Williamtown Procedures
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day scran
Ah the ol' bright displays eh .... shrimp boats and all before them new fangled lables came on to the scene
Pretty well, I'm about to dive out the door, will post the current stuff tonight
Cheers
Ah the ol' bright displays eh .... shrimp boats and all before them new fangled lables came on to the scene
Pretty well, I'm about to dive out the door, will post the current stuff tonight
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slagged and insulted
Same blokes obviously.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Dick, back again,
Thanks for providing some more info on "target resolution". I now know what you're on about. Hey, I'm all for it if industry is. As I said earlier, I'm just an employee and a line controller at that, and whilst I've been asked to provide my opinion over the years, that doesn't mean it will become a rule. Same goes for any suggestions made by the former UK, Candian controllers I've worked with. That happens in any industry, management don't always listen to the workers and don't always implement their staff's ideas. Thats life.
If you want these changes to happen, you know that you have to convince the airlines, ADF, AsA, CASA and a whole heap of organistaions that your planned change is safe and more efficient. No point banging on about RAAF leadership as it must be agreed to by many parties. What would be worse is if we ended up with a different Class C procedure in Military Rest. airpsace and another set of procedures for Civil Class C.
Now going back to your situation on the Willy VFR route. What your asking for is a completed change to the service provided in Class C depending upon the weather. Sure you can do it, but is that what you really want, so you can avoid the odd delay? I'll try to expalin below and this isn't intended to antagonise you.
The Air Ambulance always operate IFR and would have been conducting an ILS. That is why you were held. You were held to protect the missed approach path of that aircraft, otherwise you would have been allowed to transit along the coast. Once an aircraft is cleared for the ILS (or any instrument approach), that aircraft is also cleared to conduct the full MAP. The App controller has no choice but to protect the MAP. Its referred to as "Separation Assurance". It was brought in to stop controllers from winging it and plucking standards or separating based on aircraft performance. If the Air Ambulance was conducting a visual approach, different story. The TWR can then restrict them to remain in the circuit area (lots of options) and keep them away from yourself and maintain separation.
What your suggesting, is that you shouldn't have been held on the coast because the Air Ambulance intended to land on RWY12 and was never going to conflict with yourself. This is true, so long as they land successfully.
If they did conduct the MAP and you were allowed North bound, I reckon the two returns would have merged and the ATC would have had to prove vertical separation on the run, and thats not good. I'm assuming you still want IFR separated from VFR in class C? If you don't want IFR separated from VFR, then that is Class D. Thats why I thought you wanted TWR to have the control zone for in my earleir post. You can make control zones Class D and do exactly as you suggest with Radar Traffic advice but at this point in time, industry does not want it. As I said you have to convince more than just RAAF. You also suggested earlier that
In fact the opposite can happen. By letting aircraft run down to the absolute minimum, the controller becomes fixated on that particluar confliction and they forgot to scan the rest of the screen.
The 3NM standard. Some boffin once upon a time decided that the basic lateral separation was 1Nm between the possible positions of two aircraft. Tolerances are than added to come up with the appropriate separation standard. In the case of radar, an additional 1nm tolerance is added to each aircraft (allows for equipmemt errors) and thats how we got 3Nm radar within TMA/TCU's. 3Nm sounds big but if you stuff up and get below 3Nm, it doesn't leave you with a lot of room to fix it. Running IFR and VFR with just space between the returns, even in VMC, leaves no room for error, especially if they are moving at 5-7 Nm per minute. You run out of room pretty quickly .
Back to the Canberra TWR solution. Someone else pointed out why that worked in CB and not Willy. Thats why I asked if you requested direct to the field at anytime. If you did, TWR and APP can then do a quick bit of internal coordination as to the tracking of both aircraft and arrange who is separating you both. TWR can then apply visual separation and all are happy. I haven't worked Willy TWR for 12 years but I remember how difficult it is to see aircraft in the coastal route. It doesn't matter how much airspace the TWR has, or airspace class, the controller has to see both aircraft to apply visual separation and it is much easier if they are both tracking towards you, as opposed to underneath the IAP.
I've gone on enough for now, so I'll leave it at that. Hope it has helped out.
