Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

How does Melbourne Centre do the Impossible at Hobart?

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

How does Melbourne Centre do the Impossible at Hobart?

Old 11th Apr 2016, 08:06
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
While we're having a whinge about Hobart, can I just make mention of the horses arse that is Cambridge?

Bbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzzzz
Mr.Buzzy is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 08:36
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,712
Here's a question for you Dick, how do the Hobart and Launy controllers do it during the day? How did I used to separate the jet traffic on descent or climb from the VFR Tassie hydro cloud seeder up at whatever flight level he was at?
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 08:53
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Bloggs

E airspace doesn't change the one-in , one-out situation. I don't think the airlines, who are the most affected by this,
(I may be wrong, but it would be easy to do a statistical survey), would go for the "IFR pick-up".
What procedural E airspace does, is introduce unnotified VFR aircraft, a minority, into the equation.
This is the real hazard.
Chief galah is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 09:13
  #24 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,289
Le Ping. During the day I suppose the tower controller says to the VFR pilot. " can you see a road below you? Stay to the east of it" and guesses it's the correct road.

At night time I am not sure how the Melbourne Centre controller would do that.

So far the most likely explanation is " one in one out". But that's hardly a professional service.

When will you Controllers realise that you have been conned . It's not possible to provide a class C service 20 miles away from a tower without a terminal radar system . FAA people have stated this in writing.

The only reason Class C allocated without an approach radar is to increase returns to the government . Why would you want to be part of such a dishonest scam?

The Ministers radar directive is to support ATCs. By not providing the proper tools to our controllers you are the ones who will be held accountable when an accident happens. What is your Union doing?

Last edited by Dick Smith; 11th Apr 2016 at 09:26.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 09:22
  #25 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,289
Chief Galah. At the present time I am not talking about E.

I am talking about a system where the ASA Executive and Board say safety dictates class C but clearly don't provide the necessary tools to provide a class C service.

I wouldn't be a controller involved in that airspace for any amount of bribe money.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 10:00
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,875
During the day I suppose the tower controller says to the VFR pilot. " can you see a road below you? Stay to the east of it" and guesses it's the correct road.
Don't say bullshit like that in your press conference tomorrow, please.
Arm out the window is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 10:39
  #27 (permalink)  
When you live....
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: 0.0221 DME Keyboard
Posts: 927
Dick - you need to forget ifr v vfr in C and think of ifr v ifr in D which you've no doubt experienced in imc at Bankstown. It's pretty obvious from listening to the radio (and waiting) how procedural separation works - controller can't see you, you can't see the other guy, clearances reflect that.

Now, back to remote (or local) procedural C. Ifr v vfr - same concept - controller won't issue clearances to conflict traffic they can't see or can't separate itself. No problems - inefficient maybe - but safe.

In the Tobago v 737 story you're certain the vfr pilot was on top of his game and being a responsible airspace. Now suddenly the night VFR guy seems unable to know where he/she is and make a position report? You need to be consistent.

As was said earlier, these threads make it very possible CASA can reasonably ask you to reset exams based on your lack of understanding of the basics.

Like AOTW says - you've got a gig at a significant press conference tomorrow- please stick to the subject and not this embarrassing sideshow.

UTR
UnderneathTheRadar is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 10:58
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Political or Opertional, this is the question

Dick, honestly, you're giving mixed messages about this. You're confusing the operational with the political. It's your agenda.
By doing so, you are showing your ignorance and bias against the system
The average bograt controller could not give a flying f about the political.
When I was at it, the operational was the only consideration.
It was all Class C at major airports.
Having Class C protects controllers because, believe it or not, they have absolute control. I can't fathom your point about this.
At lower density airports, ATC can provide complete service without expensive surveillance. Surely this is good.
What was a travesty, was the lack of surveillance at places like Cooly and Cairns in the GA heydays,
when they were absolutely swamped with the complete mix of traffic. Regrettably, they paid the price at Cooly.
So, if you can put your point in terms that don't lambast ASA or the Military, I might be able to get a handle on it.
Chief galah is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 11:20
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YXXX
Posts: 33
It's not possible
But yet it is done...

And yes a TAR would be great for Tassie I'm sure, especially since it would provide no benefit to the procedural towers and a top notch radar service for the three that go in at night. If you compare the cost per flight where the TAR would be used within 30nm, it might come in comparable to Melbourne if you drink enough bath water. To be honest, that would be the kind of thing the government would fund instead of something useful...
BlockNotAvailable is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 11:43
  #30 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,289
Under. Surely it's the rules that count. Is ATC allowed to accept an IFR position report from a VFR pilot and use that for separation purposes? I would not have thought so .

