Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs
LePing et al,
What you blokes simply refuse to accept is the cost to operators of the difference between E and C, particularly every time you get that entirely unique Australian: "Clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace".
Lookleft,
Harking back to the NAS, an old friend has reminded me that, during the NAS trial no complaints/incidents were filed by AIPA members, only AFAP. Being rather cynical, I don't think that was just random chance.
That will certainly come as a surprise to a bunch of pilots who think they have just been interviewed for QantasLink -8 F/O slots.
Tootle pip!!
PS:
You are getting your authors confused.
What you blokes simply refuse to accept is the cost to operators of the difference between E and C, particularly every time you get that entirely unique Australian: "Clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace".
Lookleft,
Harking back to the NAS, an old friend has reminded me that, during the NAS trial no complaints/incidents were filed by AIPA members, only AFAP. Being rather cynical, I don't think that was just random chance.
All QF pilots start out as 'international" pilots
Tootle pip!!
PS:
toodle pip and up the Khyber.
Thread Starter
Come on. When did a class D tower use radar for separation?
In the class C above the VFR has to be separated from IFR..
See. It’s not possible!
In the class C above the VFR has to be separated from IFR..
See. It’s not possible!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Apr 2018 at 09:18.
Dick
I think fujii is suggesting that the way in which a controller will know that a VFR aircraft is in the C airspace at 6,500’ north of Albury is TSAD.
This assumes the VFR aircraft has a serviceable transponder switched on, thus enabling a controller to see the unverified 6,500’ return in the C airspace north of Albury. Just like in E...
I think fujii is suggesting that the way in which a controller will know that a VFR aircraft is in the C airspace at 6,500’ north of Albury is TSAD.
This assumes the VFR aircraft has a serviceable transponder switched on, thus enabling a controller to see the unverified 6,500’ return in the C airspace north of Albury. Just like in E...
Balloon, I've never been to the US. Some of the family has been once. There's a very big difference between the entire integrated US system and what we'd be having. You need to look deeper than just airspace. That doesn't even address the risks during the transition.
“Deeper than just airspace”? Smells like code for “culture”. I think you’re correct. I doubt whether the Galapagos tortoises in Australia will ever be able to get over soiling their cloacae at perceived collision risks.
Originally Posted by Dick
See. It’s not possible!
Who'd a thought?!
LeadBaal, Anzac Day is tomorrow. That's when the drinking is supposed to start.
Speaking of Galapagos tortoises...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Discrete Broadcast Zone (DBZ)
Ex FSO Griffo:
Re your post #51
Does the following phrase ring a bell when aircraft advised Hedland FSC on HF when they were approaching the DBZ (at 20nm) or taxiing within any of the DBZs ?
DBZs were implemented in 1973 at Newman, Tom Price and Paraburdoo to accommodate the large amount of aircraft movements at those aerodromes during the construction of the Port Hedland-Newman railway line and the Tom Price/Paraburdoo-Karratha railway line. A long time before MTAFs, MBZs, CTAF(R)s or CTAFs.
Gee now I am really feeling my age!
Re your post #51
The theory was to get aircraft off the then congested FS freqs of the Pilbara
'of the day', (Mining BOOM!) and talk to each other - on the dedicated DBZ freq. No, I can't remember what it was. Or even WHEN it WAS....
Does it matter?
'of the day', (Mining BOOM!) and talk to each other - on the dedicated DBZ freq. No, I can't remember what it was. Or even WHEN it WAS....
Does it matter?
"ABC traffic DBZ 123.9 is DEF, GHI etc"?
Gee now I am really feeling my age!
Thread Starter
The class D controllers are prohibited from using TSAD for separation I am told.
So so how do they handle the situation I have described?
A hint. “ remain OCTA” to the VFR.
So so how do they handle the situation I have described?
A hint. “ remain OCTA” to the VFR.
Please: Could someone - anyone - explain to CASA that CTAFs don’t have “dimensions”. The clue is in the acronym.
Thread Starter
I notice CASA is planning to solve the enormous CTAF problem, but the text that Mr Carmody has sent out in his recent newsletter says:
Surely this will lead to a greater chance of people being on a different frequency in the circuit area of the same aerodrome? Has CASA come up with this offer so they don’t offend anyone? That is, you can go to the multicom if you want to, or you can remain on the area frequency if you want to – transmitting and potentially blocking out important air traffic control instructions.Has this happened because CASA is trying to make decisions on “votes”, prejudices and human resistance to change – rather than using science and proven safe systems from around the world?
“The use of 126.7 MHz for uncharted aerodromes will only be a recommendation and single-user aerodromes/ALAs may still use the area VHF frequency where airmanship dictates this is appropriate.”
Class D Towers can use TSAD for situational awareness and can use it for certain tasks that do not require continuous screen monitoring; one example is to confirm that an aircraft has left the airspace they are responsible for.
Dick is correct that the device is not approved by CASA (Using ICAO standards) to be used for separation (prohibited is the wrong word);
1. Because it does not meet the ICAO requirements to be a separation tool; and,
2. Because the Tower controllers job is to look out of the windows.
In the case above that Dick describes,
Re the Class C. It is more expensive because it requires an approach radar system with primary and secondary radar to operate safely.
