ATC Question Thread

Do you have a superior solution for "a bad rule"

As per what Ben said. Put it this way, would you particularly want to be receiving a controllers instructions over a busy CTAF frequency? Air traffic control frequencies are exactly for that, air traffic control. It only takes one inadvertently stepped on transmission to cause an incident, look at things like Tenerife, the Quincy airport crash in America, that kind of thing. Seems to be a silly choice when the multi on strategy was just as effective.

Go back to multicom like it was beforehand.

Does anyone know the current status of the pilot information evenings? I emailed [email protected] but have had no response. They don't seem to list the dates on the website anymore either.

Could it be this service is a casualty of the hundreds of job cuts brought about by management keen to get bonuses for lowering costs?

Could it be this service is a casualty of the hundreds of job cuts brought about by management keen to get bonuses for lowering costs?

Anyone of the atc folk familiar with the class E north of Cairns? 123.8 specifically?

Been some discussion at work recently about a procedure that's being used, just trying work out the idea behind it.

Inbound we get cleared for the STAR CODIE6 but the feeder fix time is for 20nm CODIE if direct. Wanting to understand why it's 20nm CODIE and not CODIE?

Cheers.

Hi Ben I asked my friend from that sector for you.

Usually feeder fix times are given for transition points like lakes, Zantey, Bulock etc, but if you arent tracking via those then 20 codie is given because that way it remains the responsibility of 123.8's sector to make sure you meet that feeder fix time. If you are given a codie time then that sector can give you the time, but then it becomes CS approaches responsibility to make sure you meet it, and if you havnt met the time by codie its too late anyway and its much easier for the previous sector to fix that than it is for approach.

Hope that makes sense.

Yep makes sense now, thanks heaps!

Last June we were discussing here the Tenerife disaster in relation to the need for correct RT phraseology. I see in this newly posted batch of ACI episodes that the story of the 1977 disaster has been remade using modern cgi:

[MEDIA=dailymotion]x4ixi6l[/MEDIA]

I managed to go along to a pilot information evening last night at the Brisbane Centre facility. It was an extremely eye opening time and I'd recommend going along to one of these nights if for nothing else to see and have a normal conversation to the people behind the radio when you press the button on the area/approach frequency.

But, yet again, it was one of those surreal moments that aviation keeps dishing up to me. And please, don't let what I'm about to write be a reflection on the _people_ working in the system, for as far as I can tell, pretty much everyone understands their role really well and executes it fantastically.

Let me just describe the history of what I mean by "surreal moments". The first for me was getting into the C172N model that I did the latter half of my training in. I literally felt like I had stepped into a late 1970s film set. I was suddenly a member of my father's generation! Only to be outdone by going to Gil Layt's flying school! (<-- recommended if you haven't done it.)

Next was Archerfield tower. When I went there, I felt like I'd advanced about 10 years into the 1980s (save perhaps the computer monitor that had the radar information).

Then we come to Brisbane Centre. Again, another 10 year advance. I literally walked into the computer systems we all desired when I finished high school in the late 1990s.

I'm in an amazing job where I literally get to see where technology is going and where those advantages lie. But I think I will now never buy the line that aviation is a technological wonder. This is certainly true if you are about two decades behind in your expectations. There is literally a huge potential for efficiency and capacity (and safety) gains. But for some reason, progress is glacial.

But I think I will now never buy the line that aviation is a technological wonder.

I'm in an amazing job where I literally get to see where technology is going and where those advantages lie. But I think I will now never buy the line that aviation is a technological wonder. This is certainly true if you are about two decades behind in your expectations. There is literally a huge potential for efficiency and capacity (and safety) gains. But for some reason, progress is glacial.

The problem here in Australia, is that corporate IT in every organisation is all but useless, so you can rest assured that when they do finally find or develop a new system it will also be 20 years old also. For now, they are better off with something that works somewhat reliably than having the bulk of useless IT management install something that falls over when some sneezes.

I managed to go along to a pilot information evening last night at the Brisbane Centre facility. It was an extremely eye opening time and I'd recommend going along to one of these nights if for nothing else to see and have a normal conversation to the people behind the radio when you press the button on the area/approach frequency.

The problem here in Australia, is that corporate IT in every organisation is all but useless, so you can rest assured that when they do finally find or develop a new system it will also be 20 years old also. For now, they are better off with something that works somewhat reliably than having the bulk of useless IT management install something that falls over when some sneezes.

