Approach for Regional Airports
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Approach for Regional Airports
Give me a hint folks. Rocky and Mackay airports get a radar approach ATC service when the towers go home. It's part of the Survelillance Approach service meant to roll out eventually to 10 regional airports - but it is currently limited to Rocky/Mackay as they have coverage to the ground. Due to cutbacks and poor planning for training and staffing other positions, Airservices only provides the service from tower closing time until 11pm now. And they are actively planning to scrub any control service after the tower closes altogether - from about 8:20pm or 7:30pm on the weekends.
Airservices says no one (in industry) wants the service. Is this the case? Do local operators like the service? Seems many of the pilots we speak to do like it when the weather is crap and they get a dedicated service and separation. We know the class G 700' section is a pain in the proverbial meaning pilots have to make CTAF broadcasts but is that issue better solved by simply extending the airspace to the ground or getting rid of CTA altogether with a class G service and traffic as required?
Looking for some actual users to have their say - not the anonymous 'industry' that is quoted by Airservices when trying to cut services (continuing the general concerns that cutting 700 jobs+ or 20% plus staff will make no impact to the front line services!) Really!
Airservices says no one (in industry) wants the service. Is this the case? Do local operators like the service? Seems many of the pilots we speak to do like it when the weather is crap and they get a dedicated service and separation. We know the class G 700' section is a pain in the proverbial meaning pilots have to make CTAF broadcasts but is that issue better solved by simply extending the airspace to the ground or getting rid of CTA altogether with a class G service and traffic as required?
Looking for some actual users to have their say - not the anonymous 'industry' that is quoted by Airservices when trying to cut services (continuing the general concerns that cutting 700 jobs+ or 20% plus staff will make no impact to the front line services!) Really!
We know the class G 700' section is a pain in the proverbial meaning pilots have to make CTAF broadcasts but is that issue better solved by simply extending the airspace to the ground
Some questions that may need to be considered...
Do the after hours traffic movements warrant an approach service?
Is industry happy paying for an approach service for only a handful of movements per evening?
What is the problem we are trying to solve through the running of an approach service? What does the approach service actually provide vs not having it?
What is the current airspace risk level? and what will it be when the approach service is removed? Can other things be implemented to mitigate this risk?
Do the after hours traffic movements warrant an approach service?
Is industry happy paying for an approach service for only a handful of movements per evening?
What is the problem we are trying to solve through the running of an approach service? What does the approach service actually provide vs not having it?
What is the current airspace risk level? and what will it be when the approach service is removed? Can other things be implemented to mitigate this risk?
it is being provided by approach rated controllers so far as I am aware
Dick, I've told you this so many times and you still don't get it. To provide an approach service in Australia you need an approach rating. Full stop, no exceptions. Tassie approach is exactly the same complete WOFTAM.
Surely the Anderson directive has been superseded by more recent Statement of Expectations.
The most recent AsA Annual Report http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...015-16_WEB.pdf lists the current Minister’s Statement of Expectations which was issued on 15 June 2015, The AsA Board responded with a formal Statement of Intent through the Airservices Corporate Plan 2015–2020.
The only thing that vaguely aligns to the Anderson directive is "Implementing relevant Government Air Traffic Initiatives"
AsA response is
and
The last quote coulee mean anything couldn't it.
Perhaps one should review Überlingen mid-air collision where the controller on duty was working two different workstations at the same time, upper airspace at one workstation and an approach function at another workstation. Sure there were other factors at the time, degraded systems due to maintenance work being carried out on the main radar image processing system and use of a fallback system.
The most recent AsA Annual Report http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...015-16_WEB.pdf lists the current Minister’s Statement of Expectations which was issued on 15 June 2015, The AsA Board responded with a formal Statement of Intent through the Airservices Corporate Plan 2015–2020.
The only thing that vaguely aligns to the Anderson directive is "Implementing relevant Government Air Traffic Initiatives"
AsA response is
Continue to implement Government air traf c management and other airspace policy initiatives (in conjunction with the Department, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and the Department of Defence) including those arising out of the Government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Report.
Continual improvement to safety at regional aerodromes through the delivery of new services
Perhaps one should review Überlingen mid-air collision where the controller on duty was working two different workstations at the same time, upper airspace at one workstation and an approach function at another workstation. Sure there were other factors at the time, degraded systems due to maintenance work being carried out on the main radar image processing system and use of a fallback system.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all, thanks for the interesting replies.
To answer a few things as best I can:
- Yes, the service is provided by Approach controllers who are also endorsed as Enroute controllers for the most part (although 2 who do it more often are dedicated approach controllers only). They never do Approach and Enroute at the same time though.
-Is it worth an approach service with the movements experienced? Well that is a question for industry? What I would personally suggest is that parameters need to be determined if it is to exist or be removed. At times there have been Super heavy/heavy and multiple RPT jet movements using the service simultaneously but more often you could fire the proverbial 'canon' and not hit anything.