Thanks for providing some more info on "target resolution". I now know what you're on about. Hey, I'm all for it if industry is. As I said earlier, I'm just an employee and a line controller at that, and whilst I've been asked to provide my opinion over the years, that doesn't mean it will become a rule. Same goes for any suggestions made by the former UK, Candian controllers I've worked with. That happens in any industry, management don't always listen to the workers and don't always implement their staff's ideas. Thats life.
If you want these changes to happen, you know that you have to convince the airlines, ADF, AsA, CASA and a whole heap of organistaions that your planned change is safe and more efficient. No point banging on about RAAF leadership as it must be agreed to by many parties. What would be worse is if we ended up with a different Class C procedure in Military Rest. airpsace and another set of procedures for Civil Class C.
Now going back to your situation on the Willy VFR route. What your asking for is a completed change to the service provided in Class C depending upon the weather. Sure you can do it, but is that what you really want, so you can avoid the odd delay? I'll try to expalin below and this isn't intended to antagonise you.
The Air Ambulance always operate IFR and would have been conducting an ILS. That is why you were held. You were held to protect the missed approach path of that aircraft, otherwise you would have been allowed to transit along the coast. Once an aircraft is cleared for the ILS (or any instrument approach), that aircraft is also cleared to conduct the full MAP. The App controller has no choice but to protect the MAP. Its referred to as "Separation Assurance". It was brought in to stop controllers from winging it and plucking standards or separating based on aircraft performance. If the Air Ambulance was conducting a visual approach, different story. The TWR can then restrict them to remain in the circuit area (lots of options) and keep them away from yourself and maintain separation.
What your suggesting, is that you shouldn't have been held on the coast because the Air Ambulance intended to land on RWY12 and was never going to conflict with yourself. This is true, so long as they land successfully.
If they did conduct the MAP and you were allowed North bound, I reckon the two returns would have merged and the ATC would have had to prove vertical separation on the run, and thats not good. I'm assuming you still want IFR separated from VFR in class C? If you don't want IFR separated from VFR, then that is Class D. Thats why I thought you wanted TWR to have the control zone for in my earleir post. You can make control zones Class D and do exactly as you suggest with Radar Traffic advice but at this point in time, industry does not want it. As I said you have to convince more than just RAAF. You also suggested earlier that
In the Williamtown situation I referred to at the start of this thread, the extra workload on the controller by holding two aircraft can lead to reducing safety for the airline aircraft that he or she should be concentrating on. Anyway, this is what I am told by international air traffic control specialists.
The 3NM standard. Some boffin once upon a time decided that the basic lateral separation was 1Nm between the possible positions of two aircraft. Tolerances are than added to come up with the appropriate separation standard. In the case of radar, an additional 1nm tolerance is added to each aircraft (allows for equipmemt errors) and thats how we got 3Nm radar within TMA/TCU's. 3Nm sounds big but if you stuff up and get below 3Nm, it doesn't leave you with a lot of room to fix it. Running IFR and VFR with just space between the returns, even in VMC, leaves no room for error, especially if they are moving at 5-7 Nm per minute. You run out of room pretty quickly .
Back to the Canberra TWR solution. Someone else pointed out why that worked in CB and not Willy. Thats why I asked if you requested direct to the field at anytime. If you did, TWR and APP can then do a quick bit of internal coordination as to the tracking of both aircraft and arrange who is separating you both. TWR can then apply visual separation and all are happy. I haven't worked Willy TWR for 12 years but I remember how difficult it is to see aircraft in the coastal route. It doesn't matter how much airspace the TWR has, or airspace class, the controller has to see both aircraft to apply visual separation and it is much easier if they are both tracking towards you, as opposed to underneath the IAP.
I've gone on enough for now, so I'll leave it at that. Hope it has helped out.
Last edited by C-change; 18th Jan 2011 at 12:45.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
scran
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...2/172mfull.pdf
Position symbols
Apply separation based on the use of:
- Position symbols and/or PSR blips = So that the distance between the centres of the position symbols and/or PSR blips is never less than the prescribed minimum.
- Position symbols/PSR blips and SSR responses = So that the distance between the centre of the position symbols and/or the PSR blip and the nearest edge of the SSR response is never less than the prescribed minimum.
- SSR responses = So that the distance between the closest edges of the SSR responses is never less than the prescribed minimum.
