Airways 2009 Main Trunk Pilot Survey Results - TMA summary

erminal Radar Services at Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Ohakea were surveyed.

Key : 1 is not good, 5 is good


Terminal Survey 2009

 

What other aspects of our Terminal services would you rate as meeting your expectations?
1
 Generally very good all round.
2
 NZCH Approach utilise the crossing vector in conjunction with 02/20 well when traffic permits.
3
 All aspects are n the good side.
4
 very satisfied just sometimes some hesitation when we are cleared an altitude, not sure to comply with constraints or not on STARs. (always asking)
5
 The ATC services experienced in NZ are as good as the services in Germany, where I come from. Very operational.
6
 easy and straight forward SID or departure procedure
7
 all good
8
 Ground control adequate
9
 New arrivals
10
 Prompt and (usually) effective assistance with aircraft requests for manoeuvring due to weather or turbulence
11
 Generally improving and getting better at giving us enough relevant information to build a picture of the controller's intentions. Track shortening and other operational information to assist with descent planning has improved (especially if we are required to slow down behind turbo-prop aircraft)
12
 The RNAV arrivals are getting better and I look forward to more tailored RNP arrivals.
13
 Generally very good in comparison with rest of world
14
 The CHC RNAV STAR and RNAV SID are very well designed and work very well. The Wellington STAR are better than the old ones but are still not optimal (at STAR that works well should be as good as a viz approach aka CHC)
15
 All aspects. I have no problems with ATC NZ, they are one of the best in the world. Compared to our neighbours they are well ahead.
16
 Having to state what arrival procedure you are flying when inbound is a bit different to the rest of the world
17
 Controllers are very proficient and generally very good at the job especially when comparing to controllers such as in china and such like where english is a second language.
18
 I generally have no problems or delays from ATC so have to rate the services highly
19
 RNAV arrivals working well.
20
 Generally well up to International standards

 

