The NAS Debate: Other Opinions [Archive]

Dick Smith

16th Jun 2004, 05:30

Gunner B12, you have asked who has declared the American system as world’s best practice. It wasn’t me but anyone who has had experience in flying in many airspace systems around the world would agree that it is a very good one. Why wouldn’t it be? It has evolved over 100 years with large amounts of money available (America is the wealthiest country on earth) and it is a very litigious society so pressure is brought to bear to have the best balance of safety, freedom and cost. So whilst it may not be the best one in the world in every situation, it is certainly an excellent system.

Jet_A_Knight, in relation to see and avoid everything I have done has been to reduce the amount of unalerted see and avoid. I understand I am the only person who has consistently asked BASI/ATSB for a print out of CTAF/MBZ incidents. They show that we have a high number of unalerted see and avoid incidents close to the airport. These are the incidents that are most likely to turn into a mid-air collision. That is why I have worked tirelessly to have UNICOMs at airports. Once, as Chairman of CASA, I brought in legislation that made a UNICOM compulsory under certain circumstances. This was rolled by pressure from the airlines and Cheryl Kernot.

You make out as if the present system before 27 November 2003 complied with the BASI recommendation in relation to no unalerted see and avoid for airline aircraft. The December 2003 ATSB report “Airspace related occurrences involving Regular Public transport and Charter Aircraft within Mandatory Broadcast Zones” shows that there are a rising number of incidents in MBZs of unalerted see and avoid. This is not such a problem in the USA because non-tower airports that have airline traffic virtually always have a UNICOM operator which means that there is a third party present to confirm that the radio is on frequency and operating. That is commonsense.

As you would know, the airlines have constantly fought me and outmanoeuvred everything I have done so they do not have to have the small cost of a UNICOM at the non-tower airports to which they operate. Don’t worry, one day I’ll win this one. (Just as I’ll get a tower at Broome!) I’m hoping it is before there is an unnecessary accident.

To all the pilots who support our unique “calling in the blind” mandatory rules, I ask you to think again. There is no reason why we cannot have UNICOMS as the United States has. There is no measurable cost, and even though it may seem strange that non-ATC trained people can give a very useful service at an airport, it is so. Go flying in the USA and you will very quickly see how fantastic their UNICOMS are.

WALLEY2, don’t get your toga in such a knot. I have as much right as anyone to write a letter to the CSIRO and ask them about the CSIRO’s involvement in your report. In fact, the letter was simply a follow-up to a previous letter I had sent in relation to Neale Fulton’s claim that the hemispherical rule that I introduced was dangerous, and that Australia must return to the quadrantal rule and full position reporting for VFR. I’ve always taken this CSIRO claim seriously, as if it is factual it must be complied with. So far, the CSIRO has not confirmed that the organisation supports Neale Fulton’s quite extraordinary claims. Can you imagine? What Dr Fulton is actually saying is that the ICAO rule that allows VFR aircraft to fly at 500’ intervals (and therefore different levels to IFR) is not safe and must be reversed. I think most would agree that would bring the American and European system to a halt – i.e. all of the VFR aircraft would be flying at the same level as IFR and be back in the system as they were before 1991 in Australia.

Capcom, I will endeavour to answer some of the questions.

· Does AusNAS save money for our Aviation Industry?
Most certainly. Already aircraft are not having to divert many extra miles in Class C airspace above Class D. I’m getting reports all the time of the quite substantial savings being made by aircraft. For example, the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launceston incident says that before the 27 November 2003 changes, on up to 50% of occasions when he overflew Launceston he would be diverted up to 15 miles off track in CAVOK conditions if there was an IFR aircraft – even a Navajo – present in the controlled airspace. This was because there was no radar at Launceston and so procedural separation of 10 minutes had to be given quite often if aircraft passed through the same levels. 10 minutes at 180 knots is 30 miles. That is a lot of extra flying and a lot of extra cost.

· Do VFR pay less now than prior to Nov27 2003?
Most certainly they do because in many cases they are not forced to file an IFR flight plan (and pay enroute charges) to be guaranteed a prompt clearance through what was Class C airspace.

· Do VFR receive the same level of safety in Class E that was Class C prior to Nov 27 2003?
Probably a higher level now as they can track direct and they are not forced over tiger country in single engine aircraft – which often happened. I was recently speaking to a pilot of an aircraft who on numerous times overflying Hamilton Island was kept holding at the control zone boundary over water in a single engine aircraft. Now that aircraft can fly in Class E airspace at a higher level of safety.

· On what criteria did you decide that AusNAS was superior to the LLAMP?
LLAMP completely removed any directed traffic service for IFR airline aircraft at non-tower airports. This was outrageous. It was the same error of the infamous 11/11 Buck Brooksbank proposal. In becoming obsessed with VFR radio arranged separation, the LLAMP group were forced to delete a directed traffic information service for IFR. No country in the world has such a system. Every proposal I have ever been involved in has either a traffic information service in the terminal area for IFR, or a Class E traffic separation service. The other major problem with LLAMP was that CTAFs were to be removed and new areas called DAFs (Designated Area Frequency) established, which had up to 32 aerodromes on the one frequency. By law all VFR aircraft transiting the DAF enroute had to monitor this circuit traffic with mandatory reporting requirements. Nothing like this had ever been attempted in the world before. It basically would have destroyed GA as we know it today in Australia – and it is already half destroyed. Also, most importantly, LLAMP was a unique invention. I have only ever supported proven systems. I am very conservative when it comes to air safety. I like copying the success of others in everything in life.

· Did you set out the reason for your decision to progress your AusNAS to Minister Anderson?
First of all, it wasn’t just my decision, it was the unanimous decision of the Aviation Reform Group, who are all people of independent minds, views and expertise. People like Ted Anson (the Chairman of CASA at the time), who whilst not an aviator took extensive advice from people at CASA. The reasons were obvious. The LAMP system was invented and would have resulted in a system that was like nothing ever used anywhere else in the world before – even Australia. Whereas the NAS system was highly proven. Remember, the NAS plan was (and still is) to follow the US procedures that they use in radar airspace, and to follow the US procedures that they use in non-radar airspace.

· During face to face discussions (Jan 2004 YSTW tower) with controllers in the tower cab, and after explanation of the airspace specifics by those controllers did you agree that the terminal airspace above TW that was “C” should at the very least be class “D” below A065 (Outside RADAR coverage)?
No I did not.

· Did you during that discussions sign a statement that said “RPT aircraft should have alerted see-and-avoid”? If so do you stand by that statement?
Yes, I certainly did sign that statement and that has always been a view of mine. Where I am different is that I am convinced from the evidence that our system did not provide an alerted see and avoid situation because a calling in the blind procedure resulted in many errors being made and therefore many unalerted see and avoid incidents. That is why I have worked constantly to have third party operators at non-tower airports.

· Do you believe Air traffic controllers can separate/segregate/initiate collision avoidance between 2 aircraft when only one or both may not be subject to clearance and therefore not under ‘control’ rules?
Yes, I believe an excellent safe service can be provided as this is what happens 365 days a year with 20 times the density of traffic in the USA.

· Are you aware that ICAO provide for ATS ‘collision avoidance advice’ in classes C (VFR/VFR) and D (IFR/VFR) only?
This could well be so, but I’m not sure what it has to do with anything. I have found that ICAO is simply an organisation which takes most of its airspace advice from air traffic controllers who have a vested interest in the outcome of the regulation. ICAO also has some very strange rules in relation to airworthiness requirements and I have been told these are mainly in place for poor third world countries!

· Do you expect Air Traffic Controllers to accept responsibility for ‘collision avoidance’ between IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR in classes E and G?
I believe it is a shared responsibility. I would be quite happy to follow the responsibility requirements that exist in the USA. After all, I’ve never yet heard from an American controller that their airspace gives unfair responsibility.

· Do you support the latest ‘VRA’ proposition in E areas above terminal areas?
No, I have no idea what it is.

*Lancer*

16th Jun 2004, 05:45

Mr Smith,

You crave a tower at Broome, and are pushing for Unicom operators at other airports to improve traffic awareness while allowing greater freedoms for GA traffic...

And on the other hand propose 'see-and-avoid' as the primary collision avoidance measure in class E airspace between VFR/IFR traffic.

You claim that the tower/Unicoms would improve saftey, and on the other hand propose that implementing 'see-and-avoid' as the sole, real measure doesn't reduce it. Aren't these two philosophies in direct conflict with each other?

scramjet77

16th Jun 2004, 13:50

Quote: "in relation to see and avoid everything I have done has been to reduce the amount of unalerted see and avoid. I understand I am the only person who has consistently asked BASI/ATSB for a print out of CTAF/MBZ incidents. They show that we have a high number of unalerted see and avoid incidents close to the airport".

Dick, is that the reason why you have tried to introduce NO MANDATORY CARRIAGE OF RADIO in the soon to be created CTAF's as part of NAS 2C?

Once again I ask you:

Q1. Exactly how much money has been spent so far on introducing NAS 2b & and the attempted 2c.

Q2. Show us exactly and precisely how the claimed savings of $75,000,000 will be acheived.

Dick Smith

17th Jun 2004, 00:46

*Lancer*, you state:

And on the other hand propose ‘see-and-avoid’ as the primary collision avoidance measure in class E airspace between VFR/IFR traffic. This is clearly not true. In Australia we have a mandatory radio requirement in Class E airspace. I do not know of any other country that has this requirement. All of the incidents that have been reported in the media in relation to Class E airspace have been alerted see and avoid incidents. If you fly over an airport such at Tamworth the appropriate frequency to be on is that of the tower. The system is not foolproof but it certainly would give as good as an alerted see an avoid system as that to overflying Ayers Rock or Mount Isa.

The most important point is that this airspace has a unique mandatory transponder requirement. Now I know that it is always stated that ICAO will not allow a transponder and TCAS to be used as a safety mitigator. This is extraordinary when you consider that all the proponents of the existing airspace system insist that radio can be used as a safety mitigator in Class G airspace in MBZs. This is despite the fact that ICAO says that no radio is required for VFR in Class E and G airspace. In other words, what the objectors to this modern airspace system insist on, is accepting ICAO recommendations or requirements as compulsory in some cases, but then totally rejected in others.

I can assure you as a pilot that I would prefer to rely on TCAS and transponders as an alerting function than hoping that a pilot has the radio on the correct frequency, the volume turned up, and that the radio is actually working. The advantage of TCAS and transponders is that in most aircraft the transponder is simply left on and comes on with the radio switch. The radio is quite different – you actually have to have to change the radio frequency continuously to be monitoring and provide a correct alerted see and avoid system.

I should also point out that alerted see and avoid is not radio arranged separation. The BASI report never hinted that alerted see and avoid meant radio arranged separation – i.e. that aircraft in VMC conditions had to actually talk to each other and arrange separation to provide a necessary level of safety. In alerted see and avoid, one or more aircraft receive information on the other aircraft, look in that direction and remain clear. After all, that is what happens all the time at airports such as Sydney where you are asked to sight and follow another aircraft. You don’t call the other aircraft and start discussing what you are going to do.

In the US system, there is no radio requirement or transponder requirement in the Class E airspace above Class D towers. In many cases there is no radar in this airspace and the system operates on a totally unalerted see and avoid environment.

As stated by Voices of Reason, there is no pressure from pilots or the FAA to change this system. The reason is that the unalerted see and avoid environment in this situation gives the required level of safety.

Icarus2001

17th Jun 2004, 01:25

Dick once again you are showing your ignorance of what happens inside most aircraft in Australia and your arrogance for thinking that you know what goes on in GA aircraft in Australia.

The advantage of TCAS and transponders is that in most aircraft the transponder is simply left on and comes on with the radio switch.

First assumption by you is that there is an Avionics Master (as we pilots call them :rolleyes: ) in the said aircraft. My personal experience has been that a large number of GA aircraft do not have one and therefore must still turn on the transponder independent of other radios.

Second, all flight instructors that I know, including the many that I have taught, teach students to turn a transponder to standby after start up and select ALT at the holding point. Then select standby again after landing. You may like to read the AIP ENR 1.6 - 9 & 10.

Thirdly, if an aircraft spends most of its time in G airspace outside radar coverage (most of Australia) when is this transponder checked for accuracy? This accuracy is crucial to TCAS alerting. I know what the maintennace requirements are for transponders, do you?

Dick how many light aircraft other than your own have you travelled in within Australia in say the last twelve months? You claim to know what goes on out here but your own statements show that you do not.

Four Seven Eleven

17th Jun 2004, 02:56

In alerted see and avoid, one or more aircraft receive information on the other aircraft, look in that direction and remain clear. After all, that is what happens all the time at airports such as Sydney where you are asked to sight and follow another aircraft. You don’t call the other aircraft and start discussing what you are going to do.
Once again, you demonstrate complete ignorance of procedures.

As you state, in “alerted see and avoid, one or more aircraft receive information on the other aircraft, look in that direction and remain clear”. So far you are correct. The important point which you appear not to grasp is that in this case, there is no other form of separation.

In the case of a sight and follow (which is a separation standard), alternate full separation is provided until such time as the pilot reports the other aircraft in sight. There is no need to “call the other aircraft and start discussing what you are going to do” as you have already received full instructions on what to do. You follow the other aircraft and maintain the requisite distance.

Please, for the sake of air safety, start learning more about aviation, or consult some of those ‘experts’ you claim to know. Your ignorance is more than embarrassing.

The advantage of TCAS and transponders is that in most aircraft the transponder is simply left on and comes on with the radio switch.
As alluded to above, you appear to be ignorant of AIP requirements regarding transponder usage. Embarrasing, I know, but there is still time to learn.

From the other thread…
Voices of Reason, why you are spending so much time on this issue? As other posters have asked, who are you and what is your interest? Airservices Australia is a huge commercial money making machine. Your posts generally support the view of many within Airservices Australia and therefore I believe are commercially based. There is nothing wrong with this of course, but I find it difficult to know why there should be secrecy. Presumably someone is paying you for the time that you expend when making these posts.
Given your history as a commercial entrepreneur, you may find it difficult to grasp the concept that not all activity is motivated by a desire to make money. Greed or power are not the prime motivator for most people in what they do.

When flying by Citation at airline altitudes and operating from main airport to main airport, I tend to agree that we have a system as good as any in the world.
You were right… until 27 November 2003. The increased risk to IFR (mainly RPT) aircraft climbing and descending around capital and regional cities is significant.

You have conceded that some of the outcomes of the NAS2B changes have been ‘horrific’. If TCAS had not saved the day (e.g. if it had been a regional Saab rather than a TCAS equipped B738) then ‘horrific’ would not even begin to describe it. Your own words – ‘basically criminal’ – might come close.

Why do you still not have the courage to answer your own thread about the Brisbane Virgin incident? What are you afraid of?

OverRun

17th Jun 2004, 05:39

The thread on "The NAS Debate: Voices of Reason & Dick Smith" is proving its value in allowing reasoned discussions to occur without unhelpful static. These dual threads are a good idea Woomera :D

Let me pick up on one of VoR's points and add two more, in a holistic sense. To keep it reasoned, I won't mention NAS at all (except where it is in a quote from VoR).

Performance review
Voices of Reason's post on 17th June 2004 06:26 made reference to the Eurocontrol Performance Review Commission site and the performance data on Europe and the United States. A reference for one of reports is at:
http://www.natca.org/assets/Documents/legislationcenter/eurocontrolreport052003useurope.pdf

It shows a candid and detailed assessment of performance in ATC. This type of performance based assessment is also to found in other spheres of transportation, and in other industry sectors. There is a growing drive to measure performance. In Europe, the US and indeed worldwide. The design and management of publicly funded technology programmes requires effective means for assessing programme performance. In transportation in Australia, the roads sector leads the world in performance based assessment. It is encouraging to see that this type of assessment is being done in airspace performance overseas, where it can give facts and data to help move forward. I am not aware that it is being done in Australia, and would be grateful if anyone can point to such publication(s).

Voices of Reason mentioned two studies that presumably should form part of any performance assessment in Australia airspace:5. The Aviation Reform Group initiated a study to determine acceptable safety risk levels – so that a case could be put to your regulator. We understand that a considerable sum of money was involved – and that more than one of the ARG stakeholders contributed. This would appear to indicate that you, and the ARG, were ready to conduct a risk based analysis on the NAS reform package. Do you know where that report has been published.

6. The Australian Department of Transport participated in the cost benefit study that was commissioned to validate NAS cost benefit claims. Presumably the information in the risk study was available to any transport economics section in that Department – possibly including remarks by the organization that conducted that study on the need to reevaluate the outdated value of life figures being used in Australia. If these studies have been done, then they should published in the public domain and from VoR's comments, it seems that they have not. As Australian transportation aspires to world class standards, then part of achieving that standard is to be measured and reported on, and that includes publication.

A web search yields the Australian roads sector performance indicators http://www.algin.net/austroads/. I quote This edition, published in 2003, is the ninth National Performance Indicators publication, covering seventy-two indicators. Updated data is published each year to provide important time series information for the transport industry and the community and to facilitate individual comparisons of the performance of the road system and road authorities. That's pretty far advanced, and begs the question 'where is aviation?'

The EuroControl Performance Review Commission obviously does the same sort of thing for airspace in Europe (and the USA). I suggest that it is now time for this in airspace in Australia. With the airspace debate so heated and polarised, benchmarking combined with an annual performance indicator report would go some way to restoring faith in the system.

For clarity, let me say that performance indicators are not just statistics of accidents or incidents, and performance review is not just how many dollars per plane it costs to process. These measures, while important, are too few. They have the problem that they are rather narrowly focussed, often have too small a database to draw from (= few accidents = good outcome), and they can have difficulty in discriminating between system changes. A good many other measures are required.

For benchmarking to materialise, the scope of airspace performance review/indicators will take a while to debate and refine. A quick glance at the performance indicators at the Austroads site will show how some measures used could even be unexpected. I look forward to some response from the many PPRUNE readers in CASA, AA and the Defence Force.

Analysis techniques
The next gap in Australian airspace is knowledge of analysis techniques. These are specific skills and need to be properly taught, including actual problem solving tutorials and statistical analysis. I won't go into the course design details here, but based on my considerable experience of running these sorts of courses, it is unlikely that the scope could be less than 7-10 days, full-time and hands-on.

There is no suitable course in Australia to teach this at present, which says something of why the gap exists. There are certainly enough qualified people (and institutions) in Australia to teach it.

We could do worse then adapt the USA SCSI "Military Course on System Safety Analysis", an 8 day course http://www.scsi-inc.com/SSA.html
This is a course in the practical application of system safety and reliability analysis tools and techniques. It addresses in methods suggested by MIL-STD 882D and SAE ARP 4761 for safety assessment. These include Hazard Analysis, FMECA, Fault Tree, Human Factors Analysis and Common Cause Analysis.

While there are courses in Australia which give part of the knowledge, I believe that these are either too limited in scope, or non-numerical, or non-contact, or made deliberately brief to meet other needs. Players include UNSW (my old alma mater) who have listed "AVIA5021 Aviation Safety Analysis" http://www.student.unsw.edu.au/handbook/courses/AVIA5021.shtml And R2AA runs a short course on EEA System Safety Assurance http://www.r2a.com.au/courses/ssa.html

This is not meant to be a criticism of either of these courses, which are aimed at a different market. I'm sure their presenters would be the first to acknowledge that the courses have not been designed to cover the breadth or depth of analysis techniques I am proposing is needed for airspace analysis. And these presenters would probably be in the forefront of people who could present the sort of course I'm suggesting.

There is also a need for financial analysis training, but that uses conventional financial/economics techniques and is well taught at many institutions throughout Australia.

Economic values for evaluation
The comment was made in the VoR posting about on the need to re-evaluate the outdated value of life figures being used in Australia. I also believe that is long overdue, as is a re-evaluation of the other economic values for aviation, such as current values for aircraft, hourly costs and injuries.

These are used for several types of aviation economic analysis such as the cost of control towers. The FAA themselves [(1990) Establishment and discontinuance criteria for airport traffic control towers. Report FAA-APO-90-7. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington], say that this sort of information should be updated annually. That might be a bit often in practice, but the values do need updating and publication.

Only then can we all have the same figures to work to, and we can compare 'apples' with 'apples'. This sort of determination and publication is well within the capabilities and scope of the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics.

Summary
As we work through airspace reform, let's add some measurement, training and standardisation to the process and put these three components formally into the design and management of airspace:
Performance review
Analysis techniques training
Economic values for evaluation

Dick Smith

17th Jun 2004, 06:31

*Lancer*, in relation to me supporting a tower at Broome and UNICOM operators, there is a “constant” in this. That is, the risk of collision from unalerted see and avoid is greatest within 10 miles of an aerodrome. I have never proposed see and avoid as the primary collision avoidance measure in Class E airspace. This is why it was I who introduced the unique mandatory transponder requirements in all Class E, and also the mandatory radio requirements in Class E above the Class D towers that we now have.

The appropriate frequency to be on when flying in the approach and departure airspace of a Class D tower is the Class D tower frequency. This obviously gives alerted see and avoid.

No doubt you will dismiss TCAS/transponders as an alerting tool, however you would probably support radio as an alerting tool – even though ICAO does not require radio in E or G airspace for VFR traffic.

The reason the USA system relies on unalerted see and avoid in Class E airspace above Class D towers where radar is not present is because the risk of collision further than 5 miles away from an airport is so minimal that in their experience, unalerted see and avoid gives the required level of safety.

scramjet77, you ask why I support the non-mandatory radio carriage rules for the new NAS 2c changes. You are completely wrong. It was I who introduced and had unanimous support for mandatory requirements at all airports where there was a third party operator. This was a unanimous decision at the last ARG meeting.

Yes, it is true that I do not support mandatory radio requirements when there is a calling in the blind system because the BASI/ATSB data shows that the result is many thousands of unalerted see and avoid incidents. This is because pilots in this calling in the blind system can have the radio on the wrong frequency, the volume turned down, or the wrong microphone selected. I have always supported mandatory radio requirements where there is a third party to ensure that the radio is working. This is consistent with ICAO.

*Lancer*

17th Jun 2004, 07:13

Mr Smith,

Firstly, thanks for your participation in all this. Hopefully it can prove educational and constructive for everyone in the industry. My obvious concern is the effectiveness of 'alerting' for alerted see-and-avoid.

You stated: "[you] have always supported mandatory radio requirements where there is a third party to ensure that the radio is working"

Exactly what third party ensures that a transponder is working on a VFR aircraft in Class E airpace?

Additionally, you said: "Now I know that it is always stated that ICAO will not allow a transponder and TCAS to be used as a safety mitigator."

How can you apparently dismiss the radio as an alerting tool on the basis of an ICAO recommendation, and then say 'use your transponders' contrary to an ICAO requirement? Does that not put you in the same group as "the objectors to this modern airspace system [by] accepting ICAO recommendations or requirements as compulsory in some cases, but then totally rejected in others"?

Lancer

CaptainMidnight

17th Jun 2004, 08:56

Dick

Referring to your response to VoR 's latest post, all of this has been stated here to you over the past few years:

1. LLAMP was not Adrian Dumsa's or Airservices's proposal. As you well know - but can't bring yourself to acknowledge - it was developed over time by a committee of industry representatives - some 14 or so organisations I recall. The only ones who objected to the final model were (strangely enough) AOPA (whose rep. had agreed until someone replaced him) and the SAAA.

Designated Area Frequency areas. If you had studied the LLAMP model you would have understood that these areas were sized to suit the amount of traffic inside, and were probably around the same size as the then FIAs. Yes, you could have had 30 ADs in one, but it would have been one covering thousands of square KMs in the middle of the country where the traffic is light. The DAFs close to capital cities were reduced in size to ensure that they would encompass relevant traffic, and take into account frequency congestion.

NAS = joint QF & your model. QF have denied this. A QF rep. stated at a RAPAC that NAS was not the organisation's proposed model nor were they indicating support for it (in fact they had endorsed LLAMP), merely that they had provided a staff member to assist you with preparing the document (curiously the same individual you recently bucketed on another thread).

CTAFs in Arnhemland. Created at the suggestion of and supported by the operators who fly in the airspace. It should also be noted that CTAF' & MBZ's and their MTAF predecessors had to be introduced due to the congestion created on FIAs as a result of your AMATS initiatives i.e. the result of a single ATS officer being responsible for many FIA frequencies and thus not being able to operate them individually when the amount of traffic was high. The LLAMP proposal's DAFs were specifically designed to rectify this.

The Wes Willoughby report. I'll leave someone else to comment here, other than to say I'm told that those who really know what is involved were not kind with their opinion of his findings.

Finally, it seems all those who have some knowledge and expertise in the subject matter are against you -

QF
Airservices
ATC
CASA
BASI
AFAP
etc etc.

Doesn't that tell you something? It does me .......

ferris

17th Jun 2004, 10:03

Lie number 1.· Do VFR pay less now than prior to Nov27 2003? Most certainly they do because in many cases they are not forced to file an IFR flight plan (and pay enroute charges) to be guaranteed a prompt clearance through what was Class C airspace. Why would VFRs file IFR plans?

Lie number 2. Do VFR receive the same level of safety in Class E that was Class C prior to Nov 27 2003? Probably a higher level now as they can track direct and they are not forced over tiger country in single engine aircraft – which often happened. I was recently speaking to a pilot of an aircraft who on numerous times overflying Hamilton Island was kept holding at the control zone boundary over water in a single engine aircraft. Now that aircraft can fly in Class E airspace at a higher level of safety. You state elsewhere that 'C' offers a higher level of safety than 'E'. You are now trying to confuse the issue by claiming that being delayed in a single engine aircraft is more dangerous than just blundering on thru without a clearance (as none is required anymore) WHEN THERE IS GOING TO BE TRAFFIC (hence the reason for being delayed previously). Do you have any evidence to support your claim that holding over water in a SE lighty is MORE dangerous than sharing the sky with jet traffic? Of course you don't- it's just a lie. But it's sooooo much better now that a lighty doesn't get a small delay- yet jets performing TCAS RA manouvres obviously do so for free. I'd love to see a cost comparison between 2 orbits in a 172 and a TCAS climb in a jet.
Lie number 3.
Where I am different is that I am convinced from the evidence that our system did not provide an alerted see and avoid situation because a calling in the blind procedure resulted in many errors being made and therefore many unalerted see and avoid incidents. That is why I have worked constantly to have third party operators at non-tower airports. If you REALLY believe RPTs should have alerted see and avoid, why are you encouraging the profileration of non-radar 'E'? Even radar 'E'?
Lies, lies, lies.
Lie number 4
This is clearly not true. In Australia we have a mandatory radio requirement in Class E airspace. I do not know of any other country that has this requirement. All of the incidents that have been reported in the media in relation to Class E airspace have been alerted see and avoid incidents Who cares if they were ALERTED seeand avoid, or UNALERTED see and avoid? THEY WERE FAILURES OF SEE AND AVOID. It is true, liar.
Lie number 5.
The most important point is that this airspace has a unique mandatory transponder requirement. Now I know that it is always stated that ICAO will not allow a transponder and TCAS to be used as a safety mitigator. This is extraordinary when you consider that all the proponents of the existing airspace system insist that radio can be used as a safety mitigator in Class G airspace in MBZs. This is despite the fact that ICAO says that no radio is required for VFR in Class E and G airspace. In other words, what the objectors to this modern airspace system insist on, is accepting ICAO recommendations or requirements as compulsory in some cases, but then totally rejected in others. YOU are guilty of accepting ICAO where it suits you, and dismissing it where it doesn't, not your detractors. You flip flop back and forward between wanting 'world's best practice' and the 'US system'.
By the wayI can assure you as a pilot that I would prefer to rely on TCAS and transponders as an alerting function than hoping that a pilot has the radio on the correct frequency, the volume turned up, and that the radio is actually working. As a pilot, how does having a 'transponder' provide alerted see and avoid? As a pilot, I thought that having TCAS would've been necessary? How many a/c like, say, chieftains, have TCAS? How does HAVING a transponder ensure it's accuracy, or that's it's even switched on? Or switched to the correct setting? If this isn't a LIE, then it's STUPIDITY. Which is it?
Lie number 6.
Jet_A_Knight, in relation to see and avoid everything I have done has been to reduce the amount of unalerted see and avoid. I can quote you on many threads saying that your introduction of see and avoid in vast tracts of enroute airspace won't be a problem. You even insist that VFRs don't talk, thereby assuring that it will be UNALERTED see and avoid (unless the aircraft have TCAS fitted etc.) A blatant LIE.

