How does Melbourne Centre do the Impossible at Hobart?
Also I bet you can't show me any other country in the world that has class C terminal airspace without radar.
There are many examples around the world.
Thread Starter
Slippery Pete – you make the extraordinary statement, “You're just destroying PPRuNe Oz. Your ad nauseam repeats of the same thing over and over are pushing professional pilots away from this site”.
Slippery, it’s actually a free country and no one has to click on the particular thread. They can easily see the terrible ‘Dick Smith’ name and give it a miss. You might note there has been 3735 views on this particular thread since I started it on the 11th April – 3 days ago.
I know if I was selling advertising on PPRuNe I would be delighted.
And to everyone who is reading this site, who has a rational mind – it’s pretty obvious that at Hobart, after tower hours it’s going to be a “one in and one out” system in terminal airspace.
I note no one has made a comment about test flights with the local aero club and AOPA. I feel sure if this was done, it would show that it is impossible to run class C terminal airspace and actually separate IFR from night VFR aircraft.
The whole thing is another crock.
It’s all based on furiously resisting change as Prime Minister, Billy Hughes so capably mentioned – trying to go back to the 1950s.
Slippery, it’s actually a free country and no one has to click on the particular thread. They can easily see the terrible ‘Dick Smith’ name and give it a miss. You might note there has been 3735 views on this particular thread since I started it on the 11th April – 3 days ago.
I know if I was selling advertising on PPRuNe I would be delighted.
And to everyone who is reading this site, who has a rational mind – it’s pretty obvious that at Hobart, after tower hours it’s going to be a “one in and one out” system in terminal airspace.
I note no one has made a comment about test flights with the local aero club and AOPA. I feel sure if this was done, it would show that it is impossible to run class C terminal airspace and actually separate IFR from night VFR aircraft.
The whole thing is another crock.
It’s all based on furiously resisting change as Prime Minister, Billy Hughes so capably mentioned – trying to go back to the 1950s.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 13th Apr 2016 at 09:09.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok! Let's do it tonight...........
Area70 (70)
area qnh 07/10
area 70: 1028
amend area forecast 130500 to 131700 area 70.
Amd overview:
Isolated showers ne of marr/mrl. Areas of smoke/haze. Isolated fog
patches after 14z.
Wind:
2000 5000 7000 10000 14000 18500
vrb/10 030/10 350/10 300/10 ps04 280/15 ms04 270/20 ms13
remark: Winds at all levels tending 250 degrees se of lrp/edp until
09z.
Cloud:
Sct st 1000/2500 e of cpld/stte/yswa extending ne of ydpo/yswa after
09z, bkn base 0500 with shra.
Bkn cu/sc 2000/8000 e of cpld/irons/mrl extending ne of
ysmi/irons/mrl after 09z, sct base 4000 elsewhere. Bkn base 1500 with
shra.
Bkn cu/sc 3000/6000 w of ykii/ysrn/ybyi.
Amd weather:
Fu, fg after 14z, hz, shra.
Visibility:
0500m fg, 4000m shra/fu, 6km hz.
Freezing level:
12000ft.
Icing:
Nil significant.
Turbulence:
Mod in cu.
Hobart (ymhb)
taf ymhb 130507z 1306/1406
16012kt 9999 sct040
fm131000 01005kt 9999 sct020 bkn035
fm132000 36008kt 9999 sct025
rmk
t 15 13 12 10 q 1028 1029 1029 1029
metar ymhb 130830z 19007kt 9999 few040 12/05 q1029
rmk rf00.0/000.0
launceston (ymlt)
taf ymlt 130508z 1306/1406
vrb05kt 9999 few030 bkn050
fm131200 vrb05kt 9999 sct020 bkn030
fm140000 01010kt 9999 sct025 bkn040
rmk
t 17 15 12 10 q 1026 1027 1029 1028
metar ymlt 130830z auto 33009kt 9999 // sct035 ovc053 15/08 q1027
rmk rf00.0
Launy to Hobart shouldn't be a problem NVFR.............
area qnh 07/10
area 70: 1028
amend area forecast 130500 to 131700 area 70.
Amd overview:
Isolated showers ne of marr/mrl. Areas of smoke/haze. Isolated fog
patches after 14z.
