24 Times in a Row - Clearance Not Available.

[FokkerInYour12]

My "require" comments were tongue-in-cheek.

In the air (when under pressure to finish the navex) Perhaps a "request advice on any available alternative to traverse CTA due training requirement destination YXYZ" might also help rather than just a simple request.

If advice/clearance still not available then "pretty please with cherries on top" is your only possible reply.

The original poster clearly needs to open alternative lines of communication - both with ATC (via phone) and instructor/CFI if he cannot find a way of clearance in the air.

OP please report back and let us know how you get on.

[le Pingouin]

andrewr, I'm afraid objectives additional to getting from A to B will be accommodated where possible but there's no guarantee, particularly when it's not even notified. IFR training into EN gets knocked back regularly, particularly if it's not been booked beforehand. We aren't mind readers.

That reference in AIP means the clearances we issue will keep the flight wholly within CTA if that's what's been planned and not vector or amend tracking to take the flight OCTA. It says we're responsible for issuing clearances, not that we must. So no, they aren't entitled to a clearance.

[Wan]

Having read Le Pingouin's explanation, I now agree with him. Didn't occur to me that vectoring VFR traffic around the place could cause get messy with cloud and the chap keeping his bearings so to speak. All possible, but lots of extra work if he has to refuse a vector due to cloud, or then ask for info on where he now is after being told to track direct to the field (or whatever).

The VFR approach points are there for a reason, so use them. What I don't know is whether the Rockbank VFR approach direct to EN is restricted by ML ops? Presumably if 16/34 in use it would have to be. But if the objective is to avoid going the long way around, that would do it, and I suspect that EN tower are more likely to have more time, or more inclination to help, than an approach controller.

[KeepItRolling]

EN Airspace

The VFR approach points are there for a reason, so use them. What I don't know is whether the Rockbank VFR approach direct to EN is restricted by ML ops? Presumably if 16/34 in use it would have to be. But if the objective is to avoid going the long way around, that would do it, and I suspect that EN tower are more likely to have more time, or more inclination to help, than an approach controller.

EN TWR operate a defined block of airspace to the SE of EN up to A020. Any thing outside of that area and clearances from EN TWR need to be arranged with an airspace release from approach. This will depend on traffic disposition at both EN and ML.

I wouldn't be too harsh on ML Approach, the priority for them is RPT Jets into and out of ML and the Book of Rules makes it clear that VFR training flights are a fair way down the list. Taking jets off STAR for such a reason as that would not be treated a s a trivial exercise.

ATC don't make the rules, just work by them.

[andrewr]

andrewr, I'm afraid objectives additional to getting from A to B will be accommodated where possible but there's no guarantee, particularly when it's not even notified. IFR training into EN gets knocked back regularly, particularly if it's not been booked beforehand. We aren't mind readers.

I would dispute that the objective of getting from A to B was even satisfied by ATC. A to B was "Not available". It was up to the pilot to figure out that they could get C to B, and make their own way from A to C to get to B.

To me, if you put in a flight plan to travel to an airport inside class C, it doesn't seem unreasonable to call up > 30 miles out and request clearance. "You can't get there from here" is not a helpful response. If ATC can't give you a clearance with CAVOK and 30 miles to work with, that seems to be a problem. I can understand it in unusual circumstances, but not every time.

You talk about workload - "Clearance not available" creates a lot of work for the pilot. At best, it means you need to plan 2 different routes, and once you plan a route OCTA why bother with CTA? People will skirt the edges, and occasionally make errors and end up with a VCA. At worst, it is the same as the "resume own navigation" example you gave, where you have to work out a new route on the fly - except without assistance from ATC, in proximity to CTA without a clearance.

I am a strong believer that difficulty getting clearances through CTA (with the result that instructors teach people to track around the edge in preference to asking for clearance) is one of the first links in the error chain that results in VCAs - and in any breakdown of separation that results from a VCA.

[darkroomsource]

No requirement for an I/R to hold CPL in Australia, unlike most other countries. That's why you have many students doing CPL first, and adding an I/R when they can afford/actually require one.

Nor is it required in the USA, I don't think it's required anywhere actually.
But what use is a CPL without an IR?
Additionally, you have to build hours to get enough for the CPL, why not build them doing IR work? two birds, one stone kind of thing.
Seems silly to get the CPL first, then spend more money getting the IR, when you could have got the IR on the way to the CPL and be a better pilot for it.

But still, not the real point of this discussion.

MOST congested airspaces require specific procedures for traversing VFR. If you want to travel through congested airspace, take the time to learn what is expected, then request that, and most of the time you'll be accommodated.

[le Pingouin]

The aircraft in question was VFR so there are other alternatives to CTA for most of the way. They weren't prevented from returning to EN.

Are you seriously telling me you would plan to fly into CTA, knowing full well a clearance is not guaranteed, without a plan B? The term "airmanship" comes to mind.

