Lodown
I appreciate yours and others forthright posts, perhaps a mature debate might at last clarify positions. The following is a little long winded sorry, however I hope it better explains my thoughts on the AusNAS in relation to your posted comments.
The charging regime and the regs need changing too, but let’s gets the airspace essentially right first.
Agreed.
The momentum is with changing the airspace. Don’t change direction now.
The momentum seems to be coming from a small section of the industry with a disproportionate influence. Far from changing direction now, it seems clear to me that the vast majority of posters here and those from industry across the spectrum I have talked to have never supported the AusNAS system.
Yes, I am one of those who firmly oppose this and have on various occasions on PPRuNe discussed my concerns openly with the rest of the forum and Dick Smith. Technical and other questions throughout remain unanswered or at least not adequately addressed despite spin, threats and name calling, the later I admit I was guilty of also (Eye for an eye and bloody frustrating!!).
I assume those who have followed this from the beginning would be hard pressed to draw a conclusion that the technical concerns based purely on design and safety are a sound change set, particularly stage 2b.
So why are the minority but significantly influential powers pushing AusNAS???
To enable VFR pilots to fly without radio across vast airspace areas including over terminal areas! Why?
I would argue there are 2 main driving forces:-
- VFR reluctance to conform/participate in those procedures set out in a controlled environment. In part due to the generally poor exposure to such procedures (education/radio use) and a belief that it is all too hard and fraught with punitive danger if you stuff it up (the wroth of CASA etc).
- Lessen the financial cost of VFR flight. Fair enough given the cost of User Pays (Thanks Dick!!). Perhaps there is the common denominator!?!?.
OK lets discuss how this can be logically and safely achieved WITHOUT degrading protection for other airspace users whilst facilitating better VFR access.
- I assume that for VFR to transit airspace without talking to anyone they must be within radar coverage and TXPDR ON, ATC can then give DIRECTED traffic information/vectors to IFR. (Maintains IFR protection)
- Outside radar coverage VFR must use the radio in C and E so that ATC can provide PROCEDURAL directed traffic information/separation. Otherwise TCAS and or See and Avoid is the last line of defence and assumes that IFR pilots have time to CONSTANTLY scan out the front for traffic in VMC, we all know that is impossible, flight deck management requires heads down for regular periods during climb and descent. (Therefore it is not good enough IMHO and certainly a reduction in safety levels where C becomes Non-radar E)
So assuming that we accept these minimums so as NOT to reduce tangible safety for radar and non-radar areas that are currently C, E and G (ICAO F) the formula seems simple to me and is reflected in my previous post.
In general to your numbered points, (Pilot hat on now!) I have difficulty with how you simplify radio requirements particularly in terminal areas without reducing the protection for IFR flight. Unless you can provide IFR pilots with either self announced VFR positioning or ATS surveillance based substitution of the same information it means IFR are left with see and avoid as the only and last line of defence, is that acceptable? NO IMHO.
Further adding to the difficulty outside radar coverage is that VFR’s are being taken off frequencies that ATS and IFR operate enroute. In the absence of ATS surveillance based DTI (RIS/RAS) it makes it even less likely IFR and VFR will be able to know of each other and arrange segregation/separation. Should it not be the case that VFR should be at least LISTENING on the local ATS area frequency for IFR in their area and speaking when a confliction might occur.
Every part of this seems to be removing the defences for pilots both IFR and VFR and ATC. Silly and short sighted IMHO thus my opposition to specific parts of AusNAS.
Yes! It will be a pain in the rear end for controllers initially. However, the current "system" does little more than encourage airline pilots and controllers to press for ongoing modifications that make CTA more restrictive to non-scheduled operators.
With respect I am at loss to understand your point.
The only pain in the “date” for ATC is that we are being asked to provide services without the tools to provide it efficiently, ie Radar. Where E will replace G and radar does not exist, we are legally required to separate IFR from IFR using large procedural separation standards ie IFR delays. VFR will not be seen or heard and thus not exist as far as we (ATC and IFR pilots) are concerned TCAS and BIG PILOT EYES will be the only defence, won’t “kill” ATC’s if it don’t work.
As far as C being replaced by NON radar E, again not a pain in the “date” as we will be blissfully unaware of VFR blasting over the top of D CTR’s, Your opposition here will be the crews of DHC8's, SW4's, IFR's in general who quite rightly will be a tad uncomfortable leaving A045 climbing until reaching C, A or RADAR E or of course the reverse on descent.
The only time a VFR would in my experience be denied a clearance through C is when separation with IFR traffic CANNOT be achieved, delays generally would amount to 2-3 mins at most whilst a Vertical Separation standard is achieved, a small inconvenience given the piece of mind and safety provided. No discrimination occurs between IFR, VFR scheduled or Non-scheduled in this regard.
I’m not blaming anyone. It is human nature to look for ways to make work easier.
I cannot understand or read your comments to be other than accusing/blaming ATC’s/IFR’s of some sort of laziness or deliberate obstruction to VFR traffic. I hope that is not what you are implying otherwise I would expect some sort of qualification of your statement. I am certain that every ATC and IFR pilot will do whatever is possible to accommodate all airspace users as expeditiously as possible, any accusation to the contrary I would find offensive in the extreme.
OpsNormal
Yep, fair cop, I should have further clarified my “G” explanation. “Below FL245 or the appropriate CTA steps under A or B where C, D, E radar or F don't exist”.
I agree though with your sentiments re:- remote areas, the perfect world would see radar E everywhere outside the primary cities, or at the very least “F” with SAR available for VFR and everyone on the appropriately sized (geographically and workload manageble) area frequencies.
If you can convince the powers that be it is needed I will go into bat for ya’.
There is a lot to be said for the good old days when everyone had access, everyone paid with the levy, the big end of town accepted that they derived a benefit from subsidising GA and flying was fun, cheap and all inclusive.
Oh!, what I would give to have a time machine and a Gun!!!.
