IFR Pickup
There's plenty of locations where this is the norm rather than the exception, namely islands off the mainland which have one track to/from a capital city (and regular CHTR/RPT), think Kangaroo Island, King Island, maybe Horn, Groote, Melville, Bathurst etc.... but before we get too far along this path. Back to CG's earlier question... How much class E airspace is proposed?
Will there be non-radar E airspace to most/all locations over the country?
Will there be non-radar E airspace to most/all locations over the country?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is better?
SM4
Re your para. 3.
This is an improvement to our current system??? PHONE?????
The regionals might wear this, but will your corporate/charter have a bar of it.
I would like to know where the 10% comes from.
ATC workload has got to be higher, so I fail to see where the savings are going to come from.
If we're hoping TCAS will save the situation with VFR traffic, then I offer the following statistic. 34% of inbound/outbound aircraft I deal with have some transponder problem. Doesn't work, not switched on, Mode C u/s, wrong code. And this is in airspace where transponder operation should be second nature.
Out in the sticks? Who knows????
The chances are that VFR traffic will be on another frequency, if at all on any frequency, given that the charts will not have area frequencies on them any more. At least these days you might get a response from some of them.
Somebody has left the gate open at the asylum.
CG
Re your para. 3.
This is an improvement to our current system??? PHONE?????
The regionals might wear this, but will your corporate/charter have a bar of it.
I would like to know where the 10% comes from.
ATC workload has got to be higher, so I fail to see where the savings are going to come from.
If we're hoping TCAS will save the situation with VFR traffic, then I offer the following statistic. 34% of inbound/outbound aircraft I deal with have some transponder problem. Doesn't work, not switched on, Mode C u/s, wrong code. And this is in airspace where transponder operation should be second nature.
Out in the sticks? Who knows????
The chances are that VFR traffic will be on another frequency, if at all on any frequency, given that the charts will not have area frequencies on them any more. At least these days you might get a response from some of them.
Somebody has left the gate open at the asylum.
CG
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least these days you might get a response from some of them
Let me give you a bit of advice. Spend less time talking amd more time LOOKING in VMC, like 'them'.SM4, do you have ABS and 12 front and side airbags in your vehicle like me, or can't you afford it?
Last edited by Winstun; 5th Jun 2003 at 07:53.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Answer for Cheif Galah
As I understand it, if there will be time to get the departure away he will be cleared to do so, with a void time after which the clearance is no longer valid. We would then restrict the climb/descent of the conflicting aircraft untill we achieve separation (definite passing by 10 DME/GPS, requirement 10min before time of passing, radar, somebody diverted on a radial - errr, if that will work in a corridor...) This would continue until somebody becomes sufficiently enraged by the blunt instrument of procedural separation that they cancel IFR. Oh, they can't, you said IMC.
If there is not time we say "Clearance not available, call again time (when we think the arrival will arrive)"
I have read some crap that claims the US ATC are facilitators "they say yes then figure out how to do it" while we are ridiculously restrictive, but I reckon the above is a realistic expectation of what you would get over there in this instance. Except they don't use radials much...
If there is not time we say "Clearance not available, call again time (when we think the arrival will arrive)"
I have read some crap that claims the US ATC are facilitators "they say yes then figure out how to do it" while we are ridiculously restrictive, but I reckon the above is a realistic expectation of what you would get over there in this instance. Except they don't use radials much...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spodman
Thanks for your reply.
It's pretty much how I envisaged things. As a controller you won't be too popular when someone like KP's crew (or DS for that matter) miss the void time, and you have to be the bearer of the 10-15 minute delay news while the other traffic gets out of the way. This will be complicated in locations where comms on the ground are limited or non-existent.
Also, can anyone out there enlighten me if the regionals or the military will participate in "IFR pickup"?
CG
It's pretty much how I envisaged things. As a controller you won't be too popular when someone like KP's crew (or DS for that matter) miss the void time, and you have to be the bearer of the 10-15 minute delay news while the other traffic gets out of the way. This will be complicated in locations where comms on the ground are limited or non-existent.
Also, can anyone out there enlighten me if the regionals or the military will participate in "IFR pickup"?
CG
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IFR Pick up
CG
Potentially the regionals will be the group to benefit most from this procedure providing their companies let them do it.
Every day there is a Dash a Saab or Metro departing a regional port at or about the same time. Most of this is in VMC and procedural sep will hold one down or out of CTA(E). This procedure (in VMC) would allow the efficiency of past procedures used in G to continue. As for IMC, then E will introduce delays which have not occurred under past procedures.