I am sure there are more, but I can't be bothered combing your posts for the frequent lies. I think people have the message.

Capcom

17th Jun 2004, 13:03

Part 1 of 2· Does AusNAS save money for our Aviation Industry?
Most certainly. Already aircraft are not having to divert many extra miles in Class C airspace above Class D. I’m getting reports all the time of the quite substantial savings being made by aircraft.I find that hard to believe Smith. I see lotsa VFR aircraft diverting around D/E zone now because they do not like being forced to be the traffic separator by your airspace system. They obviously have some degree of self-preservation. Thanks to you and AusNAS, they decide to divert around the zone.
Some still transit but call us anyway so as to let us and other traffic know they are there. ATC cannot separate them from IFR any more thanks to YOU, but you can be damn sure if we can assist a pilot or pilots to miss each other we will. So who is right?, I have radar and voice data to back my claim, how bout you?
To be totally objective on this you need to back it with examples, data and cause and effect analysis.
Now I know you turn various shades of violet and start frothing at the mouth at the mere mention of the word analysis, it is however the only accurate way of determining exactly what is happening.

The 'D' that I am completely familiar with has overlying E. I can categorically say that before 2b (Nov), O/flying below A100 were very very rarely inconvenienced as far as delay by diversion or OCTA hold. FACT.
How do I know, because I spend hours each day watching the traffic and making those decisions. I personally cannot remember how long ago it would be that an O/flying VFR was delayed or diverted off track.
Your response will no doubt be, that is not true.
Well how do you or I prove our case to be correct?.
Tis nigh on impossible. One way might be to ask the question here, to the pilots IFR and VFR and Air Traffic Controllers who operate in these areas, to provide examples of when and perhaps why a delay might have occurred. How bout it?For example, the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launceston incident says that before the 27 November 2003 changes, on up to 50% of occasions when he overflew Launceston he would be diverted up to 15 miles off track in CAVOK conditions if there was an IFR aircraft – even a Navajo – present in the controlled airspace. This was because there was no radar at Launceston and so procedural separation of 10 minutes had to be given quite often if aircraft passed through the same levels. 10 minutes at 180 knots is 30 miles. That is a lot of extra flying and a lot of extra cost. Nice try, no cigar.
ATC have a large number of separation standards available to ensure aircraft are not going to infringe each others position such that proximity is a serious collision risk.
Those standards enable efficient and SAFE traffic management to proximity’s such as;
500’ with traffic information, 1000’ and/or 1nm ie either side of a prominent topographical feature and/or lateral by radial, track, clearance limit on track etc. There are lots, each with a specific use in a given set of traffic circumstances.

If, and it is a big if, a delay or diversion track were required for separation, I am certain it would not be based on the simplistic reasoning of an IFR descending or climbing through his requested overflight level.
It is certainly not 10mins each time a confliction occurs!, nasty, typical misrepresentative little furphy that one Smith!
Even if the traffic density was such that a clearance for overflight were not readily available and a diversion around the CTR/CTA were necessary, an arc around is not going to be an additional 30nm or 10 mins.
If direct traverse track across a D or C CTA that was say radius 15nm, then you will travel 30nm through controlled airspace during an overflight. To divert at say 40deg off nominal track from 20nm out to a position 17nm adjacent the aerodrome OCTA, then back 40deg off parallel to be back on track at 20nm the other side, you will have travelled an additional 12nm. (Do the triangulation).
You can however assume that from the abeam position, most pilots would then track direct to next waypoint, which means a very shallow track intercept and negligible additional miles from the abeam position.
Assuming an extra 10 track miles as an absolute worse case in most circumstances every once in a Mars eclipse because of complex/busy traffic densities and/or the VFR pilot not calling for clearance until the boundary, would seem a small price to pay for ensuring everybody lives.

Compared to:

What happened within 4 weeks of your E airspace implementation!. Silently traversing in front of a B737 opposite direction, who thought the 737 would pass on the right, only then to pass on the left at close, close proximity. Passengers down one side of the 737 do not get to see a 4 seater that clearly unless is dangerously close!

Mr Smith, what cost will there be to the Industry both Commercial and GA of a YMLT type situation that results in a Mid-air collision?
What will happen when one of these airprox events that are inevitable is not just a near miss?
Mid-airs have occurred, and will continue to occur in your utopian US airspace system Class E, even though pilots do the correct things. Most reports from NTSB have a common theme: “the pilot failed to see and avoid”. The pilots failed to see and avoid, Hmmmm perhaps most of them should read something like: “The pilot had little opportunity to see, let alone avoid.”· Do VFR pay less now than prior to Nov27 2003?
Most certainly they do because in many cases they are not forced to file an IFR flight plan (and pay enroute charges) to be guaranteed a prompt clearance through what was Class C airspace.

I do not believe for one second that pilots are flying VFR vice IFR so they can just traverse E over D without a supposed delay. IFR rated pilots are not that silly!, as to blast on through, oblivious of the collision risk.

To the audience.... Am I wrong on this?

· Do VFR receive the same level of safety in Class E that was Class C prior to Nov 27 2003?
Probably a higher level now as they can track direct and they are not forced over tiger country in single engine aircraft – which often happened. I was recently speaking to a pilot of an aircraft who on numerous times overflying Hamilton Island was kept holding at the control zone boundary over water in a single engine aircraft. Now that aircraft can fly in Class E airspace at a higher level of safety.
Clutching at straws again!
Tiger country, direct, ya mate you were talkin to the other day holding over water
Come on Smith, we are to take your word on this baseless waffle?, Nah, sorry, where is the evidence?.
The question as you well know because you continue to avoid it is “Un alerted see and avoid”
You know damn well that IFR no longer know about VFR in E, “Un-alerted see and avoid” which replaced separation services provided by ATC in C.
IT IS LESS SAFE, IMHO a lot less safe. Be a man and admit it, because nothing you say in denial of that fact gives you any legitimacy or credibility with those of us (most of the industry) who KNOW categorically that your AusNAS E is LESS SAFE THAN the C it replaced.
C dwongraded to E at huge cost for no apparent reason! GREAT REFORM!· On what criteria did you decide that AusNAS was superior to the LLAMP?
It basically would have destroyed GA as we know it today in Australia – and it is already half destroyed.Do you accept any responsibility for that? No, thought not, how preposterous I hear you bellow. Also, most importantly, LLAMP was a unique invention I have only ever supported proven systems. Such as the American, European, Canadian, AusNAS system that is not really any of the above cause certain subtle but critical bits were missed? I am very conservative when it comes to air safety. I like copying the success of others in everything in life. You big fibber you. Conservative, copying a successful system that has recorded mid-airs. Ya almost had me there…....NOT· Did you set out the reason for your decision to progress your AusNAS to Minister Anderson?
First of all, it wasn’t just my decision, it was the unanimous decision of the Aviation Reform Group, who are all people of independent minds, views and expertise. People like Ted Anson (the Chairman of CASA at the time), who whilst not an aviator took extensive advice from people at CASA. The reasons were obvious. The LAMP system was invented and would have resulted in a system that was like nothing ever used anywhere else in the world before – even Australia. Whereas the NAS system was highly proven. Remember, the NAS plan was (and still is) to follow the US procedures that they use in radar airspace, and to follow the US procedures that they use in non-radar airspace. OH brother….....You seriously believe your own dribble

· During face to face discussions (Jan 2004 YSTW tower) with controllers in the tower cab, and after explanation of the airspace specifics by those controllers did you agree that the terminal airspace above TW that was “C” should at the very least be class “D” below A065 (Outside RADAR coverage)?
No I did not. Really?, Oh I see, I have to ask twenty questions and until I ask the right one…

How bout this:

After the AusNAS is safer routine blurb, and the showing off your US alphabet airspace pocket card. Much discussion and explanation of the TW specific airspace arrangements ensued, after which, did you state that the Tower E airspace was not as safe as that it replaced?

· Did you during that discussions sign a statement that said “RPT aircraft should have alerted see-and-avoid”? If so do you stand by that statement?
Yes, I certainly did sign that statement and that has always been a view of mine. Where I am different is that I am convinced from the evidence that our system did not provide an alerted see and avoid situation because a calling in the blind procedure resulted in many errors being made and therefore many unalerted see and avoid incidents. That is why I have worked constantly to have third party operators at non-tower airports. I’m gunna send you a wall plaque that says “CONTEXT” ……..Anyhow, You talk about non-towered, I refer to towered D/E. Oh well lets do both:

MBZ’s v’s your CTAF’s

Un-alerted see and avoid incidents eh. OK so what is your remedy!……..remove the mandatory broadcast requirement or MBZ, and replace it with CTAF (use it if ya got it, radio that is), threatening pilots with hefty fines is one thing, but to then say, o-well, if ya ain’t got a radio you can play as well?. That is allowing un-alerted see and avoid!

Inconsistent and contradictory!

If what you are trying to fix is inadvertent frequency error, make it compulsory to receive a ‘beep back’ specific to each MBZ or a response from another aircraft in the MBZ if the beep back is activity timed. God sakes, it is not that hard.
Oh yeh, I forgot it has to change name to be seen to be reforming something, doesn’t it

AusNAS Towered E (above D)
- No RADAR
- No VFR Broadcasts
Explain to me how that is ‘alerted see-and-avoid’.
- How are you ensuring VFR are monitoring the correct frequency (Tower)?
- How are the IFR’s and ATC supposed to know the VFR is lurking, by bloody Osmosis?

Inconsistent and contradictory!

Remind me again what it was you signed in the tower.......Oh Yeh "RPT should have alerted see and avoid"

What have I missed?...... Are you stroking your ego or something else or are you just taking the piss with peoples safety?

Part 2 of 2

· Do you believe Air traffic controllers can separate/segregate/initiate collision avoidance between 2 aircraft when only one or both may not be subject to clearance and therefore not under ‘control’ rules?
Yes, I believe an excellent safe service can be provided as this is what happens 365 days a year with 20 times the density of traffic in the USA. Bollocks. Workload limitations, equipment limitations, radar coverage, all play a part. It ain’t all beer and skittles. Read the link on the other thread (Fantabulous US)and learn· Are you aware that ICAO provide for ATS ‘collision avoidance advice’ in classes C (VFR/VFR) and D (IFR/VFR) only?
This could well be so, but I’m not sure what it has to do with anything. I have found that ICAO is simply an organisation which takes most of its airspace advice from air traffic controllers who have a vested interest in the outcome of the regulation. ICAO also has some very strange rules in relation to airworthiness requirements and I have been told these are mainly in place for poor third world countries! Oh come on, you know it is so, I certainly do. Australia is a signatory to the Convention.

ICAO is a mates network according to you, like every other organisation and agency you have crossed.
Are there any that are not?· Do you expect Air Traffic Controllers to accept responsibility for ‘collision avoidance’ between IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR in classes E and G?
I believe it is a shared responsibility. I would be quite happy to follow the responsibility requirements that exist in the USA. After all, I’ve never yet heard from an American controller that their airspace gives unfair responsibility.Will not fly!. If you want us to make them miss each other, give us the tools (Airspace classification) to do it, Or, be happy with the intent of E and G, (traffic information IFR/VFR E and IFR/IFR G) and they sort themselves. One or the other.
American pilots cannot distinguish classes of airspace in reality, that’s why American ATC’s effectively run radar D everywhere, but the VFR’s are not cleared, SO the ATC’s are expressly immune to blame or question if IFR/VFR or VFR/VFR swap paint!. Prove me wrong!· Do you support the latest ‘VRA’ proposition in E areas above terminal areas?
No, I have no idea what it is.Awwwwwww Suuuure……….(Otherwise known as the industry proposal)

Honestly.....What is the point of debating a loon!:mad:

Good day to you all

Binoculars

17th Jun 2004, 13:44

I do not believe for one second that pilots are flying VFR vice IFR so they can just traverse E over D without a supposed delay. IFR rated pilots are not that silly!, as to blast on through, oblivious of the collision risk.

Capcom, while no sympathiser with the execrable and mendacious Smith, I have to disagree here, and the evidence is unfortunately presented to me frequently. I could quote you numerous examples of "VFR" flights blasting off into the ether on climb to VFR levels like A095 when I am quoting BKN A020 on the ATIS. No, not broken whereby holes are available, I'm talking 7/8 at night. Similarly, visual approaches are assigned from 30 miles and I watch the aircraft concerned break out of a solid bank of cloud at 5 miles exactly as per the DME step.

And I sympathise with them, in much the same way as I sympathise with the poor bastards trying to make a training organisation pay its way when they are presented with a doubling, tripling, in some cases 20-fold increase in charges to pay for our services.

As ferris has pointed out on many occasions, it's the charging regime that needs to be savaged, not some fanciful attempt to pretend that VFR GA is saving money by the introduction of E airspace.

I think it's very sad that political ideology appears to have taken over the debate. A somebody who has spent a good percentage of time at Hamilton Island over the last 15 years, I find Dick Smith's insinuation of SE VFR aircraft being forced to hold over water, far from home, offensive in the extreme. Yes, VFR acft get moved out of the way of inbound IFR RPT. Should we divert the RPT?

Let me quote a fundamental rule of air traffic control for those too thick to have grasped it yet. It often happens that more than one aircraft wants to be in the same piece of airspace (eg, final for the duty runway) at the same time. ATC's job is to make sure that doesn't happen, and that means somebody is not going to get exactly what they want. Big deal. Grow up and look further than the extra mile and a half you are forced to travel.

Smith, you are a dangerous ideologue. I repeat that you stand condemned by every air traffic controller in Australia and a majority of airline pilots. Seek what support you may among your fellow private flyers, and I sincerely hope that your simplistic notions are never put to the ultimate test. If they are, I hope my family is not on board.

Lodown

17th Jun 2004, 23:49

Adrian Dumsa,

If you feel so inclined, there are probably several interested people at Fairfax who would love a little light read.

fire wall

18th Jun 2004, 01:10

Mr Dumsa,
If you beleive undue influence was used then I would encourage you to make it known to the correct authorities and help stop the rot.

Woomera

18th Jun 2004, 01:18

I again ask that no unrelated posts are made to the Debate thread. One unrelated post is currently being moved to this thread.

Mr Dumsa's post will remain in the interests of fairness and in response to Dick Smith's allegation.

OverRun has suggested the many questions be summarised into a series of headers. Time precludes me doing that - at least during the week - so I asked OverRun to summarise the questions. His listing so far:

1. Was NAS model a joint Dick Smith/Qantas effort

2. ARG members safety qualifications?

3. ARG – NAS proposal had wrong reference system

4. ARG – its incorrect that no design safety case needed

5. ARG – where is study on acceptable safety risk levels?

6. Is DoT cost benefit study available?

7. Qualifications of person doing cost/benefit study for ARG?

8. Were $100+ million dollars spent on reform agenda?

9. Why was T&E for initial phases of NAS so poor?

10. Was most/all NAS material vetted by you?

11. Have FAA analysis methods been applied to NAS, to Broome study?

Perhaps OverRun could separate the listing into three lists:

For Dick Smith
For Voices of Reason
For Both

No assurance they will respond to individual questions, but it would give both an understanding of the issues of concern by PPRuNe users.

Woomera

Dick Smith

18th Jun 2004, 04:07

Four Seven Eleven, you state:

Why do you still not have the courage to answer your own thread about the Brisbane Virgin incident? What are you afraid of? Can you tell me the particular question you would like me to answer? I will answer it promptly.

Capcom

18th Jun 2004, 05:33

Binoculars

I understand what you say. I was not aware the costs were having such a dramatic effect. Tis not as visible here, I am sure you can imagine why!.
This whole mess is an appauling double edge sword for the struggling industry, is it not.

His meddling has meant charges going through the roof (Full cost recovery; Pay our own way have our own say) for IFR, creating the cost pressures you accurately describe that have an effect on safety by creating a negative incentive to fly VFR when normally they would not.

It is not quite as obvious yet from our neck of the woods, but given the circumstances that prevail, I guess it is only a matter of time.:ugh:

Concur, Concur. What a sad, sad state of affairs.:(

Viva la revolution :suspect:

missy

18th Jun 2004, 05:41

Dick,

On June 4 I quoted you and asked you some questions. When you get a chance, can you please answer the questions I posed.

At the present time Airservices is not instigating the correct establishment formula study because they know that the loss they will make will be reflected in their figures and the take home pay of their top management group.

Questions:
1. Could you please elaborate on what you believe to be the correct establishment formula study?

2. From what I have heard, establishment/disestablishment hinges on the figure used for loss of life. What loss of life figure are you suggesting should be used?

Niles Crane

18th Jun 2004, 06:14

Dick, you have stated your dislike to Llamp and that it was a totally new unproven system.

I disagree, Llamp was very similar to the proposed new European system of "Known and Unknown" airspace. The result was very similar even though they came form totally different operational requirments.

As for it being unproven, the main element in Llamp was the DAF, just think "Big CTAF". Since they have been introduced, no, I repeat NO saftey incidents have taken place within these areas relating to traffic conflicts. They work, and you want to get rid of a PROVEN SAFE system.

Sometimes one has to be a leader, not a follower.

You also state that Llamp wanted to abolish DTI in "G", well so does AUSNAS!

quote: NASIG
"E" airspace Stage 3 (third phase)

23. Class E terminal airspace will be introduced at two specific locations.

24. Pop-up clearance (en-route VFR upgrading to IFR rules) procedures introduced.

25. Introduce low level Class E corridors, where required, above 1200FT AGL and above A085.

26. E corridors, where implemented, will be designed to a GPS cross track error dimension.

27. An on-request radar flight following service for VFR aircraft will be available on a sector specific and workload-permitting basis.

"G" airspace Stage 3 (third phase)

30. Directed traffic information services for en-route IFR aircraft will be withdrawn.

31. A radio frequency will be allocated for IFR pilot to pilot communication.

32. A directed traffic information service will be provided for IFR aircraft on other IFR aircraft in terminal areas, with published instrument approach procedures.

end quote

So we end up with lower "E" in non radar Australia (MORE ATC), NO DTI, NO Radio requirment, all for REDUCED COST?

We will have more ATC to control "E", so where is the cost saving. This will really boost the bonusus for the hated ones and it will be provided by you! How can you sleep at night?

Another Point.

During the last round of RAPAC's this month, ASA outlined the stage 2b class "E" fix with an "Industry" proposal".

This INDUSTRY proposal was QF, VB, AOPA and Gliders. No regionals, Charter organisations, Flying Schools, Aeroclubs etc.

Interestingly, AOPA and Gliders have acknowledged the need to use a radio, the one and only thing that stopped Llamp was their refusal to do so.

So we will have enroute "E", "E-R" (R for VFR Radio) for "E" over "D", CTAF, CTAF-M for mandatory radio (think MBZ - letter from CEO CASA to ASA).

This model will be the "CHOSEN ONE", as one cannot go against QF, AOPA and Gliders, so the poor VFR sucker will be even more confused than he is now.

IT IS TIME TO STOP BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED WHILST ROME BURNS

PS. AD "Just Do It"

amos2

18th Jun 2004, 09:22

Why, oh why, don't we just close this debate down!

Where is it going?

Absolutely nowhere.

What a waste of space!

Two ego/megla maniacs indulging in psycobabble! :mad: :mad: :mad:

KLN94

18th Jun 2004, 10:38

Amos 2. Don't discourage Dick and VOR. All this will make excellent evidence at the Royal Commission.

KLN94

Wizofoz

18th Jun 2004, 11:12

I notice a common thread in DHs' (oops sorry) DSs' arguments...

4 seven 11 MUST have been an ASA manager on a bonus, and VOR MUST be an ex ASA Gm. Why? Because they consistently make intelligent points which show up the farcical nature of the whole NAS process.

Anyone dissagreeing with the master MUST have a vested interest...right?

OverRun

18th Jun 2004, 14:27

JohnVoR and Dick,

Can I offer you both my sincerest enthusiasm and encouragement to continue with the debate.

The time required of you is massive, the demand on you huge, and the outcome is priceless. The hours demanded of you to write the many words that you both have contributed are simply immense. Let me openly enunciate the value of both your contributions, and my appreciation of the effort you have both made.

The debate is being followed intensely by very many people, including Airservices, CASA, RAAF, every airline in Australia, pilots, controllers and every other player in Australia and abroad. For want of anything else, PPRUNE has become the defacto forum of Australian airspace reform, and this has become the pivotal debate.

Please continue. Although the demands that this places on you both are onerous, the contribution that is being made to aviation matches the inputs you are making.

WALLEY2

18th Jun 2004, 16:33

Dick,

Your statements on a D class tower for Broome International airport provide clarity to the on going debate NAS debate.

You pick and choose from agencies, documents and individual statements the parts you want-yet then criticise and discard the same sources when they fail to support your ideas.

You state I Dick Smith will get a D Class Tower at BME just you wait and see.

There for all to see is the problem with NAS and your influence.

No requirement of a study,no reference to Australian Standards and criteria, no consultation with users, no historical examination of incidents,no comparision with similar USA airports, no calculation using the FAA D Class tower selection criteria.

Why a tower? It is simple I Dick Smith "think" and have now decided BME shall have a tower!!!

Dick, let me give you a tip. BME will have a tower when a Design Aeronautical Study by appropriately qualified professionals using a proven analytical system either AUS,FAA or ICAO says it is needed and CASA, following industry consultation, confirms the findings and AsA agree on how it will be introduced.

Then and only then will the aviation industry need to bear the costs of establishng and operating the tower and the GA aircraft based at or operating into BME need to bear the expense of equiping their a/c with transponders. While we the owners will close down the loss making CAGRS service and retrain and redeploy our CAGROs to other duties most likely being tower ATC.

This is how you change a small but crucial part of an airspace system. It is not your decision, nor: mine,the BIA board, the CEOs,the Arport managers or the Ministers.

The proven system requirements of the BME Terminal Airspace makes the decision and the responsibile airport owner, airlines, aviation users and Authorities task is to impliment the required change in a cost effective planned transparent and orderly manner.

What you or I, think or wish, is irrelevant. If the recent BME DAS had concluded a tower was needed we would have advised CASA and AsA and the industry and set the process in motion without delay.

If NAS had followed this methodology all the angst and vitriol and errors would not have occured, opposing views would be forced to be based on data and analysis as this is the only way to effectively counter a studied informed consultative decision. Prove it wrong or in need of revision by concerted analysed studied argument.

Sure it takes longer but it is safer and more cost efficient and takes the majority of industry with you.

Rember in God we trust all others, including Dick, must have Data.

Cheers Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group

Lodown

18th Jun 2004, 22:17

If there is any sort of scorecard being kept on this debate, I think VoR has gotten off to a great start and is publicly whiteanting Dick's platform with great aplomb and in a very professional manner. Dick meanwhile, is tearing himself to pieces trying to work out the identity of the person/s he is debating. Jousting at windmills?

(Might be about time for Dick to cease responding to VoR and open another thread where he can control the topic for a while.)

Kaptin M

18th Jun 2004, 22:57

It is a credit to Dick Smith that he has taken the time to respond to this debate, in which many of us Australian pilots - professional, sport, leisure, and student - have a profound interest in seeing FULLY discussed.

Imho, VoR presents a well-disciplined, reasoned, logical, and knowledgeable argument based upon FACTS.
Dick Smith appears to me, to base much of his argument on his own personal experience, and how he THINKS/BELIEVES the system could be improved based loosely upon the North American system.

It's a pity to see Dick Smith become obsessed with trying to prove that VoR is Adrian Dumsa - something that both have denied.
Even if it WERE correct though, VoR uses FACTS relevant to the debate, versus personal attack to discredit Dick Smith.

Please try to stick to the ISSUE, Dick, by playing the ball and not the man (whom you think VoR is).
You'll garner far more respect from EVERYONE else, if you will adhere to the core issues, and support your statements with established FACTS.
Thank you both sides.

amos2

19th Jun 2004, 03:35

That was an excellent example of irony, OverRun...

wins the prize for the best posting in my opinion. :p

Chris Higgins

19th Jun 2004, 05:13

While many of you have complained about Dick Smith's past and even the arguments he brings to these posts...I still need to see more "data" on the contributors before making any decisions.

It seems that Dick Smith and Mr Caplehorn and Mr Dumsa are able to reveal their full identities; why nobody else?

Is it really in the spirit of the Australian safety culture to be frightened to speak up on a national safety concern with fear of reprisaltry action?

Dick Smith has addressed this with concern and it bears considering.

Having flown extensively in The USA, Canada, Central and South America, Australia and New Zealand I can say without question that some of Dick Smith's statements have been correct regarding properly implemented Class E Airspace. When flying out of Sun Valley (Hailey), Idaho, we don't get radar coverage until almost 13,000 feet from Denver Center. Jackson Hole, Wyoming is another one and there are quite a few more I can name. The system is dependent upon "one in and one out", just as many of you have claimed, and is done through tower coordination with a radar Center control facility.

We can do VFR climbs, but that's where Class E Airspace fails miserably. By allowing VFR into IFR with no ATC seperation, nor mandatory communication, we might find ourselves in near collision risks with VFR traffic, even when operating IFR from those airports.

The drought afflicted West and Southwest has sometimes produced the worst bush fires I've ever seen. Visibility can go to about a mile, even in the lower flight levels. There's always some bright spark in a P-210 who insists on not talking to anyone and going VFR in the aforementioned conditions. Last year, after leaving Sun Valley, Idaho, I had the pleasure of nearly hitting one!

Class E airspace does not work without radar monitoring and full traffic participation-period! It never has, and it never will. Class E airspace without radar is merely an extension of an outmoded philosophy of "affordable safety."

I am not keeping score on this issue. The prize is far greater than anyone's pride! This is about stopping the confusion and improving upon the safety of a nation's treasure-it's safe skies.

The Dick Smith bashing simply must stop, if we are to proceed in a functioning dialect that moves us forward towards a solution. If you want the industry to succeed in Australia, you cannot continue to look backwards or even laterally. The airspace in America is fairly safe, I think there is still room for improvement.

What better way for the Americans to learn, than from the leadership of the Australians as we try to find innovative solutions to seperation in remote regions.

Let's get on with it!

scramjet77

19th Jun 2004, 05:13

Dick, you say in response to the non mandatory carriage of radio within MBZ/CTAF areas

Quote, “Yes, it is true that I do not support mandatory radio requirements when there is a calling in the blind system because the BASI/ATSB data shows that the result is many thousands of unalerted see and avoid incidents. This is because pilots in this calling in the blind system can have the radio on the wrong frequency, the volume turned down, or the wrong microphone selected. I have always supported mandatory radio requirements where there is a third party to ensure that the radio is working. This is consistent with ICAO.”

Dick if it is true that “many thousands” of see and avoid incidents occur because “pilots in this calling in the blind system can have the radio on the wrong frequency, the volume turned down, or the wrong microphone selected”, how the hell would carriage of a radio make a difference in a “third party environment”. The problem would be the same.