Cheers
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...2/172mfull.pdf
10.5.5 Separation Minima Based on ATS Surveillance Systems
10.5.5.1 Where:
(a) aircraft are in communication with and under the control of a terminal control unit or associated control tower; and
(b) the aircraft are:
(i) within 30 NM of a radar sensor, using military high definition (scan rate of 12 RPM or greater) Terminal Approach Radar (TAR) or primary data from a civil high definition TAR (scan rate of 16.4 RPM); or
(ii) within 100 NM of an MSSR sensor providing radar data to EUROCAT 2000 displays; and
(c) aircraft position is derived only from radar information;
the horizontal radar separation minimum is:
(d) 3 NM; or
(e) where a higher minimum applies under subsection 10.12.2.2 — that higher minimum.
10.5.5.2 If subsection 10.12.2.2 does not apply, the horizontal separation minimum based on radar or ADS-B information is:
(a) 5 NM; or
(b) if a higher minimum applies under subsection 10.12.2.2 — that higher minimum.
10.5.5.1 Where:
(a) aircraft are in communication with and under the control of a terminal control unit or associated control tower; and
(b) the aircraft are:
(i) within 30 NM of a radar sensor, using military high definition (scan rate of 12 RPM or greater) Terminal Approach Radar (TAR) or primary data from a civil high definition TAR (scan rate of 16.4 RPM); or
(ii) within 100 NM of an MSSR sensor providing radar data to EUROCAT 2000 displays; and
(c) aircraft position is derived only from radar information;
the horizontal radar separation minimum is:
(d) 3 NM; or
(e) where a higher minimum applies under subsection 10.12.2.2 — that higher minimum.
10.5.5.2 If subsection 10.12.2.2 does not apply, the horizontal separation minimum based on radar or ADS-B information is:
(a) 5 NM; or
(b) if a higher minimum applies under subsection 10.12.2.2 — that higher minimum.
10.12.2.2 Distance-based wake turbulence separation
Apply separation based on the use of:
- Position symbols and/or PSR blips = So that the distance between the centres of the position symbols and/or PSR blips is never less than the prescribed minimum.
- Position symbols/PSR blips and SSR responses = So that the distance between the centre of the position symbols and/or the PSR blip and the nearest edge of the SSR response is never less than the prescribed minimum.
- SSR responses = So that the distance between the closest edges of the SSR responses is never less than the prescribed minimum.
Cheers
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaser - Thanks - hasn't changed. (And I only EVER used Shrimp boats during initial radar training....... )
C'change,
While I agree with all your statements about the Missed Approach path etc for ILS Rwy 12, I would temper it with some discussion. If the weather at the time was such that an ILS approach was required, I'd wonder if the weather was suitable for the VFR lane to be open. I'm going to assume the weather was such that the lane was suitable, and having ducked back to the thread start and checked Dick's brief on the weather - it clearly was.
If the Air Ambulance is conducting a practice ILS (just because it's IFR doesn't mean it HAS to do an instrument approach) then I think Dick has a point, in that holding aircraft in the lane where either a landing is assured, or should the aircraft not land, but be able to circle for an approach (ie - the weather is suitable for a visual circuit - a full missed approach is/will not be required) and therefore another form of separation could be applied (something simple like Air Amb remain over land with the coastal guy to remain east of the coast/over water) I, as a controller, would have been happy to let the lane guys continue the transit. Indeed I suspect I've done exactly this on several occassions, but can't recall any specifics (I last controled at Willy in 1985). That would be providing a "safe and expiditious" service................
This is based on MY experience, noting that I have not actively controlled since Nov 1992. Things/rules may well have changed in 18 years (despite what Dick says).
Oh, and Dick, thank you for the statement about light aircraft being difficult to see at 3nm even if alerted by a radar controller.
Says a lot from the greatest exponent of unalerted "see-and'avoid"............
(And I only EVER used Shrimp boats during initial radar training....... )C'change,
While I agree with all your statements about the Missed Approach path etc for ILS Rwy 12, I would temper it with some discussion. If the weather at the time was such that an ILS approach was required, I'd wonder if the weather was suitable for the VFR lane to be open. I'm going to assume the weather was such that the lane was suitable, and having ducked back to the thread start and checked Dick's brief on the weather - it clearly was.