Can you explain to me how a Melbourne Centre controller would handle the situation I have described?

No one has -which makes me suspicious .

Would there be any objections if, with full notice, in conjunction with AOPA and local aero clubs we arranged for a series of IFR and VFR flights in and out of Hobart and Launy one night to see how the system works in practice?

Say only Three or four planes so workload is very low.

We could video the whole thing so we can learn how the unique Aussie " cheep " system works without a terminal radar system.

We could then tell the Americans how dopey they are to have a class C radar mandate!
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 12:01
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
Dick, I've said this before (more than once...)

Instead of casting aspersions, get off your arse and 'sit in' with an ATC for a few hours. The contact numbers for ML and BN centres aren't hard to find, pm me and I'll provide them for you if need be.

I'm sure a man with your reputation would have no problems. Sit and talk. Ask questions. You'll be happily accommodated.

Then feel free to come on here with your wealth of knowledge..
Hempy is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 12:02
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 1,995
Great idea Dick, but unfortunately the AIC when it was issued allows for one aircraft in or out at a time.

Mate drives the QF B737 freighter in and out of YMLT and YMHB in the dark hours reckons it strange system. Me mate is old school and reckons that him and his FO can seperate themselves from the Metro and the Flying Doc drivers!

He reckons Melbourne ATC guys and girls do their best with the system they have.

Perhaps get a jumpseat ride with them or sit at the centre console and observe?
Stationair8 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 12:14
  #33 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,289
What was the use of spending $6 million for the multilateration system that the supplier stated worked down to the ground at Hobart and Launceston and then not use it in the terminal area at all?

Who is telling lies here?

Station air. Now the truth comes out. Tell us all more about the AIC? I want to discuss with my FAA experts.

Does it mean if I fly down one night I am liable to be held ? Where ? Incredible. Can't be true.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 12:44
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 1,995
Looking at Flightaware history not many IFR movements at either place when the towers are closed.

The electronic AIC/AIP Supp list only goes back to the start of 2015.
Stationair8 is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 13:16
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,712
Dick. how do you think HB and LT do it now in the dark? Gets light late and dark early way down south.....

No body is interested in feeding the troll.......

Last edited by le Pingouin; 11th Apr 2016 at 21:15. Reason: typo
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 13:19
  #36 (permalink)  
When you live....
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: 0.0221 DME Keyboard
Posts: 927
Is ATC allowed to accept an IFR position report from a VFR pilot and use that for separation purposes?
Why is it an IFR position report? What differentiates an IFR position report from a VFR one? A PPL with CTA endorsement needs to be able to identify and report where they are. A PPL without CTA endorsement needs to be able to identify and avoid CTA. A PPL with a NVFR needs to be able to navigate by navaids or GPS. A night VMC flight requires some "IFR equipment".

Where does this assumption that the VFR is blundering along without knowing where he is come from? Your question is unanswerable because it's based on an incorrect premise.

To answer your hypothetical.

a Night VMC pilot without IFR equipment or rating is at about 15 nm north of Hobart at about 5000' . He could be inbound or outbound or simply crossing the airspace.

How does ATC in the Melbourne Centre provide a class C separation service to an IFR airline aircraft , also to the north , either inbound and outbound ,if the airline aircraft is going to be at about 5000' at 15 nm at the same time?
Firstly, but facetiously, your VFR never got to 15nm north of Hobart at 5000' without a clearance. Lets say he's inbound and 25nm north at 5000' (and has calcuated a LSALT that avoids Mt Hobbs and has put in a flight plan).

VFR: Melbourne Centre, Victor Foxtrot Romeo is 25 miles GPS north of Hobart on the 000 radial at 5000'. Request clearance.
ML: Victor Foxtrot Romeo, Melbourne Centre. Clearance not available. Remain OCTA.
VFR: Remain OCTA, Victor Foxtrot Romeo.

There - impossible achieved - if ML Centre isn't busy I'm sure he'll also issue an expect onwards clearance time. Now, if traffic permits and our VFR guy just wants to transit say Strahan to Maira Island at 5000' and there is a northerly blowing.

