Merged: The Ambidji Report – CASA should get their money back!

[Dick Smith]

Many readers of this forum will remember the “UTILITY OF GENERAL AVIATION AERODROME PROCEDURES TO AUSTRALIAN ADMINISTERED AIRSPACE, Report to Office of Airspace Regulation 30 June 2009”, referred to in short as the “Ambidji Report”.

From this Report came the statement that

"...risks associated with GAAP operations at Bankstown, Jandakot and Moorabbin are intolerable when compared with the CASA risk criteria”.

Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world. For example, there has been one mid-air in the Bankstown control zone in a forty year period – and this happened because a pilot inadvertently overshot the base turning point for landing on a runway when parallel runways were in use.

Naturally, CASA had to act on the Ambidji Report’s emotive claim that the risk was "intolerable".

I have commissioned three independent Reviews of the Ambidji Report. I paid for these reviews myself, having chosen Consultants who had no vested interest and no conflict of interest. The Consultants who reviewed the Ambidji report were:

Ian Bryce, BE, BSc
Springside Engineering

Professor Jason Middleton,
Head, Department of Aviation
University of New South Wales

Chris Mills, AM, MSc, BSc
Former Wing Commander with the RAAF

I have placed the three Reviews on my website (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/index.php)).

Each of these Consultants disagreed with the methodology and the results of the Ambidji Report. Professor Middleton said in a separate email to me that:

"There appears to be a lack of high level expertise in the evaluation of risk in this case, so that CASA OAR is perhaps less well briefed than it might be by the Ambidgi report"

In Professor Middleton’s Review itself, he states:

"An analysis made from a different perspective might easily arrive at different conclusions and recommendations...It is recommended here that the entire Ambidji report be peer reviewed by independent reviewers"

Chris Mills states in his Review, among other points:

"Conclusion. Not conducting significance tests, and immediately treating a ‘cluster’ as a ‘trend’, leads to investigations that are, in all probability, a non-sense. This activity can lead to interventions that are not necessary or justified, and usually result in imposing restrictions that have little or no relevance to the actual level of aviation safety"

Ian Bryce, who has performed risk analysis of space launching programs, states in his Review:

"Individual Risk: Given that the assumptions and the calculations for the risk contain several errors or uncertainties of factors of 0.5 or 2, the conclusions on individual risk are invalid… The claimed dramatic reductions in MACs [mid-air collisions] are without real evidence. The changes described could even increase risk"

Readers of this website will be staggered. Can you imagine that an independent expert has stated, I repeat, that “the changes described could even increase risk”?

I suggest that everyone applies themselves to reading these Reviews.

It seems such a pity that the type of errors that were made in safety studies by Airservices Australia have now continued through to the Office of Airspace Regulation.

[CaptainMidnight]

Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world. ?

It was my understanding you wanted FAA or ICAO Class D for these airports -

[Dick Smith]

Yes, FAA style D which will have no detrimental effect if the correct terminology and procedures are utilised.

After all. GAAP was copied off US class D.

[Howabout]

Personally, Dick, I'm a little confused. If, as you state I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world., why would they need to change to US FAA Class D?

[Starts with P]

I think what Dick is saying is that the move from GAAP to US Class D (which he is in favour of), is a different issue to the restrictions of traffic, the increased opening hours and the staffing issues that this will create.

There is very little link between what Dick is/was arguing for, and the recommendations of this report and/or the implementation CASA has ordered.

That is my understanding of this whole mess.

[Rudder]

Dick is absolutely correct.

This is a case of CASA getting an organisation with no valid qualification to do such an analysis and this clearly shows with the methodolgy used and outcomes recommended from the flawed analysis.

You can almost be assured this was a job for the retired boys from CASA/Airservices now working within Ambidji that were given directions as to what outcome to justify.

[Spodman]

I have a friend who got his PPL at the same time as I did in the US, then spent 3 years working in Melbourne. Th clincher for him in his decision not to fly here was the astonishing news that you needed a clearance to cross a non-active runway at a Class C airport. He would (I expect) be greatly amused that such bizarre restrictions have been extended to airports supposedly less restrictive than Class D!

I think that what has got Dick's back up is CASA trumpeting that NAS is the go, then implementing something that moves further away from the NAS model. Exactly the sort of unjustified and random restrictiveness that has grown like topsy into the system we have today. Some buffoon has used a report as science fiction as the one supporting the NAS claims to implement his personal portion of the Nanny State.

[Dick Smith]

Spod, You are correct.

[Howabout]

No offence intended, Starts with p, but I think that Dick is quite capable of responding himself. So I'd put the question again, but add a further coment about unnecessary costs, which is another issue with which I am in agreement with Dick.

Dick says: Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.

He then goes on to say that, yes he wants FAA Class D.

If former GAAP procedures were so safe and we want to avoid unnecessary costs to industry (re-training controllers, changing charts, changing pubs, mounting a pilot education campaign, priniting more glossy brochures etc) in our 'user-pays' environment, what is the point. The only conclusion that I can draw is that it's change for change sake.

With respect to the decision on GAAP, my take is that CASA thought they had to be seen to be doing 'something' (anything), given the amount of stick they take on an almost daily basis. And, like the Skippy in the truck's headlights, CASA blinked and jumped the wrong way.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The AMbidji report also recommended no changes to GAAP in the short to medium term....and then the CASA comes out with the directive.

[Starts with P]

No offence taken Howbout. I look forward to Dick's response... Maybe in a thread about US Class D vs GAAP rather than one about the validity of the Ambidji report. Maybe you could start it?

[QSK?]

Dick:

For example, there has been one mid-air in the Bankstown control zone in a forty year period – and this happened because a pilot inadvertently overshot the base turning point for landing on a runway when parallel runways were in use.

For your information, in the last 40 years there have been exactly 5 (maybe 6) instances of MACs at Bankstown airport or Bankstown airspace, viz:

1971: C182/C150 (non fatal)
1974: DH104/PA30 (fatal)
1975: PA30/C182 collision (non-fatal)
2002 : PA28/TB9 (fatal)
2008 : C152/Liberty XL (fatal)

Even your experts have mentioned this fact in their reports. Don't you read what you pay for?

I have commissioned three independent Reviews of the Ambidji Report. I paid for these reviews myself That doesn't sound like an independent review to me! Whilst it is good for overall aviation safety that you have taken the personal initiative to solicit more reviews of this very important subject, please don't try and snowball us by implying its an independent review. It's a bit like Philip Morris hiring consultants to confirm that smoking cigarettes has no adverse health impacts on young children.

....having chosen Consultants who had no vested interest and no conflict of interest. Sounds like you are implying CASA's consultant MAY HAVE a conflict of interest. If so what is it? You should be aware from your own experience inside CASA that all government bodies undertake extensive evaluation processes to ensure they are protected from potential COI accusations.

[Frank Arouet]

2008 : C152/Liberty XL (fatal)
This didn't happen in the GAAP did it?

[rmcdonal]

I think some of those midairs you listed off QSK? occured at the inbound reporting points, and at least one was a formation flying incident.

[Jabawocky]

Frank

Technically it did not happen in the GAAP, however if you consider that it has been pushed home hard in the recent safety education that even when you are transiting in proximity of the GAAP zone you should do certain things, and at the reporting points you are still not actually in the GAAP, you may need to encompass a little more real estate into the study, if you want to have a true picture.

J

[Howabout]

Starts with P, thanks. I see where you're coming from with respect to GAAP vs US D, but Dick made the comment up-front in this thread that I quoted previously:

Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.

But he now appears to be advocating the imposition of unnecessary costs by changing a 'proven system' that provides 'some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world,' with US Class D. Once again, Dick raised this, not me. So, once again, I ask to what end, other than pursuing some ideological end-state that will have dubious safety outcomes (if Dick is correct regarding Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.

So what we're left with is more change fatigue, increased costs and dubious safety benefits, if Dick is correct when he says Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.

[Dick Smith]

Clarification: When I initially approached staff at the University of New South Wales to commission a Review of the Ambidji Report, I offered the University payment of up to $2,000 to cover associated cost. To date, the University has elected not to receive payment, however my offer stands.

And to others, I was clearly referring to mid airs "in the bankstown control zone".

[Dick Smith]

Howabout,

To change to US Class D at Bankstown and other GAAP airports there is no measurable cost. This will then mean that all non-radar tower airports will have the same simple procedures – as per the USA and Canada.

Some will claim that in Australian GAAP airports we do not provide a separation service between IFR aircraft when in VMC. If one or other of the pilots uses the correct terminology, in US Class D a separation service is not provided.However if both pilots believe that safety requires full IFR separation in VMC they can get it.

I say again, by moving to US Class D at all of our non-radar tower airports we will standardise the system throughout Australia; reduce the ridiculous frequency clogging of a VFR departure call at non-GAAP Class D towers and make other improvements.

[YPJT]

Dick, I think that the Bankstown data is not the only location that has had questionable data incorporated into the report. They seem to have included off GAAP and a MAC during MBZ procedures at Jandakot in their analysis.

As operators, we need to know exactly what the impact of the introduction of Class D (US type or otherwise) is going to have on our ability to continue function. There are quite a few GA schools around at the moment thinking this might well be the final nail in the coffin.

Is there any truth to the rumour that our new CASA director came up with the magic number of 6 in the circuit because that is what the military use?

[Howabout]

Sorry Dick, but that doesn't cut it. I quote again:

Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.

Why change if the system was so good? Your words!

And I disagree that there will be 'no measurable cost.' Every change we experience has a 'measurable cost.'

However, I think you have taken some unjustified criticism regarding independent analysis. While I do not know two of the gentlemen, I have certainly read a risk dissertation by Mr Chris Mills that he produced some time ago on 'Parachuting Through Cloud.' It was tabled at a RAPAC and, while I'm not a risk management expert, I thought it was a very fine piece of work.

In short, and regardless of whether he was paid or not, his analysis has stood the test of time. Accusations that he'd give you an answer that you want, because you paid him, are, in my opinion, grossly unfair.

That does not alter the fact that US D vs GAAP is a waste of time and resources. I remind you again:

Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.

[Dick Smith]

How, A hint,it's about the extra safety from having one standard system for non radar towers throughout Australia.

Or are you suggesting we change all the non GAAP airports to GAAP?

And what will the extra cost be? Separating IFR from IFR in VMC when both pilots want the extra safety?

Compared to the whole catastrophe the cost is small.

[kookabat]

Sure, Dick specifically wrote about incidents 'inside the Bankstown control zone'. But I think the argument to include the 2RN collision last year in the data is a valid one. OK, it's technically not in the 'GAAP' airspace itself - but inbound reporting points are an integral part of the way the GAAP system works. A complete review of GAAP safety needs to take the whole set of procedures into account, which I think includes the bits about how you get into that particular type of airspace.

[Jabawocky]

reduce the ridiculous frequency clogging of a VFR departure call at non-GAAP Class D towers and make other improvements.

I think that is a good thing....unless I am missing something important about a departure call.

Would have saved the embarassment of having made one on departing YBMC one evening that the tower did not hear it.....I did make one as Chimbu Chuck will recall......perhaps the FTDK's failing electrics were to blame! :cool:

Departure calls at CTAF/GAAP/D into any G is really a waste of radio waves!

[QSK?]

Dick:And to others, I was clearly referring to mid airs "in the bankstown control zone" Your "1 MAC in 40 years" comment still doesn't stack up. Apart from the 2RN accident, all the other listed MACs occurred in the Bankstown control zone (circuit area).

Frank Arouet:This didn't happen in the GAAP did it? You're correct in that it was technically outside the control zone however it could be argued that, as both aircraft were conforming to a recognised IRP and one of the 2RN aircraft was in contact with the tower, they were operating under GAAP.

[Rhterrke Atnyeneteke]

People people please....

Can we keep the Class D vs GAAP arguments elsewhere.

What is of issue here is the issue of one consulting company that has been around for a long while creating a document that has been swallowed hook line and sinker by CASA.

A report of such magnitude should be peer reviewed and more than one group involved. Dick has done this. Yes he may have a vested interest in a different outcome but please ignore this.

It is a process that is at fault.

And as a parting thought for you - who audits the auditors? Methodologies aside, they are not always right.

[Howabout]

Dick, we have fenced on this before.

Leave it like it is (was) and there's no extra cost to industry. Any change will involve cost! Sorry, I cannot agree that changing from a 'proven system' to something else is justified because the 'cost is small.' Define 'small.'

To quote you:

Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.

If those procedures are, truly, that safe, then where is the logic of changing to US D? 'Standardisation' just doesn't cut it if the procedures at GAAP are 'safe.'

Your words, not mine.

[An Interested Party]

Could it be that some are missing the elephant in the room?

Ambidji indicated that the 'risk was intolerable when compared to the CASA risk criteria' (paraphrased).

If the actual experience of operating Bankstown and the other GAAP airports for the last 30 years shows that in practice, accidents and serious incidents are not occuring as forecast by the risk model, then mabe, just maybe, CASA's risk model is wrong.

Dick - maybe rather than getting a bunch of non-aviation, but still academic and Australian, types to look at the Ambidji report, it might be better to get the FAA to do an analysis of Bankstown against the US criteria and settle the matter once and for all.

They could model Bankstown as a GAAP airport - and then as a US style Class D airport.

I don't propose you fund it, but surely CASA could seek FAA's assistance. At the very least it would expose some of CASA's risk gurus to world's best practice.

It might also be useful to get CASA to send their risk model to the FAA for evaluation and attenuation.

[Dick Smith]

I agree, however from my experience the CASA OAR will not allow any FAA advisors to be involved in any way.

The "it wasn't built here" syndrome.

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, with GAAP they only 80% copied the FAA class D system. I would prefer a like model that gives the advantages to all non radar towers in Australia.

Why won't you answer my point re the safety advantages of standardisation?

[Howabout]

Rhterrke Atnyeneteke, nice handle.

No; the validity of the 'report' is now a secondary issue. Regardless of the validity, or otherwise, of the Ambidji report, Dick has stated categorically that:

Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.

He instigated this debate.

Do I doubt the validity of the findings? - hell yes.

But Dick has not come back with an explanation as to the divergence between his (laudable) sentiment of no extra, unnecessary costs to industry and his comment that:

Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.

By the way Rhterrke Atnyeneteke, you come across as a bit of a school marm.

[Howabout]

Dick, God bless you; because you never answered my questions regarding your comments on GAAP and reconciled them with 'unnecessary costs on industry' for questionable safety gains.

[joesch]

I guess there is little disagreement about the reliability of the report itself. Recent changes which have been introduced, are in my view not justifiable give that the methodology used is flawed.

Nevertheless, I find it surprising that very little information about traffic movement or factual data on frequency congestions has been mentioned. It was briefly mentioned only in the survey and had a high response rate, but not discussed or any detailed recommendations where made. I would argue that while air traffic congestions is not the primary risk of MAC's, however the attempt to deal with such risks by CASA and Airservices is problematic.

The subsequent changes which have been introduced (limitations of aircraft in the cts) among others are unlikely to have significantly implications for safety risks as they currently stand. Yet holding outside a GAAP ZONE with no where to go, is asking for trouble.

Firstly, it would also be prudent to keep in mind that most pilots operating at BK are some of the most vunerable of pilot populations - those that are learning to fly. Therefore any restrictions on A/C allowed into the GAAP zones increases the likelihood of congestion among reporting point. This is hardly sensible. Moreover, considering also the closure of Hoxton Park and the occasional film shooting of Top Gear at Camden, one wonders where aircrafts are supposed to go, when things go wrong.

A few weeks back, 3 events in 3 days causing delays and runway closure made me think twice about sending my students to the T/A.

my 2 cents worth
j

[Dick Smith]

Howabout , debating with you is like debating with my daughter when she was 14.

I will try again, I believe that Bankstown has some of the safest procedures I have seen in the world. One of the reasons for this is that the procedures were copied- but not exactly- from class D airports in the USA.

I want all non radar tower airports in Australia to follow- but more closely- that used in class D airports in the USA.

Then I believe we will receive the benefits all across Australia.

You seem to think that just because I believe that our GAAP procedures give a high level of safety that this cannot be improved upon .

I believe that going "the full monty" the system will even be better.

That's why I support the CASA decision to go to FAA style class D at all our non radar towers.

[Jabawocky]

It seems to me Dick wants all the towers to become the same, so you can make them all ICAO D, FAA D or all GAAP.

All GAAP wont be acceptable = NO GOOD

ICAO D = Great for the existing D, but unworkable for the current GAAPs so NO GOOD

FAA D = Less service for the RPT/IFR in the current D environs and not so much different from GAAP anyway, so no real gains and some real losses....So NO GOOD

What is there to be gained here then???? :ugh:

Who comes up with these studies? And why do they get whisked into reality without a really good industry wide consultation.

I think someone sold the new CASA head a good sugar coated study in the aftermath of a serious accident and without taking time to digest it all acted on it. ooops! :ooh:

How about we ditch the departure calls from D into G, and go back to ICAO D and GAAPs.....But employ some more ATC's for :mad: sake! Stop wasting money on studies and BS and put it at the coal face!

J:sad:

Feel free to correct me where I am confused coz i am bound to be!:bored:

[An Interested Party]

So, Dick, let me see if I'm correct.

The official Government position is still that NAS, based on US practice, is policy.

CASA stated at the most recent Senate hearings that they are following Government policy.

The head of the OAR at CASA said that he is committed to implementing NAS which is based on US practice and is Government policy.

And you are saying that CASA will NOT engage US experts to help NAS implementation, or to do a risk assessment or to compare procedures?

I REALLY think that you should be canvassing the powers that be to get them to DIRECT CASA's OAR to seek FAA assistance and sort this out.

I'm with you, Dick - let's get some experts in here to tell us what the US would do at places like Bankstown.

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith,

If what you say is correct, perhaps you might explain what you feel the 20% of FAA D comprises of that was not adopted for Australian GAAP?
That's why i support the CASA decision to go to FAA style class D at all our non radar towers
Where have CASA stated that? When did they consult the industry? All we have seen formally from CASA is the Instrument which states Class D, not FAA D or DS D, and an AIC stating clearly ICAO D. Australia is an ICAO signatory, are you asking the DoAS, CASA and the minister to sign off on a non-ICAO, non-compliant, less safe form of D?

Why not retain GAAP (where Scheduled Passenger Transport Operations do not occur), and ICAO D (where Scheculed Passenger Transport Operations do occur)!

Nil cost, no reduction in safety, gives GA the traffic throughput they need at GAAP's, and retains International Standards protection for RPT at towered airports elsewhere!

[Awol57]

What I will be interested to see, as a current GAAP controller is the following.