If the Air Ambulance is conducting a practice ILS (just because it's IFR doesn't mean it HAS to do an instrument approach) then I think Dick has a point, in that holding aircraft in the lane where either a landing is assured, or should the aircraft not land, but be able to circle for an approach (ie - the weather is suitable for a visual circuit - a full missed approach is/will not be required) and therefore another form of separation could be applied (something simple like Air Amb remain over land with the coastal guy to remain east of the coast/over water) I, as a controller, would have been happy to let the lane guys continue the transit. Indeed I suspect I've done exactly this on several occassions, but can't recall any specifics (I last controled at Willy in 1985). That would be providing a "safe and expiditious" service................
This is based on MY experience, noting that I have not actively controlled since Nov 1992. Things/rules may well have changed in 18 years (despite what Dick says).
Oh, and Dick, thank you for the statement about light aircraft being difficult to see at 3nm even if alerted by a radar controller.
Says a lot from the greatest exponent of unalerted "see-and'avoid"............
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willy DAP charts here
Airservices Australia - Aeronautical Information Package (AIP)
ILS 12 - Missed Approach
Track 118deg, climb to 3100FT, or as directed by ATC
A couple of caveats though:-
1. We are assuming the cloud-base was as reported in this thread
2. We do not know what other IFR traffic may have been sequenced for the ILS (or other approaches) behind the Ambo (an IFR Ambo on crosswind for a visual circuit, and another IFR in IMC just shy of the IAF, or already into a/the procedure, and cleared ILS 12 (or other) approach = cleared right through to MAP, is not what I would call an acceptable use of the ‘1st in sight assured of a landing’ standard between two IFR's). In other words, a Missed + visual circuit may not have been available to the controller in that circumstance, on that day.
3. We do not know what other operational considerations were in play
On that basis, we need to be a tad careful second guessing the decisions made on the day.
Airservices Australia - Aeronautical Information Package (AIP)
ILS 12 - Missed Approach
Track 118deg, climb to 3100FT, or as directed by ATC
A couple of caveats though:-
1. We are assuming the cloud-base was as reported in this thread
2. We do not know what other IFR traffic may have been sequenced for the ILS (or other approaches) behind the Ambo (an IFR Ambo on crosswind for a visual circuit, and another IFR in IMC just shy of the IAF, or already into a/the procedure, and cleared ILS 12 (or other) approach = cleared right through to MAP, is not what I would call an acceptable use of the ‘1st in sight assured of a landing’ standard between two IFR's). In other words, a Missed + visual circuit may not have been available to the controller in that circumstance, on that day.
3. We do not know what other operational considerations were in play
On that basis, we need to be a tad careful second guessing the decisions made on the day.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaser - agree ABSOLUTELY!!!
I wasn't there, so don't know what the full situation was.
I was not trying to second-guess the controller in all honesty - just offering an opinion.
An my opinion is that what happened, given what I know of the situation, seems quite reasonable.
But then again - I didn't start this ridiculous thread............
I wasn't there, so don't know what the full situation was.
I was not trying to second-guess the controller in all honesty - just offering an opinion.
An my opinion is that what happened, given what I know of the situation, seems quite reasonable.
But then again - I didn't start this ridiculous thread............
Thread Starter
It appears to me from reading the above posts that when you join the military, every bit of initiative must be knocked out of you.
The reason I say this is if I heard that air traffic controllers in other countries were given greater responsibilities and this would reduce holding and facilitate moving traffic at high safety levels, I would certainly want to find out more about this system.
But do we see any interest in this here at all? No, presumably young military controllers are reading this thread – possibly even controllers who are currently operating at Williamtown and perhaps even the controller who kept me and the other aircraft holding in good visual conditions when a King Air was on a visual approach to runway 12.
But of course it’s different. Presumably in the military you are told to obey the rules, never ever promote something that could be better and then you’ll end up as the Chief of Defence. What other explanation can there be?
I have explained to you how in the past I have worked to introduce proven overseas procedures, and although these have been resisted for one or two years, once we introduced them they are embraced appreciatively by both pilots and air traffic controllers.
As I have said before – who would want to return to the procedures where we separated VFR from VFR in what was then called “primary control zones”?
What is also not commented upon is the fact that the airspace when just civilian traffic is operating at Williamtown normally goes to twenty-five nautical miles radius at ground level. Why should it be so big?
I remember before the initiatives I introduced, Coffs Harbour used to go to nineteen nautical miles to the south at ground level. It’s now far less than this, and there have never been any incidents and, as far as I can see, unnecessary workload has been reduced.
It’s almost as if the military can’t make any change at all.
