The sounds of silence............Nov 27th [Archive]

Dick Smith

2nd Dec 2003, 12:28

WhatWasThat, the reason the FIA boundaries have been removed from the charts is for the primary purpose of reducing the number of unalerted see and avoid incidents we get in MBZs and CTAFs. I suggest you check with the ATSB – there are thousands of incidents where pilots are on not on the correct radio frequency.

When you ask the Americans why they do not have area frequency boundaries on charts, they will tell you quite clearly that it is so pilots will concentrate on monitoring the approach and departure airspace of an airport where the collision risk is highest. A typical two-hour enroute flight for a VFR aircraft, when monitoring area frequencies, results in listening to dozens of calls that are completely irrelevant. When the pilot reaches the approach and departure airspace of an airport, there is a chance that the pilot will consider that the calls are similarly irrelevant.

Also, where could a typical VFR pilot (say flying below 7,000’) collide with an IFR pressurised airline aircraft? Yes, you have the answer – in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome. The new appropriate frequency recommendations make it quite clear that when enroute, even if 30 or 40 miles from an aerodrome, that the aerodrome frequency should be monitored if flying in the airspace that could be used for approach and departure. Nothing could be more logical.

Flying enroute with the equivalent of a taxi radio in your ear the whole time not only leads to complacency but also adds to stress.

I feel sure that the international system we are following will lead to higher safety. I believe it is a bit like moving from 4 engine Electra aircraft, to 2 engine 767s. The perception of many people would be that the aircraft with 2 engines would be less safe, however we know that it is actually safer.

By the way, the comments in relation to the quieter ATC sectors are of course the key to the considerable savings that can be made. When TAAATS was originally purchased it was planned to be operated with 50 ATC sectors. I understand that currently during peak times there are 104 sectors. By saving some sectors we can save some real money that can assist the industry – not just in ways to improve safety, but also in becoming viable again.

Icarus2001

2nd Dec 2003, 12:43

Welcome back Dick. Please continue to engage..

Here is the crunch...

quieter ATC sectors are of course the key to the considerable savings that can be made. .... . By saving some sectors we can save some real money that can assist the industry – not just in ways to improve safety, but also in becoming viable again.

Okay so AirServices which is what? a GBE now? will save money. They pay a dividend to their one and only shareholder, the Australian Government. So that becomes consolidated revenue. Do you really expect us to believe that these funds will end up helping GA? Come on Dick. How?

How come the ATCOs on here as well as those I speak to every day day tell me it will cost more? How come Ken Matthews is on record as saying it may cost more or save money they don't know. There it is in Hansard for all to read.

Ascend Charlie

2nd Dec 2003, 14:01

As a mostly-VFR helicopter driver, I agree with most of what Dick says.

I am pleased that I will no longer hear the bugsmashers self-announcing as they drone up and down the Hornsby lane or the training machines self-announcing their ops in the training area and then asking for QNH despite having just departed a GAAP airfield.

However, I do miss the nice big area frequency marked on the map - having 2 radios means I can listen to the CTAfs as I go by, but also need to hear Centre talking to Aeroduck as they climb or descend, away from Pelican's CTAF.

I don't see how making a pilot stick his head in the cockpit, searching for an appropriate frequency, will make it safer.:confused:

Aussie Andy

2nd Dec 2003, 14:35

Ascend Charlie:I don't see how making a pilot stick his head in the cockpit, searching for an appropriate frequency, will make it safer.I think that if your ops require you to monitor a certain frequency, and you are aware of this duringthe planning phase, then its not too diffciult to look these up before you fly and write them down as required.

Andy :ok:

Chief galah

2nd Dec 2003, 15:11

But Dick, when I'm flogging around below 7,000 ft, I'm not all that interested in the traffic at all the piddly little CTAFs that I overfly, unless I'm below 3000 ft AGLs. In the past, all IFRs made a broadcast on the area frequency to indicate their intentions, so it was easier to assess relevant traffic then.

BUT Dick, you have described the perfect scenario for a collision by allowing unnotified traffic to occupy airspace used by controlled IFR traffic.
If we could be 100% sure the low time VFR pilot
1. is on the right frequency,
2. knows his VMC requirements,
3. has his transponder on
4. and it's working
5. understands what is happening between ATC and the IFR traffic,
6. will not be scared of speaking up,
7. knows the holding patterns for that airport,

Maybe there’s a chance…..

BUT DICK, I know there is a high probability that any combination of 1-7 will not occur.

BUT DICK, if I choose to overfly a D zone, I'll have to avoid the departure/approach paths and the relevant holding patterns that for me and many others, the details have to be gotten from AsA's website. This is not easy. Albury, for example has six separate approaches each with their own holding pattern. To avoid these, I'll have to make a sizable diversion. Much easier in the past by getting a clearance and letting ATC worry about that.

AS WELL DICK it's not going to save ME a cent.

AND if Airservices had had better frequency management, we could have avoided all this expensive NAS navel gazing.

AND DICK, everyone makes mistakes. Even you, when you didn’t follow your approach clearance when you came down south recently. We were too busy to do anything about it, and we’d be seen to be picking on you anyway. Just lucky there wasn’t a pesky little VFRy out there to get in your way and get my ticket suspended.

CG

QSK?

2nd Dec 2003, 15:26

Dick:

A typical two-hour enroute flight for a VFR aircraft, when monitoring area frequencies, results in listening to dozens of calls that are completely irrelevant. When the pilot reaches the approach and departure airspace of an airport, there is a chance that the pilot will consider that the calls are similarly irrelevant

What a load of twaddle! Where is your empirical data to support such a claim? All pilots (even PPLs) are given sufficient training to sort out the relevant from the irrelevant communications and, in over 25 years of flying, I have found the majority of pilots are reasonably adept at this very, very smplistic task. This example is not sufficient grounds to remove frequency boundaries off a chart, for chrissakes!

I could, just as easily, throw the argument back to you that in-flight safety could be substantially improved if pilots were given the appropriate information on charts so that they could improve their situational awareness by listening to the enourte ATC frequencies so that they could hear IFR aircraft descending into, and taxying at, MBZ/CTAF aerodromes, particularly in an unalerted "see and avoid" traffic environment. I can't really quantify that statement either but, at least, I have more confidence of the acceptability of my statement within the pilot community compared to yours.

Dick, the ARG/NASIG's (and your) insistence on removing the frequency boundaries off charts is nothing short of bloody-mindedness in your slavish attempts to faithfully replicate the US airspace model. Against the wishes or many of us, you have foisted on us an unalerted see and avoid airspace environment that we believe presents considerably more collision risk and then, to make it worse, you "tie one hand behind our backs" by removing from the charts the very information that could at least help many of us to mitigate some of our in-flight risk under the new airspace.

You are right, of course, with respect to traffic conflicts arising from aircraft arriving and departing from aerodromes and I welcome the fact that aircraft operating in proximity to MBZs/CTAFs are now encouraged to monitor those frequencies from a greater distance. But this fact still doesn't warrant the removal of ATS frequency boundaries off the charts!

Who do I suddently talk to when my single engine quits? Oh I know, "Just pass me the ERSA from my flight bag in the back there please, while I take the time to look it up!" Got a flight plan amendment and you are outside the range of Flightwatch? No worries "I'll just look for the nearest Tim Tam box to get the ATS frequency. I havn't flown in Qld before, so where the f#@*& is Turkey Hill? Am I in VHF range (wherever it is)?"

Many pilots and controllers have presented well-reasoned safety arguments for frequency boundary retention under Australian airspace conditions, and your airspace teams don't even have the courtesy or the willingness to seriously consider our opinions or to resolve the issue. That's a really nice attitude to adopt considering we had no say in the NAS proposals in the first place. CASA continues to place a heavy emphasis on systemic safety and the need for SMS's for AOC holders and airports. Where's the effective safety management framework for considering individual pilot safety concerns?

I would propose to you Dick, and the rest of your ARG/NAS team, that, from a safety perspective, we all have EVERYTHING TO GAIN from retaining the frequency boundaries on the charts AND ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO LOSE! And, I seriously doubt that there is anything you can say in defence that will change my opinion.

Wheeler

2nd Dec 2003, 18:10

An IFR aircraft does get a rather good (too good?) RAS descending through the training area in into BK or CN now - I've even been given information on non transponder equipped aircraft. I must admit though I only actually see about half the 'unverified' aircraft. Radar advice is given on simply heaps of them!

Who reckons the training area and the the lane should perhaps be CTAF? What do most listen to in this airspace now?

WhatWasThat

2nd Dec 2003, 19:08

Hello Dick,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post. Let me start by saying that I am not opposed to any attempt to create efficiencies in Air Traffic Control, I spend a great deal of time trying to do just that in my own small way. I think you will find that most ATCs hold the same view, particularly at this point in history where there are a large number of baby boomer ATCs approaching retirement, reducing the likelihood of any involuntary redundancies.

That said I have been critical of you and the NAS which you have championed and I will attempt to offer an explanation as to why that is so before I deal with the specifics of your post.

Firstly I am extremely dissatisfied with the lack of genuine consultation with stakeholders – the general perception is that any concerns or suggestions about this process have been dismissed out of hand. I believe this has contributed to the overwhelmingly negative sentiment towards NAS that exists in ATC today.

I firmly believe that this process has put the cart before the horse. My preference would have been for you and the ARG to express a set of objectives, i.e. Reduce the number of ATC sectors, Improve access to airspace for VFR etc and then sit down with the various stakeholders and have a conversation about how we can achieve these objectives. The NAS has been presented as a fait accompli, leaving us struggling to discern the operational concept behind the changes.

The Willoughby report was offensive to all ATCs, based as it was on flawed reasoning and an incomplete understanding of the existing ATC system. I found the statement that the average peak load for Australian ATC sectors is 1.4 IFR flights particularly amusing as I had just unplugged from my sector where I had been experiencing a peak load of approximately 20 IFR flights. The claims made in this document were in stark contrast to an independent review of Australian ATC by Eurocontrol which appeared at around the same time, this report indicated that Australian ATC are more productive than either US or European ATC.

The constant claims by NAS proponents that ATC opposition to NAS is due to industrial issues offend me and my colleagues. CIVILAIR is not the BLF, it is a professional association. Those ATCs who represent us through CIVILAIR give their time voluntarily; they make considerable sacrifices to undertake their duties. There can be no suggestion that CIVILAIR is pursuing its own agenda in this or any negotiation – any attack on CIVILAIR or its representatives will be seen by ATCs as a direct attack on their professionalism. No ATC is concerned for their livelihood as a result of the NAS 2B changes. ASA is currently in the process of the largest recruiting effort for many years, so I don’t suppose they see much chance of reducing the number of controllers either. The CIVILAIR position results from the overwhelming concerns of the membership about the safety and practicability of some of the characteristics of the NAS. Any suggestion that this opposition stems from greed or self interest impugns the professionalism of all ATCs.

The issue of “chart simplification” by removal of FIA boundaries is not wise in my opinion; I hold this view because I have heard the system work in my daily duties that include operating in a relatively busy non-radar class G environment. I have heard on many occasions VFR aircraft announce their presence to IFR aircraft on hearing a TOD call, I have no way of knowing whether this has prevented mid-air collisions or even a near miss, but it is a fact that IFR aircraft do frequently find themselves in proximity to VFRs whilst outside MBZs or CTAFs. I also believe from my conversations with pilots of high performance aircraft that “see and avoid” is not a sufficient basis for avoiding conflictions when piloting a fast moving aircraft, with a nose high attitude and a busy cockpit. The pre NAS2B system of FIA frequencies cost nothing to maintain and provided a useful “layer” of safety in the system.

On to your example of the VFR aircraft below A070 and the appropriate frequencies. I do not dispute the fact that most mid-airs occur in terminal areas. Assuming a descent profile of 3nm per thousand feet your figure of 30nm from a terminal area would seem to contain adequately the area of potential conflict for a VFR transiting near an aerodrome with any traffic operating to or from that aerodrome. It would seem reasonable then to assume that if the VFR monitors the frequency appropriate to the aerodrome that any conflicting traffic will be heard. The problem arises when there are several aerodromes within a 30nm radius of a given VFR aircraft, some or all of which may have discreet frequencies associated. If our hypothetical VFR finds himself 25nm from an aerodrome with an associated CTAF, 30nm from another aerodrome with a MBZ and overhead an aerodrome with no discreet freq (multicom), what frequency should he/she be monitoring? Can we really expect a pilot out for a joyflight to juggle frequencies in this fashion? It would seem to me that the chart simplification may not have simplified things at all. November 26 our VFR pilot could have expected to hear the broadcasts from IFR traffic arriving and departing all three aerodromes on area, now he/she will have to juggle frequencies depending on proximity to aerodromes, necessitating more “head down” map reading than the FIAs ever did.

