Radar coverage at Avalon
Thread Starter
Radar coverage at Avalon
Can anyone advise the lowest altitude that a paint from a small aircraft flying in the Avalon circuit area can be reliably shown on the Melbourne radar? By this I mean the primary paint, not the SSR paint.
It should be noted that transponders are not required for flying in the Class G airspace at Avalon.
I ask this question because the Avalon Airspace Assessment, which has been completed by the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA (see here), states that one of the factors influencing the assessment included:
It is interesting that CASA has resisted in every way using the existing tower establishment and disestablishment formula that has been used to close down Wagga tower, and to maintain services at Hamilton Island.
It is also interesting to note that they have “an area of concern” 10 to 15 miles north of Avalon, not actually in the circuit area or on the runway – fascinating.
It should be noted that transponders are not required for flying in the Class G airspace at Avalon.
I ask this question because the Avalon Airspace Assessment, which has been completed by the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA (see here), states that one of the factors influencing the assessment included:
Reliable radar coverage to low level allows for the provision of a comprehensive traffic information service.
It is also interesting to note that they have “an area of concern” 10 to 15 miles north of Avalon, not actually in the circuit area or on the runway – fascinating.
Thread Starter
Aulglarse, that seems incredibly low. I need to know where the paint can be reliably shown. When you say it can vary at times, would you be able to advise what altitude you can reliably receive a paint of a small non-transponder equipped VFR aircraft at Avalon?
I look forward to your advice.
I look forward to your advice.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Dick,
I understand your concerns at Avalon, but have you had a look at Ballina???
On approach you always get the ol' "RADAR services terminated" call as you pass 8500' (just when you need it most) and then have to contend with Boeings and Airbus traffic as well as Saabs.
When the weather is seriously IMC AND you have to communicate with Ballina, Lismore, Casino and Armidale traffic on the SAME CTAF-R it becomes extreamly dangerous.
Have a look at the missed approach tracks. They all converge!
Anyone else been in this situation???
M
I understand your concerns at Avalon, but have you had a look at Ballina???
On approach you always get the ol' "RADAR services terminated" call as you pass 8500' (just when you need it most) and then have to contend with Boeings and Airbus traffic as well as Saabs.
When the weather is seriously IMC AND you have to communicate with Ballina, Lismore, Casino and Armidale traffic on the SAME CTAF-R it becomes extreamly dangerous.
Have a look at the missed approach tracks. They all converge!
Anyone else been in this situation???
M
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd suggest that the area 10-15 miles to the north which is a problem would be near the You-Yangs and a bit hilly which might be upsetting the reliability of the radar. Aircraft use that area to transit to the west just outside the Avalon airspace. If someone is up high near the lower limit of class C, they could potentially interfere with traffic for the south runway at Avalon. I've heard many times the Mel Radar operator calling aircraft in this area when a Jetstar aircraft is both inbound and outbound. If the lower limit was a fraction lower it might not be as much of a problem.
Thread Starter
Mention1, I agree with you totally. I have flown into Ballina and had exactly the same situation.
Dare I point out that with the North American system (which is Government policy) all IFR approaches are in a minimum of Class E airspace? If IMC exists, you remain on the Centre frequency under full radar control until you are visual. Of course, that means that you are separated from all IFR traffic, and when in radar coverage, given traffic information on all VFR traffic by the radar controller – as we have a mandatory transponder requirement in all Class E.
Maybe things are moving forward. After 15 years of resistance in relation to a lower level Class E, I understand that Airservices is planning to put some lower level Class E at Ballina. This will be fantastic. I only hope it is not the typical stuff-up. I hope there is proper staffing levels for the controllers and proper training – also for the pilots. I hope that someone looks at the proven North American system and copies the procedures – after all, they have been proven over a period of over 50 years, with 20 times the traffic density and terrible traffic conditions.
Of course, you will be told that in the North American system, you are on two frequencies at once. This is not the case. You remain on the ATC radar frequency when in IMC. Once visual, you cancel IFR, change to the CTAF and talk to the local UNICOM. What could be simpler and safer?
