How does Melbourne Centre do the Impossible at Hobart?
Thread Starter
I will ask again. Why was $6million plus of our industries money paid for a multilateration system if it can't be used by Melbourne Centre controllers to separate aircraft in the terminal area? Remember it's mandatory transponder for VFR in that Tasmanian C airspace. Surely not fair for VFR to have to spend that money when no service is provided.
Why can't the system be got working? If it requires one or two extra stations why not put them in? Who was responsible for this stuff up or does your organisation cover up all management incompetence. Must be good for morale.
I will keep exposing these issues until the truth is told . Fortunately it's still a Democracy with free speech provisions.
Why can't the system be got working? If it requires one or two extra stations why not put them in? Who was responsible for this stuff up or does your organisation cover up all management incompetence. Must be good for morale.
I will keep exposing these issues until the truth is told . Fortunately it's still a Democracy with free speech provisions.
When you live....
I will keep exposing these issues until the truth is told . Fortunately it's still a Democracy with free speech provisions.
As an aside, from memory, your night VFR guy needs GPS and/or NDB and/or VOR. If he can't fly a radial (or precise course) then he shouldn't be there.
Dick, we don't tell you how to fly your assorted aircraft, how about you stop trying to tell us how to separate aircraft when you clearly don't have a clue. A professional give you an honest answer but because you don't understand it you bash him. Or worse still because it doesn't fit with your agenda. You're a right charmer.
Can you explain to me how a Melbourne Centre controller would handle the situation I have described?
No one has -which makes me suspicious .
No one has -which makes me suspicious .
Tell us all more about the AIC? I want to discuss with my FAA experts.
A PPL with a NVFR needs to be able to navigate by navaids or GPS. A night VMC flight requires some "IFR equipment".
A VFR pilot will not necessarily be able to report on a radial from Hobart.
Most have no training or qualification to do this.
Most have no training or qualification to do this.
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.
Same claims over the past 20+ years, all answered and explained over and over by professionals and those qualified to comment but on it goes, now multiple threads and new ones every few days.
I will ask again
Start your own airspace forum. Start legal action. Knock down the doors of parliament door if you really believe in it.
I and MANY OTHERS don't necessarily agree or disagree with what you are saying. Some of your causes we support. But it's just TOO MUCH.
You're just destroying PPrune Oz. Your ad nauseum repeats of the same thing over and over are pushing professional pilots away from this site. I'm not from CASA, I'm not from ATC, I'm not from the military, and I've never flown through Williamtown airspace. I just want PPrune's Australia sections returned to their former glory.
If you wish to respond to my post, I only want to respond to one thing - not your same old arguments about the same old ****. I want you to respond to why you think most professional Aussie pilots won't come here any more.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick, I cannot be 100% sure of every detail I am about to write, because I am a nobody of aviation (refer ABC Radio) and what would I know? And it is true I am not a guru of airspace by any means. Happy to talk engine monitors all day, but this stuff requires hard work and learning from those who do know it.
My recollection goes something like this. As I understand it (Don't quote me as I do not have documented proof - yeah I know I harp on about data all the time). Years ago AsA were looking at Surveillance technologies that might reduce the cost of roll out of Radar (very expensive) to enroute areas. (Remember the ADSB subsidy days) They decided to trial 'Wide Area' Multilat in a green fields site to test it's abilities and accuracy. Bare in mind at that time there were really no other Wide area systems in use (certified) anywhere else in the world. Tasmania was selected as Enroute traffic was increasing, and being done fully procedurally (Vic radar at high level runs out on the Tas north coast). The idea was that should it prove successful, CASA would approve it for enroute 5 Nm separation, and therefore provide a huge improvement to enroute traffic processing. It did and it was.
The system was designed to provide enroute high level coverage, it struggles sometimes low down with Mode A/C TXPDR aircraft as it was never spec'd for that. Yes it is possible to put in more ground stations to improve reliability down low but CASA would be reluctant to then approve its use for 3NM Sep (terminal area). 5NM is not enough in close in the Terminal Areae, plus you would realistically need radar also as a NON-dependent back up.
It was only after enroute approval that you made a big song and dance about the two jets in Launy in G (running late tower was closed), that enroute started doing CTA/R in to the tower airspace PROCEDURALLY). But of course, it is one in one out as they cannot use tower standards as they cannot see out Windows, and have no ability to control the surface aerodrome environment.