The vast amount of opposition to this characteristic from both Commercial and many Private pilots should have been enough to cause a reassessment of its inclusion. I restate my opinion that this represents a reduction in safety for no discernible benefit.

Four Seven Eleven

2nd Dec 2003, 19:37

I feel sure that the international system we are following will lead to higher safety. I believe it is a bit like moving from 4 engine Electra aircraft, to 2 engine 767s. The perception of many people would be that the aircraft with 2 engines would be less safe, however we know that it is actually safer.
Agreed. The statistics and empirical data exist to prove that the B767 is safer than the Electra. (Fewer fatal accidents per seat-mile etc.

Apart from your feelings and beliefs, what statistics and empirical data can you offer to prove that NAS (i.e the US/hybrid system without the supporting infrastructure) will be safer?

By the way, the comments in relation to the quieter ATC sectors are of course the key to the considerable savings that can be made.
Surely you don’t think that because the frequency is quieter, that the controller is less busy? Please tell us that your safety analysis is more informed than this! I certainly hope you didn’t pin the economic and safety credentials on that alarming leap in logic!! Please tell us that just a little bit more thought and work went into it!!

Pre NAS2b, a controller of Class C airspace would know about every aircraft in their airspace (because they talked to them, thus ‘clogging’ the frequency). Post NAS2b, that same controller is less able to combine sectors because of the increased constant vigilance required to look out for un-notified, unknown aircraft in class E. These unknown aircraft have to be individually spotted among all the other unidentified aircraft either above or below the controllers area of responsibility. Surely this in not another fact you are only now discovering “to your horror” .

Do you actually have a shred of fact, statistics or any research at all to back up your statements about sectorisation?

When TAAATS was originally purchased it was planned to be operated with 50 ATC sectors. I understand that currently during peak times there are 104 sectors. By saving some sectors we can save some real money that can assist the industry – not just in ways to improve safety, but also in becoming viable again.
How does this tie in with the DOTARS website FAQ section, which says:
While it is still too early in the project to estimate the impact on sectorisation, the cost-effectiveness of NAS is likely to mean that rate of growth in the number of ATC sectors would be slowed, as opposed to the present number being reduced. This reduction in the rate of growth is due to better allocation of resources under the NAS model. However, this is balanced by the fact that traffic levels should continue to increase over time.

BTW, when you say that TAAATS was ‘designed to operate with 50 ATC sectors’, you are not conveniently ‘forgetting' that each of these sectors was to be staffed by an executive and a planner controller - two people per sector, as in the US - are you? Australia (in a first for TAAATS-like systems) has done away with the second person, thus effectively halving the number of controllers. But you already knew that didn’t you?

drshmoo

2nd Dec 2003, 21:47

I think that the point mentioned previously that the frequency boundaries being removed has not simplified things for VFR ops is a very valid one. Flight Watch is sometimes very difficult to get in contact with and if they encounter inflight difficulties eg engine failure, a pan or mayday call may be made on deaf ears because the pilot is monitoring a freq that they are now outside of without knowing.

If this new system is supposed to give us more for less. Then why are our charts giving us far less information and they are jacking up the ERCs and TACs 300% from $3 to over $9 a chart. What crap. Surely this is less for a lot more. Maybe Uncle Dick can afford those price increases with his financial empire of rip off brand names behind him but not us on our GA wages.

I love being proved wrong, so could Uncle Dick or any of his henchman/yesmen please explain that is value for money

Agreed that Atc has been fantastic post 27/11 with their verified and unverified radar paint traffic transmissions to IFR A/C.

Happy flying flying DS

Aussie Andy

2nd Dec 2003, 22:30

WhatWasThat said:Can we really expect a pilot out for a joyflight to juggle frequencies in this fashion? It would seem to me that the chart simplification may not have simplified things at all. November 26 our VFR pilot could have expected to hear the broadcasts from IFR traffic arriving and departing all three aerodromes on area, now he/she will have to juggle frequencies depending on proximity to aerodromes, necessitating more “head down” map reading than the FIAs ever did.For what its worth (there is no need for you guys to repeat how little importance you attach to my views), I think its absolutely reasonable to expect any PPL - even low hours or a student - to be able to change frequencies in the manner you describe. For example, when I did my flight test for my PPL several years ago, it involved departing Wycombe Air Park (Buckinghamshire, 15NM northwest of Heathrow), changing from TWR to Benson MATZ to obtain permission to transit their MIL zone within 5 minutes (about 9 track miles), thence out the otherside a similar distance to Oxford Kidlington APP to transit their ATZ, thence immediately to Brize Radar for a flight information service, etc. Admittedly the first time you do it, its a bit of a handful, but had I not been able to communicate in this way, without assistance, whilst simultaneously aviating and navigating, then I would not have passed. I don't think I'm special, so I think it is within the capabilities of any PPL to do this.

And there should be no need to have extra head-down time in the cockpit to achieve this... The key, of course, is to simply WRITE THE FREQUENCIES DOWN (they can easily be looked up in AIP / ERSA / etc.) prior to flight on your PLOG, or just a scrap of paper, or even on your map in chinagraph if you want... You then put the next frequency in the standby window of your COM box, or in COM 2 or whatever, ahead of time. You are then just a button-press away from the next APPROPRIATE FREQUENCY. Its not hard - anyone can do it as long as they have been trained to do so. The inexperienced simply have to put a bit more tiome and energy into planning ahead. I would be shocked if you really believe that Australian PPLs can't cope with such frequency changes.... whether on a pleasure flight or any other sort. So this seems a bit of a red herring.

Andy :ok:

WhatWasThat

3rd Dec 2003, 04:45

Andy,
The point I was trying to make is that frequency management for our hypothetical VFR pilot at say A075 has been made more complex by the NAS changes (and therefore more likely that he/she will throw up their hands and listen to John Laws instead). Given that the overwhelming opinion of the professional pilot community is that this change represents a reduction in the level of safety it seems pretty ludicrous to continue with it if it actually makes things harder for VFR pilots.

The FIA system seemed pretty simple to me, there was a nice big box drawn on your map to indicate which freq you should monitor in any given location, If you did this there was at least a reasonable chance you would hear that IFR jet thats about to descend through the cloud layer above you. It also gave you a fighting chance of having your distress call heard by ATC without having to fumble around to find the appropriate freq. Nothing about having FIA boundaries on the map prevented pilots from changing to the CTAF or MBZ when it was appropriate to do so, to suggest that their removal will somehow reduce incidents of VFR pilots selecting the wrong terminal area freq smells a lot fishier than anything I have had to say. (red herring indeed)

Chief Wiggam

3rd Dec 2003, 18:00

National Airspace Suicide.

Page 1 - IFR & VFR INFLIGHT GUIDE

1. REDUCE CHATTER - Aviate, Navigate, Comm.....pile CD music for next leg.

2. TUNE IN - To an appropriate frequency (such as ATIS, AERIS or 123.45)

3. LOOK OUT - For falling aircraft debris from overlying class E airspace

4. TURN ON - A smile, as I feel safer already.

Islander Jock

3rd Dec 2003, 18:20

Chief Wiggam,

I was amazed at the "TUNE IN - To an appropriate frequency (such as ATIS, AERIS or 123.45)" line.

WTF has listening to ATIS or AEIRIS got to do with any improved situational awareness that might be obtained from a knowledge of traffic arriving, departing, ascending or descending from a certain locationl? But then again, 123.45 has turned into the VFR chat room over the last week. :O

BTW, by how far do you RPT guys want me to avoid the known RPT direct track route?

Two_dogs

3rd Dec 2003, 18:31

I have a CPL, SE\CIR, and around 3000TT. I have a S\E Aircraft fitted with 2 x VHF, 2 x NAV (1 ILS), 1 x ADF, 1 x TXPR, 1 x HF and a Garmin 295. I also have all the other stuff, jackets, ELT x 2, rations, MED kit etc... and I try to be as professional as possible.

I flew VFR into Horn Island from Cairns several times this year. My customer liked me to arrive at 0000z, the same time as the Dash 8, ex Cairns is scheduled to arrive. I used the same tracking points as the IFR guys, and I used the same frequencies as they did. I self separated with the Dash 8 / Metro RPT services on many occasions, both on arrival and departure. A couple of times I even called them first, or included their callsign in my BROADCAST, because I knew they were in the area. On more than a few occasions there may have been separation conflicts had we not been aware of each other. Usually separation was enabled using GPS distances.

This all seemed to work quite nicely! :cool:

I like to fly IFR when I can for several reasons, recency, more service, not being treated like a hick etc. I had planned on flying IFR as often as possible after 27/11, if only so everyone else knows I'm there. But what can I do when conducting passenger charters in my single engine aeroplane?

Should I tell my commercial fare paying pax that our Government doesn't consider them IMPORTANT enough to be included in the system, or it's just that they don't consider me COMPETENT enough? :mad:

Two Dogs

http://www.kestrelaviationservices.com.au/picts/twodogs.jpg

185skywagon

3rd Dec 2003, 19:17

i would like all to consider the following, given that nas is here to stay, relevant to G space:
1: freq boundaries be reinstated on the erc(l).
2: Ctaf below 3000-5000' in the inland areas. area freq overlaying.
3:ifr boys and girl actually giving a distance and direction at TOD.

the way things are now, i will have to fit a second com for peace of mind even in west qld. have had 2 instances of crossed conflicting tracks in the last 3 days, one an rpt metro at 8000' and one vfr flight. these were only dealt with as i have some local knowledge of regular movements.
as a 4000 hr charter pilot, i shall be keeping a log of the pitfalls of this system as it applies to the west of qld.
education is not working. met two frequent outback pilots yesterday, who were completely unaware of what the new system entails. they said that they would continue as if the old system was still in place. something is not working.
we have sunstate making ctaf calls from fl140 at 50 miles into aerodromes(i don't blame them).

Clothears

3rd Dec 2003, 21:34

A couple of my own experiences post NAS:

Experience 1:

Provided radar advisory to an identified VFR in G (yes, it's overservicing, but he was correctly asking for a clearance into class C at the time) about an unidentified track 3 miles at one oclock, roughly opposite direction but crossing at the same level. Pilot response - "looking" (good).
At one mile apart, offered the added info that the miss would be less than half a mile on the left in about 20 seconds. Pilot response "still looking (good) followed immedietely by "traffic sighted, avoiding" (thank Christ) and observed a quite sharp turn of about 40 degrees to the right. The unidentified target didn't utter a peep or change course by one iota....was probably listening to a nearby CTAF, MBZ or John Laws for all I know.

In this case I am certain that the unidentified aircraft did not see the conflicting traffic.

Experience 2:

Same airspace, an IFR aircraft being identified in class G prior to clearance, offered radar advisory about an oposite direction unidentified aircraft at the same level Sighted when abeam at less than a mile. No radio contact.

I cannot be sure whether the unidentified aircraft did or did not see the conflicting traffic.

Before this NAS frequency rubbish both of the target aircraft would have been on the FIA frequency and probably (in my experience) heard some of the reports of the other aircraft or our communication about them, and piped up.

Regardless, in both cases my choices as an ATC were to believe in the new system and keep mum, or to protect the flying public as I see fit. To put it on a more personal level, I would hate to have to defend my actions in a court of law if any of them had hit and I had done nothing.

The point? See and avoid doesn't work in isolation, but as a part of an inclusive system (particularly including pilots listening out on the appropriate frequency) it used to work.

Thanks Dick.

Col. Walter E. Kurtz

4th Dec 2003, 06:23

Clothears,

'But this is how it works in America'.

See and avoid as part of an inclusive system - dead on.

I commend the ATCers who are still 'looking out' for aviators in airspace that there is no regulatory requirement for them to do so.

