En route controllers do approach in USA
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
U.S. 'System' manages to mismanage the whole World's Financial Affairs.
That's how good the U.S 'System' is.
That's how good the U.S 'System' is.
More to the point, in a discussion regarding air traffic control, why would you introduce a discussion about world finance...which has nothing to do with the national airspace system?
The us national airspace system is very, very good. I lived for several years in Australia. I fly all over the world. Without particular bias, the US system is among the best there is, if not the best air traffic control system out there.
That said, one can't simply translate one entire system to another. While the US does have a fair amount of areas out of radar coverage and in Class G airspace, Australia has far more, fewer navaids, fewer alternates, and pilots frequently have fewer options. I don't think anybody ought suggest that Australia should model itself after anyone, including the US. However, one also ought not suggest that there isn't room for improvement. There always is. Even in Oz.
I'll tell you, I loved my time in Australia, and enjoyed the people and the country more than any other I've visited or lived in...I'd have been happy to call Oz my home for the rest of my life...and very nearly did. The country and the people will always hold a spot very near and dear to my heart, and I miss being there. I really do.
The gradual process globally is for all ATC and airspace systems to harmonize with ICAO standards. This is taking place in methods of operation, radio procedures, airspace, terminology, pilot certification, etc. There are still significant differences. However, the US system is changing as much as any, as it gradually alters to conform to an international standard. Flight plans are now filed using the ICAO format as the FAA format is replaced. The US uses TAF's and METARs instead of sequence reports and terminals...and even pilot certification has changed to align with ICAO. You can expect this where ever you go...differences are there, but gradually fading away as one system becomes more like another.
Thread Starter
One of the reasons our sectors are so large is that we “stratify” the airspace – i.e. the sector over Benalla doesn’t go from ground level to FL600 (as per most equivalent traffic density areas in Alaska) but has a division between high and low level. That doubles the number of sectors – or doubles the size of the sectors.
Can anyone advise why we can’t have a sector from ground level to FL600? Aircraft flying between Melbourne and Sydney at flight levels have to change the VHF frequency regularly anyway, so why not put a frequency change on the sector boundary and have smaller sectors in dimension?
I look forward to the experts advice.
Can anyone advise why we can’t have a sector from ground level to FL600? Aircraft flying between Melbourne and Sydney at flight levels have to change the VHF frequency regularly anyway, so why not put a frequency change on the sector boundary and have smaller sectors in dimension?
I look forward to the experts advice.
As traffic dictates sectors are combined and decombined to create exactly what you propose. in some instances, low combine with low and high with high. Your question shows a lack of understanding at a very basic level and for a person that is very much a proponent of not having the attention taken away from the most important part of the job, ie separation by idle background 'noise'. Your question is also fairly obviously mischevious and interestingly, completely off the topic of the thread that wants to see ATC enroute doing an approach function that would require lower upper limits as per your 2500 for D towers keeping the focus towards the area where obviously more safety occurances arise don't you agree.
Dick,
I've dug deep in to my metaphor satchel for this one ...
Which of the following do you think is more efficient?
Which group of students do you think will get a better education ?
Later ...
Not that there's anything wrong in mixing the classes ... but the poor old Teacher is constantly having to "change her head space" ... to cope with the differing requirements of the different ages and techniques. Human nature says that the Teacher is, at some time, going to zig, when she should have zagged.
I've dug deep in to my metaphor satchel for this one ...
Which of the following do you think is more efficient?
- A School Teacher in charge of 40 students ... ranging from Preps to Grade 6
- A School Teacher in charge of 40 Grade 6 students
Which group of students do you think will get a better education ?
Later ...
Not that there's anything wrong in mixing the classes ... but the poor old Teacher is constantly having to "change her head space" ... to cope with the differing requirements of the different ages and techniques. Human nature says that the Teacher is, at some time, going to zig, when she should have zagged.
Last edited by peuce; 26th Nov 2008 at 05:11.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A sand castle
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith you state:
I wasn't aware that Alaskan airspace was so busy! I have seen it quoted that the SY-ML route is the 3rd busiest in the world. Were you aware that this route is in the airspace above Benalla?
Anything can be done if you resource it correctly, as I'm sure you will agree.
If there are to be more sectors, there needs to be more staff. It seems that you have agreed previously that this is the case, and it seems that you consider that it is a problem easily remedied. Have you contacted Airservices and Civilair with your suggestion?