Perhaps this is what OneSky is addressing. OneSky wasn't talked about during the evening. Given that the timescale for delivering OneSky is of the order of 10 years, one has to wonder. It is possible to have your cake and eat it it too; i.e. QoS and agile systems. But the processes (and contracts) need to be very carefully considered (as was not the situation with the ABS census).

We can see where technology is going with government computer systems. I would hate to see government let contracts for new systems if the experience of Qld is anything to go by. They bought a U beaut system from IBM for the hospitals. I don't know if it is working yet, but they had months of problems with it stuffing up pay for hospital staff. There have been other instances of governments buying untried programs and then having to pay up millions of our money because of their incompetence.

We don't want that in air safety do we?

We can see where technology is going with government computer systems. I would hate to see government let contracts for new systems if the experience of Qld is anything to go by. They bought a U beaut system from IBM for the hospitals. I don't know if it is working yet, but they had months of problems with it stuffing up pay for hospital staff. There have been other instances of governments buying untried programs and then having to pay up millions of our money because of their incompetence.We don't want that in air safety do we?

I would have to (sadly) largely agree with this. But it is not a fundamental constraint on IT. "New" does not have to mean "unreliable". Obviously they have QoS guarantees built into their system and new systems can offer this too! It sounds like there is a pretty vast potential to do more in realtime with the data that they have as well has having much better coordination between sets of data and delivery locations.Perhaps this is what OneSky is addressing. OneSky wasn't talked about during the evening. Given that the timescale for delivering OneSky is of the order of 10 years, one has to wonder. It is possible to have your cake and eat it it too; i.e. QoS and agile systems. But the processes (and contracts) need to be very carefully considered (as was not the situation with the ABS census).

The system I currently work on is still the largest and most capable in my field, but due to incompetent management, excess process and lack of investment it has fallen behind. Its all worked out well for me though, because my company (that I part own) is starting to turn that around. Without seeing the code behind the current ATC systems its only speculation, but I dare say that with continued investment with quality staff the current system may well be as advanced as it was back when it was first developed.

Aplund. It doesn't have to be the case but you must admit it often is the case.

I specifically quoted and queried the notice RAAus has put out regarding the Rxxxx, and he had never heard of such a request from AirServices, and IIRC, he said he was pretty close to the top of the tree for this kind of stuff.The only thing I can think of as to why he advised against it, was if you have a 19, 10 and 24 registered aircraft with 1234 as their rego, the system will get confused with two R1234's airborne at the same time - in the same vein as you must go to SBY on your transponder prior to changing the code lest you briefly return a code assigned to Air Canada climbing out of Warnervale!

I've just emailed RA-Aus for clarification of ADS-B transponder "tail number" vs. NAIPS "flight ID" protocol, vs. ATC airborne clearances & linking with lodged plans.If I get a coherent explanation & clarification of protocols, I'll post it here too.

In addition, advice from Airservices Australia has confirmed the details required to be displayed in the Flight ID field. This should be programmed as “R” then the last four digit identifiers in the aircraft registration e.g. R1234. This allows Air Services to distinguish the return interrogation as a recreational aircraft and prevents errors being generated in the ATS classification framework.

Hi All

I hope someone from Sydney ATC can help me with a little bit of confusion regarding

Harbour Scenic One. The track description in the Sydney General Flying Guide

goes: orbit east of bridge, north of opera and west of Garden Island but the map actually shows the orbit centered north of Garden Island i.e. half the orbit lies east

What's correct? Remaining west of G. Is. is certainly possible in a small aircraft.

I have a follow up question to this. Haven't requested one before, but I understand it's preferred that you to have a flight plan filed. If not, how easy is it to request a flight following?

Just say "Centre, [callsign] VFR Flight Following Request" They will say "Go Ahead", then the usual who you are, where you are and where you're going....they will probably give you a squawk code and off you go. Very easy.

Just cancel whenever you want to, usually on descent into said aerodrome. They may ask if you want cancel SARTIME, but I just say I didn't file one.

Question. Can atc see if a "paint" is adsb or radar derived? Is the icon or whatever on the screen different?

Is there a difference (from atc controllers perspective) from say, a basic mode "C" to mode "s" adsb?

Question. Can atc see if a "paint" is adsb or radar derived? Is the icon or whatever on the screen different?

Is there a difference (from atc controllers perspective) from say, a basic mode "C" to mode "s" adsb?

Yep. Different symbols on their displays. Check out ASA's spiel about it HERE. ?

The only way they know you have adsb is when out of radar contact it seems.

Obviously aircraft to aircraft is a different matter....