Message for Dick

[mexicomel]

How is it that Australia has adopted an airspace reform package that doesnt have the support of commercial pilots who are responsible for flying aircraft full of hundreds of passengers ... and it doesnt have any backing from air traffic controllers, and is by no means safe. We are having to rely on private pilots for the safety of commercial aircraft and their passengers.

Dick, didnt you convince the government the package was going to cut costs? Where has the system saved any money. And what are you going to have to say when there's a mid air collision. It's not a matter of "if" it's a matter of "when" Dick.

And how did you manage to convince the governemnt to implement this **** system, that no one in the indusry wants.

[Dick Smith]

Mexicomel, a little information. In the US system, Class C airspace only extends from ground level to 4,000’. VFR aircraft can overfly enroute in the airspace above the Class C. This means they can come into conflict with airline aircraft on approach and departure in the Class E airspace. Because of the design of the airspace, these conflicts will normally take place between 20 and 30 miles from the airport and the chance of a conflict obviously diminishes further away from the airport.

What do we do in Australia? In practice we do not allow VFR aircraft to fly over places like Sydney when enroute. VFR aircraft flying from south to north will typically step down, remaining in Class G airspace and fly under the approach path to runway 07. They will then fly up the light aircraft lane over the recommended location (as shown on the VFR chart) of Hornsby. The typical altitude of the VFR aircraft here would be 2,500’.

Hornsby also happens to be the place where our system directs IFR airline traffic when inbound from the north – i.e. in the Aussie system we get the VFR and IFR aircraft to home in on the same location with as little as a 500’ separation in altitude. The VFR aircraft in this case has no transponder or radio requirement and a simple error in altimeter setting or an error of a few degrees in tracking puts the VFR aircraft on a collision course with an airline aircraft.

As stated previously, compare that with the US system, where it is obvious that the chance of a collision is far lower. With the US system, IFR and VFR aircraft are spread out as far as possible. In our existing Aussie system VFR and IFR are brought together over one location.

It should be pointed out that in the US system, generally the IFR routes are shown on the VFR charts, and an aircraft overflying a typical airport in a similar situation to Sydney would overfly at, say, 9,500’ and be 5 or more miles away from the approach and departure airline routes for that airport.

I suggest that you look at this issue objectively and decide which is safest. From the advice I have received I accept that the US system is safer.

In relation to cost saving, there has already been a very substantial cost saving because VFR aircraft are not directed to procedural separation standards at places like Launceston – I understand that Access Economics are doing a study which will show that the savings are going to be many millions of dollars per year to the general aviation fraternity.

In relation to Airservices Australia savings, it is obvious to most people that even the TAAATS system can allow for a reduction in sectors. I understand the only reason this reduction has not taken place is because management has been waiting to have the airspace finalised. Surely it is obvious that a combination of the TAAATS system and a modern, flexible airspace system can mean a reduction in sectors and therefore a reduction in costs.

Just as one example, the Class G sector that operates within 30 miles of Sydney will be unnecessary under the NAS system. This will give a saving of up to $1 million per year and improve safety because aircraft flying in the airspace below the Class C steps within 30 miles of Sydney will then monitor the approach and departure frequencies and get good awareness of the traffic that is around. At the present time they monitor a Class G radar frequency and do not get a situational awareness on IFR airline traffic approaching and departing Sydney Airport.

The reason the airspace package does not have the support of some commercial pilots – mainly airline – is that most have not experienced the greater flexibility and safety of the US system. I have not ever met a commercial pilot who has had extensive experience in both the Australian and the US system who does not believe that the US system is better. Yes, that applies to both radar covered airspace and non-radar covered airspace.

The present situation in Australia is that most commercial pilots have not had experience in the US system so can only make their decisions on what they know. Show me a commercial pilot who has flown extensively in both the US and Australian systems and who does not believe that the US system is better and then we can have further discussions.

[mexicomel]

DICK SMITH QUOTE: Show me a commercial pilot who has flown extensively in both the US and Australian systems and who does not believe that the US system is better and then we can have further discussions.

No Dick you show me.