So mate, because your fellow weekend warriors either can not, will not or are too incompetent to adopt correct radio procedures, we drop the whole radio requirement. Your logic is akin to dropping all speed limits on Australian roads because we will never stop drivers from speeding.

Finally, for the THIRD BLOODY TIME, WILL YOU ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS? Don’t you have the guts or is it just that you have no damn idea?

Q1. Exactly how much money has been spent so far on introducing NAS 2b & and the attempted 2c.

Q2. Show us exactly and precisely how the claimed savings of $75,000,000 will be achieved.

Woomera

19th Jun 2004, 06:11

Yes, OverRun and Kaptin M, the debate is a credit to both Dick Smith and Voices of Reason, although both have taken different tacks.

The time taken to prepare their posts must be very significant.

Woomera

Icarus2001

19th Jun 2004, 07:30

Chris Higgins

Is it really in the spirit of the Australian safety culture to be frightened to speak up on a national safety concern with fear of reprisaltry action? Sadly it is demonstrably so. Those that post on these forums who are very close to the action, can do so because they remain anonymous. Government employees are legally bound under their CA or AWA not to make any public statements. Therefore they risk their career by posting in their own name. This subject has been covered time and time again. Better they post anonymously rather than not at all.

I do not see much Dick bashing. Mostly people attacking his position. However Dick always resorts to playing the man not the ball eg Adrian Dumsa. I would be more than happy to sit and have a beer with Dick but I do not follow the logic of his arguments and I do not see any evidence for what he so strongly believes.

Furthermore we used to have CAIR, which has now been scrapped by the ATSB just as the maritime industry has adopted it. Why would that be?

From your own experience...
We can do VFR climbs, but that's where Class E Airspace fails miserably.Class E airspace does not work without radar monitoring and full traffic participation-period! It never has, and it never will. So why is one person in Australia pushing so hard for more E airspace and less C airspace when we have such low overall radar coverage?

ferris

19th Jun 2004, 08:38

Chris Higgins.

You are being a little naive if you think Dick only wants to reveal poster's identities so 'it can be in the Australian culture'.Is it really in the spirit of the Australian safety culture to be frightened to speak up on a national safety concern with fear of reprisaltry action? WHO do you think creates that fear- the poster, or Dick? Take a look at the Broome DAS. Dick's main reply was to attack the integrity of the authors- he even wasted money on getting his own experts to do so. Why would you do that, unless you realise that he couldn't win the argument on the facts, so he has to play the man? It's good politics, but crap airspace management.
As stated by others- if you work for the government, you ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK PUBLICLY. So what to do? Keep silent, and watch the disaster unfold? Should only rich, powerful, private aircraft owners have input into something that affects EVERYONE?
Class E airspace does not work without radar monitoring and full traffic participation-period! It never has, and it never will. Class 'E' is specifically non-participatory. The yanks work it differently to ICAO- and that is part of the problem here. The yanks realise that the problems arise when you mix small slow a/c with faster, bigger ones. They mitigate using radar- but it doesn't specifically say that anywhere, they just do. And the one in- one out system; explain that using 'the rules'! It's more restrictive than what happens in oz, and is the type of airspace that oz has lots MORE OF. The pre- Nov 27 airspace was much better at handling those sorts of movements. Dick doesn't understand that.

The yanks have 'evolved' their airspace, and it is not something you can just 'transplant'. Dick just doesn't get that.

Blastoid

19th Jun 2004, 09:11

Chris Higgins wrote:
It seems that Dick Smith and Mr Caplehorn and Mr Dumsa are able to reveal their full identities; why nobody else?
Apart from the name-dropping that Dick constantly draws like a loose cannon (which I believe he uses to try and gain credibility), why does he not name his "anonymous" sources - those single engined pilots that get held over water near Hamilton Island, the GA pilots that are supposedly making millions with all those track miles saved, the QANTAS pilots that support NAS ... et cetera.

The sword is two-edged. Like it has been said on this forum before, many people on this forum remain anonymous to protect themselves (there have already been cases of people having their reigns "pulled" for speaking out); it does not detract from their credibility. What does it matter who the contributors are; if they are not in positions of authority, their names won't mean anything to other contributors anyway.

Dick purports to have a raft of supporters. Perhaps he should start his own petition (not unlike SafeSkiesNow earlier this year) to demonstrate to the minister just how much support he has for NAS.

Consider it a challenge.

As for Class E-
Class E airspace does not work without radar monitoring and full traffic participation-period! It never has, and it never will. Class E airspace without radar is merely an extension of an outmoded philosophy of "affordable safety."
Chris, this would be one of the principal concerns about the NAS 2b rollout. I hope you have been made aware of the Christmas eve incident near Launceston involving a 737 and a Tobago - in non-RADAR Class E airspace (involving an RA). There is no proof as to how close the aircraft actually got laterally, but so much as to say the passengers could see the Tobago quite clearly. The Tobago pilot thought he wasn't supposed to talk (NAS 2b training package), so he didn't. He thought the jet would pass him on his right; it passed him on the left.

What was the fallout? Airservices' only transportable RADAR (which in the past had been used for increased surveillance when required - e.g. prolonged RADAR failures or special events) is now cemented firmly in place in Launceston - on a 72 hour recall I believe. This is a band-aid solution that doesn't placate the significant chunks of identical airspace around the country where an incident hasn't occurred yet.

I suggest you have a read of the ATSB report: Christmas Eve incident summary (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=598)

[edited to add non-RADAR E comments]

canuck76

19th Jun 2004, 11:54

Chris HIGGINS

It is good to make your contribution, because the distance helps see the big picture.

It seems that Dick Smith and Mr Caplehorn and Mr Dumsa are able to reveal their full identities; why nobody else? Is it really in the spirit of the Australian safety culture to be frightened to speak up on a national safety concern with fear of reprisaltry action?

Yes I think this is the spirit of the Australian safety culture By my count, and I was writing this anyway, there is nobody left in Australia aviation who has not been attacked. In order, I read of attacks on:
AA managers
AA ATC (who aim aircraft at each other)
BASI
CASA
CSIRO and their Fulton
DOTRS economists
DJ flight crew (who fly at each other)
Qantas and their Head Pilot

I read all the Broome study and I was trynig to ascertain the airlines statements and then I readIt was best summarised by the words of one Chief Pilot who, upon being asked by members of the study team to review Appendix A before publication, said:

It is extremely disappointing to note the remarks of some of the interviewees, who have stated that they are gagged and others who have stated that their respective views can not be related due to other agendas requiring government supportThat is a worry for a safety culture, and I think its not good for any country. It goes to the heart of safety management and it is painful to say but Australia cannot be getting a good score on this which is not good.

I too keep my head down but I have to say that even though il est en bas de la route, Adrian Dumsa is not me (but now watch for the accusation that I am he because I have spoken).

Chris Higgins

19th Jun 2004, 13:09

I appreciate the candor and professionalism of all responses to my recent post.

I can agree with you that Dick has taken a very defensive posture and somewhat of an aggressive stand on NAS. I wasn't sure how his remarks would be received by VOR, when his opening reply referred to alleged defamation of character. I am sincerely thankful that VOR chose to diffuse this situation and move forward on the debate.

I am concerned that Mr Smith has chosen to use the media as a conduit to make personal attacks of his own against controllers, pilots and even the present QF Chief Pilot. I consider a PPrune a form of media.

With all this in mind...I still believe he has some valid points.

1. What the hell is Air Services Australia doing quoting anybody anything in Hawaii, when the airspace in Oz still needs to be fixed?

2. How can the outrageous fees being charged by Air Services Australia be justified, when the service they provide for GA seems to be quite minimal.

3. Who is now charged with regulating and amending the changes in the NAS rollback? Was any study done to reveal the risk of doing that?

4. Why the resulting confusion, leading to higher regulatory charges, lower student starts and general lack of agreement?

5. If Dick Smith is, "not in charge now", who is? Why haven't we heard from him/her?

If I were Dick Smith, I'd be tempted to come off the ropes swinging too! But, somehow, we have to prevent him from doing that by keeping the attacks objective and not too personal. If you make someone angry, they are bound to get upset, go speak to a reporter or hire an attorney. Let's just try and keep the arguments fairly "surgical", right?

ferris

19th Jun 2004, 14:08

Chris- now we are getting somewhere. All this wasted money and effort to change airspace . Ask Dick why he rages against the airspace and you get half-arsed responses about saving money. By his own admission, all he has done is cost the industry money. Why he isn't raging against the charging regime- one can only guess. It might have something to do with him being a supporter of 'business enterprise' in government, user pays etc.

However,
1. AsA is doing the government's will. AsA is a GBE, and required to go out and find revenue. AsA apparently doesn't have a role in 'fixing' airspace- that is a job for CASA, Dotars, the ARG or whoever else Dick nominates on the day. Why he doesn't push for 'world's best practice', just like the states, and let AsA do everything a la the FAA is another anomaly in his theories.

2. AsA has a minimal impact on GA. I am told that the major cost impositions on GA have nothing to do with airways charges. Pre Nov 27 VFRs flew free enroute. Try looking at landing fees from privatised airports, rent on premises, insurance, fuel tax, AsA as a defacto tax etc. Ask Dick about these.
3. Don't know. Does anyone?
4. Confusion? Has to have been a study in 'how not to manage change'.
5. Dick is a puppeteer. Who is in charge is irrelevent ( until the election ).

missy

19th Jun 2004, 14:50

VOR said to Dick Smith

we understand that much of your enthusiasm for United States practice is based on your personal experiences, and if they are flawed, perhaps your design is flawed?

I heard it reported that when a VH lightie flies in the US they are treated the aircraft kid gloves. The sooner the aircraft is off their control frequency the better, so little wonder Dick has a different slant on the world, and it ain't reality!!

WALLEY2

19th Jun 2004, 15:07

May I offer pprune posters some advise.

Do not drop your anonymity

I am still upset that Dick, I feel unnecesarily, attacked Dr Neil Fulton of the CSIRO because he audited our preliminary report and that our expert panel based some of the later reports methodologies on his published papers. Any concerns Dick had should have been raised with Neil or even ourselves as the owner of the report not the Chairman of the CSIRO.

My position is different I own my companies, can finance any matters arising and have no boss. Please do not follow my lead stay out of harms way.

Ppruners let your facts and arguments speak for themselves that is ample.

Dick and VoR your debate is very worthwhile and I along with many others appreciate the time and effort you are applying to this crucial question.

Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group

missy

19th Jun 2004, 15:17

Chris Higgins

Is it really in the spirit of the Australian safety culture to be frightened to speak up on a national safety concern with fear of reprisaltry action?

Of course not. But consider

their respective views can not be related due to other agendas requiring government support

Their respective views can not be related due to other agendas requiring government support. Says it all really. Who allocates landing rights, the government. There should be an independent body that considers the timely approval of landing rights. C'mon Dick, fight for that one.

Hempy

19th Jun 2004, 15:52

****zu..
AirServices should waive the confidentiality clause of Adrian Dumsa's resignation package - the way Dick is attacking AirServices (and everybody else that dares question him) it may be in their better interest.
I would suggest that there would be some people at Airservices who may think that the outing of certain documents relating to "$influence" would be in their worst interest....

planespeaker

19th Jun 2004, 21:44

May I make an observation?

Following this thread how many of you ATC chaps have made (in some cases H-U-G-E posts) demanding Dick Smith pay attention to your challenge and respond to it?

All pretty much at the same time...

...like he had nothing better to do.

Gee, doesn't that ring a bell with you guys? :hmm:

Woomera, how about a suggestion to contributors to keep "radio chatter" to a minimum.... Dick has his hands full trying to "arrange clearances" for others on another frequency.

Woomera

19th Jun 2004, 23:12

planespeaker. The purpose of two threads was to facilitate the debate between Dick Smith and Voices of Reason on the main thread, without distraction from a high signal to noise ratio.

Dick Smith and Voices of Reason may choose to debate or respond to issues raised in this thread, or concentrate on responding to issues raised in their debate thread - at their discretion.

One must accept both Dick Smith and Voices of Reason are committing a significant amount of time to the debate thread. It is completely understandable if they do not respond to every issue raised in this thread.

Woomera is here to moderate - not arbitrate or adjudicate. PPRuNe can neither endorse nor change NAS, however we are aware the debate thread is being closely followed by many who are in a position to influence NAS and Australian airspace design.

Woomera

planespeaker

20th Jun 2004, 00:56

Roger, Woomera!

I just hope those who's "clearance requests" are ignored at the discretion of the "controller" don't get all indignant at being told "clearance not available.. remain OCTA"!

Blastoid

20th Jun 2004, 01:28

planespeaker = bindook.com supporter/author/administrator/... ??
(Woomera: Sorry I couldn't resist this "radio chatter" :oh: )

Capcom

20th Jun 2004, 02:02

Speakplainer
He replied to some of my questions, good on im', gave me an opportunity AGAIN to show the rubberiness of his arguments. That said, I am quite happy to sit and watch what happens from here on in!;)
If he chooses to concentrate on the VoR thread, even better.

I assume the others are asking for follow up on relevant questions asked PRIOR to the latest round that had not been answered. This has been going on for a year on and off between large bouts of NOCOM. Fair enough don't you think, considering this is the 'other opinions' thread.

Yep, he and VoR are devoting time on this issue, and it is appreciated for a number of reasons, first and foremost is that, it is the discussion that SHOULD have been had BEFORE AusNAS, not after.

Smith had mentioned months ago on here that he has 'helpers', so no hearts and flowers eh. He is in effect, in part, making up for tasks (Consultation) not undertaken properly previously!

I just hope those who’s "clearance requests" are ignored at the discretion of the "controller" don't get all indignant at being told "clearance not available.. remain OCTA"!Oh c'mon now, to take such a position would require:

- Pandering to a high profile army of 1 food merchant
- Membership of a self indulgent, self serving micro-minority
- Horse blinkers
- Little if any professionalism
- Being prepared to whine about something unrelated to the real problem (Airspace instead of the charging regime)
- Being flexible enough to be able to insert one's head in one's own augmenter.:ooh:

This on balance seems to be the “Pro-AusNAS” prerequisites. ?:E

Bye now!

Oz Ocker

20th Jun 2004, 02:46

planespeaker - maate - although this is a pilots' forum, do ya really hafta speak like a w@nker...." how about a suggestion to contributors to keep "radio chatter" to a minimum.... Dick has his hands full trying to "arrange clearances" for others on another frequency.". "Roger, Woomera!
I just hope those who's "clearance requests" are ignored at the discretion of the "controller" don't get all indignant at being told "clearance not available.. remain OCTA"!"
This is a mainly adults' website - that sorta stuff is what we'd expect from 9 and 10 year olds.

Oi Capcom, yer not playin' the same game as Dicky Peanutbutter are ya, by tryin' to guess who "ps" is are ya?
Poor ol' Dicks beside 'imself - shadow boxin' with VOR, Adrian, and the ATC'ers at large.

Gunner B12

20th Jun 2004, 05:27

Dick

Thank you for taking the trouble to respond to my point my appologies for not getting back sooner.

Gunner B12, you have asked who has declared the American system as world’s best practice. It wasn’t me but anyone who has had experience in flying in many airspace systems around the world would agree that it is a very good one. Why wouldn’t it be? It has evolved over 100 years with large amounts of money available (America is the wealthiest country on earth) and it is a very litigious society so pressure is brought to bear to have the best balance of safety, freedom and cost. So whilst it may not be the best one in the world in every situation, it is certainly an excellent system.

I would have to point out that just because it is a very good system in many peoples opinion doesn't make it best. The pre november australian system had evolved over the same period so we can't use that arguement. So I can only assume that you are using the litigation arguement to justify saying it is better. But isn't it also true that in a legal system those best represented are those who can best afford to litigate?

I will ask once again more clearly wouldnt worlds best practice be judged by the unbiased be the system with, the least accidents, the acknowledged most efficient services, the least burden on government funding and all that without the expensive radar coverage of other countries.

If you hadn't had the blinkers on when looking for worlds best practice is it not possible you could have found it right here? What we seem to have is change for change sake. The typical Australian industry model of It works so let's fix it.

planespeaker

20th Jun 2004, 06:26

Since some of you don't seem to have a sense of humour, I'll put it in plain english for you.

The post here was not for me to state an opinion on PPRuNe about NAS.

Imagine for a second that you're Dick Smith (God help you right?!) Now imagine deciphering line upon line after line of a post of EPIC proportions to weed out the "valid" points.

Give everybody a chance to have their opinion absorbed by the main players in the game. My advice? Keep it short, to the point, and concise.

Even the PM can't ramble on for that long in the house of reps.

Start up your own website if you wanna write a ton on it...

Darn it, think I will make a point after all. I happily take my wife and 3 kids into class E airspace from time to time. THAT's the strength of my conviction it is SAFER than what some of you make it out to be! If I am PIC under the dreaded VFR, my TX is always on, mode C, correct freq tuned, your unverified altitude observations of me to my IFR cousins in the area are almost always bang on, and I am ALWAYS listening to where VH-IFR and buddies are coming from and going to... how high/low etc... oh, and by the way if I'm nearby and even if there's any remote possibility of swapping paint existed, I always let VH-IFR know.. and... and if you got my intentions or unverified details wrong i.e. you think I'm S&L but I'm actually climbing or I'm passing through 7,000 shortly and you think I'm passing 5000.. and VH IFR is headed my way, if it's relevant (and without going into a long rambling, unprofessional monologue about it I know you're busy) I'd tell you!!!

Thing is, some of you might not trust those VFR lighties out there, (which is probably your core objection) but some of those lighties don't trust you either... no offence.

DirtyPierre

20th Jun 2004, 11:00

Planespeaker,

You have a mentality that comes about because;

- little experience
- little knowledge
- highly opinionated

= opens one mouth and establishes beyond any doubt that they have NFI!

Bit like Dick really.

Hasta la vista.

Capcom

20th Jun 2004, 13:53

Oz OckerOi Capcom, yer not playin' the same game as Dicky Peanutbutter are ya, by tryin' to guess who "ps" is are ya?Who, li’l ol’ me?

ps is just doin’ his bit to 'keep dick focused …' :ooh:

No, what I meant to say was ‘he is focused on dick’s…’ :eek:

No, ‘his dick is focused….’…No.. :uhoh:

‘he is being partial to dick….’….No, No:oh:

‘he is responding to a dick…’..Ah ****, no…:\

Ahfarkit, you know what I mean!:O Poor ol' Dicks beside 'imself - shadow boxin' with VOR, Adrian, and the ATC'ers at large.Gee, that’s a bugga, such a nice bloke n all!. Must send him a ‘get in a well soon’ card!:E

Nightie night! :=

Kaptin M

20th Jun 2004, 18:39

Well done, planespeaker, your attitude towards safety when aviating is responsible, and commendableI am ALWAYS listening to where VH-IFR and buddies are coming from and going to... how high/low etc... oh, and by the way if I'm nearby and even if there's any remote possibility of swapping paint existed, I always let VH-IFR know.. Unfortunately though, it would appear to be at loggerheads with Dick Smith'sIn modern countries such as the United States a pilot can fly enroute in silence, concentrate on the flying and enjoy the scenery. Imagine if everyone who went driving on the weekends in their car were forced to monitor and listen to a constant barrage of radio calls the whole time from commercial traffic – I’m sure you would agree driving wouldn’t be as popular.

With reference to the relationship between leisure pilots (PPL's in the main) and Air Traffic Controllers, you statebut some of those lighties don't trust you either.However, I wonder if it's really more a case of those PPL'ers not being confident with their R/T procedures, and being AFRAID to speak up for fear of thinking they'll make an ass of themselves.
Obviously I'm not referring to you, planespeaker, as your post indicates that you are quite comfortable in your communications work. :ok:

Blastoid

20th Jun 2004, 23:00

Planspeaker

It is nice to hear you do the right thing - by the sounds of it you have your transponder maintained properly (with an accurate Mode C), you listen out to the barrage of radio chatter (which according to Dick you should ignore and watch the pretty little lakes and mountains below), and it even sounds like you speak up when you think you need to. Godd work. If only we could depend on all VFR pilots to do likewise, it would be so much easier to pass traffic and get pilots talking to each other when they need to know they are in coflict. Unfortunately, in my experience, only about half of VFR pilots do what you do (more later).

As ****su-Tonka pointed out, let's imagine Class C airspace for a minute: IFR pay for a service, VFR do not. VFR calls for a clearance - nothing in the way - VFR gets clearance as requested. No delay.

This time, there is IFR traffic. VFR calls for a clearance. ATC will facilitate clearance to the VFR without significant delay to the IFR aircraft (yes, even in class C airspace, IFR can and do get moved around VFR - look at PJE as an example). Do you think it is providing a service to the paying customers (generally RPT, if not private IFR) to prioritise the VFR traffic?

Now bring in Class E airspace. VFR happily flying along. IFR is subject to a clearance. VFR is not. ATC does not provide a separation service, but provides traffic information - and facilitates "segregation" if necessary. Who has to move? The VFR traffic, if listening out, is often in a significantly different performance category that it would not even work if the VFR traffic tried to move for the IFR. So as it turns out, every time, without exception (in my experience since November 27), IFR traffic has had to maintain level or divert around known or unknown VFR traffic. So now VFR traffic get priority, by virtue of the fact that nobody apart from the pilot has the authority to move them.

But as I said before - good on you for doing the right thing. Except for the following example (which occurred to me recently): VFR was in E, overflying a D tower. A jet dpearted from the D tower, opposite direction to the VFR traffic. A broadcast was made, the VFR traffic identified himself, verified his level, confirmed his tracking intentions. Great stuff :ok: Jet calls, advised of traffic, advises he will maintain a level beneath untill passed :ok: Everyone is doing the right thing. About 45 sec. prior to passing, VFR traffic announces "we have the traffic sighted, and we are passed" to which the jet quickly replies "we also have the traffic sighted .... but we are not passed yet ... " :rolleyes:

We depend on all pilots to see and avoid in AusNAS. Perhaps some pilots' definitions of "avoid" differ from others? :{

Dick

How do you reconcile the fact that those who pay their way in the airspace now have to move around those that don't? So not only are IFR operators paying Avchrges (even though VFR never had to anyway), but they are also wasting money in "lost efficiency" avoiding other traffic. And I can assure you, Dick, that the money saved by VFR aircraft tracking direct is offset by the fuel wasted by RPTs (including 747s) dirverting around unknown traffic. Well Done. :ugh:

Four Seven Eleven

21st Jun 2004, 02:53

Dick Smith said:

Four Seven Eleven, you state:
quote:

Why do you still not have the courage to answer your own thread about the Brisbane Virgin incident? What are you afraid of?

Can you tell me the particular question you would like me to answer? I will answer it promptly.

The question is simply:
Brisbane Virgin incident - what are the facts?
In your original post on this subject, you incorrectly stated that ” the air traffic controller, if following the correct training, could have prevented the planes getting so close together so that a collision warning in the Virgin plane was not triggered.”

In support of this proposition, you cited some documentation which was wrong, in that it had nothing to do with the Brisbane Virgin incident.

So, to repeat the question, and to take you on your word that you “will answer it promptly”, “what are the facts?”. (More specifically, what are the facts which explain how such a ‘horrific’ incident could have occurred, when all parties apparently followed AusNAS procedures correctly?)

Dick Smith

21st Jun 2004, 05:12

Kaptin M, my comments in relation to flying enroute VFR in silence is of course only if the pilot avoids the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome. I have always supported that if a pilot flies in the airspace normally used for approach and departure that the pilot should monitor the frequency of that airport – nothing could be more logical.

However I simply cannot see the point of a VFR pilot flying enroute (say, at 3,500’) having to monitor airline aircraft above FL200. On the east coast, where the airline aircraft are within radar coverage, they do not give position reports so the VFR pilot monitors useless information – i.e. no position report means that the VFR aircraft does not know where the airline aircraft is. With the NAS system, the pilot flying enroute when in the approach or departure airspace of an aerodrome monitors that frequency, and gets a good alerted see and avoid procedure.

Blastoid, you seem to be mixed up between radio arranged separation and alerted see and avoid. What you actually describe (i.e. where two aircraft talk to each other in VMC and then arrange separation as if they are in IMC) is not BASI/ATSB alerted see and avoid. Alerted see and avoid is just that – the pilot receives traffic on another aircraft, looks in that direction and avoids the aircraft. BASI/ATSB have never said that alerted see and avoid is not satisfactory and that all pilots must use radio arranged separation when in VMC. The reason for this is because once two aircraft start radio arranging their separation; the frequency is completely blocked for any other traffic announcements. The radio arranged system may have worked in VMC in the 1950s in Australia, but with increasing traffic densities we need to move to a modern airspace system using alerted see and avoid.

By the way, ICAO Class E and G airspace specifically states (under ICAO recommendations) that no radio is required for VFR aircraft. That means that ICAO recognises that the airspace is a “see and avoid” airspace. If see and avoid is not satisfactory, why would ICAO have Class E and G airspace knowing that commercial airline traffic uses this airspace throughout the world? The reason is simple. Due to low collision risk in the Class E and G airspace used overseas, the unalerted see and avoid system is satisfactory to give the required level of safety.

Look at the US airspace diagram again.

http://www.aopa.com.au/airspace6.jpg

There are many Class D airports in the USA (where the Class D goes to 2,500’) with Class E above. Many of these airports have no radar coverage in Class E above the Class D, and even if they do, American controllers consistently tell me that they only provide traffic on a workload permitting basis and at many times they are simply too busy to provide a traffic service for an IFR aircraft descending through Class E into a Class D tower. In the USA there is no radio or transponder requirement for VFR in this “link” airspace.

As Voices of Reason said on another thread, there is no call from air traffic controllers or pilots to change the Class E airspace in the United States. The reason for this is that they all agree it is a very safe airspace.

Four Seven Eleven, you are an air traffic controller working for Airservices. If you are telling me that 5 years after Class E airspace was introduced to Australia that air traffic controllers have not been provided with the correct documentation, I will have to agree with you. I have previously said that the leadership in Airservices is abysmal, so I would accept that your documentation is faulty.

I have consistently pushed for Airservices to get American experts to explain how Class E airspace works.

I would have thought that plain commonsense would make it clear to an air traffic controller that if two planes were going to get very close together (and if both planes were communicating to the controller) that the controller would give a simple direction to one of the aircraft to help reduce the chance of a collision. I think you are telling me that a controller cannot do this because that is not in the current documentation. It seems like a very strange system to me. I believe many readers would agree.

I have an outrageous idea. Why don’t you contact your management at Airservices and ask them to introduce the US system where controllers are allowed to use commonsense? In situations similar to the Virgin Blue incident north of Brisbane, the controllers could then give one or the other aircraft an instruction, a suggestion or guidance that would keep the aircraft well apart – amazingly logical!

Perhaps you could advise www.bindook.com of the Airservices answer.

Four Seven Eleven

21st Jun 2004, 05:44

Dick Smith
Once again, I will take you at your word that you will answer the question. I will repeat the question, bearing in mind that you were the one who asked it in the first place:
……“what are the facts?”. (More specifically, what are the facts which explain how such a ‘horrific’ incident could have occurred, when all parties apparently followed AusNAS procedures correctly?)
I look forward to your reply to the question.
If you are telling me that 5 years after Class E airspace was introduced to Australia that air traffic controllers have not been provided with the correct documentation, I will have to agree with you.
I am not telling you that. Please do not attempt to avoid the issue by misrepresenting what I have said. A simple answer to the question will suffice.
I think you are telling me that a controller cannot do this because that is not in the current documentation.
Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said. Please stick to direct quotes, or the facts.
Perhaps you could advise www.bindook.com of the Airservices answer.
Sorry, I am unable to do so, as the website cited does not allow me access.
Edited to add:
I have an outrageous idea. Why don’t you contact your management at Airservices and ask them to introduce the US system where controllers are allowed to use commonsense?
Are you suggesting that we have not introduced the US system?

tobzalp

21st Jun 2004, 05:46

Dick Smith. ATC separate IFR from VFR in C not E. You are mistaken as to how class E works, ICAO E.

