En route controllers do approach in USA
Thread Starter
En route controllers do approach in USA
On a recent thread there were statements in relation to ICAO licensing and en route controllers in Australia not being rated for approach work. I asked an FAA expert regarding advice on this and here is his answer:
Remember in the USA all instrument approaches are in a minimum of Class E controlled airspace. I would estimate that over 80% of the approaches in the USA are in en route airspace and not “controlled” by an approach controller.
It is extraordinary just how different our two systems are. Perhaps we could try this higher level of safety at least at one airport where we presently have radar coverage to low levels and airline traffic – say Proserpine.
In the U.S., an en route controller receives an area rating. If the area has one or more airports where the controller provides an approach clearance to the airport, then the procedures are trained and those responsibilities are included in the area rating. This is very common in the U.S. as there are 5,233 public use airports, many of which have published instrument approach procedures. If radar coverage exists down to the approach altitude, then the controller may vector the aircraft at or above the Minimum IFR Altitude and clear the aircraft for the approach. This is also a common practice.
ICAO Annex 1, Personnel Licensing contains the requirements for air traffic control ratings. There are provisions for concurrent issuance of two air traffic controller ratings. This includes guidance on determining the applicable requirements on the basis on the requirements for each rating. I believe this would be sufficient to allow the training and rating of a controller to perform both en route and approach control duties.
ICAO Annex 1, Personnel Licensing contains the requirements for air traffic control ratings. There are provisions for concurrent issuance of two air traffic controller ratings. This includes guidance on determining the applicable requirements on the basis on the requirements for each rating. I believe this would be sufficient to allow the training and rating of a controller to perform both en route and approach control duties.
It is extraordinary just how different our two systems are. Perhaps we could try this higher level of safety at least at one airport where we presently have radar coverage to low levels and airline traffic – say Proserpine.
Dick,
I think you are confused a bit and you've managed to get things out of context. I'm sure some Controllers will provide more detailed information, but from a layman:
1. You quoted ... " If the area has one or more airports where the controller provides an approach clearance to the airport, then the procedures are trained and those responsibilities are included in the area rating."
And so they should. If a Controller provides an Approach Service , he should be trained and rated to do so.... as we do in Australia.
2. You said ... "I would estimate that over 80% of the approaches in the USA are in en route airspace and not “controlled” by an approach controller.
"
Your estimate would be wrong ... Controlled Approaches are conducted in Approach Airspace ... not Enroute. You are confusing the Airspace Type with who does it.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think the point you are trying to make is that ... Australian Enroute Controllers should be providing an Approach Service to aerodromes covered by Radar.
The short answer is ... they can ... if they are trained and rated to provide an Approach Service (as well as their Enroute Service) ... just as in the USA.
The BIG question remains .. and hasn't changed since all your previous threads ... as long as the staff training and facilities are provided ... as well as pilot awareness training and procedures and documentation changes are completed.
If you can provide that ... fill your boots.
I think you are confused a bit and you've managed to get things out of context. I'm sure some Controllers will provide more detailed information, but from a layman:
1. You quoted ... " If the area has one or more airports where the controller provides an approach clearance to the airport, then the procedures are trained and those responsibilities are included in the area rating."
And so they should. If a Controller provides an Approach Service , he should be trained and rated to do so.... as we do in Australia.
2. You said ... "I would estimate that over 80% of the approaches in the USA are in en route airspace and not “controlled” by an approach controller.
"
Your estimate would be wrong ... Controlled Approaches are conducted in Approach Airspace ... not Enroute. You are confusing the Airspace Type with who does it.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think the point you are trying to make is that ... Australian Enroute Controllers should be providing an Approach Service to aerodromes covered by Radar.
The short answer is ... they can ... if they are trained and rated to provide an Approach Service (as well as their Enroute Service) ... just as in the USA.
The BIG question remains .. and hasn't changed since all your previous threads ... as long as the staff training and facilities are provided ... as well as pilot awareness training and procedures and documentation changes are completed.
If you can provide that ... fill your boots.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Sounds great...... but when ASA have stuffed up the ADSB programme and seem to have lost millions of dollars in dodgey dealings in the USA...........whats the chances of funding this? 
J
J
Dick, if you love the US System so much, why don't you move over there and stay there? It'd certainly be good for Australia.
morno
morno
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An "FAA EXPERT"???? who exactly?
