PDA

View Full Version : Some truth about the ML incident


snarek
10th Dec 2003, 06:42
Dear CivilAir people et al.

I have to bugga a good story with facts, but I'm gonna anyway :E

The VFR Cessna 421, VH-AAI was 23 miles north of Canty (75 from ml) at 17,500'. Normal approach for Virgin at that point would be 22,500'.

There were 2 IFR aircrat in the area, the Virgin and an RFDS.

The VFR called for a clearance into ML 7 minutes before the TCAS alert and was adviced that no ALT was seen. Transponder was recycled 7 minutes prior to the TCAS alert and ALT info was acknowledged!!!

ATC then advised "we have you at 17,500, but not VFR clearance available due Wx at ML" (or words to that effect).

Cessna is offered IFR as alternative and accepts. (That is not actually up to ATC but I accept is was done out of professionalism) This is 25 NW Canty.

Cessna was given code and turned right 90 degrees from the direct Canty ML track under ATC control! This turn directed the Cessna closer to the Virgin.The Cessna flies three minutes more under ATC control.

Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000. Virgin has Cessna visual and requests descent through Cessnas level, this is denied due to lack of lateral separation (my interpretation: this is an interesting point, the Cessna is still VFR in E, the rules allow this, has it occured the TCAS alert may not have triggered. Nontheless it also shows the controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR).

The turn was probably to get more lateral separation, however it placed the Cessna closer to the Virgin with only 500' vertical separation and thus the TCAS sounded.

My interpretation. This is not in my view a NAS failure. In I believe fact if correct NAS procedures in E had been followed the Virgin could have descended through the Cessna's level befoire the conflict.

It seems to me that this occured while the two aircraft were both being treated as IFR and separated. It seems to me then that this would have happened the same way pre NAS and that proves to me that the CivilAir campaign is a blow up.

But then, why spoil a good public scaring press release with any truth!!!!

AK

Sked
10th Dec 2003, 07:03
Having spoken to the crew of the DJ flight that is not the way it happened. Get your facts right.

snarek
10th Dec 2003, 07:05
At least I posted my facts, all you did was make a batantly unsubstatiated comment that aint worth anything :}

But it would be useful if you told us what they said. So????

AK

Capn Bloggs
10th Dec 2003, 07:36
Snarek, you should go work for the ATSB. Your private pilot-expert investigative skills are obviously wasted here.

So the TCAS triggered an RA because the Virgin aeroplane levelled off 500ft above the cesspit instead of diving thru it's level with little or no laertal separation? Get a job where you learn what TCAS is and how it works before you come on here pontificating about something you know nothing about. You're an enthusiatic amateur.

This incident is ALL about NAS: had that airspace been C (as it was prior to 27/11) the cesspit would have been under radar control WELL before the mixup. Did it ever occur to you that the controller may have been actually doing something else and didn't have the time to devote all his efforts solely to this peanut using E airspace to the detriment of the aircraft that actually pay money for a service?

Speaking of the truth and a good story, why do you and your ilk continue to peddle the LIES that NAS will save in excess of $50m AND be safer, and that See and Avoid is like passing a semi?

It's actually good having you contiune to post this nonsense: it provides us with fresh evidence of the mentality and the qualifications of those who support the NAS. Keep it up, bloggs!

snarek
10th Dec 2003, 07:45
Read the post again Bloggsy, the spam can had levelled off at 18,000 under an ammended clearance. The spamcan drivers had the cessna visual and had requested a descent (which they should have been allowed if E procedures were followed).

However, because the VB Red-Can was holding, as directed, under positive control, all the TCAS did was liven things up.

Interesting thing, the Cessna pilot is sure there would have been no conflict without the 90 deg turn. So it certainly wasn't a NAS problem because both aircraft were being separated in exactly the same way they would have in C AND the transponder of the Cessna was giving Mode C for SEVEN MINUTES before the conflict.

You guys sure do get upset when reality stuff up your little scare campaign!!!

AK ... oh, and the pilot's perspective :)

Near-miss no big deal: Nippy's boss
By ALAN GALE in Melbourne
05dec03

THE Adelaide pilot of a Cessna involved in a near-miss with a Virgin passenger jet said yesterday that too much fuss was being made of the incident.

The aircraft, one carrying more than 100 passengers and the other four, came within 150m of each other about 100km northwest of Melbourne on Wednesday, triggering a collision warning alarm on the Virgin flight.

The incident has again raised concerns about the new National Airspace System which came into effect last week. It allows light planes into areas previously used by commercial airliners.

But John Knispel, a former air force transport pilot and now managing director of Knispel Fruit Juices which makes Nippy's drinks, said yesterday: "It's pretty much a non-event.

"There was no stress in the voice of the Virgin pilot or in the voice of the traffic controller. One of my passengers saw the Virgin flight and she certainly wasn't screaming in panic ... everyone was quite relaxed."

Mr Knispel was flying from Loxton to Melbourne at 17,500 feet on approach to Essendon airport when he was asked to turn right by traffic control.

"The Virgin flight was on the same path and descending at about twice my speed and halted at around 18,000 feet," he said.

"He continued his descent once we had moved and we resumed course, just the way it is supposed to happen. It was all very relaxed and there was no panic."

Winstun
10th Dec 2003, 09:18
Did it ever occur to you that the controller may have been actually doing something else and didn't have the time to devote all his efforts solely to this peanut using E airspace to the detriment of the aircraft that actually pay money for a service? ....:sad: Once again Aussie controllers display a lack of aptitude and ability to provide efficient dynamic radar seperation vectoring services. If this controller had actually been doing something else (what, I can not imagine), the incident would not have occured. It is high time these CivilAir bludgers were sent to the States (in their own time and expense) to observe and learn what service and respect mean...irrespective of flight rules, aircraft size or speed..:*

Natit
10th Dec 2003, 09:28
Winstun.

Ah ol son, if only you had half the brains that these controllers do, you may be able to do their job as well as being a d******* like you are!

pesawat_terbang
10th Dec 2003, 10:52
Well well well

The anti-NAS brigade seem to be either clutching at straws, twisting the facts or being just plain insulting.

Sked

Having spoken to the crew of the DJ flight that is not the way it happened. Get your facts right.

I don't believe you. I think you made that up. Post the comments and we can check the transcripts and thus your veracity.


Capt Bloggs

This incident is ALL about NAS: had that airspace been C (as it was prior to 27/11) the cesspit would have been under radar control WELL before the mixup.

I don't think you are a Captain. If you were you would know that at over 100 nm ML there has been little change, in fact the aircraft was in contact well before the conflict and was under ATC control. So tell me exactly, how did NAS contribute.

Oh and your reference to 'paying the money', airspace is a public resource, it isn't there for the airlines. They like everyone else may be granted the priviledge of useing it.

This seems to me to be a simple ATC error from which the ATC Union has grown a bunch of really smelly conclusions. It is not the ATC service that should be criticised, it is the union and NAS detractors who have misused the incident to mislead the public. In outing the truth ATC have been harmed by the promulgated lies as has the reputation of those who cried wolf.

PT

MaxyB
10th Dec 2003, 11:37
Liars and false prophets often go to ground once exposed!

Max

2B1ASK1
10th Dec 2003, 11:38
Well-said pesawat_terbang

The crap and lies that come out of some of these posts is unbelievable.

NAS is beginning to show one thing that is half the so-called professional are not really professionals after all. Bill Hamilton a man that has been flying before most of you come out of nappies has supported this from the beginning. Try telling him he knows nothing about airspace and how difficult it is to look out of the window whilst flying his 747 and if you were his F/O you would get a quick slap in the head.

As for Ted Lang in my view nothing but a liar scaring the public and distorting the truth, now that the facts have really come out in various forms most of you should be ashamed of yourself.

Go cry in someone else’s soup
:ok:

ferris
10th Dec 2003, 12:32
Well, an amazing amount of vitriol.

Good work Snarek. You have either spoken to the pilot of the Cessna, or merely read the newspaper reports. So on that basis, you have tried and hung the controller. You wonder why the professionals have contempt for you people!

1. The people who know the facts would be unable to post them here.
2. This sort of scenario (the controllers being scapegoated) was envisioned by CivilAir.
3. Calling Ted a liar is a bit rich considering the orchestrated campaign of absolute and utter lies by the pro-NAS people. Simply name one thing he is said that is untrue, and PROVE it.


This is a despicable set of circumstances, Mr Kerans. I would hope that legal action commences against you quite soon. You need to be made aware of the consequences of getting on the "spin" bandwagon. The professional liars are adept at protecting themselves. You, it would seem, are not.

Here to Help
10th Dec 2003, 13:28
Snarek,

In your first post it appears that you are trying to piece together what happened in the incident using information only gleaned from the VFR pilot's point of view. You also, in your now edited second post, implied that you had a transcript obtained through FOI. You removed that reference. Do you have a transcript of the events or was that a misleading comment?

I'm more inclined to believe that you have the VFR pilot's account: You give his type, rego, altitude, exact position north of CANTY, and only approximate transmissions heard from ATC (eg: "or words to that effect", and "Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000" etc).

With respect to the other aircraft you have very sketchy details, again they were probably from what the VFR pilot could relate.

You do not give the flight number, rego, positive position or anything about the Virgin aircraft. Your comment "normal approach for Virgin at that point would be 22,500' " is speculative. Also, an RFDS aircraft "was in the area" - again no rego or positive position or height. All of this shows that you don't have any information about the actual positions of the other aircraft.

The only new information that you seem to offer is that "7 minutes" took place between the recycling of the transponder and the TCAS alert. Interesting. If the information you have is only from the VFR pilot, then how do you know exactly when the TCAS went off?

The rest of your post is speculation ("the turn was probably to get more lateral separation") and what you admit to be your interpretation. In other posts you accuse others of beating up a story for union purposes. Your comments in recent posts show that you are guilty of the same thing you accuse others of doing, except it's for anti-union/pro-NAS purposes.

You still have not answered repeated genuine questions about where the savings are in NAS, or how it is safer, or how see and avoid is a valid first and last line of defence, or even how it is a union (both pilot and ATC) issue at all.

How about you rise above what you perceive to be unreasonable posts, not respond in kind, and contribute positively and responsibly to the debate as a publically visible member of AOPA? I can only ask.

MaxyB
10th Dec 2003, 13:30
Vitriole???

Show me where he posted 'vitriole'. I can show it after the posts under various pseudonyms, but not in that post.

Not once does he question the controller, or either pilot, he simply points out that NAS was not to blame. In a later post he just copies a news article.

I think you just don't like the truth being posted and have now sunk to legal threats :yuk:

Max

Chapi
10th Dec 2003, 13:31
Despite all the speculation, rhetoric, propaganda and b#%%#*@t, the fact remains that:

The NAS allowed a VFR aircraft to be at the top of E with a partially non-working transponder, near a major air route used by RPT jets and wanting to enter C airspace in poor weather conditions without a flight plan.

After assessing the traffic disposition and passing traffic info, the controller couldn't sit back and do nothing more (which he could have done under our "safe" NAS procedures), especially when he realised that it was going to be VERY, VERY close … and took positive action.

400FT and less than 1 Nm ... and traffic not sighted til too late!

The scariest thing I've ever seen … all because NAS allows it.

Poox
10th Dec 2003, 13:47
I have some questions then.

The NAS allowed a VFR aircraft to be at the top of E with a partially non-working transponder

Was the transponder faulkty, or was it the TAAATS stuff up that has happened a couple of times to me. No clarification in snarek's post.

he realised that it was going to be VERY, VERY close … and took positive action.

Unless both snarek's information, the presss report and the Cessna pilots statements are complete fabrications, didn't the controller have both aircraft under control for more than 8 minutes??? How far away would the DJ have been then. I calculate about 40 nm from the Cessna (assuming direct tracks to the 'intercept' point). So that statement looks a little shaky unless backed with some facts.

400FT and less than 1 Nm ... and traffic not sighted til too late

Oh, and what about the VFR descent??? Obviously if this information is correct the DJ pilot had the Cessna in sight for quite a while before the RA. So this statement seems a tad over emotional.

all because NAS allows it

Well unless you have some evidence to support that I am going to have to stick with the 'nothing to do with NAS' crowd.

As someone has said, there is a lot of vitriole here, mostly directed at snarek because he dared to actually present some evidence rather than pure hearsay.

So come on people, put up or shut up.

Time Bomb Ted
10th Dec 2003, 13:58
Ferris

I'll bite. Ted said to the media that the safest time to travel is at night because VFR aircraft can't fly at night.

I've been flying at night, VFR for years. In fact I intend doing it tonight if the weather stays fine.

I notice as well that Civilair have not retracted their earlier Press Release stating:

“We have been informed that in Canberra today, for example, a passenger aircraft’s collision warning system activated due to a light aircraft straying too close.” (Press Release Dated Sunday 30 November) Not a lie, however not too forthcoming in letting Joe Public know it was just a false alarm by the TCAS.


TBT:oh:

Chief galah
10th Dec 2003, 14:30
snarek

1. I seriously doubt anyone outside the investigative process can get access to transcripts at this stage.

2. This would not have occurred pre. 27/11.

3. From your "probable" speculations, I reckon you're a frustrated controller wannabee.

No news of a recent NAS incident leading up to the CB airshow??

CG

SM4 Pirate
10th Dec 2003, 14:31
...he dared to actually present some evidence rather than pure hearsay. Obviously a great deal of legal training you have there Poox.

When did the VFR get an IFR Clearance?

When was he under control?

Snarek, heresay is not evidence... All, jumping on the heresay as evidence is great for position but does little for your argument.

TBT, big deal re the CB TCAS event, JA said that the Virgin C421 incident wasn't a fault of NAS.

AS for the suggestion that this would have happened the same pre and post NAS, get real; only if it was a massive mistake.

The whole problem with Class E; if everyone does everything right a TCAS RA (or worse) can still happen, last Wednesday case in point. Under Class C, it would take a break in the safety chain for that to happen.

Bottle of Rum

Aussie Andy
10th Dec 2003, 14:36
on the heresay as evidence is great for position but does little for your argument. That's rich: the anti-NAS brigade have been touting that this incident IS the fault of NAS since the start, but also without hard evidence / details / etc.

As I have said from the start, we should wait for the official investigation: anything else is speculation. All AK has done, quite rightly, has been to balance the anti-NAS hearsay with pro-NAS hearsay: but at least he's not unecessarily alarming the public, or putting off Singaporean tourists from spending their $$$ in our great country, like Mr Lang... (if you don't believe me, you can look that up on Mr Lang's website where he proudly repeats the press coverage attributed to his own sensationalist statements...).

Lets calm down and wait, eh?

Andy :ok:

snarek
10th Dec 2003, 14:46
I have asked for the transcripts via the FOI process and have asked the Minister to assist.

My post was based on a conversation with the pilot of the Cessna. A conversation with a person who heard the events unfold and an analysis of both by two 15,000 hour plus pilots.

I might add, the Cessna pilot is an ex-RAAF trasport pilot and hardly a member of what you guys call the 'terry towling' brigade.

I too get a bit upset at the tone of these posts and try to tell myself that the insulting and basless ones come from kids with 155 hours, eight gold bars, wings and sunnies with a venturi rating for the PJE 206 they are njot paid to fly.

I hope so, because if much of this is from regionals and controllers, in a few years time when you need GA to give you a hand, the wounds may not have healed.

AK :(

Sperm Bank
10th Dec 2003, 15:38
Mr Kerans, I don't think a ex RAAF transport pilot carries any more qualification than most others. Some of those guys historically have more than their fair share of incidents/accidents. I also have nearly 15000 hours here and around the world, but I don't believe that gives me any more qualification than your advisors you mentioned. The simple fact remains this new system (NAS) is causing plenty of grief among professionals who operate in this airspace for a living. It's not a weekend hobby or a past time which is a bit of fun. It is the environment in which we earn our livelihood. The relevance of that being that the people who operate in this airspace for a living were by and large totally ignored by the beauracrats who promulgated the changes. This fact on it's own completely nulifies any argument of industry consultation.