Thanks

Dick Smith

4th Dec 2003, 07:58

WhatWasThat, thanks for your friendly answer. I point out that there has been 13 years of consultation and this nearly always leads to a move back to the way that we were taught.

For example, many would know that I was instrumental in bringing in the AMATS changes. That is basically the present airspace system that people now want to keep. I still have the newspaper cuttings from 1991 showing the tremendous opposition to removing VFR from the enroute system. Many will remember that in those days, VFR aircraft flew enroute at IFR levels, and had to operate “full position”. In fact, in those days, when you were given traffic you were not even told if it was IFR or VFR as it was irrelevant. That system cost about $100 million extra per year because of the extraordinary number of flight service officers that were necessary to provide a directed traffic service – not only to IFR aircraft, but also to all VFR.

I instigated the change to the international system where VFR flew at 500’ hemispherical levels and basically did not have to become part of the air traffic control system when flying enroute in Class G airspace.

Despite claims that safety would be reduced, the recent ATSB report shows that in the last 10 years, aviation safety has increased considerably. Of course this is not substantially because of the changed airspace, but it does show that the airspace changes – which have saved one billion dollars in 10 years – did not reduce safety.

Since those AMATS changes, the plan that had been approved by the CASA Board during my Chairmanship was stopped. There have been a number of attempts with industry consultation to move forward.

One famous one was called the “11/11 system” which was championed by Buck Brooksbank, a previous President of the AFAP. This system, whilst increasing the amount of Class E airspace, basically brought VFR aircraft back into the system. For example, it was mandatory for all VFR to monitor and make self-announcements on the Class E ATC frequency. It also removed the directed traffic service in the terminal area for IFR aircraft, which I (and others) considered to be a major reduction in safety.

When debating Buck Brooksbank on the ABC, he made it quite clear that pilots with airline experience (such as himself) were not concerned about IFR aircraft receiving a directed traffic service – they were more concerned about VFR aircraft being put back into mandatory reporting when enroute. The airspace reflected this.

Many years later, the LLAMP system did almost the same thing. It removed the CTAFs – which I’d introduced in 1991 to follow international practice – and planned to introduce a system where it would be mandatory for all VFR aircraft below 10,000’ monitor a particular frequency called a “DAF”. This DAF covered up to 30 aerodromes, meaning that a VFR aircraft flying enroute at say, 8,500’ or 9,500’, would have to monitor the circuit traffic of up to 30 aerodromes, once again having a constant barrage of communication in the pilot’s ear with no real safety improvement.

I believe it is natural for many people in the industry to want to return to the system similar to when they were taught – i.e. VFR enroute position reports being a major part of the system. Surely people can understand that this was a very large misallocation of safety resources. The billion dollars which has been saved since then – with no measurable reduction in safety – has surely gone towards improving the profits or reducing the losses of airlines, or in some cases in employing people that would otherwise not have jobs.

Some people have claimed to me that if the billion dollars in savings had not been made, that it would not only be Ansett’s 15,000 workers out of jobs, but also many of the Qantas employees. This would be no good at all.

No other country I know of has area frequency boundaries marked on charts, and they have all told me that this is not accidental, it is to ensure VFR aircraft monitor the approach and departure airspace at an airport wherever possible.

None of the postings so far have explained why we have so many unalerted see and avoid MBZ incidents filed with the ATSB. The ATSB has made findings in relation to this, however if you go to the USA you find that there is not an equivalent problem in their CTAFs. No one can prove that the US system – i.e. no recommendation to monitor when enroute but strong training to monitor when in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome – is safer. However it gives a very good safety outcome and it is logical to believe that this could offer an improvement for Australia.

The comments that have been made about there being three aerodromes in close proximity and having to monitor three different frequencies is no more valid than the claim that if an aircraft is coming over a frequency boundary shown on the old chart, that the pilot would not know of any calls given at the other side of the boundary (on the different frequency) unless he or she was monitoring either two or three radios.

Most of the postings I see on this website resist change. Just how we are flying around in mostly modern FAA certified aircraft, and not Nomads, is mysterious to me.

Four Seven Eleven, you state that quieter ATC sectors do not necessarily equate to savings. I agree, however I draw your attention to a previous posting on PPRuNe where an air traffic controller stated that the only reason a special extra low level sector was introduced in the Perth area was because early in the morning all the VFR flying school aircraft started making position reports on ATC frequencies.

Again in relation to frequency boundaries, I do not know of any country in the world that shows frequency boundaries on charts. This does not mean that we should follow this without question, however we should at least examine why we are different. I believe it is because we were once obsessed with having VFR aircraft in the system when enroute. Even though this may have given us a sense of security it actually did not improve safety in any way, but cost a bundle.

Four Seven Eleven, you also state that statistics and empirical data exist to “prove that the B767 is safer than the Electra”

These statistics and empirical data were not proved before the 767 was introduced. It is the same with the airspace. Commonsense has to be used as to whether a result is more likely to be so because of the rational argument and judgement that is used in making the decision.

Icarus2001, yes I do believe that if substantial savings are made by Airservices that they will be passed on to the industry. They always have been in the past – savings of over 20% have been given. The Government will always take its profit, however I have never seen a situation where the majority of savings are not passed on to the industry.

Chief galah, if I made an error during my approach to Essendon the last time I was down there, please advise what the error was. That is the only way that human beings can rectify mistakes.

Jet_A_Knight

4th Dec 2003, 08:19

Dick,

I have asked the following question a few times and have yet to receive an answer:

Are you aware of the 1990 BASI Research Report 'The Limitations of See-and -Avoid principle' and if so how do you reconcile its conclusions to the greater weighting toward and reliance in, the use of this principle in the new NAS?

Also, why is it such a problem to make monitoring a standardised frequency (ie when in E, or G)? RPT a/c departing an MBZ/CTAF will give a departure call, which can be heard by VFR aircraft. If they are in conflict, then separation can be made with the assistance of the radio.

I can't understand why aircraft operating in similar airspace, are not required to at least monitor the same frequencies, even if it is not done overseas, surely this is not such a big problem.

The removal of the freq boundaries is cause for concern for concern for many pilots, professional and recreational. To remove these from the charts as a disincentive to 'clutter the radio' is extremely shortsighted, and a flawed rationale. Surely educating pilots to use the radio more conservatively/properly/productively would be a better option, rather than scattering everybody's radio watch to God knows what frequency and eroding safety by relying what effectively becomes solely see-and-avoid.

Why has the safety data accumulated by the CASA and Airservices that substantiates the safety of the new system not been made available? If so, where can it be found?

Lastly, why aren't the industry being listened to in their concerns?

PS Re: The B767 analoigy:

Apart from the fact that the A300 was the first widebody 2 engine jet airlinerI think you will find that data regarding the reliability of operating 2 engine wide body jets would have been garnered from engine reliability testing etc etc for hundreds of hours prior to the aircraft being certified. The aircraft was not certified solely on a whim and without data to back up the safety case of the aircraft - where as, the NAS has not been subject to any safety testing at all except for the fact that it is based (loosely) on the US NAS.

DownDraught

4th Dec 2003, 08:45

Greetings to all.

Dick

My question relates to the fact that you state the following

Despite claims that safety would be reduced, the recent ATSB report shows that in the last 10 years, aviation safety has increased considerably. Of course this is not substantially because of the changed airspace, but it does show that the airspace changes – which have saved one billion dollars in 10 years – did not reduce safety.

And

Icarus2001, yes I do believe that if substantial savings are made by Airservices that they will be passed on to the industry. They always have been in the past – savings of over 20% have been given. The Government will always take its profit, however I have never seen a situation where the majority of savings are not passed on to the industry.

If these savings of 1 Billion dollars have been saved and injected back into the "system", why was/is it that this NAS reform has, as one of it's main reasons for implementation, (along with others) is to reduce costs?

And all the previous "cost cutting" that has gone on since this amount of extra revenue has been injected back into the "system"?

Others may feel free to add actuals.

Cheers

EDIT/-Minor grammar and spelling changes

Dick Smith

4th Dec 2003, 09:18

Jet_A_ Knight, I will answer the questions again. Yes, I’ve closely studied the BASI report the Limitations of the See and Avoid Principle. I’ve also studied the CASA reply where they reject the absolute nature of the BASI argument, and I also note that BASI/ATSB have “accepted/closed” the CASA response – i.e. the ATSB agree with CASA.

In relation to monitoring a standardised frequency when enroute, you either have not read what I have stated previously, or do not understand what I am saying. The reason for the removal of the frequency boundaries is not primarily to reduce chart clutter, but primarily to reduce the number of unalerted see and avoid incidents in the MBZ/CTAF area.

If you care to look at the ATSB reports filed of unalerted see and avoid incidents in MBZs particularly, you will find that they are horrifying. There are many situations where aircraft – which obviously are fitted with a radio – either have the radio on the wrong frequency, the volume turned down, or something else wrong.

The FAA has stated that it intentionally does not have frequency boundaries on charts, not because of any pressure from any organisation such as AOPA, but because they want pilots to concentrate on monitoring the radio where the collision risk is greatest.

Jet_A_ Knight, I can assure you that unalerted see and avoid incidents will be reduced with the new airspace system as pilots will be better trained to concentrate on using the radio where it really matters. That is, in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome.

Jet_A_Knight

4th Dec 2003, 10:29

Thanks Dick. I must have missed your reply to my previous questions. Where did you post it?

Re: See and Avoid Report. On what basis did the CASA reject the absolute nature of the BASI argument?

What documents/research did they have to substantiate their rejection of the reports conclusions?

Also, the BASI are not empowered to make regulatory or procedural change - their reports are for advice of fact. I don't believe their acceptance of the CASA rejection is an admittance that the initial report was incorrect.

Do you believe that the see-and-avoid principle is without flaws, or is it on the basis of the rejection of the BASI report by CASA that you believe that unalerted see-and-avoid is satisfactory and safe as a primary method of traffic separation for all aircraft including highcapacity RPT?

Frequencies

When I said clutter, i meant of the frequency, not of the chart.

Why can't pilots monitor CTAF/MBZ frequencies when transiting these areas (as is required for radio equipped aircraft), or in close proximity, and the area frequency elsewhere, or god forbid, BOTH?

A scenario if you would indulge me.

A VFR 182 aircraft is transiting the airspace between the Griffith MBZ and Narrandera CTAF at 3500' enroute Temore-Hay. The aircraft has no transponder, nor is one. required. S/he believe that their track takes them closer to YNAR CTAF, and monitor that as they pass between the two fields.

A REX SF340 will be transiting the YGTH-YNAR route on brief climb and descent. S/he calls ML centre with the taxi/departure call etc,and once airborne is still monitoring the MBZ as well as they are required to, as well as ML centre .

Centre don't know about the VFR aircraft. The VFR aircraft doesn't know about the SAAB. And the SAAB doesn't know about the VFR, the TCAS won't show it up.

Which one of the 3 frequencies is 'appropriate'?

I am sure you see the potential for conflict. If the VFR aircraft was required to be on area, he would get the IFR taxi call of the SAAB, and be aware of that aircraft's movements, and may even be able to make a broadcast alerting the saab crew of the possibility of conflict, or to arrange mutual separation.

You are absolutely correct about the incidence of actual or near MAC around airfields. The ARFU's have been a great step in the right direction at least in the way of having a net to catch a wrong frequency set up. Aircraft are REQUIRED to monitor the CTAF/Freq if radio equipped - so why make aircraft outside of an airfield's airspace monitor that airspace (that they may have no intention of entering), at the expense of a listening watch in that aircraft's immediate or nearby airspace? Surely in the process another risk is now introduced?

Also, please keep involved in these forums, even if it gets a bit 'hot', and uncomfortable. I also ask others to keep the arguments çlean'yet honest.:ok:

Many people have doubts, concerns and questions and I dont for one minute believe that they are just being bloody minded for the sake of 'scuttling' airspace reform, as long as there are beneficial outcomes, and safety is not comprimised.

PS Does anyone knoe why does my damn keyboard keep spitting out French characters??????:confused:

Wheeler

4th Dec 2003, 11:40

Inclusive system is what it should be all about. With Radar the risk, certainly when at least one IFR, is involved is minimal.

