Ushuaia,
QSK? and others, thanks for your posting in relation to The 7.30 Report. You state that most professional pilots in the country have a low opinion of me. If this is so it is probably because they are not informed correctly in relation to what I am doing. After all, I constantly post my phone numbers on this site and don’t receive any calls.
I liken the present situation, with its resistance to moving to modern international airspace practices, as almost identical to what happened to Ansett. I constantly communicated with Ken Cowley – Rupert Murdoch’s man on the Ansett Board – advising that if the airline did not follow modern international practices that it would go broke. Ken Cowley once even flew me at airline expense (the only time it has ever happened in my life) to Melbourne to address the Ansett technical group. Despite this, just about everyone resisted change and stuck their heads in the sand.
Isn’t it amazing that Sir Richard Branson can bring his money to Australia, then use Australians to copy the latest international practices, make hundreds of millions of dollars and be declared a hero?
I can assure you that in a modern globalised world, whether we like it or not, we in Australia have to be as smart or smarter than anyone overseas.
No one on this site ever comes up with a valid reason why we cannot accept the advantages of the US system. Of course the excuse most often used is that America has more radar coverage. Yes, I agree. However our plan is to copy what the US does in radar coverage, and to copy what the US does outside radar coverage. After all, the US airspace system has evolved like a Boeing 747 – it is the best of its type in the world.
I find it fascinating that most of my critics are all flying around in US FAR certified aircraft. People may remember that before 1991 all overseas certified aircraft had to be re-certified and modified to operate in Australia. As Chairman of CAA, the regulator, I changed this so aircraft from five proven aviation countries could operate here without modification. At the time bureaucrats within the airworthiness department of the CAA predicted death and doom. Of course this hasn’t happened and our industry has been able to save tens of millions of dollars, which has obviously helped to keep more people employed.
Ushuaia, it is amazing that you want to keep a system that focuses airline and VFR aircraft at one point within 300 metres of each other. In the Aussie system small aircraft flying from south to north in Sydney descend below the steps, find their way to Parramatta, and then (yes, I kid you not) look for flashing lights on the ground to track to Hornsby.
In the United States lights on the ground were used in the 1920s for the mail planes. Just last year I went to an Airservices meeting in the office below Bankstown Tower where they proposed a new and better flashing light for the light aircraft lane.
As I’ve stated, all small aircraft flying north track via the recommended reporting point of Hornsby. Where do we put the airline aircraft? Yes, you’ve got it – we direct them to Hornsby with about 300 metres of vertical separation. US experts have advised me that nowhere in the USA would they ever do such a thing. To focus airline aircraft and VFR aircraft to the same location, where a simple altimeter setting error could cause a collision, would not be acceptable.
The American expert said, “Dick, you must get lots of incidents in this airspace.” I checked up and found that it is the airspace in Australia that has the highest number of problems in relation to breakdowns of separation and inadvertent entry into controlled airspace.
Now let’s look at the US system that I (and others) are trying to move to. At a place like Los Angeles, where Qantas flies every day, VFR aircraft are not encouraged to fly by any low level topographic feature or town which is overflown by airline aircraft. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The airline routes are shown on the Los Angeles VFR chart and VFR aircraft flying from south to north (or vice versa) are encouraged to overfly the centre of the LA field at altitudes where there are no airline aircraft. Where VFR and IFR aircraft could potentially collide in the LA system (i.e. when they pass through the same level) they are typically 20 to 30 miles from the airport where the risk of collision is far lower.
The ARG and the Government is planning to move to this safer US system. Many pilots who have not been informed probably think that the Aussie system (where no transponder or radio is required for aircraft 300 metres away from an airline aircraft at Hornsby) is the ideal and should not be changed. Commonsense alone shows that this is wrong.
More flashing lights in the light aircraft lane – the Airservices proposal – will never bring us into the 21st century of modern air traffic control movements. I, and many others, would much prefer light aircraft be encouraged to overfly Sydney Airport at say, 7,500’ or 8,500’, following a route which kept the aircraft the maximum distance away from approaching and departing airline traffic.
In relation to Mandatory Broadcast Zones, the ATSB have said that reported incidents are probably less than 5% of what actually happens. This means that there are indeed many thousands of incidents.
The key to the problem is that the rule is a sham because no enforcement action is ever taken. In the history of Mandatory Broadcast Zones in this country, with over 500 written reports to the ATSB, there has never been any enforcement action – indeed I have not been able to find even evidence of a letter being written to a pilot.
For example, when a Qantas 737 departed Ayers Rock without giving any radio calls on the MBZ and to the Certified Air/Ground Operator, no action was taken in any way by CASA. If you check with the FAA you will find the reason they get such high compliance rates in CTAFs is that firm action is taken against the small number of pilots who do not follow the recommended practices and therefore endanger the life or property of another. American pilots are so aware that enforcement action will be taken that they discipline themselves to operate so that this does not happen. Imagine if in Australia 5% of cars could drive through a stop sign and we all knew that in a 10 year period no one had ever been prosecuted.
In relation to Broome Airport my claim has been consistent. In following the NAS, Broome will have a Class D tower. The Broome Airport report shows that this will increase safety by 20% and this is a classic example of moving resources to where the risk is highest. Mike Caplehorn constantly fights against the tower because his profits will be affected. He knows that safety will be improved by at least 20%, so for what other reason could he be against a Class D tower at Broome?
I can assure everyone that I will eventually get a Class D tower there. At the present time Airservices is not instigating the correct establishment formula study because they know that the loss they will make will be reflected in their figures and the take home pay of their top management group.
In relation to see and avoid, with the new system there will be less need for collision avoidance by unalerted see and avoid. This is because the US procedures are designed to concentrate everyone’s attention to where the collision risk is highest and to keep IFR and VFR aircraft away from pressure points.
I post the diagram of the US airspace again. As you will see, the airspace is Class G at low density traffic and then moves in a totally scientific way to Class A. As risk and traffic density increases a higher category of airspace is allocated where necessary.
