do it - it's dopey and will not work. Keep it simple, set it up early as poss for the fast/big guys and work the small stuff to fit.
VISUAL APPROACH
If I call visual I want a visual approach. If I want an instrument appoach I will not say visual and will not expect to be asked if I am visual (just like I don't need to be asked to report when ready). For IFR an instrument approach is the default and an entitlement regardless of the weather conditions. If I want a visual approach and am too dopey to work out that I need to say visual to get out of ATC/AIP terrain clearance protection then I deserved to be processed via an approach.Yes a visual approach can be assigned at any time and an aircraft doesn't need to trip over 30 miles for that (particularly at night).
That list of priorities only applies after the original list (read the "notwihtstanding notwithstanding" sentence for clarity!!!) applies. Basically the sequence is set and adjusted using knowns, probabilities, commonsense and mutual (shared ) inconvenience only if absolutely necessary.
SLOT TIMES
That is why I thought slot times only apply to fast movers who can make minute adjustments over hundreds of miles but get a guarantee of a landing without further inconvenience/ATC intevention. The lighties then fit in around these aircraft or use crossing runway/s. That was how it was meant to work. Clearly some operators will abuse the system of slots for all. Don't do it - it's dopey and will not work. Keep it simple, set it up early as poss for the fast/big guys and work the small stuff to fit.
VISUAL APPROACH
If I call visual I want a visual approach. If I want an instrument appoach I will not say visual and will not expect to be asked if I am visual (just like I don't need to be asked to report when ready). For IFR an instrument approach is the default and an entitlement regardless of the weather conditions. If I want a visual approach and am too dopey to work out that I need to say visual to get out of ATC/AIP terrain clearance protection then I deserved to be processed via an approach.Yes a visual approach can be assigned at any time and an aircraft doesn't need to trip over 30 miles for that (particularly at night).
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When all aircraft cannot be accommodated then priorities will be applied. Obviously all aircraft get in in the end so one could argue that priorities never kick in and aircraft are just delayed for sequencing.
I have seen the situation already where an RPT aircraft was slowed by 6min to accommodate GA aircraft that had booked the clashing slots hours in advance. It would have perhaps been a larger delay had LAHSO not allowed us to double book a slot. In my opinion this goes beyond sequencing and into application of priorities. All 4 aircraft wanted to arrive at DN at pretty much the same time, all could not be accommodated and so the RPT aircraft was delayed. To me sequencing is what I do inside 40nm when I give a small vector or a bit of speed control to make sure I have x miles on final.
RENURPP
Without knowing the specifics of what was going on at the time can I suggest that if you wanted a 11 NDB with 29 as the duty RWY you perhaps may have been delayed due to a departure off the duty RYW? Just guessing but this is not unusual. Also TWR may have required the delay because they had something going on and couldn't immeadiately accept a non-duty approach. Again just speculating without knowing the specifics.
Frozo
TMP applies to all aircraft at or above FL130, so you would have to be cruising at FL120 to dodge a STAR.
I have seen the situation already where an RPT aircraft was slowed by 6min to accommodate GA aircraft that had booked the clashing slots hours in advance. It would have perhaps been a larger delay had LAHSO not allowed us to double book a slot. In my opinion this goes beyond sequencing and into application of priorities. All 4 aircraft wanted to arrive at DN at pretty much the same time, all could not be accommodated and so the RPT aircraft was delayed. To me sequencing is what I do inside 40nm when I give a small vector or a bit of speed control to make sure I have x miles on final.
RENURPP
Without knowing the specifics of what was going on at the time can I suggest that if you wanted a 11 NDB with 29 as the duty RWY you perhaps may have been delayed due to a departure off the duty RYW? Just guessing but this is not unusual. Also TWR may have required the delay because they had something going on and couldn't immeadiately accept a non-duty approach. Again just speculating without knowing the specifics.
Frozo
TMP applies to all aircraft at or above FL130, so you would have to be cruising at FL120 to dodge a STAR.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: @home
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but I can't resist - are you saying that you can not have four acft with the same estimate for the field in one breath and the next that you have a 40nm terminal area?!! Again I ask the question, are you guys and gals doing procedural control into DN these days; or is it still a radar environment??
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DN is still radar, however I think you are missing what I was saying. My comments were nothing to do with being able to handle that many aircraft at once, it was with regards to the slot time system and allocation of priorities versus sequencing.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: @home
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks LU. Tried to see both sides of the argument and remain neutral(ish) but that's it for me; I am bailing out of this discussion as I have nothing further to say that will be nice, constructive or neutral. Best of luck to all parties concerned! YHGTBFKM!!!
Thread Starter
Another question for ATC types out there.
Was radar vectored this evening, and advised by ATC that as he had given us a radar vector he would have to vector us until we were established on the vasis.