When you receive it, I trust you will post it for us all to see, as clearly you do not consider any of the regular posters here to be experts.
One of the reasons our sectors are so large is that we “stratify” the airspace – i.e. the sector over Benalla doesn’t go from ground level to FL600 (as per most equivalent traffic density areas in Alaska) but has a division between high and low level. That doubles the number of sectors – or doubles the size of the sectors.
Can anyone advise why we can’t have a sector from ground level to FL600? Aircraft flying between Melbourne and Sydney at flight levels have to change the VHF frequency regularly anyway, so why not put a frequency change on the sector boundary and have smaller sectors in dimension?
If there are to be more sectors, there needs to be more staff. It seems that you have agreed previously that this is the case, and it seems that you consider that it is a problem easily remedied. Have you contacted Airservices and Civilair with your suggestion?
I look forward to the experts advice.
"from ground level to FL600 "......
Why stop there? Why not Ground Level to UNLIM?
I used to LUV IT when Concorde flew in - OCTA - ABV FL600 and we 'handed him over' at 30nm PH when inbound from the SW. (YEP. 'Tis true!)
Well, it was, then.
Not much of a 'thread drift' - as this whole subject is purely 'theoretical'.
Dick, Just arrange to provide the money for the training, and the time for those resources...er staff...and ANYTHING is POSSIBLE!
Suitably Rated Staff working Rated Positions etc. etc.
(Do the UAV's need a cnce? Who ya gonna talk to?)
Why stop there? Why not Ground Level to UNLIM?
I used to LUV IT when Concorde flew in - OCTA - ABV FL600 and we 'handed him over' at 30nm PH when inbound from the SW. (YEP. 'Tis true!)
Well, it was, then.
Not much of a 'thread drift' - as this whole subject is purely 'theoretical'.
Dick, Just arrange to provide the money for the training, and the time for those resources...er staff...and ANYTHING is POSSIBLE!
Suitably Rated Staff working Rated Positions etc. etc.
(Do the UAV's need a cnce? Who ya gonna talk to?)
Owen,
L U V L Y ................Ain't it!!
As Concorde flew further and the fuel burn allowed, naturally he requested higher levels. You'd have to be a real 'up yourself' to say 'Standby For Traffic'.
Although it did amuse us to sometimes ask for a 'Wind and Temp' tks...
We'd never had them from those alts before, and they were interesting.
The MET guys enjoyed that too.
The 'chuckle' in the pilot's voice as he read them back was pure camaraderie, as were many other memorable exchanges.
L U V L Y times.............
Cheers
As Concorde flew further and the fuel burn allowed, naturally he requested higher levels. You'd have to be a real 'up yourself' to say 'Standby For Traffic'.
Although it did amuse us to sometimes ask for a 'Wind and Temp' tks...
We'd never had them from those alts before, and they were interesting.
The MET guys enjoyed that too.
The 'chuckle' in the pilot's voice as he read them back was pure camaraderie, as were many other memorable exchanges.
L U V L Y times.............
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Hempy. No not every aerodrome- but why not try just one?
p.s. I do like how you keep throwing up ideas around here; each idea you propose deprives the next ASA CEO of an opportunity of coming up with something original for his "Vision".
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone advise why we can’t have a sector from ground level to FL600?
Actually, you can have a sector designed like that. As a matter of fact, legend has it that when we wrote the Flight Data Processing (FDP) software in the U.S. they had to make a choice -- from the ground up to FL600 or stratified. The FAA went with from the ground up. When circumstances led us to stratify, the programmers had to come up with a work-around for the software. As far as I know, the work-around still lives in the programming. I know it did as of two years ago anyway. I think you know it but most don't -- the original programming is mostly still in place. It's been translated and whatnot -- but it's still 40+ year-old programming logic.
More to the point, high altitude control and Terminal work involve two different mindsets. You can do both -- it's done every day (or more precisely every midnight) -- it's just mentally difficult and therefore less desirable.
Perhaps a bit off topic but allow me to say how refreshing it is to see a "bigwig" participate in an open forum. I can't imagine an opporitunity to talk with an ex-FAA administrator here in the States. It's a good thing that you're looking for what works. As a safety rep., I spent a lot of time looking for what didn't work. There's plenty of both in the U.S. system.
Don Brown
