Dick Smith Now Blames Virgin Captain, And His lack Of Training.

[lame]

Despite previous stories, Dick Smith was just on 4BC again a few minutes ago, and he now blames the Virgin Captain, and his (the Virgin Captains) lack of training, for the incident near Brisbane.

He claims that the Virgin Captain acted too early.

He also said the Airservices Australia board are voting today on whether or not to stop the new proceedures, and he hopes they will not.

[Pimp Daddy]

He claims that the Virgin Captain acted too early

Remember lads, wait 'til you see the whites of their eyes...........

Hold on, aren't we trying not to get that close?

[Kaptin M]

Standby for "Revised TCAS Procedures" by eccentric, Dick Smith.

YOU got it WRONG (again), Dick.

[Capcom]

The Airspace could not possibly be the reason these aircraft are getting close to each other, could it?! :rolleyes: :yuk:

Imagine what dribble we would hear after a MAC :hmm:

What a crying shame “Burning of Witches” is illegal :mad:

[Direct to]

Makes you think- how many fools do we have to suffer? Looking forward to Dick's revised TCAS procedures- not!
:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[Arctaurus]

LAME,

Dick Smith has finally cemented his total lack of understanding of RPT jet operations.

This has NOTHING to do with any experience levels of the VB crew and EVERYTHING to do with the fact they complied correctly with the TCAS commands.

Stop using crews as the EXCUSE Dick and start looking at what is really occurring in Australia`s airspace.

It appears TCAS will be needed more and more in this very challenging environment.

Perhaps the VB Captain might like to challenge Dick in the court system ? :ooh:

[lame]

I did NOT say I believe him........ :uhoh:

Just that is what HE said.

Trouble is a lot of the Public will hear him, and worse still will trust and believe him. :{

[DickyBaby]

Transcript 4BC John and Ross 6:50am EST 23/4/04

COMPERE: As you may recall, a little while ago on the program Dick Smith was on with us discussing the changes to air traffic control arrangements in Australia and the opposition thereto from airline pilots and air traffic controllers.
At the time Dick had some, well fairly shall we say, stern things to say about the performance of air traffic controllers and particularly in relation to one incident. Dick joins us on the line now. G'day, Dick.

DICK SMITH: Hi there, Ross, hi there, John. How are things?

CHORUS: Well thank you. Good to talk to you again.

DICK SMITH: Look, what I wanted to do was apologise for the air traffic controllers because I accused them of letting this incident happen between the airline and the plane sort of just near Maroochydore. But the ATSB report, the Australian Transport Safety Board, came out yesterday and it shows clearly that, if the airline pilot had followed the air traffic control instructions and just kept descending, that the planes would have passed many miles apart.
What I just couldn't believe is that a pilot would actually, when he was told to descend by air traffic control, would actually climb and turn right into the path of another aeroplane. And that's what's happened. So it just simply wasn't the air traffic controller's fault. I apologise for that.
I can actually imagine the air traffic controller sitting there just in horror to see this plane turn right into the - the airline turn right into the path of the small plane and then climb without even telling the air traffic controller what he was doing. So that was just horrendous.

COMPERE: Yes, well Dick, good on you. It takes a strong man to say I'm sorry and I got it wrong, which is always the mark of a good man.

DICK SMITH: There's just one thing I could mention and that is that what does worry me is the Australian Transport Safety Board report, instead of saying that the airline pilot shouldn't have done that, the ATSB is sort of a mate's network and it actually says that no one made any error and tried to make out that this is how the air space is to work.
But anyone who's listening I can tell you that you follow air traffic control instructions. There is one time when you're allowed to not take any notice of air traffic control and that is when you get what they call a resolution advisory. It's a special emergency call out in your equipment in the aircraft.
In this particular case, the airline pilot actually acted before he got that, and that's just - I've never heard of such a thing ever happening. I couldn't believe an airline pilot would do that.

COMPERE: All right, Dick, well thank you for that. Are we any closer to a resolution of this? I mean, following your appearance on the program - let me tell you, Dick - we were deluged with very, very, very, very bitter and angry emails.

DICK SMITH: Yes, no look I notice The Australian this morning has an article and the most telling point of the article, it says that the Australian Transport Safety Bureau figures, and what it says here, 'No adverse safety trends since the new system has been imposed.'
Now the Airservices Board, I understand, is voting today on whether to reverse it or not. I hope they won't because look, we've had just on five months and you always get teething problems. In this particular case, this incident north of Brisbane, I think it was a very serious one even though the ATSB have tried to sort of, on the mate's network, tried to say it isn't serious.
I think it was serious but I'm sure it all goes back to training because I don't think these airline pilots have been trained correctly and I think that's very serious. Hopefully if we can do that, it shows that even without the proper training, the system hasn't had any adverse safety effects. And once we get it in working properly, it will be a lot safer and of course less expensive.

