Dick vs ADS-B vs AsA vs CASA vs Cambridge in Bad Wx

[Capn Bloggs]

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

I'm going to call BS on this. The cost to train may be negligible, but what about the cost of the extra controllers? Controllers have said their screen coverage during normal ops is massive. How is it possible to run an approach service all over the country at every IFR airfield without extra controllers? Where I fly, the enroute controllers are working flat out as it is based on the R/T. It would be impossible for the same people to do approach work as well. There would need to be extra controllers. What is it, $1m per console (numbers form ten years ago)? How many aeroplanes per controller here and in the US? And don't peddle the 20x stuff: the US has effectively 20 times the airspace.

You're a businessman. Show us the numbers.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Hadync

Um, yes there was Dick Said:

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). Do you even understand what is meant by "descend to 2000ft not below the DME steps"? There was no instrument approach involved after that. As you said before, "There is no flipping between DME arrival pages and approach pages."

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.

Hold it. There was no suggestion from you that ATC changed the approach on you. You said "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". You didn't even plan the approach in the first place (or at least ask what they were going to give you so you could prepare). That's pretty bad airmanship.

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).

Now that's a really clever idea, why didn't Dick think of that...

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).

[haydnc]

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.

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)

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!

[Capn Bloggs]

Based at a class G airport, max 1500ft. Says it all really.

[Lead Balloon]

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!

[Ia8825]

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.

[Capn Bloggs]

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.

Its use connotes

Spell and grammar check indeed.

[Lead Balloon]

Where did you get that emoticon?

I dips me lid on this occasion.

PS: "Its use connotes..." is perfectly correct spelling and grammar.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It will require more controllers, more training and a change in the way we do air traffic control,

= very large cost...who pays?

if we can get an appreciable safety benefit

If hardly anyone crashes now, how do we quantify the safety benefit if hardly anyone crashes after?

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.

[haydnc]

Based at a class G airport, max 1500ft. Says it all really.

What that should tell you, is that the part of the industry I have operated in RPT/CHTR below 5700 kgs, single pilot IFR, without the bells and whistles or the radar screens, is the part of the industry that would see a significant improvement in safety if radar services were available closer to the ground.

[Dick Smith]

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

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

is the part of the industry that would see a significant improvement in safety

Take it away from just your opinion, quantify that. Subject it to a cost/benefit analysis. What is significant? Would you be able to measure anything? How much do you spend before it gets to measurable, let alone significant. In the big picture, is it really that dangerous out there, that often. These are legitimate questions. Does that "part of the industry" contribute enough funds to pay for the increased services they wish for. Maybe other sections of the industry don't want to pay for services they won't use, or are generally happy with the service they are getting for their type of ops.

Sometime we fly in almost complete silence .

So when you are not talking on the radio while flying, you are doing nothing else?

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.

[fujii]

I just looked at Plane Finder. The counter showed around 330 aircraft.

[wasbones]

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

What you're referring to is done by civil radar approach units, it's just not named anything special. If you're going to get visual you'll be told expect visual approach and assigned progressively lower levels as CTA & RTCC permit until you call visual.

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.

[Showa Cho]

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.

[Ia8825]

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.

[Dick Smith]

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

[Capn Bloggs]

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.

The first thought that came to my mind when I read that was those guys in that EJet at Mildura and their near-miss with the Airvan. A call from Centre about their tracking when they could have been flat out on the CTAF.

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.

[Ia8825]

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.

[27/09]

(I believe full scale deflection is 0.3NM)

1 nm outside the FF and 0.3 or 2 degrees depending on whether or not TSO 129 or TSO 146 units inside FF.

So if outside FF 0.5 is right on the tracking limit.