NAS - The Political Farce Continued (Thread 5)

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Starting Again - more for amusement than anything else at this stage.

The dollar button on the NAS'ometer has fallen off anyway.

[Chief galah]

I did 1.8 VFR yesterday, some of it thru' two outer holding patterns used for NAT. I think it was a lot easier monitoring the "appropriate ATS frequency," found conveniently on the VNC, than trying to avoid whatever the limits of the holding patterns could be. Didn't hear any relevant traffic, so why go out of my way?

The frequency was moderately busy with traffic from ground level to FL outer space. Obviously combined low and high frequencies with the one controller. As Ferris, I think, put it in a previous post, frequency clutter is more manufactured by ASA intra management of staff rather than over use by pilots.

CG

[ferris]

Too right.

AsA sacked the FS officers, and their radio comms role is now performed by ATCs. The ATCs perform this role by combining the old FS frequencies with the ATC frequencies. This was all done in the name of efficiency (despite the warnings about frequency congestion- just more union whinging!). So now the ATCs have the flexibility of splitting off the low-level freqs when freq congestion gets too much, and then combining back up again when it is quiet (ie at night). This provides an efficiency for AsA, but the only way to get rid of any more staff is to stop the VFRs from talking. The IFRs in G, although not totally predictable, are more predictable than VFR in their flying patterns and use of radio and services. At the moment, AsA has to staff positions that may or may not be used (depending on wx etc). So if you stop VFR freq use, you can get rid of a few more jobs. Stop DTI and you can really slash and burn (this is AsA thinking btw).

The fault in the plans.

When they sacked the FS officers, frequency congestion didn't allow anywhere near the number of ATC jobs to be deleted as they had hoped. In fact, much higher paid ATCs were now doing some jobs that were previously done by FS.
Now Mike Smith fronts the Senate committee and says they need to change the airspace (because of a situation that they created- freq congestion).
What he really means is that AsA is driven by a profit imperitive, and that the only way managers can make their performance targets (and therefor their bonuses) is to make the NAS changes, reduce VFR chatter, reduce the need for ATCs doing FS, sack people.
The flaws in that plan have been hashed to death on the previous incarnations of this thread.

Summary of the NAS so far:
-AsA creates freq congestion
-solution....change the airspace into a stupid and dangerous form that will allow the overcharging and defacto taxation to continue, all in a misguided attempt at staff reduction
-AsA runs the numbers, and finds it may even need more staff to run NAS than under the present system
-make the 'end state' of NAS a secret. That way you don't have to tell anyone that you are going to remove DTI until the very last minute, and after you have passed the point of no return, and hope that crash or crash thru continues to work.
-industry wants, and is willing to pay for, DTI. solution....NAS (cost shift the provision of DTI to CAGROs that are paid for by the companies directly- a la AYE) The flaws in that have also been done to death.

AsA is allegedly a "business enterprise". You don't often see businesses actively trying to close themselves down. Usually, they try and expand. Then again, governments never were much good at running "businesses", were they?:hmm:

I also wait with baited breath the re-introduction of FS and briefing offices. They have them in the US, and we are getting the US system, right?

[ozm8]

Now, I'm not really a pilot - I've only got 50 hours and I've not been flying in about 3 years - and I'm not an air traffic controller either. My "qualification" is a brand new degree in aviation management, but please don't hold that against me.

It would seem to me that NAS might work outside the terminal areas, where there is a low traffic density, especially outside radar coverage. My reasoning for this is that, without surveillance, Class E airspace is not really all that different to Class G airspace, which is what is out there currently. I'm told that with all the frequency coupling going on, monitoring the area frequency for relevent traffic is not really all that effective for gaining a situational awareness of the local traffic anyway - because of all that frequency clutter manufactured by AsA. What is the difference if a VFR pilot doesn't monitor the frequency at all and makes no transmissions?

Am I wrong in suggesting that there would not be much change, in a practical sense, outside the terminal areas? Don't pilots flying outside radar coverage rely on see-and-avoid separation anyway? If I'm right, does that mean that there are no real safety issues with NAS outside terminal areas? Is the problem really limited to terminal areas, where the airspace is being downgraded from Class C or D to Class E?

I'm not advocating NAS in any way here, because if I'm right, there's no real point in changing the system and wasting a lot of money doing it!

Oz Mate!

[SM4 Pirate]

ozm8 (good handle),

I think that the issues are somewhat more complex; the cost of providing E and C is the same, arguably it costs more for E, radar or not.

It is clear that class C is safer than class E. Equally you can say class E is safer than class G.

What is happening here is a “vast amount” of class C is being replaced by E, a downgrade in safety for probably extra cost... It's harder to do E than C due to its unpredictable, ever changing environment. Harder equals more ATCs. Great work folks. See the USA model, more ATCs per flight hour, why?

This is then "offset" with a small band of levels i.e. two IFR levels, over a massive area, which is currently G airspace being replaced by E; where there is no identifiable lack of safety in it being G, due to the particular levels; i.e. high… No cost savings... Same workload issues, same ATC numbers needed.

Over Tassie the class C is replaced by class G between Fl125 and FL145; demonstrably less safe. no cost savings...

Less safety, more cost for those that pay = more flexibility to those that don't.

Dodgy unique procedures not available anywhere else in the world too; the whole package doesn’t smell to good. No consultation with those that don't like any element; well not after the first complaint.

Advantages for most is no pay (in E) for all the things that they currently don’t pay for in C; but it is the nasty ATCs don’t give me a clearance… because I didn’t flight plan; you mongrels… But there’s no traffic, I know, you don’t, so you should just jump and give me first priority because I’m noisy… I’ll fix you, I’ll get rid of you… How, lets change all the CTA into OCTA; done, no more pesky ATCs. Sure...

Did you know that IFATCA describes class E as uncontrolled airspace? They are currently lobbying ICAO to have them also declare it as such, uncontrolled airspace with enhanced IFR services… You know it makes sense…

Bottle of Rum

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Just a few things Ozm8. The area around Alice Springs and Ayers Rock is non radar and at times has quite a lot of traffic and more important than density of traffic is the mix of traffic. You have C172's mixing it with WestWinds, 737's and 767's.

You say E airspace is not that different from G. The problem is they aren't just replacing G with E. They are replacing big chunks of C (very safe airspace everyone is positively controlled), to E (less safe airspace, some aircraft separated, othere are not).

Its apparent from your post that you haven't searched through the other 5 threads about NAS. If you had you would know all the problems with NAS, the concept and the implementation. Do yourself a favour (as Molly used to say) and give them a read. Then if you have any questions there are many people here will be happy to help you out.

SM4 pirate, you were typing reply same time as me. You stole my thunder, you Bastard!!!:E Great minds think alike I spose.

I think Corals odds on when/if the NAS debacle will be stopped/postponed was on the finished thread but for the record my money is on the 24th of NOV. The monday before implementation. You heard it first here.:=

[Leatherdog]

I have tried to maintain an open mind regarding the NAS, however I believe I have found two possible solutions.

1

An enormus MBZ/CTAF that covers the entire country including 200 nm out to sea and up to 20,000 feet. Controlled Airspace above.

If an IFR aircraft is interested in climbing/desending through the Cowabungus CTAF, they just broadcast their intentions, any goon within 200 miles now has situational awareness.

2

Reject the entire concept on the 27th, and refuse to utilise the the system if possitive seperation cannot be garrenteed by ATC. Emagine the fuss the travelling public would make to QF deputy CEO Anderson.

Just my thoughts. The NAS has gone far beyond saving. The only way to change whats about to be put in place is an accident. I'll be requesting night shift to reduce my chances of collision.

best of luck,


Leatherdog

[ozm8]

SM4 Pirate and ANSA - thanks for responding to my post! Most of my posts thus far have been completely ignored! :)

Sure the issues are more complex! My final project at university was generally about the issues surrounding NAS - and it ended up being about 14,000 words, and I could have said more, given more time. I didn't even touch on the issues surrounding VFR-on-top and IFR pickup procedures.

I have read a good proportion of the other posts on NAS - I've not read it all because discussion seemed to descend into cheap political bickering at times and drifted away from the safety issues. I was only really interested in the safety issues before when I was writing my report, but now I guess I'm open to those arguments just like anyone else - it's really the only way possible to get the politicians to understand.

My previous post represents my understanding of what I've read so far and gleaned from speaking to various people in the industry. Sure it's simplified, but I didn't see the need to be overly complex - I was just asking a simple question. From the response I received, I suppose I should probably go back and read it all again.

Originally posted by SM4 Pirate:

Less safety, more cost for those that pay

Surely this goes against DS's theory of affordable safety? Would this not be heading into the realms of "UNaffordable UNsafety"?

Oz Mate!

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Ozm8, you're missing Dick Smiths reason for all these changes. He calls it affordable safety, but what it really means is,

-Less safe airspace
-The Big guys pay more to fund the extra controllers needed to run it.
-The little guys instead of paying the pittance they do now, pay nothing as they can wander thru E airspace for free, instead of paying to go through C airspace as they used to.

Bottom line, the top end of town pays more, resulting in higher air fares, and the weekend warriors go from paying a little to paying nothing.

Worst thing is while paying nothing, they still can call up out of the blue and rely on the fact that ATC is still there, even though they contribute nothing to maintaining the service. That is if they can find the correct ATC frequency.

The world seems completely out of whack in my opinion. Got a black man as worlds best golfer, a black woman as worlds best tennis player, Switzerland a land locked country wins the Americas Cup Yacht race, England makes the final of a major international sporting event, and we have a guy who couldn't tie his own shoelaces as the President of the USA.:E

[SM4 Pirate]

The little guys instead of paying the pittance they do now, pay nothing as they can wander thru E airspace for free, instead of paying to go through C airspace as they used to.
They won't save money here, there are no enoute charges for VFRs; so how is this going to save money?

Because the nasty enroute controller won't be able to keep them out of the airspace?

How many get knocked back now, from an enroute clearance?

Bottle of Rum

(yes I already know the answers)

[tobzalp]

http://users.bigpond.net.au/plazbot/stages.jpg


(props to Dicky Baby)

[Pinky the pilot]

The term 'affordable safety' that Mr Smith seems to be so fond of using really bothers and worries me.
I remember seeing a poster on the door of the old Nationair offices at Jackson field in Port Moresby back in the early 90's

'If you think safety is expensive; try having an accident!'
I put no price on safety myself.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[Checkerboard]

Ok so I have my new charts, I have studied the pilot info packs and I decide to go for a local flight on the 27th out of DN with a few friends. I dont intend to go that far ( within 20nm DN) so the only map i need is my VTC.

And after leaving class c and departures have advised "frequency chang approved" do you think I can find an "appropriate frequency" to monitor on that chart?????????????????!!!!!!!

There is only one frequency shown on the whole chart- DN TWR in very small writing in the nav box.

The biggest floor in this whole thing is the statement "monitor an appropriate frquency" just what that is is the biggest question and i think will vary from pilot interpretation!!!!

[snarek]

Re frequencies on charts.

I personally share the views expressed above.

I have seen similar things on VTCs for Cairns, Tvl and Canberra. No approach frequencies, so who does one call on the way in and out and what to monitor after flying into E. (in fact on the Tvl chart, and since the RAAF insist on having a different system, I'd like to see ACD as well!).

I have been told 'write it on the map', fine, if thats the answer, print the Maps with it on!!!

I believe we should be looking at a 'one map system' in and around C and D where we have a VTC, i.e all the info we need on the VTC. In busy areas it isn't a good idea to have ones head buried in a (almost useless) ERSA when, according to NAS, we should be looking outside.

I am not criticising NAS, just this phase of the implimentation, any AOPA member who shares my view (or otherwise) please let the Board know at:

www.aopa.com.au

AK

[Feather #3]

You can add VNC's in there too!!

They were produced as an "all-in-one" chart for the VFR pilot in populous areas so that you only needed to carry one chart with you. The scale, markings and price were set accordingly.

I've debated with AsA and NASIG on this, but the direction to AsA was to REMOVE any freq's other than FIS from the VNC. The cheerfully helpful chap from AsA suggested that;
[a] I carry two charts; ERC/VNC - I queried whether or not he'd ever flown in a Tiger Moth and/or tried to fold ONE map inflight? you can guess the reply!!
[b] I could mark the frequenices I need on the VNC! Funny, but THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS PAYING THE B*ST*RDS TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE!!:mad:

For 'single-seat' operations, there is a most unnecessary additional workload pre-flight and very limited ability to update/amend inflight.

Not happy Jan!

G'day:*

[Manwell]

Oh boy!

I've never heard so much emotive waffle in my life.

You blokes are supposed to be pilots, yes? Presumably you chose aviation as a career because of the excitement, women, and money, possibly in the reverse order for those posting on this forum.

Take a long hard look at yourselves gentlemen, the chance of having a midair are extremely remote, in fact, if you will have done any research at all before blasting the NAS you will have noticed that THE PROVISION OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES IS NO GUARANTEE OF AVOIDING A COLLISION. In fact, many collisions have occurred in CTR's, while pilots were presumably busy doing other more important things since ATC was doing the looking out for them.

Do you guys realize that more than half the midairs involve gliders? Therefore, the already small numbers of midairs is in fact even less if considered in relation to powered aircraft.

We are worrying about something that is so small in terms of a safety risk that it barely shows up on the radar! Then, the fact is that many midairs occur in CTA or usually CTR's.

Think about this blokes. Do some research, decide for yourself, don't just get on the most populated bandwagon that happens to be passing. There are many more things that kill pilots and their pax on a regular basis than midairs, and oddly enough, the best defence is the old MK 1 eyeball. Yes, technology hasn't made them obsolete yet, so don't believe the rhetoric.

How many times have your trainers told you to look out? I know it does seem insincere when they might not do as they say, and there is no traffic around, but it is the ONLY SURE WAY TO PREVENT A MIDAIR, a good listening watch is supplementary to, but does not replace it.
And beware the safe and secure feeling of ATC separation, they are human, and so are you, but at least you should be more motivated to prevent your "target" merging with another.

Life's a bitch, then you fly!:ok:

[bush pelican]

Yeah Manwell, but those statistics might change in the brave new world.

What worries me IS the factual research thats been done on the subject.

We are trying to put elements together that may not fit.

Have you read the references papers refered to in the topic ' Continuing the Walk Through the NAS Reference Guide'?

If so, why are you pushing the 'there's no problem' barrow?

BP

[Hempy]

It'll never happen to me ........


http://www.lexicon.net/eclan/wake/wake.jpg

[triadic]

Manwell

I think you miss the point and the picture is significantly larger than you elude to in your post by looking at just the risks of a mid-air.

