What does ATC do that 'irks' you?
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes I find the processing into BN at night between the late night arriving jets and the freight TP's is a bit irksome.
But then again, I can't pretend to know the big picture.
But then again, I can't pretend to know the big picture.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Casablanca
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iss7002,
I agree and when absolutely no doubt exists that I will be VMC all the way to the field I do advise approach that I am "Visual, runway in sight".
The problems are as follows;
1) On some days although you are VMC and can initially see the field, a STAR will take you through an area of cloud and put you back into IMC. Also, cloud base is difficult to judge when descending into it (even BKN or SCT) and personally I don't want to say "Visual, runway in sight" assuming that I will be shortly, only to find out another layer of cloud was hiding behind or below the first one!
2) Being familiar with some airports, it is a fact that as soon as you report "Visual, runway in sight", ATC will clear you for a visual approach and direct you to track to a point closer to the field to join final (ML & BN often do this). Believe me if I can achieve this I will (time/fuel saver!) and it is appreciated, but sometimes things are just too high/hot/heavy to actually get the aircraft in without breaching our company stable approach & speed limit criteria. An A320 at 250 knots IDEALLY needs 5000 feet and 20 track miles for a comfortable approach. It can be done from 6000 feet and 18 track miles - BUT IT IS VERY TIGHT!
3) "The amount of time ATC spend extracting visual calls is a joke." The number of times I report visual only to be asked 5 minutes later "Confirm you're visual" is also a joke. It works both ways!
Overall though, I have nothing but respect for how ATC manage the flow at all Aussie airports. Great job, guys!
I agree and when absolutely no doubt exists that I will be VMC all the way to the field I do advise approach that I am "Visual, runway in sight".
The problems are as follows;
1) On some days although you are VMC and can initially see the field, a STAR will take you through an area of cloud and put you back into IMC. Also, cloud base is difficult to judge when descending into it (even BKN or SCT) and personally I don't want to say "Visual, runway in sight" assuming that I will be shortly, only to find out another layer of cloud was hiding behind or below the first one!
2) Being familiar with some airports, it is a fact that as soon as you report "Visual, runway in sight", ATC will clear you for a visual approach and direct you to track to a point closer to the field to join final (ML & BN often do this). Believe me if I can achieve this I will (time/fuel saver!) and it is appreciated, but sometimes things are just too high/hot/heavy to actually get the aircraft in without breaching our company stable approach & speed limit criteria. An A320 at 250 knots IDEALLY needs 5000 feet and 20 track miles for a comfortable approach. It can be done from 6000 feet and 18 track miles - BUT IT IS VERY TIGHT!
3) "The amount of time ATC spend extracting visual calls is a joke." The number of times I report visual only to be asked 5 minutes later "Confirm you're visual" is also a joke. It works both ways!
Overall though, I have nothing but respect for how ATC manage the flow at all Aussie airports. Great job, guys!
iss7002,
Thanks for the detailed explanation as I have a better understanding of the PRM system.
You are right, it is the PRM circuits after being told to reduce to min speed as far south as Wagga that is so frustrating. From this perspective, it is difficult to see the massive savings for airlines.
This also brings about another subject of being issued with a CTMS delay time. What is the point of that when we are delayed way beyond the allocated time once airborne? We may as well ignore the CTMS and depart anyway.
JT
Thanks for the detailed explanation as I have a better understanding of the PRM system.
You are right, it is the PRM circuits after being told to reduce to min speed as far south as Wagga that is so frustrating. From this perspective, it is difficult to see the massive savings for airlines.
This also brings about another subject of being issued with a CTMS delay time. What is the point of that when we are delayed way beyond the allocated time once airborne? We may as well ignore the CTMS and depart anyway.
JT
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Townsville Australia
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Duplicate thread
Hi guys,
Yep, this thread has been duplicated on the following threads to get a greater audience:
ATC
Rotorheads
Engineers
D and G Reporting Points
D and G General Aviation.
Thanks for your interest and responses.
Conway B
Yep, this thread has been duplicated on the following threads to get a greater audience:
ATC
Rotorheads
Engineers
D and G Reporting Points
D and G General Aviation.
Thanks for your interest and responses.
