PDA

View Full Version : safety under NAS what can we do?


Gunner B12
26th Nov 2003, 18:04
I thought it might be worth starting a thread that looks at how we can work around NAS so frequency boundaries aside (I think that will have to be changed back but who knows).

Could you for example get away with requesting a transponder check from ATC, of course you would have to tell them where you were and your altitude and probably your track.....

if my naievaty (sp?) concerns you I fully intend waiting until someone comes up with a course on how to operate under these new rules before I try entering anything other than the circuit or training area. So I suppose you could say I'm an example of how the new rules will keep people away from aviating at least in the short term.

any positive ideas?


R4+Z

Willie Nelson
26th Nov 2003, 19:51
Now might be a good time for each of us to remind ourselves of the regulations associated with CAR (1988) 161 which discusses the "rules of the air" pertaining to right of way etc. assuming that you are flying out the back of Bringyadogalong station and you notice farmer Joe coming at you head on at a non hemispherical level; which way do you go.........etc, etc...

I don't like these regs and operating out of radar coverage both literally and metaphorically I believe it leaves us remote pilots (and our passengers) out on a limb, however I would hate to think that two pilots did in fact see each other with just enough time to take evasive action and eneded up as a burning testament to the NAS failure, simply because of the confusion associated with the rules of the air.

Good luck to all from tomorrow on and let us hope that if this thing falls flat on it's face sooner rather than later, it is because of a few too many close calls rather than funerals :(

Willie

Here to Help
26th Nov 2003, 20:35
If VFR in radar coverage, you can ask ATC for a traffic statement as part of the radar information service (RIS) in Class E. It is on a workload permitting basis and if provided with it you will get identified and be told of any relevant traffic. At least then you are known to the system, and the ATC can advise other aircraft positively of your location if required. An identified VFR in Class E on the correct frequency is far safer than one not on frequency, not identified, and with intentions unknown.

In Class G there's nothing wrong with asking for a transponder check (provided the freq isn't too busy at the time). If the controller is not busy then you'll be asked to squawk ident - you'll be identified and your mode C verified. The reply light on a transponder does not mean you are definitely being seen by ATC or by TCAS.

As for what frequency to call up on, well, maybe you can call Flightwatch to ask for it, or try the nearest "Dick's Biscuit" area frequency marked on the ERC Low. If you get the wrong freq then you may be directed to the correct one. Unfortunately, this can increase the workload of all involved, but that's a result of the new system we will have.

WhatWasThat
27th Nov 2003, 02:11
I have seen previous posts suggesting that use of the new class E procedures was forbidden by various company ops manuals, however you may be affected by a VFR climb/descent or IFR pick up anyway as only the aircraft using the procedure needs to think its a good idea (VFR on top probably wont bother you as I cant see any sane pilot requesting it).

In LLAMP both aircraft had to agree.

If, whilst in E, you are issued traffic on another IFR aircraft that doesnt think he/she needs separating from you and you would prefer to maintain the integrity of your clearance, voice your concerns to ATC. I for one will do whatever I can to ensure that those aircraft who want to be separated are separated.

I do think that under the right circumstances pilot assumption of responsibility for separation is an excellent tool, however both parties should have a say.

QSK?
27th Nov 2003, 06:16
i concur with all of the above, but would like to add the following suggestion:

Now that NAS requires us to participate in unalerted "see and avoid", I am recommending that pilots give themselves a fighting chance by NOT USING their GPS for enroute navigation, to reduce the potential for mid-air collision, particularly in areas of Australia not covered by radar.

If you must use GPS, then I would propose that all pilots program an offset to the RIGHT of your track, say 0.72 nm or such other random figure (because everyone else will probably use a 1nm offset which defeats the purpose of implementing an offset).

Now ultimately, what we really need is for some bright spark to design a GPS that randomly injects an offset to the right of track (sort of defeats the purpose of a GPS in the first place, don't it?)

OpsNormal
27th Nov 2003, 06:59
Joe aint that bad a bloke, but his eyesight is a bit shot these days and his memory isn't what it once was..... :}

My one concern about the new airspace is that for a bugsmasher with only one comm upwardly leaving the top of class D airspace, may not have heard the "top of descent, request traffic" call of a turboprop or similar a/c that has no requirement to carry or use TCAS. A quick "All stations" by the bugsmasheaux might have given the descending a/c on the reciprocal track the heads-up needed.... I'm not too sure why this requirement to say nothing is always better or safer?

I too am at a loss as to why some advocate listening and saying nothing at all. Radio, when used properly by both the user and the responsible agency (ie not having paired frq leading to congestion), is one of the best situational awareness tools that are available to all pilots.

Bargearse
27th Nov 2003, 07:05
Tolerance

I think this might be a good one to practice.

If a VFRie is trying to pass on/obtain some constructive info, they should be welcomed for trying to do the right thing and thumbing their nose at 2b.

In the same breath however, try not to ramble on with the irrelevant stuff when doing this. Think about what you need to say before hitting the PTT and then say it as briefly and to the point as is possible.

