NAS on the skids?

[BIK_116.80]

KAPTAIN KREMIN,

Your post amuses me.

If you are who others infer you are then you are certainly not and never have been a Professional Pilot.

It seems likely that you have allowed others to mislead you.

Most ATC's I have met, have or do fly.

Yep – many do.

But they also know which side their bread is buttered on. It’s the ATCing income that pays their mortgage – not the flying income.

They and the airport operators provide a valid angle and input to this debate. Why oh why should you wish to exclude them?

Yep – I agree that they do. I have not suggested that they should be excluded.

Rather, I’ve suggested that it would be desirable to be able to more clearly and more readily identify the vested interests of contributors.

Rather than coming on to a pilots forum and posting as if they were pilots, why don’t ATCers prefix their opinions with something like “I’m proud to be an air traffic controller and I reckon....”

I can respect someone like WALLEY2 when he says :

I for one state clearly I am not a prof pilot or ATC....I am an airport Engineer.

From what I can see the vast majority of the anti-NAS posts on these forums are from ATCers. In my mind those posts don’t carry the same weight as posts made by pilots because ATCers are suppliers with a service to sell. Pilots are the customers who may or may not actually require the service being offered. Air traffic control exists to service the needs of pilots – not the other way round. It’s the needs of the pilots that should be paramount – not the needs of the air traffic controllers.

As I said earelier :

....what’s in the best interests of air traffic controllers is not always precisely the same as (and in many cases is diametrically opposed to) what’s in the best interests of pilots.

I was once accosted by a small group of street spruikers touting for business outside a Kings Cross adult entertainment venue. They were polished salesmen with a service to sell and their pitch was quite compelling. They insisted that the service they were selling was of a high quality. They were quite certain that the service they were selling was infinitely more preferable than the alternatives – both locally and overseas. They pointed out the many and varied virtues of the service they were selling and they explained how utilising their service would bring life enhancing happiness. They were able to argue quite convincingly, as you would expect from someone who’s livelihood depended on it, that there was no possible way that I could enjoy a satisfactory life unless I bought the service they were selling.

At the end of the day a decision to buy (or not) came down to these three questions :

• Did I need or want the service they were selling? No.
  
• Was I going to use the service they were selling? No.
  
• Was I willing to pay for a service that I neither needed nor wanted and that I did not use? No.

As far as I can see many of the anti-NAS posts from ATCers are analogous to a group of street spruikers touting for business outside a Kings Cross adult entertainment venue. They have a service to sell and they need customers.

The real question is whether or not the customers need or want the service that they have to sell.

G’day Keg,

It’s nice to see another pilot on here.

AIPA represents about 2300 Qantas pilots and the AFAP takes care of DJ, various parts of Qantas Link and so on.

How many of those many thousands of pilots have the RPT pilot’s unions formally and explicitly sought an opinion from (in relation to NAS)?

Of those who’s opinions have been formally sought and obtained and who have concerns about NAS, what, precisely, is the nature of their concerns?

What proportion of these concerns are from people who would be anti anything that Dick Smith is associated with, irrespective of any merits a proposal might have?

What proportion of these concerns are philosophical concerns rather than operational concerns? (ie wanting a Rolls Royce airspace system whether it is really needed or not, irrespective of cost)

To what extent is the AIPA / AFAP letter simply an example of the trade union movement closing ranks? What quid-pro-quo arrangements have been put in place between Civil Air and AIPA / AFAP? Has the ATC trade union agreed to support the RPT pilot unions next time they find themselves involved in a dispute?

Organisations that represent 90%+ of the RPT pilots in the country reckon that NAS has significant flaws in it.

Ah yes – but what do the pilots think? You’ve only told us what the trade unions think.

Even if AIPA and AFAP have obtained the detailed opinions of every one of their several thousand members (and I am quite certain that they have not), these pilots do not own the sky to the exclusion of all others.

According to the most up to date figures available on the CASA website, there are 33,127 pilots in Australia. Members of the RPT pilot unions are just a small fraction of the Australian pilot population.

I suspect that some of the RPT pilots would prefer it if the sky was theirs and theirs alone. I refer to snarek’s post : Between the NAS lines.

I can understand that some RPT pilots might wish that their airline employers held a commercial monopoly on the sky, but thankfully Australian society does not work that way. In Australia the bloke in his Cessna 182 has just as much right to fly as the sky-gods in their Scandinavian turbo-prop or the super-heros in their Long Beach kero-burner.

Thank god Australia isn’t like some countries – private aircraft ownership not allowed, VFR flights not allowed, all airspace (effectively) class A. I’m sure that such an arrangement might suit some of the RPT pilots. Thankfully, that isn’t the way it works in Australia.

WALLEY2,

Thank you for being upfront and stating that you are not a pilot.

I am a pilot.

DickyBaby,

I just can't reconcile a system where you do whatever you want whilst the RPTs pay for it.

I am more than happy to pay for all the services I need.

I chose to fly VFR because I don’t want to have to pay to be delayed.

I don’t need or use any of the services that AsA has to offer.