It is not so much about what is in this proposal, but more on how it has been/is presented to the industry and what affect both long and short term it will have. GA is the worst it has been in living memory and NAS is not going to fix that one iota. (More than likely make it worse!) The guts and strength to make GA strong again belong to the politicians, but they suffer from a complete lack of interest in what is seen as a unimportant industry (if that, in some minds) and they don't see many votes in it. As a result the carrots that would bring GA out of trouble are not even planted.

As I have said on other posts the airspace reform education to date has been grossly inadequate and it will be only those that are briefed by a responsible AOC employer (who has a handle on what it is all about) and those that choose to read all of the documents in the self-help mode that may get some idea of what is in it. Of course without any standardisation and specific courses to train the trainers it is more than likely that we will end up in the same boat as the 1999 G trial where for every 100 pilots and controllers involved there were 90 different interpretations. The training failed then also, and by the look of it the proponents of this change did not learn from that experience. Why is this so? Politics I suggest?

The deliberate push to exclude VFRs from the airways system is almost criminal. Not even in the USA are they excluded or is there any "push" to keep them out, as has been demonstrated in the most miserable project management exercise (NAS) I have seen. The US has recommended practices which all pilots are trained in and how to use them and should they so choose the system is there to be used. Not here. We don't even train correctly or accept that VFRs should be encouraged to use the system. And then we fail again by removing essential safety information from charts which should have been addressed (reduce chatter on ATC freqs) in the education program. Why do you think that info was placed on the charts in the first place?

There is to date absolutely no recognition that there are significant culture differences between pilots in the USA and Oz. Sure we can go over there and fly in their system without much bother, to most of us it is easy and user friendly and there is a significant difference between the cultures of the controllers (who 'drive' the system) who over there almost without exception will help you out, workload permitting. Our controllers are good by world standards but the culture they present (maybe driven by the employer?) (with some few exceptions) is that life would be better if not for pilots and aeroplanes. The best example I can quote of this is an experienced ferry pilot that I know once said…"everywhere I fly, you are treated as a professional until you prove yourself to be an idiot, but cross the FIR boundary into OZ and you are treated as an idiot until you prove yourself to be professional"…. Say no more. I think it somewhat strange that the FAA provide more service than ASA who actually have "service" in their name. Controllers that I know here have actually been "spoken to" for providing that little bit beyond what the book states. If that is the culture of the organisation and the supervisors then we don't really have much chance. I wonder if the Quality Management System in ASA has identified the "customer" and then established if they are happy or not. Nobody has ever asked me! Makes a bit of a farce of QA and ISO certification. The idea that we can import the US system and drop it in the slot here is pure bunkum and show that the proponents just don't understand the issues. It could be done, but not in the present manner.

Sure the chance of a mid-air is "remote" but you don’t get a second chance if the dice falls your way one day. With the advent of GPS the tracking of aircraft is to an accuracy that we have never seen before and I would suggest the risk is higher as a result. There has already been one midair in Canada which may not have occurred if not for GPS. The ball game is altogether different now and I suggest statistics based on historic surveys etc are now irrelevant.

The pilot training in this country with very few exceptions is very poor and many items have fallen off the training cake as new ones have been inserted. And all this, together with a push to produce pilots with less hours and training than ever before. Airmanship fell off most training schools cake a decade or so ago and the rash of very poor displays of late, now show. Training (or lack of) is also a factor in many more accidents than it was 15 or 20 years ago. A pilot passing a CPL today would not have passed a pre-licence test for a PPL in the '80's. Again it is ironic that much of this deterioration in standards occurred about the same time that CAA/CASA Examiners/FOIs stopped conducting flight tests. Mind you, in that case the standards have fallen, not entirely because of the training, but because of the testing (standards).……

Get the training and testing/exams right and changes such as NAS would not be so much of an effort. Of course it helps to have such a project managed well driven by people that the industry have confidence in and for the politicians to stay right out of it.

Like previous attempts to change the airspace model (reform, I support) there is a good chance this will fail for the very same reasons as before. What are they you might say? Well for a start engage all players in the game from day one and then very carefully walk them through the proposed changes and why they are considered appropriate, and in the process get them on side. This has never been done.

Educate, educate and educate, because if people don't understand why they have to change and accept that the reasons are valid, the process open and advantages obvious to a blind man, then I am afraid all this money has been wasted (yet again) and the process is doomed.

It is very sad that the person behind the push for these changes be they agreed to or not, good or bad, is also the single reason that they are likely to fail. It is a pity that his energy and commitment to making aviation better in this country, lacks an understanding of the very problems he is trying to solve.


"No known traffic" :ok:

[TopperHarley]

http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au

[Manwell]

Triadic,

thankyou for your very well presented and rational response.

Your post is of a very high standard and I'll do my best to maintain a high degree of objectivity.

While I respect your argument, I consider the basis for your objections to be of questionable veracity. First, It should be pointed out that the concept that this is a fight against Dick Smith personally has been substantiated on a number of occasions. Whether Dick has anything to do with it or not should have no bearing on the proposal in any way. The issue should be solely one of projected benefits against projected diasadvantages. Your post does support the concept that it is a personal issue against one man in the following comments:

"It is not so much as what is in this proposal, but more on how it has been/is presented to the industry and what affect both long and short term it will have."

and,

"It is very sad that the person behind the push for these changes be they agreed to or not, good or bad, is also the single reason that they are likely to fail. It is a pity that his energy and commitment to making aviation better in this country, lacks an understanding of the very problems he is trying to solve."

Perhaps he does in fact have a more objective understanding of the problems that he is trying to solve simply because he has done a lot of flying all around the world and he is not part of a professional culture that precludes any differing opinion on this issue.

In the same paragraph you say "The guts and strength to make GA strong again belong to the politicians...". God help us if we have become so lacking in intestinal fortitude and reliant on Government that we can't find it in our selves to fix this problem ourselves. For if we must rely on the Government to solve our problems then we will have a very long, dark, and weary journey ahead.

If I got nothing else from the John and Martha show other than the comment that "you have to make GA vibrant again, don't wait for Government to do it for you", or words to that effect, then the trip was worthwhile.

We can help ourselves out of this mess, but it will require us to let go of some dearly held emotional addictions, not the least of which requires us all to prove our absolute rightness to others by proving them all wrong. Something I hope that I am not guilty of at this time.

With respect to your comments re: the education reform process being grossly inadequate I can only say"Haven't you been reading your mail?". The process is indeed inadequate if you have not accepted it's validity but education is a two way process, it requires one to teach and another to learn. It cannot be performed by one party in isolation, unless that single party is the willing learner.

The rest of your post I agree with in part about the quality of pilot trainees, however, aren't we really more responsible for that deficiency rather than a government who is really only interested in our wellbeing if it compliments their own?

The point I think that is central to this whole issue is that we are capable of defining our own destiny, whether it be with regard to safety from midair collisions, the health and vibrance of aviation in this country, or the quality of our new pilots. Personally, I wouldn't accept anyone telling me that it wasn't possible because I have far greater confidence in the ability of an individual , or individuals, to help themselves than I have in the ability of a remote third party to do it for us. Hasn't every pilot proven that to him/herself through out their career time and time again?

Gentlemen, I call on all of you who would call yourselves airmen, to ask yourselves "Is this the legacy of which I would be proud for my children to inherit?"

Life's a bitch.....then you fly!:ok:

[tobzalp]

The last time they tried this cr@p ie G demo, the only reason it did not end in a mass of welded BE20 and JS31 was because an ATC 'Broke" the rules and made 2 miss that were 'seeing and avoiding'.....:yuk: :=

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Manwell, you sound very much like our longlost mate Winstun, who believed that ATC should be rid of completely, and everyone should fly random routes with a random offset error put into their GPS, then abracadabra evryone will miss each other.

After being laughed down by the proffessionals on here, who make their living out of aviation he hasn't been back. Now you arrive.

Do you believe that it is a reasoned argument, to say that because the chance of a midair is slim, we can remove a couple of the defence mechanisms against it happening. Thats ridiculous, why remove any layers of safety for no savings. Thats the big question here, the concensus is now that there will be extra cost for NAS not savings, so why adopt a less safe system.

At the moment we have as far as safety layers go, in Class C, in no particular order:
1. ATC separation
2. Frequency monitoring by all pilots in airspace, to pick up ATC error if it happens (couple of major near misses in Queensland helped by this factor)
3. Looking out visually for other aircraft.
4. TCAS, with all airspace users having their Mode C constantly verified and found to be accurate.

After NAS in Class E (where E is replacing C) the safety layers we have are:
1. Looking out visually for other aircraft.
2. TCAS, with no guarantee the other aircrafts mode C has been verified recently.

Whether you say E airspace is "safe enough". it is by design not as safe as C, so why change to it.

[ferris]

In order to avoid "emotive waffle", I just have one thing to ask:

The issue should be solely one of projected benefits against projected diasadvantages Most of the professionals on these NAS threads have been debating just that.
All that remains is for you to show us the error of our ways. Go right ahead. Line up the projected advantages against the projected disadvantages, then convince us all that NAS is a winner. I can't wait.

[Dog One]

Manwell

If the million to one midair happens when a high performance jet pops out of the scattered cloud and finds a VFR aircraft legally doing his own thing, who will bear the ultimate responsibility?

Will you and your supporters get up in court and say we have made a mistake - perhaps Australia is not like the US. Wht about 'duty of care'?

I have yet to see the CASA safety study on E airspace outside of radar coverage, but after 40+ years in the industry, just the prospect of operating in it makes retirement look really good.

In the lead up to 27/11, we have had extensive promotion of this wonderful new concept (with some important bits glossed over), but no real technical how it will work type information. Training material has only just being released and the new charts are supposed to arrive by Monday - 3 days before the changes!!!

See and be seen has advantages, as a back up (until some one invents glasses that enable you to see through cloud), just like TCAS. Accidents never occurr because of one single factor, even I (not being a rocket scientist) can sense all is not well.

Have you ever seen the eyes of a VFR pilot when you pass over him at 250kts in an MBZ. I have. He was legal distance from the cloud base - but on the wrong frequency. However, as you would realise, sometimes their isnt a clear definition of the cloud base when on descent.

In Tasmania, as well as places like Alice Springs, we will have heavy jet RPT operating in non radar E airspace mixing with VFR and sports aviation operating below 10000' on different frequencies. Did the safety case take in local weather conditions, pilot experience and knowledge?

I guess early in December we will know.

[Jet_A_Knight]

What about the rest of us chumps WITHOUT TCAS?? We may not fly at jet speeds, but fast enough to make visual acquisition difficult, especially in some atmospheric conditions (glare, haze etc).

Not to mention the very fact that the object you are going to collide with does not move in the windscreen and is therefore even more difficult to detect.

But the ARG know this.

Whilst I am at it, if VFR aircraft are going to mix it with IFR aircraft in Class E, why is not the monitoring of the relevant frequency MANADATORY for VFR aircraft?

[Two_dogs]

I fly single engine VFR at 8-10000ft.

I regularly hear and sometimes see IFR traffic that will affect my day. I hear this traffic because we're all on the same freq. Self separation occurs on a daily basis.

If I don't know which freq to monitor after 27th Nov, I'm much more likely to see him (or not) and not hear him...scary.

On another point, being VFR in G class is akin to being VFR in E class. We're already out of the loop and need to maintain a good listening watch, as well as a good lookout. Sometimes radio calls are less than helpfull. eg: BN CEN...ABC... Left 10000 on descent YLHR...call again after landing. I prefer to know where he's coming from as well as where he's going. Correcrt phraseology!

I also fly single engine VFR at lower levels. I passed Mission Beach dropzone a few days ago at A065 and had both PJE aircraft in the same bit of airspace, climbing...dropping bombs...and descending fast. What will happen when these guys want to conduct ops OCTA below A085, and don't self announce on ATC freq. Traffic departing Tully may have their CTAF transmissions shielded by terrain from traffic approaching from the North. Quite often the first you hear from them is a request for clearance,... passing A060.


I see that from 27th I have two choices...

Fly IFR everywhere I go... or continue to self announce on ATC freq's everywhere I go.

[Jet_A_Knight]

Another gem on the cd is that 'during this critical phase' (descent) do not let cockpit workload stop you looking out' or words to that effect.

Yep, I'll just let the motors cook, the checks can look after themselves etc etc

This principle of See-And-Avoid was the subject of a 1991 Bureau Of Air Safety Research Report named "Limitations Of The See And Avoid Principle' and this report concluded (in part):

· The see-and-avoid principle in the absence of traffic alerts is subject to serious limitations. It is likely that the historically small number of mid-air collisions has been in a large part due to low traffic density and chance as much as the successful operation of see and avoid.

· Unalerted see-and-avoid has a limited place as a last resort means of traffic separation at low closing speeds but is not sufficiently reliable to warrant a greater role in the air traffic system. BASI considers that see-and-avoid is completely unsuitable as a primary traffic separation method for scheduled services.

· Many of the limitations of see-and-avoid are associated with the physical limits of human perception, however there is some scope to improve the effectiveness of see-and-avoid in other areas

· The most effective response to the many flaws of see-and-avoid is to minimise the reliance on see-and-avoid in Australian airspace.

Did anyone in the ARG read this, or read it and ignore it?

[NOtimTAMs]

J-A-K

Quote:

"What about the rest of us chumps WITHOUT TCAS?? We may not fly at jet speeds, but fast enough to make visual acquisition difficult, especially in some atmospheric conditions (glare, haze etc)."

Well buddy, I just hope you haven't been doin' any of that really dangerous stuff in class G, CTAFs (or even Class E and MBZs for that matter)!! 'Cos hundreds of us do it every day, NOW, and have been doin' it for years. What do you do now? Jus' fly A,C & D?? :rolleyes:

Safe Flying :ok:

NOtimTAMs

[Jet_A_Knight]

Firstly, without getting into a pi$$ing competition with you, I assure you I have plenty of time doin the 'really dangerous stuff' in varying airspace, just like 'hundreds of others' and on a daily basis. So please, spare me the sarcasm, and let's keep this discussion professional.

Back to business...........The difference under the new 'NAS' is that there are defense mechanisms being withdrawn from the airspace we operate in, and traffic avoidance outside A & C in VMC is being weighted more toward the reliance on 'see and avoid', which the BASI have previously pointed out is flawed, and also the use of TCAS which is not part of the equipment that all aircraft operate with. Even in D, no separation is provided between IFR and VFR, only traffic 'information'. (I am sure regional pilots operating into YSTW with all the CT4 training that goes on in that area are happy about this).

