PDA

View Full Version : Near miss over Launceston Virgin DJ


Boyd Munro
25th Dec 2003, 17:09
An "airmiss" was reported on 24th December between (another) Virgin Jet and a light aircraft.

I have spoken to the pilot of the light aircraft involved. It was in level flight at 7,500ft and the pilot had the Virgin Jet in sight at all relevant times, and heard it on the radio.

There was no risk of collision. The Virgin Jet was speed-limited to 250 knots and the weather was crystal clear. The light aircraft pilot was monitoring the frequency which the Virgin Jet was working, and was looking at the Virgin Jet.

Had there been a collision risk he would have spoken up or taken avoiding action. He was flying some family members to be with other family members for Christmas and was not in a suicidal mood.

This is a simple old-fashioned beat-up unworthy of any Australian genuinely concerned with Air Safety. I regret that some people I respect are joining in the beat-up.

Boyd Munro

President
AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA
PO Box 172 Unley SA 5061
[email protected]

Dehavillanddriver
25th Dec 2003, 18:03
Boyd,

If there was no risk of collision, why did the TCAS issue a RA?

it means that the two aircraft were within 20 odd seconds of colliding.

Please answer this.

What is the "standard", for want of a better word, that VFR pilots apply to determine that they are NOT a collision threat to other aircraft?

Did they tell the Virgin pilots they were there?

did the vfr pilot have the slightest idea of the intended flight path of the jet?

For answers to these and other exciting questions, stay tuned folks for the next exciting episode of NAS - 'Nother Airspace Stuffup!

do you know what 250 knots indicated is actually? what was the tas/ground speed?

did the vfr pilot have the slightest appreciation for the rate of descent of the jet?

the answer is in all probability no.

why do people who really have no idea immediately tell us that nothing is wrong?

404 Titan
25th Dec 2003, 19:27
Boyd Munro

Boyd, how about you ask the crew of the Virgin aircraft what they saw before saying this was a non-event. I can assure you trying to see a light aircraft while doing 250 kts + is next to impossible sometimes. If they did get an RA as has been advertised then this is definitely another serious breakdown in separation by international standards even if Australia doesn’t recognize this anymore. This is just a political excuse to try and ram down our throat this whole NAS BS. I can assure you when, not if, there is a mid air caused by this new airspace, all you NAS people will go scurrying off into your little holes. Rest assured though that those responsible will be held accountable.:yuk::*

Airspeed Ambassador
25th Dec 2003, 21:21
Mr Boyd,

I for one do not want to participate in an airspace system that relies on good airmanship backed up by TCAS as a last resort to avoid a midair collision.

You clearly do not understand the function of TCAS as Dehavillanddriver has stated. A TCAS RA (resolution advisory) represents a REAL THREAT OF COLLISION.

The fact the light aircraft driver had the Virgin aircraft visual, is poor comfort to the 177 odd passengers who unknowingly participated an avoidance manoeuvre by the Virgin crew. I ask you, prior to NAS, when was the last time you heard of a TCAS avoidance by an airliner in this country? How many TCAS RA's per year should we accept and still believe the system is safe?

Good airmanship and a good lookout is something our aviation forefathers relied on to solely to avoid collisions for many decades. In a busy traffic environment, should a visual lookout be the backstop to a modern ATC system?! We are supposed to have learned from the lessons of aviation and that sometimes, SAFETY COMES AT A PRICE. Have we not progressed in the last 50 years?

To rely on the good airmanship of potentially a sole pilot, to avoid the loss of 180 odd passengers and crew is madness! We owe it to the paying public to ensure that we have a system that provides the best level of protection the community is prepared to pay for. That is what we had prior to NAS. I am sorry but the freedom of a small minority of VFR pilots must come second!

Surely you realise that any system is only as good as its weakest link. Sadly the weakest link in our new airspace system is now that of the pilot (and I mean both VFR and IFR).

Please tell me, what has changed that ATC do not have a valuable role to play in our airspace system?

Are we all poorer for NAS?

Absobloodylutely :mad:

ferris
25th Dec 2003, 22:24
Any other pilots out there believe they can avoid a jet in a light aircraft, if needed?

