|
I suggest triple mandatory mbzs. And huge ginormous fines for non compliance.
And at every piece of land that any aircraft can land upon. I would say 50 nm radius to FL 500. No pussy footing around. You can’t put a price on safety |
Simple - government funded ADSB-out and in. Via Bluetooth. Everything is on your screen - just glance at it - anything look a bit funky? Get on the radio and arrange proactive separation or take proactive action.
It really isn't that hard (or expensive). |
For your 'bunion' LB.....
And before MBZ'z.... there was 'DBZ'. 'Discrete Broadcast Zone'. Yes. That's right folks ...'DBZ'......The Very First One in OZ. And, possibly, the ONLY one. Created in the Pilbara (WA) roughly between Tom Price / Paraburdoo and Newman. 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? Once an aircraft said he/she (not too many 'she' in those days... another thread) said 'changing to DBZ', we did not have to give traffic in the 'Zone' - as far as I can remember.....They gave 'All Stations' and sorted it out themselves. However, the 'old' ways of 'Duty Of Care' remained in the minds of many a FSO, and not a great deal actually changed...sometimes. (We were a 'dedicated' bunch) Now 'desicated'...... Possibly the 'forerunner' of MBZ, CTAF, Mickey Mouse etc.... I just can't be bothered keeping up with these 'silly' acronyms these days. ('Bah Humbug!') Cheers.....:}:ok: p.s. Tks again Dick for .....) |
Hi Dick,
Re 'Port Headland' - I really don't like doing this, but if its good for simply explaining why 'Hedland' is spelled the way it is, then here we go.... "Swedish-born mariner Peter Hedland was the first European to note the harbour's existence and the possibility of using it as a port. Peter Hedland arrived in the area in April 1863 onboard his boat, Mystery that he had built himself at Point Walter on the banks of the Swan River. He named the harbour Mangrove Harbour and reported that it would make a good landing site with a well protected harbour and that there was also fresh water available. However, the port was initially regarded as unusable, due to a sandbar that frequently sealed the entrance, thick mangroves round the shore and the narrow entrance made the harbour difficult to enter in bad weather.[8]" All very 'flat' and no headland in sight...... Just Sayin' is all...... Cheers:ok: |
Maybe they’ll turn e.g. Mildura, Wagga and Dubbo (back) into AFIZs and you can get an AFIS gig, Griffo! Then Dick could get them all turned (back) into plain old CTAF aerodromes - perhaps with a transition period as MBZs for old times’ sake - and you could get another redundo!
|
Griffo. It worked! Yep I no how to spel pert hidland
|
You're welcome
:p |
Folks,
I have just had the most amazing idea, to solve the problem!! An infinite size!! We should establish the AATAF (pronounced AAAAHHHHTAF like a sneeze) the Australian Aviation Traffic Advisory Frequency. It could be used everywhere except A.B,C,D and E airspace. It could just use one frequency, say something like 126.7. If there is anywhere there is enough AAT (Australian aviation traffic, an increasing rarity --- how's that, an increasing decrease, like GA is increasingly growing negatively ??) it would become a LAATAF (Local AAT) (pronounced LLLLAAAHHHTAF like an even bigger sneeze) Then you would have a discrete frequency, to be found on "appropriate" charts or the ERSA. Whichever could be used at the discretion of the pilot in command if he/she/it/cisgender pronoun of choice, based on a brief set of common sense recommendation, it is their belief it would contribute to risk reduction for operations in the vicinity ( as per ICAO definition of vicinity). There would no need for exemption, concessions or variations, because it would only apply to aircraft with a serviceable VHF radio fitted and operated by a suitably qualified per***. Tootle pip!! |
I propose we just go with Fair and Reasonable Transmissions. FART
Then you just need to ask yourself, Do I need to FART there? :) |
But if you get Short High Intensity Transmissions Selections, then of course you get the ****S....
See where I'm going with this? :) |
Dangly bits,
I am a little disappointed the proponents of the "BIG CTAF" haven't jumped at my suggestion, a CTAF that covers almost one fifth of Mother Earth, isn't that the airspace Airservices claims to "control". You can't get much bigger than that?? Tootle pip!! |
Put all the CA$A managers into an aircraft, and fly them over the Hunter Valley to look at the open cut coal mines.