[Watchdog]

Dick,

I am a former flight instructor and had CASA test approvals in GFPT, PPL, CPL, NVFR & I/R. I also owned light aircraft and the company I owned was also a GA maintenance organisation. Whilst not attacking them, I assure you, I have an intimate knowledge of the low hour, low currency aussie pilot's capabilities, shortcomings (as you and I were once) etc AND intimate knowledge of an average pilot owned private GA VFR aircraft varying serviceability standards (referring to avionics in this case).

It's not hard to forget to tune that frequency, forget to turn on that transponder or not know that the 25 year old transponder is u/s.

SCENARIO: With all of the best intentions, a pilot tracks just abeam an airport at say A035, just underneath the cloud base, having and the transponder is u/s or he forgot to turn it on (easy to do) and missed that call from ATC to us "clear Sector A DME arrival (if he understood as he is VFR rated 100 hrs TT) as the missus asked him something.
I come in off the coast in my 737 on a DME arrival (nose up attitude, small windows, bit of rain on the windscreen).
Just as I break thru the cloud my extended landing gear cleans up old mate at A035 and we all bite the dust.

There is no protection from the weakest link.



:suspect: :suspect: :suspect:

[blueloo]

Food for thought:

September 25, 1978. A gloriously clear Santa Ana day in San Diego. PSA Flight 182 originated in Sacramento, making an intermediate stop in Los Angeles, before flying the short leg back home to San Diego. 128 passengers were aboard, along with the seven operating crewmembers.

On approach to San Diego, N533PS was flying a visual approach to Runway 27. At the same time, student pilot David Lee Boswell and instructor Martin Kazy were doing ILS approaches to Runway 9, terminating in a missed approach. ATC directed him to climb away from the field at a heading of 070. At 3200 feet on descent, PS182 spotted the Cessna while climbing out of 1700' (at 09:00:21 local time.) The Cessna, still climbing, started to veer to course 090 (the same as PSA 182.) Both aircraft were told to maintain visual separation. The 727 overtook the Cessna, while descending, and the Cessna climbed right into the 727 right wing (not visible from the cockpit) at 09:01:47 local time, at an altitude of 2600 feet. The 727 was monitoring SAN tower, while the Cessna was on San Diego approach. (Paraphrased from Macarthur Job's book, Air Disaster Volume II, and the NTSB report.)


PSA 182

08.59:30 APP PSA one eighty-two, traffic twelve o'clock, one mile northbound
08.59:35 RDO-1 We're looking
08.59:30 APP PSA one eighty-two, additional traffic's, ah, twelve o'clock, three miles just north of the field northwestbound, a Cessna one seventy-two climbing VFR out of one thousand four hundred.
08:59:50 RDO-2 Okay, we've got that other twelve.
08.59:57 APP Cessna seven seven one one golf, San Diego departure radar contact, maintain VFR conditions at or below three thousand five hundred, fly heading zero seven zero, vector final approach course,
09.00:16 APP PSA one eighty-two, traffic's at twelve o'clock, three miles out of one thousand seven hundred.
09.00:21 CAM-2 Got'em.
09.00:22 RDO-1 Traffic in sight.
09.00:23 APP Okay, sir, maintain visual separation, contact Lindbergh tower one three three point three, have a nice day now.
09.00:28 RDO-1 CAM-2 Flaps five
09.00:43 CAM-1 Is that the one we're looking at.
09.00:43 CAM-2 Yeah, but I don't see him now.
09.00:44 RDO-1 Okay, we had it there a minute ago.
09.00:47 TWR One eighty-two, roger.
09.00:50 RDO-1 I think he's pass(sed) off to our right.
09.00:51 TWR Yeah.
09.00:52 CAM-1 He was right over here a minute ago.
09.00:53 TWR How far are you going to take your downwind one eighty-two, company traffic is waiting for departure.
09.00:57 RDO-1 Ah probably about three to four miles.
09.00:59 TWR Okay.
09.01:07 TWR PSA one eighty-two, cleared to land.
09.01:08 RDO-1 One eighty-two's cleared to land.
09.01:11 CAM-2 Are we clear of that Cessna?
09.01:13 CAM-3 Suppose to be.
09.01:14 CAM-1 I guess.
09.01:20 CAM-4 I hope.
09.01:21 CAM-1 Oh yeah, before we turned downwind, I saw him about one o'clock, probably behind us now.
09.01:38 CAM-2 I was looking at that inbound there.
09.01:45 CAM-1 Whoop!
09.01:46 CAM-2 Aghhh!
09.01:47 CAM Sound of impact
09.01:49 CAM-1 Easy baby, easy baby.
09.01:51 CAM [sound of electrical system reactivation tone on cvr, system off less than one second]
09.01:51 CAM-1 What have we got here?
09.01:52 CAM-2 It's bad.
09.01:53 CAM-2 We're hit man, we are hit.
09.01:56 RDO-1 Tower, we're going down, this is PSA.
09.01:57 TWR Okay, we'll call the equipment for you.
09.01:58 CAM [sound of stall warning]
09.02:04.5 CAM [end of recording]