Will we all get procedural approach ratings, as is the case at the other "D" towers?

Will the GAAP's as they are now get normal class D airspace, rather than the differring airspaces we currently have (for example JT 3nm rad, 1500'AMSL, BK Weird due to YSSY airspace, MB 3nm 2500'AMSL etc etc)?

What will be our requirements with parrallel runways as they are too close together for simops in class D?

There are a few other things but those ones have my interest at the moment.

[Dick Smith]

Clinton, I do not know of any class D airport in the USA which has two required entry points as we have at BK.

That's why my initial post referred to the control zone.

Remove the two compulsory reporting points and follow the proven safe FAA system and you have my support- especially if all non radar tower procedures are standardised.

AIRFOR, current government policy is clearly for the FAA nas system.

It will bring substantial advantages to Australian aviation. That's why it was selected.

FAA style D gives exceptionally safe outcomes for thousands of RPT passengers in the USA. Why would'nt it be the same here?

Keeping a system straight forward, standardised and simple for VFR pilots is the best way to go in my experience.

[Dick Smith]

AWOL, under the FAA system the class D tower controllers do not have procedural ratings- the IFR separation comes from the Centre- a far superior and safer system as the service is provided 24 hours per day.

That's why we need this safer NAS system here.

It will mean that RPT jets actually get a proper service at places like Launy or Hamilton Island even when the tower is not operating.

Let's hope the Government NAS policy comes in before the inevitable CFIT.

[Howabout]

Dick,

One of my points, several posts ago, was that CASA was stampeded into a bad decision by the inordinate pressure that is applied from without.

Secondly, I agree your contention that things could be improved - they always can be. But, if the following holds true:

Personally, I believe airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.;

then maybe the solution is to seek a decent fix that involves fine-tuning (with no appreciable costs to industry) rather than wholesale change (with associated costs to industry).

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith, with respect, you did not answer the question
perhaps you might explain what you feel the 20% of FAA D comprises of that was not adopted for Australian GAAP?
As far as Scheduled Passenger Transport Operations are concerned, have you looked at the number and disposition of NMAC and MAC's that have occured in US D and E airspace?

How many MAC's have occured in Australian ICAO D tower airspaces?

Have you compared the two?

What problem is there with ICAO D? that urgently needs costly change to a less safe procedure set (US D/GAAP) at passenger transport operations locations in Australia?

[Awol57]

What size airspace are class D towers in the US?

Also do they abutt C airspace like some of our GAAPs do?

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, You don't seem to understand that the GAAP system was a copy of the FAA system with some unique Australian changes that were forced in by some troglodites.

What's wrong with following the full proven system?

It works very well in the USA with far greater traffic densities and standardised procedures right across the country.

And it is Government policy

[Dick Smith]

AIRFOR, the US NAS system is clearly safer for RPT because the IFR service is provided from the ATC centre 24 hours per day-not our pathetic system which provides no control service for many jet RPT operations.

[Cactusjack]

As predicatable,your 2 cents worth has been spoken.I noticed your usual response Dick with comments such as 'I want 'my point' 'I will', basically me me and more me.Well, life,aviation,and generally the entire world doesnt revolve around 'what you want, wish for,desire or believe'. Certainly you are entitled to your opinions, no argument there, but somewhere in life somebody must have sold you the idea that 'you are the Yoda of aviation -all wise,all knowledgeable,all wisdom and always correct ? Wrong !

[ARFOR]

etrust, I tend to agree

Mr Smith,
not our pathetic system
Pathetic system? I thought the Australian safety record was good, isn't it?
which provides no control service for many jet RPT operations.
You are not referring to Australian tower and approach services then? OCTA problems are separate to this subject!

I honestly don't get what it is you are arguing for? FAA D by your own admission does not separate aircraft. Surely separation is an integral part of a control service to IFR and VFR aircraft?

The GAAP issue (ambidji and CASA) relates to MAC's, your agenda seems to be something else!

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR I am referring to our non service after the tower goes home.

In other leading aviation countries the ATC centre provides the IFR approach service 24 hours per day.

Only in Australia do we remove the ATC at night when safety shows it is most wanted.

Why can't our en -route controllers in the centre be trained to do approach work?

Resistance to copying the best from around the world is the answer.

Stick with a NOMAD airspace system until we have an accident?

Probably.

By the way. In our existing Class D, following ICAO , ATC are not responsible for providing a separation service between IFR and VFR.

[Dick Smith]

ETRUST GAAP was copied off the US system. The problems have occurred because crazy differences like two mandatory reporting points were introduced.

[Jabawocky]

Why can't our en -route controllers in the centre be trained to do approach work?

Good question.....and maybe they should ....for when the tower goes home....BUT!!!

This is about GAAP and becoming D of some flavour, and our ICAO D becoming ...err..err..GAAP.

In my best souther accent....."Yaoll , It jurst donnnt make sheense!!"

[Capn Bloggs]

Does this mean that the Ambidji report on CTAFs and CTAF (R)s is just as flawed? :} :rolleyes:

[le Pingouin]

Why can't our en -route controllers in the centre be trained to do approach work?

Resistance to copying the best from around the world is the answer.Total Bull Sh!t Dick. Utter & total.

For the 53rd millionth time we don't have the controllers, the training resources, the sectors or equipment to do it :ugh:

You are the one showing total & utter resistance. You've been told this again & again & again but still trot out the "resistance" line.

[GADRIVR]

Didk,
Just for the record, could you jot down some for and against notes on Aus Class D vs US Class D vs GAAP?
This thread as usual has turned into a girlie slanging match and for once....just this once I might add!.....I'm taking a professional interest in something posted on this website!!
Really just want to know where you're coming from.
Cheers:ugh:

[CaptainMidnight]

crazy differences like two mandatory reporting points were introduced.Yep, we sure are dumb asses - separate inbound tracks from outbounds ........

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith,
I am referring to our non service after the tower goes home.
On this point we are in partial agreement, but rather than the centre, why are the towers not operating to cover scheduled PTO services, especially high-cap RPT? In most locations that is the case, in some it is not, which might relate to the point others have made about available resources.

Surely you are not advocating o/night surveillance approach services in many many locations for the odd freighter here or there?
Only in Australia do we remove the ATC at night when safety shows it is most wanted.
That is interesting, could you share your data on this. The last 3 CFIT accidents in this country were OCTA during the day!
By the way. In our existing Class D, following ICAO , ATC are not responsible for providing a separation service between IFR and VFR.
That appears to be completely incorrect based on 'quoted' information regarding the requirements of an 'Air Traffic Control Service' & 'preventing collisions' posted on another site regarding this subject.

[SayAgainSlowly]

The problems have occurred because crazy differences like two mandatory reporting points were introduced.


How will Class D, in any form, solve this?
At places like CN they have the luxury of being surrounded by Class G and can accommodate 5 IRP's, but BK is constrained by Class C to the east and military restricted to the south. I might be missing something but without considerable airspace change around some terminal areas, I dont see how Class D will solve the above mentiond problems. Surely you still need segregated inbound and outbound tracks for VFR aircraft?



That appears to be completely incorrect based on 'quoted' information regarding the requirements of an 'Air Traffic Control Service' & 'preventing collisions' posted on another site regarding this subject.

Im sure that site has it's merits, but I think AIP might trump it when it comes to ATS provided in airpace classes


In Class D airspace, IFR and VFR flights are permitted and all
flights are provided with an air traffic control service. IFR flights are
separated from other IFR and Special VFR flights, and receive
traffic information in respect of VFR flights.



AIP ENR 17.1.1

[ARFOR]

There are direct references to AIP and the legal interpretations attached to the various requirements!

[SayAgainSlowly]

Dick,
Where to now with the reports you commissioned?

[cbradio]

The problems have occurred because crazy differences like two mandatory reporting points were introduced.

I've asked this a couple of times on different (but the same :) ) threads to no avail - and it is a genuine question -

The report looks at a couple of busy airports in the US and Canada and they seem to have inbound VFR points/lanes and dedicated outbound tracks.

Can someone show a non-radar Class D tower anywhere (FAA, ICAO, whatever) with more than 300,000 movements a year that does not have VFR approach points/VFR routes?

[Dick Smith]

CB, Routes are quite different to points. With a route the most likely collision point is spread out along the route- with a point the collision will most likely take place at that point-especially if it is as exact as a radio mast.

[Sunfish]

I am a PPL. I've missed the hoo haa over this since for the last Two months I've been otherwise occupied (building a boat). I would normally fly about one hour of circuits or suchlike a week at YMMB just to keep my hand in, with longer trips once or twice a year.

I have yet to experience the new changes, but I was noticing for at leats the last Eighteen months that circuit conditions were becoming marginal at YMMB on occasions. This usually occurred when there were 6+ students in the YMMB circuit, of whom perhaps Two or Three were "wandering all over the sky" like we all did when we started. Add to that inbound aircraft from GMH and Academy (for the eastern strip), perhaps requesting circuits on arrival, and things became busy enough to hear a little stress in a controllers voice ("Waggle your wings, which one are you?", etc.).

At that point I usually ended my own practice and got out of the way.

I will try the new system shortly. I fail to understand the clearance requirement for inactive strips, and I think instructions to land for a full stop in the event of incoming aircraft (if these are actually given) are bizarre.

If they interfere with my flying, I will go somewhere else, or out of the activity altogether. I think others will too. Melbourne has/had what would be almost perfect GA facilities if YPCK, YMEN and YMMB were used as they should be, but that is never going to happen thanks to a brain dead tstate Government, property developers and of course our dear friends in Canberra.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I think perhaps the title of this thread should be "CASA should get OUR money back!"

The mess we have at the moment is not what Ambidji recommended. It's been done, as far as I can tell, on a whim of someone who wants to look as if he is doing something, but having no understanding of operating in a GAAP, (thanks to not consulting with the GAAP operators on what the outcomes of this capping decision would be) has actually made the area around the GAAP much less safe.

If there is a MAC at an inbound reporting point he will have blood on his hands. Perhaps that is what it will take to stop this madness. The safety of everybody are being put at grave risk by this, never mind the loss of 40% of earning capacity.

Dick, I've operated in Class D in the USA and learned to fly in a Class A TMA. GAAP works best for the circumstances we have here, parallel runways etc, in my experience

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith,

Now we are getting somewhere!

What about

PSP - defined as between the nothern and southern banks of the reservoir

SWG - SouthWest Gate (vice 2RN) - defined as between the freeway and the 2RN mast

Lets drop all the rhetoric about D, retain GAAP where appropriate, and improve it (subject to analysis) where able! :ok:

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Another question for you Dick, if there are no set approach and departure points then will we have to deal with he inevitable noise complaints if we change airspace that has been carefully set up to address these and other issues by RAPAC?

[Dick Smith]

Charlie, If we change to FAA class D at our GAAP airports there will be no noticable difference for VFR pilots. IFR pilots will be able to get a safer service when VMC exists if they so desire.

AIRFOR, Why wouldn't we want to have the advantages of GAAP/FAA Class D at all of our non-radar towers?

[Dick Smith]

Say Again Slowly you say “Dick, where to now with the reports you commissioned?”.

Unfortunately, I don’t know. Do you have any suggestions?

When Airservices completed their E over D study – the one that showed E in Australia would be about 500 times less safe than the results of E in similar airspace in the USA – they simply stuck to their guns, ie. the “infallibility theory” that if you work for the government you are infallible.

They ignored Professor O’Neil’s report which made it clear that the Airservices report was flawed.

I imagine even now that people in the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA will be debunking and belittling the three Reviews.

Look for one “typo” or one minor error, and then claim that the whole Review is discredited, and they’ll probably follow what happens in the UK.

The Ambidji Report on page 60 discusses the British system where Air Traffic Controllers actually control aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. What unbelievable incompetence!

The Ambidji Report states in paragraph 7.2,

“The review team could not establish what authority (if any) ATC had in this classification of airspace and it was surmised that a lot of reliance is placed on the natural tendency for pilots to follow ATC instructions”.

It all comes from a shocking lack of leadership in the British CAA. All they need to do is upgrade the airspace so it’s clear to any pilot coming from overseas that you are either controlled or you’re not.

Don’t hold your breath – this will never happen. The British CAA has almost single-handedly destroyed general aviation in their country because of a complete lack of understanding of the advantages of copying the best and the realities of the marketplace.

We are probably half-way there now. I think it will get a lot worse before it gets better.

[ARFOR]

:ugh:

Mr Smith,

FAA D do not separate IFR and VFR, that is the same as GAAP!

Where is the data saying there is a safety problem between IFR and IFR operating in to and out of GAAP?

Why change something that is not broken!

Edited to add
Why wouldn't we want to have the advantages of GAAP/FAA Class D at all of our non-radar towers?
The advantage to GA at GAAP is high volume throughput, the only way to achieve high volume throughput is to service less!
I put the question back to you

Why wouldn't we want to retain the additional safety advantages of ICAO D at all of our non-radar regional airports that, unlike GAAP, service a wide variety of mixed traffic including high speed, high-capacity RPT aircraft?

[SayAgainSlowly]

Say Again Slowly you say “Dick, where to now with the reports you commissioned?”. Unfortunately, I don’t know. Do you have any suggestions?


How about on the desk's of those who are firing out the directives and NOTAMs which are only succeeding in paralysing GA.

There might be difference of opinion on a better option to GAAP, but you get a pat on the back from me for getting the ball rolling, no matter how large the boulder might be.

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR

I did not state that in FAA D that IFR and VFR are separated.

I did state that IFR could get a safer service when VMC exists. This is because in FAA Class D (and in ICAO D) if two aircraft remain IFR they must be separated by ATC. At the present time in our GAAP this does not happen. Of course, in the FAA Class D, one or the other pilot simply cancels IFR or changes to VFR and they then get the equivalent service to what we now offer in GAAP.

Just because we have not had an accident between two IFR aircraft operating in and out of GAAP does not mean we won’t have one. The US FAA with fifteen times the traffic density can offer an ICAO separation service between IFR in all of their 350 Class D non-radar towers. Why can’t we?

We have never had a fatality from a mid-air airline crash in Australia. Does that mean we don’t need air traffic control?

Of course not.

ARFOR, you also say “why change something that is not broken”. For good reason. Pilots from anywhere else in the world would have no idea what GAAP airspace is. If it’s marked as Class D, they know what the procedures are. That was the whole reason that ICAO changed all the many airspace descriptions to the ICAO alphabet classifications.

If I go to the USA, Canada, or indeed France – look on the chart and see an E or a D and I know what service I will get. If a French or American pilot came here, they would have to learn what GAAP was. If we can have an international road rule and sign system, why can’t we have something similar in aviation?

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR

There are no “additional safety advantages” of ICAO Class D over FAA Class D. If there were, the United States with 350 Class D airports would change to this, and end up with a higher level of safety.

The real difference between our Class D and the FAA Class D is the simple clearance request for entering the zone and the removal of the useless VFR departure call.

Under ICAO and under FAA Class D, IFR are given traffic on VFR.

By having simple, standardised procedures for all of our non-radar towers, we will get higher compliance and therefore, I believe, higher safety levels.

Even if we don’t go to higher safety levels, surely making something simpler and standardised is better.

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith
Just because we have not had an accident between two IFR aircraft operating in and out of GAAP
You acknowledge the point being made!
The US FAA with fifteen times the traffic density can offer an ICAO separation service between IFR in all of their 350 Class D non-radar towers. Why can’t we?
How are they 'separating' IFR and IFR? ;), the same way GAAP controllers separate when Restricted VFR op's are in progress ;)

The next point you raise is a good one
Pilots from anywhere else in the world would have no idea what GAAP airspace is.
Pilots from anywhere else in the world, would read the local documents to know how to follow procedures, which after all shall be no different to that which they receive in the non-ICAO compliant US D airspaces. (note the US has lodged differences listed with ICAO for this reason)
If it’s marked as Class D, they know what the procedures are. That was the whole reason that ICAO changed all the many airspace descriptions to the ICAO alphabet classifications.
This is where your argument falls down. The fact that the US call their airspace D is potentially misleading as they do not provide the services as described by ICAO for D, including the service application definitions. For overseas pilots operating into the US, this could be a protential problem. Obviously pilots would study the airspaces and system before they went ;)
If I go to the USA, Canada, or indeed France – look on the chart and see an E or a D and I know what service I will get.
Correct, for two of those countries because those have ICAO D airspace! Which would be transparent to a pilot expecting less, but getting more, not the other way around!
If a French or American pilot came here, they would have to learn what GAAP was.
Those foreign pilots are alerted to the fact that the rules may be different because it is called GAAP, not called D that isn't!
If we can have an international road rule and sign system, why can’t we have something similar in aviation?
We do, + calling GAAP GAAP highlights the difference from ICAO D, and is a sensible approach to highlighting a service difference. What you propose takes us away from that worldwide standard system!

[Frank Arouet]

The Ambidji claim that there was “intolerable” risk now seems to have been discredited.

Under the circumstances shouldn't CASA immediately remove the restrictions and changes that were placed because that claim was made?

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR
You state,

The fact that the US call their airspace D is potentially misleading as they do not provide the services as described by ICAO for D, including the service application definitions

ARFOR, other than the different terminology for a clearance request for VFR aircraft, I do not know what other differences there are.

What services are not provided by FAA Controllers in Class D that are provided by Controllers in other ICAO Class D?

I look forward to your answer to this difficult question.

[Dick Smith]

DIRECT, and leap back to the 1950's with mandatory full position reporting for VFR!

But who's going to pay for the extra FSO's ?

[le Pingouin]

As opposed to who is going to pay for all the extra controllers for the approach services?

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
and leap back to the 1950's with mandatory full position reporting for VFR!

But who's going to pay for the extra FSO's ?
Total red herring. Who said anything about full reporting VFR when OCTA? Let it go, Dick.

I'm also glad to see Dick would like to set up our airspace system to accomodate visiting pilots.:cool:

[Howabout]

Dick, old bean. Regarding your comment on the UK that states:

The Ambidji Report on page 60 discusses the British system where Air Traffic Controllers actually control aircraft in uncontrolled airspace. What unbelievable incompetence!

I seem to remember some of the most enthusiastic NAS proponents extolling the US system because it does precisely the same thing. Something along the lines of 'In the super-friendly US system, the controllers don't worry about whether it's E or G, they just get on and offer a service. Why can't we have the same here?'

Which then led to a protracted debate on liability issues if our controllers attempted to do the same, ie provide a control service in G - what would happen if they induced an aluminium rain-shower in airspace that was designated as providing traffic info only?

Bloggs, do you have a similar recollection? I will willingly retract, but I think my memory is not that addled in regard to purported US practices during the NAS nightmare.