The ridiculous size of the Richmond zone, which goes way out almost to Mount Wilson in the Blue Mountains at ground level where no IFR aircraft could possibly be operating at that level in that vicinity. Over the last two decades I have been told many times that this zone is going to be re-looked at and brought to a more modern size so the controllers can concentrate on real traffic – not some VFR helicopter flying along the mountain range twenty miles away from the tower. But it’s never happened.
I will say again – I can see why the military has a problem attracting air traffic control recruits. If asked, I would say under no circumstances join the military because it is quite clear that initiative is stifled, that they never copy the best from all around the world, and that they make hugely negligent mistakes like the Seasprite fiasco of $1.2 billion when no-one is held accountable in any way.
In fact, probably the opposite. If we really looked into it, we would probably find the person responsible for the $1.2 billion Seasprite loss – all less money available to pay Services’ staff decent salaries – has been promoted.
Keep your concrete minds closed as much as you like. One day we will get someone decent in a leadership position and that person will initiate the copying of procedures that are the best in the world and will allow air traffic controllers the latitude to make good, professional decisions of judgement without losing their license or being suspended.
Then we will have a better quality recruit and the controllers will derive greater job satisfaction. I can imagine their job satisfaction at the moment must be nearly zero knowing that they are using fifty-year-old outdated procedures and no-one is game to even look at what happens overseas and copy the best.
The reason I say this is if I heard that air traffic controllers in other countries were given greater responsibilities and this would reduce holding and facilitate moving traffic at high safety levels, I would certainly want to find out more about this system.
But do we see any interest in this here at all? No, presumably young military controllers are reading this thread – possibly even controllers who are currently operating at Williamtown and perhaps even the controller who kept me and the other aircraft holding in good visual conditions when a King Air was on a visual approach to runway 12.
But of course it’s different. Presumably in the military you are told to obey the rules, never ever promote something that could be better and then you’ll end up as the Chief of Defence. What other explanation can there be?
I have explained to you how in the past I have worked to introduce proven overseas procedures, and although these have been resisted for one or two years, once we introduced them they are embraced appreciatively by both pilots and air traffic controllers.
As I have said before – who would want to return to the procedures where we separated VFR from VFR in what was then called “primary control zones”?
What is also not commented upon is the fact that the airspace when just civilian traffic is operating at Williamtown normally goes to twenty-five nautical miles radius at ground level. Why should it be so big?
I remember before the initiatives I introduced, Coffs Harbour used to go to nineteen nautical miles to the south at ground level. It’s now far less than this, and there have never been any incidents and, as far as I can see, unnecessary workload has been reduced.
It’s almost as if the military can’t make any change at all.
The ridiculous size of the Richmond zone, which goes way out almost to Mount Wilson in the Blue Mountains at ground level where no IFR aircraft could possibly be operating at that level in that vicinity. Over the last two decades I have been told many times that this zone is going to be re-looked at and brought to a more modern size so the controllers can concentrate on real traffic – not some VFR helicopter flying along the mountain range twenty miles away from the tower. But it’s never happened.
I will say again – I can see why the military has a problem attracting air traffic control recruits. If asked, I would say under no circumstances join the military because it is quite clear that initiative is stifled, that they never copy the best from all around the world, and that they make hugely negligent mistakes like the Seasprite fiasco of $1.2 billion when no-one is held accountable in any way.
In fact, probably the opposite. If we really looked into it, we would probably find the person responsible for the $1.2 billion Seasprite loss – all less money available to pay Services’ staff decent salaries – has been promoted.
Keep your concrete minds closed as much as you like. One day we will get someone decent in a leadership position and that person will initiate the copying of procedures that are the best in the world and will allow air traffic controllers the latitude to make good, professional decisions of judgement without losing their license or being suspended.
Then we will have a better quality recruit and the controllers will derive greater job satisfaction. I can imagine their job satisfaction at the moment must be nearly zero knowing that they are using fifty-year-old outdated procedures and no-one is game to even look at what happens overseas and copy the best.
OK Dick, we get it - you don't like the military.
It appears to me from reading the above posts that when you join the military, every bit of initiative must be knocked out of you.
So you didn't get your VFR clearance whilst flying up the coast well boo bloody hoo. Do you think you are the only pilot to be denied a clearance to fly your preferred route? Your childish foot stamping really makes me wonder about you.
