Col. Walter E. Kurtz
Also, the ATCers who have to monitor the airspace, and probably feel a moral responsibility to work to avoid the potential MACs the new system has opened greater opportunity for.
Absolutely!
3 days in the seat and I am already convinced that when “**** turns to trumps” AusNAS is gunna contribute to a MAC eventually.
The following rumoured to have already occurred:-
- VFR Nil Transponder 20nm from a D zone at A065 in E
- VFR Nil Mode C, Nil Comm O’fly D in E
- VFR leaving D into E A045 6nm out monitors a G freq instead of D/E till clear of the terminal area
- VFR cruising at IFR levels in E
Individually not a huge deal, relatively quite for each, won’t always be that way!
It is becoming clearer that any ability to “catch separation” for IFR and a pop up VFR is all but lost in E i.e.
DHC8 30nm on descent “Visual Approach” leaving A090, VFR calls At 20nm in E A050 for clearance into D at a “Bearing from the airfield” (within 20deg of the track of the DHC8), what do ya do?
1st – Issue mutual traffic information (15-30s) as we apparently cannot attempt to separate IFR from VFR in E just in case by altering the flight path or altitude (Maintain) of the IFR could cause a collision with another UNKNOWN VFR in E!?!?
2nd – Try to ascertain a more accurate position of the VFR for separation/segregation into D, if in any doubt! Then
3rd – Leave the VFR in E until a sight and follow or some other form of separation/segregation becomes apparent! Or
4th – Update traffic information and let them both rip on into D……..Faaark!!!
Result
VFR are delayed into D if a confliction is considered “close”
IFR have “traffic info” only for descent through the VFR in E
Preventing collisions to aircraft under our control cannot be effectively achieved i.e. IFR/IFR and VFR in D and IFR and IFR in E, when VFR are already in the E airspace at close proximity to D vertically and laterally.
In this case the DHC8 monitored the traffic on TCAS for the descent, lucky the VFR in this case was not Mr Example 1 above!!!!
The same scenario with “C” over D
VFR would call at 35nm and receive a clearance inbound on descent, (before the DHC8 called although I have an estimate well prior so I know the Dash is coming) positive separation applied to the DHC8 above i.e. A step descent (Any level assignable not just IFR levels) until both visual to the tower, or lateral or one of the many other standards available. EASY and SAFE!.
There are lots of other operational difficulties with Tower E (outside radar coverage) over D, this is but one to highlight the retrograde step E is over C.
I think he is right in that for months, after the questions got a bit too 'hot', well certain people 'dissappeared', when there was still alot of questions to be answered.
Yep, interesting the ones he left completely alone, the rest was political waffle that did in no way address the practical aspects of AusNAS and particularly 2b. In the end there really was no point continuing debate with them. I guess they worked that out also and slipped away to Timbuktu and elsewhere quietly.
They went away, The Kings came and went and we were none the wiser, we now know why!.
Aussie Andy
i) that it is more safe for controllers of D underlying what was C, now E, to be more focussed on traffic close in than far out as this is where - statistically - more incidents are likely to occur; and
Well if they said that and you believe them then explain why?
I explain above, IMHO it has made our airspace less safe and less flexible!!
So why do you still say "the question remains: How does the new NAS improve Air Safety in Australia?" I think perhaps it is not because no-one has answered the question, but because you don't agree with the answers provided, which is what I was trying to say earlier on. So its a bit specious to suggest you are just being ignored, which is the impression I think you were trying to give.
Yep, “IGNORED”, these questions have been asked of the handful of NAS supporters and NOT ONCE have they backed their support with answers that resemble practical or statistical analysis. When we (Professional Pilots and ATC’s) put the practical aspects back at them they flee…
I think Chief Galah makes a very good point about transponders being "fail off" and the reasons for this, that some VFR pilots think big brother is watching them, and they do not wish to be pinged for some illegal operations. This is a real issue and a terrible danger
That is the sort of thing that makes me wonder?, you think AusNAS is OK yet accept that Transponders are an important mitigator in class E (TCAS as a primary separation tool), yet will not accept that in C TCAS and pilots eyes remain a "Second tier safety net" only needed when ATS or Pilots screw up!. That does not happen that often compared to the number of successful separations effected each and every day.
NAS E cannot in anyone’s language be considered as safe or safer than C.
Not ranting, wild accusation, just FACT that cannot be denied by the NAS brethren.
When it eventually happens:-
Anderson will plead - “But the experts said it was safe!”
Smith and Smith will plead – CASA and AsA said it was safe!”
CASA and AsA will plead – the ATC’s/Pilot’s did not prevent the collision!
Do you have any idea how many years the legal process takes to run its course, can’t blame the next of kin wanting answers and accountability can we?!.
Aside from the potential loss of life and loss of confidence in our industry! Which end of town do you think will get it in the neck post accident? …………… “Big Picture” my man!!!
With respect Andy, you have not provided anything other than transnational interference. Enjoy your RADAR E and leave Oz to us.
"The question remains: How does the new NAS improve Air Safety in Australia?"?
Oh, I get it!
It’s a trick question!…………
………..There is NO answer!!!!
Not surprised to hear about the SW4’s………………….5hit Oh Dear!!!
