David Z - 1027224
-
Posts
3119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by David Z - 1027224
-
-
Well following that example:
For Sydney arrivals via PKS, who of KAT and BIK should provide STAR clearance? Is there a standard assignable level for Sydney arrivals from KAT to BIK?
Aircraft on WG to NW - is coordination required or does WOL get a surprise when when gets a hand-off for an aircraft 10NM from GLB and about to cut across the arrival stream for Canberra? (The answer would be yes - MATS 4.3.3 provides details on non-coordination routes)
Speaking of GLB, who of BIK and WOL is responsible for providing SARWATCH given that it is right on top of the boundary?
These are all questions that, under normal traffic levels, are not a problem and can be dealt with easily. If we are proposing that these non-standards are activated in a rush when there is suddenly a lot more traffic than expected, then they are questions that get people flustered and reduce the effectiveness of having the non-standard there is the first place.
So the point is, that the procedures that are missing are the coordination procedures.
None of this is to say that we shouldn't have the non-standards in there - only that before we tell our C3s to go and start using these all over the place, we may want to think about answering some of these questions in advance.
There is a reason why the policy requires C3s activating non-standards to brief ALL affected controllers on a number of items, among which includes "any major coordination issues that arise from the use of the non-standard position" and encourages staff members activating non-standards to also do so - I note that the Board has, in the past, taken a dim view of staff members who do NOT consider the items listed in paragraph 33.
(P.S. Richard, nothing wrong with stoking the fires in a lively debate
) -
The other issue is that the real world sectors are not designed for the traffic patterns we see at events. Try running 50 arrivals and 50 departures at Learmonth with the real world sectors and you'll find that simply drawing a 150NM ring and designating that as an arrival sector would have worked a lot better.
Furthermore, when you have non-standard sectors, it is a MUST to have some documented procedures in place. We have not documented the procedures for our standard procedures, but this is no issue because everyone knows what they are because we use them every day. As soon as you start running non-standard sectors, straight away you have to start answering questions like "what is the standard assignable?" "are there any in-trail spacing requirements for arrivals?" "who is responsible for STAR clearances?" and these are just the standard ones. You will then find other sector specific questions like "who is responsible for Albury traffic" and the like. The reduced size of non-standard sectors also means that there is much less time to deal with these special situations - we have seen from running additional TMA sectors that everyone must be on the same page and know what they need to do, otherwise we begin to work against each other.
So it is not really sufficient to put the airspace arrangements in the sector files and give C3s free reign to activate non-standards all over the place without the procedures in place to support it.
-
For normal operations, you should just treat the non-standard sectors as something that isn't there.
Note also that for a C3 to activate a non-standard, there is a high bar to meet before it can happen - it is very difficult to meet that bar unless the procedures for that non-standard have already been established by the Operations department.
-
The reality is that any advertised start/end times will be ignored. For any event, there is always traffic before the start time and the end time is never really determined by the event coordinator and instead is set by other influences (e.g. "need to go to school/work tomorrow").
Paging Kirk Christie... what happened to Flight Sim WA?
-
-
I didn't include the exact details of the airspace arrangements, but you can find them in ERSA. In hindsight, probably a good idea, because they may well have changed since this document was drafted (which was 2013, despite the effective date).
To summarise the airspace arrangements:
- at a normal Class D regional tower, all of the Class C/D airspace below a certain level (typically 4500 or 8500 or FL125) is reclassified Class G
- at the locations mentioned in this procedure, only the very low airspace (i.e. around 1500FT) is reclassified to either Class E or G
The consequence of this is that a procedural approach service is provided by the en route controller (in real world, under a CASA exemption to avoid personnel licensing issues!) but no aerodrome control service is provided. Technically an aircraft cannot be prevented from entering the runway, but as a pilot, it is unwise to enter the departure runway without the knowledge that you are going to be able to get the clearance straight away!
Those that are familiar with the Avalon and/or Essendon tower closed procedures will note that the procedures are not too dissimilar, except that at Essendon, there is obviously no phraseology regarding leaving controlled airspace.