IFR descending into (e.g.) BK training area is no problem, one gets almost too much information from Radar. When I fly in some quite remote CTAF's, RPTs usually tell me they have me on TCAS sooner or later (and then sometimes rather rudely attempt to usher me away) and quite often if there is radar coverage, they get RAS too.

All of which means the tables have turned - RPT/IFR have all that gear and help and so it must be their responsibility to avoid the poor old VFR jock, who of course will be helping matters along with transponder on (that he does not need to have) and blaring away.

Now, what happens when there is no TCAS, no radar or only VFR's using their highly sophisticated mk 1 eyeballs to keep clear of eachother?

Ahh! but John and wotsit from the USA told us there is virtually no risk of collision away from an airport - it's just a matter of risk management.... So I guess we don't need to rely on the patchy radar coverage we have or TCAS at all?

Rum Bottle

4th Dec 2003, 12:10

OK Dick, you have finally pushed your barrow.

Ever heard of situational awareness.

Even the most inexperienced pilots are taught to listen out and look out. Situational awareness is derived from more than one input. And we are taught how to sort out what is relevant and what is not.

Enroute, how am I to know if a VFR pilot is on the same frequency as I am if there is no boundary. It doesn't really matter whether it's in VHF coverage of ATS, it's the airspace that I'm in that concerns me.

With the addition of GPS, there is a strong possibility of more than one aircraft occupying the same airspace at the same time. Aircraft get pretty big in the wind screen very quickly.

But of course, you're right and everyone else, especially the professionals are wrong.

Congratulations, John Anderson shut you up by letting onto this committee, and look what you have achieved.

Piper Arrow

4th Dec 2003, 13:06

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/04/1070351697164.html

Union scaremongering with near miss reports: Anderson December 4, 2003 - 11:36AM

A union was today accused of scaremongering over claims a plane was within 20 seconds of a mid-air disaster near Melbourne.

Transport Minister John Anderson said the claim was horrendous.

He said it was simply one of more than 60 incidents from the past week since new airspace rules took effect that would be reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

Ted Lang, president of the air traffic controllers union Civil Air, claimed Virgin flight DJ980 from the Gold Coast to Melbourne was believed to be 20 seconds from colliding with a twin-engine Cessna yesterday when an alarm was triggered yesterday as it was descending north-west of Melbourne.

Mr Anderson said he could not guarantee there would never be a mid-air crash but said the government would not have implemented the new system if it did not believe it was safe.

"Can I guarantee there will never be an incident? No I can't, of course I can't," he said.

"You can't guarantee wherever human beings are involved, wherever mechanical contrivances are involved, total and absolute safety, you can't."

He described claims of a near miss by the union representing air traffic controllers and Mr Lang, as outrageous.

"I hear all of this irresponsible talk about close collisions and 20 seconds and so forth," Mr Anderson said.

"The ATSB has a responsibility now to investigate it.

"This happened in controlled airspace, all the scaremongering that Ted Lang's been engaging in has been about uncontrolled airspace.

"The aircraft, both of them were in contact with the tower."

Mr Anderson said he believed the new airspace system would enhance safety.

"A lot of this centres on so called incidents and it is horrendous to describe something as a near miss when a responsible person knows full well that an incident does not constitute a near miss."

Mr Anderson said there were around 50 incidents reported each week and this had risen to more than 60 in the week since the new rules were introduced.

Earlier, Virgin Blue spokesman David Huttner said the airline would consider in its investigation whether the new National Airspace System was to blame. But he said anyone speculating on the possible cause of the incident "would be doing so without all the facts".

Mr Huttner cast doubt the claim that the aircraft were only 20 seconds from crashing. "Certainly at this point in time nobody has all the facts to make such a statement. It's speculative at best."

AAP

There are more press releases
Here Too! (http://www.aimoo.com/forum/categories.cfm?id=421403&startcat=1&NoCookie=Yes&CategoryID=145649)

Col. Walter E. Kurtz

4th Dec 2003, 17:11

Arrow, is that the best you can come up with?

How about an independent thought or argument?

bush mechanics

4th Dec 2003, 20:07

Uncle Dick,
Ive been in the industry for the past 15 years and have had the privelage to see and work in the GA hey days of the late 80s
You and others say that the numbers of aircraft incidents/accidents are at there lowest in ten years.
Maybe thats because theres far less ga a/c flying now.
Ten years ago you couldnt even get a park for your a/c at Parafield.On the grass or the tarmac,You go there now and they may as well run cattle on the grass.The whole place is dead!!!Where have all the planes gone?
Soo maybe It wasnt your system what made it safer, but maybe there are far less ac flying now!
By the way Dick ol chap you still owe me a carton for looking after your old Jet Ranger which sat in our hangar for six months!!!Back in the 90s.Please no DICK BITTER!!!VB will be fine!!

Col. Walter E. Kurtz

5th Dec 2003, 07:33

Dick,

How can a pilot in a lightie in Class E effectively scan BEHIND the aircraft to avoid getting run down by a FASTER aeroplane, like a B737 on descent that may not see him below the nose on descent if the lightie has forgotten his transponder, or is unknown to him, U/s?

Was the scenario of trying to visually acquire an aircraft you were closing on against the ground clutter ever considered? If so, why no 'recommendations'on how to scan for aircraft closing from behind?

More holes than the Swiss cheese stock pile outside of Emmental.

To quote an old footy saying: Thanks for setting us all up for the 'dump'.

Assurances are not enough - as yesteday's event shows.

Gone Fishing

5th Dec 2003, 07:56

Dick,

I am fairly new to this forum and can't help but wonder why you are not contributing to the the NAS related topics in D+G Reporting Points.

I can only summise that it is because you are afraid your arguments will not stand up to the scrutiny of aviation professionals.

So here we find ourselves in D+G General Aviation where maybe you hope to bamboozle the GA industry with your rantings and ravings.

It would appear that the GA industry are not as naive as you thought or hoped. The majority of those who are contributing here (the very ones you claim these new rules will help), seem to disagree with much of what you say.

The majority do not want these changes, but when did a majority count for anything in a democracy?

Mooney Operator

5th Dec 2003, 09:04

Dick, do not worry about these back scratches and arm chair pilots.

It is only a very minor few who do not like the new changes; it is all driven by job security fears, disguised under the banner of “Air Safety Fears & Scare Mongering”.
:ok:

Four Seven Eleven

5th Dec 2003, 10:56

Thank you Mr Smith,

Four Seven Eleven, you also state that statistics and empirical data exist to “prove that the B767 is safer than the Electra”

These statistics and empirical data were not proved before the 767 was introduced. It is the same with the airspace. Commonsense has to be used as to whether a result is more likely to be so because of the rational argument and judgement that is used in making the decision.

But the ‘system’ does exist. It is claimed to be the United States system, which has existed for many years. In your in-depth analysis prior to recommending such a system, you no doubt would have done comparisons between the Australian and United States systems, taking into account the differences between infrastructure levels, and come to some sort of safety conclusions.

So, what empirical data did you use to determine that:

a) NAS will be safer, less safe or just as safe as the system it replaces.
b) That the interim phases of NAS (i.e. prior to the end state model) will be safer, less safe or just as safe as the system it replaces.
c) That the benefits of Class E airspace, where it replaces Class C, outweigh the reduction in separation service, and therefore safety.

With respect to only commonsense being used, that argument only holds water when there is no opportunity to use an analysis based upon fact. That is not the case with NAS, where it is allegedly based upon an existing system with a healthy historical database of facts upon which to base such an analysis.

The minister continually claims (as late as yesterday) that ‘we are moving towards a safer system’. I am sure that you agree it would be reckless for the minister to rely on guesswork on a matter of public safety. He claims to know that NAS will be not merely safe, but safer than our current system. He must have received detailed advice upon which to make such a claim. Can you provide the evidence upon which this claim is based?

The ultimate question: Is NAS safer or less safe than pre-NAS? (It would be an extraordinary coincidence if two such dissimilar systems were exactly equally safe, but that is a remote possibility) Please provide evidence to support your answer.

Again in relation to frequency boundaries, I do not know of any country in the world that shows frequency boundaries on charts. This does not mean that we should follow this without question, however we should at least examine why we are different.
Are you saying that you did examine why we were different before changing the system? What were the results of the examination?

Dick Smith

5th Dec 2003, 11:50

Jet_A_Knight, here is the answer that CASA gave to BASI in relation to their see and avoid “absolute” recommendation.

BASI Research Report – ‘Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle’, 1991
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority responded to Recommendations 1 and 4 of the above report on 12 November 2001 having noted that most of the recommendations, including those concerning the implementation of TCAS and education initiatives, have been implemented and continue to provide positive safety outcomes. (CASA’s 1998 response to the other four recommendations in the report (2, 3, 5 and 6) were classified by the then BASI as CLOSED - ACCEPTED.) As CASA has noted, since the 1991 BASI report was released, the 1995 Risk Management Standard has been promulgated.

Recommendation 1 “The CAA should take into account the limitations of see-and-avoid when planning and managing airspace . . .”

CASA response: CASA agrees that the limitations of see-and-avoid should be taken into account when planning and managing airspace. Where traffic densities are such that see-and-avoid does not provide the required level of safety, CASA will require Class D or a higher level of airspace.

“. . . and should ensure that unalerted see-and-avoid is never the sole means of separation for aircraft providing scheduled services.”

CASA response: CASA understands the intent of this recommendation but does not agree with its absolute form. The wording of the recommendation reflected its time and was prior to the 1995 Standards Australia AS/NZS4360 Risk Management Standard. CASA also understands that the use of the absolute “never” is not consistent with current ATSB practice.

To accept the absolute form of the recommendation would require the allocation of Class D or higher airspace wherever scheduled services operate. This would result in an allocation of resources that is not commensurate with risk.

ICAO Class E and G airspace specifically has no radio requirement for VFR aircraft. ICAO has introduced both of these classifications with the full knowledge of the limitations of see-and-avoid. ICAO makes no recommendation in relation to scheduled services not operating in these airspace classifications.

Overly discounting the effectiveness of see-and-avoid and devising unique procedures has itself led to unintended consequences that are unresolved. Pilots may scan significantly less and become over reliant on radio alerting through a concept known as diffusion of responsibility. The BASI report RP/93/01 (December 1993) and the continuing incident reports that are being filed listing near misses in mandatory radio Class E and G airspace may support this concern. CASA believes that radio alerting is only effective when the alerting area is small with readily identifiable reporting points so that the alert is specific.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has classified the CASA response as CLOSED – ACCEPTED on the basis that CASA agrees that the limitations of see-and-avoid should be taken into account when planning and managing airspace and has indicated that appropriate risk management techniques will be used to establish airspace regulatory safety requirements. ATSB agrees that the use of the absolute ‘never’ has been overtaken by risk assessment. Jet_A_Knight, in relation to your complex combination of radio frequencies etc in Griffith and Narrandera, I believe the situation hasn’t changed much. That is, that if you think a typical VFR pilot would be able to monitor such a complex range of frequencies and absorb what is going on, I think this is unlikely.

In the USA, with 20 times the density of air traffic in roughly the same land mass, simple US CTAF procedures work – with no requirement or recommendation to monitor ATC when enroute – and give a slightly higher level of safety than we obtain in Australia (when taking equivalent traffic densities into account).

Considering the terrible weather in many parts of the USA for 3 to 4 months of the year, I’m sure you would have to agree that the US system must be pretty good.

Please note that the US does not use a radar service in the CTAF area. It relies on simple radio procedures, good discipline and remaining vigilant.

You state:

So why make aircraft outside of an airfield’s airspace monitor that airspace that they may have no intention of entering? I believe you may have a misunderstanding in relation to the education material. The facts are simple. If you are flying enroute in the airspace normally used for approach and departure at an airport, you monitor the frequency of that airport. What could be simpler? It is also recommended, just as in the USA, that if you are not planning to land at an airfield that you plan your flight (where practical) to avoid the airspace normally used for approach and departure traffic at that airport.

