Dick vs ADS-B vs AsA vs CASA vs Cambridge in Bad Wx
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Dick
Cost is negligible to train the existing enroute controller to do the hobart approach work.
Originally Posted by Dick
Could be tried here! No separate approach cell is reqired
You're a businessman. Show us the numbers.
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Hadync
Um, yes there was Dick Said:
Originally Posted by hayndc
You've never planned an approach and had the tower change the plan at last minute? Things are very simple in your armchair.
And yes, I have had the plan change on me at the last minute, by ATC or myself.
Originally Posted by haydnc
If the WX really is that bad, safety would say you should be on a RWY approach flying the profile and not just descending enroute to minima! (RNAV / ILS at HB).
Looking at Flight Aware and weather sites, it appears that the weather at the time of his arrival was CAVOK (previous hour or so SCT @ 5500).
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs, i'd be careful your Guide Dog doesn't choke on you in your sleep. You cant really be helped if you take what is said out of context.
That comment had nothing to do with Dick's flight in to HB. It was however explaining how descents apper to work in a US Radar environment, if your were to read my post correctly.
I cant be bothered looking through your posts, are you just a compulsive winger?
Whats with the chip on your shoulder? Do you think Dick explanation of his arrival is an exaggeration? How many tall stories have you told down at the club?
Like I said previously, why all the carry on? If we have they gear (ground equipment etc), why not sort out the system so we can use the service?
At my home airport in class G, I can get flight following all the way down to 500 feet in the circuit until I cancel it (yes i know ADS-B coverage in a fair bit of the country is poor). Why not spend the time and money and improve what we have in CTA?
I remember not long after the Benalla accident enroute controllers were really on edge. Even after changing to the CTAF flying into Young one stormy night they kept on my case whilst maneuvering inside MSA to make sure I wasn't going to go all Monarch on them. But what a great service, actually monitoring flight.
Now Bloggs, I dont know how many engines the armchair has the you fly, for me, my use of class E is limited to 1500 feet. The service of surveillance in that airspace I thought was great. Why not bring this down and have a "Service" where it is needed? There are no hills in Australia to hit higher then 8500 feet where class E exists!
Umm, no Dick was not cleared to descend to 2000ft not below then DME steps "then cleared for the 30 ILS" (or some other approach)
I cant be bothered looking through your posts, are you just a compulsive winger?
Whats with the chip on your shoulder? Do you think Dick explanation of his arrival is an exaggeration? How many tall stories have you told down at the club?
Like I said previously, why all the carry on? If we have they gear (ground equipment etc), why not sort out the system so we can use the service?
At my home airport in class G, I can get flight following all the way down to 500 feet in the circuit until I cancel it (yes i know ADS-B coverage in a fair bit of the country is poor). Why not spend the time and money and improve what we have in CTA?
I remember not long after the Benalla accident enroute controllers were really on edge. Even after changing to the CTAF flying into Young one stormy night they kept on my case whilst maneuvering inside MSA to make sure I wasn't going to go all Monarch on them. But what a great service, actually monitoring flight.
Now Bloggs, I dont know how many engines the armchair has the you fly, for me, my use of class E is limited to 1500 feet. The service of surveillance in that airspace I thought was great. Why not bring this down and have a "Service" where it is needed? There are no hills in Australia to hit higher then 8500 feet where class E exists!
On some other blogs it's possible to post a popcorn eating emoticon. Its use connotes that the poster is looking forward to the cyber-space stoush that's being engaged in, or about to be engaged in, by other posters. I wish I could use that emoticon now.
My only suggestions, haydnc, is that you (1) do a spell and grammar check of what you post before you post it and (2) note the number of posts that the Cap'n has made.
Tent bell: Ding! Ding!
My only suggestions, haydnc, is that you (1) do a spell and grammar check of what you post before you post it and (2) note the number of posts that the Cap'n has made.
Tent bell: Ding! Ding!
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be lovely if we could avoid the usually slagging festival that anything like this seems to devolve into. Some of what Dick says has merit, although as usual dick has presented it with all the subtlety of a dynamite tipped sledgehammer.
I'm not really sure whether or not what dick is proposing could actually work, however it seems like there could be some value to giving it a fair go at least? If the technology and infrastructure exists, it really should be used to its maximum capability. I believe the procedure Dick and others have hinted at is known as a radar vectors to cloud break procedure. Its not used in civil ATC in Australia, however the military does use it and it was actually quite a nice procedure. Basically the approach controller descends the aircraft to a RADAR/Surveillance lowest safe until the aircraft breaks clear of cloud and can conduct a visual approach. It has a higher MDA than other procedures, however it could likely be more safe and efficient than a DME/GNSS approach, and you then have the benefit of two people watching out for terrain separation.
As for changes to class E airspace, I think we should give it a try somewhere and see how it goes. It will require more controllers, more training and a change in the way we do air traffic control, however if we can get an appreciable safety benefit then I am all for it. Ultimately when I'm controlling if there is something I can do to provide a better service then I am all for it.
I'm not really sure whether or not what dick is proposing could actually work, however it seems like there could be some value to giving it a fair go at least? If the technology and infrastructure exists, it really should be used to its maximum capability. I believe the procedure Dick and others have hinted at is known as a radar vectors to cloud break procedure. Its not used in civil ATC in Australia, however the military does use it and it was actually quite a nice procedure. Basically the approach controller descends the aircraft to a RADAR/Surveillance lowest safe until the aircraft breaks clear of cloud and can conduct a visual approach. It has a higher MDA than other procedures, however it could likely be more safe and efficient than a DME/GNSS approach, and you then have the benefit of two people watching out for terrain separation.
