The NAS, facts and fantasies

[ugly]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/nat/newsnat-25sep2003-24.htm

The world's largest organisation representing air traffic controllers has intervened in the dispute over Australia's proposed airspace system, labelling it "high risk".

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association in the US, which represents 15,000 members, says it is annoyed and disappointed at being used as a "selling tool" to justify changes in the Australian system.

The association says it wants to make it clear to the Australian Government that the proposed system does not parallel the US model.

Under the proposed Australian Model light aircraft would be able to use commercial airspace without notifying air traffic control.

Vice president of the US controllers, Ruth Marlin, says they are concerned it will reduce air safety.

"The plan to change airspace from class 'C' to class 'E' is a degradation of the system," Ms Marlin said.

"What we are all working for ... world-wide is to improve the airspace, to build it up, not to eliminate safety systems that we've put in place and that are well tried and tested."

In Australia, the air traffic controllers union, Civil Air, has welcomed the call by their counterparts in the US for the Australian Government to scrap the proposed National Airspace System.

Civil Air's president, Ted Lang, says he is meeting commercial pilots in Sydney today to discuss the next moves in their campaign.

"From the pilots and the controllers view point we feel that this is just reducing travel in Australia to a hit and miss affair," Mr Lang said.

"We've got the safest aviation airways in the world why do we need to mess with it?"

comments?

[Jet_A_Knight]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s953597.htm

Air traffic control defends new system

Air Services Australia has rejected criticisms of the new National Airspace System by the 15,000 strong air traffic controllers union in the United States.

The US air controllers say the new system appears "high risk" because it will allow light planes to fly unannounced into the flight paths of commercial traffic.

Their union also says it is wrong to use the US model as a justification for the Australian system, because they will not operate with the same radar coverage.

Air Services Australia's chief executive Bernie Smith says the US model has a good safety record, despite high traffic density and worse weather, and is a legitimate model for Australia.

Mr Smith has denied safety will be compromised, saying the Australian system is subject to rigorous assessment of its suitability for Australian conditions.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s953597.htm

Air traffic control defends new system

Air Services Australia has rejected criticisms of the new National Airspace System by the 15,000 strong air traffic controllers union in the United States.

The US air controllers say the new system appears "high risk" because it will allow light planes to fly unannounced into the flight paths of commercial traffic.

Their union also says it is wrong to use the US model as a justification for the Australian system, because they will not operate with the same radar coverage.

Air Services Australia's chief executi

[ugly]

Jet-A (Jedi? )

you cut yourself off there - the full is

Air Services Australia has rejected criticisms of the new National Airspace System by the 15,000 strong air traffic controllers union in the United States.

The US air controllers say the new system appears "high risk" because it will allow light planes to fly unannounced into the flight paths of commercial traffic.

Their union also says it is wrong to use the US model as a justification for the Australian system, because they will not operate with the same radar coverage.

Air Services Australia's chief executive Bernie Smith says the US model has a good safety record, despite high traffic density and worse weather, and is a legitimate model for Australia.

Mr Smith has denied safety will be compromised, saying the Australian system is subject to rigorous assessment of its suitability for Australian conditions.

[tobzalp]

So lets gets this straight. John and martha said it was different, The Americans who were consulted (apparently) in the first place ie the ATCs say it is different but Bernie is still trumpeting the 'It is the same so it is Safe!' argument. You just don't get it do you Bernie.:mad:

[snarek]

Ooooh look.

More union motivated expensive job creation hype.

the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

AK

[Chief galah]

You have a surprisingly poor grasp of the issues.

CG

[karrank]

While full of cheap red wine tonight I opined the following:

Immediately prior to me becoming involved in aviation 20 years ago VFR got the option of not being involved in the system OCTA. There were cries of "people are goina die!" Nobody did.

Then traffic was no longer passed on VFR OCTA, around 1991, and there were cries of "people are goina die!" Nobody has.

E airspace arrived about 8 years ago, and there were cries of "people are goina die!" Nobody has.

Now general E airspace, and the non-participation of VFR in controlled airspace, are a-comin' and people (that I respect) are saying "people are goina die!"

I don't think I'll sell my Coles-Myer and get into Consolidated Tombstone just yet.:\

[SM4 Pirate]

karrank,

I take your point; but were the Hazards identified and then correctly mitigated?

This process has avoided identifying hazards unless there is a difference in the detail of each procedure.

The problem with NAS so far, is that most of the 'same procedures' are introduced into a different environment, (which is a difference) then they're not assessed because they are the same; each change should be assessed and mitigated correctly.

Bottle of Rum

[snarek]

Chief gallah

And I suppose that for you consider my grasp of the issues 'adequate' I must go back and pay homage to any union initiated drivell.

Pleaseeee!!!! Gimme a break.

I don't see a problem. I see the beginning of a lot of solutions to over-regulated expensive airspace and confusing ever changing rules. I think we need that.

Show me a problem not tarnished with IFR 'dominance' and union interference and I'll listen. But here (and everwhere else) I see only the poorly presented bleating of about 10 individuals.

Consultation me old mate is about meeting on common ground, not moving to yours!!!

AK

[brianh]

And we also had to have MBZ for safety. What a joke. What has self-announcement at 15 Nm achieved for safety?

I like the Kings comment that the safety problem diminishes with the square of the distance from the aerodrome. Couldn't agree more.

The CTAF rules have moved to next year as the NAS is white anted. Here we go again.

Actually, to save time this time around, how about everyone starts submitting the near miss reports even before the next NAS stage starts - it won't make them any more factual but it will allow a little more time for the creative writing process and save the ATSB from a workload peak - oh, Class E here we go again.

We should never have taken VFR off 2 minute reporting, nor removed the man with the red flag from in front of the horseless carriage - please don't anyone mention that fearful word "change".

karrank,
More red wine. Yours rates as the most commonsense posting this month!
cheers
Brian H

[brianh]

I take back everything I said, well, almost.

Tonight's TV News has me staggered at the new risks airline passengers are going to experience under the NAS.

Light aircraft will be sharing the same space below 3000 metres and may not use their radios. Shudder, horror, fear.

Almost sounds like we are going to get some Class G in Oz - hey, hang on, I heard a rumour we may have some already. Or perhaps the odd CTAF with Saab 340's and non-radio aircraft - hey, must drop into Latrobe Valley one day and watch the planes crashing.

Fantastic work by the flat earth society. I'm impressed.
Brian H

[snarek]

Brian

AOPA has written to the Minister outlining our reserved support for NAS. That should go some way to aleviating the ignorance spread by the 'flat earth society'.

While there are some legitimate concerns re NAS, most of what we see on these pages appears to me at least to be little more than job protection/creation from CivilAir and turf war from AFAP.

It will not win the day.

"Pilots" (as claimed on TV) are NOT concerned at NAS. Rather a small group of arrogant 'bus drivers' are pretending to represent all pilots in order they don't have to meet change. That, in my view, sums it up.

The AOPA board is in general agreement that we support NAS with some reservations. Individually opinion is mixed from full support to cynicism. That is fair and healthy. The people who present reasoned argument will be listened to, we will suggest that those responsible for scaremongering should be ignored.

My opinion is that NAS and ADSB are intertwined and that the two, together, will be a great leap forward in airspace and safety. I also think ADSB will mean MORE jobs for CivilAir (because more money will be available and more info will be presentable and a far greater degree of safety for RPT in CTAFs.

We will be coutering last night's nonesense.

Andrew Kerans

[prospector]

"The AOPA board is in general agreement"
That must be pleasant change for all concerned.

Prospector

[C182 Drover]

Maybe AOPA should be hitting the airwaves and newspapers showing that we agree with the NAS system otherwise it looks like the airline pilots are speaking on our behalf, because we have no voice.

AOPA is the voice of GA pilots and operators here in Australia and we should be on the front foot with issues like this, so let’s hear it on the news and media. :ok:

[snarek]

It ain't perfect and I doubt it ever will be. But I am enjoying myself and for the first time in 3 years on the Board I am actually feeling like we are really achieving stuff.

The Board all work well together and the depth and bredth of experience is invaluable.

There are a few whingers left out there, but they have their own forum, so on this one we can get on with the debate :)

Drover, a letter has already gone to the Minister and a press release has been sent out. We are on it!! :ok:

AK

[BIK_116.80]

NAS - US air controllers join dispute over airspace

The only issue that the US controllers are interested in is the imminent ATC privatisation in the USA.

My bet is that they are searching the world for allies and think they’ve found one in Civil Air.

[brianh]

I'm right behind Andrew K on this.


Keep up the good work Andrew.
Brian H

You will get the message eventually W

[gaunty]

Media Release 30 September 2003

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
PO Box 26 Georges Hall, NSW, 2198
Phone: (02) 9791 9099 Fax: (02) 9791 9355

National Airspace System

AOPA Australia, who currently represents over 4000 pilots and aircraft owners, would like to respond to the comments made by Civil Air yesterday.

Whilst we have high regard for the professionalism and skills of the Air Traffic Control members of Civil Air and the airline pilots, we are concerned that these bodies appear to be engaging in an unnecessary scare campaign on the traveling public over the implementation of the National Airspace System.

There are some isolated issues in the change from “C” Class to “E” Class Airspace that have already been identified by the regulatory authorities, but we are confident they will be properly dealt with, as have been many other issues, in the normal course of implementation.

AOPA, as Australia’s largest pilot representative body, supports the implementation of the NAS is closely monitoring the implementation and is confident that the safety case analysis applied by BOTH Airservices and CASA before its implementation will ensure that the systems are safe, simple to use and based on world’s best practice.

AOPA is working closely with and supports NASIG in the preparation of educational material and the process, crucial to its success.

Airservices Australia whose responsibility it will become is recognised world wide as a benchmark leader in the provision of Air Services. They are a valuable export commodity for Australia.

AOPA’s President, Marjorie Pagani, is available for a response on the comments made yesterday and she would like to express her support for the NAS.

Marjorie is available on 0407 267 203 between 1:15 pm & 2:15pm and after 5:00 pm today.

OR
Vice President
Ron Lawford on 0407 267 209 all day

OR
Vice President
Gary Gaunt on 0407 267 200 all day

[ozbiggles]

Snarek
Your words
The people who present reasoned argument will be listened to, we will suggest that those responsible for scaremongering should be ignored.
Then you sink to mud slinging.
Your words
"Pilots" (as claimed on TV) are NOT concerned at NAS. Rather a small group of arrogant 'bus drivers' are pretending to represent all pilots in order they don't have to meet change.
That does not present itself as reasoned argument, rather biased comment. If you want to represent people and get your case up (you even admit your organisation has some reservations and offer 'reserved' support for NAS, does this make you an arrogant bus driver?), mud slinging will only serve to give the organisation that you represent a reputation that will be unhelpful.

[snarek]

Me over reacting to

A great post from another dumb VFR bugsmasher pilot who has no grasp of the big picture.

and other such drivel from q1w2e3 on reporting points.

What it does do though is stop me listening to them, and I one of the ones pushing the Government with the weight of a bigger organisation that their's behind me. So it ain't smart politics on their part.

Mind you, could be a NAS supporter in drag trying to achieve just that, ain't you is it Open Mike??? ;)

AK

[Time Bomb Ted]

SNAREK

One guess where the Flat Earth Society Headquarters is?......

The Alan Woods Building, Canberra.


Keep up the good work Andrew.

TBT

[brianh]

I've got the message, just had a number of key players including an aviation mag editor wanting to understand its meaning B

[Bart Ifonly]

Snarek , once again I find myself in agreement with you, my goodness, what is happening to me.

Keep up the good work. :ok:

Bart

[C182 Drover]

Keep up the good work there................... :ok:

[snarek]

No way!!!

I ain't smart enuf.

Besides, we got a bl@@dy good team now.

AK

[2B1ASK1]

Well I think you did say in the posts re-Dick Smith that you have had some input to NAS if you were at the workshop? then you know what you are saying is not entirely true. Every step of the implementation was looked at by a wide range of representatives and Hazards were identified and in some cases mitigated correctly to ALARP ie the risk was as low as reasonably possible.
where this was not the case implementation has been delayed for example the new CTAF procedures and the removal of MBZ,s
Personally I feel the process is being handled very well particularly when Dick is not present.

The last workshop was a workshop to examine all the parts that were non compliant with the US system which would make your comments correct but not the first 4 days of part 2b. I kind of think we probably are on the same side here I support NAS 100% but will continue to examine the fine details of each stage raise appropriate hazard concerns and help if possible mitigate them. I do accept some industry concerns but believe they are in most cases not valid and more a case of reluctance to change. As for the scare munger tactics on the Australian public I find it truly hard to believe that they would stoop so low to lie to the Australian public what a sad day for aviation it makes me wonder why I love aviation at times, I think they have forgotten what flying realy is and its not about being a bus driver they are a minority but have such a large voice how sad!. They are using the end state example from the hand out to pilots to scare the public, that picture is an example only and has never been discussed as a final model and never will be untill suitable technology such as ADSB has been put in place. :ok:

[brianh]

Nice to see that Andrew K has also posted on agaf and enlisting further support via that group.
Andrew's balanced approach makes such things possible and I commend him for his people skills in enlarging the debating team.

I was interested to debate the NAS with a flying instructor yesterday and I concluded that those who don't know much about it accept the scaremongering of the media driven by those with vested interests, yet those who do know something about it are - like 2B1 - prepared to work their way through accepting and fine tuning the NAS. So far the NAS education has been mainly within aviation, perhaps there is a need for a media strategy from the NAS people to get the facts to the journos and passenger public.
Brian H

[Woomera]

Have at it here guys.

Woomeri

[jakethemuss]

Who the hell is AOPA?

[tobzalp]

more to the point is who cares :ok:

[Dehavillanddriver]

Snarek,

All of the domestic RPT guys that i have spoken to on this topic are in total agreement - NAS is going to produce problems.

The removal of DTI causes us much concern as does the frequency separation of IFR and VFR in E airspace.

To be honest I am not sure of what is going on anymore because the plot has changed so many times and the consultation/education process is abysmal.

I have been to many meetings where AsA said you can have anything you want as long as you are prepared to pay for it.

We say great we want DTI, and they say you can't have DTI, BUT you can have anything you want if you are prepared to pay for it!

It is a circular arguement - we want what they don't want to give and it stops there.

The first time that one of your AOPA guys frightens themselves stupid with a windscreen full of 737 or Dash-8 or SAAB - the AOPA position will change and it will be too late.

What we have currently works - there is not going to be any demonstrable cost benefit from NAS so WHY CHANGE??????

Change for change sake is hardly a smart way to go....

By the way I do agree that ADS-B will be of great benefit, but to get it into the heavy end of town is going to be very expensive and there needs to be a cost benefit - which will not be easy to prove.

[Chief galah]

IFR pilot

"But I didn't know it was E airspace....!"

VFR pilot

"But I thought it was E airspace....!"

CG

[snarek]

Dehav

AOPA (and I am speaking for the organisation now) believes the key is education, lots more of it than we are getting now. AOPA is lobbying NASIG re education and will be actively involved to make the flow of our 'bugsmaher' members and the Regionals smoother.

We also believe that ADSB will knock the rough edges off a lot of your concerns and we are interested in listening to any genuine concerns that do not run off the backs of scaremongering unions.

The Board have debated a lot of pertinent facts presented by the more sane posters here (like Chief Galah) and Board member Ron Bertram is very active at the workshops.

It is sad when we turn against each other, but in my view it is CivilAir and AFAP that must shoulder a lot of responsibility for that! Their recent actions personally disgusted me!!!

AOPA is lobbying hard for ADSB with CDTI for the whole GA fleet. When we have that we will have a world class airspace system where (almost) everyone knows where the other is. ADSB will eventually, I hope, expand Class A to cover most of the country making transitions in lower D and E even safer for everyone.

There will be little side issues (like non-radio aircraft and ultralights ... and I own one of the former), these again will be education issues between our members, CASA and the AUF. I for instance have never had an issue or problem with any RPT, I carry a handheld, I listen and I get out of the circuit and out of the way when I hear them approaching. Common sense really.

Together (and I mean that) we can make this work.

Andrew Kerans

[SM4 Pirate]

Well I think you did say in the posts re-Dick Smith that you have had some input to NAS if you were at the workshop?
Never been to a workshop, but there are many ways to in the weeds of this project.
…and Hazards were identified and in some cases mitigated correctly to ALARP ie the risk was as low as reasonably possible.
This is why I have problems, many characteristics which are not compliant with the US model, (7 out of 10); 5 that matter have Hazards that are not mitigated to ALARP. The possibility is still low that the ultimate consequence will occur, but it is a greater probability than what we have today; I say why, it doesn’t save money, it does increase risk – that’s my point; nobody is addressing my point… This is not the USA model because of the differences 5 of 10 changes for this next stage are not compliant to a point where it matters.
where this was not the case implementation has been delayed for example the new CTAF procedures and the removal of MBZ,s Personally I feel the process is being handled very well particularly when Dick is not present.
The MBZ issue will probably be a show stopper, that’s why it got pushed back; two things will happen, it will get pushed back again or stage 2b will be the final model; yuk! I agree keep Dick out of it.
I do accept some industry concerns but believe they are in most cases not valid and more a case of reluctance to change.
The reluctance is due to there being no clearly identified benefit. No benefit, don’t do it. If my mechanic suggested I get Michelin tyres because he doesn’t like Dunlop’s I don’t by them unless there is a reason, not because he doesn’t like them; where is the cost benefit. If however he proves extra safety I will consider changing; if he proves that low safety exists I'll definitely buy new tyres.
…they are a minority but have such a large voice how sad!.
They have a large voice because the consequence of one of their airframes being lost is massive
They are using the end state example from the hand out to pilots to scare the public, that picture is an example only and has never been discussed as a final model and never will be untill suitable technology such as ADSB has been put in place.
2B1, if you really believe that then you and I are talking on the same side of the argument; there is nothing in any documentation linking further rollouts to new technology.

ADSB is not going to be ‘operational’ until 2008 (or there abouts). We were supposed to have completed training in December 2002; it’s still not able to go onto the TAAATS platform. Then when it does, it will give some low level coverage, but the sites are chosen to give ‘complete’ coverage above FL350 over continental Australia. ADSB will not provide ‘radar’ like coverage at low levels unless it gets a commitment from the government (probably) to do so; massive expense, even though it is cheaper than radar. Cost is still the problem; $300K per site (initially 20 sites, full coverage 55 sites comes to mind); $5K or more per aircraft, who funds it.

ADSB is the ‘great white hope’; Larry Holmes almost killed him… remember that.

My issue is mostly about trying to get the message about NAS is not the US model; stop saying it is.

Stop rejecting logical well thought out alternatives on the basis that they also are not compliant; safer options, no extra costs, bring them on.

Bottle of Rum

[Bonzer]

snarek

Firstly AOPA is a big aero club

Secondly a lot of its members are also members of the AIPA and the AFAP. People who like flying and aeroplanes. People who have a respect for the fragility of safety. Its a very fine line between a good days flying and an absolutely disastrous day

The AFAP has participated in one joint press release yet you focuss in on the AFAP, whats your beef

snarek, get a life

[gaunty]

Beauty Bonzer mate.

Firstly AOPA is a big aero club is a good way to demean and alienate a good proportion of the punters to your argument.

The AFAP and to a much lesser extent the AIPA have now almost totally marginalised themselves by their joining with Civil Airs unprofessional and totally irresponsible scaremongering.

I am proud to number more than a few ATCOs and Airline Pilots amongst my friends, they are consumate professionals and are a little bewildered by the actions of their representatives. They may have some reservations about this 'n that, but "scaring the horses" just to make a point is not in their repertoire.

There has been much made about the "spin" alleged against NASIG.
The "spin" allowed by Civil Air et al recently borders on french farce.
How professional are they when they have the "public" jamming switchboards around the country and provoking declaiming from idiot shock jocks, asking Air Services, CASA et al, whether it is still safe for granny to fly to see her grandys, based on mischievous disinformation. It is the height of irresponsibility.
And this from most responsible professions.

I'm confused.:ouch:

[ferris]

I continue to be stunned by some of the responses here.

Civil Air has grabbed some media attention. This NAS juggernaut may now face some opposition, or at least cause those that make decisions to pause and think. We've had 12 months or more of Dick's lies (and he is a master of the media grab), backed up by the professional liers in Canberra, yet there are howls of (adopting plummy accent) "it's just not cricket, Civil Air".

Please, continue to occupy that high moral ground. Naivety at it's best.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Snarek - the title of this thread is Facts and fantasies.Which aspect are you coming from with your comments in repsect of what ADS-B is going to do - especially relating to your comments on Class A airspace?

This by the way has nothing to do with the aspects of NAS that are being challenged by those who work with and in our airspace every day - 24/7.

In the previous incarnation of this thread I posed the question of how NAS was going to allow you to do things that you can't do now - i.e. where exactly are there efficiencies and expediencies to be gained - especially in view of the AirServices CEO dismissing the Willoughby reports projections of saving $70M outright. Bottom line - what operational or safety outcome makes this change imperative and worth the cost?

I , like the AFAP/CivilAir etc. are waiting for a coherent answer on this from anyone competent to answer - the silence is eery.

(edited for spelling and a big red wine spill)

[Wheeler]

I wonder if the NAS in places like BUD might actually change the balance of power a bit. When (say) you are coming up from the south to overfly and join crosswind for 32 but some super professional expert is doing a downwind takeoff to save their esteemed employer a couple of dollars. You are requested (read told) to remain to west until they finish their interesting little circuit busting manouver. When they things like this, it must be really reassurring to know that they have TCAS and everyone is obliged to use their radio. Now, wouldn't that mess up things if there could be someone around in that G airspace, joining at 45 degrees on downwind for 32, without a radio or a transponder. But then again, that could be happening already..... Might be worth at least considering going round the same way as everybody else then.

[tobzalp]

Gaunty and the rest of the misguided. The Civil Air line is base 100% on the NAS. Not 2b but the NAS end state.

Hopefully you realise also that AK's ramblings about the superdoopper airborne radar run from the phone network (ADSB)installed in every plane at tax payers expense is just never EVER GUNNA HAPPEN!!!!


Lets think of this reasonably.

The government says that they are going to give a $5000 piece of equipment FREE!!!! to a person who can afford to buy their own plane just to make an usafe system safer (but less safe than 4/10/03)......


Ahahahahahahah


Hohohohohohohoho


We have people PEOPLE WHO VOTE IN GREATER NUMBERS THAN THE AOPA FLYING CLUB OF POCKET PROTECTORS AND COMB OVERS 4000 odd membership that have jack shiat. No car, rent assistance and no bulk billing. Your little gang is not quite the force that you think. A private aircraft is not a necessity. Health care is. Tax cuts are. Do you really think that after 1 report on A Current Affair ( a program that has been well and truely against your pin up boy) and a 15 second snipit on the news intro that the battlers that both sides of the fence want to see have a better standard of living will side with you? Pffft, sif.

Now is the time for you to stop trying to stop trying to get involved with things that you are not qualified to have input into. Please, the adults are talking, go back to the other room.


Delude your self some more AK, you will get the machinery, for free, and I hand you the flat earth society tag.....

rookie.

[Capn Bloggs]

Snarek,

Airservices Australia whose responsibility it will become is recognised world wide as a benchmark leader in the provision of Air Services. They are a valuable export commodity for Australia.

(from AOPAs press release)

How can this statement (if it were true, which it ain't) possibly provide justification for the introduction of AUSNAS?? A nice piece of political mumbo jumbo designed to convince an unsuspecting public. Airservices couldn't give a stuff about anybody below FL200: note the much trumpeting about ADSB "all over the country!" Yahoo!! At FL300!!! Great!

You mention (as I have read in the AOPA rag) that you guys are pushing for ADSB in all GA aircraft: who's going to pay, just so you can fly where you please, when you please and ****** anybody who gets in the way?? The people who contribute to AsA's coffers now, which ain't you!! So you are going to get freeby ADSB (which you'll have to fix, or do you get 20 years/10 million air miles worth of maintenance with on it as well??) paid for by the travelling public/commercial operators/taxpayers, because you've got Dick Smith on your side. Get real: the world has traffic lights now, even though some don't like them; we wear seat belts, even though some don't like them. Get on the radio and stop whinging.

You guys are a joke and a hazard to the fare-paying passenger.

Speaking of facts and fantasies, I noticed Dick's press release on his proposed Broome Tower: "Safety will be lifted 3 levels from G to D!!" Yahoo, except that's nonsense. It's surrounded by Class F, it's an MBZ, and it has a CAGRS. That makes Dick's claim an expensive furphy, just like most of the stuff that comes from AOPA.

[brianh]

Having read a number of posts on this page that are pure rhetoric unbiased by any factual content, I can see why there is trouble introducing the NAS.

Likewise the attack on AOPA. Ah well, when facts are unavailable, go the player and by demeaning him try and win the argument.

Is there any chance of the debate coming back to the pros and cons of the NAS issues - supported by statistics or other forms of logic? I would hate any RPT jockeys to be carrying pax with PIC minds in confusion.

We will probably fly Melb CTAF to Bris GAAP tomorrow in a GA aircraft. Radio calls at CTAF or MBZ enroute. The CTAF we are departing will today have skydiving, joyflights, GA and AUF training, powered hang glider joyflights, visitors flying in to the restaurant. Some no radio. We anticipate a safe CTAF today and a safe journey tomorrow causing problems to no-one, particularly our colleagues who fly at FLs.

This is pre-NAS but continues to work well due to standards of operating. That's what it's all about and - now I think of it - its the RPT guys saving $ by short cut procedures that have caused me most concerns since I started flying in 1979. Only a few but does this imply that part of the NAS resistance is not so much "safety" per se but a desire to operate in a protected environment?

What I saw on TV, including GA and RPT "sharing" airspace below 3000 metres - gee, that's something new and scary - was great spin with no fact. Why allow this thread to diminish to that level.
Cheers
Brian H

[NOtimTAMs]

Why, Brian? Because it's a rumour network. := ;)

The fact is RPT aircraft, light GA (VFR & IFR), ultralights, gliders and even fast military traffic have been mixing it to a greater or lesser degree in non-radar, non-transponder environments in many areas of Australia for years now. At times these have also been effectively non-radio environments when aircraft have been on wrong or adjacent FIA frequencies. E.G. For RPT landing at Dubbo, CURRENTLY go from "C" to "E" at FL 200 (if they get that high), from "E" to "G" at FL125, from "G" to "MBZ" at 5000' - I don't recall hearing any great uproar of gnashing of teeth at this! There are also regular scheduled services to CTAFs surrounded by G.......(*gasp*)

There have been no en-route collisions in these environments that I am aware of. There have been what have been perceived as near misses in the "terminal area" avoided by visual means and, it seems, extremely rarely in the en-route environment. The only mid-airs that I recall have been in GAAP environments, one of which was an MBZ at the time and an other in parallel runway ops. There have also been a couple of cases of aircraft landing on top of another aircraft on the runway - again in GAAP/MBZ environments.

So, class G and CTAFs seem to have demonstrated safe operations IN AUSTRALIA - even with the minimal calls recommended by CASA in recent years. Many of the NAS changes are similar to what goes on now in our airspace in many areas. The question remains as to what level of traffic density can this type of airspace be expanded to with comparable demonstrated levels of safety.

To me this has been the major failing of NASIG - there has been no data comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. If the US has demonstrated enroute and terminal area safety in areas of similar (or heavier) traffic density AND radar coverage, then surely there can be little objection.

Such data has not been forthcoming. Sure, anyone can understand the logic of collision risk decreasing in proportion to the cube of the distance from the aerodrome area, but this doesn't explain enough of the other variables and is almost insultingly facile to use as a sole safety case. Sure, modelling can be done, but it must be cross-checked with real world data - where do we have this?

You're right, Brian, little of the NAS debate has been based on facts, and on both sides of the argument there are opinions aplenty, but so few facts to be had.....

Safe flying :ok:

NOtimTAMs

[WALLEY2]

Everyone needs to take a breath and understand the facts.

There are no CTAF airports in Australia where large RPT aircraft with 100s of fellow Aussies on board mix it with unannounced GA, we do not mix 737-800 with NORAD aircraft.

BASI 1991 Limitation to see and avoid: Explained why (physilogically) at closing speeds of 400kms/hr the human eye could not see small unannounced a/c in time.

BASI recommendation NO RPT a/c into CTAF.

CASA 2002 Risk Analysis MBZ/CTAF mathmatically modelled using traffic survey data found that the risks associated with CTAF was unacceptable at airports with traffic approaching 20,000 movements per annum.

John and Martha King (nice folks) advised no airports in USA has 737 RPT landing at CTAF A/Ps

The unissued report by Australian Delegates to USA for NAS investigation says no Jet RPT into CTAF infact virtually no Jet RPT in class G unless under radar and ATC.

Here I do have a problem if we fund a delegation to the USA then the stakeholders in the industry should be given a copy of that report even if it is detrimental to the NAS IG position.

As I said on another thread:

NO DATA, NO ANALYSIS, NO PROOF then NO CHANGE.

This same dictum should apply to enroute changes aswell.

I would love to see some debate on the enroute changes clearly laying out the changes advantages and risk analysis.

May I suggest the "bug buster,bus driver,union w@nker" stuff be left at the door,it contributes nothing to the debate on this important aviation issue.

[snarek]

The government says that they are going to give a $5000 piece of equipment FREE!!!! to a person who can afford to buy their own plane just to make an usafe system safer (but less safe than 4/10/03)......

I would hope so. because I ain't paying $5K just to make your employer more profitable. It will take about 10% of aircraft unfitted to make ADSB useless!!! Use 'above (say) 8500' will be just as useless, it is in CTAFs that YOU (the professional pilot) need everyone to be ADSB fitted.

Basically, if it ain't free it ain't happening and then you'll be stuck with NAS without ADSB below (say) 10,000'. That would not (in my view) be a good end solution. By free I mean free to all of GA (not just VFR) that means verything from VFR 2 seaters to Twotters and beyond. So, we ain't (as is oft suggested by the more belligerent here) just looking out for number one.

But then you could lobby against it I suppose, short sighted pilots' and ATC unions have stuffed up worse before, so I won't be surpirsed if that's what happens after this :(

Someone somewhere in an AFAP document mentiond 'commercial airspace' (sort of C special :) ).

Fine, if it is commercial, you pay for it. But like any other commercial activity on public land (or air, or water) you do not and never will get the right to make others pay as a result of your use. You are getting me (slightly) riled such that I am beginning to think it is not even in our (much maligned VFR owners) interests to have transponders in E!! (which was the original deal, but AOPA has been listening to other arguments). Geez you guys know how to make enemies!!!

I personally doubt this has anything to do with QF, VB or Skimpy. In my 25 years of (obviously unprofessional :E) flying I have NEVER had a problem with high end RPT. I have however been exposed to cowboys in Bongos on Cape York doing no radio straight in approaches, Metros in regional Victoria doing straight ins in a full circuit, charter and bank runners doing down wind no radio take offs.

Now these guys are the minority (I hope they are anyway) but no change to airspace is going to control this sort of irresponsible behaviour. I have found the average PPL (unconstrained as s/he is by finances) to be exemplary in nearly all cases. So why pay out on them.

The answer is given in a post below, I believe the anti-NASers want to keep operating as they see fit with a disregard for procedure 'to save a buck' and I believe these cowboys think they will no longer be able to do it safely without directed traffic under NAS. Probably true, so under NAS we need rid of the cowboys!!!!

I figure the best way to deal with this is to start dobbing so we clean these loverly people out of our system and that way get safer skies with NAS and hopefully a full ADSB rollout.

So, I shall start with the next non-compliant opertor I see. :E

The other whingers, marginal ATCers (and I know these are the minority) who are probably no good at their jobs. That has been my experience with union whingers, the loudest are often the most useless. To the genuine good controllers out there, look at the facts not the rhetoric, there is no job shortage, as GA grows under a better system there will be more jobs. ADSB will help increase safety and increased safety means more flying and thus more jobs.

AK

[ferris]

Then why isn't ADSB linked to NAS?

ATM, the two are totally seperate issues. I agree that if the two were linked, most of the safety issues would go away. But that isn't the case. Why isn't AOPA lobbying hard to delay NAS until the oz register fit-out is complete? Damned irresponsible if you ask me. Don't tell me you believe "they'll get around to it later" theory, do you? I'd hate to think AOPA was being disengenuous.