- The 'do you need a service' question is also IMHO, also one to ask more broadly. There are lots of Enroute sectors with low traffic levels and the chances of two coming together are much less than the same number coming together in the proximity of terminal airspace.
- Yep, there are alternatives, although Airservices is trying to bring in SIDS/STARS to segregate traffic at Mackay/Rocky so they can get rid of the Approach service by saying it is safer - jury out on that given designs will actually see potential increases in separation issues and doesn't really segregate once you get to 4500' and it becomes G. It's been suggested that if the Approach service goes it would be better to make it G to 8500' giving pilots more time to assess traffic etc.
Personally, I think if you have trained people to provide radar approach they should be used more during the daytime than the overnight service provided when the tower closes.
- No disrespect Dick, often disagree with your statements or positions, but one thing that does ring true is that in 2017, where we have surveillance to the ground it should be utiilised more than just as a "we'll give you traffic" as workload permits.
- don't want to wait until another accident before we got radar in 1991 to be used at Cairns & Cooly.
-Airservices/CASA in a prickly position now, can you imagine what happens if 2 come together at Mackay or Rocky after the approach service is removed?
To answer a few things as best I can:
- Yes, the service is provided by Approach controllers who are also endorsed as Enroute controllers for the most part (although 2 who do it more often are dedicated approach controllers only). They never do Approach and Enroute at the same time though.
-Is it worth an approach service with the movements experienced? Well that is a question for industry? What I would personally suggest is that parameters need to be determined if it is to exist or be removed. At times there have been Super heavy/heavy and multiple RPT jet movements using the service simultaneously but more often you could fire the proverbial 'canon' and not hit anything.
- The 'do you need a service' question is also IMHO, also one to ask more broadly. There are lots of Enroute sectors with low traffic levels and the chances of two coming together are much less than the same number coming together in the proximity of terminal airspace.
- Yep, there are alternatives, although Airservices is trying to bring in SIDS/STARS to segregate traffic at Mackay/Rocky so they can get rid of the Approach service by saying it is safer - jury out on that given designs will actually see potential increases in separation issues and doesn't really segregate once you get to 4500' and it becomes G. It's been suggested that if the Approach service goes it would be better to make it G to 8500' giving pilots more time to assess traffic etc.
Personally, I think if you have trained people to provide radar approach they should be used more during the daytime than the overnight service provided when the tower closes.
- No disrespect Dick, often disagree with your statements or positions, but one thing that does ring true is that in 2017, where we have surveillance to the ground it should be utiilised more than just as a "we'll give you traffic" as workload permits.
- don't want to wait until another accident before we got radar in 1991 to be used at Cairns & Cooly.
-Airservices/CASA in a prickly position now, can you imagine what happens if 2 come together at Mackay or Rocky after the approach service is removed?
Missy, re Uberlingen: there were two controllers rostered for the doggo, so there should have been no problems performing both functions. Under the practice current at the time, one went to sleep, a questionable action given the degraded system mode due to maintenance. Furthermore once the problems began to mount, eg phones not working, the sleeping controller should have been roused.
Le ping. Why can't we copy the US and Canadian system where the en route controllers can also do approach work in class E low level without a separate approach rating?
In the en route airspace north of Whichita in the we small hours the en route controller of the high level airspace also does the class E approach work at non tower airports. Why can't we copy this. No extra cost as workload is low at these times
In the en route airspace north of Whichita in the we small hours the en route controller of the high level airspace also does the class E approach work at non tower airports. Why can't we copy this. No extra cost as workload is low at these times
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Le ping. Why can't we copy the US and Canadian system where the en route controllers can also do approach work in class E low level without a separate approach rating?
In the en route airspace north of Whichita in the we small hours the en route controller of the high level airspace also does the class E approach work at non tower airports. Why can't we copy this. No extra cost as workload is low at these times
In the en route airspace north of Whichita in the we small hours the en route controller of the high level airspace also does the class E approach work at non tower airports. Why can't we copy this. No extra cost as workload is low at these times
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re the idea of doing Approach and Enroute on the same position, we have run a test and it is possible in the wee small hours to do both enrolee and approach, but it is also correct that it does need some attention to how the sectors are divided up. By example, if Rocky and Mackay Approach were to be done by Enroute then the controller looking after the Enroute around Rocky would naturally get the Rocky Approach role and the Mackay Approach gets treated the same. Would mean no change in Enroute controller numbers during the nights. So it is doable, provided the Approach control uses the same 5nm standard and they have limits imposed on certain services - E.g. can't go vectoring on radar terrain charts while operating on large scale screens - but that is a limitation worldwide anyway.
If you did this, you would be providing both a higher level of service, using existing resources, and maximising use of surveillance. Win, win??? Would require training for more enroute staff to ensure they have the skill-set…again…back to costs!
