CTC ramps up training at NZHN - More overcrowding?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTC ramps up training at NZHN - More overcrowding?
Sounds like HN's busy airspace will just get busier, doe's anyone else have a problem with the current 2 frequency system in place at NZHN??
City flight training operation wins new contract
By CHRIS GARDNER - Waikato Times | Wednesday, 26 March 2008
A Hamilton pilot training operation is expecting to be busier after winning a three-year contract to provide Boeing 737-400 training for Vietnamese pilots.
CTC Aviation New Zealand, based at Boyd Rd, at Hamilton Airport, will benefit after its UK parent company, the CTC Aviation Group, was given Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam approval to train Vietnamese pilots employed by the expanding Pacific Airlines in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
CTC Aviation New Zealand chief executive John Jones said the Hamilton crew training centre would see an increase in training activity as a result of the partnership.
"Our crew training centre in Hamilton currently trains around 200 airline pilots a year. We expect to expand this significantly within the next twelve months," Mr Jones said.
The company, which is looking to increase the number of New Zealand pilots it trains tenfold to about 100, has strategic partnerships with 52 airlines around the world. The Hamilton training centre is one of four the company has internationally the other three are in the UK where the first group of Pacific Airlines pilots has already begun training.
As part of the partnership, CTC's Boeing instructor and examiner team was audited and approved by the Vietnamese civil aviation authority and will be actively involved in the training and examining of the new pilots.
Pacific Airlines was formed in 1992. Qantas took a 30 per cent share in the company last year and a rebranding is expected before July.
In the first stage of another new partnership, CTC has sold a Boeing 737 300/400/500 flight simulator to Lithuanian pilot training company flyLALTraining. The simulator is the first of its kind in Lithuania, as only theoretical training was previously offered, and marks the beginning of a partnership which will see the two trainers working closer together.
CTC and flyLAL have signed a framework agreement establishing the terms for future co-operation over the training and supply of flight deck and cabin crew.
According to the agreement, CTC and flyLAL will identify areas of mutual interest and develop co-operative programmes for the supply of pilots and cabin crew, as well as the delivery of training courses, to airlines within Europe and Russia.
City flight training operation wins new contract
By CHRIS GARDNER - Waikato Times | Wednesday, 26 March 2008
A Hamilton pilot training operation is expecting to be busier after winning a three-year contract to provide Boeing 737-400 training for Vietnamese pilots.
CTC Aviation New Zealand, based at Boyd Rd, at Hamilton Airport, will benefit after its UK parent company, the CTC Aviation Group, was given Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam approval to train Vietnamese pilots employed by the expanding Pacific Airlines in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
CTC Aviation New Zealand chief executive John Jones said the Hamilton crew training centre would see an increase in training activity as a result of the partnership.
"Our crew training centre in Hamilton currently trains around 200 airline pilots a year. We expect to expand this significantly within the next twelve months," Mr Jones said.
The company, which is looking to increase the number of New Zealand pilots it trains tenfold to about 100, has strategic partnerships with 52 airlines around the world. The Hamilton training centre is one of four the company has internationally the other three are in the UK where the first group of Pacific Airlines pilots has already begun training.
As part of the partnership, CTC's Boeing instructor and examiner team was audited and approved by the Vietnamese civil aviation authority and will be actively involved in the training and examining of the new pilots.
Pacific Airlines was formed in 1992. Qantas took a 30 per cent share in the company last year and a rebranding is expected before July.
In the first stage of another new partnership, CTC has sold a Boeing 737 300/400/500 flight simulator to Lithuanian pilot training company flyLALTraining. The simulator is the first of its kind in Lithuania, as only theoretical training was previously offered, and marks the beginning of a partnership which will see the two trainers working closer together.
CTC and flyLAL have signed a framework agreement establishing the terms for future co-operation over the training and supply of flight deck and cabin crew.
According to the agreement, CTC and flyLAL will identify areas of mutual interest and develop co-operative programmes for the supply of pilots and cabin crew, as well as the delivery of training courses, to airlines within Europe and Russia.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes it doesnt help that they also do ATC training in HN tower
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ENZED
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In reply to Squawk 2000, Ardmore had a two frequency system,and it worked well.(until the tower was dis-established)
We used 118.1 for taxi instructions and joining instructions,
and 120.1 for circuits.
No problems., in fact, very good.
I wonder if CTC will help fund an extra controller for the bay sector????
the booking system is going to be busy!
We used 118.1 for taxi instructions and joining instructions,
and 120.1 for circuits.
No problems., in fact, very good.
I wonder if CTC will help fund an extra controller for the bay sector????
the booking system is going to be busy!
Two Frequencies
The current system is a mismatch, two frequencies for airborne traffic in the control zone - aircraft on separate frequencies unaware of whats happening on the other frequency - doesn't make for good situational awareness.