COMPERE: All right, Dick, okay. Well look thanks for calling in this morning. We appreciate it.

DICK SMITH: Great to talk to you.

COMPERE: Yeah, good to talk to you too.

COMPERE: Just some angry air traffic controllers after the last…

COMPERE: Oooh yeah. Did you see some of those emails? I thought the paper was going to catch on fire. The debate will continue to rage on and let's hope for the safety of the Australian travelling public that Dick Smith's right. Because, as I said to him the other day, if they get it wrong and there's a disaster, there's going to be a fairly few sets of goolies on the platter, I tell you.


ends

[spinout]

Maybe now Richard (dick) Branson might come out in defense of his airline and his pilots and we know he also knows how to use the media…

See it now Channel tonight 7:00

DICK verses DICK

My moneys on DICK…

:hmm:

[Kaptin M]

"...what I wanted to do was apologise for the air traffic controllers.."

He STILL has not apologised TO the air traffic controller, whom he originally accused of "a "basically criminal" action".

Does Dick Smith come across to anyone else as a "loose cannon"?

[welcome_stranger]

Any one who has read these entries under the many topics herein could easily come to the conclusion that the main protagonist in this saga is suffering from classic manic-depressive sydrome with an associated persercution complex. :O

He clearly shows why our time has become the most litigeous in history. No one is willing to take responsibility for their own actions, or where an "incident" occurs people are quick to apportion blame to those who cannot (due to legal, financial or education constraints) defend themselves.

It is so much easier to shoot the messenger and then make a big song and dance for the "unwashed masses" than it is to meekly and humbly apologise for putting your Gucchi loafers into your oral orifice and admit to the world that, due to your overweening huberis, an error of judgement has been made.

Come on, Dick, do you really think that VB would allow a pilot take command/fly without being, not only trained but also proving to his/her check captain, CASA et al that he/she is conversant with and fully understand his/her responsibilities and required actions in accordance with Virgins' SOPs.

If you don't know that then please give me and everyone else in ATC/the travelling public/innocent bystanders at least 24 hours notice of your intention to fly so I can get me/any RPT/Charter/GA aircraft the hell out of your way, cause I don't want to be anywhere near you, nor have anyone else who may be affected near you, when you take to the air.

[Spodman]

I've spent some time reading the same reports that Dick was commenting on and don't understand his conclusion. What is he expecting crews to do when they don't visually acquire the uncontrolled traffic his project has placed in their vicinity? Is he expecting the crew to have a leap of faith in NAS & generic-copy biscuits and just plough on through? Please be consistent, are we gods whose every instruction is hallowed or criminal scum to be made unemployed?

Other threads with posts from US controllers admit they get stacks of RA, and the pilots comply with them and everybody celebrates the resulting regular confusion with apple pie and bbq hot dogs. Is Dick suggesting we shouldn't? Proud as I am of my profession I don't want to be stabbed by a surviving relative because a crew obeyed my instruction while the box on the dashboard is telling them to do something different.

Please feel free to keep up the professional approach pilot heros, I do fly from time to time.

One point I wondered about, is a heading change something we should expect from an aircraft experiencing an RA? I sorta thought it just commanded vertically? Or was it in response to a suggested heading from the much-maligned ATC involved. This is not a critisism, just a question.

By the way Dick, that's not an apology, and you owe one to the Virgin crew as well now.

[FlexibleResponse]

DICK SMITH: There's just one thing I could mention and that is that what does worry me is the Australian Transport Safety Board report, instead of saying that the airline pilot shouldn't have done that, the ATSB is sort of a mate's network and it actually says that no one made any error and tried to make out that this is how the air space is to work.

He's gone from bad to worse.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

So now if I have this right, Dicky has bagged ATSB for being a mates network, AirServices for being a bunch of fatcats lining their pockets with bonuses based on profits made, the controllers for being criminals and Virgin pilots for being incorrectly trained and basically criminally negligent as well. How many friends does this guy have left, and how many more people does he have to piss off before he is cast aside by John Anderson.

[Pharcarnell]

Maybe we just cast aside John Anderson and Dick will lose his chief cheer squad and sympathetic ear in the halls of power in one fell swoop.
The silence would be wonderful.:ok:

[Ralph the Bong]

So, have any of you blokes tried calling talkback radio or writen a letter to the editor? THis is all preaching to the converted in this forum. We can all now see that Dick has jumped out of the frypan into the fire, but unless our viewpiont is communicated, there is little point in continuing to vent spleen on PPrune.