I am a stickler for a sharp lookout - hell, it has even saved me on more than one occasion - but I am only human, and human vision has its frailties. Therefore we have inventions like radio and ATC for assistance in the visual acquisition process and in the event of no visual contact (not that rare an occurrence) as an aid to situational awareness. Their utilisation as a backup is important in reducing collision risk. Offloading VFR aircraft into the ether increases their chance of appearing in front of the cockpit at a most inopportune time and is not exactly an excercise in risk reduction.

When procedures and training material regarding traffic info/separation is promulgated containing terms like "given traffic info as far as is practicable' and "may not be aware of unknown VFR aircraft but should be visible on TCAS" and advise to pilots to 'not let high cockpit workload stop them from looking out at all times", well it worries me. Call me paranoid.

Our jobs as pilots involves risk analysis and reduction. Read the material and then tell me, with a straight face, that the new system actually reduces the risk of a midair, especially with more airliners now having to transition from A to D at a max alt of 4500' via E, with no C intermediate and mixing up with VFR aircraft who 'may be monitoring another frequency' nobody may be aware of, or 'should appear on the TCAS'.

[triadic]

Manwell
A good post. Whilst I believe our goals are the same, they are around the oval a bit from each other. Some comments if I may:

While I respect your argument, I consider the basis for your objections to be of questionable veracity. First, It should be pointed out that the concept that this is a fight against Dick Smith personally has been substantiated on a number of occasions. Whether Dick has anything to do with it or not should have no bearing on the proposal in any way.


Although it is obviously Dick that has provided significant influence on this exercise, what I question is the methodology involved by both Dick the Minister and others. I have every respect for Dick and in fact know him personally and have been to many meetings with him and others on airspace. However my previous words stand in that I don't believe he either understands or wants to acknowledge some of the issues, including culture that must be addressed as part of this process.


The issue should be solely one of projected benefits against projected disadvantages. Your post does support the concept that it is a personal issue against one man in the following comments


I have yet to see a list of benefits and disadvantages that we can all agree on, however to date there is clearly no savings dollar wise (unless ASA can sack 200 controllers - can you see that happening?) and we all seem to agree that the levels of safety are reduced, but of course the people pushing this have another list which they also believe in. Obviously this should be subject to some form of independent review.


Perhaps he does in fact have a more objective understanding of the problems that he is trying to solve simply because he has done a lot of flying all around the world and he is not part of a professional culture that precludes any differing opinion on this issue.

Maybe, but he should then share this with the rest of us in a manner that might allow many to understand what he is on about. In other words the "project" needs to be sold.


In the same paragraph you say "The guts and strength to make GA strong again belong to the politicians...". God help us if we have become so lacking in intestinal fortitude and reliant on Government that we can't find it in our selves to fix this problem ourselves. For if we must rely on the Government to solve our problems then we will have a very long, dark, and weary journey ahead.

I suggest you fail to understand the issue. Government will generally only act in areas where they see votes. There is few votes in aviation and even less in GA unless you can highlight a major issue that might effect the masses. For example, it is only the politicians that will fix CASA who at present are in the process of destroying GA as we knew/know it. (they don't care – no votes)


If I got nothing else from the John and Martha show other than the comment that "you have to make GA vibrant again, don't wait for Government to do it for you", or words to that effect, then the trip was worthwhile.

It was nice to have J & M here, but was it worth it? Who knows? Maybe the money might have been better spent getting the Unions on side, who I suggest have the power to stop it.
Yes, it would be nice to have GA vibrant again, but NAS is not going to fix that one bit. I believe you have to look deeper and wider for those reasons. I would start at CASA and cost recovery and lack of tax incentives.



With respect to your comments re: the education reform process being grossly inadequate I can only say"Haven't you been reading your mail?". The process is indeed inadequate if you have not accepted it's validity but education is a two way process, it requires one to teach and another to learn. It cannot be performed by one party in isolation, unless that single party is the willing learner.

The education is insufficient, misguided and late. Only those that want to learn will pick up on it and there is absolutely no way of obtaining what sort of penetration the program had.(except from looking at the incidents that will no doubt occur) The package has errors and many of the presentations that some of us may have attended are in conflict with what we read. Ad to that the package has only just arrived and is still subject to correction/change, it is way below par.

The only thing going for 2b is that it is not such a big deal, but nowhere in the package does it get down to grass roots and say that….!


The rest of your post I agree with in part about the quality of pilot trainees, however, aren't we really more responsible for that deficiency rather than a government who is really only interested in our wellbeing if it compliments their own?

Ask that question to the flying schools who deliver a licence for a fixed price?? Usually you will find the standard of training matches the cost.


The point I think that is central to this whole issue is that we are capable of defining our own destiny, whether it be with regard to safety from midair collisions, the health and vibrance of aviation in this country, or the quality of our new pilots

Maybe so, but at the end of the day it is usually only strength in numbers that will rule the day.

"No known traffic" :ok:

[Capt Claret]

Manwell,

After 20 years in the industry I've come to the inescapable conclusion that our ears are the best eyes we have!

Ozm8 - Just some Answers!

Class E is significantly different from the current class G. Mainly because VFR don’t require a clearance and are discouraged from speaking on an ATC frequency, whereas IFR must speak on an ATC frequency. No longer will an ALL STATIONS broadcast really be effective, as VFR traffic can now listen to whatever frequency they think appropriate, rather than a geographically based Area/ATC frequency.

With reference to your question Don't pilots flying outside radar coverage rely on see-and-avoid separation anyway? I don’t. Like most professional pilots, I’ve lost count of the number of aircraft I have passed, when I’ve had a good idea of their relative position to myself, and failed to actually see them. As an example, on descent into Alice a week or so ago, descent was limited due to an opposite direction helicopter. Visible on TCAS, I was unable to see the helicopter until he was in my 8 o’clock and the sun reflected off the rotors. See and avoid is not fail safe and does not work as a sole means of separation.

As a further example of this limitation of see and avoid, I do not know any IFR pilot who knowing there is opposite direction or conflicting traffic in the vicinity, continues and relies on seeing and then avoiding the other aircraft. We talk, arrange mutual separation, usually vertical as it is far safer than lateral, and we all go on happily. With the 27/11 changes, this may not work as the other traffic may be VFR and on another frequency and IFR pilots may not be able to contact them to arrange separation.

Almost every flight I conduct (in a 146 - a slow jet but still capable of 400 to 500 kts GS on descent) involves flight through Alice Springs. Our flight path is almost always arranged to stay in Class C & D airspace, in other words in CTA. Why? Because it’s safer.

Post September 27, for 20,000’ on descent into Alice or 20,000’ on climb out of Alice (Class E from F245 to A045) I’ll have to mix it with unannounced and undirected VFR traffic. I have to rely on either guessing what frequency they’re on, or the TCAS alerting me, or seeing them if I can. Visibility around Alice (and many other places) whilst being VMC is often not conducive to actually seeing another aircraft, be it smoke or dust haze.

I’d be prepared to wager that if I told the passengers prior to departure of what the NAS changes mean, most would ask to get off the aircraft.

In short, for aviation generally I can’t see any benefits in this airspace change. For VFR it’s probably good as they can stooge around and just have fun without thinking of the attendant responsibilities to other airspace users. I can tell you though; the thought of any impact, high or low speed, scares the hell out of me, and many of my colleagues. (Think of the force of 38,000 kg at say 210 KIAS as low speed!)

The chances, thanks to the big sky theory, of a collision are probably remote, but post Sept 27, it’s much higher than it was pre Sept 27, and every one should be scared about that.

[Hempy]

Capt Claret, your viewLike most professional pilots, I’ve lost count of the number of aircraft I have passed, when I’ve had a good idea of their relative position to myself, and failed to actually see them. As an example, on descent into Alice a week or so ago, descent was limited due to an opposite direction helicopter. Visible on TCAS, I was unable to see the helicopter until he was in my 8 o’clock and the sun reflected off the rotors. See and avoid is not fail safe and does not work as a sole means of separation. reminded me..........

IFATCA Policy on Class E

The fact that ICAO declares airspace of class E as a controlled airspace, but allowing that VFR flights fly in there without ATC-clearance and without two-way radio contact in this same airspace causes problems. The only guaranteed spacing available in Class E airspace remains therefore the old “see and avoid”. Even if ATC does separate all IFR-flights and provides traffic information in relation to all known VFR-flights, this service does only part of the task of collision avoidance. Particular attention to airspace observation must be given by all flights, including those that are considered to be controlled flights.

All airspace classes that can be considered as controlled airspace must be of an airspace type where all flights must be known to ATC. Therefore two-way radio communication and an ATC- clearance prior to entry is the absolute minimum for all flights operating in controlled airspace.
Only the fulfillment of these requirements ascertains that all traffic is known to ATC so that collisions can be avoided by either IFR-separations or traffic information issued and provided by ATC. Airspace of class E where VFR-flights can enter without establishing two-way radio contact and without ATC-clearance has therefore to be classified as an uncontrolled airspace type. It is not acceptable to have uncontrolled flights in a controlled airspace type thereby compromising the service provided by ATC.

It is recommended that :

With regard to the ICAO classification of airspace, the definition of controlled airspace is the generic term, which covers airspaces of class A, B, C and D. Classes E, F and G being uncontrolled.

Class E is a special case of uncontrolled airspace in which a limited separation service will be provided between defined aircraft.

[SM4 Pirate]

Privately funded independent candidate ready to run in Gwyder. Make one individual a promise about airspace reform. Privately funded candidate concentrates on being the Mayor. Minister retains seat.

Minister soon announces new airsapce reform. Time for consultation is over; implement something. ARG established to choose reform.

ARG made up of Government department heads plus the 'problem' that won't go away, mate of the PM, Australian icon and favourite. Old favourite now charged with determining future, his idea or industries? (NAS or LLAMP) Shock horror group "chooses" NAS?

NAS now government policy; the author plus three government employees now in charge of implementing government policy, do they decide anything, or follow as directed?

Design safety case, not needed unless it's proved that it is needed. Identified differences, unique Australian procedures... Keep the message it's the same as the US which has more traffic, and "statistically" less midairs? Ignore all attempts at improving safety because (it requires a deviation from my idea) we know best.

Hazard and Mitigation process very controlled, problems identified, change the group (include political mates), no changes but also no problems anymore. We can save money; where, make up some figures, stack the deck. Poor old Wes, I'm sure it wasn't his fault...

$70M p.a. was referred to on ABC news tonight, despite numerous attempts in the senate committees from everyone to say its not even likely that $1 will be saved.

ASA implements government policy; CASA examines the implementation safety cases; doesn't approve them; but accepts them, subtle difference. ASA says CASA says it safe, full steam ahead... whoo whoo!

Professional Pilots and ATCs forced to accept the changes, no choice, no one listening to them. Media sniffing for industrial action threat. Major airlines accept the process, political influence in other areas abound, ACCC cases halted, just a coincidence I'm sure.

Companies (privately) tell pilots to stop NAS; publicly don't criticise it, they still have to fly if it comes in.

Industrial action off the agenda, why? It would be Illegal Industrial action if 'real' action is taken, too many saying its not a safety issue, including those who are charged with the implementation and the regulator (government policy). ASA would pursue controllers with full government backing, industry players can't afford to collapse the clientel again.

Are we doomed, no (some one is), are we all disenfranchised, no (mostly), is NAS 2b safer, no way; even CASA said that. It will all be OK, unless there is a middair in the first few weeks or maybe even a near miss that will get company attention.

Who will be held accountable if it goes wrong, the PIC or the ATC on duty if the PIC doesn't make it. The NAS is all wrong; the player with (generally) the least exerience, with (generally) the worst equipment, usually with the less speed is now responsible for everyone elses safety.

John Anderson you are the only man to stop this now, when the worst happens we will be all demanding your head on a platter. I hope you are lucky, because it means the rest of us have been lucky.

Must be time for my Bottle of Rum

[Gunner B12]

It occours to me that legislation in other industries allows for there to be a risk in the workplace. I'll use the example of Asbestos, workers can work in buildings where it exists as long as it is "passivated" and workers can carry out the removal of Asbestos as long as they have the necessary protective clothes and proceedures.

The big thing here is that in order to protect the worker the Employer is charged with a duty of care and it is the employer who is legally responsible in the event of an accident or work related illness.

Now lets apply that to the NAS situation. The legislation allows for risk, But will the Employers be providing a safe working environment? They won't be able to claim it is safe just because of the legislation and I believe the law does not allow a third party to assume the responsibility for them. So just how are they going to meet thier legal responsibility to safety?


Don't fly, its the only way to stop this.

Just my opinion

:( :(

[snarek]

I just read the latest Civil-Air/AFAP CR@P press release.

What rot and waffle.

So things get more dangerous after Thursday do they, especially it seems around Uluru.

Garbage, what is the difference in 2b between now and then. Nuffin!!!

In fact, with more E and thus more transponders, it can only get safer.

Just as I was beginning to listen you come up with a pack of lies.

Can't be trusted, thats my view!

AK :mad:

[Capn Bloggs]

Snarek,

You really are a twit. E won't save anybody below FL180, because there isn't any E! And in the end state, you and your mates will be buzzing around Yulara (Uluru is The Rock) with no radio as well.

If you continue with your jaundiced view, I can tell you that there will be an unstoppable push for ICAO SARPS to be introduced: MANDATORY transponders for ALL aircraft in ALL airspace. I suggest you get real and think of the consequences of your rantings against those who know more about the problems of flying big areoplanes than you do. You really are doing your cause no good, especially since you are on the board of AOPA.

[tobzalp]

Snarek do you mind quoting this press release. I am unaware of such a release.

[snarek]

Bloggs

Y'know those nasty tall towers between Erldunda and The Resort, well I built em. 'Back in the old days' we used to FIFO from Darwin in a clapped out Cherokee Six.

In those days there was another airport, near the big red thingy. It was nice and peaceful, no jet jocks with their eyes in their laps.

In fact the Resort airstrip is a classic example of airline bullying. Here we come boys, we can make a quick buck here, get out of our way, install expensive transponders cos we are calling this 'commercial airspace' now.

Don't make me :yuk:

And why would we be 'running round with no radios', we don't now and we won't then. Seems to me that line is so typical of the irresponsible attitude taken by some on your side of the argument. it is pure fabrication designed to scare the public, nothing more.