Dare I point out that with the North American system (which is Government policy) all IFR approaches are in a minimum of Class E airspace? If IMC exists, you remain on the Centre frequency under full radar control until you are visual. Of course, that means that you are separated from all IFR traffic, and when in radar coverage, given traffic information on all VFR traffic by the radar controller – as we have a mandatory transponder requirement in all Class E.
Maybe things are moving forward. After 15 years of resistance in relation to a lower level Class E, I understand that Airservices is planning to put some lower level Class E at Ballina. This will be fantastic. I only hope it is not the typical stuff-up. I hope there is proper staffing levels for the controllers and proper training – also for the pilots. I hope that someone looks at the proven North American system and copies the procedures – after all, they have been proven over a period of over 50 years, with 20 times the traffic density and terrible traffic conditions.
Of course, you will be told that in the North American system, you are on two frequencies at once. This is not the case. You remain on the ATC radar frequency when in IMC. Once visual, you cancel IFR, change to the CTAF and talk to the local UNICOM. What could be simpler and safer?
Thread Starter
I have another question. How can a “comprehensive traffic information service” be given if the airline flying in the Avalon CTAF(R) is transmitting a position report on the CTAF(R) frequency?
I look forward to advice on this.
I look forward to advice on this.
I have another question. How can a “comprehensive traffic information service” be given if the airline flying in the Avalon CTAF(R) is transmitting a position report on the CTAF(R) frequency?
I look forward to advice on this.
I look forward to advice on this.
We have just the same issues as you describe Dick at YPMQ with the shared CTAF frequency and a high number of IFR training/VFR transiting traffic with radar coverage that seems to vary in altitude a little from time to time.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite right about BNA
On approach you always get the ol' "RADAR services terminated" call as you pass 8500'
The phrase used is "Passing A085 Control Services are terminated" ......because you are leaving Class E airspace and entering Class G airspace.
Radar coverage at BNA down to about circuit height, but reliably around A020.
To the west of BNA the ranges to the south of YBCG interfere with the radar head image from Mt. Somerville and we often lose aircraft at about A035.
When you tell ATC you are transferring to the CTAF or ATC lose ident, you will be told by ATC "Identification Terminated".
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Gods country
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
I can not recall the radar coverage in the Ballina area, long time since I worked in that part of the world. However if you get your wish and have low level Class E with out radar coverage expect delays cause it is basically one approach at a time with traffic being stacked. Having worked a few procedural towers you can get creative however if you have other airspace to look after, a large radar scale display, etc etc, it will be a night mare for both the ATC and pilots involved.
Now my cynicism shows through, after working for AsA for many years, I know that we do not have the staff to cover this type of airspace reform and to ask AsA to manage and implement this professionally....well you are dreaming...
KAM.
I can not recall the radar coverage in the Ballina area, long time since I worked in that part of the world. However if you get your wish and have low level Class E with out radar coverage expect delays cause it is basically one approach at a time with traffic being stacked. Having worked a few procedural towers you can get creative however if you have other airspace to look after, a large radar scale display, etc etc, it will be a night mare for both the ATC and pilots involved.
Now my cynicism shows through, after working for AsA for many years, I know that we do not have the staff to cover this type of airspace reform and to ask AsA to manage and implement this professionally....well you are dreaming...
KAM.
Thread Starter
OpsNormal, I do not know of any system anywhere in the world that is designed to have one pilot monitoring one frequency, and the other pilot in the flight deck monitoring another frequency. It is fraught with danger and totally amateurish.
How does it work in single pilot operations?
Also, in most aircraft, if you are transmitting on one frequency you cannot receive on another at the same time. If the tower was manned at Avalon, there would be a disciplined location where pilots would change from the radar controller to the tower controller. At no stage are they monitoring two frequencies.
As I’ve said above, this is a pathetically amateurish, invented in Australia system that is just waiting for an accident. I cannot believe that professionals could support it.
How does it work in single pilot operations?
Also, in most aircraft, if you are transmitting on one frequency you cannot receive on another at the same time. If the tower was manned at Avalon, there would be a disciplined location where pilots would change from the radar controller to the tower controller. At no stage are they monitoring two frequencies.
As I’ve said above, this is a pathetically amateurish, invented in Australia system that is just waiting for an accident. I cannot believe that professionals could support it.