You have to realise that the airspace, SIDs, STARs, procedures, etc & so forth are designed as an integrated system to be safe by default. When aircraft start deviating from those things because of controller choice or pilot requirement the risk increases.

Introducing an aircraft that is doing none of that negates all the built in system safeguards and increases workload and risk. Yes, this system is heavily biased towards the traffic in and out of ML, but then that's what the vast majority of the traffic is. It's all very structured because it needs to be.

[andrewr]

Are you seriously telling me you would plan to fly into CTA, knowing full well a clearance is not guaranteed, without a plan B? The term "airmanship" comes to mind.

No, I am saying that most pilots having made plan B don't bother with plan A, then we have CASA and Airservices complaining about VFR aircraft too close to CTA, and occasionally screwing up and violating controlled airspace. CASA and Airservices complain about people doing what the system trains them to do.

Compared to e.g. the USA, Melbourne airport has low traffic, and a massive amount of airspace allocated to it. The OPs description of Melbourne as a "quiet little backwater in world aviation terms" is perhaps harsh but not completely inaccurate. I did try to compare the traffic levels, but it was off the bottom of the busiest airport lists I could find.

The airspace is class C, not class A so in theory VFR should be able to use it. I'm not suggesting that jets be taken off their SIDs and STARs, but surely there is some way for VFR to go over, under or around? Or do you not generally specify an altitude for the jet traffic on a STAR e.g above (or below) x thousand by point y?

Fujii referred to AIP ENR 1.4 16&17 and says this type of operation is at the bottom of the list.

In fact, AIP says:
10.2 Training flights will be given the same priority as other flights

And to summarize 10.3 (priorities when the CTA/CTR is too busy):
Highest:
Commercial air transport and various other operations with priority equal to commercial air transport

Then, with equal priority:
General aviation aircraft proceeding to a primary aerodrome, and civil and military training flights.

Then: other operations

So saying that a training flight to Essendon is at the bottom of the list is wrong. It is right up there, just under the priority of commercial air transport. Nor do I see anything giving (GA) IFR priority over VFR.

Now I understand that in the real world, priorities get set differently. But if we can't get anything close to what AIP says should be done, isn't that a problem?

And should we be criticizing a pilot for expecting the system to operate as specified in AIP?

[Awol57]

I thought this post was about getting into EN, not ML, which is the primary aerodrome. I am sure that if you could maintain A070 or A060 perhaps you could overfly ML as a VFR. How much use that is to you when you wish to land at EN I am not sure unless you have a ballistic parachute.

I don't think there is much point arguing the finer points of ATC, as you will not convince either party.

Andrew, have a read of lots of the ASA threads and you will see plenty of ATC saying there isn't enough staff. You aren't pointing anything new out to us.

Best advice to the OP is call the guys up and ask what the best way to do it is.

[andrewr]

I thought this post was about getting into EN, not ML, which is the primary aerodrome.

I couldn't find a definition of primary aerodrome, so I gave Essendon the benefit of the doubt. If it is not a primary aerodrome, then according to AIP civil and military training flights appear to have higher priority than other general aviation traffic to Essendon ("other operations").

Andrew, have a read of lots of the ASA threads and you will see plenty of ATC saying there isn't enough staff. You aren't pointing anything new out to us.

Best advice to the OP is call the guys up and ask what the best way to do it is.

The way to get more staff is not for people to shut up and work around it, which is basically what people here told the OP. The way to get more staff is for people to speak up when staff shortages prevent them from doing what they should be able to do.

Ballarat has recently invested a lot of money in infrastructure for a flight training organization. That means that local politicians are invested in its success. Attention at the political level is probably the most effective way to pressure for more staff - but it will only happen if people speak up when problems occur.

[Awol57]

I agree, but I question if pprune is the place to raise it as an issue.

[Chu Mai Huang]

Andrew is the customer. Is he up there for ATC's benefit? NO.
ATC exists to provide a service, not just to airlines.
My CFI has the same trouble. He has an operational requirement for a clearance in order to get his students their CTA tick, and he can't get it!

"Workload" my ass. Compared to overseas, our sky is empty. Our ATC does not have 30nm to work with, they have 2827.43343 square miles of perfectly usable air within the terminal area alone! And they can't fit in ONE VFR aeroplane?? It's a disgrace.

[Jack Ranga]

The aircraft in question was VFR so there are other alternatives to CTA for most of the way.

Ahhhh, the dood needs to get his students into CTA as part of PPL Syllabus. I think you'll find him and most of his students will avoid CTA like the plague once they have the CTA endorsement.

When I was doing my PPL my instructor went through all possible scenarios when actually in CTA:

What if the ATC gives you a vector that will put you into cloud?
Advise the ATC unable as vector will put me in cloud.