Wind:
2000 5000 7000 10000 14000 18500
vrb/10 030/10 350/10 300/10 ps04 280/15 ms04 270/20 ms13
remark: Winds at all levels tending 250 degrees se of lrp/edp until
09z.
Cloud:
Sct st 1000/2500 e of cpld/stte/yswa extending ne of ydpo/yswa after
09z, bkn base 0500 with shra.
Bkn cu/sc 2000/8000 e of cpld/irons/mrl extending ne of
ysmi/irons/mrl after 09z, sct base 4000 elsewhere. Bkn base 1500 with
shra.
Bkn cu/sc 3000/6000 w of ykii/ysrn/ybyi.
Amd weather:
Fu, fg after 14z, hz, shra.
Visibility:
0500m fg, 4000m shra/fu, 6km hz.
Freezing level:
12000ft.
Icing:
Nil significant.
Turbulence:
Mod in cu.
Hobart (ymhb)
taf ymhb 130507z 1306/1406
16012kt 9999 sct040
fm131000 01005kt 9999 sct020 bkn035
fm132000 36008kt 9999 sct025
rmk
t 15 13 12 10 q 1028 1029 1029 1029
metar ymhb 130830z 19007kt 9999 few040 12/05 q1029
rmk rf00.0/000.0
launceston (ymlt)
taf ymlt 130508z 1306/1406
vrb05kt 9999 few030 bkn050
fm131200 vrb05kt 9999 sct020 bkn030
fm140000 01010kt 9999 sct025 bkn040
rmk
t 17 15 12 10 q 1026 1027 1029 1028
metar ymlt 130830z auto 33009kt 9999 // sct035 ovc053 15/08 q1027
rmk rf00.0
Launy to Hobart shouldn't be a problem NVFR.............
Thread Starter
Fujji. I said nav aids are not required for night VMC. ( or VFR). Others said they are.
I understand I am correct.
My point is that if a non nav aid fitted aircraft wants to fly in the terminal C , Melbourne Centre will have great difficulty in providing a meaningful separation service with an IFR approaching or departing aircraft.
My proposed "test" everyone remains silent about will show the truth. Or would such a test not meet acceptable levels of safety ?
Under NAS class C requires terminal radar. I understand this policy has not been reversed. That's why the Ministers Class C directive remains current. Why else would it remain current?
I understand I am correct.
My point is that if a non nav aid fitted aircraft wants to fly in the terminal C , Melbourne Centre will have great difficulty in providing a meaningful separation service with an IFR approaching or departing aircraft.
My proposed "test" everyone remains silent about will show the truth. Or would such a test not meet acceptable levels of safety ?
Under NAS class C requires terminal radar. I understand this policy has not been reversed. That's why the Ministers Class C directive remains current. Why else would it remain current?
When you live....
I understand I am correct
No one believes that your proposed test would work. And, in determining the proper allocation of scarce resources, it's entirely correct that it should fail (don't start talking MLAT).
For all of our sanity's sake - please describe in plain English the point you are trying to make?
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As per the current AIP, at least one navaid is required for night VFR flight, and the pilot must be qualified to use it. Otherwise why would there be an alternate requirement for night VFR if the aerodrome doesn't have a navaid?
Additionally, aircraft flying visually still have a tolerance in which they must be able to maintain track, and in Class C a pilot must adhere to the clearance. This tracking tolerance is then used to create a lateral separation point as per the table from MATS shown earlier. Additionally, ATC can use things like clearance limits etc to ensure separation.
Additionally, aircraft flying visually still have a tolerance in which they must be able to maintain track, and in Class C a pilot must adhere to the clearance. This tracking tolerance is then used to create a lateral separation point as per the table from MATS shown earlier. Additionally, ATC can use things like clearance limits etc to ensure separation.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "others" being CAP 40.2.2 published in Commonwealth Law under the authority of the the Australian Attorney General.
As for the night VFR aircraft in the ML CTR, the police air wing does it almost every night. Although fitted with navaids, those aids are not used for separation.
As for the night VFR aircraft in the ML CTR, the police air wing does it almost every night. Although fitted with navaids, those aids are not used for separation.
Originally Posted by Dick
it’s pretty obvious that at Hobart, after tower hours it’s going to be a “one in and one out” system in terminal airspace.
I note no one has made a comment about test flights with the local aero club and AOPA. I feel sure if this was done, it would show that it is impossible to run class C terminal airspace and actually separate IFR from night VFR aircraft.