Thread Starter
Kam16, you state that if we use Class E with radar at Ballina:
Are you suggesting it is any different now? What prudent airline pilot would head off on an approach or departure in IMC when there is another aircraft on the same approach?
Believe it or not, the enlightened procedures that are used in the USA in Class E airspace (both in radar and non-radar) are similar to the “standards” that Aussie airline pilots apply themselves when in IMC in Class G. Why would they need to be any different?
Do you believe that at the present time airline pilots are taking undue risks when in IMC at Ballina? Personally, if I was to depart Ballina in IMC I would wait for an incoming aircraft to become visual, or to be well out on the missed approach – i.e. one in and one out at a time.
it is basically one approach at a time
Believe it or not, the enlightened procedures that are used in the USA in Class E airspace (both in radar and non-radar) are similar to the “standards” that Aussie airline pilots apply themselves when in IMC in Class G. Why would they need to be any different?
Do you believe that at the present time airline pilots are taking undue risks when in IMC at Ballina? Personally, if I was to depart Ballina in IMC I would wait for an incoming aircraft to become visual, or to be well out on the missed approach – i.e. one in and one out at a time.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I will work E airspace anywhere, anytime AS LONG AS the facilities are there to support it. i.e. radar or surveilance TO THE GROUND, VFR transponders calibrated to IFR standard, enough ATC's rostered to cope with the increased workload and IFR drivers educated that they WILL be delayed in IMC conditions as it's one approach at a time. You will also not get a clearance on the ground while an aircraft is making an instrument approach. Do you really want this?
In the meantime.....sorry mate, no can do.
I will work E airspace anywhere, anytime AS LONG AS the facilities are there to support it. i.e. radar or surveilance TO THE GROUND, VFR transponders calibrated to IFR standard, enough ATC's rostered to cope with the increased workload and IFR drivers educated that they WILL be delayed in IMC conditions as it's one approach at a time. You will also not get a clearance on the ground while an aircraft is making an instrument approach. Do you really want this?
In the meantime.....sorry mate, no can do.
OpsNormal, I do not know of any system anywhere in the world that is designed to have one pilot monitoring one frequency, and the other pilot in the flight deck monitoring another frequency. It is fraught with danger and totally amateurish.
How does it work in single pilot operations?
Also, in most aircraft, if you are transmitting on one frequency you cannot receive on another at the same time.
If the tower was manned at Avalon, there would be a disciplined location where pilots would change from the radar controller to the tower controller. At no stage are they monitoring two frequencies.
As I’ve said above, this is a pathetically amateurish, invented in Australia system that is just waiting for an accident. I cannot believe that professionals could support it.
Just stick to the thread topic!
Tail Wheel
Last edited by OpsNormal; 28th Nov 2007 at 09:03. Reason: Clarity of the point I was making
Thread Starter
En-Rooter, you have come up with a number of factors which will completely preclude Class E airspace at lower levels in Australia. For example, you want:
There is no similar requirement in any other country that I know of. All instrument approaches in the USA are in a minimum of Class E airspace. 50% of instrument approaches in the USA do not have radar coverage even to the start of the instrument approach.
Of course in the USA there is no requirement for transponders in Class E airspace below 10,000 feet – other than within 30 miles of Class B.
Have you put all these parameters on to stop Class E from working? Why is it that US and Canadian controllers can satisfactorily operate Class E without low level radar and without unduly delaying aircraft?
I find it fascinating that you won’t even try the system that is so well proven in other leading aviation countries to see if it will work here. Your mind is already made up.
No, I do not want a clearance when I’m on the ground if an aircraft is making an instrument approach. That is the very point I’m making. When operated correctly, Class E is similar to the way professional pilots operate in Class G when IMC exists.
By the way, I totally agree that adequate staffing is required. I am very happy to work with you and Civil Air in ensuring that there is adequate staffing.
radar or surveillance TO THE GROUND
Of course in the USA there is no requirement for transponders in Class E airspace below 10,000 feet – other than within 30 miles of Class B.
Have you put all these parameters on to stop Class E from working? Why is it that US and Canadian controllers can satisfactorily operate Class E without low level radar and without unduly delaying aircraft?