[ferris]

Dick saidJust as one example, the Class G sector that operates within 30 miles of Sydney will be unnecessary under the NAS system He has also stated, hundreds of times, that oz is GETTING THE US SYSTEM.

In the 'US System', there is a thing called 'flight following'. I look forward to it's introduction in Australia, and hence Dick's correction to his obviously inadvertant mistake, above.

Oh, unless Access Economics says differently.

[Arkad]

Dick,

I am an expat yank pro pilot with many years in both systems and i have to agree that the US system is superior in terms of efficiency in pushing tin. I agree with the statement that Australians just don't know how GOOD it can be. If people would just quit whingeing and look at figures and work with the NAS and not against it I think it would go alot smoother. I still think Oz attitude in aviation has a long way to go before we will see the same efficiency.

Have been pretty quiet over this whole issue and just reading about others experiences but, being unable to find the same complaints that others come up with I felt that I should add my 2c.



:ok:

[tobzalp]

rofl when I looked at the topic I thought it said massage for dick. His response is pretty much full of that really.

[kookabat]

Just a question.
I'm a low-hour pilot (passed a GFPT, that's it) so I can't speak from experience, BUT...
Hypothetically, if you're flying in an area like, say, Jabiru or somewhere equally out in the sticks, which frequency would YOU monitor, Dick?

[Gunner B12]

Call me cynical but a post by a new member (4 posts) gives dick the chance to get back on his soapbox whilst appearing to be replying to criticisim, supported by a first time poster who just happens to fit the description requested by Dick seems a bit suspect. Is Dick using the anonymity of the forum to get his point across?

Perhaps Woomera can comment if it doesent break the rules.

If not however I would ask, as a PPL who gained his licence not that long before the changes came into force, How these changes are supposed to bring benefits to GA. The reason I ask is I for one have not felt safe since the changes were introduced to the point that since then I have not left the training area or CCts and as someone who longed to learn to fly for more years than I would care to mention I find it saddening that I am in the position of having to seriously consider whether to continue.

Dick.... The likes of me are the bread and butter of the flying schools/clubs, if you claim to be helping GA then why is it people are being forced away from flying due to safety fears?

Have you (in your official capacity) even considered canvassing pilots regarding what you can do to increase the acceptance of these changes? or as it seems to me, have you just introduced them and walked away from the educational aspect.

Unfortunately in a safety environment "RTFM" doesn't really cut it.

forgive me if I am a little naive but I am just the PPL you claim to be benefitting with these changes

Dick

Want to convince someone then PM me and I will give you MY number and let's see if you will ring me!


GB12 Disillusioned low time PPL

[Watchdog]

OK Arkad

So, being a former US pro pilot, can YOU put my fears at bay and explain how we can be protected in such a scenario I suggested?
(Ensure you address aging aircraft issues please)

Blueloo - I remember seeing the photos of that accident with the 72 in a steep nose down attitude - tail alight.
:sad:

[druglord]

mexicomel, i've flown both and much prefer the US system, but I'm staying out of the safety debate.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Dick,

When may we expect a straight answer to the simple question posed by mexicomel?
How is it that Australia has adopted an airspace reform package that doesnt have the support of commercial pilots who are responsible for flying aircraft full of hundreds of passengers ... and it doesnt have any backing from air traffic controllers, and is by no means safe. We are having to rely on private pilots for the safety of commercial aircraft and their passengers

[blueloo]

Watchdog yep - its a scary picture. I wanted to link it to show it, but the web site i sponged off had the picture link disabled :(

and there aint any free advertsing for a site which has sponged a photo from somewhere else either.


http://www.cactuswings.com/psa/museum/pic/crash1.jpg

Photo Courtesy of the PSA History Page;
http://www.cactuswings.com/psa/museum/crash.htm

[Howard Hughes]

Arkad,

I too have flown both systems and find the US system to be more efficient and user friendly.

