Airspace Reform - Your wish list.

[BIK_116.80]

WhatWasThat

Ahhhhh – so it was the ROYAL “we”.

Let’s review. When you said :

We all think NAS is cobblers....

as later modified by :

I dont claim to speak on behalf of anyone but myself....

what you really meant was :

I think NAS is cobblers....

I’m so glad you cleared that up. For a moment there I thought you might be trying to imply that you held some sort of mandate to speak on behalf of some kind of constituency – presumably the greater pprune community, which would include me. It’s now abundantly clear that you never held any such mandate.

Which leaves the question - if you meant “I” then why didn’t you say “I”?

Were you perhaps distracted by a misguided belief that everyone else in the pprune community shared your point of view? Or did you take a conscious decision to deliberately and misleadingly over-state the case so that it would tend to support your position?

(I didn’t consider for a moment the possibility that you might be schizophrenic – not seriously anyway. )

To be entirely honest, it was your use of the words “We all think NAS is cobblers....” that prompted my reply. If you had written what you really meant (ie “I”) then I wouldn’t have bothered.

Any suggestion that everyone in the greater pprune community “think NAS is cobblers” is factually incorrect.

You are way out of line to question my professionalism or suggest that I am motivated by self interest.

You call it the way you see it and I’ll call it the way I see it.

Upon reflection and after careful consideration I don’t believe that any of my comments were even moderately inappropriate.

Believe it or not I am genuinely interested in knowing what my customers want....

And I’ve offered you one of the answers - NOTHING. They just want to be left alone.

But it’s very interesting that in your first post you used the words “pilots and their passengers”, whereas in your more recent post you use the term “customers”.

I did attempt to suggest that a great many of the “pilots and their passengers” that you initially referred to may not in fact be your “customers” at all.

A great many “pilots and their passengers” don’t need or want any “service” from you. In fact – many of them fly thousands of miles each year (or fly great distances at sub-optimal altitudes they’d not otherwise fly at) just to avoid being obliged to use the government’s air traffic “service”.

Not only do these “pilots and their passengers” choose not to receive a “service” (because they perceive no net benefit) but worse than that – they are inconvenienced by it and incur additional expense in avoiding it (as Lodown has alluded).

These people might not be your “customers”, but they are certainly “pilots and their passengers”.

So tell me again who it is that you are really interested in? Is it all “pilots and their passengers”, or only the “customers” who pay their way?

My comments about the citation driver stem from my belief that he uses his position of power to drive a personal agenda without consultation or thought for the people who will wind up dealing with the fall out from his schemes.

I realise that Dick-bashing (what an unfortunate term – then again, perhaps the double entendre is highly appropriate ) has become something of a national past-time – so much so that in certain circles it’s almost de-rigueur.

This is highly unfortunate. I suggest that Dick-bashing is simply passé.

One of the great things about being a pilot is that you get to visit different places and see different things – some of them a long way from home and in countries vastly different to our own. Many of these places make you realise just how good things are in Australia. But every now and then you come across a place that gives you ideas about how things back home could be done so much better. Spending time in other countries does give you a very different perspective to someone who has never left these shores.

Now I’m no great Dick-lover - I’ve openly and loudly disagreed with a number of his ideas both here and elsewhere. But there is no denying that he has vision, drive and enthusiasm in abundance. Combine this with his extensive experience of other parts of the world and you have a man that can see how good things in Australia could be, and who also has the time and energy to push for change.

And what’s wrong with that?

From reading some of the nonsense on these pages one does get the impression that those in certain circles are so anti-Dick that even if Dick Smith had discovered electricity there would have been hordes of knockers coming out of the woodwork in an attempt to belittle him - arguing that electricity was unsafe, that there was no need for it, that it’d never catch on, that it would be inefficient and a waste of money, and that it would result in unemployment for all the gas workers and steam engineers.

In my experience Dick’s loudest detractors are often those who are not well travelled and who are so engrossed in the micro-detail of the local status quo that they cannot see the forest for the trees.

....I think I have a pretty good understanding of what goes on away from the coast.

Maybe you do and maybe you don’t. I remain unconvinced. I suggest that it’s rather difficult to know what you don’t know.

What I was seeking was an understanding of what is unsatisfactory about the current system.

