The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Australian Airspace Discussion

Old 25th Sep 2008, 07:59
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 45 South
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick Smith

I have flown in many parts of the world too - and I 100% agree with you we are living in the past. Remember once the retiring 747 captain who stated to an Australian approach controller on his final departure that he thought they were the second best ATCs in the world............and the controller asked who is the best and he said "Everybody!"
But our aviation industry in not just NAS....ADSB....blah...blah.
Why do you not use some of your political pull to stop the dillusion of Commonwealth airport assets. Nothing is being spent on airport infrastructure and GA airports (except security) and operators are dying on the vine with massive increases in landing charges and rents which were only supposed to be linked to CPI.
John Anderson (your mate) Mark Vaille (now at Virgin - unbelieveable) Warren Truss and now A Albanese - God help us! The ALCs are getting away with murder on RESA, new buildings in the obstacle limitation surface, airports being downgraded from certified to registered, runways being shortened or closed, ALOPs collapsing.....there will be no grass roots Australian aviation soon.
You fly fixed and rotary wing - look at the helipad at Bankstown. Call that safe?
Max Dover is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2008, 09:05
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 82
Posts: 3,093
Received 45 Likes on 20 Posts
Re;
"You appear to be bound by the old flight service uncontrolled airspace mentality. Because flight service officers were not allowed to use radar, .."

AW GEE Dick,

Didn't you have the chance to 'fix' that....twice...??

All it would have taken then, would have been a 'directive' from your good self..........surely???

'IT' could have been the world's mostest, bestest, World's Best Practice Airspace.... and, with a little adjustment here and there - just like there WAS.....it could have been economical as well...,


Cheers
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2008, 11:01
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Apologies for the continuing thread drift.

Dick,

"To provide a proper minimum safe altitude alerting service at Benalla would cost nothing."

If you are implying that to enable and SAFELY MONITOR alarms for Minimum Safe Altitude (MSAW),Route Adherence Monitoring (RAM),Short Term Conflict (STCA),Danger Area Infringement Warning (DAIW) at all aerodromes where radar may, or may not have full coverage, into ALL Aerodromes that have published approaches will not cost anything, then you are frankly talking out your backside.

Speaking to the controllers who work 45nm N of SY, to Coffs Harbour, there are published approaches for Kempsey, PMQ, Taree, Maitland and WLM (when RAAF not there, it would be there responsibility. Into CNK they use MLD approach til visual.

Controllers report that @90% of the time on approaches,RAM alert activates.
When querying acft about RAM alerts the reply is " Roger, we are now tracking for 5 mile final, etc".
Other comments include that even though 2 aircraft have been given traffic on each other , say into and out of PMQ, the STCA will still go off.This needs to be assessed to make sure it is the 2 aircraft that have been given traffic or some newbie popping up on radar.

Very basically, the STCA works on one aircraft with a Flight Data Record (FDR) in the system, the radar then assesses climb/descent profiles on other nearby aircraft around it to work out if a collision risk exists, and really starts screaming and flashing if it thinks so. It can be disabled below certain levels and in certain areas so it doesn't put more of us in the 'funny farm'.

As I stated before, the alarms don't go off to tell us something IS wrong, but the computer thinks something MIGHT be wrong.

Also they find that when trying to pass new, unidentified traffic to aircraft, that aircraft are usually already monitoring the CTAF frequency to gain situational awareness and find the interruption unhelpful, and sometimes do not reply at all. What is the controllers duty of care now? Continue on with the calls of course, further distracting the pilot as they are entering a critical phase of flight.

Throw in some vectoring, co-ordination calls to other units, a new A/TAF to pass to aircraft, some delay instructions, multiple aircraft doing Instrument Approaches, aircraft not acknowledging calls due cockpit workload, and it all adds up. The sectors would have to be shrunk to a SAFER, more manageable size.

Dick, when you were last in a Centre? When have you ever walked in our shoes? Funny though, I still enjoy talking to aircraft.

Disabling these alarms for an individual aircraft is not really an option. Think if you disabled an alarm , then another aircraft popped up. Alarm disabled, disaster occurs. Some years later off to Coroners' Court to explain your actions to highly paid legal types, armchair experts commentating in the Media, you always second guessing yourself about what you may have done different, distraught relatives, and even if you believe your actions were reasonable you still have to live the rest of your life with the knowledge that you have played a part in the death of other human beings.

