Slot times and Stars in Darwin
Thread Starter
Slot times and Stars in Darwin
I can already hear NFR etc saying here we go again . Sorry guys.
Guys, (Darwin ATC) you need to have a look at the stars you are issuing. I have phoned to discuss this, and got the usual excuses, nothing sensible unfortunately, as for slot times, if you have any pride in your jobs you would have to be the most dissapointed ATCers in Aus. What an absolute joke!
1 Use the Feegs south 2 as an example. The STAR gives an instruction to carry out a NDB or ILS approach. Now you guys have expect visual approach on your ATIS, and guess what, 10/10 times we are cleared for a VOR approach. Question. Do you understand anything about the procedures and set up involved in setting up for an approach? Issuing a VOR instead of an preplanned NDB with a few miles to go DOES NOT WORK SAFELY. Either clear us for an NDB or change the STAR.
2 Once issued, you do not need to issue an instruction to follow the STAR with every other transmission. e.g. descend to 3000 track via the STAR. We were told some thing similar no less than 4 times.
3 When within 200nm there is little point advising us slot times that are more than a minute or so earlier than our ETA. Infact without holding or vectoring we find it hard to lose more that a couple of mins at that distance.
We were within 200nm and told our slot time was 6 mins earlier. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Surely you have a vague idea of what speed we can give you and to save 6 mins we would need to increase our speeds by not much under 100 kts all the way to the runway???
And what does it mean anyway is that a requirement of some sort? By advising us of a slot time should we adjust our speed to meet it, should we exceed the 250 below 10,000 ft requirement. I personally ignore it. Given a slot time today, and guess what, we were the only aircraft within Coooeeee of the joint. So if I had been keen and "professional" I may have adjusted my speed to meet the slot time, waisting fuel and for absoluelty no reason!
4 Asked for a ndb the other day and was advised we would require 2 holding patterns. On approach we were advised the reason was another aircraft had a conflicting slot time. Not one other aircraft was on frequency.No aircraft landed or took off in excess of 20 mins I was there. Sunday afternoon in Darwin and they can't get it right. Unbelieveable.
Any way tell me again, training, low experience etc etc.
Guys, (Darwin ATC) you need to have a look at the stars you are issuing. I have phoned to discuss this, and got the usual excuses, nothing sensible unfortunately, as for slot times, if you have any pride in your jobs you would have to be the most dissapointed ATCers in Aus. What an absolute joke!
1 Use the Feegs south 2 as an example. The STAR gives an instruction to carry out a NDB or ILS approach. Now you guys have expect visual approach on your ATIS, and guess what, 10/10 times we are cleared for a VOR approach. Question. Do you understand anything about the procedures and set up involved in setting up for an approach? Issuing a VOR instead of an preplanned NDB with a few miles to go DOES NOT WORK SAFELY. Either clear us for an NDB or change the STAR.
2 Once issued, you do not need to issue an instruction to follow the STAR with every other transmission. e.g. descend to 3000 track via the STAR. We were told some thing similar no less than 4 times.
3 When within 200nm there is little point advising us slot times that are more than a minute or so earlier than our ETA. Infact without holding or vectoring we find it hard to lose more that a couple of mins at that distance.
We were within 200nm and told our slot time was 6 mins earlier. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Surely you have a vague idea of what speed we can give you and to save 6 mins we would need to increase our speeds by not much under 100 kts all the way to the runway???
And what does it mean anyway is that a requirement of some sort? By advising us of a slot time should we adjust our speed to meet it, should we exceed the 250 below 10,000 ft requirement. I personally ignore it. Given a slot time today, and guess what, we were the only aircraft within Coooeeee of the joint. So if I had been keen and "professional" I may have adjusted my speed to meet the slot time, waisting fuel and for absoluelty no reason!
4 Asked for a ndb the other day and was advised we would require 2 holding patterns. On approach we were advised the reason was another aircraft had a conflicting slot time. Not one other aircraft was on frequency.No aircraft landed or took off in excess of 20 mins I was there. Sunday afternoon in Darwin and they can't get it right. Unbelieveable.
Any way tell me again, training, low experience etc etc.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REN, save your breath. You are just a +15,000hr jet captain that operates all over oz with a swag of instructing/cfi/chief pilot/high cap aoc om author experience. What the fark would you know? That 25yo FLTLT in on the screen is a professional. Somebody with three or more pips on their shoulders told him so. Back in your box.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaps, merely as a suggestion why not get the company to offer some jump seat experience to these guys so that they can appreciate the problems from the pointy end rather than the blunt. 
