A bit of ATC history please
Dick the situation you describe in your first post was many years in the making and probably stemmed from the same malaise that we suffer from now - lack of long term planning. Civil Air and PREI have nothing to do with it, they are simply representatives of their members. Ex-FSO Griffith adequately describes the relations between FS and ATC throughout the 70's and 80's egged on by the various supervisors who did not know any better and radar was never going to be cost-effective in the hands of FSOs due to the capital cost and the training. If the traffic was dense then enough introduce ATC as per Bankstown and the other GA metro airports. The traffic information given OCTA was always a luxury which no-one could afford.
The history is another thing and I like to think that ATC grew out of Flight Service and I am glad that so many of our FSOs were able to cross train when the opportunity presented.
I know more about the US than Australia but the history there is that the airlines got together long before the Grand Canyon and established Federal Airways, this was 1927. When radio became available around 1930 airport control towers were introduced (Cleveland Municipal had the honour) and the airlines initiated flight following in the federal airways for their own aircraft. They then got together and coordinated between airlines by phone before opening the first Airway Traffic Control Center in Newark on December 1st, 1935. Others were also opened coordinating movements between airlines and the airport towers. On July 6th 1936 the US Government took over the operations of the Centers but not the Towers as they had become the property of the airports. Flight Service Stations grew up at the sites of the four-course radio ranges and began to do remote radio for the ATC centers. They gradually took on more functions including passing known traffic information, but I don't think it was as heavily regulated as it was/is in Australia. They were also heavily oriented towards the GA community, something I think they had in common with Australian FSUs.
Flight Service in the US has gone the same way as in Australia, radio relay was no longer needed (except for HF which continues to this day), flight information could be distributed by computer making it possible for the FSUs to be withdrawn into large scale FSS. With that withdrawal the traffic information service also disappeared however the US seems to have lots of keen people willing to run UNICOMs whereas we have only 22 (I think) who we forbid to provide traffic information. Similarly in the US FS never had access to radar it was simply not their job. The US (VFR exempt) federal airways developed into Class E airspace and surveillance has enabled the US controller to provide a great service to IFR and VFR who ask for it.
The history is another thing and I like to think that ATC grew out of Flight Service and I am glad that so many of our FSOs were able to cross train when the opportunity presented.
I know more about the US than Australia but the history there is that the airlines got together long before the Grand Canyon and established Federal Airways, this was 1927. When radio became available around 1930 airport control towers were introduced (Cleveland Municipal had the honour) and the airlines initiated flight following in the federal airways for their own aircraft. They then got together and coordinated between airlines by phone before opening the first Airway Traffic Control Center in Newark on December 1st, 1935. Others were also opened coordinating movements between airlines and the airport towers. On July 6th 1936 the US Government took over the operations of the Centers but not the Towers as they had become the property of the airports. Flight Service Stations grew up at the sites of the four-course radio ranges and began to do remote radio for the ATC centers. They gradually took on more functions including passing known traffic information, but I don't think it was as heavily regulated as it was/is in Australia. They were also heavily oriented towards the GA community, something I think they had in common with Australian FSUs.