Food for thought?

Last edited by max1; 25th Sep 2008 at 11:22.
max1 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2008, 11:53
  #24 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Max, Give me a phone call on 0418 640 221 and I will explain to the best of my abilities how the US and Canadian systems work.

In both of those countries ATC provides an excellent LSA/MSA alerting service when in radar covered en- route airspace.

It works because there is a disciplined system to report when visual or cancelling IFR. We do not have an equivalent procedure for our en-route radar covered class G airspace and thats why you cannot understand how it could work.

Why don't we at least try the procedure at just one airport?

Or are we not as capable as the North Americans?

If it requires the employment of some extra ATC's so be it- we are a wealthy country and value human life at a similar value to that in North America.

And the alarm system you describe is rediculous and exists because you have to provide a 1950's Flight Service type information service rarther than a proven NAS type service.

Why don't you contact a US low level en-route controller and ask how it works?

Last edited by Dick Smith; 25th Sep 2008 at 12:09.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2008, 12:20
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry, more thread drift.

"Max1

Brisbane Center controllers seem to have plenty of time to query enroute estimates - I have been "pulled up" twice in the last 2 weeks and heard a number of others getting the same treatment.

Had to explain (on the very, very busy CEN freq) our GS and the leg distance to the dude on the panel who insisted that the computer was telling him something different.

On each occasion we have been spot on with our estimates

Horatio,"

Horatio

This person was doing their job. You are not 'getting the treatment'. The controller would have been using the Bearing and Range Line (BRL) function to check the System (computer) estimate for your next position.

The computer uses your Flightplanned TAS and the FORECAST winds (note the Forecast winds are updated every 12 hours) to compute an estimate for your enroute waypoints. The BRL uses your current groundspeed over the distance to fly. The controllers BRL would have come up with the same answer as you, and this would also then not have agreed with the System.

If the System Estimate Time Over (SETO) and BRL are out by more than 2 minutes, or considered unreasonable, the controller is REQUIRED to check and confirm with the pilot as to the Pilot Estimate Time Over (PETO) .

As you would appreciate your G/S may not be constant over the entire leg and would change depending on the ACTUAL wind. I have had discrepancies of up to 10+ minutes when measuring with the BRL over long distances and usually find that the pilot estimate will be close to the system estimate , as the nav gear will usually build the forecast winds in to the estimate.

If there is still a discrepancy, the Pilot estimate will be considered sacrosanct. Its your backside on the line. On the rare occasions we have a PETO we still think may be iffy we will usually build a fair bit of fat into the separation standard, just in case. Were you going to go off radar?

I have lost count the number of times I have queried a pilot after they have given me an unrealistic time, which I have again queried, only to get the same answer , only to get a sheepish voice some minutes later saying that they have had another look ( thank you CRM courses) and the time is close to what I thought it would be. That's okay, that's my job. It is also funny that they usually won't agree with my estimate exactly, but move it a minute either side to let me know I wasn't completely right either.
Also, sometimes when it is queried and doesn't agree and I ask their Mach Number I get e.g."M.81"
" What did you plan?"
" M.78, but we're running behind schedule"

This is not a problem (yet), just let us know. If you are going off radar, or are off radar, this can have big implications e.g. Oceanic airspace.
I had an aircraft some years ago ( no names), going NZ-ML on Melbourne Cup Day and we were quite busy and running them tight in the morning, who got a report from Company that ML was fogged in, and pulled it back to min speed halfway across the Tasman without telling us. Turned up six minutes late at waypoint and caused all kinds of drama. Thats why we have big longitudinal separation standards off radar.

Horatio you weren't getting the treatment, the person was just doing their job. One day it may save someone whose estimate aren't spot on.
Come and have a visit someday. Happy to arrange it in Brisvegas.
max1 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2008, 12:39
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More thread drift

Dick,
Why don't we at least try the procedure at just one airport?
If it requires the employment of some extra ATC's so be it-
Mate, I'm sure the procedure you're suggesting would work great and people would get used to it quickly but they DO NOT have enough staff to run the current airspace or even the major airports. Look at the TIBA Notams.