Bottums Up
PLovett
Tried that. After much pushing got the OK, then DOTARs mandated only ASIC holders on the flight deck and the ATCOs at RAAF DRW don't hold an ASIC, they hold a military equivalent!
RENURPP
CNS is becoming similar.
Yesterday after modifying the descent IAW the STAR (Sunny 2, BIB Tx) and cancellation of the speed restriction below 10,000' and after commencing descent we were asked to slow to pass BIB at 38, meaning a loss of two minutes in something like 40odd miles, then 250kts from BIB.
A speed reduction of 110kts was required to meet the setcourse time but it left us somethig like 6000' high at BIB, with only 45nm to run.
Tried that. After much pushing got the OK, then DOTARs mandated only ASIC holders on the flight deck and the ATCOs at RAAF DRW don't hold an ASIC, they hold a military equivalent!
RENURPP
CNS is becoming similar.
Yesterday after modifying the descent IAW the STAR (Sunny 2, BIB Tx) and cancellation of the speed restriction below 10,000' and after commencing descent we were asked to slow to pass BIB at 38, meaning a loss of two minutes in something like 40odd miles, then 250kts from BIB.
A speed reduction of 110kts was required to meet the setcourse time but it left us somethig like 6000' high at BIB, with only 45nm to run.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tried that. After much pushing got the OK, then DOTARs mandated only ASIC holders on the flight deck and the ATCOs at RAAF DRW don't hold an ASIC, they hold a military equivalent!
Last edited by PLovett; 7th Sep 2006 at 00:44. Reason: To wrap quote marks around text.
Thread Starter
You know all I am after is some one with a little common sense (from the RAAF) to discuss and if we feel the need make some changes!
I work for a "mob" that has ex military in control, I know what you are up against. EGO's with little ability, simply won't listen cause they already know every thing. I have not given up hope that some day things may change.
ATC accepting there is a problem, indicating that they will follow it up with the CO would be a start, then we can monitor and see what happens.
I work for a "mob" that has ex military in control, I know what you are up against. EGO's with little ability, simply won't listen cause they already know every thing. I have not given up hope that some day things may change.
ATC accepting there is a problem, indicating that they will follow it up with the CO would be a start, then we can monitor and see what happens.
Last edited by RENURPP; 7th Sep 2006 at 11:13.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez, glad I'm not up there still! Sounds like lots of fun (not).
RAAFies don't have pips - that's army mate
Cheers all,
NFR.
RAAFies don't have pips - that's army mate
Cheers all,
NFR.
Last edited by No Further Requirements; 7th Sep 2006 at 10:53. Reason: Had written more, but just don't care any more....
Thread Starter
NFR
Maybe you should still be here.
Agreed and was one of the points i tried to get across
At present and for quite some time the ILS is U/S.
The Star leads into either an ILS or a NDB approach. EVERY time we are we approach FEEGS or HWS we are cleared for a visual approach or a VOR approach???
When we set the BOX up, when the star is issued, (with ILS U/S) we set it up for an NDB. including minima's etc. Haven't looked at the VOR and it doesn't really matter but the altitude limitations and tracking can be quite different. It is the dry so no big deal, BUT when the wet arrives, not far now, and we have to do one for real then we are not set up. Apart from which the STAR says NDB or ILS so why on earth can't they read that and clear as it says?
The answer I got from ATC was, "just ask for an NDB if you don't want to do a VOR" they completely missed the point and I reckon complete lack of understanding of what it is all about.
Now i know its a systematical thing and thats fine, BUT how about, when questioned they simply don't offer excuses. They can listen and, heaven forbid THINK and then maybe they can go to the boss and say "hey boss,SIR, (smart salute shiny shoes and all) I think this may need addressing". If they question us I am bloody sure thats exactly what happens. Our problem being we have ex military no it alls running flight ops and they don't listen either.
I am very used to STARs etc, I am not familiar with being given a slot time as is issued here. Does a slot time = requirement? Is there a reference for that? You are joking suggesting requesting track shortening?
What is this slot time thing? Like I said they issue us with slot times, indicating go fast, and then nothing lands after us for over 20 mins. Go figure! Surely track shortening is taken for granted? As long as it is issued with sufficient notice of course?
a STAR must end with an instrument approach (PANSOPS criteria - yes, there are a few exceptions
At present and for quite some time the ILS is U/S.