Conway B
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Moon
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sydney director, when i say "visual" and they immediately say "confirm you have the threshold 34R in sight?". 
What i want to say in return - "Yes mate, when i say 'visual' it means i can see the f*^king airport!"
What i want to say in return - "Yes mate, when i say 'visual' it means i can see the f*^king airport!"
When ATC has vectored you the controller has taken responsibility for your terrain clearance and navigation. On termination of vectoring it is a requirement to either - give instructions for intercepting a track or tracking to an aid or waypoint, or before issuing a visual approach, to ascertain that the pilot is visual and has the field/runway in sight. If you were on your own nav ie DME arrival to become visual then a report of "visual" is good enough to issue the visual approach. Just because you know what you mean doesn't necessarily mean ATC know what you mean or need to authorise the VSA.
"It's not the message sent that's important it's the message received!""
"It's not the message sent that's important it's the message received!""
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Moon
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Um no offence intended to any of our ATC chaps/dolls as I am sure they are just following their own (sometimes misguided) procedures in this case but, I would have thought if the controller doesn't know what i mean when i say "visual" he/she should maybe go back and read a few books...
when i say 'visual' it means i can see the f*^king airport!
While i am whingeing and bleating like a pom at the cricket, the familiar "hurry up" and then 5 minutes later "now slow down" on descent is a bit annoying. I know ATC is trying to be helpful in giving us high speed descents as often as possible, but when they cancel speed after top of descent the whole profile changes and extra fuel is wasted regaining the new high speed profile i.e. to make a high speed descent as efficient as possible it needs to be given prior to top of descent. Having said that though, if it is combined with track shortening it can often work out that extra thrust is not needed. To further complicate the issue, track shortening is generally always welcome, but i am reluctant to accept a lot of track shortening close to the airport in less than good VMC e.g. after a 9 hour back-of-the-clock flight getting NEFER direct Rockdale at HORUS coming in to Rwy 16 in melbourne with even, say, scattered @ 2500 is something i will generally refuse.
when i say 'visual' it means i can see the f*^king airport!
While i am whingeing and bleating like a pom at the cricket, the familiar "hurry up" and then 5 minutes later "now slow down" on descent is a bit annoying. I know ATC is trying to be helpful in giving us high speed descents as often as possible, but when they cancel speed after top of descent the whole profile changes and extra fuel is wasted regaining the new high speed profile i.e. to make a high speed descent as efficient as possible it needs to be given prior to top of descent. Having said that though, if it is combined with track shortening it can often work out that extra thrust is not needed. To further complicate the issue, track shortening is generally always welcome, but i am reluctant to accept a lot of track shortening close to the airport in less than good VMC e.g. after a 9 hour back-of-the-clock flight getting NEFER direct Rockdale at HORUS coming in to Rwy 16 in melbourne with even, say, scattered @ 2500 is something i will generally refuse.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, in the above scenario, if one was to require RWY 16 (L/R) what would be the consequences in the ATC system? Does AsA have a reporting system that captures such instances that gets back to the operators?
This also brings about another subject of being issued with a CTMS delay time. What is the point of that when we are delayed way beyond the allocated time once airborne? We may as well ignore the CTMS and depart anyway.
Re speeds during descent; it's the nature of the beast; the sequence 'isn't mine' it a shared thing, ie traffic arrives at SY from 3 points; I'm just doing one of them... If BN East gets it wrong, it impacts on ML and BN North traffic (and vice versa etc.); you can't just let them run, right? MED1s, VIPs, low cloud moving across final etc all impacts on the acceptance rate and can just ruin the whole sequence too (don't mention CBs). We get it, but we can't change it unless we program 4 minute arrivals and only tighten up when it's all good; but that would create severe inefficiency. (we get it, don't presume we don't please; we don't do it for fun... Although when you whinge I smile, like I have “real control", I’m just a cog) Also re speed thing; try running a 767, 747, A330, SF34, DHC8A, C, D in the same sequence; we apply our best knowledge always but hey you all fly these things different; even within the same company and type. A 747 coming in from PKS to RIVET behaves very differently to a B737 depart CB via CULIN to RIVET etc; accelerating aircraft vs decelerating one (can anyone tell me how much space I need at 120NM to touch for a sequenced arrival?) If I put you tight behid the B747 expecting it to work and it doesn't I slow you down; if need to tighten it up I should etc. it would be worse for all, not just you if we didn't tighten things up; but equally so if we didn't keep gaps (for separation, wake etc. not just a landing order).