ARFOR, spot on, you beat me to the punch. A difference is a difference; you can't be a little bit pregnant. You're either compliant with an internationally harmonised rule-set or you choose to adopt a 'unique system' that's not used anywhere else in the world.

Finally, with respect to:

There are no “additional safety advantages” of ICAO Class D over FAA Class D. If there were, the United States with 350 Class D airports would change to this, and end up with a higher level of safety.

Ergo, there are no additional safety advantages of FAA Class D over ICAO Class D. Once again Dick, you are asking us to agree to increased costs for industry, in converting to a 'unique system,' for no additional safety improvement.

I question whether such an outcome would pass the cost/benefit test.

[Capn Bloggs]

Howdabout,Bloggs, do you have a similar recollection? I will willingly retract, but I think my memory is not that addled in regard to purported US practices during the NAS nightmare.

Certainly do. The AsA delegation that went to the US to study the US NAS was told by the head FAA honcho that IFR in G are given clearances. RBA put it in his visit report. So much for Dick's Class G dirt road airspace...

[Howabout]

Thanks Bloggs.

Over; Dick?

[Howabout]

The technique, now, is to allow a plethora of responses that bury the points that I and others have questioned - so they're forgotten by page 7.

Any chance that we back off till we get a response?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Mr Smith, Short of reducing the size of RIC airspace, accessing the Holswothy live firing range and gaining a lane of entry from Picnic Point to the east of Lucas heights, your suggestion for FAA D is a losing bet. It would be no different to GAAP.

[Dick Smith]

All instrument approaches in the USA are in a minimum of class E controlled airspace.

In the UK they have tower airspace with instrument approaches in class G uncontrolled airspace

It is true that in the USA if an IFR aircraft goes through a small amount of G when under radar control the controller will keep providing a control service.
None of this stupid "you are cleared in and out of controlled airspace"

It's just commonsense!

[MrApproach]

A couple of points:
1. As far as I am aware UK ATC does not "control" aircraft in G airspace. Air Traffic Services are offered, be they low level radar or approach into a towered airport. In either case vectors can be supplied at pilot request but the onus remains on the pilot for separation with other aircraft.
2. I think the reference to IFR pilots getting clearances in G airspace is referring to clearances to enter E or higher classes of airspace. Nobody needs a clearance to be in G airspace.

In relation to Class D airports; the current difference between ours and the US is that we use D to transition IFR aircraft into C or A whereas the FAA uses E.

There appears to be no reason to stop us using ICAO CLass D at GAAP airports but that should include making the number of aircraft in the circuit a controller discretion issue instead of mandatory. However some thought has to go into what pilots do if ATC denies a clearance when they are inbound. Does anyone know what you do at Van Nuys if the tower controller won't talk to you?

The IFR issue is more vexed because a simple statement such as IFR pilots can have a higher standard of service if they want it, ignores the problems. Sure a US Class D tower will provide an IFR service but only when they can; that's why US pilots cancel IFR. If they don't they will be kept circling by the Centre until such time as the Class D tower has sufficient gaps in the traffic to will allow traffic information to be given, or two or more IFRs to be separated.

Why do I say "kept circling by the Centre"? Because all aircraft above 1200 feet AGL inbound to a US Class D airport are in Class E airspace. This is also how the airport remains safe, as Dick states, after the Tower controllers go home. Because the Class D no longer exists the airspace automatically becomes Class E protecting IFR aircraft making IFR approaches. This service is provided from the 24/7 ATC Centre.

The lack of Class E around our GAAP airports is going to make operating them as Class D difficult unless they all adopt Class D steps like our regional airports. How you provide an IFR service to a private IFR flight departing one of our GA airports with no intention of climbing into Class C airspace I have no idea, perhaps Ambidji can do another consultancy.

[Howabout]

For God's sake OZ, read my last post!

Patience!

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR, How about an answer to my post no 79?

What services are not provided in FAA class D?

Howabout, not increased costs- just a simplified standardised system for all non radar towers.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OKOKOKOKOK. I was posting while you put yours up, Howabout:ok:
well, 45min is a bit of a looong time to craft a post, but will hold

[Howabout]

OK guys. Dick's got away with it..again!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick you said-just a simplified standardised system for all non radar towers.

Re my post88, how are you going to simplify if you still have the same airspace restrictions around BK?

[Chimbu chuckles]

I fly VFR GA in the UK several times a year and you most assuredly are not controlled OCTA. You can call up and get a 'pop up clearance' through military and many civil CTR zones easily - Farnborough for instance - and they have unicoms at even little grass airstrips - but generally speaking you fly around VFR < 2000' very easily. The higher costs associated with GA in the UK come from them still having a system of 3 year major airframe inspection/correction as well as annuals, not so much from nav charges.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick re- your post79...the difference is more what you CANNOT do with ICAO D compared to FAA D and GAAP.....it's got something to do with parrallel runway ops.

Could you please post the bit where the Ambidji report actually recommended procedure changes in GAAP?

[Dick Smith]

Owen, yes ,well below the LSA/MSA so ideal for saving lives with an ATC minimum altitude alarm and simple procedures which inform the controller whether tho pilot is visual or not--as per the NAS system!

[Dick Smith]

Clinton, if it was my decision I would have recommended procedures at busy airports which would keep arriving and departing traffic apart where possible.

I just wouldn't have mandatory VFR reporting points as we do!

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith,

I provided a link to you via PM earlier this arfternoon that answers those questions. I did not post the link or quotes on the forum, as the mod's might not approve cross posting from competing websites. In the absence of any hard contrary facts from you, I take the other as reasonable!

Howabout answering howabout!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Do not start...you guys know full well that radar coverage BLA can also drop off BLW080.:ugh:

(I have a far better idea for OCTA that doesn't cost anywhere as much as even the old FSU and give BETTER coverage and service.)

Cumon Mr Smith, Howabout deserves an answer.

[Howabout]

Thanks guys, but Dick won't answer.

He's been caught out and, as I said, the tactic is not to answer the questions. Rather, it's letting it die over a few pages, so it's forgotten.

So, last go. As I said before:

Any chance that we back off till we get a response?

Dick, post #84-87.

Respectfully, no obfuscation. Can I have a response.

Now guys, let's give the man a chance without side issues.

[Dick Smith]

I answered the posts 84-87 with my post 89.

ie The USA and the UK are totally different. I would support the US system as all IFR approaches are in controlled airspace.

I don't support the UK system where tower controllers (yes controllers) at non radar towers actually "control" aircraft in uncontrolled airspace

ARFOR, does that mean you cannot find any measurable difference between NAS class D and ICAO class D ?

I won!

And OWEN, if the Benalla accident had happened at a similar airport where the radar went to ground level they would have still all died.

That's because there has been constant resistance to putting in proper procedures or airspace after the FSO's were removed.

How many more will have to die before modern proven overseas practices are introduced?

[Howabout]

Sorry Dick, by your own admission ATC control in G in the US - it's the 'little bit pregnant' argument.

Secondly, you did not justify the replacement of ICAO D with FAA D - cost versus benefit.

You lose!

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith,

Clearly you did not read the information provided! In basic terms, this is what I read the main difference to be;

1. ICAO class D requires Controllers to prevent collisions. That may be achieved through clearances providing separation, and/or spacing + directed traffic information to IFR and VFR as necessary to 'prevent a collision'

2. FAA (US) D (GAAP) the primary responsibility rests with the pilot to 'prevent a collision' as no separation (nor guaranteed directed traffic information) is applied in VMC!

As has been stated previously, where GA need high volume throughput the additional safety of 1. (above) is not possible without traffic metering, wider spaced parallel runways, navaids, and the like!

Where scheduled RPT (PTO) operate, the safety of 1. (above) quite properly takes centre stage, hand in hand with a vast variety of aircraft performances, wake turbulence standards, and generally lighter traffic volumes enabling the additional safety service of ICAO D without restriction to traffic demand.

You won? what? the duck and weave prize!

[grip-pipe]

Well as far as I can tell Dick has been entirely consistent in his arguments about airspace and ATC in Australia and CASA and its predecessors. It is about standardising systems and procedures and reducing costs. For the life of me I cannot understand ( well I can actually but you would need to write another book and call it thirty years in the Hall of Doom!) why Australia has to be different in just about every area to do with government management or regulation of aviation in this country.

We have a miserable number of towers and a limited number of capital cities any fool can see you can go to one class for primary, one class for secondaries and one for the non radar places and leave it at that. Instead every time someone like Dick attempts to argue for a commonsense standardised approach the contrarians attack Dick.

Your all living in the past. Decades of unnecessary controls and regulations have buggered the industry and left us in the position of needing a law degree or a lawyer beside you to even work out what your supposed to be doing at any time. Your all so used to living in a dysfunctional state that you no longer recognise normal, it is a well known psychological phenomena, identifying with your capturs, in this case CASA and ASA both.

Every time the industry is about to escape the clutches of unnecessary regulation and control and do something positive that will save money, improve safety by standardising processes, actually being allowed to use or introduce new technology and leaving the decision making (risk management) to those who are actually directly involved in the industry, our keepers drag out the vision of their sacred cow - SAFETY and you all get down on your knees and grovel to this phantom shibboleth. It is truly pathetic.

Lets do something different, might be good for you - so instead of attacking and villifying Dick Smith for reminding you of the problem, how about you actually say, thanks Dick you know we believe your right, lets do something about it.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Grip, I agree with you on much of that having worked as a pilot in other countries before coming here, a lot of the regulations were and still are a joke. But in this instance the head of CASA has made an arbritrary decision that instead of reducing costs has cost operators up to 40% of thier business overnight with no increase in safety, and absolutely NO CONSULTATION.

How will Class D reduce costs? Someone has to pay for more ATC, if anyone can find some, and it will be us, the airport users. We may be restricted to only flying when the cloud base is above 2500 to comply with clearance from cloud, still have to deal with a circuit cap reducing our chance to get the job done even more. So, with more ATC to pay for that will INCREASE costs. A former ATC friend of mine reckons Jandakot could be limited to around 100, 000 movements a year if it becomes Class D, that's only 20% of capacity, about 25% od what was working well previously and is unviable. Unlss the logic is that if we all go bankrupt we will have no more operating costs.

Dick if in your retailing days you were told, by someone who had never worked in retailing, that you had to reduce your floor space and trading hours of your shops by 40%, but take on more staff, would that make sense?

The property developers must be rubbing their hands in glee. Never mind Class D, the zoning will be commercial or residential!

[Rudder]

Grip,

At last some sense!! Most here just want to shoot the messenger.

[Dick Smith]

CHARLIE, If GAAP changes to FAA NAS Class D as per Government policy there will be no cost increase or measurable change.

That's because GAAP was copied of FAA NAS Class D.

The advantage will be that all non radar towers will have simple standardised procedures.

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR, Why hasn't the FAA logged a difference with ICAO in relation to the way you think FAA Class D differs from ICAO class D?

The reason is simple- they believe they comply with ICAO in relation to the points you have brought up.

I do to!

It's obvious you are doing everything you can to stop change.

Perhaps you are in a position where you will be responsible for bringing in the improvements but this is behond your expertise.

So you hide your name and do everything you can to stop the change.

Why else would you not post under your own name= no PPRUNE rules against doing so!

And by the way -in FAA class D IFR are separated from IFR by ATC in VMC.

[Dick Smith]

Charlie, What is the reason Jandakot will drop in movement numbers if it changes to FAA NAS ClassD?

I think someone is telling a furphy.

Van Nuys can do it with up to 600,000 movements per year- why not Jandakot?

[Dick Smith]

Grip, You are correct about the crazy desire for more complexity.

The FAA CTAF prescibed words are less than 160 in the FAR's

Our latest proposal is over 1000 words long!

Their's is simple,standardised and results in high compliance rates.

Our's is the opposite.

[ARFOR]

grip I don't disagree on the regulatory front.
Lets do something different, might be good for you
With respect, industry was hoodwink'd into lets do something before, without the checks and balances, a 'crash or crash through' mantra. I am fairly certain you would be in the minority if you thought that exercise was cost effective, safe, worthwhile!
- so instead of attacking and villifying Dick Smith for reminding you of the problem,
Attacking? No, enquiring, Yes, with little tangeble reason to embark on another airspace odyssey!
how about you actually say, thanks Dick you know we believe your right, lets do something about it.
When he comes up with something valid, which is an improvement to the cost and safety bottom line, then I'm sure people would!

In the meatime he is back to the old tricks such as posters names!

Win the day on the merit of the argument Mr Smith, and leave the juvenile games out of the debate!

[Howabout]

What buggered the industry, pure and simple, was 'user-pays' and the notion that GA wouldn't have to pay (much) because it would be 'free in G.' Remember G=Good:ok:? I still puke over that one.

Everything else is arrant nonsense. Additional edit: why do you think US AOPA is fighting tooth-and-nail to keep their federally funded system? Because they've seen the horror story on this side of the world!

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Dick, Class D requires us to have 1000 feet vertical separation from cloud, which will stop all flights if the cloud base is below 2500 feet, there is also doubt about being able to use parallel runways.

A circuit cap from 10 to 6 means that we have to allocate our fixed costs over 40% less trade. More than 40% on single runway ops. How can that save costs? See my shop trading space and hours analogy?

I applaud having controllers present for longer hours but WE will be paying for it. Less movements, more controllers. Sure as eggs the Govt isn't going to subsidise it, it will come from our location specific charges.

Will you put your money where your mouth is, and if Class D works out more expensive, you will personally reimburse us all for the difference in perpetuity?

What we need is proper, throrough consultation, implementation and review. How can CASA know more the the locals about what is "good" for Jandakot, they closed thier office and buggered off years ago! We had a survey, but no consulation. That's the real issue here. I'm sure Class D could work well, but CASA shouldn't just ignore the concerns of the operators who work here and dictate to us, nor should anyone else unless they ahve spent at least ten years running an aviation business here!

[An Interested Party]

I still think everyone's missing the point of the thread.

Dick says that the Ambidji Report says that Bankstown is unsafe if you use the CASA risk model. Everyone seems to be saying that what's being done now at Bankstown is actually OK in real practice.

So, obviously the CASA risk model is faulty and should be fixed.

Until then, you can argue 'till the cows come home about NAS and Class D and US procedures and all that stuff, but it will never pass any risk test CASA currently has, because they're saying what we have now is unsafe, which makes no sense at all.

Wouldn't it be better to talk about how CASA could develop a risk model that everyone can accept and which actually recognises what's really happening in the real world. If Dick's experts have inputs, good. If you guys have inputs, also good. Maybe CASA should open up an NPRM process to get practical inputs into risk models.

[Howabout]

ARFOR, congratulations!

You have entered the pantheon of those accused of 'hiding behind a pseudonym.'

This is a gold medal achievement and a high honour. Few are selected to be singled out in this manner.

I only got a meritorious mention for the following:

Howabout , debating with you is like debating with my daughter when she was 14.

Yours is a rarely awarded distinction (only a few dozen times a year) - it's something to be envied and respected.

[Jabawocky]

Cynical Pilot.....:D ... have you considered changing your name to Realistic and Honest Pilot?

[Howabout]

And CP, where did all of this pressure for change come from?

I'll tell you where - from individuals with political pull. From individuals who can panic a minister. From individuals who can promise to make the heat go away if we just adopt the US system.

CASA, in my opinion, has been stampeded. They were/are under incredible pressure to deliver 'something.' They made a bad call, an extremely bad call, but it's the product of a system that can be manipulated by vested interests.

[redleader78]

I am not an expert on a lot of these issues. A lot of what I read on here is about trying to become informed and see the diference in opinions and not just accept the way things are carte blanche.

I often am dismayed at the comments about when people get into cost benefiet type situations. This is because some of the variables are often are left out and not measured because sometimes people haven't thought about all the variables. Whilst a lot of people take shots at dick smith. I do not know him personally, however reading his stuff he is a passionate about what he says. Can't fault the guy on that. Just as other people are just as passionate. Both parties are more knowledgable than I on the aspects of airspace that such a large contention exists at.

My reason for writing is this. I think part of this whole arguements seem to come down to what the system costs. What ever that system shall be is beyond my knowledge base. When I read ASA making 70 million of profit out of user pays system and the degradation of services even in my short term within the industry I certainly understand the frustration that the more experienced people have within the industry. It is similar to what governments have done in a lot of the provision of infrastructure. They seemingly have used a business model that doesn't reinvest into itself to provide growth and meet the future needs. I know that some officials use the arguement that the profit is a return on the investment that the public have made in setting up the infrastucture in the first place. Then why not keep the service as a consolidated revenue type of structure in the first place? This is that some parts of infrastrucure cross support each other. This is the idea behind the gst. It widens the tax base in such a way that spending in one area that is growing is able to provide finances to an area that requires input. The flow of mining industry that has flown to some health care provisions. In aviation is is such a high capital business with yields on investment quite low. It suffers markets constrictions due to monolopies of access. eg (Sydney Airport) Which adds to the cost of doing businesses as a lot of times if you want to do business in sydney as a consumer you virtually have no choice. Sydney Airport can almost charge whatever it likes. This is the same of what it appears to happens with enroute charging, tower access etc. From my limited understanding you used to have a levy on fuel supplies that paid for all that? So now if you want to do an ILS approach in sydney in a light twin for training purposes you can do it but it is going to cost you a couple hundred dollars(something that used to happen quite frequently at negligible cost), whilst richmond is also available you may also want exposure to class c airspace to meet that requirment the closest class c airspace is canberra. So you spend a couple hundred dollars in hours in flying to canberra. So that is a cost burden that is on aviation and it also has environmental concerns for all the extra fuel you burnt..yadda yadda.. Now the safety aspect. Which has the greater safety a function of time in the air or the air space that you are in? My understanding is and happy to be corrected on this that the bigger variable of influence is all measured in chances of occuring per flight hour. This is as airspace density changes we use different airspace systems to deal with the traffic flow. I know this is the point of this conversation about ensuring the design of the airspace is safe.

So higher class airspace requires more cost and yet we can't seemingly afford to pay for it. TO me it seems All because we have gone to a user pay system. Why can't we go back to a fuel levy system with the levy being used to fund the support of the system and provide support for the regional airports like taree thats surface is desperate needs of repair. Australia is a nation that has large distances that aviation can travel cost efficiently compared to all the other costs associated with the other modes which seemingly arn't modelled. I know this simplistic but I wonder if the true costs of maintaining 2kms of runway with the appropiate enroute and airspace charges is a fraction of the cost of maintaining any of the other modes of transport over the same distance.