A most important point about monitoring ATC frequencies when VFR enroute. When you or your friends go driving on the weekend, you are not forced to constantly monitor the truck CB channel. It could be shown that there would be a slight increase in safety if you did this, as once every 5 or 10 years, you may hear of an accident that was around the bend or over the top of a hill. Presumably the reason it is not mandatory to monitor the truck channel, is that people want to relax when they are driving privately on a weekend and may even wish to listen to their stereo while looking at the magnificent scenery. Couldn’t this be the same with people flying privately?

Rather than force them to monitor the ATC frequency, why not let them fly enroute, avoiding the approach and departure airspace of airports, and then allow them to fly in blissful silence? Surely that would be fair if you wanted to compare flying privately with driving privately.

I entirely agree that with a commercial pilot it is totally different. A commercial pilot is paid to be in the air, and is therefore paid to constantly monitor a radio frequency. Surely a private pilot should be allowed to have a different, quieter and simpler method of flying if it can be done safely.

I believe the US system – where there is not even a recommended frequency for enroute flying – shows that this can be done with very high levels of safety.

What do others think?

Chief galah, thanks for the advice direct to me regarding the Essendon approach. I no doubt thought I’d been issued a visual approach by Melbourne Approach, however I was obviously mistaken.

Thanks for the advice

Chief Wiggam

5th Dec 2003, 12:43

:rolleyes:

Mooney Op

Nice one mate! I hope you don't spend too much time with your head in the cockpit now, as you do in the sand.

Dick

Thats great rationale, but I don't recall too many instances where weather has made me not conform and drive on the right hand side of the road.

Good to see the govt has its priorities right with the major terroism threats out in aboriginal communities. 93m well spent!

Ascend Charlie

5th Dec 2003, 16:46

I had four flights in and out of Sydney yesterday, all VFR. It was nice and quiet on the radio, except for 125.8 where the old bloke in the floatplane is still quacking away, self-announcing that he was on the way from Rose Bay to North Head, Long Reef, the Bahai temple and then a water landing at Palm Beach. Several times in each direction.

Who cares?

He is so slow that he will not pose a collision risk to anybody. Previously he has said that he makes all these calls because idiots in their Cherokees fly too low around Barrenjoey and scare him. Is that a good enough reason to be quacking all the way from Rose Bay?:ugh:

Manwell

5th Dec 2003, 18:36

IT IS QUIET SOMETIMES!???

With the introduction of the NAS can anyone enlighten me as to why a REX SAAB taxying at ORG would fail to acknowledge my final call on CTAF? THEN fail to acknowledge the fact that I was backtracking and still on the R/W when they taxied on for T/O?
THEN finally respond belatedly after I asked "DO YOU RECEIVE?" with, "Yeah, we were on the other frequency copying traffic."

All the way from the parking area to the lined up position?

I thought that the NAS was intended to reduce radio clutter on Centre frequencies. What a great example of poor airmanship. Eh, Andy?

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

Aussie Andy

5th Dec 2003, 20:38

Dunno: do they need to get airways clearance on the ground, or is IFR pick-up already available to them? If not, maybe that's why they are still on an area freq. when taxiing. I would agree its pretty poor airmanship if they weren't monitoring your transmissions: not sure if they are required to acknowledege? For non-TWR airfields in UK an acknowledgement would not necessarily be expected.

Andy

ugly

5th Dec 2003, 21:38

He is so slow that he will not pose a collision risk to anybody Except bird strikes from behind... :ok:

Lodown

5th Dec 2003, 21:38

Manwell, I must admit that I wouldn't necessarily answer you either. Why? In both situations, you have the right of way.

First, did you address your calls specifically to the SAAB or as an 'all stations' call?

Assuming an 'all stations' call; regarding your call on finals. If I'm taxying, then I'm clear of you. Why respond? I'm not traffic to you and you're not traffic to me until the time I enter the runway. You're not about to smack into me.

Backtracking call...I could see what you were doing and I wouldn't be taking off with you still on the runway anyway, assuming VFR conditions. Your call has told me what you are doing. If you didn't address the call to me specifically, then in the grand scheme of things, a response would be well down my list of priorities. As pilot of the SAAB, the responsibility lies with me to ensure the runway is clear prior to takeoff and you have the right of way. If I commence the take-off with you still on the runway, then I have far bigger problems than an aversion to or inability to use the radio.

Having said that, I would have made a call entering the runway and I would have tacked on that I was preparing for takeoff after the previous aircraft had cleared the runway. But that's just me.

There are many radio procedures that were/have been carried over from the days of full reporting. I can't see the necessity of a taxying call at a CTAF. I would be listening out for inbound traffic, but I don't see the need for a taxying call unless there is an obvious conflict arising or if perhaps the weather is soupy IFR.

Jet_A_Knight

6th Dec 2003, 07:54

Dick,

Thanks for the CASA response. Can you point me in the direction of wher I may find that please?

Re Griffith/Narrandera example, you say:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in relation to your complex combination of radio frequencies etc in Griffith and Narrandera, I believe the situation hasn’t changed much. That is, that if you think a typical VFR pilot would be able to monitor such a complex range of frequencies and absorb what is going on, I think this is unlikely
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you completely underestimate the capabilities of a private pilot. This situation is NOT complex! Maintaining a listening watch is a basic part of piloting and the pilot should have proven their competency at this during the PPL flt test. In any case, this 'complexity' can be solved quite easily, by the VFR pilot listening to a KNOWN area frequency outside of a CTAF, instead of having to eeny-meeny-minee-moe the 'appropriate frequency'. In the situation above, the VFR pilot will have heard the SAAB's taxi call and be able to put 2 and 2 together that there is a strong possibility that the two craft will cross paths. Situational awareness enhanced = chance of collision reduced.

Having the area frequencies removed from the charts is what adds complexity to what was previously black and white: You are at this point, this point lies within the 124.1 frequency area, that is the frequency that should be monitored. If you are in a CTAF/MBZ, or approaching one about to enter, you monitor that frequency. That is hardly rocket science. With the new system, the 'typical VFR' is now faced with more facts to consider (now am I closer to Narrandera or Griffith or am I outside of both, wait, let me just find where so I can avoid them -WHAT? They don't appear on my any of my charts? Oh, f*ck it! It doesn't matter, I haven't heard anybody out here anyway...) spending more time 'inside the cockpit' not seeing and avoiding, trying to find the IFR approach paths to both airports and wherethey lie in relation to his current position and whether they are in his path creates a MORE complex and stressful situation and make another decision to try to make and figure out which frequency is appropriate. Can you not see this??

OR

Airservices could be smarter and make GTH & NAR share a common frequency which would solve the whole equation - both aircraft would know of each other - risk reduced

The above example illustrates that a change in the system creates risks that were not previously there, and are not adequately considered.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the USA, with 20 times the density of air traffic in roughly the same land mass, simple US CTAF procedures work – with no requirement or recommendation to monitor ATC when enroute – and give a slightly higher level of safety than we obtain in Australia (when taking equivalent traffic densities into account).

Please note that the US does not use a radar service in the CTAF area. It relies on simple radio procedures, good discipline and remaining vigilant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The US do have countless more enroute navaids that people use for navigating (unlike in Aus where most are located at an airfield), ALOT more radar coverage (if not the whole continent, then it would be fair to say that a SIGNIFICANTLY greater proportion of the US airspace is covered by radar than here) and alot more airports, especially towered airports. There are alot of CTAF's as well, which means that if you monitor common ctaf frequencies you get a bigger snapshot of the traffic arriving and departing and enroute etc cause the airports are closer together and their airspace and frequencies intermingle and cover a greater geographical area than the fields in Australia that tend to be genrally more spaced out. I realise that they do not use radar in the CTAF, proportionally more of their CTAF's (and the resulting app/dep paths) lie within radar coverage and are under the eye of watchful controllers and 'the system'which helps guard the app/dep points.

The radio procedures for use in a ctaf/mbz in Aus is hardly complex, but yes does rely on good discipline and remaining vigilant - this is without question. If a PPL (or an ATPL) for can't do the above, then I argue that they are not suitably qualified, competent or current and should have their flying priveleges revoked until they can demonstrate the required standards.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the terrible weather in many parts of the USA for 3 to 4 months of the year, I’m sure you would have to agree that the US system must be pretty good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have no argument that the US system is a good one - look at the infrastructure they have, the manpower and equipment - both of which does not exist here, despite the lower trafiic density and population. I think you will find that the amount of infrastructure, and the manpower to run it, is still proportionately greater in the US than here, after all, they have greater resources to run it - the reality is, we don't. Thereofre, if you don't have the money to run a US system, run an Australian system, even if it is a hybrid, but do it properly, with proper consultation and address, seriously, the concerns of the AIRSPACE USERS, not just disregard them.

It is a matter of argument that the US system is infact 'good enough', even for the FAA. That's why they are working toward a NAS2. Will Australia follow suit, or just stick to the 'old' US NAS, which we are told is worlds best practice, but the FAA see it necessarily isn't.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A most important point about monitoring ATC frequencies when VFR enroute. When you or your friends go driving on the weekend, you are not forced to constantly monitor the truck CB channel. It could be shown that there would be a slight increase in safety if you did this, as once every 5 or 10 years, you may hear of an accident that was around the bend or over the top of a hill. Presumably the reason it is not mandatory to monitor the truck channel, is that people want to relax when they are driving privately on a weekend and may even wish to listen to their stereo while looking at the magnificent scenery. Couldn’t this be the same with people flying privately?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not the car analogies are appropriate.

It should be obvious that cars travel at generally 1/3 the speed of even a Warrior, on clearly defind paths, on clearly defind sides of those paths, the closing speeds of the cars on the other side of the clearly defind path are a lot slower (but still lethal) than 630km/h (DHC-8 and PA28) with the ability to come to a complete stop at the side of one of these clearly defind paths at any time. Maybe others can spend some time elaborating.

If we use the analogy above with regard to fulfilling 'peoples' wishes' then we may as well do away with alot of other regulations that control peoples'desires during flying. For example, do we get rid of the minimum altitude requirements because alot of pilots like 'low flying' and doing 'beat ups'? Some of these guys would argue that it is safe enough because they have done it a squillion times and it was great fun, and it didn't result in an accident so far!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than force them to monitor the ATC frequency, why not let them fly enroute, avoiding the approach and departure airspace of airports, and then allow them to fly in blissful silence? Surely that would be fair if you wanted to compare flying privately with driving privately.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How are VFR pilots to know where the app/dep paths of airfieds are? How are they to find out where the IAP take IFR aircraft? if they bother to download DAPs from the web, how are they supposed to read and understand the procedures?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I entirely agree that with a commercial pilot it is totally different. A commercial pilot is paid to be in the air, and is therefore paid to constantly monitor a radio frequency. Surely a private pilot should be allowed to have a different, quieter and simpler method of flying if it can be done safely.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are ALL entitled to a safe airspace - including the passengers - we all have the right to fly relaxed without wondering if this is the last day in their life - and if you are going to use that airspace, then a safe set of rules should apply to all common users.

The prime directive, to steal a phrase, is a safe airspace system.
The lack of radio frequency information, a lack of common frequencies is just plane dumb, I don't care what they do in the 'States. They also have liberal gun laws, that doesn't necessarily make that appropriate for us.

If you are a private pilot (or an ATPL) and cannot handle to fly and listen to the radio, you are in the wrong place. By 'dumbing down'the system to accomodate private pilots who find it easier to blunder about the sky than it is to stay current and on top of the procedures required, and assimilate in an integrated and safe airspace, the majority of the users - commercial passenger and freight aircraft - are exposed to greater risks. Since when did the minority rule?

In closing.

I do not want to kill the joy in private pilots enjoying their flying with their friends and families in a relaxed manner - all aviators enjoy the same.

(Now trying not to sound like Gerry Springer!!!)

However, with this endeavour, and flying is an endeavour, there comes RESPONSIBILITY. A responsibility to ensure a high standard of airmanship and all that entails, even if it means it's a bit more difficult than firing up the engine when ever you want and going wherever you want whenever you want. You have a responsibility to other airspace users to maintain a safe standard of recency, knowledge and skill level.

Dumbing down the system to accomodate the few pilots who do not adhere to these principals, and do not want to contibute their (proportionately) small financial part in the upkeep of the system, dilutes the safety for us all'- including the passenegrs and people on the ground.