This is an anonymus forum and I'm sure everybody here would heartily disapprove of attempts to reveal the identity of those involved, or suggest that a valid opinion can be held without a name next to it. It is just unthinkable to suggest otherwise.
in the USA all instrument approaches are in a minimum of Class E controlled airspace
Thread Starter
CASA appears to only take on the weak.
To stand up to AsA would, at the present time, result in a shortened career path at CASA I fear.
Spodman, we have instument approaches outside controlled airspace, in the USA they don't take that risk.
To stand up to AsA would, at the present time, result in a shortened career path at CASA I fear.
Spodman, we have instument approaches outside controlled airspace, in the USA they don't take that risk.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Spodman, we have instument approaches outside controlled airspace, in the USA they don't take that risk.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West (P) would be a blast when/if they get ADSB.
As I have said earlier, in SE Australia on the sectors there, we have about 70 to 80 approaches to about 25 aerodromes. That's a lot for one person to be doing.
Resource first, then make the changes.
Cheers,
NFR.
As I have said earlier, in SE Australia on the sectors there, we have about 70 to 80 approaches to about 25 aerodromes. That's a lot for one person to be doing.
Resource first, then make the changes.
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy
Over the last year or two there has been some healthy debate about airspace design in Australia. To my surprise, last week there were a number of Air Traffic Controllers who commented positively on the US system.
Perhaps it is time some folks had a refresher read of the proposed NAS document now that the main objection really seems to be about the allocation of resources to provide the NAS/US style of ATC.
You will see Hempy that in the executive summary it states:
My Bolding.
you are suggesting that for every aerodrome with a published instrument approach within radar/ADSB(?) coverage that class E should extend around it to the ground AND sector controllers should provide an approach service to said airspace?
Perhaps it is time some folks had a refresher read of the proposed NAS document now that the main objection really seems to be about the allocation of resources to provide the NAS/US style of ATC.
You will see Hempy that in the executive summary it states:
Provides an IFR separation service to 700’ AGL at non tower terminal airspace at selected locations.
Bushy,
I respect your opinion, but it seems every time Mr Smith expresses his it's always "The US does this, the US does that, why can't we be like the US?".
If he likes their system so much, and hates ours, why doesn't he switch countries?
Sure, SOME of his idea's could work well, but we are NOT the US. We are Australia. We have a completely different aviation environment, and it appears to be working to an extent. I'd be stupid to deny that there are big problems in some area's, but overall the system works fine.
Dick, give it a rest, please.
morno
I respect your opinion, but it seems every time Mr Smith expresses his it's always "The US does this, the US does that, why can't we be like the US?".
If he likes their system so much, and hates ours, why doesn't he switch countries?
Sure, SOME of his idea's could work well, but we are NOT the US. We are Australia. We have a completely different aviation environment, and it appears to be working to an extent. I'd be stupid to deny that there are big problems in some area's, but overall the system works fine.
Dick, give it a rest, please.
morno
Thread Starter
Hempy. No not every aerodrome- but why not try just one?
Morno, I have made it very clear - only copy the best parts.
I have never suggested that every IFR approach in Australia should be in a minimum of class E.
At least we are moving forward. A few years ago on this site posters were denying how the US system worked, now many are saying that it is possible to bring in a few of the safety advantages of the US system- we just need the correct training, procedures and resources. I agree.
And our aviation environment is actually very similar- especially between Melbourne and Cairns where most of our aircraft operate.
Morno, I have made it very clear - only copy the best parts.
I have never suggested that every IFR approach in Australia should be in a minimum of class E.
At least we are moving forward. A few years ago on this site posters were denying how the US system worked, now many are saying that it is possible to bring in a few of the safety advantages of the US system- we just need the correct training, procedures and resources. I agree.
And our aviation environment is actually very similar- especially between Melbourne and Cairns where most of our aircraft operate.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main difference is the scale of the display being used by the radar controllers. In the US, they have many more sectors, generally with a display area less than 100nm. Compare this with the screens that are used here where a controller may have from North of Cairns to South of Rockhampton on the display.
Approach work needs a small range and a controller that can concentrate on this, not someone covering such a wide area and fielding flightwatch duties as well.
It's the same answer to the other items floated by Dick recently, all it takes is controllers and money. We don't have the controllers
. Talk to the Minister about the money.
