PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - NAS Frequency Boundaries continued.
View Single Post
Old 7th Nov 2003, 06:45
  #1 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Angry NAS Frequency Boundaries continued.

Some selected hansard.

Senator O’BRIEN—I have been informed that the meeting insisted on the inclusion of common
appropriate—that is, area radio—frequencies on both instrument flying rules and visual flying rules charts
together with their relevant FIO boundaries.

Senator O’BRIEN—I am informed that that meeting resolved that, although the removal of certain items
from the maps might be compliant with the USA model, it was deemed unacceptable to occur without the fullscale
architecture—that is, the risks were too high.
Senator O’BRIEN—There is a dispute about radio frequencies in these charts. As I understand it, the ARG
deemed that meeting’s view inappropriate and decided to proceed without the frequency information being
included on the charts.
Senator O’BRIEN—That is the key, is it not? Those of us who are progressing these reforms know better
than the industry. That is what you are saying.
Senator O’BRIEN—So there is virtually little point in these processes of workshops. It is a pretty
insurmountable challenge. You cannot make a case unless there is some acceptance that this is a unique to
Australia circumstance—in an industry which has international characteristics.
Senator O’BRIEN—My understanding of the issue being complained about is that during transition the
lack of frequency information on charts may lead to visual flying rules, pilots selecting an inappropriate
frequency, so that when another aircraft broadcasts on the area frequency they just might not be aware of one
another, therefore increasing the risk of collision.

Mr M. Smith—That is what the hazard was. I think the treatment of that hazard was to ensure that pilots
understand the appropriate frequency for their particular circumstance.
Senator O’BRIEN—Returning to the safety mitigators issue that we were discussing earlier, I am advised
that during the workshop we were discussing the experts when asked the three questions identified by the National Airspace System Implementation Group as being ‘the final test of acceptable risk’ replied as
follows—without those two mitigators 37.4 and 37.5—to the questions:
Has the risk been reduced to as low as is reasonably practical?
The answer was ‘no’.
Are there are other mitigators?
The answer was ‘yes’.
Is the residual risk acceptable?
The answer was ‘no’.

Mr M. Smith—Yes,

Senator O’BRIEN—What is the problem with our current system? It seems to work fairly safely.

Mr M. Smith—Ours is a unique system. It has grown up from a basic introduction, probably in the 1940s,
when we sought to introduce an air traffic system. There are three things that are needed for an air traffic
system. You need communication; pilots and controllers need to be able to talk to each other. You need
navigation systems; aircraft need to know where they are. And it is useful to have a surveillance system so air
traffic controllers can picture where the aircraft are.

Mr M. Smith .........The important point here is that, by introducing class E airspace in areas outside of radar coverage, for the
first time we introduce a mandatory transponder requirement to that airspace.
Erm. Already got it now. Please drive through. Glad to see more misinformed amatuers.

Senator COLBECK—I understand the airline aircraft. I am concerned about small and medium turbo prop
aircraft—a Metroliner, for example; something of that size—which does not have a TCAS system on board,
and the interaction. It is an issue that has been raised specifically with me that for someone flying out of
Launceston, for example, between 18 and 4,000 feet, it is see or be seen, basically.

Mr M. Smith—That is only part of it, Senator. The reality is that the performance capabilities of the
aircraft differ and so you will find that the Metro is actually climbing basically over the top of the smaller
aircraft. Then you have also got the separation that is provided by the use of the different cruising levels.
Further, eventually it gets down to people have to look out the window, but that is true of all aircraft in all
Where he said over he meant through.

Senator O’BRIEN—It has been put to me that at that meeting you personally assured the meeting that,
should there be insufficient time to effect these changes to the charts, the implementation can be delayed to

Senator O’BRIEN—It is put to me that Mr Heath, the convenor, wrote to you on 9 July confirming what I
have described as the finding of the meeting and saying that ‘VNC and ERC charts to depict common or consistent
local frequency’ and ‘to be depicted by FAOI boundaries’ and, further, that industry will accept a delay in the
implementation if additional work is required to achieve these requirements in the 2b states. It is something similar to
what you just said to me, but I am attempting to quote from the letter.

Senator O’BRIEN—That is an interesting depiction, but I am sure that those involved feel that the ARG
rejection of the recommendations of their workshop render the safety case and implementation workshop
process irrelevant.
Senator O’BRIEN—Surely the minister has a say in all this.

Air NAV Guild - We are bound to report to you that there was a unanimous call from the meeting to halt the implementation of Stage 2 of
the NAS until the identified mitigators are implemented. Put very clearly, the message from the meeting was “Do not
proceed any further with Stage 2b in its present form”.

The group was unanimous in its opinion that “unalerted see and avoid’, proposed by Stage 2b as a primary means of
collision avoidance is fundamentally flawed. If Stage 2b is introduced in its present form with the current associated
training and education material we believe that the risk of a mid air collision will increase.
tobzalp is offline