What does ATC do that 'irks' you?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATC is usually good but most annoyig thing is the chatter that comes over the frequency from inside the radar room, and quite often its people socialising. Sometimes, its so loud its hard to hear the contoller.
You get pretty good at tuning out the 'white noise' from those who don't have any traffic at the time.
Then when you get a quiet bit, you become the one causing the commotion!
It's a good point however - and partly related to the microphones on our headsets - they are a bit too 'wide area' on their pickups. I have noticed when I am flying and talking to ATC I can hear the STCA alarm going in the background - at least it improves may scan outside the cockpit all of a sudden!
Bedder believeit
Is this because if they did they would have to sit on their walletts? 
By the way, stressed tower Controller's tend to stand, rarely do they sit on the edge of their seats.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No longer in Hong kong
Age: 75
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually OAH, I'm on a night shift break at the moment. Probably spoken to about 30 to 40 odd aircraft since I started work a couple of hours ago. I do know that between 3 and 4 this morning (HK) time, I will barely have time to scratch myself with freighters coming and going, only one runway in use and various taxyways closed. Maybe if I sit on my "wallet" it might make things a bit more comfortable. What will you be doing at 3.30am? Regards BB
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Progressive Clearances for NPAs in CTA
I've had to fly GNSS RNAV approaches SPIFR in scuzzy weathr into Archerfield on several occasions. And I've got say that I prefer flying them OCTA. Once at the IAF, instead of clearing you for descent "in accordance with the <insert name here> approach" you get a running set of "descend to xxxx feet" which you have acknowledge in addition to flying the acft,cross checking the intermediate heights & next WPTand trying to maintain a stable 3 degree app in gusty weather. Several times the clearances have kept me above profile so much that it has bbeen difficult to dive to the MDA by the MAPt. It adds to a high workload, and unnecessarily so.
Why guys? There's no VFR traffic below on these days, I'm too low to bother the BN jet traffic - and the approach has been surveyed as clear of obstructions. Why not clear me for descent in accordance with the approach let me fly it and offer advice when you want me to switch to Tower or if I'm deviating vertically or horizontally?
Just curious
Why guys? There's no VFR traffic below on these days, I'm too low to bother the BN jet traffic - and the approach has been surveyed as clear of obstructions. Why not clear me for descent in accordance with the approach let me fly it and offer advice when you want me to switch to Tower or if I'm deviating vertically or horizontally?
Just curious
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeI154gaWL4
Here is the youtube link to above mentioned video; assuming this is what you meant.
Here is the youtube link to above mentioned video; assuming this is what you meant.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notimtams
All the instrument approaches in to YBAF cross CTA, including the missed approaches.
If you have done a few, I am sure you have noticed that you are in the same bit of airspace as the landing aircraft 01 in to Brisbane, and have to be practically included in the sequence.
So, your basic answer as to why....it's where they put the damn airport! (BN RWY 01 IAF)
The procedure we use has a lot of legalese included in it, because radar lowest safe altitudes are being used that are sometimes in and sometimes out of controlleed airspace.
I have often argued for a 'corridor' aligned with the approaches/departure tracks for AF that is class G to allow no requirments for ATC to get involved when AF TWR go home at 1800. The process to achieve that is beyond mere mortals like me.
FYI our lowest assignable level in the AF CTR is 1900' - so that is generally why an aircraft leaving CTA for AF CTAF(R) is going to remain in CTA until established in the circling area and (reported) left/main 1500 or left 1500 in the IAL - a lot of frequency juggling and workload as you say.
BTW the only instrument aproach that does not require ATC involvement is the 28RNAV, as all the NDB APCH are RADAR-NDB's.
All the instrument approaches in to YBAF cross CTA, including the missed approaches.
If you have done a few, I am sure you have noticed that you are in the same bit of airspace as the landing aircraft 01 in to Brisbane, and have to be practically included in the sequence.
So, your basic answer as to why....it's where they put the damn airport! (BN RWY 01 IAF)
The procedure we use has a lot of legalese included in it, because radar lowest safe altitudes are being used that are sometimes in and sometimes out of controlleed airspace.
I have often argued for a 'corridor' aligned with the approaches/departure tracks for AF that is class G to allow no requirments for ATC to get involved when AF TWR go home at 1800. The process to achieve that is beyond mere mortals like me.
FYI our lowest assignable level in the AF CTR is 1900' - so that is generally why an aircraft leaving CTA for AF CTAF(R) is going to remain in CTA until established in the circling area and (reported) left/main 1500 or left 1500 in the IAL - a lot of frequency juggling and workload as you say.
BTW the only instrument aproach that does not require ATC involvement is the 28RNAV, as all the NDB APCH are RADAR-NDB's.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****su
Read my post - I am talking about the 28RNAV, which can clip the 2000 CTA step
If you are held at 4000 for some time along the first leg as happens, then you will have to clip the CTA steps.
From the south via EC or EB, join procedure at not below 3400 and minimum alt at that point is 1900, thence by the time you're anywhere near 4NM from GLENN/AF (where theBN 01 ILS is at 3000' and well above you) , you should be 1500-1600' on a 3o approach anyway.