As for changes to class E airspace, I think we should give it a try somewhere and see how it goes. It will require more controllers, more training and a change in the way we do air traffic control, however if we can get an appreciable safety benefit then I am all for it. Ultimately when I'm controlling if there is something I can do to provide a better service then I am all for it.
Thread Starter
Yes, it does become tiresome refuting the red herrings, BS, nonsense and all other manner of #$%^ that appears on here, but somebody's got to do it. Don Chipp The Second.
Spell and grammar check indeed.
Its use connotes
Where did you get that emoticon?
I dips me lid on this occasion.
PS: "Its use connotes..." is perfectly correct spelling and grammar.
I dips me lid on this occasion.
PS: "Its use connotes..." is perfectly correct spelling and grammar.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 8th Feb 2017 at 23:04. Reason: Added the PS.
It will require more controllers, more training and a change in the way we do air traffic control,
if we can get an appreciable safety benefit
Affordable safety says we are doing ok now. I've posted it before. Our controllers handle twice the number of movements per head per annum than their US counterparts. Perhaps they should be looking at our system if you want to talk efficiencies? You want their service, you need their numbers and infrastructure. See point one above.
Dick didn't crash, he didn't even nearly crash. He just flew an approach. He's just upset he had to exercise his IFR rating to do it. I thought that's what it was for.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 8th Feb 2017 at 23:10.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Newcastle, NSW
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based at a class G airport, max 1500ft. Says it all really.
Blogs. No. No need for me to issue an apology.
In many places our ATCs can perform with an extra workload. Sometimes we fly in almost complete silence .
Last figure I head is that there is normally less than 150 IFR aircraft in the air over the Aus mainland at any given time . Can someone update this?
If the enroute controllers can do approach work at the smaller airports in Canada and the USA why not do a trial here. Would have saved lives at Benalla
In many places our ATCs can perform with an extra workload. Sometimes we fly in almost complete silence .
Last figure I head is that there is normally less than 150 IFR aircraft in the air over the Aus mainland at any given time . Can someone update this?
If the enroute controllers can do approach work at the smaller airports in Canada and the USA why not do a trial here. Would have saved lives at Benalla
Last edited by Dick Smith; 9th Feb 2017 at 22:24.
is the part of the industry that would see a significant improvement in safety
Sometime we fly in almost complete silence .
If that figure of 150 IFRs is correct, I'd wager that 80-90% of them are in 10% of the airspace. Maybe that means our ATC are doing a good job. Nobody has hit any one yet, and the pilots of them must be doing a pretty good job too, as none of them fly into each other or hills very often either.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 9th Feb 2017 at 02:24.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NowWhat
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ia8825
I believe the procedure Dick and others have hinted at is known as a radar vectors to cloud break procedure. Its not used in civil ATC in Australia
Not talking about Hobart here, but there are circumstances where descent in accordance with the DME steps will get you lower than RTCC levels allow at which point you'll get visual and be cleared visual approach.
wasbones, if I recall correctly, the military cloud break procedure allowed 500ft terrain clearance in certain conditions, as opposed to 1000ft on a 'normal' RTCC plate.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, a controller can be busy from things other than sheer numbers of aircraft on frequency. There is a lot we do in the background that you wont hear it on frequency There have been times where I have only had a handful of aircraft yet being working like a one armed bandit. All it takes is a few unusual things and you end up very busy very quickly.
Most low airspace controllers will monitor the descent profiles of aircraft when they have the spare capacity. For example, there have been several times where I have questioned an aircraft that was 0.5NM off track after the initial fix on an RNAV. More often than not they are just doing a visual approach, but if I see it I will ask.
Ultimately I genuinely believe there is some room for improvement in the system, especially now we have ADSB. We don't really want to be the people that waited for an accident to happen before we changed things, even if the chance may be small. If we have the technology, use it to its capability. My ultimate question is what do we really have to lose by giving some of dicks suggestions a go? Every time I plug in at an ATC console I try and do a little bit better every time, perhaps the overall system could do with the same approach.
Most low airspace controllers will monitor the descent profiles of aircraft when they have the spare capacity. For example, there have been several times where I have questioned an aircraft that was 0.5NM off track after the initial fix on an RNAV. More often than not they are just doing a visual approach, but if I see it I will ask.
Ultimately I genuinely believe there is some room for improvement in the system, especially now we have ADSB. We don't really want to be the people that waited for an accident to happen before we changed things, even if the chance may be small. If we have the technology, use it to its capability. My ultimate question is what do we really have to lose by giving some of dicks suggestions a go? Every time I plug in at an ATC console I try and do a little bit better every time, perhaps the overall system could do with the same approach.
1a 88. Thanks for a positive view.
A bit of leadership at the top is all that is needed.
The AMATS decision of 1991 was bringing in terminal E. Not even one trial of the North American system
A bit of leadership at the top is all that is needed.
The AMATS decision of 1991 was bringing in terminal E. Not even one trial of the North American system
Thread Starter
For example, there have been several times where I have questioned an aircraft that was 0.5NM off track after the initial fix on an RNAV. More often than not they are just doing a visual approach, but if I see it I will ask.
That, Dick, is where and why your next accident is going to occur.
There would be nothing worse than being controlled by ATC on one frequency and sorting myself out with bugsmashers on the other frequency. And no, I'm not allowed to change to VFR.
SHOW US THE MONEY.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So what do you suggest we do? Ignore the fact that their tracking does not match up with what we expect? 0.5nm is a long way off track on an RNAV approach (I believe full scale deflection is 0.3NM) and the mountains near Armidale are pretty big. If we are in doubt we have an obligation to do something about it, and quite frankly I'm not willing to just sit there and let something go wrong.
(I believe full scale deflection is 0.3NM)
So if outside FF 0.5 is right on the tracking limit.