The Star leads into either an ILS or a NDB approach. EVERY time we are we approach FEEGS or HWS we are cleared for a visual approach or a VOR approach???
When we set the BOX up, when the star is issued, (with ILS U/S) we set it up for an NDB. including minima's etc. Haven't looked at the VOR and it doesn't really matter but the altitude limitations and tracking can be quite different. It is the dry so no big deal, BUT when the wet arrives, not far now, and we have to do one for real then we are not set up. Apart from which the STAR says NDB or ILS so why on earth can't they read that and clear as it says?
The answer I got from ATC was, "just ask for an NDB if you don't want to do a VOR" they completely missed the point and I reckon complete lack of understanding of what it is all about.
Now i know its a systematical thing and thats fine, BUT how about, when questioned they simply don't offer excuses. They can listen and, heaven forbid THINK and then maybe they can go to the boss and say "hey boss,SIR, (smart salute shiny shoes and all) I think this may need addressing". If they question us I am bloody sure thats exactly what happens. Our problem being we have ex military no it alls running flight ops and they don't listen either.
I am very used to STARs etc, I am not familiar with being given a slot time as is issued here. Does a slot time = requirement? Is there a reference for that? You are joking suggesting requesting track shortening?
What is this slot time thing? Like I said they issue us with slot times, indicating go fast, and then nothing lands after us for over 20 mins. Go figure! Surely track shortening is taken for granted? As long as it is issued with sufficient notice of course?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slot times in Darwin, you have to be joking? Sounds about as smart as the STAR's,maybe the mainline boys need to program the slot time into the box as well! I do remember something about the mil and civil systems not talking to each other and something else about DN ATC not being able to use radar info for sequencing,who really knows?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got my first slot time to DN couple of days back, accepted(read said okydoky) and continued . Got to the field 4 mins ahead of my slot and you guessed it, was the only one about. Others were inbound behind but no conflicting times or modaplanes.
I ask the same, if we miss our slot into DN (repeat DN and not SYD or another busier port) do we hold for the next available slot if we are unable to adjust profile and speed or as I did just get in, down and out the bluddy way so someone else can lob in?
Why does DN need a slot time system? Us? Them? Us and them?
Is there an us and them? Or is it everyone scratching their heads?
I ask the same, if we miss our slot into DN (repeat DN and not SYD or another busier port) do we hold for the next available slot if we are unable to adjust profile and speed or as I did just get in, down and out the bluddy way so someone else can lob in?
Why does DN need a slot time system? Us? Them? Us and them?
Is there an us and them? Or is it everyone scratching their heads?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some information guys.
The Darwin Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is the result of consultation with all of the affected stakeholders. By consultation I mean involvement in the prescription of design and procedures. All except one of the stakeholders were constructive. That one stakeholder was not an aircraft operating company. If you were not there then you were or should have been represented.
The TMP does not only consider civvy jets. It is different to other TMP’s in that it does a good job of looking after the efficiency and safety interests of:
Civvy jets, domestic and international
GA operations
Military operations,
Mid level carriers, and
Helicopters
It is a compromise that looked at all options previously used in Australia and added some innovations to improve efficiency and effectiveness for all. There are some procedures that are invisible to pilots such as Autorelease for both FW and RW aircraft and internal ATC coordination practices. There are other visible procedures such as reduced RT for RW and direct tracking inbound and outbound and the provision of automatic lateral separation and increase safety levels. The intent was to limit ATC intervention where possible and increase predictability, particularly for jets. The ideal was to include tailored arrivals and this was a specific request from the red kangaroo however this was considered to not be a viable option by the adjoining ATS provider. The tailored arrivals system would require a jet pilot to be at a 15nm point on final at a specific time and further slots consider ALL other traffic in relation to sequencing, not just RPT jets. That time should be provided as soon as possible to enable crews to configure to achieve (1000NMs!!!). Ironically that other ATS provider is now conducting tailored arrivals and has accepted some kudos for their progressive outlook!
The early DAP issues were also not a function of the RAAF effort.
The TMP was a radical departure from the previous “tactical” method of ATC at Darwin and has improved efficiency and safety in this airspace – for all participants. The TMP system should continue to be refined to improve and constructive input by pilots is needed by ATC for this purpose.