Blastoid

21st Jun 2004, 07:18

Dick

Thanks for your reply and clarifying the difference between alerted see-and-avoid and radio-arranged separation.

In my experience, alerted see-and-avoid does not provide a complete outcome - perhaps it is inherent to Australian aviation culture, but IFR pilots who are have been alerted to traffic often try and communicate with the said traffic (if not within the confines of an MBZ or CTAF) on the area frequency to determine each other's intentions and to self-separate. They are eagerly monitoring their TCAS (for those fortunate enough to have it) to determine the proximity of the traffic and whether any avoiding action is in fact required.

Don't forget, alerted see-and-avoid can only occur in an environment where there is adequate surveillance. You say that there is plenty of "non-RADAR Class E" in the US - and therefore I presume unalerted see-and-avoid (or is there VFR flight following in this non-RADAR airspace? Please explain).

I therefore ask you the following:

You have implied from previous posts that the three Virgin incidents which have occurred post Nov 27 have been blown out of proportion. The crucial incident (IMHO) was the Christmas eve incident at LT: unalerted see-and-avoid, resulting in a TCAS RA. The ATSB report indicates that the Tobago pilot mis-judged the anticipated profile of the jet. The ATSB report also states that at no time did the Virgin pilots ever see the traffic.

1. Did TCAS save a potential collision? (or was it Big Sky Theory?)

2. Why has Launceston magically benn provided with RADAR surveillance? Surely if non-RADAR Class E airspace is part of the overall NAS design, and therefore "safe"*, then this measure should not have been necessary?

3. What if (as you say in the US system) there was no mandatory transponder requirement - what in your opinion would have occurred?

4. Based on your answers to 1,2 and 3, do you think that this is an acceptable level of safety?

* by risk-analysis standards

Icarus2001

21st Jun 2004, 09:31

Dick you must be congratulated on your use of language. Excellent sound bite material, you are truly a walking headline.

Now then, in a recent post you made these comments...As we move to the US system in an incremental way, and pilots and air traffic controllers learn the “culture”, unnecessary safety incidents will reduce. This is already happening.
Commonsense alone is all that is necessary to know that there will be a substantial cost saving for the industry if there is less holding and fewer diversions. That is already happening with Class E airspace above Class D.

How on earth do you know this is happening? Not feel or believe but know it is happening? You claim elsewhere that you have little authority so where is this knowledge coming from? Do you visit BN or ML TAAATS centres daily?

One of your often used lines is that the US system has evolved over 100 years. Well here is some history direct from www.faa.gov

Oct 10, 1929: The Aeronautics Branch inaugurated position-reporting service for planes flying the Federal airways.

Nov 12-14, 1935: Representatives of all segments of the aviation community, except manufacturers, met at the Commerce Building in Washington, D.C., with Bureau of Air Commerce officials to discuss airway traffic control. Although the conferees agreed that the Bureau should establish a uniform system of air traffic control, a lack of funding prevented it from assuming control. Director of Air Commerce Vidal convinced the airline operators to establish airway traffic control immediately and promised that in 90 to 120 days the Bureau of Air Commerce would take over the operations. He also relaxed the general ban on instrument flying by private fliers. Those pilots could now fly by instruments if they filed a flight plan with the Bureau of Air Commerce and with at least one airline flying over the route they planned to use.

Dec 1, 1935: A consortium of airline companies organized and manned the first airway traffic control center at Newark, N.J. It provided information to airline pilots on the whereabouts of planes other than their own in the Newark vicinity during weather conditions requiring instrument flying. Two additional centers, similarly organized and staffed, opened several months later: Chicago in Apr 1936, Cleveland in Jun 1936.

Jan 1, 1938: An Airport Traffic Control Section was created in the Airways Operation Division of the Bureau of Air Commerce. The new section was to standardize airport control tower equipment, operation techniques, and personnel. Forty airport control tower operators had been certificated by Jun 30, 1938.

Feb 1, 1943: CAA inaugurated an expanded flight advisory service at all air route traffic control centers. The centers originated advisories on weather changes and hazardous conditions, and airway communication stations relayed this information to nonscheduled pilots. The service provided these pilots with some of the assistance that airline pilots received from their dispatchers. In Jul 1943, CAA's communication stations also began a flight

I Fly

21st Jun 2004, 09:38

Sorry for being a bit late with my post. With regards to the pprune contributors being anonymous. Most if not all Safety Management Systems have anonymous reporting for very good reasons. Or are you suggesting they are all wrong?

Just a few thoughts on Dick\'s reply of 21 June.

1 "As we move to the US system in an incremental way, and pilots and air traffic controllers learn the “culture”, unnecessary safety incidents will reduce."
How many 'necessary' incidents will there be?

2 This is because Australians regularly fly in the United States in both radar and non-radar airspace.
Dick and many Australians fly or have flown through Russian airspace. Our population distribution is more like theirs rather than the US. Why don't we adopt the Russian system? It's probably cheaper?

3 I am far happier to use commonsense and accept that 100 years of US airspace evolution has resulted in a very safe system.
I'm not aware that the Wright brothers were involved in airspace design.

4 As I’ve mentioned previously, all independent scientific experts tell me that the Aviation Risk Model that Airservices uses for design safety cases in Australia is so subjective that it is not really worth the paper it is written on.
Does that mean that 99.99% of scientific experts are not independent?

5 It is almost as if we developed a unique system in Australia which presumed that pilots were getting a “favour” from the air traffic control body to be able to fly in controlled airspace and they were indeed lucky if they got a clearance.
Perhaps Dick could work on the Australian Constitution and give us a right to the air.
The Australian Constitution is unique and ALL law has to comply with it.

5 I have never said that the United States system is safer than that used in any other country in the world.

6 I have had three successful businesses – all successful because I asked advice and copied the success of others. If we do this in Australia in relation to aviation we will be leaders in the world.
By following item 5, does that not make us sheep rather than leaders? I don't understand how we can be leaders by following someone.

tobzalp

21st Jun 2004, 10:35

I Fly. Whilst i agree with your sentiment, unfortunately the powers that be have now removed the only system (CAIR) that we could anonomously or even with our own names report any safety issues. I bet a pound of burnt aluminium that Dick and his buddies come preachng the reduction in reported incidents that are a direct result of not actually being able to report them.

p.s. Hi PC :p

scramjet77

21st Jun 2004, 10:47

CaptainMidnight

21st Jun 2004, 10:59

Dick
DESIGN SAFETY CASE
In relation to your last post (20 June 2004 22:31) about the design safety case, I will say once again. This was a unique requirement introduced by the Adrian Dumsa and the air traffic controllers at Airservices. I believe it was introduced so that any reform that was not supported by the air traffic controllers (Civil Air) and management could be stopped.

I think your claim that Airservices/Adrian Dumsa/air traffic controllers introduced the design safety case requirement purely to be obstructive is incorrect. CASA requires Airservices to conduct such assessments for all changes to the airways system as part of their ATS provider certification. But then I guess you also think CASA are a bunch of obstructive burocrats too.

AirNoServicesAustralia

21st Jun 2004, 11:49

Dick Smith, I am sure you can iron out this concern, or misunderstanding of mine, so please do. You said:

However I simply cannot see the point of a VFR pilot flying enroute (say, at 3,500’) having to monitor airline aircraft above FL200. On the east coast, where the airline aircraft are within radar coverage, they do not give position reports so the VFR pilot monitors useless information – i.e. no position report means that the VFR aircraft does not know where the airline aircraft is. With the NAS system, the pilot flying enroute when in the approach or departure airspace of an aerodrome monitors that frequency, and gets a good alerted see and avoid procedure

Now if that VFR pilot is flying Morrabin to Mildura at say 3,500, he follows your advice on departure from Morrabin and monitors all appropriate ATC frequencies. Then at the end of the flight tunes into the low level ATC frequencies on approaching Mildura and then switches to the MBZ. In the interim, as there is no benefit to be had in monitoring ATC frequencies "because he is flying enroute", he listens to some Slim Dusty tapes on his walkman instead. All well and good, except for the IFR aerocommander jumping out of Swan Hill for Essendon. The controller sees the potential conflict, but cannot contact the VFR aircraft because obviously as he is enroute there is no need for him to listen out.

The comment you made highlights your lack of understanding of the realities of flying. Just because one aircraft is in the enroute stage of flight happily cruising along outside any CTAF or MBZ's, doesn't mean an IFR aircraft in the area isn't on climb or descent or in the process of changing level, and thus about to upset the happy and ignorantly blissful VFR enroute flight.

Please answer this question with a straight answer and don't rollout that "Airspace at a glance" diagram for the 30th time, we have all seen it a lot of times and we are all really impressed.

SM4 Pirate

21st Jun 2004, 11:57

Another View On Airspace

The Eurocontrol AIRSPACE AND NAVIGATION TEAM (ANT) has a fresh understanding of airspace categorisation. The ANT works with 40 member states across Europe to harmonise and simplify airspace and at the ANT’s 34th meeting (9-11 June) work papers 2 and 3 on Operational Improvements within the European Airspace Strategy are being debated.

Improvement 2A concerns airspace below F195 while 1A is aimed above F195. The widespread opinion among stakeholder groups is that ICAO class E should not be used, therefore leaving ICAO class C and
D or G to choose from for Improvement 2A. It is expected that States who need to implement airspace improvements should adopt principles that keep the current level of safety and whenever
possible improve it. This means many States will need to provide funding for an increase in service provision from class G &/or E to class D &/or C airspace with a target date for completion of April 2006.

ICAO Airspace Classification system classifies airspace as either controlled or uncontrolled; A to E being controlled. The big difference with the Europeans is the notion of airspace environments, in particular class E where VFR flights are permitted without ATC clearance. This ANT meeting should formalise the approach that ICAO classification of airspace be based on known or unknown traffic as opposed to controlled or uncontrolled. Therefore A to D would be known traffic environments and E to G would be unknown traffic environments. Consequently the Europeans don’t consider class E to be controller airspace

Wow what a novel idea, controlled airspace applying to known traffic...

Dick, internationally harmonize with this please!

It would be interesting to see a list of 'stakeholders' and wonder how it would compare to an Australian list of stakeholders.

Four Seven Eleven

21st Jun 2004, 12:10

Dick Smith said in the 'other' thread:

I should point out that an airline aircraft flying from New York to Fairbanks – an internal flight as far as the USA is concerned – transits non-radar Class A airspace with Class G below to FL245. Of course aircraft transiting from Los Angeles to Honolulu are in Class A non-radar airspace.
Now you are confusing me. In the AOPA (USA) picture you keep posting (“airspace at a glance”), there is no mention of Class G going up to FL245, with Class A above. The highest level for class G in your picture is 14,500ft, abutting Class E.

Are you suggesting that this picture, which you keep posting, and on which you base so much of your view of the US system, does not accurately reflect the US system?

Surely you are not admitting that there is more to it than you have led us to believe.

Are you suggesting (again) that we are not adopting the US system, but rather a compromise/hybrid?

So, what is the truth?

truth (tr th)
n. pl. truths (tr thz, tr ths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
PS: You will remember that you lied about my job and impugned my motives for posting on these forums. You falsely suggested that I was motivated by pecuniary gain. As you have recently acknowledged, this was a lie, and I am indeed what I have always claimed to be, an air traffic controller. Do you intend to apologise for this lie?

PPS: As ever, I anxiously await your response to your question about the truth behind the ‘horrific’ Brisbane Virgin incident. Surely you are not afraid of answering? You did say you would answer. Some people still believe you will.

ferris

21st Jun 2004, 12:25

Dick, congratulations.

A very compelling, well crafted argument that cannot help but persuade most people that you have public interest at heart in your fight against bureacratic waste.

A compelling, well crafted pack of half-truths and misinformation designed to dupe people who can't see through it.

You are still lying, but getting better at it.

eg.Many people believe that air traffic controllers, pilots and managers on bonuses at Airservices should decide what airspace we move to. I happen to believe the elected Government should make the decision. Why, then, do you campaign so vigourously for 'world's best practice', the US system at some times, yet not others? In the US, they let ATC, pilots etc. do it all via the FAA. Surely you would want to copy that system, a proven system, which doesn't allow wealthy individuals to 'stand-over' the member for Gwydir in order to subvert due process in choosing airspace models?

Deception/half-truth? How about thisThe differences are so minor they are irrelevant. For example, there were points such as ..... you then go on to quote a few minor differences that suit your argument. Please publish the complete list , and then show how 'minor' they all are. "SUCH AS" just doesn't cut it.

Lies?As we move to the US system in an incremental way, and pilots and air traffic controllers learn the “culture”, unnecessary safety incidents will reduce. This is already happening. Remove the reporting system, then claim less reports? How very 'Yes, Minister'. Are there less incidents? What are the facts ?
As to learning the "culture", do you mean the way that controllers in the US control traffic, as if it WAS ACTUALLY UNDER THEIR CONTROL, and not as the rules require? Or does it mean their system is creaking at the seams, and they just do 'whatever they have to' to try and make it work? Try telling a VFR in oz to follow vectors or climb/descend in class 'E', and see how far you get. Try telling an IFR flight commencing from class 'G' to wait. All 'cultural', just no basis in 'rules' or 'law'- possibly why you are having trouble introducing a system that mainly exists in 'culture'.In relation to safety management and the safety case, I can only use commonsense to prove that the US system provides safety levels that are acceptable by Australians. This is because Australians regularly fly in the United States in both radar and non-radar airspace By your own admission, we are currently in a limbo between what was, and what will be. Where is your 'proven system' that has this interim stepped airspace? Or where is your safety case?I would far prefer to accept a proven system, rather than a system designed by a group of well-meaning but inexperienced (in airspace design) pilots and air traffic controllers So who designed ausNAS? I'd suggest people in exactly the same category as those you don't trust? Who designed the US system? I'd suggest the same. Furthermore, HOW CAN YOU BE SURE IT IS THE SAME SYSTEM? Don't you think radar coverage is a fundamental aspect of the US system? Were you and the gentleman from Qantas qualified to factor in the lack of radar in oz? These are the sorts of questions that make the professionals squirm when they read your diatribes about 'proven systems' and who designs what.Commonsense alone is all that is necessary to know that there will be a substantial cost saving for the industry if there is less holding and fewer diversions Who do you think you are kidding? You are not saving money, you are cost shifting. THE AIRLINES now have to absorb the cost of diversions, RAs etc. Your 'third party' ops are going to be CAGROs funded by who? Airlines of course!! And guess who are, by far, the largest group of airspace users? People sitting in the back of AIRLINERS!

You are screwing the public for your own selfish ends.I wouldn’t necessarily say that a Boeing aircraft was safer than an Airbus aircraft. They both meet very high safety standards. I would be happy to purchase either one. Airspace is the same. I am happy to copy a safe airspace system – not build a Nomad. The trouble is with this analogy is that you are not building a Nomad- what you are doing is more akin to taking a B747 and cutting it down to a B737. You might have end products of each one to look at, but the steps involved might warrant testing?It stands to reason that if we are going to move away from our system – which relied very much on a traffic information service in Class G (pretty well unique in the world) – run by flight service, to a system run by air traffic controllers, it would be more sensible for us to follow the North American system as the geography has greater similarities to that in Europe. Why move to a different system. Aren't you happy with world's best practice, the oz system, a system the americans are trying to MOVE TOWARDS? You've already shown your reason for change to be flawed or outright lies.The difference with the FAA is that it does not profit out of the airspace so there is not a conflict of interest. So all of this could have been avoided if only you'd changed the charging system, the real cancer? Stopped the govt using AsA as a tax?If we do this in Australia in relation to aviation we will be leaders in the world. So, we copy a creaking, old system, and that will makes us world leaders? Yeah, right......

Anyway, people can make up their own minds. Good effort, though. Much more compelling lies etc.

GaggedAgain

21st Jun 2004, 15:43

It's Planespeaker, Xxx - whatever you want to call me - here.

First of all, if you are wondering WHY I continue changing my username it isn't by choice, or some weird way of going about things.

Since someone at PPRuNe has decided to "block me out" (I'm not banned they use a certain program to "brown me out"... c'mon fellas I ain't stupid) as soon as they recognise who it is making these posts they move to prevent me from getting in and stating an opinion, so.. I have no choice other than to change my username and IP address!!

It's excellent to see some practical, realistic operational scenarios are being played out by you guys in your postings. That means this debate is getting somewhere.

I have quite a few personal messages in my PPRuNe box, to whoever has sent them, sorry, I am unable to read them / respond to your msg thanks to PPRuNe's block , feel free to make them public knowledge on this thread or send them again through this name. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

PPRuNe Don't expect someone like me to give up my convictions that easily. I have a thousand IP's & names to use so PPRuNe, give it up!!! After all, I'm the only one in here with "Dick" who has the guts to come in and slug it out with the anti-NAS folks here and cop the abuse.

Ferris, world leading programs are made anywhere by taking an already successful system/product/SERVICE and making it BETTER. Macdonalds took the hamburger and said "lets not let people wait 20 minutes for it" and look at them now. Pizza has been around for a thousand years, but just tell Pizza Hut it's a ricketty, old food. That's one of the secrets to Dicks riches, and one of the reasons he comes across as so dynamic, he's made a success out of many more things than you have.

He's wrong you say? How the hell can you compare Pizza or Hamburgers to Air safety? Easy. It's the same principle... take something that works well somewhere, and has been proven to do so for years, (the US airspace system) add the missing "ingredient/s" required here and PRESTO you have a world leader.

I DON'T BELEIVE EVERYTHING DICK SAYS!!!!!

Tobzalp I agree completely to your last post. Self reporting?? For God's sake C'mon..... CAIR will be back eventually, no doubt. ASRS must be Mike's suggestion, Dick. Wonder if he ever reported himself for not making any radio calls in MBZ's to save his company the landing fee? (ask him.. catch him by surprise & look into his eyes Dick...) Maybe 95% of the reports received from CAIR were so called self serving rubbish... So are 95% of the leads Police receive (my Wife's a cop) but that genuine 5% are absolute gold, well worth that 95% of rubbish.... you think the cops could use ASRS hey???? "Sure that'll solve a helluva lot more crimes."

BUT CLASS "E"? HE'S RIGHT!" ...

Blastoid question for you... If you're vectoring that 747 you mentioned in Aussie C airspace nearing a capital city aerodrome, Dick's about 5,000 below in a lightie in G airspace with mode "A" selected on his transponder, (maybe he doesn't even have that, he's just a primary target) what did you do then prior to NAS??? Wouldn't you rather be vectoring the 74 in E with all operating mode "C'"s rather than with an ID'd target in "C" with unidentified primary target (that could be in C you never know) in "G"???? Wouldn't mandatory "C" be FAR better than transponder "whatever"???

Did someone mention Slim Dusty on a walkman?? Awww C'Mon!!!! Must have been you!!!

As for the inconvenience to IFR Pilots in E, I'd much rather traffic advisories in E on unknown VFR's rather than being an IFR Pilot in G without TCAS on descent heading at 200KTS toward a 4 seat 120KT VFR with no transponder coming the other way. It's actually happened to me, thank GOD for the big sky theory... imagine 0 Ft vertical separation and about 200 ft lateral separation... talk about unalerted see and avoid! (It's like Oooooh!!!! oh.......). True, I feel far safer in C, but that just isn't practical in a well spread out country such as AUS.

Dirty Pierre and Capcom It's "writeoffs" like yours that are the real concern... if you are high capacity RPT pilots, hope you don't write off the no nothing passenger that shows you the "crack" in your fuselage. Unlike you with me, I won't write off your "serious" aviation related concerns, wrong or otherwise. You have no idea about another's experience. I always assume here in PPRuNe I am dealing with professionals.

Alright PPruNE, there it is.. Wonder how many posts before you block this username out???

WALLEY2

21st Jun 2004, 16:34

The NAS question is complicated but lets try to give Dick and VoR some simple Question or statements. I will start:

Dick, the BME DAS advised the change in risk and cost of a number of options CAGRS/MBZ was the base line. It found CTAF unnacceptable, D tower 20% improvement. Best if tower done on subcontract to AsA:

BME CAGRS record indicates no terminal airspace problems or major incidents, all major users and most pilots say system is fine and cost effective- I say do not change-You now say go to D class Tower no study etc needed.

You say I am worried about my profits. I say CAGRS cost us as our charge was pre Ansett collapse and based on 146 a/c not 737-800 and tower will not cost us as all costs will be passed on to users therefore my profit goes up.

We now seem to agree on MBZ at major regional a/ps and at least CAGRS at BME.

With regards tower, I am worried about:- cost to users- arbitary unstudied decision making- need for transponders that most NW GA a/c do not have and will be a large expenditure for them that some can not afford.

So for NAS to be acceptable to BME all we wanted was studied approach( we would have done and financed this, if asked), consultation with us and stakeholders( we would have organised), alerted see and avoid(mandatory calls now accepted) and third party comms. You are now of this opinion, or one step ahead with D Class Tower.

We could have solved BME terminal airspace and been well down the road to all major regional a/ps and NAS full ahead.

We went ballistic only when Mike Smith said we would be a CTAF(USA) and learn to live with it, even when he could not point to one A/P in the USA as big and diverse as BME that was CTAF- refused to release the taxpayer funded report on the experts trip to USA and bagged Captain Beville-Anderson's report of the same trip that confirmed our desktop study.

We were absolutely worried about safety, bugger profits, I like to sleep at night. We had seen a 15NM MBZ fail and an alarming number of incidents and with CASA help increased the MBZ area and introduced CAGRS. Yet this guy was telling us a 4.5-10NM CTAF was all that was needed. We went head to head to protect the public from this arrogant ,stupid proposal and the system that was trying to impliment it without data, consultation or study.

Looking on this VoR-Dick debate and the Others thread I am coming to the conclusion that it was the- From high,No changes allowed, no studies, no discussion, no trust and Mike Smith lecture approach that has resulted in a major stuff up, much angst and near tragedy. While infact with a more flexibly analysed approach with ARG & NASIG recognising lack of radar, culture difference and therefore some serious changes to say 15% of USA model, the NAS could have been successfully implimented.

So S-T, Capcom etc

Is this over simplistic or could your major concerns on airspace and ATC be solved within a designed analysed hybred NAS that takes account of the differences AUS vs USA or, unlike BME terminal airspace, is it impossible to realistically apply NAS(USA) plus 10-20% changes and get a NAS(AUS). Lets leave aside the question as to wether the existing system needed fixing.

If it could be done, can you try to simply explain what changes were needed to the USA NAS to make a safe transition if properly done. Factors like C vs E, VFR over top, VFR tracking, IFR-VFR seperation without radar. How our ATC, Pilots ways needed to be allowed for. etc

Thanks Mike Caplehorn

Mr.Buzzy

21st Jun 2004, 16:59

Sir, Without getting caught up in the finer detail of airspace management and politics could you please explain to me why light aircraft are so over-represented in all of this?

This is about a SAFE system for the travelling public, the vast majority of which are travelling with the airlines.
Apologies to the weekend warriors decked out in tweed jackets and moleskins but this is a case of you guys working around the TRAVELLING PUBLIC and not vice versa.

This is not a contest of big plane pilots versus small plane pilots... In fact lets leave the pilots out of it for arguments sake. This is all about what the travelling public pay for and are entitled to.... They are certainly entitled to a ride where they are not inconvenienced by; let alone endangered by a light private operation!

Has this become a headbutting contest between those with the public's safety at heart and those silvertails fortunate enough to fly themselves about?

Why was there such public outcry when taxpayers money was used to surface the late Sir. Joh's driveway when Highway One was in such a state of disrepair?

ferris

21st Jun 2004, 17:10

Gagged again:

I really appreciate where you are coming from, but 'what is better ' is open to interpretation. Personally, I don't think McDonalds makes better burgers than the fish & chip shop !! In a high pressure environment, like the states, you might want a McDonalds (fast and bad for you), but does Australia need it? For Australian conditions, who says that what was made in Australia isn't better? I would've thought that Dick, as quick as he is to beat the ozzie marketing drum on his own products, would've been very keen to package the oz system and SELL IT TO THE YANKS, not vice versa. He even bags AsA for tendering for an Hawaiian tower!

More to the point, it's the total disregard for, and subversion of, the normal change process that really grates. He might've got it in without a peep if he had done it properly.

KLN94

21st Jun 2004, 21:18

I wonder what NAS would be like if they made the following changes;

1. Put the area frequencies and sectors back on the charts and tell all VFR aircraft that they must listen to that frequency when in that sector so that they can be contacted by ATC or an IFR aircraft re any impending conflicts.

2. Make another frequency for FL120 and above so that the jets don't have to listen to incessant 'bugsmasher' chatter and visa versa.

3. Tell Dick Smith to shut up and just fade away. He is doing more damage to NAS by being the defacto spokesperson for it because more people dislike him personally, and therefore by association, dislike NAS.

Mr.Buzzy

21st Jun 2004, 21:32

KLN94.
I agree in part with your first two points but have to disagree on point three.

Obi von Kenobi

21st Jun 2004, 21:57

GaggedAgain
Don't expect someone like me to give up my convictions that easily. I have a thousand IP's & names to use so PPRuNe, give it up!!! After all, I'm the only one in here with "Dick" who has the guts to come in and slug it out with the anti-NAS folks here and cop the abuse.
Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?

Atlas Shrugged

22nd Jun 2004, 00:01

VOR said to Dick Smith:As a side point, you might notice that when challenged, we go to the trouble of providing hard factual evidence and reasoned assumptions. Perhaps you might be able to respond with copies of data or information on which you are making assumptions and statements. I suspect it would help to bolster your arguments amongst the wider audience. Indeed!!

AS

GaryGnu

22nd Jun 2004, 01:04

Planespeaker/GaggedAgian

You have said,

Wouldn't you rather be vectoring the 74 in E with all operating mode "C'"s rather than with an ID'd target in "C" with unidentified primary target (that could be in C you never know) in "G"????

and

I'd much rather traffic advisories in E on unknown VFR's rather than being an IFR Pilot in G without TCAS on descent heading at 200KTS toward a 4 seat 120KT VFR with no transponder coming the other way.

It is the mandatory transponder requirement of the NAS changes that gives the safety margins you are alluding to not the airspace reclassifications.

Whilst acknowledging that both the changes came in with NAS, they should not be seen as a package. There is no reason the two elements cannot be decoupled.

Niles Crane

22nd Jun 2004, 01:17

Now I am really getting concerned. It looks like a few of us are suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome".

NAS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN ANY WAY

NAS is not compatable with the ATM Strategic Plan.

If NAS is implimented as advertised and the Stategic Plan come into effect when ATS-B comes on line, we will end up with "E" airspace down to 1200 feet AGL all over the country, no VFR aircraft fitted with ADS-B sqitters, 3 times the number of controllers for the expanded "E", all at the expense of IFR aircraft!

This is not a very good outcome.

Please do not think that just because we go through correct safety procedures to justify that it is safe that is the airspace that we need for the future. IT IS NOT!!:suspect:

gaunty

22nd Jun 2004, 04:16

There have been many comments on the transponders in "E" outside radar as a "mitigator" with the use of TCAS, which in Oz GA, means "just about everywhere".