They can't tell their @rseholes from a hole in the ground, but at least they would then know what a hole in the ground looks like. |
Leadsled,
I fly every year in the USA on the west coast and I have found it to be way more simple to operate in their airspace than ours. Going in to Chino once I was given, "You are number 7, cleared to land"! Chino is a Class D like any in Australia. DB |
Dangly Bits,
Interesting you should mention Chino, my favorite spot in the LA basin. Particularly Flo's Airport Cafe, don't know who made it for them, but best apple cobbler around. Even if their coffee was crook. My 60th was hangar party at Chino, what a night that was!! Now back to the thread, sadly, Australian Class D is not like US D. It was several CASA Directors back that our capital city (and a few others) secondary airports operating conditions were stuffed up. We had the US weather conditions for VFR in Class D changed to "harmonize with ICAO", resulting in what we have now, Bankstown (and presumably others) closed to VFR when, under the old tried and tested VFR (US) conditions, it would have been open to VFR. For many years, there was no problem, until CASA created a problem. CASA is quick enough to "harmonize" if it means greater restrictions and costs, but it is always a one -way ratchet. Tootle pip!! PS: I have had many somewhat similar landing clearances at KLAX, (or KJFK or KSFO) with something somewhat larger than you will ever see at Chino strapped to my backside ---- all works just fine. |
I have had many somewhat similar landing clearances at KLAX, (or KJFK or KSFO) with something somewhat larger than you will ever see at Chino strapped to my backside ---- all works just fine. |
I was taught this mnemonic:
Broadcast Long And Broadcast Fast Every Single Time |
Leadsled I was in Chino last year when they had the worst ever mass shooting in Vegas.
Capn Bloggs, I asked a very well known flying instructor over there, "But how can he do that?" The answer is simple, you have been given traffic in front of you to follow, and when it is clear for you to land, you can land....simple. His work as a Class D ATC was complete. Worked the very same way when I flew into Oakland in San Francisco in a VFR Duchess. No Radar to the ground, no flight plan, no notice. The only trouble we had was getting the controller to get our callsign right. Our thick Aussie Accent means that Echo sounds like every other letter except Echo! |
Bloggsie,
Strange as it probably seems to you, the Australian rules permit the same thing, if you give really careful scrutiny to what the regulations say, as opposed to what most assume they say. Funnily (or strangely, take your pick) enough, the same thing happens at EGLL, possibly because ICAO says it can. All applicable only in VMC conditions. Tootle pip!! PS: Dangly Bits, not limited to runways in D, equally B and C. You will find the criteria for a Visual Approach in the AIM. |
What would the Yanks and the Poms know about controlling high volumes of air traffic?
|
Lead Balloon,
Exactly!! Tootle pip!! |
I thought this was a thread about CTAFs, not towered airports and landing clearances.
|
fujii,
Be happy, be flexible, be open minded --- as long as it is not open at both ends!! Tootle pip!! |
Originally Posted by LeadSled
(Post 10093566)
fujii,
Be happy, be flexible, be open minded --- as long as it is not open at both ends!! Tootle pip!! |
fujii,
Just don't travel to the US, UK or anywhere else (including AU) where this ICAO compliant practice for aircraft cleared for a visual approach is ever used. What you really mean is you think it is dangerous, as a reflex reaction, without any sort of risk analysis, because you don't understand what is happening, and you don't actually understand the various rights and responsibilities of controllers and pilots in command. Just a clue: It is always the responsibility of the pilot in command to be satisfied that the runway us clear before landing (or takeoff) ---- regardless of the clearance. If you want to have a look at how various people can tie themselves in knots on such a matter, particularly when serious vested interests are concerned, get all three complete inquiries into the day the TAA B727 on takeoff hit the Trans Canada DC-8 that had just landed. Tootle pip!! PS: You should probably also avoid the parts of the world where all the often quite busy airways systems are G or E airspace, and I do NOT mean USA below 10,000' |
Originally Posted by LeadSled
(Post 10093625)
fujii,
Just don't travel to the US, UK or anywhere else (including AU) where this ICAO compliant practice for aircraft cleared for a visual approach is ever used. What you really mean is you think it is dangerous, as a reflex reaction, without any sort of risk analysis, because you don't understand what is happening, and you don't actually understand the various rights and responsibilities of controllers and pilots in command. Just a clue: It is always the responsibility of the pilot in command to be satisfied that the runway us clear before landing (or takeoff) ---- regardless of the clearance. If you want to have a look at how various people can tie themselves in knots on such a matter, particularly when serious vested interests are concerned, get all three complete inquiries into the day the TAA B727 on takeoff hit the Trans Canada DC-8 that had just landed. Tootle pip!! PS: You should probably also avoid the parts of the world where all the often quite busy airways systems are G or E airspace, and I do NOT mean USA below 10,000' |
All I can do is echo the other contributors.