However what we have here now in NAS, is not the US system, it is an unsafe hybrid.

There seems to be a few things missing in the system here:
ie: Extensive radar coverage (and the powers to be have admitted this by introducing portable radars).
Lower controller/aircraft ratios. (perhaps some of my ATC counterparts could jump in here and quote ratios)
As metioned previously VFR flight following, ahh gods gift, but once again we need RADAR!!

The aviation industry after all is a vital service to allow business/government leaders to move around the country and is vital to our economy!!

We should be striving for the most safe, efficient and cheapest system we can. (notice the order!!)

Dick and the NAS proponents have so far failed to provide any evidence other than hearsay and inuendo as to how NAS achieves any of these objectives, whilst the other side has put forth many factual instances to highlight the contrary opinion.

My two cents, Cheers, HH.

:ok:

PS: As to the whole radio issue debate, HOW CAN WE ASSURE PILOTS ARE ON THE APPROPRIATE FREQUENCY? I dont care if we are on an area frequency, ctaf, mbz or approach. I just want to be able to talk to the bandit that just flashed across my 12 and perhaps even know he was there!!

[mexicomel]

Thanks for your reply Dick, but...

In the USA, Class C airspace applies only to controlled airports with busy traffic environments, and always with radar. VFR aircraft may over fly in Class E airspace, but must have a functioning transponder. Custom and practice in the American pilot group is that the VFR pilots would normally contact the approach radar controller and request 'flight following', which
gives them information on traffic in their area. It would be considered 'bad form' or an amateur effort to overfly in radio silence. Even if a VFR pilot chose not to talk to the controller the VFR aircraft would be detected on radar and the airline aircraft would be given information on the conflicting VFR aircraft. In most cases the airline pilots would request radar guidance
away from the conflict.

The very busy airports in the USA operate to a higher airspace
classification; Class B. It is interesting that if the American review
criteria are applied to the Australian Capital cities, then Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane all qualify for upgrade to the more restrictive Class B procedures. Airline industry and Union representatives have put the case for inclusion in the NAS program, but as this process they have been ignored by the Minister, the ARG, and the NAS implementation group.

The assumption that confliction would occur 20 to 30 miles from the airport is based on the VFR aircraft maintaining an altitude of 6500ft to 9500ft, a most unlikely event in most weather conditions, as cloud cover will usually force the VFR pilot to fly lower.

In Australia at all of major airports (i.e. capital cities) we have low level access routes for VFR aircraft to use without talking to controllers, this is what you (Dick) are referring to when you talk about VFR aircraft being forced to fly underneath the Sydney approach paths. It is not true that VFR aircraft MUST fly at low altitude past Sydney, it is possible to overfly Sydney at cruising altitude, the requirement is to talk to an air traffic controller and obtain a clearance. The process is facilitated by advance planning and the submission of a flight plan prior to take off. That
is you have to prepare and do a little work, inconvenient to some but no sweat for anyone with a professional approach to flying

The reference to Hornsby is that aircraft on descent into Sydney cross abovethe light aircraft access lane near this point. In theory it is possible to have 500ft vertical separation at this point. In practice the airline aircraft are about 1000ft higher than this on a stable descent into Sydney, it is also the turn off point for an approach to Richmond RAAF base.

Historically excessive altitude by a VFR aircraft has not been a problem in this area, tracking errors by the VFR aircraft result in an infringement of either Sydney or Richmond control zones, the intruders are picked up on surveillance radar and the commercial or military aircraft are directed out of the way. It is an old problem, but not one which would be alleviated by
the NAS program.