What if the ATC offers you direct to the next way point?
If it's an NDB or VOR and it's in range I will accept.

What if there's no AID?
I can calculate a 1 in 60. If I'm over a prominent landmark I will draw the new track on my map and use my protractor to calculate the new track. I can ask the ATC for a heading for the tracking point. I can ask the ATC if an intercept of planned track is available. If none of that is possible I'm going to ask you to turn the GPS back on and press direct to

[tyler_durden_80]

QUOTE: "He has an operational requirement for a clearence in order to get his students their CTA tick..."

Without having AIP to hand, is that the correct context for an 'operational requirement' to be used? Being VFR OCTA, with potentially no details known to ATC, i'm not sure it would even be relevant. Would you not have to be in reciept of a service to begin with to start throwing 'require' around? Requiring a certain runway at a controlled aerodrome...yes? VFR 'require' clearence for student training...? Not sure. I know it is an essential part of PPL training, but not sure it is the best way to approach it.

[fujii]

Quote: "He has an operational requirement for a clearance in order to get his students their CTA tick, and he can't get it!"

No, there is no operational requirement. There may be a licensing requirement to complete the CPL syllabus but no operational requirement. The safety of the flight was not affected. The aircraft was probably performing correctly. No alternate was required. Etc.

[VH-XXX]

I had a friend that did his PPL flight test years ago fully outside CTA. His instructor pretended to be the Essendon tower ATC and put him through the ringer with vectors and the works all whilst under the hood and lifting the hood on late final. He did all radio calls by isolating the pilot from hearing them so there was no distraction and he had no idea where he was.

Legal? Dunno, but a good bit of country airfield ingenuity

[Jack Ranga]

Whatever the reasons for clearance denial, what are the affected going to do about it? Whinge on prune?

Complain to ASA, (not whinge) ask for the reasons why? Remind them that their students 'require' access to controlled airspace. Ask them why, ask them the REAL reasons why? Ask them what 'operational requirement' means. When they spin you the bull**** weasel words, tell them you don't understand what they are saying?

For chrissake, document your 24 knockbacks with dates, submit them to Ben Sandilands, submit them to Senator Nick.

Submit repcons, tell them that pilots without controlled airspace access represents a longterm safety issue. Bombard these public servants with genuine safety reports, don't bull**** them. If you need help composing letters or reports ask for help from some of the guys on here that are actually doing something, PM me if you need details.

[CaptainMidnight]

andrewr

You seem to be missing the point, hunting through AIP for definitions of priorities and primary aerodromes.

Look at the ML TAC. BLT > EN is opposite direction to V223 H345 Q158 & V126. Ditto various SID/STAR depending on RWY usage. You also have AV arrivals and departures in the mix. You would get the same result opposite direction to the route structure anywhere.

Rather than blame ATC, you would be better educating your students what the air route structure means, route restriction arrows, using ERSA GEN-FPR and how to work within the system of traffic patterns with other aircraft.

Teach them to plan in accordance with the route structure, and by all means when airborne request direct, and the result will either be accommodation if traffic permits, or fly as expected per FPL.

And visit a CEN to give yourself and students an appreciation of ATC's job and issues

[andrewr]

I only went to AIP to disagree with an earlier poster:

I am sure the instructor is familiar with AIP ENR 1.4 - 16 & 17. This type of operation is at the bottom of the list.

I am not the instructor or the student or even a commercial pilot. I don't think I have even seen a TAC - VTC: of course, TAC: no. As far as I know they are not the preferred chart VFR.

But now we have come full circle - we are back to the point where VFR pilots are supposed to know where the IFR routes are and plan around them - which is the original point I disagreed with. As I said then, the pilot should tell ATC where they want to go, ATC should keep them out of the way of other traffic, while getting them to their destination. It doesn't have to be direct!

My interest is essentially the access or lack of it for VFR aircraft to class C airspace. Melbourne has a massive amount of airspace for the level of traffic, compared to e.g the USA, and a corresponding lack of access. Why? Aircraft are the same around the world. Why do we use airspace so inefficiently?

I welcome any opportunity to visit a centre - I have actually been twice, but it only seems to be allowed when it is not busy e.g. evening so nothing much was happening.

[le Pingouin]

Sigh. What does or does not happen overseas is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It could be that way but you'd need to fund and resource it accordingly. And you probably think flying is already expensive enough.....

Lots of aircraft mean smaller sectors, means more controllers. Less traffic means bigger sectors means fewer controllers. Lower density but similar workload.

I'm sorry, but the flying school is not operating in isolation out in the sticks where there are minimal other users. They are operating in close proximity to a major aerodrome and if the can't be bothered finding out that sort of information and try to help themselves to work within the system then they'll likely continue to get shafted.

You'd see even less when it's busy because you wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a console to avoid distractions. At least when it's quiet you usually get a chance for a reasonably close look.