-
My comments as the drafter of the policy, but these should not be taken as clarifications (only clarifications issued by a member of the Board of Directors should be taken as binding):
- In drafting this policy, I attempted to retain the meaning of the original policy while also incorporating some clarifications that had been issued and clarifying a number of matters that had always been left open
- I attempted to cover the case of non-Australian FIRs by relying on the definition of oceanic sectors. Clearly this does not cover AYPM, which I did not consider
- I note that in the restriction on extended coverage by oceanic sectors, I assumed that Nauru and Honiara FIRs were part of the Tasman Oceanic sector (in real world, these FIRs are part of the same ATC group that covers the airspace equivalent to Tasman)
- I don't see why there should be a problem with allowing extended coverage across to the other FIR, but obviously that is not my call to make
- Under the wording of the policy, extension appears to be permissible, as Greg said workload permitting, but also provided that you can adequately cover the entire airspace you are serving within the limitations imposed by visibility and radio range. If you are unable to cover your airspace by 4x400NM circles, then Murphy's law will eventually kick in and place aircraft in all of your dead areas!
-
Should be able to modify vatspy.dat to reflect this. KCFS is a non-towered aerodrome anyway.
-
A bit busier now...
I don't think I have the ETO warning logic or parameter correct, it's on almost every aircraft!
-
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)
-
I would suggest in future that these planned changes to procedures be documented. You will have ad-hoc controllers turn up to fill gaps and they will either need to be individually briefed or they will be on a different page to everyone else.
-
1. Taxi via grass
2. Unless special procedures are in place, AS Twr is a Procedural Tower and as an S2 controller you need to hold a Procedural Tower endorsement to operate it. The details on standard assignable levels are in the course and in MATS.
-
Team Velocity will be participating at this year's WorldFlight operating the PMDG 737-800 with flight planning services being provided by our dispatcher.
If you are interested in flying with us and you think you meet some of the criteria listed above, we are still taking applications!
-
Would UTC (Universal) be a more appropriate default?
-
I thought it was compliant also, I'm sure it said that you must monitor 122.800 at all times. Anything else is unregulated.
It says that you have to monitor 122.8 or another frequency designated for that purpose.
Pilots flying through uncontrolled airspace should set their VHF radio frequency to 122.80 or other designated "Unicom" frequency and monitor until they come under air traffic control coverage. -
The document is compliant, so long as CTAFs are declared as the frequencies for use under CoC B7.
-
I wouldn't call it watering down to have Essendon activity on the approach frequency. Check the frequency - 118.45 is not the same one used by aircraft departing Melbourne.
As Trent rightly points out, information about Essendon is highly relevant to ML App. In addition it is relevant to no one at ML tower.
So clearly this information should be reported to App regardless of workload. You cannot offload this to someone else as you simply add in coordination burden without saving anything else. At the end of the day it still needs to be communicated to App.
-
This "Melbourne Clearance Delivery" frequency (118.45, not the one that the person in the tower uses) is actually routed to the ML TMA controller responsible for the airspace over Essendon. For online operations, it is most appropriate that ML APP speaks to aircraft on the ground.
Also note that it is important for ML TMA to know about aircraft clearing the runway (or at the very least, landing on the ground with no prospect of returning to the air). This is to allow for one-in-one-out separation. It is also important to remember that once an aircraft on approach to Essendon drops off radar, it must be assumed that the aircraft could be anywhere on the missed approach track and to apply separation with respect to that track and the missed approach altitude.
-
You're probably right, I think we must have left Brisbane and Perth as is for consistency's sake. (Real world those TMAs use the 'V')
-
Note that the above information is now included in MATS.
Two other things to note:
1. If no SID or STAR is assigned, include the assigned runway like this: ... EN DCT YMEN/35
2. The suffix after the runway designator is not dependent on whether you intend to issue an instrument or visual approach clearance, but rather the type of termination of the STAR. For example, at Brisbane, the Alpha STARs should look like: CG3A/19I, whereas the Victor STARs should look like: CG3V/19V, regardless of which approach type ends up being used. Note also that the correct suffix is generally found in the Local Instructions for the TMA - for example, most TMAs do not use the 'V' suffix for visual terminations as in my last example.