Have a read of the news Dick, there are far more important things going on both here and abroad than you being inconvenienced.
Or maybe, just maybe, you are right. It's all a conspiracy against you.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably in the military you are told to obey the rules, never ever promote something that could be better and then you’ll end up as the Chief of Defence. What other explanation can there be?
I think that you can apply this to most things to do with anything government related. There have been many layers of management, command,etc created to insulate the 'status quo' and protect those at the top.
Having personally seen and been subject to, 'the wrath of management questioned' I can understand why people are hesitant to promote any new ideas or question anything management do.
And while we're at it ... what about those pesky Qantas pilots ?
I'm fed up with them sticking to their SOPs! Air Timbuckto pilots take short cuts and don't worry about small unimportant mechanical "anomolies". Harden up, you pussies!
Get me there quick ... and get me there, now!
If your bosses call you in for tea and bikkies ...tell 'em to get stuffed. Tell 'em how the rest of the world works. Tell 'em I insist that you start cutting corners.
Now, stop standing there with your mouths wide open ... get onto it!
I'm fed up with them sticking to their SOPs! Air Timbuckto pilots take short cuts and don't worry about small unimportant mechanical "anomolies". Harden up, you pussies!
Get me there quick ... and get me there, now!
If your bosses call you in for tea and bikkies ...tell 'em to get stuffed. Tell 'em how the rest of the world works. Tell 'em I insist that you start cutting corners.
Now, stop standing there with your mouths wide open ... get onto it!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes good point
Such as publically funded Airports and ATS ... FAA style
When are you going to insist on those changes Disk Smith ..... won't will ya, because that would require another '180degree shift' trophy on your crappa wall shelf
One day we will get someone decent in a leadership position and that person will initiate the copying of procedures that are the best in the world
When are you going to insist on those changes Disk Smith ..... won't will ya, because that would require another '180degree shift' trophy on your crappa wall shelf
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick - just don't get it - do you?
I gave an example above of when I was a Controller at Willy how I might have used "initiative" to solve the issue, using latitude to make good, professional decisions of judgement without losing tmy license or being suspended
And give it up about Sea Sprite will you!!!!!!!!!!
Get a life (elsewhere.................... )
I gave an example above of when I was a Controller at Willy how I might have used "initiative" to solve the issue, using latitude to make good, professional decisions of judgement without losing tmy license or being suspended
And give it up about Sea Sprite will you!!!!!!!!!!
Get a life (elsewhere....................
)
Last edited by scran; 19th Jan 2011 at 10:45.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I give up. Trying to debate anything with you is a waste of time. It is you that has the closed mind, you are unwilling to listen to anyone who has a different opinon to yourself, regardless of their occupation or experience. If someone doesn't agree with you, you get on here and respond with the "closed mind" line and run several issues into one to deflect their arguement. You demand people answer your questions but you ignore others. I asked you and so did others, why didn't you ask for climb, direct tracking. Why didn't you call Willy ATC once you landed? There might have been a reason why you were held that wasn't apparent to you at the time.
When I asked you to explain what you mean't by "Target Resolution Procedures" you said'
Not one pilot has come on here and supported your idea of space between radar returns in Class C, instead of the internationally excepted 3Nm separation standard. Every pilot I spoke to at work in the last 24hrs laughed at your suggestion.
It is clear that you are against everything the ADF does, you complain about airspace, procedures, being held twice in one year, you even said that ADF personnel deserve low morale and their leadership is crap. You also now claim to know why ATC recruiting is low and tried to link the Seasprite mess to ATC.
I'm now going to a fishing website where peoples opinons are are shared and apprecited. Enjoy those rate one turns.
I give up. Trying to debate anything with you is a waste of time. It is you that has the closed mind, you are unwilling to listen to anyone who has a different opinon to yourself, regardless of their occupation or experience. If someone doesn't agree with you, you get on here and respond with the "closed mind" line and run several issues into one to deflect their arguement. You demand people answer your questions but you ignore others. I asked you and so did others, why didn't you ask for climb, direct tracking. Why didn't you call Willy ATC once you landed? There might have been a reason why you were held that wasn't apparent to you at the time.
When I asked you to explain what you mean't by "Target Resolution Procedures" you said'
Basically, when aircraft are in VMC in Class C airspace the radar “blips” must not meet.
