View Full Version : (CASA + AsA) / NAS = Big Brother

Duff Man
17th Dec 2003, 03:34
CASA, via channels in airservicesaustralia.com, are getting ATCs to note callsigns of VFR aircraft making unnecessary broadcasts on ATC frequencies.

This list of recalicitrants is being compiled and sent with phone numbers to the Terry Hills Terry Towling Pilot Education Call Centre.

Expect your call, shortly!

17th Dec 2003, 03:48
Somehow on my row the sheet on which this logged happens to fall into the garbage bin whenever I am on. ;)

17th Dec 2003, 04:01
'Go Ahead - Fill my voice mail'

I will continue to blab away anytime I feel allergic to a mid-air incident.

17th Dec 2003, 05:09
An interesting question...

What legal authority does a controller have to use the phrase " VH-ABC cease transmitting" ?

If the pilot complied and a mid air or near miss resulted from the lack of transmission...

The Australian Communications Authority is responsible for regulation of the radio frequency spectrum. Do AirServices have a licence to control the use of the frequency?

Creampuff jump in here. ;)

17th Dec 2003, 06:16
The ACA merely license the frequencies used to ASA.

The licence states, in effect, that communications must be carried out in accordance with the CARs.

The licence (or the Act) does not give the ACA any powers to determine what ATC or pilots say as long as that communications are in accordance with the CARs (and associated regulations). Essentially that is the business of AsA and CASA.

How do I know. I have just ammended the licence (now guess where I work ;) ).


Transition Layer
17th Dec 2003, 06:39
Slightly off topic, but I came across another scenario the other day.

I was conducting a VFR nav exercise with a student and we had to maintain a non-hemispherical level due cloud - from memory we were flying at A035 westbound. A045 was not available due cloud and A025 not available due terrain. This was done in accordance with the table published in AIP ENR and the comments made in CAR173.

In the past I would have always pre-empted this behaviour with a brief radio call advising that I was maintaining a non-standard level and my position and tracking details.

But this time no radio call was made thanks to NAS - and now I've read this thread I am thankful I didn't. Even if I did make a radio call, who's to say that any conflicting traffic was monitoring the same frequency?

For the next 10 mins or so until we could climb up to a hemispherical level I didn't bring my eyes inside once. I was in a position to do this because the student was flying and as such I could devote all my efforts to "seeing and avoiding". If it was a single pilot operation that wouldn't be the case unfortunately.

Am i taking the whole "no radio transmissions" thing a little too far or is this yet another deficiency with the new system?

TL :confused:

17th Dec 2003, 07:51
Thanks for the info snarek. In your usual style you gave only half an answer.;)

Does the controller have any legal authority to tell a pilot to "cease tranmission" in the event that the pilot believes a broadcast is required in the interests of safe air navigation?

17th Dec 2003, 09:59
These forms do indeed exist. I have not seen one entry made however nor do I expect any will be made. You idiots can fix your own mess.

17th Dec 2003, 10:01
Hey, don't get me wrong Tonka I have the highest regard for ATCO's. I have never had anything but excellent service and consideration from them.

I merely ask the question as they act as an instrument of whoever is pushing this wheelbarrow full of excrement. I wondered if when push comes to shove the instruction to "cease transmission" has any legal backing rather than bluff?

An honest question. I am sure Creampuff or someone similar can help. Meanwhile I will keep searching the regs and act.

17th Dec 2003, 10:25

I can only answer what I know. I know it is not an ACA issue.

However nowhere in the CARs can I find any such authority. As long as the pilot is communication as a result of conducting a safe flight and/or for the pruposes of navigation there does not currently seem to be any law to prevent that.


17th Dec 2003, 10:47
Icarus i am a little confused. There is no direction to be telling aircraft to cease transmitting. There is a form to be filled out for 'Unnecessary VFR chatter' on the control frequencies. Where did you get the idea the ATC were going to tell you to be quiet?

17th Dec 2003, 11:00
Tobzalp , I got the idea because I have heard it said twice since Nov 27. An aircraft broadcasting, another replying then a "VH-ABC ML/BN Centre cease transmitting".

The frequency was fairly quiet at the time. (Understood the sector may not be though.) There was no IFER in progress. So I just wondered.

compressor stall
17th Dec 2003, 12:43
So if I am IFR I can chat with my mates all I like?

Seriously though, I remember a promise that it was going to be safer cos they were not linking the frequencies anymore - so you could focus on what aircraft were around you.