Yes things may have needed a bit of tweaking, but to railroad the entire process by stealth without debate or even a hint of constructive criticism is in anyones terms farcical. I stand to be corrected in the fullness of time but I very much doubt that will happen with the current procedures in place.

Sked
10th Dec 2003, 18:23
So you fibbed about having the FOI transcripts Snarek. You are the one making up stories. I have made a statement which is true, I have talked to the DJ pilots in question (although some don't believe this, not that I care) but unlike you am not willing to put one side of the story I have heard without hearing all sides. I will wait for the final reports. Why did you edit that out of your original post? I actually did try to see your point during the whole NAS debate but when you start making stuff up your credibility goes out the window.

tobzalp
10th Dec 2003, 19:30
What do you means starting to lose credibility. He and his ilk never had any credibility in the world that actually exists beyond the kinda that is the AOPA board room. I have seen nothing but information and position that destroys all that we have left in Australian Aviation. I am still amazed that the government gives that organisation any credence. I must suppose however that this is a case of 'He who has the gold makes the rules'.

I sincerely hope that come the revolution, these pricks get made to pay for their blatant destruction of aviation safety in this country. Unfortunately with a goon like Latham at the helm of the Labor party, this review and any schmick of an idea in toto will be some time coming.

Perhaps I should run for my local seat.

the wizard of auz
10th Dec 2003, 20:14
Pesawat terbang, great handle hombre, I was going to use that as an alternative user name. ;) I'll have to use something like, Pesawat Udara now. :D
Apakah anda berbahasa Indonesia?.

Hempy
10th Dec 2003, 20:44
Anyone know how much $$$ Dick Smith throws at AOPA each year?

Captain Stoobing
11th Dec 2003, 06:19
Sorry to diverge from the topic at hand.....

I was in bed ,fighting off the missus, trying to read an old copy of Aus Aviation and found an article regarding an ATC strike about 18 months ago over pay and conditions negotiations for ATC staff. I was just curious why ATC staff did not go on strike for the NAS implementation on 27/11/03. I know they all feel very passionate about this topic as we all do. I am not having a go at them ......if my company had asked me to stop work for the NAS I would have. Just curious thats all.......

Capt Stoobing.

Once again sorry to diverge from the current topic.

pesawat_terbang
11th Dec 2003, 06:59
I will rely upon Here to Help's translation in moderating your post.

If his translation is correct, had you posted the same post in English you may well have faced a cooling off period in the sin bin.

This forum is in English.

Woomera

Time Bomb Ted
11th Dec 2003, 07:36
Anyone from Civilair

Can anyone tell me why Civilair have not released a media release stating that Night VFR actually happens in Australia and that the statement was incorrect about VFR not flying at night. And while you are at it, maybe you could also retract the statement about the VFR aircraft getting in the way of the SAAB into Canberra.

Are you honest enough to come clean about that?

TBT

tobzalp
11th Dec 2003, 08:48
Capt Stoobing

If anyone should be striking it should be the pilots. When this all does go wrong unless they hit right over the top of brisbane centre, I will be not dead. But then again, if pilots don't see this as dangerous then fine, ok, whatever, enjoy. I for one have given up caring. Non of the procedures that I can aprove will be approved by me so the rest is up to you guys.

Here to Help
11th Dec 2003, 09:51
Selamat sore PT,

Kalau anda mau berbicara darihal orang yang bukan berbicara bahasa Indonesia, anda harus berbicara dalam Bahasa Inggris.

...and if you can't understand my rusty Indonesian, and also for the benefit of others so that I am not seen as rude, I'll translate:

"Good day PT, if you want to talk about people who cannot speak Indonesian, you should talk in English."

Saying that you think one forum member is a big liar, and that another forum member is very rude and a clown, in another language, in a public forum is pretty bad form. I guess if you came out and said it in English you would expect to be censured by the moderator?

Closer to the topic - but not that close: Captain Stoobing, I believe that any ATC strike action would have been deemed "unprotected industrial action" and thus would have allowed Airservices to pursue damages from its employees.

Hempy
11th Dec 2003, 12:02
Can anyone tell me why Civilair have not released a media release stating that Night VFR actually happens in Australia and that the statement was incorrect about VFR not flying at night. And while you are at it, maybe you could also retract the statement about the VFR aircraft getting in the way of the SAAB into Canberra.

I believe (but dont quote me) that the first statement is in regards to NAS VFR procedures at night e.g VFR Climb, not the fact that VFR aircraft are in E airspace at night, because we all know about Night VFR. The second statement, I believe (but don't quote me) comes from a report submitted by the controller at the time, not made up in some back office at Civil Air HQ. Put yourself in Teds position, he receives a copy of a report written by a concerned controller who stands by it. Why retract?

because if much of this is from regionals and controllers, in a few years time when you need GA to give you a hand, the wounds may not have healed

Is this your personal opinion or official AOPA doctrine?

DownDraught
11th Dec 2003, 12:29
Time Bomb Ted you ask this

Can anyone tell me why Civilair have not released a media release stating that Night VFR actually happens in Australia and that the statement was incorrect about VFR not flying at night.

There is a difference between Visual Flight Rules, and Night Visual Flight Rules. The difference is that thay are Rules you fly under, not a type of flight. VFR pilots are not allowed to fly at night, unless they have a Night VFR Rating. Recency rules are different etc. So to state that a VFR pilot cannot fly at night is correct, as a pure VFR pilot hasn't got a night rating, which was not stated. That's how I read it anyways. Like saying a VFR pilot cannot fly IFR, or can he?

Aussie Andy
11th Dec 2003, 14:29
Re: the Night VFR discussion above:I believe (but dont quote me) that the first statement is in regards to NAS VFR procedures at night No: it relates to Ted Lang's scurrilous assertion, designed to further sensationalise the debate and alarm the travelling public, that because of NAS they should only fly at night... Nice one Ted!

Andy :ok:

Chapi
11th Dec 2003, 17:33
Just for info ...

Information provided to ATSB for safety investigations and reports is not available under FOI nor can ATSB provide such information to civil courts.

Information is classified as ‘restricted information’ (TSI Act, Section 3 Definitions). Section 60 of the Act states that ATSB staff members must not disclose or produce to any person or court the whole or any part of restricted information unless, in the case of civil proceedings, the Executive Director signs a certificate stating that the disclosure of the information is not likely to interfere with any investigation. Records are not disclosed to civil courts. as it is likely to prejudice the future free flow of safety information and thus compromise future safety investigations. In addition, records of interview cannot be disclosed for criminal proceedings. Finally, records of interview and other restricted information are exempt from Freedom of Information claims.

For larger investigations, ‘directly involved parties’ will receive a draft copy of the investigation report before it is publicly released. The ATSB makes, copies of all its final investigation reports available to the public.

The ATSB information relating to this incident can't be obtained under FOI.

The "directly involved parties" will have 2-3 weeks to comment on the draft report before the final report is published.

ferris
11th Dec 2003, 18:00
Time Bomb Ted.

Is that the best you can come up with? We have an avalanche of misleading examples, half-truths and outright lies spouted by the pro-NAS camp. I would be quite happy withs Ted's advice to fly at night. Your chances of encountering a night VFR flight would be markedly smaller than a VFR during the day, especially in the E AIRSPACE TED WAS TALKING ABOUT.

What happened to snarek's post? Get some legal advice about "libel", "heresay", "lies" and "damages" did you? Lost all cred now. And people wonder why AOPA is held in such low regard. Still, seeing as what's been going on in the boardroom at AOPA, you should fit right in, Mr. Kerans.

As for the topic- the proNAS people can smokescreen as much as they want. It doesn't change the fact that the airspace is now more dangerous. And only half way through implementation! Good luck fellas.

cunninglinguist
11th Dec 2003, 19:43
For the benefit of the weekend warriors ( of which there seems to be plenty on this thread ), when you get an RA from the TCAS it is telling you that you could have as little as 15 seconds before impact,and is giving you 5 seconds to react to the warning.
I have yet to hear of a faulty RA from a TCAS and the apathy/attitude of the Cesspit pilot makes me hope and pray that he is not maintaining the standard he achieved in the RAAF, god help us if thats the standard of our air defence, mind you, he was only a trash hauler:E

Time Bomb Ted
11th Dec 2003, 21:48
Ferris

No it is not the best I can come up with, however I'm trying to find out if Ted has Retracted his statement about the VFR aircraft getting in the way of the REX SAAB in Canberra. Civilair makes VFR pilots out to be "Time Bombs" waiting to destroy unsuspecting RPT aircraft. We don't want to cause problems any more than the rest of the aviation industry. It does make the job of the average Flying School hard to make a buck when folks believe the sky is full of GA pilots on a death wish.

Not so? Wander out to a flying school and ask.

ferris
11th Dec 2003, 23:30
No it is not the best I can come up with I'd suggest it is, otherwise you would've 'come up with it' by now.:hmm:

Don't know much about the CB thing you are talking about (as I'm not there ATM), except that it points out a glaring difference in attitudes between professionals and amateurs. TCAS used to be a last gasp arse-saver. Now, it seems, it is just another daily ho-hum. Except for airline pilots who have to react within 5 seconds (or it may well be their arse ).Wander out to a flying school and ask I assume you are implying that since NAS, flying schools have had a drop-off in business? I'd suggest that if that's the case, blame NAS! The death of GA has been a long and painful one, which IMHO has more to do with the charging system than the airspace system . You may have noticed the turmoil in the professional pilot community lately (LCCs, locked doors, loss of T&C etc). The job simply doesn't have the appeal it once had. How many pilots would recommend it to their kids? Granted, it's a sad state of affairs, but why aren't AOPA, Dick, the minister etc putting the effort into actually promoting aviation, that they are putting into NAS? PPLLLEEEAASSSSSSEEEEEEEE don't try and tell me it's because NAS will revitalise GA! In oz, aviation is treated as a revenue source for the govt. It's not in the US. That's the big difference .

pesawat_terbang
12th Dec 2003, 03:20
Given e spleen venting around here against anyone who dares to be in any way pro-NAS, I think the woomeri would see my comments for what they are.

A lot less harmless than others.

And besides, they are only insults if translated ;)

I think all this anti-NAS stuff is just dribbling from the proverbial .............

snarek
12th Dec 2003, 03:38
Ferris

Because we are here to represent what our members want, not what RPT, Charter, military or ATC want.

If you look on our forum, this forum and AGAF (there you have to do a bit of filtering) you will see that about 90% of GA pilots support NAS. They are the members, they get to say.

We are however putting together an advertising campaign aimed at getting more terry towling hats on more young heads :}

(and perhaps it is because of insults like that that I and others just ignore most of what ATC and AFAP have to say on NAS).

AK

oldhasbeen
12th Dec 2003, 04:37
" ignore what ATC say...??????????
God help us all:uhoh:

Here to Help
12th Dec 2003, 05:40
PT,

Insults are easy to fight with insults, rhetoric is easy to fight with rhetoric.

If you think that the anti-NAS stuff is dribbling out of the "proverbial" (I will not reveal the translation, in consideration of everyone else's sensibilities - and you really shouldn't pick words that aren't even that hard to look up in an online dictionary) then prove it - attack it from the high ground of reason, logic and fact.

Four Seven Eleven
12th Dec 2003, 08:07
Snarek

It is very hard to contribute to this thread. As you would know, most of us are constrained from revealing facts which are known to us by virtue of the position we hold. So, from what I do know, I will point out those parts of your ‘truth’ which are incorrect.

Cessna was given code and turned right 90 degrees from the direct Canty ML track under ATC control! This turn directed the Cessna closer to the Virgin.The Cessna flies three minutes more under ATC control.
Most of this statement is wrong.
Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000. Virgin has Cessna visual and requests descent through Cessnas level, this is denied due to lack of lateral separation (my interpretation: this is an interesting point, the Cessna is still VFR in E, the rules allow this, has it occured the TCAS alert may not have triggered. Nontheless it also shows the controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR).
Both your interpretation and the reference to separation at the time of the TCAS RA are incorrect.
So it certainly wasn't a NAS problem because both aircraft were being separated in exactly the same way they would have in C …….
This is entirely incorrect.

As to the greater question of whether or not this was a NAS failure, this will be determined by the investigation. The indisputable fact is that this incident could not have occurred on the 26th of November, as the Cessna could not have ended up ‘sandwiched’ between the two IFR levels. The Cessna’s original clearance (to get into that position) would have included planning, taking into account separation, sequencing and other factors.

By its very nature, Class E means that the ‘unexpected/unplanned’ will occur more frequently, thereby leading to more last minute changes of plan, more delays and more expense.

PS: Your continued attacks on the pro-safety (anti-NAS) side as 'union scare-mongering' etc. are bringing you dangerously close to 'Winstunianism' - a tag I am sure you would be keen to avoid.

Col. Walter E. Kurtz
12th Dec 2003, 08:27
The fact that VFR aircraft are allowed into E, without clearance, and without the requirement to monitor a common frequency in that airspace is sheer stupidity.

The fact that Dick Smith and the other propagants of the NAS defend this (if you can call simpistic schoolchild rationale as defence) is itself, indefensible.

I mean, how hard is it to say 'We accept with 99% of the users that this is an unsafe idea, and now we will require all aircraft in E to monitor the same frequency'. This would placate ALOT of the concerns from the opposers and may even make the new system somewhat 'safer'.

Obviously, as Dick Smith knows all, and the rest of us are just simpletons (re: the CB radio and sunday driving analogy) we have no idea.

Pride comes before a fall. The problem is that someone else will be the one to do the falling - from saomewhere between A045 an FL185.

Capt Claret
12th Dec 2003, 08:30
FL245 up where I fly. It's not the drop that'll hurt but the stop!

Col. Walter E. Kurtz
12th Dec 2003, 08:37
CC,

I think you are VERY correct with regard to PR. I think that the anti-NAS groups have done very poorly in the PR department.

The public need to be convinced - and I think that either the PR money should be spent on better talent, or they should throw more money at it or BOTH.

Nothing like telling the truth - with a bit of artisitic 'licence' to get the message across.

After all, more public will die in an airliner midair than pilots or ATCers (or Ministers or adventurers for that matter) and they have a right to know what they extra risks they are being exposed to and who are the 'brains'behind it.

Hempy
13th Dec 2003, 18:44
http://www.lexicon.net/eclan/dust/dumb.jpg

Sperm Bank
13th Dec 2003, 19:09
Hempy go to the top of the class mate. Very well done (and more to the point appropriate).

KAPTAIN KREMIN
13th Dec 2003, 19:26
HEMPY - that is soooo good - it's on the front of my AIP but should be on the front of the NAS indoctrination publications

Evil

helldog
13th Dec 2003, 19:54
Listen lads and girls. Why dont you all quit complaining and just operate like pros in the asigned airspace, whatever it may be. The guys that bag the new airspace seem to know all its problems, so why not just compensate for it, its called airmanship.

You guys would poop your pants if you had to fly into places like Dar Es Salaam and Entebbe. The other day was crazy here in Dar, the new radar failed and there was Emirates, Ethiopian, Kenyan, SAA, 2x Air Tanz and Oman Air and at least 5 regionals, and maybe 10 bugsmashers. 1 controller sh!tting his pants, and everyone dealt with it like pros. I could not get a word in for 30nm and had to separate myself from others by listening out.

I can just see you ladies getting on prune and crying about it. Just deal with it, adapt, get on with your lives.

the wizard of auz
13th Dec 2003, 22:07
Strewth PT, Gimana? , I went bush for a couple of days and missed it. (Tolong ulangi
;) )
Woomera, Ma'af, saya tahu ini tidak cocok bahasa indonesia,Tidak apa apa. ;)
sampai jumpa. ;)

Here to Help
14th Dec 2003, 04:07
helldog,
Why dont you all quit complaining and just operate like pros in the asigned airspace Who says they don't operate like pros? This forum isn't the airwaves. If people don't, or do, like the airspace then at least this forum gives them the opportunity to discuss, complain, argue, and debate about it. You might have noticed other threads discussing just what you suggest - how to get on as safely as possible in the new airspace.
had to separate myself from others by listening out ...