Mr Munroe; running political interference, now? Are you paid to write this stuff? Because it's fairly embarrassing for you, otherwise.simple old-fashioned beat-up RAs are now routine beat-ups?The Virgin Jet was speed-limited to 250 knots Well, that's all right, then! At least if a jet collides with a lightie at 250kts INDICATED AIR SPEED, the jet may maintain enough structural integrity to land safely.Had there been a collision risk he would have spoken up or taken avoiding action You mean like the jet did? Obviously the jet was wrong:zzz: I am ready to be convinced that a lightie can 'choose to avoid' a jet. What do you do- pull up sharply at the last minute (and move opposite to the RA)? Turn, 'cause lighties turn so sharply:rolleyes: ? Or just pray that your transponder is on and accurate?

Mods: Even though Mr Munroe has posted in multiple forums, please let the posts stand. It shows the NAS mentality.

halfmoon
26th Dec 2003, 00:53
Fill me in.. Please!!

What am i missing. I learnt to fly in Australia so i'm somewhat familiar with the airpsace system downunder. Basically the Ozzie system is being transformed to the US system of airspace? Correct?

Ushuaia
26th Dec 2003, 01:43
My God, Boyd..... I, as a professional airline pilot, find your perspective on all of this breathtaking and frightening.

Duke16
26th Dec 2003, 04:49
RA's are serious business and all should be investigated. I understand that 115 RA's occurred in Australia in the previous year prior to NAS implementation. For the rocket scientists out there, this is an RA every 3.1739 days. Just food for thought...

Douglas Mcdonnell
26th Dec 2003, 05:11
Mr Munro, your perspective on this incident smacks of a basic lack of understanding of PROFESSIONAL airline/ flying operations. The airspace reforms downgrade the safety of operations and compromise the inocents that sit behind us and pay good money to arive alive at their destinations.

Your airspace will cost lives and you know it. See and avoid pricipals do not even go close to working when travelling at up to 7 or 8 miles a minute. By the time you see them you have hit them. As for the no talking on the RT. That just shows that the people who have invented and backed this system are rank amatuers.

I would sugest you take a ride in my jump seat and spot lighties for me because I cant see them most of the time. A jump seat is a third seat in the flight deck in case you are not familiar with the term.

RV8builder
26th Dec 2003, 05:40
Merry Christmas Boyd!

I don't know why you are wasting your time here, anything like a factual report on a Civil Air beat-up simply results in a heap of name calling and gets all the Chicken Little "professionals" ranting against anyone not wearing six gold bars on each shoulder.

Gotta go and get back in the bunker, too many planes falling out of the sky....

tobzalp
26th Dec 2003, 05:49
This is all fixed quite easily. Replace the letter E with C on all the maps.

OZBUSDRIVER
26th Dec 2003, 05:59
Douglas Mcdonnell Mate, if you can get me past security I'll run spotter for you everyday of the week and twice on Sundays:D

Talking to my man in Istanbul, something is not getting out about TCAS. Some of the tales he tells me about TCAS in hot environments like flying into airspace around New York were interesting to say the least. One thing come up though,( now tell me if I am wrong) TCAS even in RA gives warning and climb or descent advisaries that will result in profiles of no greater than 1500ft differences to whatever you are doing at the time. Now if my memory serves me it does not take to much change in attitude at 250kts or better to get that result.

He did come up with one scare story and it sounds exactly the same as here. He got an RA whilst in descent. He held level and a lightie passed 300 ft under his nose right on centre line. VFR unannounced.

Maybe NAS needs tweaking. It would be a given that DJ would be on a published route. It is a given that the Tobago had a visual on DJ so...Why can't we report alt/posit (in relation to aid if that makes the heavy iron happy) if we are transitting that published route? We have the tools , why can't we use them?

Regards

Mark

buzztart
26th Dec 2003, 06:36
Was the VFR driver called Mr Magoo?

Lets wait for the offical report to come out, before sprouting off about what was not dangerous. I understand from the Virgin pilot that the TCAS got to 200ft.

Feather #3
26th Dec 2003, 07:03
Interestingly enough, both versions could be correct.

About a year ago I was happily tootling up the Light A/c Lane Nth of BK when SYD RDR gave a call to someone in my position. Intrigued, I answered. Apparently, I was in danger of collecting a QF B767 at 3,000ft on a right base for the 16R ILS. Turns out my Mode C height box was pushing out an ALT readout 1,000ft higher than actual.