I believe there is going to be a lot more radio traffic from now on so don't clogg the airways with unnessesary stuff. That goes for IFR aswell. If you want a chat with your mate 123.45

On eyre
27th Nov 2003, 13:41
I fly both IFR and VFR. Too many IFR pilots are complaining about VFR pilots possibly not being able to respond to radio calls because they may possibly be on the wrong frequency. My personal belief is that this under-rates the savvy of most VFR pilots but does expose a far greater risk of radio alerted see and avoid that occurs everyday.

Most IFR pilots around SA do not indicate what their destination is when requesting traffic for descent and ATC do not help either in their reply - result is that VFR pilot shuts up because he has no idea if the IFR traffic is anywhere near him or presents a traffic hazard.

Simple fix - IFR aircraft when requesting traffic for descent say where the hell they are descending to and maybe ATC mention that also! - at least then VFR pilot might respond.

SM4 Pirate
27th Nov 2003, 14:32
Why are we all suggesting work arounds; the system is safe, it works in the USA...

I commend you all for making an effort; unfortunately real industry consultation would have included some easily identified procedures to increase safety.

VFR on TOP has been 'banned' by Civil Air; but we are expecting our generous employer to take Civil Air to the AIRC for taking illegaal industrial action.

(Hypothetical) AIRC: Apply less safety, you naughty boys and girls... Get real Andrew; take it on the chin...

snarek
27th Nov 2003, 18:30
Gosh :ok:

You are all still alive today????

I am amazed, reading the CivilAir [email protected] I was sure you all would have been killed by all those airliners falling out of the sky on top of you!!!

I was worried, perhaps I may have had to stay here in Brazil because of all the flaming wreckage. You know, like one of those nuclear war movies.

What a relief, I suppose you weren't standing next to a kindergarten hey.

Just for the record, how many 747s actually fell on a kindy today???

AK :E

Col. Walter E. Kurtz
27th Nov 2003, 19:00
Snarek, just in case you missed it, there is a post regarding the safety gains made by the NAS that people like you and other supporters of the system are invited to express the safety improvements made by this new system.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=110288

Please let us all know, cause we obviously have missed the enhancements to safety.

That's if you are capable of contributing anything but sarcasm to the discussions.

Spotlight
27th Nov 2003, 19:32
On Eyre

Quite correct, the AIP has long been 'Position Level & Intent' prior to descent. This has been allowed to be ignored in G for years. Any ASIR's submitted by lower level pilots have been binned.

Ergo: no problem. Thats the NAS line.

Gunner B12
27th Nov 2003, 20:47
Since NAS came in I have recorded only one incident under the "see and avoid" system. Unfortunately there was a collision........

After we appologised to each other we both went our seperate ways with me thinking.....

If I can't get this right in a bloody shopping centre what chance do I stand in the air?????


:( :( :( :) :) :)

QSK?
28th Nov 2003, 13:05
Further to my earlier post re VFR aircraft offsetting their GPS during enroute navigation, see the following article on the Airservices' website:http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/SpecialpilotOps/gps.pdf

QSK?
5th Dec 2003, 07:09
Methinks that if NASIG is hell bent on keeping frequency boundaries off the VTC/VNC/ERC charts then, maybe, CASA/Airservices should consider re-publishing an ATS area frequency chart like the old FISCOM chart which used to show all the old FS and FIA frequency boundaries. This would go some way to resolving this problem.

DownDraught
5th Dec 2003, 08:36
Gosh You are all still alive today???? I am amazed, reading the CivilAir [email protected] I was sure you all would have been killed by all those airliners falling out of the sky on top of you!!! I was worried, perhaps I may have had to stay here in Brazil because of all the flaming wreckage. You know, like one of those nuclear war movies. What a relief, I suppose you weren't standing next to a kindergarten hey. Just for the record, how many 747s actually fell on a kindy today??? AK

Professionlism at it's best....Pick the x public servant, childish at best. And you want me to pay you to represent me.....unbelieveable.

tobzalp
5th Dec 2003, 08:48
I find it unbelievable that such a person in such a position would be so foolish as to portray themselves in a public forum this way. I really does make his association look more like the bunch of throw together amatuers that they are.

Mooney Operator
5th Dec 2003, 08:55
Gosh

You are all still alive today????

I am amazed, reading the CivilAir [email protected] I was sure you all would have been killed by all those airliners falling out of the sky on top of you!!!

I was worried, perhaps I may have had to stay here in Brazil because of all the flaming wreckage. You know, like one of those nuclear war movies.

What a relief, I suppose you weren't standing next to a kindergarten hey.

Just for the record, how many 747s actually fell on a kindy today???

AK

Maybe all these guys are just simulator pilots, and their just having a lend of us? :)

SM4 Pirate
5th Dec 2003, 11:02
Whilst it won't help most regionals...

Jets (or anyone able) should advise that they require cancellation of STAR requirements etc, to avoid class E airspace on descent.

I would accommodate any such request; this of course would mean more track miles inside the last 45-36 DME (class A and C), but we could make it work; possibly need a little extra space etc. But if you want it, you would get it.

Bottle of Rum

Home Brew
5th Dec 2003, 11:09
Simple fix. If every pilot flew a slow as possible (say 210 kts) and decended/climbed at 1000 fpm in class "e", giving a much improved chance to see-and-avoid. Then it would cost the airlines $$$'s in time and fuel, then maybe they would take notice of this debacle instead of being silent!!!
:\