TopperHarley
14th Dec 2003, 05:56
At least you were all on the same frequency so you could self-separate !!

cunninglinguist
14th Dec 2003, 06:53
Helldog. you're a real hero, and congratulations, you have demonstrated your complete ignorance on NAS.

We here in Oz don't give a stuff how you do it over there, we used to have a safe system ( however antiquated it was ) with no mid airs between lighties and jets ( unlike some other countries ). The fact that you went into one airport on one day without control, and did'nt run into anything is meaningless, 85% of our country is non radar covered, and we have jets and lighties co existing at non controlled aerodromes every day.
These idiots are trying to take away the only defence we have against mid airs, that is, compulsory uase of radio at busy airports and controlled ( procedurely ) airspace.

helldog
14th Dec 2003, 19:01
Hey cunning. Very true statement about my ignorance. Not total...but. True I know jack or next to about the new airspace over there. But that is not relevant to the point I am making.

I do not wish to start a fight with anybody. There was another topic where Dick Smith was posting. People there...some of them asked good, intelligent questions and were shown due respect. I dont knock guys having a rational discussion.

Perhaps I should have made it more clear in my last pots who I was attacking. Some people are writing stuff on here which is just mindless dribble. It gets old very quick. I just hate to be reading an interesting topic and then to come across such dribble. Those guys that have nothing better to do than talk [email protected] should goto the jetblast forum. Go on there and tell everyone that controllers are stupid and dont know their job etc.

I am not saying I am a real hero. I just wonder what some guys that are so scared of midairs there would do. What would they do in the States, and other places that use the same system?They have much higher traffic density. Would they be to scared to fly there?

Another thing I dont know much about was this Virgin thing. But seems many people here knew exactly what happened. Fifty different versions of the truth! But hey sometimes systems break down...TCAS did its job.

Now every little incident is a big, nay, huge deal. Just like when someone dies under strange circumstances in a hospital. First one hits the news then every death whith a hint of malpractice is on the news for the next few weeks. People start to think that our doctors and hospitals are hopeless. Same hysteria is happening right here.

Another thing that is very anoying. Jet drivers and IFR jocks, stop knocking VFR guys. What the hell, I bet half of you were instructors once. Pumping out GFPTs and PPLs when you yourself did not have your IFR.

Again I am not knocking the people with concerns who discuss things as they should be. Just the ones that chime in with the little backhanders noone wants to hear.

Honestly last time I heard such a comotion was when Costelo anounced that they were raising taxes on tampons.

ferris
14th Dec 2003, 19:19
What would they do in the States, and other places that use the same system? Dude, whilst I agree that the VFR knocking is unneccessary and counter-productive, I also agree that you don't have a handle on the debate. If you want to join in, then please go and read all the threads (5?) preceding. One of the largest objections, is that to "handed-down wisdom", something you seem to be doing.

Once again, ausNAS is not the US system , no matter how many liars claim it is.


ps.
TCAS did its job If you mean it performed a "last-minute arse-save", then yes it did. If you mean it's job is "routinely seperating traffic" as seems to be the idea under the new system, then I think you may receive some more objections, your worship.

helldog
14th Dec 2003, 19:59
Howdy Ferris,

Maybe your right about me not having a handle on this debate. I do not wish to enter it. I was just making a point about some comments I read. So I do not need to grasp it fully.

With the TCAS comment. Yes it was a last minute arse save. But I stand by what I said. It is your last chance if all else fails. Thankfully this time disaster was averted.

Anyway as I belive, and I am sure many others, I dont think I will be able contribute anything further to this debate. Anything of interest and relevance that is. I just mad a point thats all. If anyone wishes to bag me, go for it. I will not reply. but will read with inerest. Be nice now:}

capitan
15th Dec 2003, 10:02
helldog
The whole point of our dissatisfaction with this new airspace is that TCAS is not save your arse, if everything else goes wrong anymore. They have taken away some previous safeguards and now expect RPT and others to rely on TCAS as a primary means of collision avoidance not as the last link in the chain.

snarek
15th Dec 2003, 10:15
Capitan

Rubbish. The VB had visual, the ATC had knowledge and the TCAS RA was a combination of ATC direction and VB aircrew action.

My understanding is the VB crew don't think there is an issue. Prove me wrong if you will.

AK

Dehavillanddriver
15th Dec 2003, 10:16
Snarek,

have you spoken with the VB crew?

RA's are NOT a function of ATC direction and the crews don't think it is a non issue

snarek
15th Dec 2003, 10:39
Statement + no proof = rubbish.

If what you say is true, back it up. I can only go on what I was told and I was not told that by the VB crew concerned.

As for the RA, you are twisting the reason in my post.

AK

Dehavillanddriver
15th Dec 2003, 14:31
so have you spoken with the crew?

I was not told that by the VB crew concerned.

or is that a half thruth like the FOI ?

ferris
15th Dec 2003, 17:50
Statement + no proof = rubbish You said it! All you have offered so far is rubbish. Seriously, if you are basing your opinion as to what happened on a conversation with the Cessna pilot.... He doesn't think it was serious based on the tone of the voices he heard!!! Sheeeesh, obviously you haven't heard many tapes, wherein almost always professional R/T is displayed under even the most trying circumstances (these days it is actually recommended that you try and add urgency to your voice when giving avoiding action- ICAO SARPS and UK ATC MATS)!

I really don't think you meant to imply that you had spoken to the VB crew, but we should be clear about it, shouldn't we?
Prove me wrong if you will. So if the report comes out and the airspace cops it, will you campaign for it's suspension? Will you use your position in AOPA to push for that organisation to act and do the right thing? I mean, how much proof will convince you?

Shitsu-Tonka
15th Dec 2003, 19:12
Anyhow.... have a Winstun

I thought this thread was supposed to be about 'truth' AK?

Chapi
15th Dec 2003, 20:32
Asbestos pants on ….


"Statement + no proof = rubbish"

This goes both ways. No one can provide PROOF via this forum … so we need to rely on reasonable discussion to determine the credibility of the writer and judge their comments.

Unfortunately, some have destroyed their credibility with their one-eyed comments.


"just operate like pros"

Most pilots (RPT, IFR, VFR ….) are professional and display good airmanship … but just like this and other forums … there's always a few that don't. They're the one's to worry about.

In this case I fail to understand the airmanship of a pilot who flies a good performing IFR-capable twin, VFR into a busy IFR area:
- Failing to "see and avoid"
- Without contacting ATC until fairly late
- Intending to proceed into C airspace at a major airport without a flight plan
- Eventually submitting flight details via the ATC frequency - the least preferred method
- Expecting a VFR clearance to a destination where wx reports and forecasts reflected non VFR conditions.

On the "see and avoid" … it's pretty hard to see and avoid aircraft closing at a great rate of knots from above/below and behind. By the same token … I seem to recall that the forward and down visibility from the B737 flightdeck is pretty limited.

ATC, too, are pretty professional. That might explain the cool R/T even under difficult circumstances.

As an aside …. And I'll really be flamed for this … but, generally, ATC know more about flying and aircraft performance, than pilots know about ATC operations and procedures. It's part of the ATC job to know, but not a part of a pilot's job to know how to do ATC.


TCAS is an automated system that interrogates other transponders - neither the crew nor ATC have any input, and, I believe, pilots are required to respond to RA's reported by their TCAS. An RA in controlled airspace generally requires immediate notification to ATSB.


And just to get the facts in order ... VOZ didn’t report sighting the C421 til AFTER the RA !


Still the scariest thing I've ever seen.


Is it safe to take the asbestos off now ???

Feather #3
16th Dec 2003, 05:16
Just a random thought;

Wot if the ATCO had told VB to level at FL185? :confused:

G'day ;)

Barra Tuesday
16th Dec 2003, 06:23
Snarek I have been following this incident with keen interest and from afar and up until now have kept right out; but you have just given me the absolute s##ts!!! Why don't you keep your opinions to yourself and stop dropping yourself in the proverbial poo pile. Nothing you have to say is helping and your constant conjecturing on what might or might not have happened based on your conversations with your uncle's, aunts, half-sister on your mother's side; who just happened to be a pilot; is infuriating!!!! Let the process run its course and stop pretending to be an expert on something that you obviously have little or no knowledge. "Something" happened and there was an incident and an aircraft full of paying passengers had to take avoiding action due to a systemic breakdown of procedures somewhere and at this point in time that systemic breakdown appears to be NAS!!

Aussie Andy
16th Dec 2003, 07:00
Barra Tuesday says:[list=1] Let the process run its course systemic breakdown appears to be NAS!![/list=1] Don't you think that's just a teensy bit hypocritcal and self-contradicting? I think both pro- and anti- sides of this "debate" might do well to adhere to the first of the two points made above...

Andy :ok:

Four Seven Eleven
16th Dec 2003, 07:36
Feather #3
Just a random thought;

Wot if the ATCO had told VB to level at FL185?
In that case, he would have been applying Class C procedures in CLass E airspace, which is against the intent and procedures applicable in NAS. If Class E is to work, it must be allowed to work on its own merits, not by ATC overservicing to compensate for perceived safety deficiencies.

The short answer, of course, is that everyone would have gone home safely and had a good night's sleep. (As they did prior to Nov 27th)

The inherent problem (apart from safety) as I see it in Class E:

1) ATC provides IFR with traffic on observed VFR and the IFR descends.
2) IFR pilot sees an aircraft, and decides he can avoid it, coninuing descent. (IT can never be confirmed the the aircraft seen by the pilot is the same one the ATC sees on radar)
3) TCAS generates an RA.
4) IFR pilot must respond to the RA, e.g. by climbing. (It can never be confirmed that the aircraft triggering the RA is the same one seen by either the pilot or the ATC)

Result: Less orderly descent profiles, less safety, more cost.

That's NAS for you.

snarek
16th Dec 2003, 08:23
Ferris

If the report comes out blaming NAS we shall have a bloody good look at it and our support for NAS.

Someone (4-7-11??) said something about a VFR not being allowed in C at flight levels. Really, point me to the CAR please.

So far I see no evidence to suggest the breakdown was NAS and that pre-NAS would have been any different.

As for the other threats and insults, the bulldust and [email protected] proof shields are still holding up just fine :E

AK

Winstun
16th Dec 2003, 08:35
Well...one thing is certain...Australian ATC have a lot to learn...:hmm:

Feather #3
16th Dec 2003, 08:51
Some good fishing here; thanks 4711 !

The nub here is the difference between US and Oz procedures [as perceived by AsA's Masters!!??] You can't just dump a system on a country without bringing the culture over as well. A US ATCO would have used lateral or vertical sep to make SURE the two didn't conflict [unless one could ack 'see&avoid.]

With TCAS equipped a/c, 500' is an RA, like it or not. Methinks the ATCO's here aren't being given the full story on how this REALLY works in the US [for starters, VFR are welcomed, given workload!]

G'day ;)

Here to Help
16th Dec 2003, 09:59
If the report comes out blaming NAS we shall have a bloody good look at it and our support for NAS.

What findings of any (theoretical) report would alter your support for NAS? Let's have a look at some scenarios:

1. C421 with a U/S transponder is missed by 1 mile and 0ft by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft only as they crossed. Did NAS work in this case?

2. C421 with a U/S transponder is missed by a wingtip by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft, but say that there was no time for avoiding action. Did NAS work in this case?

3. C421 with a U/S transponder is hit by a 737 in Class E. Both pilots saw each other's aircraft at the last second, but with no time for avoiding action. Did NAS work in this case?

My point is, does it matter how close they get as to whether the system works? In case 1, one could argue that the system worked. Case 2 you could try to argue, but the miss seemed to be only due to luck. But how close is too close? In Case 3, it would be extemely difficult to say that the system worked. But what is the difference between Case 3 and the other 2? Luck? Then surely the system failed in all three cases.

If all system defences are bypassed, and it is left to chance as to whether a collision occurs or not, then the system has failed. You don't have to wait for a collision to say this. You don't need to stick your finger in a boiling cup of water to know that it is hot.

I am not saying that the ML incident was left all up to chance (at least one system defence was in effect). I am saying that, compared to our previous system, NAS allows for chance to be the final arbiter in more scenarios, because it has removed some of the previously existing defences (such as Class C, frequencies and boundaries etc).

NAS is too dependant upon fully functioning transponders and see and avoid. It actively removes any of the added protection afforded by radio alerted situational awareness or ATC clearances. It's as simple as that. Once a VFR aircraft makes a flight through Class E airspace with a U/S transponder, then collision avoidance is left up to unlerted see and avoid - it is left up to chance.

snarek
16th Dec 2003, 10:18
My understanding is that the transponder WAS NOT U/S! Peddling more bull.

And we are a lot less likely to consider anything that is put forward by the same people peddling anti-NAS lies here or in the media.

I suggest you let less agressive and slightly more persuasive people fight your fight, ferris, 4-7-11 and DehavDrver seem to be able to make a point without going too far below the belt.

The rest of you, that's what the shields are for! :E

AK

mr hanky
16th Dec 2003, 10:20
"Statement + no proof = rubbish."

"I can only go on what I was told"

Which is it to be then?

Capt Claret
16th Dec 2003, 10:33
It seems your post of 16th December 2003 03:18 is in response to Here to Help's post of 16th December 2003 02:59.

If so, I can't see where H2H has suggested that the C421's txpdr failed. I believe from media reports and PPRuNe posts that it wasn't turned on properly.

Either way, your response strikes me as somewhat petulant and childish.. a bit like a child who knows the argument is lost but must have the last word.

Have you operated a high speed aircraft in E? I don't believe I am peddling anti NAS lies, yet I have not seen any sound or logical justification for much of the change and am seriously concerned for the safety of myself, my fellow crew and the passengers I am responsible for.

This concern is mine, I've not been instructed by any person or any industrial body as to how I should think. Being a somewhat independant person, I'm quite capable of assessing the new airspace and determining how it will impact me. I must say that I find your asertions that any one who is anti NAS must be a union stooge, or stupid, or some other insult, very condescending.

paddopat
16th Dec 2003, 10:41
The pilot's statement, while not proof, seems to me to be admissable, reliable and persuasive evidence.

So, the 'opposition' what have you got??? just more insults.

Your lack of professionalism is losing this argument.

Pat

Here to Help
16th Dec 2003, 10:49
Snarek,
Peddling more bull When have I ever done so before, and when did I do it in my last post? When have I ever posted "anti-NAS lies"?

Calm down please.

I had no intention of implying that the ML incident C421 had a complete transponder failure, I listed 3 hypothetical incidents for the purpose of discussion that involve a U/S transponder. Please reread and consider my post and it's valid questions and arguments. I am interested in your opinion.

snarek
16th Dec 2003, 10:57
Here to help

Sorry, your point was mistaken as an attack and an RA sounded in the presense of multiple PPRuNe targets interestingly eminating from a single IP Address at Brisbane Center.

(Careful Plazbot, big brother is watching :} )

OK, 1, 2 and 3.

U/S Transponder, the aircraft should NOT BE IN E.

Let me expand on your scenario.

"C421 approaching Cairns from overhead Townsville at 14,500 on Nov 24 2001 with Transponder U/S and having miscalculated a position due to a 50-kt tailwind mistakes Cape Cleveland for Cape Bowling Green and misses a 717 climbing out of Tvl by 50 feet and 100 meters."

So, how would 'C' prevent this???

In E I put it to you that both pilots would at lease know their see and avoid responsibilities.

AK

tobzalp
16th Dec 2003, 11:53
I am interested to know how big brother is watching and just what he intends to do. Is this some form of threat? Is that what I am to understand. Making threats on the Internet is actually lower than what I thought you were. Incase you did not know the entire AsA centre will give up the same proxy ident. Are you telling me that you accessed the Airservices web server without permissions to ascertain where this IP was originating? OMG all the ATCs must be the same person!!! This IP talk actually concerns me. I have had suspicions for some time that this woomera moderator is very much in the GA groove and is far from consistent if thread lockings and censorship of people. I look over into the other D and G forums and see threads over 100 posts kicking along unlocked and idiots banning/censoring only the apparnet concerned about NAS posters. Additionally but probably more to the point I wonder if you yourself have this moderator account password as well.