Flight Service in the US has gone the same way as in Australia, radio relay was no longer needed (except for HF which continues to this day), flight information could be distributed by computer making it possible for the FSUs to be withdrawn into large scale FSS. With that withdrawal the traffic information service also disappeared however the US seems to have lots of keen people willing to run UNICOMs whereas we have only 22 (I think) who we forbid to provide traffic information. Similarly in the US FS never had access to radar it was simply not their job. The US (VFR exempt) federal airways developed into Class E airspace and surveillance has enabled the US controller to provide a great service to IFR and VFR who ask for it.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: No longer in Hong kong
Age: 75
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian ATC
I was a controller in Sydney from July 1969 to 1979 before moving to Canberra, Brisbane and then overseas to Dubai and Hong Kong. Mostly Approach and tower but I did my bit on sector control. Yes the top of CTA on the East coast was FL400, which was often busted by the few exec jets that were in Oz then. A few Learjets, and Associated Airlines had at least one Gulfstream II (VH-ASJ methinks, along with three Gulfstream 1's FLO, ASG and CRA) The latter three not FL400 busters. We only had Thompson CSF RSR with a range of 160NM at SY, ML and BN, and the gaps in the middle were procedurally controlled. In about 1972 RSR radars were commissioned at Canberra and "The Round Mountain" - near Coff's to give an interlinked "Mosaic" display for radar coverage on the East Coast above about FL200. And yes, two big leaps forward then were shrimp boats (little plastic doo-val-lackies that we wrote callsigns on -hahaha) and primative SSR. It was code 2000 for international types like the B707, DC8 and VC10, and code 2400 for domestic 727's and DC-9's. Only a symbol appeared on the radar screen. Something that fascinated me was to see traffic overflying Canberra at high level would be a parting of the two returns (primary and secondary) due I guess to the fact that the primary return was two dimensional and was showing the aircraft about 6 miles from the radar head (in a vertical sense) even when passing straight over the primary radar site, whereas the secondary return was a computer generated synthetic return.
"TJL expect holding at BINDOOK" Hahahaha LOL
"TJL expect holding at BINDOOK" Hahahaha LOL
Thread Starter
But only Australia had the system where a plane in un controlled airspace with radar coverage was prohibited from communicating directly with the radar controller .
I was responsible for those changes under AMATS in the early 90s.
When MDX was getting lost over the mountains and flying for 20 mins at right angles to the planned direction he was never once informed .
The pilot of MDX never at any stage was allowed to communicate with the two radar controllers that had the aircraft in solid radar coverage. The BASI report did not even mention this or make a recommendation that pilots in good radar coverage be allowed to actually communicate directly to the radar controller. When I fought for this many pilots did not agree. They had no problems with the mandatory FS - non radar -system for OCTA airspace.
Such is the resistance to change even when safety can clearly be improved!
I was responsible for those changes under AMATS in the early 90s.
When MDX was getting lost over the mountains and flying for 20 mins at right angles to the planned direction he was never once informed .
The pilot of MDX never at any stage was allowed to communicate with the two radar controllers that had the aircraft in solid radar coverage. The BASI report did not even mention this or make a recommendation that pilots in good radar coverage be allowed to actually communicate directly to the radar controller. When I fought for this many pilots did not agree. They had no problems with the mandatory FS - non radar -system for OCTA airspace.
Such is the resistance to change even when safety can clearly be improved!
But only Australia had the system where a plane in un controlled airspace with radar coverage was prohibited from communicating directly with the radar controller .
With a pilot reporting unsure of position or experiencing VMC or other difficulties OCTA within radar coverage, Flight Service would, as a matter of routine, coordinate with the relevant overlying ATC sector - often transferring the aircraft to the ATC frequency - and ATC then providing assistance with position identification, heading to fly etc. etc.
My emphasis
Note the two mutually exclusive bits there?
3 pages and finally the agenda appears. Its been 34 years Dick. FS is long dead and gone. Give it a rest.
Now anyone can talk to a controller whenever they want to. Aren't there several current threads here where you are pushing hard to get pilots off the ATC frequencies??
a plane in un controlled airspace
radar controller
3 pages and finally the agenda appears. Its been 34 years Dick. FS is long dead and gone. Give it a rest.
Now anyone can talk to a controller whenever they want to. Aren't there several current threads here where you are pushing hard to get pilots off the ATC frequencies??
Thread Starter
My final agenda is clear. Either go back to our proven safe dual system or continue the reforms so we are closely copying another proven safe system. I am not a supporter of using the flying public as guinea pigs in an un proven system as CASA is attempting now,
Thread Starter
Traffic. No. I am happy for pilots to be on ATC frequencies .
Just not happy for pilots to be making non directed announcements on ATC frequencies that are also being used to separate traffic.
Just not happy for pilots to be making non directed announcements on ATC frequencies that are also being used to separate traffic.
Thread Starter
Captain. Why didn't the controllers or FS involved in the six fatality MDX crash get the pilot to change to the radar frequency?
