VoR
One of the
NEW hazards in changing C to E was of unannounced, uncontactable and perhaps unseen VFR and the resultant consequential potential for collisions with IFR and other VFR.
It was raised by field Controllers repeatedly only to be told that it was an inherent risk in E and that because it was an accepted risk in the US that it was OK here without local analysis. No aeronautical studies with respect to local traffic densities, mix, terrain , meteorology etc.
The fact that was it was not previously a hazard in C in the context of
normal system operation did not trigger an analysis (aeronautical study) for change to E i.e. In C the hazard only existed if the result of a VCA or ATC/Pilot error. Clearly the Increase in MAC opportunity in E would under any objective analysis be unacceptable when as indicated above it does not require a system fault to create a risk and not withstanding there is not an identified cost benefit to offset the identified increased risk.
Add to that another fundamental flaw i.e. The US consider VFR conducting instrument training in E will as a natural consequence of "head down" necessity, be treated as "IFR" and
separated. It too was completely left out although it to was raised repeatedly. A
known "US" mitigator left out of AusNAS.
That said, it is clear that if and when these analysis are carried out it will likely support a return to C when it is clear NO overall safety or cost benefit is gained by E.
Until then we are operating with untested and arguably “demonstrably” less safe airspace (See ATSB 200305235 Launceston). Criminal!
VoR et al, In advance of the following, I do not wish to detract from the very erudite discussion of these matters.
It is however, frustrating in the extreme to be discussing the very concerns that were raised and glossed over/ignored before 27 Nov. Clearly our concerns/questions were valid.
I cannot help being very bent outa shape over this whole mess. Those responsible seem blissfully uninterested in the problems it has caused.
This Industry has given me much over the years, and I am personally very angry at the systematic damage being caused by a handful of self-interested Pro-NAS dills.
RANT – select – ON (Full)
EMOTION – select – ON (Genuine, MAX)
So Dick, this is what your AusNAS 2b has delivered us:-
Negative effects:-
- VFR are NOT charged for en-route ATS, so there is
No cost benefit C to E
- In the context of IFR to VFR, there is no longer 3rd party separation services -
An Increase in risk for no cost or safety benefit
- Possibility for frequency congestion (Mutual Traffic ATC to Pilot - Pilot to Pilot).
Increase in risk for no cost or safety benefit
- Less ability to plan separation sequencing into terminal areas -
Increase in risk for no cost or safety benefit.
- Less SA for both Pilots and ATC -
No cost or safety benefit
- VFR diversions from direct track to avoid IFR routes -
No cost or safety benefit, especially considering there were very few delays for VFR in CTA prior to 2b
- VFR now need to know IFR tracks and APP/DEP routes etc in order to remain clear of them -
No cost or safety benefit
- There are others but those above seem the most compelling
Positive effects:-
- VFR do not have to use a pesky radio-
No cost and one could argue NO safety benefit (Not having to use a radio and look-out offset against the lack of separation services would seem to be a net negative safety effect. Certainly in the context of IFR conflict possibility)
Yep, AusNAS 2b, what a winner!!
With the money wasted on AusNAS (Probably over A$100mil when all is said and done), imagine how much good could have been invested into industry via training, education and infrastructure that would have enhanced all sectors including VFR (GA in particular). Another opportunity down the dunny. Things such as:-
Every VFR (GA) Pilot could have had a 2-3 day course on:-
- Use of the radio and interaction with the ATS system
- How to use the ATS system safety to their advantage
- Famil visits to ATS operations, awareness opportunities
As well as things like:-
- An Online and or Operations operator Q&A for operational questions and feedback
- ATS established after analysis where a need "probably exist" i.e. AYE, Broome etc
- FSS Briefing and SAR
- Infrastructure to support enhanced Pilot SA (ADS-B subsidised introduction to supplement ATS in a similar fashion to TCAS)
- Reduced costs to industry (Subsidised services to regional and GA aerodromes provided by a re-investment of the profit dividend given to the Fed Gov't each year)
- Scholarships in ATS, Engineering, Operations etc
The list goes on, what’s more it is all achievable if only the "rudders" in CB would take the view that the industry needs support now more than ever, not screwing it for greater profits to Gov't. Bean counters have their place but should not be in the drivers seats.
Higher costs and less service, which we have seen in recent years just leads to de-skilling of pilots in ATS procedures and a reluctance on their part to utilise/participate in the very tangible benefits ATS can provide. Their fear of appearing amateurish due lack of familiarity or being ESIR'd for inadvertent transgression’s would seem to be a result of their ongoing exclusion from the ATS system. Those who grow up in the system do not fear it! Fact!
Nothing will improve for our industry until these fundamentals are addressed!
All in all an unmitigated disaster!
EMOTION – Select – OFF
RANT – Select- OFF
Nurse……..Nurse……….