This forum has only gone to show that this is not where this battle is going to be won. With the whipping boy of the week sticking their head in with the tired old scaremongering accusations any substance went long ago.

I will sit back as I have been doing so and making sure that I can impart the required knowledge to the people that matter in this debate now, my workmates. As I have stated before we are not going to be the ones who are going to die when 2 hit. As long as we tin plate our backsides when using E airspace then I see nothing wrong. VFR climb and descent.. not available. VFR on top...not available. IFR Pick up...stand by for traffic, I'll get around to your clearance when every single other thing is taken care of. Non mode C paints going to be within 5nm of a paint anywhere at any level..'Observed traffic is' to what ever level from A090 to FL410. VFR pop up calls for clearance.. call flight watch and submit details then get back to me. Going into IMC? whooops ESIR.

I think it is high time that the rest of the ATCs and Pilots who fly for food give these idiots less assistance with fixing their mess and make them fully accountable for their actions come the revolution. We have voiced our concerns. They are on record. They always will be.

snarek
16th Dec 2003, 12:01
Plazbot

No not a threat, sort of a warning. Anyone can download or buy a variety of IP trackers, I have one and use it to keep track of multiple personalities in the GA forum.

I put it on here and low and behold, many posters come from the same IP address (by the way, the AsA IP can identify an area, I just can't go that far, you have to be 'inside' to do that).

Oh, and no, I am not a moderator, just an engineer who can work IP stuff, even one of the Woomeri is a tad concerned at that :}

AK

Here to Help
16th Dec 2003, 12:02
Snarek,

Apology accepted. OK, You are right, U/S transponder should not be in E. I'll come back to that...

Your scenario, "C421 approaching Cairns from overhead Townsville at 14,500 on Nov 24 2001 with Transponder U/S and having miscalculated a position due to a 50-kt tailwind mistakes Cape Cleveland for Cape Bowling Green and misses a 717 climbing out of Tvl by 50 feet and 100 meters.

So, how would 'C' prevent this???" C could not have prevented this because there was no transponder, no-one knew he was there, and the pilot didn't think he was in C. The causal factors are:

1. U/S transponder
2. A VCA due to Navigation Error

Given these two causal factors, Class A,C,G,E has no other defences apart from unalerted see and avoid.

Note, though, that in my scenarios, I only had one causal factor - the U/S transponder. No Navigation Error is necessary. The NAS allows for the aircraft to be there. If my scenario had been Class C airspace, then the VFR would have also had to have VCA'd to get anywhere near the jet. The Class C airspace effectively adds a big layer of protection that E doesn't have.

Given just a transponder failure, and no failure of any other kind (eg nav error, ATC failure), Class E allows for such a near miss whilst Class C doesn't. Class C requires more errors before you get to a near miss situation

Your comment on see and avoid is valid, but in all of these scenarios, it would have to be unalerted see and avoid with a fast moving jet - not effective all of the time.

You said that U/S transponder should not be in E. Yes, but how does the VFR pilot know that the transponder is working? The blinking reply light is not a confirmation. The VFR pilot is not required to be in any comms with ATC to verify the mode A and C (even if he did have the freq), and even if he was, if he is not in radar coverage then nobody knows.

So you are right - VFR with U/S transponder should not be in E, but how can the pilot tell if it is U/S to avoid that airspace in the first place?

tobzalp
16th Dec 2003, 12:06
interestingly eminating from a single IP Address at Brisbane Center

A warning how?

snarek
16th Dec 2003, 12:10
HTH

There are many ways an aircraft could enter C accidentally beyond just a nav error.

I think here we have established that to make E work transponders need checking, which comes back to the main point we agree about, being on the right freq, ie

"Brisbane Center, XXX, 120 GPS on 150 Radial Cairns, 6500, squarking 1200, Morning Plazbot can I get a transponder check please"

Oh and lots more education, a failure of the NASIG that AOPA is trying to address.

AK

PS, one day Plazbot I'll tell you my rego and we can wink at each other ;) I mean, if I can do it so can others within your organisation. Use different computers!!!

Aussie Andy
16th Dec 2003, 14:14
Use different computersIt is very often the case due to NAT (network address translation) that all machines within an organisation can present to the outside world as apparently from one IP address. So you can't know for sure that the posts are from the same machine, just the same organisation. Some people call it cyber-slacking... but others just call it unwinding (or venting?)during smoko :O

Andy :ok:

Capt Claret
16th Dec 2003, 14:24
Another example of the risk of relying on Mode C txpdr and TCAS for separation.

Yesterday out of CS, identified as normal, and happily climbing to F300 enroute GV. Somewhere in Class E, to the NW of CS, our friendly and probably scared ATCO calls and advises that he's lost our altitude readout.

A quick look and Claret & Reisling realise that the fork that dropped off the meal tray has inadvetantly knocked the txpdr alt selector to off.

Had this happened outside radar coverage, and in a busier environment, it could very well have been another hole of the swiss cheese lined up with the next. :uhoh:

KAPTAIN KREMIN
16th Dec 2003, 17:51
TOBZALP

Here here to all of that.

I am a long time advocate of ATC telling the lazy:

".VFR pop up calls for clearance.. call flight watch and submit details then get back to me. "

Why should those who bother and are not trying to rort the system and push undue priorities get delayed.

Further - let the market forces sort this out - If you absolutely intend to continue to fly VFR in E and forget to turn transponder on etc etc get in there and do some listening out on E and transmit regardless of NAS recommendations. Especially VFR high performance aircraft using mid-levels.

CTAF will only be worse so get used to talking now 'cause it isn't going to be pretty later. If instilling a subversive reporting culture is the answer by the folk who use the system, then do it. If you're IFR in non-radar E then I suggest R/T for G and take the added benefit of ATC. Who's going to hang you for chucking in an extra report? A quiet chat (with relevant counselling ) under the gum tree for transgressions may help. Extreme measures for extreme circumstances.

The discussion is hingeing on transponder success or failure due to one recent instance in ML but this ignores a significant hazard mitigator which is R/T.

Also, there are plenty of ATC who still separate/segregate VFR/VFR so why not VFR/IFR in E. Blame it on duty of care or whatever - offer the service and do the best with what you've got. Sure the inevitable will happen but you can rest easier knowing you have tried and be satisfied that you were always right when those couple of stupid people are locked up.

For me - the bottom line, at a personal level, is to do what must be done to prevent a collision. Lobbying by typing is obviously not making a difference - of blockheads and brickwalls!l

ugly
16th Dec 2003, 17:52
Had this happened outside radar coverage, and in a busier environment, it could very well have been another hole of the swiss cheese lined up with the next. I'd be more concerned that the pilot was eating his meal whilst in a busier environment... :}

"All stations... just a moment.... I'll have the fish thanks"

Capn Bloggs
16th Dec 2003, 21:09
Snarek,

You're my hero. Spying on people's IP addresses. So what if a person has multiple user names: it's a rumour board, for god's sake!! You really are a nasty piece of work by the sound of it, and a nerd to boot.

Re the transponder checks, we tried that with your AOPA leaders and ATC management years ago (probably before you knew what an aeroplane was) when Dickspace first reared it's ugly head. They told us to get stuffed.

KAPTAIN KREMIN
17th Dec 2003, 05:03
and the one that got away.............

Notes:

1. Two aircraft operating companies operating within the rules
2. My information suggests that for Brisbane ATC read Darwin ATC
3. Had the rules REQUIRED the aircraft to even report on common frequency this would have been sorted well before the event. TRUE or FALSE - you tell me. Is such a minor adjustment to procedure relevant or needed - you tell me.
4. Names removed intentionally. The companies are not at fault here - the system is.

Transcript
Station: ABC CENTRAL AUSTRALIA
Date: 01/12/2003
Program: DRIVE SHOW
Time: 04:48 PM
Compere: BARRY NICHOLLS

Item: DESCRIBES A NEAR MISS ABOVE DARWIN AIRPORT

COMPERE: Last Thursday the Government introduced controversial air space reforms and pilots, airlines, air traffic controllers in airports all warned of dangers under the new rules.
Now today there are claims that just one day after the laws were introduced, there was a near collision between two aircraft near Darwin. The claims were just 10 nautical miles apart and approaching one another at close to 500 kilometres per hour. The ***** plane was ascending through the other's air space but the pilot didn't know it was in danger because the ***** plane was operating on visual flight rules with no obligation to call its position on the radio.

Cherie Beach asked *****, just how serious was this near collision.
*****:

The aircraft were definitely in a conflict situation, there's no doubt about that. And it wouldn't have happened in the previous organisation of air space. We were unaware of each other which is the issue that we are concerned about. Neither captain knew that they were in a conflict situation.

COMPERE: So your skipper came back to Darwin quite shaken up by this incident?

*****: Concerned, there's no doubt about that. Brisbane Control advised us to alter course and they were obliged to notify the Air North aircraft that they were in a possible conflict situation so…

COMPERE: How close were those aircraft before you heard from Brisbane Air Traffic Control?

*****: I think - I don't know, ten miles has been talked about.

COMPERE: And is that a reasonable gap? I mean that's not really a near collision, is it?

*****: The most dangerous episode in flying is approaching airports because one aircraft can be coming up and the other one's going down. So this changing of levels is potentially the most hazardous arena in flying. And it's just been made a little bit more so now by the fact that aircraft aren't on the same frequency.

COMPERE: With one pilot using visual flight rules, this was directly related to the government changes in air space rules introduced just a few hours earlier?

*****: That is correct. Under the previous regime, they would have been on the same frequency and our aircraft would have been in controlled air space and been positively separated from the other aircraft, yes.

COMPERE: Can I ask you why you would operate on visual flight rule? Is it cheaper?

*****: If the weather's fine we can carry more people. And the weather was fine.

COMPERE: Under visual flight rules.

*****: Yes.

COMPERE: So under the changes, it was expected of you that you would go to VFR and, as a result, you would not have to give a radio call. Therefore you weren't able to communicate with the other aircraft and neither of you knew that you were able to share the same air space?

*****: Yes.

COMPERE: How as it and when was it that you were notified of the danger, or that your pilot was notified of the danger?

*****: Both aircraft have got a transponder and the information is going down to a radar screen which just happens to be in, of all places, Brisbane. That's to say a controller is sitting in front of a big screen and can see that two blips on his screen are moving towards each other.

*****: Well doesn't this show then that the new air space regulations are working, and that the situation is safe, that they identified that you were coming together?

*****: There's quite a bit of interpretation in that. Some of us in the industry are keeping our views open as to whether it's a good or a bad thing. This is the first one which faced a bit of concern but it actually, as you just said, was resolved by a controller telling one of the aircraft to alter course. So it's comforting to know that was it*. But, if the controller was occupied in some other area of his screen, he may not have picked up the potential conflict. So, we're not 100% sure whether the system is going to work or whether it's going to be a bit hairy scary. But as we've been told, it works in America so why shouldn't it work in Australia?

COMPERE: So in this instance it did work. But this is the exact kind of incident that the industry is extremely concerned about, where the risk of collision would be increased?

*****: Exactly, that's correct, Cherie. I'm concerned because my passengers and my clients and even myself might be in this hazardous situation so we're hoping that this system does work.

COMPERE: It doesn't sound like you are convinced though. CASA and the Government says the changes are safe. Given this incident occurred a couple of hours after the changes were introduced, are you convinced?

*****: No not entirely, but then again, there were situations under the old regime where there were areas of conflict that could occur despite the system. So it wasn't entirely foolproof before and it's always difficult to put something together that is foolproof. What's probably missing from all this is that they may require us all to carry an electronic device, traffic positioning voicing system which bigger aircraft have all got. So if you're flying along in a 7 - or anything that's 30 people or more, you have a TCAS system in your aircraft which the pilot of the aircraft immediately has an electronic display telling him what traffic is around him and will give positive instructions to him to avoid a collision. We may all be required to carry one of these things in the near future which will make - which will resolve the human factor.

COMPERE: Cherie Beach there talking with *****, just about that near collision that happened near Darwin between two aircraft earlier today, or in the last 24 hours or so.

* * END * *



BTW - ISP address spying - is that legal?? If not LOCKIMUP!

No Further Requirements
17th Dec 2003, 06:36
Hi Kapt.

This incident sounds like it happened in E airspace? As far as I know (my sources are relaible they tell me :D) Darwin ATC does not 'own' any E airspsce. I believe the steps have changed quite considerably with NAS. I would be interested to know what happened ATC procedures wise. I think there are a few new ones since I was up there. Any comments? Cheers to all in YPDN,

NFR.

snarek
17th Dec 2003, 08:18
Kremlin.

IP tracking is quite legal, look at the bottom RH corner of each post ;)

Now, HTH, Plazbot et al.

Where we agree (that is ME, not AOPA position).

1. In E above (say) 8500' an aircraft needs to be monitoring the same freq as inbound IFR a/c.

2. The congestion argument, as applied in US NAS does not apply in Australia and should not be used to reduce safety margins on a frivilous cost cutting exercise.

3. We need a system of transponder checking, bit like asking for QNH.

4. More education!!!!

Where we disagree.

1. Pop-up requests are lazy. They are legal and I get quite grouchy and feel very 'Ministerial' when I feel I am denied one on union grounds. (see above post from 3rd Officer Kremlin).

2. Somehow 'commercial aviation' has a priority anywhere any time.

3. VFR don't belong in E at mid levels. See point 2.

4. The ML incident was a failure of NAS. (I am still looking at the supposed Darwin incident).

AK

tobzalp
17th Dec 2003, 08:46
Flight watch is where you file flight plans. No strip no trip, as we used to say.

Woomera
17th Dec 2003, 08:55
KAPTAIN KREMIN

and others, just a little reminder that you post here under the "rules" and I'm not suggesting that you have trangressed.

However it is a condition of this and most other forums that the IP address from which you posted is logged for each and every post.

This IP address is not monitored routinely except where there may be mischief about or revealed to any third party unless there is a properly constituted enforceable legal demand from a court in the event of any actionable conduct.

All that will reveal is the identification of ISP, the identification of the owner of the IP address is then between the ISP and the court.

It may also be used to block a poster who has been banned and attempts to register with different email address and user name.

Likewise the identity revealed during the registration process which rarely goes beyond a valid email address is held confidential, again unless there is a properly constituted legal demand in the event of any actionable conduct.

It's easy, stay within the bounds of civilised society and we have no problems.

As distinct from some other Forums we recognise the "right" of free speech only insofar as it does not impinge on the "individual rights" of others.

Simply we will not tolerate the posting of defamatory, mischievous or vilifying material about any individual.


Simple continue to play the ball and not the man and we can all have fun.:ok:

Four Seven Eleven
17th Dec 2003, 09:06
snarek
Someone (4-7-11??) said something about a VFR not being allowed in C at flight levels. Really, point me to the CAR please.
Not guilty. You must be thinking about someone else. For the record, there was never any restriction (CAR or otherwise) on VFR in C. (I think there used to be a high level restriction – not above FL205 by very vague memory – before alphabet airspace.)

Of course, VFR are now not allowed above FL180/FL245 due to the wholesale introduction of Class A.

IP tracking

I think your veiled threat here is, in your own words, approaching ‘below the belt’ tactics. If you are unhappy about respecting the expectation of anonymity here on PPRuNe, then can I suggest that you use other means of expressing your views? The AOPA forums would seem to be appropriate. (Perhaps you could insist that only real names be used there.)

You do your cause and reputation no good by resorting to tactics such as these. Let your arguments and those of others stand on their merits.

Anonymity has its advantages and disadvantages, for example:

Advantages: It allows people who would otherwise be constrained by concerns for their employment etc. to engage in meaningful discourse on matters of public importance.

Disadvantages: Winstun

It is up to you to decide which side of the ledger you would like to be associated with.

4-7-11 and DehavDrver seem to be able to make a point without going too far below the belt.
Thank you. All the best to you and let the reasoned debate continue.

snarek
17th Dec 2003, 09:07
tobzalp.

Not the law mate, do it with extreme caution, especially to me!!!