Why didn't BASI make a recommendation that in future pilots be encouraged to communicate directly with the radar controller?
Because of resistance to change and resistance to copying the best.
It would take nearly ten years and my involvement as Chairman of CAA to fix this obvious safety deficiency.
Nothing has changed. Resist resist resist copying the best proven systems!
Why didn't BASI make a recommendation that in future pilots be encouraged to communicate directly with the radar controller?
Because of resistance to change and resistance to copying the best.
It would take nearly ten years and my involvement as Chairman of CAA to fix this obvious safety deficiency.
Nothing has changed. Resist resist resist copying the best proven systems!
Re #48,
I would say that this cannot now be 'done', as it would entail 'mega-bucks' to set up again, with separate and additional, that is, many more than there currently exists, VHF freqs. set up 'all over', as it used to be.
The 'old' FS freqs having been utilised for ATC purposes, and rightly so, as they were an available 'tool'.
Let alone the recruiting / training / facility building / VHF satellite links, etc etc. to BN and or ML
And, possibly, just possibly, there is now insufficient GA activity / interest anyway, as GA is not in a 'healthy' state.....
What we HAD was financed by a levy of 2C per litre on avgas.
What it cost to 'demolish' was chickenfeed in contrast to resurrecting.....
"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less"......
Oh Dear..!!
Back to 'Plan "B"'....
Wait.... What was "Plan B" ?
Hard to 'cheer' over this one.....
I would say that this cannot now be 'done', as it would entail 'mega-bucks' to set up again, with separate and additional, that is, many more than there currently exists, VHF freqs. set up 'all over', as it used to be.
The 'old' FS freqs having been utilised for ATC purposes, and rightly so, as they were an available 'tool'.
Let alone the recruiting / training / facility building / VHF satellite links, etc etc. to BN and or ML
And, possibly, just possibly, there is now insufficient GA activity / interest anyway, as GA is not in a 'healthy' state.....
What we HAD was financed by a levy of 2C per litre on avgas.
What it cost to 'demolish' was chickenfeed in contrast to resurrecting.....
"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less"......
Oh Dear..!!
Back to 'Plan "B"'....
Wait.... What was "Plan B" ?
Hard to 'cheer' over this one.....
RE#50,
Dick, What makes you so sure that the pilot Concerned would have been capable of changing the radio freq. with his very high workload / mental situation of the time?
And, also, how do you know that he would have had VHF comms with 'Willy' had he been able to change, him being on the other side of the mountain from 'Willy'?
I think that, at the time, the FS Freq, was the only applicable VHF freq. for this pilot as it was situated somewhere close, on top of one of those mountains, for the range.....cannot remember just where now, it was so long ago, but others may be able to assist.
Dick, What makes you so sure that the pilot Concerned would have been capable of changing the radio freq. with his very high workload / mental situation of the time?
And, also, how do you know that he would have had VHF comms with 'Willy' had he been able to change, him being on the other side of the mountain from 'Willy'?
I think that, at the time, the FS Freq, was the only applicable VHF freq. for this pilot as it was situated somewhere close, on top of one of those mountains, for the range.....cannot remember just where now, it was so long ago, but others may be able to assist.
Thread Starter
He is was line of sight to two VHF ATC outlets.
He was in good radar coverage from Willy so it stands to reason that direct VHF contact would work to a ground station placed near the radar antennae. And that's where the Willy ATC transmitted from.
Should have been no need to change frequency. He should have been on the radar frequency all of the time,
If I could make the changes in the early 90s why couldn't BASI recommend such a change in the accident report!
I know. Classic resistance to change. Just like now with some still wanting 1950s frequency boundarys on charts
He was in good radar coverage from Willy so it stands to reason that direct VHF contact would work to a ground station placed near the radar antennae. And that's where the Willy ATC transmitted from.
Should have been no need to change frequency. He should have been on the radar frequency all of the time,
If I could make the changes in the early 90s why couldn't BASI recommend such a change in the accident report!