The procedure has the minimums clearly marked, clearances and radar lower safe info (not clearances unless clipping the steps) should not be required if descending in accordance with an IAL - after all if you can get a "cleared for the xxVOR approach not below the DME steps" without micromanagement of descent along the approach, why not the same for the AF 28R RNAV? For parts of the procedure OCTA perhaps the radar lower safe advisories (with the subsequnt obligation to respond) are thought of being helpful ......
This is not a one off observation - it has happened on several occasions and we're talking proper IMC with SFA traffic in/out of AF as a result. As I have said in my original post, once cleared for descent in accordance with the approach, if you're not going to hold me at an intermediate point along the approach, then keep radio contact to the minimum. A GNSS RNAV IAL flown SPIFR is safe, but its busy enough without unnecessary distraction.
Read my post - I am talking about the 28RNAV, which can clip the 2000 CTA step
If you are held at 4000 for some time along the first leg as happens, then you will have to clip the CTA steps.From the south via EC or EB, join procedure at not below 3400 and minimum alt at that point is 1900, thence by the time you're anywhere near 4NM from GLENN/AF (where theBN 01 ILS is at 3000' and well above you) , you should be 1500-1600' on a 3o approach anyway.
The procedure has the minimums clearly marked, clearances and radar lower safe info (not clearances unless clipping the steps) should not be required if descending in accordance with an IAL - after all if you can get a "cleared for the xxVOR approach not below the DME steps" without micromanagement of descent along the approach, why not the same for the AF 28R RNAV? For parts of the procedure OCTA perhaps the radar lower safe advisories (with the subsequnt obligation to respond) are thought of being helpful ......
This is not a one off observation - it has happened on several occasions and we're talking proper IMC with SFA traffic in/out of AF as a result. As I have said in my original post, once cleared for descent in accordance with the approach, if you're not going to hold me at an intermediate point along the approach, then keep radio contact to the minimum. A GNSS RNAV IAL flown SPIFR is safe, but its busy enough without unnecessary distraction.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes mate, I did read your post.
I think we are in agreement generally.
However, Radar lowest safes will not be shown on any (civil) approach plate.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...AFGN01-101.pdf
We don't work on 'should be's' - we have to apply 'actuals', and with radar observed altitude data tolerances, actually leaving 1500 (clear of the 01 ILS) means 1100FT radar observed, or a pilot report on the Radar Freq - when you really want to be on the CTAF (goes back to workload you mentioned). And how do I know you are visual? Basically I don't until you tell me - so my IAL to 01ILS from FLYNN is blocked - as is a separation standard with the 01ILS generally, and any other traffic waiting to descend below your MAPCH CLB ( 3800FT! - and how on earth did we get that Missed Approach direction!).
It's why it is called Air Traffic Control, not Air Traffic Advisory.
I totally agree, that once cleared for the approach we don't need to talk to you unneccessarily - but we do have an obligation to provide you with an approach monitoring service whilst in control area, as well as uphold our duty of care generally, including pop-up traffic. In IMC, AF is basically one in one out. Remember we have to 'protect' the airspace for your missed approach. This impacts significantly on 01 IMC ARR to BN, as well as 19 SIDS. On 01 you might even get some vectoring or holding to allow 01 traffic in to Brisbane. And we may well be delaying departures on the CORAL SID off 19 to facilitate your approach.
It's the big picture we look at - not just your airplane.
Quite honestly - that is usually the point of difference between ATC and Pilots views on airspace.
I think we are in agreement generally.
However, Radar lowest safes will not be shown on any (civil) approach plate.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...AFGN01-101.pdf
you should be 1500-1600' on a 3o approach anyway.
It's why it is called Air Traffic Control, not Air Traffic Advisory.
I totally agree, that once cleared for the approach we don't need to talk to you unneccessarily - but we do have an obligation to provide you with an approach monitoring service whilst in control area, as well as uphold our duty of care generally, including pop-up traffic. In IMC, AF is basically one in one out. Remember we have to 'protect' the airspace for your missed approach. This impacts significantly on 01 IMC ARR to BN, as well as 19 SIDS. On 01 you might even get some vectoring or holding to allow 01 traffic in to Brisbane. And we may well be delaying departures on the CORAL SID off 19 to facilitate your approach.
It's the big picture we look at - not just your airplane.
Quite honestly - that is usually the point of difference between ATC and Pilots views on airspace.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****su -
The big picture story you describe so artistically doesn't account for this irk...
as you know well, the 01 ILS starts overhead AF (GLENN) at 3000'. How can I be in conflict with that at BAFEF unless I'm at 2000' or above (and I'd only be at that height if I get held up there for some as yet unknown reason)??
I realise there are delays to be had if airspace on the MAPCH is not clear (would be held at BAFEC usually) - but that should not affect clearance to descend. In any case, AF is able to give a good indication to BN APP/RAD of the cloud minima at AF...