The bloke was also disturbed [by his tone of voice] that I could see the B767. Funny, how on a CAVOK day, you can't see any CTR/CTA boundaries marked in the sky [back to US/Oz ATCO cultural differences....sorry:hmm: ]

Had we been in another place&time, there could have been a dreaded incident which in fact was a non-event. Equally, with RDR services close to GA airports, it's worth "TALKING TO ATC" to check your transponder readout every now and then.

G'day & Happy NY ;)

halfmoon
26th Dec 2003, 07:26
I thought it was interesting reading that in the land of Oz you only get 115 RA's a year! You've got to be kidding me. Thats about 3 a day. I fly into NYC airspace 15 days out of the month, 4 legs a day and i'll tell you right now on average I personally get about 3-4 RA's a month with up to 20-30 TA's a month...
This is normal for NY airspace and that number ONLY gets higher in the summer months.
Whats the problem?
Whats the big deal??
Keep your eyes OPEN and RESPOND!!

Swan River Rat
26th Dec 2003, 09:26
Boyd,

It is fortunate in this case that there was a further back up to TCAS.

Did the Tabago pilot say at what point he was going to take action to avoid the B737.

Maybe he was waiting to see the whites of the eyes of the passengers staring back at him before he acted.

Some of the OBJECTIVES OF AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA are

To increase the safety of aviation in Australia
To influence legislation in a manner which improves safety, increases flexibility, and reduces costs
To provide a well-researched, rationally-presented, forcefully argued voice for pilots in Parliament

Can you explain how your post is well researched, rationally presented or is in any way increasing or improving safety?

Swan River Rat

tobzalp
26th Dec 2003, 11:01
Feather#3



About a year ago I was happily tootling up the Light A/c Lane Nth of BK when SYD RDR gave a call to someone in my position. Intrigued, I answered. Apparently, I was in danger of collecting a QF B767 at 3,000ft on a right base for the 16R ILS. Turns out my Mode C height box was pushing out an ALT readout 1,000ft higher than actual.


This about a year ago is not such a bad thing. Of course as VFR to be in C you needed a clearance so you could be reasonably assumed to be OCTA. Today in E as VFR you do not need a clearance. Sooooo with your faulty mode C reading in todays world the traffic that will get an RA reference you with that faulty readout will be responding to incorrect information and whilst doing everything properly may very well hit you.

Enjoy your tootling.

woftam
26th Dec 2003, 13:05
2 X RA's in as many weeks in class "E"?
No, Mr. Experts, this is NOT “normal” nor is it acceptable!
Review this stupid situation immediately or have blood on your hands.
The TCAS RA procedure is in the "Non-Normal Manoeuvres" section of the B737 Operations Manual for a very good reason.
i.e. It is not supposed to be a weekly occurrence because of a system that allows an RPT jet on a normal descent path to be "surprised" by another A/C to the extent that it needs to take the last step in COLLISION (yes, that's what the "C" in TCAS stands for!) avoidance.
In addition, what about the potential for injury to unrestrained cabin crew and pax during one of these "routine" RA's?
As someone has already stated, “TCAS RA doesn’t mean "NAS system worked as planned" it means the last link in the chain didn’t break”
As a regular user of airspace in Australia in an RPT jet I feel a lot less safe now than I did a month or so ago as a direct result of the NAS.
Are you listening?
This is NOT acceptable.
Get it?

:mad:

Perpetual_Hold_File
26th Dec 2003, 14:42
It seems that some professional jealousy keeps creeping into the debate and clouding the views of those that do not utilise Australian airspace as part of their everyday job.

Merry Christmas Boyd!
I don't know why you are wasting your time here, anything like a factual report on a Civil Air beat-up simply results in a heap of name calling and gets all the Chicken Little "professionals" ranting against anyone not wearing six gold bars on each shoulder.

There is very real reason why a vast majority of working pilots contributing to this forum are against the outdated, dangerous and amateurish attempt to "reform" our airspace.

A lot of posts here by those against NAS have been factual, to the point and based on actual operating experience.

Lowering yourself to such remarks does nothing but further scare me when I think that amateurs like RV8 builder are ploughing through airspace I may be occupying without speaking up or even monitoring the right frequency because he can't understand why those 6 bar professionals are kicking up such a fuss.

Had there been a collision risk he would have spoken up or taken avoiding action. He was flying some family members to be with other family members for Christmas and was not in a suicidal mood.

As others have said, relying on the most inexperienced and casual users of the airspace to make decisions on whether a conflict situation exists is absolute ludicrously. TCAS is not meant to be a traffic separation tool.