The following might be a little subtle for the pro NAS lot but:

www.avweb.com

"Security Mandarins Ponder DC Panic...
Pilot error has been ruled out and now the people who try to keep Washington, D.C., safe from terrorism will figure out among themselves what led them to scramble fighters and evacuate the Capitol last Wednesday for an airplane that never strayed an inch from its approved (and very well-documented) flight path. The King Air 200 carrying Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher (a former fighter pilot) had a waiver to take Fletcher into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport so the governor could attend a memorial for the airport's late namesake. But before it landed, its arrival caused panic (see AVweb's prior coverage") ... perhaps an appropriate reaction to police officers at the Capitol building shouting, "one minute to impact." The pseudo drama began with a balky transponder that quit working shortly after the King Air left Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport early Wednesday afternoon. Following the regulations for such an occurrence, the pilots of the Kentucky State Police aircraft notified air traffic control and maintained contact throughout the flight. "They followed directions from air traffic controllers explicitly," said Doug Hogan, Fletcher's communication's director. "

Yup about the same age as most of the GA transponder equipment operating in the same "Oz just about everywhere".

Myself and the more rational members of the last AOPA board voiced similar concerns pre and post 2b implementation, which in typical fashion brought calumnny and personal vilification upon our persons by the zealot PPL and self proclaimed legends and Smith apologists there, as not "in the interests of members" and the heretical suggestion by us that there should be a means of "verifying" transponder operation for aging aircraft that rarely if ever went near a "radar" as "against the interests of the members and an uneccesary cost imposition".
Biennial radio inspections ? yeah right!

Neither should you assume that the "official" AOPA position in support of the NAS is held by the membership at large, there has been the same form of "consultation" with the AOPA members on this subject as was undertaken by the NASIG at large.!

Before last year the AOPA "Board" (you should not assume the members) position was UNEQUIVOCAL NAS support i.e. "whatever Dick said".
A number of us on the board had to fight very hard, yes against the same relentless calumny and personal vilification, to get it changed to add the very important "but will closely monitor its implementation".

Who in his right mind will give a blanket endorsement to anyone without the knowledge of what will actually get implemented.

I will also state unambiguously, that in my opinon the AOPA board were AT THE VERY LEAST, misled and manipulated regarding the proposed agreed contents and the final release of the actual content of the 2B Training and Educational material.

The timing of which was foiled by an equally concerned Qantas, the other major stakeholder/participant in the T & E material, alerting us to its shortcomings only 4 days before it was to be comitted.

WE at least the then AOPA VPs including the one whose portfolio it was, were NOT addressees to the final 2b iteration from the NASIG, which did NOT include the "frequencies and boundaries on the charts in the transition", nor were we informed of the meeting that was proposed on the subject in Sydney the Friday before the commital date. There is more which I will not discuss here for the moment.

AOPA had agreed (with I believe Qantas) to "badge", ie endorse the 2B implementation TRAINING AND EDUCATION package SUBJECT to it containing ALL of the mitigators agreed between the NASIG and ALL INDUSTRY as part of the hazard identification process conducted by them in Sydney, around July 2003.

The "TRAINING AND EDUCATION " mitigators in question were, "frequencies and boundaries on the charts in the transition".

"Frequencies and boundaries on the charts in the transition" was to allow airlines, Qantas and it's regionals and industry the "time" that was not available in the "NAS timetable" for "timely" dissemination throughout their organisations.

The thousands of "orphan" pilots identified by us who did not have easy access to a "knowledgeable" organisation were to be ignored as irrelevant. That is anyone not in the "J" curve.

IMHO the very ones the most exposed in the new system.

There were also to my knowledge many ATCers, who were not yet themselves fully trained nor entirely up to speed with the material.

The "non inclusion" was as I understand it a unilateral decision by a single individual imposed on the NASIG on the grounds, "that it wasn't done in the US model". therefore it couldn't be done here.:rolleyes:

The 2B implementation from our perspective was either an unmitigated shambles, an exercise in shameless duplicity or both.

The most prominent proponent of the whole fiasco admitted to me in a telephone conversation that we were serially misled and that the persons involved in doing so should be hailed as "Australian heroes" for ignoring the concern and leading the country to a better system against an incompetent majority. My response that "it is OK for them (the incompetents :rolleyes: ) to be misled then" was met with a "whatever it takes".:{

Oh and whilst I am at it re the "independent" Willoughby and Associates report.
Was there a declaration/disclaimer in the report of who are/were the "Associates" and any "conflict of interest"
I have it on impeccable authority (the Townsville refueller again :E) that at least one of the contributors/authors was an employee of Dick Smith.
A "Dorothy Dixer" report indeed?

In closing: for all the concerned pilots and ATCers out there, I also have it on impeccable authority (not the TVL refueller) that this debate and Smiths participation in it is now all relatively immaterial apart from the lessons to be learned.
It is now firmly back where it always belonged in the first place "in the hands" of DOTARS now actually running NASIG, CASA and AirServices with NASPAG controlled by the relevant CEO's.
I also understand that there have been some seriously career limiting observations made about some by DOTARS.
VOR's classic "Authority WITH Responsibility". I don't imagine really clever public servants get their personal ambitions confused with a non government persons "Influence".

I am not surprised but very pleased to see that neither are VOR deflected by the usual discursive polemic.

I am also really dissappointed that the little bully boy is back with his personal and libellous attacks against public servants and others who by convention have no means of defence.
The idea that the Airservices executive design airspace to increase their bonus is as ludicrous, cheap and bankrupt a notion as is the person who promotes it.

edited to close a bracket.

Blastoid

22nd Jun 2004, 04:23

GaggedAgain (or whatever you reincarnate as....)

Wouldn't you rather be vectoring the 74 in E with all operating mode "C'"s rather than with an ID'd target in "C" with unidentified primary target (that could be in C you never know) in "G"???? Wouldn't mandatory "C" be FAR better than transponder "whatever"???

There is some validity in your point - of course it would be lovely if everybody had a transponder, was squawking Mode C, serviced their transponders so that they were accurate, etc.

To respond, however: vectoring in Class C airspace - any targets that were observed (primary or secondary with Nil Mode C) are assumed to be outside class C airspace. You may argue that assumption. If they are inside, they are breaking the law. That is a defence in this system - the pilot has to be doing something wrong for him to be there in the first place. Having said that, see-and-avoid (unalerted of course) would still be a defence, as would TCAS for a nil Mode C secondary target (which, when it calls "Traffic", the 747 pilot will query you. And that will make you pay attention, because the fact that his TCAS can see it means that it is within a reasonable vertical distance of the 747).

However, VFR can now fly through E happily all day without a clearance, and talk to no-one. The key point in your post was that all have operating mode C - and while many do, this is where there is a major shortcoming.

As I said to you, full marks to you for listening out, activating Mode C, and speaking up if required. And if we can see you, we won't vector the 747 towards you (if we need to vector him), and the fact that we can see you means that the system is working as it should (albeit unless we talk to you, we need to apply extra buffers on your Mode C).

However, since Nov 27, I have literally lost count of the number of occassions that I have realised there are VFR aircraft in E without a serviceable Mode C (or that is incorrect), or their transponder doesn't provide a return whatsoever. That is the most concerning thing, because they think "My transponder is on Mode C, people can see me" but in fact no-one can. And before you refute this with a "but their transponder won't be indicating that it is replying", yes they have, and their has still be no return on the RADAR.

Don't get me started on non-RADAR - refer to my post to Dick.

The message in all of this is that post November 27, everyone is working within the letter of the law (or AIP, or whatever) - IFR with a clearance, VFR in E - except that he doesn't know it is not working. Everyone is doing as they should and yet the ONLY defence it comes down to is unalerted see-and-avoid. See comparison with previous example on C airspace.

And when it comes to non-RADAR - the seriousness of the Christmas Eve incident at LT is plain to see when all concerned were operating as required under NAS.

Slim dusty? No, it wasn't me - you must be confusing me with somebody else. I mentioned you were enjoying the view below.

KLN94,

2. Make another frequency for FL120 and above so that the jets don't have to listen to incessant 'bugsmasher' chatter and visa versa.

We already have that in most areas - Class A frequency, and Class E/G frequency. The trouble is the sectors are often combined resulting in everyone being able to hear everyone else. The trouble is it would require many, many more controllers to split the frequencies permanently. But nice idea.

DirtyPierre

22nd Jun 2004, 04:54

Gaunty,

Thanks for your input. You probably already know this, but many ATCs in OZ are actually also private pilots. In fact, I used to work with two who also flew part-time with the old Bush Pilots (BPA).

Oz ATCs know that not everyone in AOPA is not in support of NAS (No Actual Separation), as we actually have some ATCs who are members of that organisation. It seems that the same loud minority within AOPA, along with Dick, have hijacked what could have been very sensible airspace reform.

Gaggedagain, I say again, you have NFI!

Australia is a place renown for innovation and invention. Stumpjump plow, combine harvester, DME, MLS, TAAATS, just quickly spring to mind. Why not have the best, most innovative airspace in the world suitable for our uniquely Australian conditions and culture. Give ALL stakeholders a say in the process, and carry out appropriate testing of new airspace and procedures.

Lets do it better than the yanks. F#$@ McDonalds, I'd rather have my hamburger with beetroot, not pickles (whatever they are), I sit in the front seat of the cab, and I watch footy and cricket.

And I'd like my airspace Australian as well.

Dick Smith

22nd Jun 2004, 06:13

Blastoid, yes, you have it 100% correct. It is “inherent to the Australian aviation culture” that IFR and some VFR will use radio arranged separation rather than alerted see and avoid when in VMC. The radio arranged separation system can only work in Australia where traffic densities are so low. As I explained previously, once two aircraft start arranging separation, the frequency is blocked for any other traffic announcements.

In the USA and other countries in which I have flown, a system called “alerted see and avoid” is used. It is the one that BASI/ATSB claims is necessary for airline aircraft. With an alerted see and avoid system, an aircraft receives an announcement from another aircraft and then looks in that direction to avoid the other plane.

Yes, you are correct. In the US system (and in systems right around the world) unalerted see and avoid is the norm in low traffic density airspace. It actually results in the same level, or a slightly higher level, of safety than what we get with our “radio arranged separation”. I believe the reason is easy to understand. If you look at the BASI/ATSB MTAF and MBZ reports (1993 and 2003), you will see that there are many unalerted see and avoid incidents happening. This is because the frequency is blocked with people using radio arranged separation, or often the radio is on the wrong frequency or the volume is turned down.

We have a system at the present time in Class G airspace that relies very much on unalerted see and avoid. It is a fact of life that pilots have to be vigilant at all times.

Launceston incident
In relation to the Launceston incident, the ATSB report was totally biased and showed that the investigators had no understanding of how the ICAO Class E airspace should work. The Tobago pilot was monitoring both the tower and the ATC area frequency and had full traffic information on the Virgin aircraft. He sighted the aircraft well out and claims to this day that there was never any chance of a collision. He agrees that the Virgin plane came closer than he thought it would, however he maintains that if necessary he simply would have altered heading or descended. He told the ATSB investigators that there was simply no chance of a collision – that is why he did not alter heading, climb or descend.

In that particular situation it was the big sky theory that saved the potential collision. If it had been necessary for the Tobago pilot to alter heading or climb and descend, it would have been alerted see and avoid. If the collision had been prevented by TCAS it would have been the TCAS that saved the potential collision. Remember that in the USA there is no transponder requirement in similar non-radar airspace – nor do they even recommend that VFR aircraft monitor the tower or any frequency. They do not have this recommendation as they have found it to be totally unnecessary. Obviously 100 years of experience counts.

If the Launceston situation occurred without a mandatory transponder requirement and if the Tobago was not fitted with a transponder, there never would have been an incident reported. This is because the Virgin aircraft never sighted the Tobago, and the Tobago pilot believed there was no incident. This shows what an incredible beat up the situation was. It was clearly the system working correctly and the ATSB beat it up out of all proportion and called it a serious incident. You may like to look at my website (see http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Content.php?ContentID=288) because the Tobago pilot does not agree with the ATSB report but has never been able to gain access to the actual wording of what was said during the communication in which he was involved. I understand that people at Virgin were able to read the transcript, but not the private pilot. Readers can make their own judgement on that.

In relation to it being an acceptable level of safety, all I can say is that it is certainly better than what we have overhead busier airports such Ayers Rock and Broome. The airspace above those airports is Class G - there is no requirement for a transponder at all and the airline aircraft is not being separated from other IFR. I would prefer to go to Class E with mandatory transponder, than Class G without transponder any day.

Icarus2001, you ask how I know that some benefits are already happening. It is quite simple – I ask advice. For example, the ATSB figures show that resolution advisories are reducing, and I have spoken to many pilots who are now gaining the benefit of being able to track directly over Class D towers – where in the past they were often diverted or held. The Tobago pilot of the Launceston incident is an example. He has claimed that with the system before 27 November 2003 up to 50% of the time when overflying Launceston, he was given extra tracking distance – even if it was only an IFR Navajo in the airspace and the conditions CAVOK.

I Fly, the reason I would not support the Russian system here is that it is the most restrictive and costly in the world. It is basically a type of Class A airspace everywhere with VFR being forced to fly as if they were IFR. It is constant position reporting all the time for VFR, similar to our pre-1991 Aussie system.

Scramjet77, the difference between the Aussie MBZ calling in the blind system and the US CTAF system is that they obtain a far higher level of compliance with their recommended procedures than we do with our mandatory procedures. All the data I have seen shows that they do not have the major problems that we have in relation to unalerted see and avoid at non-tower airports. The most obvious reason for this is that their system relies on alerted see and avoid with more announcements, rather than radio arranged separation with two aircraft blocking the frequency.

More importantly, virtually every non-tower airport you operate at in the United States that has airline traffic also features a UNICOM. The UNICOM gives a third party confirmation that the radio is working. Our very high number of unalerted see and avoid in MBZs does not come from non-radio aircraft, it comes primarily from simple pilot error. I believe by moving to the US system we would have similar compliance rates and our quite serious problems in MBZs would be reduced.

In relation to your question number 1, I do not have exact figures for the cost of so far introducing NAS 2b and the attempted 2c, however it could be some millions of dollars. This will pale into insignificance when compared to the continuing savings by the industry as they do not have to hold or be sent extra distances in the old Class C airspace.

I can’t show exactly how the claimed $70 million savings will be achieved other than point you to the Willoughby Report, where an independent expert stated that this was his estimate. I’ve always believed that the savings would be far higher.

CaptainMidnight, my comments in relation to the design safety case remain. Mick Toller of CASA particularly told Airservices that they would not be required to do a design safety case in relation to certain NAS features. Even though this was stated by Mick, it appears that Airservices’ internal procedures stated that they must do a full design safety case. As I have stated numerous times before, that's Airservices’ responsibility, not Mick Toller’s or mine.

By the way, there is nothing to say that a design safety case cannot primarily rely on statistics from a proven system. It is obvious that if someone did a correct design safety case on the full US system (the FAA has never bothered) it would show that the system was acceptably safe.

AirNoAirservicesAustralia, you are basically claiming that the US system (i.e. a system where VFR aircraft do not monitor ATC frequencies when enroute as in the USA) cannot work in Australia. If you really believe that in the system before 27 November 2003, VFR pilots were monitoring the correct ATC frequency when enroute, you are wrong. Many pilots ended up on the wrong frequency or with the volume turned down because of the constant communication on the frequency that was irrelevant to them. I would suggest that if there is an IFR aircraft climbing or descending in enroute Class G or E airspace that the pilot remains vigilant to see and avoid other traffic. This is what I did as a pilot before 27 November 2003 and I continue to do so now.

Four Seven Eleven, as pointed out by Voices of Reason, an aircraft flying from New York to Fairbanks is actually in Canadian airspace, and in the northern airspace their Class A airspace drops to FL245.

Four Seven Eleven, whether you like it or not, you work for a commercial organisation. As an air traffic controller your income comes from the commercial sale of your services to a customer. You will benefit if your organisation produces higher profits as your union will be astute enough to make sure you get a share – that is good. Don’t kid yourself, you are not some type of charitable safety regulator – you are just as commercial as when I stood behind the counter selling products. You sit behind a radar screen selling air traffic services. Don’t be holier than thou, everyone knows that your interests are commercial and that is in total conflict with having Government regulatory powers for airspace – which your organisation has.

Creampuff

22nd Jun 2004, 07:13

Dick

In the thread titled "The NAS debate: Voices of Reason and Dick Smith", you've stated among other things that:I [Dick Smith] should point out to all readers that the NAS model (see http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/nasfinal.doc) has been approved by Federal Cabinet. It was not just the Minister, it went to Cabinet level, and the elected Government decided that this was the airspace system that Australia was to move to.You've also stated that:The elected Government clearly instructed Airservices to comply with the law on the introduction of NAS.I note that the Air Services Act says in section 16 that:(1)The Minister may give written directions to AA relating to the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers.
…
(2) AA must comply with a direction given under subsection (1).I'm sure that you would agree that if the Minister and the Cabinet thought the introduction of NAS was so important, the Minister would have given, or would have been made by the Cabinet to give, a direction to Airservices to do so.

Are you aware if such a direction has been given? If such a direction has not been given, I'm sure that you would agree "the government" is, like you, prepared to talk the talk but not prepared walk the walk.

Y0DA

22nd Jun 2004, 09:09

****su Tonka is right!

I say......

http://users.bigpond.net.au/plazbot/stfuyoumust.jpg

Dog One

22nd Jun 2004, 10:13

After reading the final pages of the debate, I cannot believe how childish Mr Smith is becoming in his responses.

SM4 Pirate

22nd Jun 2004, 11:00

Dog One, how true...

Dick your even starting to annoy your supporters, just use VOR not all the other variations you're posting, what's the point?

As an ATC I am very disturbed at the suggestion that my commercial concerns mirror those of the company for which I work. Whilst I like my pay packet, I like my job more... Ultimately I suspect your messing with both.

My job used to be incredibly satisfying; it has become less so since you have meddled, again.

I'm not change resistant, I just like knowing that changes represent good value, I'm very unconvinced. Yes I've read the Willoughby report; it's a joke, like many safety cases.

I'm convinced that 'end state' we need more ATCs (and transitional points), so we have not saved a cracker... Yet we have increased risk in more areas than we have reduced it.

As for the LT radar debacle; why are you not out there saying deploy it where it is needed. I wrote to my CEO in February saying don't do it there, I wrote to my Minister and said don't do it there... Use it where it is worthy, I've had no reply from either...

Why are we even entertaining the "Industry Option"; it doesn't comply with very much ICAO or International practice...

Dick you claimed you have no knowledge of this option earlier, I have heard you "discussing it loudly" through a speakerphone, I'm sure it was you. S.A. was calling the other party Dick etc... I also note the AOPA and Sports aviation group positions, post Dick Smith discussions...

Chris Manning, why are you still interested in this ("Industry Option"), what's in it for Qantas? By the sounds of things Qantas is now the only 'supporter' of the Industry option, although no other group will oppose it, because that will result in much more C airspace... Does Qantas believe that there are savings in the extra recruitment of ATCs to manage all the extra E… The more pop ups the more ATCs… They are just harder to manage, due to the very unpredictable nature of their operations, mostly lack of pre planning due to lack of plans, and the heads down time feeding the beast.

Dick can we concentrate on changing the charging regime and get rid of "Stretch bonuses" to all contract managers, to remove the alleged reason for keeping ASA profitable.

Feather #3

22nd Jun 2004, 12:51

Wommera/s,

In the DS' post of 22Jun/0551 [DS/VoR debate], you missed an edit just above your own note.

G'day ;)

Thank you W

Kaptin M

22nd Jun 2004, 13:07

OBJECTION, Woomera - as much as you are the adjudicator of the debate between Messrs Smith and VoR, I object to you your censuring of their replies!

Object away "W" is NOT adjudicating nor are we censoring, the debate is and will remain strictly between VOR and Mr Smith

Dick Smith has chosen to respond to "VoR edited by Woomera", as his introduction.
Are you, Woomera ASSUMING that Mr Smith is grouping VoR with "edited by Woomera"?
I was NOT!
I was assuming that he (Dick Smith) was addressing ALL interested parties in this debate.

My understanding was that Woomera was involved in THIS particular thread as a filter to keep non-essential parties out - NOT to go vetting replies in such a way as might influence opinions!!

:rolleyes: Cute but no cigar. Admin have also been watching this thread very closely, they are NOT amused, amongst other things, at the attempts to involve an individual by name, we wish to keep it on thread, on issue and on topic.
A debate = discuss or dispute about an issue, ... consider different sides of a question. It is about the issues not about the person.
We are trying to keep the thread open notwithstanding the rules transgressions and thereby preserve Mr Smiths right of reply, believe me, it would be it would be much easier to do otherwise. W

Please return the ORIGINAL replies from Dick Smith to their ORIGINAL format!!

Capcom

22nd Jun 2004, 13:07

WALLEY2

G'day Mike,

I'll put together some thoughts for you all to shoot to ****e:E over the next day or so!

Thanks:ok:

Cap

Chris Higgins

22nd Jun 2004, 13:45

****su Tonka, 4711, VOR and everyone else for that matter...

Somewhere along the line the responses are still getting lost in translation. By my estimates VOR has invested at least 70 hours of work into research and response on the PPrune forums in the last week. I think that Dick Smith could easily have spent more...I am guessing that he has fewer assistants, but I don't know that for sure.

The debate is becoming more logical and indeed, more educational now that we are starting to graduate beyond name calling, but once in a while we seem to be going back to our "kick the dog methods".

I am still not sure about the incentives being offered to/for VOR. Having fed my family out of the American System for the last fourteen years, I can think of no better airspace system to reform than the American one. In fact, Dick Smith's ammendments to, "the American System", seem to be worthy Stateside as well.

These major differences are:

1. Australia requires mandatory transponder usage in Class E airspace.

In America, we are only required to carry transponder above 10,000 feet AMSL or inside the 30 nm perimeter of a Class B airport.

and;

2. Clearances are required for entry into Class D Airspace.

In America, they are not, meaning the concerns that many PPruners have raised about midair collisions at common entry points is very real.

Icarus 2001 raises some very valid points about the welfare of the industry and an aging fleet of training aircraft. Whilst I agree that it is harder to maintain dispatch reliability on an older fleet, Northwest airlines has a fleet of DC-9s that date back to the early 1970s, their safety record is at least as good as any major airline. The ability to use cockpit retrofit technology should make any transponder installed today as reliable on a used aircraft as one that is brand new.

To Dick Smith. On a seperate post, you felt that it was unfair that I ask you to stop threatening people that piss you off. Well, I think it's perfectly fair that I ask you to stop that. Your opening remarks in you first response to Mr Williamson were about your perceptions of his making a defammatory remarks about you. You have used the media as a conduit in very disparaging terms towards the Virgin Blue crew and ATC, with regards to the Smoka incident and have made remarks that you will take to task the QF Chief Pilot. This may seem "aggressive negotiating" or "fair game" to you. But, the truth is, most people, (not me) might find your fame and fortune intimidating to begin with. You can have a strong opinion, we all do. It's all in the presentation!

Dick, I will also tell you this. Apart from being a pilot, I am also a business man with ownership in two small companies. My wife has a company that exports all over the world, and we have benefitted from the fruits of our labour. We have to be careful though, on our same street we see families that are over extended. The other day I used swimming pool glue to put the soles back on my nine year old's sneaker. It's important that we remain humble, or risk the wrath of the tall poppy syndrome that you are suffering from.

What has happened now is that we have come about as far as we can with this debate on an open forum.

I am not going to give up on it, I think August would make a great meeting time.

We need to think about this some more as the debate continues.

Sincerely,

Chris

WALLEY2

22nd Jun 2004, 14:49

Dick,

One of the last written correspondence from Mr Mick Toller about 1 week before his sudden departure was that he was forming an opinion that some aspects of the NAS needed a Design Analysis. I am not implying that because of this opinion he was pushed. I spoke to Mick 1 week before he left and he did not indicate either this or his intention to resign, we were again discussing our decision to do a DAS and generally if CASA had any objections or comment.

Other ppruners, though might not be aware of Mr Tollers opinion at that time and his advise of that opinion to the ARG.

You will recall your memos to Mr Ken Matthews Sec DOTaRS and letter to Mr Langhorne Dep PM Cheif of staff stating that a DAS showing an unfavourable finding on the NAS would force CASA to stop the NAS and do a DAS on the whole system and that this would be a disaster. As I recall you wanted the ARM( AIRSPACE RISK MODEL) by AsA and CASA changed to show a CTAF was as safe as an MBZ.

Yet the imput to the ARM was done based on actual surveys of traffic calls at 5 CTAF A/Ps and 5 MBZ A/ps and revealed noncalls as CTAF 5% and MBZ 1%

I recall you berated Ken for not getting this done when you first raised it with him. It was one of those influence versus authority things, that has been raised on pprune.

Just wanted to correct the advise and state Mr Mick Toller was of the opininion a DAS on the NAS was probably necessary and this was 5 months before 2b implementation .

DirtyPierre

22nd Jun 2004, 14:54

Chris,

I think your Hilton discussion forum proposal is a wonderful idea, particularly if you are present to chair it.

I don't always agree with your views of USA airspace. I still think that we should have airspace and procedures that suit Australian conditions, environment and culture. I'm sure this is possible while still being ICAO compliant.

Best of luck with your Hilton seminar, sorry I can't attend. With some balanced, logical thinking some real, safe, expeditous and meaningful airspace reform might be achieved.

DP

tobzalp

22nd Jun 2004, 21:44

Chris Higgins US D requires a clearance to enter. Review your procedures.

Four Seven Eleven

22nd Jun 2004, 22:29

Dick Smith said:

Four Seven Eleven, whether you like it or not, you work for a commercial organisation. As an air traffic controller your income comes from the commercial sale of your services to a customer. You will benefit if your organisation produces higher profits as your union will be astute enough to make sure you get a share – that is good. Don’t kid yourself, you are not some type of charitable safety regulator – you are just as commercial as when I stood behind the counter selling products. You sit behind a radar screen selling air traffic services. Don’t be holier than thou, everyone knows that your interests are commercial and that is in total conflict with having Government regulatory powers for airspace – which your organisation has.
And your point is? Whilst my organisation has a commercial focus, that in no way stops it or its employees from having safety as a major (in fact primary) focus. Are you suggesting that someone selling electronics, or food for that matter, is unable to do so safely just because they do so commercially?

Are you suggesting that, as an entrepreneur, you totally ignored public safety, because you wanted to make personal profits?

I know that I have never let safety be diluted as the primary motivator behind every decision I make in my work. I can also tell you that I have never let profits influence any operational decision I have made. My only motivators are the provision of a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic – in that order. Whether the aircraft is IFR (and therefore paying) or VFR (and receiving the services for free) plays absolutely no part in my operational decisions. Beyond safety, the only priorities I apply are those in AIP and MATS, which make no mention of flight rules.

Money is not everything.

The Brisbane Incident – what are the facts?

I note that you have not yet provided any answers (as you said you would do) to your own question about the Brisbane SMOKA (Virgin) incident. I note also that you have a history of lying about providing answers, but I had hoped that in this case, you would be true to your word.

It certainly appears that you have no intention of any sort of truthful discussion about safety in Australian aviation. I would have thought that you had some vestige of interest in aviation safety left, but it seems that you are proving this to be a false belief. It seems that you will deliberately ignore safety, to the extent of lying, just to achieve your political ends.

Your tactic, when the truth does not suit your selfish political agenda, is to make up lies about those who have asked you legitimate questions, or to make up lies about ‘basically criminal’ acts, when you know these to be false and defamatory.

Woomera

23rd Jun 2004, 02:19

I wish to clarify an important aspect of the NAS debate.

The debate is entirely about safety aspects of NAS and the cost or cost effectiveness of NAS.

Whether or not certain PPRuNe users derive an income (in any form) from Australian airspace management is totally and entirely irrelevant. This debate is about factual and faultless safety or cost arguments.