Perhaps we should just ban fast jets from the Resort. You can land at Alice where you have a comfy tower to do your thinking for you. Then that town can live again (since it has been decimated by direct flights) and you can have a nice warm voice to remind you about those three green lights :}

That'd be safe now wouldn't it.

Edited, plazbot, here is the link

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/24/1069522527598.html

AK

[Clothears]

Snarek,

Sorry, sport, but you may be surprised to learn that you don't really know everything there is to know about flying, air traffic services, or the aviation industry in general. Don't get me wrong - after 23 years in this game in stations providing ATS over about two thirds of the continent in total (and a bit of recreational flying in between) I still learn something every day.

More to the point,however, your intemperate and frequently provocative manner in this forum does you no credit, and reflects poorly on the board of an organisation which claims to represent about one tenth of the active pilots in Australia.

For example, with what knowledge or research are you able to support your claim that the AFAP/Civilair position is a "pack of lies"? To what extent is this different to the other lies about NAS (safer, proven, more simple, etc...) which you appear to support?

Have you considered the difference between Ayers Rock (not particularly relevant under NAS 2B?) and, say, 40DME BN at FL120 climbing, on descent or holding?

While I respect you for being an "outed" Pprune contributor (and most of us do not enjoy or cannot afford that privelege), I think most of your posts reflect a blinkered and doctrinaire approach to this subject, bereft of any evidence of rational deliberation or of research among the many highly qualified and experienced pilots who spend their working lives in our airspace. Perhaps you're more interested in the "balls to the wall" approach which, while perhaps amusing at the aero club bar at ten o'clock on a Friday night, frightens the bejeezus out of the rest of us.

Grow up, and act like a member of an organisation striving for industry credibility rather than an ill informed, belligerent, self-opinionated ****.

[Capcom]

SnarekIn those days there was another airport, near the big red thingy. It was nice and peaceful, no jet jocks with their eyes in their laps.Peaceful? So was Kingsford-Smith back when Penicillin was cutting edge and your Grumman was nothing more than a wet dream. Move on mate, there are thousands of “Jet Jocks” out their every day flying yours and my loved ones from A to C via B, its called commercial aviation!

I hope you AOPA guys do better due diligence on your aircraft when you buy them than you do on airspace!
Why were AOPA the only group silly enough to place their logo on the glossy crap education packs. No wonder you all (I wonder just how many?) support 2b.And why would we be 'running round with no radios', we don't now and we won't then. Seems to me that line is so typical of the irresponsible attitude taken by some on your side of the argument. it is pure fabrication designed to scare the public, nothing more.Really? Are you suggesting that the ARG, NASIG and AOPA have NOT been running around briefing people to proceed no-radio in E?
AOPA supports NAS 2b you kept telling us….??
Pure fabrication on who’s part??
You’re a contradictory goose! Perhaps we should just ban fast jets from the Resort. You can land at Alice where you have a comfy tower to do your thinking for you. Then that town can live again (since it has been decimated by direct flights) and you can have a nice warm voice to remind you about those three green lightsAre you really an AOPA board member??? Or is this some sort of prepubescent wind-up by a “short bloke whacking young’un with a shiny new sheriffs badge’” ???:hmm:

Either way again I guess....:rolleyes:

[Bargearse]

I don't know about the rest of you but i'm getting a bit tired of listening to the lies coming from the mouth of MS. They are without doubt, someone elses script, but i wonder if Mike understands that he's the one that will be held responsible and hauled over the coals by the minister and the Royal Commision when the inevitable, "touch wood", happens.

Good luck Mike. It's been real :hmm:

[tobzalp]

That is a very good point Bargearse. Looking at the American Mid air stats given that we have about 10% of the movements and also 10% of the controllers we will have 10% of the Mid airs. I can guarantee that they will apportion some of the blame to the short comings of see and avoid and then these people beating the Pro NAS drum are going to see reality. This is a time bomb waiting to oust this government well and truely. I wonder why they support it so much?

[Capt Claret]

you don't really think that the system will be blamed for any breakdown in separation, or heaven forbid, a collision, do you?

'Course not, it'll most likely be the pilots fault for failing to see and avoid, after that it'll be some poor ATCOs fault, but never the system or those who pushed its implementation! :yuk: :yuk:

[2B1ASK1]

Ho Hum roll on 2c.:ok:

[WhatWasThat]

Do you even know what's in 2c?
Fool.

[2B1ASK1]

WHATWASTHAT

Certainly do now I wonder how?:ok:

[snarek]

Hey 2B1

I am wondering if I should shut up about getting the freqs back on the maps, I'm not sure I even want to listen to these @rseh@les :}

Oh and I like the 'fly slow' threat from AFAP. Gee whiz, I can do that too, how does 60 kt down a 5 mile final into Merimbula sound :E

Will that help???

AK

[Manwell]

Hmmm, seems there really is a problem with see and avoid...

Why does the saying "There are none so blind as those who will not see." come to mind?

Dunno, and the thought that this sounds like the sort of hysteria around when some Yanks thought they could fly. Wilbur and Orville, I think.

Emotion is a characteristic of all humans, but one would have thought that airmen would be less susceptible to it's illusions.

Someone scoffed at the comment on the NAS educational material that suggested that cockpit workload should not take precedence over lookout when on descent/climb. The response suggested that a cooked engine would be the result.

In multi-crew cockpits that I've encountered, the health of the engine is very low on the list of priorities compared to the priority to get everything to look and sound right, and have all the I's dotted and the T's crossed. Perhaps this is what was alluded to, rather than monitoring the engines.

I'm sure that some of you blokes will find fault with my argument, but can I just assure you that the problem isn't just with the argument, it's also related to the attitude of the opponents.

Nothing I say will change your minds, and nothing you say will change mine, unless you can tell me why it's safer and more efficient to discount one of our senses in favour of a system that relies on human intervention, and as such, is susceptible to human error as well.

There is nothing wrong with see and avoid, it's managed to keep most of us safe in all pursuits other than aviation, and then, only in Australia is it considered inadequate to the extent that you guys propose.

Has the thought occurred to you that multicrew pilots spend too much time doing things of little real value simply to fill in the time and look busy, and professional?

I know that will be a difficult concept to accept, but it is pretty close to the truth. The challenge is to find better ways to spend our time and money so that safety is enhanced, not just the illusion of safety. That's the point gentlemen, call it affordable safety if you like, but it is the whole point.

When the money being spent is not ours we all want the best there is, that's why, in my view, that the private pilot probably has the clearest view of all. And it also explains why many professional pilots and ATC don't like it. They aren't going to pay for it, so it is the best.

It might be safer, for the pro's, since it means losing some of the responsibility that goes with the job, but it does shift the responsibility to where it belongs, with us.

Tough call, maybe, the truth hurts, although not as much as continuing allowing yourself to be deluded until you finally realise that the system is not foolproof. Then it's too late.

Life's a bitch....

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

I'd like to think you were a wind up Snarek, but I have a sneaking suspicion you are actually serious.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/mad/076.gif

The feeling is mutual about the radio too. It would make things a whole lot better not having to listen to twats like you balls up the radio calls every time you PTT.

Oh, and go as slow as you like - someone else is paying for my flight.

[Dehavillanddriver]

what some of you learned gentlemen - and i use the term loosely - forget is that many of the high performance aeroplanes are simply not conducive to see and avoid.

Lets take the 737. Even on descent you have a nose up attitude - particularly if you are at 250 or 210 knots. This nose up attitude, coupled with the location of the glareshield, windscreens etc, means that you can't see anything below you for a couple of miles.

what this means is that if you are descending through cloud and pop out the bottom, good ole AK flogging along fat dumb and happy listening to an "appropriate" frequency is impossible to see - and I will quite happily descend onto the top of him - all without ever knowing he was there until the thump..it is a similar story for most jets.

The Dash-8 is slightly better, though not much - the blind spot may be a mile or so - but even though still enough to clean up AK, and all the other rabid NAS supporters.

All professional pilots want - and these are the ones having their workplace deliberately made less safe - is a fighting chance to not hit anything else.

If you make radio calls and get a response, directed traffic etc - you can make plans - level off higher until passed or similar - but if you don't know - you can't plan and are left to react at the last minute.

the two smiths - god bless their little cotton socks - make these great airy fairy statements about how it will be safer and save heaps of money - yet when pressed CANNOT quantify these statements - this is because these statements and projections are BULL****!

there is a statement elsewhere in this thread about "taking away one of your senses" - where the writer was referring to the sense of sight - well in my opinion they have taken away our sense of hearing - what maniac came up with frequency separation as an ATC standard - if I can't hear you I can't hit you!

having a means of obtaining directed traffic information is not taking away see and avoid - it is facilitating it - it is making it possible to have a half reasonable chance of finding the needle in the haystack before you prick yourself with it!

maybe someone should suggest Project DAYGLO to mike smith - paint all your GA aeroplanes dayglo orange to make them stand out - that will be a winner with the AOPA crowd!!

[ferris]

OK, here is an argument that no-one seems to have explored that may appeal to AK and the AOPA crowd: Are you aware of the standards of some of the foreign crews who fly heavy metal into oz? I'm not going to name names, but I'm sure somebody will help you out if you ask around (alternatively, just go to an air accident site and have a look at the recurring names).
Do you really want to be in the same airspace without a clearance as these guys?:confused:

[snarek]

Stop it Ferris. :ooh:

In the last 2 weeks I have flown LanChile, LanExpress and Varig. In the last 6 Months I have flown Vietnam Airlines, China Southern, China Eastern, White Rat Airlines and even Brutish Airways. In 4 days time it is Varig, LanExpress and LanChile again. :oh:

Ooooh, I am scaring myself. Did I miss any :}

Gonna think twice before getting on a Trash 8 or a Beech 1900 (or similar) in Oz in future though after reading some of the codswallop on this thread. :E

AK

[DownDraught]

Good day gentlemen.

I have sat on the side for ages but have finally felt the need.

Would the pilots of the heavy burners please provide this information to me and others.

When sitting in the cockpit and flying, what is the angle of the visual line of sight that you have out the front and downward when decending?.

By how much is this angle greater than your decent angle?

Just a thought on see and avoid.


Cheers

[snarek]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=388

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=385

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=386

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=361

or in C, hee hee

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?
ID=235

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=14

(good thing this one had TCAS)

ah bugga it, there are just so many.

me thinks we need airspace reform :}

AK

[ferris]

(good thing this one had TCAS) Showing your ignorance? The conflict was brought to the attention of the controller by the STCA, a TAAATS feature. But I digress....
Did you actually read these reports? Oh what a wicked web we weave...... The one thing they highlight very clearly to me is the multilayered approach to safety that is taken in aviation. NAS is deliberately removing some of those layers for no apparent gain. You call this reform?

How does quoting examples of incidents (which all had satisfactory outcomes, thanks to the multilayered approach) that occurred in CTA push the idea that some sort of "reform" is needed? You do realise that NAS would change none of those incidents (as they were all IFR), don't you? You could even argue that it would make some of them worse (controllers will now be required to watch out for 'black tracks' far more rigorously, distracting them even further from higher priority tasks).
I could go around and pick out incidents from around the world that have a single biggest contributing factor that is TCAS. Should we therefore ban TCAS? You simply cannot take that sort of view in aviation. You need as many lines of defence as you can muster, because you never know how many have failed at any one time (a la the Reason Model). What about the DC9 midair in the States, where the crew misidentified an aircraft they were supposed to miss and collided with another? Should we "reform" see-and-avoid?
NAS is a retrograde step (as even the former Head ATC admitted- much to AsA disgust). It removes layers of defence. Why? Why?Why???????

[snarek]

Actually ferris I did it to counter plazbot, he posted a series of US near misses in E with the implication it didn't happen in A or C.

We all know that is rot.

If the DC-9 you refer to is the Aeromexico that went in near L.A. They didn't misidentify another aircraft, they decended on one 'illegally in the airspace' A,B,C,D,E or F would have made no difference here.

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The limitations of the ATC system to provide collision protection, through both ATC procedures and automated redundancy. Factors contributing to the accident were (1) the inadvertent and unauthorized entry of the PA-28 into the Los Angeles Terminal Control Area and (2) the limitations of the "see and avoid" concept to ensure traffic separation under the conditions of the conflict."

See, "The limitation of the ATC system to provide collision protection"

Yes it also quotes see and avoid, I'll give you that.

But...

"In 1986, the Cerritos crash investigators were highly critical of the air traffic control system, saying one controller was so busy that he never saw the smaller plane on his radar." (From another source).

Again though, still in C (or B in that case I suppose). Again, nothing in NAS will change this, if staffing is the problem, then say so. But don't blame an airways system.

OR, did you mean PSA182

PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the flightcrew of Flight 182 to comply with the provisions of a maintain-visual-separation clearance, including the requirement to inform the controller when visual contact was lost; and the air traffic control procedures in effect which authorized the controllers to use visual separation procedures in a terminal area environment when the capability was available to provide either lateral or vertical separation to either aircraft. Contributing to the accident were (1) the failure of the controller to advise Flight 182 of the direction of movement of the Cessna; (2) the failure of the pilot of the Cessna to maintain his assigned heading; and (3) the improper resolution by the controller of the conflict alert."

The controllers KNEW where the Cessna was. Cultural perhaps, I hear it got better.

This has been censored, I have heard the real transcript, it says what real pilots would say.

