Quote:
SMITH: "No, but what's been shown throughout the world, and throughout Australia, small planes and large planes can mix perfectly safely, as long as you have the right rules. At the moment Qantas have sixteen jet movements a day into Ayers Rock, it's in class G air space, the lowest safety level, and it works perfectly safely."
Firstly Dick, it embarrasses me to say it, but you were once a child-hood aviation hero to me. Your adventures around the world by helicopter and later by Twin Otter were very exciting and had stimulated my interest in aviation when I was growing up. Later, you made bold attempts with balloons and have had quite a remarkable life in business.
However, reading the comments you made on air about our Air Traffic Controllers and Pilots, your stubborn and foolish persistance with a system that is deficient in safety against the advice of those who are forced daily to make best use of your sub-standard system (we the aviation fraternity) convinces me you are not the man to be leading Australia's aviation policy making.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to take a look at your own regulations and an example of airspace in Australia to gain some understanding of why your comment above is fundamentally flawed?
Class E Airspace:
IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights are subject to ATC clearance. [Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 1.1.4 (table)]
IFR flights are provided with an air traffic control service, are separated from other IFR flights, and receive traffic information on VFR flights as far as is practicable. VFR flights receive a Radar Information Service (RIS) on request.
[Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 2.1.4]
Class G Airspace:
In Class G Airspace, IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights receive traffic information and a flight information service. VFR flights receive a flight information service if requested.
[Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 2.1.6]
From the table in Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 7.1 we can ascertain the following:
Subject to ATC Clearance? IFR; no. VFR; no.
Radio requirements? IFR; continuous 2 way. VFR: VHF radio above 5000' MSL and for MBZ operations. If carried must be used for CTAF are operations. VHF radio required for operations in reduced VMC.
Class D Airspace:
Also from the same table [Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 7.1] we see:
Separation provided? IFR; IFR from IFR and IFR from Special IFR. VFR; Nil.
Subject to ATC Clearance? IFR; yes. VFR; yes.
Radio Requirements? IFR and VFR; continuous 2 way.
Let's look at Mackay, Dick.
CTR GND - 4500' to 6 DME with steps to the NW and SE at 11DME 1000' - 4500', 16 DME 2500 - 4500', 22 DME 3500' - 4500' all Class D.
CTA 4500' - FL180 (overhead the CTR) and 8500' - FL180 to the NE and SW all Class E. From 4500' (above the aforementioned steps) to FL180 it is also Class E.
From the legislation above, it can be seen that you can have a VFR aircraft operating above 4500' overhead YBMK with no clearance. IF the VFR is below 5000', the pilot does not require a radio either!
You compare Qantas jets flying in and out of YAYE in G airspace with the Virgin incident recently. Well, both IFR and VFR aircraft are on a level playing field in G Airspace. Neither require a clearance. Both expect to separate themselves by radio. On the other hand, in E Airspace IFR aircraft require a clearance and must communicate with ATC for separation. A VFR aircraft doesn't. He's just got to have that transponder on squawking away merrily.
Isn't it human nature for people to relax when nothing much is needed to be done? A VFR aircraft in these circumstances could easily be out of the loop (situational awareness I mean), creating a hazard for any IFR traffic unfortunate enough to be in his immediate vicinity.
How can you then Dick, argue that your new system is safer than before, when that same VFR could conceivably transit YBMK or its IFR approaches with no communication to ATC or clearance, merely blipping away with his transponder?
Yes, I hear you say, ATC would be aware of the VFR in a radar environment from his transponder return and hopefully his radio calls.
Great! What about if the pilot forgot to turn it on or it failed without his or ATC's awareness due to distractions from other tasks. What about if his radio failed also? He could happily be flying along as a ghost and potentially conflicting with other aircraft operating in and around YBMK. Just to complete the scenario, the weather could be drizzly or hazy or the lighting poor due to the time of day or clouds to the west.
Forget TCAS to save the day here (which only turbine transport category aircraft above 15 tonnes or 30 passengers have anyway) because it won't detect the VFR with no transponder signal no matter how good it is.
What do we have left? Only our eyeballs.
Hopefully (as I am on descent MK in my turboprop, grounding 300 kts and 2000 fpm rate of descent, popping in and out of cloud and drizzle on an IFR arrival, carrying out my checks, following the IFR approach, communicating on the radio to ATC and to ALL STATIONS, separating myself from known traffic and so on) that silent VFR is not going to be in my way because I'd rate myself a good chance of not seeing him (especially approaching him from behind because no doubt the guy has his lights on below A100!) in the abovementioned conditions.
What about if you were at Alice Springs, with no radar coverage? Even a functioning transponder in the VFR aircraft is going to be no help to ATC or the other non-TCAS equipped aircraft operating nearby.
All the above paranoid and unlikely you say?
Well, perhaps ALL VFR pilots are faultlessly meticulous in their aviating (using their radios effectively at all times, know exactly where they are at any moment and always have servicable transponders that are switched on with landing lights on full bore) and perhaps you ARE a superior pilot to me Dick, charging across the world in your Twin Otter / Citation / Balloon / Helicopter, boldly going where no man has gone before, leaping tall buildings in a single bound, but mate, I reckon your system and your attitude as a leader, an individual and as a role model SUCKS.
What price of safety do you put on lives of people?
Sure, you've got bean-counters calculating the mathematical probability of my example happening. Sure, you may have determined it to be 1 chance in 1 million.
Let me just say to you that I don't want to be that 1 in the million or whatever you have calculated it to be. Remember, not everything in life follows a mathematical probability. It might be you in this situation one day.
Alternatively, it might be a jet full of paying passengers. How would you sleep at night if we had a mid-air in circumstances similar to these? How would you deal with the blood that would be on YOUR hands?
Listen to people for God's sake Dick. Rules in Australia have been written in blood. They have been formulated over many years of experience through many tragic events. Is that what is required here to prove you wrong? Would you admit it even then?
We might have a whizz-bang-ducks-nuts TAAATs system of air traffic control nowadays that has much more versatility than the equipment of 1950 but remember also, the equipment that is floating around out there in most aircraft dates back commonly 20 plus years (and even further).
Be honest with the Australian public Dick.
Isn't it just possible that something will not operate EXACTLY as planned in the perfectly mathematical world of those cloisetered away in Airservices Australia's ivory tower?
Sincerely,
Turbinejunkie.