[Winstun]

Simple question: In controlled airspace does a pilot ignore an ATC instruction without a TCAS RA? Simple answer: NO :rolleyes:
A serious educational void in basic aeronautical principles is surfacing within the Australian aviation industry. Firstly ATC controllers are found deficient in their ability to provide efficient levels of service and handle a reasonable workload. Next, airline pilots suddenly realize they should have been looking out the window all these years (let ya in on a lil' secret, doin 250 clicks in a jet don't make ya speciol). And now, a blatant disregard in TCAS operational procedure. :sad:
Australia has become isolationist and lost touch with reality. Mr Smith can not overcome decades of accumulative festering bureacracy and union mediocrity on his own. Bring in the US cavalry! :ok:

[MrWooby]

From reading the ATSB report, the Virgin pilots did what any other PROFESSIONAL pilot would do. If you are descending and a (TA) traffic alert is given with the traffic below, reducing rate of descent or levelling out is the obvious and safe course of action. From the report, the 737 reduced rate of descent first, which DOESN'T contravene the ATC clearance. It wasn't until the Resolution Advisory (RA) that the 737 climbed.

Time for dickie to go I think, and let professionals not amateurs run aviation.

[capitan]

" But the ATSB report, the Australian Transport Safety Board, came out yesterday and it shows clearly that, if the airline pilot had followed the air traffic control instructions and just kept descending, that the planes would have passed many miles apart."



Ummm dick are we reading the same report. If the virgin pilot stayed on track they would not have passed by many miles. My understanding of the event was that if both ac kept climbing and descending as per profile they would have been at the same level with less than 1nm between them. the small diversion by virgin during the RA made very little difference to how close they came.

[ftrplt]

It's interesting that the actions of the Lancair pilot havent been questioned.

Regardless of whether he/she is entitled to be there or not, why would anyone who applies consideration to good airmanship climb to that altitude in that area?

What is wrong with 12500 or something like that crossing the arrival paths into Brisbane?

If you fly VFR and want to use those levels then there is an onus on you having some understanding of IFR operations that you may interact with.

[WhatWasThat]

I do hope Virgin Blue has something to say about this latest slur from the biscuit cretin.

Perhaps legal action may be appropriate.

[karrank]

Somebody asked what the Lancair was doing there. The book does say "avoid IFR routes". I would challenge anybody to fly anywhere to anywhere, particularly near a capital city, without crossing an IFR route. These are what is known as "weasel words" that committes put into documents to make sure an oops is somebody elses fault.

Somebody keeps sending me US/Canadian accident reports. Two aircraft weld in visual conditions the reports all say they "failed to see and avoid". This makes it a deficiency of the pilot's scanning technique, or calls into question just how visual it was at the time rather than examining the question of whether it was reasonable that they should be required to sight each other. If Virgin had hit the Lancair they could have said they "failed to see and avoid" AND "failed to avoid IFR routes", see, they did two things wrong.:mad:

I know the same reference to IFR routes appears in the US documents, but they seem to have a different approach. A route seems to be defined by VOR, every 100nm or so. Most of our routes would not qualify. With the relative traffic levels between the US and here, most of the black lines on our charts have no significance. But there are routes that carry significant jet traffic here, but the black lines for them DON'T LOOK ANY DIFFERENT.

Maybe part of "chart simplification" should have been to emphasise those black lines that actually carry the traffic VFR should avoid? The pilot involved seems to have, rightly, ignored a stupid instruction.

[ftrplt]

Lateral avoidance isnt the only option.

From my (admitted) educated guess of the geometry, vertical avoidance of the RPT IFR arrival routes would have been the best fix.

Still gets use of the 'flexibility' provided by E, but I suspect 12 500 (for example) would have been clear of the Virgin descent path. Also gets him on a level flight path earlier which is a lot more 'predictable' to ATC and TCAS.

(I havent had a chance for a close look at a chart to assess the geometry and distances from BN)


Maybe one of the issues with these changes is technology.

When I learnt to fly VFR was just that, usually flogging around in a clapped out tin box at 3 - 5000ft AGL and reading a map!!! Hard to get in anyones way doing that.

High performance, high altitude aircraft equipped with GPS flogging around in the mid Flight Levels doesnt really sit well with VFR in my opinion.

[Blastoid]

Perhaps it is impossible to avoid IFR routes (especially crossing like that) but do you think the Lancair pilot gave any thought that he passed through TWO published holidng patterns (MLY and SMOKA) at approximately 0730 local, the time (if any) there would be holiding going on there. Admittedly, holiding is a rare occurrence these days but was this not again part of the education package for NAS that VFR should avoid published IFR holiding patterns?

Dick has sprayed blame on everybody except his beloved GA pilot. Perhaps he should have a go there.