The whole thing is another crock.
It’s all based on furiously resisting change as Prime Minister, Billy Hughes so capably mentioned – trying to go back to the 1950s.
I note no one has made a comment about test flights with the local aero club and AOPA. I feel sure if this was done, it would show that it is impossible to run class C terminal airspace and actually separate IFR from night VFR aircraft.
The whole thing is another crock.
It’s all based on furiously resisting change as Prime Minister, Billy Hughes so capably mentioned – trying to go back to the 1950s.
Thread Starter
The point is why wouldn't Airservices have the Broome Airspace at a place like Hobart ?
Only overflying VFR would be an occasional adventurer off to the South Pole.
If it's safe at Broome, why not Hobart? Don't the controllers ever point this out!
And Bloggs is from Western Australia and he would have taken action if it was unsafe.
And bloody big jets go to Broome.
And it would be NAS compliant ( like Broome) and not hold ATCs liable for the impossible .
Why can't we standardise our airspace above D like the rest of the world?
Oh. I know. If you once mis allocated airspace it must never be corrected. Concrete. Concrete Resist change in every way.
There will be a lot of silence from everybody except Bloggs.
Only overflying VFR would be an occasional adventurer off to the South Pole.
If it's safe at Broome, why not Hobart? Don't the controllers ever point this out!
And Bloggs is from Western Australia and he would have taken action if it was unsafe.
And bloody big jets go to Broome.
And it would be NAS compliant ( like Broome) and not hold ATCs liable for the impossible .
Why can't we standardise our airspace above D like the rest of the world?
Oh. I know. If you once mis allocated airspace it must never be corrected. Concrete. Concrete Resist change in every way.
There will be a lot of silence from everybody except Bloggs.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 13th Apr 2016 at 10:23.
Just shot yourself in the other foot! Lower level of E at Broome, no tower, is 5500ft, leaving the RPT and the "adventurer" to sort it out amoungst themselves in, OH MY GOD, Class G! How dangerous is that! Bang bang...
"Nearly" indeed. You don't even know the airspace you're trying to lecture us on.
What's safe about an IFR being hobbled by an ATC clearance and simultaneously trying to negotiate an arrival with a VFR, who may or may not appear on TCAS depending on when he last checked his transponder?
What's safe about an IFR being hobbled by an ATC clearance and simultaneously trying to negotiate an arrival with a VFR, who may or may not appear on TCAS depending on when he last checked his transponder?
Thread Starter
Bloggs. I wish you could talk with an open mind to an experienced US Airline pilot. You would find that they consider they are just as " professional " as you and just as obsessed with safety as you are.
They don't consider they are being unnecessarily " hobbled" and really like their airspace system. It's evolved with about 30 times the number of aircraft and sometimes atrocious weather that you would be unlikely to get in WA.
Bloggs. Have you ever flown a US designed airline aircraft? Their airspace system is similar - as good as any advanced system in the world.
Maybe you just don't like change.
They don't consider they are being unnecessarily " hobbled" and really like their airspace system. It's evolved with about 30 times the number of aircraft and sometimes atrocious weather that you would be unlikely to get in WA.
Bloggs. Have you ever flown a US designed airline aircraft? Their airspace system is similar - as good as any advanced system in the world.
Maybe you just don't like change.
I like change, Dick. I like ADS-B and I like transponders. Why don't you lobby your VFR mates fit to them so that ATC can use them to maximise safety and efficiency for me and the VFR? It really is pretty pathetic that RPT jets mix it with aircraft that don't have transponders. This isn't 1950, is it?
I would also like you to change your tune and find the few extra million $$ a year to fund Class E approach services everywhere I fly...
I would also like you to change your tune and find the few extra million $$ a year to fund Class E approach services everywhere I fly...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The US system would be fine here, IF and I mean IF we had, all the surveillance all the VHF coms and all the same towers services etc.
I would rather have my Toyota 86 on 4 wheels than a Ferrari on 3.
YMMV
I would rather have my Toyota 86 on 4 wheels than a Ferrari on 3.
YMMV
Thread Starter
Why not try the US system at an airport where we do have the radar and the VHF coms?
Everyone may be pleasantly surprised that it actually works really well.
Everyone may be pleasantly surprised that it actually works really well.