And that’s precisely what I am trying to tell you (although perhaps not as clearly as is apparently required).

What aspects of the present system are you unhappy with?

There is a large group of “pilots and their passengers”, remote from the capital cities and high traffic areas in the J-curve, who are currently obliged to use (and in some cases, pay for) a government monopoly air traffic “service” that they neither need nor want.

Ausatco,

What is your opinion ABOUT NAS, and why do you hold it?

Some aspects of NAS are a really good start. But in my opinion NAS doesn’t go nearly far enough.

If I had my way all of Australia would be class G. (proper G, not ICAO F as Australian G is now)

Since you asked....

I hold that opinion because I know that the flight crews of a dozen or so IFR and VFR aircraft arriving at a CTAF airport within 10 minutes of each other are perfectly capable of safely and sensibly sequencing themselves for landing without any assistance from air traffic control – day or night – even in IMC – even when one of them has a radio failure – and even without the very great traffic awareness benefit to be gained from TCAS. I know that because I have seen it happen a great many times. With the benefit of TCAS this kind of self-arranged mutual separation would be even easier. In contrast, the same level of traffic at a similar towered airport always results in lengthy delays.

I hold that opinion because I believe in the big sky theory (with certain qualifications). If all aircraft in Australia flew a GPS derived direct track from origin to destination with a random right offset (rather than funnelling everyone into the same narrow piece of airspace along a route defined by terrestrial navigation aids) and flew at a random cruising levels (eg 6,243 feet or 33,724 feet etc, rather than forcing everyone to funnel into the same few levels at 33,000 / 34,000 / 35,000 etc) the probability of a midair collision would be sufficiently remote – even within the high density east coast J-curve – as to justify reliance on existing TCAS systems to assist the flight crew resolve the very low residual risk of a collision. Outside the east coast J-curve the probability of a collision would be sufficiently remote as to be acceptable even without the benefit of TCAS (although the use of TCAS would decrease the risk of a collision even further).

I hold that opinion because I believe that a significant proportion of current air traffic control procedures are an anachronism based on now irrelevant technological constraints of a by-gone post-war era, exacerbated by the chronic lack of air traffic control infrastructure (ie primary radar) outside the capital cities. And I don’t see Australian radar coverage being extended anytime soon. Fortunately, I don’t think it will really matter.

What does matter is that the planes don’t collide. I suggest that the very best way of avoiding a collision is to ensure that the flight crews know where the other traffic is. A TCAS traffic display is an excellent means of achieving this. The better TCAS displays show traffic to a range of 40 miles and within a window of +/- 9,900 feet. Current TCAS systems can track up to 45 aircraft, display up to 30 of them, and can simultaneously co-ordinate resolution advisories with up to three intruders. Future TCAS systems will be even better.

The current air traffic control arrangement involving the use of a ground-based radar operator and/or air traffic controller has evolved from a time when the technology to provide a cockpit display of real time traffic information simply didn’t exist.

Additionally, in the bad old days airliners had to work their way along straight lines from one terrestrial radio navigation aid to the next. It wasn’t very efficient, and it did tend to funnel all the traffic into one narrow piece of airspace. But at least you knew where you were – somewhere between A and B! Thankfully, those days are long gone and airborne navigation technology has advanced to the point where an aircraft can be accurately and reliably navigated from anywhere to anywhere. There is no longer a need to funnel all the traffic down the same narrow highway in the sky and the chance of a midair collision is greatly reduced.

It’s hugely ironic that in the vast tracts of non-radar controlled airspace in Australia we currently have a situation where two conflicting TCAS-equipped aircraft are aware of each other’s actual position and pressure altitude, updated on a second by second basis, but the air traffic controller who owns the airspace and who is responsible for maintaining separation between these two aircraft is not. Why don’t we simply cut out the middle-man and let the flight crews get on with it?

In short, that’s why I hold that opinion (since you asked. )

But having said all that, I recognise that there are a great many people who are less trusting of modern technology than I am, who have trouble dealing with the statistical probability of their own death in an air crash in a rational way (irrespective of how remote that probability might be), and who have a different attitude toward perceived risk than I do.

I can understand that Australian society will demand that jet airliners flying between capital cities need to be positively separated from other IFR traffic – if for no other reason than as a “feel good” measure. As a minimum, that would require class E airspace in and between capital cities at typical jet levels.

