Radar LSALTs

[Ando1Bar]

Perhaps someone from ATC can answer this one. The other night I was flying in to Bankstown and was given a clearance direct to the field (no SID or NDB approach). However, at 8nm was still not visual so I asked for a further descent to the radar LSALT. "We can't give you that anymore" was the reply from SY Approach.

A few hours later the exact same thing happened arriving in to Brisbane, except approach offered me further descent to a radar LSALT.

If giving out radar LSALTs has been 'banned', why on earth is this the case? Also, why the inconsistency across locations?

[Jabawocky]

You will get a Radar LSALT up to the Class C limit....... so basically they will keep you in class C.

After that you need Pilot Calculated LSALT's or a published approach.

Any pilot calculated lower safes are then done in G so you are only given a radar advisory of traffic that is known.

[Ando1Bar]

Understood, but I don't believe this was the issue. The CTA step was still fairly low and a lower altitude would have still kept me in Class C.

I couldn't use my pilot calculated LSALT anymore as they had vectored me away from the planned route.

[das Uber Soldat]

Yeh, I don't understand how descending to a radar LSALT could possibly keep you in class C going into YSBK via any of the popular routes. ATC is unable to give you radar LSALT if you're OCTA, to my knowledge anyway.

[Clearedtoreenter]

Yep, its a real PITA not being given a radar lowest safe into BK, especially when the cloud is just below LSALT and at night. They've not been available for at least a couple of years now. When I enquired why not, was told 'staffing issues'. Humm.

[Blockla]

When I enquired why not, was told 'staffing issues'. Humm.

When i was an approach controller in Oz, it was explained to me that the RLSALTS were only surveyed in relation to the CTA steps. Sometimes the RLSALTS were lower than the CTA steps in some locations, but that nothing could be guaranteed after the initial surveying, ie when new towers were constructed, new high rise buildings, funnels on factories, phone polls, tree tops, etc. So if the steps were changed then it would be 're-surveyed' and accurate again... But still unlikely to be used in G...

But it does lead to the question, how often are they surveyed now? Even if the airspace doesn't change? I suspect the risks are quite low... still...

There was an awful hullabaloo about the gas power station near the Westgate a few years back. (not about height per-see but about minimum height to overfly it, which effectively makes it a (R) LSALT); I believe the funnels on that one lost some 100 feet from original design...

There are also issues with an aircraft been given a RLSALT for a particular area in G then making a tracking adjustment where a new RLSALT may be needed but never followed up on by PIC or ATC. Some "terrain boxes" were quite narrow; it's just a liability issue.

[Ted D Bear]

Pretty sure it's got nothing to do with staffing issues. My understanding is that CASA told them to stop doing it, because you can only be given a radar LSALT when you're being radar vectored - and that can only happen when you're in controlled airspace. (The concern, apparently, is having been given a radar LSALT you might then turn in another direction, where the LSALT is higher.)

Real shame - this used to be just about the most useful thing ATC could do for you IFR inbound to somewhere like BK when the base was low. Saved many an instrument approach in the good ol' days ...

Ted

[5miles]

Nothing to do with staffing, and the determination of the RLSALT has nothing to do with CTA steps.

However, for routine application, they can only be applied within controlled airspace. And they are only mapped out to 40nm from the CTR aerodrome.

All the radar TCUs had their RLSALTs reviewed within the last 2 years - a very laborious and tedious manual process...

I couldn't use my pilot calculated LSALT anymore as they had vectored me away from the planned route.

In this scenario, I'd be requesting vectors to re-intercept your planned track.

[topdrop]

When calculating RLSALTs in Oz no notice is taken of CTA base.
We add 260ft (or something like that-can't remember) to every bit of marked terrain assuming that a tower of that height has been built on the hill. Towers higher than that 260ft have to be notified. This figure is rounded up to the nearest 100ft and a 3NM lateral tolerance is included.
We are not allowed to assign a level below the base of CTA - i.e. no control instructions to an aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. It's got nothing to do with staffing - well, not yet anyway.
We will give rlsalt to an acft OCTA on an emergency basis.

[Dick N. Cider]

Why would radar use 260 while pilots use 360?

He did say "or something like that"

[Jack Ranga]

If you want the services 'enjoyed' by pilots in the states you'll need to lobby for a change in the liabilities Australian ATC's face, they are very different to our Yank counterparts.

Would you knowingly do something that would risk a jail term, loss of all your assets in defending yourself in court?

[Dangly Bits]

Jack,

Has there been many ATC's in Australia who have had to defend themselves in court?
I can't understand how anyone could do their job with the threat of legal action and losing everything on a day to day basis.

DB

[Jack Ranga]

Dangly,

Quite a few have had to attend, (I know 2 personally) one chap off my group was involved in a certain high profile case, agitated by a well known fellow. He did nothing wrong, everything in accordance with the 'rules of the day'

If the system is broken and you know it, you can't decide to non-comply, doesn't work that way unfortunately. 4 or 5 years later my colleague is not back on the console. A good operator tainted by our agitator who would have been better served attacking the system, not the operator.

And that threat IS there everyday. No different to a pilots legal responsibility really.

[Dangly Bits]

It is always easier to attack the individual than it is to attack the system unfortunately.

I feel for you guys.

DB

[Pavement]

You just have to follow the rules no matter what we think.

RLSALT can't be used in G however we get by using grid lsalts, route lsalts, 25/10nm lsalts etc.

[Gundog01]

DB,

I can't understand how anyone could do their job with the threat of legal action and losing everything on a day to day basis.

Unfortunately, every professional aviator in this country has this hanging over their heads due to the way in which our legisaltion is written.