What aspects of our Terminal services do you believe could be improved?
1 Giving the STAR for Wellington as part of clearance out of Palmerston North. This is done at departure points for Auckland which are further from Auckland than Palmerston is from Wellington. The leg from PM-WN is short enough without having to load and check a STAR once airborne.
2 Ability to be able to move across to airway that shortens track distance and sets you up for a better approach leaving controlled airspace
3 A good understanding of each aircraft type, and their speeds they are able to fly. For example, in the Beech we are often slowed on a visual approach for a jet who has the intention of conducting an ILS. Where as if we had continued more direct we would have easily have slotted in.
4 At times some controllers make reference to "descent i.a.w star profile" other times they don't this can cause confusion on the flight deck leading to clarification needing to be sort from ATC.
5 Management of traffic in and around WB. Work out a solution to converging traffic from AKL, WLG and CHC as they arrive at WB to allow for more direct routing from the south... Just because we are small doesn't mean we are slow! Rather than slowing us down to let everyone overtake us, how about allowing us to go fast and stay ahead!
6 Is this the forum to ask that where traffic is slowed for sequence, can we slow down and still fly towards the next waypoint, rather than alter heading and maintain speed. Sequence demands more time in the air for us, totally understood, but can we minimise fuel burn while doing so please.
7 More information on our sequence into the approach earlier.
8 n/a
9 continuous descent approaches
10 Queenstown has in the past had inexperienced controllers who have insufficient local knowledge to efficiently give dynamic use of airspace. In other words the new procedures for Queenstown are excluding some users especially gliders even when there is and can be no possible conflict. I have been told 2 out of the last 3 times in QT airspace to remain clear of controlled air space when the controller has perceived over load or does not understand position reports or gliders performance abilities, this is not good use of air space and excluding us unnecessarily. Airways needs to either train their personnel to understand geographical positions and glider performances or get an SSR head installed to adequately and effectively control and separate all users. And by the way please don't assume I have no clue what I am doing, I am well experienced. It is sending a bad message to be excluded and we need a way for the airspace to work for all users so they are not discouraged from calling and receiving a clearance rather than just entering without a clearance this is unacceptable to all users.
11 AA - A tendency to hold large aircraft high on the later stages of approach while accommodating smaller/VFR traffic. Accurate track miles to be flown are an important part of the flight crew's approach planning.
12 Clarification of altitude requirements on SID departing to the west
13 The A345 is not currently using CHC but when it was its desired descent profile (approx 4x for this type rather than a more usual 3x)meant considerable delays in decent. This was often not due to radar terrain clearance but rather the requirement to have the aircraft remain in controlled airspace. It would be assist greatly if the lower levels of the outer TMA were slightly lowered to accommodate the flatter descent profile of the Airbus wide-bodied family.
14 There is one particular SID off 05R (sorry can't remember the name) that is straight ahead and then on to the oceanic boundary point which is directly behind us. Our flight management computer on the day might turn us left or right to the oceanic boundary. On first contact with radar it is always a left turn, either the wording in the SID should be "left turn to oceanic boundary" or the SID should be modified to avoid the ambiguity.
15 Profile descent with early advice.
16 CH is shocking at giving priority to a turbo prop that is using less gas and forcing a jet to cover extra track miles and burn more fuel. Not bitter but we all notice a tendency to get Mt Cook in first and work the rest around them. At AA the A380 and some international arrivals opting for an ILS cause more hassle for all?... the A380 more so both in the air and on the ground. How about making them make way for the rest of us by inconveniencing one aircraft rather than many. Good to see some priority happening to jet traffic over turbo prop. WN have a good system and always willing to let you know the reason for delays/speed control.
17 Advice as to why routing/ altitudes/ speed restrictions are being applied to enable efficient management of the aircraft flight path. Transfer of information between Area and Terminal to avoid "slow down"/ "speed up" commands when crossing the VHF boundaries - every unplanned change of speed during descent in the jet costs fuel. Use of STARs rather than radar vectors to manage flow. Correct application of descent clearances on STARs rather than stepping aircraft down the STAR. Manning of the sectors to avoid holding on fine days.
18 Better liaison with controller inbound and outbound. It is not uncommon to be given a speed restriction in the cruise and initial decent to then be told on changeover that best speed is needed. (And the opposite). Speed changes after TOD can be difficult to achieve while maintaining an acceptable profile and often require significant use of the speed brake which doesn't help the environment or the fuel burn! I have also been given direct to TOMAS clearances (not requested) when I have only just got visual in time to complete configuration/checks and landing preparation. This will be more significant now that Air NZ requires all aircraft to be fully configured by 1000 feet AGL, and not the previous 500 feet.
19 Inconsistency between controllers, especially in relation to speed control and descent procedures into Auckland and Christchurch. There still is a tendency to vector an aircraft on a similar track to the star procedure, with no apparent gain in separation. With the introduction of CTOT, there is a place for trialling RTAs (crossing a designated point at or after a designated time) to improve traffic flow.
20 We need to know of any requirement for speed control well before top of descent, so better co-ordination between the sectors to provide this is required.
21 WLG need to stop sequencing small A/C in front of Jets. A shortened circuit for a small A/C to enable it to land prior to a jet is crazy as it always ends up being very close to a goa round as the small A/C takes longer to complete the landing than expected by ATC
22 Advising speed or route changes earlier. Very hard for us to change things close in or to benefit fuel wise.
23 AKL Area could actually talk to the terminal controller so we don't get speed up, speed up, slow to min clean!
24 Aircraft separation is often far too conservative in comparison with ATC at overseas airports.
25 Descent profiles and speed control could be improved. We need to know prior to Top of Descent if standard speeds/high speed are in force - changing our profile halfway down descent is extremely wasteful of fuel. I know this involves co-ordination with other traffic and may not be easy. But you are waaaay better than the Aussies!
26 Introduction of Clearances via ACARS.
28 Arrival into AKL. can often be a mix of !max speed" then the next controller changes it to "Min speed" or vice versa.(I.E, "No chance of the visual, no. 7, expect full ILS, followed by, "No speed, WI, Tomas")
29 Arriving from the North needs to be thought through - From TOD a/c should be cleared direct to the OM. Rather than the current procedures where requests of more direct are held to the final sector where any savings are reduced substantially. How about all international traffic when 23 is in use at AKL track over KK or WR rather than all the way down the west coast and then a 90 degree turn toward the OM.
30 I think you could utilize airspace more efficiently if you had more hand over controllers such as you do in peak periods ie 126.9 AKL. I think it would help controllers if they were periodically seconded to places like LHR and LAX etc to give them high traffic frequency exposure and to see how the rest of the world operates. In a similar vain to airline pilots one does not become totally proficient or aware until one is subjected to both domestic and long haul foreign ATC environments especially high density airports such as LAX etc.
31 My hot topic: words that sound like numbers but aren't should NOT be included e.g. "Climb to 3 thousand feet," or an aircraft reporting "Passing 3 for 5000." The words "to" ands "for" should not be included as they can lead to confusion as they sound like numbers but are not. These points should be included in the ATC Manual, the FRTO pamphlet, and should be ICAO policy. I have reported this twice to Air NZ without result. The Flying Tiger accident at Kuala Lumpur was caused by confusion of this sort.
32 AMEND HANDOVER TIMINGS SO THAT THEY DO NOT COINCIDE WITH TRANSITION ALTITUDE . IE 123.9 TO 124.3 INBOUND TO AKL FROM OCEANIC. WHEN AVAILABLE OFFER TASMAN ARRIVALS DOWNWIND LEFT HAND FOR 23 ARRIVALS IN VISUAL CONDITIONS.
33 World wide (New Zealand could take a lead) it'd be handy to know when controllers need horizontal distance or altitude to achieve separation, i.e. do I keep on climbing as fast as possible or do I accelerate to cover the distance as fast as possible. Especially when I'm wanting a reversal turn.
34 Often have to slow down as preceding traffic is using slower descent speeds. Some destinations require a specific descent speed normally 280-290 kts and A/C who don't comply are the ones who get any delays that may occur.
35 AA arrivals- regularly have a freq change (to 124.3) right at transition level. Not ideal.
Early advice of "No speed restrictions" or "Maintain speed" would enable timely re - programming of FMC thus providing a seamless descent profile. Any late change is not fuel efficient.
36 Changeover from Terminal (124.30) to Area Control (123.9) and vice versa should occur at least 1000 feet prior to Transition Altitude/Flight level. All too often this occurs at a time close to transition and can result in the frequency change coming at the same time as the "Transition" call.
37 Better designed STARs and SIDs. Most of these procedures are unduly complex and convoluted.
38 I believe it would be far more fuel efficient and environmentally acceptable if controllers would achieve required spacing by speed reduction rather than dog legging. An early speed reduction is far preferable in my opinion than flying way more track miles on a heading.
39 Better sequencing between large jets and smaller turbo-props on approach in WN.
40 not very much

 

Survey Results