Legenda:
APP = San Diego Approach
CAM = Cockpit Area Mike
RDO = Radio transmission
-1 = captain
-2 = first officer
-3 = 2nd officer
-4 = casual PSA captain
Time: Source: Contents:
08.59:30 APP PSA one eighty-two, traffic twelve o'clock, one mile northbound
08.59:35 RDO-1 We're looking
08.59:30 APP PSA one eighty-two, additional traffic's, ah, twelve o'clock, three miles just north of the field northwestbound, a Cessna one seventy-two climbing VFR out of one thousand four hundred.
08:59:50 RDO-2 Okay, we've got that other twelve.
08.59:57 APP Cessna seven seven one one golf, San Diego departure radar contact, maintain VFR conditions at or below three thousand five hundred, fly heading zero seven zero, vector final approach course,
09.00:16 APP PSA one eighty-two, traffic's at twelve o'clock, three miles out of one thousand seven hundred.
09.00:21 CAM-2 Got'em.
09.00:22 RDO-1 Traffic in sight.
09.00:23 APP Okay, sir, maintain visual separation, contact Lindbergh tower one three three point three, have a nice day now.
09.00:28 RDO-1 Okay
09.00:34 RDO-1 Lindbergh PSA one eighty-two downwind.
09.00:38 TWR PSA one eighty-two, Lindbergh tower, ah, traffic twelve o'clock one mile a Cessna
09.00:41 CAM-2 Flaps five
09.00:43 CAM-1 Is that the one we're looking at.
09.00:43 CAM-2 Yeah, but I don't see him now.
09.00:44 RDO-1 Okay, we had it there a minute ago.
09.00:47 TWR One eighty-two, roger.
09.00:50 RDO-1 I think he's pass(sed) off to our right.
09.00:51 TWR Yeah.
09.00:52 CAM-1 He was right over here a minute ago.
09.00:53 TWR How far are you going to take your downwind one eighty-two, company traffic is waiting for departure.
09.00:57 RDO-1 Ah probably about three to four miles.
09.00:59 TWR Okay.
09.01:07 TWR PSA one eighty-two, cleared to land.
09.01:08 RDO-1 One eighty-two's cleared to land.
09.01:11 CAM-2 Are we clear of that Cessna?
09.01:13 CAM-3 Suppose to be.
09.01:14 CAM-1 I guess.
09.01:20 CAM-4 I hope.
09.01:21 CAM-1 Oh yeah, before we turned downwind, I saw him about one o'clock, probably behind us now.
09.01:38 CAM-2 There's one underneath.
09.01:39 CAM-2 I was looking at that inbound there.
09.01:45 CAM-1 Whoop!
09.01:46 CAM-2 Aghhh!
09.01:47 CAM Sound of impact
09.01:49 CAM-1 Easy baby, easy baby.
09.01:51 CAM [sound of electrical system reactivation tone on cvr, system off less than one second]
09.01:51 CAM-1 What have we got here?
09.01:52 CAM-2 It's bad.
09.01:53 CAM-2 We're hit man, we are hit.
09.01:56 RDO-1 Tower, we're going down, this is PSA.
09.01:57 TWR Okay, we'll call the equipment for you.
09.01:58 CAM [sound of stall warning]
09.02:04.5 CAM [end of recording]


Poor b@stards!!!! :(

Not something we should politicise, especially since it WASN'T in E IT WAS IN B.

AK

[ferris]

It's exactly the sort of thing that should be raised, Mr Kerans. Who said anything about politicizing? I agree there has been some dirty politics involved in the NAS implementation, but those opposed are doing so for safety reasons, not to advance their careers!
Not something we should politicise, especially since it WASN'T in E IT WAS IN B. What don't you understand here? You can call the airspace B, E or stupid, but the fact remains they were applying visual (see and avoid) sep to an IFR jet and a VFR lightie, exactly that which has been proposed in NAS for oz. In huge tracts of airspace! You wonder why pilots and controllers are a little worried?

Those 'low probabilities' the NASites quote are the PSA crew, their passengers, and the lightie pilot. Bit more real now, is it? Why take an unnecessary risk?

[snarek]

Ferris

I hope I don't ever get into a see and avoid situation with you, you seem to have selective vision, or did you miss :*

the air traffic control procedures in effect which authorized the controllers to use visual separation procedures in a terminal area environment when the capability was available to provide either lateral or vertical separation to either aircraft

They didn't have to apply visual, because it was B. They CHOSE to. The same situation exists now, under PRE-NAS and the same situation will exist under POST-NAS.

It doesn't matter whaich of these two you quote (and you haven't said which) both were INDEPENDENT of the airspace and could happen in Australia today.

Except I think pilots will be paying more attention and not failing to alert the controller if visual is lost in E.

Remember, controllers will be separating only KNOWN traffic in E. Wouldn't Civil-Air and AFAP be better off joining AOPA in calling for ADSB so that (nearly) ALL traffic in E becomes KNOWN rather than trying to scare the public into going by bus???? :bored:

AK

[ferris]

There is a world of difference between separation and traffic information. Please look it up and see how it applies to aus NAS.They didn't have to apply visual, because it was B. They CHOSE to. The same situation exists now, under PRE-NAS and the same situation will exist under POST-NAS. That simply isn't true. Standards such as 'sight and follow' are great in the right situation, but a NAS cornerstone is sighting potentially unalerted traffic operating without a clearance. Except I think pilots will be paying more attention and not failing to alert the controller if visual is lost in E. What if they never aquire the other aircraft in the first place? What if a lightie's transponder is switched off/broken? How will anyone know?Remember, controllers will be separating only KNOWN traffic in E No, they won't.
PSA was a case where alerted see and avoid went wrong. We are going to allow lots of unalerted see and avoid. For what?better off joining AOPA in calling for ADSB so that (nearly) ALL traffic in E becomes KNOWN So you are saying that NAS is dangerous and should be delayed until ADSB is available, correct? Why haven't you or AOPA come out publicly with this revelation until now? Another game of 'Yes Minister' is it? Make the airspace dangerous, then ask the govt to pay for your ADSB fitout because the airspace is dangerous? How very 'Smithavellian' of you.

[Bargearse]

They didn't have to apply visual, because it was B. They CHOSE to. The same situation exists now, under PRE-NAS and the same situation will exist under POST-NAS.

And the points you miss here SNAREK are:

1. Wether they chose to use "see and avoid" or not, they used it as a primary separation tool and it failed. I suggest a major contributing factor to this is the extremely high workload experienced by a jet transport crew in the approach phase of flight.

Just think what sort of workload a single pilot in a high performance turbo prop aircraft would be experiencing at this point. Admittedly, more manouverable than a heavier jet and slightly more vision, but same speeds as the jets in this phase of flight and only one pair of eyes, concentrating at this point on possibly 3 or 4 issues at once with "see and avoid" on 2 or possibly 3 VFR aircraft to boot.

2. The same situation in many areas (C over D towers) does not exist now. On the 27th, when C becomes E over D towers and VFR no longer require a clearance to operate in E, the transcript you have reproduced above may very well become a common occurence.

[czechmate]

This was spoken by Mike Smith, talking about why the changes would make us safer


The new system was also safer because it put responsibility onto the pilots, he said. "When people are responsible for their actions they're more accountable." They would not be able to rely on air traffic controllers but would have to ensure their own safety.



Who is accountable when the pilot and the pax are all dead????!!!!

:mad:

[ferris]

for their actions they're more accountable I think it's obvious he means AsA will still be able to send out accounts, they'll just be bigger. Plus costs will be reduced, so bonus time for the managers again!!!

Fix the charging system, not the airspace system.

[Jet_A_Knight]

That's why they are so for this system. It shifts responsibility (and liability) to the crews.

If a MAC occurs, well, the crews did not 'adequately maintain visual separation' from each other.

I am working on getting a copy, or at least making a partial transcription of the 1991 BASI research report entitled 'Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principles' and posting it up. '

This report is quite damning of the use of see-and- void, infact the final line in its summary reads:

'The most effective response to the many flaws in see-and-avoid is to minimise the reliance on see-and-avoid in Australian airspace.'

This, is obviously something that no one inthe ARG bothered to read.

Stand by, I'm a busy boy.

[tobzalp]

Ferris

I have noticed that very valid point about charging posted by you half a dozen or so times. I have also noticed that not once has anyone addressed it. I don't know the answer but I have a feeling that it just may cost these terry towling hat wearing cry monkeys more to fly!

[Outback Pilot]

Here is the Basi Posting

http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editorial/cavoid/index.cfm

EDITORIALS
See And Avoid
Background
In 1991 ATSB's predecessor (BASI) published a research report titled Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle. This report concluded that 'the see-and-avoid principle in the absence of traffic alerts is subject to serious limitations'. Unalerted see and avoid has a 'limited place as a last resort means of traffic separation at low closing speeds', and is 'completely unsuitable as a primary traffic separation method for scheduled services'.

Nevertheless, operations in a number of types of airspace currently require the application of see-and-avoid techniques by the pilots of both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules aircraft operations. In areas such as mandatory broadcast zones, pilots should be assisted by radio calls from all other aircraft to provide an 'alerted' see-and-avoid environment. However, the final level of protection is provided by pilots being able to see potentially dangerous traffic in time to take avoidance action.

The report highlighted the fact that 'many of the limitations of see-and-avoid are associated with physical limits and human perception' and encouraged pilots to be 'made aware of the limitations of the see-and-avoid procedure, particularly the factors which can reduce a pilot's effective visual field'.

Each year ATSB investigates incidents where aircraft have come perilously close whilst operating in weather conditions well above the visual meteorological conditions minima. Some of these incidents occur in the circuit area, where pilots should have had an acute awareness of the position of all traffic at all times. Incidents also occur where aircraft were established in an en-route cruise. Given that there indeed is a lot of sky out there, there is often an understandable tendency during the cruise to be less assiduous in maintaining a lookout. The following paragraphs address the issue of detecting other aircraft during an en-route cruise by examining some of the problems of lookout or visual search.

See the other pages @ the link above.....

:ok:

[The Misinformant]

Being new to this forum and being professional aircrew, I am curious as to how many other pilots are puzzled about the actual proceedures to be used in the new G airspace. A lot has been said about E and in particular VFR in E over D and tower airspace. but both the forums and information distributed (and I use this term in an extrodinarily loose fashion) have a dearth if suggestions for want of a better term on the practical use of the the new G airspace. Most of my operations will be in areas of E with a base of F180 and no one has any idea.

OUtBAck Pilot
We seem to be a rare bird who can recal old BASI publications that were more usefull to read than to use as crapper rapper. I have highlighted this publication recently to the ATSB and await a reply, though I doubt that it will be usefull considering their last few efforts.

[Chimbu chuckles]

During a break today (I'm at Boeing in Seattle) I chatted to my Sim Instructor about US Airspace. I told him what we're getting in Oz and his first reaction was "That's not the US airspace model". Our lack of Radar impressed him...not positively.

Seems here they have Class A above 18500 and E tops out at 14500 most places...if I'm quoting him correctly, it has been a long day!!

Jets don't descend in E as they whistle temporarily out of A on their way to B/C.

For those VFR PPLs out there I can asure you the view out a jets windows is NOT good forward and down. We are very busy below 10000'.

One thing I have noticed is that virtually every aircraft I've seen inbound/outbound from KBFI (Boeing Field) has flashing landing lights.

Chuck.

[2B1ASK1]

I have been in this industry for 24 years now, maybe not as long as some. What I can say is that having seen and at times been part of airspace changes in a few countries in the world. I hear the very same arguments over and over again, remember when mandatory position reporting was stopped, professional pilots had there arms in the air quoting mid air accidents would happen all over Australia it did not happen we accepted then that there would be an increased risk.

There are many examples of this worldwide and overall I hear stories all the time about America having greater radar coverage than us. Tell that to the pilots that fly over there in areas with no coverage and 6 to 7 times the amount of traffic, does that mean they are better? Do you think they wanted the change? Well I can say the answer to both is no, but they have now moved on and get on with it so should we.

I have an extract of an sop from a well known flying school re: NAS it clearly states as policy and teaching practice the following appropriate frequencies to monitor would be the same that are used today, we will now operate lights on always and transponder is switched to alt during run ups and will be amended on the check lists. Now is that not reasonable? The fact that most PPL pilots out there realise that large aircraft travel faster can have a heavier workload and find it harder to see escapes most of your pea brains.

You did not invent the wheel most PPL pilots do have a brain and some have more flying experience than check and training captains that I know. Last night I listened to Robin Brevill Anderson actually say what happens when a light aircraft descends through a small hole in the cloud at the same time as us and we collide (don’t quote me for exact words). Is he real? I now instruct and do BFR's etc the fact that most VFR pilots do not like to fly above cloud let alone descent through a small hole.

Remember the outcry again from you guy's when they introduced the PIFR how there would be an increase in midair collisions, well where were they? Give some credit to the GA industry in fact whether you like to admit it or not they are the ones that are at greater risk. We are a belt and braces country sometimes we only need a belt.

When passenger aircraft were first manufactured they had a built in safety fact of between 1.6 and 2. Today’s modern fleet has factors between 1.2 and 1.4 on average does that mean they are less safe? Sure, but that has now been accepted as being as safe as it needs to be and I don’t see that many aircraft falling out of the sky do you?

Most of you think I am a pro NAS supporter, I see good and I see bad but I am prepared to work with it and help adjust and try and make it work and be safe, not the view I see on this forum.

Take a pill or take up golf if you really cant see ways to make this work then I am afraid aviation perhaps is not your field. :ok:

[WhatWasThat]

Misinformant,
Class G for IFR should continue virtually unchanged as of 27th Nov.
Tho only difference is that there is reduced likelihood that a VFR aircraft operating in proximity to you will hear your broadcasts on the area frequency. The area frequency boundaries have been removed from the ERC-L. ATC will still direct you to the appropriate FIA frequency and you will still be required to make all the usual broadcasts, its just that noone will be listening. The VFRs will be tuned to "the most appropriate Frequency" whatever that may be.

[ferris]

I hear stories all the time about America having greater radar coverage than us. Do you deny this fact? If not, do you not see that trying to implant a system which uses extensive radar coverage into a place with minimal coverage, could be dangerous, and at the very least warrant some investigation? If the aviation world is different in the u.s., why is it appropriate to assume that what works there will work here?
remember when mandatory position reporting was stopped Yeah I do. It was much more pleasurable being a VFR pilot back then. You had the option of receiving services. Maybe that is one reason GA is in the state it's in. (Not to mention is was a lot cheaper to fly back when the govt didn't consider aviation a revenue source).but they have now moved on and get on with it so should we. Got on with what? Luckily aus is not renowned for it's convergent thinkers, although that seems to be changing. Just shut up and meekly do as your told, right?transponder is switched to alt during run ups and will be amended on the check lists. Now is that not reasonable Sure, as long as it's actually done. Putting something on a checklist doesn't mean it will be. If the transponder is U/S, how would the pilot know? Doing run-ups and pre-flight checks is considered worthwhile in the aviation community, because your life depends on the equipment. Under NAS, your life may very well depend on that transponder. What do you propose I do about that?The fact that most PPL pilots out there realise that large aircraft travel faster can have a heavier workload and find it harder to see escapes most of your pea brains. So what exactly can the clever PPL do about that large, fast travelling aircraft with the busy crew who haven't seen him as it heads towards him . A slow plane has little hope of avoiding a fast one. I know- he gets on the appropriate frequency!! Where's that ERSA?I now instruct and do BFR's etc the fact that most VFR pilots do not like to fly above cloud let alone descent through a small hole Lot's of pilots I know fly through cloud on BFRs:hmm: Plus, you don't need most pilots doing it. One is enough.We are a belt and braces country sometimes we only need a belt. Yeah, and NAS takes away our belt, and our pants.Take a pill or take up golf if you really cant see ways to make this work then I am afraid aviation perhaps is not your field. People who just accept whatever lies the govt tell them, or powerful people who ride roughshod over accepted practices using dirty politics in order to get their own way, maybe aviation isn't their field?