Whilst Mr Smith suggests Voices of Reason has a commercial interest in the debate, so do many other PPRuNe users by virtue of their various employment. Indeed, it could be said that I, as an Australian, have a vested interest in AsA profitability.

Whether or not VoR, Mr Smith or other PPRuNe user derives income or benefit from airspace management is totally irrelevant when the debate is solely on issues of safety, efficiency and cost.

Play the ball, not the man.

On another issue, anonymity is a fundamental principal of PPRuNe. Had the user attempted to "out" another individual on any other forum or thread, exclusion from this forum would have been the inevitable and immediate outcome. Period! PPRuNe Administration have not given a dispensation for a free for all!!!

Another Woomera

Dick Smith

23rd Jun 2004, 02:54

SM4 Pirate, I hope I haven’t misled you. I was previously asked about a “VRA proposition in E areas above terminal areas.” I stated correctly that I did not know what this was referring to. I now understand that VRA stands for “VHF Reporting Area” which is a unique Airservices/Qantas proposal that brings back full position reporting from the 1950s as a mandatory requirement in the Class E airspace to FL180 above Class D towers.

If this is what you refer to as the “Industry Option”, I can assure you that I do not support it. I have had no involvement at all other than a number of incredulous people telling me what was proposed and allegedly supported by Chris Manning of Qantas.

SM4 Pirate, I simply cannot believe that such an extraordinary proposal will go ahead. This is nearly as bad as the DAFs (Designated Area Frequencies) that were designed for the LAMP proposal. It is simply beyond me why people can’t accept that the US Class E airspace above D works with very high safety levels. In the USA in this airspace there is no mandatory transponder requirement, no mandatory radio requirement, and not even a recommendation for VFR aircraft to monitor the tower or ATC.

I had certainly heard about an industry proposal and have discussed it with a number of people however at no stage did I realise that this was a “VRA proposition”. I’m sorry if I’ve misled you.

I can understand how frustrated you must be. The problem is that there is simply no one who is showing any leadership in relation to the NAS system at Airservices. A good leader would be able to explain to air traffic controllers and pilots that there are advantages in moving to the proven US system and there is no need for unique modifications.

It must be frustrating for you as a professional to see the ridiculous unique changes that are being proposed. I can understand your view on the radar in Tasmania. Once again, it is obvious that there is a total lack of leadership. It is very sad for Australia and for our aviation industry.

Woomera

23rd Jun 2004, 02:55

Planespeaker, Xxx, GaggedAgain, Bindook.com et al:

Thank you for the plethora of email you sent me regarding your problems accessing PPRuNe. :suspect:

I contact PPRuNe Administration who advise (in part) as follows:

“…..quite simply a quid pro quo. If ATCers (who are also valued and respected PPRuNe users) are prevented from contributing to his site the same goes for us. His site is private - our site is private. It is a piece of house training.”

Strange, but I can’t fault their argument!!! And I suspect the vast majority of PPRuNe users will totally support their decision. :ok:

Remove your silly and childish access restriction for our users from your site and I’m sure we can facilitate your access to our site. :E

Woomera

Four Seven Eleven

23rd Jun 2004, 03:21

Tobzalp and Chris Higgins

You are both right…. and both wrong.

FAA AIM (http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap3/aim0302.html#3-2-5) states that: Two-way radio communication must be established with the ATC facility providing ATC services prior to entry and thereafter maintain those communications while in the Class D airspace. Pilots of arriving aircraft should contact the control tower on the publicized frequency and give their position, altitude, destination, and any request(s). Radio contact should be initiated far enough from the Class D airspace boundary to preclude entering the Class D airspace before two-way radio communications are established.
And also…..
2. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate entry into Class D airspace, the controller will inform the pilot to remain outside the Class D airspace until conditions permit entry.

Effectively, establishment of two-way communications is an implied clearance, but a clearance can be denied for reasons which are not limited to IMC.

Chris Higgins

23rd Jun 2004, 03:31

Yeah I'll buy that! But I just called Allegheny Tower and they don't recall ever using that caveat.

Denying entry, (if it ever actually happens), is different from issuing a clearance on contact though, like when we enter Class B.

Four Seven Eleven

23rd Jun 2004, 03:41

Very well and swiftly edited/deleted, Mr Higgins.;) :)

Like your friends at Allegheny Tower, I have never ever denied anyone a clearance in my entire career.

I have often used the phrase "clearance not available, remain outside control area", followed by some sort of expectation, as a means of ensuring:

That the pilot understands that they do not have a clearance yet.
That they have a positive instruction as to what to do in the event that no cleraance is issued (e.g. radio fail etc.)
They understand that a clearance will become available.

Whilst some pilots - of the less than professional variety - seem to take this as evidence of obstructionism, the smarter ones understand it for what it is.

It is akin to the procedural/non-radar device of issuing a clearance limit. I have used this technique on occasion when it will afford the most expeditious means of providing separation without delaying either aircraft. It assures that if, for example, vertical separation does not exist at the time you reach your clearance limit, then you will hold to ensure separation, but I do not expect you to have to do so. As with denying a clearance , I have never had an aircraft hold at their clearance limit point.

Time Bomb Ted

23rd Jun 2004, 04:04

Woomera,

How many Woomeri are Air Traffic Controllers, and how many are pilots?

Thanks in advance

TBT

Woomera

23rd Jun 2004, 04:21

Time Bomb Ted

I could tell you the answer to that but then I'd have to have you killed:cool: :ok:

All pilots, some ex senior management, some airline, some GA, flying training, a seriously respected technical consultant, no ATCers.:{ :p

PPRuNe started out for Professional Pilots, but like Topsy has just growed.
Check out the "Forums Home" list, not bad since the mid nineties, I can recall pre D & G days on Reporting points when we were having bets as to how long it would take to get to 10,000 members, I think circa 2003 was the best guess then :rolleyes:

It was/is not our intention to exclude them.

There is even an ATC Forum which is heavily trafficed about half the main Reporting Points volume

ATC Forum (http://www.pprune.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=18)

Enjoy

Icarus2001

23rd Jun 2004, 04:50

Dick you are putting so much energy and time towards NAS why not also attack the real problems facing GA in Australia such as the charging regime and the many headed beast that the CAA has become?

For such a small population we now have these government organisations to administer less than 15,000 aircraft and 30,000 pilots...

:eek: CASA one half of the CAA
:eek: AsA the other half of CAA now made in to a GBE
:eek: DOTARS - New airspace directorate
:eek: AMSA - AusSAR running SAR in Australia post CAA.

Surely the cost of all the highly paid CEOs and executive management of each organisation is huge? Why not adopt the US model of the FAA, one bureacracy to rule them all?

One organisation to run avaition is good enough for the USA, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Thailand and New Zealand and probably many others. Why are we special?

Time Bomb Ted

23rd Jun 2004, 06:33

Thanks for that Woomera.

TBT

CaptainMidnight

23rd Jun 2004, 07:55

Noticed the following on the Airservices website http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/forums/RAPAC/rapacnsw040617.pdf

Minutes of NSW RAPAC Meeting 17 June 2004
On completion of Peter’s presentation Bill Hamilton responded, stating he was speaking on behalf of the members of AOPA, AUF, ASAC and RFAC, and advised that they all support NAS Stage 2B.....To Gaunty and other AOPA members:, is this gent your national president or speaking on his behalf when conveying your unified support?

Also below in the same document although off topic. It relates to a proposal that Airservices report incidents involving aircraft to the Certificate of Registration holder, and Airservices's response that privacy issues were involved if they were to do so.
Bill Hamilton, AOPA, requested Bernie Smith, CEO Airservices, to review the privacy policy, in reference to this particular situation, in order for COR holders to become immediately aware of an incident report involving their aircraft.

Len Yates, CASA, explained that the ESIR’s received by CASA are reviewed before the decision is made to notify the pilot. This review process by CASA can contribute to the delay in notifying pilots as there is a lack of resources to quickly process the information. He explained however that not all ESIR’s upon review require notification by CASA to the pilot.

Therefore having all notifications sent directly to the COR holder may infer that an incident is being investigated by CASA, when in fact they may have decided not to proceed further.

Capcom

23rd Jun 2004, 11:50

I agree with ****su’s and 4711’s previous posts.

I also agree, in part, with Dick Smith I was previously asked about a “VRA proposition in E areas above terminal areas.” I stated correctly that I did not know what this was referring to. I now understand that VRA stands for “VHF Reporting Area” which is a unique Airservices/Qantas proposal that brings back full position reporting from the 1950s as a mandatory requirement in the Class E airspace to FL180 above Class D towers.

If this is what you refer to as the “Industry Option”, I can assure you that I do not support it. I have had no involvement at all other than a number of incredulous people telling me what was proposed and allegedly supported by Chris Manning of Qantas.We each oppose it for different reasons ie

Mr Smiths utterances to date indicate complete objection to VFR radio transmissions!

VFR transmissions is better than silence as a stop gap for all the reasons discussed here previously. Is it effective use of resources and good enough longer term?

Apart from the Sports lobby and AUF etc (assume opposition due lack of radio carriage, although it seems pointless in the context of above D's as the transponder carriage requirement would exclude most of them anyhow!), most groups now support the need for VFR to communicate above terminal airspace. It seems reasonable to me that if we assume VFR will be communicating, then that communication should be made as effective as possible.

Which leads into Mike’s (WALLEY2) question:

The issue of what could be put in place that provides the safety levels of the pre-NAS airspace whilst allowing flexibility to VFR is IMHO the following:

(Comment limited to the climb and descent airspace above class D)

Airspace design:

- Class D from SFC to A085AMSL incorporating climb and descent profiles and IAP's. For high elevations, upper limits that incorporate Instrument approach commencement altitudes.
- Large enough laterally to enable sufficient advance warning and planning time for pop-up VFR traffic ie Where the class D is providing Approach and Departures services, a minimum 15nm radius with additional higher base CTA steps with inbound calls at not closer than 10nm for the CTR/A boundary.
- Instrument approaches should be contained within the Tower Terminal airspace otherwise the cost of training Enroute ATC for approach control services will be large. Workload management is also a large issue with Enroute providing TMA services.
- Tower contained IAP’s means simple co-ordination between Enroute and Tower/TMA. If enroute were to have part of the IAF altitudes in their airspace, the complexity of Enroute to tower coordination becomes onerous.
- Class D rules that require VFR communication in so far as establishing a clearance request prior to the airspace boundary.
- VFR MUST receive an acknowledgment ie clearance or standby. In these two examples the VFR can enter class D with or without a clearance. The VFR pilot in this circumstance will be solely responsible for separation and or segregation from other traffic (known or unknown) until ATC provide an airways clearance.
- If the VFR receives no reply or remain clear of class D then they must not enter. This will enable ATC to provide a safety stop gap if the reported position of the VFR was not heard (Comm fail or over-transmitted) or traffic is such that a serious collision risk exists if the VFR were to enter class D immediately. In reality, this would rarely be used except where a VFR called at the boundary (No planning time if a confliction exists) or an expectation existed of delay approaching the boundary. In other words, the traffic conflicting with the VFR will in most circumstances be vertically or laterally clear by the time the VFR reaches the boundary. Any subsequent traffic that might conflict will be processed with the VFR clearance issue in mind ie planned from the initial call.
- Class D rules can be supported well either procedurally and/or by TSAD (Tower situational awareness display, the radar you have when you are not having a radar) augmentation. TSAD is not commissioned for radar services, it can however be use by tower controllers to confirm an aircraft position. Therefore assisting in the provision of D services IFR/VFR where a separation standard need NOT be applied. (This discretion is explained in both the ICAO and MATS definitions of an “Air traffic Control service”, which in short can mean full separation standards through to traffic information or no action necessary’. I can provide the definitions here if people are interested.)

This provides to industry:

- Nil additional cost to the provision of ATS above what was in place prior to 27Nov 2003 and now
- Provides IFR and VFR separation/segregation services
- Service is free to VFR (as it always was)
- IFR will receive separation/segregation rather than guesswork
- VFR may still enter after establishing 2 way communication when not in receipt of an airways clearance (Undesirable but legal)
- IFR are aware that whilst it would be very rare, VFR could enter without clearance. This possibility will heighten the need for IFR and VFR pilots to maintain where ever a good visual scan.
- Provides ATS with the ability to manage traffic most effectively ie All levels are useable again. Separation IFR/IFR will not be inadvertently disrupted (Missed vertical or lateral req) by an unknown VFR target appearing at the last minute requiring IFR deviation.

All needs to be discussed, if accepted, verified to ALARP prior to mapping and mail outs etc

The Enroute above D above A085 I will leave to those who may like to comment further on the appropriate class of airspace for their areas.

I will say this though! D is not smoke and mirrors, it is a very useful set of operating standards that provide ATS with the tools needed to be less restrictive that C (where appropriate) yet flexible enough to preserve safety. As far as I am aware (ICAO), there are no restrictions on where it can be utilised.

Enroute Radar D might be OK? Comments

As far as the MBZ stuff goes:

The same basic principles can apply ie
- MBZ should contain the IAP vertical and lateral dimensions
- Sufficient in size to allow pilots and opportunity to gain SA prior to 15nm inbound etc

It is achievable, and can still be called NAS to appease Canberra

This a brief outline, over to ewe’s for mastication:E

The Charging regime

The Airspace issue is being driven by the charging issue

The two need to be separated and worked on individually!

Icarus2001

Sharp as a razor as usual:ok:

Gaunty

Good to hear your dulcet:E key strokes again:D

Thanks for keeping us informed;)

Chris Higgins

23rd Jun 2004, 12:40

Capcom

Can you show up for The Bondi Beach Project? Perhaps we could all construct a paper for CASA review with the sequential reasoning you have just shown in your arguments. Very good!

Icarus 2001

Would like to know where you hail from? Any chance you can make it to Sydney in August? Your arguments are quite strong, (don't always agree, but who cares?). I would like to talk to you about some ideas to revitalise the student starts too.

4711

Thanks for your post regards Class D Airspace, I must admit that I hadn't bothered to read further down the same paragraph of the AIM. I'm always IFR, in fact, our company doesn't allow VFR outside of 50 Nm anymore! So I don't just call up and announce.

Can you come down in August?

To everyone

To keep the thread "Bondi Beach Project" up where people will notice it, feel free to reply on the thread. I will certainly read the responses! Thank you once again!

ferris

23rd Jun 2004, 12:44

Capcom.
I can see issues, but it's a great start.
I still think that at the end of the day, this whole thing is a people issue.

Dick, as a pilot only, doesn't understand the air traffic side of what he is doing. I also think that some ATCs have not a great idea of what Dick is on about (mainly due to his confrontational and disdainful style). eg Dick doesn't really get that the freedom he sees in the US is a product of them having controllers coming out of their arses. What is achieved in oz is done with 1/20th of the US' controller resources, alone. Same amount of airspace, 1/16th the traffic, but 1/20th the resources, and god knows how much less radar (thereby intensifying the labour side of controlling). Basically, workload issues. He then thinks delays to VFRs etc are a product of laziness and over-regulation. I don't think, as a profit-focussed individual, that he recognises that a railroad still has to have a long, expensive train track, clear of obstructions, no matter how many trains run along it per day, one or one hundred, which is why public transport is generally run by governments. Before I get too far off on this analogy- the US has the resources to enable greater VFR freedom. Specifically, radar coverage and the eyes to monitor it. There are other things as well, such as the shear volume of jet traffic means that the inbound flow to an airport is heavily regulated, allowing 'dead zones' directly over the top that VFRs can transit etc. No such thing in oz. Oz is much more flexible for arriving and departing jets at, say, Sydney. It is the very fact that oz has less traffic that precludes VFR transits. SY also has bizarre 'noise sharing' arrangements that you won't find anywhere in 'the US system'. This means that VFRs CAN'T have the same NON-PARTICIPATORY freedom.
I think there is room for flexibility (as Capcom has shown), but not the 'US system'. Whatever is decided will only exist for a short time anyway, until technology enables a lot of the freedoms that he craves.
If only you had held the "Higgins Airport Hilton Conference" BEFORE you went down the path of lying and steamrolling, Dick. You might have found all this out without all the aggro.

WALLEY2

23rd Jun 2004, 14:01

Dick, sorry but I found the evidence I was looking for to demonstrate your actions when it comes to NAS and safety design in Australian Airspace reforms and government influence

I have found the correspondence that I referred to previously with regards to Dick Smith and his attempt to influence government decisions re NAS

The first letter dated 11th December to Ken Matthews Secretary of DOTaRS and chairman of ARG

Dear Ken
Recently on the Professional Pilots/ Rumour Network (PPRuNe), a pilot operating under the pseudonym "CaptainMidnight" quoted a summary of responses in relation to the CASR Part 71 documentation.

"Quote : Comment 47 - Mandatory Broadcast Zones (MBZ - non-ICAO - MOS Park 71 paragraph 2.2.10 (page 2-4)

CASA Response
CASA acknowledges that MBZs are not ICAO compliant in that they require carriage and use of radio by VFR flights in Class G airspace... Initially, the ARM (Airspace Risk Model) was used to model the difference in risk between MBZs and CTAFs. It found that for a given traffic level and mix, and MBZ reduced risk by a factor of about three or four."

Ken, I understand that this ARM document is flawed. It used subjective opinions of airline pilots when deciding the chance of a pilot misdialling a frequency. Also the people in charge of the risk modelling would not accept the "diffusion of responsibilty" issue where a pilot puts extra reliance on radio arranged separation when he or she believes that a mandatory requirement improves compliance.

This issue must be resolved urgently. It is simply not possible for us to go to the US CTAF system if CASA continues to claim that this will mean a reduction in safety.

Could this be discussed at the next ARF meeting so that the matter can be urgently resolved?

Yours faithfully,
Dick Smith

This second letter is dated 18 March 2003 to Ken Matthews

Dear Ken
I refer to my letter to you dated 11 December 2002 in relation to the airspace risk model and MBZs. I believe this issue must be resolved urgently. Would you be able to discuss the matter with Mike Smith and see how we can move forward?

I have recently been told that when the ARM was prepared, that the airline pilots who sat on the panel were by no means objective - in fact, they had stated aim to keep MBZs. This is hardly a way to do a scientific study.

I also understand that this flawed document has been unknowingly accepted by ICAO as the basis for airspace risk modelling. MBZs do not comply with ICAO airspace classifications, let alone accepted world practice.

I will look forward to this issue being resolved urgently.

Yours faithfully
Dick Smith

IT SEEMS KEN WAS NOT MOVING IN THE REQUIRED DIRECTION FAST ENOUGH!!

This is the third letter dated 12 June 2003 to Peter Langhorne, Chief of Staff

Dear Peter,
The management of Broome Airport and others have recently been made aware of the CASA claim that MBZs are three or four times safer than CTAFs. This is the prime reason they are lobbying the Western Australian government to keep MBZ procedures at Broome Airport.

I attach two letters to Ken Matthews written many months ago in relation to this. I particularly point out the paragraphs

"This issue must be resolved urgently. It is simply not possible to go to the US CTAF system if CASA continues to claim that this will mean a reduction in safety."

Peter, it is imperative that this claim in the ARM be corrected.

Yours faithfully
Dick Smith

THE COPY OF MR ANDERSON'S LETTER WAS HIGHLY CENSORED BUT IT SHEDS AN INTERESTING LIGHT ON DICK'S ATTITUDE TO A D.A.S.

The fourth letter is from John Anderson to Dick Smith dated 3 July 2003

Dear Mr Smith

......I am also advised that Airservices Australia (AA) and NAS IG will be conducting a design analysis of the characteristics to be introduced in stage 2b, using the Safety Case Analysis and Review Determination (SCARD) methodology. This analysis will determine whether a design safety case would be required for any characteristic depending on the risk level identified.

I have noted your concern that if a design safety case is performed for the US CTAF procedure, it will not be accepted by CASA. I would like to assure you that should the SCARD analysis identify the need for a design safety case for any NAS characteristic, it must and will be developed and examined in a transparent manner.........

Dick, who claims he does not use undue influence, jumps over his own Chairman and goes to the Dep PM Cheif of Staff!!

In the reply to Dick from the Dep PM(signed by Anderson) he notes Dick's concern "..that if a design safety case is performed for the US CTAF procedure it will not be acceptable to CASA!!!!

So you do not do a design case as you are afraid of the results?- and you bag the ARM (which used actual monitored non call DATA at a number of a/p to get the non compliance figures) and later bag our BME DAS using non-industry experts and members of the skeptics,then bag Dr Fulton who audited our preliminary report to the Chairman on the CSIRO.

NOW YOU CLAIM YOU DO NOT USE ANY INFLUENCY AND ADVOCATE A STUDIED APPROACH

You can not claim any moral ground on these matters or expect ppruners to believe your arguments and statements on design analysis and no influence on Government and its bureaucracy when this evidence is available to show otherwise.

I also note like Mike Smith you were looking at a CTAF for Broome and now it has lept to a tower when the facts showed a CTAF was not acceptable.

Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group

Capcom

23rd Jun 2004, 14:24

****su et al

There are lots of periphery issues to be worked through, no doubt about that. I am prepared to lend what ever support I can to draw common ground across industry and get this mess fixed. It will as you all suggest require goodwill from many.

It must be done properly and expeditiously though! And let us not forget, during all this, The Missing in Action Minister remained silent - and still does in any practical sense.

So I am sorry, but to suggest that:

quote:
It is achievable, and can still be called NAS to appease Canberra

is even possible.....? With the current personalities involved, I don't honestly think it is.

Why try and patch up a bad idea? Why not do it right like it should have been done from the start?

Strong Leadership does mean listening and consulting widely. It doesn't mean caving to in every demand from every lobby group. But equally it doesnt mean working behind industry/communities backs.

This hasn't happened with this go, and the goodwill for this has gone. New blood is needed, and it needs to be managed by people who need to know how to 'listen' in the first instance.

Some of the incumbents have already had too many chances at doing this abd failed.

(personally I say bugger appeasing Canberra - if Anderson had shown some real leadership this situation wouldn;t have been permiited to happen - again)Dude, you know without me saying it that we are most definitely in heated agreement. The architect of this mess is not of a mind to be told his baby is cold and blue. So what do we do?

I figure a resolution with widespread acceptance will make it very hard for him to object. Well object with any effect if you know what I mean. So not withstanding him, the only other albeit large hurdle is Canberra.

Now I could get all vitriolic in my usual fashion here when referring to JA, but what does it achieve?.:ooh: ...........Ah stuff it, why not..

J.A You are without doubt the most incompetent, unprincipled, weak, pathetic administrator this industry has had to endure. If you have one shred of decency left in you, fix this mess before you retire.

May the fleas of a thousand Camels infest your retirement ya fool.........:suspect:

Now I got that of my breast....:E

We all know that politicians are either kissin’ babies or stealin’ their lollypops!:hmm:

He has shown nothing of any character or conscience through out this mess, or a preparedness to accept that a policy is wrong. 'Plausible deniability', I think not, he knows this NAS has knobs on it!.

That farkin’ public perception thing, scares the **** outa them!.
So as much as kickin for a fresh start is what should happen, I sincerely don’t’ think he can stomach backing down on the brand name NAS.:yuk:

Next best thing, lets build what we all need from a system safety point of view and sell it to this lizard in a politically acceptable way.:bored:

That said, the name NAS may be academic if we go to the polls in Aug:E

Cheers

Cap

bekolblockage

23rd Jun 2004, 15:04

Chris Higgins

I'm always IFR, in fact, our company doesn't allow VFR outside of 50 Nm anymore!

Perhaps you could expand on why your company deems this an unacceptable practice.

FarCu

23rd Jun 2004, 22:09

Perhaps we should ask, when do you get the most response from a Government Minister? Usually when refuting claims made by the opposition.
We should then probably target the Shadow Minister with our accrued information and get him to approach John Anderson. He would then have no option but to respond. Excuse me if this has already been tried.

Secondly, DICK, is your reply to SM4 on the 23rd
It must be frustrating for you as a professional to see the ridiculous unique changes that are being proposed. I can understand your view on the radar in Tasmania. Once again, it is obvious that there is a total lack of leadership. It is very sad for Australia and for our aviation industry.
a backing down on your opinion that ATCs are only financially driven (with reference to NAS).

divingduck

24th Jun 2004, 04:27

Hey Chris,
Perhaps you could tell us.
I seem to remember on one of the multitude of threads on NAS that in the US, VFR aircraft are not permitted more than 50 (or some figure) from their home airfield, otherwise they must file IFR.
Is that the case or do I have the wrong end of the stick?
If it is, sheds a whole new light on introducing US airspace here.

Thanks in advance.

Hempy

24th Jun 2004, 07:13

Wally2,

Thanks for shedding the light. It seems the truth is starting to come out.

I expect Dicks response will be something along the lines that every third party document concerning NAS safety concerns was flawed, regardless of the professional esteem of the author.

He will soon be using his arrogance as a legal defence, because unless he can prove that the authors of the ARM document, the BRM DAS and others deliberately disobeyed their charter and prepared false, misleading and subjective reports, his only defence can be that he believes he knows more than both hard data and non-partisan expert analysis.

I know who I'd indict.....

CaptainMidnight

24th Jun 2004, 09:09

Wally2
Thanks also for shedding the light. I'm also touched that I've been MID :O
Ken, I understand that this ARM document is flawed. I have recently been told ... I also understand that this flawed document has been unknowingly accepted by ICAO as the basis for airspace risk modellingI have spoken to US airspace experts The same old rhetoric :D

Chris Higgins

24th Jun 2004, 10:23

The reasons on our company requiring us to be IFR within 50nm of departure are more related to trying to prevent Controlled Flight Into Terrain and preventing inadvertent penetration into restricted airspace, such as Camp David.

There is no restriction on light aircraft doing commercial operations VFR, but it is actively discouraged in the spirit of the writing of our CPL requirements. No CPL can conduct commercial operations more than 25nm from their departure point unless they possess an instrument rating. Hence, any CPL could only conduct, say, scenic flights without an IFR rating.

WALLEY2

24th Jun 2004, 13:21

CaptainMidnight ,I thought you would be pleased that the highest levels in the land were rocked by your ROAR. :p

On the serious side it shows the importance Pprune plays in these issues. It is often quoted in conversation I have in Canberra and Sydney.

You betcha!!! :ok:

Woomera

Gunner B12

24th Jun 2004, 15:09

OK

it has to be noted that after Woomera's shut down of Dick's favourite tactic he picks up his ball and goes home....

Voices of Reason, by the way, this is my last post on this thread. I have to get on with my other life! I have intentionally provided all of the information so there is a contemporary and open account of the decisions in which I was involved. This will be of assistance to any future inquiries.

I for one totally disagree with this statement by Dick!

You have not provided all of the information, in fact you have obviously sought to do the opposite. no direct question seems to have recieved a direct answer. I say seemed as you probably have answered one directly just so that you can point to that one to rubbish this point but if you did it was probably the most insignificant of the questions asked.

Once again I will point out that I am a low time PPL who just wishes that both you and AOPA would stop claiming to be trying to help / represent me, or make life easier for me.

You use analogies to prove your point such as the one about drivers of cars having to report their position and how that wouldn't be acceptable yet you fail to take it to it's logical conclusion. If I were a car driver who could expect a road train to pop out of a fog bank without warning I would want it to know I am there and have the chance to arrange for it to miss me or vice versa.

The one point that really sticks with me is that you keep suggesting others (eg. Airservices) should have sorted the design safety case aspect of the implementation of NAS. I would like to know how you (for that read the whole group of people making the recommendation) could recommend the move to NAS when without doing a design safety study or risk / benifit analysis it is impossible to say to the government that this is the way to go. At best the most you could have reasonably recommended was that subject to a favourable result this would be the way to go, giving them the decision whether or not to do what was required. The failure to phrase the recommendation in this way must surely place liability for any unfavourable outcome on those who made the recommendation?