Having flown from the USA across the Atlantic Europe etc etc to Australia, the BS starts around 100nm out of Broome. Prior to that 100nms even 3rd world s***holes airspaces were better and easier to fly in |
But you’re “safer” once you’re within 100nms Broome.
|
After forty two years in ATC, mostly in towers, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the rights and responsibilities of pilots and controllers. Apparently not? Tootle pip!! |
Hey Leddie, as I'm passing through 20 miles to run termorra, I'll demand my clearance to land behind the 3 in front (Australian capital city airport). What's your mobile in case I get some push-back.
|
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10095344)
Hey Leddie, as I'm passing through 20 miles to run termorra, I'll demand my clearance to land behind the 3 in front (Australian capital city airport). What's your mobile in case I get some push-back.
Often been cleared to land joining the ILS in Honolulu for instance with two more departures and the guy five miles in front of me to land first! It works, just land once runway clear! At Heathrow you may be cleared to line up “after Brittania 767”, when you look for Brittania they are number four on the other side of the runway while you are number five on this side! As Fujii did not perceive, there are different rules around the world. |
AIM 5_5_11
5-5-11. VISUAL APPROACH a. Pilot: 1. If a visual approach is not desired, advises ATC. 2. Complies with controller's instructions for vectors toward the airport of intended landing or to a visual position behind a preceding aircraft. 3. The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight. After being cleared for a visual approach, proceed to the airport in a normal manner or follow the preceding aircraft. Remain clear of clouds while conducting a visual approach. 4. If the pilot accepts a visual approach clearance to visually follow a preceding aircraft, you are required to establish a safe landing interval behind the aircraft you were instructed to follow. You are responsible for wake turbulence separation. 5. Advise ATC immediately if the pilot is unable to continue following the preceding aircraft, cannot remain clear of clouds, or lose sight of the airport. 6. Be aware that radar service is automatically terminated, without being advised by ATC, when the pilot is instructed to change to advisory frequency. 7. Be aware that there may be other traffic in the traffic pattern and the landing sequence may differ from the traffic sequence assigned by approach control or ARTCC. b. Controller: 1. Do not clear an aircraft for a visual approach unless reported weather at the airport is ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility is 3 miles or greater. When weather is not available for the destination airport, inform the pilot and do not initiate a visual approach to that airport unless there is reasonable assurance that descent and flight to the airport can be made visually. 2. Issue visual approach clearance when the pilot reports sighting either the airport or a preceding aircraft which is to be followed. 3. Provide separation except when visual separation is being applied by the pilot. 4. Continue flight following and traffic information until the aircraft has landed or has been instructed to change to advisory frequency. 5. Inform the pilot when the preceding aircraft is a heavy. 6. When weather is available for the destination airport, do not initiate a vector for a visual approach unless the reported ceiling at the airport is 500 feet or more above the MVA and visibility is 3 miles or more. If vectoring weather minima are not available but weather at the airport is ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility of 3 miles or greater, visual approaches may still be conducted. 7. Informs the pilot conducting the visual approach of the aircraft class when pertinent traffic is known to be a heavy aircraft. |
I'll demand my clearance to land behind the 3 in front You just don't get it, do you?? Charitably, I will put that down to your limited experience. Tootle pip!! |
Yes, Leddie, I must admit I have no idea what you lot are on about now. I thought that you had implied that it was ICAO-compliant to allow a landing clearance with the runway occupied, which is obviously not allowed in Australia, which I thought is what Fujii's point was. But then you speared off on the Visual Approach tangent; as I have better things to do in my life than read up on the septic's VA procedures, I have given up attempting to sort through your riddle-laden language and pontifications.