Well at Esperance the other night we had Alice, Cooper Pedy etc etc. Another furphy?


17th Dec 2003, 15:00
As a VFR bugsmasher I am still making departure calls (although somewhat shortened) on area frequency. Whether someone is listening or not it has already saved a conflict from occuring.

Same level and converging tracks! End result was 3NM separation but we knew each other was there.

I'm waiting for their phonecall so I can tell them what I think.

18th Dec 2003, 07:29
compressor stall,
not sure where you heard that, i've never heard that mentioned and it will never happen because it would cost more money and more controllers. The reason so many freq's are combined is to have one controller monitor as many as possible at the one console. Area frequeny's are restricted by the range of the transmitters and receivers, so there are blocks of these area freq's clumped together on the on console, so one controller is responsible for anything from 3 in my current area, to up to about 10 at my last post in WA. The areas in WA are so big the traffic ammount one controller can handle is spread out over these 10 areas, where my current post is more concentrated and we can only have 3 areas before freq congestion becomes a problem. So to not combine the area freq any more would require lots more controllers to monitor single freq's with minimal traffic in them. So more controllers, less work, more money, its not likley to happen. Every call for less controllers would result in more area freq's being combined, so its probably going to get worse in the future.

18th Dec 2003, 08:03

With some response to your above and the post in the Mel Incident thread. The pro NAS brigade have not once been able to answer you question on how it is safer. They will tell you that it is safer but not how. Would one of the brainwashed please come out and give us all a nice breakdown on how this whole thing is safer. The primary means of conflict avoidance is see and avoid and I can go and cut and paste the Basi study on this to rebut. How about you come clean and share it with us all. HOW IS IT SAFER. Mr Dick Smith, how about you field this one. Direct comparrisons thanks.

18th Dec 2003, 18:33

If you think that it is we who are brainwashed, think again.

The intellectual process that I personally applied on this very subject about ten years ago was extensive and conclusive. If you think that the pro-NAS minority has been brainwashed, you are sadly mistaken.

It would have been much easier to accept the "wisdom of the day", aka BASI's Limitations of the see and avoid principle, but I couldn't permit myself to do that when I felt compelled to disagree. I was an Instructor at the time, still am, and I took my responsibility very seriously. To simply regurgitate the flawed argument that BASI published would not be acceptable if I wanted to sleep at night.

You would not accept my explanation of the justification for see and avoid because it is you who have been brainwashed, first by the the BASI report, and supported by individuals who have had a personal agenda beside safety.

One would think that it would be safer if all of us had the privelege of being led by the hand through the valley of the shadow of death, but it is simply not true. Would you trust another person with something as important as your life and the lives of your passengers? Especially when you are quite capable of performing that function yourself?

Honestly Tobzalp, I don't mean to sound arrogant or patronizing, but the simple fact is that I don't like the idea of doing the thinking for someone else who is quite capable of doing it himself. And if I don't like it, how do you think ATC like the idea of taking on the responsibility of looking out the window for you when you are seated in the front of the aeroplane and they are seated in front of a TV screen? At least they get paid for it, and unless you are interested in paying for me to do your thinking for you then I can't be bothered. And even if you were paying me, my patience would only last so long. I am human.

To discover something new you first have to forget all that you thought you knew.

A painful process I'm sure, especially for all those who swallowed the whole BASI report hook, line, and sinker. It would require you to recognise that the foundations upon which you have built your concept of safety is seriously flawed, and to do that is difficult. Nevertheless, it is true.

As they say, "The truth hurts."

Another quick quote that doesn't quite fit in here, but it is very good and relevant, "There are none so blind as those who cannot see."

I know you blokes will think that I'm not offering you the kind of patient fatherly advice that you may be seeking, but I'm not your dad or even your close mate. However, I'm inclined to think that even if I were, you wouldn't listen anyway. At least, judging from the many patient and rational arguments already posted on this website who haven't been heard.


Life's a bitch, then you fly!

18th Dec 2003, 19:12

but manwell there is no need to hear under NAS. It is see and avoid.

As I have stated before. It is up to you now.

Four Seven Eleven
18th Dec 2003, 20:06
Tobzalp used four words to ask: "HOW IS IT SAFER?"

Manwell took five hundred and twenty-three words to say: "Dunno."

19th Dec 2003, 03:05
the many patient and rational arguments already posted on this website Please point me to them. I haven't seen a rational argument yet.
FYI, from the ATSB report on the "ML incident"The pilot of the C421 later reported that he never saw the 737 So, a 737 came within 1.3 nm and 400' of a cessna 421, the 737 got an RA (ask someone in the industry what that is), yet the cessna didn't see him. See and avoid between jets and lighties sucks.
"As they say, "The truth hurts." "

ps. How is it safer?