[snarek]

ferris

A letter, written by me signed by Marjorie Pagani, was sent out this week.

It is not easy to 'link' these things, NASIG have resisted it and the recent bull-merde from the unions shifted the issue to a fantasy plane.

If we all worked together for what would benefit all of us (unlike toxic-blats bleatings) then perhaps we would achieve something solid and positive for all of GA.

AOPA is not solely the representative of the VFR PPL. In fact most of the representation I do is at the IFR charter level. We do listen to our members and have their input, interestingly the two biggest proponents of NAS in AOPA are both ex-Jumbo Captains!!!

Perhaps you could get your side of the NAS argument fired up pro-ADSB. That way we'd at least have something to agree with each other on PPRuNe :)

AK

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Basically, if it ain't free it ain't happening and then you'll be stuck with NAS without ADSB below (say) 10,000'. That would not (in my view) be a good end solution.

Therefore: You now think that NAS is not a good solution.

ADS-B and NAS are not interdependant - the timelines are separate - NAS in a few weeks - ADS-B a few years.

On A a separate line -- How does ADS-B work with overseas based aircraft? Obviously no overseas aircraft is going to have one fitted, therefore SSR still required, so where are the costs savings on Radar?

[snarek]

S-T

1. We are trying to tie the timelines. help us.

2. My perspective supported by all (reasoned, not you zop-zit) argument on here suggests that NAS is only a problem in E, not C. So my next answer to one of your questions is an out of context phurphy, but here goes.

3. Only the good old US of A has decided to go its own way. Other aircraft should be compliant. Answer to that, tell em to come in they have to be compliant. (a $5K box represents less than .001% of a 747, it represents upwards of 15% of an older PA-28).

4. NAS with ADSB is a good solution, in my view, for the guys in D abnd below. But you ('they') will never manage to mandate Mode S systems below (say) 8500', so to get it for all of us we ALL need to push it.

AK

[NOtimTAMs]

Wally2

I also don't recall any jets going into CTAFs as RPT (and I also don't recall any 737's carrying hundreds!!). ;)

Logically, theres not a lot of difference between jets and the Dash's, SAAB's (and other turboprop RPT's I'm too lazy to think of) going to CTAFs. The Dash 8 & SAAB carry 30-40 and are as capable of doing the 250KTS limit (in E & G) below 10000' on descent as are the jets. Closing speeds are similar when descending through E & G. If what is being proposed to do at some locations with (say) 737's and CRJ's is unsafe in your view, surely then you would want to call a halt to the current turboprop ops, then?

I'm not saying we should not have a line drawn somewhere, but where do we draw the line, and why? What is the RATIONAL reasoning behind it? Why is it OK for a Turboprop carrying 30-40 and not a jet carrying, say, 50-100?

I agree with you when you say NO DATA, NO ANALYSIS, NO PROOF then NO CHANGE, though.

I think many aspects of the NAS have been proven safe by usage in many areas of Australia, but not in some others - that's when we need FACTS and DATA not "logical" arguments of the "if one raincoat keeps you dry is safe then two or three will keep you drier (even when it's not raining!)" variety.....

Neither the opponents nor the proponents of NAS have come up with ANY comparative data on which to base their stances - you can theorise all you like, but if something is well demonstrated by experience/practice, you may as well take the empirical route. If you don't have the data and don't have established criteria from which you are arguing , then it's all so much waffle.

SNAREK

I'd love ADSB too, but I'm sure that the NAS guys don't want this linked to what is likely to be an even more lengthy process!

If we can share the roads, surely we can share the airspace.....

****suT

Good point re: foreign craft - wouldn't the bigger boys have Mode S available, though?

Safe flying:ok:

NOtimTAMs

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Snarek,

I agree that ADS-B is a great bit of kit. Especially from a cockpit aspect of increased situational awareness and traffic alerting capability. I also believe the attraction to AirServices corporate side (read government) is purley on financial grounds in two aspects - 1. potential reduction in SSR commissioning / maintenance, 2. onselling of technology rights overseas especially to emerging nations ATM systems.

Franky I think that is where it ends for them - who pays for the installation will be another great argument that will end up in political circles, just like the argument over whi pays for the waiving Enroute airways charges for RPT ACFT <15K Tonne MTOW.

Your suggestion of just telling them to be compliant smacks of the kind of dictatorial stance that I thought AOPA were opposed to? And does it make economic sense? It is all very well to say it is just a $5000 bit of kit but the logistics of your suggestion go way beyond that when you sit down and look at it - let me say ADS-B is not my forte, but I can see readiuly that their will be company issues stretching well beyond the solution of whacking it in lighting the fires and blasting off. Radar will be here for quite a while yet, and we havent even mentioned primary radar and the 'saves' it makes each day.

With respect to helping you tie the timelines how do you really expect a simple controller to make ADS-B happen now!? The technology and deployment rollout is still evolving isn't it?

NAS does not depend on ADS-B. All the arguments that have been made on this forum by the supporters of NAS have not been dependant upon the accelerated deployment of a new technology have they?

The issues that make NAS reduce our overall level of safety and efficiency have nothing to do with ADS-B.

I support ADS-B in it's own right - but not as a crutch to hold up a flawed airspace reform.

[snarek]

S-T

I didn't make the $5K argument, someone else did (see below).

ADSB is stand alone, yes. But if we are to listen to the Anti-NAS arguments presented here, it is the answer to most of them.

I personally don't think ADSB is critical for NAS and I personally do think NAS will work. I was trying to find a compromise position between those that think NAS will create dangers for regionals in D and E. ADSB is that compromise.

An Australian company has designed a Mode-S box with GPS and CDTI. Bought in big enough numbers it could be FITTED for less than $5K per GA aircraft. US and European aircraft may not comply with the Mode-S standard, but it isn't in any AOPA members interest to drag our safety levels down just because they can't comly.

Where the big bucks of open skies is at stake I doubt the likes of BA or Virgin are going to scare off at the cost of a Mode - S. Besides, like i said, they only operate as low as C anyway, NAS isn't an issue there and any attempt to make it so is dishonest.

AK

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Snarek - you say:
Where the big bucks of open skies is at stake I doubt the likes of BA or Virgin are going to scare off at the cost of a Mode - S. Besides, like i said, they only operate as low as C anyway, NAS isn't an issue there and any attempt to make it so is dishonest

I disagree - it IS an issue for the heavy metal. In the previous incarnation I gave an example:


That is one of the issues with NAS as I see it - e.g. on desc into say CG from the south thru Class E airspace aircraft are currently positively separated from PJE ACFT and canopies at Ballina. Under NAS that aircraft won't even have to be broadcasting or on a discrete code (.i.e. identified) to the controller descending the 767.

[snarek]

S-T

How is that different to what we have now?? (genuine question, not being a heavy metal driver).

If there is a difference then it seems RPT (big) need us in GA to have ADSB as well, perhaps they'd like to help our lobbying of Govt :)

But if they think we are going to pay because they want to fly in E, then I fear a political poo fight about to start.

E belongs Everone. Don't like it, stay in A!!! Ay??? :E

Blastoid, I will reply to you here. yes, there are 2 units, one with one without CDTI. CDTI isn't necessary, but helps situational awareness and means two pilots are looking at traffic. Helps safety I suppose.

But I will continue to suggest that AirServices will pay for Mode-S installs because they have told me that is an option on their agenda. Now given that isn't it in all our interests to be pushing for it.

I disagree with you over the cost of CDTI. As long as we can keep CASA and the 'TSO looneys' out of the loop (don't get me going on TSO!!!), the units will be cheap. I would suggest that the ability to have all aircraft aware of all others presents such a significant safety case we should all be supporting that as well.

AK

[Blastoid]

ADS-B seems to keep coming up in this thread as the solution to all the pitfalls that seem to loom under NAS.

The biggest mistake that everyone is making the assumption that the government is going to pay $5k (or thereabouts - don't know who touted the figure) for a CDTI and Mode-S transponder in the cockpit. Somehow, I don't think so.

There are 2 types of ADS-B "kit" - the "ADS-B out" type which is fitted with the Mode-S transponder but does not give the traffic picture to the pilot in the cockpit (read: it is just another transponder), and the "ADS-B in/out" which has the above feature but also has the CDTI for enhanced cockpit situational awareness. They are much more expensive than the first type.

The government is pressing NAS and the beauty of see and avoid - anyone must be kidding themselves if they think their little single-engined 152 will be fitted with CDTI equipment.

ADS-B will allow controllers to see aircraft and provide traffic information (to those receiving the service), and give the RPTs (and anyone else who can afford the CDTI kit) the enhanced situational awareness in Class E/G/CTAF airspace.

Keep lookin'! (and don't forget to keep your lights on just to help out) :ok:

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Snarek,

I think you better have a look at what changes are being proposed a little closer - how you can support this without having a grasp on the airspace changes is beyond me.

But if they think we are going to pay because they want to fly in E, then I fear a political poo fight about to start. E belongs Everone. Don't like it, stay in A!!! Ay???

The whole point is NAS changes the airspace from C TO E in the above example. Currently ATC separate PJE aircraft and canopies positively with other IFR aircraft like B737/B767. Under NAS the jet will be on descent thru the same airspace that the PJE operation is taking place and wont even be on the same frequency. See any differences yet?!

[snarek]

S-T

Sorry, I make this mistake often. I got me little NAS book in front of me. At the moment I am talking 2b (which is what the CivilAir / AFAP kerfuffle was about recently).

I see in the final stages lots of E and in that context understand where you are coming from.

But I'll say it again (and again) ADSB.

I will also add, AOPA has only given 'reserved' support for whole-NAS and only full support at this stage for 2b.

So when we are talking whole-NAS we will still listen/read intently any reasoned arguments presented here that do not prejudice any of our members. e will not however listen to or change our position based on arguments which suggest 'commercial' operators in some way 'own' airspace.

AK

[C182 Drover]

Hi Snarek, Is it possible to have the AOPA President & Vice President post on here so we can see their comments, plus see their commitment to Australian Aviation?

It would be nice to see input from the other AOPA board members and their views too.

[ferris]

I used to think that free maps, free VFR flight-following etc were all really good, too. There has been, how shall I put it, a slight change in philosophy since those days. So if you think the govt. is going to kit out private aircraft with expensive gadgets, you've got another thing coming. They may legislate to make them mandatory, but that will be the end of their 'assistance'.

Now, regards NAS, I am not sure what game AK and AOPA are playing. You seem to be advocating the introduction of a system of airspace you admit is, at the least, less safe than what exists now.
In the next breath it's "it'll all be OK with ADSB, but the govt. has to pay".
If you have been told that by supporting NAS, somebody somewhere will scratch your backs down the road, you have been sold a pup.
If this is an intentional strategy (support NAS part-way, then demand govt funded ADSB), well the less said the better.

What happens in the time gap between the intro of NAS and this ADSB utopia?

What happens when the RPT pilots refuse to fly without DTI?

What happens when their companies ( and their insurers ) can it?

What happens when Dick becomes the minister's scapegoat? How upset will he be?

How long before the deckchairs get shuffled at the Alan Woods Titanic?

Groundhog day.

[tobzalp]

AK, I really don't think you have a schmick what you are talking about. You quoted above that ...(words to the effect) you don't like it, stay in A class...

Your obviously limited knowledge of Aviation and the NAS proposal is exposed here.

An aircraft on descent into sydney on the stars from the north has them (jets) hitting Fl110 or so at 45 miles north. From 45 miles north it is E airspace and then into B. How I ask do you stay in A?

You prove time and time again that you are just an amatuer like your mate Dick Branson- Smith (I am sure he will change his name to something similar sometime soon to get some mileage from others hard work) it will get up. Please for the sake of Aviation in this country, sit down and stfu.

I have read through all of your above 'rebuttal' and what it lacks in substance is far outweighed by lack of understanding.

You state that NAS 2b is all A OK and that AOPA support it (I add that support of AOPA is akin to the Trouser Point Thirds Ladies Rugby support of the World Cup). Would you support an increment in an incremental approach to a scheme that made it illegal to fly VFR, ie an end state that was somewhat rediculous? Homey Don't Think So.

P.S. You edited your response on the last page why? Pretty sad display editing comments based on future posts. Nice back flipping. But then again back flipping is just a friend of back scratching........ /me goes to check the declared donations.

:zzz:

edit = spelling and not tune changing...

[gaunty]

C182 Drover

snarek is doing just fine thank you. :p

And how, pray tell, are we to demonstrate our commitment to aviation to your satisfaction?:confused:

ferris and plazbot

Eeerm we are not into playing games and we are certainly not country boys.
Neither are we into slagging off other professionals or making loud noises to frighten the horses and scare little children and old ladies half to death.

May I confuse the issue with some facts to add to the fantasies peddled around here.

NAS 2b implementation as I understand it from them.

The Changes.

Class A
The new National Airspace system will result in MORE Class A airspace, recognizing a need to build capacity to handle increased high altitude traffic while maintaining high levels of safety

The Base of Class A will move down from FL285 to FL180 in radar coverage and down from FL285 to FL245 outside radar coverage.
The upper limit of Class A will rise to FL 600 ( to catch the Citation X :) ) within the existing lateral boundaries of Class A in the Australian FIR.

Between ML-LT-HB Class A airspace will be established above FL180. Existing Class G airspace south of 45 degrees latitude will remain.

Class B

No Class B will be introduced at this stage of the reform process. Class B is used in airports with very high traffic levels like LAX.
The reform process is examining whether some Class C airports could be reclassified Class B in the future.

Class C

Enroute Class C will generally change to enroute Class E, providing separation services for IFR flights, but allowing improved access for VFR flights, which must carry a transponder in Class E.
Oceanic Class C will be replaced by Class A.

Between ML-LT-HB Class E will replace the enroute Class C between FL 145 and FL180. Class C airspace below FL145 between ML-LT-HB will be replaced by Class G airspace.

In radar environments, Class E airspace will replace the existing Class C steps between 40-90nm above 8500ft with an upper limit of FL180.

Class C airspace outside a 90 nm radius of Perth, Alice Springs, Adelaide and Darwin will be replaced by Class A airspace above FL245 and by enroute Class E between FL180 and FL245.

Class E steps will replace existing Class C steps above Class D Towers airspace.

Class D

Existing Class D control, area dimensions will generally remain unchanged. Class C steps above Class D airspace will be replaced by Class E airspace.
Class E

Over 400,000 additional square kilometers of Class E will replace Class G providing separation services for IFR flights where none existed before.

Enroute Class C airspace below FL200 along the eastern seaboard of the “J curve” will be replaced by Class E above 8500ft with an upper limit of FL180.

Class E will be established outside the existing enroute radar Class C lateral boundaries within continental Australia above FL180 with an upper limit of FL245. The exception will be between ML-LT-HB where Class E will be established above FL145 with a limit of FL180 within the existing Class C lateral boundaries.

Class E airspace in radar environments will replace existing Class C steps between 40-90nm above 8,500ft with an upper limit of FL180. Class C airspace outside a 90 nm radius of Perth, Alice Springs, Adelaide and Darwin will be replaced by Class A airspace above FL245 and by enroute Class E between FL180 and FL245.


Existing Class E corridors will be removed.

Class F

Class F airspace is not used in the United Sates, so Class F will not be introduced.

Class G

Large areas of Class G airspace will be replaced by Class E airspace .Directed traffic information will remain in Class G.

Between ML-LT-HB Class G will replace existing Class C airspace within the existing Class C lateral boundaries between FL125 and FL145.

Class G corridors will replace Class E corridors below FL180.

If I have missed something or screwed it up I'm sure someone will correct me, but it looks pretty fine to me.

[snarek]

ferris

I never said it was less safe, I don't believe that.

The Govt will never get 'mandated' ADSB without subsidies.

There will be a political backlash led by AOPA, (because that is what we are there for) and I have no doubt involving AirSafety Australia, as we at least are on the same side.

20,000 private pilots, GA pilots and owners faxing the Minister.

Like fixed ELTs, it just won't happen.

So I think it best everyone push for a funded ADSB fit, otherwise your (not my) problems with NAS will go unsolved.

I personally could care less if RPT are 'comfortable' descending from A through E to C. I like the freedom it gives me and the pilots I represent and I don't believe for one minute the CivilAir case is anything more than a reaction to less C and thus a panic at possibly fewer jobs.

AK

[Bonzer]

snarek

You really dont see the problem do you poor boy!!

ADSB is years away from implementation

NAS 2b is imminent and is flawed

Another point perhaps lost on you.

At any given time, of the people travelling in aircraft in this country by far the greatest number of people would be mums, dads and Joe public travelling on RPT services not VFR GA operations.

They dont understand anything about NAS but when its explained to them they feel their safety when flying will be compromised just so a few rich kids can have their jollies

[snarek]

Oh I see the problem allright.

A few incompetent ATC think their jobs will be on the line (makes sense, less airspace so can the union whingers) and a few regional jocks think they will actually have to fly a proper pattern.

Solution, tell all the mums and dads that their kids will be killed in a jumbo as it hits a PA28 on short finals to KSI.

Other than that obvious scaremongering, I see no problem at all with NAS 2B and am beginning to think the whole thing is just fine and dandy too.

Lucky there are a few in your midst prepred to tackle the issues not the people otherwise everyone would stop litening to your side of the argument.

AK

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Gaunty:

You said:

Enroute Class C will generally change to enroute Class E, providing separation services for IFR flights, but allowing improved access for VFR flights, which must carry a transponder in Class E.

Precisely my point. On desc thru Class E until 9000 or 30NM to Arr AD at 320 KIAS 'see and avoid' with unknown traffic on another frequency - who hopefully remembered to turn the TXPDR on. Why has it been left to the professional bodies to bring this to media attention? You are going to tell me this is NOT a degradation in the hazard ID of the airspace? seriously? Arent airlines talking to their insurance companies?

Snarek:



A few incompetent ATC think their jobs will be on the line (makes sense, less airspace so can the union whingers) and a few regional jocks think they will actually have to fly a proper pattern.

I thought maybe you had got over this. You will not get support that way. It has been clearly shown that this will increase the required ATC numbers (re-read all the threads).

You would be better providing evidence that you have a grasp of all the issues and effects rather than playing the man.

[ulm]

The way I see this is, NAS is good for VFR aircraft, makes airspace easier to use and that must equate to safety. The system works in the US and the differences are not that great.

A few regional pilots and the ATC union don't like it. Makes the regional pilots jobs a little harder (well, means they will need to adapt to a little change) and means possibly less 'C' controllers so CivilAir scream the sky is falling. What emotive rubbish!

If NAS saves the industry money it is a good thing. If NAS even starts Australia down the road to a healthier GA it is a great thing.

RPT have it all their own way in Aust, they have got used to it and believe it is their right. Well it isn't. Airspace is a national asset, it isn't just there for RPT. Priority is just one way RPT have convinced government they are somehow 'special'. I'd like to see this concept dissapear with NAS!!!

AOPA is representing its members so one or two ATC get abusive. Then they have the gall to suggest someone else is playing the man. What a joke.

Well guys, grow up a tad. Your union (dishonestly I think) represented your position. To expect AOPA to do other than represent its members is niave.

For those that think AOPA can't influence NAS, you obviously have missed much radio, TV and newspapers lately. I have seen three different AOPA people doing a d@mn good job dispelling the CivilAir rubbish we saw last week.

For those of you who think AOPA can't influence Government, ask CASA what Part 47 is (was!!!!). The pilot / political staffer who had that disallowed in the Senate is now on the AOPA Committee :)

So I'd suggest that those of you who are prepared to put up a rational argument make contact with the AOPA people who post here and put your case.

Chuck

[Shitsu-Tonka]

ULM: Diatribe.


There are NO ATC Jobs at stake! CivilAir are not challenging this on IR grounds! Has it not been spelled out enough for you to comprehend? YOU are hijacking the debate into something it is not! This nonsense will CREATE more ATC jobs. And it WILL NOT save money.

The objections are on professional and safety grounds full stop. I have seen no answers here to my questions on hwy this is better for AOPA members and the like. I have seen no answers to the safety issues I raised on heavy metal climbing and descendiong through E airspace - and it nothing to do with them being 'commercial operators' - it is the sheer size and speed of the aircraft.

Please grind your axe elsewhere and stick to the facts - not your fantasies.

[snarek]

S-T

You seem to be getting a little paranoid, I don't see anywhere in the post below where it says "ATC jobs will be lost" it says 'Less C controllers' I agree, with more 'E' and eventually ADSB there will be more ATC jobs. Hopefully Toxblat isn't one of them!!! :E

So how about you calm a bit. :D

You state 'it will not save money' that is an opinion, not a fact. Again, another axe to grind, but a valid opinion nonetheless. It only become fact however, when you prove it. :rolleyes:

I understand your 'sheer size and speed' argument, go look at your PM Box. :cool:

The rest of ULM's post is fact. AOPA is doing well representing our members' interests. We have been on TV, radio and in print saying the CivilAir press release was emotional waffle, because that is what we believe it to be. We will do what we believe is best for our members and we will counter when the safety argument is recklessly abused. :ok:

Now 2b is in. Forget it. Now, you want to talk 'final-NAS' or just stomp around in a huff??? :{

AK

[divingduck]

Dear oh dear oh dear.

When it all gets a bit hard, play the incompetent ATC card.

Snarek, just where the hell do you get off with such utter bollix?? Ulm, I have come to expect this kind of thing from you, so I shall not bother responding to your post. I had actually thought that you had gone off to uni (having finished school) and were too busy to post such rubbish.

Just where is your proof of this allegation? Do you have actual facts? Or is this the ranting of someone that can’t win an argument with professionals?

The RPT pilots have been making a bit of noise too, does that make them incompetent also? Could it possibly be that the ATC and RPT pilots of the country actually have a grasp of the significance of all the changes and you are only aware of what affects you? Hmmm?

Several of you AOPA guys have said that you don’t care how hard it is for the RPT/ATC folk to do their jobs…I put it to you that we actually care whether the traveling public is put at risk, whereas you and your aero club mates do not.
From the ATC perspective, if I stuff up you die…if you stuff up you die…so, we try to lessen the amounts of stuff ups.

I thought the issue had also been put to bed, that this alphabet airspace would mean more ATC jobs.
Doesn’t that small fact mean anything to you….or are you still in denial?

Personally I work with A C and F class airspace, anything else is too bl**dy hard to remember who gets what and why.

Now I’m tired of all this NAS stuff so…..

Hey all, question without notice, does anyone remember Dick Smith being bitten by a funnel web spider or something similar back in the mid 80’s? Apparently his wife got on the HF (they were having a picnic somewhere) and raised the alarm. If this story is true and not some urban myth, he would have been saved by the crowd that he then got rid of, the Flight Service Officers…ahh those were the days.
Did anyone actually do a comparison of costs involved in flying in the old days as to today? Just wondering.

[snarek]

duck

The incompetent ATCs seem to be identifyable by the tone of their posts. I certainly do not put all ATC in that barrell and am interested in the opinions of those that can give it without the rhetoric or emotional drivell I associate with CivilAir.

Several of you AOPA guys have said that you don’t care how hard it is for the RPT/ATC folk to do their jobs…I put it to you that we actually care whether the traveling public is put at risk, whereas you and your aero club mates do not.

Who??? This is pure rubbish. I have never heard any current AOPA Board member say anything like this!!! You may be interested to know that while AOPA policy is

1. Support for 2B

2. Reserved support for all of NAS.

Because AOPA represents GA industry as well as the PPL.

We continue to work towards our final position based on opinions from members and from valid comments made by people like ****zu-Tonka, Chief-Galah, triadic, ferris etc etc. That is why we are here on PPRuNe.

I am well used to this forum and the attacks one cops when daring to not accept all the force fed wisdom delivered. Plazbot jumps to mind. However ignoring his abusive waffle, posts from those I have listed above do give us all food for thought and we do go away and consider them.

So how about you become one of the former rather than joining the latter and help us understand why you feel the way you do, what can/should be done to allay your fears and how this solution will not disadvantage our members??

AK

[axiom]

Lets keep this on thread please

W

[snarek]

Well well well axiom, couldn't resist hey :)

Y'know, I have worked out who you are, met you under many guises in the past.

But rather than outing you on here (you are soooo sensitive about that as you do it to others) we should just use yer first name.

Jack.

:E

Oh, and if you don't like the elected Board members representing you, quit, or get creatively involved for a change.

AK

[tobzalp]

Hi all

I will summarise this thread.


- NAS 2b is less safe than what we have now. - Affirmed

- The flying jacket Crowd think they matter - Dispelled



Love

An incompetent ATC.

[slice]

Axiom, why am I listed there - I have never made any posts supporting NAS or snarek, ulm et al. In fact the only post I have made regarding NAS was a bit anti with regards to high speed traffic in CTAFs

In fact snarek I have to say the tone of your posts stand out above the others on this thread as overly abrasive and abusive.

"incompetent ATCs" - how would you know whether they are incompetent or not? :confused:

If you want to refute the safety claims made by ATC orgs and Pilots it would be wise to play the ball - not the man(or woman). You don't seem to be providing any answers to the questions posed by other posters.

ps I have to say I do not think AOPA represents GA industry in any meaningful way! Its focus is and has always been representing recreational aviation (in all its differnet forms)

[axiom]

Well done, Great Woomera, Great aviation "Oricle". Stifle my post which was relevant and let snarek loose.

May one remind you that Pprune stands for, PROFESSIONAL PILOTS rumour network, and not "AMATEUR" private pilot's rumour network, which YOU removed from the GA section and placed on the "reporting points" forum. (more for the professionals methinks).

Perhaps something that may liven the debate, a telephone call this day to Martin Ferguson's office stated that "NAS is not a done deal" and needs some more rational debate.

The word is "rational" and does not impinge on my having made a statement to the effect that snarek and the AOPA Board do not represent ME with their irrational and villifying diatribe let alone 20,000 other PPL's storming Parliament house with what they claim is representative of AOPA.

Axiom is a supporter of NAS and ADSB but the way this thread is heading (for a Union confrontation) is not in the interests nor the "terms of reference" of AOPA.

I again remind you of the FACT that it was Chris McKeown that was instrumental in getting AOPA, NAS and ADSB on the same page and not the present loud incumbants, for whatever that is worth to your debate.

Seeing as how I can't get your mob to respond, perhaps Bill Hamilton (who was doing a fair enough job and is still, I believe on the Board), could respond? Or has he been sent to Coventry.

axiom you just dont get it.

a previous warning from Woomera;

Axiom et al

Use of the word "AOPA" in a post is not reason to close or moderate a thread.

I have no association with AOPA, but am getting tired of attempts to subvert PPRuNe into an "unofficial AOPA web site for the disenchanted" and the time taken to read (and moderate) uninteristing, repetitious ramblings, which rightfully belong within the AOPA organisation.

Or anywhere, except PPRuNe!

I give you fair warning: AOPA topics of general aviation interest are welcome on PPRuNe. However should the thread degenerate into repetitious, rambling, slanderous direct or indirect attacks on anyone (AOPA Director, Member or any other person), the threads will be removed and posters banned - without fear or favour!

If you don't like the Rules to play with Danny's toys, go get your own toys.

Woomera

You're banned until further notice

[4Greens]

In this debate the use of the phrase "radar coverage or similar" is often used. It may be useful to remember that radar may be primary or secondary or both. In the US there is a lot more primary available, perhaps the US system is different?

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Not being in the ASA loop anymore (thank god!) I was wondering what is considered airspace in Radar Coverage and whats in Non-radar Coverage. My humble opinion is Jets mixing it with Bugsmashers flying VFR in non/marginal radar E airspace is a scary propostion and as such believe, marginal radar coverage areas with the chance of high performance aircaraft ops should be C airpace where everyone needs a clearance. Really, VFR ease of access to airspace has to be secondary to the chance that a high performance aircraft (prop or jet) will gain access through the VFR fellas windscreen.

Notice guys no abuse of anyone else on here, just putting my concern with the system out there, and seeing whether anyone agrees or disagrees.

Oh and 4 greens, you are right, the US is different, it has alot more primary and secondary radar coverage, and that is my problem with NAS. E airspace is sort of ok within radar coverage cos you can utilise a major component of its design, that is passing radar observed traffic to the IFR's on those VFR's you don't know about. Outside radar coverage what can you do for the IFR guys, 3/8ths of f**k all.

[tobzalp]

Yeah ANSA and with the end state, there will be E down to 2000 feet and below in parts where the IFR gets separated all the way down to the Circling Minimas. This is where IFR pickup is required. The Americans have the coverage, we do not. 2b is the tip of the iceberg.

[gaunty]

Well, and this is a genuine question.

Riddle me this.

In Class E, if the 'big uns' have or are required to have TCAS and it is mandatory for everyone to have a transponder and turned on, then how can not the "big kids" [b]"see"]/b] the bugsmasher, even before they cross that dreaded divide.??

AND

if its VFR traffic it must be VMC, SVFR not permitted ? VMC, to me anyway, means visual.

So here we are on a gin clear Sunday morning enroute LAX O'Hare in a United DC10 in cruise overtaking preceding company traffic at the same level, permision requested and granted routinely for a visual passing.
"Oh and report past"
How hard is that.

[Woomera]

And while I'm at it with banning and stuff, I moved this thread to Reporting Points and merged it with another to keep this most interesting exchange together and in the hope that there would be a professional exchange between professionals.:rolleyes:

The level of exchange so far, suggests it might be be better off in Wannabes, so gentlemen, why dont we cut out this sniping and get down to it.

Stay on thread or it gets closed. :ok:

[ferris]

Gaunty (just quickly): Riddle; TCAS is designed as a back-up for when the system fails. There has already been heaps of debate about using see and avoid as the primary means of sep, and a lot of that apllies to TCAS as well.
AND;
Same direction, similar speed traffic is very easy to acquire visually (and visual sep is a great standard, predicated on having first aquired the traffic visually ) You will note the controller didn't say "overtake your co. traffic, and see if you can see him, he's there somewhere", did he? Do you understand the the significance of the difference? Crucial to the debate.

AK. You have in fact stated on this thread that you believe NAS without ADSB is not good.
page 3
Basically, if it ain't free it ain't happening and then you'll be stuck with NAS without ADSB below (say) 10,000'. That would not (in my view) be a good end solution.
Why then aren't you predicating NAS on ADSB?
Further, why aren't you opposed to this incremental implementation approach? Their plan is to drive the change, one little piece at a time, as the individual pieces, in isolation, aren't too unpalatable. As a whole, they suck. That is why they are doing it that way.
page 1
My opinion is that NAS and ADSB are intertwined
They are not intertwined. Perhaps you should be opposing NAS until they are?

[Shitsu-Tonka]

I have been trying (very trying some say) to put my viewpoint v.v. what are genuine professional concerns regarding the NAS proposals from an ATC, and aviators perspectibe - be them full time professional, part-time, recreational etc.

Quite frankly the issues that I have raised don't seem to be of concern to a certain ilk - there seems to be a sense that RPT or unions or someone are 'stealing' airspace that they they should have access to - I don't understand this stance. The underlying principle here in this argument has to be, should be and must be safety.

Class E down to 8500 FT on the edge of a busy TMA is not based on safety - I personally believe it is based on some perception that non-commercial operators do not get a fair go at using the airspace because it is designated C. I cannot think of when since Sep 2001 I could not issue a clearance to cross control airspace to a VFR aircraft in Class C. Sometimes I might move the aircraft a little from it's preferred route to facilitate unrestricted descents/climbs for other aircraft that may be conducting instrument approaches or departures (many of them training for/renewing their CIR), but they get the clearance. From some I have had the accusation here that RPT get the priority - well, its true that capital city aerodromes have priorities, but you would not believe the number of times I have had 7x7 drivers call me after landing insisting they should have had priority over the PA31 or BN2 or C172 -- forgetting or ignorant of the fact they were not flying into a capital city today - and that ATC do not apply priorty in that case - thats right we don't. And sometimes that makes the job difficult. For example, if we have seen 3-4 jets all close together at about 230NM away, they want to know their landing tiome and relevant adjustments to speed on desc or holding by 120NM to run at the very latest. So at 20 minutes to run they start the descent and their FMS says they will be touching down at 13:02.5 - nice accuarate gear the Honeywell. In reality they may be following the C172 who is still doing run-ups at an ALA just outsode the Control Zone and we dont know about him yet (hopefully they have flight planned - well statisitically their is a 50% chance they have from what I see each day). Or they the Boeing may end up number 2 to a BN2 who is coming in low level and not on radar but ends up being 1 minute ahead of the Boeing. So the nince fuel saving idle thrust descent gets screwed over by ATC in the eyes of the RPT driver as he gets issued reduce to 250KIAS at FL180 then back to 220 at 25 miles to run. The other option is the BN2 or C172 gets a spin or told to remain OCTA (only for a minute or 2). As you can see - we can't win. And you know - Class E won't solve it either.

