How does Melbourne Centre do the Impossible at Hobart?
Thread Starter
How does Melbourne Centre do the Impossible at Hobart?
I note that the en route supplement states that after tower hours the Hobart airspace, both D and C, from 1500ft to 8500ft is operated by the Melbourne centre. How do controllers in the Melbourne centre – without radar or other surveillance equipment – operate D and C airspace at Hobart?
When I’ve tried to explain this to overseas controllers, they say it’s impossible and I must be mistaken.
Remember that Airservices claim that the multilateration system was never purchased for terminal airspace and doesn’t work below 6500ft.
Sounds to me as if the controllers are going to fed the wolves if there is an incident.
Unproven experiment not used anywhere else in the world.
Just asking and just interested.
When I’ve tried to explain this to overseas controllers, they say it’s impossible and I must be mistaken.
Remember that Airservices claim that the multilateration system was never purchased for terminal airspace and doesn’t work below 6500ft.
Sounds to me as if the controllers are going to fed the wolves if there is an incident.
Unproven experiment not used anywhere else in the world.
Just asking and just interested.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 11th Apr 2016 at 02:03.
The same way you would have had hundreds of controllers run non-radar E back in 2004 when the mighty NAS 2b (was it) was going to be introduced, and exactly the same way every controller in the world used to run controlled airspace before radar: procedurally. I'm surprised at your lack of understanding of basic ATC principles, Dick.
The good thing about C is that it captures VFR. VFR Metal is just as unforgiving as IFR Metal... E airspace doesn't make the collision any softer or indeed make the VFR "go away".
The good thing about C is that it captures VFR. VFR Metal is just as unforgiving as IFR Metal... E airspace doesn't make the collision any softer or indeed make the VFR "go away".
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it really necessary to create a new thread when all of the current threads are related? How about a sticky at the top labeled 'Dicks Gripes' ala the Flying School thread?
Re "Sounds to me as if the controllers are going to fed the wolves if there is an incident."
Our 'masters' told us, that as long as 'we' performed according to the various
'rules' as issued by them (AOI = Airways Operating Instructions, and AIP etc)
then we would be 'fully protected' by our employer......
In the 'good ole days', I don't think too many really wanted to test that though, against 'duty of care' in front of 'Milaud'....
Maybe things have changed...for the better.
Cheers
Our 'masters' told us, that as long as 'we' performed according to the various
'rules' as issued by them (AOI = Airways Operating Instructions, and AIP etc)
then we would be 'fully protected' by our employer......
In the 'good ole days', I don't think too many really wanted to test that though, against 'duty of care' in front of 'Milaud'....
Maybe things have changed...for the better.
Cheers
Thread Starter
Yes. But I reckon there are no proper rules for operating this airspace from the Melbourne centre.
Let's see!
And wish. It's a completely different subject. Sounds to me as if you don't want attention drawn to this issue.
And Bloggs. At least in the system I support controllers are protected from being held unfairly responsible for an accident and they are not forced to work without the proper tools for class C. That is a proper terminal radar service including secondary radar .
See the current ministers radar directive.
Let's see!
And wish. It's a completely different subject. Sounds to me as if you don't want attention drawn to this issue.
And Bloggs. At least in the system I support controllers are protected from being held unfairly responsible for an accident and they are not forced to work without the proper tools for class C. That is a proper terminal radar service including secondary radar .
See the current ministers radar directive.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
But I reckon there are no proper rules for operating this airspace from the Melbourne centre.
See the current ministers radar directive.
Anyway, don't worry, ADS-B will fix all that.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I used to do IFR climb and descent at Ayers Rock in the 80s and 90s from Alice Tower and there were proper rules. I guess the principle is much the same at Hobart. You mentioned no surveillance, how do you think the Class D towers operate a n Australia operate without surveillance? It doesn't matter where the controller is located, surveillance isn't necessarily a requirement.
Thread Starter
Ok a very simple scenario ; 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?
No , not a trick question - just a situation that could easily happen!
And what's the separation standard required as they pass through 500' of each other?
Fujji. That's before I made the AMATS changes and you would have been given a traffic information service at Ayers Rock in class G. Very different to " upside down" class C at Hobart.
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?
No , not a trick question - just a situation that could easily happen!
And what's the separation standard required as they pass through 500' of each other?
Fujji. That's before I made the AMATS changes and you would have been given a traffic information service at Ayers Rock in class G. Very different to " upside down" class C at Hobart.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's procedural separation!
I would be asking - how many VFR at night do you get at Hobart?
I'm betting not too many, given the weather and terrain. That gets rid of 99.9% of the hazard,
leaving the IFR traffic, which can be sorted easily by time, distance, lateral and vertical separation..........as it has been for decades.
This doesn't mean it's antiquated, but PROVEN and simple.
I'm betting not too many, given the weather and terrain. That gets rid of 99.9% of the hazard,
leaving the IFR traffic, which can be sorted easily by time, distance, lateral and vertical separation..........as it has been for decades.
This doesn't mean it's antiquated, but PROVEN and simple.
A question best left to the air traffickers I guess, but you do know there are procedural separation standards, don't you, Dick?
The night VFR aircraft must be appropriately equipped and the pilot rated, so he or she will have at the very least a GNSS and therefore be able to report distance and bearing from the airfield. The airliner will know exactly where it is with heaps more gear and likewise report its position. Based on that, the controller will no doubt ensure they are not near one another's position without appropriate height separation.
It was a trick question, right?
The night VFR aircraft must be appropriately equipped and the pilot rated, so he or she will have at the very least a GNSS and therefore be able to report distance and bearing from the airfield. The airliner will know exactly where it is with heaps more gear and likewise report its position. Based on that, the controller will no doubt ensure they are not near one another's position without appropriate height separation.
It was a trick question, right?
Just an aside, but when I were a young lad, the air traffickers at Cairns were pretty good at doing the impossible all day long in very busy airspace before they got radar, but if overseas controllers say it's impossible it must be.
And before you say it's outdated 30 year old blah blah, you posed the question in those terms Dick. No, but hang on, it was unproven and experimental, so it can't have worked successfully then ...
And before you say it's outdated 30 year old blah blah, you posed the question in those terms Dick. No, but hang on, it was unproven and experimental, so it can't have worked successfully then ...
Bottums Up
How does Melbourne Centre do the Impossible at Hobart?