Sure have two frequencies, one for initial contact and delivery of departure/arrival instructions either prior to taxy or prior to zone entry and one frequency for all airborne traffic in the zone.
It's always a lottery as to what frequency to preselect on the Com prior to joining as the ATIS doesn't ever mention wether or not two frequencies are in use. They do it at PM and even AA states when to use 118.7 for Tower, Ground and Delivery.
ATC Training/Flight training
Fair call Slackie, BUT there is one major point of difference, the main business of flying schools and aero clubs is to train pilots - the main business of ATC is to control air traffic flow not train controllers.
CTC's Expansion
I would have thought that any increases that will result from CTC's expansion plans will result in wailing and gnashing of teeth in certain offices.
The current system is a mismatch, two frequencies for airborne traffic in the control zone - aircraft on separate frequencies unaware of whats happening on the other frequency - doesn't make for good situational awareness.
Sure have two frequencies, one for initial contact and delivery of departure/arrival instructions either prior to taxy or prior to zone entry and one frequency for all airborne traffic in the zone.
It's always a lottery as to what frequency to preselect on the Com prior to joining as the ATIS doesn't ever mention wether or not two frequencies are in use. They do it at PM and even AA states when to use 118.7 for Tower, Ground and Delivery.
ATC Training/Flight training
Fair call Slackie, BUT there is one major point of difference, the main business of flying schools and aero clubs is to train pilots - the main business of ATC is to control air traffic flow not train controllers.
CTC's Expansion
I would have thought that any increases that will result from CTC's expansion plans will result in wailing and gnashing of teeth in certain offices.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
n reply to Squawk 2000, Ardmore had a two frequency system,and it worked well.(until the tower was dis-established)
We used 118.1 for taxi instructions and joining instructions,
and 120.1 for circuits.
No problems., in fact, very good.
We used 118.1 for taxi instructions and joining instructions,
and 120.1 for circuits.
No problems., in fact, very good.
Am well familiar with the good old Ardmore days, I did all my training and initial instructing there from 89-98. From memory, you requested joining instructions prior to entering the zone and on entering the zone you were changed to the tower freq. In hamilton you can be well within the zone and be operating on different freq's to aircraft that are not that far away at all. And there appears to be no set freq designation, just appears to be what ever freq is the flavour of the day or ATCO shift i.e. somedays you are initally on 125.9 prior to changing to 122.9 for the circuit, other days it's vice versa. Some days you can arrive in the circuit on 122.9 and therefore use 125.9 for your next airways clearance only to be told to change back to 122.9 for start and clearance. And just when you think you got it sorted, they operate one freq for all purposes.
It's just a wee bit dodgy is all I'm saying and wondering if something more solid and maybe published procedure is in place before CTC add to the already crowded environment
Having said that heard some ATCO's (particuarly a female one) do a great job working an all purpose single freq.
Am wondering if CTC had come to NZ a few years earlier or Airways had delayed the closure of AR Tower by the same, whether AR would still be controlled and CTC the main training organisation there, as they only left AR because of the JAR requirement for CPL students to train from a Controlled aerodrome.
Why can the freqs not be used in a fashion that makes sense? At CH for example, there are seperate delivery, ground and tower freqs. Call delivery/ground for anything that is away from the runway, or call tower if airborne or looking to enter a runway. That way ATC manages the load nicely. You could even make it that you call delivery prior to entering the zone...
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27/09
Two Freqs...wrong...that was over 18 months ago when that was the case. Now all aircraft airborne in the CTR are on the same freq. There is no "lottery"...follow the AIP...first contact is ALWAYS 122.9 and you get changed to 125.9 IF the second tower position is open (most days between 9:45am and 4:45pm). The only exception is inbound IFR aircraft who will get the correct frequency change instructions from BAY.
ATC Training Just where do you think we get controllers?? They don't grow on trees!! And they don't stick around for ever...we will always have a need to train controllers...even controllers with previous experience need to be validated/trained at their new location.
Sqwark2000 You are also incorrect!! 122.9 is either the single freq (when only one controller is on watch), or it becomes the "first contact" frequency when we are operating 2 positions. 125.9 is only ever a frequency used for ALL traffic either airborne in the CTR or taxiing on the ground (once the aircraft has received clearance and taxi instructions on 122.9)...
In short...
First contact with HN Twr is 122.9 unless specifically instructed by CH Control (e.g. inbound IFR).
The only time you change freq is when instructed by ATC or as contained in the departure procedures.
Why is that difficult to understand??? It is pretty clear in the AIP!!
All traffic in the CTR will be on the same frequency (either 122.9 or 125.9) unless there is a good operational reason not to be...of which I can think of a couple...but they are not very common.