We have gone back to the dark ages with airspace management in this country due to weekend aviators and others without professional practical experience operationally making decisions on our workplace envrironment.

I pray that it doesn't take a collision to wake these fools up into realizing the momentous mistakes they have made.

Near Miss
26th Dec 2003, 15:26
Halfmoon wouldn't 115 RAs per year mean 1 every 3 days, NOT 3 per day?!

Good point Tobzalp. If a VFR driver had a transponder on and it was giving incorrect alt info, the RA could actually drive us into him! When and How are they supposed to get a alt check from ATC!? Especially say out at Alice! Hmmm

Trust me "See and Avoid" is the LAST bit of protection you have to miss someone. It should NOT be used as the primary means. :mad:

Wasn't it 100 years of flight just last week? Boy look how far we have come, still looking out the window (have you ever had a good look at the size of a jet or even a turboprop windscreen, not exactly made for VFR) to avoid hitting another aircraft. It is not like the are many more aircraft flying now, nor has the speed hasn't increased that much has it?! :hmm:

Every aircraft, and I mean EVERY aircraft should have a transponder and a radio. I bet most VFR guys have a GPS that cost a few $$, so a don't give me that B/S that it cost too much. Hello, planes are not cheap!!

Don't lower the standard of our aispace to make it easier for VFR pilots at the risk of IFR pilots and paying pax. Just made it easier for VFR guys to get an airways through Class C. Simple. :ooh:

Kaptin M
26th Dec 2003, 18:45
I believe the point that is being made, is that within a few weeks of the introduction of Class E airspace, it is ALREADY proving that it is LESS SAFE than the Class C it is replacing.

That being the case, Mr Munro, you - of all people - should be arguing AGAINST it, not trying to support it, with comments such as I have spoken to the pilot of the light aircraft involved. It was in level flight at 7,500ft and the pilot had the Virgin Jet in sight at all relevant times, and heard it on the radio....There was no risk of collision. , or resign from your position of PRESIDENT AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA.
To state on a public forum that the pilot of a light aircraft (presumably a PPL with only several hundred hours total, accumulated over several years) stated that contrary to TCAS, he considered there was "no risk of collision", does little to lend credibilty to you and the position you hold.
Had BOTH aircraft made - and maintained - visual contact, THEN one might confidently have stated that which you have.

That someone in your (public) position is willing to present this to the unknowledgable public is disturbing and DANGEROUS, imo.

maxgrad
26th Dec 2003, 22:13
HALFMOON.. I am honestly thrilled that you TCAS system works well...But(forgive me if I am wrong) are you saying that you are quite happy to rely on Eyes and TCAS only???
All pilots (I hope!) keep a look out. Not all pilot's have Tcas at their disposal. Transponders will malfunction.

FarCu
27th Dec 2003, 01:37
RV8 Builder
Pprune, PROFESSIONAL pilots rumour network. If you don't like the opinions of professional pilots, start an Amateur pilots rumour network.

oldhasbeen
27th Dec 2003, 03:00
How did he get the title " President Air Safety" and who the hell voted for him?? I didn't!

Wirraway
27th Dec 2003, 03:37
Fri "The Australian"

Airline relaxed on flight scare
By John Stapleton
December 26, 2003

Tensions between air traffic controllers and the federal Government have deepened following allegations a Virgin Blue flight with 120 passengers on board came within 70m of colliding with a light aircraft near Launceston.

It is claimed that at about 1.30pm on Wednesday the Boeing 737 on descent to Launceston was forced to climb more than 300m to avoid a four-seater single-engine Tobago flying from Hobart after a proximity alert sounded in the cockpit.

Virgin Blue, Airservices Australia and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau are investigating the incident, but an airline spokeswoman, Amanda Bolger, said flight DJ 964 from Sydney landed "as per normal".

"We firmly believe that Australia has some of the safest skies in the world and we are confident our pilots reacted professionally as per our standard operating procedures," she said.

It follows an almost identical incident near Melbourne earlier this month and comes in the middle of open conflict between the Australian Air Traffic Control Association and Transport Minister John Anderson over a new air traffic control plan known as the National Airspace System.

The union claims a spate of incidents, including Wednesday's, can be linked to new rules that allow private aircraft to operate in commercial air traffic space.

It warned yesterday that Australia could expect more close calls between commercial and light aircraft, saying the new rules were "a joke".

