Gunner B12, you have asked who has declared the American system as world’s best practice. It wasn’t me but anyone who has had experience in flying in many airspace systems around the world would agree that it is a very good one. Why wouldn’t it be? It has evolved over 100 years with large amounts of money available (America is the wealthiest country on earth) and it is a very litigious society so pressure is brought to bear to have the best balance of safety, freedom and cost. So whilst it may not be the best one in the world in every situation, it is certainly an excellent system.
Jet_A_Knight, in relation to see and avoid everything I have done has been to reduce the amount of unalerted see and avoid. I understand I am the only person who has consistently asked BASI/ATSB for a print out of CTAF/MBZ incidents. They show that we have a high number of unalerted see and avoid incidents close to the airport. These are the incidents that are most likely to turn into a mid-air collision. That is why I have worked tirelessly to have UNICOMs at airports. Once, as Chairman of CASA, I brought in legislation that made a UNICOM compulsory under certain circumstances. This was rolled by pressure from the airlines and Cheryl Kernot.
You make out as if the present system before 27 November 2003 complied with the BASI recommendation in relation to no unalerted see and avoid for airline aircraft. The December 2003 ATSB report “Airspace related occurrences involving Regular Public transport and Charter Aircraft within Mandatory Broadcast Zones” shows that there are a rising number of incidents in MBZs of unalerted see and avoid. This is not such a problem in the USA because non-tower airports that have airline traffic virtually always have a UNICOM operator which means that there is a third party present to confirm that the radio is on frequency and operating. That is commonsense.
As you would know, the airlines have constantly fought me and outmanoeuvred everything I have done so they do not have to have the small cost of a UNICOM at the non-tower airports to which they operate. Don’t worry, one day I’ll win this one. (Just as I’ll get a tower at Broome!) I’m hoping it is before there is an unnecessary accident.
To all the pilots who support our unique “calling in the blind” mandatory rules, I ask you to think again. There is no reason why we cannot have UNICOMS as the United States has. There is no measurable cost, and even though it may seem strange that non-ATC trained people can give a very useful service at an airport, it is so. Go flying in the USA and you will very quickly see how fantastic their UNICOMS are.
WALLEY2, don’t get your toga in such a knot. I have as much right as anyone to write a letter to the CSIRO and ask them about the CSIRO’s involvement in your report. In fact, the letter was simply a follow-up to a previous letter I had sent in relation to Neale Fulton’s claim that the hemispherical rule that I introduced was dangerous, and that Australia must return to the quadrantal rule and full position reporting for VFR. I’ve always taken this CSIRO claim seriously, as if it is factual it must be complied with. So far, the CSIRO has not confirmed that the organisation supports Neale Fulton’s quite extraordinary claims. Can you imagine? What Dr Fulton is actually saying is that the ICAO rule that allows VFR aircraft to fly at 500’ intervals (and therefore different levels to IFR) is not safe and must be reversed. I think most would agree that would bring the American and European system to a halt – i.e. all of the VFR aircraft would be flying at the same level as IFR and be back in the system as they were before 1991 in Australia.
Capcom, I will endeavour to answer some of the questions.
· Does AusNAS save money for our Aviation Industry?
Most certainly. Already aircraft are not having to divert many extra miles in Class C airspace above Class D. I’m getting reports all the time of the quite substantial savings being made by aircraft. For example, the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launceston incident says that before the 27 November 2003 changes, on up to 50% of occasions when he overflew Launceston he would be diverted up to 15 miles off track in CAVOK conditions if there was an IFR aircraft – even a Navajo – present in the controlled airspace. This was because there was no radar at Launceston and so procedural separation of 10 minutes had to be given quite often if aircraft passed through the same levels. 10 minutes at 180 knots is 30 miles. That is a lot of extra flying and a lot of extra cost.
· Do VFR pay less now than prior to Nov27 2003?
Most certainly they do because in many cases they are not forced to file an IFR flight plan (and pay enroute charges) to be guaranteed a prompt clearance through what was Class C airspace.
