PDA

View Full Version : What are the airlines doing about the NAS ?


chief wiggum
20th Nov 2003, 18:09
Does anyone here know what the airlines stand on the NAS is ? I remember back in the 90's when Dick first F##ked up our airspace, that some airlines went into bat for the old system, and I believe that the IMPULSE CP was sacked for it ?

Easterns and Hazos and Kendells also had concerns, and aired them, and consequently it was deferred, then repealed.

WHAT ARE THEY DOING THIS TIME ?

onya
21st Nov 2003, 06:27
Funny you should ask that Chief. Airline I work for has banned the use of IFR Pickup, VFR on top and VFR climb. To the point where it is a sackable offence. From speaking to pilots that work for other companies it appears to be across the board. Know of 4 other airlines in OZ that have banned the use of the new "concepts" . So I suppose at the end of the day dick and his cronnies have failed. The industry doesn't like it but that doesn't seem to matter. ATC are appalled at the whole thing and thats from the guys that are trying to work it. Safety has gone out the window. Why the hell we allow a private pilot to have so much say in this industry is beyond me. To provide our customers with the maximum safety barrier I think it's best that we stick to what we know. And before anyone rips it into me I've looked at this from all angles and it's not good. Been to the seminars, spoken to colleagues. It's got a lot of holes in it.
Good luck Fellas..........cos it appears luck is the only thing holding the whole shambles together.
Onya:uhoh:

Chocks Away
21st Nov 2003, 06:53
It's all about "affordable safety".:yuk:

...how far we can afford to cut back costs before aircraft start hitting each other in the terminal areas. Heck... we can afford one or two aircraft accidents a year... that's life isn't it??? :ugh:

NO! Not until one of those accidents has a relative of yours onboard Pal! We're going backwards here and as if we haven't learnt from the past...

Pinky the pilot
21st Nov 2003, 07:59
A very good question indeed! I have no idea what the policy of the organisation I have done casual work for is but one of the full time pilots views are identical to onya's employers.
Also; does anyone else share my intense disliking for the term 'affordable safety'?
As I mentioned on another thread, I once saw a poster on a door of the Nationair office in Port Moresby years ago 'If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident'


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

Gone Fishing
21st Nov 2003, 08:39
Even if you do not use these procedures out of personal preference or company policy but some other wacker in the same bit of airspace decides to use them, then guess what fellas, these new procedures are being applied to you.

By banning their pilots from using these procedures the airlines are not guaranteeing that their Aircraft, Employees, Passengers are receiving the IFR protection they are entitled to, and they are kidding themselves if they think otherwise.

Its time the airline companies grew a spine and started to speak out publicly. Why are they leaving it to ATC/Pilot organisations to fight the battle?

tobzalp
21st Nov 2003, 12:14
Agree gone Fishing. I also think that the airlines should ask for a waiver on all of the charges that they get with respect to any flight that they have the procedures applied against them. They are not getting the service they are paying for.

Desert Flower
21st Nov 2003, 13:52
Also; does anyone else share my intense disliking for the term 'affordable safety'?

Yes, Pinky - I do!! If there were ever two words that in my opinion are complete opposites these would have to be them!!

DF.

TopperHarley
21st Nov 2003, 14:17
Correct me if im wrong here but......

Is most the opposition from the RPT side of town regarding NAS the increased exposure to Class E with the possibility of clobbering a student pilot in a NOCOM C152 ??

If this is the case, just how long is a 737 out of Hobart exposed to this risk ?

Would I be right in assuming its only a few minutes between when they leave 4500 (top of 'D') and pass 10,000' (hopefully not many VFR's much above 10)??

I know this is not the point but wouldnt this window of risk be fairly small??

How do RPT climb and descent profiles match up with the C and E airspace around major capital city aerodromes ?? What is the exposure to E and would it be above A100 ??

Just a thought

AirNoServicesAustralia
21st Nov 2003, 20:21
Topper, whether you are a pilot or an ATC, throughout all your traning, you go through checklists, get readbacks, and generally tinplate your arse. Why do we all do that, because in this game their are quite often no second chances.