When the E corridors first went in, it was proposed that the regionals be permitted to climb in VMC, but CASA could not come to terms with such a proposal and ASA were too busy with the intro of TAAATS to do any controller training so it did not get up.
Regs will still have to be changed for RPT to do it.
"No known traffic"
Potentially the regionals will be the group to benefit most from this procedure providing their companies let them do it.
Every day there is a Dash a Saab or Metro departing a regional port at or about the same time. Most of this is in VMC and procedural sep will hold one down or out of CTA(E). This procedure (in VMC) would allow the efficiency of past procedures used in G to continue. As for IMC, then E will introduce delays which have not occurred under past procedures.
When the E corridors first went in, it was proposed that the regionals be permitted to climb in VMC, but CASA could not come to terms with such a proposal and ASA were too busy with the intro of TAAATS to do any controller training so it did not get up.
Regs will still have to be changed for RPT to do it.
"No known traffic"
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The regionals seem loath to try this procedure at this point, however in my airspace (with a base of FL125) they are probably not finding waiting for a clearance burdensome. As more E airspace is plastered about they may get keen. They will merely be applying the same procedures they use now to separate themselves in G airspace.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The rules have changed!!!
On the Friday after the implementation CASA came through with the rule change. I understand that before the regionals can use it they need to write it into their manuals. Don't know if they have or not. They might still have insurance/contract/industrial concerns, dunno which (or if)
On the Friday after the implementation CASA came through with the rule change. I understand that before the regionals can use it they need to write it into their manuals. Don't know if they have or not. They might still have insurance/contract/industrial concerns, dunno which (or if)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chief galah,
Still no direct answer to my query at that other site, however I see where someone registered as "Galah", I take it that is you?
There are many good threads on ATC there, although obviously American, it would seem that they call it "IFR POP-UP".
(QUOTE)
The regulations state that a pilot should file an IFR flight plan with FSS. For example a VFR pilot is getting into the goo and needs help. According to our regs, we need to ask if he/she is qualified for IFR flight, then again according to the books, we tell the pilot to file an IFR flight plan.
In reality, if a pilot is in the goo and he states that he's IFR qualified, the controller will normally give a "pop-up" IFR. The pilot will be tracked of course until he lands or cancels. The only thing is that there won't be a flight plan on file with FSS, which of course would give anyone the particulars of the flight if something did happen, i.e., color of plane, number on board, contact info, etc.
Some controllers are very strict about this and will refuse to issue an IFR clearance until one is filed with FSS or an emergency is declared, but they're going strictly by the book.
Pop-up clearances are also predicated on controller workload and many controllers are just too busy to issue one, unless an emergency situation exists.
Now what happens when someone is in the goo and is not IFR qualified? It's considered an emergency situation and whatever needs to be done or can be done, will be attempted. One thing would be to help the pilot find wherever a VFR airport is. If the aircraft is already in IFR conditions then the appropriate terrain/obstacle clearance is given or a vector if the aircraft is identified to climb above the terrain/obstacle clearance altitude.
I worked at a tower where a pilot was shooting the ILS in barely above minimum weather. Several times the pilot had trouble intercepting the glideslope or localizer and wasn't sure where the FAF was. After the third attempt and missed approach, I asked the pilot if he was IFR qualified. It turns out he had just got his private and was starting his instrument training! Needless to say he was directed to the nearest VFR airport, which was a good distance away. One of those "What in the heck are you thinking" situations.
That's a definite deviation of FARs and just plain madness to put yourself and others in jeopardy like that.
Unfortunately it happens all the time. The NTSB has loads of accident records on pilots that "push the envelope" thinking they can make it through the muck, that they'll break through in just a minute. It just makes more sense to go around it if at all possible.
Hope this helped
(ENDQUOTE)
Don't know if that is of interest?
Best regards,
airsupport.
Still no direct answer to my query at that other site, however I see where someone registered as "Galah", I take it that is you?
There are many good threads on ATC there, although obviously American, it would seem that they call it "IFR POP-UP".
(QUOTE)
The regulations state that a pilot should file an IFR flight plan with FSS. For example a VFR pilot is getting into the goo and needs help. According to our regs, we need to ask if he/she is qualified for IFR flight, then again according to the books, we tell the pilot to file an IFR flight plan.
In reality, if a pilot is in the goo and he states that he's IFR qualified, the controller will normally give a "pop-up" IFR. The pilot will be tracked of course until he lands or cancels. The only thing is that there won't be a flight plan on file with FSS, which of course would give anyone the particulars of the flight if something did happen, i.e., color of plane, number on board, contact info, etc.