Widen the "tax" base makes the system fairer on the whole. The gst has caught a lot of people out in the cash economy that used to fly under the raider or find the loop holes in the system. I don't know about you but I think it is fair if somebody is burning 13 tonnes of fuel an hour they pay more for the services rather than somebody that is burning 7kgs an hour. Yes I understand that in terms of airspace that an airplane is an airplane and requires similar space around it etc. SUch a system would encourage usage and the provision of infrastructure. Instead of the eroding of fuel availibility at other airports. I know of a lot of people that avoid some aerodromes cause of the inability to obtain fuel easily. People may drop in more. May even choose to stay and spend more $$$ in the area. It would also encourge competetion. Neighbouring airports may price the fuel in such a way to attract customets. LAnding fees and enroute charges seemingly seem as regressive type of structure.

Do trucks have to pay the rta every time they are pulled over in a weigh bridge and subject to an inspection? Or they charged for every road sign on the road that they use to see where they are going? My point is that yes they contribute to the costs of providing in the rego but I am sure if you did the numbers, some form of cross support would be happening.

If you widen the ways that inputs come in. You can afford to put on more staff, update technology and generate economies of scales that reduce the costs of doing business. To the benefiet of all in the system. Like putting more radar in.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

if it was my decision I would have recommended procedures at busy airports which would keep arriving and departing traffic apart where possible.

Dick, you need to explain how you can make FAA D work BETTER than GAAP at BK. It is little use to us troglodites if you do not explain how it is better and how it would operate.

Be specific, how is it better? A simple example of how you would wish to operate into and out of BK....please?................pretty please?:)

[SayAgainSlowly]

Cynical Pilot,

I agree when you say that what is happening now at BK is dangerous, in fact I strongly agree, but I disagree when you say that An Interested Party is wrong!

Doesnt the fact that the CASA risk model thinks that BK GAAP procedures ( as they were) are more dangerous than those that are now in place (i.e 6 in the circuit etc.) support both your arguments?

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I have just had the most scary experience in 10 000 hours of flying.
Coming in from Boatyard, tracking to Adventureworld. Two people at Six South then get clearance denial. I am at Adventureworld and the frequency congestion from the clearance denials is such that I cannot get my ADWD call in. There are three other aircraft in the vicinity. I can't proceed without a clearance. If I turn, I come into conflict with other aircraft coming from behind. Had to do some slick manoevering and a wide sweep back to Powerhouse. Then got a clearance denial myself. Aircraft coming up behind me etc etc. Thank god it was me and not a student solo. It is the stuff that nightmares are made of.

[Ultralights]

An Interested PARTY you are wrong! What is being done now at Bankstown is the most f***ing dangerous thing possibly ever. We have inexperienced pilots (some mayb on first area solo!) who are being MADE to HOLD at an INBOUND REPORTING POINT. That is not safe, it is the most dangerous thing I can imagine...

not to mention when departing the zone to the west, picking a track overhead the old YHOX as your crossing the river climbing to 1000ft. , only to hear a Duchess being denied entry and to hold, then meeting said duchess overhead YHOX! head to head at the same level.
next time when departing the zone, when clear of the western zone border, the safest option might now be to descent to 500ft till well clear of the holding area. safe! i have never felt so fearful when flying aircraft as i have been entering and departing YSBK now. :mad:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This is getting scary. CFI, you need to call the ATSB on 1800 011 034
and then make an online report here (https://www.atsb.gov.au/mandatory/asair.aspx)

In fact ANYONE who even witnesses a conflict caused by procedure changes at the GAAP entry points needs to make a report.....this is far more important than arguing with Smith over the price of eggs. The more reports the more chance of restoring sanity.

[Jabawocky]

CFI........ pick a suitable day, and offer him a free ADVENTURE FLIGHT :E

It may well be as exciting as a P51D ride for him!

As for the risk models.... just a basic point....of course its safer now, any idiot can see that. 6 A/C max is better than 8 or 10......:rolleyes:

The problem is the congestion has been moved outside the "study zone" so its not a problem, of course until some bright spark realises the problems are now far outside the range of the eyes that may be able to help protect them!:sad:

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Thanks Oz, I was doing that very thing as you posted! ATSB guy just told me to do the online report which I was going to do anyway. I hope that someone out there cares enough.

I told the tower guys when I landed it was the most dangerous situation I had ever been in in an aeroplane so they could have that on the tapes. Their reply "tell CASA!"

One of my dstaff was at SIXS at the time and reported two aircraft orbiting there.



as Oz says, everybody out there needs to tell ATSB, CASA. My phone is going to run hot on Monday to every CASA person I know. Meanwhile I hope they are enjoying thier nice weekends fishing or whatever they do.

But for god's sake keep the press out of it!

[werbil]

Class D requires us to have 1000 feet vertical separation from cloud, which will stop all flights if the cloud base is below 2500 feet.



Bull:mad:.

Special VFR clearances are available in D due both cloud and visibility. Aircraft operating on a Special VFR clearance due distance from cloud are only required to be separated from IFR aircraft and not from VFR or other Special VFR aircraft.

[ARFOR]

Werbil 100% correct. However, if the cloudbase is such that a SVFR clearance is required, then you can reasonably expect delays for separation with arriving IFR who of course will be in IMC due said cloudbase.

[ferris]

Redleader- some of us have been trying to have the charging regime addressed as part of the "system" (US or other) for a long time. Of course it is inextricably attached! Forget about trying to get Dick involved in that argument, though. On the very few occasions he has ever acknowledged comments/argument to this effect, he simply says "it's too hard" (read: "I believe in user pays and helped introduce it, and often use 'cost' arguments- when they suit me"), and continues to tilt at small windmills (like airspace) which have so little actual effect (comparatively) on GA (and the industry as a whole).

But that's a whole other thread.

[poteroo]

CASA must have foreseen this breakdown in safety when they refused the RAAus application for access to CTA / GAAP. More aircraft are needed like the proverbial hole-in-the-head.

This whole schemozzle just re-inforces that wonderful maxim...if it ain't broke - don't fix it!

happy days,

[Emirates777300]

One of my dstaff was at SIXS at the timeThis was me coming into Six South. There were two 172's orbiting to the west of six south due to clearance denial. The radio was just full of congestion. I managed to get a inbound call in over six south. Had I been given clearance denial I would have had a few options. Either turn to the west where there was two 172's orbiting (I only had one in sight at the time) into the setting sun (1700), turn east towards the busy Armadale area and into potential outbound traffic or do a 180, again into potential oncoming traffic. Not a very nice situation to be in. Thank god the person sitting next to me was a 13000 hour pilot helping me keep a look out.
I seriously believe its only a matter of time before there is an accident. Something needs to be done immediately to reverse the decision to cap the numbers allowed in the circuit.

[Dick Smith]

If you look at the NAS document as approved by cabinet you will see that it clearly states that we will have different cloud clearance requirements than ICAO and that Australia will notify a difference.

Why doesn't someone from the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation tell us why they have directed AsA to move to Class D ?

Or are they actually against the decision and therefore they will undermine it in every way?

Yes, I agree that you do not need to know a persons name to judge if their argument is valid or not- however isn't a little bit strange that all those from AsA and CASA who are against NAS never ever put their real name to their beliefs.

What is going on?

[Dick Smith]

Etrust, I don't accept what you are saying.

Surely if these people were genuine they would organise a spokesman, say someone who is a retired ATC or CASA employee.

Nup, I don't believe that is the reason these cowards hide their names - more about not being really confident about their belief's.

[SayAgainSlowly]

If you look at the NAS document as approved by cabinet you will see that it clearly states that we will have different cloud clearance requirements than ICAO and that Australia will notify a difference


Is there any mention about parallel runway ops?

If yes, we'll only have to make a couple more tweeks to the Class D model and the result will be something eerily simlar to GAAP.

But hey, the wheel worked, lets re-invent it.

[KittyKatKaper]

Surely if these people were genuine they would organise a spokesman, say someone who is a retired ATC or CASA employee.Unless that retiree has other aviation affiliations then by definition they no longer work in the industry, so why would/should such a spokesperson subject themselves to being attacked from you and the powers-that-are, and why should the powers-that-are take more notice of them over voters who tell the apparatchiks the reality of their decisions. Nup, I don't believe that is the reason these cowards hide their names - more about not being really confident about their belief's.You really really cannot comprehend the fact that most people in the aviation sector (nay, world), simply do not have the financial resources to do what they want and when they want., unlike yourself.
Just because someone dares to disagree with you that is not a sufficient reason to brand them cowards.

[Gunda]

Being a low houred ('bout 200 hrs) PPL pilot that uses BSK and MAY. I think Albury's D is an over kill for the traffic using it but I look forward to those procedures being adopted at BSK and stardardized. At the moment 2RN at 1500ft on a nice clear Friday at 13.00 is not the safest environment I have experienced.

Reporting position and tracking control instructions with more traffic information from further out sounds appealing. Is this what is proposed... If so great!

[LeadSled]

Folkss
Sadly, but hardly unexpectedly, this thread has deteriorated into all the usual suspects slagging off Dick Smith.

A fixture of the aviation scene, and unlikely to change, is the brigade who will never agree with Dick, but let's try to get back to the original subject, the Ambifjii Report and/or it's aftermath.

Flying Schools are going broke at the GAAPs, with planned and realisable utilisation through the floor. What is going on just to the west of the YSBK zone is scary, most of us think (intuitively, based on years of experience) that YSBK (including the vicinity) is less safe now.

The Ambidjii Report is/was only part of the problem faced by John McCormick, brand new in the Director of Aviation Safety/CEO job. Arguably , what he was presented with, in the ICAO audit, and in particular the matter of airspace management, was overwhelming pressure to at least make a start.

With the double whammy of the ICAO audit and the Ambidjii Report, he was left with little choice as to a starting point.

What he could not have known, in the recommendations with which he was presented, was the serious and longstanding shortcomings of risk analysis, and presentation of such, which has generated so much argument, over airspace management, over so many years.

I would point out that Dick Smith has played no part in what I am referring to. As he has so often pointed out, he prefers the "common sense" test --- also accepted (in effect) by ICAO, as adoption by reference ----- showing a proposed change is essentially (but not exactly) the same as a proven working system.

"Adoption by Reference" leaves the proponent of change (in ICAO terms, and Australian Government risk management policy, AS/NZ 4360 etc.) to deal with the risk assessment of the difference, a far easier task than "whole system" analysis. This was how differences between the FAA NAS and the Australia NAS were handled, many of us spent many long hours grinding through the risk assessment processes, with the differences considered in fine detail, including the inherent risks of the "cultural shift" needed to make AUS/NAS work.

Unfortunately, the methodology long used in aviation regulatory circles ( as CASA has inherited from Airservices) has had long standing and major flaws, not limited to the "garbage in = garbage out" constant.

There are two essentially flawed areas, firstly how the F-N curves of societal risk are derived, and how they are presented on the risk diagram.

The F-N curves,as the process is worked, have a result that is very (unrealistically) conservative, or put another way, greatly overstates risk (fatalities per year) and produces an "acceptable risk" that is, in fact, a trivial ( trivial as a statistical term) risk , orders of magnitude below ALARP --- As Low As Reasonably Practical ----- where we should be at, a level of risk that is acceptable, below which lower risk is not attainable at a cost/benefit justified effort.

There is nothing particularly wrong with the Det Norske Veritas document re. societal risk, referred to in the Ambidjii Report, and Ambidjii has followed what they were given, a seriously flawed process, with which to work.

It is the process that is wrong, to come to the conclusion that YSBK operations, ( or any) GAAP for twenty or so years, presents as an "intolerable risk", it fails the "common sense"test.

For the first ten or so years of GAAP, there were nil/none/nought/zero MAC ---- Intolerable risk??

Anybody who read the O'Neil report into matters NAS, as commissioned by CASA (including the inputs of a number of acknowledged professional risk management persons - as in PhDs, etc., from other branches of the Commonwealth Public Service) gives a far more detailed insight into the shortcomings of the process ---- as still used by CASA and Airservices.

What Professor O'Neil (ANU) had to say is echoed by the three reports arranged here, by Dick Smith, and several more, yet to be published.

The message we have to get across the John McCormick is that he has been the victim of a seriously flawed process.

Fix the process, and we have fixed the GAAP "intolerable risk" problem.

After all, Ambidjii did not recommend the changes put in place. Who, in CASA, recommended the "final solution" (which is what it is for flying training, if we don't do something fast) to the DAS/CEO, I will bet he didn't think it up himself ??

Just go to the ATSB web site, have a look at all the consolidated accident data, and see how good the overall training rate is, compared to other GA sectors, or GA as a whole, then look at Avstats for the places much of the training hours operations occur, then try and convince yourself that the GAAP "intolerable risk", based on MAC only, is the overwhelming risk ---- is reasonable ---- and see how badly it fails the commons sense test -- let alone proper analysis.

The differences between GAAP and FAA D are marginal. For "cultural" reasons I would argue to maintain the current Australian system, but I acknowledge what Dick says about IFR protection, but this is an entirely different proposition to the fundamental flaw that brought about the present GAAP disaster.

As for ICAO D, forget it if you want to preserve any elementary flying training at the GAAPs.

Tootle pip!!

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I have been doing a bit of research into J McCormick's resume to prepare me for the phone call I plan to make to him tomorrow. I hope he had a better weekend than we did at Jandakot.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASA's Director (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1001:pc=PC_91668)

All I can see is that he left Australia 22 years ago and seems to have been in Hong Kong pretty much since then apart from some time in France. I see he has about the same total time as Pilot In Command as I have as Pilot In Command just in GAAP airspace... You don't get a lot of ex-Honkers airbuses and boeings around YPJT so I doubt he has as much as me, or any of the other folks who work here. There is no mention of any experience whatsoever in GA flying in Australia unless I am missing something.

Can anyone tell me what qualifies him to dictate to me and my colleagues what is and isn't safe around a GAAP and why our opinion wasn't even worth seeking?

Because the issue I see with whatever letters of the alphabet you want to use for your airspace, you need to get rid of conflict of interest, consult , research, peer review of research, implement, trial and review. Not dictate from on high and then wait for someone to get killed in a MAC at an IRP to see if you were right or not.

Maybe the reasoning is that if the insurance companiues get wind of how much the risks have increased they will stop covering our aircraft to go within 50nm of a GAAP approach point and we'll all be grounded but at least we will be safe. :* And broke.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I SAY AGAIN....NOWHERE IN THE AMBIDJI REPORT DOES IT RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THE OPERATIONS OF GAAP IN THE SHORT TO MEDIUM TERM!

Make GAAP ICAO D and it is all over. Just revert back to the tried and true procedures that have done this country well for the last 28 years or more.

GAAP doesn't mean it is OK to change to FAA D just leave us with what we have got...it works!

Philosophy...regulation and training...instill a culture of safety....AIRMANSHIP.

Something I have always thought... AIRMANSHIP begins and ends in the command seat....it is not the responsibility of the Minister...no matter how hard the safety managers try to spin it.

Current situation is crazy but....Airmanship is prevailing...and who is responsible for that?

Leadsled, in a way, I agree with you. Airmanship is hard to judge on risk assesments....Put it another way, you can asses the risk of using a piece of hardware...you cannot asses the risk of the operator using the hardware because you cannot possibly come up with every outcome of how a person reacts to a situation...you can only trust their training.

Ultimately parachuting is an intolerable risk because a single failure can have a guaranteed catstrophic outcome...yet common sense and airmanship says otherwise...you trust the training of the skydiver to follow the procedure.

[Dick Smith]

I will say it again, FAA NAS style class D has no measurable differences to our present GAAP for VFR aircraft.

For IFR aircraft the pilot can remain IFR and get a separation service from other IFR aircraft in VMC-- if the pilot so desires.

This clearly has a safety advantage.

At no FAA class D airport is there a prescribed limit on the number of aircraft being given a service by ATC.

Why doesn't someone from the CASA OAR tell us why they are changing GAAP to D?

I dare someone to phone them and place the answer here!

[twodogsflying]

The last 3 posts have been the best in this whole debate. (before the one above).

As far as the report goes, I have read every page and most of what it has said I agree with.

As far as it being flawed? We every report commissioned by anyone is flawed in some way and is always interpreted differently by different people.

I remember reading the Access Economics report on NAS 2b and it stated that 2 hours flight time will be saved by every pilot in his CPL training! Yeh right!:ugh:

What the Amdidji report did say in its conclusions was for a staggered approach to change with a lot of checks and balances.

Unfortunately this has not happened. Change has been railroaded by the new Boss has done what he has all his career - issued and ORDER.

This comes from his Military and International Airline experience. I have not seen anywhere in his resume where he has even set foot on a GA airport.

So we get what we get. Hopefully, someone is Man enough to say "I was wrong"!!

I don't think the Ambidji report should be attached like it has been but the knee jerk reaction from political pressure and a new person at the helm who thinks he needs to be seen to be doing something. (my opinion from afar)

Once again we are railroaded by politics and special interested political savvy individuals.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Agree the Ambidji report is mostly accurate but has it's limitations, and it acknowledges them. Mostly good apart from the nonsense that the MAC at Jandakot that happenned after the tower closed was a GAAP event. The casa societal risk thingo isn't thiers and deosn't seem to have any statistcal credibility at all.. Their recommendations are good, particularly 1,3 and 4 but CASA have completely ignored them!

Statistically based on past events in the time frame they use you actually are more likely to have a mid-air at Gascoyne Junction than Jandakot.

[Howabout]

Lead, I disagree with you on the 'Dick-hating' thing. Most people on this forum try to be objective and most would admit that Dick's done some extraordinary stuff. In my opinion your posts are objective, as are many others; but there are non-objective contributions from both sides of the house.

I give you this from the other thread:

AH Dick, The entrenched ex RAAF fly boys of the 1960/1970 era in the bureacracy now set the standard, (a) They don't like light aircraft , period and (b) they absolutely believe in sterile controlled airspace no matter what the risk assesment is or how much it might cost.

There is not a commercial bone in their bodies and they really don't care if the flying schools grind to a halt.

The notion that holding early low time pilots OCTA in the concentrated space adjacent to designated GAAP airports is safe defies logic, and to be then assured after clearance is granted to the GAAP that they are mystically separated is fallacy.


An emotive generalisation. What did the RAAF actually do to contribute to the current problem; and where's the relevance- last time I looked RAAF didn't run GAAP.? This sort of stuff does no one any favours.

Moving on, your comment that:

The Ambidj Report is/was only part of the problem faced by John McCormick, brand new in the Director of Aviation Safety/CEO job. Arguably , what he was presented with, in the ICAO audit, and in particular the matter of airspace management, was overwhelming pressure to at least make a start.

