ATC Question Thread

[nathan_c]

A discrete code is allocated to your plan yes. It might be easier to describe the process we have to go through.

 

Imagine you are flying along towards CTA. You do not want to bust airspace so you call ATC at say 10-15nm to run from the CTA boundary to request clearance. That controller (unless they are working both the uncontrolled and controlled airspace) most likely wont have your plan sitting in their window, so they will look you up (which is simple if you have a plan in, if not expect a bunch of questions so we can make one). Once they look you up, a discrete code will already have been allocated to your plan (in the background without us touching it), and thats what we will then give you. At this point, we still have to manually activate your plan so the system knows you are flying,so then we will have a uncoupled procedural flight plan track displayed on our screen flying along. Once you squawk your assigned code, it will automatically link your plan to your radar paint and at that point we can identify you. Once this is completed, we can than hand you off to the next sector who owns the CTA, and they can give you the clearance. If you called the CTA sector directly (which there isnt anything wrong with by the way), they would have to do the same process, except they may save 15 seconds because they will already have your plan ready, but every thing else will remain the same. The difference is if they are busy, they may not have time to do it immediately and you could get stuck waiting outside the CTA for a clearance until they can.

 

So from your side it is as simple as putting in a code we give you, but from our side we do a bunch of background processes to get your plan up and running on our screens and identify you to allow you to be processed into CTA.

 

As Ian said reference the diversion, we need the exact details of where you are so we can put in your plan so they know exactly where to start looking in the event something goes wrong.

 

If you can manage it (depending on security levels at the time), its well worth going for a visit to the ATC centre and getting a first hand look at how we process the traffic. The pilot info nights are worth it too. It will open your eyes and increased understanding from both sides is a great thing.

 

 

[dutchroll]

...........we had a long conversation about how this was not standard and could confuse SAR or ATC.

Bit harsh.

I don't know of any standard "diversion" phraseology. I would preface my call to ATC with something "revised flight details when ready" or "diversion details when ready" then when they come back with "go ahead", just a simple, succinct reply. Where you're now going to, what points you're tracking via (if not direct), what altitude you want to go there at. It really doesn't have to be hard.

 

Recently we were enroute to Perth in an Airbus A330 when they slapped fog onto the forecast and we didn't have enough fuel (requires an alternate). We had to divert to Adelaide. I was on the radios, so what phraseology did I use? "Melbourne Centre, (callsign), they've just put fog on Perth and we don't have the alternate fuel so we need to divert to Adelaide from present position."

 

Doesn't get more plain english than that! Centre came back with "Roger, standby" then about 30 seconds later said "turn right track direct Adelaide." Didn't even need an altitude change.

 

Sure we were ADSB identified in controlled airspace so that all helps. But don't make it complicated and make sure the controller is under no doubt as to what you want to do. If they need more info they'll ask for it.

 

 

[Aldo]

Aldo,Don't think you are on the right track there with your comment, as most RAAus operate in G Class only; as you would known there is no requirement to file anything. So from your comments this doesn't mean that the person doesn't know how to get from A to B and plan a flight and navigate correctly. Again most wouldn't even request flight following etc, however for those that want to understand the system and have knowledge of what needs to be done when they want to utilise this service I say is a good thing, isn't this what this forum 'ATC question' about. Based on your comment we should know it all prior to getting signed off. Isn't a good pilot always learning, can you please navigate me to your best seller book 'I know everything on flying' as I'm already lost......

Kiwi

 

I didn't direct this comment at you (i'm sorry if you took it this way) it was directed at the training you are receiving and what that level is (personally I don't think it is sufficient, but then again I may not know shit from clay I've only been flying for thirty years, but as I do over 300 hrs a year in and out of all areas G, C, D, E & military restricted I think I have a reasonable idea, do I know it all not at all).

 

You are correct most RA only operate in class G but so do lots of others (probably more than most people think) most airstrips outside the capital cities are in class G and there are lots of commercial and RPT operating into and out of those strips.