The association issued a statement last Friday expressing concern over air safety in Tasmania, saying there was a great deal of confusion over the new rules.

"As we have been warning for months, Australia's skies are becoming a hit-or-miss affair," association president Ted Lang said.

"Commercial aircraft are taking evasive action. Collision alarms are sounding. Passengers are seeing other aircraft close by."

The union has urged airline passengers to fly only at night, when amateur and private pilots cannot operate.

A spokesman for Mr Anderson said the union's campaign was political "because they believe it will be of benefit to the Labor Party".

He said the union had claimed near misses between aircraft four times in the past month, at Canberra, Tamworth, Melbourne and now Launceston, "and with all previous incidents they have been proven 100 per cent wrong in everything they have said".

"The new system has been run very well so far," the spokesman said. "It is working as it's meant to work."

==========================================

Douglas Mcdonnell
27th Dec 2003, 07:01
What a debacle. The analogy is the sunday caravaners making rules for truck drivers to follow. Sad to see the system has been hijacked by non professional pilots.

How many of these turkeys have actually operated Domestic jet services within Aus? Not many I would think.

I liked the guy on the Casa CD. As he flew over the class D airport in his chieftan he stated that he had put all his lights on for visibility reasons. The wheels were up!!. How the [email protected] does that work?

Certainly a win for Joe weekender but a huge loss for all professionals.

RV8builder
27th Dec 2003, 07:24
>FarCu: RV8 Builder
>Pprune, PROFESSIONAL pilots rumour network. If you don't like the opinions of professional pilots, start an Amateur pilots rumour network.

Tell me FarCu, how many gold bars do you wear?
Don't assume that you capable of judging someone else's "professional" status. This thread is typical of the very unprofessional atttitude of a vocal group of Luddites who are being dragged kicking and screaming into 21st century worlds best practice.

Every time we try to move from the worlds most over-regulated and inflexible airspace management to something sensible the Chicken Littles start to scream SAFETY!

We stopped full VFR reporting - the world didn't end.
We got rid of RFFS at all but major cities - don't see any piles of burnt wrecks.
We tried Airspace 2000 - ahh, you got a win there with the help of the RAAF and a gulible media.

Its called Change Management people. Either you get with the process and work to make it better or you start a chicken farm. Every other industry in the country has been doing it for nearly 20 years, its about time we did the same in Aviation.

Service standards in this country are appaling. Do a full time line on the Melbourne "incident" and you find that it took ATC over 8 minutes to respond to a request for an airways clearence, then a further 6 minutes to issue an IFR clearence, and this to an aircraft doing 4 miles a minute! He was then vectored straight across the bows of the 737. If he had his clearence in a reasonable time (and I don't think 14 minutes is reasonable) there is no problem.

VFR pilots need to get there act togeather with using transponders - something that was discouraged at places like YSBK for years. A simple reminder sign at the holding point would probably do the trick.

ATC needs to improve its response to EVERYONE. Just because an aircraft is VFR dosen't make them a second class citizen. I would highly recommend that they get themselves over to somewhere like Chicago Central or Socal Approach to see how it's done on a large scale. See what their KPI's are and then show managment here whats needed to match them.

And everyone else needs to take my ol' dads advice - " Put the mind in gear before putting the mouth in motion."

BTW FarCu, I've done 10 years in Oz airfreight, two years at Red Rat and now work for myself. Oz and US licence's. Careful who you call amateur.

404 Titan
27th Dec 2003, 09:59
RV8builder

Every time we try to move from the worlds most over-regulated and inflexible airspace management to something sensible the Chicken Littles start to scream SAFETY!
I think you need to get your facts right before you quote Bull S**t like that. You obviously have no experience of flying outside Australia to make a stupid and defamatory comment like that. I suggest you go and fly you little S**t can in Asia, Europe the Middle East and the old Soviet block including Russia to see just how hard it is to fly for recreation and business. Your comment makes a joke of your cause. :yuk: :mad: :*

Kaptin M
27th Dec 2003, 10:14
Full marks for your well composed letter, DirectAnywhere - if more PROFESSIONAL pilots take the time to send a letter to the Government and the media, perhaps this dangerous, retrograde step has a chance of being ammended.
If a midair collision occurs, then Mr Andersen and his supporters should, imo, be held responsible for their culpable actions, which they have ploughed ahead with, IN SPITE OF the opposition of the professionals who use the airspace daily.