[Chippie Chappie]

Blastoid - I agree with what you say to a degree though I will say that when I was a PPL buzzing around trying to build some hours for my commercial, I didn't have the foggiest (if you pardon the pun) about IFR proceedures. In fact, I had a hard enough time working out where I was/ what I should be doing. I certainly didn't have the IFR maps nor the time to work out how they related to my WAC charts. Now I am out of date with current procedures in Oz, but isn't IFR route avoidence inviting a heavier than reasonable workload on PPL operators? (How many IFR holds are there in Oz...anyone?)

So in the end, it's the procedures that we're all beefed about. Let's not lose sight of that fact, rather than whether or not the other pilot is up there for work or pleasure.

Winstun - Yes, it's good to be "looking out the window", but in a large, commercial aircraft, there are one or two items that you do need to look inside for from time to time.

As for bringing in the US Cavalry, "General Custer" and "Little Big Horn" spring to mind.

Chips

[ftrplt]

Chippie Chappie,

a question.

When you 'didnt have the foggiest' about IFR, would you have planned at 16500ft??? Or would you have known enough to at least realise that lower is probably a lot smarter.

I cant see any benefit for him to be at 16500 (except possibly WX, dont know the conditions at the time) for any other reason than he can.

[WALLEY2]

AirNoServices: you forgot CASA and Broome Int Airport

In his letter to me, posted on Pprune, he said they(CASA) turned a blind eye to our illegal CAGRS.

I feel neglected by you not putting us on the A List. Shame on you !!

[Blastoid]

Chippie Chappie,

Yes I agree that we are on about the procedures. But while the authorities are still making their minds up about what to do (read: discuss the legal and political implications of any changes to NAS), at least make some minor amendments to reduce the likelihood of a MAC:

1. Mandate listening watch of any aircraft in class E on the class E frequency. None of this "appropriate frequency" stuff. At least that way you know where to find them.

2. Educate the pilots on IFR routes - or AT LEAST on the location of holding patterns. Put IFR HOLDING PATTERN IN THIS AREA or some such on VFR charts (oops! does this mean chart clutter??? :yuk: ) so that they know areas that should REALLY be avoided at all costs.

Seriously, can you imagine VFR traffic at flight levels spearing through a holding pattern in use? Do you think a light aircraft can accurately anticipate the path of a holding aircraft and "see and avoid" :ouch:

[MoFo]

Dicky is an adventurer. Old and greying yes, but an adventurer still.

Unfortuntely professional pilots and their passengers aren't. They want to fly safely.

Pity Dicky doesn't find another hobby so he can find a whole new field of giving advise to professionals. Perhaps he could buy Greg Normans boat and become an expert mariner, and leave us alone.

[Dick Smith]

MrWooby, you state:

From the report, the 737 reduced rate of descent first, which DOESN’T contravene the ATC clearance. It wasn’t until the Resolution Advisory (RA) that the 737 climbed. I must be looking at a different report. The report I have looked at shows that the 737 pilot not only reduced the rate of descent, but actually levelled off, then climbed and turned right – all before a resolution advisory was received.

My suggestion is that you read the report again and then advise.

Capitan, Surely the key to the discussion is whether the 737 pilot followed the correct procedures for a traffic advisory, and if the ATSB covered this issue correctly. I’m sure all will agree that it is important to have an ATSB that acts without fear or favour.

[Wizofoz]

Mr Smith,

May I suggest that you making comments on a national radio program such as "The ATSB is really a kind of mates club." does not in any way help the cause of them acting "Without fear or favour." as it sets up the environment where they know you will use your not inconsiderable PR abilities against them, should they come to a conclustion you do not like.

[swc]

Just a few points in defence of the Lancair pilot...

Just because he hasn't had Dick Smith point the finger of blame in his direction (yet!?) doesn't mean that it should be open slather from the troops.

Maybe he was up at F165 because of the turbo prop strapped to the front of his aircraft & although he doesn't pay to fly in E, he does have a fuel bill to consider.

Maybe he would be happy to pay for a service to fly at levels he used prior to Nov 27 for aircraft performance, but is no longer permitted to as VFR.

Maybe the reason he flies VFR is because he no longer holds an instrument rating because the only safe way to hold one is to exercise it regularly, & he doesn't feel it is necessary for his operations.

Please don't assume that all VFR pilots are incompetent. This pilot has done all the right things from the time he announced himself on the appropriate frequency onwards. Quite clearly the system needs improving/rolling back, whatever, but there is no need to start picking on one of the victims of the whole show.