Four Seven Eleven

7th Dec 2003, 14:16

Mr Smith

Thank you for your replies so far. Perhaps more informative than your replies has been your silence on any empirical data used to support NAS, either at the design stage, or during your role on the ARG. Throughout your contributions to these forums, it has always been the questions which you refuse to answer rather than your answers themselves, which I have found most illuminating.

Anyone interested in this subject could have found data. Anyone entrusted with this task should have done so. A quick search reveals some interesting facts about mid-air collison risk in the US NAS system.

http://www.qsl.net/n6tx/prose/nmacrate.htm
http://home.columbus.rr.com/lusch/selrej.html
http://www.aviation.uiuc.edu/UnitsHFD/2001HF-conference/tanejawiegmannhf01.pdf

H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
There are currently about 60 Million flights per year conducted in the United States. For the past two decades, the number of midair collision accidents has averaged about 30 per year. Since each midair collision is presumed to involve two aircraft, it appears that one flight in a million ends in a midair collision.
According to the ATSB website (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/stats/stats1.cfm), the average number of hours flown in Austalia (including RPT and GA) between 1991 and 1999 was 4,418,356. On the assumption that the average flight length was approximately four hours, one could expect Australia to have a rate of mid-air collision for the same period, in the order of one per annum. This is obviously not the case.

H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
The majority of MACs occur outside of radar coverage, as do a considerable fraction of General Aviation (GA) NMACs. Note: MAC = Mid Air Collision, NMAC = Near Mid Air Collision
As Autralia has – proportionately - more areas outside of radar coverage, it can be surmised that introduction of the U.S. system into our environment will lead to a proportionately higher risk of mid-air collision in Australia than the US. This is primarily becauses the US’s chief mitigator against risk (high levels of radar coverage) is absent in Australia.

Dick Smith:
Considering the terrible weather in many parts of the USA for 3 to 4 months of the year, I’m sure you would have to agree that the US system must be pretty good.
Given that the risk of mid-air collision in the United States is greatest during day-time VMC, the ‘terrible weather’ might in fact be an unintended mitigator against risk. Our relatively benign weather patterns, which encourage more VFR flight, might aggravate against us in that regard.

To take Smith’s example to the extreme, 12 months of ‘terrible weather’ would reduce the risk of VFR/IFR mid-air collisions to zero!!

Combine that with large areas not covered by radar, and it seems that Australia is not like the United States at all. Per flight hour, our risk might in fact be greater.

H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
"the vast majority of near midair collision reports fail to indicate a violation or an assignable error on the part of either the operators of the aircraft or air traffic control personnel"
Thus, it is not necessary for the system to go ‘wrong’ or for anyone to make an error for a NMAC to occur. NMACs are just one of the risks of the ‘system.’

The greatest risk of mid-air collision in the United States occurs:
a) In VMC by day (Australia has a lot of VMC)
b) Outside areas of radar covarge (85% in Austalia vs 15% in the US)

H. Paul Shuch, Ph.D:
If a pilot receives a timely traffic alert, the pilot may spot the threatening aircraft and/or maneuver his aircraft to avoid a collision. It has been demonstrated when two aircraft are on a collision course, the probability of visual acquisition can be improved by a factor of eight if the pilot(s) receive accurate and timely traffic alerts.
By removing the ability of ATC to provide alerts to IFR aircraft (e.g. Class E airspace outside radar coverage) we are reducing the pilot’s chances of visually acquiring the conflicting aircraft by a factor of eight.
Narinder Taneja and Douglas A. Wiegmann
A large number of MACs occurred when aircraft were in the approach phase (n=61, 38.6%) followed by cruise (n=42, 26.6%) and maneuver (n=27, 17.1%).
A surprisingly large number of US mid-air collisions (26.6%) occur during the cruise stage of flight. Maneja and Wiegman attribute this to complacency and inattention. In the absence of any other alerts than visual cues, the risk of mid-air collision during the cruise phase remains high.
Narinder Taneja and Douglas A. Wiegmann
Using eye tracking devices to track pilots eye movements while flying a simulator with real-world cockpit views, they found that the pilots spent approximately 37% of their time attending to the outside world, a value that contrasts sharply with the FAA recommended figure of approximately 75%.
These studies show that the average human being is unable to maintain the visual lookout required to avert mid-air collisions between today’s high performance aircraft. Closing rates in excess of 500KTS in visibility of 10km require a near-constant scan. Add to this the limitations imposed by cockpit design and it becomes apparent that collisions cannot reliably be avoided by reference only to visual means.

This means that those 26.6% of NMACs which occur in the cruise phase are being ignored in the current (NAS) system.

Why? Just so that PPLs can fly in blissfull ................ silence?

WhatWasThat

7th Dec 2003, 15:37

Excellent post 4711,
Please consider putting this up in reporting points as well, not everyone makes it over to the GA forums.

Bargearse

8th Dec 2003, 07:30

High Dick. Nice to see you answering some of your critics here on PPrune. So, can you answer me this?

You seem to be skirting around the issue some here have touched on and one that has attracted a large amount of attention. That is the Incident that occured between the Virgin 737, C421 and B200 last week. Why? Is this an incident that you were dreading.

Why was this Cessna where he was? (highly congested IFR approach point to a major capitol city airport). A particular part of the new airspace you and your NASIG colleagues have told VFR pilots (obviously not this guy though) to avoid.

His position in a radar environment was known to the ATCO but not his altitude/FL. Why? Did the philosophy of transponder v. TCAS fail here? I say yes. If he had the Transponder set correctly, the TCAS RA would not have occured. Ample warning would have been recieved by the Virgin crew to avoid this situation in the first place.

In a nutshell, your new airspace has failed .

What are you going to do about it?

snarek

8th Dec 2003, 07:41

Been meaning to ask this, but I thought I'd wait for the enquiry.

But you guys won't, so here goes.

1. C421 had transponder on, allegedly no Mode C.
2. C421 was in RADAR coverage close to the CTR.

Therefore, there was both a primary and transponder paint on the screen, albeit possibly without altitude info.

So why, when the aircraft were obviously closing, was the 'unknown VFR' not queried.

I suggest this is the cultural difference, the difference between why NAS works in the US and CivilAir are doing their damdest to stop it working here.

I have decided to ignore the tripe, this is a union blowup pure and simple and, unfortunately, may only be resolved using the 'Reagan methodology' if this rubbish keeps popping up.

AK

Four Seven Eleven

8th Dec 2003, 07:51

Snarek
Therefore, there was both a primary and transponder paint on the screen, albeit possibly without altitude info.

So why, when the aircraft were obviously closing, was the 'unknown VFR' not queried.
I find it hard to believe that you are asking what I think you are asking.

Unless I misunderstand your question entirely, are you suggesting that ATC try to 'query' all unidentified VFR aircraft without a valid Mode C when they are closing on IFR aircraft?

snarek

8th Dec 2003, 08:00

Simple question

If it will prevent a conflict why not?

Oh, and before you ask, yes they do it in the US.

AK

Four Seven Eleven

8th Dec 2003, 08:03

I would love to be able to do that. I used to be able to do that.

It would, however, require the pilot to know my frequency, so he could listen out for my calls. Now, he will be monitoring the ATIS, AERIS or 123.45, none of which I have at my console.

Col. Walter E. Kurtz

9th Dec 2003, 03:06

That's a nice one Snarek - fire the controllers.:mad:

PS Maybe you can answer this one, seeing as no one else will. What is the effective scan pattern in order to allown see and avoid of aircraft descending from above and behind?

Icarus2001

9th Dec 2003, 04:05

So snarek you are going to take your bat and ball and head home...?

I have decided to ignore the tripe, this is a union blowup pure and simple and, unfortunately, may only be resolved using the 'Reagan methodology' if this rubbish keeps popping up.

If your arguments like those of Dick and Mike Smith, were valid you would have persuaded many by your posts on this forum. Why hasn't that happened?

Two important questions raised by your post above:

1. How does the ATC query the VFR traffic in E airspace if the pilot does not know which frequency to use or in fact may be does not have a radio as they are not required?

2. How on earth is this an industrial issue? What do the ATCOs or pilot's have to gain by opposing NAS? Other than a long and productive life.

snarek

9th Dec 2003, 05:17

Hohoho

Much of the usual arm waving union motivated cr@p, and one reasoned response.

It would, however, require the pilot to know my frequency, so he could listen out for my calls.

And this is what we need to know (well we know it, we want it reinforced via our members) so we can continue to monitor the implimentation of NAS, which happens to be the caveat on our support for the system.

I suggest you talk in a reasoned manner to any AOPA members you know, we are about to poll them on NAS via the magazine.

AK

triadic

9th Dec 2003, 05:39

snarek

Therefore, there was both a primary and transponder paint on the screen, albeit possibly without altitude info.

You are showing your ignorance of the system .. primary radar does not go out that far and has little to do with the issue.

Your attempts to make this an industrial issue continue to be misguided. Give these people some credit for what they do. There are a lot of unanswered real safety concerns out there and nobody is prepared to answer them. That is the issue.

"No known traffic" :ok:

Dehavillanddriver

9th Dec 2003, 08:26

Snarek

A couple of points if I may.

1. It isn't a union issue - I made up my mind about this subject all by myself without union influence - and i reckon that it is dangerous.

2. You mention radar - how would this have played out in non radar E - where the controller couldn't see the vfr aeroplane.

3. without mode c the TCAS has no idea what level the traffic is at - do you expect crews to "fill the airwaves" querying all non mode c aircraft? the offending aeroplane could be 10000 ft below - it sort of defeats the purpose of not talking doesn't it?

4. if you don't expect crews to call non mode c aircraft do you expect TCAS equipped aircraft to divert to miss?

5. I asked on another thread - what is a reasonable distance to miss by? should we be expecting to hear from VFR aeroplane if they expect to miss us by a mile or so or by 3-400 ft? what is the standard that we apply here? if there is no standard how can we as ifr jet drivers expect to know when vfr drivers are going to tell us about themselves - on the appropriate frequency...

it isn't union motivated, quite the contrary, the unions are actually doing what we tell them to do in this instance, which is a nice change....

This airspace is unsafe, and whilst it may not be proven this week or next it WILL be proven, and the people who forced this upon us against our advice and wishes WILL be brought to account.

triadic

9th Dec 2003, 10:02

Dick Smith said:
Jet_A_ Knight, I can assure you that unalerted see and avoid incidents will be reduced with the new airspace system as pilots will be better trained to concentrate on using the radio where it really matters. That is, in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome.

"Better trained".... and by who? and when?

who is responsible for training? (NASIG or CASA?)

who is responsible for training the trainers? (NASIG or CASA?)

who is responsible for standardisation? (NASIG? how?)

who is responsible for the audit of the training material?

why was the training package not out 3 months prior to the changes?

when the 3 month notice failed, why was the implementation not delayed?

As I have said before the training for 2b is almost a joke if it were not so serious.

What of the lessons learnt from the “G Trial” in 1999? Seems they have been forgotten.

In the management of any change process, the training is critical and there needs to be a deep understanding of the process including any cultural changes issues. You can change the system overnight, but you can’t change the culture of the participants in a like manner and from where I sit absolutely no attempt has been made to address these issues.

If there had, then much of the discussion in this forum would not occur.

The ARG have shown no leadership at all in this project and certainly no understanding of what was required to manage such a change in a much more acceptable way. They have certainly hoodwinked the Minister.

At this time it is the lack of training that is THE issue, not the specifics of the change.

"No known traffic" :ok:

divingduck

9th Dec 2003, 12:53

Snarek....

rant on.

Surely you cannot be serious about questioning EVERY primary or secondary paint on the screen if it's track will cross or get somewhere near an IFR aircraft?

As has been said already, what freq are they monitoring? do they know what freq to monitor etc etc etc.

Do you seriously believe that they actually know where they are in relation to IFR points...for instance, "aircraft squawking 1200, 47DME on the 206 radial from Brisbane, identify yourself" We don't have VTC or VEC's handy to say "oi, bugsmasher, 10 miles west of Fred's cowpaddock, who are you?"

also kind of defeats the point of Dicks quiet airspace where everyone is looking out the window.

BTW do light aircraft have rear view mirrors fitted as standard?