The reference to the US system is a furphy. The tragic history of the US system has resulted in VFR aircraft crossing the approach and departure paths of airline traffic with resulting mid-air collisions, eg San Diego and Los Angeles accidents.

It would have to be a bright sunny day for a VFR aircraft to overfly Sydney at anything like 9500ft! Most light aircraft pilots transiting north to south on the east coast would do so via a route west of the great dividing range to take advantage of the significantly better flying weather to the west. The NSW coast line bulges out to the east, with the result that a shorter track distance can usually be achieved west of the divide. Flying
the coast is usually the result of bad weather over the mountains, and results in a very low cruising altitude to stay below the cloud base.

Cost savings, are they real or perceived? The notion that there are millions of dollars of cost savings for general aviation comes from you Dick. Whether you have a clearance to overfly
in Class C airspace or just do it in Class E airspace makes zero difference to track miles and fuel burn. What TAAATS sector savings are there? This refers to a number of studies which conclude that there is a possibility of reducing the number of controllers required to perform air traffic control in the TAAATS centres by reducing the number of control sectors, i.e. consolidation of geographic control sectors. One sector equals one work station and has to be staffed appropriately. Much of
this work was based on the wishful thinking that Australia could remotely provide ATC services for other countries such as Fiji. To do so required freeing up TAAATS capacity, however Fiji has gone its own way to modernise its ATC system and keep the revenue for airways charges in Fiji. The only states being provided with high altitude ATC service from TAAATS are The Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, and these can be regarded as
administrative client states of Australia on many other levels.

The Class G airspace sector within 30nm of Sydney. This exists to provide a Radar Information Service (RIS) to VFR aircraft operating in close proximity to Sydney and Richmond. Its purpose is to provide navigation assistance and traffic information. The service was created to help reduce the number of inadvertent penetrations of controlled airspace. Airservices has stated
that it would continue under NAS. The service is often combined with one of the approach control frequencies during quiet traffic periods, there would be little cost saving under your version Dick.

RIS is also provided around Melbourne, Coolangatta, Brisbane, and Maroochydore. Near some of these locations the service is only provided by the approach controller with resulting frequency congestion at times of peak demand, this is an ongoing
problem whose solution is on the back burner because of the distracting nonsense of NAS.

[Dick Smith]

ferris, yes the NAS system being introduced in Australia will include a US FAA style flight following for VFR aircraft. You may remember that this was a major part of the 1991 AMATS design that I was involved in. It was also a major part of Airspace 2000.

In each case Airservices or its predecessor has claimed, “we do not have time to train the controllers.” My suggestion is that if you have some influence at Airservices that you get the management to go ahead, do the training and introduce a proper US style flight following system. Our present Australian designed RAS “one shot” service is completely useless.

I believe the primary reason that flight following has not been introduced into Australia is that it is a workload permitting, no cost service, and the Airservices management is not interested in providing any service that does not make a profit as it will not assist their bonuses.

[Frank Burden]

Dick,

Does the US system have a SARTIME lodgement system for VFR similar to CENSAR. How does it work? Do you have to phone them up after the flight or can you cancel via radio? If you ask for 'flight following' does this cancel your lodged SARTIME? Just wondering how it all works.

From another galaxy far away:

Near misses spark air safety call

There are fears of possible clashes between military and civilian aircraft. Air accident investigators are urging a review of air safety over parts of Britain after a series of near misses between civilian and military jets. There have been nine narrow escapes in four years, investigators say.

They are particularly concerned about repeated incidents over east Scotland, north east England and the North Sea.

The joint use of airspace by military and civilian planes needs urgent review, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch says.
There were two "extremely serious" incidents recently which would have resulted in "inevitable loss of life" had the aircraft collided, they say.

Of the nine incidents highlighted, the most recent was in February when an oil rig helicopter missed an RAF Tornado jet by just 50ft.

Training areas

Accident investigators are now calling on the Ministry of Defence and the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct a high level review in order to minimise the risk of large scale loss of life.

BBC Transport Correspondent Simon Montague said one solution would be to increase the regulated airspace around civilian airports. The problem was that the airspace above north eastern Britain was one of the few large areas left which were available for military training.