Please send me a bill for $0.00.

You can't do everything for free - be satisfied with a balance that ensures that someone will come looking for you when you don't cancel your SARtime (indeed that there's somewhere for you to lodge your SARtime)

If I needed or wanted a government department to keep a SARtime for me then I would be happy to pay for it.

But I don’t.

To be entirely honest I can’t even remember the last time I bothered using a SARtime for a VFR flight. I can’t see the point - unless you don’t have any friends.

If you do have friends then it is far more effective and efficient to leave a flight note with one of them, rather than generate work for an expensive government bureaucracy.

In my view the government SARtime service for VFR flights is a complete waste of time because it is no more effective than leaving a flight note with a responsible person.

I am reminded of VH-JTI, a TB20 Trinidad that crashed near Kanangra Walls (just a few miles from Bindook) on a foggy Sunday in October 1993.

The aircraft had set out from Bankstown on a VFR flight to Forbes. The Trinidad was piloted by 20 year old Scott Grezzle and travelling with him as a passenger was his good friend, 21 year old Hamish Wallace. The pilot had about a hundred hours flying experience and was not instrument rated.

The clouds were very low on the hills that day and after a fair amount of ducking and weaving trying to find a way across the Great Dividing Range the aircraft collided with rising terrain at the western end of a steep gully.

Both occupants survived the crash, but were miles from civilisation and were suffering from impact injuries and shock. They would soon be suffering from exposure too.

In accordance with the aircraft operator’s advice, the pilot had nominated a SARtime with air traffic services. An uncertainty phase was declared when the aircraft failed to report its safe arrival at Forbes.

Barbara Wallace, the passenger’s mother, was contacted by telephone. She was asked if she knew where VH-JTI was, and was informed that the aircraft was overdue.

Barbara was understandably confused, mystified, and angry.

“You are the air traffic controllers – aren’t YOU supposed to know where the planes are?!? Why are you asking me where the plane is? What do you mean ‘you don’t know where the plane is?!?’”

The pilot had used the government’s SARtime service – the highest level of government SARwatch available to the non-instrument rated pilot. But the best the authorities could do was to telephone the passenger’s mother to ask he if she had heard from them.

The young pilot and his passenger were no better off for having nominated a SARtime with air traffic services than they would have been if they had left an appropriately detailed flight note with a responsible person.

Government SARtimes for VFR flights are a complete waste of time – a flight note with a responsible person is just as good.

(Both young men subsequently died.)

....and equally when you do go flying at 70KTS true, the SAAB running up your arse gets reasonable warning before the flysh!t on the windscreen sprouts wings.

I can’t remember the last time I flew at 70 knots TAS above about 1,000 feet AGL. If the SAAB is at or below 1,000 feet AGL then I would expect that he is in the circuit area of an aerodrome – most likely on base leg or on final. He wont have to look out the window – he would already be aware of me from his TCAS display and from my “all stations” broadcasts on the appropriate CTAF frequency. I’d be aware of him too.

Once again, I’m happy to pay for all the air traffic control services I need - ie none.

The 6000 odd pilots and controllers whose signatures are behind the letter to the Minister should be entitled to a say.

Of course they are entitled to a say. No one is suggesting otherwise. See earlier.

ferris,

Another disappointing post from you.

You consistently seem to bite off more than you can successfully masticate in your attempts to instigate an unarmed battle of wits.

I can only find two comments in your post that are worthy of reply :

It must really gall you that the internet allows an information flow that can't be stifled by power and influence.

I disagree completely with that ridiculous assertion.

I fail to understand how you could even come to such a conclusion.

Here, yet again, we have an anti-NAS thread populated predominantly by contributions from wealthy gents with country estates.

Lets deal with each element of this non-sense separately.

wealthy : are you trying to suggest that if a person is “wealthy” (whatever that means) that their opinion should count for less than a person who is not “wealthy”? By this reasoning, should the poorest people in society have the greatest say?

gents : are you trying to suggest that if a person is a “gent” (do you mean ‘an adult male’, or do you mean ‘of good character - not a scoundrel’, or do you mean ‘of upper-middle-class social status’) their opinion should count for less than a person who is not a “gent”? By this reasoning, should female children from lower social classes who are scoundrels have the greatest say?

country estates : are you trying to suggest that if a person owns a “country estate” that their opinion should count for less than a person who does not own a “country estate”? By this reasoning, should those who do not hold property have the greatest say?

By your reasoning, poor female children from lower social classes who are scoundrels and who don’t hold property should be running the country!

Your comments are nothing more than your typical left-wing socialist non-sense, as I am sure you are already aware.

QSK?

....there's a good chance that the controllers who participate in Pprune are also recreational, or semi-professional, pilots who, I'm sure, would have a vested interest in ensuring that any system they participate in as flyers offers an acceptable level of personal safety....

Indeed, many of them are.

But it’s the ATCing income that pays their mortgage – not the flying income.

....for a controller to lose a life on their sector or shift (particularly when the distress event is protracted and very personal) would have to be one of the most shockingly traumatic events they could experience....