If you did this, you would be providing both a higher level of service, using existing resources, and maximising use of surveillance. Win, win??? Would require training for more enroute staff to ensure they have the skill-set…again…back to costs!
Last edited by shrimpboat; 9th Mar 2017 at 04:44.
Why should it? That thing has EGPWS and RNP-AR (or at least a VNAV/FMS) approach. What's the point? Are you going to install traffic lights at every intersection? If there are no other aeroplanes about, we don't need ATC. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL. This is the 21st century. Operators using on-board technology to reduce their costs/keep their safety levels up. Why would you want to put in a costly 1950s "we're watching over you" ATC system?
Dick, can you post the specific requirements and procedures that enroute approach controllers use in the US and the standards used? Actually, forget that as I already did years ago. How about telling us what your understanding of those standards are and the application by the ATCOS?
Bloggs makes an interesting point, at what point does on board technology trump the need for an approach service?
Surely the only argument for an approach service can be made in the name of collision risk, and only then when air traffic is dense?
What other arguments for an approach service are there? This leads me back to the questions I asked at the beginning of the thread....no one is asking whether we actually need one or not....the default position appears to be that we do.
Just because Dick says we need one, does not make it so. It is evidence over the last few threads that he has no idea how the current airspace system works, so I'd be dubious taking his advice on how to improve it
Surely the only argument for an approach service can be made in the name of collision risk, and only then when air traffic is dense?
What other arguments for an approach service are there? This leads me back to the questions I asked at the beginning of the thread....no one is asking whether we actually need one or not....the default position appears to be that we do.
Just because Dick says we need one, does not make it so. It is evidence over the last few threads that he has no idea how the current airspace system works, so I'd be dubious taking his advice on how to improve it
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The conversation has got back to the question that I began with. When is the service valuable to the user and when does that stop re costs. In the Canberra case I understand that the user wants to pay for the service - so be it. In the case of other areas they are mixed.
It does seem silly to have ARFF and ATC for one movement but at other locations you will see a lot of movements and no ATC/ARFF? When I'm operating the service and I see 4 jets in the space of 15 minutes, in bad weather, arriving into terminal airspace, I'm thinking that the service is useful - at least taking out some of the concern about what other aircraft are doing. But, the removal of the service is going to see these folks be given traffic and sort themselves out.
There's a lot of ATC who believe this is the way to go - pilots with traffic, ACAS, etc can help themselves. I still think that if I'm paying for a ticket on the jet then yes please "I would like fries with that". In other words, give me someone with surveillance to separate, watch what others are doing (that is separate, especially where ACAS doesn't assist), and use things like radar lowest safe to assist with approaches etc.
But as all know…we have to provide what we can afford! Again, we get back to what is the cut-off? Seems illogical to provide the full blown service to 1 Canberra flight but not to anything up to 4 jets arriving in a short space of time in another terminal area. I could suggest the same on many enroute sectors where we have bleary eyed controllers taking to a few planes that never come close to each other - but under the rules, the airspace classification means you get the 'service', Airservices gets the money, and safety is not assessed as a factor really. I'm not referring to the sectors overnight that handle huge volumes, I'm talking about the ones that have minimal traffic and Capn Bloggs rightly points out, could effective navigate,separate etc without any help from ground based ATC.
So, again, surely a more effective set of parameters needs to be found for assessing and providing services - and how the services are delivered. It may be me, but I think we are losing the basic common sense we used to have in working out what is safe and what isn't.
It does seem silly to have ARFF and ATC for one movement but at other locations you will see a lot of movements and no ATC/ARFF? When I'm operating the service and I see 4 jets in the space of 15 minutes, in bad weather, arriving into terminal airspace, I'm thinking that the service is useful - at least taking out some of the concern about what other aircraft are doing. But, the removal of the service is going to see these folks be given traffic and sort themselves out.
There's a lot of ATC who believe this is the way to go - pilots with traffic, ACAS, etc can help themselves. I still think that if I'm paying for a ticket on the jet then yes please "I would like fries with that". In other words, give me someone with surveillance to separate, watch what others are doing (that is separate, especially where ACAS doesn't assist), and use things like radar lowest safe to assist with approaches etc.
But as all know…we have to provide what we can afford! Again, we get back to what is the cut-off? Seems illogical to provide the full blown service to 1 Canberra flight but not to anything up to 4 jets arriving in a short space of time in another terminal area. I could suggest the same on many enroute sectors where we have bleary eyed controllers taking to a few planes that never come close to each other - but under the rules, the airspace classification means you get the 'service', Airservices gets the money, and safety is not assessed as a factor really. I'm not referring to the sectors overnight that handle huge volumes, I'm talking about the ones that have minimal traffic and Capn Bloggs rightly points out, could effective navigate,separate etc without any help from ground based ATC.
So, again, surely a more effective set of parameters needs to be found for assessing and providing services - and how the services are delivered. It may be me, but I think we are losing the basic common sense we used to have in working out what is safe and what isn't.