How does Melbourne Centre do the Impossible at Hobart?
 

I note that the en route supplement states that after tower hours the Hobart airspace, both D and C, from 1500ft to 8500ft is operated by the Melbourne centre. How do controllers in the Melbourne centre – without radar or other surveillance equipment – operate D and C airspace at Hobart?

When I’ve tried to explain this to overseas controllers, they say it’s impossible and I must be mistaken.

Remember that Airservices claim that the multilateration system was never purchased for terminal airspace and doesn’t work below 6500ft.

Sounds to me as if the controllers are going to fed the wolves if there is an incident.

Unproven experiment not used anywhere else in the world.

Just asking and just interested.

The same way you would have had hundreds of controllers run non-radar E back in 2004 when the mighty NAS 2b (was it) was going to be introduced, and exactly the same way every controller in the world used to run controlled airspace before radar: procedurally. I'm surprised at your lack of understanding of basic ATC principles, Dick.

The good thing about C is that it captures VFR. VFR Metal is just as unforgiving as IFR Metal... E airspace doesn't make the collision any softer or indeed make the VFR "go away".

Is it really necessary to create a new thread when all of the current threads are related? How about a sticky at the top labeled 'Dicks Gripes' ala the Flying School thread?

Re "Sounds to me as if the controllers are going to fed the wolves if there is an incident."

Our 'masters' told us, that as long as 'we' performed according to the various
'rules' as issued by them (AOI = Airways Operating Instructions, and AIP etc)
then we would be 'fully protected' by our employer......

In the 'good ole days', I don't think too many really wanted to test that though, against 'duty of care' in front of 'Milaud'....

Maybe things have changed...for the better.

Cheers:ok:

Yes. But I reckon there are no proper rules for operating this airspace from the Melbourne centre.

Let's see!

And wish. It's a completely different subject. Sounds to me as if you don't want attention drawn to this issue.

And Bloggs. At least in the system I support controllers are protected from being held unfairly responsible for an accident and they are not forced to work without the proper tools for class C. That is a proper terminal radar service including secondary radar .

See the current ministers radar directive.

Nope. Pprune used to be a source of valuable information for professionals about the aviation industry. Now it seems to have been hijacked by an enthusiastic amateur to use as a vehicle to push his own agenda. It gets harder and harder to sort the wheat from the chaff on here.

So, here we have an eminent Australian, a high-profile individual who a lot of people not involved with aviation look up to, and who has "captured" journalists at The Australian, "reckoning" that there are no proper rules for this airspace? Howabout (sorry, Howabout), you do some research and get back to us with a proper assessment of the rules used there before scaring the uninformed?

That'd be the Dick Smith directive foisted upon John Anderson and handed on down through ministers since? The Yanks might like to run C with radar. There has never been any suggestion or edict that C can only be run with radar. In fact, as I have pointed out but which you refuse to even acknowledge, C has been run quite successfully without radar for eons. Less traffic capacity, but then, this is only Australia.

Anyway, don't worry, ADS-B will fix all that.

Has CASA had international consultants examine the safety benefits of surveillance in airspace? And if so, what was learned or reported?

How do they do it? I would assume the same way that the towers do, with procedural control (minus the visual separation of course).

Hey Dick, why don't you jump in your toy Jet and fly down there at 2 am and find out just how they work their magic.....

I'm sure you'll survive......

Dick, I used to do IFR climb and descent at Ayers Rock in the 80s and 90s from Alice Tower and there were proper rules. I guess the principle is much the same at Hobart. You mentioned no surveillance, how do you think the Class D towers operate a n Australia operate without surveillance? It doesn't matter where the controller is located, surveillance isn't necessarily a requirement.

Ok a very simple scenario ; a Night VMC pilot without IFR equipment or rating is at about 15 nm north of Hobart at about 5000' . He could be inbound or outbound or simply crossing the airspace.

How does ATC in the Melbourne Centre provide a class C separation service to an IFR airline aircraft , also to the north , either inbound and outbound ,if the airline aircraft is going to be at about 5000' at 15 nm at the same time?

No , not a trick question - just a situation that could easily happen!

And what's the separation standard required as they pass through 500' of each other?

