PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Benalla six dead and $5,000 VOR reward
View Single Post
Old 16th Mar 2007, 00:38
  #16 (permalink)  
Dick Smith
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,604
Likes: 0
Received 74 Likes on 29 Posts
Apache, any success I have ever gained has been by surrounding myself with competent people. I do not see myself as an air traffic control expert. I have, however, spent a lot of time studying airspace systems around the world and asking advice from those who have expertise in airspace.

For example, I can see the advantages of upgrading Class G airspace to Class E – especially where we have radar. This will undoubtedly improve safety.

Tobzalp, no I am not trying to forcibly unmask a person’s identity, but why is it that no ATC expert working for Airservices will post under their own name on this website or even make a public statement to the aviation industry about Class E airspace? It makes you wonder doesn’t it?

ForkTailedDrKiller, the accident could have been caused by either an equipment failure or human error. I’m sure you will agree that as humans we can make just about any mistake that is possible – look at the Tenerife accident where the Dutch 747 Captain took off without a clearance.

You are surprised by the ATC failure to advise the pilot of the track divergence. You obviously know that in Class G airspace (where the aircraft was heading) there is not even a requirement to report when visual – i.e. the air traffic controller has no idea whether you are still in cloud or visual.

In Class E airspace it is totally different. There is quite a different responsibility for the air traffic controller. That is why Class E airspace in this location – which has quite good radar coverage to the initial approach fix – would have very likely prevented the accident from happening.

En-Rooter, you say that the radar coverage is no good at Benalla, however look at the ATSB report. You will find that there was adequate radar coverage to allow a properly trained controller, using properly introduced procedures, to advise the pilot that he was many miles off track.

I agree that proper training is required. My suggestion is that you look at the Cabinet approved NAS document here, especially Note 12 which states:

It is noted that this will require extensive training for air traffic controllers.
Canary51, I had no idea until you made your posting that the Coroner had decided to hold an inquest. However what has that got to do with anything? Are you suggesting that because the Coroner believes it is serious enough to conduct an inquest, that I should not continue to push for the proper use of radar in the area?

Do you accept that there could be another accident before the Coroner makes his finding? I would imagine his finding will most likely support proper procedures being introduced, and the use of radar to minimise the chance of similar accidents happening in the future.

Capn Bloggs, you have obviously made up your mind that Class E airspace is “1950’s rubbish”. However it is obvious from the posting of VOR above, that he or she does not agree with you. There must be many pilots and controllers who accept that in radar covered airspace, Class E is better than Class G.

If TAAATS cost $600 million, it is all the more reason to use it properly.
SM4 Pirate, you make the very point of why Class E airspace is safer. You state:

In class G we have no ability to dictate a particular path to fly
Of course, in Class E – until the pilot cancels IFR – you do have that ability, and that is what makes it safer.

By the way, I don’t believe that NAS was ever off the agenda. I think that you will find it has always been Government policy (see here), and now that people are looking at these six deaths, they are more focused on why we are not using the radar correctly.

These threads are really healthy because they show how some people have made up their mind that the present system is adequate and that accidents like the one at Benalla cannot be prevented by proper procedures and a better use of the radar.

Lastly SM4 Pirate, you say:

Dick, Cancelling a RAM without telling a pilot is not negligence.
I have never stated or implied such a thing. I have made it very clear in everything I have written that as far as I know, the controller was complying with the rules and training material that existed at the time - but six people did die.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 18th Mar 2007 at 21:46.
Dick Smith is offline