· Do VFR receive the same level of safety in Class E that was Class C prior to Nov 27 2003?
Probably a higher level now as they can track direct and they are not forced over tiger country in single engine aircraft – which often happened. I was recently speaking to a pilot of an aircraft who on numerous times overflying Hamilton Island was kept holding at the control zone boundary over water in a single engine aircraft. Now that aircraft can fly in Class E airspace at a higher level of safety.
· On what criteria did you decide that AusNAS was superior to the LLAMP?
LLAMP completely removed any directed traffic service for IFR airline aircraft at non-tower airports. This was outrageous. It was the same error of the infamous 11/11 Buck Brooksbank proposal. In becoming obsessed with VFR radio arranged separation, the LLAMP group were forced to delete a directed traffic information service for IFR. No country in the world has such a system. Every proposal I have ever been involved in has either a traffic information service in the terminal area for IFR, or a Class E traffic separation service. The other major problem with LLAMP was that CTAFs were to be removed and new areas called DAFs (Designated Area Frequency) established, which had up to 32 aerodromes on the one frequency. By law all VFR aircraft transiting the DAF enroute had to monitor this circuit traffic with mandatory reporting requirements. Nothing like this had ever been attempted in the world before. It basically would have destroyed GA as we know it today in Australia – and it is already half destroyed. Also, most importantly, LLAMP was a unique invention. I have only ever supported proven systems. I am very conservative when it comes to air safety. I like copying the success of others in everything in life.
· Did you set out the reason for your decision to progress your AusNAS to Minister Anderson?
First of all, it wasn’t just my decision, it was the unanimous decision of the Aviation Reform Group, who are all people of independent minds, views and expertise. People like Ted Anson (the Chairman of CASA at the time), who whilst not an aviator took extensive advice from people at CASA. The reasons were obvious. The LAMP system was invented and would have resulted in a system that was like nothing ever used anywhere else in the world before – even Australia. Whereas the NAS system was highly proven. Remember, the NAS plan was (and still is) to follow the US procedures that they use in radar airspace, and to follow the US procedures that they use in non-radar airspace.
· During face to face discussions (Jan 2004 YSTW tower) with controllers in the tower cab, and after explanation of the airspace specifics by those controllers did you agree that the terminal airspace above TW that was “C” should at the very least be class “D” below A065 (Outside RADAR coverage)?
No I did not.
· Did you during that discussions sign a statement that said “RPT aircraft should have alerted see-and-avoid”? If so do you stand by that statement?
Yes, I certainly did sign that statement and that has always been a view of mine. Where I am different is that I am convinced from the evidence that our system did not provide an alerted see and avoid situation because a calling in the blind procedure resulted in many errors being made and therefore many unalerted see and avoid incidents. That is why I have worked constantly to have third party operators at non-tower airports.
· Do you believe Air traffic controllers can separate/segregate/initiate collision avoidance between 2 aircraft when only one or both may not be subject to clearance and therefore not under ‘control’ rules?
Yes, I believe an excellent safe service can be provided as this is what happens 365 days a year with 20 times the density of traffic in the USA.
· Are you aware that ICAO provide for ATS ‘collision avoidance advice’ in classes C (VFR/VFR) and D (IFR/VFR) only?
This could well be so, but I’m not sure what it has to do with anything. I have found that ICAO is simply an organisation which takes most of its airspace advice from air traffic controllers who have a vested interest in the outcome of the regulation. ICAO also has some very strange rules in relation to airworthiness requirements and I have been told these are mainly in place for poor third world countries!
· Do you expect Air Traffic Controllers to accept responsibility for ‘collision avoidance’ between IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR in classes E and G?
I believe it is a shared responsibility. I would be quite happy to follow the responsibility requirements that exist in the USA. After all, I’ve never yet heard from an American controller that their airspace gives unfair responsibility.
· Do you support the latest ‘VRA’ proposition in E areas above terminal areas?
No, I have no idea what it is.