ML: VFR, cleared Mangalore to Prossers Sugarloaf at 5000, remain outside 20DME Hobart.
ML: IFR, cleared to Hobart, descend to 6000' not below the DME steps, report 15DME Hobart.
IFR: 14DME Hobart.
ML: Descend to 4000' not below the DME steps, cleared VOR-Y runway 30.

There. Impossible achieved AGAIN and TWO aircraft in Class C at the SAME TIME without radar. Quick - ring the FAA and ask them how they process IFR movements into remote class E aerodromes without radar (hint - one in/one out - and IFRs are actively encouraged to depart VFR into G and try and pick-up a clearance - like we are in D)?

This is all distinct from the MLAT red-herring which again you are confusing the issue with. If ASA paid for MLAT coverage to TRA standard to ground level at HB and LT and didn't get it then that's a project management issue, not an operational one and I'd be as unhappy as you appear to be.

You forget that other airports in Australia work in similar ways. TW operates Class C without radar. AY operates Class C without radar etc etc. Whether the man in the tower or at centre operates that airspace, neither of them can see it and so it's procedural - day,night, VMC, IMC etc.

UTR

PS I apologise for the male-ification of all this - it's easier to type....
UnderneathTheRadar is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 14:14
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 524
Pre radar, Cairns ATC used to control more aircraft, using procedural standards, than Hobart will probably see in 50 years time. So you can tell your FAA mates that it can be done - but I guess you won't as it doesn't fit with your agenda.
topdrop is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 15:16
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 356
Originally Posted by wishiwasupthere View Post
Nope. PPRuNe used to be a source of valuable information for professionals about the aviation industry. Now it seems to have been hijacked by an enthusiastic amateur to use as a vehicle to push his own agenda. It gets harder and harder to sort the wheat from the chaff on here.
Forget it mate.

Tail wheel et al see fit to sit back and allow PPRuNe to degenerate into Dick Smith's personal vendetta against CASA/Airservices.

Real issues for professional pilots in Australia like fatigue, the disastrous part 61 design and implementation, mental health for pilots, CASA's revenge against CVD, B scale pay on the 787, cadets allegedly signing who knows what on "motivation letters" to secure a job - this is the stuff that matters.... None of that on here.

It's restricted airspace this, Williamtown that, VH-MDX, inflexible military, ADSB too expensive, sensational/provocative thread after thread after thread... And on and on it goes.

PPRuNe in Australia is dying a quick death.
Slippery_Pete is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 16:15
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 4
Dick,

I'll answer your question.

Separation is either lateral or vertical, if the procedural ATC was unsure of the VFR position, due to poor position reporting, ATC would use vertical separation and only allow the IFR aircraft to descend to 6000', he would then ascertain the DME distance, Radial and/or HDG of the VFR traffic and use Air Traffic Controlling to create lateral separation from the IFR aircraft. Too many options to list, but to keep it simple in my example, think of pure DME separation, i.e. VFR remain outside xxDME, IFR cleared to descend once inside xxDME, with the required buffer

Trust me procedural ATC have many tools and won't sacrifice vertical separation until lateral separation is assured.

So in summary, once ATC had created positive lateral separation the IFR aircraft then descends through the VFR aircrafts level.

In most cases this is easily achieved, but I have also had to enter a hold overhead a radio aid and descend in the hold before commencing a procedure, due to the unreliability of a VFR aircrafts reports.

I have also self separated in Class G whilst IFR from VFR many times and have also been subject to procedural IFR in Class C/D and also descents from Class C/D airspace into G whilst IFR.

Hope this helps, and I'm sure an ATC controller could elaborate...
Dwesty is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2016, 17:16
  #40 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,289
Underneath. A VFR pilot will not necessarily be able to report on a radial from Hobart .

Most have no training or qualification to do this.

And how do you require a VFR pilot to use a DME distance for separation? Bet that's not approved.

Dwesty. Once again surely it's not possible for a DME distance to be used to separate VFR.

Sounds to me as if "one at a time" is correct - only works because general aviation is almost destroyed in Australia.

Slippery Pete. Extraordinary post. Nothing to stop you starting threads on these issues if they are important for Australian aviation. No one is forced to look at any of my posts or answer them. And no, it's not a vendetta- just pointing out that both organisations are dysfunctional and are damaging our industry.

Nothing to stop them from coming on this site and explaining how I am wrong. Over the years I have had people criticise the organisations I have run. I have always openly answered my critics- sometimes they were correct

Last edited by Dick Smith; 11th Apr 2016 at 17:36.
Dick Smith is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.