When I'm following an IAL and on course, I really don't give a tinker's cuss about Radar Lowest safe, just the heights on the approach plate and altimeter in front of me. Approach monitoring is great and I do appreciate the service - if I stray - but I just don't need it if I'm on track an on course. Just like you don't give me a running commentary on check heights vs DME on the BN19ILS!
The big picture story you describe so artistically doesn't account for this irk...
as you know well, the 01 ILS starts overhead AF (GLENN) at 3000'. How can I be in conflict with that at BAFEF unless I'm at 2000' or above (and I'd only be at that height if I get held up there for some as yet unknown reason)??
I realise there are delays to be had if airspace on the MAPCH is not clear (would be held at BAFEC usually) - but that should not affect clearance to descend. In any case, AF is able to give a good indication to BN APP/RAD of the cloud minima at AF...
When I'm following an IAL and on course, I really don't give a tinker's cuss about Radar Lowest safe, just the heights on the approach plate and altimeter in front of me. Approach monitoring is great and I do appreciate the service - if I stray - but I just don't need it if I'm on track an on course. Just like you don't give me a running commentary on check heights vs DME on the BN19ILS!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was mainly referring to AF being off duty - but you are correct about AF giving a WX OBS and likelihood of getting VIS by the Minima. But the Missed Apch still has to be protected - i.e. what if you make a missed approach for a non-wx related problem?
It is not possible to fly any of the IAL in to AF OCTA anyway - as far as I can tell. (In fact, I don't think you can legally comply with LSALT and get in NVFR without a clearance.)
Generally 01 ILS traffic is assigned 2500FT for the approach - but it can be assigned 3000 or even vectored (shhh, don't tell the noise lobby!) for a slighly shorter final to facilitate the AF IAL.
Profile is fine - and of you can consistently fly it - well done. You are amongst the 20-25% who do.
It is not that often the 28RNAV gets flown anyhow - I am quite surprised you have had any issues. Usually we see the Radar NDB APP('s). Let's not talk about profile there.
I only mentioned RLSALT because you brought it up - BTW legally we can not use them anyhow for OCTA traffic under NORMAL OPS.
What was the irk again?
It is not possible to fly any of the IAL in to AF OCTA anyway - as far as I can tell. (In fact, I don't think you can legally comply with LSALT and get in NVFR without a clearance.)
Generally 01 ILS traffic is assigned 2500FT for the approach - but it can be assigned 3000 or even vectored (shhh, don't tell the noise lobby!) for a slighly shorter final to facilitate the AF IAL.
Profile is fine - and of you can consistently fly it - well done. You are amongst the 20-25% who do.
It is not that often the 28RNAV gets flown anyhow - I am quite surprised you have had any issues. Usually we see the Radar NDB APP('s). Let's not talk about profile there.
I only mentioned RLSALT because you brought it up - BTW legally we can not use them anyhow for OCTA traffic under NORMAL OPS.
What was the irk again?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The irk - (to me) unnecessary successive descent clearances (no preceding IFR traffic, nothing legally lower otherwise) and/or successive advisories of RLSALT (however helpful this may be perceived to be) when on the AF 28R RNAV approach. Minimise distraction, that's all I'm asking. I've had or requested the RNAV approach more times than the RAD/NDB. Interestingly enough at Bankstown and Morrabbin, they leave you alone to fly the plane.
2. Night VFR - you can legally get down to 1500' on GAAP entry and remain OCTA if you can confirm visually clear of whatever significant obstacle on either side of track would keep it above 1500'.
2. Night VFR - you can legally get down to 1500' on GAAP entry and remain OCTA if you can confirm visually clear of whatever significant obstacle on either side of track would keep it above 1500'.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Utterly irrelevant to what I thought was a good thread, but why was it moved from Reporting Points to GA? Doesn't it apply once you move out of GA?
Just curious you understand, don't want to get banned or anything.
Just curious you understand, don't want to get banned or anything.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brissy
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One controller, only, who insists that "when ready leave control area on descent" is a mandatory readback. It's not a level assignment therefore it is my interpretation that it is not a readback requirement.
AIP actually states that a "level instruction" not "level assignment" as quoted shall be readback. Clearing an aircraft to "leave control area descending" is an instruction which refers to a level change and should therefore be readback.
I have spoken to numerous controllers with lots of experience (I have 15yrs) and they all agree that it is a clearance that changes a level and should therefore be readback. I find it interesting that the regional airlines have been descending OCTA for years and we have never had this problem and now all of a sudden the big boys start flying OCTA and it becomes an issue.
I am aware that some of us ATCs can get slack in regard to getting this readback but I personally will continue to ask for a readback and keep going til I get it... until proven otherwise.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth I agree, a clearance to leave controlled airspace on descent...it doesn't matter if you are leaving a controlled area or not, the clearance is the descent instruction.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Devil's Island
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leave control area on descent makes no mention of a level therefore one could interpret that no readback is required. Then again to do that one has to change level to achieve this. Individual interpretation will naturally differ and we have people on both sides of the fence.
How about raise the issue with standardisation peoples, get a ruling, post the result and then everyone can do the same thing!
How about raise the issue with standardisation peoples, get a ruling, post the result and then everyone can do the same thing!