Any moves to increase controls around civilian airports would necessarily reduce the size of this training area, our correspondent said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3709567.stm
:rolleyes:

[Here to Help]

Mr D Smith,
I believe the primary reason that flight following has not been introduced into Australia is that it is a workload permitting, no cost service, and the Airservices management is not interested in providing any service that does not make a profit as it will not assist their bonuses.
Your argument does not hold. Many services are provided on a no-cost, workload permitting basis by Airservices, so why aren't they banned or removed?

Even today, clearances in Class C are available to VFR on request. VFRs are provided with a separation service from IFR and a traffic information service on other VFR. It costs nothing and is safer. If you truly believe what you say, then ASA should make all Class C Class A, to prevent anyone getting a service they don't pay for. Think of the savings on sectors if ASA banned all free services to VFR.

Today in radar E airspace, any VFR flight that is squawking, workload permitting, is being "followed" by the controller. It costs them nothing. If there is a potential conflict or VCA, the controller can attempt to identify the aircraft and provide traffic or navigation information. This happens daily. Whilst not true "flight following", it too is a free service, however one made necessary by the design of the airspace that doesn't include all of the US services.

Why didn't flight following get introduced with NAS from the start? Surely not because of training issues.

Does the introduction of flight following, in your view, mean an increase or decrease in the current number of sectors?

[Atlas Shrugged]

I believe the primary reason that flight following has not been introduced into Australia is that it is a workload permitting, no cost service, and the Airservices management is not interested in providing any service that does not make a profit as it will not assist their bonuses.
Absolute rubbish!

The reason is that we neither have, nor are likely to have, the extent of radar coverage in this country needed for it to be effective.

AS

[ferris]

Dick, thanks for the reply- but I am confused.yes the NAS system being introduced in Australia will include a US FAA style flight following for VFR aircraft Who will provide this service? You seem to advocate, on this very thread, closure of sectors that provide services to ClassG traffic (such as RAS sectors) saving 'millions of dollars per year'. You then lambast AsA for doing exactly what you advocate (saving money, and reducing services to those who don't pay ie. VFRs).

Now, whilst I agree that AsA has become a disgusting, profit focussed tax-grab, instead of a piece of safety-focussed national infrastructure, it has done so at the behest of your user-pays ilk. It is doing government policy.

You want AsA to provide you with a free VFR service (remarkably similar to what used to happen- you know, free enroute VFR clearance), whilst you simultaneously castrate the controllers by removing the ability to provide a better service (trashing a perfectly good airspace system), and telling everyone how AsA could save 'millions' by removing those same controllers.

I must have missed the bit about flight following in the Willougby report. Maybe it'll be in the Access Economics one?

I am at least heartened by your philosophical shift, and hope that you will now swing your formidable political powers of persuasion to making the Minister realise the error that NAS will save money, and that once the airspace system has been repaired (to pre- Nov 27), the real problem has been the CHARGING REGIME all along.

[CaptainMidnight]

Perhaps what the "flight following" proposal really means is that to operate in class E airspace, in addition to the transponder requirements, VFR aircraft must establish and maintain two-way contact with ATC. The VFR gets the illusion that someone is watching over them, but more importantly ATC can talk to all aircraft. It doesn't resolve the downgrading of C airspace to E, but band-aids the problem.

[triadic]

Even if you fully imported the complete US system and all it's facilities such as radar etc etc... it would not work the same, because the CULTURE is different in Australia.

The only way to introduce a major change such as this and gain some level of acceptance is to address the culture issues with a big time education and training program that in my view may have to be on going for years.. (>5).

The NAS program to date has NOT addressed these issues in any shape or form and until it does (with the appropriate resources - which may well exceed the cost of the savings?) this program will continue on a very rocky road.

There is no doubt that airspace reform is needed in Oz, but it will continue on a rocky road until the real issues are addressed including appropriate risk management, training and education and of course safety and cost savings(?).

If savings are made, then maybe the cost of charts might be addressed...?

And by the way Dick, my experience in the US is that one just does not overfly a C/D zone (because you can) etc. The culture and training is different and the awareness of the hazards etc are known if such a flight path is proposed. Import that culture and we might get somewhere.