 

Yes I do think you should have a very good grasp of it all before you are signed off (we certainly had to but then again that was from another era so may not be applicable these days).

 

Flying is not just about getting from point A to point B it is about knowing everything that is going on around you and using every tool available to you to know what is going on around you, the training you received should have covered all of this, if it didn't the training wasn't good enough (my opinion).

 

You are also correct a good pilot keeps learning from each flight but you shouldn't have to learn the basics from each flight.

 

The throw away comment about the best seller at the end say's it all you don't know what you don't know.

 

Aldo

 

 

[dsam]

much edited...Planning as the last four digits is good, trust me when I say we won't find your plan if you file it as 241234, 191234, R1234 or jab1234 for example(unless you spell it out).

Ok, thanks Nathan, I'll accept your word that a submitted flight notification via NAIPS should just show 1234 in the flight ID field, to make it easy for you to find mine in the system. That being the case, I come to my next question:

 

How vital is it for my ADS-B Flight ID to show just 1234 for you to link my transponder signal to my NAIPS flight notification that you've just found in the system? Some Airservices people on this thread say the transponder flight ID should broadcast 241234. Other info would suggest it should broadcast R1234 (though that could possibly create duplicate identity issues as pointed out earlier in this discussion).

 

Or perhaps linking either of those broadcast Flight ID codes wouldn't be difficult, once you found my NAIPS flight notification in the system?

 

Sorry if this is rather pedantic, but I'd like to get this bit right

 

It makes me wonder why NAIPS flight notifications don't simply ask for my aircraft's unique hex code so there can be no confusion which aircraft is being tracked via ADS-B, particularly for recreational aircraft... perhaps it is a legacy issue related to existing tracking systems having to depend on squawk codes only??

 

Dave

 

 

[frank marriott]

It makes me wonder why NAIPS flight notifications don't simply ask for my aircraft's unique hex code so there can be no confusion which aircraft is being tracked via ADS-B, particularly for recreational aircraft

I suspect the number of recreational aircraft with mode S would be relatively small, a large portion (majority I would expect) do not have transponders.

 

 

[nathan_c]

Ok, thanks Nathan, I'll accept your word that a submitted flight notification via NAIPS should just show 1234 in the flight ID field, to make it easy for you to find mine in the system. That being the case, I come to my next question:How vital is it for my ADS-B Flight ID to show just 1234 for you to link my transponder signal to my NAIPS flight notification that you've just found in the system? Some Airservices people on this thread say the transponder flight ID should broadcast 241234. Other info would suggest it should broadcast R1234 (though that could possibly create duplicate identity issues as pointed out earlier in this discussion).

 

Or perhaps linking either of those broadcast Flight ID codes wouldn't be difficult, once you found my NAIPS flight notification in the system?

 

Sorry if this is rather pedantic, but I'd like to get this bit right

 

It makes me wonder why NAIPS flight notifications don't simply ask for my aircraft's unique hex code so there can be no confusion which aircraft is being tracked via ADS-B, particularly for recreational aircraft... perhaps it is a legacy issue related to existing tracking systems having to depend on squawk codes only??

 

Dave

Okay this is where this could get tricky. I'll answer with what I can tell you now but if your happy for us to get back to you with an official answer that's probably best as I think shags was looking into this already.

 

For Adsb to couple to your plan it needs to be the same in theory as your flight planned flight Id. Problem is some Adsb units are only codeable on the ground or in maintenance so you may not be able to change it if it's already set to something (some can be changed but not all).

 

We can manually couple you if needed but this is not preferred as there is room for error if you don't positively identify and couple the correct paint.

 

Coupling can happen a few ways, which includes the flight id and the code, which you should be able to enter under the code/ section of your flight plan.

 

Let us get back to you on this though as it's still not something we have had time to flesh out because as said, the amount of ra Aus with Adsb is very minimal ATM.

