Climb/Descent Seperation in CTA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My flying these days is from ILS to ILS, SID to STAR etc, so its interesting to view the problems operating jets out of non controlled airports into CTA. Hopefully, issues raised here will be of value to the crews operating these aircraft.
Your thoughts re lack of mental arithmetic are very true. often note from the up and coming, that simple additions which can be done in the head, require the use of a calculator. They would have been hard pressed in the days of the VAN 8 Dme with no G/S indication!
Your thoughts re lack of mental arithmetic are very true. often note from the up and coming, that simple additions which can be done in the head, require the use of a calculator. They would have been hard pressed in the days of the VAN 8 Dme with no G/S indication!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 65
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...why didn't the Ejet suggest: We will track to intercept the KU 235ēR, if you track to intercept or remain N of the KU 265ēR inbound,
in most cases it seems pilots don't appreciate there is another aircraft involved, when told 'clearance not available' I have many times been asked, 'why not???' Until reading this thread most pilots would not have known what our options and standards are. Finally, the PC12 would have had to ask for a clearance to wander over to the 265R, and that may not have been available. There may have been complications with having the Ejet off track further up or along the track also. I deal with a regular confliction, DHC8 departing ML for MIA conflicting with ML arrivals from the AD direction. Given the option of a 10 degree vector or lopping up to 6,000 FT off the cruise level this operator ALWAYS opts for the level. I don't know why. Didn't have to go that far though, 265 - 235 = 30, only need 16 degrees for a 15 DME latsep point. 258/242 is enuf.
Other than that, everything that Nautilus said.
Many moons ago I ex-dev'ed a simulator exercise as a supposed 'proof of concept' of the airspace and procedures for the LAMP. Project got canned before the report was released, and I never saw it. The most fun I put in was multiple arrival/departure situations around Mildura and Mount Gambier and I designed it so a good ATC could just keep up with the traffic using diversion radials as you suggest, and the odd 'flaky VFR procedure' like VFR Climb. The proposed base of CTA was an inconvenient 7,000 FT AMSL, as against FL125 then (and now).
I then ran my guinea pig ATC through the exercises and he wasn't having a bar of this diversion radial sh!t and played overs'n'unders as you describe at KU. This changed a complex and rather busy sim run to a complete doddle. I wasn't terribly impressed, and reran it myself later to investigate how much the aircraft had been held up. I don't remember the exact answers, but it was a miniscule delay.
Perhaps Dog's controller had done the same sums and decided the result was not worth the increase in workload, or the risk. Maybe he didn't believe the pilot would actually change the track, or trust him to with no surveillance to chec? Scoff you may, but I did know a commercial pilot with not much respect for ATC who always halved vectors. If turned right 20 degrees, he would actually turn 10. He figured ATC would always ask for more than they actually needed...
And there is a risk, I am aware of one controller who did his maths badly in such a situation. He checked the inbound on the 138 radial, subtracted 16 quickly in his head, and told the other to depart on the 132 radial. The proximity of the tracks when the departure appeared on radar alarmed him, and the subsequent investigation revealed the history, and precipated a short holiday.
And
to ITCZ (can I call you Inter?) as well.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arranging your own separation OCTA is simple mental arithmetic.
I deal with a regular confliction, DHC8 departing ML for MIA conflicting with ML arrivals from the AD direction. Given the option of a 10 degree vector or lopping up to 6,000 FT off the cruise level this operator ALWAYS opts for the level. I don't know why.