The risk may be small that in that jump through E airspace, the 737 may clean up that VFR, but as I said above, it has always been drummed into us, any risk, no matter how small, is too much of a risk. We are all being asked to take a small risk, and told to accept that as an economic reality. Well thats just not good enough.

Capcom
21st Nov 2003, 20:46
The practical application of 2b where E (Tower Non Radar) overlays a paired D CTR below.

Having recently completed 2b training, here is how this little black duck will be operating this circus: -

MATS requires that “ATC shall prevent collisions!” (All classes of airspace -G) IMHO this and duty of care/common law/actions of a reasonable person etc will effectively override all options and machinations of segregation, traffic info etc where IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR are concerned.

So in D and as far as practicable in E, “Separation” will be my tool of choice!

After all, if a collision risk exists i.e. A separation standard does not exist, then for mine in the terminal area the aircraft are close enough to warrant a better level of service (Safety) than is minimally required under AusNAS.

Tower Class E over D

Here are some of the practical aspects of AusNAS: -

- Speed restriction of 250kts is no longer optional as speed increases could preclude pilots from being able to “See and Avoid” in E (Restricts sequencing options)
- IFR aircraft may only be assigned IFR levels or the LHALT Soooo, that means higher intermediate levels assignable to RPT above 36t i.e.
Instead of Descent to A045 above known VFR aircraft at A035 inbound it will now be A050.
Or “If” we know about VFR conducting Instrument training overhead at A045 or A055 then A060 or A070 is as good as it will get until we can see both and can apply visual or some other form of separation.
Even if using 500ft was considered for aircraft over 36t (Segregation not separation!) the amount of mutual traffic information that must be broadcast make it impractical and cumbersome particularly when frequency congestion could become a safety issue. AusNAS will create frequency loading in these environments if separation is not regularly applied.
- VFR conducting Instrument training will:- Avoid IFR routes and conform to VFR hemisphericals, so I guess that means as each portion of a DME arc or holding pattern that progresses past 179 or 359 degrees will result in climbing or descending to the appropriate VFR altitude for the hemispherical being flown i.e. 2 level changes each pattern flown. (Most ridiculous anomaly in this fiasco!.)
- VFR over flying aircraft who may or may not be painting on TSAD (Tower Situational Awareness Displays where fringe RADAR coverage may exist) may not be given as Traffic Information as the TSAD is not commissioned for provision of RADAR services nor are these Controllers RADAR rated. Even if TSAD was commissioned for such services where coverage exists the FAA equivalent would generally have a stand alone E Approach RADAR controller and a separate controller for the D zone.
(Reducing costs…………….Bollocks!!!)

So, to facilitate VFR fight without radio and NO cost savings, as VFR currently do not pay anyhow, we are giving up:-

- Class C separation service to IFR and VFR
- Some of the most commonly used tools for the SAFE and EFFICIENT flow of air traffic as discussed above i.e. Speed control etc.

And your reward for “Dickspace reform” will be a much improved system of Eyes, TCAS and of course “Operation lights On”………………........... Brrrriiiiiiiiiiiilliant!!!.:ooh: :mad:

Gone FishingEven if you do not use these procedures out of personal preference or company policy but some other wacker in the same bit of airspace decides to use them, then guess what fellas, these new procedures are being applied to you.True, rest assured I will in the first instance be advising the other IFR affected by one of these 5hit procedures and should they express even the slightess concern I will not be arbitrarily removing anyone’s IFR protection against their will. In reality it would not happen as I indicated above if a separation standard cannot be achieved and a collision risk exists I will not put pilots in a position to have to joust with a “Wacker” whilst airborne.

tobzalpI also think that the airlines should ask for a waiver on all of the charges that they get with respect to any flight that they have the procedures applied against them. They are not getting the service they are paying for.Blood Oath! I think the same rationale could be applied to C becoming E, IFR margins are reduced, are they getting the service they are paying for????

TopperIs most the opposition from the RPT side of town regarding NAS the increased exposure to Class E with the possibility of clobbering a student pilot in a NOCOM C152 ??Yup, although there are plenty of other issues this one is a biggy!If this is the case, just how long is a 737 out of Hobart exposed to this risk ?

Would I be right in assuming its only a few minutes between when they leave 4500 (top of 'D') and pass 10,000' (hopefully not many VFR's much above 10)??