[swc]

Prior to Nov 27 the Lancair pilot would have had a plan submitted. Post Nov 27 the Lancair pilot had submitted a plan (MC - SGE & SGE - MC), even though he had been told previously that it is superfluous. What more can be done to get a more satisfactory outcome for all involved?:confused:

[Chippie Chappie]

ftrplt - No, I wouldn't have planned at FL165 in my C172. If I had a Lancair, maybe things would have been different. As swc says fuel and/or wind would have been a factor. No comment on the Lancair pilot but don't forget LCD - Lowest Common Denominator. We don't all have the same experience levels.

Blastoid - I certainly agree the difficulties of anticipating holding jets and that being on the same frequencey would help. Maybe, the Local RPT/Charter operators could agree on the "Appropriate Frequencies" and let everyone else in on the secret via PPRUNE. Bingo, Aussie Airspace becomes semi-regulated by those who use it. Not perfect, but an idea.

In the end, let's play the ball here, not the man. Otherwise it reasonable objections and arguments on different topics begin to sound the same and get ignored as simply "Dick Bashing" (or should that be "Slapping the Salami"?)

Cheers,

Chips

[the leyland brothers]

I cant see any benefit for him to be at 16500.... for any other reason than he can.

Never heard of TRUE AIRSPEED then? :rolleyes:

[mjbow2]

I have had this same senario play out countless times coming into and out of Class B,C, D and G airports in the US. I would like to illustrate how countless times these situations actually played out to avoid even a TA.

0721:58
Controller: Boeing XYZ VFR traffic is a Lancair at your 11 O'clock low, xx miles climbing to FL165, Advise him in sight.

Boeing XYZ: Roger BN we're looking.

0722:17
Controller: Lancair ABC, IFR Traffic is a Boeing 737 Descending right to left passing ...(FLxxx)

Lancair: Roger BN were looking too.

Controller: Boeing XYZ, Lancair now at your 10 O'clock and xx miles.

Boeing XYZ: Roger BN, negative contact at this time.

0725:08
Controller: Boeing XYZ Traffic now at.......etc

Boeing XYZ: Negative Contact sir, we would like a climb or turn away from traffic until clear.

Controller: Boeing XYZ climb and maintain FLxx, heading xxx.

0725:38
Controller: Lancair ABC traffic at your 2 o'clock and 8 miles now.

0725:47
Lancair ABC: Boeing in sight, Lancair ABC.

No TA. No RA.

In fact on seeing a TCAS target whilst descending in E we would often ask if the controller was in contact with the suspected traffic and if not make an early decision to ask for an amended clearance (heading and/or altitude) until clear of traffic.

Assuming ATC was not in contact with the Lancair that would pose no more of a problem with the American system. As we always treated class E in a similar manner to class G ie. see and avoid procedures take priority as soon as we descend out of A at FL180 AND the lancair's transponder was on because it was above 10,000 (note transponder is not a requirement for class E in US) we would have seen it on TCAS well in advance.

Even when a controller without radar coverage could not see the VFR target, we COULD above 10,000ft and requested an amended clearance if we suspected a conflict. Or similarly, told the controller what we needed. ie FLxx and/or heading xxx. Does it not seem strange that the THREE parties involved were provided by one means or another with situational information and yet the Boeing still received an RA!

So from MY experience, this kind of occurance is not the fault of class E. It was how class E was used, or more to the point how it was failed to be used.

Food for thought

MJB


:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

****su-Tonka...

Pre Nov27 would the cost really be zero. The Lancair pilot would have to pay for the excersion through that airspace.

[the leyland brothers]

US pilots + US controllers + class E = no problem.

Australian pilots + Australian controllers + class E = O.M.G!!! :oh: :bored: :ooh:

You dont need a Royal Commission to identify the weak link in the chain....

[mjbow2]

Leyland....

I hope you're not inferring that we Ozzies are somehow less capable than our US counterparts when it comes to applying this simple user friendly system are you. ;)

[Wizofoz]

Just look at what mjbow2 is putting forward as an example of how WELL this system works!!

I counted 11 transmissions in his example, before the controller gives a de facto amended clearence for seperation (This is what I just don't get. IFR is NOT seperated from VFR err...except when it is) and then, as seems to invariably be the case, the big, fast expensive jet gets it's profile messed with so it avoids the lighty!!

If ATC has to seperate them any way, what the HELL is wrong with both aircraft having a clearence, being known to ATC, and ATC being able to, with ONE transmission, efficiently change one or both aircrafts course so a conflict never arises?

[the leyland brothers]

Wiz - have you ever flown into Bristol, England? Roughly how many Boeings fly through class G airspace every day on their way into Bristol? How many TCAS RAs do they have? In England in class G airspace, what is a RAS? What is a RIS?

English pilots + English controllers + class G (even!) = no problem.