The issues of what approach to conduct from Feegs or whatever may be a matter for the crew to also become involved in determining. If ATIS says expect VSA then plan VSA from 15nm final. If you are on a STAR then some sort of straight in approach is indicated. If you do not want a LLZ or ILS or VOR then speak up early, offer a solution and help not winge afterwards. Military ATC are taught that they are part of the team, part of the solution – have a think about it.
The most important point about the Darwin TMP is that it provides a compromise to improve safety and efficiency for all users, not just RPT jets, not just Military jets, not just GA etc. Remember this.
NB I am not a RAAF ATC although was once and was particularly proud of the effort we continued to provide in and external to Australia. I also have flying experience.
The Darwin Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is the result of consultation with all of the affected stakeholders. By consultation I mean involvement in the prescription of design and procedures. All except one of the stakeholders were constructive. That one stakeholder was not an aircraft operating company. If you were not there then you were or should have been represented.
The TMP does not only consider civvy jets. It is different to other TMP’s in that it does a good job of looking after the efficiency and safety interests of:
Civvy jets, domestic and international
GA operations
Military operations,
Mid level carriers, and
Helicopters
It is a compromise that looked at all options previously used in Australia and added some innovations to improve efficiency and effectiveness for all. There are some procedures that are invisible to pilots such as Autorelease for both FW and RW aircraft and internal ATC coordination practices. There are other visible procedures such as reduced RT for RW and direct tracking inbound and outbound and the provision of automatic lateral separation and increase safety levels. The intent was to limit ATC intervention where possible and increase predictability, particularly for jets. The ideal was to include tailored arrivals and this was a specific request from the red kangaroo however this was considered to not be a viable option by the adjoining ATS provider. The tailored arrivals system would require a jet pilot to be at a 15nm point on final at a specific time and further slots consider ALL other traffic in relation to sequencing, not just RPT jets. That time should be provided as soon as possible to enable crews to configure to achieve (1000NMs!!!). Ironically that other ATS provider is now conducting tailored arrivals and has accepted some kudos for their progressive outlook!
The early DAP issues were also not a function of the RAAF effort.
The TMP was a radical departure from the previous “tactical” method of ATC at Darwin and has improved efficiency and safety in this airspace – for all participants. The TMP system should continue to be refined to improve and constructive input by pilots is needed by ATC for this purpose.
The issues of what approach to conduct from Feegs or whatever may be a matter for the crew to also become involved in determining. If ATIS says expect VSA then plan VSA from 15nm final. If you are on a STAR then some sort of straight in approach is indicated. If you do not want a LLZ or ILS or VOR then speak up early, offer a solution and help not winge afterwards. Military ATC are taught that they are part of the team, part of the solution – have a think about it.
The most important point about the Darwin TMP is that it provides a compromise to improve safety and efficiency for all users, not just RPT jets, not just Military jets, not just GA etc. Remember this.
NB I am not a RAAF ATC although was once and was particularly proud of the effort we continued to provide in and external to Australia. I also have flying experience.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While we're on this, whats the deal with (i'm well within 30nm) "descend to 3000, cleared visual approach rwy 11 contact tower at... miles" during the day? whats the point in clearing us to 3000 then clearing us for a visual approach in one instruction (LSALT is 2600 anyway)? not having a go, maybe i'm missing something.
Also, we were asked to cross a waypoint 70 or something miles from our position almost 5 minutes after we were due to arrive. There wasn't alot of traffic around, unless they had buggered radios. How the hell can we gain 5 minutes over 70 miles? aside from flying a freakin stall speed. And is it that busy really? I can understand this situation coming into singapore, or HKG, but darwin?
Also, we were asked to cross a waypoint 70 or something miles from our position almost 5 minutes after we were due to arrive. There wasn't alot of traffic around, unless they had buggered radios. How the hell can we gain 5 minutes over 70 miles? aside from flying a freakin stall speed. And is it that busy really? I can understand this situation coming into singapore, or HKG, but darwin?
Thread Starter
Rtb Rfn
Thanks for the info, although it does not relate to any of the points I brought up.
I have no problems with the TMP plan. I have a problem with the way it is implemented.
Your answer is very close to the response I received when I phoned DN ATC.
The VOR approach is not an option UNLESS it is advised to us ith the STAR. Even then it is not part of the STAR, the NDB and ILS are so why not issue the STAR as is published.
Maybe the STAR needs to be revised to include a visual option as most STARs in other locations do?