Please forgive me.
Originally Posted by Tank
At Heathrow you may be cleared to line up “after Brittania 767”, when you look for Brittania they are number four on the other side of the runway while you are number five on this side!
One last question to put my mind at rest. ICAO procedures allow giving an aircraft a clearance to land with the preceding aircraft still not landed or clear (2400m rule excepted). Yes or No? |
As Fujii did not perceive, there are different rules around the world.
Fujii is wel aware of different rules around the world. All I said was that it is dangerous. If familiar with the Swiss cheese analogy, multiple landing clearances are just another hole. Although there is a perception that the landing pilot will see an aircraft on the runway, the pilot is far less likely to see a vehicle or personnel. The landing clearance is the controller’s cue for a final check. Approach path, runway, overshoot path, radar display, strip display and separation standard. |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10096079)
Yes, Leddie, I must admit I have no idea what you lot are on about now. I thought that you had implied that it was ICAO-compliant to allow a landing clearance with the runway occupied, which is obviously not allowed in Australia, which I thought is what Fujii's point was. But then you speared off on the Visual Approach tangent; as I have better things to do in my life than read up on the septic's VA procedures, I have given up attempting to sort through your riddle-laden language and pontifications.
Please forgive me. Tank, that is totally different to being given a landing clearance with multiple ahead. Obviously you weren't going to line up before the Brit. Did Honolulu tell you what aircraft to land after? One last question to put my mind at rest. ICAO procedures allow giving an aircraft a clearance to land with the preceding aircraft still not landed or clear (2400m rule excepted). Yes or No? Fujii, I agree with you re absolute safety, however the stats may or may not agree. |
One last question to put my mind at rest. ICAO procedures allow giving an aircraft a clearance to land with the preceding aircraft still not landed or clear (2400m rule excepted). Yes or No? You love "Yes/No" answers, as if that was the full and only answer, don't you, being incapable of comprehending that there might be matters of judgement involved. Last time I had a close look (and I am not going to spend time actually cutting and pasting a section) the phrasing was to the meaning that a controller can issue a landing clearance to an aircraft if they have a reasonable belief that the landing runway will be clear for the aircraft in receipt of the landing clearance when the aircraft is to use said runway. The second part is specifically when visual approaches are in progress. At EGLL I have received a landing clearance when all involved fully understood that the aircraft No.1 ahead was still airborne, much less having cleared or being close to clearing the runway. This leaves it up to the PIC of the following aircraft to decide to land or go around. As I recall, working this way at EGLL can gain up to four (4) movements an hour in visual conditions, but also acknowledges a likely increase in missed approaches. The controllers in London are quite smart enough to exercise their discretion, knowing which airlines are notorious for being slow to clear the runway. What happens in US is a combination of the above, and the specific conditions for a visual approach in the US, see the AIM. In the Australian case, you do know what your clearance limit is, if you are " --- cleared for approach"?? It is quite some time ago now, but we came to the conclusion that a controller in Australia had the same basic framework, had the same discretion, to issue a clearance, when you look at the totality of "the rools", not just tables of separation. Tootle pip!! |
Meanwhile, back in the CTAF......
|
Actually, you can’t be “in” a CTAF.
Which is kinda part of the current problem being discussed... |
Well, yes.
Meanwhile back to the topic. |
The “topic” covers the misconceptions of experienced Australian air traffic controllers (even retired ones like you) and commercial pilots (like Bloggs). It is those misconceptions that result in the gross over-exaggeration of risks and Galapagos ideas like CTAF (or maybe MBZ or AFIZ?) procedures within a 20nm radius and 5,000’ above aerodromes in G.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:22. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.