Oh boo-hoo!

Would you say that the air traffic controller’s trauma would be more or less than the trauma experienced by a pilot or passenger in an aircraft involved in a mid-air collision?

Are you trying to suggest that the primary airspace design criteria should be that it doesn’t upset the air traffic controllers?

Tell you what, let’s go one step further – remove the air traffic controllers altogether so that there is no risk that they will get upset. Let the pilots work out their own mutually arranged separation, as already happens at most Australian aerodromes. We wouldn’t want to risk an air traffic controller getting upset now.

Do you think the controllers on duty, when the mid-air collision occurred at Bankstown last year, just went home....

Thank you for raising the subject of the VH-IBK v VH-JTV mid-air collision at Bankstown. It raises a number of interesting issues.

In the last few years there have been two fatal mid-air collisions at capital city GA airports – one at Bankstown and one at Moorabbin.

It’s interesting to compare and contrast these two accidents.

The Bankstown accident happened in broad daylight with a light breeze and a total of six aircraft in the circuit.

The Moorabbin accident happened on a clear night with a light breeze and a total of six aircraft in the circuit.

In the Bankstown accident there were three air traffic controllers in the tower providing a GAAP air traffic control service, whereas in the Moorabbin accident the tower was closed and the aircraft were using mutually arranged see and avoid in accordance MBZ procedures.

Without air traffic control there was a fatal mid-air collision at Moorabbin.

With air traffic control there was a fatal mid-air collision at Bankstown.

If the very expensive GAAP air traffic control service is not able to do any better than the pilots’ mutually arranged see and avoid under MBZ procedures then why do we bother incurring the expense of having an air traffic control service?

I think the controllers are entitled to have a say in how the NAS is designed and implemented....

Of course they are – no one is trying to suggest otherwise. See earlier.

....if for no other reason than to ensure that any system they work with provides them with the requisite safety-nets so that they never have to face a situation like the one above, and its associated post-event trauma.

Nope – you’ve lost me there I’m afraid. Air traffic control exists to serve the needs of pilots – not the other way around.

G’day snarek,

More GA pilots than RPT = more votes.

The latest available CASA data says that there are 33,127 active pilots in Australia.

Blastoid,

You advocate the creation of an ATC forum here on the PPRuNe site. For your information, there already is one, hosted on the Civil Air Forum.

I am aware of that forum.

What I don’t understand is why the air traffic controllers don’t use that forum instead of coming on to a pilots forum and appearing as if they were pilots. I don’t imagine that too many pilots would go on there and appear as if they were controllers.

....the many (supposed) ATCs who participate in this forum do so as professionals in the industry,

Air traffic controllers are not part of the aviation industry.

Air traffic controllers are part of a separate support industry which exists to provide a service to the aviation industry.

If we had 1,000,000 more air traffic controllers but 10,000 less aeroplanes you wouldn’t call that a successful and thriving aviation industry, would you? I certainly wouldn’t.

QSK?,

Scenario 1 : you don’t need radar vectors or traffic information or alerted see and avoid to miss the other traffic at 9,500 feet. The probability that you will miss each other is sufficiently great even without the involvement of ATS. It’s the big sky theory. Why try to make work for everyone?

Scenario 2 : Un-notified VFR aircraft have been flying in Australia’s class G airspace for over ten years now. During that time there have been ZERO mid-air collisions in the enroute environment (ie away from an airport). What is the problem that you are trying to solve?

The main difference between the airspace in the USA and that in Australia is not that one has radar and one does not (although it may seem that way to air traffic controllers). No – the real difference is that in the USA there are a gazillion more aircraft. Australia, by comparison, has relatively few aircraft but a comparable amount of sky. Australia doesn’t need expensive ATC radar – the sky is sufficiently large, and the traffic density is sufficiently low, that the statistical probability of a mid-air collision in the enroute environment is so remote that it is not worth worrying about.

PGH,

You sound eminently sensible. Keep up the good work.

tobzalp,

But PGH, what frequency will you be on to hear this inbound call? The CTAF, the area frequency that is not printed on a map (well the boundary any way).

The CTAF, obviously.

Away from the airport the sky is sufficiently large and the collision risk is sufficiently small that I (and I suspect many others) will be listening to the CD-player – not the rabble on VHF.

Jamitupyr,

NAS is a fraud. It is simply about VFR being able to fly “free”. In Aus we don't have the Federal funds to make this so - somebody has to pay, it should be the users (all of them)

I would agree with you that each user should pay for whatever services they need and use.

Since most VFR pilots don’t need or use any AsA services that is precisely what they should be paying for – nothing.

People who buy tickets on airliners are entitled to the respect and safety that a proper en-route and terminal airspace system that captures all traffic to the system will deliver.

I’m not precisely sure what you would call an “airliner”, but if you mean all scheduled passenger flights then you may as well be suggesting that all Australian airspace should be class B. It simply aint gonna happen. Not now and not in a million years from now.

“Tell him he’s dreamin’, son.”