As for your fire all the controllers idea...hmmm, I just hope that was a troll, if not, have a good look at yourself and then decide if you realy should be representing all the other pilots out there, including, perhaps, the one flying the C421 vs the DJ737 the other day.

You keep saying that you are there for your members and if we want anything done(or to even have a say) we should join AOPA..not this little black duck if your comments on this ond other threads are anything to go by. You really should post under your non de plume (ULM) when you spout this kind of uninformed rubbish.

You want everything and not have to pay for it..how about YOU and your board educate your members, I'll be happy to apologise if it has already been done to the PROFESSIONALS satisfaction.

rant over.

BTW I am not a member of any ATC or pilot union...I don't even live in Australia any more, but loads of my friends and family still live and work there...so don't try the "Ted Lang's puppet" tag on me please.

Jet_A_Knight

9th Dec 2003, 13:30

Snarek,

From what I can gather, the AOPA can't even organise itself, yet expects to be taken seriously in its support of the new system. How do you reconcile that fact with your chest- beating rejection of ATC and pilot concerns as being union motivated.

The professional associations are unified in their concerns about the safety of the system. If these concerns are union motivated I ask you this question:

How do both Professional Pilots & Air Traffic Controllers actually benefit or gain from opposing the new system on the basis of their safety concerns?

By the way, I am not an airline pilot or ATCer, but I do have a vested interest in the safety of our airspace (I fly in it professionally and live under it - so do most of my friends and family).

PS You comment of the 'Reagan Methodology' to deal with the ATCers is shameful - and you should be ashamed of yourself. I am sure if you were in trouble in the air, they would be the first you would call up - and they would do everything in their power to help you - even though you don't want to contribute to the system when all is 'fun and games'.

Winstun

9th Dec 2003, 15:35

Snarek, sir...you are 100% correct...a union beatup..:rolleyes: This nauseating drivel all stems back to a historical governmental Australian institutional slack work ethic of moaners and bludgers..:zzz: Even the friggin pre Reagan controllers were capable of providing radar traffic information...And no sounds of silence on their frequencies....:rolleyes:

divingduck

9th Dec 2003, 16:00

When Reagan sacked the 13000 odd controllers, it was for going on strike...not raising legitimate concerns about safety.

Pratt!

Whingestun...are you old enough to remember the strikes? Or were you off in Afghanistan helping Rambo and the mujahadeen?

Muppet!

Ps I'm still waiting to see how these changes make life safer for the airspace users. Is it a paper excercise...they can't speak, so you don't know they are there therefore there is no breakdown?
So the stats look better?

edited for the last para.

tobzalp

9th Dec 2003, 18:03

ahaha whingestun. welcome

firstly I must say that I am not happy that this thread is not in reporting points as I have only checked there this week for new debate. My mistake though

Speaking of mistakes.

Therefore, there was both a primary and transponder paint on the screen, albeit possibly without altitude info.

So why, when the aircraft were obviously closing, was the 'unknown VFR' not queried.

So am I to understand that you would have ATC pass all non mode C observed paints to all aircraft that will come within the radar standard? So a paint with a ground speed of 110 knots and nil mode C will be passed to the aircraft in A at flight level 410? If he should have been passed to the aircraft at F180 then why not 410? Are you saying that VFR aircraft may be in E without servicable transponders? Are you telling me that AOPA dropped the ball with education? Are you telling me by default that aircraft are going to be operating in airspace and disobeying rules in blackand white. Are you therefore telling me that an aircraft may make an approach at sydney with no transponder at all talking to noone doing its own thing because they were not educated in what they had to do but that is ok because the controller should pick it up because of pilot incompetence. Are you telling me that. Are you actually believing your own rubbish?

Once more I add. I fing Preen is the great unstainer. Use it on your hat. Just keep that hat the f(_)ck away from aviation until you have any idea what it is you are dealing with.

Love

Plazbot.

OZBUSDRIVER

9th Dec 2003, 18:16

Please correct me if I am wrong here. When I mananged to get a look in on the new TAAATS(did I get enough A's) system about the time CS had come online in partnership with old system, I seem to remember the console had facilities to call up various map features as well as the regular waypoint and route details. Also noticed on the radar console up in the EN twr a month ago that topo features were marked. As the good controller put it "To make sure that we actualy are where we say we are"

Also primary paint was only good for 50nm. So if this was correct then reporting position and alt in relation to a main feature is wrong would be a little disingenious.

Regards

Mark

Dehavillanddriver

9th Dec 2003, 18:59

ozbusdriver

The presentation of some geographic features on a radar may be helpful to a controller when the vfr pilot calls up and says that they are 5 miles west of driazabone station, but it doesn't help other aeroplane drivers, particularly IFR drvers because I (and I reckon most others) wouldn't know where driazabone station is....

snarek

10th Dec 2003, 04:12

triadic

C band radar is good for a primary paint out to about 75 NM depending on the height of the tower. The 50 NM limitation is an artificial one imposed by the post radar processing. But thats just technodribble.

Now I have one point of agreement with the 99% insult 1% rational comment above. I still do not understand why an aircraft this close to a CTR should not be monitoring the appropriate ATC freq.

So, let's just assume for a minute he was (and he apparently actually was) what is wrong with....

"Aircraft abeam XYZ please check Mode C"

Oh, and the Reagan method provided a better system, it got rid of the "pommy shop-stewards" (do they have those there) and left the good guys reasonably well alone. I don't actually see the difference between going on strike and trying to stuff up an improved airspace model with scare mongering and factually incorrect press releases and statements design to falsely alarm the travelling public.

In my view the CivilAir action will lead to the same outcome as the pilot's strike, and that won't be good for the ordinary members just trying to do their job.

Insult shields up :E

AK

Dehavillanddriver

10th Dec 2003, 05:52

Andrew

You continually fail to answer the questions put to you.

What do controllers and pilots have to gain by using NAS as an industrial issue? The number of pilots won't be reduced under NAS (well it might be but midairs don't count!) and the same with controllers - there is no demonstrable reason why the number of controllers will reduce.

The reason why it is a union thing is that both groups of aviation professionals are fearful for the safety of this system - that is all - there is no mysterious underlying sinister motive - we reckon it isn't safe...

What would you do if all the controllers and professional pilots joined AOPA and demanded that our voice be listened to? would it be industrial then?

but - could you please answer these questions...

what is considered a safe miss - and at what point will a private VFR pilot pipe up on the appropriate frequency and let the IFR traffic know about his/her whereabouts?

will what the VFR pilot considers safe be different to what the IFR pilot considers safe - and if so - how do we educate people the think along the same lines

you keep talking about primary radar returns etc in relation to the VB/cessna incident. what would have happened in non radar E?

show me the safety benefits - what are they?

do you concede that professional pilots and atc'ers may have legitimate concerns - or do you honestly believe - in your heart of hearts - that the noise is ALL union scaremongering?

Chief galah

10th Dec 2003, 06:10

snarek

Your posts are a perfect example of who and what is wrong with NAS.

CG

Clothears

10th Dec 2003, 06:26

Snarek,

I'm sure you enjoy yourself spouting this rubbish, but I would have thought that your interests could be served better. As a board member of an organisation struggling for industry credibility you do your cause little credit.

While AOPA may be exploited for political purposes by the likes of Dick and co. (to provide them with some desperately needed "GA" support), it only represents about ten percent of active pilots in Australia. I'm sure that the rest, and probably many members, can only look on with increasing dismay while its board members (yourself and the two Ronnies for example) engage in petulant, ill-informed and frequently offensive attacks on other parts of the aviation community while simultaneously stamping out the recurring spot fires in their own boardroom. Great stuff - sure to lead to an increase in credibility, influence and membership numbers!

Your descent into "union bashing" demonstrates that you are inclined to go below the belt, being unable to sustain an argument based on any depth of knowledge.

The puerile, gutless personal attacks made on Ted Lang by some idiots in this forum are misdirected. Particularly regarding NAS, Civilair and it's executive is driven by the very strongly expressed views of it's members. In a totally voluntary membership environment, more than ninety percent of ATC are members - pity AOPA can't boast the same coverage.

Perhaps you should visit a major centre (Brisbane or Melbourne) and find out what the "good guys" think of NAS in general and your position in particular. Wear a spray jacket.

Anyway, here's a little knowledge for you:

Primary radar is no longer a dedicated enroute surveillance tool. COST is the reason. To paraphrase the great NAS puppet master, it's about focussing the resources where there is the greatest need - around primary control zones. The engineers may "wind it out" to greater ranges on request if there is a specific need (in flight emergency response, for example), but this costs a lot of money to continue over the long term. Also, many of the current Monopulse SSR sites (themselves expensive to run) are in remote areas where the costs of also maintaining a primary radar facility are prohibitive. Of course, costs are not an issue for those who pay nothing anyway!

And by the way, a CTR is a Control ZONE. You know, about 7 - 10 miles radius of an aerodrome? Perhaps you meant a Class C airspace boundary. Look it up.

snarek

10th Dec 2003, 06:59

Heh heh

facts, you want facts, go look in reporting points :E

and ooh look, the fantastic four are back, hi clothears :}

AK

Dehavillanddriver

10th Dec 2003, 08:28

for farksake Andrew

you STILL have not answered the questions!

What is considered a reasonable distance/altitude to miss another aircraft by.

At what point will a VFR driver get onto the appropriate frequency and let a conflicting IFR aeroplane know about their presence?

why do you think it is a union led exercise?

What do the unions, and individual pilots/controllers stand to gain by opposing this disaster?

TELL ME - I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU THINK THE WAY YOU DO!

It is only with knowledge of WHY you think the way you do that others can being to at least try and understand your perspective.

using the old "the airspace is safer because it is - poopyhead" defence is hardly conducive to reasoned debate

So come on - fill us in!!

q1w2e3

10th Dec 2003, 09:26

Why you guys spend so much time trying to reason with Snarek is beyond me. As I have said before he is a dumb private VFR (sorry PIFR) pilot with no understanding of the big picture. Even AOPA members are embarrassed by him.

As he cant make it as an aviation professional, he obviously wants to be in a position of power with AOPA (an oxymoron if ever there was one) so he can mix it with the professionals.

At least Dick Smith has some credibility and believes in what he is doing, this guy is just a moron in some pathetic power trip.

Wheeler

10th Dec 2003, 09:48

Never really got over AOPA's promises of 58c Avgas if we went along with location specific pricing. What do we now have? High tower fees, exorbitant airport fees and very expensive fuel. ( and dont say the oil price has gone up. Avgas increases are way in front of auto fuel. The oil companies got a blank cheque from that and AOPA did not see it coming?)

Is thier position on NAS equally credible?

maxgrad

10th Dec 2003, 11:05

Snarek,
You seem to be dribbling and no one is there to clean up after you.
Please answer the ( quite valid) questions put to you or simply just stick your..........opinions back in you well used suite case and exit stage left.
Thankyou!

Poox

10th Dec 2003, 14:01

Wheeler

Just for the record, the promise of 58c AVGAS was made by an AOPA well before snarek joined. The only remnant of that AOPA is Bill Hamilton.

In fact snarek lobbied hard against them, sending e-mails around to everyone he could, including me on 'user pays' as well as the infamous Part 47.

He and his girlfriend actually had Part 47 disallowed, against the wishes of some of the old fogeys still in AOPA and a couple of the less stable ones over on AGAF.

I have also read a lot of pro/anti NAS stuff in various threads here.

There is some pretty nasty stuff, most from the anti side. The only 'pro NAS' poster I have ever seen here actually conceeding a point (the frequencies issue) is snarek.

But I suppose bullies have to have a whipping boy.

:*

Aussie Andy

10th Dec 2003, 14:20

Jeez, its getting like romper room in here sometimes..! I am beginning to wonder whether we, as Australian's, can have a discussion without slinging sh1t at each other!?

Andy :ok:

Creampuff

10th Dec 2003, 14:33

The short answer, Aussie Andy, is "no".

Sad really.

snarek

10th Dec 2003, 14:36

Dehav.

Why do I think the way I do?

I commute, Can'tberra to Cairns. Occasionally I go for the scenic coastal route.

Pre-NAS

I leave Can'tberra, lots of C, maybe three airplanes if you are lucky. Through airspace designated for a Army helicopter training school that hasn't been there since '97.