Profile Decsent for a heavy is around 110-120 miles to run TOD (forecast
wind dependant blah blah)

This means with 40 to run they are at about A100 (250 BLW A100) or maybe
A120 on a high speed desc (around 320KIAS)

Currently that profile is kept within C or positively controlled
Airspace. With the proposed E airspace extensions they will be in Class E at FL180 to A090 (2-5 minutes at up to 4500fpm descent) and will not see you as you exercise your 'right' to fly through the airspace (of course you will have your transponder on you say - why do I see 5 primary paints for every one 1200 Squawk on a weekend around the very edge of CTA on a weekend then?). And the big guy on descent wont hear you on the radio either because you will on a different frequency. But they will be 'seeing and avoiding' ignoring such things as transition checks, entering STARS into the FMS, talking to company frequency etc.

Failsafe: When a number of aircraft were identified to be on incorrect MBZ and CTAF frequencies a case for AFRU's was made - and they are a good system - as long as you KNOW that you should be expecting th hear a response, so technically they are still not failsafe. Tell me - what is the failsafe for VFR aircraft to have their transponder swithced on? And to KNOW it is working?

I am assured by correspondents here that VFR pilots are in VMC. I will have to take your word for it. I have to do that everyday I suppose - for some of them who find that magical hole between the ILS to minimas. Not failsafe and not idiot-safe ( a minority I know - but it only takes one).

Finally, I have said it many times - this is not and Industrial issue - our jobs are not under threat or at stake - NAS is creating and costing money and overtime like you wouldn't believe! So why are their objections from CivilAir? Safety - the safety case has not been made for this. ATC's are safety professionals - that is ALL we do. That is our job. When a system that is less safe is forced upon us, we would be irresponsible not to speak out. Even when others with more at stake for political reasons will not.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

To say that TCAS will save the day is wrong. As was mentioned a lot of less than professional VFR operators don't switch their transponder on. Secondly when was the last time the mode C was verified. If the transponder is incorrect it is more harm than good.

See and avoid between VFR and High performance IFR aircraft has time and time again been shown to be floored as the primary means of separation. If the Transponder is showing incorrect altitude on the VFR and the IFR is busy doing other stuff apart from looking out the window, it is outside radar coverage and the two aircraft are on a different frequency, you better hope Winstuns big sky theory is working.

I say again in Non Radar airspace, for mixing High Performance IFR's with VFR's C airspace is safe, E airspace is less so, for that reason NAS is flawed.

And again I don't work in Australia, so I am not trying to save my C airspace job. But as has been said before there will be more ATC's not less, so the "Controllers Union looking after their memebrs jobs" argument is way off the mark

[tobzalp]

Gaunty

TCAS is not compulsory in Australia. Transponders are not compulsory in Australia. AOPA is to thank for the latter. Your example and subsequent comparrison are somewhat rediculous (to be expected I guess)

How I ask is this relevant to the debate?

Riddle me that!

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

What a waste of space that was.

[BIK_116.80]

The NAS, facts and fantasies

Just the facts, Maam :

FACT : The sky is very large.

FACT : Aircraft are very small (compared to the size of the sky).

FACT : The random chance of a mid-air collision decreases with the cube of the distance away from the airport.

FACT : The primary mid-air collision risk mitigator in the enroute environment is the :
:ok: :ok: Big Sky Theory :ok: :ok:

NB : Whether or not a pilot maintains a vigilant look-out has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not a pilot listens to a particular air traffic control radio frequency has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not a pilot talks on a particular air traffic control radio frequency has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not an aircraft has TCAS or ADSB fitted has no bearing on any of the above factors.

FACT : In order to further reduce the chance of a mid-air collision airline aircraft are required by regulation to be fitted with TCAS II.

FACT : TCAS II systems are commercially available to anyone who wants one.

FACT : VFR aircraft in class E airspace are required by regulation to carry and use an altitude-encoding transponder so that they are conspicuous to TCAS equipped aircraft.

FACT : TCAS equipped aircraft are aware of the position of nearby transponding aircraft.

NB : Whether or not a piece of airspace is within any kind of air traffic control radar coverage has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not a third-party air traffic control service is aware of the position of VFR traffic has no bearing on any of the above factors.

FACT : VFR aircraft have been flying unannounced in class G airspace since the AMATS changes of 1991 – in many places sharing the airspace with airline aircraft.

FACT : For over a decade IFR aircraft in class G airspace have not been given traffic information on VFR aircraft, and VFR aircraft in class G airspace have not been given traffic information on other VFR aircraft.

FACT : Since the AMATS changes of 1991 there have been zero mid-air collisions in the enroute environment. (Despite the dire predictions of the flight service officers’ trade union at the time.)

FACT : In areas of high traffic density (like the terminal area around an airport) it’s important that pilots know where the other aircraft are.

FACT : TCAS and ADSB allow the pilots to know where the other aircraft are.

FACT : It is very easy for pilots in the terminal area near to an airport to avoid a mid-air collision by using a combination of the airport traffic radio frequency, TCAS, and looking out the window.

FACT : Pilots have been required by regulation to look out the window in order to avoid a mid-air collision for many decades : Refer CAR 163A (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/1/PR005160.htm).

FACT : Whether or not a third-party air traffic control service knows where the aircraft are is largely irrelevant as long as the pilots know where the aircraft are.

Here’s a few popular fantasies :

FANTASY : See and avoid is the primary means of avoiding a mid-air collision in the enroute environment.

NB : The Big Sky Theory is the primary risk mitigator with TCAS the secondary risk mitigator.

FANTASY : There is a class of airspace known as “commercial airspace”.

FANTASY : The companies that operate RPT flights own the sky, and in particular the “commercial airspace”.

FANTASY : Australia would be a better place if all the airspace was class A.

FANTASY : The RPT pilot unions represent the interests of airline passengers.

FANTASY : The RPT pilot unions have a mandate to speak on behalf of airline passengers.

FANTASY : Someone on the ground must always know where all the planes are.

FANTASY : An aircraft cannot fly safely if it is outside air traffic control radar coverage.

FANTASY : An aircraft cannot fly safely unless the pilot is in radio contact with air traffic control.

FANTASY : The more you talk on the radio the less chance there is that you will be involved in a mid-air collision.

FANTASY : NAS will create a need for more air traffic controllers.

FANTASY : Civil Air (the air traffic controllers trade union) would never disingenuously wave the safety flag to deliberately scare the public when the union is faced with an industrial relations issue.

FANTASY : The world would be a better place if there were more air traffic controllers.

FANTASY : VFR aircraft must be positively separated from VFR aircraft in class C.

FANTASY : IFR aircraft must be positively separated from VFR aircraft in class D.

FANTASY : Air traffic controllers need to know where all the VFR aircraft are in class E.

FANTASY : The owners and operators of regional airports know what goes on above their airport’s obstacle-free surface.

FANTASY : All pilots of private category flights are PPLs.

FANTASY : All pilots of private category flights have a death wish.

FANTASY : All private pilots are incompetent.

FANTASY : All pilots of small aircraft are incompetent.

FANTASY : The only reason a pilot would fly VFR is because they don’t have an instrument rating.

Comment :

In my view the proposal to change some of the existing Australian class G (that uses ICAO class F procedures) to class E is two (or perhaps one) step(s) in the wrong direction. I don’t believe it’s needed - it’s simply over servicing and will lead to unnecessary delays and expense. It’s a solution in search of a problem.

But in my view the proposal to change some of the existing class C to class E is two steps in the right direction because it will reduce unnecessary delays and expense.

If the proposal were to change existing class C to genuine ICAO class G then that would be four steps in the right direction (ICAO-G = no service, no charge, no delay).

Class G = Good enough for me. :ok:

But if the general public demand that airline jets operating between capital cities be positively separated from other IFR aircraft then :

Class E = Good enough for everyone. :ok:

[tobzalp]

Lengthy post, much waffle, get to the end, entire thing wasted because you make a statement that the public want Big jets separated from IFR and E makes this all OK. Do the public even know what IFR is. The public know big jet = safe... VFR Flying Jacket Crowd = Volvo Drivers of the sky.

Public want do not to be hit by the cowboys doing their own. Cowboys = Volvo Drivers of the Sky.

Get it yet?

Next time before you post, copy it and pm it to me so that I can save you from your own self.


edit = spelling but then again I am just an incompetent ATC.

[Four Seven Eleven]

This thread has long since degenerated into a slag fest (without any help from me ;) ), but I'll post a few questions anyway:

Scenario : B737 descending through class E airspace, being radar vectored for sequencing at a controlled aerodrome. The pilot spots an unidentified aircraft and determines that a collision risk exists . No traffic information has been passed by ATC. What happens now?
[list=1]
Does the pilot deviate from his vector/ route clearance?
Does the pilot deviate from his level assignment?
Does any deviation from a clearance count as a 'reportable incident', given that this is the primary/only means of 'separation' available under the circumstances?
If the answer is NO, then are TCAS RAs still 'reportable incidents'?
Does the pilot assume that the other aircraft was a VFR aircraft and that therefore no breadown of IFR-IFR separation has occurred?
What liability attaches to the B737 pilot/operator if their devaition from clearance causes a breakdown of separation with another IFR aircraft?
What calls are made to ATC in the event of deviating from clearance?
For the bean-counters: Does the deviating B737 maintain its position in the arrival sequence? (i.e. is ATC obliged to maintain its priority at the expense of other traffic which did not deviate from their clearance?
Have any operators yet provided RPT pilots with 'guidelines' as to how much 'self separation' to apply between themselves and unidentified aircraft, taking into account both operational and public perception factors. For that matter, had any companies done so for class G operations.
[/list=1]

In particular, if anyone has relevant experience in how RPT jets operate in non-radar E airspace in the USA, your input would be very worthwhile.

Also, has anyone had any experience of IFR pick-up, VFR-on-top or VFR climb/descent since they came in?

Have these procedures provided the benefits you were expecting?

No names, no pack drill, but.... hands up who has requested IFR pickup in C?

(BTW, I know we're supposedly following some sort of hybrid, North American, US McNAS system, but introducing the term 'pick-up' into the Australian system is ...... un-Australian!!!! Surely we could have called it something like IFR Uncleared Transition in E - or IFR UTE for short

[gaunty]

BIK_116.80

Long time no seeum, great chat the other night:ok:

Thanks for the usual eloquent disquisition on fact v fantasy

methinks tobzalp has his countries confused, but we wouldn't want to confuse the discussion with facts or reason.

It's much easier to try and marginalise any who have the temerity to discuss issues or hold an opposing view by attempting to demean them. I had a very good run with Volvos and the '75 Station Wagon bought as a new shopping cart for mother and the first of three babies, was stored and handed on down through my three children as they grew up and moved on, it's still going strong and still looks like new with a neighbours son and his wife around the corner, carrying their new baby in it.

Deja vu;
Circa 1969 and I'm standing on the tarmac at Perth Airport being roundly berated by an apoplectic airline captain for having the temerity to;
a. operate an aircraft in IMC within 100nm of his AIRLINE AIRCRAFT (F27)
b. causing a hazard to his passengers by causing our aircraft to arrive at the approach fix several minutes before him and not having the wit to cause ATC to send us off to Bunbury or someother safe place to hold whilst he worked out how to get himself on the ground.

We had just unloaded around half a billion US Dollars worth of passengers. I guess they were just lucky we amateurs didn't kill em.

Seems like not much changes.

I digress.

ferris me old

You miss my point, I should have qualified it with the enroute non radar Class E case.
In non radar Class E base is FL180, hardly Indian country for the so called "VFR Flying Jacket Crowd = Volvo Drivers of the sky". :rolleyes:
In Radar Class E is down to 8,500ft but with a transponder "billy blowfly" can be seen as traffic by the controllers radar AND the TCAS.

I'm also here to tell you that from my experience most of the Vovo Drivers get nosebleed above 5000ft. That is 8500ft is hardly a VFR traffic jam enroute and in close, due to climb and descent profiles positively empty and yet again they can be "seen".

I'm a bit concerned about the furore around the
As was mentioned a lot of less than professional VFR operators don't switch their transponder on. Secondly when was the last time the mode C was verified. If the transponder is incorrect it is more harm than good.
and the general construction of the argument on the basis that unless you're an airline pilot you're not a real one, neither is your aircraft and in any event they, the airline pilots, are much too busy to be looking out, perhaps we need more eyes or hands in the cockpit then, just for good CDF airmanship.

That logic presupposes that the bugsmasher has a higher magnitude of deathwish than the airline guy. I have said it in these halls before, it really doesn't matter whether you have one or many hundred bodies behind you, we all have the same responsibility towards each other and our individual a&seholes in the airspace . It might be a good ego feeder for some but I cant process the notion that "I am/have to be 400 times more responsible than you, therefore........". I wonder if the pax are comfortable about the 146 guys only being a quarter as reponsible as the B744 ones :confused:

I dont think it is intentional but I am sure that there is more a lack of information and the facts than virtue in the argument.

Simply why would ASA and CASA sign off on anything that they can not justify in safety terms.

As has been revealed here they ASA are flat out retraining and qualifying staff, maybe when the dust settles and more information gets out there, it will become clearer.

We are signed up to 2b education and we have been assisting, as has I understand Qantas is in the production of the pilot educational material.

Oh and the DC10, I actually do understand the difference, I was merely pointing out how flexible the US system is.
Of course that happens routinely in Oz doesn't it.:uhoh:

Slagging off by everyone here just doesn't cut it

[Aerognome]

gaunty

Yes AsA and CASA signed off on the safety case for stage 2b.

Both are stakeholders in our airspace and therefore have a vested interest to proceed with it. Interestingly enough, CASA only gave conditional approval for 2b.

Why isnt the safety case for each stage conducted by an independent third party, ie the ATSB.

[cjam]

Whew!... what a thread!
I am not in Aus at the moment and have missed all the media about this. From what I have read here, ( and correct me if I'm wrong) , under the new scheme the situation could exist where a PJE aircraft climbs to FL130 in E without making a radio call except for on the local aerodrome frequency, a heavy enters E on descent through that level without traffic info about the PJE aircraft , the PJE is in a climb concentrating on intercepting the run in on the gps and looking out not quite as much as he/she could, the heavy's F/O is reading a plate while the captain turns around to remind a hostee he'll be in her room at 9pm sharp, meanwhile the 260hr PJE pilot realises that they didn't turn their transponder to alt as they lined up for flight number 27 of the day....oops too late.

Is that scenario possible? I have quickly read the posts and missed anything that showed otherwise, it must be there though because surley nobody would be silly enough to rely on an overloaded underpaid new cpl to turn the tx to alt in order to avert disaster....
I look forward to someone pointing out what I have missed.
cheers, cjam

[gaunty]

cjam

So I guess we run any sytem on the lowest common denominator then. :(

Sounds like back to the three man cockpit and two man jumper to me.:rolleyes: man with red flag preceding them to the runway.

I can see it now two "red flag men" having a bit of biffo as to who gets right of way at the intersection. :p


Aerognome
Love that nic. :)
I don't suppose the so called CASA conditional approval was the all too common individual "I just don't like it" rather than the result of rational process.

I also understand that the safety case was audited by an independent thrid party, at least for ASA.

Why do they have a vested interest for it to proceed, just because they are stakeholders? It is not as if there is not already a system in place.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Sigh. After reading BIK post I don't see much point in contributing to this thread anymore. You guys seem to have it all figured out . Your safety case is big sky.

Let me say it now in advance. I told you so.

And dont blame the controller when it happens. Although I am sure the court will attribute a portion of the blame to the poor soul who is Johnny on the spot that day.

Your ignorance is breathtaking - even when presented with the facts you blindly march forward despite them.

Some of you guys just reinforce the case for outright opposition to anything you utter - reasoned debate is not in your vernacular.

So count me out now in trying to reason with you.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Bik, you appear to display a remarkable level of flexibility with your ‘facts’.

The NAS, facts and fantasies

Just the facts, Maam :

FACT : The sky is very large.

FACT : Aircraft are very small (compared to the size of the sky).

FACT : The random chance of a mid-air collision decreases with the cube of the distance away from the airport.

FACT : The primary mid-air collision risk mitigator in the enroute environment is the :
Big Sky Theory

And where traffic levels warrant it, the primary mitigator is supplemented by secondary, tertiary etc. mitigators, such as traffic information, control etc. No airspace system relies only on this primary mitigator. No safe transport system does.

NB : Whether or not a pilot maintains a vigilant look-out has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not a pilot listens to a particular air traffic control radio frequency has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not a pilot talks on a particular air traffic control radio frequency has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not an aircraft has TCAS or ADSB fitted has no bearing on any of the above factors.

True, simply ‘listening’ and ‘talking’ have no bearing on the chances of avoiding a mid-air collision. You might as well be singing Auld Lang Syne on the radio of that is all you are going to do. Listening and reacting to other traffic or control instructions does have a bearing in avoiding mid-air collisions.

FACT : In order to further reduce the chance of a mid-air collision airline aircraft are required by regulation to be fitted with TCAS II.

FACT : TCAS II systems are commercially available to anyone who wants one.
Although why you would want one if it has no bearing on ‘the above factors’ is beyond me. Perhaps it is because TCAS does in fact offer a supplementary level of safety?

FACT : VFR aircraft in class E airspace are required by regulation to carry and use an altitude-encoding transponder so that they are conspicuous to TCAS equipped aircraft.

FACT : TCAS equipped aircraft are aware of the position of nearby transponding aircraft.

NB : Whether or not a piece of airspace is within any kind of air traffic control radar coverage has no bearing on any of the above factors.

NB : Whether or not a third-party air traffic control service is aware of the position of VFR traffic has no bearing on any of the above factors.
True, but does not tell the full story. Merely being aware of the current position of conflicting traffic is not the same as being aware of the other traffic’s intentions, nor does it afford the opportunity to negotiate mutual avoiding action, either directly or via a third party.

FACT : VFR aircraft have been flying unannounced in class G airspace since the AMATS changes of 1991 – in many places sharing the airspace with airline aircraft.
VFR aircraft have ‘announced’ through broadcasts. It is precisely this that Dick Smith has been trying to avoid.

FACT : For over a decade IFR aircraft in class G airspace have not been given traffic information on VFR aircraft, and VFR aircraft in class G airspace have not been given traffic information on other VFR aircraft.
Where traffic has been known (e.g. in radar coverage) traffic has been and continues to be provided.

FACT : Since the AMATS changes of 1991 there have been zero mid-air collisions in the enroute environment. (Despite the dire predictions of the flight service officers’ trade union at the time.)
True

FACT : In areas of high traffic density (like the terminal area around an airport) it’s important that pilots know where the other aircraft are.
Wrong. It is important that someone knows the positions, intentions etc of aircraft so that a cogent plan can be formulated which provides – dare I say it – a ‘safe, orderly and expeditious’ flow of air traffic. (We can’t all be number one in the sequence.)

FACT : TCAS and ADSB allow the pilots to know where the other aircraft are.
TCAS shows the positions of transponding traffic. ADSB will, in the future, do many things. ADSB will be akin to an ashtray on a motorbike on November 27.

FACT : It is very easy for pilots in the terminal area near to an airport to avoid a mid-air collision by using a combination of the airport traffic radio frequency, TCAS, and looking out the window.
Operations in the terminal area involve much more than avoidance of a mid-air collision. The ‘ease’ with which terminal area operations can be conducted safely would, I suggest, be dependent on the traffic levels, complexity, weather etc. A point will be reached when it becomes less easy, difficult and ultimately impossible.

FACT : Pilots have been required by regulation to look out the window in order to avoid a mid-air collision for many decades : Refer CAR 163A.
Excellent point. Even though in Clas A airspace, the current primary mitigator against mid-air collisions is ATC, the regulators have long recognised that reliance on one, single mitigator is unsatisfactory. This is exactly why we have a ‘layered defence’. If ATC fails, pilot situational awareness may detect it. If not, then TCAS. If not, then ‘see and avoid’. (Not forgetting ‘luck’ or big sky theories.)

FACT : Whether or not a third-party air traffic control service knows where the aircraft are is largely irrelevant as long as the pilots know where the aircraft are.
Knowing where the aircraft are is the very smallest part of a safe air traffic management system. The reason controllers (Say in class A) know where the aircraft are is because they ‘put’ them there. They did this because they knew the positions, intentions etc. of other aircraft. They plan for safety. By doing this, pilots can, in most cases fly more directly, staying at the same levels for longer, thus saving money.

Here’s a few popular fantasies :

I won’t comment on these.
Comment :

In my view the proposal to change some of the existing Australian class G (that uses ICAO class F procedures) to class E is two (or perhaps one) step(s) in the wrong direction. I don’t believe it’s needed - it’s simply over servicing and will lead to unnecessary delays and expense. It’s a solution in search of a problem.

But in my view the proposal to change some of the existing class C to class E is two steps in the right direction because it will reduce unnecessary delays and expense.

If the proposal were to change existing class C to genuine ICAO class G then that would be four steps in the right direction (ICAO-G = no service, no charge, no delay).

Class G = Good enough for me.

But if the general public demand that airline jets operating between capital cities be positively separated from other IFR aircraft then :

Class E = Good enough for everyone.
As has been pointed out already, the public do not want to be ‘positively separated from other IFR aircraft’. They probably want to avoid mid-air collisions altogether. By the same token, they would prefer to avoid mountains, mountain goats, tall trees, balloons and other objects likely to interrupt the drinks service.

[triadic]

Yes, this is certainly an interesting thread!

It is sad however to see some of the posters drift off topic somewhat in order to try and make a point, some of which are quite valid and some of which are pure rubbish.

As an AOPA member since I learnt to fly in the '60's I am very much aware of the responsibility they see to their membership (and others) in regard to airspace reform. I am also fully aware of the "other" arguments as I have been employed in the industry for all my working life, including almost 20 years flying regional airline type aircraft.

None of the posters to date have really got to the nuts and bolts of the problems discussed to date. And that is what is being proposed has not (as yet) been presented to the industry in a form that all of us understand. In other words there is no level playing field. Both Gaunty and BIK have attempted to list some or all of the issues, but is it really their role on an internet bulletin board to do that? And they are obviously doing it from one end of the non level playing field! With due respect to the board of AOPA (whom I would not want to trade places with) there is still not any significant info on the AOPA web site or forum and I would be correct to say that both Gary and Andrew have said more here than there – I wonder why that is?

Andrew has clearly had difficulty controlling how his fingers wiz across the keyboard as I found some of his posts did neither he nor his cause much good. Next time you feel like that Andrew, save it and come back a few hours later and if on second reading you still feel it is worthy of posting then ok, but please don't shoot from the hip. (and shoot at the target, not the other shooters!)

We must all realise that an association of people with common interests have much more leverage than any individuals (with perhaps one exception!!) and like AOPA, I am sure that the AFAP, AIPA and CAOAA have the best interests of their membership at heart. You are free of course not to agree with any or all of the positions so taken, but please don't allow that to taint the discussion. As professionals (and that includes amateur professionals, or is that the professional amateurs?) I believe that none of these associations would use the safety argument if they did not believe it was valid to do so. There are many issues discussed above which are quite valid examples of concerns that exist right across the industry. Just because I don't fly that type of aircraft or in that type of airspace is no reason to say it does not matter. The "I only want what is good for me" position is unbalanced and inappropriate to the discussion. We must consider the whole picture and how each of us interacts with other users. To do less, dare I say… is not professional.

THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE NAS AND ITS INTRODUCTION IS THAT WE IN THE INDUSTRY ARE DEVOID OF ALL THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE EFFECTIVE JUDGEMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO DATE AND WHAT THE AIM IS FOR THE END STATE PACKAGE. IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN WITH ANY VALIDITY AS TO WHAT IF ANY THE COST SAVIINGS WILL BE AND TO WHOM, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SAFETY WILL NOT BE COMPRIMISED.

The information and education to date is somewhat lacking and I would have to say much of it is provided without any explanation or justification. This to me IS THE PROBLEM.

Certainly the big sky policy is a significant mitigator in terms of a possible mid-air collision, however I know at least one regional airline pilot that had a very close call with a glider in en-route airspace (above 5000ft) a few years back. By the time they saw each other there was no time to move and the glider went under the regional turbo-prop by only a matter of metres – a close one. No TCAS of course, different radio freqs and see and avoid did not work (and would not have). What scares me is that very little or nothing has been achieved to prevent a reoccurrence of such an incident. Certainly a high degree of reliance on the big sky theory.

IF we are to embrace change in airspace reform (which we have needed for many years) then collectively we need to know the answer to all the "why" questions. And I don't believe we do.

The major mitigator of any change to airspace is information and education. (Look at the G Trial – if we had 100 pilots in that airspace, I would bet you there were 90 different ideas on how it should work – no wonder it failed). This education must be significant and on-going, for years if necessary. To date, we have not even seen anything other than an introduction. The rest of the book is blank (and getting thicker).

Of course the problem is not helped by having the whole project made political. Many industry players have attempted to place their case to the Minister without much luck it seems. The Minister should be listening to all of the arguments and then seeking appropriate advice from his advisors. It is sad when it seems he is not entertaining any case which is not in line with what the NASIG have had him sign off on.

Whilst I am a strong supporter of airspace reform, I am appalled at the way this project is being managed (and I don't believe that is Mike's fault – more the NASIG and the Minister I feel).

Obviously the resources necessary to provide the necessary information and ongoing education is either not there or not considered important enough. Whilst this situation continues, then it is quite likely that the transition to a new airspace model will be anything but smooth.

"no known traffic" :ok:

[snarek]

triadic

Sorry if I seem caustic, I didn't mean to start out that way. Read threads from plazbot (inverted and not) Jack Axiom and a few others, and perhaps you will see why.

Unlike CivilAir and AFAP scaremongers, AOPA reps don't get paid. With other jobs to do our fingers are often 'fast' across the keyboard.

I do however pay attention to a lot on here (except Jack Axiom, his anti-GA mates and plazbot) and have yet to firm my view on final NAS.

So, here I am waiting to hear :ok:

AK

[tobzalp]

I am flattered that you include me. It concerns me however that you from all of your previous posts and the definite manner with which you went about them finally admit that you don't really know just what is going on and that you have to have a think about it. It is quite simple. E and G me all you want but what you must do is look at the End State of NAS. Even you Organisation has reservations about it.

I can't believe that it has taken around 5 100 post plus threads to get to this. Finally.

[ferris]

Here is the post I tried to send yesterday........

Gaunty;

So I guess we run any system on the lowest common denominator then.
Any safety system , any system where lives are at stake , yes, absolutely.
Also, in an earlier post, you appear to attribute remarks and phraseologies to me that were clearly made by other posters. Please don't, and I'll afford you the same courtesy.

Mr Kerans;

Unlike CivilAir and AFAP scaremongers, AOPA reps don't get paid
Civil Air reps are not paid. They just happen to care.
Still nobody has answered the questions about what benefits are being derived at what cost. Maybe if AOPA ran a positive campaign, rather than running interference for NASIG, you might get more respect. I feel certain that if you approached Ted Lang, and the AFAP, you would get support for ADSB etc., but not while you appear to be running a seperate agenda. NAS and ADSB has to be linked for your stance to have any credibility.

BIK.
Just keep plugging away with that "we can all do what we want in the sky and it won't matter" drivel. It further marginalises you.


We cannot ignore the end state. It is where this is all going. None of these windrow-dressing intermediate steps mean much. The end state is what it's all about. There is no point going half-way down the road, only to turn back again . The debate should only focus on the end state. But that wouldn't serve NASIGs interest, would it?

[Bonzer]

Gentlemen,

We are finally reaching the guts of the matter!

At the NASIG meeting with the unions on the 30 Sept last it was announced that the end state model is not clearly evident ( to NASIG ) and that further reforms to airspace were reliant largely upon supporting technology. Herein lies the problem, the technology is currently not available. The changes proposed in 2b do reduce the current safety levels, if airspace reform stalled after the introduction of 2b we would be left with a less safe airways system. That is why the introduction of 2b should be stopped.

We need to be able to clearly see where the Airspace Reform Group and NASIG are going with airspace reform.

The tripartite union campaign is based on the end state model as it is currently understood, which with the aid of smoke and mirrors NASIG is clouding the picture and confusing the issue.

There is nothing wrong with airspace reform, it is an evolving thing. However, any changes made must not reduce safety.

None of the reresentatives from the AFAP AIPA or Civilair are paid for their time, they just happen to care about the safety of ALL airspace users.

[PGH]

My thoughts have again turned to moral decision making. What temperament drives an intransigent self-centred interest, altruistic, or doomsayer's point of view.

Some possible choices in this airspace debate are:

1. Self-centred - I am passionate, loud and strongly support the airspace model which most closely matches my self-interest(s). I will demonise all other models.

2. Altruistic - I also am fervent, and aggressive, but will support the airspace model, which provides the greatest good for the broader community. I'm prepared to override my desire for higher levels of system safety when convinced that the level of safety offered is very good and restrictions, regulations and other constrictions are minimised; thereby providing freedom of opportunity.

3. Doomsayer - I am most indignant, and in your face; I will only support the airspace model that provides the highest level of system safety to all types of operations, otherwise aircraft will collide (one day?). I oppose any model that reduces the current level of system safety.

In our society we highly regard the leader and statesman whom, against a tide of opposition, brings about worthwhile reform, but will devalue arguments put in an aggressive and domineering fashion. Meanwhile, we also highly regard the dissenters (whistleblowers) in our societies who are entitled to be heard and protest, and sometimes have altered us to unseen dangers. We always need a fulsome debate, but how do we resolve the impasse, while we value freedom from regulation, a fair deal, and acceptance of personal risk.

I contend that when pilots and airspace managers/designers can suspend self-interest and view the whole bowl of fruit (resist focusing on the single bad grape), it is possible to present the Australian community with an airspace model, which passes the "greatest good" test and is worthy of general support.

[BIK_116.80]

tobzalp

....you make a statement that the public want Big jets separated from IFR and E makes this all OK. Do the public even know what IFR is.

No – I’m quite certain that they don’t.

Just the same as the general public think that there is an air traffic control tower at every two-bit country airstrip, and that an aircraft will crash if it attempts to fly without filing a flight plan.

Away from the airport class G would be plenty good enough. Class E is just to keep up appearances (kind of like the way non-radar class D control zones do now).

VFR Flying Jacket Crowd = Volvo Drivers of the sky.

Cowboys = Volvo Drivers of the Sky.

Get it yet?

Oh yes – I get it. In fact, I think I first got it quite some time ago.

What I get is that a worryingly significant number of air traffic controllers have an unhealthy and disrespectfully condescending attitude towards the pilots of private category flights (ie their “customers”).

I’m sure that this attitude contributes, in part at least, to many of the all-too-common “remain outside controlled airspace – clearance not available” rebuffs.

The air traffic control system has been primarily designed to cater for scheduled IFR traffic – basically, for RPT. The air traffic control system has real problems coping with the more random nature of unscheduled traffic, and in particular with VFR GA traffic.

The ridiculous amount of TAAATS data-input required when pop-up traffic requests a clearance is an example of this.

Thankfully, the vast majority of GA traffic has no real need for any type of “service” from the air traffic control system.

Class E at least relieves the air traffic control system of the apparent burden of having to deal with VFR GA traffic. With class E the air traffic controllers are free to “roger” and “wilco” their way through the day with their captive audience of IFR traffic (at enormous expense), leaving the VFR traffic to get on with it, unhindered by the delays (and expense) of the air traffic control system.

Four Seven Eleven,

Scenario : B737 descending through class E airspace, being radar vectored for sequencing at a controlled aerodrome. The pilot spots an unidentified aircraft and determines that a collision risk exists . No traffic information has been passed by ATC. What happens now?

1. Does the pilot deviate from his vector/ route clearance?
2. Does the pilot deviate from his level assignment?

The pilot manoeuvres as required to avoid the collision risk.