With the double whammy of the ICAO audit and the Ambidjii Report, he was left with little choice as to a starting point.

Well yes, I agree. There is inordinate pressure for 'something' (anything) to be done.

However, what you don't acknowledge is that it's actually a Holy Trinity - a triple-whammy. I'll leave you to join the dots.

My sympathies are with CFI (and his compatriots) on the receiving end of the Trinity.

[Frank Arouet]

I must say that the Military have played a very prominent role in prescriptive aviation regulation in this country since about 1945, and certainly from 1949 when AOPA Australia :=was formed to give voice to private GA people who believed they had sufficient brains to make decisive impacts upon their own life and death situations.:(

Subsequent to the DCA days we now have box's to tick for students who masturbate in flying schools.:cool: It's not that this is normal behaviour which could be addressed in the general comments section,:rolleyes: but "big brother" has deemed us all suspect masturbators:\ and a box has to be ticked. Usually at a cost to the applicant who probably has never had the need to masturbate in his life, (being a pilot and all).:cool:

This mentality has flourished to what it is today, from when a medical, (for example) was a means of "washing out" somebody that the Flight Commander didn't like how his Jib was cut.:ouch:

In the Army we just gave them hats that were too big so a Corporal would pick on them for looking like an idiot.:}

Of note and possibly something that has escaped everybody's attention is the "plethora" of "Cathay Club" individuals in senior positions of recent.

The two regulatory infected, and in concert, make for a very non friendly environment for the majority of GA who can be summed up as a rapidly but unprotected, environmentally fragile species verging on extinction.

Perhaps some bureaucratic peon:ugh: can make another prescriptive regulation to make this illegal.

(The Cathay/ Military thing that is).:8

As for Dick bashing, I think it is a measure of the man that he doesn't resort to what he is often accused of by those who vilify him. Something That is peculiar only to "rock throwing" Australians who live in "glass houses":mad:

If I have offended anyone by the use of the masturbate word, please delete that and insert word of your choice. "Cool laconic Dude" would probably be tolerated.

EDIT: Caught by the "spelling Police".

[Howabout]

Nah Frank,

I'd only have been offended if you'd used that 'masturbate' word.

Cheers

[ferris]

I think it is a measure of the man that he doesn't resort to what he is often accused of by those who vilify him. Wow, what sycophantic nonsense. You only have to look at the very page you posted that statement on, to see it's falsity. Try Nup, I don't believe that is the reason these cowards hide their names - more about not being really confident about their belief's. Most people can guess why people hide their names. Cowards? I guess it's open to conjecture. However, I was always taught that bulliesare most definitely cowards. Wouldn't you agree? Or you just don't get how many of your own posts "play the man", Frank? (have a look at your 'Cathay club/military' summary, for example)

BTW- good luck with trying to get anyone Man enough to say "I was wrong"!!.

My sympathies are with CFI (and his compatriots) on the receiving end of the Trinity. Here here.

[le Pingouin]

As for Dick bashing, I think it is a measure of the man that he doesn't resort to what he is often accused of by those who vilify him. Something That is peculiar only to "rock throwing" Australians who live in "glass houses":mad:Hmmm, what on earth is calling people who don't use their real names "cowards" then? By that measure he comes up very short.

[Dick Smith]

I am not vilifying anyone- just stating a fact.

Lots of our forefathers risked and even lost their lives so that Australians could be free to state their true beliefs without fear.

The cowards on this site are an insult to these heroes.

And I am being dead serious.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, you have lost again...The BALL, Dick.....

[le Pingouin]

Yes, it is vilification & tell the freedom bit to the modern government business - they don't understand the concept. They're quite on for a good witch hunt.

As I've said before I'm just a pleb ATC & there is nothing to be gained by using my name - it adds precisely nothing to the debate.

I'm being dead serious too.

[Dick Smith]

A basic point-- it's not possible for me to vilify someone who is anonymous.

And Ping, there is something to be gained by posting under your own name- you would feel empowered and you would more likely be taken notice of.

And it's actually allowed under the pprune rules!

[ARFOR]

The Ambidji Report

I am still battling to fathom why the CASA chose to go well beyond the findings of the Ambidji report. The discovery made in the report gives strong indicative hints to the most appropriate way forward. I find it difficult to buy the argument that the ICAO audit, and contextual comments regarding reference systems could be used as a trigger for something else, as most here have acknowledged (or at least now know) that the fit was never going to provide the required throughput as an approach tower ICAO D or C TMA. Taking the reference system one step further, a very basic comparision would have shown OAR and (as seems the case) the ANSP, that GAAP and its delivered safety result to GA over many years and millions of movements is really not the crux of the problem.

- ATC resources (the number of operating positions) in these busy towers (eyes watching and alerting)
- Training and maintaining the trainers
- Training and monitoring the new kids on the block.

Look at the factors apparent in some of these accidents. Is it really the procedures?, or is it slack or ill prepared application of them?

Perhaps the CASA should do more of the latter and continually be looking for ways to meaninfully educate, as well as improving safety when technological advance permits. That would go a long way towards reducing the former, which in turn will present less opportunity for industry to be thrown in to the frying pan full of screwednomatterwhichway!

le Pingouin Wise words! ;)

[SuperStinker]

15 years ago BK tower had a staff of 25 now it has 12! (To operate the same number of positions) I know 25 is too many but 12 is definatly too few, and who's fault is that 1.ASA and 2.CASA. All the other GAAP's are in the same boat

[Frank Arouet]

ferris;

How many people on PPRune has Dick Smith taken legal action against?

Only one that I know of, so it is not nonsense.

Cowards, well,, He is making a point I believe, that an anonymous identity can spruik QANGO propaganda under the guise of protecting the posters job while at other times "commercial in confidence" is used by that same QANGO to hide their real agendas. They won't ring him because that would give prove the point.

I recall he once offered one bloke a ride in the Citation to talk things over, but that offer went untaken because it would have, as it turned out, confirmed the man a hypocrite.

Don't get me going about playing the man. I have been the focus of some here who feel it their duty to expose my identity on other forums. Even when my identity has been exposed I have been called a coward. (not around my mates on ANZAC day though).

As for the Military/ Cathay observation, and not that I would bring up the sh!t that a combination of players from both camps has cost me financially, history is obviously lost on you.

Back to the Ambidji claim that there was “intolerable” risk, which has now been clearly discredited. CASA should immediately remove the restrictions and changes which were placed because that claim was made.

Only then can objective and consultative arguements be heard.

Why don't you all focus on achieving that instead of "playing the man"?

[twodogsflying]

Frank, the other argument is Dick posts under a pseudonym, then the personalities are taken out and only the argument is then debated, not the man!

If Dick post anonymously, then no one would know it’s him and he would have more chance of getting his point across, if it’s backed up with good argument!

But then would Dicks ego allow it!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Francis....this thread is a nonsence! The originator profered the Ambidji report was flawed- He proposed the CASA should get it's money back...The question remains...what part of the Ambidji report did the CASA use to proclaim a change in procedures at GAAP aerodromes?

Tail between legs fall back position of "you annonymous bullies are beating up on me" is wearing pretty thin. The argument does not stand...either modify your argument from a different position or concede you were wrong.

[Dick Smith]

OZ I have never used the word "bully" or complained about being beaten up on. I think they are pathetic!

I think they are wimps because they claim to have genuine views about aviation safety (ie peoples lives) but never reveal their true identity so they can be effective.

Do they really believe that by cowardly hiding their names that they can ever have any real influence on this important issue? Probably not- more like acting as "spoilers" to stop anyone else succeeding. Pathetic!

Isn't it interesting that not one person in Australia publically supports their views.

[Fogduka]

Who cares what Dick and his band of redneck groupies think. Lets move on. The Ambidji report might or might not have triggered action but the real issue is safety at secondary airports. I have been flying since 1973 and believe me there is a problem. The statistics prove it and frankly I wont go near them until its sorted. Whatever you think of the response full marks for the regulator doing what it is supposed to do - regulate. I suppose I can expect the usual hate mail from the usual suspects now...

[Frank Arouet]

twodogsflying;

It works both ways. Because Dick posts under his real name, his posts are open to legal action if the agrieved feels inclined. He puts his name to his opinion. A lot here with agendas to drive, hide behind the pseudonyms and are not open to legal or personal challenge.

OZBUSDRIVER;

The Ambidgi report and the GAAP debacle are intertwined wouldn't you say?
Would you agree both are then flawed?
Do you not agree CASA should roll back the whole affair and open it to public consultation?

Your last para is axiological given your support to the the annonymous bullies and conspirators who used an innocent and influential persons identity to ridicule and defame me and others. If you lie down with dogs you get fleas.

[le Pingouin]

It works both ways. Because Dick posts under his real name, his posts are open to legal action if the agrieved feels inclined. He puts his name to his opinion. A lot here with agendas to drive, hide behind the pseudonyms and are not open to legal or personal challenge. Get real! How many here have pockets deep enough to pursue such legal action? Most likely very few.

How can you know there are agendas? Just because people oppose you doesn't mean they have an agneda. Just because they say similar things doesn't mean they have an agenda. Maybe, just maybe, the similarity of perspective is generated by the aviation role they fill.

Me, I'm just a pleb ATC.

[le Pingouin]

I think they are wimps because they claim to have genuine views about aviation safety (ie peoples lives) but never reveal their true identity so they can be effective.

Do they really believe that by cowardly hiding their names that they can ever have any real influence on this important issue? Probably not- more like acting as "spoilers" to stop anyone else succeeding. Pathetic!

Isn't it interesting that not one person in Australia publically supports their views.Dick, trying to goad us won't help your cause. Personally it makes me giggle a little.

How is PPRune a proper forum for trying to achieve safety reform? Mayhap there are more appropriate fora that we direct our energies toward where we aren't anonymous?

Who in the media would pay attention to Fred Blogs, individual ATC for more than a few seconds?

Can you honestly imagine anyone paying you a skerrick of attention in this if you weren't already famous? The media will give you a hearing because you're Dick Smth, not just becuase of the subject material. Who else here has that kind of pull?

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
I think they are wimps because they claim to have genuine views about aviation safety (ie peoples lives) but never reveal their true identity so they can be effective.

Do they really believe that by cowardly hiding their names that they can ever have any real influence on this important issue? Probably not- more like acting as "spoilers" to stop anyone else succeeding. Pathetic!

This is really getting to you, isn't it? Quite frankly it doesn't worry me if "wimps" disagree with what I say here. I really don't care what their names are. I study their arguments and decide whether to agree or not, to act on their suggestions or not.

As for being not being effective because they are anonymous, do you really think that CASA takes any notice of a Prune post based on who the author's pen name is? Besides, much to your disgust, we HAVE been effective in the past, and we will continue to be, regardless of who we call ourselves here.

If you don't like the way Prune operates, you can always leave. :ok:

Frank,
How many people on PPRuNe has Dick Smith taken legal action against?

Only one that I know of,
I assume that was Tacan400?



No it was not. Nor is this line of debate in any way related to the thread topic.

:=

Tail Wheel

[Howabout]

Clever, Cute And Machievellian
I'll just repost here seeing that the threads are pretty close on content.

Maybe I pinged after everybody else, but then maybe not.

What I have been trying to figure is why the insistence on FAA D instead of GAAP, when the following was written on GAAP:

Quote:
Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.
So why go to the extra expense of FAA D, when GAAP serves the purpose?

Ah, standardisation we are told. If we change GAAP to FAA D, then we have D at both present GAAP and regional locations. What could make more sense - we would have 'harmonisation.'? So the Machievellian bit goes like this:

We change GAAP to FAA Class D for 'harmonisation' with the regional towers.
After all, GAAP is pretty close to FAA Class D anyway, so what's the difference?
But, hang on, we now have a mismatch, because there are two distinct types of Class D with different procedures- we have ICAO D and FAA D.
This is potentially confusing and dangerous (Minister).
So, for consistency, and to stop this dangerous confusion that will lead to a mid-air, we must convert ICAO D airspace to FAA D airspace.
Right, done and dusted, we are now 'harmonised.'
But, hold the boat, we now have a bastardised system, 'unique to Australia,' because nowhere in the world (read US) do we have Class C over FAA D.
In the 'proven' system of the US, all Class D airspace has overlying E.
And here we get to the true endgame.If GAAP goes FAA D, then you guys (controllers and pilots alike) will be re-living Launy as an everyday experience.

It was always about E terminal and I kick myself that I didn't wake up earlier.
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/buttons/reply_small.gif (http://www.pprune.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5161709&noquote=1)

[Dick Smith]

Great! Then the CASA OAR people who gave the direction to AsA must be supporting E over D - at last some sense.

Thanks Howabout!

[Dick Smith]

And, by the way, the ATSB report on the Launy incident did not state that the E airspace should be changed.

It was good to get their support.

When I last looked there were less RA's during the year of NAS2b than in the years before and after.

No wonder the system works so well in the USA- even the ATC's employed by Airservices love it at they can concentrate their attention to where the risk is greatest.

[CaptainMidnight]

Since CASA changed the rules to allow no radio no transponder basic sports aviation types (i.e. hang gliders, paragliders, gyrocopters, small ultralights etc.) access to Class E airspace, I find it difficult to accept that changing the current Class C over Class D to E over D wouldn't result in a reduction in safety.

Class C with its associated requirements over D clearly provides greater safety.

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith
When I last looked there were less RA's during the year of NAS2b than in the years before and after.
Not sure that is correct. You must properly take into account that during the Class E experiment, airspace that was class C before and after would report both BoS and Airprox incidents. As we all know, whilst it was E (no separation between IFR and VFR), what would otherwise be reported as a BoS or Airprox was no longer categorised the same way.

RA statistics can only be valid if a comparision is split is made between CTA and CTR A through D, and separately E through G.

The Serious Incident Airprox north of YMLT between a Boeing 737 and a Tobago
200305235 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2003/aair/aair200305235.aspx)

Was one of a number during 'the experiment' that highlighted the inherent comparative weakness of class E airspace when compared to class C. Of that there is no doubt.

A simple search of the US NTSB database for class E and D NMAC and MAC will reveal a similar trend

[le Pingouin]

even the ATC's employed by Airservices love it at they can concentrate their attention to where the risk is greatest.Do you know what distracts us most Dick? Some unknown VFR doing God alone knows what dribbling across our airspace while we have RPT jet traffic climbing/descending through the very same airspace. You have to keep watching the little f*cker because you have absolutely no idea what he's going to do. Does that sound like I'm concentrating on another area?

[Howabout]

And, by the way, the ATSB report on the Launy incident did not state that the E airspace should be changed.

It was good to get their support.

I hardly think that the carefully worded statement below constitutes support. In fact it was a damning critique, when one considers that the ATSB worked for someone, who IMHO, was a blithering idiot minister who'd been sold a pup. The implicit cautions in the release ring alarm bells. It's what is not said; and it sits there right between the lines.

MEDIA RELEASE : 19 January 2004 - ATSB investigation classifies Launceston airspace incident as serious (http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2004/release/2004_01.aspx?printable=true)

[Dick Smith]

Howabout Mate, thanks for posting the media release. You are a friend indeed.

Note no call to reverse the E from the ATSB Just--

_ "It has recommended a review of certain aspects of the NAS airspace implementation in class E airspace including education, training and chart frequency material"

I could't have said it better myself. If you remember people at CASA at the time under Kim Jones did everything they could to undermine the Implementation Groups education and training.

I suggest you give Mike Smith a phone call and he will give you the whole sorry tale.

[Dick Smith]

Captain, re your post 177.

Yes, C will be safer than E if it is properly manned.

In the Australian system most often one controller is responsible for all of the D and then huge volumes of C.

Accidents are most likely to happen in the D as the aircraft are most often closer together.

However a controller in Australia has often to take attention away from traffic in D to procedurally separate a VFR from IFR in the huge amount of C airspace above.

This increases the risk of an accident in the D and is the sole reason that countries like the USA and Canada do not have C above D.

This increase of an accident chance in the D has never been factored into the Australian safety case as Aussie controllers claim they are different to controllers in other countries and do not take their attention away from the D when separating VFR and IFR traffic in the C.

For some extraordinary reason they accept the extra personal liability- controllers I have spoken to in other countries astutely refuse to.

[ferris]

This increases the risk of an accident in the D and is the sole reason that countries like the USA and Canada do not have C above D. A lie told a hundred times.....

[Dick Smith]

Ferris, what is the reason then? Love to hear your conspiracy theory.

By the way, my information came from a former FAA Vice President of ATC Mr Jeff Griffith.

Make sure you tell us your source.

[ferris]

It's quite simple Dick. A controller in Australia isn't dealing with the traffic density. He has the time to deal with a large amount of C, as well as his little aerodrome airspace.

It's called "affordable safety". The traffic is different, so rather than have a tower controller sitting there under-utilized and extra bodies in a centre (tracon), Australia has very sensibly used it's resources to provide what could quite rightly be called a better solution.

The example you quote of Teterboro on other threads gives weight to my point. We dont have the GA activity to require us to dumb down our system to allow us to deal with it. Having worked in various ATC roles around the world, I can tell you, Dick, that a controllers ability to handle his allotted airspace does not depend on how much of it he has, or what service he is required to provide and the resources he has at his disposal, or just the traffic density. It is a combination of all those things. Trying to tell air traffic controllers otherwise on this forum gives rise to speculation about your motives.

My source: Me. All the ex-US controllers I work with (one of whom worked the very Teterboro airspace you quote). Other posters on this forum with relevant experience (especially current tower controller "jerricho", whom you studiously ignore)... so go ahead, and quote Mr Griffiths til your hearts content. Misunderstanding what he is talking about is another thing.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
In the Australian system most often one controller is responsible for all of the D and then huge volumes of C.

Accidents are most likely to happen in the D as the aircraft are most often closer together.

However a controller in Australia has often to take attention away from traffic in D to procedurally separate a VFR from IFR in the huge amount of C airspace above.

Let's take Alice for example. Could you please explain what you mean by HUGE volumes of C ie altitude and distance from the field?

If the tower only did D, then who would do the E above? Another controller.

How would we jet jockeys self-segregate from VFRs also buzzing towards Alice like moths to a light? Look out the window?

While at the same time complying with ATC instructions to separate us from the other IFRs in the area?

C needs a controller. E needs a controller. I simply cannot see what the safety issue is. I'm actually glad that an ATC is separating me from the VFR that is also inbound. I don't really mind who does it, Centre or the Tower, but trying to dodge VFRs who I may not even know about inside 30nm whilst being under positive control while also organising an approach has got knobs on it.

The probable reality is that you can't give up your ideological stumbling block from the Airspace 2000 era that terminal C MUST be radar controlled.