Previously Australia had the protection of the AFAP - the same organisation that pressured the government to instal radar at Coolangatta and Cairns - as the voice of ALL domestic professional pilots were represented through the Federation.

RV8builder sounds a little (or a lot) like Dick Smith, and his boast of, "We stopped full VFR reporting - the world didn't end.
We got rid of RFFS at all but major cities - don't see any piles of burnt wrecks.
We tried Airspace 2000 - ahh, you got a win there with the help of the RAAF and a gulible media." only seems to reinforce the idea that some people are intent on pulling apart, brick by brick, one of the safest airspace systems in the world - their criteria for knowing WHEN to stop, would seem to be once we have an increase of aviation DEATHS!

RTB RFN
27th Dec 2003, 12:41
Here here Kaptain M and this has also ripped apart the aviation community.

Ask which people were implicated in all of the changes since 89 and the same old village idiots keep cropping up. It is these same village idiots that have reduced the service to VFR and reduced VFR to second-class citizens, RV8, and it is the PRO-SAFETY lobby that would prefer to provide (and in the case of many controllers) continue to provide VFR with that same serviceas IFR and do not distinguish the value of human life to what category or class of operations that happens to be on the FPL - despite legislation. As a pilot and controller I will prefer to be separated and provided with full service whilst under ATC control - I'm not good enough to see and be seen and unless I were flying NOE my head cannot be guranteed to be looking outside the cockpit 100% of the time and especially not that 3 to 5 seconds from visual capture to reaction to miss!!!!!

Some of the people on this forum should realise that the enemy is within the group they support not with those that are trying to protect them!

Winstun
27th Dec 2003, 13:00
This repetitive whining rattle from low aptitude ATC controllers and sheltered B grade airline pilots is becoming a little more than tiresome and nauseating...:zzz: Obviously this must NOT be the same E airspace they encounter in the US Actually, I think you would be laughed out of the country if you tried to pull an Ozzie over there..:O The simplistic Aussie mindset that a jet airliner has some complicated "aura" is astonishing. There is nothing in 250 vs 180 knots below 10000'. And how many GA airplanes are there on the Oz register pressurised or with O2 that fly VFR over 10000' on a regular basis? Friggin bone please!!:rolleyes: My original suspicions are proving correct: these NAS cry babies are:
A. whining because it makes them feel good
B. afraid of world's most efficient NAS type system
C. anti-US
D. ignorant
E. all of the above
If these Chicken Littles are so concerned about public transport safety, they might instead direct some of their energy attempting to fix the apalling state of the Australian road system where the equivalent of a B737 full load perishes each month..:hmm:

RV8builder
27th Dec 2003, 13:31
Well Winstun, what do you expect from a bunch of Ludddites who immediately switch to playing the man, not the ball as soon as the facts don't suit them.

Maybe one day they will learn the difference between air traffic control and air traffic traffic SERVICE, as anyone who has flown in the real world would have noticed.

Until there is a major mindset adjustment they will remain 1970's style public servants, only too ready to give you 10 reasons why they can't do something, rather than the typical nothing-is-a-problem-lets-work-it-out attitude of the typical American ATC.

Unfortunately until then we have to put up with the fable that our over-regulated system is the "safest in the world" (its not, do an apples-apples comparison with the US, Canada and NZ - we come off a poor third).

Heaven help you guys when ADS-B comes in, but at least that will be another excuse to run arround doging bits of sky.

404 Titan
27th Dec 2003, 14:23
RV8builder

You seem to be putting us all in the same basket son. I personally couldn’t give a rats what Civil Air, as a Union body have to say even though they have the same concerns as I do about NAS. As a professional airline pilot, former GA chief pilot, CFI and ATO, I have a very big problem with NAS as is stands in Australia at the moment. You sir are meddling in something you obviously have no idea what you are talking about and this is what has me and others in this industry very worried. You seem to fail to grasp the limitation of TCAS and mode C transponders especially with regard to GA transponders which are notorious for being out by a couple of hundred feet. Don’t try and tell me that this is rare as I can assure you from previous experience it isn’t, even in IFR aircraft. As a point to note, TCAS warnings in the Airbus A340/330 are in the emergency section of the QRH and FCOM for a very good reason. It is an emergency maneuver, which will probably result in injury to pax and crew not strapped in. You also seem to fail to grasp the limitations of see and avoid from a jet doing 250 kts +. While we will always do our best to try and see traffic, it is usually impossible to see, especially against an urban background. Finally you seem to think that Australia’s airspace system is one of the most over regulated systems in the world. As I have told you before, you need to look around you before you make such a stupid comment like that. Go and try and flying your RV8 in Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, China, Japan, India, Russia, former Soviet block countries, the Middle East and Europe and you will see what I mean. Your stupid and ill-informed comments are starting to p**s me off.
:mad: :* :yuk:

capitan
27th Dec 2003, 14:28
To all
just a question, are aust ATC considered unhelpfull less obliging than others around the world. As a controller for some 13 years i have always prided myself on trying to give every pilot what they require as soon as possible and as far as the rules allow. In 13 years i cant remember ever having knocked back a clearance request from a VFR a-c, and i try to progress an A-C's flight with as little disruption as possible. To winstun and rv8, could you give me an example of something that has happened to you that gives you that impression about ATC. I am interested in your answer.

Winstun
27th Dec 2003, 15:13
As a professional airline pilot, former GA chief pilot, CFI and ATO, ...:ooh: ...ooohh my hero! a jet doing 250 kts ..:rolleyes: ..not rocket science, maybe it is to you...the fact that over ten thousand bizjets blast around the US daily, most without TCAS, without hitting anything..:zzz: 404, easy but not very helpful to make irrelevant comparisons. Kinda like big noting Australia's airplane and submarine manufacturing capabilities (Nomad and Collins :{ ) with that of say, Haiti..:rolleyes: As a controller for some 13 years i have always prided myself on trying to give every pilot what they require as soon as possible and as far as the rules allow. capitan, we appreciate your attitude, but the problem is in the overall relative meanings of...trying...require...soon.... Go visit the ATC centers in the US and all will be revealed. :ok:

Natit
27th Dec 2003, 15:33
Winstun a.k.a f***head

Care to enlighten us on your aviation experience?

404 Titan
27th Dec 2003, 15:43
Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Winstun who?..:zzz: :zzz: :zzz:

Kaptin M
27th Dec 2003, 15:50
Winstun's quals? Winstun TVI....The Village Idiot.

If you don't have something sensible to add to the discusssion, TVI - and you don't - why get involved with us professional pilots? Does it give you a hard on? :ok:

ugly
27th Dec 2003, 16:22
The union has urged airline passengers to fly only at night, when amateur and private pilots cannot operate. When was NVFR banned? I missed that one.

The Voice
27th Dec 2003, 16:54
hey guys ..

don't let yourselves come down to the level of Winstun and Rvthingee .. I too thought it was Tricky doing his wind up thing, however he can't lay claim to having flown anything professionally, neither can Boyd ..

let's get back to the rational debate/discussion without their detracting you ...

This NAS thing .. is it only causing drama's on the eastern seaboard or are drama's occuring in/around ADL, DRW and PER too?

griffinblack
27th Dec 2003, 17:29
Gentleman,

Please take heart and RELAX. There is no need for an investigation by BASI and no need for disquiet about the NAS.

Boyd is on the job and has spoken to the lighty pilot involved and he said there was no risk.

Boyd said this is a beat-up and as the president of the ASA one can only assume he is totally impartial. He would therefore let natural justice occur and let a properly qualified and appointed investigation team determine the cause(s) of the incident, but in this case he has conducted a quick investigation and is totally satisfied. So lets stop quibbling.

Vampire 91
27th Dec 2003, 19:34
As an occasional reader of PPRune I was sufficiently appalled by the posting from Boyd Munro regarding the "airmiss" that I registered in order to respond. I cannot believe that someone who uses the title President AIR SAFETY AUSTRALIA decides on the basis of having 'spoken' to one of the pilots involved that the event was no of consequence. I wish that my air safety investigations could be resolved so easily and so quickly. Does Mr Munro have any formal training as an investigator - in any capacity? I suggest that he leaves the investigation to the professionals and reserves his comments and opinions until the outcome is determined. I doubt that any Australian genuinely concerned with air safety would agree that 200FT separation between a RPT aircraft and a bug smasher in the circumstances described in the incident should be considered acceptable.

Col. Walter E. Kurtz
27th Dec 2003, 19:57
I am disappointed that pro-NAS members have yet to present a case that shows how the NAS does not reduce safety.

I have a genuine interest; not being the burning bush, maybe I have missed something and I await to be enlightened.