For everywhere else I see no problem with ICAO class G.

Capcom,

Send John and Martha back to the US via the scenic route!

Vindictive sentiment towards John and Martha is justified because........ ?

John and Martha are two of the finest people you could ever hope to meet. They are in Australia at the invitation of the Australian government to make a contribution to pilot education as experts in their field.

But I guess they aren’t out there campaigning for a ten-fold increase in the number of air traffic controllers eh?

Perhaps you might explain why ATC’s being the apparently self interested bunch we are would not support NAS if it meant more jobs which it clearly will....

Whenever there is any kind of change proposed the air traffic controllers always come out saying that we will need more air traffic controllers. This is hardly surprising.

Unfortunately, the only people who are even pretending that they believe NAS will require more air traffic controllers are the air traffic controllers.

More cost to you ol bean, then again if you are VFR I guess not!

I would choose to operate a private flight in Australia VFR whenever possible. I’d prefer to fly VFR so I don’t have to pay to be delayed.

....give me your best go at justifying changing C to Non Radar E???

I don’t see any need for anything more than class E. If it’s in or between capital cities at typical jet levels then it should be class E – radar or no radar. All the traffic that matters already has TCAS and everyone else can get TCAS if they want it. It doesn’t matter whether people on the ground know where the planes are, what matters is whether the flight crews know where the planes are.

Lodown

4. Aircraft remaining entirely in CTA are handled well. Aircraft remaining entirely in Class G are okay. Transitions from Class G to CTA and CTA to Class G are far more complex than they should be and are handled very poorly.

5. Radio calls in Class G are more complicated and numerous than they need to be.

6. The “system” is taking the fun out of recreational flying and adding unnecessary costs to commercial GA operations.

All agreed.

1. I would be pushing for a US-style airspace system as well. To be sure, it has its drawbacks, but the advantages far, far outweigh the negatives in my view.

I concur.

3. Invest in a national digital terrain database for use with charts and new technologies....

Already exists in various forms, doesn’t it? eg EGPWS for basic terrain elevation data, GA GPS moving map display data for topographical features and airspace boundaries etc??? What kind of database do you mean?

I....believe the “system” is well overdue for an enema.

Me too. And it’s going to be a messy and uncomfortable affair.

Stick Pusher,

....all aircraft fitted with Mode C and TCAS

Now you’re talkin’.

OpsNormal,

It has to take those who make the decisions actually starting to look at the issue for what it IS..... The value of a human life (I didn't say lives).

A western, middle-aged, professionally employed university graduate white male with a wife and 2.5 dependent children living in a developed country is worth about US$2m. As cold as that might sound, the FAA uses this kind of actuarial valuation every day of the week in calculations regarding mandated levels of aviation safety.

....get away from this stupid notion that somehow the lives of those flying around out here are not as important as those flying around on the east coast

Aside from any issue about why one life is worth more than another (which, like it or not, is an actuarial reality) there are simply more lives at stake in the east coast J-curve, and so it is possible to justify a greater safety expenditure.

Captain Custard,

Typical post from you.

Am I being accused of consistency?

Lay off.

If I post something that does not comply with the forum rules then I would expect to be appropriately castigated by the forum’s moderator.

Unless and until that happens I will continue to call it as I see it.

It's not the controllers fault.

I would agree with any suggestion that in many cases air traffic controllers are eminently sensible people who are obliged to work in accordance with a silly and outdated set of rules.

In short - sensible people doing a silly job.

It's the attitude of the Australian government that causes this problem!

Agreed. And the sooner the provision of air traffic services is truly privatised the better.

....GA get a hell of a lot for nothing now (well, maybe 50c for a phone card call), all funded by the fare-paying passenger: all the Flight Information Services, NAIPS pilot access, Internet, AERIS, AWIBs, SAR. If you mob want to get really petty, then start paying for all of that. GA benefit in many ways from hopping on the coattail of commercial operators; it's just that some of you self-centered cowboys can't see it/forget that/refuse to admit it.

Your argument would be sustainable if the allegedly parasitic GA operators you refer to actually needed or wanted any of those “services”.

If those “services” weren’t available for free, would GA operators go out and purchase them? In a great many cases the answer would be NO.

Lodown,

I agree with everything in your 16:52 post.