4-7-11, nup, no threat intended, I use it to give me an idea of whether I am seeing a body of opinion, or one body with a lot of different opinions. I just thought I'd point out that this stuff can be tracked.

In fact a somewhat infamous ex AOPA VP once used it to dob me in to my employer (who laughed at his feeble attempt) but a Woomera banned him for his trangression.

I make an undertaking to you and everyone that I would never even consider doing the same, especially when 'unvetted' opinion is important, as it is in this case.

AK

Four Seven Eleven
17th Dec 2003, 11:07
snarek
Thanks. On with the debate.

One of your 'truths' about the ML incident:
Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000. Virgin has Cessna visual and requests descent through Cessnas level, this is denied due to lack of lateral separation (my interpretation: this is an interesting point, the Cessna is still VFR in E, the rules allow this, has it occured the TCAS alert may not have triggered. Nontheless it also shows the controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR).
Nothing could be further from the truth. As I understand the incident, the three aircraft were at FL170, FL175 and descending to FL180.
The Virgin aircraft was instructed to maintain FL180. This is patently not the 'controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR'. (Separation between these aircraft would be 1,000FT vertically or at least 5NM by radar.) Whatever else the controller was doing at the time, he was not - at this stage - providing IFR/IFR separation. While one aircraft was VFR, he was not required to.

Whatever other benefits you may wish to ascribe to Class E airspace and to NAS2B changes in particular, it is incumbent on all to acknowledge that the events leading to three aircraft within 500FT of each other vertically, with only two of them subject to a clearance could not have happened up to 26 November.

Whether or not having these aircraft in this position and leaving the avoidance to TCAS is desirable and the proper basis for a safe and orderly airways system is open to debate. But at least we should acknowledge that this incident/non-event is NAS related. It could only happen under NAS.

What I see as a safety flaw, you may see as a design feature, allowing flexibility. That is why I would like to see this issue debated using facts, statistics and proper safety studies, not just Dick Smith's beliefs and feelings - or mine for that matter. Either the US system is safer or less safe than the previous Ausralian system. Either it is cheaper or more expensive that the previous Australian system. (The recently released Eurocontrol study states that the Australian system was more effecient in terms of economics and efficiency.)

Why not allow the truth to be revealed?

KAPTAIN KREMIN
17th Dec 2003, 11:33
WOOMERA

Never for a minute did I doubt that there are those who have the intellectual or technological ability to identify persons on this forum and are doing so on a minute by minute basis. My concern is use or disclosure and how that applies to Privacy Law and the resulting hurt to individuals who assume anonymity. I am not one of those "intelectually" blessed and haven't got a clue about IP's and clearly hadn't even noticed or considered the interesting bottom corner of replies!!!!!! But , believe me, I do write in fear of retribution.

As for going for the man not the issue this is fair comment and you are correct in saying that you are not inferring that. My issue was the legality of disclosure or usage and it was a question not a statement.

I must admit that it is difficult to 'control' responses when induviduals have improper influence or are in positions of power and do not exercise that power to the good of the general community - in my humble opinion, of course.

Or we could get rid of emotive issues and passion for flying and woops - there goes PPRUNE!

Time to pull my head in and say sayonara for a few years again me thinks!!! BFN

snarek
17th Dec 2003, 11:40
4-7-11

This is patently not the 'controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR'.

So why the right hand turn???

My understanding is, in E, ATC provides separation to IFR and advisory on VFR. So by turning the Cessna s/he had 'taken control' and on that basis I can only assume was providing IFR/IFR separation.

Now I have absolutely no problems with that, that is the 'culture' everyone says we don't have in Oz. It is just that if it is true, then it is not a breakdown of NAS.

AK

DownDraught
17th Dec 2003, 13:40
KAPTAIN KREMIN said....

Never for a minute did I doubt that there are those who have the intellectual or technological ability to identify persons on this forum and are doing so on a minute by minute basis. My concern is use or disclosure and how that applies to Privacy Law and the resulting hurt to individuals who assume anonymity. I am not one of those "intelectually" blessed and haven't got a clue about IP's and clearly hadn't even noticed or considered the interesting bottom corner of replies!!!!!! But , believe me, I do write in fear of retribution.

I shall explain briefly for you.

All internet IP's are registered, meaning that you have to apply to get one assigned to you or your company, just as you have to apply to your isp to connect. To connect to this website each end must know where to send stuff to, this is the IP address, each side must know the others (generally). If someone gets your ip address, all they can do is find out who it is registered to (ie telstra). If in this case they found out it was with telstra, telstra has to receive a court order to provide details as to who was using that ip at that time (privacy act) or have your permission to do so.

If you connect from a large company that has 1 or more registered IP addresses, than anyone can find out that you are online through their network. It may also be able to know, in a genral area where you are connecting from(ie telstra sydney, or telstra perth). All that can be done is to associate your forum handle with the ip address it was posted from. Earlier in this thread, snarek stated that the ip address was from AsA. To actually get the ip address, he must either have access to that information from the forum admins, or can "sniff" the information if he doesn't.

For example the ip address of 210.84.189.251 (The ip address I am posting from) can be found by going to http://www.apnic.net/search/index.html
and searching on 210.84.189.251

As you can see, not much data can be gathered legally on just an ip address, as to why snarek has access to ip's on this forum, I suppose you may request that info from the forum moderators, admins etc.

If you have good security and virus protection then it makes it a lot harder for anyone using non legal means to get this or any other private information.

Cheers

Four Seven Eleven
17th Dec 2003, 14:32
snarek
Let me prefix this with the following disclaimer: I know no more about the ML incident than is general knowledge within the place I work. I have no inside knowledge of this particular incident.
My understanding is, in E, ATC provides separation to IFR and advisory on VFR.
Not quite. We provide traffic information (as opposed to advisory) on VFR. An advisory service is a higher level of service and is not a feature of Class E.

So by turning the Cessna s/he had 'taken control'
A controller only has ‘control’ of an aircraft when it is subject to a clearance. Thus, a controller in Class E can suggest a heading to a VFR aircraft – perhaps in order to facilitate a clearance and later control. (i.e. “A clearance is not available in your current position – but if you fly heading XXX it will be”)

and on that basis I can only assume was providing IFR/IFR separation.
This is where your assumption leads you to incorrect conclusions. IFR/IFR separation would have been 1,000FT. Stopping the B737 at FL180 did not achieve (nor is there any evidence to suggest it was intended to achieve) IFR/IFR separation.
Now I have absolutely no problems with that, that is the 'culture' everyone says we don't have in Oz. It is just that if it is true, then it is not a breakdown of NAS.
I am by no means suggesting that there was a ‘breakdown of NAS’. This appears to be exactly what NAS was designed to achieve. I just don’t think that 500FT with no lateral (or 400ft with 1NM according to some unconfirmed sources) between a B737 and a C421 with the inevitable resultant TCAS climb is what I want to base a ‘safe, orderly and expeditious’ flow of air traffic upon.

I contend that the previous system was:
a) safer – the aircraft would all have been known to the controller and separated by at least 1,000FT or 5NM;
b) more orderly -as both the B737’s TCAS RA and the C421’s turn would not have been required; and
c) more expeditious – as a planned sequence of events would have avoided the extra fuel burn etc.

Given the above, I really shake my head and wonder what benefits we have achieved to throw away safety, money and a system that worked?

Bargearse
17th Dec 2003, 15:09
Snarek.

You don't seem to understand. This incident was directly caused by a breakdown in the NAS 2b.

"Pilots operating VFR should be aware of airspace where there may be a concentration of aircraft
operating IFR. This is particularly important in proximity to non-towered aerodromes. Remain
vigilant when operating in the vicinity of arrival/departure tracks to runways and navigation aids
Ask an IFR pilot or instructor about areas of high IFR traffic at your aerodrome

AVOID HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS

VFR AIRMANSHIP"


Do you understand the above statement taken word for word from the "Airspace reform - Inflight Guide"?

Your VFR 421 friend was in direct contravention of this advice. He was not only in a high traffic area but he was also approaching, as I have said in previous unanswered posts, a major IFR approach point (Canty) into a major capitol city airport.

Now I may have been able to let this one slip through to the keeper if he was at a lower level, say 5500' or 7500' but this einstein was at FL175, right in amongst the descent profiles of Melbourne bound jets. WHY?

Chapi
17th Dec 2003, 19:28
So why the right hand turn???

Maybe its because the VFR aircraft declared that he was upgrding to IFR - which he can't do until IFR separation is achieved ...

... and the controller was initiating evasive action ... ???

the wizard of auz
18th Dec 2003, 07:16
Bargearse, You wanna explain how a low life VFR pilot is supposed to know where an IFR (an invisable point in space that cannot be seen VISUALY) waypoint is, so he can avoid HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS?.(only, supposing that he wouldnt have DAP's and all that guff)
Also, just to point out how stupid that suggestion really is, isn't a VFR pilot allowed to fly into a high traffic airport anymore?. bloody difficult to avoid a place if you intend landing there. regardless of whether you reckon you could let it slip to the keeper if he was at a lower level or not, its still quite legal to fly VFR up to a certain hight isn't it?. isn't 17500ft within that allowance?

capitan
18th Dec 2003, 07:49
The other day a VFR RV4 departed MC airpot on a south west'ly heading on climb to FL165. His track crossed both the jet and prop in bound routes into Brisbane about 40-50 nm north, and straight through the holding patterns for both these routes, whilst at about FL120-130 and still climbing. Luckily this happened at 11.00 am so traffic into bris was light. Now while all the training documents disscourage this, the point is it was not illegal. It is just dumb that this could be aloud to happen. Someone pro NAS please convince me how this is a safer way to do things, i must be missing something.

Bargearse
18th Dec 2003, 10:18
the wizard of auz , Maaate.

Where in my post did I sugest VFR aircraft avoid high traffic aerodromes?

You wanna explain how a low life VFR pilot is supposed to know where an IFR (an invisable point in space that cannot be seen VISUALY) waypoint is, so he can avoid HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS?.(only, supposing that he wouldnt have DAP's and all that guff)

Well according to the NAS 2b education material :

Pilots operating VFR should be aware of airspace where there may be a concentration of aircraft operating IFR. This is particularly important in proximity to non-towered aerodromes. Remain
vigilant when operating in the vicinity of arrival/departure tracks to runways and navigation aids
Ask an IFR pilot or instructor about areas of high IFR traffic at your aerodrome.

AVOID HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS

VFR AIRMANSHIP"



Have you actually read any of the education material about this wiz .

It appears not.

Now, Snarek , your welcome to enlighten me any time now. :D

the wizard of auz
18th Dec 2003, 10:58
I read some of it but it got to hard.
VFR airmanship indeed........... I cant ask any IFR pilots or instructors about any of this guff........ there aint none here.

Ushuaia
18th Dec 2003, 11:26
Just out: the facts (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=554) from the ATSB. That was quick...

Time Bomb Ted
18th Dec 2003, 11:51
From the ATSB resort:" At 23:06:05 the controller instructed the pilot of the C421 to turn right onto a heading of 270 degrees to facilitate the provision of an IFR clearance. "

My question is, if the controller did not turn the aircraft onto the 270 heading, would it have been in conflict with the 737?

TBT?

SM4 Pirate
18th Dec 2003, 12:22
Yes is the short answer; would there have been 5 miles, no; would the VFR have penetrated class C without a standard being available, yes; would there have been an RA if the turn didn't happen, no; what would have been the distance between the C421 and the 737? about 1.3 miles by plotting it. Seems safe enough; but the C step was fast approaching, no clearance was available; can't turn left, due pucka, must have turned right to avoid a VCA... Was it ugly... yes.

Did the ATC do the right thing; hindsight is wonderful... At the time definetly yes, the subsequent enquiry found they didn't hit, so he did didn't he?

tobzalp
18th Dec 2003, 12:27
Prior to the 27 November changes, both aircraft would have required an airways clearance and would have been provided with a separation standard. In this occurrence, all aircraft were in Class E airspace and there was no prescribed separation standard applicable, therefore there was no infringement of separation standards.

The circumstances of this occurrence did not constitute an airprox occurrence.

Read the bold for the fine print.

Desert Dingo
18th Dec 2003, 13:04
Well, everything is OK then.
Come as close as you like to each other. There can be no breakdown in separation when no separation service is provided. The sounds of RAs all over the country will be music to our ears.
Why do I get the impression that this is a Monty Python sketch?

Time Bomb Ted
18th Dec 2003, 13:05
So it was either a VCA or an RA.....

[email protected]@er of a choice. Glad I didn't have to make it. Makes me wonder if the 421 would have ploughed into IMC to avoid the VCA or if he would have commenced an orbit which would have achieved the same RA.

TBT

Wirraway
18th Dec 2003, 16:32
ABC News Online
Thursday, December 18, 2003. 7:45pm (AEDT)

Report clears the air on near miss

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) says there was no infringement of airspace in a near miss reported near Melbourne last month.

The ATSB has released its finding from the investigation following the introduction of new airspace operating procedures last month.

On December 3, a Boeing 737 en route from Coolangatta was making its descent at Melbourne Airport when its collision warning system activated as a Cessna below it was cleared to move.

At the time air traffic controllers claimed the Boeing 737 flight with 104 people on board was just 20 seconds away from disaster.

However the bureau's deputy director, Allan Stray, says the investigation has found all aircraft involved were entitled to be in the space they were flying in.

"The Cessna was in class E Airspace and the 737 entered class E airspace when it reached flight level 180 - that's 18,000 feet on its descent," he said.

"There was no prescribed separation standard applicable in that airspace, therefore there was no infringement of separation standards at this time."


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

Shitsu-Tonka
18th Dec 2003, 17:23
Post Edited - original comments born out of sheer frustration

404 Titan
18th Dec 2003, 17:55
"There was no prescribed separation standard applicable in that airspace, therefore there was no infringement of separation standards at this time."
What the .....? Would this be the same answer if they collided? That has got to be the most pathetic response from the ATSB that I have ever heard. It leaves me wondering whether there is any political interference going on? :yuk: :*

Aussie Andy
18th Dec 2003, 18:01
At the time air traffic controllers claimed the Boeing 737 flight with 104 people on board was just 20 seconds away from disaster.At least these sensationalist "20 seconds from disaster" -type claims have been shown up. I wonder if there will be some sort of retraction from Ted Lang et al in the light of this report?

Andy

Ushuaia
18th Dec 2003, 18:28
Aussie Andy,

Let me quote you direct from one the Boeing flight manuals:

A Resolution Advisory (RA) is an immediate-threat prediction that traffic aircraft will enter the TCAS collision airspace within approximately 20-30 seconds....

How much plainer do you need it? That's what an RA means. Those aircraft were, timewise, that far apart at one point. Barring a stuff up, that wouldn't have happened pre 27 Nov. Now I happen to think the paying, travelling public deserve better than that on the eastern seaboard.

Interesting that the report doesn't say what type of RA it was, ie, "CLIMB CLIMB" or "MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED", ie the 737's pitch attitude needing changing or not. I think that is pretty relevant here. Why no mention in the report?

I think the ATSB's observations of the separation is "interesting". There was no breakdown in separation because no such separation standards exist???? Maybe this is their diplomatic way of saying Class E is crap. But the ATSB shouldn't need to be so diplomatic, right?

Yes, maybe acceptable separation is "just don't hit".

What is it going to take? :suspect:

tobzalp
18th Dec 2003, 19:14
I suggest that you ignore Aussie Andy persons. He very consistently hits reply before engaging brain.

Shitsu-Tonka
18th Dec 2003, 21:03
I hope the ATSB are remaining truly independent here. I am sure they are but how do you reconcile:


2 An 'airprox' is defined as an occurrence, in which two or more aircraft come into such close proximity, that a threat to the safety of the aircraft exists, or may exist, in airspace where the aircraft are not subject to an air traffic separation standard, or where separation is a pilot responsibility

with:

A Resolution Advisory (RA) is an immediate-threat prediction that traffic aircraft will enter the TCAS collision airspace within approximately 20-30 seconds....

and with:

The circumstances of this occurrence did not constitute an airprox occurrence.

???

Aussie Andy,

FYI Ted Lang has not retracted nor does he have any reason to retract anything he has stated, although the nature of the media sound byte certainly leaves him (and all sides of the argument for that matter) often out of context.

Further CivilAir have followed up tonight with a Press Release (http://www.civilair.asn.au/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=prpub;action=display;num=1071756708;start=0#0)

ferris
18th Dec 2003, 21:59
Aussie Andy et al.

So the spin doctors have worked their magic, and you, supposedly a pilot, are using this spin as evidence that all is good? You either
1. Have no understanding of what is going on, including believing a jet on descent receiving an RA is no problem
2. Understand the situation but are stupid enough to believe the way the spin doctors have latched onto the wording of the report
3. Are going to be pro-NAS no matter what, and are disengenuous in your use of the report.

The problem is the media bytes have worked their magic, and the public in general will from now on see any further NAS criticism as"union scaremongering". The minister should be shot. I really can't wish a NAS related incident on him (he "flies a lot"), but........

It's going to be uphill from here, now. Facts won't help Shitsu-Tonka. Short of getting the DJ crew on telly and bagging the airspace, I can't see how the media (and public) can be turned (without a MAC).

Still shaking my head...........

Snarek (and anyone else even slightly pro-NAS).
The pilot of the C421 was unaware that his aircraft's transponder was not transmitting mode C Now, this happens often. What if he had forgotten to turn his transponder on? This also happens often. Would have put a whole different complexion on this, don't you think? I meanThe pilot of the C421 later reported that he never saw the 737. Isn't that the whole basis for NAS? The 737 pilots aquired the C421 with the aid of DTI and TCAS. They are trying to kill DTI, it is not even required to be passed to a VFR. Would DTI have benn available if there was no transponder at all? TCAS only works if the transponder works. With mode A only, would the TCAS have still issued an RA? Is it just me, or did the report gloss over that bit? How many jet pilots ignore TA-only alerts generated by what are presumed to be lighties on the deck, way below them?
For anyone who isn't an ATC, this is the bit that stingsIt would have been difficult for the pilot of the C421 to assume responsibility for separation with the 737 while being radar vectored by ATC So, are they saying that by vectoring outside CTA the controller assumes responsibility? Absolutely. So you can only muck the ones around you do have control of. ie the jets. Very efficient (not). ATCs are going to wear some of the shit when it goes wrong, no matter what.

Wirraway
18th Dec 2003, 22:40
Fri "Melbourne Age"

Air traffic union accused of scaremongering
December 19, 2003

The air controllers' union has been accused of blatant scaremongering over an air traffic incident north of Melbourne.

Earlier this month, air controllers and the Federal Opposition called for the scrapping of the new air traffic control system, known as the National Airspace System, after claiming that two aircraft were within 20 seconds of colliding.

Civil Air president Ted Lang called for a full review of the new air control rules, which allow private planes to fly in commercial air traffic lanes. But the report by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found that at no stage did the planes come closer than 2.7 kilometres in distance and 121 metres in height.

It found the proximity of the aircraft - a Virgin Airlines Boeing 737 flying from Coolangatta to Melbourne, and a Cessna C421 from country Victoria - was not enough to be deemed a near miss, termed an "airprox" in the report.

It also found that the Virgin flight had the Cessna in sight and had slowed its rate of descent to keep a safe distance.

"There was no infringement of separation standards," the report said.

A spokesman for Transport Minister John Anderson called on Labor transport spokesman Martin Ferguson and the air traffic controllers to apologise for "blatant scaremongering over the non-incident" before it was investigated.

"Basically, there is no question that the new airspace caused the problem," he said.

- AAP

Aussie Andy
18th Dec 2003, 23:35
Guys, sticks'n'stones... etc. remember?

Clearly, there was never any point at which the aircraft were "20 seconds" from collision when the a/c were not under control of ATC: read the report.

ferris
19th Dec 2003, 02:45
Andy, I'll type slowly so you can keep up.......

The aircraft were @ 1nm apart. A 737 on descent at FL180 travels at @ 5nm per minute. That is 20 seconds apart . The RA is generated when the aircraft are 20 seconds apart .

Is there anything you are having trouble with so far?

They may have missed, had there been no intervention. The regulators aren't happy with that, hence TCAS was required equipment on the 737. "Might have missed" is not good enough, it seems, whenever it suits the regulator. Some on this forum are concerned about just where that line in the sand should be for "might miss".

To my mind, this incident is really effin embarrassing if you are pushing the NAS barrow.

Grog Frog
19th Dec 2003, 02:47
Bit like repealing the .05 BAC, then when a car prang occurs when the driver is a fissed as a part, saying no infringement of the road rules occurred, and alcohol is no longer a factor (although it would have been last week)

Are we expected to accept RA as the norm. 20 secs relates to less than 3nm !!!

RTB RFN
19th Dec 2003, 04:19
So where do we now go with air safety/hazardous practice?

Is a near miss (air prox) dangerous in one type of airspace and not in another?

Is a near miss dangerous between IFR and IFR and not with other combinations of IFR/VFR?

Is an RA reportable now?

Will the Transportation Safety Act be repealed, amended, cancelled? What then the value of statistics for assessing trend?

Is that it - is this all over with this precedent?

Change the goal posts/definitions and the thing no longer exists. My goodness what place are we now in! What has been created?

Clearly some guidance should be forthcoming.

Can I leave now - I have a headache?

Blastoid
19th Dec 2003, 04:36
Clearly now that we have brought our airspace into the 21st century, it is time to bring TCAS into the 21st century, too, and not have it give unnecessary advisories (whether TA or RA) if the aircraft aren't even going to be "close".

How about:
TA - 1 NM/200 FT and provided 10 sec to CPA
RA - 0.3 NM/50 FT and provided 2 sec to CPA

At least RAs will only be associated with airproxs then. :mad:

Aussie Andy
19th Dec 2003, 06:12
ferris: Quoting from the report:C421 ... was en route ... at FL175Then: At 23:05:23 the controller instructed the crew of the 737 to maintain FL180So the point is (a n d n o w i a m t y p i n g s l o w l y y o u i n s u l t i n g i g n o r a m u s . . .) that the descent of the 737 had been stopped at FL180, while the C421 was level at FL175. The 737 was no longer on descent, so there was never any "countdown" to impact. The reason for this is the 500 ft separation established by the controller - the controller did a good job: he was in contact with both aircraft for over 7 minutes before issuing the instruction which provided this separation. Then, after the vertical separation had been achieved:When there was approximately 5 NM between the aircraft, the crew of the 737 identified the C421 on their TCAS and subsequently saw the aircraft.And then, about two minutes later (still level at FL180):At 23:07:06, the crew of the 737 reported to ATC that they had received a resolution advisory on their TCAS on the C421 as it passed in front of, and beneath their aircraft, that they were clear of the C421, and were requesting further descent.So tell me, oh great one: where in that sequence of events was the "20 seconds to impact"? The VFR aircraft was at a VFR level, the IFR aircraft was at an IFR level, 500' nominal separation was provided.

The RA went off because when both aircraft are LEVEL and if the aircraft are within 750 feet or so (see below) then the alert is based on time to CPA - Closest Point of Approach. Note: that does equate to "time to collision". This is why some people think that Civil Air's widely reported claim that the aircraft were "20 seconds from collision" was unduly sensationalist. (And this, in turn, may be why people think that Civil Air may have some other agenda...).

(N.B. "For encounter geometries involving low vertical closure rates ... the vertical dimensions for RAs vary from 750ft to 900ft, depending on the TCAS aircraft’s altitude." Ref. http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fsa/download/99apr/apr_tcas.pdf)

(By the way, are you sure that 20 seconds is the correct "tau" figure?: above 10,000', I think a higher "SL" may apply, hence the RA would trigger at 30 seconds time to CPA not 20... not that this changes anything).

Furthermore, the aircraft were never "1NM apart"... you are about 50% out as the report says the closest they came was as follows:vertical spacing between the 737 and the C421 was 400 ft when there was approximately 1.5 NM laterally between the two aircraft. The minimum vertical spacing reached was 300 ft when there was 2.74 NM between the two aircraft.As for Civil Air's latest press release: yet again it has an overly sensational headline which shouts that the aircraft were "300 feet apart". No, they were not... see above: the VERTICAL SPACING was 300 feet "when there was 2.74 NM between the two aircraft", according to the report. Hardly the same, is it?

Now, you can call me any names you like - if that's what float's your boat!

Have a great day!

Andy :ok:

pesawat_terbang
19th Dec 2003, 09:03
I notice Kerans has gone quiet.

Probably waiting for an apology, but if I were him I wouldn't hold his breath, the anti-NAS mob seem to be able to displace truth and reality as fast as a 747 displaces air!!!

Mau kimana pak???

PT

Time Bomb Ted
19th Dec 2003, 09:12
Well done Andy.

I'm with you. 300ft at nearly 3 miles is a hell of a lot different to 300ft vertically away from another aircraft. Did Ted ever put out a press release saying that the REX aircrafts' RA was not a result of a GA aircraft getting in the way? But that would mean having to back down now wouldn't it.

TBT

Here to Help
19th Dec 2003, 10:03
AA, TBT,

"Aircraft apart 300 feet mid-air now okay"

The ATSB report itself says that there are no separation standards applicable between VFR/IFR in Class E, so isn't this title true? Isn't it? You may think the use of the 300ft is questionable, but does it change the truth of the statement?

The body of the release does not mention any distances, because the point of the release is to highlight that it is made clear by the ATSB report that there are no separation standards between VFR/IFR in E. Simple. The title could have used 150ft and still have been correct, regardless of what distances occur in the report.

If you are so concerned about truth in the NAS debate then are you happy with the publically stated $50-$70M savings that are unfounded and unproven? Or that the Minister has said that the airspace is safer? Will you answer these questions?

You have not demonstrated that the new airspace is not less safe. You have not demonstrated that there are savings in the airspace. You attack the perceived tactics of one side of the debate whilst not concerning yourself with the government-level public misinformation being made by those who are pushing NAS through.

The Government and NASIG want the public to feel happy about the airspace changes. Pilots and ATC know that it is less safe and does not save any money (it probably now costs more money). You want to attack groups that attempt to bring this to the public's attention.

Prove that NAS is as safe or more safe.
Prove that NAS will save money

And again, please tell me how the statement "Aircraft apart 300 feet mid-air now okay" is incorrect.

Time Bomb Ted
19th Dec 2003, 10:18
Of course it is safe Here to Help. They were nearly 3 miles apart. If it wasn't safe, then half of the movements into a GAAP would not be safe either.

Really be serious here. 2.7nm = 5000 metres. Which just happens to be the VMC minima for aircraft below 10,000. (from memory, so could be wrong.)

I'm not about to poop my pants if an aircraft gets within 5 Km of my position, regardless of if they are 300 feet above me or even at my level. Sheesh...

I'm not about to go into the argument that the NAS is going to save money or that it is safer. Too early to tell. Then again the speed limit went from 100Km/h to 110Km/h so is it safer to travel faster??????


TBT:D

RTB RFN
19th Dec 2003, 10:24
Ahhh - I've got it. The $50 - 70 M is due to the consequent reduction in staff and services now required by ATSB and CASA. No safety infringements/reductions (elimination of standards and procedures) = reduced requirement for CASA and ATSB.

Nothing to do with AA - however there will be a small increase in staff required to service E. Bet it's busy and getting busier with all that extra "save your ar$$e" R/T!

But hang on, didn't we move from FLIGHT STANDARDs regulation to random audit in the early nineties - and look what happened!!!!

Cunning little devils - had us all looking the other way!!!!!!!!

AIP GEN amendment (pending) (bringing back some MIL terminology)

In the event of a pending mid-air collision the 'responsible person' should call "BREAK RIGHT" and conduct a 5G, 60 degree turn in the direction of the nearest South American Travel Agency.

ferris
19th Dec 2003, 13:59
Now, you can call me any names you like So far, I believe you are the only one doing any name calling. Sure, I have implied you are a bit slow, but you have to call them as you see them. I also gave you an out: either you were a bit slow, or being disingenuous, or a combination. Still undecided on that. However,So the point is...... that the descent of the 737 had been stopped at FL180 . Why had the descent been stopped? Because the controller saw the ModeA only? No!!!! The point is that the descent was stopped by chance . Do you understand that point? It was chance that the 421 pilot called up at that moment, and his altitude became apparent. What if he hadn't, or what if his transponder was not selected on at all, or U/S. How would the controller, and hence the jet, have known about him at all? A VFR isn't supposed to use the radio at all under NAS (Dick suggests VFR enroute pilots should listen to CDs. A call was made because he was requesting a clearance. Is this lost on you? This is an example of NAS at work. The ATSB report is basically saying that "it was all according to the rules". It doesn't say the "rules are good".
Jets and lighties shouldn't be in the same airspace without clearances.

TBT
half of the movements into a GAAP would not be safe either Half of them aren't.
You aren't demonstrating an understanding of standards. If the controller was seperating, the lateral standard is 5nm. Does 5nm look like a lot when you're in the cockpit? Sure does. Does 5nm look like a lot on a radar screen? Definately not. Does 1.5nm look like a lot on a radar? I'd say the symbols would almost be overlapping, depending on what scale was being used. Using arguments about distances when you are talking jet speeds is totally misleading to anyone who doesn't understand the situation (you, by the sounds of it).
A TCAS RA is an incident. To have it brushed off like this is, well, politically expedient.

Ushuaia
19th Dec 2003, 14:52
Andy and Time Bomb Ted,

You guys seem to be preoccupied with the 2.74nm / 300' separation that occurred. Frankly that one doesn't worry me as much as the 1.5nm / 400' separation they had at one point. Now fellas, that is close when it involves a jet flying at 300kts....

Shitsu-Tonka
19th Dec 2003, 16:01
http://www.civilair.asn.au/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=prpub

Chief galah
19th Dec 2003, 17:18
The system worked.
NAS is a success.
The aircraft didn't collide.
This is despite the amateur pilot failing to activate his transponder properly.
AND despite failing to abide by the NAS golden rule - "seeing",

AND thus not "avoiding".
AND failing to remain clear of a major inbound IFR route.
AND failing to request a clearance within the appropriate time.
THERE was no incident.
THE aircraft didn't collide
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
today.
Welcome to the 21st century........DTI is on the way out, to be replaced by DFI
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Drug Free Idiocy.

CG

Chapi
19th Dec 2003, 17:58
Ferris … good points …

The controller used his discretion and initiative (and experience) to stop the descent of the B737 about 90secs before what he saw as a real possibility of ……. A very dangerous, unsafe situation.

On the screen … a radar track symbol is 3.5mm wide. The ASD scale is 1Nm = 2mm

"The ATSB report is basically saying that "it was all according to the rules". It doesn't say the "rules are good"." - Agree. Basically, the ATSB presented some facts and concluded that "… this occurrence did not constitute an airprox occurrence." Nothing more.

There's other stuff that the ATSB report didn't say … or ignored … and one (at least) discrepancy with other documented info ...

-----

"Aircraft apart 300 feet mid-air now okay"

Read the fine print of the press release rather than just the big print of the title!

-----

"Pilots of VFR flights should avoid IFR holding patterns" (AIP ENR1 18.3.3)

Nobody seems to have questioned the fact that this all occurred in the immediate vicinity of a key holding pattern - CANTY. And, given the poor weather … there could well have been holding!

-----

The message may be getting thru to some of the Virgin crews …. That would explain the recent diversions by jets around unidentified VFR radar tracks without mode C!

-----

Four Seven Eleven
19th Dec 2003, 18:53
Many pro-NAS people here have commented upon the fact that the aircraft came within 300 or 400FT, or were within 1NM or 2.7NM etc.

The important point is that, prior to November 27, the aircraft would have been positively separated, with minimum distances. The only factor impacting on the distance between the aircraft here was luck. They could have missed by 100NM. They also could have hit. The system did sweet FA to affect the outcome. It was factors outside NAS which saved the day.

1) The C421 was in Class E airspace, without squawking Mode C. (He had no way to know this, because the system is deliberately designed to exclude him. This is a major failing of NAS which it's architects are aware of. It only took 6 days for it to happen.)

2) The C421 was approaching one of the major IFR inbound tracking points.

3) By chance the C421 called up, requecting a clearance into the adjacent class C airspace.

4) As a result, for better or worse, Mode C failure is detected, Mode C is selected, traffic information is passed, and a TCAS RA occurs.

Now, if the C421 pilot had remained silent as he is supposed to do in Class E, what would have been the result:

1) No Mode C
2) No traffic information to the B737
3) No last minute 'save' by the controller.
4) No TCAS RA
5) The absolute last resort - see and avoid unknown traffic by the B737 (even with DTI the C421 never saw the B737 - 300 FT and 2.7NM away!)

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the sytem that is now going to cost you MORE money, for less safety.

Of course it is safe........ They were nearly 3 miles apart. And what kept them 'nearly 3 miles apart'? Luck. Great system!.

missy
19th Dec 2003, 20:26
I just don't get it. VOZ has TCAS RA but elects to use visual. TCAS is mandated for B737s but can the aircraft fly without it (minimum equipment)? Nothing on the flight plan indicates TCAS and ATC basically do nothing with any advise of "nil TCAS"

Blastoid
20th Dec 2003, 02:46
I have heard QANTAS now have TCAS on the MEL as a result of NAS - No TCAS, no trip. Don't know about others....

Pimp Daddy
20th Dec 2003, 04:58
I have heard QANTAS now have TCAS on the MEL as a result of NAS - No TCAS, no trip. Don't know about others....
Not quite accurate.

TCAS is a MEL item I would guess on all aircraft, each aircraft having it's own Master MEL from the manufacturer, this can them be altered to an Operators MEL with approval of CASA.

For example Eastern OMEL for the Dash - TCAS 10 day item no operational restrictions.

Is now being changed to add conditions that the aircraft basically can't operate out of Class A with an inop TCAS. Still a 10 day item so theoretically could spend 10 days going SYD-CBR

RV8builder
20th Dec 2003, 05:03
As much as I hate to ruin a good NAS/VFR pilot bashing session, I would like to pose a couple of questions based on the known facts.

1. Why did the 737 need to go through the E airspace? At 50 DME and above FL180 he could delay his descent to stay in the class C steps and still not need to exceed 3000fm.

2. It was eight minutes from when the C421 requested an airways clearence into Essendon until he was advised VFR not available, then a further six minutes for an IFR clearence to be given. Is this considered an acceptable level of service, at 10:00 am on a weekday?

3. If the controller was concerned about a potential conflict why didn't he simply ask the C421 to do a orbit or standard rate turn at his current position. This would have given an immediate 2 minute increase in seperation. Happens going into CBR all the time.


Just trying to find the forest .... too many damm trees in the way....

Four Seven Eleven
20th Dec 2003, 06:04
RV8builder
Excellent questions. Herewith my thoughts:
1. Why did the 737 need to go through the E airspace? At 50 DME and above FL180 he could delay his descent to stay in the class C steps and still not need to exceed 3000fm.
I guess he could have, unless there are STAR requirements, such as those at Sydney, which would not permit this. I fact, at Sydney, aircraft are often required to be as low as 10,000 by 45NM. Avoiding class E is impossible in this case.

More to the point – why? The only reason to avoid a certain class of airspace would be if the airspace is not conducive to safe operations. That is precisely the point of the argument.

2. It was eight minutes from when the C421 requested an airways clearence into Essendon until he was advised VFR not available, then a further six minutes for an IFR clearence to be given. Is this considered an acceptable level of service, at 10:00 am on a weekday?
I am not sure about the timing in your post (a total of 14minutes), but even so, the ‘delay’ mentioned was not a delay to the aircraft. As far as I am aware, the clearance was issued when the aircraft required it. Of course, the change from VFR to IFR, the requirement to obtain flight plan details etc. and the requirement to rearrange the traffic to facilitate IFR separation will cause additional workload. This may lead to delays which would not have occurred under pre-NAS2B operations.

3. If the controller was concerned about a potential conflict why didn't he simply ask the C421 to do a orbit or standard rate turn at his current position. This would have given an immediate 2 minute increase in seperation. Happens going into CBR all the time.
The point here is that the controller was not required to be ‘concerned about a potential conflict’. There is no requirement for the controller to separate - - only to provide traffic information and allow Class E procedures to kick in. The system should have allowed the B737 to descend straight through the C421’s level with no intervention by the controller. Of course, in this case, the controller did not sit idly by and let it all go bad.

Fortunately, this incident amply demonstrates the potential short-comings of NAS. Many of the ‘holes in the swiss cheese’ lined up on the day. Happily, some of them did not.

Failed defences
1) VFR aircraft was operating in an area of high levels of IFR traffic, and in fact at a major IFR tracking and holding point.
2) Mode C was not operating correctly, resulting in radar and TCAS defences becoming unusable (until later when the problem was rectified).
3) Despite the relatively close proximity, the C421 pilot failed to see (and therefore was unable to avoid) the B737 at any time, despite the fact that it was undoubtedly VMC at the time.

Successful defences
1) A spot of luck – in that the C421 called up, and the Mode C problem was rectified.
2) Traffic information was passed correctly.
3) The controller intervened.
4) The B737 pilot saw the C421 – with the benefit of directed traffic information.
5) TCAS provided a further defence.

What can we learn from this incident? What would have happened of the C421 had not chosen that moment to call? Can we make the system safer? Please, let us all learn from this.

Shitsu-Tonka
20th Dec 2003, 07:11
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. If the controller was concerned about a potential conflict why didn't he simply ask the C421 to do a orbit or standard rate turn at his current position. This would have given an immediate 2 minute increase in seperation. Happens going into CBR all the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Isn't that the whole reason E was introduced? So those pesky Air traffic controllers don't have to issue clearances and delay important VFR operators?..... actually this is a good example of why the old system DID work. The only time an ATC clearance was not immediately issued was when a Sep standard did not immediately exist but would do very soon - it was safe. (or when the aircraft had not submitted a flight plan which the controller has to do on a screen which goes over the top of their traffic picture they are trying to run).

One point I think is not appreciated here is that the ATC was under no obligation to cut off VB's descent. VB could have sailed right on thru the E airspace.

The point about descending thru E airspace on descent to C - just about all major AD in Australia almost require that now with the E steps. e.g. Gold Coast E starts at 30nm S at 8500 ' up.

If you apply the Ministers rhetoric one step further....IF the worst HAD happened and there WAS a midair.... there still would have been NO BREAKDOWN in SEPARATION, because.... no sep standard existed! Now tell me again how this is safe and not crazy??

Why wont Anderson talk to CivilAir or AIPA? If he is so confident in the system why doesnt he get out and tell the professional bodies why?

Why hasnt he responded to Martin Fergusons questions in parliament about why Dick Smith didnt oppose him in Gwydir?


Then we have the final Dick: Mr Dick Smith. Dick, to be fair, is an enthusiastic amateur pilot, adventurer and successful marketing man. Mr Smith and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services are not the best of mates. They had a very public stoush in the lead-up to Mr Smith's leaving the CASA board. Mr Anderson, as we were told then, was not going to work with him again. We then had Mr Smith embark on a strategy to get back into the tent. He threatened to stand against the minister in Gwydir.

Before we knew it, Dick Smith visited the Liberal Party court and soon announced that he would not run in Gwydir. We do not know what happened in those discussions but, soon after the election, the minister put him in charge of airspace design and reform. The design and development of our airspace has been outsourced to Dick Smith. The result is that not one person on the Airspace Reform Group has air traffic control or airline pilot qualifications.
The proposed NAS system does not have widespread industry support and it will put the Australian travelling public at risk. It is one thing to lose ownership of Telstra, and it is another thing to spend millions of dollars to prop up a friend's industry; but to risk the aviation and the travelling public's safety to deliver a political outcome—in essence, to get Mr Dick Smith not to run or support a candidate in Gwydir at the 2001 election—is unforgivable.


From Hansard link: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr210803.pdf

Chief galah
20th Dec 2003, 07:28
RV8builder

The ATSB report fails to mention any of the other factors involved in this (choke) incident.

These would be -
Workload
Internal intercom coordination
Other routine traffic handling
Weather

The coordination can be frustratingly slow. Probably the Traffic Manager and/or the Flow controller would be involved in approving the final clearance. They in turn may have had to assess the weather conditions down the line. If there were TS in the area, this would have complicated matters, especially VFR. If diversions had been going on closer in, the TM will be pretty conservative about having a VFR'y in the terminal area. If the pilot asked for IFR, then there may have been another round of coord. More time taken.

The BE20 mentioned in the report as not a factor, was still part of traffic picture, and I believe occupied some of the controllers traffic management strategies.

For some reason, maybe because it's an interim report, none of the above is made evident.

I am happy to stand corrected on any of the above.

CG

Chapi
20th Dec 2003, 08:20
Why did the 737 need to go through the E airspace?

Maintaining F190 til 40Nm Melbourne, and then trying to meet STAR requirements and setup for a straight-in ILS is pushing it a bit for a slippery B737.


Is this considered an acceptable level of service, at 10:00 am on a weekday?
Depends ... but in this case, the controller had to identify the aircraft, get his mode C on and verified, take flight details 'cause the pilot didn't submit any! coordinate clearances with TMA especially since the wx was poor ... and, maybe he had to separate other traffic! At 10:00 am near Melb, these weren't the only two aircraft in the sky!


why didn't he simply ask the C421 to do a orbit
Maybe because of the above factors and possibly because the BE20 was just behind and closing .... that's the BE20 the ATSB said was not a factor ... but which the controller was concerned enough about to instruct to descend


The BE20 .... occupied some of the controllers traffic management strategies
Exactly ... such as separation from VOZ


The ATSB report fails to mention any of the other factors involved in this (choke) incident.

.... but there are/will be other reports that do .... trouble is ... we're not likely to see them.


What can we learn from this incident?

Mixing jets on climb/descent and VFR lighties is damned scary!

RV8builder
20th Dec 2003, 10:59
quote:

" Maintaining F190 til 40Nm Melbourne, and then trying to meet STAR requirements and setup for a straight-in ILS is pushing it a bit for a slippery B737."

Why do we insist on low and slow arrivals in this country? Perhaps we should look at the STAR's and SID's next. As much as I like the sound of 747's wandering around the Sydney basin low and slow burning tons of unnecessary fuel (and I know the political implications of having JWH at Kirribilli) I really think we need to start thinking outside our 1960's square of ideas on ATC.

quote:
" Depends ... but in this case, the controller had to identify the aircraft, get his mode C on and verified, take flight details 'cause the pilot didn't submit any! coordinate clearances with TMA especially since the wx was poor ... and, maybe he had to separate other traffic! At 10:00 am near Melb, these weren't the only two aircraft in the sky!"

Yep, there was probably at least two others in the area! Last time I called Socal Approach for a pop-up clearence it took all of thirty seconds, and that included a "G'day Mate" for a controller who had seen too many Crocodile Dundee pix. Even Stansted only takes one to two minutes and both are a hell of a lot busier than Melbourne in the middle of the morning.



I think we need to all take a deep breath, stand back and look at things from a new perspective - just because we are used to having things done one way dosen't make it the best way.


Arr... there's the forest....now pass the chainsaw...

Ushuaia
20th Dec 2003, 11:36
Rv8Builder:

Low and slow? Burning tons of unnecessary fuel? You're kidding, aren't you, mate? The IDLE POWER descent profile for the Boeings around here is very roughly the following:

80nm... FL200... 300KIAS
60nm... FL150... 300KIAS
40nm... FL110... 300KIAS
35nm... FL110... 250KIAS
20nm... 5000.... 250KIAS

So at 40nm to be on a normal idle power glide descent, you want to be around FL110. Roughly. So, as you can see, FL190 as about 8000' above profile. That's a fair few extra track miles or a fair bit of speedbrake to get back onto profile....

willadvise
20th Dec 2003, 12:22
RV8builder
The future of airtraffic control is a more rigid and inflexible system. ASA long term plan is to put everyone on a SID/STAR with no track shorting, flow done by the MAESTRO system everyone 250 below A100. Eventually they hope to get rid of departures entirely and a very much reduced approach service.
I suggest you also take a look at Ferris's (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=110676&perpage=15&highlight=assistant&pagenumber=2) interesting post on why it takes longer to get a cleareance is Aus

RV8builder
20th Dec 2003, 13:27
quote:
" Low and slow? Burning tons of unnecessary fuel? You're kidding, aren't you, mate? The IDLE POWER descent profile for the Boeings around here is very roughly the following:

80nm... FL200... 300KIAS
60nm... FL150... 300KIAS
40nm... FL110... 300KIAS
35nm... FL110... 250KIAS
20nm... 5000.... 250KIAS"

Interesting figures. According to my mental E6B that works out at about 1125ft/min. Why then was the Virgin 737 coming down at 3000ft/min?

Not wishing to upset anyone but it seems to me that arriving at 45DME @ ~FL200 would only require a 2000ft/min descent, which is well within the capabilities of the aircraft and a lot slower than the Virgin was doing into class E.

If you don't like class E, don't use it! If the STAR is outdated lets get it changed. Request a TOD to remain in A/C and everyone can stop worrying and get back to important stuff, like how the hell are we going to beat the Indians twice!

Shitsu-Tonka
20th Dec 2003, 14:31
RV8:

I have never flown anything heavy, but your averaging of the descent profile is not, I beleiev,how it works. Energy management is what the FMC and route/star design is supposed to optimise. Part of that descent might be 4000fpm, the last part probably no more than 800fpm. dont forget reducing to achieve 250KIASBLWA100.



If you don't like class E, don't use it! If the STAR is outdated lets get it changed.

1.Hmm. why didnt the ARG include changing the STAR design in part of their 'Wide Industry Consultation'.

2.The STAR would actually lokk quite entertaining as it looped down in small circles over the top of a major city airport.

3. If we dont like it , why should WE put up with it? How about we say to the RV8 fliers: If you dont like our C airspace dont fly in it? (or request a clearance like we used to?). Lets see - 3-4 people inconvenienced at the expense of 3000.

4. Getting a clearance was no big deal. All you had to do what be prepared to get off your ar$e and put a flight plan in. Either way you needed a transponder. But before we could tell if it was working.

Some bloody progress.

Chief galah
20th Dec 2003, 14:37
RV8

Play Flight Simulator a bit do we, mate?
I smell a snarek out there somewhere.

CG

bush pelican
20th Dec 2003, 15:05
PLENTY OF DRIVEL AND DOUBLE STANDARDS HERE.

The NAS is a pup, but with commonsense, decency and cooperation we can help it to work, ( what is the alternative? )

Consider the following.

How many VFR aircraft in class E will have non functioning transponders from either faults or finger problems? How many VFR aircraft in class E , either cruising or climbing / descending above 10 000ft ( where +250knts permitted ) will have transponder problems..... I'll bet stuff all, and even this infinitesimal no. will decrease with greater awareness.

How hard is it for a controller to say to a 73 " unverified traffic 10nm ahead 12 O'clock "? ( and even " altitude unknown" ) How hard is it for the superior being at the pointy end to then diverge 5 or 10 degrees for a few seconds till the traffic is sighted or passed? This happens many times a day in the US.

Don't give me the " it's not the controllers job " crap either. It's everybody's job to maintain and contribute to safety. C O M M O N S E N S E. The VFR had every-right to be where he was and it's not ' his job ' either, to be somewhere else if you want to persue that logic.

It disgusts me to see the no of jabs and insinuations made at this ' inferior pilot ' ( Chief galah and others ) As an ex military guy he has been through training to a competency level most of you blokes could only dream about. He did nothing wrong and the point he was making was that under the rules, and in his opinion thing worked out and were resolved satisfactorily. Sure, experience will help him fine tune future actions but that is normal given the rate of change and new circumstances.