[snarek]

Ferris
So you are saying that NAS is dangerous and should be delayed until ADSB is available, correct? Why haven't you or AOPA come out publicly with this revelation until now? Another game of 'Yes Minister' is it? Make the airspace dangerous, then ask the govt to pay for your ADSB fitout because the airspace is dangerous? How very 'Smithavellian' of you.

If you were a member you would have read a report in the last AOPA referring to correspondence with the Minister, drafted by me, signed by the President, re ADSB.

If you were a member you'd also have more say.

We represent the views of our members, not the views of Civil Air and AFAP, two organisations I personally do not trust with the truth.

AK

[Dehavillanddriver]

Good luck to all those flying in the NAS (National Airspace Stuffup) from tomorrow - I am on leave and won't get that pleasure for a little while..

I hope everyone, despite the efforts of the two Smiths is safe....

[ferris]

Funny, I thought both you and AOPA were supporters of NAS. The minister seems to think so to, as he (or his office) counts AOPA as publicly supporting NAS.

Is AOPAs position now: no ADSB, no NAS? Or are you trying to have 50cents each way?

[snarek]

Ferris

I bet you played the game 'twister' when you were pushing toy airplanes around the kitchen floor :}

Now, I summarise.

AOPA supports NAS 2b and reserves the right to comment on implimentation. (This includes maps, education etc). We ABSOLUTELY support getting rid of MBZ.

AOPA supports the concept of NAS and will continue to observe its implimentation and comment in consultation with our members.

AOPA recognises the great benefit ADSB will bring to the existing or new airspace system and encourages the Government to expediate its implimentation.

SH!T Ferris, we even listen to you when you are making good points and not being a Ted Lang puppet :p

AK

[ferris]

That made me laugh!
Not a union member, and I certainly couldn't be called a Dick Smith puppet (unlike some who roam here).

Unions aren't even LEGAL here.:bored:

[snarek]

Neither are wild women, booze and dirty movies, watch out behind you Ferris, you might get belted by an Arab Prince.

"Thank you Sir, may I have another"

Hmm, wonder why I don't work there :}

AK

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Sorry Snarek you don't know anything about the Mid East. More wild women here than back in Oz, many many more. You haven't lived till you've been to a bar full of British, Aussie and Irish school teachers and nurses all getting free wine all night := . And unlike Oz I have a licence to drink booze here. They tell me on the licence to drink 1,000 dirhams ($400) worth of booze each month and I damn well try.

Back onto the subject though. The issues with the airspace as I can see them are,

1. Lack of frequencys on charts and the general discouragement from the authoritys for VFR broadcasts on Control frequencies.

2. The changing off alot of airspace from C into E, and the resultant VFR's flying in airspace without a clearance, whereas before Nov 27 they needed one.

At the moment they seem to be the biggies. The frequency thing is pretty simple to change back and getting the VFR's to continue to speak up is something AOPA could help with.

Problem is the 2nd one and resultant reliance on see and avoid between vastly different aircraft and in vastly different conditions is the reason I cannot see how anyone can say NAS is a positive step.

There have been people finding places where ATC stuffed up, for the past 2 pages of this thread. Yep, youre right ATC stuffs up, I'm sure as often as most pilots do. Everyone makes mistakes, but the reason most of those mistakes haven't been fatal, is because of the existance of a multi layered defence against a MAC.

We are removing 2 very important layers when you change from C to E. You are removing ATC separation for VFR's (Traffic information is suggestions to pilots, it is not separation), which in effect means the IFR's also flying in the airspace is no longer being completely separated by the controller. The second one is the layer of defence where the pilots broadcast, hear there may be someone in the area and work it out between themselves. The IFR's will be on ATC freq post NOV 27, god knows what the VFR's will be on.

Anyway all this has been said before, but Snarek, won't ever admit E is less safe than C, and hence NAS is less safe. He always just goes on about how lots of G is changing to E. Fine that is the case but it is the C to E, where the big fast heavy jets will most likely collect a happily paid up AOPA member on his nose on descent into Alice Springs.

[snarek]

ANSA

The frequency thing is pretty simple to change back and getting the VFR's to continue to speak up is something AOPA could help with.

I am trying. However this was put to a vote while I was not there and was very close. I respect the decision of the majority, but I won't stop pushing.

The changing off alot of airspace from C into E, and the resultant VFR's flying in airspace without a clearance, whereas before Nov 27 they needed one.

I won't support this because it doesn't take a lot of reading amongst these threads to discover a 'commercial airspace' mentality backed up by a 'priority system' that disadvantages our members.

In real life this is epitomised by 'no radio' regionals who think they not only own the sky, but the tarmac as well, and taxi out regardless of who is on short final!!!

If your position is no change, then we will have to agree to disagree, but as I once said to ****zu-Tonka in an unaswered PM, come up with a solution that meets all our needs and we will consider it.

AK

[Capt Claret]

In your post of 1636z, are you saying that the opposition to NAS is to keep controlled airspace for just the big boys?

[Jet_A_Knight]

Snarek:

In real life this is epitomised by 'no radio' regionals who think they not only own the sky, but the tarmac as well, and taxi out regardless of who is on short final!!!

I beg to disagree. I have yet to interact with a regional that has 'bullied' its way onto the runway or pushed in for a landing or take off that was outside of the rules of right of way, without the very least a courteous request. That goes both ways where I have requested with a 'do you mind if we' usually agreed to. Most of the time they give way if there is any conflict, and take the longer way round to keep out of 'harms way'.

The generalisation that regional drivers and companies are bully boys around regional airports in not correct.

By the way, why doesn't AOPA help educate their members in the better and appropriate use of the radio as per the rules rather than try to get them off the radio altogether? Ditto for CTA procedures and phraseology.

It seems to me that there is a reluctance by PPL/Recreational pilots to have to deal with the issues of operating in CTA (procedures, phraseology etc) so it makes it 'simpler' for the non-professional pilot to operate at a lower state of 'recency' than professionals who fly on a daily basis.

The costs issue is a smoke screen. If you can afford an aeroplane, you should be able to pay for the airspace, otherwise, don't fly. If you own a car and can't afford to pay the Harbour Bridge/Tunnel toll, then go the long way round, or don't drive.Also, if it's a matter of avoiding costs, well various altitudes will get you around most airspace if you want to avoid the requirements for a clearance etc.

[Duff Man]

Civil Air has directed its members not to use VFR on top procedures.

There is confusion caused by a difference between AIP ENR 9.1.7 and MATS 4.1.1.15, where the responsibility for separation during cessation of the VFR on top procedure is specified differently.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Snarek whether AOPAs members like it or not the airspace system was instituted and expanded for one reason and one reason only.....commerce!!

We are fortunate indeed that we live in a country which allows private individuals to own and fly small aircraft at all...even within our region, i.e. Asia Pacific, that's not all that common.

IMHO Private Ops should be allowed to piggy back on the system at minimal cost but in no way should the system be dicked with in the way it has been.

For the last 15+ years the govt, via it's various regulatory instruments, has been stripping away layers of 'service' (read safety) and at some point the accident rate WILL be adversely affected.

I firmly believe that NAS is a significantly retrograde step and will realise NO positive outcomes for aviation in Australia.

Definately no cost savings, probably the reverse.

If NAS WAS all AsA/Govt etc have convinced you it will be then why the 'Yes Minister' routine to get it up?

In my opinion AOPA have had their egos stroked by being included in the process and for all the wrong reasons.

Why would an honest implementation group ignore the concerns of ALL professional bodies and yet blow sunshine up AOPAs backsides?

NAS COULD have been implemented with virtually no opposition at all if it was done with true industry consultation. Instead any reasonable requests from industry were ignored if they didn't fit within the model ALREADY DECIDED ON.

Why couldn't E be limited to say 14500 and perhaps 8500 with a certain distance of Capital city Class B? Why couldn't frequencies be left on charts? Why can't VFR in E be given the same service as IFR? It doesn't cost anything to do so as the ATCO will be sitting there doing his job, and getting paid, whether he talks to a VFR pilot or not!!!

At least that would be a mitigator that would keep high speed jet traffic and unreported VFR seperated while still giving us NAS with all it's great benefits:ooh:

Once we had an excellent system and it's been progressively gutted over time for no good reason....the only reason being the abject stupidity of the people in charge of the various GBEs.

AsA created the system they have identified as being so terrible against the wishes of industry....we didn't want frequency combining (just one example) but got it shoved down our throats anyway...Now they want a significant portion of pilots to essentially not use the radio at all if it can be avoided.

Why would I accept the proposition that the same 'public servants' who have f**ked so much in the past for no good reason have all of a sudden got it right now?

Chuck.

[F111]

Did anyone else have any problems today? I did and it occured near one of the danger area's that have been identified (MC).

We were cruising at 10'000 FT in an RPT Shorts 360 enroute from BN to MYB via overhead MC. When we approximately 10nm NNW of MC when we observed traffic on the TCAS approaching us from the opposite direction. There was no ALT reading from the traffic. We tried to sight the aircraft, but couldn't find it, by this time the traffic was approximately 5 nm form us. Due to the lack any ALT read out the only option for us was to request a left turn to avoid "TCAS traffic". The controller advised us that the TCAS teaffic was not appearing on his radar screen. After turning onto a heading of the 310, we observed the traffic on TCAS passing to our right at approximately 4-5 nm. We never did get the traffic visual, so will never know how if we had any vertical separation form the traffic.

From the time we first observed the TCAS traffic until it had passed us was about 3-4 mins. During this time we, as a crew were in a "high work" load environment, as we were preparing for our descent into MYB (ie completing descent brief, setting up navids etc).

[SM4 Pirate]

F111,

I hope you filed the appropriate paperwork, CAIR'd it etc.

It is possible that he was low hence not on the ATC radar, but also possible he was close and just not painting.

I issued traffic to a B737 in E today (Sydney bound) on a non Mode C paint, he said not on TCAS, I said 2 o'clock 3 miles crossing you; not sighted... crossed him with less than .5 of a mile B737 with 430KTs GS, then I kept watching it... the aircraft called CB approach (20 minutes later) who said select mode C, popped up nicely at A065. One assumes always around that level.

Come on folks use your mode C, it saves us lots of worry and ultimately you will all get a better service.

Bottle of Rum

[snarek]

There is one thing we can do.

I will try to wrtite an article on transponder use, and how cheap it is to get them checked (I get mine done annually for about $60).

I suppose I could even do a bit about second hand and cheap new units for the 0.5% who don't have one.

AK

[Manwell]

BASI Backpedals....

For all those who actually believed the intellectually dishonest report "Limitations of the See and Avoid Principle", and please, I don't have the time to debate every point...

Check this out,
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editorial/cavoid/index.cfm

Follow the links to the other associated editorials too.

If anyone of you blokes out there really want me to explain it all to you in detail, then I'm afraid you'll have to pay for it.....

After all those of you who are in most dire need of re-training can probably afford it, and then you might just then listen to what I've got to say. Works for most high priced consultants these days, and I'll even keep my cool while I painstakingly explain everything to you as the hours tick away..............

Work it out for yourself if you like, because if you can't do it, then I'm damn sure I won't have a chance, unless of course you want to pay me, then I'll make a career out of it.

Life's a bitch,..then you fly?:ok:

[Jet_A_Knight]

manwell,

I think that you have misinterpreted the purpose and intent of these BASI editorials.

If you refer to the conclusions of the 1991 report, part of the conclusions is:

Pilots and ATS personnel should be made aware of the limitations of the see-and-avoid procedure, particularly the psychological factors which can reduce a pilot's effective visual field. Pilots may be trained to scan more effectively and to accomodate to an appropriate distance when searching for traffic
These editorials go same way in addressing the above conclusion, but in no way promote the increased reliance of see-and avoid in Australian airspace as the (NAS 2b effectively does) but merely as a final level of protection , and therefore in no way represent a 'backflip'by BASI.

Sincerely, I would like to know on what basis you consider the report to be 'intellectually dishonest' and would appreciate it if you would provide some facts or links to site(s) or reports to support your argument and/or counter the BASI reports' conclusions.

[ferris]

A word of warning about modeC complacency.

I work in dodgy aircraft land here, and we are required to check EVERY modeC on first contact (and carriage/use is compulsory). Even with all RPT traffic (that's all we deal with), we still see (anecdotally) about 1 in 500 with a transponder problem, sometimes with errors of 10000' or more. Under NAS, this is an accident waiting to happen. Everyone flying around squawking alt will lead to complacency, sure as anything. Even responsible owners/operators who have regular servicing (like snarek) still don't know their transponder is working on any particular day, unless it is routinely verified.

I realise what a pain no modeC targets are, but that might be better than unverified modeC. At least TCAS addresses them.

[pesawat_terbang]

An honest question

When I climb out and say

"Approach, NNN passing 500 on climb 8500, turning left"

and they say "NNN Identified"

Don't they check that my transponder is squarking C and giving +/- 200 ft of how high I say I am????

PT

[Aus ATC]

pesawat_terbang,

Yes - your Mode C altitude is verified at that point (which is precisely why you tell us "passing 500ft"). If the controllers radar altitude data is +/- 200ft then all is OK. If outside tolerances you will be queried further - in the first instance it will just be a request to "verify altitude" again - at high rates of climb there can be enough of a lag in the radar display to present a figure outside of tolerances.

For our VFR friends operating in E airspace, anytime you request a RIS your Mode C will invariably be verified by the controller (provided you tell us you altitude). If it is out of tolerance you WILL be told.

Aus ATC

[snarek]

Yes

And it MAY cost you $220 for a new encoder ;)

But it stops the Dash-8 boys having kittens around Bellenden Kerr :E

AK

[Dick Smith]

Triadic, you state in relation to me:

It is very sad that the person behind the push for these changes be they agreed to or not, good or bad, is also the single reason that they are likely to fail. It is a pity that his energy and commitment to making aviation better in this country, lacks an understanding of the very problems he is trying to solve.
That is a pretty tough statement to make. As I would like to direct my “energy and commitment” in the most effective direction, can you advise further?

By the way, the reason the ATC frequency boundaries have been removed from the charts is not primarily chart simplification. The prime reason is to follow the proven overseas system where pilots are trained to concentrate on traffic which is approaching and departing an aerodrome. That is where the risk of collision is highest.