Approach work needs a small range and a controller that can concentrate on this, not someone covering such a wide area and fielding flightwatch duties as well.
It's the same answer to the other items floated by Dick recently, all it takes is controllers and money. We don't have the controllers
. Talk to the Minister about the money.
U.S. 'System'.......
...
T'aint all that good - and it ain't ALL suited to OZ ops.
(Our population base - distances - facilities / resources / no 'wall to wall' VHF / RADAR etc etc.
We DID have a good HF net to cover all of this - at one time.
Horses for courses! Our 'then' system evolved to what it was because of necessity. Not idealology - is THAT the word??
Anyway - you get the drift.....)
Regards to all.....
T'aint all that good - and it ain't ALL suited to OZ ops.
(Our population base - distances - facilities / resources / no 'wall to wall' VHF / RADAR etc etc.
We DID have a good HF net to cover all of this - at one time.
Horses for courses! Our 'then' system evolved to what it was because of necessity. Not idealology - is THAT the word??
Anyway - you get the drift.....)
Regards to all.....
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Provides an IFR separation service to 700’ AGL at non tower terminal airspace at selected locations. My Bolding.
Spodman, we have instument approaches outside controlled airspace, in the USA they don't take that risk.
Last edited by Spodman; 24th Nov 2008 at 07:25.
Thread Starter
Spodman, read the document.
It makes it clear that it would be impractical at this stage to introduce low level class E at all locations as per the USA.
It makes it clear that it would be impractical at this stage to introduce low level class E at all locations as per the USA.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spodman
Just so neither of us mislead the readers, I have supplied the paragraph that deals with the limited use of class E 1200ft AGL airways (corridors).
and 1200' AGL at all the others. If you are going to quote that sh1tty document get it right and don't mislead people
Interim design model
While universal IFR/IFR separation provision is the desirable end state, the current costs of service and training implications make the universal application of Class E to low altitudes impractical at this stage.
While universal IFR/IFR separation provision is the desirable end state, the current costs of service and training implications make the universal application of Class E to low altitudes impractical at this stage.
Last edited by mjbow2; 24th Nov 2008 at 10:33.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The groups in Melbourne away from the J curve, when all combined, can run at a screen range of 1600 NM and have surveillance coverage to the ground at ADS-B sites. At that range, the aircraft symbols are wider than the surveillance separation standard itself.
So a controller has 20-30 aircraft under his/her jurisdiction and is accepting aircraft from Sydney, Melbourne, Adeladie and Perth Arrivals sectors, or is controlling airspace from Perth north to Indonesia and out into the ocean, and is also expected to monitor a surveillance separation standard in an approach role. Hmm. Running a standard at anything other than, say, 20 NM would be impossible. But then, that would be a greater tolerance than procedural separation
1. Surveilance (if that be in a trial area first, so be it)
2. Re-sectorisation (if that be in a trial area first, so be it)
3. Appropriate ATC staff numbers (if that be in a trial area first, so be it)
4. Appropriate ATC training
5. Pilot education
That's the only way this would work. Just dropping class E to the ground around instrument approaches might sound simple but in the current environment it would be nigh impossible to implement and even if it were implemented, the service provided would probably be nothing more than a TRA.
So a controller has 20-30 aircraft under his/her jurisdiction and is accepting aircraft from Sydney, Melbourne, Adeladie and Perth Arrivals sectors, or is controlling airspace from Perth north to Indonesia and out into the ocean, and is also expected to monitor a surveillance separation standard in an approach role. Hmm. Running a standard at anything other than, say, 20 NM would be impossible. But then, that would be a greater tolerance than procedural separation
1. Surveilance (if that be in a trial area first, so be it)
2. Re-sectorisation (if that be in a trial area first, so be it)
3. Appropriate ATC staff numbers (if that be in a trial area first, so be it)
4. Appropriate ATC training
5. Pilot education
That's the only way this would work. Just dropping class E to the ground around instrument approaches might sound simple but in the current environment it would be nigh impossible to implement and even if it were implemented, the service provided would probably be nothing more than a TRA.
Sounds like a whole heap more work for the ATCrs. I thought they had their own problems as it is?
Also how would this work into a CTAF environment where VFR acft in class E inside the CTAF would not be on COM?
Not having a go, just not understanding
Also how would this work into a CTAF environment where VFR acft in class E inside the CTAF would not be on COM?
Not having a go, just not understanding