Tasmanian Multilateration and ADS-B
Cannot answer for Aussie but in NZ the mLat works well but the interface with the legacy ATC hardware and software is taking some time to get certified in part because there is no supporting regulations at present in the NZ rule suite.
I could just about believe $5000 if you have an upgradable IFR GPS box and a newish upgradeable transponder, although even then I guess you're talking USD.
For most of us we're going to need a new WAAS GPS and a new 1900ES transponder to replace our perfectly functional and in many cases not very old IFR avionics.
For those of us with a non WAAS 'state of the art' G1000 system that have to go through Cessna for the upgrades, we'd now be lucky to do it inside $40K+ per aircraft.
I'm sure there is price gouging going on but whether or not the manufacturers are ripping us off, that's what it costs and CASA and ASA should be well aware and concerned about that.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all procedural and they do a damned fine job of it too.
Bottums Up
Haven't experienced that yet PLovett but was very impressed one winter's night (VOR-Z RWY30), when I'd said to Bloggs "this is gunna turn to custard", an A320 on final, a 738 overhead and turning outbound, and a 717 inbound to HB from Tea Tree. It's a tad disconcerting to see the lights of a jet in a missed approach heading straight for one.
But it worked like clockwork with no signs of worry beads. But after two decades of Darwin ATC, my scepticism got the better of me.
But it worked like clockwork with no signs of worry beads. But after two decades of Darwin ATC, my scepticism got the better of me.
Have you done the Derwent One Arrival, with a left base onto 30 yet Captain Claret?
Best done with a Yank carrier moored in the middle of the Derwent or regatta day.
Best done with a Yank carrier moored in the middle of the Derwent or regatta day.
...left base ... Captain Claret
Thread Starter
So they spent tens of millions on the multilateration "Radar" system but no one is trained to use it? Is that what you are saying? What's the use of the system then?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The towers are not allowed to use it but certainly centre uses it for identification purposes - not sure about vectors or anything like that as I have never had to ask for such things.
Thread Starter
Now come on. Surely someone can answer if this expensive system can be used by Melbourne Centre Controllers for separation purposes. Or is it that we still use 1920s procedural separation for Tasmania?
And how come all low level FAA en route controllers are trained to do radar approach services however this does not happen in Aus?
And how come all low level FAA en route controllers are trained to do radar approach services however this does not happen in Aus?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick my experience has been that centre will space you in accordance with procedural separation standards because that is what is going to apply once you enter Launie or Hobart airspace but in their airspace I believe they will use it as a quasi-radar.
As you are well aware Tassie is not that big a place and it is no use applying radar separation standards when come 45 miles Hobart or Launie it has to go back to being procedural. So until the tower controllers get trained, and, I believe sort out some technical glitches that TASLATS throws up occasionally we are going to be stuck with procedural separation.
As you are well aware Tassie is not that big a place and it is no use applying radar separation standards when come 45 miles Hobart or Launie it has to go back to being procedural. So until the tower controllers get trained, and, I believe sort out some technical glitches that TASLATS throws up occasionally we are going to be stuck with procedural separation.
outside tower hours, Melbourne Center use the Radar for control purposes down to low level.
there was talk about Melbourne Center taking airspace above 1500' a few years ago, but not sure why that didnt eventuate.
radar separation would certainly help at times... the RPT jets don't get too many disruptions, but the GA ops, Charter etc can get holding for perhaps only 1 Jet within the TMA.
there was talk about Melbourne Center taking airspace above 1500' a few years ago, but not sure why that didnt eventuate.
radar separation would certainly help at times... the RPT jets don't get too many disruptions, but the GA ops, Charter etc can get holding for perhaps only 1 Jet within the TMA.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, get your facts right before making your throw away lines. Multialteration and ADSB are en-route tools. They are not used in tower or terminal airspace where smaller tolerances are required. If a display were available in the procedural towers, it could not be used for separation but for information only. If you want to spend a few million installing a display in LT or HB, there would be no real benefit with the low traffic levels. Some procedural towers, e.g. Rockhampton do have a Eurocat display with a TSAD backup but even these can't be used for separation due to latency. I.e. the distance between the tower and the processor which in Rockhampton's case is Brisbane. If there were some benefit to be gained, it would be installed. Airservices does not go out of its way to make life hard for its controllers.