Australian pilots + Australian controllers + class E = O.M.G!!! :oh: :bored: :ooh:

Australia - TCAS RA capital of the world ! :rolleyes:

[Wizofoz]

TLB,

Yes I have flown into Bristol twice and Inverness once, as well as spending all last summer operating into class D, E and G airspace in Greece and Italy. The system works quite well here, though we have frequent TAs and my company (though not me personaly) would seem to get about one RA a month. This is in a place that has grown up with this system, with pilots trained from the outset in these procedures, and where VFR flying is severely limited by weather and economic considerations.

My home base (Liverpool) is class D with quite an active flying training industry. They squawk, get clearences, we are positivley seperated from them (This is with one radar controller and one guy in the tower) and everyone is happy.

IFAustralian pilots + Australian controllers + class E = O.M.G!!!

ANDAustralia - TCAS RA capital of the world !

then obviously there has been a problem with the design/implementation/education of NAS.

Your solution seems to be "There shouldn't be a problem, so there isn't one."

Right...

[the leyland brothers]

Wiz,

When slagging off the US system you say :

This is what I just don't get. IFR is NOT separated from VFR err...except when it is.

When describing the system in England you say :

My home base (Liverpool) is class D with quite an active flying training industry. They squawk, get clearances, we are positively separated from them....

The UK Aerad Flight Information Supplement Rules of the Air section says :

Class D : IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are subject to ATC service, IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of VFR flights, VFR flights receive traffic information in respect of all other flights.

The UK Aerad Flight Information Supplement ATC section lists no UK differences from ICAO class D procedures.

Unless all the "active flying training industry" flights at Liverpool are conducted under the instrument flight rules (I dont think so :rolleyes: ) then your statement :

..we are positively separated from them..

is factually incorrect.

In the class D airspace at Liverpool England IFR aircraft are NOT positively separated from VFR aircraft.

Perhaps you might have said, in relation to the airport you fly out of everyday :

This is what I just don't get. IFR is NOT separated from VFR err...except when it is.

[VVS Laxman]

737 pilot followed the correct procedures for a traffic advisory And what exactly are the correct 'procedures' for a traffic advisory? It might be 'common sence' in the cold light of day; but in a high workload environment; complying with STARs, etc. perhaps the system isn't delivering the outcomes we all expect.

As for the mjbow2 waffle about how it could have played out, it didn't. A more efficient system which requires 11 transmissions instead of 4 (at worst) is a classic example of why E will take more resources than C.

And the VFR cost of getting a clearance and traversing Class C pre 27 November would have been the same as using the class E post 27 November; nudda.

Dick, you got it wrong.

[Wizofoz]

TLB,

Well, actually, MY ATS AIRSPACE Classification chart says regarding class D:-

Separation:- IFR from IFR

Services:- Air traffic control services including traffic information about VFR flights (and traffic avoidance advice on request).

That being said, I have never had to REQUEST traffic avoidance from VFR, I have simply never been cleared through the level of KNOWN (and in class D they are all KNOWN) VFR traffic.

So is that the crux of your argument? That D and E work when controllers ignore what the rules say and do what they know is right? In that case it WILL work in Aus when the likes of you and Dick simply tell the ATCers, "Look, it's really class C, but it makes us look good if it's got an "E" on it, ok guys?"

Makes a bit of a farce of it, don't you think?

[the leyland brothers]

Wiz,

You say that everyone at Liverpool is happy. That does not sound like a farce.

I think your ATS airspace classification chart and my Aerad data are entirely consistent. Were you suggesting there was an inconsistency?

I will make the assumption that you fly IFR most of the time.

Have you ever been lined up on Liverpool’s runway and ready to go and been told :

“XYZ, traffic is a Cessna 152 on upwind, he’ll be making an early right turn and remaining in the circuit – report sighting?”

“Traffic in sight, XYZ”

“XYZ, with that traffic in sight, clear for take-off runway 27”

That’s traffic information. You are not being “positively separated” from the VFR aircraft, nor is the controller required to provide a separation service.

I imagine that’s what they do at Liverpool?

Air traffic controllers are not required to separate IFR from VFR in class D – just the same as controllers are not required to separate IFR from VFR in class E.

As you point out, the only real difference between class D and class E is that in class D all VFR traffic is known.

But the VFR Lancair in the SMOKA incident was known, had been assigned a discreet transponder code, and had been radar identified.

Yet the controllers still cleared the IFR aircraft to descend through the level of known VFR traffic. Why would they do that?

I am not aware of any rule that says Australian class E radar controllers MUST descend IFR aircraft through the level of known VFR traffic. If you are aware of such a rule then please provide a reference for it.