[Lodown]

Fully agree with you Triadic. I'm keen to see these supposed cost savings. To me the whole process smacks of a pea under one of three cups. The costs are just getting shuffled somewhere else. I'm also keen to see the guidelines, limitations and directives imposed on any cost study. I have a strong feeling that ancillary expenses and costs not immediately associated with direct flight and navigation costs will not be considered in the equations.

[tobzalp]

Still waiting to see your response to cost savings D Smith.

Side note, there have been a couple of new near misses that are not airproxes or incidents cos NCD. Lets see what ATSB have to say about these. Will you be posting a 'Some truth about the... incident' thread dick?

[stabilsed]

Hey Dick, Aussie pilots have not flown in the USA? Well here are some pilots that have:

NAS UNREALISTIC - IFALPA: NAS is "unrealistic" for Australia, according to the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations president Captain Dennis Dolan He said it was unrealistic for the Australian NAS to be modelled on the US ATC system.

"The US and Australian airspaces are completely different in terms of the level of traffic and radar coverage that exists in the US," he said. "One cannot compare a country that has more than 85% radar coverage to one that has only 15%.

"Australia has moved from a much safer system, to one where the responsibility of separation has been transferred from the professional air traffic controllers and pilots to the amateur recreational pilot, and placed a greater reliance on 'see and avoid' procedures.

"This method of separating aircraft has been acknowledged internationally as a last resort procedure, and is completely unsuitable for high speed jet transport operations."

Dolan was in Sydney for the 59th International IFALPA conference, attended by 300 pilots from 48 member countries.

(Thanks to Australian Aviation Magazine).

As usuall Dick, you sprout your ingnorant and arrogant pontifications, failing to answer in a direct manner any questions put to you. No wonder you are such good mates with Anderson at each and every election time.

To say that midair incidents and close calls occur less in the USA is just a barefaced lie. Your arrogance is breathtaking and your ego is quite simply out of control.

By the way, when will you be making a formal apology to the Virgin crew you quite obviously slandered on talk-back radio? Read the report before you mouth off you twit. You simply succeeded in making yourself look twice the fool.

NAS UNREALISTIC - IFALPA: NAS is "unrealistic" for Australia, according to the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations president Captain Dennis Dolan He said it was unrealistic for the Australian NAS to be modelled on the US ATC system.

[mjbow2]

Frank Burden

SARWATCH/CENSAR is a function of Flight Services in the US. For VFR aircraft wishing to file a VFR flight plan they have the option of opening their flight plan by calling either by phone or on the radio and 'closing' it in the same manner.

Flight Services are the same folks who provide 'Flight Watch'/Wx briefing/Flight plan filing services....on seperate frequencies of course.

Calling ATC for flight following has nothing to do with your 'flight plan' thats been filed with Flight Services, while under VFR. ATC does not have the first clue if a VFR flight has an active VFR flight plan or not. As a general rule ATC will not call Flight Services for you to cancel/close the VFR flight plan, although I have had them contact fligt services for me on a couple of occasions when I couldnt raise the local Flight Service Station on the radio. Filing the VFR flight plan initiates SAR if you do not CLOSE the flight plan on arrival.

In the US, like when you file an IFR flight plan with Flight Services, if you dont 'activate' or 'open' a VFR flight plan it just drops out of the system after a specified period.

I am curious why instead of opposing the NAS, people arent getting behind the additional changes that need to be made to replicate the US system that many here have acknowledged as being a workable and safe system for the US. For example, I think someone mentioned the need for more radar coverage. then why not argue for more radar rather than Rollback?

MJB

[CaptainMidnight]

For example, I think someone mentioned the need for more radar coverage. then why not argue for more radar rather than Rollback? :confused:
radar installations cost big $$$$$$$$ (and who do you think pays for them?), and
the traffic density currently outside radar coverage doesn't justify additional installationsIt ain't that simple.

[mjbow2]

CM...

I think you missed my point.

I personally couldnt care less if there is more radar coverage here or not. I am quite used to flying through controlled airspace in the US, (E) where there is no radar coverage and where E overlies C and B.

It seems that some folks are hell bent on rollback, rather than having an open mind to suggest ways of implementing the much more user friendly US system. I just cant help thinking that the stongest opponants of NAS here have NEVER flown in the US.