It is clear that you are against everything the ADF does, you complain about airspace, procedures, being held twice in one year, you even said that ADF personnel deserve low morale and their leadership is crap. You also now claim to know why ATC recruiting is low and tried to link the Seasprite mess to ATC.
I'm now going to a fishing website where peoples opinons are are shared and apprecited. Enjoy those rate one turns.
I will say again – I can see why the military has a problem attracting air traffic control recruits. If asked, I would say under no circumstances join the military because it is quite clear that initiative is stifled, that they never copy the best from all around the world, and that they make hugely negligent mistakes like the Seasprite fiasco of $1.2 billion when no-one is held accountable in any way.
This 'discussion' has become hysterical.
Last edited by Chronic Snoozer; 19th Jan 2011 at 16:19. Reason: Post shortened coz frankly can't be arsed with it.
Thread Starter
YPJT - I’m actually not complaining about being held – that doesn’t worry me too much. It’s the fact that I like to be proud of Australia – it’s my country and the country I love. To know that other democracies use more modern procedures that save waste is what gets me.
It’s also the lies I have been told. This has been going on for over twenty-five years and I have been told numerous times by senior people in the military that the changes would be made and we would harmonise with the procedures as used in other leading aviation countries. This has not happened.
Most of you do not seem to understand that if the US procedures are allowed in Australia, a controller can still keep the three mile separation and still hold aircraft. It just allows the controller to make professional decisions.
If, in a country of over 300 million people with over 400,000 pilots and more than that many aircraft, the system can work with very high levels of safety, why can’t it be even considered here?
I will say again – the target resolution procedures are used between IFR and VFR aircraft in Class C airspace by the TRACON controllers. They have said to me that the system would grind to a halt if they could not use these procedures, and they found it hard to accept that Australia insisted on a three mile separation standard between IFR and VFR when VMC conditions existed.
max1 – thanks for agreeing with me, i.e. in things that are government-related that knock out any initiative. This does not have to be necessary. I know of leaders in government departments who have encouraged initiative and it’s worked well. That’s what I am pushing for in the military.
Peuce – your post makes out as if target resolution procedures are “short cuts”. They are not. They are a properly regulated procedure that has been used in the United States for over fifty years with high levels of safety.
You may as well say that ATC in Sydney no longer separating VFR from VFR is “taking a short cut”. It’s not. It’s just being professional.
Chaser – yes, I would love to have publicly funded airports and air traffic services as they do in the United States. The reason I don’t spend a lot of time on this is I believe people would say that a person like myself can well afford to pay the costs and that it would be a futile move anyway.
Scran – yes, I do “get it”. You are giving me an example of how a Williamtown Controller can use some initiative to solve an issue when there are some very tight restrictions on separation standards. Why are you against giving the controller the proven US system? Why wouldn’t you even consider it? Or why wouldn’t it even be tested in a simulator?
C-Change – you have distorted the meaning of target resolution procedures to pilots and that is why they have laughed. Did you explain that this procedure allows a controller to get aircraft closer than three miles in VMC so they can sight each other?
As you know, even at Sydney Airport and in most other airspaces, sight and follow instructions are often given. If it’s often given in Australia now, why can’t we use it to bring the separation standard down to a distance where you can actually sight the other aircraft? Now that would be logical.
I point out again – it’s up to the controller to decide whether to use this procedure.
By the way, I’m not against everything the ADF does. I am a great admirer of the active members of the ADF and I have even spent my time going on a tour to the Middle East to tell them this. However, I believe those at the coalface have been completely let down by those who move up into leadership positions.
Chronic Snoozer – No, the discussion hasn’t become hysterical. It is a fact of life that the military do have problems in attracting air traffic control recruits. That has been stated in different threads here. I understand the same situation exists at Airservices. What is the problem with stating facts?
Only one poster on this thread, max1, has explained what the problem is. Everyone else seems to defend the status quo. Why don’t you actually support us looking at giving military air traffic controllers extra responsibility as they have in the United States? Or are you suggesting that US controllers, both FAA employed and military, are more competent than ours? I don’t agree with this. As I have said consistently, our controllers are as good as any in the world. It’s just that the regulations and procedures they operate under are about fifty years out of date.
One day someone will actually go the USA and look at this procedure and realise that it will save unnecessary holding and reduce unnecessary costs.