Regarding the NMAC at Launy, it is a shame that you didn't quote this bit:

based on the circumstances of this serious incident, the ATSB has recommended that CASA and Airservices Australia, in consultation with the NAS Implementation Group, review NAS procedures and communications requirements for operations in Class E airspace, particularly for Air Transport operations during climb and descent in non-radar airspace, with a view to enhancing pilots' situational awareness.
Which plainly implies, as Howabout suggests, that the airspace setup sucks and needs a lot of work. "with a view to enhancing pilot's situational awareness". How are you going to do that then?

We told you before Airspace 2000, we told you before NAS, and we will tell you again. Non-radar terminal E doesn't work! How many scares do we have to have before metal meets metal and you and Leadsled go back to your slide rules and work out some more statistics?

[CaptainMidnight]

Captain, re your post 177.

Yes, C will be safer than E if it is properly manned.So you are no longer advocating E over D, particularly in view of the no radio no transponder types now allowed in E, who do not appear on radar or TCAS?

[Dick Smith]

I have made it clear that I support the current direction to AsA that if C is to be allocated above E it must be provided with terminal radar and separate approach controllers.

Otherwise the C is a sham- if a VFR pilot inadvertenly flew the airspace beyond visual distance from the controller the ATC would not know. That's why primary and secondary radar is required if you are going to offer a service that claims to separate VFR from IFR.

Ferris, your comments are all about keeping the status quo.
I had similar comments during the AMATS changes- if they had not gone ahead we would still have airline aircraft in en-route radar covered airspace below 12500' being forced on a FS frequency with no access to the radar!

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
Otherwise the C is a sham- if a VFR pilot inadvertenly flew the airspace behond visual distance from the controller the ATC would not know. That's why primary and secondary radar is required if you are going to offer a service that claims to separate VFR from IFR.
You just don't get it do you? As far as I am concerned, C is not about having a radar to catch VFR pilots who stray into CTA, it's about having ALL aircraft in the area positively separated. I accept that there will be VCAs in any type of controlled airspace, but VCAs are not the point.

The ONLY reason you want E over D is so you can fly "free" doing as you please with scant regard to other users. VFRs flying over the top of Alice at 6000ft in E between The Rock and Isa saying nothing when there are jets going willy nilly into and out of Alice is just plain crazy. ALL of the RPT midairs as far as I know in the USA have been big jets running into lighties. See and Avoid DOES NOT WORK, and if the VFR isn't even being controlled eg in E, it's even more dangerous.

[Frank Arouet]

CaptainMidnight;

in view of the no radio no transponder types now allowed in E,

More information needed:eek:

[ferris]

Ferris, your comments are all about keeping the status quo. Maybe. If the status quo is better than what you are proposing, then so be it. Lets not confuse that with just being change resistant. Are the people speaking out against the GAAP changes just 'change resistant'?

[CaptainMidnight]

More information neededYep, I was surprised to hear of it when the rules were changed. No consultation that I was aware of.

Info here:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/296255-congratulations-raaa-tcas-cost-savings.html#post3638553

[Frank Arouet]

the rules were changed

These are exemptions dating back to 1988 and beyond. They encompass hang gliders of 70 Kgs up to the military testing of the NH90 Tactical transport helicopter of 9,100 kgs.

It may interest you to know there are significant changes to cabin crew requirements in hot air balloons-(also on exemptions). I'm unsure how many of these exemptions are current.

I haven't seen too many hang gliders operating above 8,500 ft in the J curve, but I suspect if they are, they are the "exception" rather than the "rule".

[Howabout]

No problems, Dick old fruit. If you reckon that the ATSB release was supportive of terminal E, then you took a different course in comprehension to that which I did.

The ATSB, at the time, worked for a minister that knew nothing about aviation and had been led up the garden path with some slick, but deceptive, argument. You know as well as I that government departments, or their subordinate agencies, don't drop a minister in it when he's been a fool and publicly supported (in parliament) a dog.

I think the last sentence of the press release was the most telling; notwithstanding that the whole blurb was a 'get-out-of-jail' card for the ATSB when the inevitable hit the fan - saved only by 'roll-back.' To whit:

It is also desirable that the responsible authorities seek industry input in their review.

The ATSB knew what industry's reaction would be; with the exception of a few fundamentalists.

Your problem here, Dick, is that you are not dealing with a demographic that gets their news via the Tele and A Current Affair. While Wayne, who's only aim in life is to get maggoted and place a bet on Race 5 at Sandown, will swallow 'dirt road airspace' and 'manual telephone exchanges,' your audience on this forum is a little more discerning.

Anyway, that's enough for me. Except to say to those of you attending RAPACs in the near future:

It ain't about the smokescreen that is GAAP vs D. It's about universal FAA D and overlying E.

That said Dick, I really enjoy the fencing. And I must get a copy of that DVD 'Mountains of the Moon.' I am dead-set serious, as I've always been fascinated by those chaps Burton, Speke and Grant. I have what I regard to be the best set of books on the Blue and White Nile - the early exploration - which are now out of print. Despite our disagreements, you do some stuff incredibly well - it's just that airspace isn't one of them.

[Dog One]

Would have to agree with Capt Bloggs, E outside radar coverage to a jet crew is like playing Russian Roulette. See and avoid does not provide a sufficient safety margin for a jet,and relying on TCAS is a last resort. Why have E outside of radar? It may as well be G airspace for all the value it is. What cost saving is there to heavy RPT aircraft.

[CaptainMidnight]

These are exemptions dating back to 1988 and beyond. They encompass hang gliders of 70 Kgs up to the military testing of the NH90 Tactical transport helicopter of 9,100 kgs.The exemptions for the Parts I mentioned in the post relating to sports aviation types were published in 2006 and are current.

These Parts all state that the types can be flown in G and E in VMC:

95.8 Hang gliders
95.10 Privately Built Single Place Ultralight Aeroplanes
95.12 Gyroplanes Having an Empty Weight not in Excess of 250 kg
95.12.1 2 Place Gyroplanes and Single-Place Gyroplanes
95.32 Weight Shift Controlled Aeroplanes and Powered Parachutes
95.54 Manned Balloons and Hot Air Airships
95.55 Certain ultralight aeroplanes

Gliders around the country including the J curve regularly operate in class G and E to the lower flight levels. Hang gliders in north east Victoria regularly operate in G and E up to A100 from launch sites around Albury.

As I said in the original post clearly most of these types do not have electrical systems capable of powering a transponder which means they don't need to operate a transponder in class E.

It is my understanding that these exemptions published in 2006 specifically included access to class E for these types, because previously areas of class E base 8500 implemented initially with NAS prevented activity that had always taken place in areas. In some instances to allow activity to continue, areas of class E were reclassified to G. Example: the E base 8500 that used to lie NW and SE of Albury used to be reclassified to G for the period November to April to specifically facilitate the various types of glider and other ops. I'm told ATC christened that reclassified airspace as "GONAD" (Gliders Operating Near Albury "D"?).

When the initial elements of NAS were implemented i.e. areas of low level E base 8500 I don't think the glider and sports aviation types appreciated the impact it would have on their ops until it was actually in, hence the reclassifications.

My point is if the current Class C over D around the country was to be changed to E over D, then these types would have access to the E airspace.

And I'm yet to be convinced that would be a good thing :)

[Dick Smith]

Dog, you have obviously forgotten that when I was Chairman of CASA I introduced the worlds first mandatory Transponder requirement for all aircraft in all E in Australia.

This means that Australian E has a major safety advantage over G.

Tcas is a great safety improver- no mid air has ever occured in the world when an aircrew correctly complied with an RA.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Airspace designed around TCAS? :ugh:

[ARFOR]

The economics of classifications of airspace under discussion

A large difference between E and ICAO D and C is the speed restriction/s below A100. In D and C ATC can cancel speed restrictions where operating crews would prefer high speed climb or descent. This is possible as all traffic that could operate at those speeds are fast turbo-prop and turbo-jet IFR who regularly operate through ICAO D and C areas, all other IFR and VFR are below 250kts. No traffic is reliant on unalerted self separation.

In E, ATC cannot cancel speed restrictions as the speed limits are in place to support unalerted visual traffic aquisition and self separation which is inherent to the classification. The same applies to ATC decision making with regard to discretionary track shortening.

How much time and money do those unnecessary restrictions add up to over time? The additional costs to industry of the above speed inefficiency would be several orders of magnitude greater than any cost associated with D & C separation and the resulting infrequent profile adjustments i.e. short duration level off's and the like.

ICAO D and C is Accountant candy!

[Joker 10]

Arfor, Brilliant summary, accountant candy, not safety solution. I'm with you !!!!

[ARFOR]

Joker 10

Glad you agree. Accountants get a big say in these things where maximising their company efficiencies is concerned. There is no doubt that the cumulative additional cost to operators of having to slow down and waste time in class E would be very relevant to a cost verse benefit assessment when comparing the more expeditious and efficient D and C classes.

This economic negative of Class E is very pertinent but quite separate from the safety discussion of the reduced risk mitigation available in changing C to E.

Combined, the cost and safety negatives have the ledger looking decidedly lopsided

[Joker 10]

Arfor, But increasing the complexity of airspace by any bureacratic mechanism increases cost and delivers no safety benefit.

Alpahabet airspace only benefits the man with the calculator.

Scary stuff at the end of the day as we souls fly into uncharted territory wher statistics determine the outcome.

[ARFOR]

Joker 10

Statistics are only as good as their real accuracy and if and how they are integrated into risk assessment. The most common failure of quantifying via numbers is the blind ommission of missing or uncollected data which eventually translates through to an undershoot estimation of the actual risk exposure. OCTA VFR data is a prime example.

Complexity (comm's, scanning, flightdeck task and workload increase and interuption) often comes from less service. Costs for provision of D & C or D & E would be similar, safety protections do increase with classifications closer to A.

[ferris]

Have a heart-to-heart with a US controller about what gets reported and what doesn't, and you will immediately stop using any figures generated there to run safety arguments. Unless you have an agenda...;)

[Jabawocky]

Check this out...What do you reckon Bloggs?

"Close call" in the skies above Northern Utah - ABC 4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News (http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/Close-call-in-the-skies-above-Northern-Utah/60sOtvV3VUSTBlcr0GtUNQ.cspx?rss=20)

I have been there........ if at 10,000 feet your TCAS says Descend descend...... makes you glad if it was VMC, because in IMC you would really not want to. It would be a fight between the TCAS and the EGPWS saying CLIMB CLIMB :eek:


If anyone knows those hills you will know exactly what I mean.

J:ok:

[CaptainMidnight]

mandatory Transponder requirement for all aircraft in all E in Australia.Gee, I've just been yelling into the wind.

I say once again (not for the last time):

In Australia mandatory transponder is not required for all aircraft in Class E airspace.

Many types are exempt, and operate right now in E and have been for a number of years.

[Dog One]

As I said previously, its like playing Russian Roulette, while it may be mandatory in your mind Dick, in reality, as Capt Midnight says it is not mandatory! Who is right and who is wrong? As Chuck says, airspace built around TCAS. Great safety margin. Passenger safety is being comprised because the whole safety case is based on the lowest common denominator, ie the VFR aircraft.

Ever been into some of these busy CTAF's where you do not get TCAS returns from some light aircraft, is their transponder on or is it u/s. The same can apply in E without radar. The transponder can appear to be operating, but in actual fact if its not no one will know.

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR

After studying your posts I am starting to believe that you are a traitor. Yes, a serious assertion, but I believe correct nevertheless.

I believe the majority of your posts are directed to undermining the efficiency of aviation in Australia. Who is to say you are not someone who wants to do this? You are anonymous and that means you could be doing anything and everything you can to harm our country.

In reading your posts I believe there is evidence of this.

If for one second you were genuine about your claims, you would stand by them under your own name. Your campaign against Class E airspace is particularly ill-informed and damaging.

Once again, I quote the very informative post by Voices of Reason “VOR” in relation to Class E airspace.

“Class E Airspace and United States Practice

We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.

EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.

There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.

There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.

There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.

We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.

Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.

NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.

Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.

NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.”
I warn all people who read this website, especially young pilots, that PPRuNe would be an ideal place to undermine what’s good about aviation in this country. I honestly believe there are people on this site who are doing everything they can to damage our future. What’s happened around the world supports the suggestion that this type of subversion can happen anywhere.

I bet that one day ARFOR will be exposed as a person who was affiliated with some organisation which was totally opposed to the interests of aviation and who was doing everything he/she/they could do to undermine Australia.

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith,

I am glad you are studying the content of posts, not before time. Far from making unsubstantiated claims, I have provided information via links to local and overseas information sources that provide factual foundations to these discussions. It is not surprising that you take the view you do, and far from being a 'traitor' to aviation in Australia, I might suggest what you dislike is a sound opposing argument, is that the difference you dislike?

Am I traitor to your airspace commentary? In your eyes clearly yes, that does not suggest anything other than a difference of conclusion that makes you unhappy. Threatening and maligning my character matters not to me, it gives me greater cause to share information with industry peers and a heightened concern to scrutinise the content of your proposals.

[Frank Arouet]

Threatening and maligning my character

How do you do this to a non natural person or identity?

[Dick Smith]

Frank

You are 100% correct. It is simply not possible to threaten or malign a character of a non-entity.

By the way, this site clearly says at the bottom of each page that it may be used by “the unscrupulous”. What I am doing is confirming that the operators of the site are probably correct.

[peuce]

Dick ,,, I think you've been hit by one too many GPS Guided Buzz Bomb :ooh:

[ARFOR]

Jabawocky

A few nervous moments for the jet crew. The airspace rules in that case E
Mike Fergus, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration Regional Headquarters in Seattle, said their investigation found there was only “a ½ mile of separation” when the SkyWest jet passed 200 to 300 feet below the skydiving plane.

Fergus admitted that no FAA rules were violated in the close call, but still called it “unacceptable.”

Mr Smith,

Main Entry: character
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: individuality
Synonyms: appearance, aspect, attribute, badge, bent, caliber, cast, complex, complexion, constitution, crasis, disposition, emotions, estimation, ethos, frame, frame of mind, genius, grain, habit, humor, kind, makeup, mettle, mood, morale, mystique, nature, personality, quality, record, reputation, repute, sense, set, shape, singularity, sort, specialty, spirit, standing, streak, style, temper, temperament, tone, trait, turn, type, vein
By the way, this site clearly says at the bottom of each page that it may be used by “the unscrupulous”. What I am doing is confirming that the operators of the site are probably correct.
Confirming or wishing? or just failing!

[ferris]

Insights into the Smith mind.

Dick, just because something isn't illegal, doesn't make it right.

Posting on the forum requires you to adhere to the rules and etiquette of the forum. It's interesting that you need this explained to you. Or do you only adhere to rules that suit you?

[Howabout]

Post 209

There is definitely a conspiracy going on here. ARFOR's real name is Yuri Kutchukokov. He was inserted into this country as a 'sleeper' during the Cold War, with precise directions about undermining aviation. He has long been under suspicion.

I've had similar concerns about Bloggs: erstwhile, witty, and urbane B717 pilot (it's just a bloody front!); but, unlike Kutchukokov, I reckon he's in the pay of the Chinese government. The link? - mining, associated resources, and WA! - throw in Harold Holt as well!. Bloggs went to Portsea once on a family holiday - yeah, right, 'family holiday!' He was spied as a two-year old building a sandcastle on the beach, just after Holt was spirited away on a Chinese submarine.

While these guys are a real worry, my biggie is OZBUSDRIVER. Now, there is a dead-set serious, and nefarious, individual. He lurks under the radar; and it's all to do with a more contemporary threat - oil money and the Middle East. OZ is a plant; and I have it on good authority that in espionage circles he is known simply as 'The Busdriver.' How scary is that?

Beware! And, oh, by the way:

It ain't about the smokescreen that is GAAP vs D. It's about universal FAA D and overlying E.

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, I hope that you are correct!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Curse you Howabout.....barely made it out alive....after letting on about secret technology and then this!!!!! Thanks for nuthin:} You know how hard it is to evade high tech surveillence cameras....I had to put on my Dick Smith disguise and walked out right past them....Ha, western fools...

http://www.dropbears.com/images/autos/bus.jpg
EDIT- The poster above me is an imposter....I am DICK SMITH Really!

[le Pingouin]

DNS, beautifully put :D:D:D:D:D

[Capn Bloggs]

Jabawocky,
Check this out...What do you reckon Bloggs?

"Close call" in the skies above Northern Utah - ABC 4.com - Salt Lake City, Utah News

I have been there........ if at 10,000 feet your TCAS says Descend descend...... makes you glad if it was VMC, because in IMC you would really not want to. It would be a fight between the TCAS and the EGPWS saying CLIMB CLIMB

If anyone knows those hills you will know exactly what I mean.

Arr, yes, I had a similar incident a few years ago. Was in the circuit, on downwind, in a 146 in the twilight when up popped a TCAS return. I said to the effo "here comes #$%^& Dick Smith". Sure enough, shortly thereafter, "Descend! descend!" mused TCAS Betty. Soon after the good push to comply with the RA, the GPWS bleated "Terrain, Terrain!". I was not impressed.

Fortunately, it was in the SIM. :E

[Dick Smith]

Clinton, you are quite naive when it comes to what happens in real life

I quite often find legal people are like this.

Surely you support the advantages of the US airspace system, or have you changed your mind?

Give me a phone call if you want more info on how I believe BK should operate- you can then put it on this site if you want to. I couldn't be bothered as they may do something quite different to ensure it does not work!

[Capn Bloggs]

you a quite naive when it comes to what happens in real life

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black...

Alphabet airspace looks good on paper. Practically, it's a different story...

[Dick Smith]

I have never believed or claimed that any overseas system can be imported without any disadvantages.

I believe we should copy the best parts so we are more successful.

And nothing in life has all advantages- I have always looked for systems that can be copied that , on balance, have more advantages than disadvantages.

Look at the NAS document as approved by Federal Cabinet- it astutely takes what will work here and does not take items which are a disadvantage.

For example it doesn't suggest, even as an endstate model, that all IFR approaches must be in a minimum of class E.

And Clinton many people would agree with my statement about "legal people"

I am happy to accept you do not have this attribute! Please accept my humble apology!

[tail wheel]

Perhaps if everyone focused their energy on the issues rather than labeling and denigrating people with whom they disagree, Australian aviation would be better off. Far better off.

Amen! :ok:

[peuce]

Well said C.M

Dick, you said:

Look at the NAS document as approved by Federal Cabinet ....

The White Australia Policy was, I assume, approved by a Federal Cabinet also ... but times change, priorities change or new information comes to light and we often move on.