We are bringing back the 'morning burst flow' at the end of March, so long haul flights should get a reserved slot about 1.5 hours from touch down; but that will effect the 0600 domestic departures for SY...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
when i say 'visual' it means i can see the f*^king airport!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Moon
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sm4 - yes point taken. I guess it is not easy, especially with say, a MEL-SYD a/c up high descending out of a 90TW at maybe FL390 to a 20HW at FL260 - not unusual - and therefore groundspeed changing quite markedly on the way, mixed in with other traffic, jumbos, saabs etc etc.
Personally, I am happy to get a high speed descent at almost any stage as it is not my VISA card being given to the refuelling truck and I often have a flight with a tight connection to catch home (another story
).
I guess another common gripe would be never landing into wind in Sydney
, but i guess that is a totally different can of worms. Before anyone accuses me of ATC-bashing on this one, I totally understand the powers-that-be have dictated this whole noise sharing bollocks and ATC is merely the ham in the sandwich. And yes, I often "require" a more-into-wind runway if i think the runway selection is taking the piss.
One more (again not ATC's fault) whinge - SODPROPS
- what the f&*king hell is with this sorry excuse for a way of doing things? Who the 
came up with this bollocks? Yes, let's have an aircraft taking off as another one is landing in the opposite direction - Real smart one people . My best experience with this one: Coming in to Sydney from Auckland on a slow sunday morning, not much traffic about. Wind, light and variable, CAVOK. 34L for arrivals, 16L for departures. Result for us - one holding pattern in the flight levels, overflew field at 6000 feet, vectored half way to wollongong before landing on 34L. Probably cost about a ton of gas (again care factor -20 as I don't pay for it). On the plus side it was a lovely day and I think the passengers loved the scenic!
Personally, I am happy to get a high speed descent at almost any stage as it is not my VISA card being given to the refuelling truck and I often have a flight with a tight connection to catch home (another story
).I guess another common gripe would be never landing into wind in Sydney
, but i guess that is a totally different can of worms. Before anyone accuses me of ATC-bashing on this one, I totally understand the powers-that-be have dictated this whole noise sharing bollocks and ATC is merely the ham in the sandwich. And yes, I often "require" a more-into-wind runway if i think the runway selection is taking the piss.One more (again not ATC's fault) whinge - SODPROPS
- what the f&*king hell is with this sorry excuse for a way of doing things? Who the came up with this bollocks? Yes, let's have an aircraft taking off as another one is landing in the opposite direction - Real smart one people . My best experience with this one: Coming in to Sydney from Auckland on a slow sunday morning, not much traffic about. Wind, light and variable, CAVOK. 34L for arrivals, 16L for departures. Result for us - one holding pattern in the flight levels, overflew field at 6000 feet, vectored half way to wollongong before landing on 34L. Probably cost about a ton of gas (again care factor -20 as I don't pay for it). On the plus side it was a lovely day and I think the passengers loved the scenic!
Tracking into Mackay from the west under the IFR,lets say from Emerald on W472,still at 30nm and octa.
Response to the inbound call is normally "descend to 4500 not below the dme steps report at 10 dme"
In response to the 10 dme report "descend to 2500 not below the dme steps"
Irk #1 At 30 nm I am still octa and can descend/track as I like. Controllers appear to be controlling octa.
Irk #2 At 10 nm no mention is made of a clearance to enter controlled airspace. Am I cleared to enter controlled airspace? Is this an inferred clearance? Am I going to be told to remain octa at 10nm?
I believe the response to the 30 nm call should be "cleared to Mackay on descent to 4500 report at 10nm". This lets me descend as I see fit and confirms that I have a clearance to enter controlled airspace. This has never happened but could this become a grey area in the event of a loss of separation and a review of the tapes reveals that no clearance has been specifically issued?
Response to the inbound call is normally "descend to 4500 not below the dme steps report at 10 dme"
In response to the 10 dme report "descend to 2500 not below the dme steps"
Irk #1 At 30 nm I am still octa and can descend/track as I like. Controllers appear to be controlling octa.
