The NAS - without the personalities

[Maaate]

Part 1

Doug

Thanks for opening this thread. Great idea.

Open Mic

Likewise, the DOTARS website should be a valuable resource.

As a matter of interest, I spoke to Dick Smith last week, just before he headed off to Timbuktu. I raised a number of issues with him regarding NAS, the universe and everything, and he gave me permission to ‘quote’ him. (The ‘quotes’ are in italics.) I stress, however, that this is my recollection of the conversation, and invite Dick to correct me where I have got it wrong. Also, because I am placing some comments into a different context, they might not fully reflect Dick’s views.

To kick off the discussion, a few observations, comments and questions:


NAS and AIM

On first reading, the NAS document by itself does not reflect the full significance of the changes proposed. Only when one looks at the US AIM does the full picture emerge.

The significant changes are not just the distribution and promulgation of airspace, but also the changes within each category of airspace.

A lot more detail will of course emerge, and an important function for Mike Smith will be to identify which parts of the US system we will not be adopting, so that the correct picture emerges early in the piece.

There will be significant cultural issues to overcome. One example would be the practice of “implied” clearances (my term) where an aircraft calling at the boundary of class C airspace would provide details, and the clearance would be “implied” as long as ATC responded with the aircraft callsign. This removes the concept of a readback which has always been one of our safety mitigators.

Flight Plans

In my conversation with Dick Smith, I raised my concern that the practice of IFR aircraft calling ATC for a clearance to transit E airspace without filing a flight plan would add significantly to ATC workload.

I used the example – as happens in the current system – of Dick flying his Citation VFR into class C airspace. Departing Temora (Class G –Base of C at FL200) climbing to FL245 for Gundaroo (Class G, below Canberra TMA class C steps).

The workload involved at the ATC console of receiving the details, entering them into the TAAATS computer (creating a Flight Data Record - FDR) and coordinating with 4 sectors all has to be completed prior to being able to issue a clearance.

My point was that if I had a flight plan (therefore a TAAATS FDR) available, my workload would be minimal and the distraction from the radar (or non radar display) would be minimal (a safety issue). On gut feeling, the workload involved for this one flight would be equivalent to handling 4-6 aircraft with flight plans.

Dick’s response: Under the US system, VFR aircraft are discouraged from filing flight plans to reduce system ‘overload’. In his experience, controller’s in the US are able to handle large numbers of VFR and IFR “no details” flights with no apparent workload or safety implications.

I would suggest that this issue needs to be looked at closely.

Question for Mike Smith – consultation

When the website becomes available, could it be possible to include a discussion forum, similar to this one? Suggested criteria for restricted access would be that participants must use their real names, must have a valid flight crew licence or be employed by Airservices, CASA, ATSB or other organisation with a valid interest.

The purpose of the forum would be to sound out ideas, encourage input from individuals especially where these views may differ from their official “company” line etc.

I realise that it would an informal, non-binding sort of forum, but it may encourage the emergence of new ideas.

Training Issues - ATC

Mike, I am not sure if this is even remotely within your area of expertise, influence or concern, however someone may like to comment.

I asked Dick Smith about the procedures for locations such as Dubbo (which was mentioned on the previous thread) when NAS is implemented.

Response from Dick Smith: In the first phase of implementation, little or no change. When fully implemented, with class E down to 1200AGL, the controller would (in IMC) be issuing clearances for instrument approaches, and providing separation between IFR aircraft. This would mean that departing aircraft could not be issued a clearance until the arriving aircraft had landed, was in the missed approach (and separated) or broke visual and cancelled IFR.

In VMC, the IFR aircraft would simply “cancel IFR” and separation would no longer be required.

Controllers (enroute controllers) will have to be trained in separating aircraft in non-radar airspace conducting instrument approaches.

This raises a couple of issues. First of all, it would have to be determined whether or not this constitutes procedural approach control, given that CTA ends at 1200 AGL. As most enroute controllers do not hold approach ratings (i.e. they have never been trained in approach control), will they have to do approach conversion courses? If so, the logistics and cost need to be looked at fairly carefully. I think that a current approach conversion course would run to something like 10 weeks or longer.

Secondly, a number of CARs, AIP provisions etc. will have to be changed, such as the inability of RPT to ‘cancel IFR.’

Response from Dick Smith: Yes, a number of regs etc. will have to be changed to implement NAS.

Continued in Part 2.....