As for the slot times, there is nothing above that answers my questions.
I have no problems with the TMP plan. I have a problem with the way it is implemented.
Your answer is very close to the response I received when I phoned DN ATC.
The VOR approach is not an option UNLESS it is advised to us ith the STAR. Even then it is not part of the STAR, the NDB and ILS are so why not issue the STAR as is published.
Maybe the STAR needs to be revised to include a visual option as most STARs in other locations do?
As for the slot times, there is nothing above that answers my questions.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm pretty sure I do understand your issues. There is an imperative to stick to the plan and that is reflected by airline company management but not always the preference of the pilot of the moment. Some want to shortcut the STAR others want VSA others want different approaches, some want vectors, some don't, none want speed control and of course every pilot is in the sky on their own and wants to be numero uno.
I agree that the STAR should conclude with the advertised approach but what is the difference between a final 15nm straight-in segment being flown visually or ILS or other (apart from your system set-up of course). A different straight in 15 nm final approach would be technically irrelevant to ATC unless the expected airspeed paramaters are altered significantly (and this variance should be a consideration by ATC regardless). If the plate says NDB or ILS I do not see the issue with ATC issuing an ATC instruction permitting any other approach (or cancelling STAR and permitting another approach). There is flexibility to give you what you want most of the time. Yes the STAR could list every possible approach to get you on the ground from a 15nm final point. Also a visual component is an option of refinement of design and/or an option for flight on the last 15nm final segment. No problems there.
So is your issue not having a heads up on what approach you will get or the fact that the words are not on the plate?
On slot times ...... airspace and traffic management always has a dynamic that may include weather, emergencies, unknown events etc and therefore some tactical air traffic control must at times be implemented (and expected/appreciated). The idea is to provide slot times for RPT jets and fit other inbound traffic and departures within those times.
Bottom line is that ATC do not know everything about all things as RPT jet pilots also do not. We need your input to adapt and impove and there is no unwillingness by ATC to do so. ATC attempt to provide the best and safest solution to the whole breadth of aviation operations at Darwin NOT JUST RPT. and often that is a complex and demanding task. Darwin is well known for its ATC challenges so please do not underestimate the ATC efforts to provide the best service they can. I suggest you transfer your thoughts from the PPRUNE page into a precise solution or suggestion and send that in writing to the execs at Darwin. They are good people and professionals and will consider this in relation to effect upon other operations and compliance. Some of these issues are not the domain of Darwin ATC and should be directed to Airsevices Australia. PM me if you need further assistance.
I agree that the STAR should conclude with the advertised approach but what is the difference between a final 15nm straight-in segment being flown visually or ILS or other (apart from your system set-up of course). A different straight in 15 nm final approach would be technically irrelevant to ATC unless the expected airspeed paramaters are altered significantly (and this variance should be a consideration by ATC regardless). If the plate says NDB or ILS I do not see the issue with ATC issuing an ATC instruction permitting any other approach (or cancelling STAR and permitting another approach). There is flexibility to give you what you want most of the time. Yes the STAR could list every possible approach to get you on the ground from a 15nm final point. Also a visual component is an option of refinement of design and/or an option for flight on the last 15nm final segment. No problems there.
So is your issue not having a heads up on what approach you will get or the fact that the words are not on the plate?
On slot times ...... airspace and traffic management always has a dynamic that may include weather, emergencies, unknown events etc and therefore some tactical air traffic control must at times be implemented (and expected/appreciated). The idea is to provide slot times for RPT jets and fit other inbound traffic and departures within those times.
Bottom line is that ATC do not know everything about all things as RPT jet pilots also do not. We need your input to adapt and impove and there is no unwillingness by ATC to do so. ATC attempt to provide the best and safest solution to the whole breadth of aviation operations at Darwin NOT JUST RPT. and often that is a complex and demanding task. Darwin is well known for its ATC challenges so please do not underestimate the ATC efforts to provide the best service they can. I suggest you transfer your thoughts from the PPRUNE page into a precise solution or suggestion and send that in writing to the execs at Darwin. They are good people and professionals and will consider this in relation to effect upon other operations and compliance. Some of these issues are not the domain of Darwin ATC and should be directed to Airsevices Australia. PM me if you need further assistance.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ITCZ
"REN, save your breath. You are just a +15,000hr jet captain that operates all over oz with a swag of instructing/cfi/chief pilot/high cap aoc om author experience. What the fark would you know? That 25yo FLTLT in on the screen is a professional. Somebody with three or more pips on their shoulders told him so. Back in your box."