Some controllers are very strict about this and will refuse to issue an IFR clearance until one is filed with FSS or an emergency is declared, but they're going strictly by the book.
Pop-up clearances are also predicated on controller workload and many controllers are just too busy to issue one, unless an emergency situation exists.
Now what happens when someone is in the goo and is not IFR qualified? It's considered an emergency situation and whatever needs to be done or can be done, will be attempted. One thing would be to help the pilot find wherever a VFR airport is. If the aircraft is already in IFR conditions then the appropriate terrain/obstacle clearance is given or a vector if the aircraft is identified to climb above the terrain/obstacle clearance altitude.
I worked at a tower where a pilot was shooting the ILS in barely above minimum weather. Several times the pilot had trouble intercepting the glideslope or localizer and wasn't sure where the FAF was. After the third attempt and missed approach, I asked the pilot if he was IFR qualified. It turns out he had just got his private and was starting his instrument training! Needless to say he was directed to the nearest VFR airport, which was a good distance away. One of those "What in the heck are you thinking" situations.
That's a definite deviation of FARs and just plain madness to put yourself and others in jeopardy like that.
Unfortunately it happens all the time. The NTSB has loads of accident records on pilots that "push the envelope" thinking they can make it through the muck, that they'll break through in just a minute. It just makes more sense to go around it if at all possible.
Hope this helped
(ENDQUOTE)
Don't know if that is of interest?
Best regards,
airsupport.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AS
Thanks for your interest, and your post.
You only are highlighting the fact that our system and the US system are different, and NAS does little to really make them the same.
We will never have FSS. Will flightwatch take "IFR popup"? You have to get a response from them first.
The vast amounts of G airspace will mean those wishing to change to IFR, may have no-one to make the request to.
Those without details will have to contact the relevant centre directly, if they want to enter E airspace, and the controller will have to create a flight plan record from scratch. If he's busy with high level airspace as well, he may not accept the plan straight away, because of workload.
"IFR popup" is not the same as "IFR pickup". It is a completely different concept.
The fiddling with A and B airspace will be seamless to the international carriers and the intercity meatwagons. They won't feel a thing.
Changes to C CTR regs will have a definite impact on those zones that don't get changed to B zones. SY, BN and ML CTR's for B zones?? Who knows. If the EN part of ML CTR remains C, it will make operations there and at ML very hazardous for domestic RPT and IFR.
The lack of detail not coming out of Canberra is starting to get ATC's a bit twitchy. Any queries about NAS thus far have been treated with derision and insulting indifference.
Those of us in the system who have been there for a long time can see this train coming, but the benefit of our experience is not being heeded in any way.
The safety culture we have built up over the years is going to be stripped away in one fell swoop.
The "good friends" at the top, none of whom are controllers, have somehow hoodwinked the pollys into thinking this a good thing.
It's costing the industry a fortune in "jollys" overseas. We're yet to see anything other than anecdotal waffle come out as a result of those junkets.
CG
Thanks for your interest, and your post.
You only are highlighting the fact that our system and the US system are different, and NAS does little to really make them the same.
We will never have FSS. Will flightwatch take "IFR popup"? You have to get a response from them first.
The vast amounts of G airspace will mean those wishing to change to IFR, may have no-one to make the request to.
Those without details will have to contact the relevant centre directly, if they want to enter E airspace, and the controller will have to create a flight plan record from scratch. If he's busy with high level airspace as well, he may not accept the plan straight away, because of workload.
"IFR popup" is not the same as "IFR pickup". It is a completely different concept.
The fiddling with A and B airspace will be seamless to the international carriers and the intercity meatwagons. They won't feel a thing.
Changes to C CTR regs will have a definite impact on those zones that don't get changed to B zones. SY, BN and ML CTR's for B zones?? Who knows. If the EN part of ML CTR remains C, it will make operations there and at ML very hazardous for domestic RPT and IFR.
The lack of detail not coming out of Canberra is starting to get ATC's a bit twitchy. Any queries about NAS thus far have been treated with derision and insulting indifference.
Those of us in the system who have been there for a long time can see this train coming, but the benefit of our experience is not being heeded in any way.
The safety culture we have built up over the years is going to be stripped away in one fell swoop.
The "good friends" at the top, none of whom are controllers, have somehow hoodwinked the pollys into thinking this a good thing.
It's costing the industry a fortune in "jollys" overseas. We're yet to see anything other than anecdotal waffle come out as a result of those junkets.
CG
