Sean H - 870618
-
Posts
2480 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Sean H - 870618
-
-
I’m happy to extract rough LAT/LONG for those dots if it helps.
-
-
Thanks for stepping up Tracy, one of those jobs where you probably feel like an island and not a tropical one. I appreciate what you have done, and i’m sure many others do too.
-
It still has it in ERSA post 01 Mar 2018 cycle.
-
All over again. It should be about deconflict first then investigate. Not allow conflict to continue while they investigate.
When it happened to me I had one acft under control on final to a runway, and two taxing onto runway who refused to contact or avoid the inbound. SUP wanted to investigate first, and allow conflict to continue between pilots.
I believe this was posted on the SUP forum as a reminder to them that extending is allowed.
We need to clearly outline what we are covering in controller information.
-
Either would work in my view. If it goes to ISA it will all be similar traffic, either enroute to CTAF.
-
Ross, I may have missed it, what are the winds?
-
[thumbs up] to Quigs.
-
I agree Quigs. CVN is currently a headache, even last night traffic in CVN was ignored by MDE.
Time and effort is valuable.
In regards QLD (as that is where I have experience); two sectors is currently good, making it three causes more confusion to pilots. When we extend, it allows confusion and questions to be asked. I strongly believe we simple add CVN into DOS and that is the only change for QLD. I don’t understand the ‘need’ to have a major TMA on a boundary of a sector. Means that you cannot effectively provide quality service without extending. We should be able to logon without the need to extend. There are sub sectors there for events. 80% of our time in none event mode, so larger sectors work better. I’ve attempted to argue this before. Small Standard sectors requires you to extend 80%+ of the time, yet when an events on, we already have sub-sectors. So why limit ourselves.
-
Thanks Dan,
Can you confirm this for me please?
In the majority of cases we don't comply with 2.2.1.1, given that it says;
b) For a controller operating a standard Enroute control position, but not a FSS or Oceanic sector:i. The three (3) letter sector identifier of any standard control position to which extended coverage is being provided, and
ii. The four (4) letter ICAO identifier of any aerodrome to which a topdown Tower or Approach service is being provided. Aerodromes which are not specified in the controller information may be assumed to operate as uncontrolled aerodromes.
I don't think I've seen (b)(ii) complied with for years.
And that Section 3 ATIS requires an ATIS to be text AND voice whenever enroute provides topdown service to a TMA;
3.1 When must an ATIS be provided?3.1.1.1 An ATIS must be provided for an aerodrome, if and only if, an air traffic control service is also being provided for that aerodrome, except when subparagraph (2) applies.
3.1.1.2 Despite subparagraph (1), a controller must not provide more than one ATIS.
By way of example, my reading of this requires the following as a minimum;
EXTENDED COVERAGE (SNO + WOL)
YMML, YSSY, YSCB
YMML INFO A 270500Z EXP INSTR APCH RWY 16
WIND 160/15G24 VIS GREATER THAN 10KM CLD SCT015 BKN 030
T 40 QNH 1012
Thoughts? I've seen three or four ENR online today and no-one had ICAO's listed, nor an ATIS for their topdown. UNLESS I assume that nobody was providing topdown. :eek:
-
Would it not work keeping the same data e.g. the boundaries, but the Enroute 'normal' sectors can be changed simply by saying in our files;
DOS = KPL, BUR DOS, GRN, GOL, SDY, CVN
MDE = MDE, CNK, ARM, NAA, MLD, OCN
-
Daniel, whilst you allude to recent events, section 2.2.1.1 (b) was being complied with and did not help one iota. :'(
-
I’m definitely not saying, nor calling for, throwing the baby out with the bath water. :-\ as those on the sector team when this was discussed with Joel know I did not agree with the changes. Doesn’t mean they all have to be reverted. BUT a review would be great.
However, having been a Qld’er all my life and focusing my online activities in that area, I have never understood why MDE is drawn the way it is. For top down services, anyone doing MDE has a huge impact on YSSY but no responsibility. I hate covering it, unless YSSY APP or WOL is online, otherwise I can provide all the STARs and descent profiles and streaming I like, but as soon as they cross the TMA boundary it becomes a free for all. I have been told numerous times, why not just log on as MDE and extend to WOL and DOS. Good call, but it doesn’t tickle my fancy, and then no-one gets priority (WOL nor DOS).
Wouldn’t YSSY TMA be better surrounded by one Sector. In my limited experience, I would have though combining OCN, MLD, NAA, ARM, CNK, MDE, KAT, GLB, WOL and BIK would make sense. And moving CVN into DOS. Then you have the ability in a top down world for a CTR to truely manage a TMA whilst doing enroute. Like DOS is now. YBBN in the centre.
Events, yep, as we used back in 2007, have event sectors.
-
Thanks Tracy. I guess I should relax, and maybe have a copy of our policy on extending readily available to show SUPs and visiting pilots.
-
I know we can’t easily fix this, although it wouldn’t have happened on the old sector boundaries, but I was doing DOS this morning and extending to TBP. QF060 was being vectored onto RWY 15 at YBCS. My atis said YBCS because YBBN was covered by APP.
Two foreign pilots join at the international apron, and I sent them a pm in case they weren’t going to see me. Neither replied and some five minutes later decided to start taxing together. I pm’d one and he said “I’m not in your area”. And continued to taxi.
So I walloped, and a SUP from same country as the pilot answers. The SUP says, you can’t control that airport. I said what about the inbound on ils. He disconnects.
What is happening. How do we prove to SUPs that we can extend? I apologised to QF060, and logged off.
-
This has been discussed and I know “real world says” but I still don’t see the benefits online for CVN to belong to MDE.
OCN as part of MDE is important and can be critical, as are the other minors within MDE, but not CVN. They handle descent and assign procedures for YSSY. It can quickly grow and then overwhelm the intention of covering QLD.
Traffic ‘online’ within CVN has more relevance to YBBN than YSSY. I’ve seen several occasions where a member has nominated that they are covering MDE but blindly ignore anything in CVN. This is because it is a mis-match.
Likewise I often cover QLD, but I have to ignore pilots in CVN unless I take on the whole of MDE which then means I’m doing more traffic than I am happy to do generally.
Are there arguements for CVN staying in MDE?
-
-
Reference top left image, I was feeling extremely comfortable in 785, until KLM decided to make a right Base in front.
Seriously though thank you to all the controllers for your efforts and time, thank you to CPA44 for the banter, and all the other pilots who attended.
Great event, let’s do it again soon.
-
Good timing. Fly into WADD by 1000, then dash over into VATSAF.
-
Noice separation...... Is there a controller?
-
I don’t know why the current director, immediate former director and the VATSIM board have a need to argue publicly. I find it amazing that members in a position of authority feel it’s not necessary to ignore members, but when they feel they have been involved use the full force of their position. That is a conflict of interest to me, and will be every day. You can’t use your position for your own gain. JH should apologise on this forum to all VATPAC members for only using the forum for his own defence. My opinion of course.
-
Or have a sympathic sector controller, who would control the overall standard sector, but ‘allow’ the wedgie to handle then MIL with the SUA. Entry and exit points, so the wedgie and sector controller have some co-ord and Agreement. Not hard, and I don’t believe it is against policy (apart from the wedgie providing ‘services’, which is matter for them).
If you need a sympathic controller as per the suggestion I am available.
-
Wasn’t there a formal LOA for the exercise at Darwin last year which covered all this stuff? There were guidance docs and everything available, so if CTR opened they knew the SUA procedures/expectations.
-
I am probably wrong, but I thought that it was banded to open a sector that wasn’t on the Standard Position list, unless prior approval was granted and then if it was listed on the Non-Standard list.
If control services are provided they are not restrictive as far as VATSIM goes? So if you open a sector it is to provide services to all acft (except given the usual airspace rules).
In the early days of vRAAF we had a great relationship with VATPAC board and were allowed to open TN_CTR, AMB_CTR etc which provided services in the appropriately adjacent SUA/RUA. It changed and the ‘Standard position” list was created and only those can be used.
I thought (again i’m Usually incorrect) that vRAAF were using VRC/ES on the same PC as the E737 using ‘a brother’s’ VATSIM account as the connection, that way you could fly and control.
Interestingly enough the creator of VRC said it was possibly to have a floating centre of visibility based on say acft pos data, that way your vis moved based on the acft location. He did’t progress it as an option as there was no ‘demand’ for it.
When USCGv was around, we used to run as an observer and provide “sar services” to members on a discreet frequency. That wasn’t a moving vis centre though.
The question I would ask, “If it is something only RAAFv members will use, then does it need to be visible to anyone else?”
GA Madness
in Events
Posted
AEST, otherwise won’t be any ATC.