I know. Classic resistance to change. Just like now with some still wanting 1950s frequency boundarys on charts
You do realise those lines don't preclude pilots calling on another frequency? While we have low level sectors providing a FIS, including traffic to IFR and a SIS to VFR who want it we will have fixed frequency boundaries to define areas of responsibility for those sectors.
IFR and VFR aircraft mix so it makes sense to have them on common frequencies. That's just plain CDF, not ideology. Having the boundaries indicated assists that.
You're the one wanting to have a half-arsed mixed system by introducing changes piecemeal as a way of getting the end changes you want in. Talk about untried systems.
IFR and VFR aircraft mix so it makes sense to have them on common frequencies. That's just plain CDF, not ideology. Having the boundaries indicated assists that.
You're the one wanting to have a half-arsed mixed system by introducing changes piecemeal as a way of getting the end changes you want in. Talk about untried systems.
Last edited by le Pingouin; 19th Mar 2017 at 08:10. Reason: typo
Why didn't the controllers or FS involved in the six fatality MDX crash get the pilot to change to the radar frequency?
At any stage, did the pilot advise FS he was experiencing navigation difficulties and in particular, was unsure of position or track, or request assistance?
If not, how would FS and the sector controller have known?
Thread Starter
Der. That's the very point I am making.
In radar coverage the pilot should have been on the radar frequency. But this was not allowed in those days.
He didn't know he was going in the wrong direction and FS didn't know as There was no radar screen.
That's why I got involved and changed the system..
No Le Ping. Not a half arsed system. I have always wanted the proven efficient North American system. You and others are preventing that from coming in.
But one day it will!
In radar coverage the pilot should have been on the radar frequency. But this was not allowed in those days.
He didn't know he was going in the wrong direction and FS didn't know as There was no radar screen.
That's why I got involved and changed the system..
No Le Ping. Not a half arsed system. I have always wanted the proven efficient North American system. You and others are preventing that from coming in.
But one day it will!
Thread Starter
Le ping. You say it makes sense to have IFR and VFR on the same frequencies .
What's the use when IFR don't give position reports when under radar or ADSB?
I think you are mixed up with the old FS system where IFR had to give full position reports
What's the use when IFR don't give position reports when under radar or ADSB?
I think you are mixed up with the old FS system where IFR had to give full position reports
How does removing the boundaries improve safety? How does leaving them on detract from safety? What is your rationale other then "they do it in the US" with no actual analysis as to efficacy?
How is introducing a system in stages inherently safe? Your two end states might be safe but the stages in between are entirely untested with no evidence of safe operation. The stages are entirely half-arsed because they're by definition an untried mixture of procedures.
How am I preventing anything? I'm just a line controller with absolutely no clout - I don't have the ears of politicians to influence them or their testicles either like you do. I have no ability to prevent anything other than presenting my opinion.
How is introducing a system in stages inherently safe? Your two end states might be safe but the stages in between are entirely untested with no evidence of safe operation. The stages are entirely half-arsed because they're by definition an untried mixture of procedures.
How am I preventing anything? I'm just a line controller with absolutely no clout - I don't have the ears of politicians to influence them or their testicles either like you do. I have no ability to prevent anything other than presenting my opinion.
Thread Starter
It improves safety by making it simple. That is. If in the approach or departure area of an aerodrome monitor/ announce on that frequency. Otherwise keep a good lookout and enjoy the scenery. I don't force you to monitor the truck channel when you go driving on the weekends!
The reversal by placing the frequency boundaries back on charts resulted in the present stuff up where CASA has a totally different view than the Rapacs.
And this clearly has not been resolved. That is clearly a safety issue.
The reversal by placing the frequency boundaries back on charts resulted in the present stuff up where CASA has a totally different view than the Rapacs.
And this clearly has not been resolved. That is clearly a safety issue.
IFR are still required to broadcast prior to descending into G and make inbound calls. Not all IFR are within surveillance coverage. They still make taxi calls and report departure on area.
I'm not mixed up, I do this every day for a living.
I'm not mixed up, I do this every day for a living.