I questioned the availablity of a visual approach, i.e. heading for downwind and then VSA from there, even track direct DN (VOR) and VSA?
Was advised can't do that due reason above.
Would appreciate the section in MATs that covers this. Copy and pasted here if possible, other wise a reference will do. I may still have access to MATs, not sure.
Another quick one, What is the radar LSALT within 15nm Darwin?
Was radar vectored this evening, and advised by ATC that as he had given us a radar vector he would have to vector us until we were established on the vasis.
I questioned the availablity of a visual approach, i.e. heading for downwind and then VSA from there, even track direct DN (VOR) and VSA?
Was advised can't do that due reason above.
Would appreciate the section in MATs that covers this. Copy and pasted here if possible, other wise a reference will do. I may still have access to MATs, not sure.
Another quick one, What is the radar LSALT within 15nm Darwin?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the MATS reference:
6.2.6.6 When being vectored at night, an IFR aircraft other than a HEAVY jet
aircraft as described at 6.2.6.4, may be assigned a visual approach at any distance
from an aerodrome if:
a. the aircraft has been assigned the MVA; and
b. the aircraft is given heading instructions to intercept final or to position
the aircraft within the circling area of the aerodrome; and
c. the following phraseology is used to assign the visual approach:
1. “WHEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CIRCLING AREA CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”; or
2. “WHEN ESTABLISHED ON THE VASIS/GLIDEPATH CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”.
The reason for the continued vector may have been that the ATC had more control of your track with regards to separation in case of departures etc. Don't know. Did it hold you up at all or was the positioning reasonable for your aircraft type and profile?
When I was in Darwin (4 years ago) the Radar LSALT was 1500ft to the west, and 1600ft to the east (straight down the centreline of 18/36). May have changed now (hills growing....?)
Cheers,
NFR.
6.2.6.6 When being vectored at night, an IFR aircraft other than a HEAVY jet
aircraft as described at 6.2.6.4, may be assigned a visual approach at any distance
from an aerodrome if:
a. the aircraft has been assigned the MVA; and
b. the aircraft is given heading instructions to intercept final or to position
the aircraft within the circling area of the aerodrome; and
c. the following phraseology is used to assign the visual approach:
1. “WHEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CIRCLING AREA CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”; or
2. “WHEN ESTABLISHED ON THE VASIS/GLIDEPATH CLEARED
VISUAL APPROACH”.
The reason for the continued vector may have been that the ATC had more control of your track with regards to separation in case of departures etc. Don't know. Did it hold you up at all or was the positioning reasonable for your aircraft type and profile?
When I was in Darwin (4 years ago) the Radar LSALT was 1500ft to the west, and 1600ft to the east (straight down the centreline of 18/36). May have changed now (hills growing....?)
Cheers,
NFR.
Thread Starter
The reason for the continued vector may have been that the ATC had more control of your track with regards to separation in case of departures etc. Don't know. Did it hold you up at all or was the positioning reasonable for your aircraft type and profile?
Try and make it brief.
11 was duty rwy. 9.45 pm so quiet. At 200nm we requested 29 with a slight downwind, being good company employee's, as arriving after 9.45 (even one min) will require us to have another day off!
We were given direct Feegs for 29. Great.
Around 50nm 29 not available due traffic slower than expected on 11, OK. No probs.
The aircraft was landing 11 as we were around 5 nm east so no real conflict after that.
Vectors for what ever reason. Would have been happier with direct tracking and joining downwind or own Nav clear or the city, (built up areas) for base. What ever.
At around 10nm we start getting more vectors for final.
Now thats no big problem its just messy. Unless we have a known track, i.e. known track miles and can stick it in the box then we don't have access to a V Nav profile.
Just neater in the aircraft and I couldn't see the need for all the interference.
If it was busy I could understand it, however we were the only traffic once the other one landed.
My main point is that I asked for any of the above and the statement was made, "once I have given you a vector I have to continue with vectors until you are established on the vasis, its in the book" which I didn't believe and hence asked the question here.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the past I have been told that it is kind of messy to vector someone to a point where they weren't going to and them expect them to resume their own nav to the field at night for a VSA.
The reason given (and this in Canberra mind you, where terrain is everywhere) is that the crew may be in a position that their new inbound track may be different terrain wise to their planned track and it's a lot to expect the crew to re-brief and check the appropriate descent/terrain restrictions. Better to take hold of the navigation and terrain clearance yourself and provided a radar vectored service to the VASIS/final.
Cheers,
NFR.
The reason given (and this in Canberra mind you, where terrain is everywhere) is that the crew may be in a position that their new inbound track may be different terrain wise to their planned track and it's a lot to expect the crew to re-brief and check the appropriate descent/terrain restrictions. Better to take hold of the navigation and terrain clearance yourself and provided a radar vectored service to the VASIS/final.
Cheers,
NFR.