One final question..... Am I now likely to be accused of being Adrian, A vested interest ATCer, some other (otherwise compromised) party or will you just seek to make some other personal attack.

Mind you as just a lowly PPL without the millions you have, am I worth your effort, after all you seem to be getting your own way without caring about the likes of me or the fare paying RPT passengers.

bekolblockage

24th Jun 2004, 15:22

Chris Higgins

Thanks for the explanation. I thought for a moment that despite the application of see-and-be-seen, ATC flight following and TCAS in the wonderful US system, your company's insurers wouldn't accept the level of risk involved in launching VFR into the murk rather than wait for an IFR clearance.

Chimbu chuckles

25th Jun 2004, 00:45

Well we have a long term known egomaniac who has been exposed for innappropriately menacing various and sundry industry professional groups and govt bodies. (Broome/Dumstra)

By his own acknowledgement he views AOPA and everyone else as being of some lower intellect than himself (phone conversation with Gaunty)

His complete disdain for logical argument is here on pprune for the world to see.

Of late any, and I mean ANY/EVERY, professional group/Govt Dept/professional individual/private individual has been labelled as a 'fundamentalist' if they dare to dissagree with RHS.

His use of 'spin' as opposed to factual argument is constant. Just like the Pollies his answer to any question is to turn it back to 'the message'...the 'known, safer, proven and ICAO compliant North American System'. It makes no difference how many times it is shown that the North Americans are no more ICAO compliant than Oz was pre November 2003.

His constant whining about people on pprune posting annonymously has been proven to be about his innability to then threaten them personally/professionally.

Three different serious threats of legal action don't even shut the fool up.

And yet I feel compelled, in the Ozzy spirit of a fair go, to give Dick the last word.

"As patron of the Australian Skeptics I can assure you that the human power to self-delude is almost unlimited."

Chuck:E

rescue 1

25th Jun 2004, 06:40

Agree with Mr Smith - VOR should identify him/herself and the "group" of aviation supporters that he/she leads.

That will give your argument far more credibility.

Why is that rescue1? Did the debate go right over your head?

Anonymity is a fundamental and inviolable tenet of PPRuNe and has been since the site’s inception eight years ago. Many are forced to anonymously participate in PPRuNe due to the philosophies of their employers or their position within Government or the aviation industry.

Is it really relevent who Voices of Reason is, whether an individual or collective group, if the supporting arguments to his posts were conclusive, accurate and concise? Besides, he openly revealed his identity as John Williamson on a number of occasions - what do you now expect, a notarised Birth Certificate?

Play the ball - not the man! :ok:

If identification is so relevent to the integrity of a post, I could ask why you use the name "rescue1" and an annonymous email address?

But I won't! :p

Woomera

WALLEY2

25th Jun 2004, 14:33

The USA NAS has many compulsary comms and flight procedures at large uncontrolled regional aiports where they do not have their nomal radar coverage.These are mainly in Alaska and the Rockies, though in the contiguous states these airports are in E class.

VoR my question

Subject to ICAO ANNEX 2 Rules of the Air Chapter 4 VFR

I could require a flight plan and radio watch and compulsary calls in G class (ref4.9)

Under ANNEX 11 can a member state's appropriate authority (CASA) make a designated zone requiring comms or flight procedures in uncontrolled airspace while maintaining compliance to ICAO.

If you allow the airspace designation to have priority over other annexs and recommendations you could say you are non ICAO compliant when applying an ICAO rule of the air!!

Clearly as someone who knows little about enroute airspace, I am suprised that an ATS designated zone requiring comms or an approach procedure to an airport cannot be in a class E or G airspace and remain ICAO compliant.

While a CAGRS and MBZ is NAS(USA) compliant I thought it could be demonstrated it is ICAO compliant. I realise it is of little importance and that complying to ICAO only would only get you a third world level of coverage.

However, when reading ICAO Airport Annex 14 and 11 when I can find it, the ICAO recommendations seemed aimed at allowing enhancements to safety like MBZ procedures yet mainaining the right of compliancy.

Could you advise thanks Mike Caplehorn

Resue1 I am not anonymous so I must be right even when asking a question :p

SM4 Pirate

25th Jun 2004, 23:34

For example, it was agreed over 18 months ago that Airservices would upgrade the Class G airspace above FL145 to Class E right across Australia. This is a major safety improvement, requires no extra training for controllers and no extra facilities or equipment, yet Airservices has once again delayed the introduction. Initially the Class E upgrade was to come in by June 2004. Airservices then insisted that the upgrade needed to be put off until November 2004. At recent meetings they have claimed that they can do nothing in November and it needs to be postponed again No extra training or costs...

Mr. Smith; there have been multiple trials about lowering E to FL145; all of these conclude that multiple extra facilities (VHF frequencies) are required; that probable resectorisation is needed and extra staff; that training would be required for every ATC that currently works E to FL180. They won't need training in E airspace procedures, but the will need training in how to manage traffic with 'new CTA' areas, new frequencies, new sectors etc... VOR is right that due to the limited surveillance the 'procedural standards' cause significant delays, lowering the base increases the delays; solving this with VFR E procedures makes it incredible complex; who needs traffic who needs separation; you can't plan anything in that environment, which means you are really lousy doing your job.

From ASAs point of view, ADS-B is only a few months/years away; why change this when the 'easy solution' is probably just around the corner. ADS-B will greatly improve efficiency and will reduce controller numbers, not increase them (as would lowering without it). If the change in airspace is concurrent with the change in technology it would happen very, very smoothly...

Mr. Smith, we don't make these types of decisions lightly, to imply that Bernie is making a bonus derived decision in this case is crazy. There would be a minimum of 80 controllers who would refuse to operate with an E base FL145 with today’s technology and I wouldn't blame them. There s no way it can be done (without technology or significant extra controllers and frequencies); let alone done in the manner in which you imply.

Bottle of Rum

WALLEY2

26th Jun 2004, 17:08

VoR

Thankyou for answering my question in the main NAS debate thread,

In your researched and careful manner you have shown that the proposed actions by CASA of maintaining MBZ and CAGRS are NAS(USA) and ICAO compliant.

What had me concerned is that not only was Dick appearing to be claiming MBZ and CAGRS were non compliant but CASA-AsA's in the ARM in its comments section were suggesting the same. Combined this appeared a confirmed position.

To me this was very strange as clearly a busy mixed use airport could be in G class and a DAS such as ours at BME conclude an ATS was required. If ICAO Member States wished to graduate their terminal airspace and not jump from CTAF(USA) allowing non radio equipted aircraft straight to costly D class towers, it appeared such graduated intelligent action was non-compliant.

Thankfully I found my ICAO ANNEX 11( cunningly hidden in my in tray on my P.A.s desk and not in our technical Library):rolleyes:

With your advise and reread of ANNEX 11, we are now armed to negate yet another furfy of MBZ being non-compliant in class G, if it is raised again by NASIG etc.

You may find it extraordinary but, late last year I am advised Mr Mike Smith of NASIG actually wrote or instructed CASA to delete CAGRS legislation, without advise to Ayers Rock or BME Airports the only two civil Airports in Australia gazetted to have CAGRS.

Combined we only have 600,000 pax p/a to protect, but Mike Smith,he new best, probably because of his extensive tertiary qualifications in Mathematics,Engineering, or Science and previous experience in Airspace management- funny but I can not find either his thesis or published papers demonstrating this. Open Mike pehaps you could enlighten us on your qualification in airspace risk management or at least tertiary maths and statistical analysis.

Mike Smith surely you would need this training to have the confidence to make such an order to CASA experts without consulting either the persons doing the CAGRS work or the qualified providers and airport owners and their qualified consultants who monitor the service.

Mike Smith, for me that was one of the high water marks in the stupid, arrogant and devisive behavoir by of NASIG. To me, you claimed MBZ and CAGRS was not only non ICAO compliant but also non NAS (USA) compliant I did know the latter was absolute unresearched total rubbish. You then mis-informed the Senate Estimates Committee in a smug and condesending manner "they (STEAMBOAT SPRINGS) like their unicom infact they call it an enhance unicom". Pity you did not ring the airport you quoted as we did to find they had compulsary calls 10 mins out! and radar coverage down to 4000ft and one in one out IFR procedures controlled by Denver.

No wonder the wheels fell off the NAS implimentation, forget industry consultation you did not have the decency to even consult a team of two players.

In hindsight you were probably the right person for the job,you had the attributes to attempt this now discredited illinformed, selectively manipulated, non consultative, expensive, highanded and unqualified approach to airspace reform. thanks for the memories.

VoR, thankyou for your huge efforts, many of us owe you greatly, not least the pax who will never know their safety was so impressively protected by your wise counsel.

Mike Caplehorn
B.E. MIEAust.C.P.Eng. FAICD
Chairman BIA Group

q1w2e3

27th Jun 2004, 00:42

Dick

In the thread: NAS Debate: Voices of Reason & Dick Smith, you stated:

Voices of Reason edited by Woomera, you don’t seem to understand that I, nor anyone on the ARG, had responsibility for the introduction of the NAS system.

If you look at paragraph 8.1 of the NAS Project Management Plan (that was endorsed by the similarly incompetent Open Mike) you will see very clearly that you were:

8.1. ARG The ARG is responsible for the implementation of the NAS and in project management terms is the Executive Steering Group.

Not only are you unaware of the facts and implications of NAS, it appears that you are not even aware of your own responsibility in this debacle.

The NAS must be the greatest example of incompetence ever seen in Australian aviation. It has been driven by a narrow minded, egotistical entrepreneur and an incompetent yet egotistical public servant with limited experience at the expense of the safety of the traveling public.

canuck76

27th Jun 2004, 03:56

Messrs Smith have done for AA and CASA what "Supersize Me" has done for McDonalds

Kaptin M

27th Jun 2004, 23:07

Well.Voices of Reason pulls no punches with his last post on the Dick Smith-VoR debate thread, and leaves absolutely NO doubt as to whose heads are going to roll, when the hole that has been opened up in the Safety net allows 2 (or more) aircraft to come into close (or closer than close) contact with each other.

And it has all been well documented HERE, on PPRuNe, for future reference!

But can someone please explain to me what the meaning of "Kakorrhaphiophobia" is, when Voices of Reason advises Dick Smith that:-Kakorrhaphiophobia is your motivator, and your downfall.

Blastoid

27th Jun 2004, 23:18

kak·or·rhaph·io·pho·bia
Pronunciation: "kak-&-"raf-E-&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: abnormal fear of failure

Lodown

27th Jun 2004, 23:23

Seems like Dick has been totally outclassed and out'fact'ed. I was looking forward to a sensible debate based on facts and figures, but Dick has been on the receiving end of a shutout.

Throughout this entire NAS business, I have tried to be somewhat open-minded. VoR has just cleaned Dick's slate.

Dick has provided nothing tangible and has tried to bluff his way through the argument by diverting attention with a personal attack on an ex-HATC. Anderson must be loving this.

bekolblockage

27th Jun 2004, 23:48

Love it.
Dick, you need help.
http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?PhobiaID=1629&SDID=238

I saved you some time and ticked all the boxes for you.

QSK?

28th Jun 2004, 00:52

Voices of Reason by TKO in the 8th round!

separator

28th Jun 2004, 02:26

The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy and drive him before you,
to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in
tears and to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters - Genghis Khan

sep

Frank Burden

28th Jun 2004, 03:33

I know that Airservices has advertised some positions for the airspace directorate. But what is the current state of play with NAS? Is phase 2C still on target or interminably delayed? How much work is being done on its staged implementation behind closed doors? The posts about Open Mic also got me thinking about where is he in all this? Does he still have a major role or has he been relegated to the second eleven now that the first division captain has taken his bat and ball home? Only way to beat the Minister is to get at him through his electorate. Makes you think huh!!!
--------------------
Frank Burden

The attainment of wisdom is a life long pursuit

Dick Smith

28th Jun 2004, 06:09

SM4 Pirate, you claim that there have been multiple trials in relation to Class E to FL145 and these conclude that there are extra facilities required and probably resectorisation with extra staff. I wonder if the people who are doing this are looking at it with an Australian “culture”. There are huge areas of Class E airspace in many countries in the world without radar coverage. Canada would be a good example.

It is obvious that you and others at Airservices must believe that it is safe for the airlines to provide their own separation in IMC in Class G (i.e. the present airspace below FL180) but such a separation standard used by air traffic controllers would not be acceptably safe. Do you understand what I’m saying? That is, the airspace works satisfactorily now without radar coverage and being Classified Class G. What you are saying is if we classify it Class E it will not work satisfactorily.

That can only mean that the separation standard which is used by the airlines at the present time when in IMC in Class G does not provide an acceptable safety level. If that is not so it must mean that the standard air traffic controllers need to apply for separation in Class E is too onerous. Do you see what I am getting at?

The United States has a vast amount of Class E airspace without VHF radio coverage. Much of this is in the terminal area, where radio for separation is even more important.

What you are in fact saying is that we cannot have a bit of extra safer Class E airspace between FL180 and FL145 without spending more money. I do not agree. I believe you should get some Canadian controllers down here and they will very quickly show you how the system can work very satisfactorily in low density airspace – which we have.

Yes, when IMC exists it is one aircraft at one location at one altitude, however as I have stated in other threads, that is what any prudent pilot would normally insist on when in IMC in Class G airspace.

I think those who are looking at this safety improvement (the Class E to FL145) have fixed in their minds that “controlled airspace” will only work where there are VHF coms. This is simply not true.

Most importantly, LAMP brought the Class E down to FL125 and the LAMP proponents at Airservices were convinced that this was OK. Can I ask what is the difference? LAMP is OK to FL125, however NAS is not OK to FL145.

I look forward to the answer.

AirNoServicesAustralia

28th Jun 2004, 08:14

Ok, I work with Canadian controllers, along with Swedish, Irish, Sth African, English, Zimbabwean, New Zealand (and a mix of all of the above) controllers. They have been briefed on the airspace design, particularly the part where you have RPT jets on descent into major cities, having to descend through E airspace due to the design of the steps, with no flight following of the VFR's who could be in those areas, and they are horrified. These guys have worked all over the world. They have no personal motivation (ie. feathering their own nests) to find the design flawed, yet they do. Dick Smith continues saying, lets bring out American controllers, talk to Canadian controllers. Well I have and they think you are stark raving mad to try what you are trying. IFATCA, represents controllers from all over the world, and they find NAS dangerous. But of course DS will say that is because ATC's are looking after their jobs, and all stick together blah blah blah.

SM4 Pirate

28th Jun 2004, 15:40

I wonder if the people who are doing this are looking at it with an Australian “culture”. Dick of course the people looking at this are looking at it with an Australian “culture”

There are huge areas of Class E airspace in many countries in the world without radar coverage Dick Australia would be a fine example.

It is obvious that you and others at Airservices must believe that it is safe for the airlines to provide their own separation in IMC in Class G (i.e. the present airspace below FL180) but such a separation standard used by air traffic controllers would not be acceptably safe. No that is not my view at all, but if you wish to replace the incumbent system (which works), make it better not worse. Holding multiple IFR aircraft at FL145 (due to workload limitations and lack of VHF) is not a plausible (or good) solution.

What you are saying is if we classify it Class E it will not work satisfactorily. Yes due to workload! Separation is more difficult than assessing and passing traffic; if you want segregation this is another story. Lowering the base in the boonies decreases the controller’s ability to plan and implement that plan, for a myriad of reasons. I’m afraid that you still carry the misconception that not transmitting is not working… This is scary if true.

That can only mean that the separation standard which is used by the airlines at the present time when in IMC in Class G does not provide an acceptable safety level. Are you suggesting that controllers are able to use anything less than a prescribed separation standard? IFR to IFR in G often ‘separate themselves’ by less than a control standard does that mean it is inherently dangerous, probably not, but in any case a controller has no choice to use less than a prescribed standard.

If that is not so it must mean that the standard air traffic controllers need to apply for separation in Class E is too onerous. Do you see what I am getting at? This is probably your most poignant point to date, are procedural standards appropriate with recent advances in technology… But how does that relate to NAS… If we had more time to devote to improving standards instead of fighting to keep up with airspace reform perhaps we could be making recommendations to ICAO about changing standards, or spending a fraction of our change budgets to help industry update their equipment?

The United States has a vast amount of Class E airspace without VHF radio coverage. Much of this is in the terminal area, where radio for separation is even more important. Does that make it worlds best practice? We have the opportunity of doing it right when we do it, why rush it through and do it wrong? You need to understand that their must be positive benefit in change, cost/service/safety etc. You are suggesting a change that has huge cost implications of negligible safety benefit. How many ‘incidents’ in G IFR to IFR have there been above FL145, where is the safety deficiency, if it’s identifiable why has CASA and co. not addressed it?

What you are in fact saying is that we cannot have a bit of extra safer Class E airspace between FL180 and FL145 without spending more money. I do not agree. I believe you should get some Canadian controllers down here and they will very quickly show you how the system can work very satisfactorily in low density airspace – which we have. I would love to see that, I simply don’t believe that it can be done without additional costs; each control position has a finite amount of tasks that it can perform, perhaps our low density sectors which you describe are already at maximum capacity in peak periods (due to their geographic size), more workload equals more delays and potentially a reduction in safety (as your stacking them in G in a smaller band of levels) etc.

Yes, when IMC exists it is one aircraft at one location at one altitude, however as I have stated in other threads, that is what any prudent pilot would normally insist on when in IMC in Class G airspace. Given our airspace structure it is too simple to look at each single situation as a one in one out scenario; (would E corridors be better?) many of our tracks in WA Goldfields area are in conflict in normal conditions (lets not mention weather diversions) a one in one out implies to and from an aerodrome… We know this would not be the case, as multiple destinations/departure aerodromes tracking tolerances overlap.

I think those who are looking at this safety improvement (the Class E to FL145) have fixed in their minds that “controlled airspace” will only work where there are VHF coms. This is simply not true. This is not true (although it significantly helps), we’ve been doing oceanic (and other procedural sectors) outside VHF for decades. There are limitations to service outside VHF, increased standards etc… increased delays in a moderate to high workload environment. It is not practicable to have aircraft in and out side E awaiting clearances to climb or descend based on their ability to talk directly with the controller. Fact: the better the VHF the better the service.

Most importantly, LAMP brought the Class E down to FL125 and the LAMP proponents at Airservices were convinced that this was OK. Can I ask what is the difference? LAMP is OK to FL125, however NAS is not OK to FL145. Did I mention LLAMP? I was aware that the LLAMP proposal had an increase in sectors and VHF outlets in the areas to which I’m thinking. I’m sure it did, but willing to concede this point.

You will also note that many frequencies have been decommissioned in the last 12-18 months in these areas, due to TAAATS limitations more than anything; perhaps these were the resources/facilities needed to help out the lowering of E from FL200 to FL125.

Whilst this is your particular bee in your bonnet at present I’m not convinced in anyway that any significant benefit in safety would occur by lowering the base from FL180 to FL145, yet I am totally convinced that it will require substantive ATC training, potentially new consoles and definitely new VHF outlets… Far cheaper to wait for ADS-B which is coming and do it then, without the need for all the extras. ADS-B will significantly reduce the workload in the peaks, thus enabling more use of the existing staff and consoles. You simply fit more in without changing the existing structure when you have increased surveillance.

Dick, why must you look for the consipracy in every decision which is not consistent with your own, perhaps we do have valid reasons for doing what we do. Civil Air is wrapped that you think they are rattling the cage on this... You've got the wrong target there. They are noisy but none the less management almost always does the opposite of what the union wants (it is a traditional workplace afterall)... Perhaps Civil Air should get on board the NAS train, that could be the last nail in the coffin...

Bottle of Rum

tobzalp

28th Jun 2004, 23:56

'Aussie' Andy

The rules are quite simple. This thread is for replies from anyone other than VoR and Dick Smith. We have already discussed in the past that you should keep your nose out of this debate and with your blatant disregard of the very simple procedure have demonstrated that you have a very consistent lack of having nfi. Delete you rubbish from that thread. Hopefully you won't be flying over to where VoR resides to 'sort him out' you keyboard warrior you.

OverRun

29th Jun 2004, 09:05

The Great Debate

My attention has been drawn to a website on sceptics, which is a term that I only recently became familiar with through this debate. So I went there to learn more, and as I started to read through it, I almost fell over backwards. Here is the script for the rote replies that Dick Smith has used to cover screen after screen of PPRUNE for the last 3 weeks of the debate. Here is how Dick Smith and his sceptic experts Hall and Roberts construct their arguments and twist their answers.

I've extracted some of the most evident techniques and copied them below. The rest, plus entertaining stories on magnetic fuel treatments and more is at http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Sceptics.htm
Guide to sceptics
From: DOwens6683 <[email protected]>
This is a nice article on the tricks some sceptics get up to to discredit their opponents.
Ever get into an argument with a skeptic only to end up exasperated and feeling you've been bamboozled? Skeptics are often highly skilled at tying up opponents in clever verbal knots. Most skeptics are, of course, ordinary, more-or-less honest people who, like the rest of us, are just trying to make the best sense they can of a complicated and often confusing world. Others, however, are merely glib sophists who use specious reasoning to defend their prejudices or attack the ideas and beliefs of others, and even an honest skeptic can innocently fall into the mistake of employing bad reasoning.

In reading, listening to and sometimes debating skeptics over the years, I've found certain tricks, ploys and gimmicks which they tend to use over and over again. Here are some of 'em. Perhaps if you keep them in mind when arguing with a skeptic, you'll feel better when the debate is over. Shucks, you might even score a point or two.

1 RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION):
This trick consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from noticing that he is continually changing his standard of evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in exasperation or disgust. Perhaps best of all, if his opponent complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.

Skeptic: I am willing to consider the psi hypothesis if you will only show me some sound evidence.
Opponent: There are many thousands of documented reports of incidents that seem to involve psi.
S: That is only anecdotal evidence. You must give me laboratory evidence.
0: Researchers A-Z have conducted experiments that produced results which favor the psi hypothesis.
S: Those experiments are not acceptable because of flaws X,Y and Z.
0: Researchers B-H and T-W have conducted experiments producing positive results which did not have flaws X,Y and Z.
S: The positive results are not far enough above chance levels to be truly interesting.
0: Researchers C-F and U-V produced results well above chance levels.
S: Their results were achieved through meta-analysis, which is a highly questionable technique.
O: Meta-analysis is a well-accepted method commonly used in psychology and sociology.
S: Psychology and sociology are social sciences, and their methods can't be considered as reliable as those of hard sciences such as physics and chemistry.
Etc., etc. ad nauseum.
……………………………..
4 STUPID, CRAZY LIARS:
This trick consists of simple slander. Anyone who reports anything which displeases the skeptic will be accused of incompetence, mental illness or dishonesty, or some combination of the three without a single shred of fact to support the accusations. When Charles Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments produced impressive results in favor of the psi hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not publishing the results of failed experiments. No definite facts supporting the charge ever emerged. Moreover, the experiments were extremely time consuming, and the number of failed, unpublished experiments necessary to make the number of successful, published experiments significant would have been quite high, so it is extremely unlikely that Honorton's results could be due to selective reporting. Yet skeptics still sometimes repeat this accusation.
……………………..
6 SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE:
The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In other words, you can't win by default.
As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If someone wants to rule out vistations by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be enough to point out that all the evidence presented so far is either seriously flawed or not very strong. It would be necessary to state definite reasons which would make ET visitations either impossible or highly unlikely. (He might, for example, point out that our best understanding of physics pretty much rules out any kind of effective faster-than-light drive.)
The only person exempt from providing definite support is the person who takes a strict "I don't know" position or the agnostic position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence). However, if he wants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highly unlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the Earth, it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for his position. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his opponent's position.
There is the question of honesty. Someone who claims to take the agnostic position but really takes the position of definite disbelief is, of course, misrepresenting his views. For example, a skeptic who insists that he merely believes the psi hypothesis is inadequately supported when in fact he believes that the human mind can only acquire information through the physical senses is simply not being honest.
………………
8 THE BIG LIE:
The skeptic knows that most people will not have the time or inclination to check every claim he makes, so he knows it's a fairly small risk to tell a whopper. He might, for example, insist that none of the laboratory evidence for psi stands up to close scrutiny, or he might insist there have been no cases of UFO's being spotted by reliable observers such as trained military personnel when in fact there are well-documented cases. The average person isn't going to scamper right down to the library to verify this, so the skeptic knows a lot of people are going to accept his statement at face value. This ploy works best when the Big Lie is repeated often and loudly in a confident tone.
9 DOUBT CASTING:
This trick consists of dwelling on minor or trivial flaws in the evidence, or presenting speculations as to how the evidence might be flawed as though mere speculation is somehow as damning as actual facts. The assumption here is that any flaw, trivial or even merely speculative, is necessarily fatal and provides sufficient grounds for throwing out the evidence. The skeptic often justifies this with the "extraordinary evidence" ploy.
In the real world, of course, the evidence for anything is seldom 100% flawless and foolproof. It is almost always possible to find some small shortcoming which can be used as an excuse for tossing out the evidence. If a definite problem can't be found, then the skeptic may simply speculate as to how the evidence *might* be flawed and use his speculations as an excuse to discard the information. For example, the skeptic might point out that the safeguards or controls during one part of a psi experiment weren't quite as tight as they might have been and then insist, without any supporting facts, that the subject(s) and/or the researcher(s) probably cheated because this is the "simplest" explanation for the results (see "Sock 'em with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims"; "Raising the Bar" is also relevant).
10 THE SNEER:
This gimmick is an inversion of "Stupid, Crazy Liars." In "Stupid, Crazy Liars," the skeptic attacks the character of those advocationg certain ideas or presenting information in the hope of discrediting the information. In "THE SNEER," the skeptic attempts to attach a stigma to some idea or claim and implies that anyone advocating that position must have something terribly wrong with him. "Anyone who believes we've been visited by extraterresrial aliens must be a lunatic, a fool, or a con man. If you believe this, you must a maniac, a simpleton or a fraud." The object here is to scare others away from a certain position without having to discuss facts.* * *

To be fair, some of these tricks or tactics (such as "The Big Lie," "Doubtcasting" and "The Sneer") are often used by believers as well as skeptics. Scientific Creationists and Holocaust Revisionists, for example, are particularly prone to use "Doubtcasting." Others ploys, however, such as "Sock 'em with Occam" and "Extraordinary Claims," are generally used by skeptics and seldom by others. Unfortunately, effective debating tactics often involve bad logic, e.g. attacking an opponent's character, appeals to emotion, mockery and facetiousness, loaded definitions, etc. And certainly skeptics are not the only ones who are ever guilty of using manipulative and deceptive debating tactics. Even so, skeptics are just as likely as anyone else to twist their language, logic and facts to win an argument, and keeping these tricks in mind when dealing with skeptics may very well keep you from being bamboozled.Very sincere congratulations, VoR, for keeping the debate on track in the face of these tactics; I don't think I could have got past first base.

Atlas Shrugged

29th Jun 2004, 11:14

It’s all quite simple, although somewhat off the original topic, but I’m sure VoR will agree.

The elements of reason are senses, concepts and logic.

To "follow reason” means to base knowledge on observation, then form concepts according to the actual relationships among concretes and use those concepts according to the rules of logic.

Since each of these three elements is based on reality (or fact) any conclusions reached by a process of reason are objective.

One of the alternatives to reason is skepticism.

The skeptic denies the possibility of any knowledge, claims that man’s means of cognition are inadequate and follows his feelings or beliefs which he says, are the only basis of action in an unknowable world.

Feelings or beliefs are products of ideas only. They are not tools of cognition nor are they a guide to action.