I find it fascinating that you won’t even try the system that is so well proven in other leading aviation countries to see if it will work here. Your mind is already made up.
No, I do not want a clearance when I’m on the ground if an aircraft is making an instrument approach. That is the very point I’m making. When operated correctly, Class E is similar to the way professional pilots operate in Class G when IMC exists.
By the way, I totally agree that adequate staffing is required. I am very happy to work with you and Civil Air in ensuring that there is adequate staffing.
Just stick to the thread topic!
Tail Wheel
Tail Wheel
Apologies accepted. It is a great debate, very professional and a wealth of experience behind most posts.
I intend to keep it that way.
Tail Wheel
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
My mind is made up for a number of reasons:
I watch the radar everyday, I see transponder errors everyday from VFR's. What protection is this to the IFR driver with TCAS, let alone the poor IFR bastard that doesn't have TCAS? (I was flying IFR about a month back and got traffic on a VFR at the same level as myself, I was in 8/8ths! What the fcuk was it doing there?)
Surveilance can be provided to the ground where class E is with ADS-B. There is just a lack of political will to do it because it costs money. And we can't have that can we??
No radar or surveilance equals procedural approach equals more delays equals more controllers equals costs more money (see previous paragraph)
My mind is made up for a number of reasons:
I watch the radar everyday, I see transponder errors everyday from VFR's. What protection is this to the IFR driver with TCAS, let alone the poor IFR bastard that doesn't have TCAS? (I was flying IFR about a month back and got traffic on a VFR at the same level as myself, I was in 8/8ths! What the fcuk was it doing there?)
Surveilance can be provided to the ground where class E is with ADS-B. There is just a lack of political will to do it because it costs money. And we can't have that can we??
No radar or surveilance equals procedural approach equals more delays equals more controllers equals costs more money (see previous paragraph)
Thread Starter
OpsNormal, I wasn’t having a go at you, or saying (or even implying) that you and your colleagues are not professional. I actually said:
That is, an invented in Australia system that is not designed to be fail safe.
The example you have given, in relation to Williamtown and 4 frequencies in about 2 minutes, is exactly what I can assist you in fixing. There is no such situation anywhere in the USA, Canada, Europe or England. Their airspace simply does not work like that.
Our airspace is still a mish-mash between modern international ATC procedures and 1950s Flight Service procedures. You need to have one or the other – you can’t actually have a bit of both in the same airspace.
Why don’t you give me a phone call? My work phone is 02 9450 0600 and my mobile is 0408 640 221. I would love to discuss this with you. Possibly we could go for a fly together in the Citation and see what we have in common – I bet it is a lot.
Why don’t I get your boss to give you an air ticket to the USA to fly with a Metro crew in their airspace? I think you will find it is pretty impressive – lots of low level airspace without radar coverage but a very safe system. This is necessary because of the very high densities of traffic, the high elevation of the airports, and often lousy weather with snow and ice.
I’m not saying everything about North America is better. There are just some things they do a bit better than us, and it would be sensible for us to copy these.
I look forward to hearing from you on the phone.
I cannot believe that professionals could support it.
The example you have given, in relation to Williamtown and 4 frequencies in about 2 minutes, is exactly what I can assist you in fixing. There is no such situation anywhere in the USA, Canada, Europe or England. Their airspace simply does not work like that.
Our airspace is still a mish-mash between modern international ATC procedures and 1950s Flight Service procedures. You need to have one or the other – you can’t actually have a bit of both in the same airspace.
Why don’t you give me a phone call? My work phone is 02 9450 0600 and my mobile is 0408 640 221. I would love to discuss this with you. Possibly we could go for a fly together in the Citation and see what we have in common – I bet it is a lot.
Why don’t I get your boss to give you an air ticket to the USA to fly with a Metro crew in their airspace? I think you will find it is pretty impressive – lots of low level airspace without radar coverage but a very safe system. This is necessary because of the very high densities of traffic, the high elevation of the airports, and often lousy weather with snow and ice.
I’m not saying everything about North America is better. There are just some things they do a bit better than us, and it would be sensible for us to copy these.
I look forward to hearing from you on the phone.