Irk #2 At 10 nm no mention is made of a clearance to enter controlled airspace. Am I cleared to enter controlled airspace? Is this an inferred clearance? Am I going to be told to remain octa at 10nm?
I believe the response to the 30 nm call should be "cleared to Mackay on descent to 4500 report at 10nm". This lets me descend as I see fit and confirms that I have a clearance to enter controlled airspace. This has never happened but could this become a grey area in the event of a loss of separation and a review of the tapes reveals that no clearance has been specifically issued?
leg man;
You didn't say how high you were coming into MK. If you are coming in high level, still in class E at 30nm MK (which is A085), then brisbane ctr will assign you A060 on descent, with a "clear to leave and re-enter on descent".
If your lower than this..... well, what kind of level do you want to be given in IMC? we can't issue a level below the LSALT/MSA (A050 and A047 within 25nm respectively) in this case, yes, the controller should say "cleared direct MK".
And just to be picky, EML is the 193 MK radial, which is more south than west.
You didn't say how high you were coming into MK. If you are coming in high level, still in class E at 30nm MK (which is A085), then brisbane ctr will assign you A060 on descent, with a "clear to leave and re-enter on descent".
If your lower than this..... well, what kind of level do you want to be given in IMC? we can't issue a level below the LSALT/MSA (A050 and A047 within 25nm respectively) in this case, yes, the controller should say "cleared direct MK".
And just to be picky, EML is the 193 MK radial, which is more south than west.
At Syd being held at 6000' on downwind for 34R after requesting decent 50 miles previous and then told to expedite descent to land. Some of us fly pistons that are not pressurised, a 1500ftpm decent is not only to steep for comfortable flight it also brings the aircraft into speed near or in the yellow arc.
Throttles at idle punching through turbulence in the yellow only to have to try and figure out how to slow down and get the gear out is not a very nice way to finish a flight. And I have been told to expedite decent from 1500fpm before!
The excuse I normally get is that you cant descend due outbound traffic. Given that most outbound traffic is jet I would be surprised if they where still below 8000 at 50 miles.
Throttles at idle punching through turbulence in the yellow only to have to try and figure out how to slow down and get the gear out is not a very nice way to finish a flight. And I have been told to expedite decent from 1500fpm before!
The excuse I normally get is that you cant descend due outbound traffic. Given that most outbound traffic is jet I would be surprised if they where still below 8000 at 50 miles.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in them thar hills
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to F/O Bloggs' post. Why would any ATC clearance require any pilot in any airplane to be heads down at 5000 feet reprogramming the box?
I have not flown any of the scarebus family, but no other airplane I ever flew needed more than good old heading select and vertical speed or worst case a touch of hand flying when it all suddenly changed in the last few miles.
I have not flown any of the scarebus family, but no other airplane I ever flew needed more than good old heading select and vertical speed or worst case a touch of hand flying when it all suddenly changed in the last few miles.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual et al
Basically if you are established on the extended centreline and are visual (no need to have the runway in sight) you have satisfied the criteria from SY ATC perspective for the independent approach.
If you are on a circuit we need to also have a runway in sight report to put you on a 30 degree cut join with the other approach.
If you have the runway in sight and are satisfied that it will remain so, reporting "visual runway in sight" is what we want.
Controllers have been suspended etc when they have failed to get the required confirmation despite the fact there is no cloud etc.
In haze etc just report visual, the controllers are well aware of the current conditions as each pilot makes a report patterns start to build which indicate the true conditions.
CTMS due to the 15 minute window on the issued time is not really a slot in normal ATM terms, it should be seen as a right to access the airport which is why it is issued by ACA not ATC (despite the fact we do their job for late notice bookings they get the money).
If you are on a circuit we need to also have a runway in sight report to put you on a 30 degree cut join with the other approach.
If you have the runway in sight and are satisfied that it will remain so, reporting "visual runway in sight" is what we want.
Controllers have been suspended etc when they have failed to get the required confirmation despite the fact there is no cloud etc.
In haze etc just report visual, the controllers are well aware of the current conditions as each pilot makes a report patterns start to build which indicate the true conditions.
