David Z - 1027224
-
Posts
3119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by David Z - 1027224
-
-
That's because it is a "pilot and ATC" document so it had go into one or the other. Of course in hindsight, it could alao go in both!
-
The 30 minute "delay" is because METARs are only reported every 30 or 60 minutes (depending on the aerodrome). VATSIM picks up the METAR every 30 minutes, so the actual delay at that point in time may only be a few minutes.
When the weather does pick up, the weather observers issue SPECIs, which can be issued at any time there is a significant change (e.g. wind decides to flip around 180 degrees). VATSIM doesn't pick up on these.
-
It's likely that the rules have changed. I have never seen the criteria the Greg referenced before, but it certainly makes a lot of sense!
Who's in charge of keeping the documents up to date now? 8)
-
You'd hope high school students would know their trigonometry even if the rest of us have forgotten ;D
-
ML will be the only place getting event traffic from multiple directions. No point running Flow for a single direction (as in the case of SY and AD) as you can easily get your 2 minutes-in-trail using the velocity vector without any need to consider merging.
-
-
The document isn't wrong. It just doesn't mention simultaneous landings and simultaneous take-offs because there is no restriction on them. The only restriction is where one aircraft is landing and the other is taking-off.
-
While there are restrictions on LAHSO by night, I'm pretty sure it isn't prohibited...
-
Flow will be active during the event, so controllers should familiarise themselves with the following: http://www.vatpac.org/operations/documents/manuals/TermFlowCtrl.pdf
In particular, read the "Flow Principles" section. I will be using the spreadsheet for this one and I'll provide the link on Friday night when I get home. If you are rostered onto an Approach or En route position and you are unsure about any of the Flow procedures, either post on here (preferred since everyone gets to see the answer) or message me and I can give you a hand.
-
The ICAO stuffed up by not including a code for RNP2, which is going to be the standard for continental en route navigation in radar coverage in the future (it is already mandated in Australia as of this year).
-
They use a custom operating system utilising the Linux kernel.
-
The current policy is very explicit about extended coverage for en route positions. From p21(1) of the policy:
The controller of a normal sector may extend coverage to another
normal sector (“second sector”) having either partially or fully
overlapping lateral extents or sharing a common lateral boundary
when that other normal sector is unavailable, except when
subparagraph (4) applies. This airspace extension must cover the
entire second sector.
There is nothing said about a limit on the number of sectors, although there are practical limits imposed by workload, airspace design and technical limitations of the software. Note that the part about overlapping lateral extents applies to a situation where we might have high/low sectors. Our standard set up does not feature these, but this wording comes into play when we activate non-standard positions.
-
Some rationale behind this location-specific procedure...
Most Radar TMAs have a ceiling of FL180 or higher. This gives plenty of room for the TMA controller to get arrivals and departures past each other. The Canberra TMA only goes to A100, which jets will reach very quickly. By the en route controller providing a higher level, the TMA controller is afforded extra vertical space to work the traffic.
-
You should monitor the ML CEN frequency, but no need to make en route calls, unless you believe that their is a risk of collision. Just realise that many controllers won't expect you to make any kind of broadcasts at all of their frequency and they may think you are inadvertently on the wrong frequency.
-
All of the ones listed in here (http://vatsim-data.hardern.net/vatsim-data.txt) are "approved". The only reason to use the Oceania one is to reduce latency (unfortunately there is no way to reduce the latency built into the voice software that is common to all of the clients, short of modifying it) where most pilots and controllers have geographical proximity to the server in Brisbane.
-
It requires a non-zero effort at least. If someone puts their hand up to do the heavy lifting, that always makes it a lot easier to consider a change.
-
If you're the controller, there's nothing stopping you from trying a different voice server.
-
Also note that it is perfectly acceptable to issue airways clearance prior to identification, provided that a procedural separation standard (e.g. vertical) is in place.
-
It's great to see that most people who attempted the quiz realised that AZJ was in Class G airspace and the implications of that. It is also great that in our division, you can rock up to a non-towered aerodrome and the controller will generally provide the correct level of service...
When I say "generally", I don't mean that some people try to issue an airways clearance out of Dubbo. What I mean is that sometimes the correct service from a non-towered aerodrome is not "squawk 1234, no reported traffic".
Consider aerodromes like Essendon and Avalon. Although these aerodromes have part-time towers, lets consider the general case when the towers are closed. Even while these towers are closed, these aerodromes are still inside controlled airspace (Essendon is in the Melbourne control zone) or very near controlled airspace (Avalon Class E control area extends down to 1200FT AGL). What kind of service needs to be provided to aircraft operating at non-towered aerodromes in or near controlled airspace?
-
An exercise: find the MATS reference for the ATIS update requirements.
-
Well technically the STARs at Sydney aren't jet/non-jet hence why they can get away with that.
-
In particular, I'd like to point out that the preferred runway mode at Sydney is SODPROPS. This can be used any time the wind speed does not exceed 5 knots and the other meteorological conditions (cloud base, visibility, etc.) listed in the Local Instructions are met.
If the TWR and APP controllers are comfortable with running this mode, then they should endeavour to do so as it reduces taxi times for pilots and reduces the airport capacity to something closer to our actual traffic levels... which means more fun for the controllers!
-
To answer this question correctly, you needed two things:
1. Melbourne Area Local Instructions
2. A method for working out the crosswind and downwind components (calculator/trig table if you are super smart, whiz wheel or a tool like this: http://craigsweb.net/mystuff/wxcalculator.htm)
-
The point is that controllers should not be offerring amendments beyond the scope of their duties.
Should VATPAC Run A FNO like VATUSA Once A Month (*Poll*)
in VATPAC Polls
Posted
It's now "Saturday Night Ops", so no conflict