Hempy,
Your aircraft cockpit photo appears to be of a Lockheed KC-130T – a military aircraft operated by the US Marines.
Military pilots are not required to comply with civilian rules.
If that were a civilian aircraft that was flying in Australia then the crew would appear to be in contravention of :
CAR 163A - Responsibility of flight crew to see and avoid aircraft.
Unfortunately, it appears that the aircraft is neither civilian, nor flying. All the engine instrument failure flags are showing. The aircraft is either shutdown and on the ground, or else it has experienced a complete electrical failure!
WALLEY2,
....we helped and pushed to solve a disturbing problem in the skies above our a/p.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
On consultants to maintain the integrity of a Risk analysis....
Integrity of a risk analysis? Couldn’t you just ask Civil Air (the air traffic controllers trade union) to take a look at it? I am assured that they have the highest possible standards of integrity and never ever tell fibs.
I agree there seems to many reports on airspace....
Yep – and I fail to understand why the world needs any more (other than to keep the consultants employed).
SOPS,
....we USED to have a thing called a FLIGHT SERVICE UNIT at places that were served by RPT and GA, but not enough to have a tower.
If the value they added was in excess of their cost of operation then they would still exist. Sadly, it wasn’t, and they don’t. (cue tape of
“As Time Goes By”)
snarek,
....it was a Citation, hardly a PPL!!!
Why not? I know lots of PPLs that fly Citations. Citations are about a hundred times easier to fly than (say) a Twin Comanche or something of that ilk.
Here to Help,
1. Transponder coverage in 'E' airspace must be mandatory.
What does the term
“transponder coverage” mean?
Does it mean
“the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder”?
Or does it mean
“air traffic control radar coverage”?
If it’s the former then I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, I think the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder should be mandatory at all times in all classes of airspace for all aircraft with an electrical generating system capable of powering it.
If it’s the latter then I disagree whole-heartedly – you don’t need air traffic control radar for class E airspace.
Then again, upon reflection, if it means that where there is currently no radar coverage it should be class G airspace (rather than class E) then I’d go for that option for sure!
2. Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.
If there is directed traffic information then it’s not ICAO class G.
ICAO class G = no service, no delay, no charge.
ICAO class F has directed traffic information for participating IFR aircraft, but participation by IFR aircraft is not mandatory.
If Australia is going to use ICAO class F procedures then let’s at least refer to it by the correct name –
class F.
In any event, in my opinion, for the vast majority of Australia’s airspace there is no need for anything more than genuine ICAO class G.
G = Good
3. Replacing MBZs with (US) CTAFs is unsafe, not acceptable.
Why not?
As
snarek has posted :
I see no reason that a no-radio a/c or ultralight can’t operate for the 6 days and 22 hours [per week that] an RPT isn’t at most airports around Oz.
4. Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.
A
“frequency boundary” is not something that is relevant to ICAO class G airspace because there is no
“correct ATS frequency”.
5. Airspace designed to capture normal aircraft operating profiles....
“Capture” them in what class of airspace, exactly? I’d suggest that
“capturing” them in class G would be about right in most cases.
....and ensure protection of IFR flights conducting instrument procedures.
I presume that the word
“protection” implies controlled airspace.
Does this mean that the pros reckon there should be (say) class C airspace around (for example) Ceduna, South Australia, just because there is a published NDB approach?
Nah – that sounds like a backwards step to me. (should create lots of work though)
6. Require Class C steps abutting/over Class D towers, to the base of Class A.
Well that would create lots of jobs and cause lots of unnecessary delays and expense – but for what benefit?
Some of these non-radar class D towers should have been shut down years ago.
For the others, what’s wrong with class G over the top? OK – make it class E to keep up appearances if you really must.
In the UK Boeing 737s and BAe 146s (etc) regularly fly into airports with relatively small class D control zones that are not equipped with air traffic control radar. In many cases the class D control zone is only a few miles across and is surrounded by class G. It all seems to work just fine. What is so different about Australia?
Oh – and raise the base of class A to FL280 (same as RVSM).
7. No 'straight in' approaches for non-radio equipped aircraft.
Sounds reasonable. I’ll plead
“no contest” on that one.
8. Transparent safety case system - nothing hidden or unexplored, mitigation of hazards to be real, not just words.
Increased consultation and exploration with key industry groups.
Waffle waffle waffle. Let’s all have a group hug and sing Koombayah.
9. Financial and/or safety benefit to be clearly identified prior to change.
The only people who believe that NAS wont lead to a reduction in the number of air traffic controllers are the air traffic controllers.
10. Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
Why?
What’s important in busy terminal areas is that the
pilots know where the aircraft are. Whether some third-party ground-based air traffic control service knows where the planes are is largely irrelevant.
AirNoServicesAustralia,
....the PPL/AOPA guys on here never seemed to answer the concerns and questions put forward by the aviation professionals....
Since I am neither a PPL nor a member of AOPA I’ll leave that comment for those who are (although if
gaunty keeps going the way he is going he might be able to twist my arm and get me to sign up
).
....its ok for me in my bugsmasher....
A number of people that you dismissively deride fly 400 knot
“bugsmashers”. More like bug
obliterators I’d say!