Dick vs ADS-B vs AsA vs CASA vs Cambridge in Bad Wx
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's wrong with a little progress? I think it's good. Sustainable progress though is the way to go, just as long as we don't gold plate everything.
Personally, I don't think airlines or pilots have a problem with the approaches at Hobart. You're either going to fly an ILS RWY 12 or a VOR/RNAV RWY 30 in bad weather or a DME/GPS arrival for a visual circuit under ATC guidance. It's not that difficult for jets to fly and the risks are relatively low. Perhaps different for other aircraft.
Re classes of airspace and risk levels, there's bigger fish to fry.
Personally, I don't think airlines or pilots have a problem with the approaches at Hobart. You're either going to fly an ILS RWY 12 or a VOR/RNAV RWY 30 in bad weather or a DME/GPS arrival for a visual circuit under ATC guidance. It's not that difficult for jets to fly and the risks are relatively low. Perhaps different for other aircraft.
Re classes of airspace and risk levels, there's bigger fish to fry.
Utraradar Yair. Our professional pilots don't make the mistakes of CFIT that have been made all around the world.
We are different here in Aus.
So good that at all uncontrolled airports with an ADSB transceiver mounted at the airport we don't even need to use this expensive technology to help prevent an Airline CFIT.
The "it won't happen to me " syndrome working well here. Another Lockhart River on the way?
We are different here in Aus.
So good that at all uncontrolled airports with an ADSB transceiver mounted at the airport we don't even need to use this expensive technology to help prevent an Airline CFIT.
The "it won't happen to me " syndrome working well here. Another Lockhart River on the way?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lockhart was a different story.
In controlled airspace Class D, you've got CTA steps along with minimum descent altitudes and usually a controller monitoring what's going on. Relatively low risk.
WRT to Lockhart, I think that TAWS (forward looking) GPWS was introduced after the accident so we have a little more protection than we used to.
Operations at non controlled aerodromes, mix of traffic etc needs more attention in my opinion. Separating RPT from the little guy is what needs to be focussed on.
In controlled airspace Class D, you've got CTA steps along with minimum descent altitudes and usually a controller monitoring what's going on. Relatively low risk.
WRT to Lockhart, I think that TAWS (forward looking) GPWS was introduced after the accident so we have a little more protection than we used to.
Operations at non controlled aerodromes, mix of traffic etc needs more attention in my opinion. Separating RPT from the little guy is what needs to be focussed on.
Yair. Concentrate on perceived collision risk in vmc rather than real risk in IMC.
Class B everywhere for airlines.
No need for actual ATC vertical CONTROL and Responsibility and an automatic alarm system at places like Tasmania. It will never happen here due to the skill of our pilots not making human errors!
Re usual controller monitoring- I thought in Aus the class D controller was responsible for circuit and surface traffic - not a pilot making an error on a DME arrival.
I suppose time will tell.
Class B everywhere for airlines.
No need for actual ATC vertical CONTROL and Responsibility and an automatic alarm system at places like Tasmania. It will never happen here due to the skill of our pilots not making human errors!
Re usual controller monitoring- I thought in Aus the class D controller was responsible for circuit and surface traffic - not a pilot making an error on a DME arrival.
I suppose time will tell.
Those dopey Americans, Canadians and Europeans. There the pilot remains with the centre controller when in IMC on descent maximising the use of survailence coverage .
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At an FAA/FAST seminar today, I asked a regional ATC person if there is any communication I could provide to them to enhance air traffic safety. He responded a radio call to them would be good and they may provide a unique transponder code. He also noted that his job is a service provider, not a policeman.
I work with Boston Approach on nearly every acro flight. They're excellent. I get plenty of calls for potential conflicts and can react accordingly. Rather than being an annoyance to traffic coming into or leaving KBED or KBOS we coordinate with brief breaks or altitude blocks.
I do the same as M***, and they seem to appreciate it. And I am grateful for their help!
Typical exchange:
Boston, Decathlon **45G, 7 miles northeast of Hanscom, two thousand seven hundred, request flight following
7145G, Boston altimeter 29.75, squawk 5163
29.75 and 5163 for 45G
45G, radar contact 6 miles west of the Lawrence VOR - where are you flying today?