It just makes me squirm as an Australian to see what the Williamtown controllers are forced to do knowing that it’s so unnecessary and is so demeaning for them as they are being treated like kindergarten children who cannot make professional judgements.
It’s also the lies I have been told. This has been going on for over twenty-five years and I have been told numerous times by senior people in the military that the changes would be made and we would harmonise with the procedures as used in other leading aviation countries. This has not happened.
Most of you do not seem to understand that if the US procedures are allowed in Australia, a controller can still keep the three mile separation and still hold aircraft. It just allows the controller to make professional decisions.
If, in a country of over 300 million people with over 400,000 pilots and more than that many aircraft, the system can work with very high levels of safety, why can’t it be even considered here?
I will say again – the target resolution procedures are used between IFR and VFR aircraft in Class C airspace by the TRACON controllers. They have said to me that the system would grind to a halt if they could not use these procedures, and they found it hard to accept that Australia insisted on a three mile separation standard between IFR and VFR when VMC conditions existed.
max1 – thanks for agreeing with me, i.e. in things that are government-related that knock out any initiative. This does not have to be necessary. I know of leaders in government departments who have encouraged initiative and it’s worked well. That’s what I am pushing for in the military.
Peuce – your post makes out as if target resolution procedures are “short cuts”. They are not. They are a properly regulated procedure that has been used in the United States for over fifty years with high levels of safety.
You may as well say that ATC in Sydney no longer separating VFR from VFR is “taking a short cut”. It’s not. It’s just being professional.
Chaser – yes, I would love to have publicly funded airports and air traffic services as they do in the United States. The reason I don’t spend a lot of time on this is I believe people would say that a person like myself can well afford to pay the costs and that it would be a futile move anyway.
Scran – yes, I do “get it”. You are giving me an example of how a Williamtown Controller can use some initiative to solve an issue when there are some very tight restrictions on separation standards. Why are you against giving the controller the proven US system? Why wouldn’t you even consider it? Or why wouldn’t it even be tested in a simulator?
C-Change – you have distorted the meaning of target resolution procedures to pilots and that is why they have laughed. Did you explain that this procedure allows a controller to get aircraft closer than three miles in VMC so they can sight each other?
As you know, even at Sydney Airport and in most other airspaces, sight and follow instructions are often given. If it’s often given in Australia now, why can’t we use it to bring the separation standard down to a distance where you can actually sight the other aircraft? Now that would be logical.
I point out again – it’s up to the controller to decide whether to use this procedure.
By the way, I’m not against everything the ADF does. I am a great admirer of the active members of the ADF and I have even spent my time going on a tour to the Middle East to tell them this. However, I believe those at the coalface have been completely let down by those who move up into leadership positions.
Chronic Snoozer – No, the discussion hasn’t become hysterical. It is a fact of life that the military do have problems in attracting air traffic control recruits. That has been stated in different threads here. I understand the same situation exists at Airservices. What is the problem with stating facts?
Only one poster on this thread, max1, has explained what the problem is. Everyone else seems to defend the status quo. Why don’t you actually support us looking at giving military air traffic controllers extra responsibility as they have in the United States? Or are you suggesting that US controllers, both FAA employed and military, are more competent than ours? I don’t agree with this. As I have said consistently, our controllers are as good as any in the world. It’s just that the regulations and procedures they operate under are about fifty years out of date.
One day someone will actually go the USA and look at this procedure and realise that it will save unnecessary holding and reduce unnecessary costs.
It just makes me squirm as an Australian to see what the Williamtown controllers are forced to do knowing that it’s so unnecessary and is so demeaning for them as they are being treated like kindergarten children who cannot make professional judgements.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They said to you? .. that is authorative.
If IFR and VFR need not be (controller discretion) separated in VMC, there is a class of airspace for just that purpose:-
ICAO CLASS D
But then US airports moving the amount of IFR (including RPT) traffic that YWLM does, are not class D ... are they!
If IFR and VFR need not be (controller discretion) separated in VMC, there is a class of airspace for just that purpose:-
ICAO CLASS D
But then US airports moving the amount of IFR (including RPT) traffic that YWLM does, are not class D ... are they!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But of course it’s different. Presumably in the military you are told to obey the rules, never ever promote something that could be better and then you’ll end up as the Chief of Defence. What other explanation can there be?
once we introduced them they are embraced appreciatively by both pilots and air traffic controllers.
Only one poster on this thread, max1, has explained what the problem is.