Two Freqs...wrong...that was over 18 months ago when that was the case. Now all aircraft airborne in the CTR are on the same freq. There is no "lottery"...follow the AIP...first contact is ALWAYS 122.9 and you get changed to 125.9 IF the second tower position is open (most days between 9:45am and 4:45pm). The only exception is inbound IFR aircraft who will get the correct frequency change instructions from BAY.
ATC Training Just where do you think we get controllers?? They don't grow on trees!! And they don't stick around for ever...we will always have a need to train controllers...even controllers with previous experience need to be validated/trained at their new location.
Sqwark2000 You are also incorrect!! 122.9 is either the single freq (when only one controller is on watch), or it becomes the "first contact" frequency when we are operating 2 positions. 125.9 is only ever a frequency used for ALL traffic either airborne in the CTR or taxiing on the ground (once the aircraft has received clearance and taxi instructions on 122.9)...
In short...
First contact with HN Twr is 122.9 unless specifically instructed by CH Control (e.g. inbound IFR).
The only time you change freq is when instructed by ATC or as contained in the departure procedures.
Why is that difficult to understand??? It is pretty clear in the AIP!!
All traffic in the CTR will be on the same frequency (either 122.9 or 125.9) unless there is a good operational reason not to be...of which I can think of a couple...but they are not very common.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Komac
Your "pure speculation" is just that pure speculation...and incorrect.
The extra frequency allows transmissions to be removed from the primary Aerodrome Control frequency, and allows the Aerodrome Controller to concentrate on controlling traffic in the control zone without having the distraction of issuing IFR & VFR clearances to aircraft on the ground or airborne outside of the control zone.
The current procedures didn't happen overnight...and are the product of extensive customer consultation, trial, and amendment. Those of us that use them day-in-day-out find that they work pretty well, and allow us to move a large amount of traffic...more than any other tower in the country that deals with (primarily) IFR/VFR training traffic and IFR RPT operations. I believe we are the 2nd busiest tower overall and we do that between the hours of 6am and 8pm, wereas the busier tower (and the other 2 INTL towers) are 24/7!!
Your "pure speculation" is just that pure speculation...and incorrect.
The extra frequency allows transmissions to be removed from the primary Aerodrome Control frequency, and allows the Aerodrome Controller to concentrate on controlling traffic in the control zone without having the distraction of issuing IFR & VFR clearances to aircraft on the ground or airborne outside of the control zone.
The current procedures didn't happen overnight...and are the product of extensive customer consultation, trial, and amendment. Those of us that use them day-in-day-out find that they work pretty well, and allow us to move a large amount of traffic...more than any other tower in the country that deals with (primarily) IFR/VFR training traffic and IFR RPT operations. I believe we are the 2nd busiest tower overall and we do that between the hours of 6am and 8pm, wereas the busier tower (and the other 2 INTL towers) are 24/7!!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NZ
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTC need to work on instructor retention, particularly meir instructors. The JAR requirements are so extensive that none of the instructors are getting close to a 'useful' return of service (in the company's view) before they rightly disappear to Eagle or Nelson...can't see it getting better in the medium term either...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Just visiting
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gunna throw my two cents in on this
Slackie
Sorry, what you think is happening is not always the case!
I've operated in and out of hams for about a decade and was witness to the intro of the two freqs. Now I have alot of time for the controllers in hams but this 2 freq thing is an accident waiting to happen. IFR flights don't always change to just the single freq when inbound and infact only a few weeks ago we got 122.9 then at 5nm changed to 125.9 (not ideal)
A simple system like putting which freq is in use on the ATIS would be nice and save some confusion and also give the pilots of inbound/outbound flights a heads up to what is going on.
Lets not get started on trainees (they are exactly that and need to learn) However it would be nice if airways once again insisted on some flight training for these newbees. Alot just don't have a clue about what aircraft can and can't do or traffic priority.
Sorry, what you think is happening is not always the case!
I've operated in and out of hams for about a decade and was witness to the intro of the two freqs. Now I have alot of time for the controllers in hams but this 2 freq thing is an accident waiting to happen. IFR flights don't always change to just the single freq when inbound and infact only a few weeks ago we got 122.9 then at 5nm changed to 125.9 (not ideal)
A simple system like putting which freq is in use on the ATIS would be nice and save some confusion and also give the pilots of inbound/outbound flights a heads up to what is going on.
Lets not get started on trainees (they are exactly that and need to learn) However it would be nice if airways once again insisted on some flight training for these newbees. Alot just don't have a clue about what aircraft can and can't do or traffic priority.
I think Hans just proved my point about how the two frequencies don't work as well as they could..
There wasn't much customer consultation right at the start, this only came after complaints about how things were working. Yes it is much better now but could be better still.