Many people who post on this website have not read the educational material thoroughly. It makes it very clear that even when flying enroute the appropriate frequency to monitor and communicate on when flying in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome is the frequency of that aerodrome.

With the new system, instead of pilots – quite often low time VFR pilots – constantly monitoring enroute frequencies where over 98% of the calls are irrelevant, pilots in future will be concentrating on traffic which is approaching and departing airports.

An important point is that the introduction of Class E airspace over Class D is not primarily to save VFR aircraft from unnecessary holding and diversions. I point out that Class C terminal airspace is normally designed for a radar environment. In the case of the new system in Australia, where Class E replaces the Class C over Class D, it will allow air traffic controllers in the Class D tower to concentrate where the risk is highest – that is, aircraft which are close to the airport.

There have been times when controllers are busy attempting to separate a VFR aircraft flying over a Class D tower, at say, 8,500’ or 9,500’ from descending IFR aircraft and then not concentrating on traffic close to the aerodrome where the collision risk is highest.

[Capt Claret]

It would seem you didn't consult too much with some of the Class D towers. Alice for example sees it's airspace responsibility reduced from Jan next year, to about 15nm radius up to 2200'AGL.

I've been flying through there for years now and they've always in my experience handled all commers really well. I know from my discussions with some of them that they're not at all comfortable with the new arrangements and can't see any enhancement to safety.

Personally I don't see that any of them were so over-wrought with their old airspace that they needed it reduced to such an extent, supposedly in the name of improved safety.

[Dehavillanddriver]

Dick,

whilst I believe that you are genuine in your desire for reform - and that you genuinely believe it to be for the best, I also believe that you are 100% wrong.

You are nothing more than an amateur pilot with ****loads of money and the political clout to make people listen.

I am a professional pilot with many years flogging around Australia and overseas - including the US, and I firmly believe that the system that we had before you stuffed it up WAS world class and worlds best practice.

for some reason you believe that the US is the role model that we should emulate.

Do you also believe that the US medical system is "worlds best practice"?

the FAA air traffic control system is creaking at the seams and does have much more traffic than we do - but at the same time it also has a far greater level of near misses and mid airs.

what you and your mate mike smith have achieved is to downgrade safety at the same time as increasing costs - WELL DONE!

There is no $70 million worth of savings to be had - there are no gains for private aviation to be had, GA will not suddenly make a lazarus like revival on the back of your "reforms" quite the contrary.

I just wish you would stick to making money flogging products rebadged with your face on the front and leave aviation people to those that genuinly know what is going on - because you quite frankly have NO idea.

Please feel free to respond - though I know you won't bother. Send me a private message if you like and we can discuss this on the phone - I don't intend to post my mobile number here, but I am happy to speak to you if you like....

[Niles Crane]

Dick, good to "see and avoid" you once again, you may have been here, but without speaking up, we would never know!

Anyway, I find it interesting that you advocate the US NAS as Worlds Best Practice when it has 7 pages of differences with ICAO whilst the old, pre 27 Nov, "Unique" Australian airspace only has 1 page of differences.

Also, if the US NAS is actually Worlds Best Practice, why are they changing to NAS2?

And are we going to follow them?

At what Cost?:confused:

[Manwell]

Jet_A_Knight,

I will respond to your enquiry, might take a while though,

Regards,

Manwell

[Jet_A_Knight]

Dick,

1. Maybe you or an ATC can correct me; but re E replacing C over D.

a) Does not the D tower controller already concentrate on traffic closest to the aerodrome, eg the 'D' CTA?

b)Is there not usually another controller - seperate to the D tower controller - in control of the 'Ç'airspace above that?

c) How does allowing high performance Turboprop or Jet aircraft to descend through 'E' (effectively pseudo controlled airspace) to a 'D' with a weighting toward the use of the see-and-avoid principle as a means of avoiding collision (considering the fact that there may be known and unknown VFR aircraft monitoring a separate frequency) actually enhance safety?

2. Frequencies

Frankly, if 'low time VFR pilots' are not capable of maintaining a proper listening watch of the area and aerodrome traffic they may be in the vicinty of, then I argue that these pilots are not suitably qualified (or recent) and therefore should not be flying - listening watch being an important part of operating an aeroplane. If, as you say, 98% of the radio calls are 'irrelevant' then that leaves 2% that ARE! Surely, the level of irrelevant (to a specific aircraft at a specific place and time) radio chatter reaching the 'low time vfr pilot'surely is more of a problem relating to FREQUENCY COMBINING and poor radio technique or lack of adherence to proper radio procedures/phraseology than anything else, so why is this not addressed?

a) Why is it so difficult to monitor a KNOWN, COMMON area frequency when OUTSIDE of an CTAF/MBZ, but when in an CTAF/MBZ monitoring the correct frequency. What is so difficult or unacceptable about actually monitoring the area freq AND the MBZ/CTAF frequencies that are in close proximity or enroute, and may pose a threat of collision?

b)What if the pilot is flying through airspace that is part of the approach airspace of one airfield and monitoring the freq of another nearby airfield (Narrandera/Griffith for example comes to mind)

c) Which VFR documents that are currently promulgated actually show the non-cta approach and departure airspace around an aerodrome?

d) The education info states words to the eefect that VFR aircraft should avoid the Instrument Approach routes to airfields. How does a pilot who does not hold a CIR know where these points are? I realise that DAPs are available on the AA website, but does that mean that VFR pilots must now be educated in reading and deciphering Instrument Approach Plates? If not, then how are they to avoid the Instrument Approach routes?

See- And Avoid

Dick, are you aware of, and have you read the 1991 BASI Research Report "Limitations Of See-and-Avoid Principles'?

A brief exerpt of the summary and conclusions can be found here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=110193

If so, can you please explain why the NAS 2b is weighted more toward this principle despite the report's conclusion that 'the most effective response to the many flaws of see-and-avoid is to minimise the reliance on see-and-avoid in Australian Airspace'.

Finally, what are the safety benefits to the new NAS2b?

PS Manwell - thanks.

[Casper]

NTSB: Broward County crash pilots simply didn't see each other

PARKLAND, Fla. (AP)- Two small planes collided in northwestern Broward County in October 2002 simply because the pilots failed to see one another in time, the National Transportation Safety Board reported.

Both aircraft were high-winged, single-engine Cessna 172s that had taken off from Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport on training flights.

A pilot and student in one plane died as it crashed. The pilot of the other managed to limp to a landing near the Sawgrass Expressway, sparing his life and that of his student.

The NTSB report, issued Wednesday, said one plane was in the "blind spot" of the other, because of the high wing, until just before the collision. The aircraft veered at the last moment, but the wing of one clipped the other, ripping off pieces of its tail and sending it into a fatal dive into a swampy area.

Federal aviation regulations say it is the responsibility of each pilot "to see and avoid the other."

--------------------------------------------------------
Note the last paragraph!

[Pete Conrad]

When amateur pilots get together with the backing of a minister that wouldn't know the first thing about aviation - what do you expect??

Question for the transport minister - how are you going to fumble your way through a TV interview when the inevitable lighty and RPT collide?

Dick Smith and Smith before they Dick the rest of us!!!

[karrank]

It's very clear in the US ATC Handbook that the link between C airspace and radar is because (for reasons best known to themselves) a "protection area" (a predicted area that will contain the possible positions of the flight) can be put around an IFR flight, but not a VFR flight. Hence C airspace where there is radar, and nothing beyond E (in Enroute airspace) if there isn't. Under their rules, if a VFR flight was given clearance through C airspace without radar contact the only separation standard available with IFR flights would be vertical.

Here it works (worked) differently, if a pilot indicates O on the flight plan we know he has and can use a VOR and we can use the appropriate tolerance. There are published tolerances for visual flight. The towers that Dick feels so sorry for when they were separating IFR from VFR in C airspace were doing something the Yanks COULDN'T (despite their fabled "Can-do" attitude that Mike Smith slavered about on the road.) For every VFR flight moved from his god-given flight path on one of these teary encounters there was an IFR being moved also. I don't hear them complaining.

You are fixing something that isn't broken. The majority of towers that have had their workload reduced operate with a duty staff of one anyway, so nothing has been saved. They'll just be a little more out of practice and a little bit less capable next time a complex separation problem arises, and will get less capable as time goes on. This whole project (and the others you have tainted or provoked) merely indulge your blinkered fetishes.

Thank you anyhow Dick, for not hiding behind the "chart simplification" flag. It is sabotage of the radio-separation culture that Australian pilots seem to expect. I have no opinion either way, I'm not a pilot, but it's nice to hear somebody come out from the bunker and say why the green lines have gone.

[piniped]

To all the AOPA guys out there that seem to believe that NAS is the panacea to the current downturn in GA in this country.

Interesting article in a recent Flight magazine said that it is a Global downturn in GA...so do you really believe that we here in OZ can reverse the trend using some ill conceived "new" ideas?
Or are you all that insular that you don't think the global market affects us in Oz?

I remember back in the good old days of full reporting, Flight Service, Controlled airspace and OCTA.

The GA industry was booming...even with all that extra "gold plated" stuff going on. Now why was that?

I don't remember too many VFR guys getting knocked back (unless it was a VFR helo trying to get from Terry Hills into his office in the SY CTR, back in the dark ages).
That change to the SY CTR was overdue, and Dick should be applauded for his tireless efforts in getting it brought in.
Many people will say that it was mainly for his own benefit that he went to all that trouble..doesn't matter really, he did it and it was worth while.

Unfortunately, it seems that it may have created a monster that could only see his own point of view.

Can anyone from the pro NAS camp, come out in the national media and state that this system is safer than what was previously in place? Or is it merely affordably more safe, and how exactly is that being determined.

I can only echo what others have said far more eloquently than I, if the VFR guys are basically opting out of the system in a user pays system, why is anyone paying them any notice? Surely the heavy metal end of town and IFR guys (who will be footing the bills) should have just about the first last and every word on the subject.

The VFR guys are there for their own pleasure, the others have to use the airspace for their livelihood.

Snarek, if you can afford to own and run an aircraft, you can afford to have the thing fitted out with what is required for the safe flight (to yourself and other airspace users). You will not get too many people feeling sympathy for a private aircraft owner when they may be flying in an RPT aircraft and they come into close proximity to a non ssr equipped buggy.

PS how come you haven't used your other handle of ULM for a while?

[ferris]

Your silence on 98% of the safety concerns raised on this forum is deafening. You choose, instead, to try and defend yourself over a slight on your personality! Read the forums, and if you can't see where to direct your energies, then I give up.quite often low time VFR pilots – constantly monitoring enroute frequencies where over 98% of the calls are irrelevant I'm sure that a professional pilot will tell you that when he is in controlled airpspace that most of the calls he hears aren't directly for him, either. Is the solution for him to turn the radio off? I'm sorry if your priveleged life has enamoured you to personal service, but sometimes public services have to be provided- TO THE PUBLIC. The yanks consider their ATS a public service- why aren't you avidly campaigning for that model? Or their charging model? The selective nature of your crusade makes me just a little cynical of your motives.

[Chief galah]

Having been out of town this week and watching the pathetic media coverage of NAS from a distance, it's little wonder the punters would be confused.

7.30 Report - RB flying up Victor 1 trying to find traffic close by.

ML Age - Ari from Pearsons in ML flogging their PA27 around the edge of the zone.

Ted Lang - talking about dodgem cars?%$#?*&%

Ch 7 BN - interview with M. Smith - what th!! Give us an answer please!

Not a NAS issue among them.

The NAS people must be delighted with the misinformation. Not a chance of addressing the realilities.

As for the stuck-up, nerdy, smarmy, smug, twerp on the NAS info number, who was embarrassingly uninformed, you my friend, are an idiot.

CG

[Max Range]

Picked up my "new, improved" NAS VTC and VNC today. That VNC used to be such a useful chart. Post-Nov 27, not only have they removed the area frequency boundaries, there are no area frequencies at all on the VNC. So one has to buy an ERC as well.
AND GUESS WHAT!
The price for an ERC this week? $3.15. And now ASA have effectively made ERCs compulsory, I'm informed the price for that chart will go up to $9.20 in December. :mad: How can ASA justify this price rise of nearly 300%?

[snarek]

Dick

As you know AOPA supports NAS 2b and generally supports the whole concept.

Speaking PERSONALLY I'd like to explore...

By the way, the reason the ATC frequency boundaries have been removed from the charts is not primarily chart simplification. The prime reason is to follow the proven overseas system where pilots are trained to concentrate on traffic which is approaching and departing an aerodrome. That is where the risk of collision is highest.

OK, boundaries I can understand. but even my little Grumman does 140 knots. 126.7 (or whatever) is OK if I call say 10 - 15 out, but then I am on CTAF in the 'congregation zone', I have two readios, why can't I be 'taught' so to speak to MONITOR area on 118.X for IFR incoming, outgoing.

to do that I need the freqs in a Tim-Tam near that CTAF.

Now, by biggest gripe. Lets say I am flying Moruya to Can'tberra up the Araluen at 6500. I get to Majors Creek. I look for approach on my VTC or VNC, it isn't there!!!!

I swear at Airservices and you.

I fumble in the back for my Besser Block ... sorry. useless ERSA (thinking this is a marketing ploy now).

I fumble with the brick looking for Can'tberra.

I find approach just in time to be told of my VCA!!!!

OR, I call tower (there it is in the Tim-Tam).

They get the s%$#s with me cos they are really busy (two Dash-8 and a C150), the read back the approach freq, but I cant hear it cos someone coming the other way calls on top.

My point.

Why no Approach freqs???

AK

[Aussie Andy]

G'day fellas,

Speaking as a private pilot in the UK, we simply plan ahead before we fly and write down the appropriate frequencies we anticipate will be required. This includes relevant ATC, TWR, MATZ, ATIS, etc. and is recorded on the PLOG. What is so hard? Planning ahead is easy. Why I should expect to find this info on the map I don't know!?

Good luck with the transition guys: I think with hindsight this will seem a storm ina teacup... especially the maps / radio freqs issue... sheesh!

Andy :O

[pesawat_terbang]

Andy

Yeah, but we were sold a "VFR navigation Chart" as a one map solution.

Why have to write em down when they can be on the map in the first place?????

