Radar rated controllers in Tasmania?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear that many posts have been moderated (fair enough).
Come-on gents, I'm interested in hearing about this and having all of the "experts" come forward with their opinions and not a slanging match. It doesn't need to get personal.
Come-on gents, I'm interested in hearing about this and having all of the "experts" come forward with their opinions and not a slanging match. It doesn't need to get personal.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A sand castle
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please keep up
Dick, you state:
Seems you have not been paying attention. As many here have been trying to tell you, this clearly is not the current plan. Effectively reducing costs feature highly, i'm just not so certain about improving the other part.......
the plan was to adequately staff the airspace so a control service could be given where it was a cost effective way of improving safety.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Class D to 2500' and then what........ You will need to sit on the ground and wait and wait for the enroute folk to get you sorted before you taxi 
.
better to get airborne in CTA and get radar identified in your climb so that when you leave the D for C the enroute guy can see you, and identify you and away you go smooth as.
If 2500 was better, they woudl be doing it! Just coz the yanks do it is not a good reason for us to do it. They drive on the left side of the road.
Some of their system like VFR over LAX is quite workable, but not everything.
I wonder what Owen Stanley or Philthy has to say about this? And when it seems that the best source of good info (most qualified to comment) has been thread gagged we need to get some clarity from a suitably qualified source.
J
.better to get airborne in CTA and get radar identified in your climb so that when you leave the D for C the enroute guy can see you, and identify you and away you go smooth as.
If 2500 was better, they woudl be doing it! Just coz the yanks do it is not a good reason for us to do it. They drive on the left side of the road.
Some of their system like VFR over LAX is quite workable, but not everything.
I wonder what Owen Stanley or Philthy has to say about this? And when it seems that the best source of good info (most qualified to comment) has been thread gagged we need to get some clarity from a suitably qualified source.
J
Thread Starter
Squawk6969, you ask what Benalla has to do with the Class D CTA services – presumably at places like Launceston. You say it is chalk and cheese, I say it shouldn’t be.
I the United States under NAS, both airspace would be the same and you would get a full radar service using the existing radar – including air traffic control descending you to the lowest safe or minimum safe. Why should it be inferior here?
I think your mind is so fixed on what we do in Australia that you don’t seem to be able to examine whether it can be done in a better and safer way.
The radar goes to ground level at Launceston, so we should have control at least to levels that would help to prevent CFIT accidents. The radar goes to quite low levels at Benalla, and as has been shown on previous threads, a proper procedure could help prevent CFIT accidents there.
Tiberius, yes, staffing is required but lots of posters on this thread seem to say that it is not possible. Surely if we have radar where large jets are going into an airport, we should use it. If the service is provided from the Centre, it could be done efficiently.
What would the cost be per passenger? Let’s say, 30 cents I suppose at a place like Launy. I wonder if we actually asked the passengers if they would be prepared to pay 30 cents per ticket to have a full radar service provided from the Melbourne Centre, whether they would accept it. I’m sure they would.
I the United States under NAS, both airspace would be the same and you would get a full radar service using the existing radar – including air traffic control descending you to the lowest safe or minimum safe. Why should it be inferior here?
I think your mind is so fixed on what we do in Australia that you don’t seem to be able to examine whether it can be done in a better and safer way.
The radar goes to ground level at Launceston, so we should have control at least to levels that would help to prevent CFIT accidents. The radar goes to quite low levels at Benalla, and as has been shown on previous threads, a proper procedure could help prevent CFIT accidents there.
Tiberius, yes, staffing is required but lots of posters on this thread seem to say that it is not possible. Surely if we have radar where large jets are going into an airport, we should use it. If the service is provided from the Centre, it could be done efficiently.
What would the cost be per passenger? Let’s say, 30 cents I suppose at a place like Launy. I wonder if we actually asked the passengers if they would be prepared to pay 30 cents per ticket to have a full radar service provided from the Melbourne Centre, whether they would accept it. I’m sure they would.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Further Requirements you say
But you also say
At first I was somewhat confused by your seemingly conflicting sentiments. But then I took note that you appear to have left Australia and are now controlling in the UAE.
I have flown in the middle east among many other regions in the world and if my memory serves me correctly the UAE has all airways as controlled airspace and Class D towered airports have an upper limit of 2500ft which is virtually identical to the US system (minor variations noted) that you described as
(here is the context of your quote to save any misrepresentation)
My point is this. You obviously have experience delivering the kind of ATC service that I would like to see implemented here in Australia with regard to the size of class D airspace and the appropriate use of radar where it is available.