The FAA does not establish Class C without radar coverage but Australia has vast amounts of Class C airspace that do not have surveillance coverage
Otherwise the controller would quite often not know the exact location of the VFR traffic.
The controller without surveillance only knows the position of aircraft, IFR or VFR, on the basis of pilot reports; that is why the procedural separation standards take up much more space than surveillance standards
Let’s say a VFR aircraft flew across the approach airspace 20 miles north of Launy. How would the controller ever know?
Only from the pilot's position reports unless the aircraft was fitted with a transponder and was squawking, then it would appear on the TSAD. (Utilising information from the Tasmanian Multilat system)
How would a controller know the position of a VFR aircraft crossing at 6500’ from East to west 20 miles north of Albury?
See above
“Keep left of that farm in front of you”. What a joke.
Possibly however being able to fix position relative to a known point on the ground is probably the oldest form of navigation and separation
VFR aircraft can fly straight through to approach airspace of these non radar class C airports and the tower controller would most likely never know.
True but ATC is based on pilot cooperation backed up by legislation, and why would a pilot want to fly through the approach airspace of any aerodrome without announcing themselves?
I hope this explanation helps
Dick is correct that the device is not approved by CASA (Using ICAO standards) to be used for separation (prohibited is the wrong word);
1. Because it does not meet the ICAO requirements to be a separation tool; and,
2. Because the Tower controllers job is to look out of the windows.
In the case above that Dick describes,
Re the Class C. It is more expensive because it requires an approach radar system with primary and secondary radar to operate safely.
The FAA does not establish Class C without radar coverage but Australia has vast amounts of Class C airspace that do not have surveillance coverage
Otherwise the controller would quite often not know the exact location of the VFR traffic.
The controller without surveillance only knows the position of aircraft, IFR or VFR, on the basis of pilot reports; that is why the procedural separation standards take up much more space than surveillance standards
Let’s say a VFR aircraft flew across the approach airspace 20 miles north of Launy. How would the controller ever know?
Only from the pilot's position reports unless the aircraft was fitted with a transponder and was squawking, then it would appear on the TSAD. (Utilising information from the Tasmanian Multilat system)
How would a controller know the position of a VFR aircraft crossing at 6500’ from East to west 20 miles north of Albury?
See above
“Keep left of that farm in front of you”. What a joke.
Possibly however being able to fix position relative to a known point on the ground is probably the oldest form of navigation and separation
VFR aircraft can fly straight through to approach airspace of these non radar class C airports and the tower controller would most likely never know.
True but ATC is based on pilot cooperation backed up by legislation, and why would a pilot want to fly through the approach airspace of any aerodrome without announcing themselves?
I hope this explanation helps
Thread Starter
No. It doesn’t! ,because it doesn’t reflect what happens in practice.
If an IFR aircraft was on approach from the north of Albury and a VFR wanted a clearance across the approach path it would most likely be refused clearance as it’s not possible to safely use ground features under the circumstances I described.
Hence the John Anderson directive. Comply with it.
If an IFR aircraft was on approach from the north of Albury and a VFR wanted a clearance across the approach path it would most likely be refused clearance as it’s not possible to safely use ground features under the circumstances I described.
Hence the John Anderson directive. Comply with it.
Dick, you're clutching at straws. The John Anderson directive came from you. This nonsense about radar being required to run C is just that. It is a furphy designed to scare the ignorant into introducing E. Nothing more. Most of the players saw through it.
... may be the case in that particular circumstance but there are myriad others where separation using ground features works perfectly satisfactorily.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
as it’s not possible to safely use ground features under the circumstances I described.
What? If there are no landmarks they could use, then they wouldn't do it.
Alice tower: "(VFR) ABC remain west of the Stuart Highway, descend to 3500".
In any case, you are hot on evidence-based allocation of alphabet airspace, exactly how many times has this Albury scenario occurred?
And another thing. In C, the VFR wouldn't get a clearance across the IFR's track. So let's put in E. But wait, nothing has actually changed. There is still a VFR and an IFR crossing paths. Both aircraft are in the same piece of sky, but now, apart from the TCAS and perhaps the VFR might be listening to the sparse "position reports" from the IFR to Centre or the tower, neither aircraft will know about each other. See and Avoid? Good luck with that.
Rediculous.
Alice tower: "(VFR) ABC remain west of the Stuart Highway, descend to 3500".
In any case, you are hot on evidence-based allocation of alphabet airspace, exactly how many times has this Albury scenario occurred?
And another thing. In C, the VFR wouldn't get a clearance across the IFR's track. So let's put in E. But wait, nothing has actually changed. There is still a VFR and an IFR crossing paths. Both aircraft are in the same piece of sky, but now, apart from the TCAS and perhaps the VFR might be listening to the sparse "position reports" from the IFR to Centre or the tower, neither aircraft will know about each other. See and Avoid? Good luck with that.
Rediculous.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 28th Apr 2018 at 00:51.
But it’s how it works at Broome...
Dick - I did not say or imply that in the situation you posed the VFR pilot would get a clearance, I thought you were asking about how the Tower controller would know about the aircraft.
Albury TSAD (from memory) does not have as good a coverage at lower levels as Launceston and anyway cannot be used for separation.
Albury TSAD (from memory) does not have as good a coverage at lower levels as Launceston and anyway cannot be used for separation.