45G will be doing acro outside the Bravo north of the Merrimack [river], between two thousand five hundred and six thousand feet
45G, roger
Sometimes they ask what aircraft type. I had to look up the ICAO id for the SuperD (it's BL8).
They'll give advisories and it always amuses me to key the mic to answer while inverted in a loop or on a down line.
I call up when I'm headed back, and they will advise me of relevant traffic headed to/from Hanscom and hand me back to BED tower.
Easy, helpful to me, and I feel I'm being helpful to them, too, as M*** said.
Typical exchange:
Boston, Decathlon **45G, 7 miles northeast of Hanscom, two thousand seven hundred, request flight following
7145G, Boston altimeter 29.75, squawk 5163
29.75 and 5163 for 45G
45G, radar contact 6 miles west of the Lawrence VOR - where are you flying today?
45G will be doing acro outside the Bravo north of the Merrimack [river], between two thousand five hundred and six thousand feet
45G, roger
Sometimes they ask what aircraft type. I had to look up the ICAO id for the SuperD (it's BL8).
They'll give advisories and it always amuses me to key the mic to answer while inverted in a loop or on a down line.
I call up when I'm headed back, and they will advise me of relevant traffic headed to/from Hanscom and hand me back to BED tower.
Easy, helpful to me, and I feel I'm being helpful to them, too, as M*** said.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yair. Concentrate on perceived collision risk in vmc rather than real risk in IMC.
Human errors are normal, it's the risk mitigation factors that are put in place which kinda represent layers of cheese
alphacentauri: Educate me please
In this case as described by Dick, how?
Dick was making the point that there is now technology available (ADSB) that can enhance flight safety and reduce cockpit workload yet it isn't being used in a manner that utilises all of it's benefits.
In this case as described by Dick, how?
Silly me, I figured as an enabler of new technology, ADSB would enhance radar coverage and give radar coverage where there was previously no coverage. Thus giving the opportunity for controllers to take over terrain clearance responsibilities and reduce cockpit workload.
At least that is what I thought Dick was getting at. Obviously not.
“At that time I was in cloud, in icing conditions and in quite severe turbulence,” Mr Smith writes.
Over here if there is radar coverage then the controller looks after terrain clearance, if there's no radar then terrain avoidance/clearance responsibility falls onto the pilot which obviously increases workload
27/09. Exactly what I was getting at.
At airports in Aus with an ADSB transceiver on the ground and mountains in the vicinity you would expect to get a proper approach service with ATC provided terrain protection.
No way. It's strictly do it yourself at many airports frequented by airline aircraft.
That's how we did it in the 50's so why change?
At airports in Aus with an ADSB transceiver on the ground and mountains in the vicinity you would expect to get a proper approach service with ATC provided terrain protection.
No way. It's strictly do it yourself at many airports frequented by airline aircraft.
That's how we did it in the 50's so why change?
fujii: Once again, ADS-B is not radar.
See here, Multilateration.com | ADS-B and Multilateration
My use of the term radar was generic in the sense I was referring to a surveillance system.
sunnySA: Is the controller is responsible for terrain clearance in a radar environment in all cases? Specifically, is a controller responsible for terrain clearance in a radar environment when the pilot has been issued with a visual approach?
Of course the controller is no longer responsible for terrain clearance on a visual approach, isn't that the whole point of the visual approach. The pilot unless instructed otherwise has unrestricted tracking and descent to position the aircraft on finals. At least that's the way it is over here. I have heard you guys may have a much more complicated visual approach.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
At Hobart I was given a descent to 2000 not below the DME steps. That's because the airspace was operated by a 1950s procedural procedure with a controller who is not rated to use the ADSB to do the approach.
In the USA all low level en route controllers are also approach rated to use the ADSB where it is available.
In the USA all low level en route controllers are also approach rated to use the ADSB where it is available.