PT

[Aussie Andy]

G'day pesawat: Why have to write em down when they can be on the map in the first place????? My thoughts on this are as follows: Is it really so difficult to look things up before you fly? Why does this seem such a big deal for you guys, I mean its hardly onerous? I believe its good arimanship to look things up prior to flight ... in case they have changed is one reason (maps not cycled as often as some other docs - but this may not be the same in your enviromnet)... but, moreover, it is a good planning exercise to go over your route before flyign it - do you prepare a PLOG, or just jump in and go? If you do prepare a PLOG, its no additional work to write down the freqs. If you just jump in and go, then I hope you are either very experienced, or maybe you have another PPL along in the right hand seat and can split the workload. If low hrs PPL, planning ahead must be better, n'est-ce pas?
This is just how it strikes me. Sorry if you viloently disagree - ready for the flames!!

Andy :ok:

[snarek]

Andy

I used to plot all the freqs and transition on my WAC Chart. But that was before I started to go IFR. I now use the ERC low and the WAC just to check LSALT (I like to visualyse Cumulo-Granite as I fly around Cairns).

Where Pesawat is coming from is the VNCs. Sorta like big VTCs. If you are in a VNC area (sadly not NQ even though we have almost continuous C from Brisbane to Cairns), you have all the airspace and all the freqs on one chart. Not any more.

The VTC is a good map for a short hop, like the one I decribed to Dick and which I am sure he knows well. 57 NM. not a great deal of planning, 115 on the VOR and off I go.

But now there are no app freqs on the maps. Not identifyably approach anyway. I think that will clag the tower freqs as people try to get in and are passed back.

While I generally support NAS, I think the frequency issue is a retrograde step and should be fixed.

AK

[Four Seven Eleven]

Aussie Andy
Speaking as a private pilot in the UK, we simply plan ahead before we fly and write down the appropriate frequencies we anticipate will be required.
I asked you on a previous thread: "Where would a PPL look up the area frequency?"

Given that you fly in the UK, you may not know the Austalian answer, but I would appreciate it if you or anyone else could let me know. (This is a genuine question -I don't know if the answer is in fact as simple as it seems to be in the UK)

Also, would not having the frequncies on the chart make mid-flight changes (e.g. diversions, level changes) much simpler?

[Aussie Andy]

G'day Four Seven Eleven"Where would a PPL look up the area frequency?"For NAS in Australia, my understanding from the training materials available - even at this distance - on the web is that the point is NOT to use the AREA frequency, but to use the APPROPRIATE frequency. See http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/docs/reference_guide%20.pdf page 27 which lists APPROPRIATE FREQUENCY - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VFR OPERATIONS. ATC is one of the choices (third down the list after TWR/MBZ/CTAF, listed in ERSA etc., and MULTICOM 126.7 - which you are just meant to know). I believe from what has been said that the ATC frequencies are available on various charts and in what has been described in the biscuit boxes on the new maps.

Seeing as you ask, in the UK you can find APPROPRIATE frequencies in much the same way. Instead of ERSA we have publications such as Jeppesen/Bottlang VFR Guide and Pooleys which give TWR and APP frequencies. Also available in the AIP of course, which in the UK is online at www.ais.org.uk. Register for apassword (easy to do) and you could have a look inside at an airfield plate. Try for example, say, Shoreham EGKA (near Brighton). Go to http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/html/egka.htm and in particular within this section http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aerodromes/302KA01.PDF and http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/pdf/aerodromes/32KA0201.PDF and you will find ATIS, TWR, APP (approach) frequencies listed there. (There are other sources for this information). NOTE by the way that this IS NOT an ATC area frequency.

So if I was flying, say, from my home airfield in Oxfordshire to, say, Dieppe via SFD VOR then my track would, as it happens, take me near to Shoreham in Class G, outside their local ATZ (2NM radius zone which they control). I would say to myself "I think it APPROPRIATE" to write down the Shoreham APP frequency on my PLOG. Then, when transiting nearby their airspace, say within 10NM, and after QSY'ing from Farnborough LARS (who would just say "freecall enroute") I would at least monitor Shoreham APP, and I may well call them for a Flight Information Service. This would not give me any separation, but would give me traffic information if they knew if. They definitely cannot see the traffic (NO RADAR!) and not all traffic in the area would be on their frequency (or necessarily on any frequency), so I would still also be required to SEE AND AVOID, which is what VFR is all about. They will also be handling IFR / GA approaches to their field on this frequency, by the way.

And all of this seems to work fine - in the much greater traffic density that is experienced in Sothern England than might typically the case at a non-radar destination in Australia, like e.g. Williamtown during the holidays when the MIL guys are all away on leave (which is one of my few flying experiences at home in Asutralia).

Hope this helps?


Andy :ok:

[triadic]

Dick Smith


That is a pretty tough statement to make. As I would like to direct my “energy and commitment” in the most effective direction, can you advise further?



Yes, Dick it was a bit tough, but I am sure that realise that even tho' you are a successful businessman etc., you are not a career aviator. Your experience and knowledge is certainly significant, and your motivation towards this change process is also significant. I know you have a lot to offer and it is my belief that you could do most off what you want with most everyone on side, if you tackled it slightly differently. But then you probably might say you may have not have been so successful if you had followed tradition? No win I guess? Is there middle ground?

However….

I would suggest that every proposed airspace change from AMATS on could have been introduced successfully if you had stayed right out of it (or at least right in the background). Sure we have only got this far because you have the ability to pick up the phone and call the Prime Minister and any other politician that the average Joe does not. You also obviously have much political influence which I suggest from observation you use from time to time to further your cause. NAS 2b is a political push, make no bones about it. I guess if you are doing the pushing then everyone else has to toe the line with your ideas or just butt out? Certainly the Minister is not listening to anyone but you right now. This is not the way business is undertaken in aviation and the Minister should know better if he really wants to promote aviation reform and aviation safety in particular.

Many aviation professionals (those that get paid for it) see you as a Private pilot regardless of your experience and qualifications. This does not necessarily place you in a position of respect with the industry at large, even if you are a nice bloke with all the right motives. The issue with airspace changes is and always will be in how those changes are "sold". The debate on 2b has only been brought about because nobody really understands why it is all going this way, especially as many believe that we already had "worlds best practice". Certainly I would be the first to agree that our airspace model needed an overhaul, but with the appropriate methodology and industry involvement it might have been a walk in the park.

I don't believe the issue is really about what is in the NAS proposal, but in the way it is presented and understood by those within the industry. One of the reasons we have so much angst on this matter is that the motive has not been sold or what's more understood. The savings are questioned and most would say highly dubious. The levels of safety are of concern to many and many pilots just don't understand the message.

The ARG is a joke and has little respect as a group, although the individuals thereon may be ok people it has never come out and made any public comment or statements in support of what it is doing, nor has it held open forum with industry representatives to discuss many of the issues that industry leaders have a problem with. This is no way to do business in aviation – you only get the opposition that you now see. This has been left to poor old Mike and the NASIG, again good people just trying to do a job, but failing because the direction they have been given is seen as totally inflexible.

For example, when it was obvious that the training package was not going to be in place some 3 months before the planned intro date, then the call should have been made and the implementation postponed. There are still pilot's not in receipt of their package and nobody has picked up the banner to take responsibility for training the trainers and for standardisation. (CASA?? Cant seem the for dust… not in their budget I suspect)

From what I hear the meeting called by Minister Anderson last Friday came out very strongly with concerns on the education and how it should have been handled. Sadly many of us have seen it before where the implementation date drives the project or the change process. The implementation date should only be agreed upon when the whole package is complete including all the education. To do otherwise is to put the cart well in front of the horse.

Even CASA said that the major mitigator on the implementation of 2b was education. What we have seen to date is only token and not for real. Only time will tell how many pilots got right into their package and understood it. You can bet many did not, but with a good plan and presentation they could have been picked up.

If you are of the belief that NAS will be the saviour of GA, which is now suffering it's worst time in history, then you obviously know something that many do not. I have seen numerous pilots give flying away over the years and usually it is all cost related. Certainly the introduction of user pays and a lack of an understanding by both Commonwealth and State Governments of the value of aviation and it's infrastructure is a significant factor that is not given the support it needs, because I guess it usually means high expense for not many votes. Well of late, I suggest there are certainly many pilots still walking away because of the cost, but now they are also walking or maybe running away because it is "over regulated", "too complicated", "strict liability" "in-fighting", etc. That certainly did not feature a decade or more ago. The direction of CASA must take responsibility for this. Any wonder it is really the CARA – they are more concerned with regulation than with safety. And as you would know, one can be 100% compliant and not safe – something the legal people in CASA and AG Dept just don't understand.

The standard of flying training is with few exceptions the worst we have seen and the standards of testing have been compromised by a system that does not work. A pilot passing a CPL today would not have passed a PPL 15 plus years ago. Now I wonder why that is?

Why is AOPA now floundering? Did you really use that platform as a stepping stone to other things? Many feel that you did and then you walked away at a crucial time. The last decade of that organisation has been quite tragic, something you should understand and perhaps take some responsibility for. Remember that a strong AOPA might have made a difference of late.

Bottom line

Yes we can have airspace reform and a vibrant GA sector. BUT… it takes some understanding by those that make the policy decisions and provide the marketing of change to process it with a minimum of fuss for it to occur. The flow-on effects are just not seen, let alone forecast.

Place your energy into some of these other aspects of aviation and you may well be seen as a Messiah.


(Nothing personal, but you did ask…. Apologies for the long post.)


"No known traffic" :ok:

[KAPTAIN KREMIN]

Heard this:

2 days after the fact in new E.

Dick, John and others you were nearly broke for life from litigation and you were warned- there but for the grace of GOD.

Nose to nose, precisely, two SW4's, at mid levels, one V on descent and one I on climb and 10 NM apart, 600kts closing. Different freqs and no TCAS.

Non-controlling airspace controller intervened and suggested one go left 30 degrees. Not pretty I believe. Count me out for E into D or similar. Heard something else happened in the vicinity of TAM on the 26th, where else, what else, but who keeps the stats.

This, of course, is normal therefore - no incident reports????

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Dick Smith,

My opinion only - you are a bloody disgrace and have a cheek poking your dial in here when there have been months of genuine questions about the process, consultation and operational implementation of this farce. You and the NASIG had a well disciplined policy of no comment except to roll out that Mike Smith puppet to speak loudly and say nothing whenever our media could be forced into addressing this issue. Will you be ducking for cover and rolling him out to take the blame when it ****s up as well?

So tell me this - where are the savings? Where is the improvement for VFR? Where for IFR? Where for anyone? Where are the 70M bucks from Willoughby's fable?

And finally.... why I am wasting my time asking you?

[Aussie Andy]

**** su RANT RANT RANT ... you are a bloody disgrace ... RANT RANT RANT What would your MUm think mate? Try and keep it civil, eh!?

I suppose people like you wonder why noone listens to you, eh?

[twodogsflying]

I can confirm KAPTAIN KREMIN's post about the 2 Metros. The one that was asked to turn 30 degrees was actually flying VFR (non RPT) at Flight Levels and being IFR trained they where on the ATC frequency, otherwise the instruction would have been missed and the inevitable happened.

Also lucky it was in Radar coverage!

Now we have High Peformance Turbo Props flying VFR to save costs! How is this safer?

[DirectAnywhere]

As an instructor I never used to let students use a VNC for two reasons.

1. The scale was a pain in the a$%e as at 1:500,000, at some point during the flight, usually diversions etc., you usually end up with a piece of paper the size of an unfolded tablecloth covering the window, instruments etc.

2. The coverage was (and still is) somewhat limited, meaning if the pilot had to go somewhere without a VNC they wouldn't kow where to find basic operational info such as area freqs, CTA boundaries etc. See my point...?

I haven't seen an ERC Low for a little while but surely the frequencies must still be on there (?) I don't agree with NAS per se but the idea that if the frequencies aren't on the VFR chart, they're not available, seems a little strange to me.

Buy a WAC, buy an ERC Low and plot your track on both. The frequencies (hopefully) you will need should all be on the ERC or in ERSA.

Although, referring to Max Ranges post

The price for an ERC this week? $3.15. And now ASA have effectively made ERCs compulsory, I'm informed the price for that chart will go up to $9.20 in December. How can ASA justify this price rise of nearly 300%? Owwww....that's gotta hurt.

Also, it's good to see Dick Smith using his real name, as much as I disagree with his ideas. I wouldn't be so game...

[WhatWasThat]

Directanywhere
Nope, they have taken the FIA boundaries off the ERC. All part of a cunning plan to encourage you to "see and avoid".

[Hempy]

Speaking as a private pilot in the UK
....... stay there

[DirectAnywhere]

All comments withdrawn!! Thanks WhatWasThat.

What a debacle. WhatWasThat? Says it all really!?!

:yuk:

[Aussie Andy]

Hempy stone-head:Thanks for your valuable contribution... seeing as you want to trade juvenile insults, I am happy to respond in kind.......... stay thereUmm, no I won't :8. But don't worry mate, although I travel home very regularly (twice this year for example) and fly in Aussie airspace when I do, I have not been back to sMelbourne since the RAAF let me out of there in 1981 and I have no intention of going back, so I doubt our paths will cross.

Have a happy day at Tullamarine mate,

Andy :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Aussie Andy,

You said:
Is it really so difficult to look things up before you fly? Why does this seem such a big deal for you guys, I mean its hardly onerous?...
I appalud your attitude/airmanship: unfortunately, Dick Smith is fiercely trying to instil exactly the opposite: he wants a "get in, turn on the key, go flying wherever you like, and talk (and listen) to no-one" system, where everyone gets out of HIS way. In short, to hell with every other airspace user.
Your preflight planning is called good airmanship: airmanship died here in 1991 when Dick came on the scene.

[OZ Junglejet]

A big problem with this new system is many high performance regional RPT aircraft (J32, B1900, Metro, E120, Kingair etc) are not fitted with TCAS and are not required to have it. Any of these aircraft could be on descent in Class E indicating 240-260 KTS with ground speeds of 300+ kts. It doesn't give the crew a lot of time to try and sight any VFR traffic!

[Aussie Andy]

Well they don't want me to talk to them on the other thread anymore... :ouch:

In respect of the above:he wants a "get in, turn on the key, go flying wherever you like, and talk (and listen) to no-one" system, where everyone gets out of HIS way. In short, to hell with every other airspace user.Where does it say that in the NAS documentation?many high performance regional RPT aircraft are not fitted with TCAS and are not required to have it.which leaves see and avoid in VMC when in E or G. So the operators of these aircraft should perhaps choose to fit some form of traffic alerting if they are operating in high density areas (whats a GNS430 cost anyway?), or if not warranted by traffic density they can continue to operate as they are I guess.

Its sad to see how p1ssed off everyone is, so there are clearly a number of political problems involved. Good luck!

Andy :ok: