Dick vs ADS-B vs AsA vs CASA vs Cambridge in Bad Wx
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So lets say a surveillance service was available in to Cambridge/Hobart (be it SSR or ADS-B). I give you descent to the MVA as depicted on the RTCC. Due to the bad wx, you are still not visual at the MVA and you go around. However, if I had cleared you for an instrument approach (be it a VOR, ILS, DME) which generally has a minima much lower than what I could descend you to on the RTCC, you become visual prior to the minima and land. Yes, you had to interpret an instrument approach chart in order to do so, but as an IFR pilot, I would expect that wouldn't be an issue. Indeed I would expect that, having briefed wx for arrival prior to departure, the approach charts would have been reviewed en route or prior to the flight.
That's how I see it, but maybe I am a little misguided.
That's how I see it, but maybe I am a little misguided.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the tower guy (who's usually got a pretty good idea) talks to the en-route guy and tells them the likelihood of getting visual on a surveillance approach. Works in lots of places. You give the ATC the tools and rules and you get a pretty good service. Why shouldn't Dick put forward these options? Truth is, Tassie is getting ripped off.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Porter
a surveillance approach.
What exactly is such an approach?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahh, so it is a money making exercise for the government!! Just as I mentioned months ago in another post.
By installing the gold plated model and then mandating ADSB for all comercial IFR aircraft, even those operating from places where there is no ADSB (because they MIGHT go to somewhere where there is coverage), everyone's Nav charges can be increased accordingly to cover the installation, plus of course the mandatory percentage profit. The more expensive the installation cost, the more the actual value of the percentage becomes.
No intent to improve services at low level,but merely to use at levels above F250. So the small end of town cops it.
See, Dick is right.
By installing the gold plated model and then mandating ADSB for all comercial IFR aircraft, even those operating from places where there is no ADSB (because they MIGHT go to somewhere where there is coverage), everyone's Nav charges can be increased accordingly to cover the installation, plus of course the mandatory percentage profit. The more expensive the installation cost, the more the actual value of the percentage becomes.
No intent to improve services at low level,but merely to use at levels above F250. So the small end of town cops it.
See, Dick is right.
Thread Starter
No intent to improve services at low level
I want to know what a surveillance approach is! Surely there's someone out there who knows...
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain, The approach controller will have a radar lowest safe on his/her display, quite often (not always) it will be a lower altitude then the grid lowest safe (if you are off a published track). The aerodrome I operate in and out of doesn't have any IFR tracks in or out, therefore no track lowest safe altitudes or approaches, often the controller (one in particular!) will offer vectors into these gridded areas to step down rather than having to do a GNSS Arrival via another airport.
Surveillance approach is not an official term by the way, I made that bit up, I can't remember the official term for it, if there is one!
You won't get this service from an en-route controller or a procedural tower controller.
Standard Disclaimer: This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment, it's directed at the sub-standard management that are responsible for procedures, equipment and tools that don't work.
Surveillance approach is not an official term by the way, I made that bit up, I can't remember the official term for it, if there is one!
You won't get this service from an en-route controller or a procedural tower controller.
Standard Disclaimer: This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment, it's directed at the sub-standard management that are responsible for procedures, equipment and tools that don't work.
Last edited by The name is Porter; 7th Feb 2017 at 01:31.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right; services at low level haven't improved.
Standard Disclaimer: This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment, it's directed at the sub-standard management that are responsible for procedures, equipment and tools that don't work.
Last edited by The name is Porter; 7th Feb 2017 at 01:32.
Thread Starter
Rojer Porter, thanks. Dick obviously is using his extensive USA experience to criticise our system. It would be nice if he could point us to the procedure used there.
C'mon Dick, out with it!
C'mon Dick, out with it!
“At that time I was in cloud, in icing conditions and in quite severe turbulence,” Mr Smith writes.
“Locating the required chart is bad enough ... to work out that I was on the 186 degree approach, realise it was Sector B that was required , and then do the stepping down in accordance with that chart is complex — especially when flying single pilot in such weather conditions.’’
“Locating the required chart is bad enough ... to work out that I was on the 186 degree approach, realise it was Sector B that was required , and then do the stepping down in accordance with that chart is complex — especially when flying single pilot in such weather conditions.’’
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick obviously is using his extensive USA experience to criticise our system. It would be nice if he could point us to the procedure used there
Australian minds are fairly closed to this sort of stuff, I was to a certain degree until I flew over there!
Standard Disclaimer: This is not directed at the ATC's using this equipment, it's directed at the sub-standard management that are responsible for procedures, equipment and tools that don't work.
Last edited by The name is Porter; 7th Feb 2017 at 01:32.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point is that using this technology should reduce pilots work load.
If you watch some of the flights of Stevo1kinevo on youtube who is a corporate pilot in the US, you'll see they mostly be cleared to a limit on decent 5000, 3000, etc then cleared onto the ILS and not "not below DME steps". There is no flipping between DME arrival pages and approach pages.
Once in the past flying into Hobart, a clearance was given to track outbound on a particular radial from overhead, then cleared for the VOR. At no time was I given an "expect RWY 30 VOR/DME (at the time) so it was a bit of a scurry through approach plates to work out what they were talking about. It could have just been head / track this - descend to ... that simple
Maintaining track and being cleared to a height based on a radar return (ADS-B) would reduce the work load significantly! You could almost sit there fat dumb and happy!
It must be really hard to implement!
If you watch some of the flights of Stevo1kinevo on youtube who is a corporate pilot in the US, you'll see they mostly be cleared to a limit on decent 5000, 3000, etc then cleared onto the ILS and not "not below DME steps". There is no flipping between DME arrival pages and approach pages.
Once in the past flying into Hobart, a clearance was given to track outbound on a particular radial from overhead, then cleared for the VOR. At no time was I given an "expect RWY 30 VOR/DME (at the time) so it was a bit of a scurry through approach plates to work out what they were talking about. It could have just been head / track this - descend to ... that simple
Maintaining track and being cleared to a height based on a radar return (ADS-B) would reduce the work load significantly! You could almost sit there fat dumb and happy!
It must be really hard to implement!
Thread Starter
you'll see they mostly be cleared to a limit on decent 5000, 3000, etc then cleared onto the ILS
There is no flipping between DME arrival pages and approach pages.
Once in the past flying into Hobart, a clearance was given to track outbound on a particular radial from overhead, then cleared for the VOR. At no time was I given an "expect RWY 30 VOR/DME (at the time) so it was a bit of a scurry through approach plates to work out what they were talking about.
Maintaining track and being cleared to a height based on a radar return (ADS-B) would reduce the work load significantly! You could almost sit there fat dumb and happy!
The longer the silence, the more this appears to be yet another a Dick Smith Class E beatup. Every fare-paying pax flight has EGPWS. If he wants to set up the system to protect his type of operation from CFIT ie approach control at all of our non-capital city airports, who's going to pay?
Cost is negligible to train the existing enroute controller to do the hobart approach work.
Fixed in your mind is a separate approach console when this is not necessary . Most non tower IFR approaches in the USA a performed by existing en route controllers. Why not try one here ?
Fixed in your mind is a separate approach console when this is not necessary . Most non tower IFR approaches in the USA a performed by existing en route controllers. Why not try one here ?
Cost is negligible is it? We've been down this road before, you and I. As the regs currently stand we need a full approach course and rating. Who is going to man the consoles while the relevant controllers go and do that?
How many sectors are there in the US and what area does each typically cover? We've been here before too.
How many sectors are there in the US and what area does each typically cover? We've been here before too.
You change the current regs of course.
In the USA over Kansas in the we small hours all of the lateration of sectors is removed and the en route controller of FL450 also does IFR class E approaches at small non tower airports below .
Traffic loading is a bit like Australia at busy times.
Could be tried here! No separate approach cell is reqired
In the USA over Kansas in the we small hours all of the lateration of sectors is removed and the en route controller of FL450 also does IFR class E approaches at small non tower airports below .
Traffic loading is a bit like Australia at busy times.
Could be tried here! No separate approach cell is reqired
Thread Starter
Hey Dick, how was the ADS-B going to be used by ATC to (help you to) do your approach into Cambridge? Are you now going to issue a retraction to the national newspaper that it was all a furphy?
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
There is no flipping between DME arrival pages and approach pages.
There is no flipping between DME arrival pages and approach pages.
There is no suggestion that he was cleared like that.
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.
Are you seriously telling us that you were overhead the airfield, obviously in IMC, having not decided/told ATC what approach you were going to do?
I think that would hardly work in the Sector B at Hobart. There are 4 steps within 4nm!
What seems to be missed is that we are PAYING for a service but not getting any SERVICE! Its like paying for a big mac and not getting the burger.