I get to Nowra, great huge chunks of controlled airspace for a Navy with no jets.

Willi-town, same thing. Airspace, no airplanes.

Coffs, airspace, perhaps one airplane if I waited around a few hours. If I dare land for fuel I get a 'services' charge for AsA, even if I am the only aircraft in the sky!!!

I get to Coolie and cop an A, C, D mish-mash all the way up past Maroochy. Brisbane I can understand, the rest, blah!

Rocky and Mackay come next. Hardly ever any traffic, certainly usually less that say Dubbo. Rocky, gee, we get to pay for services put there for a Singapore Airforce invasion if we land.

Then the Whitsundays, what a mess. A grumpy controller to boot.

Townsville, civil/mil airport with really different procedures.

Cairns, I really respect those guys. Forced N/S appraocahes and still I am never stuffed around.

Post NAS 2b.

E over the 'airplane challenged' airports. I stay clear of over the top and the rest is easy. That's why.

Unnecessary Mil airspace is still a pain.

The other points.

I agree re the frequencies and am fighting that battle best I can.

I think it is a union excercise because I think their statements are lies and exaggeration. So i wonder if the end plan is to reduce controllers, I think it is and I think they know that.

One final point, I cannot yet find any money savings unless controller numbers are reduced. I have never said there will be any savings.

AK

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Dec 2003, 18:14

DHD yes you are correct, I shaould have realised the difference in reference points.

Has anyone plotted out the FIA boundaries from the DAH? It appears they are virtualy identical to the pre NOV27 boundaries except the vertical boundaries have been lifted from 5000ft to 8500ft (base of E). One thing is a bit wierd is the area for ML-CEN 123.75 which used to be for airspace above 5000ft to NE of ML has been reduced to an approx 10nm by 10nm polygon just outside classE near Yabba Nth on the ML VNC ( sorry about the visual ref). Anyone else found this?

At least now I have an idea of where the boundaries are, should make things a little easier to maintain a listening watch.

Regards

Mark

Winstun

10th Dec 2003, 19:52

Snarek...damn right, union bludgers cheating the poor Aussie tax payer for oh so long...:hmm: Now then can we send the controllers that aren't sacked up to Cairns for some attitude adjustment.:ok:

Towering Q

11th Dec 2003, 10:50

snarek , you have singlehandedly convinced me not to rejoin AOPA.

Dick , good to see you posting on this forum but your analogy regarding the car CB radio and comparisons between the weather in the US and Oz don't inspire me with confidence.

Here to Help

11th Dec 2003, 12:01

Snarek,
I leave Can'tberra, lots of C, maybe three airplanes if you are lucky How do you know?

Willi-town, same thing. Airspace, no airplanes How do you know?

Coffs, airspace, perhaps one airplane if I waited around a few hours. How do you know?

Rocky and Mackay come next. Hardly ever any traffic, certainly usually less that say Dubbo. How do you know?

Do you have the complete picture of all these bits of airspace as you travel through, and especially around them? Can you see and hear all of the aircraft around you to make such comments?

If this is truly why you think the way you do, then I suggest that your reasoning is not entirely objective. It is based on your experience which is only part of the picture - ie it is subjective. You make the mistake of thinking that all that is happening around you is only what you can see and hear. You try to convince with anecdotes which both proves and disproves little. Your attempt at "the truth" with the ML incident in another thread is again based on subjective points of view from only one side of a many-sided story.

Your reasoning for the NAS issue being "beaten up" by the "unions" is flawed. You assert that, in the first place, the unions are liying and exaggerating. You then assume that it must be for a reason. Then you think it must be because of ATC jobs because that is the only way to save significant money with NAS. All of this is based on your premise that the unions are lying and exaggerating - it's a circular argument. You deduce from your premise to support your premise. It appears that this only convinces people who either already agree with you and/or who think with the same faulted logic. If you can fight the issues (eg safety) without trying to attack the straw man of motives (eg unionism) with rhetoric, you might win some more credible support for your position.

In any case, can you tell me why some pilots unions oppose NAS? What is their agenda? What have they got to lose?

maxgrad

11th Dec 2003, 18:58

Question.............. Why is the class E airspace over Alice Springs still controlled by the AS TWR until next year?

Is there a problem with the space, the concept, safety?

Why was there a situation at Alice Sp where an IFR aircraft on the ILS had to contend with a VFR helicopter in it's path.
The NAS answer is that the VFR helo should have tracked clear of the approach.
But he was justifiably in that space for a reason.
No risk to safety /seperation in this matter as the pilots' did what they normaly would do. Talk to each other on the area freq.
:confused:

Jet_A_Knight

11th Dec 2003, 19:02

Can we have a couple of answers to the questions please Dick

snarek

12th Dec 2003, 03:56

Here to Help.

I have actually been told by someone who probably should know, that the final implimentation of NAS should reduce the need for ATC by about 200 people.

I think CivilAir know that and thus the beat up.

Interestingly, I think the basis behind the suggested cutbacks is based on a flawed argument. Nevertheless, when faced with the level of insults and anti-GA sentiment expressed on here by ATC, AFAP and CivilAir people I am hardly going to try to bring AOPA into the fray to support their cause now am I??

AK

Here to Help

12th Dec 2003, 05:25

Thanks snarek,
Interestingly, I think the basis behind the suggested cutbacks is based on a flawed argument. I think Civil Air agrees with you on this.

If safety of NAS was a concern to the ATC who are members of Civil Air, then why shouldn't Civil Air represent its members - just like you would represent your AOPA members? Don't you think that safety can be of genuine concern to a union?

If it is just a matter of a perceived loss of ATC jobs, then why are pilots unions against NAS?

In any case, it seems that many valid questions of safety with NAS has not been answered. Arguments that NAS is not less safe have not been refuted. To avoid pursuing these questions and arguments by concerning one's self only with insults and "anti-GA" sentiments only serves as a distraction.

If you are concerned about motive, then the best way to expose it is to attack the arguments used, not the motive itself.

bonez

12th Dec 2003, 06:16

q1w2e3
................. Even AOPA members are embarrassed by him.

sadly as an aopa member I have to agree

Four Seven Eleven

12th Dec 2003, 08:20

Snarek
I have actually been told by someone who probably should know, that the final implimentation of NAS should reduce the need for ATC by about 200 people.
We have all been told things by 'someone who probably should know'. Unfortunately, when pressed for facts, figures and hard evidence, these people who 'should know' seem to all disappear.

For instance, I asked Dick Smith for the supporting evidence to prove that NAS would not reduce safety in Australia. Silence

You, as 'someone who probably should know', confidently stated that, in the USA, controllers routinely query non-mode-C VFR paints as to their level. When pressed as to how they did this (or how we would in Australia) when the pilots were not on the ATC frequency, the discussion suddenly dried up.

I asked Dick Smith, many, many moons ago, to justify his claims that NAS would save $50 million (as costs were one of the terms of reference of the ARG). Silence

Regular followers of these forums need no reminding of the issues that 'someone who probably should know' either does not know, or refuses to tell us.

Time Bomb Ted

12th Dec 2003, 11:05

If Civilair members were so upset with the NAS 2b changes, then why didn't they strike? Was there pressure from the management at AsA? According to the media, they were going to, so why the change of heart?

Please this is not a pot stir, just a question I'd like to know the answer to without being bashed up over.

TBT

Here to Help

12th Dec 2003, 11:18

TBT,

I believe it's because any strike would have been deemed illegal - "unprotected industrial action", leaving Airservices and others to hold employees personally accountable for any loss of business during the strike.

Time Bomb Ted

12th Dec 2003, 12:50

Thanks for that Here to Help.

What would constitute a legal strike for Air Traffic Controllers, or any professional for that matter? Anyone?

CaptainMidnight

12th Dec 2003, 14:03

OZBUSDRIVER

The FIAs are still in the Airservices database, because they are used internally by ATC to give frequency transfers to IFR aircraft. They were just turned off for the printing process. They can be easily reinstated, and in my view the Industry are the customers, so what the customers want on the charts, they should have.

I think what you are looking at is a so-called "biscuit box", merely a box of frequency data placed roughly in the centre of the area it applies to. The FIA data in DAH still covers the area it did prior to 27 Nov.

snarek
I have actually been told by someone who probably should know, that the final implimentation of NAS should reduce the need for ATC by about 200 people.
When the NAS proposal was first announced, the Airservices board were told by a project team that contrary to saving $70m/year, NAS would cost an additional $20m/year if implemented. That has appeared in Hansard I recall, and it still applies today. The AA position is that they are implementing what the gov't. has told them to, and as their costs increase they will increase their charges. Their RAPAC chairman stated this at an ACT RAPAC in May 2002 that you were at I believe. Have a look back through your RAPAC minutes.

Natit

13th Dec 2003, 18:38

Get fu***d winstons..

I know you're winding up big time, but who the hell are you to speak about ATC? I'd like to see you do their job mate, but I'm guessing you wouldn't have half the brains :yuk:

winstons_my_hero

13th Dec 2003, 19:31

i dont have 1/2 a brain i have 1/4 not that that would matter bc it is so easy to get a job in the crisper... and then to progress up the ladder to approach......... like that was difficult! come on.

Aussie Andy

13th Dec 2003, 21:02

winston(s): Even though I am largely pro-NAS myself, I don't think that childish wind-ups from guys like you giving the impresssion that ATC are unappreciated by GA pilots is at all helpful. Grow up you child.

Andy

Woomera

13th Dec 2003, 21:37

Ws-M-H has been shown to the sin bin for a time until he grows up a little. Further childish outbursts and I will have no hesitation on permanent banning.

tobzalp

14th Dec 2003, 07:27

I suggest that if you are going to ban WMH you should ban the original as well. Not only childish, but all of his posts are specifically to gain a reaction and not any input into the arguements. It is just as useless as emails about where to get viagra and money from nigeria. Be consistent thanks. Or do you only moderate from one camp?

eh you! Pilot!

14th Dec 2003, 09:18

Dick........... How can you base your studies on the safety level of the american system when there are so many factors that differ between both systems. For starters, if you are going to reduce costs in air traffic control, how about passing some of them onto the consumer in the way of upgraded radar. It might be well and fine for yourself as you buzz up and down the east coast of australia which has 90% radar coverage but, how bout the rest of australia once you get west of say, the great dividing range. I believe that one of the successes of the american system is that although much of it is see and avoid.... their air traffic controllers have 100% situational awareness of who is where.

Have you stopped to think about the rest of australia outside the radar zones where if you had the minimum visibility, even in something as small as a C206, going head on with another of the same type, you only have 40 seconds until a collision. Now the human brain takes 20 seconds to compute whether their is a confliction, that is on average, so allow another 10 seconds for a fudge factor, and you have reduced our lifespan to 10 seconds..... just enough time for us to say " holy shhhhhh.........". The mere fact of this timing also relies on you picking up something the size of a fly at 5km, both seeing each other at the same time and both taking corrective action as per the regulations and your training......

I also found it funny to get home last week and see Mr Anderson in his speech on the New Airspace to cabinet...." Mr Speaker, i must stress again.... everyone wanted this new airspace, QANTAS wanted it, Virgin wanted it....... all Australian Operators wanted it". He then went on to say " and i must stress Mr Speaker, there have been NO near misses, nor is there likely to be". If this is not the best example of polititians at their best(lying), I don't know what is. Need i remind you dick of 2 Metros head to head 36 secs from collision in the NT in the first few days,both of whom were perfectly correct within your new airspace (the only person who had any idea was the air traffic controller who was nearly having a heart attack), secondly Virgin and a light aircraft, both of whom were also perfectly legal in your new system. If i remember correctly, your industry consultation was to the effect of " here it is boys, we are getting it, stiff ****, any questions?". You might as well just not have even bothered to have told us anything and just changed it off your own back.

I also must point out to you that most of a pilots situation awareness comes from position reports over the radios. While i do agree that there is often a lot of useless chatter, I disagree that removing the boundaries and frequencies will improve safety. How can it when your "educational material" specifies [b] MONITOR AN APPROPRIATE FREQUENCY[b]...... how the bloody hell can we do this when you remove the appropriate frequency!!!!!!!! Pull your head out of your ass dick and stop being a DICK!!!!! Fair enough we need changes, just not yours!!!!!!