[Joker 10]

Peuce, Whilst I sopport open debate your transit to policies that were redemmed in the past is somewhat scary in its implicationn that we ar now an uncaring lot.

White Australia policy. a policy of the times 50's and 60's, Maybe something we will not be proud of in the times my grandchildren grow up in !!!

[peuce]

Geez Joker ... I wouldn't read too much into my example .. I'm not that clever. I just plucked the first policy I could think of out of my backside. :eek:

[Dick Smith]

I have started a new thread on this because it’s so important.

It has recently been pointed out that Figure 11.4 on Page 140 of the Ambidji Report (see link here (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/oar/papers/gaapfull_june09.pdf)) has been published with a fundamental error. This error is so fundamental, that when used in the calculations (which Ambidji have) it purports to show that the accident rates at US Class D towers are actually less than half what they really are. It then falsely shows that our GAAP airports are riskier than they really are when compared to the USA.

Let me explain.

Figure 11.4 on the vertical graph says “Collisions per Million Movements”. In fact, a major error has been made. This vertical axis should read “Collisions per Year”. Of course it wouldn’t be so serious if just the graph nomenclature was wrong. However, this is not the case. This error has been used in the Ambidji Report to come up with the “intolerable risk” statement.

With Ambidji believing the graph is the “Collisions per Million Movements” when the graph actually shows “Collisions per Year”, no wonder we ended up with such a grossly wrong outcome.

The error in the graph and the subsequent calculations show that by comparison with the USA, our GAAP airports are far less safe compared with the USA than reality.

See if someone has the guts to come on this site and admit to this error. See if Ambidji are prepared to issue a correction. Surely any professional firm should do so. Especially considering the damaging effect that the erroneous information has already had on our industry.

Ambidji – you are free to post. How about coming clean and telling us how this gross error has occurred, and how you intend rectifying it.

[Jabawocky]

Does this mean you think we should stick with our SAFER GAAP zones and ditch the FAA D idea?

And I am not the dumbest pilot on the planet, but I dont claim to be the smartest either, I do not have a problem with GAAP and D procedures and it seems that if we should keep our GAAP.....we might as well keep our Class D the same as it is too! :ok: No extra cost, no confusion.

Save all the confusion which ultimately leads to trouble!

J:ok:

[Dick Smith]

Jaba. No, it means that I believe we should base our safety decisions on facts- not sloppyness.

No other country in the world has airspace called GAAP. What's the use of having ICAO airspace classifications at all if we are going alone with a unique system.

Having flown a little bit in other countries both before and after the ICAO classifications came in I can assure that they are a great idea for safety.

[Tidbinbilla]

We are talking about the same topic, therefore it has been merged.

Let's hope ALL contributors can keep it above a personal level!

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Dick another error they made was to call a MAC in the Jandakot MBZ, as it was then, a GAAP issue!
We had a tragic MAC at Gascoyne Junction last year too, which makes it statistically more dangerous to be way out in woop woop than in the Jandakot GAAP in the time frame they used....

[Dick Smith]

So it looks as if restrictions have been put on after a bogus safety study.

Is there anyone out there who is going to support the study?

Or will silence rein rather than admitting to an error?

Will our money be paid back?

Don't hold your breath!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Hey Dick, why would you think anyone here supported that study?:}

[Dick Smith]

Oz, because this is pprune. Surely everyone can't be in agreement that the report is a croc. Surely there are those who will defend the indefensible as usual!

[Capn Bloggs]

Surely there are those who will defend the indefensible as usual!
A few (RHS, MJBOW2 and LS) around here eh Dick? :ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Surely everyone can't be in agreement that the report is a croc.

It is obvious everyone agrees the outcome is a cockup. So in that regard anyone supporting the means of achieving that cockup is driven by something that would ignore any impact study that, had it been done, would show the study to be a waste of taxpayers money and greatly biased against general aviation airports and their users.

If a GAAP by any other name is class D, ICAO or FAA, that debate is separate to the question as to whether CASA should get their money back.

CASA have an arse about method of achieving their goals which include threatening by "leakage" enormous cost or regulatory imposts then, in the guise of listening to the plebs, they lower the claims so everybody says that's OK it wasn't as hard as we thought. They then achieve their original goal.

It's like being shot in the head with a .22 instead of a .303. You still end up with a bad headache.

[Dick Smith]

Owen Stanley

I understand it’s not just a labelling error. I am getting further advice on this from independent experts, and I’ll place the advice on this thread when it is available.

“or don’t you understand the calculations”?

Owen, I will admit I don’t understand all the calculations. Ambidji seem to be making something incredibly complex from something very simple.

We have over forty years of statistics from many millions of GAAP movements, and we can also look at the statistics from other countries – probably totalling many tens of millions at non-radar airports - to get a good idea of what the safety result will be if we use similar procedures. That’s the whole principle of the ICAO safety system where you base it on a reference.

I don’t believe I have “a legacy of unanswered questions”. I spend a lot of time answering questions on this site – some completely ridiculous and irrelevant. I have said time and time again, if there is some detail I have not answered, simply pick up the phone and talk to me. That’s what happens in Australia – or don’t you realise this is a free country and people are allowed to say what they believe and give their opinions openly. You seem to think that if you do not agree with me, that means you can’t possibly talk to me and you have to hide your real name.

This is not about “whistle blowing” or national security – it is simply about the scientific study of airspace. The fact that so many hide their names demonstrates that something “weird” is going on, and it is certainly not scientifically-based.

[Ian Bryce]

This is Ian Bryce of Springside Engineering. I have just joined PPRuNe. I am the author of one review of the Ambidji Report.

Regarding independence from Dick Smith, I categorically state that all my consulting and reviewing done in a totally unprejudiced and unbiased manner. If there are findings my clients would not want to hear, they are included anyway. All my findings are open to scrutiny, and will be revised if necessary. It is exactly this testing that makes science robust. I approached Ambidji to discuss things but they refused.

Owen, the Ambidji chart on page 140 (FAA model) is not wrongly labelled. I stand by my claim that they have made a real error in overestimating the "baseline" Bankstown MAC (mid air collision) rate by a factor of 2.4 per annum (0.33 instead of 0.14). (Make sure you see my review rev C, which should be posted at Dick Smith Flyer soon).

[2b2]

Ian, you might like to fix up this note on Page 7 of your report -

% Canada's Van Nuys has 600,000 movements, so Canada total > this.

[Ian Bryce]

Thanks 2b2 for pointing out my error. The Review has been corrected.:ok:

[Dick Smith]

Owen Stanley in his Post number 243 claimed that the diagram in the Ambidji Report which has been discussed was only a “labelling error”. He believes that the correct calculations were performed by Ambidji.

I have recently had advice from a friend who has expertise in mathematics. He does not agree with Owen Stanley. This is what he says:

The graph on the next page, Fig 11.5 page 141, compares actual collision frequencies and those calculated by Ambidji from the US empirical data.

If you compare the data in this graph you get the following comparison between the values calculated by Ambidji and the correct calculation using the US FAA empirical data.

The figure on page 141 (fig 11.5) shows the following comparison:

....................................................Rate From
....................................................the Graph
........................................US.......Fig. 11.5 p.141
Location........Movements.....Calc'n....(Ambidji calc)
Archerfield.......146,000.......0.018.......0.02
Bankstown.......418,000.......0.146.......0.08
Jandakot.........414,000.......0.143.......0.09
Moorabbin.......372,000........0.115.......0.06
Parafield.........141,000........0.017.......0.025

The result for Archerfield is curious. The rest are consistent with the mistaken calculation.

The calculation should be accidents pa = 0.834 x M x M Where M = number of millions of movements
ie for 418,000 movements M = 0.418 0.834 x 0.418 x 0.418 = 0.146

It was my first assumption that the graph was simply mislabeled but Fig 11.5 is where Ambidji compare the GAAP outcomes with the US data for Class D towers shows the result was incorrectly calculated..

The final calculations by Ambidji did use the historic data as follows.

Ambidji took the most recent 9 years which included a cluster of accidents - 7 in all at 6 aerodromes. And based on this scant data calculated a separate accident frequency at 6 airports !!

They did this as follows.

Data this scarce must have a large amount of scatter. They accepted as 'correct' the high results and they filled in the low results with additional hypothetical accidents calculated from the US empirical data.

This is so scientifically invalid that one is left speechless.

[Ian Bryce]

Hi Clinton,
The reason I put only one recommendation in my Review was that the problem of speech clarity by ATC is my own proposal, whereas the matter of inbound reporting points has been discussed at length by pilots. In particular, Ambidji performed a very comprehensive survey of pilots, in which the problem of conflicts at IRPs, far from the scrutiny of controllers, has been well noted.

Since you ask, I will go into more detail now. My Springside model of mid air collision (MAC) rates (described in my review) has a term depending on traffic movements alone, representing circuit area conflicts. It has a second term depending also on the restrictions at the control zone boundaries, such as the way Holsworthy and Sydney ctrl zones affect Bankstown. The theoretical basis is that such constrictions concentrate traffic which increases risk. The observational basis is that the two terms when combined (and tuned) give very good agreement with the historical MACs.

Thus there is a sound basis that removing restrictions at zone boundaries would decrease the conflicts, other things being equal. Of course all the traffic must then converge in the curcuit area, but that seems to be a lesser problem and is visible to the controller.

Thus, some suggestions could be made:

- For BK, reinstate the third Reporting Point at Westmead so that traffic from the Light Aircraft Lane does not have to divert to Prospect and combine with others.

- Make IRPs not applicable to jets on VFR, so that they can fly direct to the circuit from any direction.

- Replace IRPs with several designated lanes for piston AC on VFR, so they can join at any point.

- Lower the restricted zone at Holsworthy so traffic from S and SE can track direct.

In theory these measures would reduce the hotspots away from control. Others more experienced than I would have to work out the details.
___________

[Ian Bryce]

Replying to Owen no 253:

Yes I did in fact send my Review to CASA Office of Airspace Regulation.

PS: I replied to Clinton no 252 at length, but for some reason my reply has not appeared in this list.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

If I was McCormick, I would be wandering down to my environmental monitoring outfit in AirServices and ordering them to do a study of BK and JK immeadiately. Record all the tracks within 30nm of the GAAPs and make my decisions based upon recorded data as to whether I would add IRPs or change procedures around INDIVIDUAL IRP according to actual measurments.(Ambidji mentions it....McCormick should have demanded it BEFORE making sweeping changes)

Then I would make a correlation between busiest periods and tower tapes and then make a decision on any need for training or extra resources to alleviate any congestion problems...it could mean each IRP might need an individual sector frequency leading into and out of the circuit area....with a TWR controller dedicated to just watch that bit of airspace and nothing else. Complete with a TSAD set up to best view the data and look up and straight at that bit of airspace....if that is where the risk is then that is where the resources should be placed.

Ambidji missed the trees for the forest of data.

[Ian Bryce]

Thanks for your comments Clinton.

You ask, "does your model take into account the fact that one of the benefits of IRPs is that outbound and transiting aircraft have known, identifiable points to avoid?"
The answer is no, my model it is not that elaborate. It could be further developed.

The proposal for inbound VFR lanes (marked on charts) might assist in this problem.

Re the closing of Westmead IRP - an idea - could it have been for controller convenience - they have an easier time visually scanning in 2 directions than 3?

You also say "I don’t see how restoration of Westmead would have avoided the recent MAC near TWRN". A short answer is that the numbers are too low for statistical validity in individual cases, and that it why we need a model so we can merge all the actual cases.
A second answer is the "push around effect" - closing Westmead forced traffic from the north around to PSP, and the increased density there led more traffic from the west to choose TWRN.

Regarding visibility of TWRN (and Westmead in the past) - why not place a strobe light there? (Could equally well help to locate an inbound VFR lane).

[LeadSled]

I believe I said earlier “I believe for Moorabbin, Jandakot and Bankstown, historic mid-air collision rates were used, not calculated rates based on the FAA formula.” Yes?

Owen,

I am reminded of the old saw:" You think you know what I meant, but what you didn't know was that I didn't say what I mean".

Without causing you to to get so worked up that you are in danger of popping your foofle valve, could I suggest you look carefully at what Ambidjii have done (probably more correctly --- what is so fundamentally wrong with the processes CASA has inherited from Airservices) with the data. Please have a closer look at how and when/where Ambidjii have selected data, then midcalculated. Perhaps you could explain why they have excluded the long period of time (often with higher movement rates than the last nine years) when there were ZERO MAC.

A few of us with direct experience of the matter (including a number of CFIs/ATOs/CPs at YSBK) have very supportable opinions on why we have had the recent MACs, and it IS NOT GAAP procedures at the heart of the problem.

As I have said, and many agree, the results fail the common sense test.

I know Dick's source of analysis here, a very well know and highly respected, (and published) practitioner in the risk management field, with wide industry experience, including (especially) aviation. I would go so far as to say he could lay claim to being "the father" of modern industrial risk management in Australia (a different field to reliability analysis --- where some of our self proclaimed academic aviation "risk" experts hail from), who has had significant input into the ARM model, and AS/NZ 4360:1999 and 2004. He has done some masterful analysis on the use and abuse of the ARM model, all published. He is professionally, in all respects, on a par with Professor O'Neil at ANU.

Tootle pip!!

[Ian Bryce]

A word on statistical techniques - how to predict from sparse data.
Leadsled said in post 259:

"Perhaps you could explain why [Ambidji] have excluded the long period of time (often with higher movement rates than the last nine years) when there were ZERO MACs".
A good question - it is a common problem that the actual data is too thin to analyse normally. We have 40 years data but when split into decades there are too few MACs to get a smooth curve.
One is tempted to take an average of the lot - but this gives equal weight to ancient data when practices and technologies were different.
Or one can take the latest year, decade, 20 yrs etc - but the weighting jumps from zero to full at some arbitrary date.

A sounder approach is to apply most significance to the latest data (eg decade), less to the previous decade, and even less to the previous again, etc. There is no sharp cutoff. One only needs to decide on a "relaxation period" where the technology has changed a certain amount, and where the relative weighting falls to 1/e = 0.368.

It is called "exponentially reducing weighting" and is all in Wiki.

I used this method (page 9), taking a relaxation period of 30 years (the results are not very sensitive to this). Thus to predict future MACS, we take a weighted average of all past data. The actuals for 2000-09 are weighted with 1.0, for 1990-99 with 0,717, for 1980-89 with 0.513, and for 1969-70 with 0.368. The result for BK is a rate of 0.16 pa. (The Springside MAC model, unifying all 6 aerodromes, later gives 0.14 for BK.

This method optimally combines the empty decade with the high decade, and all the other data. One rule for all sites. No discussion or selection of the "best feeling" data is necessary.

[Capn Bloggs]

this gives equal weight to ancient data when practices and technologies were different.
For a start, since we didn't have whizzbang gadgets in the cockpit such as GPS in the 70s to distract us, the only thing we could do to be entertained was to LOOK OUT, a technique which is known to help prevent MACs in low speed circuit environments. :}

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ahhhhhh Bloggsy.......how does your theory explain the MACs that occured from 67 to 78?????:hmm:

More likely a standard of training or a change in rules OR a reduction in services around 02.....now what happened about that time?

[Big_Binocs]

Re the closing of Westmead IRP - an idea - could it have been for controller convenience - they have an easier time visually scanning in 2 directions than 3?



If I recall correctly, Westmead was removed to reduce the amount of VCAs into the Sydney CTR, I'm not sure but I think there was also some redrawing of the SY CTR to assist this as well as some changes to improve the flow of traffic through the LOE. There were probably even other reasons as well. Nothing to do with making it "easier" for controllers, we seem to do fine watching five IRPs at Camden. However, watching 360 IRPs is going to be a pain! :eek: Although at YSBK it would really only be about 125.:E

There IS a strobe at 2RN, on a smaller tower near the base. And if I remember right there still are strobes in the LOE and there were even some that led you to WST when it was there, not sure though my memory ain't what it used to be.

My understanding of the actual 2RN IRP is that you would fly roughly over the arrow on the VTC, on the south side of the Mast. This is assuming the pilot of the aeroplane is sitting on the left side of the plane thereby being able to comfortably and easily look out his window and down at the mast as he approaches and make the report abeam it. That would appear to be the logical correlation between the VTC markings and the inbound procedure, and in line with the reccommended inbound tracks. I'm not a pilot so I couldn't say how an aviator might interpret it. But other than someone driving a chopper, the Optica or the P68 Observer, if you flew right over the mast how would you see it?

Anecdotally, I can say that watching aircraft inbound all day on the TSAD, that PSP must be about 6 miles wide. I would hazard a professional guesstimate and say that no more than 10% of aircraft are actually at the correct point when reporting "AT Prospect" or 2RN for that matter. Very few pilots actually give correct positions with their inbound call. The majority of PSP and 2RN traffic are usually 2-3NM from the correct IRP in a variety of directions. Although I will say that reporting for 2RN is marginally better than PSP.

I sometimes think that pilots have forgotten the art of accurate reporting or they don't realise that those calls aren't just for the benefit of the Tower controller but for situational awareness of other aircraft as well! Truly, we would be giddy with delight if everyone reported their "actual" position e.g. "2 miles west of Prospect" or "1 mile south of 2RN" or be AT the IRP when they say they are.

I'm not a statistician or a mathematical genius (I have enough trouble just counting to 6 :E), but I think that going from two to three IRPs and saying that it will significantly reduce the chance of a MAC is a bit simplistic. 40 IRPs is not going to prevent two aircraft in bound from Camden and using 2RN potentially having a MAC.

Also, I would think that even if there were no fixed IRPs that schools would tend to teach their students a "standard route" to approach the field for ease of training, standardisation etc and that these would probably be as obvious and valid to other schools as well. So you would tend to get "clustering" of inbound aircraft routes anyway. Not to mention "inbound 6 miles west of YSBK" could be anywhere and is not very informative for situational awareness.

As for having no fixed IRPs, with my admittedly basic understanding gained from the ATSB and NTSB documents I have trawled from the web, MACs have an increased risk when there are shallow converging angles and same direction involved e.g. less than 30? degrees between inbound tracks. That old "constant reference in the window thingy". This is potentially more likely with no fixed IRP, how would you model that risk? Not to forget the increased risk of head-on MAC. I think people forget the segregated altitudes only apply in the CTR. Particularly off 29, most departing aircraft get to the boundary and immediately climb when in G.

Increasing the amount of IRPs or getting rid of them altogether after only one MAC seems to be more a knee-jerk reaction. In Australia, more GA MACs at aerodromes occur in the circuit and usually around final, or so I understand from the ATSB Discussion Paper B2004/0114 ,May 2004 Review of Midair Collisions Involving General Aviation Aircraft in Australia between 1961 and 2003.