I know this is not the point but wouldnt this window of risk be fairly small??Depends on your definition of “fairly small” none the less it is a risk that currently DOES NOT exist.
The AusNAS system is “LESS SAFE” in this regard for no perceived gain other than VFR’s not having to speak on a radio.How do RPT climb and descent profiles match up with the C and E airspace around major capital city aerodromes ?Where C exists today and will be replaced by E over D, the entire profile on descent and climb will be in E.
As I understand it the descent profiles present the biggest problems at the primaries. (Speed control/flow sequencing will enter that debate as well I assume).

OPEN MIC

- 2 dozen aircraft in a CTAF – No problem….!
- CASA did NOT say E was LESS safe than C…..!

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate…………C’mon…………….Really???……:hmm :

SM4 Pirate
22nd Nov 2003, 04:25
Where C exists today and will be replaced by E over D, the entire profile on descent and climb will be in E.
As I understand it the descent profiles present the biggest problems at the primaries. (Speed control/flow sequencing will enter that debate as well I assume). I think this is a significant issue; into HB, LT and AS initially the descent profile will more than likely take aircraft into G.

Why?

Same steps (miles), different heights...

FL125 replaced by FL145.

FL200 replaced by FL245 are we seeing a problem; oh that's right it's now see and avoid.

Bottle of Rum

ozm8
22nd Nov 2003, 15:28
The risk may be fairly small after 2b, but see the following for the currently planned "end-state".

http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/pilot_education/detail_long.htm

In that plan, C only goes up to 4000' around airports. In that situation, an aircraft on descent into the airport could be in E for about 15 minutes in an ideal, straight-in descent, depending on the performance characteristics of that particuar aircraft. This risk is obviously much larger than the couple of minutes' exposure under 2b.

Let's not forget, either, that a glider carrying oxygen can fly just about as high as it likes, and they are invariably VFR!

Oz Mate!

compressor stall
23rd Nov 2003, 09:43
affordable safety = acceptable danger

Mork from Ork
23rd Nov 2003, 14:19
Capcom, I tip my hat to you and nominate you as industry spokesperson!!

Cheers Mork.

:ok:

Farcome
23rd Nov 2003, 17:24
Topper

Hobart is a good example of blasting off in a 737 into 'uncontrolled VFR' airspace. Have a think about the chaps(Desert Flower might want to say a piece here) in Alice Springs, top of CTA 4500, Aerodrome elevation about 1800.

That leaves 2700 to get your shit sorted after takeoff and start looking outside for survival.

Whats that in a 73???... a minute? Whats that in a single pilot PC12... maybe a minute 20?

Happy Takeoffs.

Ref + 10
23rd Nov 2003, 17:40
"Operation Lights On" !!?? What about the ole King Air? Do we have to put the gear down and turn on the lights?

Anyone watch the NAS video provided by Mike Smith? Really enjoyed John and Martha telling us how these changes were going to allow all airspace users more freedom to operate... same as in the US where there are around 350 mid-airs a year?? Is more freedom what we need?

Capcom
24th Nov 2003, 22:29
Mork
To be brutally honest, I have a deep dislike/distrust of the “establishment” born of years of “ Lies, damn’ lies and statistics”, manipulated, spun, interpreted differently to achieve grubby monetary outcomes for the Vermin residing in the marble proclamation pit up the hill from W.B.Griffin’s pond.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/angryfire.gif
Their underlings of the “rationalism for bonuses” ilk who will sell their souls to achieve the bottom line are like a firewall of yes – persons (You know the type – “in the fullness of time and after due consideration blah, blah, crap, bollocks”), what is the point of talking to them when you have as much chance of these fools listening as there is of happening across rocking horse 5hit?

I would rather engage in discussion here with people who will voice their thoughts on issues warts and all, informed debate and decision making I guess, interesting isn’t it that Smith 1 & 2 won’t play any more….!!

Thing that pisse5 me off….!

I’ll bet these cretins sleep soundly at night for lack of moral conscience!!!:yuk: :mad:

Idiots! They know not what they do!.....
……….or do they….?!:uhoh: :hmm:

Cap