19th Dec 2003, 04:49
4711 - Marvellous, we think alike, was counting the words in the Sir Humphrey waffle and spotted your post. I can only imagine the blather that would come out if he picked up his (rather dusty) microphone.

Was very tempted to make an entry this week regarding an ultralight who blathered on for ages (including 6 drawn out "uuummmmm") about his proximity to some sh1thole I've never heard of. Somebody had pitched the form but.

On the whole I am rather impressed how quiet the VFR have become, IFR are broadcasting madly still.

Aussie Andy
19th Dec 2003, 06:46
ferris: I see you are stirring up trouble and insulting people on this thread as well... He says that:So, a 737 came within 1.3 nm and 400' of a cessna 421, the 737 got an RA (ask someone in the industry what that is), yet the cessna didn't see him.But, dear readers, do not be misled..! This is only part of the picture (seemed to suit his argument I suppose) as the report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=554 ) says that: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.In this "incident", sufficient separation was achieved because:[list=1] ATC, who were in communication with both aircraft, ensured that there was 500' nominal vertical separation by instructing the 737 to arrest his descent at FL180 (atop the Class E space) while the C421 was known to be level at FL175; TCAS worked - it provided a traffic advisory (TA) to the 737 crew when the a/c were 5NM apart; and this enabled the 737 to visually see and avoid the C421, even if the C421 did not see the 737...[/list=1]Andy

19th Dec 2003, 07:13
Sepatation is 1000 feet not 500 so there was no 'separation'. VFR are responsible for see and avoid in E. That did not happen. TCAS worked yes. TCAS is not a separation tool. The primary means of resolving that conflict is for theVFR to see and avoid not TCAS alerted seeing and avoiding by the IFR.

19th Dec 2003, 07:15

Your intention to inspire people to clarity of thought has in fact revealed a closed mind on your behalf. You speak of intellectual thought processes et etc and infer that all of the Pro aviation safety respondents and all of their intellectual anaysis, historical literature and all of the statistical evidence (that's the evidence that is not distorted or limited to provide the desired outcome) is in fact not intellectual and is in fact worthless compared to your own analysis.

I challenge you and the other pro- NAS supporters to stand tall when this falls in a heap and an accident occurs, that is directly attributable to NAS and your intellectual anaysis.

Stand tall - open your bank accounts, take out your hankerchiefs and start geting emotional - as I do when I hear such self-congratulating, arrogant and disrespectful diatribe.

This is the problem, this is why we are here - you guys just will not listen to anybody else. You will not listen to the plethora of evidence and expertise and experience that is telling you that you are incorrect. If you have some experience flying then I can only presume that your head has been securely tilted inside of the cockpit (that cockpit not designed for look-out - unless you fly MIL) for most of your career.

You've been missing them all.

Aussie Andy
19th Dec 2003, 07:15
Sepatation is 1000 feet not 500 Is that so? Well, between IFR and IFR that it is true: but in Class G, E etc. the hemispherical system provides separation of 500' between IFR and VFR. Look it up.VFR are responsible for see and avoid in E Is that so? IFR have to see and avoid VFR in class E, because - as I think you know - in Class E ATC only separate IFR from IFR.

Andy :ok:

19th Dec 2003, 07:21

unless I'm mistaken VFR are still encouraged to listen out on an appropriate frequency, so hearing is still a valid point. Sure, they are not required to talk, unless of course, there is a valid requirement to respond to an IFR aircraft making a report in their immediate vicinity. But yes, it is up to us. Don't you feel empowered and validated by that courageous delegation of responsibility?

Four Seven Eleven

Thanks for your concise and incisive post. You have illustrated perfectly what I was trying to say regarding the futility of trying to inform those who will not see. You have the potential for a great career in tabloid journalism.


You're right, I do have a closed mind about this. Why, because I've been over it many times before and the result still comes out the same. The difference is that I have analysed the concept thoroughly, had I simply agreed with the collective wisdom of the time I wouldn't have needed to do that.

By the way, I will be happy to accept the full responsibility for any mid-air collisions that occur under the NAS provided,-

a) it can be proven that neither aircraft was in a position to see the other in VMC, whether due to their excessive closing speeds or otherwise,and

b) they were adhering to hemispherical levels, and

c) someone did not simply stuff up.