To the contrary, common sense dictates that to do so would be highly unwise.

A responsible controller would say to an IFR aircraft :

“XYZ, traffic in your 2 o’clock, 1 mile, maintaining 9500 feet, a Cessna 182 – report sighting?”

or

“XYZ, traffic in your 2 o’clock, 1 mile, maintaining 9500 feet unverified, type unknown – report sighting?”

(as they do in the USA about 10,000 times a day)

“traffic in sight, XYZ”

“XYZ, descend altitude 9500 feet”

That is a traffic information service, not a separation service.

A controller who was trying to notch up another “NAS System Failure” would say to an IFR aircraft :

“XYZ, traffc in your 2 o’clock, 1 mile, maintaining 9500 feet, a Cessna 182 – descend altitude 9500 feet”

That goes just the same for class D as it does for class E.

Now THAT’S a farce.

[ftrplt]

TLB said,

Never heard of TRUE AIRSPEED then?

Funny that, I have. It has a magnificient effect on the effective range of your A/A missiles!!

Do you know what the prevailing winds are in that area? How about the G/S then??

Tell me what the percentage increase in TAS would be between 12500 and 16500????

How about the impact the high rate of climb of the Lancair in this situation (both for TCAS, ATC and the Virgin crew) as opposed to traffic in level flight?

I had a look at the chart the other day, to fly at 12500 till a reasonable distance west of BN, then climb to 16500 would not be a huge impost in terms of TAS or Fuel; versus the simplification of the separation issue.

The Lancair pilot should share SOME (not all) of the blame in the cause of this incident. There was no real need to be where he was, given the increase in risk accompanied.

Whether he has the knowledge to be aware of these separation concerns is another issue (NAS training??).

If you are going to operate high performance GA aircraft capable of the FL's (a change in GA culture??) then there is personal onus on himself to educate in the areas where this operation may cause problems.


Chippie Chappie; note I didnt ask you what you would do in your 172. I asked you if you would have had enough knowledge to be concerned with 16500 as opposed to say 12500, in the area north of BN. Would you have realised there probably would be issues with 16500 in that area?? If you didnt know what they were, would you have stayed away from 16500??


(Note: This is all separate to the debate of whether it should be C or E, I am purely discussing how this person operated in the airspace we actually have)

[the leyland brothers]

"Cost" and "enroute charges" are not the same thing.

[VVS Laxman]

"Cost" and "enroute charges" are not the same thing. yawn...

[mjbow2]

Tonka- I sit corrected:ouch:

Can some-one provide a link or point me to a published cost analysis of class E airspace over say class C. It would seem to me that running an equal amount of C would cost more than E. In the end the INDUSTRY would be paying for it. But, I shall reserve my judgement on that until I can read an analysis. Anyone?

[Lodown]

ftrplt, I must disagree with you there. If the guy has no restrictions on the level he flies at, why should he share some blame for flying at that level? If I had a Lancair, I'd be blasting through at that level too, and why not? If I had the choice between mixing it in the bumps at low level with a multitude of sightseeing VFR aircraft, or punching through in the FLs with IFR traffic knowing that I was on radar coverage, then I would have done exactly the same. There will only be more aircraft doing this in the future.

Someone else has blamed Class E, intoning that Class E in Europe and the US is not blessed with similar amounts of VFR weather as Australia. This argument doesn't hold water either. Class E works well across southern Europe and the US in similar weather conditions.

Separating two aircraft with radio communication and under radar coverage is not rocket science. It seems like everyone involved followed procedures, so it seems that the training can't be blamed.

So what's the problem with the procedures?

[Lodown]

Answer:

I don't know. I don't have any figures to support either the change or the status quo. Neither have I been involved in any consultation or working group. I'm not trying to justify NAS one way or the other. Correct me if I have my facts skewed, but what I can't understand is that in this particular case, everything was favouring the desired optimum for operations in Class E. All parties were on the radio. Both aircraft were in radar coverage with transponders operating. With everyone following procedures, the aircraft flight paths should not have converged to such an extent. No airspace design is supposed to work like this, but blaming ICAO Class E, or the pilots, or ATC for working within their operational tolerances just doesn't make sense.

I support changes in procedures so that we can move forward without the liklihood of this same event occurring in the future.

[Medium Salsa]

does DS use these forums? Hey, just because you make claims on radio, just saying ooops, I stuffed up is not enough, any thing less than a personal phone appology is not OK. I mean that generally, not just for the DS case.

salsa

[spinout]

It would appear that the Dick supporters have mastered the art of coloring in, that’s an achievement!

:ok:

[welcome_stranger]

I was going to ask Woomera to take those bright cayons away from The Leyland Bros., but then I realised that where they are they are not allowed any pens, pencils or sharp instuments, and there is even someone always watching to make sure they don't eat the craft paste.