There needs to be mention on th ATIS about when there is two frequencies in operation. Many IFR operators like to have the next frequency ready on the standby ready to change when told to by Bay. This is the lottery I was referring to - which freq to dial up on standby.
With reference to training, I think you missed my point Slackie. If I take my car to the garage I don't expect excuses from them about the quality of work because they had the trainee on the job. ATC's job is to provide a service, that service is affected when there is ATC training in progress. I think that was the point that an earlier poster was trying to make.
Hans makes another good point about the lack of understanding about what an aircraft can or cannot do.
The current procedures didn't happen overnight...and are the product of extensive customer consultation, trial, and amendment.
There needs to be mention on th ATIS about when there is two frequencies in operation. Many IFR operators like to have the next frequency ready on the standby ready to change when told to by Bay. This is the lottery I was referring to - which freq to dial up on standby.
With reference to training, I think you missed my point Slackie. If I take my car to the garage I don't expect excuses from them about the quality of work because they had the trainee on the job. ATC's job is to provide a service, that service is affected when there is ATC training in progress. I think that was the point that an earlier poster was trying to make.
Hans makes another good point about the lack of understanding about what an aircraft can or cannot do.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27/09 & Hans
There is the odd occasion when BAY don't change the inbound IFR to the correct freq (everyone makes mistakes!) but in the vast majority of times the correct change instructions are given. Without knowing the exact case I can't really comment further, but it sounds like an oversight somewhere...did you query why you were still with CH Ctl on 5nm at the time or were you "happy" to continue on in??
I beg to differ...we consulted from the outset (once we heard that CTC were coming)...the VFR Procedures were initially introduced as a trial in conjunction with local users meeting...local users (including some AR users) were then invited to critique...they were then promulgated..."bedded in" for a period...then critiqued again...Airways then conducted a Operational Review that again interviewed all local operators...amendments were then trialled again before again being critiqued by local operators...and we now we have what we have....so which part of this did you miss out on?????
I'd like to reiterate that this is still a movable feast...if we can further tweak the procedures then we will.
Training
And I think you missed my point with training...we can't all be up to speed from the first time we sit "on position"...did you successfully land your aircraft at the first try?? Did you learn to fly your aircraft by watching your instructor or did you learn by doing (and making mistakes)?? How exactly do you propose that we train controllers without using live traffic at some point??
Totally agree with the idea of getting controllers more piloting experience...as an instructor (and pilot) myself it is plainly obvious which trainees have past experience and which don't...having said that I've seen more than one trainee with a CPL not be able to transfer that knowledge to controlling!
Do tell!! We have always been open to suggestions, and still are, but when actually asked what needs changing most go silent!! The stage is yours (and I take your suggestion re the ATIS)....
There is the odd occasion when BAY don't change the inbound IFR to the correct freq (everyone makes mistakes!) but in the vast majority of times the correct change instructions are given. Without knowing the exact case I can't really comment further, but it sounds like an oversight somewhere...did you query why you were still with CH Ctl on 5nm at the time or were you "happy" to continue on in??
There wasn't much consultation at the start
I'd like to reiterate that this is still a movable feast...if we can further tweak the procedures then we will.
Training
And I think you missed my point with training...we can't all be up to speed from the first time we sit "on position"...did you successfully land your aircraft at the first try?? Did you learn to fly your aircraft by watching your instructor or did you learn by doing (and making mistakes)?? How exactly do you propose that we train controllers without using live traffic at some point??
Totally agree with the idea of getting controllers more piloting experience...as an instructor (and pilot) myself it is plainly obvious which trainees have past experience and which don't...having said that I've seen more than one trainee with a CPL not be able to transfer that knowledge to controlling!
Yes it is much better now but could be better still.
Slackie
My recollection was that there was very minimal consultation to start with, in fact it seemed a case of "We'll do it our way" from Airways. However there has certainly been a lot of discussion since then, some very robust and productive. Perhaps my memory is flawed and since you are closer to the action I'll take your word on the consultation.
I think the point being made is this "Is HN the best place for this to take place for new controllers?"
I'll look forward to hearing the frequency status on the ATIS.
My recollection was that there was very minimal consultation to start with, in fact it seemed a case of "We'll do it our way" from Airways. However there has certainly been a lot of discussion since then, some very robust and productive. Perhaps my memory is flawed and since you are closer to the action I'll take your word on the consultation.
How exactly do you propose that we train controllers without using live traffic at some point??
I'll look forward to hearing the frequency status on the ATIS.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the beginning...
"Is HN the best place for this to take place for new controllers?"
It is, however, very difficult for the OJTIs (On The Job Instructors)...exactly how much rope does one give the trainee?? How much delay "due training" is acceptable (and don't say, "None!")?? When should the OJTI take over?? etc...pretty similar questions a flying instructor asks!