Actually – I was faced with a very similar scenario a few months back in class C airspace.

When being radar vectored for an ILS approach in day VMC conditions I noticed a parachute canopy (with a person dangling beneath it) in my 12 o’clock, about half a mile, slightly above, and with a very low rate of descent. It looked like a regular parachute, but it may have been one of those fancy ones that can go up as well as down. I was at 5,000 feet on a left base with about 18 track miles to run. As I was about to take action to alter course so that I would pass laterally clear, the canopy rolled right 90 degrees and commenced a rapid descent. It seemed apparent that the parachutist had seen (or possibly heard) me coming and had decided that it was in their best interests to get out of the way. In the end I could see that there was no need for me to alter course.

Once clear I reported the sighting to ATC who helpfully told me “no traffic, no traffic”.

Is that the kind of scenario you are getting at, Four Seven Eleven? If so, then I’m sure it’s all been done before.

In particular, if anyone has relevant experience in how RPT jets operate in non-radar E airspace in the USA, your input would be very worthwhile.

Forgive me - I’m not sure if this relates to your earlier scenario or not. But if it does, how can an aircraft be radar vectored when it is outside radar coverage?

Surely we could have called it something like IFR Uncleared Transition in E - or IFR UTE for short.

Excellent idea! :ok: How very Australian.

Shall we have a government funded committee debate for months whether it should be a HOLDEN ute or a FORD ute? ;)

gaunty,

Long time no seeum, great chat the other night.

Yeah – and if you keep up that kind of behaviour then you can expect to be hearing from my lawyers!

(With a cheque for AOPA membership.... ;) :ok: )

I had a very good run with Volvos....

Yeah – I learnt to drive in one myself. They’re great cars! As they say : “boxy, but safe”. :ok:

(Actually, I learnt to drive in two Volvos – one 1,700 kg one and one 14,900 kg one.)

How come these left-wing socialists want to pick on Volvo drivers all of a sudden? Me thinks it’s just penis-envy from the peasants. :rolleyes:

Circa 1969 and I'm standing on the tarmac at Perth Airport being roundly berated by an apoplectic airline captain for having the temerity to;
a. operate an aircraft in IMC within 100nm of his AIRLINE AIRCRAFT (F27)

I’m sorry – but I nearly fell off my chair at that one! I thought you said “airline aircraft”? ;)

Your F27 driver sounds like a typical big fish in a little pond. How many gold bars did he have? PMSL!

Four Seven Eleven,

And where traffic levels warrant it, the primary mitigator is supplemented by secondary, tertiary etc. mitigators, such as traffic information, control etc. No airspace system relies only on this primary mitigator. No safe transport system does.

Herein lies the crux of the debate : “where traffic levels warrant it”.

In my opinion the traffic levels in the vast majority of Australia’s airspace warrant nothing more than genuine ICAO class G (ie no service, no delay, no charge).

I do agree that in areas of high traffic density (like in the terminal area around a very busy airport) the Big Sky Theory is not enough on its own.

But whereas you might suggest further layers of collision risk mitigation based on an expensive air traffic control infrastructure – like DTI or controlled airspace, I would advocate less restrictive, less labour-intensive, and more effective solutions - like using a TCAS traffic display and like looking out the window.

In the Australian enroute environment the random chance of a mid-air collision is sufficiently remote to rely on the Big Sky Theory on its own.

True, simply ‘listening’ and ‘talking’ have no bearing on the chances of avoiding a mid-air collision.

With respect, I suspect that you might have missed the point. I do admit that I might have been a bit too obtuse.

My comments were not in regard to “the chances of avoiding a mid-air collision”.

My point was that the Big Sky Theory functions just as well whether you talk on the radio or not, and whether you are in radar coverage or not, and whether you have TCAS or ADSB or not, because the geometry of a very large sky with relatively few aeroplanes flying around in it is unaffected by all those things.

Although why you would want one if it has no bearing on ‘the above factors’ is beyond me. Perhaps it is because TCAS does in fact offer a supplementary level of safety?

Of course TCAS offers a further level of safety over and above what is available from the Big Sky Theory on its own.

I think this relates to my apparently obtuse point above.

Thanks to the Big Sky Theory there is an extremely remote chance that an aircraft will be involved in a mid-air collision in Australia’s enroute environment – whether the aircraft has TCAS or not.

If the aircraft has TCAS then the chance of a mid-air collision is reduced even further.

Anyone who is concerned about a mid-air collision should buy a TCAS. :ok:

True, but does not tell the full story. Merely being aware of the current position of conflicting traffic is not the same as being aware of the other traffic’s intentions, nor does it afford the opportunity to negotiate mutual avoiding action, either directly or via a third party.

I disagree.

Intentions are wonderful (eg “climbing to altitude 5,000 feet”), but useless. What matters is what the other aircraft is actually doing (eg erroneously climbing to 8,000 feet).

TCAS calculates the closure rate and time to closest point of approach of nearby aircraft. These are the all-important factors, not what the pilot of the other aircraft intended to do.

A TCAS traffic display allows the pilot to see the relative position and altitude of nearby traffic. Aircraft that are climbing or descending are shown as such. It is very easy for a pilot to manoeuvre around other traffic using a TCAS traffic display.

In any case, if both aircraft are fitted with TCAS II then mutual avoiding action will be automatically calculated (and co-ordinated) by the TCAS units themselves.

If one aircraft is fitted with TCAS II but the other aircraft is not then TCAS II will still automatically calculate avoiding action.

VFR aircraft have ‘announced’ through broadcasts. It is precisely this that Dick Smith has been trying to avoid.

What proportion of VFR aircraft do you say make these broadcasts?

Despite all the VFR waffle on the airwaves, my information is that something less than 20% of VFR pilots make radio transmissions in class G airspace (other than on CTAF or MBZ frequencies).

For the vast majority of VFR traffic in the enroute environment it has been the Big Sky Theory alone that has kept the planes apart for over a decade.

Where traffic has been known (e.g. in radar coverage) traffic has been and continues to be provided.

Fantastic. So if you’ve got radar, where’s the problem with class E? If you haven’t got radar then you haven’t known about the VFR traffic (and therefore have not passed DTI on it) since the AMATS changes of 1991. Either way – same result : ZERO enroute mid-air collisions since 1991. Again, where’s the problem?

Wrong. It is important that someone knows the positions, intentions etc of aircraft so that a cogent plan can be formulated which provides – dare I say it – a ‘safe, orderly and expeditious’ flow of air traffic. (We can’t all be number one in the sequence.)

We will continue to disagree on this point. I suspect that our differing opinions are based on our different experiences.

TCAS shows the positions of transponding traffic. ADSB will, in the future, do many things. ADSB will be akin to an ashtray on a motorbike on November 27.

To be entirely honest, I haven’t yet figured out what ADSB can do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do. I’ll stick to TCAS for now, thanks.

Operations in the terminal area involve much more than avoidance of a mid-air collision. The ‘ease’ with which terminal area operations can be conducted safely would, I suggest, be dependent on the traffic levels, complexity, weather etc. A point will be reached when it becomes less easy, difficult and ultimately impossible.

Again – I suspect that our differing opinions are based on our different experiences.

Excellent point. Even though in Class A airspace, the current primary mitigator against mid-air collisions is ATC, the regulators have long recognised that reliance on one, single mitigator is unsatisfactory. This is exactly why we have a ‘layered defence’. If ATC fails, pilot situational awareness may detect it. If not, then TCAS. If not, then ‘see and avoid’. (Not forgetting ‘luck’ or big sky theories.)

Whereas for a whole lot less money we could rely on the Big Sky Theory as the primary risk mitigator, use TCAS as the secondary risk mitigator, and have looking out the window as the last line of defence. (I presume we are talking about the enroute environment here.)

One of the many problems with the current, outdated air traffic control procedures is that they increase the chance of a mid-air collision by funnelling all the aircraft into the same few flight levels along the same routes - reducing the effectiveness of the Big Sky Theory.

Knowing where the aircraft are is the very smallest part of a safe air traffic management system. The reason controllers (Say in class A) know where the aircraft are is because they ‘put’ them there. They did this because they knew the positions, intentions etc. of other aircraft. They plan for safety. By doing this, pilots can, in most cases fly more directly, staying at the same levels for longer, thus saving money.

The day you come up with an air traffic control procedure that can get me a more expeditious routing than direct to the destination is the day that I’ll be your biggest advocate.

But until that day comes I’ll continue to view the air traffic control system as an elaborate and expensive system of traffic lights in the sky – their only possible effect being delay and expense.

As has been pointed out already, the public do not want to be ‘positively separated from other IFR aircraft’. They probably want to avoid mid-air collisions altogether.

I concur.

But I suggest that once an aircraft is away from the airport environment it doesn’t need any air traffic control service in order to avoid a mid-air collision.

triadic,

As professionals (and that includes amateur professionals, or is that the professional amateurs?) I believe that none of these associations would use the safety argument if they did not believe it was valid to do so.

Your belief in the altruism of the Australian union movement is much greater than mine.

The "I only want what is good for me" position is unbalanced and inappropriate to the discussion. We must consider the whole picture and how each of us interacts with other users. To do less, dare I say… is not professional.

I disagree.

If everyone lobbied for what is best for them then we ought to end up with a solution that offers the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.

Isn’t that how a democracy is meant to work? :confused:

Certainly the big sky policy is a significant mitigator in terms of a possible mid-air collision, however I know at least one regional airline pilot that had a very close call with a glider in en-route airspace (above 5000ft) a few years back. By the time they saw each other there was no time to move and the glider went under the regional turbo-prop by only a matter of metres – a close one.

I’m sorry – didn’t you say they missed?

Where’s the problem then?

A miss is as good as five miles. :ok:

Bonzer,

None of the reresentatives from the AFAP AIPA or Civilair are paid for their time, they just happen to care about the safety of ALL airspace users.

Oh come now – get real.

Civil Air represents the interests of the air traffic controllers.

AFAP and AIPA represent the interests of the RPT pilots (who are just a small fraction of the total pilot population).

To suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or naïve.

[cjam]

Can I assume that since nobody has told me that the scenario I painted in my last post couldn't happen, that it can?
If that is the case then I would have to oppose this reform in it's current form.
GAUNTY
Why wouldn't you role with the lowest common denominator?
The paying public don't care that the mid-air occured because of a mistake the lightie made.
The system would allow a ppl, with no duty time limits, to WORK (thats what it becomes towards the end of a big day), in the same airspace as the rpt's without involving the third party as a safety backstop. Thats degradation of current safety standards.
I'm not saying it's right to have a ppl working 12hr days with 10hrs airborne on PJE (and if you're wondering I've never done it), but thats what our system allows, and it happens, and therefore it is ludicrous to expect them to never make a simple mistake thus endangering the lives of others.
Go the lowest common denominator that the system allows.

[gaunty]

We are ndeed a nation divided by a common language.:{

Before I get carried away and forget.
Regardless of what system we have, whilst we contunue to run "airways" and other means of funelling traffic and combine that with the fantasticly accurate GPS and IRS systems available today we are setting ourselves up for a coming together not previously statistically probable using the old steam driven stuff.
Opposing or conflicting traffic in the "steam driven nav" days could reasonably be expected to "miss" each other simply due to the nature of the signal and receiving apparatus. Not so today with the several metres accuracy available.

Should we not be insisting that any GPS or IRS system have an acceptable random dither applied to the information so derived to open up the probability a bit??


ferris
Forgive me if it looked like I was attributing "that" quote to you, I was not, I was simply using it as one does on the manner of conversational aside.

LCD, well there is low and there is unsupportable low.

I made the comment to an ATC gentleman the other day that we could get the risk to absolute zero by not flying, period.

That is as stupid as suggesting we have a free for all, although I suspect that might actually work.:uhoh:

What I was trying to convey was that the lowest common denominator in that case is actually the pilot training and disciplines. It might be able to be held that the "young tyro" is actually more conscientious than the "old hand", either way we all have to assume that whoever is sharing the airspace with us is going to act responsibly.
I get the feeling that some ATCOs assume the exact opposite.

triadic

Spot on argument as usual.

I believe that his has been recognised of late and there are steps in place.

BIK_116.8

Bwahahah, in them days they were, at least around the region, :} and yes they DID own the skys AND were until then, the ONLY aircraft operating in IMC, hence one of the MAIN reasons our Regulatory and ATC systems evolved the way they did and echoes of which are still reverberating loudly through the reform process.

I wont bore the audience with a full exposition of this thesis, but you know what I mean.:p

cjam
You might be surprised to learn that I actually agree with you.

Go the lowest common denominator that the system allows.

Isn't this what this debate is really all about, "what the system will allow"

The whole "system" under normal circumstances is politically driven by properly informed punter sentiment, Government from whence the funds derive and the Regulator.

Unfortunately that whole thing is skewed by this "user pays" and "private" enterprise Air Services provider. They are no longer funded by Government, they are expected to run at a profit within acceptable safety parameters, but are artificially constrained by Government from "doing their thing" by a political limiting of the charge they can apply.

IMHO they have done an amazing job in the transition and are unique in the world and I would have expected nothing less from the professionals they are.

But the halcyon "gold plated" days are over.
The punters voted, as always. for cheaper everything, a certain enthusiast told em they could and should have it, the rest is history.

We are not going to unscramle that egg any time soon so it's up to the professionals to find an answer that is acceptable to all.

The ray of sunshine being, that we will all be challenged to rethink old attitudes, procedures and mindsets. Heck we might even find a better way.

We'll never know until we try, not recklessy certainly, but certainly outside the square.

So for all of us looking outside of our own individual boxes, responsibly;

What will the "whole system" allow?

[2B1ASK1]

I was having a chat with family a few days ago they reminded me that as a child all I wanted to do was be a pilot some 40 years have past now and I am and have been in the industry for many years. I have worked in the industry in most countries and it is so sad that here at home pilots and aviation as a whole in my eyes are probably the lowest lifeform in the human chain we only have to look at these posts to see how we attack each other at the slightest comment. I admit to attacking others at times myself usually on the basis that they are pushing their own barrow and distorting the truth and the system to prove they are right.

There are so many untruths sitting in this post it shows only how ignorant some of you are. For example WHO ARE NASIG?, easy unlike some of you may think they are not hand picked by dick or some other political party to field their dreams, they are in fact men and or women from a cross section of the industry chosen to do a job. They have no hidden motives they may have their own personal opinion of NAS the group in fact change after this stage to try and keep NAS objective. Some of them are experts in their own right and are well aware of the problems outlined in some peoples minds. Each of you are only expressing self interests they have to look at the whole picture in the interests of us all. They also have to return back and work in the very thing they are changing so please stop attacking them.

Next for the rest of you that think you know better for each of you that have a particular barrow to push a representative from your field or organisation has been at the workshops to identify and where possible mittigate safety issues both on US compliant and non compliant issues and that has been done in my eyes to the best of all presents ability. Next 2b has been signed off by CASA I dont know where this one has been dreamed up, not so dedline 20th OCT 2003 that is why the training package is not out yet why spend squillions on printing what woud be toilet paper if it does not get signed off. Arms are not being bent here if it is not accepted there has to be a very valid reson why not dreamed up reasons or percieved issues. My suggestion to those that are not happy with the representative from your particular organisation is stop wasting time here with inane rantings and take your issues up with him or her.

Personally I have no hidden motives here I have been in a position where I can express safety issues and help with training my mind is not one sided my goal is to make aviation safe for all users, My personal view is aviation in Austrailia statistically speaking is not safe for many reasons and airspace reform will eventually help this, perhaps 2b is not perfect but it is another step forward and I believe it is as safe as it can be if we compare it to current model then perhaps not but did we need the current level of safety in the first place or was it just belt and braces.

Perhaps some of you out there would like me to put an extra rib in you wing or another bulkhead in the fuselage just in case it may fail, wake up aviation is all about a compromise why dont I put another bulkhead in your fuselage when I know it would be far safer and stronger? simple because it would cost you more and you would have to carry less so I compromise because under normal circumstances it will be safe.

In our current airspace system regionals go into busy CTAF's in some areas this has not caused that great a problem in the past so why should it in the future. If representatives show me a good reason then fine I will support them. A valid reason is not that just because radio carriage is not mandatory or calls compulsory GA pilots wont do them how stupid are you. Some years ago give way to the right on our roads was removed from the rules, tell me how many people out there don' t give way to the right? easy answer no one and why because it would be stupid to not do it, driving instructors still teach giving way to the right the same as flying instructors will still teach radio calls at appropriate points as recommended. One good thing will happen and that is they will be able to spend more time on teaching flying and airmanship that getting the average pilot to understand complicated airspace procedures and rules, some of you may have actually forgotten how hard that was or is now.

For those of you that think they know what NAS end state is dream on sure there are are goals for a model but it is clear that with the process so far it will not be exactly the same as the US model and as long as I am invited to help and I have a hole in my A#SE then I wont agree to anything that I do not see as safe.

The simple truth in all this is the process is being delayed by people with vested interests and hidden agendas sadly they are not always valid safety issues. Thats why its hard to get information out. How can a goal be scored when the players are moving the posts. Blackmail tactics do nothing but make the system dangerous because people dig in and wont budge and objectives and real issues become clouded, scaring the Australian public is criminal. A real fact now no GA no aviation everything starts somewhere and everything needs somewhere to start and GA is the very foundation its built on from engineers to pilots. 152 pilot to 747-400 in 6 years for a close friend of mine, where does he go if there is no GA in 10 years circuits in a 152 sim perhaps or 747 sim with no real flying experience how scary. Do yourselves a favour help look after GA as they helped and will continue to help you meet your dreams we are all pilots something to be proud of and admired by others after reading some of this I wonder what I should realy be proud of.

Sorry this is so long passionate I am dangerous I am not, I have lost many friends to aviation and been to far to many funerals. If I can make a change and loose less friends then pardon me if I care. Keep flying (A VINCULO TERRAE).
:ok:

[gaunty]

And so say all of us.:ok:

[dickluvva]

Yo! Binnie et al,

This thread is reaching its ordained maximum length. Over a hundred posts which means Big W will be canning it momentarily. (RANT ON: On that topic BW, how about relaxing the 100 post rule? It seems to me if a thread’s getting plenty of activity, wielding the electronic cleaver at 100 posts only serves to provide opportunity for endless repetition of the same cr@p as the newcomers – or God forbid, someone who has been deprived of PPRUNE for a while – can’t get the context of current posts. Other forums on the site seem quite happy with 30 odd pages and still going strong. RANT OFF)

Bless me father it has been several weeks since my first and last post (NAS on the skids). I’ve waded through the many posts, some of which seem to rely on quantity rather than quality, and note some quite interesting oppositions in common throughout the past few NAS is doomed type threads:

Fat cat bureaucrat ATCs bent on the destruction of aviation in this once great land, feathering their own nests at the cost of the aviation industry, which , let’s face it they’re not part of vs. terry-towelling hatted weekend warriors who want to be able to fly anywhere, anytime at no cost other than the transport strapped to their prodigious @rses

The sky is falling Heavy Metal bus drivers vs. “If he can hit me he can f*#@ me – it’s a big sky” PPLs

BIK 116.8 vs, urm vs, weeellll virtually everyone (including himself) as it happens

My observation (sorry I am an ATC so I know my opinion is not valid but…):

I think it’s less safe. I support the position of the unions in that the basic premises for the change (based on the Willoughby report) that it’ll be at least as safe, and $70 million cheaper both seem to have flown out the window. Most of my peers seem to be pretty apathetic about it all. Call me old-fashioned but no matter how bad it gets out there, I’d have to be very unlucky for the prang to kill me.

Let’s all hold hands, pull the black cloth onto our heads and pronounce the verdict. I’m sick of it. Let the charred wreckage fall where it may.

Over and definitely out…

[Woomera]

Hey you up there:uhoh:

Modesty forbids me from typing your name, but Big W here has some discretion in these things and in recognition of its importance and interest will let this thread run along for a bit, subject to the usual rules.

I'm even going to sticky it.

So play on chaps, no eye gouging, goolie crushing, or hitting below the belt please.:\

[dickluvva]

On ya Woomera,

Power and discretion, an uncommon package in these parts.

L&K

[ugly]

****** me!

what have I started?

8 bloody pages of posts now!

"oh.. the humanity!!!"

[gaunty]

The horror ! The horror ! :ugh:

[tobzalp]

What is even scarier is at a meeting I attended today we discussed the 2c delivery timetable ::rolleyes::

[WALLEY2]

BIK116.80

As a matter of interest you should ask yourself :

"how many years of maths and stats have I studied?

how many risk analyses have I contributed to?

how many experts have I employed or given consultancies to for reports on airspace problems or reforms?

Do I get all ICAO and CASA reg changes on terminal airspace across my desk for my library?

Have I had changes excepted by CASA to existing and proposed regs due to my teams analysis of their and others standards?"


Airspace reform is not developed by flight or ATC personal experience, and is not anecdotal it is scientific.

Our current Risk analysis involves guys with Phds in Engineering, Statistics,and Risk management in addition to extremely well Qualified Pilots and ATC personnel.

In stage two of our risk assessment all the heavy metal, regional, and G.A. players are being consulted and surveyed as have CASA and AA.

We are one of two major regional airports doing such analysis on CTAF vs MBZ vs CAGRS vs D Class Towers. Our costs alone are $40,000 for this exercise. Infact for us it is the second time we have studied terminal airspace procedures at our airport, the first lesser study resulted in Australia adopting CA/GRS procedures.

I accept that unless we are also pilots and some of us are, our enroute knowledge is probably not at a standard to offer an opinion at this level of play. It is to try to understand it that I read this forum, even though I abour the personal attacks that abound here.

What I contend is that while I understand you have a penchant for attacking others who have a different view to yourself; I would like to correct you when you say "airport owners and operators know nothing about anything above our OLS"

We do pay attention to and are qualified to comment on Terminal Airspace Reform.

Infact at uncontrolled airports we are the only source of the base data needed to commence a risk analysisand in todays enviroment appear to be the only organisations examining comparing and analysing this data.

Sir I say to you "you are being somewhat harsh and infact not correct in your illmannered comment on airports lack of knowledge on airspace reforms."

[bonez]

walley2


What I contend is that while I understand you have a penchant for attacking others who have a different view to yourself; I would like to correct you when you say "airport owners and operators know nothing about anything above our OLS"

We do pay attention to and are qualified to comment on Terminal Airspace Reform.

Infact at uncontrolled airports we are the only source of the base data needed to commence a risk analysisand in todays enviroment appear to be the only organisations examining comparing and analysing this data.



the problem is that the perception regarding airport owners/operators being involved in airspace is that it is for no other reason that to enable the collection of charges

some airport operators take an interest for other reasons but this seems to be a small %

some years back some airports wanted to become part of the rapac process and it was resolved that they should be observers only as the majority of airspace users did not believe airports should be involved in airspace which was deemed not to be something they had any responsibility for *the mbz vs ctaf is a good example

of course they can speak on any matter they like but to be heard they must be seen as speaking responsibly and without an alternative motive which is not often the case at the moment

until airports and the aaa realise that their involvement is seen as genuinely safety related and not to put in place a means of collecting charges they will not advance their cause one bit in the eyes of many

sorry walley2 but thats a fact

get ken to work on that and it will improve your lot somewhat

[ugly]

Part of the airspace reform that no-one here has mentioned yet is that military airspace will become more flexible (see here) (http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/pilot_education/military.htm)

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

[triadic]

Ugly

Whilst the Military use of airspace is important to many of us, I believe that discussion on it has taken a back seat to some of the other issues that many consider more important (at this time).

I believe that over the past 10 years or so much of the military activity has been undertaken with civil inconvenience a consideration at the planning stage. It is certainly a lot better that in the 70's and 80's (and earlier of course).

The proposals as outlined have been pushed for many years and I would like to think that these proposals will free up much airspace and increase the flexibility of its use by civil users.

The management of military airspace is also a consideration, especially in recent times where military ATC resources are not as large as they used to be. Except for a few key locations I see civil ATC being responsible for what is now military airspace in the not too distant future.

"no known traffic".. :ok:

[Keg]

I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes so can one of the pro NAS guys fill me in here?

If NAS is safe and ready to go now, what possible justification is there at ANY stage in the future for the taxpayer to fund ADSB. If ADSB makes NAS 'safer', then surely moving to a system that is 'less safe' tha NAS + ADSB in the short term isn't the brightest thing to be doing?!?!

I've got immense respect for some of the players in this discussion but I just keep coming back to these questions.

[BIK_116.80]

WALLEY2,

I have studied your most recent post carefully and more than once.

But I fail to understand what particular skill or knowledge is required to be able to squander large sums of money on hordes of consultants.

Aviation is, in essence, a very simple business. Unfortunately there is an endless supply of parasites who seek to make it more complicated than it really is in order to facilitate their own financial gain.

So you got CAGRS approved – fantastic! But those procedures have been in use in other countries since the 1930s.

Did you really need to spend all that money on consultants just for that?

There are already about a million consultant’s reports on airspace issues – why does the world need yet another one? (other than to keep the consultants employed ;) )

All that aside, I do whole-heartedly agree that you need an air traffic control tower like you need a hole in the head. That would be a big step in the wrong direction because it would cause unnecessary costs and delays.

G’day Keg, :ok:

....what possible justification is there at ANY stage in the future for the taxpayer to fund ADSB.

There isn’t one, and there wont be one.

I’ve never suggested that the tax-payer should fund ADSB.

Actually – I still can’t figure out what ADSB can do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do. Any suggestions, Andrew K???

I do believe that the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder should be mandatory for all aircraft with an electrical generating system capable of powering it.

TCAS is commercially available now (as is it’s cheaper cousin, TCAD) and I strongly suggest that anyone who is worried about the risk of a collision should get one.

Please don’t think that I hold that view because of any reservations about NAS – I’ve been a staunch advocate for TCAS for some time (long before NAS).

[WALLEY2]

Bonez,
Yes there could be some smaller airports looking at thia MBZ/CTAF from a money collection issue.

Let me assure you though the vast concern is coming from the large regional who have plenty of staff to see the landings.

We for instance have 24hr coverage due to security concerns as do others.

There is a self interest in that a disaster will deeply hurt the reputation of the region, even though that is illogical it does occur.

My main point of my previous post was that airports are the main source of data and analysis and do take terminal airspace issues very seriously.

Infact if as NAS IG say that flying into a major regional a/p covered by CTAF without making normal calls would be reckless flying ,it is the airports that will have the records and data too issue the 225s, a rather thankless task.

Prior to NAS 2c the AAA will need written confirmation of this intended legal action against offenders. Personally I don't like this approach and can't see why it is so important to push the major regional airports into CTAF plus reckless flying litigation instead of remaining MBZ.

It gives a/p airspace a more multi stage approach from CTAF, then MBZ,then MBZ plus CA/GRS, then D class towers.

Compared with NAS which has CTAF, then D class towers.

Most studies show CTAF should cope upto 10,000 annual movements provided there very low amounts of RPT services yet D class towers are not needed untill 40 to 50,000 annual movements.

We would have no alternative but to bring D class towers in before they are needed and all users large and small will be charged accordingly. USA don't use the user pays method and their 450 D class towers are paid by consolidated revenue.

AOPA should consider this when dealing and advising on NAS 2c. User pays will be big dollars, Bernie Smith advised the Senate some existing small towers would only cut even at $38 per Tonne. Hence their desire to quite these a/ps before the $7,000,000 Fed Gov subsidy runs out at the end of this year.

Any attemt to charge only major airline Pax would be unfair and not stand up to a ACCC ruling.

As most of you should know AA is the only allowable provider of towers except at Broome and Ayers that had existing ATS though they can only provide ATS/ATC at these a/ps and no others.

Cheers :ugh:

[Chief galah]

I have a feeling there may be a buck or two to be made from the supply of ADSB equipment.

Why is ADSB so important, when those pushing it don't even want to fit radios? It seems ironic that the pro ADSB persons are also the ones so enarmoured with the "see and avoid" principle.

As for the part timers like me, we are yet to see the Nov. 27 charts.
No time for comment by the users, no time for fine tuning. A wonderful piece of industry consultation.

Holding patterns on VNC's? Sh*t, that is going to be helpful!

My flying is still going to be C to G, and G to C. Like 99.9% of VFRy's we wont bother the E.
EXCEPT
when we overfly a D tower. What fun, think of the savings.

Only difference is, it'll be harder to know the correct frequency to monitor. Like many others, will I bother?

CG

[snarek]

Unfortunately I have studied about 4 years of maths and stats burried in an engineering degree, a masters and a PhD.

I looked at some CASA 'maths and stats' a few months ago, those relating to 'non-radio' movements in CTAFS and MBZ's.

They said thet the rate of non-radio compliance was X.X% (forgive the Xs, I ferget the exact numbers) GREATER for CTAFs than MBZs.

SO, THEREFORE IT OBVIOUSLY FOLLOWS THAT CTAFs are more dangerous than MBZs (I shall leave the derivation of that for the dilligent undergrad).

HOWEVER, what they failed to say was they looked mainly at BIG MOVEMENT CTAFs (to make the numbers easier to crunch) and all MBZs (cos there aint as many).

Now looking at the 'big movement' CTAFs we see PRODIGIOUS RIPOFFS in landing fees.

Thus a lateral thinking stats professional would question the safety basis of their assertion and may even suggest that 'non-radio' could be linked to $$$$$ and not 'lazy irrespaonsible acts' (even if it is the same thing).

I bet my left one that if we put all the 'big charge' MBZs in the same bucket and did the same analysis we'd get X.X +/- 0.Y% for red wide stress.

When suggesting this CASA replied that they weren't an economic regulator and my guessanalysis didn't show a safety issue.

BWAHAHAHAHA

What we need is a fairer way of charging so the Ag guys, 207 drivers and bankrunners don't land on the cheap!!!

AK

[ferris]

So if, once again, your beef is with the charging system , why is the 'reform' about the airspace system? A lot of the support for NAS is driven by claims about reduced charges. Why don't we just import the U.S. charging system? That would, of course, invlove the truth, and we can't have that......can we?

[Hempy]

Snarek's "perfect" world

http://www.lexicon.net/eclan/dust/aopa.htm/AOPA.jpg

[gaunty]

Well I suppose if this is what passes for inteligent :rolleyes: debate around here then we really are in trouble.:(

Lets go for the man/org eh, it's much easier, I mean AOPA are just a bunch or anoraks hey. :{

There must be a HUGE number of really stupid people involved in the NASIG. :uhoh:

Funny, I've met most of them and none of them have eyes in the middle of their foreheads, there was no evidence of prefrontal lobotomies and they could ALL walk and chew gum at the same time.
Amazing stuff, they must have been practising for yonks, just so they could pull the wool over everybodies eyes.

I can't work out why they would be so motivated but I'm sure someone out there will have an opinion or three.

[WALLEY2]

Snarek,
thanks for your imput, clearly you follow the risk analysis process and modelling so won't bore others with it.

This is a very serious problem but your reply demonstrates some time you just can't win!!

With regards to the Risk analysis by CASA that determined CTAF was unsafe at airports with 10,000+ movements p.a. where as MBZ were still acceptable. You point out the CTAFs chosen in the risk analysis were large CTAFs, therefore high charging Airports, therefore higher non radio usage to avoid fees.

In discussions with Mike Smith he stated the risk analysis was flawed as the CTAF airports were smaller than the MBZ airports and therefore pilots would think it OK to not make the calls. Mike to my knowledge has no qualifications or analysis to back up this statement.

You can see the problem, Mike says flawed CTAFs needed to be bigger,you say flawed CTAFs should have been smaller.

Me? I say it is the people advocating the change to do the analysis of the new system vs the old and that has not been done. I'll leave you and Mike to workout the size of the CTAF that should be used for the statistical analysis. AN analysis most here know will never happen.

On CA/GRS, yes stolen from Canada and not my idea in the first place we helped and pushed to solve a disturbing problem in the skies above our a/p.

On consultants to maintain the integrity of a Risk analysis it should be by an independent party, ICAO says this and I wish NAS IG and the Smiths would apply it to any analysis of the NAS.

I agree there seems to many reports on airspace but can you advise of one that has a risk analysis that shows CTAF is OK at airports with 20,000 a/c movements p.a., 250,000 PAX p.a. and serviced by 737 RPT aircraft, I seem to have misplaced my copy of that report. :hmm:

Gaunty,
the NAS IG is what it says an implimentation group, it is not their job to do the analysis.