Can't resist a well intentioned pi$$ing contest.
Not the greatest analogy - time doesn't always = well anything except ...time!
The 25 y/o ATC probably has 8,000 hours up and could also hold every RADAR, enroute and tower rating and have experience at 5 locations (including brethtakingly busy locations in the Mid East), instructor, ATC supervisor, author, beer drinker, fishmonger etc. Probably 90% of those hours would be solid ATC with 10 % considering the fish or chicken options - not the other way around.
A senior FLtLT/SQNLDR would have 20-30K hours with simlar experience.
Can't resist a well intentioned pi$$ing contest.
Not the greatest analogy - time doesn't always = well anything except ...time!
The 25 y/o ATC probably has 8,000 hours up and could also hold every RADAR, enroute and tower rating and have experience at 5 locations (including brethtakingly busy locations in the Mid East), instructor, ATC supervisor, author, beer drinker, fishmonger etc. Probably 90% of those hours would be solid ATC with 10 % considering the fish or chicken options - not the other way around.
A senior FLtLT/SQNLDR would have 20-30K hours with simlar experience.
Thread Starter
Firstly, i don't believe the problem lies with individuals, and I am not intending to put down individual ATCers. It appears to be in the system, and the culture within the system.
Over the last 17yrs up here, I have tried to communicate with RAAF about the way they do things, and how they affect us. The responses here are similar to the response I get on the phone, excuse and, its not us and why don't you simply do this.'Well not good enough guys.
It doesn't happen any where else WHY does it have to happen here???
There are some very major differences. The missed approach for starters.
Its the system set up. Exactly!
If I anticipate a particular instrument approach (because thats what the STAR says i will be doing)then i set up for that. That includes programming the box with MDA that the aircraft will automatically fly to.It will modify our descent profile and altitude limitations and speed acoordingly. Modifying the auto calls for the appropriate minima, set the go around altitiudes which control when thrust reduction takes place, as well as selecting the tracking and missed approach. This is all with out considering you may now have 2 pilots who have different ideas about what will happen in a go around. (diference between a a go around from VSA or instrument.) If you don't beleive me simply ask what guys would do if they were cleared for a visual approach at Cairns and had to go around? It some times needs to be discussed. i.e. "breifed"
If this is all inserted and we have to go around then it is simply a press of 1 button and the aircraft will fly the missed approach as selected, reduce thrust the lot. Have a guess why modern aircraft have all this computer stuff in them??
If I set up for an instrument approach in Darwin and you clear me for a visual appoach or vice versa then I may either get no thrust reduction as i don't reach the nominated altititude or it will reduce before I want it to.
My point still stands and I have seen not one reason from you guys to change my thinking.
The Darwin rwy 29 STARs finish with a NDB or ILS, the ILS is out for a considerable time, SO you should be clearing us for a 29 NDB, whats the bloody problem.
If an individual crew request a visual approach then great, different story. No problem at all.
What do ATC from say Perth think would be the response if you issued us with a JENNA Five arrival and on approaching SPUDO cleared us for a 24 VOR approach with no previous consultation?
or Cairns we were cleared for a CODIE TWO and approaching CODIE cleared for a runway 15 VOR?
Over the last 17yrs up here, I have tried to communicate with RAAF about the way they do things, and how they affect us. The responses here are similar to the response I get on the phone, excuse and, its not us and why don't you simply do this.'Well not good enough guys.
It doesn't happen any where else WHY does it have to happen here???
I agree that the STAR should conclude with the advertised approach but what is the difference between a final 15nm straight-in segment being flown visually or ILS or other (apart from your system set-up of course).
Its the system set up. Exactly!
If I anticipate a particular instrument approach (because thats what the STAR says i will be doing)then i set up for that. That includes programming the box with MDA that the aircraft will automatically fly to.It will modify our descent profile and altitude limitations and speed acoordingly. Modifying the auto calls for the appropriate minima, set the go around altitiudes which control when thrust reduction takes place, as well as selecting the tracking and missed approach. This is all with out considering you may now have 2 pilots who have different ideas about what will happen in a go around. (diference between a a go around from VSA or instrument.) If you don't beleive me simply ask what guys would do if they were cleared for a visual approach at Cairns and had to go around? It some times needs to be discussed. i.e. "breifed"
If this is all inserted and we have to go around then it is simply a press of 1 button and the aircraft will fly the missed approach as selected, reduce thrust the lot. Have a guess why modern aircraft have all this computer stuff in them??