;)

[fdr]

:confused:

So is Dick saying that he will disregard or ignore a time critical warning on his cessna 560 or whatever he has assuming he has TCAS fitted?

Good to share the air with professionals..............

[weasil]

Hey Pharcarnell, that's the best piece of advice I've seen online in a long time! Dick Smith can't have too many friends left after this fiasco, what a moron.

[ferris]

It's all become clear to me now.

I want to thank 'The Leyland Brothers', Dick and all the other NAS proponents. You want the US system (including the level of service provided by US controllers), and it seems you are going to get it.

NAS really means 'turning on the seperation when it's required' ie. when the controller spots a VFR who might be a problem for an IFR, turn on the separation.

Now, what this means for oz is; controller numbers will have to increase, to accomodate the re-sectorisation of radar sectors into smaller, traffic-spotting-friendly, US size sectors. Workload will be irregular (as found out by sectors that provide low-level FS 'services' already), requiring 'inefficient staffing' (you can't staff efficiently because workload becomes wx reliant). Plenty of midday TV, there boys!

If you think I'm joking- ask a US controller how big radar sectors are over there. Then ask an aussie.

Thanks, fellas. Nothing like demand to push up the pay packet. Who's going to pay? Well, certainly not GA. Right? Right?

Once again, thanks. ;)

[Ian McKenzie]

Yeah exactly ferris the brotherhood has won!!!

Whats the point of air traffic control if you cant make a buck out of it right? Its all about creating more jobs for our comrades.

Well done Dick Smith!

[MrWooby]

Dick, you are right, I have re-read the report and and you are correct, the Virgin pilot did make a motza of it.

As I have previously stated in a post on the original thread about this topic, the Virgin pilot was in-correct in turning the aircraft without having visual contact, as TCAS procedures rely on vertical manoeuvres only. In addition, TCAS procedures also state that manoeuvreing based on on TA only isn't advised, that the airways clearance is to be adhered to until a TA is received or until visual contact occurs and further manoeuvres are warranted.

[karrank]

The training I've recieved said lateral movement is what we should limit ourselves to, vertical is for TCAS to play with once I don't have a separation standard. Personally, if I had a flight in such proximity I would authorise the pilot to manouvre as required for avoidance, if it seemed neccessary. The ATSB said everybody did what was required of them, I assume this means the diversion was either:

:D Authorised by ATC, or

:} It was considered fair enuf for the crew to have turned in the situation.

I have had pilots request, then demand, then move anyway when approaching bad weather, when I've been unable to approve the request. The crew has to react when they are standing into danger. Back to your armchair MrWooby...

[MrWooby]

I see from your profile Karrank that you are the one that sits in the armchair. Maybe you need to revise your understanding of TCAS.

You are correct in that a pilot needs to be proactive in safety. The correct procedure for a TA is to try to visually acquire the traffic. If you cannot acquire the traffic the do nothing (follow your clearance) until a RA occurs. Is this safe, yes. Would I follow this, probably not. I would reduce RoD back to the minumum of 500fpm (which by the way still satisfies an ATC clearance to descend). If I thought that a level off was required to maintain separation, I would request this from ATC. However, I wouldn't turn the aircraft.

Turning an aircraft away from an UNSIGHTED aircraft based on a TCAS TA isn't the correct procedure. For starters the update rate on TCAS is poor, if you look at traffic on the TCAS display and then turn onto a new heading, the traffic moves around significantly before settling down to its new relative position. In the future we will have fast update rates based on transmitted GPS position, which will solve alot of problems.

[karrank]

The point is ATSB said everybody done good. To me this means the lateral movement must have been authorised, or somebody has decided it is fair enuf. I don't know which.

If you are correct and lateral movement may compromise the integrity of or prevent an RA, then this is shocking news and controllers all over the world that have absorbed what was thought to be the lessons of Lake Constance need the news now. Otherwise they are poised to make compromised separation situations worse by emergency vectoring.

Are you sure of your facts, or just wafting from your armchair?

[SM4 Pirate]

the Virgin pilot was in-correct in turning the aircraft without having visual contact Why?

The turn had nothing to do with the TCAS advice, it was based on a cockpit assessment (approved) based on the traffic advisory.

Post separation breakdown (sic) we are taught to get segregation (if you don't have 5 get 4, don't have 4 get three etc, these option are better than none) when all else fails, we understand that Vertical avoidance isn't ideal as it may conflict with TCAS RA advice... But what has that to do with the turn... Controllers world wide know this and when they are aware of an potential RA, turns is best... IFATCA policy... we learn and adapt...