It would be a very poor career move for the seconded personnel in NAS IG to say no don't like this not proven won"t implement this.

They are in an invidious position, just ask Mick what the pressures are like if you say "hey wait on this not proven and should not be implemented."

Where are all the normal steps involved in aviation rule changes? Why and how is this being steamrolled through?

Don't ask a mid level seconded member of NAS IG to stand up and say HOLT, NOT ON, BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARDS. Even the Dep P.M. seems reluctant ,dispite some serious concerns being presented to him, to make that call.

[SOPS]

:( As I keep saying (its because I am old enough to remember) we USED to have a thing called a FLIGHT SERVICE UNIT at places that were served by RPT and GA, but not enough to have a tower. So why not now? Has Dicks "dicky plan" really destroyed that much saftey?
Comments please.

[snarek]

Walley

Well at least you got the point (re stats and manipulation vs hidden causals). Keep trying ferris, you can buy very nice little maths books with apples and stuff, good place to start before you try Bayseyan Theory :E .

I liked the little AOPA ad above too. Succinctly points out the problem of regionals not looking out the window :} (cos they do own the sky .... don't they???)

Now some CTAFs are bigger than some MBZs, and there really isn't a problem. I would like to see a fairer charging regime, remembering that all these airports were paid for with taxpayers money to begin with.

But if we could get some sort of 'sticker' system working again, leaving out the AVDATA middle-man take, then maybe, just maybe the guys and gals who 'avoid unecessary calls' won't feel the need anymore ;)

Oh, and for those above STILL blaming the PPL, the last 'no-radio' I saw was at a CTAF in FNQ and it was a Citation, hardly a PPL!!!

The week before that, small CTAF in FFNQ (ie North of Cairns) and it was a Caravan (and no, it wasn't Dick). Again, not too many PPL Caravans around (other than the obvious one).

So give the PPL whinge a break, the problem at CTAFs is regionals not looking vs 'struggling' mid-level charter not talking.

Both members of the so-called 'professionals' strutting their stuff in this forum.

Oh, and Ferris, YET AGAIN (please absorb this fact this time) AOPA IS LINKING NAS AND ADSB AND HAS WRITTEN TO THE MINISTER TO THAT EFFECT.

OK, are we straight with that now.

AK

[Here to Help]

AOPA's position (from snarek's last post):
AOPA IS LINKING NAS AND ADSB AND HAS WRITTEN TO THE MINISTER TO THAT EFFECT.

Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
(From the list of requirements AFAP, AIPA, and Civil Air have advised the Minister that are necessary for a safe airspace (see link in coral's post)).

The full list of these 10 safety requirements sent to the Minister are below (I've added point numbers to assist in discussion).
--------------
1. Transponder coverage in 'E' airspace must be mandatory

2. Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.

3. Replacing MBZs with (US) CTAFs is unsafe, not acceptable

4. Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.

5. Airspace designed to capture normal aircraft operating profiles and ensure protection of IFR flights conducting instrument procedures.

6. Require Class C steps abutting/over Class D towers, to the base of Class A.

7. No 'straight in' approaches for non-radio equipped aircraft.

8. Transparent safety case system - nothing hidden or unexplored, mitigation of hazards to be real, not just words.
Increased consultation and exploration with key industry groups.

9. Financial and/or safety benefit to be clearly identified prior to change.

10. Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
----------------

These are the concerns these professional organisations have. Some are to do with specific procedural/airspace issues, others are to do with the transparency and accountability of airspace reform in general.

The airspace reform issues obviously assume that the NAS process so far:
- has not clearly identified the safety and financial benefits,
- consultation and exploration with key industry groups has not been sufficient,
- mitigation has largely been cursory and superficial,
- the safety case system is not transparent.

The 10 points above serve as a "roadmap for peace" for implementation of NAS. If the IG and/or Minister address each of these points then there is a way forward for NAS.

Notice that the organisations are not opposing NAS - they have actually communicated a way they see it being introduced safely and responsibly.

As NAS2b implementation approaches, people would be far better off discussing the real contentious issues, such as those above, not wasting time attacking the man, attacking motives, creating a straw man and attacking him, or responding to obviously antagonistic posts unprofessionally or in kind. Doing so detracts from the argument and demeans the poster.

I make the comparison between snarek's ADSB comment and point 10 above, at the start of this post, to illustrate that there are agreements that can be found. How many more points do people agree on?

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

I stopped posting on this thread a while ago purely because the PPL/AOPA guys on here never seemed to answer the concerns and questions put forward by the aviation professionals be they RPT pilots or ATC's. The response has always came back to its ok for me in my bugsmasher so it must be ok for everyone else.

The difference in mentality I have decided comes down to the fact that the professional pilots have to go to work each day to pay the mortgage as do the the ATC's. They don't want to be party to a midair collision or even a close call while they are doing their job again either as a professional pilot or ATC. The PPL/AOPA guy looks out the window decides its a nice day to go for a flight and chooses to do this. He doesn't want to be stuffed around by the air police as he sees them, he wants to come straight in no delays (even if that means he delays 100 fare paying passengers. Just a little point, the AOPA guys whinge and say why should the RPT carrying the fare paying passengers get priority and special treatment, WHY THE HELL NOT???!!!??? The old thing about the greater good comes to mind.) He also doesn't want to pay anything to anyone. And in his mind because this kind of flying is ok for him then its ok for everyone.

As I said the AOPA guys won't answer genuine concerns about the NAS airspace model, and just blindly put it down to job protection by the ATC's and arrogance by the RPT's.

[NOtimTAMs]

AirNoServices

Don't oversimplify and overinclude. There are plenty of PPLs (and even AOPA members!!) who fly themselves for business/work, fly IFR and are interested in surviving! I for one have to fly at least weekly single pilot IFR any weather except thunderstorms (no radar) and clouds/icing levels below LSALT(no deice) , with a PPL/CIR - because I have to be there for work and pay the rent etc. etc.....Hell, I even make sure I shoot that ILS every 35 days or less!

My experience is that most lighties are quite happy to hold or throw in a few litres of fuel for an orbit to help the scheduled guys (or stay out of the wake turbulence).... the fact that you say otherwise just seems to show you don't have actual experience flying around the traps. Furthermore, my experience is that most (but not all) of the regional jockeys are fine to deal with and don't deliberately taxi out and back track when a lightie's on final just because they can.

Before you point the finger re: what questions are being answered by whom, please note there have been NO facts presented on the issue, comparing between the demonstrated (not theoretical) safety records of similar airspace (i.e. traffic density, ATC/Flightservice levels, radar etc.) in Australia & the US. No side (including NASIG, CASA, ATSB, AOPA, AFAP, AIPA and other letters of the alphabet) has presented any data or facts that DIRECTLY address this issue. All we have is folks skirting around the issues, personal attacks on various aviation groups and a flush of nostalgic reminiscences!

As I have pointed out before, this debate goes nowhere unless the facts are presented.

........and (directed at all sides) cut out the infantile PPLvs CPL vs ATPL crap - it ill becomes us.

<Rant off>

mmm, looks like a nice day outside for flying, might cancel that IFR plan.

Safe flying:ok:

NOtimTAMs

[gaunty]

NOtimTAMs

Thank you for that, spot on and just for the record AOPA members include, PPLs, to ATPL, bizjet, regional, domestic and international.



AirNoServicesAustralia

You do your argument no good at all by demeaning AOPA and suggesting that they are just a bunch of bugsmasher PPLs.

The fact that your payslip does not have a QF or whatever airline logo on it doesn't make you an unprofessional.

That is bulls hit and you know it. Take it from an ATPL who has had PMs and multigrillionaires down the back and never been nor ever wanted to be near an "airline".

cut out the infantile PPLvs CPL vs ATPL crap - it ill becomes us.

[snarek]

HTH

You claim we agree and then post a number of points, I beg to differ.

1. Transponder coverage in 'E' airspace must be mandatory

That is still under discussion. For AOPA to agree to Txps in all E I would argue that E starts at A050 and not a few hundred AGL as planned.

2. Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.

We don't agree. However this is not really an issue for the 'average PPL' and I personally see no reason for AOPA to sing the NASIG line on this provided there is no attempt to pass the associated costs onto those who don't need or want the service.

5. Airspace designed to capture normal aircraft operating profiles and ensure protection of IFR flights conducting instrument procedures.

Now this seems to have horns on it. As long as it doesn't mean unecessary procedures for aircraft in VMC, fine. But AOPA won't support changing CTAF procedures to give IFR aircraft any priority when VMC exists. In IMC reality means there will generally be no problem, BUT, there is a thing called 'special VFR' and IFR pilots would be well advised to familiarise themsleves with low level VMC requirements.

6. Require Class C steps abutting/over Class D towers, to the base of Class A.

NO!!! That disadvantages our members. If 'you' want C or D joining A to C or D then we need to talk. To convince us 'you' need to prove to us that 'clearance not available, remain OCTA' will be a thing of the past. Otherwise, we are happy with current NASIG plans.

7. No 'straight in' approaches for non-radio equipped aircraft.

Not legal anyway. But we also need some education for RPT operators, I'd prefer 'no straight in approaches where a circuit is operating'. It is nearly impossible to know you have the accord (premission?) of every a/c in a circuit. My closest near hit happened at Mildura when an RPT did a straight in with 20 a/c in the circuit.

8. Transparent safety case system - nothing hidden or unexplored, mitigation of hazards to be real, not just words.

This doesn't mean anything. Consultation has happened, none of us got it all our own way. Consultation does not mean submission.

9. Financial and/or safety benefit to be clearly identified prior to change.

To who??? AOPA won't be supporting anything that increases our costs to provide a system we don't want or need.

10. Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)

Agreed to a point, and we all need to work together on this. But NOT Radar, it is too expensive to build and maintain and becomes unsupportable for 'all of Oz' deployment when infrastructure costs are considered. Also, to ensure an all of GA fit, the ADSB Mode S units MUST be funded by the AsA project office. If a $5K impost is attempted on GA owners, AOPA, GA and others WILL resist and it is likely the Mode S requirement will then only come in at below 8500'. This would not allay any RPT problems. AOPA would also like to see CDTI made available to all aircraft so there is a benefit to compensate for downtime, weight and maintenance of these units.

NAS 2b.

We also do not agree on 2b. We see nothing wrong with it. There is no real difference between CTAFs and MBZs and the reason for 'no-radio' ops needs to be futher explored and dealt with using education. I see no reason that a no-radio a/c or ultralight can't operate for the 6 days and 22 hours an RPT isn't at most airports around Oz.

AK

[karrank]

Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.

This is a more serious "choke" point than some of you may realise.

I have huge problems with the concept of providing some services to flights in G, yet pretending known traffic information is not relevant. Let alone the farcical concept of providing traffic information (somehow) in the terminal area, but nowhere else... I don't see how I would be able to justify this before an inquest. The consideration all ATC need to have when providing services mandated by those responsible (as does anybody providing ANY sort of service where your decisions affect the outcomes of others) is whether a decision was that of a reasonable person.

The only way such a concept would be acceptable to me as an ATC is if aircraft specifically opt out, or those mandated to recieve no traffic info are also receiving no other services from me. Especially in view of this quote from FAA 7110.65, the goober's MATS:

Unless an aircraft is operating within Class A airspace or omission is requested by the pilot, issue traffic advisories to all aircraft (IFR or VFR) on your frequency when, in your judgment, their proximity may diminish to less than the applicable separation minima. Where no separation minima applies, such as for VFR aircraft outside of Class B/Class C airspace, or a TRSA, issue traffic advisories to those aircraft on your frequency when in your judgment their proximity warrants it.

This is all quite apart from the concept of what service the goober ATC actually PROVIDE seems to be greatly in excess of that mandated, example follows:

Parachuting in E airspace (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1025875#post1025875)

[Here to Help]

Hi snarek,

I should have been more clear in my post. I did not intend to imply that AOPA agreed with all the points - just the one I could see re: ADSB, and in that you've identified a reserved agreement.

My point was that there can be agreement on some issues.

I also wanted to stimulate discussion about specific issues. Thanks for replying - your response to most of the points have communicated AOPAs views clearly.

I am curious to see what you think about point 4:

Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.

Because this will be in NAS 2B and it seems to me to be less safe with a greater possibility of aircraft being on an incorrect area frequency than there is now. Some might argue that boundaries clutter the maps, but aren't they essential information?

For the record I am an ATC, and I work with G, E, C, and A airspace.

[C182 Drover]

These pilots in this photo do not fly the Aircraft or watch where they are going. It is no wonder they do not like NAS. :E :rolleyes:

http://www.lexicon.net/eclan/dust/aopa.htm/AOPA.jpg

[snarek]

karrank

Speaking personally now, I too find it interesting when tracking Cairns - Tvl, VFR 'on top' Dunk traffic is told of Cns and Tvl traffic below me, but not me.

It is even more 'interesting' when I am squarking a known code (there is a tendancy to hold the same code for both Cns and Tvl CTR), have a plan in the system and have just been 'soft' handed to Bris by Cns approach.

Why is this, culture or edict??

I just call up the Dunk guys and arrange to be East of them or above them for a certain time. I suppose that's just as easy, but a little more 'radio clogging' than if you passed the info.

By the way, this is just me asking, the 25 year aviation 'veteran' who also remembers FSO's fondly :) not AOPA policy.

AK

[karrank]

Sorry Snarek, I don't really understand your question. Dick's fault again because I don't know what you mean by "VFR On Top":confused:

I think what you mean is that you are "known" to CS approach, and will be "known" to TL, but BB inbetween seems not to. This must mean you are VFR, and CS "turned off" your flight plan when you left C airspace. As an Enroute controller this is good, I can't see you, except as a radar return I'll tell others (that have elected to have a service) about. I don't give you anything unless you ask for it. Creating a mystery about what freq you or the jumpship will be on won't really help you will it?

As regards BIK's campaign for G airspace, best of luck mate. There have been attempts to please all of the people in the past. They were called Airspace 2000 & LLAMP and were both scuttled by (among other things) incompatible expectations. We now have the "big stick" approach, where some luminary plucks an airspace system out of his @rse and IMPOSES it on everybody.

The AIM is that nobody be particularly happy, but you get the system you NEED, even if nobody is convinced of this neccessity besides DS & JA. Are you sure what the result of achieving the system proposed in your (rather prolix) posts would be? US controllers don't give a toss about the class of airspace IFR aircraft operate in, they just separate them untill they give up and stop being IFR. If such is implemented (particularly with our crap radar coverage) you may wistfully remember DTi?

:rolleyes: We are not getting the US system
:O US controllers don't do what their books say they do anyhow
:} Don't you get suspicious of consultation that is prefaced with statements that nothing said here will change anything in the model?

PS. I like this tribute to the BIG SKY THEORY (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105220)
PPS. I don't know how I can answer a BIK post and end up above it? First sign of traffic priorities being relaxed???

[BIK_116.80]

Hempy,

Your aircraft cockpit photo appears to be of a Lockheed KC-130T – a military aircraft operated by the US Marines.

Military pilots are not required to comply with civilian rules.

If that were a civilian aircraft that was flying in Australia then the crew would appear to be in contravention of :

CAR 163A (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/1/PR005160.htm) - Responsibility of flight crew to see and avoid aircraft.

Unfortunately, it appears that the aircraft is neither civilian, nor flying. All the engine instrument failure flags are showing. The aircraft is either shutdown and on the ground, or else it has experienced a complete electrical failure! ;)

WALLEY2,

....we helped and pushed to solve a disturbing problem in the skies above our a/p.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! :rolleyes:

On consultants to maintain the integrity of a Risk analysis....

Integrity of a risk analysis? Couldn’t you just ask Civil Air (the air traffic controllers trade union) to take a look at it? I am assured that they have the highest possible standards of integrity and never ever tell fibs. ;)

I agree there seems to many reports on airspace....

Yep – and I fail to understand why the world needs any more (other than to keep the consultants employed).

SOPS,

....we USED to have a thing called a FLIGHT SERVICE UNIT at places that were served by RPT and GA, but not enough to have a tower.

If the value they added was in excess of their cost of operation then they would still exist. Sadly, it wasn’t, and they don’t. (cue tape of “As Time Goes By”)

snarek,

....it was a Citation, hardly a PPL!!!

Why not? I know lots of PPLs that fly Citations. Citations are about a hundred times easier to fly than (say) a Twin Comanche or something of that ilk.

Here to Help,

1. Transponder coverage in 'E' airspace must be mandatory.

What does the term “transponder coverage” mean?

Does it mean “the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder”?

Or does it mean “air traffic control radar coverage”?

If it’s the former then I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, I think the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder should be mandatory at all times in all classes of airspace for all aircraft with an electrical generating system capable of powering it.

If it’s the latter then I disagree whole-heartedly – you don’t need air traffic control radar for class E airspace.

Then again, upon reflection, if it means that where there is currently no radar coverage it should be class G airspace (rather than class E) then I’d go for that option for sure! :ok:

2. Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.

If there is directed traffic information then it’s not ICAO class G.

ICAO class G = no service, no delay, no charge.

ICAO class F has directed traffic information for participating IFR aircraft, but participation by IFR aircraft is not mandatory.

If Australia is going to use ICAO class F procedures then let’s at least refer to it by the correct name – class F.

In any event, in my opinion, for the vast majority of Australia’s airspace there is no need for anything more than genuine ICAO class G.

G = Good :ok:

3. Replacing MBZs with (US) CTAFs is unsafe, not acceptable.

Why not?

As snarek has posted :

I see no reason that a no-radio a/c or ultralight can’t operate for the 6 days and 22 hours [per week that] an RPT isn’t at most airports around Oz.

4. Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.

A “frequency boundary” is not something that is relevant to ICAO class G airspace because there is no “correct ATS frequency”.

5. Airspace designed to capture normal aircraft operating profiles....

“Capture” them in what class of airspace, exactly? I’d suggest that “capturing” them in class G would be about right in most cases.

....and ensure protection of IFR flights conducting instrument procedures.

I presume that the word “protection” implies controlled airspace.

Does this mean that the pros reckon there should be (say) class C airspace around (for example) Ceduna, South Australia, just because there is a published NDB approach? :rolleyes:

Nah – that sounds like a backwards step to me. (should create lots of work though)

6. Require Class C steps abutting/over Class D towers, to the base of Class A.

Well that would create lots of jobs and cause lots of unnecessary delays and expense – but for what benefit?

Some of these non-radar class D towers should have been shut down years ago.

For the others, what’s wrong with class G over the top? OK – make it class E to keep up appearances if you really must.

In the UK Boeing 737s and BAe 146s (etc) regularly fly into airports with relatively small class D control zones that are not equipped with air traffic control radar. In many cases the class D control zone is only a few miles across and is surrounded by class G. It all seems to work just fine. What is so different about Australia?

Oh – and raise the base of class A to FL280 (same as RVSM).

7. No 'straight in' approaches for non-radio equipped aircraft.

Sounds reasonable. I’ll plead “no contest” on that one.

8. Transparent safety case system - nothing hidden or unexplored, mitigation of hazards to be real, not just words.

Increased consultation and exploration with key industry groups.

Waffle waffle waffle. Let’s all have a group hug and sing Koombayah.

9. Financial and/or safety benefit to be clearly identified prior to change.

The only people who believe that NAS wont lead to a reduction in the number of air traffic controllers are the air traffic controllers.

10. Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)

Why?

What’s important in busy terminal areas is that the pilots know where the aircraft are. Whether some third-party ground-based air traffic control service knows where the planes are is largely irrelevant.

AirNoServicesAustralia,

....the PPL/AOPA guys on here never seemed to answer the concerns and questions put forward by the aviation professionals....

Since I am neither a PPL nor a member of AOPA I’ll leave that comment for those who are (although if gaunty keeps going the way he is going he might be able to twist my arm and get me to sign up ;) ).

....its ok for me in my bugsmasher....

A number of people that you dismissively deride fly 400 knot “bugsmashers”. More like bug obliterators I’d say! ;)

[snarek]

karrank

I meant the Dunk RPT not the Mission Beach meatbombers!!! I stay well out to sea away from them, been flying that route for nearly 10 years and have never figured out exactly what those guys do, where they radio their intentions or what happens if they say 'dropping in one minute' and i say 'XYZ overhead Clump Point 8500'

And I'm gonna hafta take BIK on a bit now.

What does the term “transponder coverage” mean?

I don't suppose there are too many a/c with elec systems and no Txps. But there are a few. Probably a few more without Mode C.

So, if you are going to 'mandate them' who will pay???

Even with no Mode C a cheap Txp is $2K. Then, once it is in it has to be tested every x years. With a mode C add $500 and more tests (and after these tests it really is broke and has to be fixed). So add a few hours every 100. (and thanks to karrank and his mates making us all get them 'tuned' last month, another $400).

And who/what is this for. It is like me carrying a spare tyre for a Taxi in my car, and having to pay for the priveledge. identified public benefit, sure, but my problem (and thus financial responsibility) no way.

Don't forget BIK. 'Free in G' :ok:

NOW BIG PERSONAL OPINION WARNING - NOT AOPA POLICY

I liked FSOs too. I'd like to think that with full ADSB we could perhaps get some back. I wouldn't be happy if I were made to plan again though, you just dont need that in a computer age.

With ADSB, pop-ups should be relatively simple. Po-up, get a code and away you go. Get a TCAS for a letdown and the FSO could suggest separation.

But, who pays. Unions will do what unions do and try to get the biggest buck for their members, that made FSOs unaffordable under a (stupid) user pays government policy. So FSOs dissapeared :(

I would like to see B050 come back. That way you shouldn't need a Txp below that. Gives the AUF people a cheap place to fly.

Wanna fly above that??? Hopefully Govt funded ADSB will fix that. I can fly my Grumman at 8500 and my T-Craft at 3500 :)

I am also heedful of C to a via 'X' arguments. I wouldn't like to see it as C though, too restrictive unless you took away priority. So at the moment I like the NAS suggestion, but am willing to listen.

AK

AK

[Keg]

Snarek, direct question. If NAS is as safe as it should be, why will ADSB be a benefit UNLESS that is a safety increase. In that case, shouldn't we be delaying NAS until we ALL have ADSB? I asked this question on the other page but BIK claimed he didn't want (or need) it but you have mentioned a number of times that you do.

Either the NAS system is 'safe' and therefore ADSB shouldn't even raise it's head- ever- or it isn't and something needs to be done. Your continued insistance on ADSB shows flawed logic.

[snarek]

Keg

I (and AOPA) see no safety problems with NAS 2b.

We reserve our position on all NAS and probably won't go the way CivilAir want, i.e. we may push for less E and more G below 8500.

However, some here whose opinios I respect, have argued (but not proven) a safety case. The main concern stems from E into C and E above 'busy' CTAFs under 2b.

While we are not convinced of the safety case we are interested in any systemic approach that makes airspace safer. Such a system is ADSB.

Now the Govt want NAS and no-one (especially a union) will change their minds. So, while we (AOPA) do not oppose NAS we are prepared to hang our support on ADSB, but only the Govt funded installation option.

In doing so I would have thought that the more rational on the other side of the argument would see that as a useful compromise rather than a reason to yet again criticise. A combined ADSB 'final-NAS' is both economically and technically feasable, it would make GA safer, it would make RPT safer, it would make CTAFs safer (although most midairs occur at GAAPs), it would provide more and better info in airways and probably save airlines a lot of money as it would reduce delays and allow better computerised arrivals planning.

AK

[Paul Phelan]

With so many people showing an interest in this topic, perhaps one of them can help me understand the term "commercial airspace?"

[Here to Help]

BIK_116.80

A “frequency boundary” is not something that is relevant to ICAO class G airspace because there is no “correct ATS frequency”.

But we will have Class G with DTI in NAS 2B, and in many instances the area frequency will also be the the Class E frequency, so there is a "correct ATS frequency". Your argument that frequency boundaries can be removed because the airspace is not what you think it should be is frivolous.

Do you think that this is safer? Is anybody saving money with the boundaries removed?

If the area frequency becomes irrelevant in a later stage of NAS, then why not wait until that stage to remove the boundaries?

I am still interested to see what snarek/AOPA think of the frequency boundary issue, since it has safety ramifications when the change is made in November.

On a completely different note - those who joke that the picture posted here with the Cessna in the windscreen is indicative of IFR pilots not looking out the window and thus causing the situation, what is the Cessna pilot doing?

[Woomera]

Eeeeeeerm doing a low level pass over the parked KC130T.:p

OK OK just joshing. :rolleyes:

[ugly]

On a completely different note - those who joke that the picture posted here with the Cessna in the windscreen is indicative of IFR pilots not looking out the window and thus causing the situation, what is the Cessna pilot doing?

Cool! Photo caption competitions on PPRUNE! What's the prize? :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

So you VFR bugsmasher drivers think IFR pilots don't look out enough. I reckon this accurately sums up a lot of you VFR guys (either looking at the sights on the ground or your GPS).

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-10/431950/terodactyl_crash_prune.jpg

See and Avoid DOES NOT WORK.

[BIK_116.80]

G’day snarek, :ok:

I don't suppose there are too many a/c with elec systems and no Txps. But there are a few. Probably a few more without Mode C.

Agreed.

So, if you are going to ‘mandate them’ who will pay???

I would expect that for the vast majority of aircraft it is the owner that pays for the supply, installation and maintenance of mandatory avionics equipment.

Then, once it is in it has to be tested every x years.

Aircraft systems require maintenance – that’s no revelation. Refer : AD/RAD/43 (http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/aircraft/ad/adfiles/equip/rad/RAD-043.pdf) and AD/RAD/47 (http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/aircraft/ad/adfiles/equip/rad/RAD-047.pdf). A transponder check every two years – hardly a big deal.

And who/what is this for.

Switching your altitude encoding transponder onto ALT provides a safety benefit to you because nearby TCAS equipped aircraft will be aware of your position. This will help them to avoid running into you, and that’s got to be a good thing. Additionally, the ability for the pilots of TCAS equipped aircraft to be aware of the location of nearby aircraft without the need to rely on an expensive ground-based air traffic control infrastructure has an enormous potential for cost savings.

Ground-based air traffic control systems are an anachronism from a by-gone post-war era when it was impossible to put a reliable, real-time traffic display in an aircraft cockpit.

With TCAS (and perhaps ADSB?) it is now possible to provide traffic data directly to the pilot, rather than needing to have it relayed by a ground-based third party radio operator.

Traditional ground-based air traffic control systems are expensive, labour intensive, and stymied by voluminous regulations, many of which were written decades ago – long before current cockpit traffic awareness technologies were even dreamt of.

With a TCAS traffic display (and perhaps ADSB?) pilots can be aware of the relative position of traffic around them without having to rely on a ground-based third party air traffic control service. It’s more efficient, more effective, more timely, more autonomous.

But TCAS traffic displays only show traffic that is transponding. TCAS traffic displays can be used to their greatest potential when nearby traffic is transponding with altitude data.

As a start, an enormous benefit would be gained if pilots of aircraft that are already transponder equipped would ensure that they turn their transponder on to ALT. This would cost nothing. Perhaps an AOPA pilot education campaign along those lines would be a good start? What do you say? If you’ve got it – switch it on to ALT.

Don't forget BIK. ‘Free in G’

I’m all for free in G. (ICAO class G = no service, no delay, no charge)

G = Good :ok:

But just as the government does not subsidise the mandatory brake lights on your car, neither should the government subsidise mandatory avionics – particularly if it’s mandatory avionics that are already fitted to the vast majority of Australian aircraft.

snarek – a question for you.

You obviously have vastly more experience with these ADSB gizmos than I do.

If I understand this ADSB stuff correctly, it seems to serve two functions :

(1) It can provide a TCAS-like cockpit display of traffic for a pilot to look at; and/or,

(2) It can provide a radar-like display of traffic for a ground-based air traffic controller to look at.

Have I got that right? Please correct me if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

Anyway, I can see great benefits in (1), but no real point in (2).

It is obvious that you are quite keen on ADSB. But why are you keen on it? Is it because of (1) or because of (2)?

If you are keen on it because of (1) then what can ADSB do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do? Is it that ADSB offers greater functionality, or is it that an ADSB cockpit traffic display is less expensive than a TCAS cockpit traffic display?

In earlier posts you suggested that airborne ADSB traffic displays would be much cheaper if they were not certified. In what circumstances is it permissible to fit non-certified avionics to a flying machine?

If you are keen on it because of (2) then I say thanks, but no thanks. I see no need for an expensive middle-man when the data can be provided directly to the pilots.

I liked FSOs too. I'd like to think that with full ADSB we could perhaps get some back.

I hope not. That would be the worst of both worlds. The expense of ADSB as well as the expense of the FSO. Someone somewhere has to pay – and it aint going to be the nation’s taxpayers! No thanks.

But, who pays. Unions will do what unions do and try to get the biggest buck for their members, that made FSOs unaffordable under a (stupid) user pays government policy. So FSOs disappeared

This has been an ongoing process.

Start with a large, inefficient government bureaucracy that over-services the aviation industry and that is funded out of consolidated revenue at an enormous and unsustainable expense to the nation’s taxpayers.

Call the large, inefficient government bureaucracy a “government business enterprise”. Everyone knows that in reality it’s just a government department dressed up in drag.

Introduce user fees so industry participants can see (and feel) the real cost of the over-servicing.

Users realise that the value added by the over-servicing is less than the enormous and unsustainable cost charged for the over-servicing, and determine that at that price they don’t really need the over-servicing after all.

Over-servicing stops, no more enormous and unsustainable cost to the nation’s taxpayers, no more enormous and unsustainable cost to industry participants, all is right with the world. :ok:

G’day Paul Phelan, :ok:

With so many people showing an interest in this topic, perhaps one of them can help me understand the term “commercial airspace?”

To be honest, I somehow doubt it.

In any case, you’re an articulate and grammatically skilful man. Just for fun, see if you can make a sentence that includes these words :

public
vested
scare
interests
crash
airliner
burn
die
horror
plummet

G’day again Here to Help, :ok:

But we will have Class G with DTI in NAS 2B, and in many instances the area frequency will also be the Class E frequency, so there is a “correct ATS frequency”. Your argument that frequency boundaries can be removed because the airspace is not what you think it should be is frivolous.

Do you think that this is safer? Is anybody saving money with the boundaries removed?

If the area frequency becomes irrelevant in a later stage of NAS, then why not wait until that stage to remove the boundaries?

There is no “correct ATS frequency” for VFR aircraft in class G airspace.

Under current class G arrangements (ICAO class F but with mandatory IFR participation) IFR aircraft are advised when to change frequency and which frequency to change to by ATS. They don’t need lines on a map.

Actually, I can’t get too excited whether you put class G “frequency boundaries” on the charts or not (even though they are not a relevant concept). The issue that interests me is that a small minority of pilots (both VFR and IFR) think that they will instantly be run-down by Concorde (or some other equally threatening aircraft) if they fail to maintain a careful listening watch on an air traffic control radio frequency when they are enroute in class G airspace. This is demonstrably untrue. That some pilots are concerned that the “frequency boundaries” have been taken off the charts only confirms their misguided concern.

In any case, the frequencies are all there on the maps, even if the lines are gone. If it makes you feel more secure to hear the sound of a human voice then listen to whichever frequency takes your fancy.

In relation to a flight that is enroute in class G airspace, why does it matter what frequency the pilot is on? What would it matter if they were not on any air traffic control frequency? What would it matter if they maintained a listening watch on 104.9 MHz or 101.7 MHz?

ICAO Class G = no service, no delay, no charge. :ok:

On a completely different note - those who joke that the picture posted here with the Cessna in the windscreen is indicative of IFR pilots not looking out the window and thus causing the situation, what is the Cessna pilot doing?

The Cessna pilot is probably at the pub with his mates having a few beers. The outer two-thirds of each propeller blade is missing. In this condition the aircraft is incapable of sustained flight. The Cessna is clearly parked and on the ground. There is no need for the pilot of a parked aircraft to maintain a lookout.

From the engine instrument indications it is quite clear that the Hercules in the photo is also parked and on the ground.

Since both aircraft are parked and on the ground it is most unlikely that there is a collision risk (although perhaps there is some small residual risk, particularly in light of the BAe 146s that mated in the night at YMEN ;) ).