 

 

[aplund]

Imagine you are flying along towards CTA. You do not want to bust airspace so you call ATC at say 10-15nm to run from the CTA boundary to request clearance. That controller (unless they are working both the uncontrolled and controlled airspace) most likely wont have your plan sitting in their window, so they will look you up (which is simple if you have a plan in, if not expect a bunch of questions so we can make one). Once they look you up, a discrete code will already have been allocated to your plan (in the background without us touching it), and thats what we will then give you. At this point, we still have to manually activate your plan so the system knows you are flying,so then we will have a uncoupled procedural flight plan track displayed on our screen flying along. Once you squawk your assigned code, it will automatically link your plan to your radar paint and at that point we can identify you. Once this is completed, we can than hand you off to the next sector who owns the CTA, and they can give you the clearance. If you called the CTA sector directly (which there isnt anything wrong with by the way), they would have to do the same process, except they may save 15 seconds because they will already have your plan ready, but every thing else will remain the same. The difference is if they are busy, they may not have time to do it immediately and you could get stuck waiting outside the CTA for a clearance until they can.

This has been _really_ useful for me to think about. Thank you so much for that. Just a couple of follow ups:

 

You mentioned "procedural flight plan". Presumably this is what is filed in NAIPS. Are there other types of flight plans?

 

The word procedural comes up a lot. Like "procedural service" for Class D airspace. I've tried tracking down a definition of what is meant in procedural in this context, but I've been unable to locate it.

 

On the charts, it particularly says the contact BN CN for clearance into the Brisbane area CTA. So I guess what you say about contacting approach directly could apply, but goes against what the published procedure is for that area.

 

If you can manage it (depending on security levels at the time), its well worth going for a visit to the ATC centre and getting a first hand look at how we process the traffic. The pilot info nights are worth it too. It will open your eyes and increased understanding from both sides is a great thing.

I would _really_ love to, but cannot make the December one for Brisbane. Presumably your statement about security goes further than merely having an ASIC (which I have).

 

 

[rhysmcc]

This has been _really_ useful for me to think about. Thank you so much for that. Just a couple of follow ups:You mentioned "procedural flight plan". Presumably this is what is filed in NAIPS. Are there other types of flight plans?

 

The word procedural comes up a lot. Like "procedural service" for Class D airspace. I've tried tracking down a definition of what is meant in procedural in this context, but I've been unable to locate it.

 

On the charts, it particularly says the contact BN CN for clearance into the Brisbane area CTA. So I guess what you say about contacting approach directly could apply, but goes against what the published procedure is for that area.

 

I would _really_ love to, but cannot make the December one for Brisbane. Presumably your statement about security goes further than merely having an ASIC (which I have).

I think the context of procedural flight plan actually was in regards to our display, a procedural track is displayed basically where the system thinks the aircraft would be based on its ETD and TAS, rather then a return based on our radar or your transponder.

 

Procedural airspace basically refers to no radar, so the controllers use different standards to separate aircraft (rather then 5 or 3 miles). All class D is procedural, although they may have some radar coverage they don't use it for separation.

 

"BN Approach" also includes a sector that looks after class G airspace under approaches airspace, they use Brisbane Centre as their call sign (used to be Brisbane Radar), these are the guys you call to request clearance.

 

 

[nathan_c]

Yep as above is what I meant about procedural flight plans, thanks Rhys.

 

As for the security question, it's more the security level our complex is in at the time, more than your asic or etc. In past times when security was at a lower level of alertness it was easier for pilots/ friends of ATC etc etc to be organised a visit into the centre to have a look. Current levels make this a lot harder to get clearance to get people in outside pilot nights etc. (not impossible, just harder)

 

 

[dsam]

Okay this is where this could get tricky. I'll answer with what I can tell you now but if your happy for us to get back to you with an official answer that's probably best as I think shags was looking into this already.For Adsb to couple to your plan it needs to be the same in theory as your flight planned flight Id. Problem is some Adsb units are only codeable on the ground or in maintenance so you may not be able to change it if it's already set to something (some can be changed but not all).