There is no extra ATC's. The whole world is short, RAAF and ASA cannot recruit or train more. ATC has been gutted and introducing more procedures right now will probably break some people, leaving even bigger gaps in a system that is slowing breaking down.

Sorry for the drift.
C-change is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2008, 20:40
  #27 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
C Change, So it is a staffing problem- not as others claim "impossible" to do. One day we will have enough controllers so I will look forward to getting the proper ATC service then. Lets hope it's before more lives are lost.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2008, 21:43
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick

How about we leave this thread to the Senate enquiry into CASA and you start the LBJ thread - perhaps an opportune start would be the safety case you have put to the Minister/CASA/ASA to demonstrate your theory
I will look forward to getting the proper ATC service then. Lets hope it's before more lives are lost.
james michael is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 01:40
  #29 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
james michael,

It is all here. (see here)

Obviously you haven’t read Unsafe Skies, why don’t you do so?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 01:57
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick,
What you say re surveillance of Approaches is doable. Most problems in the world are doable if you throw the resources, committment and money at them.
My concern is that you try to intimate to people on this forum that it is a simple matter of flicking a few switches, writing procedures and away you go.
LHRT comes back after a telephone conversation with you telling us how simple it is and wouldn't cost anything. It will cost a fair bit in either extra controllers or bringing Flight Service back to life.
max1 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 02:54
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick

I am a wide reader - fact and fiction - and have read your "Unsafe Skies."

It strikes me as a book with some mix of opinion and fact, and has no doubt been read by many including those in CASA and Airservices who value different opinions.

But, it does not strike me as a safety case under the normal parameters for such.

I would expect something researched for the specific case you are putting and without the clutter of the rest of the book or the constant reliance on a 50 year old NAS system that is about to be overtaken by the benefits of LL ADS-B in Australia. If a safety case exists for Australia for your radar following theory for IFR to treetop level, make it for Australia.

Rhetoric is no substitute for fact - don't ignore Owen's comment that the radar is marginal at best below 085 at BLA and certainly at/below MSA. Of course, Owen's could be rhetoric also (apology Owen, just making a point) so it would be good to provide actual supporting data that are validated.
james michael is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 02:58
  #32 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Owen, The plane at Benalla was 1000' below the legal LSA of 7100' when 30 miles out and in solid radar coverage.

Even if the radar coverage went lower or there was ADSB at the airport the result would have been the same as we do not have a procedure in Australia to report to ATC when visual in class G airspace.

Other leading aviation countries have this procedure and lives are saved.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 04:55
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Funny how my memory has come back to me about the use of ADSB and places like Lockhart River where I posted once about the use of ADSB plus software in the ATC system monitoring even the approach (which could be done....software that is) and that this extra layer be turned off when pilot reports visual in class G.

Now at the time I think I was hounded down by quite a lot on here and including yourself Dick. I would have to go digging under an older username but it did happen. So why the change of heart? Maybe benalla has made it more obvious because in this case the pilot was not a cowboy.

J
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 07:48
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Owen Stanley,

Your arrogance and ignorance is breathtaking (wonder where you got that from?)
You claim to know so much more than me, you tell me ?.

Rather poor attempt at humour considering the circumstances ATC find themselves in.
If your are looking for sympathy, you are barking up the wrong tree, perhaps you should drop the short man tactics and actually read my posts completely. We are all debating a gentlemans debate here.

Irrespective of your personal opinion as to whether this would require more controllers is purley academic, why would something so simple in nature, with the potenital for such benefit be so hard for you to see as such?.

As a pilot I believe enabling a lowest safe (protected area) altitude monitoring system for IFR aircraft in RADAR coverage is a great idea ( to be honest I was quite shocked when Mr Smith explained that this system is not already inplace ).

If you as a controller are so over worked and so hard done by and the glass is really that half empty, find another job that brings you happiness.

If enabling this functions cost money, will it save lives ?, quite possibly, well why not atleast have a look at it instead of the closed minded arrogance and personal attacks you have presented.

All the ATC'ers I've personally met to date I view as consumate professionals and are great folks who I have a great amount of respect for, some on this forum paint a very different picture.

Incidently, good luck with the up and coming industrial action, you guys & gals deserve more money and a better work/home balance.

Dick,

I too have flown in many different countries airspace, and whilst there is certainly room for improvement, especially in comparision to the US system, I do not believe it to be the roulette wheel you suggest.

Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 26th Sep 2008 at 09:29.
Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 10:21
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a lot have already stated, what Dick is suggesting is completely acheiveable and can be done if the following tasks are completed.

1. A lot more controllers needed (back to FIS and ATCO numbers of another era)
2. Massive improvement in Radar Coverage (Big bucks)
3. Smaller sectors that people can stay on top off.

LHRT- This is a bit harse.
If you as a controller are so over worked and so hard done by and the glass is really that half empty, find another job that brings you happiness.
Its not as easy as just enabling software. If there is no coverage, there is no coverage and therefore no radar service. The boys and girls in ASA are only just keeping their heads above the water with what the currently have to do.

An example from a week ago. ONE controller looking after and area from 45D Sth of Syd, to BIK, under the CB steps, down to Albury,benalla, around to ESL, back up the coast to YMER, YMOR and NWA and up to 45D Sy. SFC to A085 (average). Big backyard for one person to monitor on one screen, lots of coord with all those agencies, A/TAFs,etc etc. In other words bloody busy and wafer thin. Anyone from Central Group care to elaborate or add more!!

Anyway, as others have said already this will cost big bucks but it can be done.

Bigger problem, even if money isn't, is where will the staff come from?

PS; I did hear that ASA will soon be providing straws to staff, to allow overtime and breathing to occur concurrently.
C-change is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 14:54
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
- Doable? Yes
- 100's of millions in all probability and a long long way off being realised

Q. What is the best remedy in the context being discussed?

A. Subsidised fitment of IFR sole use nav's for these class of aircraft which now days include map's and TAWS with much less chance of DR potholes

I seem to remember a proposal for such a thing kicking around some where here in oz that would provide both low cost IFR pilot SA and low cost ATS surveillance

A small country's GDP less than that being proposed in this wee chat

Well said BTW Mr Mac
K-941 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 21:56
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
OS
Must catch up for coffee downstairs next time I am out there. As an aside, what's the distance on your screen between YBLA and the approach points - not Nm, inches or cms or part thereof?

K
Bravo. The BLA matter, to my knowledge, really hinges around a 2 line non-map GPS with a hard to see alarm that all is not well. A late model map GPS makes it quite obvious one is not where one thinks - even my handheld G495 does that plus terrain.

But Dick has stated, he can correct me if I'm wrong, that the LL ADS-B project offers no real safety benefits, so I must be wrong

Instead, let's spend money on ATC holding our hands. Makes it easier to write a best seller
james michael is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 23:01
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Owen,

Who mentioned monitored approaches, not me.

An automated program that monitors an aircrafts 3 dimensional position reference, say a GPWS data base, absolutley no input required from the controller unless the aircraft breaks the protected area outside say 5nm of the destination aerodrome and the alarm sounds.

I say again, not monitored approaches, simply a computer program checking an IFR aircrafts position against protected areas ( LSALT, Grid, MAS, MVA, Approaches) similar function to GPWS, but ground/RADAR based (mode A & C and/or ADSB-B).
Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 23:22
  #39 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Why not try the system at just one high risk airport that has good radar coverage to low levels - say Proserpine.

If we introduced the proven overseas system where the pilot had to report when visual and until that time the LSA alarm was enabled at Proserpine it would clearly not require extra controllers.

If the controller missed the call the alarm would go off and the controller would ask the pilot if the aircraft was visual- if not climb immedietly!

Not rocket science but you do have to have an open mind.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2008, 23:34
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick

I absolutely support the trial, your suggestion has opened my mind

Let's have some ADS-B equipped and TSO 146 equipped subsidised aircraft conduct a trial at Proserpine.

We will all need an open mind if the results demonstrate the pilots can do it without mummy ATC changing their nappies - as it will throw your case out the window.

LHR

How many alarms do you think the suggestion would create on -say - Owen's screen? Perhaps Owen can give an estimate?

Remember the boy crying wolf? There is a limit to the amount of alarms repetitively occurring before stress levels go overboard and/or alarms lose their credibility.

Why not have one alarm under the supervision of one (or two) pilots? It's called a TSO 146 GPS with terrain assistance and a map of where you are at what height - RAIM alarm of course being one alarm of note.
james michael is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.