Fujji. That's before I made the AMATS changes and you would have been given a traffic information service at Ayers Rock in class G. Very different to " upside down" class C at Hobart.

It's procedural separation!
 

I would be asking - how many VFR at night do you get at Hobart?
I'm betting not too many, given the weather and terrain. That gets rid of 99.9% of the hazard,
leaving the IFR traffic, which can be sorted easily by time, distance, lateral and vertical separation..........as it has been for decades.
This doesn't mean it's antiquated, but PROVEN and simple.

Read the Class C rules for CLASSES OF AIRSPACE--SERVICES AND REQUIREMENTS, Dick, then give us the answer to your question...

A question best left to the air traffickers I guess, but you do know there are procedural separation standards, don't you, Dick?

The night VFR aircraft must be appropriately equipped and the pilot rated, so he or she will have at the very least a GNSS and therefore be able to report distance and bearing from the airfield. The airliner will know exactly where it is with heaps more gear and likewise report its position. Based on that, the controller will no doubt ensure they are not near one another's position without appropriate height separation.

It was a trick question, right?

Question
 

How do you block an individual users posts on PPrune?

Just an aside, but when I were a young lad, the air traffickers at Cairns were pretty good at doing the impossible all day long in very busy airspace before they got radar, but if overseas controllers say it's impossible it must be.

And before you say it's outdated 30 year old blah blah, you posed the question in those terms Dick. No, but hang on, it was unproven and experimental, so it can't have worked successfully then ...:confused:

Simple. It's not impossible, and even though it's not impossible, they do it fairly well, though one-in/one-out is a tad inefficient.

They have an appropriate procedural approach rating.

While we're having a whinge about Hobart, can I just make mention of the horses arse that is Cambridge?

Bbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzzzz

Here's a question for you Dick, how do the Hobart and Launy controllers do it during the day? How did I used to separate the jet traffic on descent or climb from the VFR Tassie hydro cloud seeder up at whatever flight level he was at?

Bloggs
 

E airspace doesn't change the one-in , one-out situation. I don't think the airlines, who are the most affected by this,
(I may be wrong, but it would be easy to do a statistical survey), would go for the "IFR pick-up".
What procedural E airspace does, is introduce unnotified VFR aircraft, a minority, into the equation.
This is the real hazard.

Le Ping. During the day I suppose the tower controller says to the VFR pilot. " can you see a road below you? Stay to the east of it" and guesses it's the correct road.

At night time I am not sure how the Melbourne Centre controller would do that.

So far the most likely explanation is " one in one out". But that's hardly a professional service.

When will you Controllers realise that you have been conned . It's not possible to provide a class C service 20 miles away from a tower without a terminal radar system . FAA people have stated this in writing.

The only reason Class C allocated without an approach radar is to increase returns to the government . Why would you want to be part of such a dishonest scam?

The Ministers radar directive is to support ATCs. By not providing the proper tools to our controllers you are the ones who will be held accountable when an accident happens. What is your Union doing?

Chief Galah. At the present time I am not talking about E.

I am talking about a system where the ASA Executive and Board say safety dictates class C but clearly don't provide the necessary tools to provide a class C service.

I wouldn't be a controller involved in that airspace for any amount of bribe money.

Don't say bull**** like that in your press conference tomorrow, please.

Dick - you need to forget ifr v vfr in C and think of ifr v ifr in D which you've no doubt experienced in imc at Bankstown. It's pretty obvious from listening to the radio (and waiting) how procedural separation works - controller can't see you, you can't see the other guy, clearances reflect that.

Now, back to remote (or local) procedural C. Ifr v vfr - same concept - controller won't issue clearances to conflict traffic they can't see or can't separate itself. No problems - inefficient maybe - but safe.

In the Tobago v 737 story you're certain the vfr pilot was on top of his game and being a responsible airspace. Now suddenly the night VFR guy seems unable to know where he/she is and make a position report? You need to be consistent.

As was said earlier, these threads make it very possible CASA can reasonably ask you to reset exams based on your lack of understanding of the basics.

Like AOTW says - you've got a gig at a significant press conference tomorrow- please stick to the subject and not this embarrassing sideshow.