 

We can manually couple you if needed but this is not preferred as there is room for error if you don't positively identify and couple the correct paint.

 

Coupling can happen a few ways, which includes the flight id and the code, which you should be able to enter under the code/ section of your flight plan.

 

Let us get back to you on this though as it's still not something we have had time to flesh out because as said, the amount of ra Aus with Adsb is very minimal ATM.

Ok an RA-Aus official has just confirmed in correspondence that my ADS-B flight ID must be in the format R1234. Sorry Nathan but it looks like ATC will always have to manually couple my NAIPS flight notification (1234 format as you indicate) with my ADS-B transmitted ID in the R1234 format. Below is an excerpt of my correspondence from RA-Aus:

 

The inclusion of R1234 rather than 241234 or any other variation is what Airservices operationally requires, with the letter R indicating the aircraft is recreational and the four digit number then correlating with the usual call sign based on the registration of the aircraft. Statistically, we have been led to understand the chances of 10-1234, 19-1234 and 24-1234 operating in the same locations in CTA to be quite remote, although the nature of statistics doesn’t preclude this from occurring. If this were to occur, the identification of the aircraft via call sign would include aircraft type, providing a means for differentiation. Trike 1234 versus Thruster 1234 versus Eurofox 1234, for example.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I didn't think rego number was reused. I.e. 1234 only exists once not once for each category?

 

 

[ian00798]

Statistically if there are more than 9999 recreational aircraft some regos would have to be reused. I'm not sure if it has happened yet. As a controller I'm much happier dealing with the small chance of two aircraft with the same rego been in the same area at the same time and dealing with that once in a career rather than manually coupling everything. ADSB is quite tricky to manually couple and slightly time consuming.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Aircraft change from 24 to 19 without changing their rego numbers though, Id be interested to know from RA-AUS if this is the case. Considering we use just the four numbers for callsign I would say no it's not possible for 2 aircraft to use the same numbers.

 

 

[KRviator]

Manually would only be required if there is a difference between your NAIPS Flight ID and your ADS-B output, wouldn't it? If you put R1234 as your NAIPS Flight ID, and that is your ADS-B output as well, it should automatically marry up, shouldn't it?

 

At least you won't need to request a new hex code, IIRC it is assigned to the aircraft, irrespective of rego, it should be a simple matter to just update the flight ID.

 

 

[ian00798]

Yeah but the issue is no controller is ever going to find your flight plan if you put it in as R1234, and also most recreational pilots don't plan that way. Not to mention, manually coupling ADSB is a more involved process than manually coupling radar.

 

 

[dsam]

Yeah but the issue is no controller is ever going to find your flight plan if you put it in as R1234, and also most recreational pilots don't plan that way. Not to mention, manually coupling ADSB is a more involved process than manually coupling radar.

As a suggestion, perhaps the simplest solution would be for Airservices (or someone else) to develop a "patch" to the software that ATC uses, so that they CAN find my "plan in the system" in the format R1234. That would comply with the "official" advice for R1234 in my ADS-B broadcast signal, and for RA-Aus pilots, R1234 can be easily input as the Flight ID in NAIPS flight notifications. With a Flight ID format exactly the same in both, the radar trace should couple automatically to the plan, wouldn't it?