If both aircraft were enroute in class G airspace then I would expect the Big Sky Theory to keep them apart.

If that didn’t work, then I would expect that a Cessna of that type would be fitted with an altitude encoding transponder. If the Cessna pilot were wise then they would have switched the transponder on to ALT as they entered the runway just prior to take-off. If the military Hercules was instead a civilian Hercules, or an airliner, then it would be required by regulation to be fitted with TCAS II. The crew of a TCAS II equipped aircraft would be given advanced warning of the relative position of a nearby aircraft, giving them ample time to manoeuvre clear of it.

If the Hercules were a civilian aircraft then the crew would have received a TCAS resolution advisory long before it got to the scenario portrayed in the photographic collage.

If both aircraft were in flight in a busy terminal area near an airport then I would expect the pilots of both aircraft to be maintaining a vigilant look out. It is quite clear that the crew of the Hercules are not maintaining a vigilant look out – and I don’t think that’s anything to joke about.

Capn Bloggs,

Many of the “VFR bugsmasher drivers” are instrument rated ATPL holders who fly heavy metal during the week. It’s not that they can’t fly IFR, it’s that they choose not to.

See and Avoid DOES NOT WORK.

In regard to the enroute environment I agree with you.

Thankfully, we don’t have to rely on see and avoid in the enroute environment because the chances are extremely high that the Big Sky Theory will keep the planes apart irrespective of whether the pilots look out the window or not.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/profile/images/CEO.jpg
Bernie says : Vote [1] Big Sky Theory :ok:

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Once all the aircraft know where everyone else is and they can seperate themselves, and reading between the lines, when you see no need for ATC (or "ground based radio operators" as you call us), who decides who changes level, who diverts off their track to let the other guy stay at his preferred level, who volunteers to hold while he waits for the other guys who got there at the same time to make an approach. Even with ATC when you tell two company aircraft that one of them has to change level and ask them to decide who it will be, alot of the time it ends up neither want to change cos they both have good reasons to stay at their preferred level. That is one of many of the reasons why you do need a third party even in Enroute Airspace.

[piniped]

GEEEZZZ BIK.......

Any chance you could post something that doesn't take an hour to read?????

Your arguements don't really need all that verbiage...surely?

[snarek]

BIK

Additionally, the ability for the pilots of TCAS equipped aircraft to be aware of the location of nearby aircraft without the need to rely on an expensive ground-based air traffic control infrastructure has an enormous potential for cost savings.

Cost savings to who?? Government, RPT yes, most likely. But to achieve those 'savings' you have to do a cost shift, i.e. mandate equipment.

So, VFR must subsidise RPT/Govt to achieve 'cost savings'. I can feel a howl of protest starting now (with me via the minor parties and the ALP!!!).

ADSB. It is a box that encodes position info in the same way a mode C encodes altitude. The 'bit stream' out of the transponder is called the squitter. Some Txps are Mode S compatible, most aren't and will need replacing.

CDTI is a Mode S receiver working the same way as current TCAS. Wheras TCAS can only give distance (and altitude via Mode C) and an approximate direction, the ADSB CDTI can decode the Mode S and do a comparison. Other traffic can be presented as a list or a pseudo radar screen.

Yes, good for pilots. Especially if all pilots have it, two pairs of eyes and all that.

But why not use it to expand 'radar' coverage??? I can't see the harm in that unless you have something personal against ATC (except plazbot, I'd understand that!!).

Surely more coverage is a good thing??? Surely more coverage will result in cost savings via routing savings and thus, when fully paid for by those who will benefit from it, full ADSB will improve Australian airspace.

Paul.

Commercial Airspace, a term used to indicate ownership and thus the purchase of a ticket prior to entry. In this case it seems the ticket is a $2K transponder and ongoing maintenance.

I can feel a personal 'No E below 8500' position being put to the Board.

AK

[Keg]

Unhealthy over reliance on TCAS going on here (similar to the unhealthy over reliance on see and avoid!).

TCAS will NOT display ALL of the traffic around you. It selectively picks up and drops off various paints in busy traffic environments. On the 744 into LAX years ago I remember getting a TA on traffic that just 'appeared' as a TA- IE, we couldn't develop the picture before hand because it wasn't being fed to us.

Aviation safety should be about layered defences. TCAS is an error management strategy, not a threat management strategy at the first level. It is the LAST line of defence. Heaven help us when it is the first also!

[divingduck]

May be worth reading a couple of posts on another thread here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=104710)

If this is what the rabid NAS stalwarts want, I'm glad I'm not flying away from the big cities.

BIK, you should pull stumps and retire, you are doing your side of the arguement no service at all...but then you don't want service do you? G = Good???

The rest of you wonder why the professionals don't take anything the "bugsmasher" drivers say seriously?

BTW....I see on a daily basis the fact that see and avoid doesn't work..and we are talking about very large heavy jet traffic coming and going into a war zone.

Scores of the near misses were spotted and avoiding action was instigated by the ATC that just happens to have the God's view of what is happening..ie we can see them on the RADAR.

Some of the nearest goes were E3's (who one would expect to have a bit of SA)..and fighters that generally do look out the window a bit, however, being military, they only look when and where told..not sniping at the Oz mil...just our cousins.

As Keg mentioned, we should have a layered defense...the big sky theory worked in the old days, not with the new squizzy nav kit that will put you both nose cone to nose cone tracking direct from A to B and B to A.

edited to blather on about see and avoid

[missy]

Transponders, ELB, ADSB. CDTI and any other "safety" items should be fully tax deductible, purchase, installation and maintenance.

[Here to Help]

BIK_116.80
There is no “correct ATS frequency” for VFR aircraft in class G airspace.

VFR aircraft wants to listen out for VFR and IFR broadcasts in his area - what frequency does he listen to?

VFR aircraft requires assistance from ATS for an in-flight emergency - what frequency does he transmit on?

VFR wants information (nav, met, PRD) from ATS for whatever reason - what frequency does he transmit on?

ATS wants to broadcast to a radar observed VFR about to enter a restricted area or CTA - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

ATS observes 2 aircraft about to come together in Class G with no avoiding action apparent and broadcasts a traffic alert - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

ATS broadcasts a hazard alert for an aerodrome in her airspace, what frequency should a nearby VFR be on to hear it?

VFR PJE aircraft wants to conduct a drop in Class G, what frequency does he broadcast on?

ATS broadcasts an LJR - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

BIK_116.80, if you can demonstrate that it is of no consequence what frequency the VFR is on for each and every one of these scenarios, then you would be right in saying that there is no correct ATS frequency. If you can't, then you are wrong.

[gaunty]

Eeerm

To add what I hope are some facts to the confusion, I believe that one of the mitigators for the transition on this issue, agreed and signed off on by the participants was;

Mitigation Description
37.2 The pilot T&E must include guidance as to alternative sources of frequencies information (e.g. ERSA) 37.3
The 'VFR en-route' advisor must include effective guidance as to operations enroute including specific guidance to use of radio.

37.4 The frequency block on IFR charts should be replicated on VFR charts for a transitional period and then removed.

37.5 FIA boundaries placed on charts for a transitional period and then removed.


There is a bit of sorting out in progress on that particular issue, but I firmly believe an appropriate solution will be forthcoming.

There has been a HUGE amount of work performed by the "experts", airspace and industry and I do not include myself as one of those, on all of the issues surrounding the NAS implementation, to suggest that they ALL got it wrong just doesn't play.

There will be bits around the edges that need adjustment, nothing is ever a perfect fit and as the NASIG has freely admitted the end state is not yet fixed, it would be dangerously irresponsible to do so, hence the staged implementation, but the shape of it is already known from the experience of the USNAS.
It will be approached with the same caution as they have the beginning with the need for a very comprehensive educational programme.

But one thing is certain in my mind, I have complete faith that the people ultimately responsible, will make the go or no go decision, I believe set for the 20/10/2003, based on professional and properly constructed grounds.

They are on a hiding to nothing as they will be pilloried for whatever they do.

This then makes the decision a very simple one.

On the balance of probablilities, what is right.

This is the true test of leadership.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Gaunty I think this is what people are most worried about. That is, if you can't get a civilised response from John Anderson (speaking of the Big Sky theory, I reckon you could fly quite safely between his ears without much risk of a mid air, cos theres lots of airspace in there!!), why would people think that the "right" decision based ultimately on safety will be made by the powers that be, and not just make the easy decision based on political pressure/ economics.

Here to Help, I agree wholeheartedly, and these are some of the questions that BIK even with his War and Peace posts has been as yet unable to answer. In fact all those posts seem good for is to assist in me getting off to sleep before my Doggos.

[Here to Help]

Hi Gaunty,

There has been a HUGE amount of work performed by the "experts", airspace and industry and I do not include myself as one of those, on all of the issues surrounding the NAS implementation, to suggest that they ALL got it wrong just doesn't play.

This reasoning does not, and cannot, be used to justify any argument. It may win over in a debate, it may influence perceptions and sound convincing, but it is not a valid argument to make. Just because alot of work has been performed by many experts to reach a conclusion, it will never follow that it is necessarily right- never. The arguments themselves, not the amount of work involved or the number of "experts" supporting them, should always be the basis on which one makes a judgement.

The mitigators you listed do not help in any of the frequency scenarios I outlined in my last post. In fact, they imply that the frequencies will eventually be removed altogether from VFR charts, and that removal of the boundaries in November is just the first stage in this process.

I have demonstrated a need for the frequency boundaries to be displayed on charts - who will explain to me that their removal is necessary or not less safe come November 27th?

Since AOPA is fully behind NAS2b in November, it must be supporting the removal of frequency boundaries. I have asked BIK_116.80 to show why it doesn't matter what frequency a VFR aircraft is on in each of my scenarios - can someone from AOPA do the same? If not, then why is it supported?

[snarek]

Given that I often fly 'on top' and self separate with IFR and RPT I see no reason why FIR boundaries and info can't be on maps.

I also don't see that putting these on VFR maps is such a great impost.

However this is a personal view, I will ask and see what the response is.

AK

[snarek]

Coral

I didn't know Chicken Little had changed his name and got a job at CivilAir.

This is more of the same-old same-old. Gee whizzz, between 4500' and 18,000' eh. Boy, all those Jumbos down at 4500 better watch out, especially just west of Merimbula!!!!

Look mate, I am prepared to consider most things here and listen to reasoned argument. An example is, I've asked questions about freqs on maps, but the sort of twaddle I just read on the CivilAir page doesn't help. In actual fact all it did was motivate me to send an e-mail to Anderson saying just that ... mindless union waffle.... ignore it and move on!

AK

[Here to Help]

Snarek,

Thanks for considering the freq. boundary question - look forward to your reply.

Gee whizzz, between 4500' and 18,000' eh. Boy, all those Jumbos down at 4500 better watch out, especially just west of Merimbula!!!!


No, probably not 4500 west of Merimbula, but definitely below 18,000 approaching 45DME SY or 30DME BN and ML. It's Class C now, but will be Class E next month. A VFR can, without any requirement to advise intentions, operate up to FL180 this close to these cities. They can potentially conflict with descending and climbing jet traffic, as well as regional RPT turbos that commonly operate below these levels on climb and descent.

There are a number of safety issues already identified in previous posts: xponder failure, radio failure, reliance on TCAS and see and avoid. Introducing E airspace in November so close to the major cities will remove some of the safety nets already in place to minimise the risk of collision (Class C airspace, radar identification, 2-way comms). It increases risk, so definitely a less safe airspace design.

[ferris]

Perhaps people are confused as to the role of the NASIG. They are not there to 'use their judgement', make decisions "based on professional and properly constructed grounds" etc etc. They are there to drive the change process. Any belief in altruism is laughable.
Why do you think there has been this piecemeal approach to implementation? Educational grounds? Hahaha. The whole idea was to cut it up into small enough pieces that the industry would accept the pain if drip fed it. And the holy grail is cessation of DTI. Because that is truly where any (if) money can be saved.
This whole thing is about money. Private and govt interests come together here. Any service that will be provided in the future will be cost shifted to the airlines directly (see CAGRO as an example). The exception being Air Traffic Control, because that is a de-facto tax that the govt would only give up if it was selling it. (Note to BIK: That doesn't mean ATC is unneccesary, just that the govt uses ATC for profit). PVT will get nothing (or pay thru the nose). The losers will be those most at risk (IMHO), small c commercial operators. The big end of town can afford to provide CAGRO, briefing etc, but the bank-runners/small charter/tourist ops etc are the strugglers, operating fast enough aeroplanes to get into trouble, with the least equipment fit-out. The mid-airs in the future will be between chieftains. They do the most flying in the least serviced (riskiest) airspace, no TCAS, no CAGRO, and soon no radio net. And good luck to the guys in the Dash8s etc who, even with TCAS, might not be able to avoid them.
This is a philosophical thing, this dollar-based decision making. A fundamental shift in thinking is/has taking/taken place. Telstra is slowly but surely removing services to the bush, bringing the true costs of service to country areas etc (it's a business after all
:rolleyes: ). Air services are just another step along that path (or gangplank, depending on your point of view).

Just wish they would call a spade a spade. Might not go down too well with the public, but if you have the courage of your convictions.............nothing to be ashamed of......... right?

[snarek]

All

At the moment this is being discussed by the Board.

"AOPA will be telling NASIG that VFR and IFR aircraft in the same airspace must be on the same frequency.

We do not agree with any proposal to counsel VFR pilots who talk to IFR aircraft (or any aircraft) about a possible conflict on the area/centre frequency."

See, we will listen to reasoned argument.

AK

[ferris]

A fundamental shift in thinking!!! Congratulations.

Now, what will the AOPA board do about being ignored by the very noble NASIG, just as every other voice of dissent has been? Will there be newspaper ads?

[tobzalp]

Everyone ignores AOPA though so they are used to it.

[NOtimTAMs]

Ferris

Quote "but the bank-runners/small charter/tourist ops etc are the strugglers, operating fast enough aeroplanes to get into trouble, with the least equipment fit-out. The mid-airs in the future will be between chieftains. They do the most flying in the least serviced (riskiest) airspace, no TCAS, no CAGRO, and soon no radio net. And good luck to the guys in the Dash8s etc who, even with TCAS, might not be able to avoid them"

Mate, they do that now and have done for years - whether it's Dubbo, Ballina, Charleville or Roma!! Where's the midairs? Won't make much of a difference to these guys at all, actually.

I do agree about the drip feeding, though.....

Safe flying:ok:

NOtimTAMs

PS Just as an aside - I think Ballina handles about as many RPT & freighters daily as Coffs, without a tower and without any problems that I'm aware of....

[ferris]

Lack of DTI on a grungy day might make a difference. I wouldn't want to do it.
They deserve better; as pointed out on another thread, how much would a bank run pay in tax via fuel; what will they get for it? Gotta love the rationale behind all of this. Less charges- yeah right. Fuel tax going to be dropped? Landing fees abolished? AirServices going to stop paying a dividend to the govt?

Want to envigorate aviation in oz? Fix the charging system. The airways system aint broke. GA operators are. AOPA might have more cred if they shot at the right targets.

[CaptainMidnight]

snarek

Bit late to express your opinion about frequency info on the NAS charts - they will be posted out early next week.

[BIK_116.80]

AirNoServicesAustralia,

Once all the aircraft know where everyone else is and they can separate themselves, and reading between the lines, when you see no need for ATC (or “ground based radio operators” as you call us), who decides who changes level, who diverts off their track to let the other guy stay at his preferred level, who volunteers to hold while he waits for the other guys who got there at the same time to make an approach.

The pilots decide - just as they’ve been doing in Australia’s class G airspace (and “OCTA” before that) for decades.

Even with ATC when you tell two company aircraft that one of them has to change level and ask them to decide who it will be, a lot of the time it ends up neither want to change cos they both have good reasons to stay at their preferred level. That is one of many of the reasons why you do need a third party even in Enroute Airspace.

I suspect that it’s more likely that both crews are aware of the other aircraft but do not consider that there is a collision risk. In many cases ATC separation minima are unnecessarily conservative. Air traffic controllers are obliged to apply minimum separation criteria – pilots are not.

I do not agree with your suggestion that we need a third party ground based radio operator in enroute airspace.

Here’s an old article that may be of interest.

From Flight International 04-March-2003 :

Pilots ‘will control future airspace’
Dutch study suggests cockpit crew could take responsibility for airborne separation even in dense traffic, using ADS-B
DAVID KAMINSKI-MORROW / MAASTRICHT & DAVID LEARMOUNT / LONDON

Pilots could easily take over the task of airborne separation from air traffic controllers, even in high-density airspace, according to research from the Dutch aerospace research laboratory (NLR).

Speaking at the Jane's ATC Maastricht Conference in the Netherlands last month, NLR air traffic management department chief Jan Terlouw said that “sooner or later the responsibility for separation assurance should be transferred from controllers to pilots”.

The conclusion comes from a “pilot in the loop” study into future air traffic management (ATM) in a “free-flight” environment using automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B). The experiment involved 24 graduate and near-graduate pilots from the KLM Flight Academy using simulators, and followed six years of research into free-flight concepts involving tactical airborne separation assurance in busy airspace by pilots rather than air traffic controllers. “Pilots could easily fly their preferred routes,” he says. “The number of conflicts was low because the pilots used the conflict prevention support. Sometimes there were slight deviations to avoid conflicts - but otherwise the pilots [were able to keep to their course].”

The pilots were provided with horizontal and vertical displays of traffic information, including resolution advisory tools, that would depend on all aircraft using ADS-B. They “flew” in airspace traffic densities up to three times those typically found in Europe, including complex airspace geometries, but Terlouw says they had no difficulty.

The inevitability of this change, Terlouw insists, results from the need for greater airspace capacity and thus more efficient use of airspace, at the same time as maintaining or improving safety. Ground-based tactical separation on the present model depends to a large extent on a route network, he says, which means that much of the sky is not used. In future, he says, the air traffic service providers' role “will shift from separation assurance to strategic resource management” - in other words, overall traffic flow-rate management.

Terlouw says he does not consider the sample study to be proof, but that it indicates self-separation is feasible.

[ends] (emphasis added)




piniped,

GEEEZZZ BIK.......

Any chance you could post something that doesn't take an hour to read?????

If it takes you an hour to read my previous post then your reading speed must be a bit on the slow side. Is it that you find yourself having to sound-out each word syllable by syllable? Or is it that you find the concepts a bit tricky to digest?

Whatever your particular handicap, perhaps you might find things to be less mentally taxing if you just look at the pictures, rather than trying to comprehend the text. With you in mind, I have included a pretty picture later in this post.

In any case, I very much doubt that anyone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read these posts, are they? :rolleyes:

G’day again snarek, :ok:

Cost savings to who?? Government, RPT yes, most likely. But to achieve those ‘savings’ you have to do a cost shift, i.e. mandate equipment.

So, VFR must subsidise RPT/Govt to achieve ‘cost savings’. I can feel a howl of protest starting now....

The Australian tax payer is never going to pay to fit ADSB to private aircraft (as you have advocated). And nor should they.

At this moment in time hardly any Australian aircraft are fitted with ADSB.

Most Australian aircraft that have an electrical generating system are already fitted with an altitude encoding transponder.

Pilots of those aircraft should ensure that they switch the transponder on to ALT whenever they go flying – irrespective of whether they are anywhere near air traffic control radar coverage or not.

Owners of aircraft that have an electrical generating system, but which do not have an altitude encoding transponder, should be encouraged to get one.

Which cost would aircraft owners rather incur – the cost of installing an altitude encoding transponder in a relatively small number of aircraft, or the cost of an ADSB installation for virtually all aircraft?

But why not use it to expand ‘radar’ coverage??? I can't see the harm in that unless you have something personal against ATC....

What I have against the current ground-based air traffic control system is that it is outdated, expensive, inefficient, and causes unnecessary delays. All that would have to be acceptable if there were no better way. But there is a better way – provide traffic data directly to pilots and cut out the expensive middle-man.

Surely more coverage is a good thing??? Surely more coverage will result in cost savings via routing savings....

More coverage = more unnecessary infrastructure expense. Once you put a radar-like screen in an air traffic control centre you then have to pay for someone to sit there all day and watch it. Who’s going to pay for that?

And you are assuming a need for controlled airspace.

I’m assuming non-controlled airspace.

If you take-off and at 500 feet turn towards a 5 mile final at your destination (see UPT article further on), then how can any sort of air traffic control infrastructure (no matter how expensive) offer any kind of “routing savings” compared with that? The only thing that they are able to do is delay you.

If the technology exists to provide reliable real-time traffic data directly to pilots (and I have no doubt that it does) then why do we need the additional expense of a ground-based third-party radio operator to relay that very same information? I suggest that we don’t.

I guess, in a way, that it’s kind of like the reason why we no longer have the delay and expense of manual telephone exchanges – technology has moved on and there is simply no need.

....when fully paid for by those who will benefit from it, full ADSB will improve Australian airspace.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you think the Australian tax-payers are going to fork-out for ADSB in private aircraft then you might be in for a surprise.

As a very wise Australian once said :

Tell him he’s dreamin’ son.... :rolleyes:

Now that that’s out of the way, thanks for the info on ADSB. I found this article earlier today and thought it might be of interest.

From Flight International 04-March-2003 :

FAA approves display combining air traffic with collision avoidance
CARROLL MCCORMICK / MONTREAL

An integrated anti-collision cockpit display system developed by UPS Aviation Technologies (UPS AT) has been certificated by the US Federal Aviation Administration. The system fuses automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) data with traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) information and presents it on single 150 x 125mm (6 x 5in) display.

UPS AT calls the screen the cockpit display of traffic information (CDTI). “All the TCAS information is there, but aircraft transmitting ADS-B also appear,” says UPS. The TCAS provides traffic advisories (TA) as it normally would, and resolution advisories (RA) on the vertical speed indicator, but the pilots benefit from the additional “rich detail” supplied by ADS-B traffic.

ADS-B provides flight identification, speed, heading and future position of equipped traffic within about 220-370km (125-200nm). The CDTI can call up several displays, including a terrain awareness moving map, weather, and visual flight rules and instrument flight rules airspace charts. Future display enhancements will enable pilots to view a highly accurate moving map of the airport surface and even other traffic moving on the ground.

The CDTI can also provide terrain awareness warning system information. Certification will allow cargo aircraft already outfitted with the CDTI AT2000 display to add TCAS capability, thus meeting the FAA notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) which requires the previously exempted all-cargo aircraft to carry collision avoidance systems by 31 October this year. The NPRM definition of a collision avoidance system excluded any solution other than TCAS, which the Cargo Airline Association has disputed. Initially, UPS will install the display on its103 Boeing 757-200 and 767-300 freighters.

http://www.rati.com/multimedia/IMAGES/7089.gif

[ends]




G’day Keg,

Unhealthy over reliance on TCAS going on here (similar to the unhealthy over reliance on see and avoid!).

I’ve never been a big advocate of “see and avoid”.

TCAS will NOT display ALL of the traffic around you. It selectively picks up and drops off various paints in busy traffic environments.

I agree. TCAS automatically de-clutters the traffic display. TCAS will always show the most relevant intruders – ie those with the least time to closest point of approach. As the relative trajectories of nearby aircraft are constantly changing so too is their rank order of priority.

Refer : Honeywell TCAS II Users Manual (http://www.honeywelltcas.com/products_pages/cas81_6mcu/cas81_pilotguide.pdf)
(see PDF page 11 of 83 - which is the same as original document page 8)

“TCAS II can track as many as 45 aircraft, display up to 30 of them and can coordinate a resolution advisory for up to three intruders at once.”

On the 744 into LAX years ago I remember getting a TA on traffic that just ‘appeared’ as a TA – ie, we couldn't develop the picture before hand because it wasn't being fed to us.

You mention that it was “years ago”. In that case I would imagine that you would have been using TCAS v6.04? Most aircraft now have v7.0.

I am delighted to learn that even with a now superseded version of TCAS you were still able to avoid a collision in the busiest airspace on the planet. Great stuff! :ok:

....we couldn't develop the picture before hand because it wasn't being fed to us.

Of course it is also quite possible that you were a bit tired after a long flight....

Aviation safety should be about layered defences.

I fully concur. :ok:

TCAS is an error management strategy, not a threat management strategy at the first level. It is the LAST line of defence. Heaven help us when it is the first also!

TCAS will never be the first line of defence – the Big Sky Theory will always be the first line of defence. Even if you funnel all the traffic into the same few flight levels and down the same few airway routes there is still an extremely high probability that there will not be a collision. If you allow aircraft to fly their preferred “freeflight” trajectories then the chance of a mid-air collision is reduced even further.

TCAS has been mandated (for many aircraft) because the air traffic control system was not, on its own, able to keep the planes apart with sufficient reliability.

I believe that the day is coming when aircraft will fly direct tracks and a TCAS-like airborne separation device will be used to augment the Big Sky Theory. Whether we will need the existing ground based air traffic control infrastructure as a back up remains to be seen.

It’s not just because I say so - there is currently a project underway in Australia along those very lines. Don’t expect the results to be up and running anytime soon though - the government bureaucrats plan to take the next 15 years to milk the project for all it’s worth.

FMC equipped aircraft have been able to navigate their way from anywhere to anywhere with great accuracy since about 1983 (ie 20 years ago). Additionally, FMC equipped aircraft have been able automatically calculate their optimum flight level in real time and with great accuracy and reliability.

Alas, all this airborne capability has been more or less useless because aircraft have had to follow circuitous routings at non-optimum flight levels for reasons of ATC convenience.

If this project (below) takes another 15 years to come to fruition then it will have taken the air traffic control infrastructure 35 years to catch up to where the aircraft capability was in 1983. Better late than never, I suppose. :rolleyes:

From Flight International 30-Sep-2003 :

Australia to launch Tasman UPR plan
Routes would mean quicker flights and less work for pilots
EMMA KELLY / PERTH

In a project intended to lead to gate-to-gate user preferred trajectories (UPTs) on Australian domestic and international services within 15 years, Australia is to introduce user preferred routes (UPRs) in en route airspace across the Tasman Sea in the next year. The project is part of Australia's revised air traffic management (ATM) strategic plan announced by transport minister John Anderson at the Canberra-based Safe-skies conference in late September.

The plan has been developed by the Australian Strategic ATM Group (ASTRA) which comprises ATM stakeholders and government agencies. It lays out a broad ATM strategy - at the heart of which is the replacement of fixed air routes with UPTs. The strategies are designed to develop and implement numerous changes, including: a concept for conflict management to support UPTs, which would replace rigid separation standards; flexible use airspace; national demand/capacity balancing to optimise traffic flow; an integrated decision support information network to provide high-quality operational data to users; an ATM performance measurement and reporting system; and a security definition and assurance model.

A five-stage implementation plan is proposed, starting with UPRs in the Tasman Sea en route airspace for aircraft with satellite navigation and datalink. This will be followed by the creation of international flex tracks across Australian airspace and UPRs for international operations to and from Australia. Stage four will see the introduction of UPRs in Australian flight information regions (FIR), followed by the final stage of UPTs in the Australian FIR.

ASTRA says UPTs will reduce environmental impact, flight times, and controller and pilot workload. It will also improve airspace utilisation and airport capacity, enhance safety, and provide operational flexibility.

[ends]




divingduck,

If this is what the rabid NAS stalwarts want, I'm glad I'm not flying away from the big cities.

One of the highest traffic densities in Australia is in the class G airspace just west of Bankstown. You don’t have to leave the big smoke to find lots of aircraft flying in class G.

....you don't want service do you? G = Good???

Correct.

BTW....I see on a daily basis the fact that see and avoid doesn't work..

Scores of the near misses were spotted....

I’ve never been a big advocate of “see and avoid”.

And there are no war zones in Australia.

But in any case, in relation to the war-zone you refer to, how many collisions have there been? How can you be certain that the aircraft that did not collide would have collided if air traffic control had not taken the action that they did?

....the big sky theory worked in the old days, not with the new squizzy nav kit that will put you both nose cone to nose cone tracking direct from A to B and B to A.

I have been suggesting for some time that GPS/FMC users should use a random right offset.

missy,

Transponders, ELB, ADSB. CDTI and any other “safety” items should be fully tax deductible, purchase, installation and maintenance.

For the vast majority of aircraft owners they already are.

Here to Help,

I don’t really care whether they put “frequency boundaries” on maps or not.

What I am interested in is the misguided perception that VFR aircraft in enroute class G airspace have to talk on the radio as much as possible and maintain a careful listening watch on a specific radio frequency in order to avoid a mid-air collision. Such notions are demonstrably untrue.

As has been posted elsewhere, these ideas are a throw back to the days of VFR full reporting.

VFR aircraft wants to listen out for VFR and IFR broadcasts in his area - what frequency does he listen to?

If the VFR aircraft is near an airport then they should be using that airport’s CTAF frequency.

If the VFR aircraft is not near an airport then what broadcasts are you talking about? Who is making these broadcasts and why do they need to make them? More to the point, why does the VFR aircraft need to listen to them?

If pilots just want to have a chat then the civil air-to-air frequency in Australian FIRs is 123.45 MHz.

Refer : ERSA / Navigation and Communications / 3. Air to Air Communications – Civil (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/aip/ersa/h1nc1.pdf)

VFR aircraft requires assistance from ATS for an in-flight emergency - what frequency does he transmit on?

I’d use 121.5 MHz or any nearby air traffic control frequency.

VFR wants information (nav, met, PRD) from ATS for whatever reason - what frequency does he transmit on?

They should have got all that stuff off the internet before they left home.

Actual met conditions are available from :

AWIB/AWIS (either VHF or on the telephone)
VHF AERIS
HF VOLMET
ATIS

ATS wants to broadcast to a radar observed VFR about to enter a restricted area or CTA - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

If it’s controlled airspace then the air traffic controller should be transmitting on the air traffic control frequency.

ATS observes 2 aircraft about to come together in Class G with no avoiding action apparent and broadcasts a traffic alert - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

Air traffic control is not required to provide a separation service to VFR aircraft in class G airspace. You should leave ’em alone.

If they are near an airport then they will be on the CTAF frequency.

If they are not near an airport then they will probably be on 104.9 MHz.

Actually – the two aircraft you describe are probably my hooligan mates and I doing some formation aerobatics. You can rest assured that we’ll be talking to each other – but we won’t be on any frequency that you can transmit on. ;)

ATS broadcasts a hazard alert for an aerodrome in her airspace, what frequency should a nearby VFR be on to hear it?

If it’s an “an aerodrome in her airspace” then it must be a controlled aerodrome. Broadcast the hazard alert on the air traffic control frequency and/or ATIS / AERIS / VOLMET.

VFR PJE aircraft wants to conduct a drop in Class G, what frequency does he broadcast on?

Most drop zones are on or near an airport. He should be on the airport’s CTAF frequency.

ATS broadcasts an LJR - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

Permanent military low jet routes are notified in ERSA. Temporary military low jet routes are notified via NOTAM. The VFR pilot should obtain NOTAM information off the internet before leaving home.

snarek,

“AOPA will be telling NASIG that VFR and IFR aircraft in the same airspace must be on the same frequency.

If it’s controlled airspace (A thru E inclusive) then everyone should be on the air traffic control frequency.

If it’s class G airspace then the civil air-to-air frequency in Australia is 123.45 MHz.

ICAO Class G = no service, no delay, no charge.

We do not agree with any proposal to counsel VFR pilots who talk to IFR aircraft (or any aircraft) about a possible conflict on the area/centre frequency.”

Neither VFR aircraft nor IFR aircraft should be making broadcasts or making pilot-to-pilot transmissions on an air traffic control frequency.

If it’s class G airspace then the civil air-to-air frequency in Australia is 123.45 MHz.

G’day NOtimTAMs, :ok:

Mate, they do that now and have done for years - whether it's Dubbo, Ballina, Charleville or Roma!! Where's the midairs? Won't make much of a difference to these guys at all, actually.

Absolutely! :ok:

And since most of these guys have been flying VFR for the last five or six years (ever since enroute charges were introduced) they have been doing just fine without directed traffic information.

DTI seems like an expensive waste of time.

snarek,

I asked earlier :

....what can ADSB do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do? Is it that ADSB offers greater functionality, or is it that an ADSB cockpit traffic display is less expensive than a TCAS cockpit traffic display?

In earlier posts you suggested that airborne ADSB traffic displays would be much cheaper if they were not certified. In what circumstances is it permissible to fit non-certified avionics to a flying machine?