UTR

Political or Opertional, this is the question
 

Dick, honestly, you're giving mixed messages about this. You're confusing the operational with the political. It's your agenda.
By doing so, you are showing your ignorance and bias against the system
The average bograt controller could not give a flying f about the political.
When I was at it, the operational was the only consideration.
It was all Class C at major airports.
Having Class C protects controllers because, believe it or not, they have absolute control. I can't fathom your point about this.
At lower density airports, ATC can provide complete service without expensive surveillance. Surely this is good.
What was a travesty, was the lack of surveillance at places like Cooly and Cairns in the GA heydays,
when they were absolutely swamped with the complete mix of traffic. Regrettably, they paid the price at Cooly.
So, if you can put your point in terms that don't lambast ASA or the Military, I might be able to get a handle on it.

But yet it is done...

And yes a TAR would be great for Tassie I'm sure, especially since it would provide no benefit to the procedural towers and a top notch radar service for the three that go in at night. If you compare the cost per flight where the TAR would be used within 30nm, it might come in comparable to Melbourne if you drink enough bath water. To be honest, that would be the kind of thing the government would fund instead of something useful...

Under. Surely it's the rules that count. Is ATC allowed to accept an IFR position report from a VFR pilot and use that for separation purposes? I would not have thought so .

Can you explain to me how a Melbourne Centre controller would handle the situation I have described?

No one has -which makes me suspicious .

Would there be any objections if, with full notice, in conjunction with AOPA and local aero clubs we arranged for a series of IFR and VFR flights in and out of Hobart and Launy one night to see how the system works in practice?

Say only Three or four planes so workload is very low.

We could video the whole thing so we can learn how the unique Aussie " cheep " system works without a terminal radar system.

We could then tell the Americans how dopey they are to have a class C radar mandate!

Dick, I've said this before (more than once...)

Instead of casting aspersions, get off your arse and 'sit in' with an ATC for a few hours. The contact numbers for ML and BN centres aren't hard to find, pm me and I'll provide them for you if need be.

I'm sure a man with your reputation would have no problems. Sit and talk. Ask questions. You'll be happily accommodated.

Then feel free to come on here with your wealth of knowledge..

Great idea Dick, but unfortunately the AIC when it was issued allows for one aircraft in or out at a time.

Mate drives the QF B737 freighter in and out of YMLT and YMHB in the dark hours reckons it strange system. Me mate is old school and reckons that him and his FO can seperate themselves from the Metro and the Flying Doc drivers!

He reckons Melbourne ATC guys and girls do their best with the system they have.

Perhaps get a jumpseat ride with them or sit at the centre console and observe?

What was the use of spending $6 million for the multilateration system that the supplier stated worked down to the ground at Hobart and Launceston and then not use it in the terminal area at all?

Who is telling lies here?

Station air. Now the truth comes out. Tell us all more about the AIC? I want to discuss with my FAA experts.

Does it mean if I fly down one night I am liable to be held ? Where ? Incredible. Can't be true.

Looking at Flightaware history not many IFR movements at either place when the towers are closed.

The electronic AIC/AIP Supp list only goes back to the start of 2015.

Dick. how do you think HB and LT do it now in the dark? Gets light late and dark early way down south.....

No body is interested in feeding the troll.......

Why is it an IFR position report? What differentiates an IFR position report from a VFR one? A PPL with CTA endorsement needs to be able to identify and report where they are. A PPL without CTA endorsement needs to be able to identify and avoid CTA. A PPL with a NVFR needs to be able to navigate by navaids or GPS. A night VMC flight requires some "IFR equipment".

Where does this assumption that the VFR is blundering along without knowing where he is come from? Your question is unanswerable because it's based on an incorrect premise.

To answer your hypothetical.

Firstly, but facetiously, your VFR never got to 15nm north of Hobart at 5000' without a clearance. Lets say he's inbound and 25nm north at 5000' (and has calcuated a LSALT that avoids Mt Hobbs and has put in a flight plan).

VFR: Melbourne Centre, Victor Foxtrot Romeo is 25 miles GPS north of Hobart on the 000 radial at 5000'. Request clearance.
ML: Victor Foxtrot Romeo, Melbourne Centre. Clearance not available. Remain OCTA.
VFR: Remain OCTA, Victor Foxtrot Romeo.

