Tasmanian Multilateration and ADS-B
Thread drift:
I couldn't help but smile when I read:
Worked procedural in Launy 36 years ago. I was trying to recall how many movements a day we had then only just the other day when chatting with someone.
At my current location, we had 1,203 scheduled jet moves last Saturday. 800 of them Heavy, the rest Medium. I know there are lots out there who do more than that but the change has been somewhat staggering to see in my lifetime in ATC.
No ADS-B or MLat here yet Dick. You've got til 2016 till we hold you down to 280, and I guarantee we will, so better hurry up and come up this way.
I couldn't help but smile when I read:
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.
At my current location, we had 1,203 scheduled jet moves last Saturday. 800 of them Heavy, the rest Medium. I know there are lots out there who do more than that but the change has been somewhat staggering to see in my lifetime in ATC.
No ADS-B or MLat here yet Dick. You've got til 2016 till we hold you down to 280, and I guarantee we will, so better hurry up and come up this way.
Last edited by bekolblockage; 17th Feb 2015 at 12:41.
fujii, 5NM is the minimum between ADS-B. In some circumstances procedural is superior, but radar/ADS-B is a better general purpose tool - it's simple, quick and dirty!
PLovett, you overstate the case somewhat - TAS isn't applying procedural separation the whole time. They have to have a procedural standard in place to hand to the tower, but they certainly don't need it until then. If the tower wants 20DME TAS can run them at the same level 10 miles apart and vector to achieve the 20DME or use speeds. They're very definitely using surveillance to separate.
Jabawocky, it's not quite that clear cut due to the transitional nature of the airspace - as stated above there needs to be procedural separation in place by the time the tower gets them. True, the procedural tolerance isn't actually being utilised in surveillance airspace but it's being worked towards the whole time.
PLovett, you overstate the case somewhat - TAS isn't applying procedural separation the whole time. They have to have a procedural standard in place to hand to the tower, but they certainly don't need it until then. If the tower wants 20DME TAS can run them at the same level 10 miles apart and vector to achieve the 20DME or use speeds. They're very definitely using surveillance to separate.
Jabawocky, it's not quite that clear cut due to the transitional nature of the airspace - as stated above there needs to be procedural separation in place by the time the tower gets them. True, the procedural tolerance isn't actually being utilised in surveillance airspace but it's being worked towards the whole time.
Thread Starter
So how come in North America that en route controllers are qualified to radar vector aircraft in airspace covered by en route radar but not so in Australia ?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I'm kind of at a loss working out what your point is.
Multilateration (MLAT), as you know, is a function of mathematics that calculates a position, why would you suggest it works below FL280 and not above ?
I'm kind of at a loss working out what your point is.
Multilateration (MLAT), as you know, is a function of mathematics that calculates a position, why would you suggest it works below FL280 and not above ?
I haven't worked TASWAM but as far as I'm aware traffic is handled in the same way as when I worked it with the temporary radar at LT. We didn't provide a radar approach service at LT in the tower's airspace then and we don't now.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's called Class D Dick. Tower airspace. If you want an Approach service down to the ground, you have Class C overhead and a tower with no airspace. You know, just like you introduced in the first place....