Any suggestions?

[ferris]

BIK, BIK, BIK
Where do I start. I'd better stop laughing first..........OK.

If you want to have no delays etc. from ATC, why not campaign for a reduction of the separation minima to that which TCAS provides. If ATCs were only required to provide 600' with 5 seconds notice, I'm pretty sure there would be a lot less delays. There would also be a lot more professional vacancies in the industry.
One of the things that you fail to understand is that the safe, orderly and expeditious flow of traffic is planned for in ATC. It is not a reactionary, last-minute arse save. We like it that way, professional pilots like it that way, and the people who pay our wages, the pax, seem to like it that way. The delays you bitch about are most often bestowed on those like yourself, who pop-up and expect to suddenly be included in that planned, safe, orderly, expeditious flow.
I have no doubt in the future that automation will creep into ATC, like every job, but when I go to work and watch those 75 big jets pitch up per hour at an airport that can physically land 45 an hour (wake turb etc), I know I won't be out of a job in my working life.

As to what the rest of your post has to do with NAS- I'll let the more eloquent have a go. All I can say is: The real world operates a little differently to Flight Sim 2K. VFRs do blunder into trouble (CTA/wx/danger/lost/etc) all the time, people at any stage of their experience may have to call Mayday at any moment without warning (and with better things to do than dig out the ERSA), and finally most actual pilots hope they never have to react within that 5 second window.

ps. interesting comments you made about Bathurst. Fully shows up your arrogant, I don't need anybody/I'm all right Jack attitude. Seen any more A320 wheels-ups lately?

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

I know by responding to BIK I'm condemning the rest of us to a 2,000 word waffle, but I can't leave some of those things he said untouched.

In the description of the way the integrated TCAS/ADSB anti-collision cockpit display works, the glaring inadequacy of the system was that noone knows what level the other guy/guys is/are levelling of at. So you have 20 jets all jockeying for position into Dubai, all flying free flight routes but all coming together to make their approach, they can see all the other aircraft, but none of them know what the other aircrafts intentions are. They don't know that 5 of them are spearing off to Sharjah shortly, or levelling off to overfly for Abu Dhabi, they don't know that one of them is just in the process of diverting right around a buildup of CB's. Noone knows anyone elses intentions. An ATC does and it is their job to regulate all this and somehow make it work. Now you'll say they'll be talking to each other. So you have 20 aircraft all trying to ascertain what all the other guys are about to do. The frequency would be constantly jammed and it would be a confused mess. And the last things these pilots want to be doing is finding out what the other guys are doing when his main job is setting the aircraft up for a landing.

Over here of those 20 jets half are from the Eastern bloc countries and their english is marginal to say the least so noone will understand anyone and the the Big Sky around the Emirates, will very quickly become way too small.

This is the reason why there will always be a third party Planner, Separator, Sequencer and radio operator, otherwise known as an ATC.

Honestly the technology we have today, as highlighted by the Global Hawk flights, allows aircraft to be flown by a ground based operator. So before you start squawking on about the extinction of ATC's, I think the future of pilots may be more in jeapordy as the use of this technology becomes more advanced and widely used. Wouldn't that annoy you if in 20 years time us ground based radio men are flying the planes as well :E

[Lodown]

A question or two for the ATC'ers.

I absolutely adore the ability to overfly primary airports in Class E in the US. The procedure works beautifully and is enormously convenient. Granted, there maybe several restrictive issues to the same procedures here. One that comes to mind being the routes airlines are required to fly for noise abatement in Australia. But I can't think of anything else offhand.

However, if I can overfly similar airports in size and movements to Sydney in the US while remaining 'safely' VFR in Class E, what specifically is there about the proposed NAS procedures in Australia that makes the procedure so 'unsafe' and unacceptable here? ATC appears to have the same equipment and if anything, the GA and VFR traffic appears to be considerably less.

[Here to Help]

What I am interested in is the misguided perception that VFR aircraft in enroute class G airspace have to talk on the radio as much as possible and maintain a careful listening watch on a specific radio frequency in order to avoid a mid-air collision. Such notions are demonstrably untrue.

As has been posted elsewhere, these ideas are a throw back to the days of VFR full reporting.
No-one is advocating these ideas in this thread. No-one is saying that VFRs should talk on the radio as much as possible in order to avoid a mid-air. You make the argument into something it is not.

I’d use 121.5 MHz or any nearby air traffic control frequency.

So for an emergency, you'd rather broadcast on 121.5 hoping that some other aircraft, if one is there, will hear you and be able to help. Or you would divert your attention from the emergency to look up a chart to find the nearest ATC frequency to broadcast on. I assume by "nearest ATC frequency" you mean then nearest controlled airspace frequency? Why do this when, in Class G, the nearest ATC frequency is the frequency for the airspace you are in?

If it’s controlled airspace then the air traffic controller should be transmitting on the air traffic control frequency.

So a VFR about to violate CTA or a restricted area should switch to the frequency of the airspace he is about to penetrate to listen out for any warnings from ATC.

If it’s an “an aerodrome in her airspace” then it must be a controlled aerodrome. Broadcast the hazard alert on the air traffic control frequency and/or ATIS / AERIS / VOLMET.

An aerodrome can be in a controller's airspace and it not be controlled airspace. If you are just playing semantics you make no argument. The controller will broadcast the hazard alert on the air traffic control frequency. In this case the air traffic control frequency is the area frequency. If you want to hear hazard alerts for the relevant aerodrome then you will want to be on the correct area frequency.

Neither VFR aircraft nor IFR aircraft should be making broadcasts or making pilot-to-pilot transmissions on an air traffic control frequency.

Class G frequencies are ATC frequencies.

You have stated that you don't care whether frequency boundaries are there or not. You base this on what you think Glass G should be for, and not what it currently is. In the points you make, you consistently seem to think that ATC frequencies are those for controlled airspace only. If this is the case then until the rules are changed, you will remain wrong.

You personally may not care whether you are on the correct area/ATC frequency, on 104.7 or even on 116.80. There are other VFR pilots who do, and they want the correct frequency information available to them.

[Keg]

G'day BIK, I've never been a big one for responding to individual lines as I tend to take a bigger picture approach (a bit like your 'Big Sky Theory'! ;) ).

You may not be an advocate of see and avoid but your advocation of 'Big Sky Theory' as the primary means of seperation is bordering on myopic. Even on random tracks a couple of jumbo's came uncomfortably close on trips across the Pacific. There is HEAPS of sky between SYD and LAX (or AKL and LAX) and yet these guys ended up closer than they should have been. I'm sorry but I don't want to be the driver that disproves your big sky theory because it will get disproved.

You originally advocated TCAS as helping you to 'build the picture' on what is going on around you. I'm telling you that it doesn't help you 'build a picture', it helps you to 'react' to an error of someone being in your bit of airspace very soon. I've been using it now for about eight years and as a SA tool it's use isn't as good as what you have been saying on this forum that it will be. Yes, it's handy, but it certainly isn't perfect and isn't capable of building the picture to the stage where I'd take 'free flight', BST, and then using it as a fall back to that! An RA is NOT an everyday manouevre and shouldn't become one. That shouldn't be the 'default' solution for when your BST goes awry.

Finally, your 'tired' argument actually works against you. You are ADVOCATING that we go with your BST and then back it up with TCAS and yet you say that because I may have been tired in LAX after a long flight that I couldn't develop the 'picture'. Guess what, most crews arriving in Sydney between 0530 and 0800 in the morning will have a level of tiredness about them- either because they've been travelling all night or because they got up at anywhere between 0400 and 0530 to go to work. Similarly with MEL, BNE, CNS, PER, ADL, CBR, TVL, etc, etc.

Whilst I respect your knowledge of the CAOs, etc, and have used that knowledge a number of times, I guess the difference between your point of view and most of the rest of us is that whilst you are using the Big Skiy 'Theory', the rest of us are dealing with the reality as we know it- and fly in it for 800 or so hours each year.

[Blastoid]

BIK_116.80

It would be nice if you actually read what others had to say on this forum occassionally instead of blasting us all with your 300 lines of self-indulgent opinions. :(

AS I have indicated on this thread and others in the past, ADSB is not operational. Controller training hasn't even started, and there is only one ground station and only four or five aircraft are equipped. NAS comes in on November 27. So stop advocating ADSB as the solution to NAS as it isn't happening.

There is no doubt, once a country-wide system is fully operational and all (???) aircraft are suitably equipped, significant benefits are to be gained. But that is a long time off.

Also, you post nice pretty pictures showing the CDTI display using ADSB. Very persuasive. Pity the government won't be paying to install one of them in your nice little airplane. Or anyone else's for that matter. If (and I emphasise "if") the Government do end up paying to install ADSB equipment in GA aircraft, it will only be to fit the squitter (aka a new transponder). The GA pilots who fly VFR don't need the CDTI display of course because they can see and avoid everyone else.

Thanks (in hope) for listening. :hmm:

[Lodown]

Blastoid, are you reading the same BIK 116.8 as me? I think BIK has mentioned much the same as you. The CDTI picture demonstrates the capability of technology to evolve to cope with both TCAS and ADSB should a number of aircraft in the future elect to install ADSB. Maybe I'm interpreting text incorrectly, but I got the impression BIK 116.8 and is supporting your argument.

[ferris]

I think YOU have missed the point.

Nobody is denying that ADSB and CDTI are great pieces of kit, however, NAS is on the doorstep!!!! When, exactly, is the ADSB fit out? Get it?

It is patently stupid to change the airspace model now , and say that it will all be OK when everyone gets some mythical ADSB fit out at some time in the future. If you want to link NAS to ADSB fitout, then campaign for that. That isn't currently the case. The NASIG can't even tell you what the final version of what they are implementing will look like. Doesn't this bother you?

[Hempy]

BIK_116.80

mate, you are anal

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

BIK says;

...the Big Sky Theory will always be the first line of defence. Even if you funnel all the traffic into the same few flight levels and down the same few airway routes there is still an extremely high probability that there will not be a collision.

and later

I’ve never been a big advocate of “see and avoid”.

No, just the big sky theory it seems.

So what do you advocate then? Minimal or no communication and a reliance on the BST?

Your ideas are so flawed and I can't believe that your posting such rambling **** to try and convince yourself otherwise.

[Pinky the pilot]

As a 'new arrival' on this thread and having read all twelve pages, my only observation is this;
Would someone please pass the Glenfiddich.....and leave the bottle with me!:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:


You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

And smash BIK 116.8 over the head with the empty bottle once you're finished will you Pinky and make us all happy.

[Lodown]

ferris,

I agree with your last paragraph re: linking ADSB to NAS, but I didn't think BIK 116.8 was linking one with the other either. He was discussing his version of the future, but it didn't seem to me like he was linking the two like others on this site.

In response to your question...yes, it is a concern, and one that I follow with interest, but I know there are people with far more knowledge than me who are working to ensure the procedures are acceptable.

[tobzalp]

G demo had the saabs from sydney fly north to the CG airspace and descend then track back south into the Northern Rives MBZ to avoid the last rediculous airspace review. I wonder if similar will occur. Imagine a QFA 767 maintaining F190 till 45 nm north of sydney to avoid E and then being frowned on for not making the STAR requirements.

I find it disturbing that when the VFR climb descent , PU an VT are forced upon all E airspace users if someone else decides to use them. The reply is usually ' well by using E you agree to these procedures'. I would think that if Qantas and Virgin did not agree, they should be quite within their rights to maintain levels above the airspace until they reach the IFR protection that they PAY for.

Discuss

[Chimbu chuckles]

Gaunty I don't know the individuals on the NASIG from Adam, so this is not aimed at anyone in particular, but you and I have been in this industry well long enough to know it holds more than it's fair share of highly 'qualified' yes men/idiots. I remain to be convinced that NAS is not a political process stemming from DS feeding Anderson a load of BS about saving vast amounts of money to get 'his' airspace reform up...yet again.

Any comparison with USNAS, from a safety mitigation pov, is disengenuous...we are NOT getting USNAS. While the US has 85% radar coverage to our minute coverage it will always remain a poor, retarded cousin.

If ignoring this FACT, and the early 70s FAA study that found maximum inclusion of all traffic to be the only way to safer skies, not to mention ATSBs reservation on See and Avoid, is not ignoring the inconveniant then I don't know what is!!

Chuck.

[SM4 Pirate]

Yesterday whilst 'learning' the new airspace, I already know the procedures...I was faced with this scenario, it was damn ugly.

A B744 was 2 miles in front of a PA31 1000 feet above, I told him to expect furhter descent in 1 minute, due to opening speed; PA31 was in cloud.

B744 says were clear of cloud now request VFR descent through the PA31.

Sure, go for it. Descend VFR to 8000 feet. traffic is... PA31 traffic is...

Now the rules say that the B747 is responsible for wake turbulance whilst doing this procedure...

What about the PA31, who would have got flipped on his lid...?

I don't have to apply wake sep, or even issue a warning...

This has nobs on it. My only solice is that a B744 probably won't ever do this but they might.

Bottle of Rum

[Pinky the pilot]

AirNoServicesAustralia; By the time the bottle is empty the only thing smashed will be me!
My comment stems from the fact that there has been so much information/opinion/comment on this subject that I am somewhat bewildered!
However, the previous post by Chuckles whom is a Pilot I deeply respect, having known him from my time in PNG puts the whole thing into perspective.
If he has his doubts about the proposed changes then so do I!

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[Capn Bloggs]

SM4 Pirate,

It's a pity that Dick and his mates aren't introducing ICAO airspace, because an ICAO VMC Climb (or Descent) requires the approval of the other aircraft. So the PA31 would have had the right of veto. And interestingly, ICAO only permits VMC Climbs and Decsent at or below 10,000ft. So much for international standardisation.

Coral,
I'm a fan of Mikes (well, I've been to lots of his presentations). Speaking from experience, all I'll say is, don't believe anything he said in the Oz.

[DickyBaby]

OK (edit to fix the bullsh!t) It's 250 BLW100 - had you thinking though!

MEA CULPA

[KAPTAIN KREMIN]

Chimbu - this goes further than that. This goes to a matter of guarantee of support or I will vie for a seat in your eletorate - with a high probability of success! Sickeningly true I suspect however such is democracy - or extortion! Or so the rumour goes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[OverRun]

Airspace Occurrences in MBZ and CTA

As well as Class E, radar and USNAS, there is the CTAF/MBZ argument. This has been put off for a few months while the rest of Class 2b gets pushed forward. However it's got a fundamental flaw in it which may have got a few people on the wrong foot as far as NAS goes.

I read the ATSB 2003 draft discussion paper on Airspace-Related Occurrences Involving Regular Public Transport and Charter Aircraft within Mandatory Broadcast Zones. I came away thinking that these CTAFs weren't too bad, and wondering what the fuss was about MBZs/CTAFs. Just maybe all this opposition to NAS was a storm in the teacup and driven by self-interest . . blah . . blah . blah.

I had inferred from the draft Discussion Paper (Appendix C) that the MBZs are LESS SAFE than CTAFs for RPT aircraft. It was only later that the error in statistics was pointed out to me. The text of the ATSB Discussion Paper carried various appropriate warnings as to the limitations of the approach used, but the pictures allowed the Discussion Paper to become misleading.

After I saw the error, I got stuck into some analysis about the relative safety of MBZs and CTAFs (that must make Walley2 happy – facts and figures at last – and they are even Australian facts and figures).

I found that the opposite is true when the statistics are done properly, and CTAFs may be up to twice as risky as MBZs. It is a significant concern because it misled me and seems to have misled others involved with airspace reform.

How is this so, I hear you ask? I re-analysed the raw ATSB occurrence data over the last 8 years to take into account the actual number of movements in MBZs and CTAFs. Started with data on actual RPT movements in WA into MBZs and into CTAFs from current timetables, and used this as a first approximation to estimate relative rates of airspace-related occurrences and airmisses. Then I had Dr Clark [another PhD] extend the analysis to cover all of Australia using AVSTAT data. Both of us found CTAFs more risky than MBZs.

The executive summary of Dr Clark's report is below, and the full report is available upon request to serious scholars – e-mail me – BIK needn't bother – give me a postal address because it's too big to e-mail. It has also been forwarded to ATSB as part of the requested commentary on their Discussion Paper. They have since replied "in order to remove possible confusion from around this issue, the Bureau has removed the Appendix from the Discussion Paper".


The objective of this analysis is to ascertain if there is any statistical difference in the rate of both airspace-related occurrences and airmisses between Common Traffic Advisory Frequency areas (CTAFs) and Mandatory Broadcast Zones (MBZs). The analysis is limited to Regular Public Traffic (RPT) aircraft.

The results of the analysis show that there is a significantly higher rate of both airspace-related occurrences and airmisses in CTAFs than in MBZs relative to the number of RPT movements.

Over the eight-year period 1994 to 2001, there was an average rate of 19.1 airspace-related occurrences per 100,000 RPT movements for CTAFs compared to 13.5 for MBZs. Similarly for airmisses the average rates for CTAFs and MBZs respectively were 8.4 and 4.8 incidents a year per 100,000 RPT movements.

These differences are significant at the 1 % level. In other words, there is only a one per cent chance that such a result is due to chance. Such a level of significance indicates there are significantly more incidents at CTAFs than at MBZs relative to the number of RPT aircraft movements. The level of airmisses at CTAFs, at an average rate of 8.4 incidents per year per 100,000 RPT aircraft movements, is 75% greater than for MBZs. Similarly, level of airspace-related occurrences in CTAFs, at 19.1 incidents per 100,000 RPT movements, is over 40% greater than for MBZs.

This significantly higher rate of incidents in CTAFs compared to MBZs is exacerbated by two facts. First, aerodromes operated as CTAFs have less RPT movements than aerodromes operated as MBZs. The median level of RPT movements at CTAF aerodromes is 2047 movements per year compared to 3741 movements per year at MBZ aerodromes. Thus on average aerodromes operating as CTAFs have only 55% of the RPT movements of aerodromes operating as MBZs (55% obtained from 2047 divided by 3741).

Secondly, across Australia, CTAFs carry much less traffic than MBZs. In detail, the average yearly volume of RPT movements in CTAFs (4.8% of total RPT movements) is much lower than the volume of RPT movements in MBZs (21.2% of total RPT movements). Thus despite the fact there are less RPT movements per aerodrome in CTAFs compared to MBZs, and despite the much lower yearly volume of RPT movements in CTAFs compared to MBZs, there is still a significantly higher incident rate in CTAFs.

[ferris]

There would be other factors that wouldn't be raw stats as well ie; I would postulate that the incident rate wouldn't be a straight line, it would be exponential. As the movement rate increases, you are going to get a non-constant increase in incidents. Also, what would be the average experience level of a pilot in an MBZ compared to a CTAF?

Either way, never let facts get in the way of a good NAS!:rolleyes:

[snarek]

Ferris/Overun

There isn't enough detail in the 'analysis' posted here to determine if the initial assumptions are flawed. i.e. Which CTAFs vs which MBZs. What defines an 'incident'. What are the movement statistics, ie RPT vs Training, vs ultralight.

One of course would expect more 'incidents' during training, so these need to be carefully filtered.

AK

[tobzalp]

Ho hum.

Seriously I am amazed that a person on a board of an allegedly large and influential organisation would behave in public in the manner that you do snarek. I myself am allowed to because i am one of the stupid job saving Air Traffic controllers that you and your Mob seem to think will be out of a job from all this. I myself am making money from it as I get 8% every time I have to train another of my workmates in this bizzo and as an aside am enjoying a line with no night shifts or late finishes to prepare the exercises. All of our internal safety case and Hazard log has been completed and there is not 1 I repeat not 1 airtraffic control job going.

You wonder why people attack AOPA. With idiots like yourself in open view of the greater industry, I am amazed that you have not self destructed from within (well the last board voted to have the recent election null and void and the new group disbanded though i guess..... That would incluse your little bum wouldn't it? Sounds very amateurish).

You strike me as one of the poor little unfortunate kids who was picked on at school. Previously in this thread (the merged ones) you have given us the "well I am taking my bat and ball and going home then if you are going to be like that" speech and now you tell us of this HOT hook up that will be answering questions. I can see your questions now "How can I get my ribena stain out of my Terry Towling hat because under NAS all the other pilots will see it as I fly past the Seeing and Avoiding?" and, "My flying jacket has pen holders for 4 pens on each shoulder. Under NAS, will I need a fifth?" and, "Hi, I fly a plane and because I am the only one in it I wear 4 bars on my shoulder, will i be allowed under NAS to wear 8 because I will be directly responsible for the lives of every other aircraft I fly through 'See and Avoid Stylez'?"


We are getting to business time with this lark. Please for the good of the future system, what ever it becomes, have a lie down and a Bex and I'll come get you when the adults are finished.

Love

Plazbot.


p.s. Here is a question then

What frequencies and where will a PJE aircraft call and broadcast on when dropping from F115 at Elderslie (NSW west of Maitland).

[snarek]

hmmmmmm

[tobzalp]

see paragraph 3 line 2.

I know the answer, my 2 bob says the NASIG do not.

p.s. nice edit. Very typical. Bat, ball, home.

[OverRun]

I too hate "lies, damn lies and statistics", but I didn't want to overload the original post with too much text.

As to details on the method - I used the same basic approach as ATSB. I was focusing on RPTs, because that is where the greatest concern lies. Clark and I looked at relative rates of airspace-related occurrences and airmisses for RPT aircraft in CTAFs and MBZs. The analysis was "all CTAFs in Australia that have had RPT movements in the last 8 years" and "all MBZs that have had RPT movements in the last 8 years". The lot. No carefully 'chosen sites'. No selective memories. We got the ATSB recorded airspace-related occurrence and airmiss data off their database (and well done to ATSB for maintaining this database).

Putting it simply, there are more RPT movements in MBZs than CTAFs in Australia, because MBZs tend to be used at busier airports and at many airports carrying RPT traffic (and ATSB mentioned this as well in their report). This was a concern to me when I first woke up to the issue because if an MBZ is busier than a CTAF, then it could easily have more airspace-related occurrences (or airmisses) without being more risky.

In practice, we found that almost all the RPT traffic in and out of aerodromes happens in MBZs. If there were 104 RPT airmisses in 8 years at MBZs (ATSB report Table 3) despite having lots of RPT traffic, and 41 RPT airmisses in CTAFs even though there was little RPT traffic, we suspected and then proved that it was the CTAFs which were more risky.

Finally, we are not "of NAS" nor salaried line pilots (despite various ATPL and CPL and PPL licences) nor management nor ATC nor AOPA nor members of any "large and influential" organisation. Neither for nor against. We've got no vested interest, and only got into this issue because I thought that something basic had been messed up and as a result people were taking decisions based on erroneous assumptions that could err to danger. I still worry about it.

[Hempy]

snarek, bik et al

I am at the point now where I feel that if you knobs want to go and kill yourselves, fill your boots. I just feel sorry for the families of the unfortunate passengers, and the ATC who no doubt will get blamed because he was the only one "involved" who survived. Personally, next time I travel it will be to a capital city airport in a jet, or by bus. Good luck

[ugly]

http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,7609400%255E3462,00.html

Is this responsible behaviour? Generating fear in the flying public with simplistic comparisons like "dodgem-car track"?


AIR traffic controllers have warned that new airspace maps to be issued in Tasmania today are missing vital radio frequency information pilots need to avoid mid-air collisions.

The Australian Air Traffic Control Association, Civil Air, says Tasmanian regional airspace, including that over Hobart, will be reduced to a "dodgem-car track" with aircraft using "see and avoid" procedures.

Civil Air president Ted Lang warned of "total confusion" over radio frequency boundaries with any aircraft able to fly across or directly at descending international and domestic traffic paths.'

He said the chaos would also affect Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, one of the world's busiest air corridors.

Despite assurances by Airservices Australia that the changes would be introduced safely, Mr Lang said the proposed system was an embarrassing and dangerous farce.

"Pilots will have no idea which frequencies apply to the boundaries of their airspace," he said.

"An aircraft on one frequency will never hear collision warnings of another aircraft on a different frequency.

"It is total guesswork and an undeniable threat to safety."

Mr Lang said despite Civil Air's criticism of the new air control systems, Federal Transport Minister John Anderson had refused to comment and had avoided meeting commercial pilots or controllers on the issue.

He said today's release of the maps was a lead-up to a relaxation of airspace rules to be introduced next month.

The National Airspace System (NAS) would allow light aircraft to operate below 3000 metres without radio or radar contact or notifying air traffic controllers.

The Federal Opposition called on Mr Anderson to delay releasing the new maps until the concerns were addressed.

Transport spokesman Martin Ferguson said: "This is the latest in a long line of serious concerns expressed about the NAS by professional pilots, air traffic controllers and airport owners that are being ignored by the Airspace Reform Group."

Airservices Australia, which manages civil air traffic, was unavailable for comment last night.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Second pilot map missing all frequencies

All vital air traffic control airspace frequency information has been deleted from a second map issued to the bulk of Australia’s 30,000 pilots from today.

The Visual Navigation Chart, which is used by pilots flying in daylight, is missing all frequencies, excluding automatic weather information, across Australia.

Pilots crossing flight paths or in unfamiliar airspace will not know how to contact air traffic control or other aircraft. They will be unable to hear collision warnings of commercial aircraft who will be operating under “see and avoid” conditions.

Civil Air President Ted Lang said: “Without question this reinforces our stand that the new rules will allow any aircraft to fly across, or directly at, descending international and domestic traffic paths without talking to air traffic control. They won’t be able to contact us – or other aircraft – anyway.”

“We thought missing frequency boundaries on ERC (En-route chart low) maps was shocking, having no frequencies at all is beyond comprehension.

“It is as if air traffic control in Australia no longer exists. It has vanished overnight and light aircraft pilots are free to roam as they please. It will be anarchy in the airspace.”

“Normally visual flight rules (VFR) pilots – the majority of amateur flyers – have charts that include frequencies. All this vital information is missing despite assurances they would remain on the maps,” Mr Lang said.

This comes as the professional aviation industry reels from today’s decision by Airservices Australia and CASA to sign-off on the new air space system from 27 November.

Mr Lang said Transport Minister John Anderson had now signed the fatal blow for airspace safety in Australia.


and......


Minister’s last chance to stop airspace chaos

Transport Minister John Anderson must today order a meeting of aviation bureaucrats in Canberra to pull the plug on the discredited and dangerous Australian airspace plan.

He must freeze the distribution of faulty airspace maps set to go to 30,000 pilots from this afternoon.

The Canberra meeting involves the heads of Airservices Australia and CASA to sign-off on the new airspace rules.

Civil Air President Ted Lang said the past 24 hours of alarm across Australia and increasing worldwide condemnation was a clear indication that the Minister must now finally take charge and dump the botched plan.

“Unless the Minister picks up the phone and orders a halt to the implementation frenzy, 30,000 pilots across Australia will be issued with maps that industry experts across the world say are a blueprint for disaster,” Mr Lang said.

“If he refuses, there will be chaos with holes in airspace safety big enough to drive a jumbo-jet through.”

“The Minister is at the point of no return. He must stop these changes before it is too late. Australia deserves the safest airways system in the world and these changes will reduce safety without any verifiable justification.”

Mr Lang said any suggestion opposition to the new airspace was an industrial issue was rubbish. “This is about safety. The new rules don’t threaten jobs. They threaten everyone who flies in Australia.”

Mr Lang said the Minister had repeatedly refused to meet.

“We can spell out the verifiable dangers in just a few minutes, however the safety of Australia’s airspace isn’t on the Minister’s radar,” he said.


:ugh: Wasn't a huge fan of Ted Lang after the last certified agreement was put to the vote when it didn't meet most of the minimum requirements we had set out when we went out on strike, but I have to say that he has shown leadership and backbone on this issue and should be commended for it, unlike Mr Anderson, who has shown neither, and is just looking after his mates.

I know there will be the usual suspects here who want to fly for free and free of any restrictions, and see no problems with NAS for their day to day flying who will label Tad Langs press releases as scare mongering etc etc. but there are a lot of people paying for a service that they expect keeps them safe doing their daily work, and under the new system they will no longer get this protection.

[WALLEY2]

TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ON SILENCE OF QF AND DJ

QF is in negotiations re Aus-NZ thefore the ruling from on high is stay out of the NAS debate, though I believe they are very surprised and unhappy with lack of frequencies boundaries on Charts.

DJ in their expansion plans need Gov approvals and are also vulnerable to pressure.

NAS IG direct from CEO's mouth is an Implimentation group and does not have the staff or expertise to analysis the proposed changes.

CASA well Mick was eased out, therefore, the heat shield is down and middle management exposed to direct pressure from Ministerial Advisers who are without any aviation experience yet are calling the shots and instructing the preparation of regs etc before tight deadlines.

Already one more junoir CASA staff has been told to butt out

Even the AAA had one of its airport advisers removed as the airport he worked for had major matters before the fed gov.

Hopefully even NAS supporters will condemn this muzzling of major stakeholders and lack of time for discussion analysis and review.

THIS IS NOT PRETTY and is VERY WORRYING and CLOSE to BEING UNLAWFUL and NEGLIGENT

BIK if you had 5 near misses in an a/p in 5 weeks what would you do. We did not do a "chicken little" we analysied the incidents as did CASA and decided on 30nm MBZ and CA/GRS cost equivalent to $1.35 per pax.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Hempy
Personally, next time I travel it will be to a capital city airport in a jet, or by bus. Good luck Unfortunately, the point is that your jet (be it a DJ B738, a Cathay B744 or whatever) will, on descent into Sydney, Hobart etc., be flying through Class E airspace. This will mean that there will be unidientified, unknown VFR aircraft, not on the ATC frequency, which will conflict with your jet.

Currently, the same jet would be in Class C airspace, in which it is positively separated from ALL traffic.

From November 27, your RPT flight will be significantly less safe, and the only thing standing between it and a mid-air collision will be BIK's "BS" Theory or 'see and avoid'.

For the heavy metal drivers out there, consider this:

On descent at 300KT IAS (GS 400KT+) with a ROD of 2000 fpm, do you really believe that your forward and downward visibility, combined with visual acuity and the time required to:
[list=a]
See the traffic
Identify the traffic as a collision risk
Assess the safest course of action
React, without placing your aircraft into conflict with other aircraft
[/list=a] is relaible enough as the only method of keeping you alive?

Personally, I see nothing wrong with keeping you and your passengers alive in the way we do right now: full separation, with all traffic known to the controller.

A question for the NAS proponents who claim that VFR aircraft have been unduly delayed and penalised by the current sytem: "How many times has a controller's response of 'remain outside control area' led to an actual delay in your flight?" I have used this phrase on many occasions as a 'paper stop', while a clearance and separation was formulated. I cannot remember a single occasion on which a VFR aircraft has been required to hold outside CTA or alter its track in any way. In all cases, a clearance has been issued prior to the CTA boundary.

By the same token, I have frequently issued IFR aircraft with 'clearance limits' as a means of assuring separation. Never has one of these aircraft been required to hold at the clearance limit. On every occasion, an onwards clerance has been issued in good time, once the conflict has been resolved.

Citing the (frequent?)use of the phrase 'remain outside control area' as evidence of delays is disingenuous. a simpler solotion would be to just replace the phrase with something more innocuous, like 'stand by for clearance'.

[snarek]

Four Seven Eleven.

I suppose clearances depend on where you are.

In Cairns, despite VERY heavy traffic loads, I have never been denied a clearance. Clever ways are used to 'feed' me in and if I am flexible (like steep turns onto base for 12) then I am rarely delayed either.

However in Canberra, where there is often SFA traffic, I have been told 'remain OCTA' and then got grumpied at cos I did 'remain OCTA' by descending and popping up later on tower.

From that same approach, a friend who was having a horrendous day in the turbulence from westerlies was grumpied at for descending (getting blown down in sink) below C and then grumpied at again for popping up again (like biggest mobs of lift).

So, like the John and Martha show said, it's a culture thing :)

AK

[Chief galah]

We've all missed the boat. The posts on my topic "NAS apathy" from way back showed little interest or understanding of what was going to be foisted upon us. And in typical fashion, the users, including Civilair, are bleating well after the horse has bolted.

Snarek

re. your anecdotes

It'll still be the same after Nov. 27. Nothing in NAS would change the events you mentioned.