Radar is not a term used these days, the term used is surveillance and ADS-B is surveillance. Airservices has deployed ADS-B to avoid the cost of installing radar for en-route control. This is where Airservices makes money for the Federal Government - En Route and Oceanic above FL 250. ADS-B is not is use in terminal areas (TMA) although Class D tower controllers can see the returns on a device called TSAD. This is a situaltional awareness tool hence the Airservices response to Dick's newspaper article. ADS-B is only available for the provision of 5 NM separation, it is not displayed in Class C TMA where 3NM or less is normal. Eventually it will be used in Class C TMA however all the radars have just been replaced so there is no rush. (Typical life of radar is 15 years)
ADS-B can be detected at levels below FL 290 where there is a ground station because it is a"line-of-sight" receiver. (Space Based ADS-B could be available everywhere) As above there is no incentive for the use of ADS-B in Class C TMA, and there is also no incentive for the use of ADS-B in Class D TMA but for a different reason; that is cost. Airservices staffs Class D TMAs with controllers who are dual rated as Approach and Tower controllers. This means that they perform both functions from the Class D Towers, but have to be able to see outside; this is very cost effective. Under the Australian system to perform surveillance based Approach requires a dedicated controller staring at a surveillance display. Dick is correct when he says the FAA allows en-route controllers to perform this work for a Class D TMA from a Control Centre. They have the added advantage of surrounding Class E airspace so IFR aircraft are always in controlled airspace.
So to be different we have to emulate the Class E environment, have truckloads more surveillance and a complete mind-set change among aviators. (The last time this was tried back in the 90s it crashed and burned) We also would need an ATC provider that is either subject to competition (as in Europe) or is ordered by Government not to make a profit but to provide separation for all IFR aircraft (as in the US and Canada). While the government continues to want a return on the assets it "gave" to Airservices then Airservices needs to make money; it cannot do that providing separation and surveillance based approach control services in Hobart.
This problem cannot be placed at the feet of Airservices or CASA, they are both part of Executive Government and take their orders from the Government of the day.
ADS-B can be detected at levels below FL 290 where there is a ground station because it is a"line-of-sight" receiver. (Space Based ADS-B could be available everywhere) As above there is no incentive for the use of ADS-B in Class C TMA, and there is also no incentive for the use of ADS-B in Class D TMA but for a different reason; that is cost. Airservices staffs Class D TMAs with controllers who are dual rated as Approach and Tower controllers. This means that they perform both functions from the Class D Towers, but have to be able to see outside; this is very cost effective. Under the Australian system to perform surveillance based Approach requires a dedicated controller staring at a surveillance display. Dick is correct when he says the FAA allows en-route controllers to perform this work for a Class D TMA from a Control Centre. They have the added advantage of surrounding Class E airspace so IFR aircraft are always in controlled airspace.
So to be different we have to emulate the Class E environment, have truckloads more surveillance and a complete mind-set change among aviators. (The last time this was tried back in the 90s it crashed and burned) We also would need an ATC provider that is either subject to competition (as in Europe) or is ordered by Government not to make a profit but to provide separation for all IFR aircraft (as in the US and Canada). While the government continues to want a return on the assets it "gave" to Airservices then Airservices needs to make money; it cannot do that providing separation and surveillance based approach control services in Hobart.
This problem cannot be placed at the feet of Airservices or CASA, they are both part of Executive Government and take their orders from the Government of the day.
Last edited by Mr Approach; 5th Feb 2017 at 09:26. Reason: missing words
Bloggs - During a surveillance approach the controller gives descent based on observing the aircraft pass the control area steps. There is no requirement for the pilot to have a chart available however it would probably be good practice as controllers are not infallible and we should always be backing each other up.
Thread Starter
Mr Approach, this appears to be not about staying in controlled airspace. This is about descent to well below the MSA using the ADS-B. Hence my question.
Don't get me started on crews having to monitor the CTA steps during a descent!
Don't get me started on crews having to monitor the CTA steps during a descent!
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E & Class D Towers work. But they need surveillance, not half arsed surveillance but surveillance that covers all of the E airspace. Asking a controller in Australia to separate IFR procedurally in E when they have no idea whether a VFR is in that airspace is asking for trouble.
Either provide surveillance or don't. But as the approach dood says, money talks, ASA certainly won't spend the money to fix it, the government hasn't got 2 bob to rub together and Tassie deserves a whole lot better than they're getting.
Either provide surveillance or don't. But as the approach dood says, money talks, ASA certainly won't spend the money to fix it, the government hasn't got 2 bob to rub together and Tassie deserves a whole lot better than they're getting.