CTMS due to the 15 minute window on the issued time is not really a slot in normal ATM terms, it should be seen as a right to access the airport which is why it is issued by ACA not ATC (despite the fact we do their job for late notice bookings they get the money).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What i want to say in return - "Yes mate, when i say 'visual' it means i can see the f*^king airport!"
"Visual" = Within 30nm, vis 5k+, clear of cloud, in sight of ground or water, can maintain and nav to the field at altitude not less than reqd for vfr.
Nothing about field in sight.
Thats why you have to tell Director, 'field in sight' and that is why he will bug you unless you say so.
Going back to F/O Bloggs' post. Why would any ATC clearance require any pilot in any airplane to be heads down at 5000 feet reprogramming the box?
I have not flown any of the scarebus family, but no other airplane I ever flew needed more than good old heading select and vertical speed or worst case a touch of hand flying when it all suddenly changed in the last few miles.
I have not flown any of the scarebus family, but no other airplane I ever flew needed more than good old heading select and vertical speed or worst case a touch of hand flying when it all suddenly changed in the last few miles.
Some enlightened operators of automated aeroplanes actually discuss 'automation airmanship.' There are levels of automation available, ie,
Full Automation (FMS speed, LNAV, VNAV)
Part Automation, Part GCP (eg FMS NAV and SPD, pilot selected V/S)
Guidance Control Panel (pilot selected SPD, TRK/HDG, V/S or FPA)
Hand Fly to FMS speed, nav and vnav.
Hand Fly to GCP selections
Hand Fly Raw Data.
Fo Bloggs and I have seen firsthand the reaction of pilots transitioning from previous generation aircraft to automation. Some guys click out the AP as soon as things get out of shape and 'stick and rudder it' to touchdown with a flight director that is pointing anywhere but where they intend to go.
At the other end of the scale, there are boys and girls that can program the box at lightning speed and will DIR TO/INTC and LAT REV and VERT REV below the MDA.
What is lacking is an awareness of the fact that firstly, there are different levels of automation you can use to fly the aeroplane. Once you know that, you can then develop 'automation airmanship' which leads you to use an appropriate level of automation for the phase of flight.
Arriving YSSY via Director and arriving/departing YBAS with amended instructions due traffic is a hell of a good time to abandon full automation and fly GCP.
Discussing levels of automation and the tactical use of different levels of automation for flight path management should be part of your CRM course, for both pilots and ATC. PM me if you want some resources.
Last edited by ITCZ; 4th Feb 2007 at 11:14.
fixa24
Why do you need to asign me a level when I am still octa? Your only concern is when I get to 6nm. Also been told to descent to 2500 not below the steps which is below the LSALT and 25 nm msa.Tell me what altitude you want me to enter your airspace at.
I can't ever remember being cleared to leave and re-enter if I have been in E airspace.
The radio phraseology does not change if I am entering from octa or from probo. From probo center clears me to Mackay and I am in your airspace. Octa I am not in your airspace but phaseology is still the same so therefore sounds like you are giving me a control service when you are not. Maybe this is why the cleaered to Mackay is sometimes ommitted?
You should clear me to Mackay but the word "cleared" is rearly used this is what irks me.
Why do you need to asign me a level when I am still octa? Your only concern is when I get to 6nm. Also been told to descent to 2500 not below the steps which is below the LSALT and 25 nm msa.Tell me what altitude you want me to enter your airspace at.
I can't ever remember being cleared to leave and re-enter if I have been in E airspace.
The radio phraseology does not change if I am entering from octa or from probo. From probo center clears me to Mackay and I am in your airspace. Octa I am not in your airspace but phaseology is still the same so therefore sounds like you are giving me a control service when you are not. Maybe this is why the cleaered to Mackay is sometimes ommitted?
You should clear me to Mackay but the word "cleared" is rearly used this is what irks me.
Last edited by leg man; 4th Feb 2007 at 21:14.
Nunc est bibendum
I asked the skipper to call 'visual 34R' in sight recently (downwind on a Rivet in serious 8/8 blue all the way to FL670). He said he wouldn't because it was now behind us and he couldn't see it and therefore it wasn't in sight! 
The examples highlighted by ITCZ are an interesting insight into fellow aviators. 
The examples highlighted by ITCZ are an interesting insight into fellow aviators.