I spoke with John King. Nice fellow, but no idea of the immutable differences in Australian airspace infrastructure. His catch phrase that he "strongly believes......." was just the hollow parroting of his sponsors.

CG

[paddopat]

Chief Galah

I suppose if the 'helpful' attitude had prevailed and the 'unhelpful' one suppressed (or oppressed) then CivilAir might have more allies today!

Safety concerns aside, I feel for the people who think thier jobs are at risk that fall into the first category. I hope AsA has a way of filtering the d!cks out if ever there are redundancies.

Cairns ground even offer to call the fuelies for new arrivals, now that's service :ok:

AK

[SM4 Pirate]

Paddopat/SNAREK
I suppose if the 'helpful' attitude had prevailed and the 'unhelpful' one suppressed (or oppressed) then CivilAir might have more allies today!

How long have you been in the dark; how many people work CB Approach at anyone time and how many work CS? Why do you allegedly get better service? Nothing to do with numbers is it? I think in the past 10 years there have been massive improvements in so called 'attitude'; everytime one of my ATC mates does something 'NASTY' they have to answer for it, so it's easier to not do it in the first place. If only Dick would leave us alone... I'm sick of his letters... I did my job and kept everyone alive and Dick writes my boss a letter saying that in the US the controller could have done X instead of Y, yet when you check with US mates they say no we couldn't.

In Cairns, despite VERY heavy traffic loads, I have never been denied a clearance. Clever ways are used to 'feed' me in and if I am flexible (like steep turns onto base for 12) then I am rarely delayed either.

However in Canberra, where there is often SFA traffic, I have been told 'remain OCTA' and then got grumpied at cos I did 'remain OCTA' by descending and popping up later on tower.

Why did they stay outside? Did they have your details? It can take up to 30 seconds to get them, if you’ve got no other entries to make, if you have then the 30 seconds starts again… If NAIPS determines that on profile or plan you avoid enroute airspace CTA it is probable that plan is totally suppressed. This means ring NAIPS in Brisbane and get the plan manually sent to TAAATS; up to 5 minutes, should take 60 seconds on average. Helping yourself to descent below the steps and calling the tower direct does nothing to helping you get into the system; in fact it could make it worse; got the details, call the pilot to give him/her the clearance, no response, where have they gone? SAR actions? more work… I suggest that you avail yourself of a tour of the ML centre next time you get this far south. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; you are clearly displaying little knowledge.

Your anecdotal story will not have a different result come 27 November? So how is removing all the Enroute class C going to help you, or help the big guys stay safe?

Chief Galah
We've all missed the boat. The posts on my topic "NAS apathy" from way back showed little interest or understanding of what was going foist upon us. And in typical fashion, the users, including Civilair, are bleating well after the horse has bolted.I suspect you are right.

WALLEY2

You are absolutely right; why is it that Mike Smith is telling us DJ and QF are behind NAS? Where is their voice? Don’t forget the fact that they can’t come out and say it’s not safe, because if they do they can’t ground their fleet if it goes ahead can they?

THIS IS NOT PRETTY and is VERY WORRYING and CLOSE to BEING UNLAWFUL and NEGLIGENT You said it brother.


4711 A question for the NAS proponents who claim that VFR aircraft have been unduly delayed and penalised by the current sytem: "How many times has a controller's response of 'remain outside control area' led to an actual delay in your flight?" I have used this phrase on many occasions as a 'paper stop', while a clearance and separation was formulated. I cannot remember a single occasion on which a VFR aircraft has been required to hold outside CTA or alter its track in any way. In all cases, a clearance has been issued prior to the CTA boundary. I think this is a standard response based on an un-alerted or unexpected call; it doesn’t mean you won’t get one; it just means that in this particular micro second I can’t give it to you. Come 27 November this will not change. In the 13 years I have been an Enroute ATC I have never delayed an aircraft a clearance; perhaps it wasn’t provided at the planned level, but there always was a clearance issued. There is always an anecdotal story to counter the facts; but the facts remain that more than 95% of traffic (in ML Enroute) gets the clearance that they wanted (that means route and level); KPI issued last week.

'stand by for clearance' The pain of this phrase would mean the time that you couldn’t clear them in, for what ever the reason, is the time they help themselves; because I thought I was going to get one.

In terms of redundancies, that would imply job reductions because of NAS. If anyone can identify to me any single position which be reduced at any transitional point or end state then I'll listen, otherwise just keep dreaming; working Class E requires more ATC than class C, it's harder and you have more responsibilities with less information; combined sectors will effectively become a thing of the past. Should do wonders for efficiency.

This has nothing to do with closing Class D towers, so no jobs can be claimed from NAS at those locations, any other choices?

BIK, SNAREK? anyone?

[Wirraway]

AAP

Airspace reform on track: Anderson
October 21, 2003

CONTROVERSIAL airspace reforms would proceed on schedule with major changes to the amount of controlled airspace to be introduced on November 27, the Government said today.

Transport Minister John Anderson said a comprehensive training and education package would enable pilots to move safely to the new arrangements.

"Those changes will dramatically increase the amount of controlled airspace in Australia and will be implemented on November 27 as scheduled," he said in a statement.

Mr Anderson said for the first time all pilots would receive an initial subscription to new improved charts for their area of operations.

He said the National Airspace System would introduce improved procedures aligned with international practice.

They were designed to enhance safety, improve access, simplify operations and reduce costs, he said.

"The implementation of this stage of the NAS project represents a significant improvement over the existing system and demonstrates the Government's commitment to this important reform," he said.

CASA acting director of aviation safety Bruce Gemmell said CASA had accepted the safety cases prepared by the NAS Implementation Group.

"Our acceptance follows the incorporation of changes in updated pilot and air traffic controller training and education material regarding radio use, operations in non-controlled airspace and the inclusion of additional safety mitigators," he said in a statement.

Airservices Australia chief executive Bernie Smith said the board had approved immediate distribution of the new documentation which was essential for safe implementation of the changes.

"The Airservices Australia board and management are satisfied that the safe implementation of the changes can proceed following appropriate safety analysis and final CASA acceptance," he said.

Aviation Reform Group chairman Ken Matthews said he was satisfied the proper processes had been followed.

"It is gratifying that Airservices Australia, CASA, Defence, the Department of Transport and Regional Services and the NAS Implementation Group have been able to work together constructively and complete their work on time," he said.

The air traffic controllers union has criticised new airspace maps saying they miss vital radio frequency information pilots need to avoid mid-air collisions.

Civil Air said this meant pilots would not know which radio frequency to tune into and would not be able to hear collision warnings from other planes.

AAP

===========================================

[snarek]

SM4

Remain OCTA means remain OCTA, not hang roung where you are until I'm ready (if you want that just request an orbit). Oh, and I'm talking unplanned flights, no NAIPS. I am a little kinder to Cairns because of their workload (and possibly their very different attitude), I remain unconvinced Canberra needs a tower at all most times never mind an approach. If anything it would be one area where E over C would work quite well.

Interestingly in Cairns they ask me if I can descend and stay on approach. CBR it is 'Clearance unavailable due traffic remain OCTA'. So in Cairns I can creep down the Western VFR 'OCTA' but with a code and on approach and as soon as they can slot me, in I come.

Mackay is another 'great' service that springs to mind. Coming in one day I voluteered to swing west so an RPT could get straight in. The tower thanked me and brought me back ariound from the north. A 'cheeky' Gonad driver then asked to cut me off (which would have resulted in at least another 2 orbits). The tower nicely told him " Join number 2 to the Grumman on long final".

Must be a Qld thing :)

Almost an 'American' style of service but with much better scenery :ok:

AK

[ferris]

Looks like this whole thing has been a great learning experience for you, right? I bet you now know a whole lot more about the big picture (including how controllers do their job). But you still don't understand completely. For instance, if you had any idea about the sort of regime ATC works under, you would realise that the phrase "remain OCTA" can mean precisely "do an orbit where you are until I can get your details", however the controller can't just come out and say that because he then assumes (some) liability for whatever you then do (eg. prang into someone else). It doesn't mean the controller is being "grumpy". Likewise, if your mate couldn't keep control of his aircraft (due turb or any other reason), I would've been expected to be informed of the fact (if I was the ATCO concerned). Someone randomly entering and leaving CTA is going to get chipped. Although not under NAS, because VFRs never have any reason to use the radio or know what frequency is where, right?:rolleyes:

Keep learning though.

I also feel obliged to say something about your last comment ('american service'), as I feel it has a lot to do with this whole NAS thing.
The attitude of aus ATC to VFR is not what it could be. And that is induced by this whole user pays philosophy. ATC has been forced to staff and provide services to enroute aircaft that AsA doesn't get paid for. Flight service was dismantled and the workload placed onto ATCs, who received no recognition or recompense. I have no doubt that this led to a certain amount of resentment towards lighties. As a PPL, I used to be amazed upon visiting Centre at how little of the operation was directed at the VFR end of town. But when I became an ATC, I realised that it's the heavy metal that pays the bills. Which brings me to what IMHO opinion is wrong with the whole system. ALL AIRSPACE USERS have to be included for the system to work. The yanks know this, and their airspace and CHARGING REGIME is geared for it. They consider their airspace important enough to pay for it as a community. Subsequently, the whole community is entitled to service. This seems to have been lost on the NAS proponents. They want to be able to opt out and not pay. Well, I'd argue that they already pay (via things like fuel tax, and selling off public airports and then being charged for their use:* ) and the nature of air travel requiresinclusion.
An inclusive system. Those pushing for anything else are damaging their country.

[Chief galah]

As an ATC and VFR PPL I'm still waiting for my NAS training and education.

Are AIC's H10,9,8,7/03
updated pilot and air traffic controller training and education material
the education package?

Sorry to be so negative.

CG

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Andersons Statement is a white-wash.

He clearly doesnt understand the issues - the questions asked and asked over the past months have NOT been addressed - spinning crap like:

The implementation of this stage of the NAS project represents a significant improvement over the existing system and demonstrates the Government's commitment to this important reform

tells us nothing.

And some of you wonder why Civil Air and AIPA are a little colorful in their press releases - to jolt the apathetic media , public and government out of their spin-led malaise and start addressing the real safety issues - not the perceived warm and fuzzy stuff that emanates from Anderson.

Glad to see that CASA and ASA are happy with the procedures - will the members of their boards be staking their livelihood on its success? or will that just be those of us who hold a licence that will be prosecuted?

This is madness, and I am not interested in any response from you clowns who support it anymore as nobody has demonsrated a grasp of the issues here from your point of view. It is clear what your point of view is for all to see. You are luck to have an advocate who knows where the LIB.NAT bodies are buried.

Cant wait for my comprehensive education and training to commence - better get a wriggle on John.

[gaunty]

Gentlemen,

As far as I can tell the final iteration of the NAS 2b Implentation Training and Education material was signed off by CASA, Airservices and after a looong telephone hook up with the NASIG, so did the AOPA Board only last night.

I understand QF also.

It will be out there real soon to all parties.

Much has been learned by ALL parties about timing and consultation and there is a common determination that there will be a more efficient process using these lessons in going forward from here.

We will certainly be continuing to monitor the progress of the implmentation and it is imcumbent on us all to do likewise.

I have no doubt that there will be some knobs and excrescenses that must be removed to bring it into true form, but I believe that with good will and extra vigilance we can work our way through this.

I am concerned that there has been "personalisation" of the issues by the stakeholders in an attempt to win a point of view.

The regionals this and the bugsmashers that.

We are all flying around in the same airspace, controlled where we need to be by the same ATC professionals who have always been there and where we are not, we should trust that each of us will practise good airmanship.

None of us has the mortgage on the desire for safe operations.

At the end of the day it really doesn't matter who was the hittor or the hittee the nett result is the same.

So why don't we all just get on with it and show each other how mutual cooperation, common sense and professional attitudes can overcome the inevitable wrinkles that will appear and in six months time or earlier if necessary we can have another look.

In the meantime frightening the horses only distracts us from the real challenge.:ok:

[WALLEY2]

Don't forget they sacked the CASA board. CASA CEO reports to the Minister, in reality the minders, spin doctors and Sec of DOTRS.

I wonder if the CASA/NASA analysis is available under FOI?

Can not see a confidentiality arguement. Make interesting reading possibly.

For those involved lets request from all directions namely Pilots, ATC,Airports,State governments and local federal representatives.

If you know any of the aviation writers ask them to ask for an FOI on 2b

The FOI request should be for all docs on safety and risk analysis and correspondence to and from CASA, NAS IG, ARG, AA and DOTRS with regards NAS 2b. culminating in the Minister's assurance that due process has been done.

Ask now so if anyone tries to backdate they are breaking the law and the Ministers position would be compromised, please be assured though I am not suggesting such an illegal act would even be contemplated.

I'm sure those who support NAS would also like to see the data analysis and correspondence so they can be assured their faith in NAS IG is not misplaced.

Note Chief Galah's comment YOU ARE TOO LATE TO STOP 2b. Ask for the FOI now or it just roles on to 2c. We have been examining MBZ/CTAF since January, our and others efforts got it out of 2b or it to would also be fait accompi.

Lets look at their "due process" and let it see the light of day.

Happy hunting

[Here to Help]

Gaunty
Much has been learned by ALL parties about timing and consultation and there is a common determination that there will be a more efficient process using these lessons in going forward from here.

Much was already learned the last time. Part of the Class G demonstration failure was the fact that its implementation was driven by dates and not the other way around. LAMP was a result of the lessons learned. LAMP did not specify a date for implementation of procedures until the consultation was completed, education and training requirements were identified and signed off as part of the safety case. (It also had a design safety case). Why are we "learning" these lessons again?

When the process is driven by implementation dates (like NAS is), education, training, and the procedures themselves are all vulnerable to last minute changes which affect their efficacy. Regardless of whether the new system is safer or not, the need to get the training material out in a reasonable amount of time is crucial to have it introduced safely.

So why don't we all just get on with it and show each other how mutual cooperation, common sense and professional attitudes can overcome the inevitable wrinkles that will appear and in six months time or earlier if necessary we can have another look.
Again, if the process was not so driven by implementation dates, alot of the wrinkles wouldn't even be there. I take wrinkles to mean smalll problems with the system (training, phraseology, airspace design etc), but we all know that small problems can play a major part in the causes of an accident. Why not overcome the wrinkles beforehand if they have already been identified? Why "have another look" later when we can have a look now?

For example, I know of no-one who believes that the removal of frequencies from VNCs and frequency boundaries from ERC Lows will lead to a safer system than we now have. In fact, most would say that it is patently less safe. I listed scenarios in an earlier post which showed how important knowledge of the correct area frequency is. No-one here could demonstrate otherwise. The frequency issue is a known "wrinkle" - why should we wait 6 months for it to be ironed out when it is identifiable now? What is the fatal attraction to getting a procedure in place when problems have been identified with it?

The implementation process is not more important than the safety of the system. There should be no "let's get it in now and fix it later" attitude - there is no place for that in aviation. No professional would ever support an implementation process that put itself above safety.

You can be sure that ATCers and pilots will do their best to work with the new procedures, as they have done so in the past, even if many disagree with them. It is here that you will see the "mutual cooperation, common sense and professional attitudes" that enhances the system we all operate under.

[snarek]

Ferris, CG, ****zu Tonka et al.

I have been flying about 22 years now. In that time the aircraft have stayed the same (except my grumman just gets faster), the country has stayed the same, the weather has stayed the same but the rules have changed 12,345,987 times.

In that time a LABOR Government (Keating, cleverly disguised as a Liberal Prime Minister) introduced 'user pays' (aka handing over cash cow airports to ya mates). CAA stuffed up and got split. AsA decided it was a 'commercial service provider' and introduced big fees to cover 'a return to Government' and so naturally, PPLs and bottom end GA (like Ag, air taxis etc) who in most cases neither cause a service to be needed or need it themselves, opted out.

CASA stuffed up next, but haven't been split again yet :)

The 'New Liberal' Government got even more carried away, airports were handed over for a song to shopping center developers and hotel chains. GA in Townsville died a slow death. In Canberra activity stalled. Some airport owners, like the Cairns Port Authority, got smart, introduced realistic fees and are reaping the rewards of a massive GA service industry paying rent on the airport.

AAL in Townsville charge huge and spurious fees, but they are lucky to have the Army!!! GA there is all but extinct!!!

And yeah, I'll admit, I have never been taught to orbit after "remain OCTA" in either my PPL, NVFR, PIFR or CPL flying. To me it means 'Remain OCTA' and thats what I do.

But I am willing to learn, do you guys actually have any centers where it is warm ;) I will come and watch for a day if you invite me.

And comrade Ferris, I hope I've laid my cards on the table face up enough for you to see where my politics re user pays sit.

Comrade AK

[Four Seven Eleven]

snarek

Yes, the phrase "remain OCTA" means exactly that. If you ask for a clearance at say 8,500 and are knocked back, there is nothing wrong with doing as you please OCTA and requesting a clearance at say 4,500. Good airmanship prevails.

On the topic of the varying standards of service at Cairns & Mackay vs Canberra, a few points:

[list=1]
NAS will do absolutely nothing to address this.
Cairns and Mackay are in situ terminal units. Canberra is a remote TCU. Does this have any impact on the differing 'culture' between them? I know from the 'old days' that the service from local, 'outstation' units, both enroute and terminal, was much more personal, involved and knowledgable than todays homogenised 'one size fits all' clearance factories.
[/list=1]

On the whole issue of NAS: If the problem identified is one of excessive cost to the industry, then why not fix the cost issue? Why dillute safety when that is not necessary? (Class E for RPT jets is less safe than Class C. The only argument is whether or not the dollars justify the reduction in safety. The minister will -hopefully - never have to justify this decision in a commision of enquiry.)

Please feel free to visit either centre (Melbourne is warm - sometimes - for a few days in January!). The more you know, the better for all of us. Whatever you do, however, don't settle for the "PR" tour - where you are expected to smile and nod at the pretty colours on the screens. Grab a headset, plug in and watch for a few hours or more.

[gaunty]

Here to Help

I can't and wouldn't attempt to mount an argument to your comments.

I learn't a long time ago to deal with realities.

The Government has decided what and when it will happen, they can not say that the issue has not been vigourously canvassed.

I could give you a list several miles long on "policies and actions made or taken" that neither you nor I voted for or agree with, but that Governments (both of em) have decided "are good for us" against the advice of just about everybody around.

In so far as "wrinkles" are concerned and I know I will get myself into trouble here with the analogy, but here goes.

I am of an age that allows me to remember the introduction of synthetic fibres to our clothing apparel.

I can still remember the first awful wash 'n wear nylon shirts that were the rage and the care needed, when ironing them, to avoid melting iron shaped holes or melting the buttons in them. They were sticky and uncomfortable, did not abosrb sweat and were IMHO an abomination, but they did make mothers life easier.

They were easy wash 'n wear, didn't need the boiling, beating, damping and starching sweat shop in the laundry of the old way.

We have come a long way in fabrics since then, because the long term advantages were understood and by listening to the market and continuously refining the product synthetics and blends are almost exactly like natural ones, are nearly as comfortable and are heaps cheaper.

Whether this is a good thing as far as the social and economic issues that have arisen in the production of the natural product, it is probably so that we could not grow or afford to buy the natural product nowadays to meet the demand.

For whatever reason they are now an integral part of our life notwithstanding my childish stubborness in avoiding the wearing of such to school.

I have a personal idiosyncrasy that still has me prefering pure cotton, wool and linen shirts and other apparel for its comfort, look and so on. For reasons that have ensured a happy 33 year marriage I wear the blends for work wear, but for casual and "sunday best" it's the real thing for me.

I still have to damp down, like gramma, the pure cotton and linen shirts that my wife simply refuses to iron in the presence of the availability of the synthetic and easy care mixes that are now predominant. I will admit that the spray on starches available now have made the "pricklies" from grammas home made stuff obsolete. :)

What am I getting at? Even such simple change can be uncomfortable and it would be easy to just say NO, but there were other forces around us and mother was only ONE, with which to reckon in this case, but she wasn't the ONLY driver the main ones being availablility, cost and convenience.

The best blends have a high natural fibre content (the experience and lessons of the past) with the best of the synthetics (the new way) in balance.
It took some getting here from there, but we are now pretty much wrinkle free.

If you can afford it and have unlimited labour resources and access to a permanent ironing lady you can stay "natural" all day long.

That has all changed.

May I suggest that we have the same basic scenario going here.

Runs and ducks for cover. :)

[tobzalp]

Yeah I agree, my shirts sometimes itch as well.

Back to reality. NAS is a horses ar$e.

[Here to Help]

I learn't a long time ago to deal with realities.
Perhaps I'm still so young and idealistic as to think that reality is what we make it to be. I am definitely too young to remember the introduction of synthetic fibres : ), although I do believe I understand your analogy. You are basically stating that, as these NAS changes are introduced, we are gradually working towards a better system, which, although may be uncomfortable in the transition, it will all be worthwhile as we will eventually attain a far better and more refined system in the future.

There are two problems with this analogy. Firstly, the end state NAS is not known. We don't know what we are getting, and unfortunately our industry is not driven to perfection as the development of comfortable clothing is, for the best system to become inevitable. At any point, for reasons political or practical, we may be stuck with a particular stage of transition as the end state. Do we want that as a possibility? Do we want to be permanently itchy? To say that this is all the more reason why we should push on with the changes is to present a circular argument.

Secondly, the "itchiness" we experience now is not just indicative of discomfort, it also signifies a drop in safety. I contend that there is no good reason to decrease safety at any stage, even if the end result may be safer. The removal of frequencies/boundaries from maps is one of these decreases in safety. It is a conscious effort by the ARG and NASIG to change the culture of VFR pilots so that they get out of the habit of using the radio to separate from other traffic or gain SA about the airspace they are in.

Another tactic towards this aim is to get pilots to turn on their landing lights below A100. Another is for the NAS IG to put an ad in Flight Safety magazine telling VFR pilots not to request QNH info from ATC. Yet another is to increase the vagaries of CTAF communication by having only recommended procedures and indeterminate airspace boundaries.

I stand by my previous comment that the implementation process is not more important than the safety of the system. No decrease in safety in a transitional state should be acceptable. If the ones that make the decisions think that it is acceptable, and that it is a vallid tactic to implement a change, then they shouldn't be in the business.

[gaunty]

Here to Help

Again, I accept what you say, except if I had refused point blank to wear the "new" nylon, then I would be in trouble on two fronts, my mum and my bride of 33 years.

Neither does accepting that it may be less safe mean that it is not acceptably safe.

We've been down the gold boiler plate mode road and grounding every thing just in 'CASE doesn't work either.

At the end of the day this is a GOVERNMENT policy decision on behalf of the people, if they have got it wrong, despite the best and professional efforts of ALL of the stakeholders, then it will be the people who will demand an acccounting.

We can be satisfied that we did all and more that was asked in regard to consultation.

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him enjoy the view :):p

[Capn Bloggs]

Or,

There are none so blind as those who will not see...

[ferris]

I have a problem with your analogy.
If, when you ironed one of your new nylon shirts, you did burn it, and SOMEHOW THAT KILLED YOU (and 30 other people), would people still buy them? Would the govt have allowed their sale (or in this case, forced only the sale of nylon shirts)?
There is a difference to being uncomfortable (with a shirt or a process), to being dead (or partly responsible for unnecessary deaths).
At the end of the day this is a GOVERNMENT policy decision on behalf of the people Really? I thought it was a decision by Dick, forced upon a hamstrung politician using rather nefarious methods.

Snarek
And comrade Ferris, I hope I've laid my cards on the table face up enough for you to see where my politics re user pays sit. So why aren't you railing against the charging (or defacto-tax collection) system, instead of the airspace? Still haven't got a straight answer there.

[Here to Help]

We've been down the gold boiler plate mode road and grounding every thing just in 'CASE doesn't work either.
We have also been down the "let's change the airspace because this is what it should be like and ride roughshod over any dissenters" road before, which also has not worked. This is what is happening with NAS.

Why reduce the safety of a system for no apparent benefit? When is this ever acceptable? Again, my case in point is the frequencies on maps issue.

Arguments have been made on this thread that no cost benefits have been identified with NAS and no end state model has been determined. Are we simply reducing safety for the sake of a directionless change?

If/when the changes come in, then ATC and pilots will do their best to work professionally with what they have to make it as safe as they can, even if they don't "enjoy the view".

[q1w2e3]

You have to wonder about the following on the NAS web site:

This site is hosted by Australia's Department of Transport and Regional Services.
DISCLAIMER - Material and opinions contained within are solely those of the Australian Airspace Reform and do not necessarily represent, in whole or in part, the position of the Department.

???????????????????????????????????

[gaunty]

Here to Help

If/when the changes come in, then ATC and pilots will do their best to work professionally with what they have to make it as safe as they can, even if they don't "enjoy the view".

my point entirely.:ok:

ferris

I thought that is how politics worked.

And we are going round in circles.

There may some interesting developments afoot.

[WALLEY2]

HERE TO HELP

Thanks for opening my eyes to something I missed, but is very apparent VFR pilots are systematically being directed to non radio usage, lack of freq on maps ,Landing lights QNH etc.

It explains the incredible resistance to allowing MBZs to remain at the bigger ports. I have sat down with the main players and asked why why why. The analysis shows it is not less safe (apologies Gaunty) but in this case it is unacceptably risky. This follows AA computer modelling and CASA analysis. Ref CASA 2003 MBZ vs CTAF(aus) using acceptable risk criteria for minor and major loss of life.

Now I see the reason for the blanket NO NO NO to MBZ it goes against the no-calls-culture that NAS is nurturing for VFR. So even though safety can be increased to acceptable levels for no cost MBZs are still off the agenda.

Acceptability criteria is not the domain of poticians but scientific risk analysis in this case it is the politics that is distorting the normal process.

Gaunty I like your clothing analogy.Non radio usage in certain circumstances is an unacceptable risk. So to was synthetic clothing. When used for night wear, after a number of horrific deaths and kids and grannies burnt it was banned from these garments.

Similarly you may get away with no radio calls enroute with an associated drop in safety, due to the big sky, but not around busy uncontrolled airports where the action is too hot.

That ichy fabric near the heater became a killer and it was not the designers or manufactures that wore the scars or attended the funerals.

[snarek]

Ferris

Dealing with AOPA issues and dealing with political ideology are two different things.

Most who own aircraft lean towards 'Liberalism', for me to push my politics would be unacceptable unless I declared that was my intent prior to election.

HOWEVER, Jane Errey, my partner and fellow Board member was National Vice President of the Democrats for a year and an exec member for many more. Me, I find the Democrats too right wing and work hard at election time to ensure 'leveraged voting' happens. By leveraged I mean Lefty enough to scare the Liberal's running mates, the ALP, back into the land of realistic alternative.

NAS, I personally am not an airspace expert. I'd say gaunty feels the same. This is why we post here and really do consider your views. However, it is beholden on us to listen to members views more carefully. Now, there ain't many 'involved' members, believe me, if you three 'rational' ATC PPRuNe'rs joined and expreesed you will to the Board followed by a member number, you could make a BIG difference.

PERSONALLY I see no real problem with NAS2b EXCEPT I fail to see how a low time PPL is going to be able to read position from a SCALED VFR chart, then interpolate that to an UNSCALED and VARIABLE ERC with enough accuracy to be on the right freq when the meatbombs drop or the IFR takes off out of Dunk. But like I said that is a PERSONAL opinion that the Board is aware of and which was taken into account when the Board formulated its current Board policy.

AK

[Four Seven Eleven]

snarek

I personally believe that the NAS 2B debate is becoming too fractured. Much is said about the frequency issue. My personal belief on that is that there is an incremental decrease in safety with absolutely no practical or economic benefit.

My greatest concern is the significant decrease in safety imposed by the replacement of Class C airspace with Class E in areas of high volumes of RPT traffic.

The relative danger of this airspace is readily apparent: International jets, descending into Sydney will no longer receive a separation service from VFR traffic. This occurs during a critical phase of flight, when cockpit workload is likely to be high. Pilots will be involved in working out STAR level and speed requirements, possibly on vectors for sequencing, or under speed control. To remove separation (from VFR) services at this stage of flight will have a significant deleterious effect on the safety of the fare-paying public. I contend that that this will occur with no significant advantage to GA. The ‘BS’ theory is not enough in this relatively busy airspace.

Remember that a mid-air collision did occur in the United States (San Diego????) between a B727 and a C172, even though traffic information had been passed. The B727 crew saw one aircraft, but failed to see the one with which they eventually collided. (Edited to correct aircraft types)

Will charges to the airlines be reduced to compensate for the lower level of service? I fear not. Will the ability for VFR aircraft to climb unrestricted into this airspace lead to a revival of the GA industry? I doubt it.

The entire industry can be damaged by a single serious safety incident. One mid-air collision could easily cost well over a billion dollars in damages claims, and the concomitant damage to the reputation of Australian aviation would be incalculable.

This is why I believe that this aspect of NAS 2 B needs to be looked at and reversed as a matter of urgency.

The CEO of Airservices has said that NAS 2B is safe. Safety is not a yes/no question. What he has not addressed is the question of whether it is more or less safe than the current system. I believe that it is less safe. This reduction in safety needs to be justified. I don't believe it has been or can be.

Like a Volvo, the current system might be "boxy, but safe". Is it worth trading the family Volvo for a Trabant, when the costs are nearly the same?

[Chief galah]

You admit you are not an airspace expert. Your posts indicate an insular view of the total system. With all due respect, if your understanding of how the busy centres function, maybe you would realise NAS 2b creates an increased risk to a majority of users. Many of the users have been questioning the rationale of 2b. These people know what they're talking about. They are the one's whose career's hinge on safety assurance. 2b offers no safety assurance for controllers or pilots.
Aircraft are invisible outside 50nm of the main centres which have primary radar, if transponders are faulty or not switched on. From personal experience, this happens regularly. Remote radars are SSR only, so any enroute transponder problems means invisibilty to ATC and TCAS.
It's too late now, old buddy, to start considering these basic flaws in 2b.
4711 is exactly correct. If you are an enroute controller, I hope AsA is there to back you up when it goes tits up.
Good luck, you're going to need more of it.

CG

[SM4 Pirate]

Mike Smith, from a very credible source.

"NAS 2b represents a reduction in service not a reduction in safety."

Well that says it all; separation is simply a service not required for safety.

Bottle of Rum

[ferfarksache]

Well that about says it...perhaps the previous poster who mentioned highly qualified idiots/yes men was correct!

farksache

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Mr Woomera,

I think this topic has done its dash.

The battle lines are staked out, the minister is an ignorant fool believing his own publicity, and nobody here has bothered to read the last 16 pages because the same diatribe keeps coming up.

Might as well close it and get ready for the 11th hour cancellation ...once again. Millions wasted yet again.

[Outback Pilot]

Click Here (http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=421403&startcat=1&start=31&CategoryID=145649&ThreadID=1064215) and see continuation!

[tobzalp]

My goodness. i just read that thread. I am famous:yuk: :=

[snarek]

Yes you are. And you were even a bit helpful at the end of it.

Did your doctor prescribe drugs :E

AK

[tobzalp]

Yes i was wasn't I. I managed to point out once again that you (AOPA) don't really know about NAS 2b wich you say AOPA support. You posted in that other fr0um that you though a 2 minute broadcast was a good idea :rolleyes: . We have it now and will have it under 2b as well. Please research further for the good of us all. Think of the children, please think of the children!

[LeadSled]

All,
Have a good look at Australian FLYING magazine for November/December.

There is a whole supplement on the NAS 2b procedures and recommendations for NOV 27 and on, and it all looks pretty simple and straightforward to me. As simple as flying in US.

There has been a lot of angst about timetables for getting Training and Educational packages out, but here is the guts of it, in the magazines.

Flying folks are starting to receive the chart package in the mail now, I'm told there is lots more on the way, but the info. in FLYING Nov/Dec issue really illustrates that there is no great hurdle to jump, to cope with life in the new world order.

I guess that we will all learn to live with the demise of the "fly by mouth" system of aviating, again !! ( in joke only inderstood by geriatric Qf types)

Tootle pip!!

[Woomera]

And on that note I think this subject has exhausted itself for the moment.

I expect we will hear what came out of the GAPAN meeting in Brisvegas today.

And then you can have at it all over again, in the meantime lets give Dannys bandwidth a break. :}

W