The only airports with multilateration are those with A-SMGCS, a runway incursion alerting system and surface display. Melbourne has eleven multilateration sites on the actual airport to get the required coverage and accuracy.
The only airports with multilateration are those with A-SMGCS, a runway incursion alerting system and surface display. Melbourne has eleven multilateration sites on the actual airport to get the required coverage and accuracy.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks PLovett.
Are you en-route, if so what is the minimum separation between two ADS-B equipped aircraft? As a comparison, procedural towers can go to 5 DME separation within 15 DME of the destination.
Are you en-route, if so what is the minimum separation between two ADS-B equipped aircraft? As a comparison, procedural towers can go to 5 DME separation within 15 DME of the destination.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick, Fuji and anyone else interested. I have a few mates in MEL CEN, Hobart and Launie (not to mention BN and ASA HQ), good enough that I was able to ask for some info to help you guys understand.
Here ya go…No BS, no axes grinding just pure facts from the coalface guys who work their butts off for all of us.
Hope this helps. 
Here ya go…No BS, no axes grinding just pure facts from the coalface guys who work their butts off for all of us.
1. The towers do have a display, it is called TSAD (Tower Situational Awareness Display) A very useful tool for minimising VHF chatter as ATC use it to streamline application of Class D procedures between VFR/VFR/IFR conflict pairs, as well as being able to ask IFR for necessary reports to achieve procedural separation standards when the distance, altitude etc has been achieved. These guys and girls would be doing a huge amount more scatter gun type talking without it.
2. The traffic levels in both locations have increased immensely in recent years, for example, Hobart over the last two months were regularly moving between 48 and 60 Jet moves per day. Add to this Cambridge, float planes to and from the city and east coast, circuit training, two IFR training schools (Kingairs, Turbine Helo's, Duchess etc some with DME, some not) wanting practice instrument approaches often to the non-duty runway, with a huge speed differential to that of the RPT's (80-100 knots verses 250+ reducing) finding gaps to make that work in surveillance airspace is just as hard as procedural. Some days saturation is reached multiple times during daylight hours. Hobart requires in-trail gap vectoring assist from Melbourne Centre due to runway occupancy in Hobart. There are only two (mid-field) taxiways, requiring 90% of all landings, and every departure to back-track.
3. The ADS-B coverage within the Launy and Hobart TMA's is comprehensive and has multiple redundancies as each Multilateration ground station is also an ADS-B receiver. Multilat some times struggles with older GA transponders when aircraft are at lower levels away from the receiver networks.
4. If it was determined via proper process that either or both locations required a surveillance approach service, upgrading the services would be required to enable 3NM Separation, as well as finding real estate in Melbourne Centre to place the Approach Consoles. Either or both might be expensive and time consuming, in the end industry would pay.
2. The traffic levels in both locations have increased immensely in recent years, for example, Hobart over the last two months were regularly moving between 48 and 60 Jet moves per day. Add to this Cambridge, float planes to and from the city and east coast, circuit training, two IFR training schools (Kingairs, Turbine Helo's, Duchess etc some with DME, some not) wanting practice instrument approaches often to the non-duty runway, with a huge speed differential to that of the RPT's (80-100 knots verses 250+ reducing) finding gaps to make that work in surveillance airspace is just as hard as procedural. Some days saturation is reached multiple times during daylight hours. Hobart requires in-trail gap vectoring assist from Melbourne Centre due to runway occupancy in Hobart. There are only two (mid-field) taxiways, requiring 90% of all landings, and every departure to back-track.
3. The ADS-B coverage within the Launy and Hobart TMA's is comprehensive and has multiple redundancies as each Multilateration ground station is also an ADS-B receiver. Multilat some times struggles with older GA transponders when aircraft are at lower levels away from the receiver networks.
4. If it was determined via proper process that either or both locations required a surveillance approach service, upgrading the services would be required to enable 3NM Separation, as well as finding real estate in Melbourne Centre to place the Approach Consoles. Either or both might be expensive and time consuming, in the end industry would pay.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji, just to add what Jaba posted. Because the towers require procedural separation, centre will use that standard across the state due to the short time that most aircraft will spend under their control before they cross into the tower areas.