I remember something on the wireless about this….some others watching may too
My recollection goes something like this. As I understand it (Don't quote me as I do not have documented proof - yeah I know I harp on about data all the time). Years ago AsA were looking at Surveillance technologies that might reduce the cost of roll out of Radar (very expensive) to enroute areas. (Remember the ADSB subsidy days) They decided to trial 'Wide Area' Multilat in a green fields site to test it's abilities and accuracy. Bare in mind at that time there were really no other Wide area systems in use (certified) anywhere else in the world. Tasmania was selected as Enroute traffic was increasing, and being done fully procedurally (Vic radar at high level runs out on the Tas north coast). The idea was that should it prove successful, CASA would approve it for enroute 5 Nm separation, and therefore provide a huge improvement to enroute traffic processing. It did and it was.
The system was designed to provide enroute high level coverage, it struggles sometimes low down with Mode A/C TXPDR aircraft as it was never spec'd for that. Yes it is possible to put in more ground stations to improve reliability down low but CASA would be reluctant to then approve its use for 3NM Sep (terminal area). 5NM is not enough in close in the Terminal Areae, plus you would realistically need radar also as a NON-dependent back up.
It was only after enroute approval that you made a big song and dance about the two jets in Launy in G (running late tower was closed), that enroute started doing CTA/R in to the tower airspace PROCEDURALLY). But of course, it is one in one out as they cannot use tower standards as they cannot see out Windows, and have no ability to control the surface aerodrome environment.
I remember something on the wireless about this….some others watching may too
Dick, just a few facts.
I have a NVFR rating and, in accordance with CASA CAAP, NVFR Rating, Section 3.2.1, I am REQUIRED to navigate by "visual navigation, augmented by the use of radio navigation aids".
Therefore, the controller will seperate me from IFRS exactly as he or she would in daytime Procedural Class C.
No magic here .....
I have a NVFR rating and, in accordance with CASA CAAP, NVFR Rating, Section 3.2.1, I am REQUIRED to navigate by "visual navigation, augmented by the use of radio navigation aids".
Therefore, the controller will seperate me from IFRS exactly as he or she would in daytime Procedural Class C.
No magic here .....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So $6M to provide enroute coverage over Tasmania and beyond would appear to be good value compared to $30-50m for a couple of SSR facilities.
Interesting that it is claimed that $100M+ has been wasted on aviation reform attempts over the years - source para 7 here:
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ity-redux.html
Interesting that it is claimed that $100M+ has been wasted on aviation reform attempts over the years - source para 7 here:
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ity-redux.html
Under The Radar - you said beautifully what I wanted to say.
Guys give up - Dick, you posted a question - it has been answered many many times here. But you are sooooo pigheaded. You will accept no-one else's views, just your own.
A VFR machine in class C is subject to ATC instructions, as simple as that. And those instructions have been explained many many times on this post. For God's sake, accept the expert ATC opinions on here.
And I can already see your next post coming - the Senior RAAF officer in Tassie, Wing Commander Stuffup, is ultimately to blame.
I for one would just once like to see you post "OK guys, I stand to be corrected. Thanks."
Guys give up - Dick, you posted a question - it has been answered many many times here. But you are sooooo pigheaded. You will accept no-one else's views, just your own.
A VFR machine in class C is subject to ATC instructions, as simple as that. And those instructions have been explained many many times on this post. For God's sake, accept the expert ATC opinions on here.
And I can already see your next post coming - the Senior RAAF officer in Tassie, Wing Commander Stuffup, is ultimately to blame.
I for one would just once like to see you post "OK guys, I stand to be corrected. Thanks."
Thread Starter
Peuce. From what I can see there is no CASA requirement for NVMC to have any nav aids
So how does this unique Australian system work if a no nav aid aircraft wants a clearance?
Of course I already know. " remain OCTA"
Also I bet you can't show me any other country in the world that has class C terminal airspace without radar.
Stupid other countries- they could save a fortune if they exploited their ATCs like AsA do.
So how does this unique Australian system work if a no nav aid aircraft wants a clearance?
Of course I already know. " remain OCTA"
Also I bet you can't show me any other country in the world that has class C terminal airspace without radar.
Stupid other countries- they could save a fortune if they exploited their ATCs like AsA do.
From what I can see there is no CASA requirement for NVMC to have any nav aids
Took me 5 minutes to find it.
Next question?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'll also find it in AIP GEN 1.5-5 and 1.5-6. To bring you right up to the 21st century, it hasn't been called NGT VMC for at least twenty years. It is NGT VFR.
When you live....
Waterford and Derry (technically in the North but under IAA control I believe) at least. Control zones are 25NM wide and controlled by the tower. Class C and Shannon Radar finishes at 5000' (actually FL050) or FL080 (can't remember which).
Derry is even more Australian/Tasmanian - it too has a railway on the undershoot of a runway - the Tower controls railway signals to protect RPT movements and prevents GA while trains are passing.
Derry is even more Australian/Tasmanian - it too has a railway on the undershoot of a runway - the Tower controls railway signals to protect RPT movements and prevents GA while trains are passing.