The majority of YSBK traffic will naturally use 2RN and PSP because of the geography, structure of airspace, the location of the training area and the two IFR arrival routes ( Watle4 & Ric4 STARS) track through them. Anecdotally I would have to say that I think that only 20% of our traffic, at most, would actually use WST if it came back and the majority of those would be helicopters.

Anyway, just my 2c worth. :ok:

Of course these are solely my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer or colleagues.

[LeadSled]

Ian,
With respect, I would make the following comments:

A good question - it is a common problem that the actual data is too thin to analyse normally. We have 40 years data but when split into decades there are too few MACs to get a smooth curve.

In fact, the sample is so small that we can examine the circumstances of each MAC --- and we have, and there is no common trend, each one was unique. In my view, attempting to draw any conclusions from smoothing the data does nor produce a valid outcome.

What I have already alluded to is "other factors" that have become evident in the last "9" years (MACs are only party of the story) that have resulted in some disturbing trends ---- beyond, of course, the fact that GA is dying.

There is no sharp cutoff. One only needs to decide on a "relaxation period" where the technology has changed a certain amount,

Except for one problem, there have been NO significant technology changes, indeed most of the GA fleet is 30 or more years old.

A new C-172 is just an old C-172 (including the grandfathered certification standards) with Garmin glass added, lovely stuff, but it doesn't change how you fly around a VFR circuit --- or shouldn't, and in any event there are only a relative handful of such aircraft in the civil fleet. There is no shortage of data on fleet average age.

A rigid fact of life for many flying schools is that the only affordable replacement a for a 30-40 year old C-152 is a rebuilt 30-40 year old C-152--- or a PA-23 likewise.

There are aircraft in daily use today, that I first flew "out of the box" 40+ years ago. Despite comments in another post, I don't believe pilots are "head down" mucking around with GPS in the circuit, and GPS is about the only major piece of "technology" that you could call new.

The training syllabus has been mucked around with in that time, for little benefit, but the core syllabus has not really changed much since the mid-1930 --- but how the volume and style of regulation has changed.

There has been significant technology change in the above period, as it effects air transport, both aircraft and CNS/ATM, but not General Aviation.

A mass of historical data is available, Bankstown, Archerfield and Moorrabin are quite places these days, compared to the mid-60s to the mid-70s.

Tootle pip!!

[Frank Arouet]

http://i465.photobucket.com/albums/rr13/scud_2008/hours20flown202006e.gif

[Capn Bloggs]

Caused in part by incessant (and unnecessary) mucking around with what used to be a simple, straightforward, easily understood airspace system that "had" to be changed to match the rest of the world, driving people away from flying in droves. What a crock. :yuk:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

In fact, the sample is so small that we can examine the circumstances of each MAC --- and we have, and there is no common trend, each one was unique. In my view, attempting to draw any conclusions from smoothing the data does nor produce a valid outcome.-Leadsled

Statistics-The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling.

Why do we use statistics? This goes back to my highschool ed......forest for the trees stuff....this sample is so bloody small we can study each individual event and make a judgment on each individual event. We can see the DIRECT relationship between each event or aspects of each event common to all others without the need to apply a model. Bugga me, its was there right in front of me all the time. Our 17MACs over the last fourty years as opposed to a sample available in the US.

We can (and do) apply the cause(s) of each individual event as a set of rules...."Our rules are written with the blood of our martyrs." As it has always been in Australian aviation....every major prang brings about a new rule to stop us from re-enacting that terrible event. What stat will predict that!

This then presents a problem for continued changes to airspace rules...if a statistical model cannot be applied because the probability is incalculable on such a small "Sample" of events....then....how is it possible to place a value on a statistically insignificant probability of an accident occuring and the old rules or even any new rules?....or in plain english...."how much do you want to bet that an accident will NOT happen under a rule change to ICAO D/C or even FAA D?"

Leadsled, I take it that you support the retention of GAAP based on your belief that the MAC events that DID occur over the years since introduction have little, arguably so, to do with procedures.

WHERE is the US Safety case for their D and E airspace arrangements?
Considering the FAA modified and codified what was the Done Thing by US aviators. You have to ask...as does Ambidji...is the US operating in a high risk environment?

[Frank Arouet]

Caused in part by incessant (and unnecessary) mucking around with what used to be a simple, straightforward, easily understood airspace system

Capn Bloggs;

Maybe: But you ignore a succession of government’s with a culture of NOT supporting general aviation in this Country because there are no votes in it for them, an apathetic industry, over regulation and under representation, prescriptive knee jerk reactions to problems that don’t exist, an indolent-incompetent and aggressive Regulator, increasing maintenance costs, mandatory paperwork requirements, training issues, medical bastardry, regulatory corruption, cronyism, decreasing aircraft ownership, ownership costs, threats of forced technology with no appreciative benefit, ASIC, AVID, with associated perpetual costs, petty changes such as security locking devices, the security controlled airports farce, wasted taxpayers money with aggressive and adventurist legal pursuits and increasing costs to maintain and increase the bureaucracy may have something to do with it as well.

Finally something peculiar to Australian aviation, an over opinionated population of so called professional demigod’s who can’t get over the idea that they don’t own the entire sky and enthusiastically vilify and defame others may have an opinion that clashes with their own agendas. The same experts who can’t quiet grasp the concept of divide and conquer. A concept that those who are the main cause of the problems are exploiting.

[LeadSled]

Clinton,

I would make the following comments:

For example, if your observations about the GAAP MAC sample size and the consequences for the conclusions that may or may not be validly drawn from the data are correct, there is no valid basis upon which to compare Australian and US MAC rates.

In the context of the Ambidjii report, they are effectively saying that 350 or so US Class D zones are operating at an intolerable level of risk. Quite apart from any FAA/AOPA/FSF view on that matter, the aviation insurance underwriting sector does not see it that way, either.

In my opinion, only broad generalizations can be drawn by comparisons, such as (unsurprisingly) that collision risk is greater in the circuit area than en-route (despite a in my opinion hilariously inept study by Airservices, that neglected the fact that most of the US mid-west is around 5-6,000 ft AMSL).
However, MACs are rare enough in US that they too can be looked at individually.

The major conclusion I draw: that MAC is not a major cause of incidents or accident, given the "big picture", but looking at the Australia reaction to matters airspace, that are entirely uncontentious in just about any other country, one could easily get the impression that MACs were the biggest air safety problem in Australia.

In about March 2002 (or thereabouts, give or take about a year) US FSF did an interesting study on Australia's air safety record, every Australian pilot, LAME and ATC should read it.


Yet some people seem to have no compunction in extrapolating Australian accident/incident rates and concluding that Australia has a higher accident/incident rate than the US.

One of the problems we have here, is the belief that Australia has the world's best air safety record, a severe case of "rose coloured glasses". We are fond of quoting "jet fatalities", and can't even get that right, we have had one, wiped out most of the Mareeba Council, but we confine ourselves to "RPT" jet, and pat ourselves on the back. Selectively narrow down the definitions enough, and the record will always be perfect

Given the size of the whole Australian fleet, provided you don't overdo it, a study of the Australia accident and incident rates is instructive. As far as I am concerned, ICAO categories should be used, but we fiddle with that, too, to produce "more flattering" figures.

Some time ago, a study was commissioned, using well known insurance co. investigators, and independent (of underwriters and the aviation sector) statisticians. The then Minister had the whole paper checked by the US NTSB, who concurred with the results, including the caveats as to the limitations of interpretations.

The results, overall and in individual categories, did rather lift the rose coloured glasses for that Minister.

Prorata, GA came out the best of the categories vis a vie USA, the RPT accident and incident rates were not good. Australia did come out better than "JAA" countries. CIS states and Africa (except SA) were not included. I have no reason to believe, based on the record since, that we have significantly improved. Most of the "apparent" improvement in recent years is just that, apparent rather than real, a change in the balance of who is doing what within categories.

I'll leave experts like Ian to grapple with the issue, but I understand, from a number of experts in the area, that the number of hours/miles flown by Australian aircraft is still so small as to still be statistically insignificant.

There is an interesting paper that is a contribution to the current Aviation Green Paper, saying exactly that. It has been suggest that the loss of a single B737NG would catapult Australia from "the best" to close to the worst.

There are no shortage of individual airlines that have more high capacity transport aircraft that all operators in Australia combined, who have excellent accident/incident records.

In my opinion, just about the biggest threat to air safety is complacency, there is no shortage of complacency in the areas at which I am looking.

Tootle pip!!

Late PS: The differences in accident with the US/Australia study mentioned above were so great that no amount of Australian/CASA "rationalization" about errors/incompleteness of US data collection could explain away the differences.

There was NO category where Australia equaled or bettered the US.

What really surprised me was how bad the western Europe/UK figures were, leading to the obvious connection between draconian regulation and air safety outcomes ----- is there a proportional relationship with the volume of regulation and the accident/incident rate. Again, Africa excluded.

The greater the regulatory burden, the greater the accident rate ----is almost a valid conclusion from the public databases.

If the US consistently produces the world's best air safety outcomes, in all categories (and they do --- have a really good look at 20 year running averages) what are we, or the UK CAA, etc., achieving, except running aviation into the ground.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

[/REBOOT]

Leadsled could you PLEASE just stick to one side of the argument!

[Big_Binocs]

Clinton


One question for ATC'ers re Westmead: Would reinstatement of the Westmead IRP create any complications for EMS helos getting in and out of the HLS at the hospital?


That little wedge of airspace between YSBK and WST would be a very congested piece of airspace if WST were reinstated.

As it stands now there are numerous heli ops in that area with choppers operating in all directions at various altitudes, there is the heliport at RSH, the entry/exit to R405, floatplanes to the harbour and aircraft departing north from YSBK.

The Medical choppers already contend with that and manage to negotiate transit through PSP and the LOE into WST, whether they currently encounter complications with just that mix I do not know. I would suggest that if you were to add more fixed wing traffic transitting that area into and out of YSBK that there aren't enough eyes in the world to keep an effective lookout for traffic that could be anywhere and tracking any which way at various altitudes and probably totally unannounced, no alerted see-and-avoid. That's a lot of criss-crossing traffic, compressed into an operating area less than 2000ft and what about the entry/exit altitudes for YSBK?

Personally I don't see WST being reopened, or the need for it either. The VCA prevention for the SY CTR would probably rate as more important. But I also didn't think I'd see GAAP turn into D in my time either so what would I know? :O

As others have mentioned I think better education and compliance would be a more effective option. And not only for student pilots and instructors, there are plenty of "professionals" and private pilots who seem to have the same troubles.:E

Cheers

[Capn Bloggs]

So Leadsled, after that spiel, introducing ICAO airpsace will solve all our problems? I say "not likely". :rolleyes:

[LeadSled]

So Leadsled, after that spiel, introducing ICAO airpsace will solve all our problems? I say "not likely".

Bloggs,

My dear chap, that is not what I said,and you know it.

If you think I did say that, could I suggest a remedial reading and comprehension course, or re-read what I have said, having removed your fogged up goggles --- probably caused by too much heavy breathing.

I am not going to bother repeating what I have written several times, why bother, you don't want to know.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Clinton,
Some joker one said: 'Statistics are like a bikini, what they reveal is interesting, what they conceal is vital".

MACs, around GAAPs or anywhere, are a very (thankfully) rare occurrence. As to whether the hours for all Australian aviation are enough to be able to draw conclusions that are statistically valid --- the "probable answer" is --- yes, no or maybe ---- depending on your point of view.

Are we using statistics in spite of, not because of, their validity. Rightly or wrongly, we do us them. All to often for seriously wrong purposes. The plight of flying schools in GAAPs, their continued viability, is very seriously in doubt, because seriously flawed conclusion from sparse data has, in my opinion, been misapplied ---- I would just love to know who really advised John McCormick.

Re. the "jet fatality rate", "jet" airline aircraft are a small total of the fleet, have a look at fleet hours, the one undeniable is that the majority of passengers exposed to any aeronautical risk travel on HCRPT jet aircraft, regardless of hours flown, sectors, takeoff and landings and so on, any of the "exposure rates" puzzled over.

The one "constant" that always surprised me is the categories of all the accidents, or more correctly, the similarities in accidents, regardless of the "culture" of the state/regulator. Thinx?? Maybe we should do a study of the quality versus the quantity of enforcement, and whether improved air safety outcomes are the aim, versus ---- scalps on belts, or "enforcement revenue" meeting and exceeding budget targets.

Even though I think FAA/FSF/AOPA/EAA/NBAA/ATA etc. have done a good job in the area of low speed handling accidents, for FAAland it is the rate that has been lowered, not the proportion of accidents attributed to handling errors, versus CFIT or VFR into IMC, compared to here or the western European states.

Thus, handling standards/errors are still well up the FAA priority list, despite the lowered rates over the last 15-20 years.

Until something better comes along, we are stuck with what we have, the one thing I am certain about, is that the overall and category record of the US, their air safety outcomes, are head and shoulders above the rest of us.

Comparatively speaking, Australia ain't too bad, but not nearly as good as we think we are, or as good as we should be. You would be a game person to ignore what US has achieved, but for various not very meritorious reasons, we ignore or discount
the US record time and again. Such is nationalism.

Tootle pip!!

[peuce]

My feeling is that our MAC occurrences are so low that they probably fall into the "poop sometimes happens" category ... and that we may spend millions of dollars changing, amending, creating, harmonising airspace ... for no decrease in the MAC figures. Is it really possible to get it to nil, or is there always going to be a certain number of MACs per year?

[peuce]

And another thing ....

Was just thinking about the reliability of aviation statistics and the following scenario came to mind. All the figures are just made up.

Say, the big fella in the sky has decided that, at an aerodrome with 100,000 movements per year, the law of averages will dictate that there are 3 MACs per year.

Now, say, in the country of Gamaria, there is not a large spread of flying activity outside of such aerodromes. Therefore the percentage of MACs per year would be artificially higher than say, in a country with the same number of aircraft and flying hours ... but with a much wider spread of aviation activity outside such aerodromes.

Could we substitute Australia and the USA in this scenario?

My point is that if we are to compare safety records ... comparing events per aircraft or flying hour is not necessarily a valid technique ... without taking into account many other significant factors.

[Ian Bryce]

How to analyse the small number of MAC’s in Oz? Some have said the number is small enough to look at each accident individually. Yes that’s fine – but that does not negate the value of a statistical approach.
And the best statistical approach is start with the exponentially reducing weighting which I described. This applied to each GAAP aerodrome individually, to yield the best estimate of current MAC rates. (Later a model is fitted to those averages).

Others have said “poop happens” at random - and there is no point in analysing the MAC numbers.

And Peuce wrote in #281: “My point is that if we are to compare safety records [over countries with different conditions], then comparing events per aircraft or flying hour is not necessarily a valid technique ... without taking into account many other significant factors”.

Yes quite. This brings in the second stage - modelling. When the common sense is implemented in mathematics, this field is called “analysis of variation”. One measures the overall variability of the data, then applies a candidate model, and recalculates the residual variation. If it is much less, then the model was a good one.

That is what I did. Using only the traffic at each aerodrome (pretty obvious), there was a clear reduction in variation, so that is an important factor.
Then I applied my second hunch – congestion at the boundary – and, after tuning, this reduced the variation further, so that factor is likely to be a real contributor also.

This does not rule other relevant factors - but they would belong in a more detailed layer.

Finally, this model is, I hold, the best estimate for the future, and should be taken as the “baseline MAC rate”. Being about half the Ambidji figure, it (along with the other errors) overturns their conclusions.

Leadsled #273 wrote:
“…one could easily get the impression that MACs were the biggest air safety problem in Australia.”

Yes, the Ambidji report reads as if midairs were the ONLY problem in Australia – because their brief was to investigate ATC under GAAP, which clearly affect mid-airs but less other accidents.

Their problem is that in they go on to draw conclusions about the total individual risk (to each pilot), and the total societal risk (to all pilots collectively) – after considering only one contribution.

They do not even mention single-aircraft accidents which are much more frequent. Nor do they mention ANY accidents outside GAAP procedures. No do they mention risk to third parties, ie those on the ground.

For example, according to Aviation Statistics, there were 1896 single-AC accidents in the last 10 years, but only 24 MACs. (Unfortunately their breakdown does not extend to fatalities.)

Leadsled wrote:
“Some time ago, a study was commissioned, using well known insurance co. investigators, and independent (of underwriters and the aviation sector) statisticians…”
Do you have a name or reference for that please?

[Capn Bloggs]

there is not a large spread of flying activity outside of such aerodromes. Therefore the percentage of MACs per year would be artificially higher than say, in a country with the same number of aircraft and flying hours ... but with a much wider spread of aviation activity outside such aerodromes.
I have pointed this out to Dick on numerous occasions, conveniently ignored, of course. We may have 1/20th of the flying that the US has but we also have 90% of our continent where almost NO flying occurs at all. In contrast, a quick look at a flying activity map of the US shows that flying goes on all over the US, thereby diluting the apparent "rate" of flying in any one spot. To say they have 20 times the traffic and so must be safer because their MAC rate is the same or less is plain nonsense.

As for Leadsled's:
One of the problems we have here, is the belief that Australia has the world's best air safety record, a severe case of "rose coloured glasses". We are fond of quoting "jet fatalities", and can't even get that right, we have had one, wiped out most of the Mareeba Council, but we confine ourselves to "RPT" jet, and pat ourselves on the back. Selectively narrow down the definitions enough, and the record will always be perfect
Rose coloured glasses? Rubbish. Most people in my part of the industry don't "pat each other on the back" over our allegedly fantastic safety record. And anybody who seriously includes the Mareeba prang in our "jet" record really is pushing the credibility boundary. :cool:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Then I applied my second hunch – congestion at the boundary – and, after tuning, this reduced the variation further, so that factor is likely to be a real contributor also.

You Think?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Ian, if you must follow a model, have a look at the stats from here (http://www.hf.faa.gov/docs/508/docs/cami/0109.pdf) and what the FAA studied in pilot visual acquisition of traffic.

Take note of the figures resulting in reduced radio congestion and enhanced traffic acquisition...what we are all about in dirt road class G. Less time on the radio and more time acquiring targets...the technolgy that enhances this is worth a hundred years of statistical studies into accidents.

These devices will enable pilots to acquire the aircraft and verify the identity of any intruder within the general area either before, or in accordance with, a controller-issued traffic advisory or alert.

A13% increase in positive sighting reports with a corresponding decrease to near zero (2%) of a negative sighting report as opposed to 18% without a CDTI.