I understand you probably feel a certain level of solidarity with the situation that is being faced by AsA controllers back home. Let me be clear that I fully support policies and strong leadership within AsA and CASA to make sure the controllers here in Australia are given the appropriate level of resources, including man power, to provide a similar world class level of service that you currently provide in the UAE.
If we need smaller sector sizes for ATC then so be it. From my perspective as an airline pilot, who has the immediate responsibility for the lives of many Australians daily, we are getting short changed by our ATC system. Time and again we forgo a radar service at up to 30nm from an airport only to be forced to participate in 1950's era procedural separation.
How can anyone view this as acceptable when we know the risk of collision increases dramatically the closer we get to an airport?
Maroochidore is another that springs to mind. At 20nm we are forced to talk to a tower controller to participate in procedural separation. What makes Maroochidore so frustrating is that we are under the surveillance of Brisbane Approach Control at the time of transfer. What could be better than to stay on the approach frequency with all the radar benefits until we are at a distance where the tower can actually see us?
I really do accept the point that your sector sizes might be too big. I also draw everyones attention once again to the NAS proposal which would have had adequate staffing levels to provide these services into regional airports. I hope AsA refocuses their efforts on staff retention before its too late.
MJ: As everyone else has picked up on except you, I was being sarcastic about copying the US of A. Each FIR is unique and has its differences. Australia is no different.
Give us the resources and I'm sure we'd gladly do it.
I have flown in the middle east among many other regions in the world and if my memory serves me correctly the UAE has all airways as controlled airspace and Class D towered airports have an upper limit of 2500ft which is virtually identical to the US system (minor variations noted) that you described as
the best system and we should copy it verbatim?
MJ: Give us the terminals, maps, admin support and, most importantly, people and I would be happy to do whatever we can to provide more services. I would love to have a 80NM x 80NM sector in SE Australia instead of the 400NM one I used to work on. Show me the money! Give us the same ratio of controllers to airspace they have in the US - surely it's the best system and we should copy it verbatim?
My point is this. You obviously have experience delivering the kind of ATC service that I would like to see implemented here in Australia with regard to the size of class D airspace and the appropriate use of radar where it is available.
I understand you probably feel a certain level of solidarity with the situation that is being faced by AsA controllers back home. Let me be clear that I fully support policies and strong leadership within AsA and CASA to make sure the controllers here in Australia are given the appropriate level of resources, including man power, to provide a similar world class level of service that you currently provide in the UAE.
If we need smaller sector sizes for ATC then so be it. From my perspective as an airline pilot, who has the immediate responsibility for the lives of many Australians daily, we are getting short changed by our ATC system. Time and again we forgo a radar service at up to 30nm from an airport only to be forced to participate in 1950's era procedural separation.
How can anyone view this as acceptable when we know the risk of collision increases dramatically the closer we get to an airport?
Maroochidore is another that springs to mind. At 20nm we are forced to talk to a tower controller to participate in procedural separation. What makes Maroochidore so frustrating is that we are under the surveillance of Brisbane Approach Control at the time of transfer. What could be better than to stay on the approach frequency with all the radar benefits until we are at a distance where the tower can actually see us?
I really do accept the point that your sector sizes might be too big. I also draw everyones attention once again to the NAS proposal which would have had adequate staffing levels to provide these services into regional airports. I hope AsA refocuses their efforts on staff retention before its too late.
Last edited by mjbow2; 19th Nov 2008 at 05:24.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As many have been saying we don't have the staff.
USA has 10-11000 controllers, they need about 13000.
Australia has less than 800 actually working traffic, and diminishing.
Our sectors are, comparable to the USA, very large.
At this stage with our critical staffing, and large sector sizes, we cannot do what Dick, mjbow and co. would like.
This is not so much resistance to change but just a stark fact.
Based on the resources available, what you have at the moment is what can be supplied. This type of discussion was done to death months ago. The upshot of that was what will probably occur here.
Controllers will continue to tell you that what you want will cost ALOT of money. You will tell us that we are resistant to change and unwilling to provide a service that can 'easily be done' and won't cost anything.
Eventually you will concede that okay it will cost money is not as easy as first thought and a few months later it will all start up again.
As I said months ago, give us the staff and resources and I am happy to do whatever the INDUSTRY wants. Controllers are about safety.