No amount of regulation or ATC service will prevent accidents due to error. Check the mid-air stats and you'll see that too many occurred in CTA under Air Traffic Control.

By the way, it's interesting that you mentioned MIL flying. Why do you think their training is of such a high quality? Is it because they are required to do aerobatics, low level, and formation? Each of these operations requires an exceptionally high amount of head outside, do all three together and you will know how to fly.

Perhaps you have some MIL time, if so, how can you possibly disagree with the NAS? By the way, I do have a little, but that's not how I became convinced about see and avoid. In other words, I was not brainwashed in there either.

And finally Spodman,

Perhaps you would be interested to hear of a recent incident just after 27/11 where I spoke into my dusty mike thrice with no reply from the Saab that taxied on, backtracked, and lined up while I was still on the runway. They finally replied with " Yeah we heard you but we were copying traffic on the other frequency"!

All the way from the parking bay?

Gotta go now, things to do, mikes to dust, you know how it is...

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

Capn Bloggs
19th Dec 2003, 08:15

You're not jet pilot are you? Because you obviously have no idea of the difficulty of Seeing and Avoiding others, espeically lighties. But then again, there are no so blind as those who will not see.

You said:

b) they were adhering to hemispherical levels,

Can't you get it into your thick skull that the cruise phase is NOT the area of concern? Obviously aircraft aren't going to run into each other if they are all happily level at their hemi levels!! The area of concern is the terminal area, the climb and descent phases where there is now no assured segregation method apart from looking out the window!

I really like the way your ilk keep harping on the wonders of TCAS. It's a last-ditch, save-your-arse collision prevention device, nothing else. Why, if it is so good, doesn't CASA allow us to use it for separation eg sight and pass in IMC or at night, trail climbs?? Because it doesn't make the grade. And so why should it be the major mitigator in Class E? Would class E airspace be safe it we didn't have TCAS? If your answer is yes, you're an out-and-out loony, pure and simple.

You also said:

c) someone did not simply stuff up.

Since when has the safety of commercial flight been determined by a "simple stuff up"? Never before in aviation in Oz has there been only 1 defence against a midair..until 27Nov. Simple stuffups occur all the time. The point is that in most safety systems, there is a backstop, a safety net to prevent that simple stuffup developing further. This is now not the case in E airspace, nor will it be the case in MBZs after they are changed to CTAFs.

Four Seven Eleven
19th Dec 2003, 11:11
In this "incident", sufficient separation was achieved because:
ATC, who were in communication with both aircraft, ensured that there was 500' nominal vertical separation by instructing the 737 to arrest his descent at FL180 (atop the Class E space) while the C421 was known to be level at FL175;
Firstly, if Class E procedures had been adhered to, the C421 would NOT have been in communication. His clearance request was for the adjacent Class C airspace, not Class E.
Secondy, the instruction to maintain FL180 was NOT a class E procedure. It was a controller seeing Class E potentially going bad and intervening.

TCAS worked - it provided a traffic advisory (TA) to the 737 crew when the a/c were 5NM apart;
TCAS only worked because - luckily - the C421 pilot had called up requesting a clearance for the adjacent Class C airspace, and the lack of a mode C read-out was detected. If he had followed class E procedures and kept quiet - the lack of mode C would not have been detected, and the TCAS defence would have been useless.
and this enabled the 737 to visually see and avoid the C421, even if the C421 did not see the 737...
So, with directed trafic information and radar assistance, ONE pilot sees the other aircraft at a range of 5NM. A study I cited in another post suggests that being alerted to traffic increases your chances of seeing it by a factor of eight.

So, if class E airspace procedures had been followed to the letter:
1) The C421 would have been silent, and invisible as far as mode C is concerened.
2) TCAS would have been no use whatsover.
3) In the absence of any information on the C421, no traffic or an instruction to maintain FL 180 would have been issued.
4) The ONLY way that a collision would have been avoided is if the B737 pilot had achieved an unalerted see and avoid, whelie descending at 3000fpm and 300KIAS.

Once again I ask - why are these procedures worth the decrease in safety and increase in cost?

19th Dec 2003, 18:16
Very well then, chaps. I'll be on my way.


22nd Dec 2003, 13:02
Simple - the system broke down because it dosn't work - its not a matter of if - its a matter of when.

Manwell - please understand the limitations of see and avoid above 180KTS in aircraft with windows designed to see the runway directly in front of you.

High speed IFR aircraft climbing and descending are not good viewing platforms. Single pilot in this system is scary.