And by the way Dick, my experience in the US is that one just does not overfly a C/D zone (because you can) etc. The culture and training is different and the awareness of the hazards etc are known if such a flight path is proposed.

Triadic. I have no idea what your experience is in the states but even as a student pilot I would fly over top of class B and C airspace on a regular basis. My experience is by no means out of the ordinary. It is very common for VFR traffic to overfly C and B. It is usually the quickest way to transit said airspace. In fact it is not uncommon for IFR aircraft to Cancel IFR if they were landing at a secondary airport, simply to avoid the often lengthy vectors around the arriving and departing traffic flow. I (as with many others) coming into Salt lake City or Denver for example cancel IFR, fly over top of class B until near the airport of intended landing then 'drop' through class B which the Controllers happily gave us clearance for. In fact the controllers would usually issue us with the class B clearance when we cancelled IFR. IE cleared to descend through class B at xyz.

Are you suggesting that US pilots are more trainable or are able to comprehend the hazards of flying over class B/C better than Australian pilots. I think you have in fact supported Dick here. Its a training issue, not a design fault.

[triadic]

MJB... I don't intend to argue with you, but you have my comment on my experience. No doubt it varies a bit over there as well as here?

The issue is and always has been "training and education" and the need to understand that the culture is different here from the US.

Of course you can import the US system, but it is quite unreasonable to expect everyone here to pick it up overnight like they were trained in the US.

To date the NASIG have not addressed the differences in culture and the need to apply the T&E accordingly. This applies to both pilots and controllers of course.

A significant part of the problem that we are having is that none of the main players trying to sell this in Oz have any real credibility within the industry. As a result the T&E is even harder.

The T&E program must be comprehensive and be subject to audit on delivery and understanding. Nobody to date seems to understand that this will need a bucket of $$ and will in all probability need to be ongoing for at least 5 or more years.


Are you suggesting that US pilots are more trainable or are able to comprehend the hazards of flying over class B/C better than Australian pilots. I think you have in fact supported Dick here. Its a training issue, not a design fault.

No, I am not at all. The training standards or the pilots there or here is not the issue. They all have a similar profile. I have not suggested it is a design fault, but unless the model is the same then the risk analysis should address any differences. Pilots there understand the hazards of flying over B/C because they have been trained to. Oz pilots to date have not. Yes it is a training issue. It is also a CULTURE issue.

[Lodown]

There are several issues involved. As has been mentioned many times previously, if we were in fact getting the US airspace then there wouldn't be many of the issues that there are now.

Mjbow2, NAS is NOT the US airspace. True, it has many simliarities and the proponents would like to have everyone believe it is an exact copy of the US system, but it isn't. I'll be one of the first to agree that the US airspace is great. I enjoy flying in the US, but NAS as a comparison falls short in many areas.

If you take the macro view, everything looks fine - Class C, E, and G with procedures approximating the US. But you need to take the micro view as well. Then you find:

- no flight following
- extremely limited radar coverage
- separation in Class E based on TCAS
- much less information on charts in Australia
- a culture in the US that encourages pilots to have and utilise transponders against a subculture in Australia to remain inconspicuous
- poor training and education
- a multitude of flight paths designed around the previous airspace for noise minimisation that have to be modified (read: a political hot potato) for the NAS and Class E

The problems are all in the details and NAS is short on those. Australian airspace is currently stuck in limbo. Can't go forward and can't go back. We are just now at the stage of trying to fill procedural holes that have arisen since implementation. By trying to combat these deficiencies, we're affecting future intentions. Future procedures can't be determined because we still haven't got the present procedures worked out and this makes any intended education a moot point. (There is only one thing worse than telling people nothing at all, and that's providong them with the wrong information.) Problems with the NAS implementation are now causing hold ups in other areas. NAS is falling in a heap because of a half-baked implementation plan. Does it sound like a dog chasing its own tail? And meanwhile Dick Smith is over it all telling anyone who'll listen (and there aren't many left) that NAS will save millions.

I have little doubt the end state will be beneficial if we ever get there, but in the meantime there are many people working their butts off just trying to keep the travelling public safe in this twilight zone.