Personally, I believe the whole thing has a few too many holes, and relies on the wrong thing, including the big sky and luck. The instigators figure that if they stay quiet, then the dissent wil go away (typuical of this current government).

Also, the attitude of many (but not all, thankfully) of the recreational/casual users of Australian airspace has been absolutely appalling - too lazy to learn the procedures and use them properly, and hence expecting the rest of us to 'dumb it down' to an unsafe level. Yet there is no answers to proper questions except accusations of fear of change and of being 'luddites'. It's a pity that envy can be so prevalent.

Also, why are the airlines so quiet about it? Scared to scare off business? If the pilots are so against the new system, what are they doing WITHIN THEIR OWN ORGAnISATION to bring some pressure to bear that the companies make a full and proper representation to the minister/public?

My biggest worry is that it will take the loss of an airliner to nake the problem 'obvious'.

slice
27th Dec 2003, 22:25
Natit - Winstun burst onto this forum some time ago in a blaze of glory with no less than 7 throbbing 12 inch APTLs hanging between his legs and testicles that had a degree in 'Combat Surgery'. He seems to have a similar psycological profile as everyone's good buddy - 411a.

He is also best friends with Kaptin M !!!! :=

Sorry Kaptin, couldn't resist :E

capitan
27th Dec 2003, 22:41
Winstun,
Can you answer my question, when was the last time you were delayed or refused a clearance by ATC, and what do you base your judgement of air traffic controllers in australia on. Some specifics would be nice rather than just sprouting some drival about what a slack bunch we are.

FarCu
30th Dec 2003, 09:48
Dear Bob the Builder, Licences alone do not make one a Professional.

paddopat
30th Dec 2003, 13:09
No

You are right. professional is an attitude, not displayed by the majority of '4 barrers' and ATC on here. Give Boyd a break and tackle the issue, people might listen then.

I have over the last 5 days flown some 20 hours in 'questionable' VFR weather on the Qld East Coast, VFR, mostly on top, and nearly all the way in E.

I monitored Center. I asked Center for 'non-standard' levels to get over some Cu. I got them. Very helpful and professional.

I moved around where necessary to avoid RPT. I got 'alerted see and avoid' on multiple targets and in every case saw them pass.

I got weather from center and passing traffic and the odd comment on NAS (all on the very quiet 'center' frequency). Very professional.

I got assistance finding the centerline in 'special' VFR and got where I wanted to, in E, very safely, aided all the way by very professional ATC and fellow pilots.

I guess you lot all work in Victoria hey :E

Pat

Dehavillanddriver
31st Dec 2003, 16:51
Pat

Question

1.Why did you need to ask ATC for non standard levels if you were VFR in E - you were not subject to a clearance.

2. if the weather was "questionable" is it not IFR weather? How do you expect people in high speed jetc to see you if you are dodging clouds?

3. What do you do in non radar e where you will NOT get radar advisories, alerted see and avoid - which I might add you got despite NAS because you are encouraged NOT to speak on centre frequencies.

And finally - what are the safery benefits to ALL users of the airspace of NAS?

Dog One
1st Jan 2004, 11:29
Pat

You said

"I moved around where necessary to avoid RPT. I got 'alerted see and avoid' on multiple targets and in every case saw them pass."

Question
How did ATC alert you to traffic?

Answer
They used their radar of course.

Thats fine Pat, please stay in radar coverage, because when I leave 10 thousand on descent into LT, HB or AS, ATC aren't able to help as to traffic, as we are outside of radar coverage, nor can the towers at these fields provide traffic unless VFR traffic have called up and reported their position and intentions.

When (note when not if) the crunch of metal occurrs, it will be interesting to see how the Minister, CASA and Airservices will justify the their safety case in court. Hopefully it will only be few lives lost in a lightie and not 130 pax and crew in a 73.

Capt Claret
2nd Jan 2004, 05:33
My prediction is that when the crunch occurs, the pilots concerned will be villified for failing to See and AVOID :mad:

yarrayarra
2nd Jan 2004, 08:00
Well spoken. Just heard something on ABC news this morning about looking incidents involving failure of equipment (transponders?) or incorrect use thereof. Comment was also relating to "appropriate" use of ALL equipment on aircraft. Could this also mean using TCAS as the primary means of separating rather than a last line of defence? I wait with baited breath, but don't hold out much luck. There is always much activity but not much productivity when it comes to NAS investigations- something about making the report fit the required conclusion I think. Oh how I hate myself for being so cynical
:yuk: