Jake S - 927562
-
Posts
2250 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Jake S - 927562
-
-
Thanks Rob.
Some of the oldest bits of vatSys code dates back more than 10 years, back when I was ab initio in the college learning on that god awful PC simulator
All the programming is me, with Zach helping manage the web side of things. Peter Story deserves a lot of credit too, he's done so much work automating and curating the Australian data that it uses. That's a massive job and he makes it look easy.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Thanks John!
-
41 minutes ago, David Zhong said:
An ATC might be able to correct/clarify, but it would be for SAR purposes, in lieu of entering it into item 19 of the flight plan.
Yes. Nothing is done with it at the time, but everything you transmit is recorded and easily replayable down the line should you need SAR
-
A "trial" of lower E is also occurring at YAYE
https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a20-h26.pdf
-
@Brett Cummings yes and they are updatable should the codes change again.
-
1
-
-
As ADS-B transponders essentially require GNSS, the GNSS inclusive codes (/L & /G) are the best flags to use (and are what the new client uses by default). Until the network protocol is updated to support full flight plan information that's the best you can hope for.
@Russell Diehl, my understanding is /I would leave you capable of some older style SIDs and STARs, specifically the ones not flagged with a higher RNP approval requirement. For example, RIVET STAR has an "RNP 1" requirement written in a convenient easy to miss box and so would not be usable. However the WOL SID has no requirement other than RNAV and so is acceptable. You would not be capable of RNAV (GNSS) or RNAV (RNP) titled approaches. Ultimately it is pilot responsibility to advise if unable to accept and ATC will only be worrying about it if we're using it for separation (for instance, in a procedural environment). This is all reading between the lines to translate the simple american codes to ICAO PBN.
-
1
-
-
David,
This skybrary article is helpful:
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Simultaneous_Approaches_to_Parallel_Runways
Will might elaborate, but finals monitoring is still required (not PRM) for Independent parallel approaches at BN based on their distance apart.
Dependent parallel approaches require a stagger of 1.0NM for SY and 1.5NM for BN which in practice is just do not overtake the adjacent final.
My guess as to overseas operations is either they are dedicated departure / arrival runways, or it’s just not specifically documented that finals monitoring may occur.
I assume that Brisbane will operate similar to Sydney in that finals monitoring is only staffed when traffic levels and noise abatement dictates. Though I believe BN are not using Independent Visual Approaches, so that might change.
MATS has been updated already to spell all of this out, including the changes to independent departure requirements.
-
Hispanic Mechanic on Glen Osmond Rd is excellent
https://hispanicmechanic.com.au/ -
11 hours ago, Sean Harrison said:
Thanks Daniel.
The main reason is access to aircraft models and associated add ons.
I had hoped XP11 and/or P3D were going to change my flying pleasure, however there are several aircraft that I used in FSX which I can’t find or use in the newer apps. ISG was my turn too addon FMC, but I can’t get it to operate in 64bit. Anyway, yes there is some great advances, but unless I can fly the aircraft I want/need to it is worthless.
thanks for the reply,
Sean, have a look at the ISG forums. I looked into the GNSXLS recently and there’s a 64bit update for all his gauges posted there.
-
Tristan, feel free to give me as many amended radials as you wish. It’s a nice change as a pilot.
Euroscope’s map projection leaves a lot to be desired, but since it’s procedural, as soon as the pilot reports established on the radial you’re good to start using it for separation. A quick rule of thumb for choosing amended radials is “15-16, 16-15”. 15° divergence are laterally separated outside 16DME, 16° at 15DME.
-
All "Metro D" airports are technically procedural towers. The radar feed they receive is not allowed to be used for separation (same as all other procedural towers) but may be used for situational awareness.
IFR flights are effectively 1 in 1 out, for example the acceptance rate for subsequent IFR arrivals to YPPF is 7 minutes in real life. That's enough time for the first aircraft to be landed before the second one calls on frequency. Of course this may be relaxed by the use of visual separation or the overlying radar controller providing radar separation. Remember, as the towers only own class D airspace, separation is IFR - IFR only. Traffic information for everything else.
Because of this Metro D towers are very different to full on procedural approach towers such as Alice Springs, where multiple IFR arrivals and departures are facilitated with tower owning class D and C airspace up to A085.
You can use any reporting points you want whenever you want irregardless of procedural / radar environment. If it's on a map, a pilot can report there.
-
1
-
-
The base of CTA to the south needs to be lowered first
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a18-h44.pdf
-
1
-
-
Nicholas is correct - clearance for visual approach means descend as you wish visually, remaining inside CTA (and above LSALT at night). Tracking is still as per route clearance or given instruction until within 5 NM of the airport (or the circling area).
Some examples:
1/ ABC on a STAR which links to an ILS.
"ABC, cleared visual approach"
ABC must continue tracking via the STAR and ILS, but may descend visually remaining in CTA.2/ ZEF is cleared direct to YPAD
"ZEF, cleared visual approach"
ZEF may descend visually remaining in CTA, but must continue direct to YPAD until 5 NM, where they may then track however they wish (unless told otherwise) to final."ZEF, track for right base runway 05, cleared visual approach"
ZEF must track now direct to right base runway 05, and may descend visually remaining in CTA."ZEF, track for left base runway 23, descend to 1500 visual"
ZEF must track now direct to left base runway 23, but is not cleared for visual approach yet. ATC must reiterate cleared level when not clearing visual approach with circuit join instructions.3/ SAW on a VICTOR STAR which terminates visually at a runway, but it is night.
"SAW, descend via STAR to 1500, cleared visual approach"
SAW descends to and maintains 1500 until established in the circling area or on the PAPI/GP. At night, pilots must remain above the applicable MSA/LSALT until established in the circling area or on the PAPI/GP. By ATC assigning the MVA of 1500, this allows the pilot to descend as low as possible. MSA/LSALT will generally be higher than MVA's. Just giving visual approach clearance may leave the aircraft too high on their approach.-
1
-
-
-
12
-
1
-
-
In Class G, IFR aircraft receive a Flight Information Service (FIS) and an Alerting Service (SARWATCH).
From the time first contact is made, eg. IFR taxi call or departure call, the controller is responsible for passing relevant information to the pilot and ensuring scheduled reports are made.
Some of the relevant information that must be provided includes details about other IFR or known VFR traffic, surveillance observed VFR traffic, the existence of non-routine MET products (eg. new SPECIs, amended TAFs, SIGMETs, etc.) or hazards affecting that flight.
Area QNH is provided to every aircraft that will be cruising at an altitude within the forecast area. They are available here: http://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/forecasts/area-qnh/ (bonus marks if anyone can figure out where the chart version lives on that site these days)
When aircraft are not identified, traffic will typically be provided when two IFR aircraft will be operating within 10 minutes of each other at departure/destination airport or otherwise within 15NM and 1000FT of each other enroute. When aircraft are identified, these guidelines may be decreased based on the controllers judgement.
A traffic statement is given each time the pilot notifies a change ie. first taxying, change of level enroute, top of descent; or when there is now relevant traffic (eg. another aircraft taxied). When there is no traffic, use the phrase "No reported IFR traffic".
When approaching controlled airspace (Class E, D, C or A) that is owned by another controller, such as your example with ML APP, the IFR aircraft is to be transferred at least 10NM from the boundary of that airspace so that the next controller can issue them a clearance in a timely manner. There is no coordination required when the aircraft will call the next controller for clearance, simply just handoff the track. If the enroute controller wished to issue a clearance, coordination would be required first.
-
2
-
-
It's watching
-
Man I wish we really had auto release :rolleyes:
-
Photo looks good! Quick question - with all the fixes being placed specifically like how it is in the photo, are they placed manually or is it automatic?
I've written a rough tool that can generate elements of map files (xml) from DAH data, or you can add them manually if you wish
-
Testing Testing Testing
Always Testing
-
The traffic situation between RIGMI and ELLAS en route to Brisbane...
(I won't be answering any questions on this picture, but I will say that it is not related to Jake's project)
Looking good!
Make sure you resolve that ETO :rolleyes:
-
No lovely previews, I've been doing bits and pieces here and there but nothing new to show just yet.
Cheers
-
Looks great! Question: Will popups eg. GRIB Window be able to be moved to a second display?
Yes, they behave as normal Windows err windows
I'm not sure whether that's a *Good* thing or a *Bad* thing! :-\
Only time will tell
-
Looks great! Question: Will popups eg. GRIB Window be able to be moved to a second display?
Yes, they behave as normal Windows err windows
-
Hey Jake - Great to see you working on a new iteration!
Made me log into the forums for the first time in a long time!
Good luck - looks fantastic!
Cheers John
Progress continues (helped along by the fact I finally have internet again...)
Settings! Not the most exciting things to be coding but necessary nonetheless.
Any IRL controllers around? Centre controllers specifically
in Real World Tales
Posted
Typically nothing, unless there's a change to something affecting controlled airspace or a SARTIME amendment.
The important thing is that your intentions were recorded on VHF (which can easily be played back) should you need to be found later.