 

Of course I have absolutely no first-hand experience of the user interface ATC uses when calling up my NAIPS flight notice while I'm airborne, so perhaps the software patch suggestion couldn't work? Any thoughts on this from our ATC forum contributors...? ...Just trying to minimise your workload

 

Dave

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Dave it's a simple matter of typing in the callsign and then the matching flight comes up. However it only works with exact matches, so if you call up as Jabiru 1234, we would try searching as 1234 but if you put JAB1234 as your flight is in NAIPS we wouldn't get a match. If AIP/NAIPS made it clear that R1234 was the ID to use i'm sure the controllers would then know that's what to search for. So far I've come across JAB1234, UL1234, 241234 and 1234 as examples that were used. A standard would be welcomed

 

 

[dsam]

Dave it's a simple matter of typing in the callsign and then the matching flight comes up. However it only works with exact matches, so if you call up as Jabiru 1234, we would try searching as 1234 but if you put JAB1234 as your flight is in NAIPS we wouldn't get a match. If AIP/NAIPS made it clear that R1234 was the ID to use i'm sure the controllers would then know that's what to search for. So far I've come across JAB1234, UL1234, 241234 and 1234 as examples that were used. A standard would be welcomed

Thanks rhysmcc, that's a helpful explanation.

 

So as I suspected, it isn't exactly true to say ATC can't find R1234 NAIPS flight notifications, but rather they don't/didn't know where to look. As I stated earlier in the thread, all organisations need to agree on a standard for this (RA-Aus, Airservices/NAIPS, CASA, ICAO etc.). As well, this agreed standard (R1234) needs to be widely promulgated amongst users (pilots, ATC staff, CFI's & training materials etc.).

 

I wonder what is the best way to make sure this happens so broadly?

 

It had better be in place before CASA allows CTA access to RA-Aus pilots with ADS-B, otherwise well-meaning RA-Aus pilots will come in for unfair criticism when they adhere to a standard that isn't widely recognised/understood.

 

Dave

 

 

[ian00798]

The good news is if you plan through a controllers controlled airspace the flight plan will go to our prescribe flights queue weather it's an ifr or vfr flight. Then not matter what you have put the plan in as, I will be able to find it quick and easy.

 

As far as patching the system up, the most significant issue would be that it is a mid 90s system put in service in the 2000s, and doesn't really have a lot of capacity left. Besides, there are system issues which actually have possible safety implications I would prefer to see fixed first

 

 

[facthunter]

I haven't been paying the bills for a while but flying in CTA doesn't (or didn't) come cheap. What's the set up these days? Nev

 

 

[aro]

Charges are for IFR and using airports in CTA only I think.

 

You seem to be mixing the requirements for IFR and CTA access together. VFR in CTA is a lot simpler than IFR.

 

 

[facthunter]

I understand that. I've used Albury CTA VFR because it's in the way sometimes. and I believe in transit right of access. I've said that many times.

 

I don't keep a current IF rating these days . Too expensive and I don't fly aircraft certified to do it. The Trend is to charge for everything. USER pays I don't expect to get anything for nothing. It's not realistic. Nev

 

 

[frank marriott]

Nev

 

Currently, (apart from landing & parking fees) no fees in class C unless you file IFR.

 

 

[dutchroll]

Airservices fees are waived below a certain threshold anyway. It's called the General Aviation Option and if they determine that your projected FY usage will amount to $500 or less, the fees are all waived (Airservices ones that is, not airport landing fees charged by the airport owners).

 

Other than that:

 

Terminal navigation charges for controlled airports are up to about $15/tonne MTOW.

 

Enroute navigation charges for aircraft < 20 tonnes are 90 cents x chargeable distance/100 x MTOW (in tonnes).

 

RFF charges are a couple of dollars/tonne where applicable.

 

 

[Romeo Juliet Whiskey]

Hi all! Was due to have my first lesson flying in controlled airspace at Coffs harbour yesterday whilst on holiday but it got cancelled due to weather. Had a few questions I was going to ask the instructor so ill have to ask you guys instead:)

 

i) Looking at the coffs harbour ERSA and VTC. How can you tell if the class D/Class C surrounding airspace has radar coverage or not?

 

ii) Also, what sort of departure report would you give operating out of this airport? Would it be different if you were departing into Class C as opposed to class D or class G? At metro class D airports like camden no departure report is required so Im a little confused.

 

Thanks, Rich