If I set up for an instrument approach in Darwin and you clear me for a visual appoach or vice versa then I may either get no thrust reduction as i don't reach the nominated altititude or it will reduce before I want it to.
My point still stands and I have seen not one reason from you guys to change my thinking.
The Darwin rwy 29 STARs finish with a NDB or ILS, the ILS is out for a considerable time, SO you should be clearing us for a 29 NDB, whats the bloody problem.
If an individual crew request a visual approach then great, different story. No problem at all.
What do ATC from say Perth think would be the response if you issued us with a JENNA Five arrival and on approaching SPUDO cleared us for a 24 VOR approach with no previous consultation?
or Cairns we were cleared for a CODIE TWO and approaching CODIE cleared for a runway 15 VOR?
Last edited by RENURPP; 10th Sep 2006 at 03:20.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: @home
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have got to be f****ing kidding me!!! Darwin has a TMP!!! This has got to be the funniest joke I have heard in a long while. What 90000 (and I am sure this is generous) moves a year and your issuing slot times - I guess a lot has changed over the years!! RAAF needs to pull its head out of its a***e and have a reality check and see how things are done in different places and maybe different countries. RENURPP you are correct if the STAR ends in a published approach procedure then that is the only procedure that can be flown unless the STAR is cancelled. You cannot clear someone for a VOR approach via the STAR if the VOR approach is not part of the STAR. As for an expectation of a visual approach - it is just that an ATC expectation that you will get visual and be able to conduct a visual approach. Nothwithstanding such an IFR aircraft has the right to conduct the published IFR approach irrespective of the weather conditions (taking into account minimas and such things). RTB RFN you are missing the point here. You were a very good controller and you moved stuff in and around DN efficiently, safely and expeditiously back in the 90's but it sounds like the efficient and expeditious flow of traffic has taken a back seat. Maybe the equipment that they have up there isn't as good as it was supposed to be - that and the fact that anyone with a heartbeat in RAAF ATC over the last few years has moved on to other things!!!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RENURPP and Celeritas this is good stuff.
Clearly this is all about predictability and of course that is why we included the STAR/SID module set for civvy jets and why the TMP exists - pureley for the strategic management of air traffic at Darwin to improve safety and the service. (You may not know but there is an interfacing STAR/SID set for military fast movers that integrates with your movements and with the other differing movements at Darwin - there are six TMP modules that integrate within the TMP).
So the learning point for ATC is that you need the final portion to remain predictable (per the STAR) unless there is unexpected/unplanned exigency from you, others or the ATC system.
I am familiar with the variability of different responses in certain circumstances and was involved with the action of crews in response to either a pilot or ATC initiated go-around from a visual approach AT NIGHT for an IFR aircraft (at Townsville) (what would you do? what will your co-pliot do? what do ATC think they can do and what do ATC think you will do!!!!). Perhaps another topic for discussion.
Regardless I know that this thread is receiving attention from interested parties and some constructive result should eventuate (I will make some enquiries). Keep us informed.
NB Celeritas it is not so much the numerical value of moves but the differing types, language factors and the incredible complexities/numerical values during large scale military exercises. I suspect you know this.
Clearly this is all about predictability and of course that is why we included the STAR/SID module set for civvy jets and why the TMP exists - pureley for the strategic management of air traffic at Darwin to improve safety and the service. (You may not know but there is an interfacing STAR/SID set for military fast movers that integrates with your movements and with the other differing movements at Darwin - there are six TMP modules that integrate within the TMP).
So the learning point for ATC is that you need the final portion to remain predictable (per the STAR) unless there is unexpected/unplanned exigency from you, others or the ATC system.
I am familiar with the variability of different responses in certain circumstances and was involved with the action of crews in response to either a pilot or ATC initiated go-around from a visual approach AT NIGHT for an IFR aircraft (at Townsville) (what would you do? what will your co-pliot do? what do ATC think they can do and what do ATC think you will do!!!!). Perhaps another topic for discussion.
Regardless I know that this thread is receiving attention from interested parties and some constructive result should eventuate (I will make some enquiries). Keep us informed.
NB Celeritas it is not so much the numerical value of moves but the differing types, language factors and the incredible complexities/numerical values during large scale military exercises. I suspect you know this.