USA has 10-11000 controllers, they need about 13000.
Australia has less than 800 actually working traffic, and diminishing.
Our sectors are, comparable to the USA, very large.
At this stage with our critical staffing, and large sector sizes, we cannot do what Dick, mjbow and co. would like.
This is not so much resistance to change but just a stark fact.
Based on the resources available, what you have at the moment is what can be supplied. This type of discussion was done to death months ago. The upshot of that was what will probably occur here.
Controllers will continue to tell you that what you want will cost ALOT of money. You will tell us that we are resistant to change and unwilling to provide a service that can 'easily be done' and won't cost anything.
Eventually you will concede that okay it will cost money is not as easy as first thought and a few months later it will all start up again.
As I said months ago, give us the staff and resources and I am happy to do whatever the INDUSTRY wants. Controllers are about safety.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ: I'm not trying to confuse you. I am trying to say that we should not put the cart before the horse - resources and training first, then implement. If a study dictates that the airspace in Australia must change to ........., then we must resource it in the first instance. AsA are suffering from an internal restructure problem at the moment. At the stroke of a pen, the way airspace and ATC groups are divided changed. To enable this to happen, we needed more controllers to be able to release people off the consoles to simulate and train on the new airspace. This did not happen (in fact, we lost operational controllers due to the restructure) and the results are clear to everyone.
If people like Dick and yourself want to changes things, fill your boots. But, provide the resources first so we don't end up chasing our tails.
Dick: Not sure how I can explain the separation minimums quickly, but I'll try. The definition of 'separated aircraft' is 1NM between the possible positions of two aircraft. In TMA radar, that means a 1NM radar tolerance for each plane, plus the 1NM between their possible positions = 3NM. In a non-radar environment there is no radar tolerance so in fact the aircraft can be 1NM from each other and be separated. It's all in the wording, but there are instances where the enroute 5NM standard is greater than what a procedural tower can provide between two aircraft on established tracks.
Cheers,
NFR.
If people like Dick and yourself want to changes things, fill your boots. But, provide the resources first so we don't end up chasing our tails.
Dick: Not sure how I can explain the separation minimums quickly, but I'll try. The definition of 'separated aircraft' is 1NM between the possible positions of two aircraft. In TMA radar, that means a 1NM radar tolerance for each plane, plus the 1NM between their possible positions = 3NM. In a non-radar environment there is no radar tolerance so in fact the aircraft can be 1NM from each other and be separated. It's all in the wording, but there are instances where the enroute 5NM standard is greater than what a procedural tower can provide between two aircraft on established tracks.
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A sand castle
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith Your response to me was in two parts, but I think that you have connected the dots incorrectly.
1.
This issue has been given plenty of attention on these boards, in the media, and in senate estimates, just to name a few. If You have a way of resolving it, I suggest you give Airservices and Civilair a call.
2.
If your definition of efficiently includes addressing point 1 before proceeding to point 2 , then it would be more difficult to disagee with you.
1.
Tiberius, yes, staffing is required but lots of posters on this thread seem to say that it is not possible.
2.
Surely if we have radar where large jets are going into an airport, we should use it. If the service is provided from the Centre, it could be done efficiently.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Also, Canberra now has tower airspace to 3,500 feet and out to the control zone boundary. It removes an unnecessary load on the approach controllers in Melbourne, and I’m sure has improved safety.
J
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canberra tower has airspace for donkeys. It also has a dedicated approach unit out to 30NM - and a fixed, permanent radar with a secondary radar able to be used located about 50NM away.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the radar service is to ground level at Launceston, why isn’t the Launceston airspace only to 4,500 feet, and the Centre “controls” the airspace above – as per the situation at Coffs Harbour?
I really do accept the point that your sector sizes might be too big.
… the NAS proposal which would have had adequate staffing levels to provide these services into regional airports.
yes, staffing is required but lots of posters on this thread seem to say that it is not possible.
Why is it the way it is now? Because there have been a series of ass-plucks at the various stages of the numerous half-implemented projects recently that this was a reasonable way to share the resources and responsibilities of enroot and towers. The towers are coping with the current arrangements, and will not generate any staff efficiencies if their airspace is reduced. Enroot is coping, and would require additional resources if their airspace was enlarged, or procedures made more complex. Anybody proposing changes from within ASA would have to justify the cost/benefit and prove the safety. Change seems only likely if imposed from outside ASA on more idealogical grounds.