-
Unfortunately they only ship in light black, dark white and anti-radar grey
-
Check the flight time on Perth to east coast and you'll understand why that might not be a good idea for spilled milk run
-
Team Velocity is inviting expressions of interest for new pilots and dispatchers for its 2016 Worldflight effort.
Team Velocity is an unofficial team with members doing flights from home as a collective effort. We have been running since 2011 but took a year off last year due to reduced availability of our members.
This year, Team Velocity intends to operate either the PMDG 737 or 777 and will likely simulate the operations of an Australian carrier, to be decided by a poll of our membership.
If you are interested in joining our team and meet the attributes listed below, we would love to hear from you!
Team Velocity pilots should meet most of the following attributes:
- own a copy of the PMDG 737 (-800) or 777 (-300ER)
- be intimately familiar with the normal operation of the above aircraft
- some familiarity with cold weather operations, high crosswind handling, instrument approaches with all radio navigation aids (ILS, LOC, VOR, NDB) and RNAV GNSS using VNAV and V/S AFDS modes, visual circuits*
- experience in operating in high-traffic environments
- experience in operating with overseas ATC and takes a flexible approach to working with ATC
- team player
- a willingness to always learn new things!
* successful applicants will be encouraged to complete a training package including these items
Team Velocity dispatchers should meet most of the following attributes:
- own a copy of PFPX
- some familiarity with CASA Jet and EU-OPS flight planning criteria
- some familiarity in analysing standard meteorological prognostic products, such as TTF, TAF, SIGWX
- some familiarity with EDTO requirements
- experience in overseas operations
- team player
- a willingness to always learn new things!
If you are interested, even if you don't meet all of the items listed, please don't hesitate to get in touch with me at dzhong111 at gmail dot com with the following:
-
pilot or dispatcher or both
- aircraft owned and preferred aircraft (pilots)
- availability during Worldflight week
- summary of your flight sim experience
- own a copy of the PMDG 737 (-800) or 777 (-300ER)
-
Cheers Greg since fsx is so cpu intensive i thought it would be alright down this far
It is CPU intensive, but this is often overstated. The graphics pipeline works something like this:
1. Software (running on CPU) determines that a new bit of scenery needs to be loaded
2. Scenery is loaded from disk into RAM
3. Various things are copied from RAM into graphics RAM using the CPU
4. The CPU issues an instruction to the GPU to draw the scenery that was previously copied in
Ideally, you want to balance all of the components listed above so that none of them are a bottleneck - in reality, you won't be able to optimise to that degree and nor would you (given that cost is a factor in your decision making). The components are: CPU, RAM/cache, disk, GPU, GPU RAM/cache. Any one of these can be a bottleneck.
Disk - Typically those of us with hard drives instead of SSDs will notice either slow loading objects (aircraft, scenery objects, terrain tiles, etc.) and possibly a pause or stutter when loading large amounts of objects.
RAM/cache - As far as I have seen, this shouldn't normally be a bottleneck, but it doesn't hurt to throw an extra $10 to get RAM that is the next speed up (especially if your method of overclocking has an effect on it) provided that your motherboard supports it.
CPU - There is a lot for the CPU to do in loading scenery, running the physics engine, doing animations, etc., but you should only see an increase in load on the CPU for more complex scenery/aircraft systems code.
GPU - With high anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering settings and high monitor resolutions, there are more pixels that need to be rendered (keep in mind that anti-aliasing is similar to bumping up your resolution by a factor). This does not create more work for the CPU, but it certainly generates more work for the GPU. Things like tessellation, shadows, reflections, HDR, etc are also GPU driven and have minimal impact on the CPU, but a bit impact on the GPU.
)
vSkyLine
in Airspace - Other
Posted
If you get in touch with Kieran Hardern, he should be able to connect you with George Marinakis who will be able to sort you out with the NDA. Provided you are happy with the terms, the process is fairly straight forward, just need to execute the deed with any witness and mail it back to the USA.
As you rightly suggest, getting the basic user interface is the easy part... now for the hard bit! Good luck!