If you think this incident is an exception, think again. I have 20k hours. I fly a Navajo. I fly in the flight levels. I fly mainly VFR. I always plan via IFR routes if possible. I usually submit an IFR formulated flight plan but lodge VFR to save money if conditions are suitable, ( unlike you prima donnas with someone else to pay the bill on a sky clear day ). If required, the plan is in the system so there will be no delays if a change of category is required. I monitor the correct frequencies ( now made a damm side harder with them and boundaries being removed from the charts ) I will be listening and looking out for you and I hope you will be doing likewise.

I notice an insinuation from some posting whom I assume to be ATC that they will give the run around to anyone they feel doesn't fit into their cosy world of expectations. You should know boys that that behaviour will not be tolerated and as well as getting a serve over the airwaves you will be filling out a lot of paperwork and maybe even getting some legal ' please explains '

Stop bitching and change your procedures and habits to live with the realities as they now exist.

I think like most involved that there has been a significant dilution of the ' safety ' environment that we perceived existed prior to NAS. However how this actually reveals it's self or whether it is even significant will only be shown over time. The emphasis on changing pilot behaviour and expectations, and transponder use may completely mitigate the changes.

One effect on me will be to fit one of the new ' cheapy ' TCAS systems. I may also request a transponder check from ATC when approaching busier areas. You can be sure that I will also be listening and talking to you if the need arises.

Safe Flying. BP

Ushuaia
20th Dec 2003, 16:03
RV8 Builder:

Knots INDICATED airspeed, mate. INDICATED. Yes, I know that 300/6=5 nm per min and that means 8 mins to cover 40 nm and FL200-FL110 is 9000, 9000/8=1125. But you're not thinking TAS. And then there's wind... ie, Ground Speed... May well be doing 3000 fpm, even 4000 fpm at times, if only to get BACK onto profile for a range of reasons.

Bush Pelican:

Quote 1: The NAS is a pup, but with commonsense, decency and cooperation we can help it to work, ( what is the alternative? )

The alternative is to expand Class C back out so that heavy RPT aircraft containing the BULK of the Australian population that flies is properly contained in such airspace. Doesn't mean VFR can't be there - just need a clearance and receive proper separation from the heavy tin, and everyone else in there for that matter.

Quote 2: As an ex military guy he has been through training to a competency level most of you blokes could only dream about. He did nothing wrong....

The first sentence - that may be. However the second sentence - well he DID do wrong - he was in Class E airspace without his transponder in Mode C. Undeniable cock-up. Please don't argue otherwise. It worries me that YOU may not realise this. Better read your NAS stuff again. And while you are there you'd better read the VFR Airmanship stuff about not tracking via aerodromes, navaids, etc....... if you say you fly VFR along IFR routes.

400'/1.5nm separation BY PURE LUCK is not acceptable for the paying public. It could have been even less. It COULD have ended up zero/zero under this system. How close is it going to have to come before the "powers" in charge wake up?

Oh, and if you are wondering what the airlines are actually thinking vs saying officially - well they are two very different things. The reason is neither airline wants to get the minister offside. Think about the various things going on at the moment (Pacific rights, Tasman flying, QF-ANZ tie up, etc etc) and you may start to understand. True story. So it s#it$ me when Anderson says QF and DJ support NAS2B. Well the reality is that they just haven't said "Minister, NAS2B is a crock". So far it has been left to the unions to fight and thus far hasn't been terribly well handled.

What's it going to take?

Chief galah
20th Dec 2003, 16:18
bush pelican

Your
military guy he has been through training to a competency level most of you blokes could only dream about
Yeah right.
Your professional pilot did not comply with AIP ENR 1.10-4 2.3 or 2.4 in regard to Flight Notification.
He did not comply with AIP ENR 1.6-9 8.1.2 in regard to Operation of Transponders.
He did not comply with AIP ENR1.1-30 18.3.2 a & c. and 18.3.2 in regard to VFR flights in Class E Airspace.
He did not comply with AIP ENR 1.1-3 3.18 in regard to submitting of flight plan details.
He did not comply with AIP ENR 1.1-29 18.1.2 in regard to see-and-avoid.

None of this seemed to be contributory in the ATSB report.

As for double standards - why do you need a TCAS when the Class E golden rule of "see and avoid" should be all you need?

CG

pesawat_terbang
20th Dec 2003, 17:03
Chief Galah

Yes, appropriately named.

I know snarek well, he helped run our aero club for a while.

For your info:

1. Snarek has been flying for about 20 years.
2. He owns two aircraft, one 'normal' one warbird.
3. He seems to me to be the only one here to have listened to the debate and modified his position based on what he heard.

We are, I think, lucky you are not on the AOPA Board.

BANGSAT!!!

PT

RV8builder
20th Dec 2003, 17:05
Chief galah:

A bloke comes here and tries to ask a few sensible questions, and you get personal abuse instead.

No, I haven't been able to play Flight Sim lately, hell I haven't even got 2004 yet. I've been too busy flying in places where they have air traffic service instead of air traffic control.

A mindset change appears to be overdue at your console.

Shitsu-Tonka
20th Dec 2003, 17:12
Bush "Pelican"??

Chapi
20th Dec 2003, 17:46
How many VFR aircraft in class E will have non functioning transponders from either faults or finger problems?

Can't really tell if the transponder is not working properly ... a no-mode C radar track could be anything from A015 to F180/F245!

This non-incident certainly highlighted the need to look for non-mode C radar tracks ... and now that I'm looking .... there's lots more than I thought ... and lots appearing in the path of RPT traffic.
How hard is it for a controller to say to a 73 " unverified traffic 10nm ahead 12 O'clock "? ( and even " altitude unknown" )
If you've got lots of time to scan for VFRs ... not that hard ... but makes separating difficult when the IFRs divert in the middle of a tight traffic sequences ... its no longer air traffic control ... and this is happening more than you might think!

tobzalp
20th Dec 2003, 17:50
a no-mode C radar track could be anything from A015 to F180/F245!

A000 - FL600 as far as I am concerned. If we have to assume he is doing something wrong with respect to G and E then why not A? I pass every single non mode C paint to all aircraft that will come within 5nm over and above the call of duty. I also log every single one as well. Extra workload = extra controllers. Thanks guys.

fruitloop
20th Dec 2003, 17:57
Bush Pelican said "One effect on me will be to fit one of the new ' cheapy ' TCAS systems."
Please define Cheap !!

Ushuaia
20th Dec 2003, 18:32
RV8 Builder: Re copping a bit of abuse - I must apologise for the tone of my explanation of KIAS/TAS/GS.... sounded a little bit like "hello? McFly?".... Sorry, not intended to be so. I just get a bit frustrated when we quibble about the smaller details whilst the larger picture is what needs fixing.

Time to give this a rest, go off and help earn my company its record profit and we'll see where this has us in the NY. Happy Xmas all...!

Ü

bush pelican
20th Dec 2003, 20:27
(Ushiaia

' What is the alternative? '

I mean, if we are stuck with the new system, which it looks like we will be. I personally was quite happy with Class C but that is not the reality now and doesn't look like changing.

' He did nothing wrong '

ATSB Occurrence 200304963, Location CANTY, 03.12.03, Cessna 421 / Boeing 737.
' The pilot of the 421 was unaware that his aircraft's transponder was not transmitting mode C altitude information and at 22:59:10 the controller informed the pilot. The pilot of the 421 subsequently RESELECTED mode C and the altitude was then displayed to the controller on the ASD.'

Re your comments on VFR airmanship and knowledge of the NAS.

I do indeed know what I am talking about and am VERY familiar with the published documents. I quote from a recent thread I wrote entitled ' A Walk Through the NAS Reference Guide. '

" The NAS concept of VFR Airmanship as espoused on pg 30 & 31 is flawed and creates a second class airman, the VFR pilot.
pg 24. VFR Airmanship.' Avoiding high traffic areas and instrument approaches, Avoiding holding patterns.'
pg 30.' Avoid as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns. '
pg 21.' This possible conflict in the Armidale circuit raises a point all VFR pilots should consider in their flight planning when there is a chance RPT or IFR traffic will be operating in the same airspace.' Pity about that- the VFR pilot may not be monitoring the same frequency.
pg 39.' Pilots of IFR flights should not expect the pilot of a VFR flight to be monitoring an ATC frequency at any given time.' In fact, he is positively encouraged by the new procedures not to be due to the removal of the correct frequency and boundaries from the charts and the " shut up " policy.
I would like to ask the NAS team, do they really think, and should VFR pilots be obliged to look-up and find all the IFR procedures that could effect their flight, and avoid aerodromes and Nav aids? No they should not, nor more to the point, will they. I would strongly advise IFR pilots in VMC to stick them eyeballs to the windscreen and LOOK-OUT. Pilots are taught to navigate via airports and towns, and later with reference to the NDB & VOR. GPS is programmed similarly. It is a totally unreasonable request to ask VFR pilots to navigate otherwise and I do not consider this procedure as exhibiting bad airmanship by the VFR pilot. How about classifying IFR procedures in VMC conditions as bad airmanship? The overlay on the WAC pg 31. shows how ridiculous this concept is and the imposition it would be to VFR pilots all over the country. I note that the holding patterns at MT McQuiod, Bindook and MONDO in Class E are supposed to have warnings for VFR pilots of these holding patterns. ( pg 31 ) I have not been able to find these warnings on any of the new charts except the Sydney VTC for Mt McQuoid. They should at least be noted on the ERC LO for the area. The whole concept as I said is flawed and introduces a completely new and impractical element for VFR pilots. I believe it will be ignored because it is both unfair and impractical."

Cheif galah...

Regarding Flight notification.

1. AIP ENR 1.10-4 2.3 / 2.4
'Pilots of VFR Flights nominating a SARTIME to ATS, and those intending to operate in controlled airspace ( except for VFR flights in Class E airspace and in GAAP CTRs ) must submit flight details to ATS.' 2.5, 2.6, 2.7. says that this can be done by radio and notes the circomstances which should be considered. In flying into Essendon ( YMEN would have been a different story but still legal ) the 421 pilot's intention to request a clearance by radio was reasonable and legal and had nothing to do with the seperation incident that was encountered in Class E airspace prior to him entering controlled airspace.

2. Regarding Operation of Transponder refer to ATSB report quoted.

3. In regard to VFR in Class E airspace, AIP ENR 1.1-30 18.3.2 a&c.
Avoid published IFR routes WHERE POSSIBLE. Note ENR1.1-32 19.2.1.
This makes reference to VFR flights navigating by reference to radio navigational aids.
' e. When navigating by reference to radio navigation systems, the ( VFR ) pilot in command must obtain positive radio fixes at the intervals and by the methods perscribed in paras 19.1 and 19.4.6. Therefore VFR must navigate in the same way as IFR.
In this case the route chosen was appropriate for the track, destination and navigational methods employed by the 421. As previously stated most IFR routes are the same as those used by VFR tracking between navigational beacons and airports and it is more accurate to use radio navigation than visual navs at that altitude. Therefore the 421 was fully within it's rights to be where it was.

(c) The pilot of the 421 took appropriate action to avoid the 73 as soon as he became aware of the potential conflict and under the helpful instructions of ATC in accordance with section 4.1.1.3 Manual of Air Traffic Services. ( Refer the ATSB Report )

4. AIP ENR 1.1-3 3.18
Pilots should submit details required for flight in controlled airspace at least 30mins prior to entry time, HOWEVER Flight details submitted with less than 30 mins notification will be processed on a "controller workload permitting" The pilot did NOTHING WRONG, just chose to take his chances with the second option.

5. AIP ENR 1.1-29 18.1.2. See and Avoid.
The pilot of the 421 did all he could to comply with this requirement. However with the jet behind and above him he was not able to sight it. Refer to the ATSB report.

Re the TCAS. I don't believe see and avoid is infallible. I am willing to use everything at my disposal to increase situational awareness and obviously for what and where I fly under the new system this will help. My attitude is not that the new system is in any way better but that if we are forced to live with it then lets do it proactively and co-operativly and direct the ammo towards those who diserve it.

Like I said Cheif galah, plenty of drivel and double standards here!

To others re the separation suggestion. You only have to alert, not tell them what to do. I still don't think that there will be many transponder problems in the F.Levels.

By a " cheapy " TCAS I mean one of the number of models that are now coming onto the market that do a pretty reasonable job of alert and distance/ direction for around the 2k to 4k price range. Tested in Aviation Consumer and seen some advertised in the local A. Trader.

BP

Capt Claret
20th Dec 2003, 21:39
perhaps you could arrange for a radar feed so that the controller can tell me about the unverrified trafic at .... when I drop into Alice tomorrow. :\

Chapi
21st Dec 2003, 07:34
NAS - a really safe airspace system ….

VFR pilots can use "see and avoid" … except when it's traffic closing from above and behind;

IFR pilots can rely on their last line of defence - TCAS … unless the VFR's transponder is not working properly; and

ATC needn't worry about standards … they can just use discretion and initiative as per MATS 4.1.1.3.

"… using discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance where these procedures appear to be in conflict with the requirement to promote the SAFE conduct of flight."

Of course … if anything happens … controllers will be damned if they do … damned if they don't …

Use initiative and discretion …

- They miss … you didn’t need to do anything, that's the procedure.

- They hit … why didn't you do something?

Four Seven Eleven
21st Dec 2003, 09:56
The ATSB report
From my initial reading of the ATSB report, it appears to be a well-balanced and objective statement and analysis of the facts. It obviously avoids emotive or political comments.

Some contributors have mentioned the fact that the ATSB report states: In this occurrence, all aircraft were in Class E airspace and there was no prescribed separation standard applicable, therefore there was no infringement of separation standards.
The circumstances of this occurrence did not constitute an airprox occurrence. We can (and no doubt will) debate the issue of whether or not this is desirable, safe or efficient, but the ATSB report seems to simply be stating a fact: No separation is required – therefore no separation breakdown can occur. (Even if they collide, as has been pointed out before)

I found it interesting to note the following comment in the ATSB report: It would have been difficult for the pilot of the C421 to assume responsibility for separation with the 737 while being radar vectored by ATC. Firstly, I believe that the phrase ‘assume responsibility for separation’ is misleading, as it implies that there was a time when the C421 was not responsible for separation (i.e. see and avoid). What it does highlight is that the C421 was unable to see and therefore avoid the B737 – but this is distinct from having the responsibility to do so.

Secondly, there appears to be an implication that an aircraft, whilst being vectored, might be in a position where it is unable to see and avoid other traffic. I question the effect this has on areas where the majority of IFR aircraft are either on vectors or some other form of active control input to separate from other IFR traffic.

Does this mean that, while I am vectoring an aircraft for whatever reason, I am compromising the pilot’s ability to see and avoid the traffic I may not know about?

Also, what does it do for the concept of ‘separation assurance’ which is being so strongly pushed by CASA and Airservices? For example, what happens when a vertical requirement I issue for separation is in conflict with the IFR pilot’s need to self-separate form a VFR aircraft. (This could happen in non-radar airspace for instance, where I cannot know about the VFR)

An observation
I have done an informal survey of Mode C readouts on my ASD over the last few days, to determine the efficacy of the hemispherical rule in reducing conflicts.

The results (very rough figures):

Of known IFR flights, more than 98% indicate Mode C at exactly the right level. The exceptions appear to be BA46 aircraft, which ocvcasionaly have Mode C readouts 100FT higher then the cleared/reported levels.

Of the VFR flights which appear to be in level flight, approximately 30% are at exact VFR levels. Approximately 60% are at levels between 100 and 300FT from the appropriate hemispherical cruising level. The remainder are a mixture of:
a) Exactly at an IFR cruising level
b) Exactly at the incorrect VFR level (non-hemispherical)
c) Within 100 to 300FT of the incorrect VFR level

For some reason, 6,800Ft seems to be the most 'popular' level.

The reason I mention this is that accurate level-keeping in cruise (including cruising at the correct level) is an important safety factor in any ‘uncontrolled’ situation. It applies equally to Class G and VFR in Class E.

It is important that pilots are aware of the need to ensure accuracy to avoid unpleasant surprises, whilst bearing in mind that during climb and descent (either yours or the other aircraft), see and avoid might be the only collision avoidance system. So, keep one eye on the altimeter, one eye out of the window, one eye on the chart and the other eye on the aircraft.