There - impossible achieved - if ML Centre isn't busy I'm sure he'll also issue an expect onwards clearance time. Now, if traffic permits and our VFR guy just wants to transit say Strahan to Maira Island at 5000' and there is a northerly blowing.

ML: VFR, cleared Mangalore to Prossers Sugarloaf at 5000, remain outside 20DME Hobart.
ML: IFR, cleared to Hobart, descend to 6000' not below the DME steps, report 15DME Hobart.
IFR: 14DME Hobart.
ML: Descend to 4000' not below the DME steps, cleared VOR-Y runway 30.

There. Impossible achieved AGAIN and TWO aircraft in Class C at the SAME TIME without radar. Quick - ring the FAA and ask them how they process IFR movements into remote class E aerodromes without radar (hint - one in/one out - and IFRs are actively encouraged to depart VFR into G and try and pick-up a clearance - like we are in D)?

This is all distinct from the MLAT red-herring which again you are confusing the issue with. If ASA paid for MLAT coverage to TRA standard to ground level at HB and LT and didn't get it then that's a project management issue, not an operational one and I'd be as unhappy as you appear to be.

You forget that other airports in Australia work in similar ways. TW operates Class C without radar. AY operates Class C without radar etc etc. Whether the man in the tower or at centre operates that airspace, neither of them can see it and so it's procedural - day,night, VMC, IMC etc.

UTR

PS I apologise for the male-ification of all this - it's easier to type....

Pre radar, Cairns ATC used to control more aircraft, using procedural standards, than Hobart will probably see in 50 years time. So you can tell your FAA mates that it can be done - but I guess you won't as it doesn't fit with your agenda.

Forget it mate.

Tail wheel et al see fit to sit back and allow PPrune to degenerate into Dick Smith's personal vendetta against CASA/Airservices.

Real issues for professional pilots in Australia like fatigue, the disastrous part 61 design and implementation, mental health for pilots, CASA's revenge against CVD, B scale pay on the 787, cadets allegedly signing who knows what on "motivation letters" to secure a job - this is the stuff that matters.... None of that on here.

It's restricted airspace this, Williamtown that, VH-MDX, inflexible military, ADSB too expensive, sensational/provocative thread after thread after thread... And on and on it goes.

Pprune in Australia is dying a quick death.

Dick,

I'll answer your question.

Separation is either lateral or vertical, if the procedural ATC was unsure of the VFR position, due to poor position reporting, ATC would use vertical separation and only allow the IFR aircraft to descend to 6000', he would then ascertain the DME distance, Radial and/or HDG of the VFR traffic and use Air Traffic Controlling to create lateral separation from the IFR aircraft. Too many options to list, but to keep it simple in my example, think of pure DME separation, i.e. VFR remain outside xxDME, IFR cleared to descend once inside xxDME, with the required buffer

Trust me procedural ATC have many tools and won't sacrifice vertical separation until lateral separation is assured.

So in summary, once ATC had created positive lateral separation the IFR aircraft then descends through the VFR aircrafts level.

In most cases this is easily achieved, but I have also had to enter a hold overhead a radio aid and descend in the hold before commencing a procedure, due to the unreliability of a VFR aircrafts reports.

I have also self separated in Class G whilst IFR from VFR many times and have also been subject to procedural IFR in Class C/D and also descents from Class C/D airspace into G whilst IFR.

Hope this helps, and I'm sure an ATC controller could elaborate...

Underneath. A VFR pilot will not necessarily be able to report on a radial from Hobart .

Most have no training or qualification to do this.

And how do you require a VFR pilot to use a DME distance for separation? Bet that's not approved.

Dwesty. Once again surely it's not possible for a DME distance to be used to separate VFR.

Sounds to me as if "one at a time" is correct - only works because general aviation is almost destroyed in Australia.

Slippery Pete. Extraordinary post. Nothing to stop you starting threads on these issues if they are important for Australian aviation. No one is forced to look at any of my posts or answer them. And no, it's not a vendetta- just pointing out that both organisations are dysfunctional and are damaging our industry.

Nothing to stop them from coming on this site and explaining how I am wrong. Over the years I have had people criticise the organisations I have run. I have always openly answered my critics- sometimes they were correct