AS

WALLEY2

29th Jun 2004, 13:44

OVER RUN

Thankyou for the article. I had previously on pprune advised Dick that if you took the approach of the DR (septic )Roberts report and its attack on the Broome DAS, science and airspace reform would not advance.

This report which is proudly posted on Dick's web site adds nothing to knowledge, is only geared to attack, analyses no data, attempts no counter analysis, and is hopelessly flawed in that it states the BME DAS did not consider air-ground incidents. The Dr Septic states this quoting a clause that was refering to another report and not the DAS. The DAS infact included considerable analysis to a/c-a/c incidents on the ground and a/c-Ground vehicles, also apron crowding problems.

[B]Dick I refer you to table 9 of the DAS that shows your Dr Septic is plain wrong.

You should remove this report or insure it is corrected! I know you will not, for as the Patron of the skeptics, it is par for the course. (ref OVER RUN post on septics tactics)

GaggedAgain

3rd Jul 2004, 08:31

Well Anti NAS er's

Congratulations, well done, especially you, Mike Capelhorn, for your "obviously" superior points of view.

Hey Mike, ever flown an airplane of any sort yourself?? ( the Jumpseat /back seat doesn't count, nor do model airplanes.. sorry) Ever stuck your head into a set of binoculars/ or kept your eyes stuck on a radar screen for 8 hours? WHAT? YOU HAVEN'T?

What makes you think the fact that you "own" an airport gives you any qualification to make ANY serious comments on NAS pal?

Do you even have any idea what MBZ even means?

Clearly, you have NFI.

I knew a helluva lot about flying as well, especially after I stuck my head into an encyclopedia and numerous books and publications, gee I knew a lot... until I went out and actually DID it.

For you, Walley is truly a well chosen name.

As for the rest of you anti NASers who actually have serious points of view, I bet 90% of you are either ATC or high capacity RPT jockeys, who've been running like that for some time. Have ANY of you ever sat down with either a low capacity RPT, CHTR, AWK or PVT jockey and asked their opinion? Or do you just presume to know it?

Just to throw in a curveball, WHO SAYS whether an airport is an MBZ or CTAF will make a huge difference to who makes radio calls when? Quote all the figures you like, show me ZERO incursions without radio, then I'd be happy. I've heard newbie pilots (pre PPL) trying their hardest who "thought" they were on MBZ were in fact transmitting on flightwatch... with the volume turned down to zero, and couldn't hear otherwise.

Capn Bloggs

3rd Jul 2004, 09:23

Gagged,
So what's the difference between Mike with his lack of qualifications (you reckon) and Dick Smith?

Re your newbies, have they ever heard of a Beep Back unit? If not, who trained them to operate in MBZs?

DirtyPierre

3rd Jul 2004, 10:17

GaggedAgain,

Yes I do have friends who have worked in GA.

In fact two of my best friends, who now work with Qantas, both got to where they are the hard way, ie. thru the GA hoops.

One had nearly 3000 hours in GA before getting into Qantas, the other nearly 10000 hours. I have discussed extensively with both NAS. Guess what, they hate it. They can't see how it helps GA, and they both believe that it is far less safe to fly now, than pre Nov. 27.

GaggedAgain, stop the vitriol, stop the name calling. It is quite apparent that you don't understand.

Go home and grow up.

And stay off the red cordial.

DP

ferris

3rd Jul 2004, 10:43

Do you think the personal attacks get you anywhere? Except to show your arguments as bankrupt and devoid of merit- just like Dick's.

I think you will find that Mr Capelhorn had the courage of his convictions and went out and commissioned actual experts (as opposed to imagined ones) to write a report, the Broome DAS. He has since quoted that document as his basis for reasoning, and placed it in the public arena for scrutiny. The glaring difference between his style, and Dick's, is obvious. No 'I believes', 'I am told by experts' or 'stop it or I'll do whatever I have to to ruin you'.

But the real gem in your post is As for the rest of you anti NASers who actually have serious points of view, I bet 90% of you are either ATC or high capacity RPT jockeys Who else would be in a better position to offer opinion on airspace? Who else would have greater concern for safety in their daily professional lives? Since these groups would be the main users of airspace, whose opinion should carry more weight (and by 'main users' I mean quantity-wise)?
Don't you think that RPT pilots were low capacity RPT, CHTR, AWK or PVT , or were they just born with ATPLs? It could be argued that a lot of RPT pilots are just those guys with more experience . You will also find that the loudest anti-NAS voices in ATC are either PPL or CPL holders. I know one thing for sure- before I became an ATC, as a low-time pilot, I really knew f-all about how the whole system worked. Only later did I realise how little I actually knew. Yet you think I was somehow in a position to design airspace? Entitled to input, certainly, but surely only commensurate with my experience, and the amount I used airspace.

Do us all a favour- rage agianst the real enemy, the charging regime. It keeps getting worse and worse; Rome burns, the emporer fiddles. Why?
There won't be any GA left, soon.:ooh:

OverRun

3rd Jul 2004, 12:17

Gagged Again,

Sorry to interrupt you in full flow butHey Mike, ever flown an airplane of any sort yourself?? ( the Jumpseat /back seat doesn't count, nor do model airplanes.. sorry) Ever stuck your head into a set of binoculars/ or kept your eyes stuck on a radar screen for 8 hours? WHAT? YOU HAVEN'T? I wanted to point out that if you stick your head inside a pair of binoculars, (a) you must have a small head, and (b) you risk getting splinters from all that nasty glass you'd break on the way in. Also I can understand your own dedication which gives you the ability to keep your eyes stuck on a radar screen for 8 hours. That is the sort of commendable dedication to your calling that has made aviation what it is today. Tracking flights across the screen, turning flights this way and that, intricately weaving aircraft in a three-dimensional kaleidoscope. Please don't take this badly when I advise you that Broome doesn't have a radar unit so although the radar screen might keep you transfixed and entertained for 8 hours, Walley2 might not think it worthwhile to keep his eyes stuck on the radar screen for that long.

I think Ferris has covered all the other points very well, and echoed the opinions of the rest of us.

Hempy

3rd Jul 2004, 15:39

What makes you think the fact that you "own" an airport gives you any qualification to make ANY serious comments on NAS pal?

Do you even have any idea what MBZ even means?

Clearly, you have NFI.

I'd say a person owning and operating an airport would have more cred than someone who flew into one once or twice a month....

lastposting

4th Jul 2004, 02:02

I'm gonna let you have it, then I'm outta here for good.

Woomera PPrunes administration in their wisdom have decided to brown me out again. Your site, fair enough. But there is no way you can then go on to claim to be a defacto site for a NAS debate, because the only one you let in for the "for" team is Dick Smith... I'll tell you again, I am not the author / webmaster of bindook.com. It must be as a NAS supporter that this is occuring. NOT the way to run a fair debate.

Hempy your above post is dispicable and offensive. Your ignorance is legendary, HTF would you know how often I fly??? It's a helluva lot more than twice a month, let me tell you. Woomera , the double standard for allowed postings that exist on this forum that clearly contravene your own posting rules is another reason why PPrune can't be considered as a serious debating location for this topic ... unless it takes a neutral position on this topic and reserves it's interference on posters/postings to the rude and offensive ones.

Ferris Personal attacks???? Quote Capelhorn from another thread...

S-H You B@@@@@
You left out the capitalistic, opium running, sell their grandma for two bob, profiteering air-pot-smoking owners.
What is the link to the real site? must take a look

If that isn't a personal attack I don't know what constitutes one (not to mention libelous)... and don't tell me he got an "actual expert" to check that one out.

As for RPT guys having more experience, in some cases, sure, but how long since some of those guys actually flew commercial GA? Some of 'em might go back to the full reporting days, I'd say. Fly the 747 any day, but I wouldn't give 'em a Cheftian or a Cessna 182 to fly about with without a check first, they're likely to flare 80 feet above the rwy before getting a bit of practice. It's just common bloody sense.

Overrun I am very well aware that Broome is not Radar equipped. If Capelhorne is soooo acutely aware of RPT safety as he says why doesn't he just fund radar into his airport. What?? the cost you say Capelhorne??? What cost a life, right???

Dick Smith Dick, I'd suggest to not waste another line here in this forum. You really are dealing with the lunatic fringe in here. Keep up the great work.

VoR excellent research and some good points in your postings. Thank God one of you has the sense to debate NAS rationally. May I say it'd be best to debate Dick Smith outside of this forum somewhere, say, at a conference of some kind on neutral ground, where the more rational can meet face to face to discuss differences and get viewpoints across calmly and without abuse... and without getting RSI for your efforts. Surely a compromise exists, "somewhere in between shall we all meet" and hopefully a clear, agreed upon direction & resolution with NAS and the finer points can be undertaken as a result. I urge you & Dick to consider.

As for the rest of you whingeing ignorant lunatics, (NOT all of you!!!) gotta go fly in the real world now ... good riddance.

As expected, I'm sure Pprune "admin" will perform another brown out and lunatics who have nothing better to do than bag others and pick apart postings here will want the last word... so, knock yourselves out.

MP.

Towering Q

4th Jul 2004, 07:49

Fly the 74 any day, but I wouldn't give 'em a Cheftian or a Cessna 182 to fly about with without a check first, they're likely to flare 80 feet above the rwy. ...hmmmmm....not a particularly good ambassador for the pro NAS camp. Dick must be cringing.:{

ferris

4th Jul 2004, 10:33

I'll only refer to your reply to me.
You have misunderstood Capelhorn's post. It is NOT a personal attack on the owners of the website. It is a tongue-in-cheek referral to AIRPORT owners- obviously he felt left out of the attack he was referring to. Read it in context.If that isn't a personal attack I don't know what constitutes one (not to mention libelous)... So by all means, continue making a fool of yourself.

Why don't you address any of the important points in my post? Do you think if you ignore them, they'll just go away? If you really had aviation's best interests at heart, why would you waste time faffing around with the airspace design, pissing away a fortune in the process? ROME IS BURNING.

WALLEY2

5th Jul 2004, 13:09

In defence of Woomera the quote attributed to me was a tongue in cheek reply pointing out S-T who in listing all the fellows Dick had said were crazy eg: CASA, ATC, RPT Captains, AsA, ATSB etc had left out Airport owners. Those comment I wrote were about me. Gagged Again: I think you missed the point again.

Well S-T: I can now rest easy as Gagged Again has made up for your failure to advise that Dick also thought I was stupid, I appear to be a complete unethical imbecile. Surely this cements my place on the defamed, anti progress, over-safe, over analysed, anti-Christ oops anti-NAS list.

Gagged Again:

I am satisfied I have kept my main comments to areas of my professional expertise being engineering risk assessment, airports and un-controlled terminal airspace procedures, ICAO, CASA, and some FAA applicable regulations.

I can not comment on your counter arguments to our Broome CAGRS/MBZ position as you made none.

Anyway I hope this statement stops an incorrect attack on Woomera.

Thanks for the supportive comments from others- despite the occasional posts like Gagged Again this forum is worthwhile and the discussion and debates helps to stimulate and re-assess held positions especially on difficult subjects like NAS.

Hempy

5th Jul 2004, 21:16

Woomera

Although I can't see how I've contavined the rules on posting any more than most the posters on here, I understand if you feel the need to censor my posts. However, an "edited by Woomera" would have been appropriate :ok:

Hempy old chap if a Woomera does edit your post then an "edited by Woomera" will appear at the bottom of the post.
??? like it should do at the bottom of this one???

Woomera

6th Jul 2004, 01:11

WALLEY2, we received the following self explanatory email from Max (Gagged Again, Bindook.com etc). I'm not sure whether he wanted this posted in this thread or the World's Worst ATC thread.

G'Day Woomeries,

Sorry to trouble you one last time however I note a posting from WALLEY 2 (Mike Capelhorne) and would like to convey a message to him. I'm sick to death of re registering with pprune then getting shut out, so I'd ask if you can forward it /personally, or post it publically for me please.
_____________________

Mr. Capelhorne,

Your post on the thread "the NAS debate.. other opinions" has been noted. If this is indeed the case behind your posting on the bindook.con thread, please accept my apology, I have certainly read your comment out of context.

However, I DID contact you personally through the pprune site to give you the chance to explain this message before my posting, and received no reply from you.

As for Woomera's "double standard", to their credit they have removed the offensive sections of the postings in question, which were not yours.

I look forward to discussions on NAS being held elsewhere where ALL sides can get a fair hearing... not just the ones who support your cause, right or wrong.

Regarding your Certified air/ground radio service/ Mandatory broadcast Zone in YBRM If you have the pax numbers through your airport like you state then why the hell is it an MBZ with CAGRS in the first place. I'll give you one simple abbreviated sentence to go a long way to solve your problem... ATC,
Class "C" and SSR, if you're that keen to make YBRM safe. However, I'd say that you'll say that is cost prohibitive.

True forums Mr Capelhorne are where BOTH sides express a point of view equally, NOT 50 VS 1 in an anti NAS sanctuary where you can all pat each other on the back for "getting it right".

Regards, Max Philips.

____________________________

If you could pass that on, thanks Woomeries.

Cheers... Max.

Having posted this email, we wish to make it clear: (a) we are not a proxy PPRuNe posting service, and (b) the opinions expressed above are Max's personal opinions and not those of PPRuNe or Woomeri, who are unbiased in this debate.

Woomera

Hempy

6th Jul 2004, 02:13

Woomera old chap(s),

Im not trying to start a debate, dont get me wrong. I guess it depends on the definition of "edit". Removing a part of a post (offensive to some or not) construes "editing" in my book. Nuff said.

Hempy old fruit,

If you wish to be a purist, the definition of "edit" is as follows:

To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting.
To prepare an edition of for publication: edit a collection of short stories.
To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable: e.g. edited her remarks for presentation to a younger audience.
To supervise the publication of (a newspaper or magazine, for example).
To assemble the components of (a film or soundtrack, for example), as by cutting and splicing.
To eliminate; delete: e.g. edited out inappropriate sections.

I've highlighted those aspects of the definition of "edit" which specifically apply to my function as Moderator.

Why? Because it's our sand pit and we set the rules, to which you agreed!

When your "clients" dictate how they use the airspace which you are responsible for, I'll give some suggestion to proposing to management we give a free for all in PPRuNe. Don't hold your breath waiting for either to occur!

Quod erat demonstrandum!!!

Woomera

WALLEY2

6th Jul 2004, 15:02

S-T
Sorry this was a later post. Ref: My post follows yours on that thread I was thanking you for including BIA this time. I was very pleased to see that we were included in the A List.

Woomera: Gagged Again did message me and ask me with civillity to change the "defaming" post which he now realises he mis-understood. This occured in mid June, the fault is mine as I did not check my messages until yesterday.

Gagged Again while I disagree with what you say along with Woomera and most ppruners I defend your right to say it.

Could I suggest before posting you take a breath and analyse what you believe to be wrong with the post that has enraged you and then present arguments against the subject matter not the person.

I think VoR has shown how effective this can be in advancing both the knowledge of ppruners and your own position.

Lets put this behind us and move on. ;)

Bizpax

14th Jul 2004, 12:26

It seems that Voices of Reason is seeing some signs of impact on the policy makers as a result of his/its/their demolition and exposure of the lie of NAS. Perhaps we passengers are shortly to be relieved of the Dead Cat stench of this worst abuse of a public process ever witnessed in Australia and might have our safety returned to the proud level it once was. Since VoR seems to see the NAS debacle as a battle between good and evil, I point out that Jesus also explained to Nicodemus that 'although the light has come into the world men have shown they prefer darkness to the light because their deeds were evil. And indeed, everybody who does wrong hates the light and avoids it, for fear his actions should be exposed..' Perhaps that's why the chief instigator of NAS seems to have had a dummy spit and gone into hiding. He fears the light. I hope that the professionals in Canberra can clean up the mess and return confidence and trust to the industry.

For all those who have worked tirelessly under impossible pressures and conditions to protect me and my family when we fly - thank you. After 'rollback' I look forward to taking a 'quickie' to Cairns soon, secure in the knowledge that I'm in the hands of the world's best pilots and air traffic controllers.

Lodown

14th Jul 2004, 16:52

Sheesh! Bizpax, bit of a lightyear stretch tying this into a fight between good and evil.

I don't doubt that all sides have good intentions. Dick's proposal had some tremendous parts that would have been good for aviation in this country. But in the washout, and quite rightly, there are procedures required to justify any change like this. NAS had a few parts that just couldn't pass the required checks and balances that a good administration should have in place.

The disgusting part in all this was that there were well paid administrators prepared to overlook their own organisations' checks and balances for the sake of a perceived growth in personal influence. NAS wouldn't have progressed as far as it did in the form it had if a few influential people had have made responsible decisions in the first place.

Bizpax

15th Jul 2004, 09:11

Well Lodown, in the cold light of day out of the influence of several glasses of shiraz, I agree my posting was a bit strong in tone. However, anyone who has been personally responsible for a decade of wastage of public funds, improper influence of public office holders, misleading of Cabinet, misinformation and ignorance of all sorts, mindless ideological pursuit of union members, preposterously dangerous regulatory changes ( a number of which are still in place and which still the regulator has not abandoned), personal threats to a number of individuals, destruction of trust and confidence within the industry and breathtaking arrogance - is still in my books evil or at best got some screws loose. All of which has been revealed in the parallel thread to this one. Don't ask me -I'm just a passenger that spends too many hours in the arse-end of aluminium tubes and takes an interest in aviation safety. Your fellow industry professionals seem to be largely of the same view, reading this and other threads.

If airspace reform was depoliticised, handed over to expert airspace designers and handled by experts in proper public processes, all this need never have happened. What a damn shame no one can finally pull the plug and give the Minister a way out.

rosscoe

16th Jul 2004, 08:00

<quote>
Do VFR receive the same level of safety in Class E that was Class C prior to Nov 27 2003?
Probably a higher level now as they can track direct and they are not forced over tiger country in single engine aircraft – which often happened. I was recently speaking to a pilot of an aircraft who on numerous times overflying Hamilton Island was kept holding at the control zone boundary over water in a single engine aircraft. Now that aircraft can fly in Class E airspace at a higher level of safety.
</quote>

Dick,

You seem to be confusing airspace classifications here.

The Hamilton Island Control zone has been class D since the 27th Nov 2003. Not class E as implied.

If this pilot was held in what is now class E airspace he would not have been held at the boundary of the control zone.

If what you are talking about is being held outside what was the Class C steps then the aircraft would have been above 4500 feet and should have easily been in a position to glide to the nearest land safely in the event of an engine failure.

As per usual don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

By the way did you get held at all last time you flew through the Hamilton Island control zone in your caravan.

Regards
Ross

World's Worst

22nd Jul 2004, 18:57

I love doggo’s. You get paid to surf the internet and play with all the boys on pprune.

Just heard the rumour that next Friday’s Board meeting is going to be a watershed. Apparently the long expected decision by the Board to roll back NAS is going to be ratified AND the Minister’s gun is being loaded for bear.

I hear the Board is for the axe, as well as a certain quite senior manager in our quaint little organizational headquarters in dreary Canberra.

Risky move for Big John in an election year, but I hear the alternative is a stoush with the bickie man in his own electorate. Let’s see. Another 3 years with his snout at the public trough, or a sacrifice to the safety gods.

Uncommon Sense

23rd Jul 2004, 05:12

WW:

Your apparent identity crisis leaves me unsure as to the strength, conviction and quality of your rumour?

bekolblockage

23rd Jul 2004, 14:05

I have a horrible suspicion WW did a lot of EDs & doggos in Sydney in the late 80's.
Am I getting warm?

World's Worst

23rd Jul 2004, 17:48

Yeah, well I might have been in Sydney then… loved the E/D roster. Guess you guys have still got it. Couldn’t understand how management let it go on. Great rip-off of the system though. So, world’s worst controllers, and dragging in the dosh by the bucket load on rostered sickies! Oh, well, it helps to pay the mortgage. Wonder if the public got wind of it what they’d think. Better not tell the bickie man – imagine how he’d react.

missy

24th Jul 2004, 03:17

ED roster. what a lot of tripe. in the more than 20 years at sydney never worked on a roster that had such a thing.

World's Worst

24th Jul 2004, 12:32

Missy, missy, missy,

No E/D roster?

You must work for management! Or maybe you're a CivilAir Rep!

Every controller in Australia knows about E/D rosters, and just about every controller in Australia supplements their income with this nice little earner.

Remember Norm Gallagher and the BWU? Remember how they came a cropper over corruption.

Mate, rostered E/Ds, admin days, illegal shift swaps to extend breaks. Pretty close to the definition of corruption.

'course I'd just like to state for the record that I've never participated in such schemes myself, your honour.

DirtyPierre

24th Jul 2004, 22:06

WW,

Like Missy, I've been in the company for over 20 years, and I have never worked or participated in a "sickie roster". I have worked in Sydney (only a three month temporary transfer) in the late 80s, and there was no such roster then.

I've worked in Brisbane, Mount Isa, and Archerfield and I can categorically say that no such rosters existed there either. I'm currently in Brissie and those guys I know who worked in Sydney prior to the great integration of centres also agree with me that such a roster never existed.

Plainly it seems the the "Sydney Sickie Roster" of the 80s is just another urban myth. Something along the lines of "coke rots your teeth" and "I woke up in a bath of ice with my kidneys gone" type myths.

WW, I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I suggest you pull your head in, especially if you really are an ATC.

As for your rumour about the demise of NAS. I've spoken to my sources and they agree that a board meeting will occur to discuss NAS, but the outcome is still open to speculation. Political preesure is still being applied, and we know what the AsA board is like.

DP

tobzalp

24th Jul 2004, 22:34

This posting form WW is bordering on slander. Lets see your proof Worlds Wannabee or perhaps a ban might just be in order?

World's Worst

24th Jul 2004, 22:39

Nice try, DP!

Oh no, we've never rorted the system. That would be against the law and we couldn't possibly admit to that.

Every controller in Australia knows it's a fact. Not one single controller in Australia will admit to it. Well, if you're willing to exclude the world's worst, that is.

Yes, there is a Board meeting next Friday. And yes, there is a LARGE amount of politicking going on, and guess what - the bikkie man is in there, boots and all. Even his best buddie on the Board, who, by the way, was a party to said E/D roster quite a few years ago in Sydney, is feeling the heat.

So count the votes.

Military pilot type votes rollback.
Qantas pilot type, under pressure from former employer, votes rollback.
North Queensland type votes rollback.
CEO type votes to keep his job. Status quo.
Lawyer type hasn't a clue.
Former ATC who had his licence lifted in Coffs tower. Votes for his bikkie making mate.

Looks like rollback wins.

Minister looks foolish. OK, more foolish. Lashes out. Announces no confidence in Board. Sacks Board. Retains CEO who was between two very hard things. Announces a reorganisation of governance arrangements. Industry advisory Board to assist Minister in Airservices governance. Certain senior executive from Qantas part of that advisory board. Huge amount of political heat for exactly 5 days. All blows over. No effect on election.

Yyyyaaaaawwwwnnnn!

And it all starts over again.

AirNoServicesAustralia

25th Jul 2004, 14:46

Ok, since I no longer work there, I feel I can safely give an unbiased opinion.

WW is mistaken if he thinks ATC's rort the system. When there were a lot of ED's back about 5 years ago, it was invariably due to mismanagement of staff, ie. Giving Voluntary redundancy to lots of people and then 6 months later being left short. I never saw illegal swaps being done by controllers. There were times when the principles of rostering weren't followed after swaps were made, but there was always the minimum break between shifts. It was checked up on with the powers that be and it was confirmed that while you could not be rostered for certain things, if you were willing to swap shifts, it was up to you.

When I left, managers were closing airspace, when noone wanted to do an overtime (usually due to having all done excessive overtime already again due to staff number mismanagement), rather than being willing to call someone out from home on Emergency duty and pay them accordingly.

There was never an ED roster as he calls it in Melbourne, and in fact there was the despicable act of hauling in controllers for excessive sickness, when their only sickness all year was one block of 3 weeks due to undergoing an operation.

WW is making unfounded and untrue slanderous comments, and undermining a group of men and women who should be shown the respect they have earnt over many decades of an almost spotless safety record. Have a crack at the mismanagment and wastefulness of the managers, but leave the coalface controllers alone.

World's Worst

25th Jul 2004, 19:09

ANSA,

I'm so disappointed in your response.

Spotless safety record. Come on.

Didn't you get the briefing on the BOS report. Hundreds of near misses attributable to slack control techniques. Uncontrolled errors, if I recall correctly. If the public knew about it your former employer would be in deep crap.

So, hundreds of controllers rorting the system, hundreds of controllers making basis mistakes.

Doesn't sound good to me. I say bring in 500 US controllers, and make Oz a safer place.

p.s.

I don't suppose there's any vacancies for a highly paid, underskilled controller in the Muddle East?

DirtyPierre

25th Jul 2004, 23:15

Missy, Blastoid, ANSA, Ferris, Tobzalp, et al,

Don't get sucked in. Worlds Worst is not a controller. At best he is a fraud and dare I say, a close relative of winstun/churchall/spensa.

Woomera, if WW persists in this slanderous posting on this forum, could you please do something? I don't feel his posting is particularly useful, especially as this thread is to do with NAS. His assertions are unfounded and libelous.

To all others who read these posts, Oz ATCs do not and have not engaged in the sort of corruption that WW asserts. WW makes these assertions without any basis of fact or evidence to substantiate his claims. His posts are slanderous and particularly offensive to me and all my work colleagues.

DP

I've just checked WW's profile in an attempt to send him an e-mail to appeal to him to desist in making these public slanderous comments.

Guess what? He lists his occupation as "Air Traffic Bastardiser" and he will not accept e-mails.

Kind of hints at the mentality of the poster doesn't it?

DP

World's Worst

25th Jul 2004, 23:49

Ah, DP,

Haven't worked it out yet, have you.

Australian controllers are not the saints you guys keep making out.

You rort the system. You are basically unsafe. You oppose any change that threatens to challenge your little rorts and expose your weakness as controllers.

Prove me wrong.

Tell the readers what your base salary is, and how much you earned last year, including E/Ds and O/T. I challenge any other controller to do it.

Tell the readers how many ESIRs have been put in on controller errors in the last 12 months.

What do you think the public would find reasonable.

One bad error a year. One bad error a month. One bad error a week. What if they knew it was one bad error a day.

That's why Dick is trying to change things. To make it safer for the Australian travelling public. You guys are trying to stop that much needed reform.

I say bring over 20 FAA controllers, rate them on the Hunter Group, or Byron, or Moreton, and see how real controllers do the job.

Obi von Kenobi

26th Jul 2004, 00:20

This little's one's not worth the effort.

World's Worst

26th Jul 2004, 00:54

Obi, Obi, Obi,

I really love this site.

You controllers get to vent and rant, but when one of your own threatens to expose your hypocrisy, you try to close ranks and belittle your opposition.

I work with you, and I am on the inside. I probably work on your roster, and you don't know who I am or what I know about you, or your mates.

Australian controllers are the world's worst. Admit it, and allow some truly capable controllers from the US come out here and help you understand how it should be done.

tobzalp

26th Jul 2004, 02:26

http://users.bigpond.net.au/plazbot/burglar.jpg

AirNoServicesAustralia

26th Jul 2004, 02:52

Whoever you are you would never be welcome here in the Middle East, cos with a chip on your shoulder like you have you would last 5 minutes. In the last 6 months before I left Melbourne there were 2 breakdowns in separation (or reductions as we call them here), and one of those was due to a pilot busting his cleared flight level. I think Qantas pilots earning with all their allowances a quarter of a million dollars plus, would be shocked to find there are controllers keeping them safe earning a quarter of the salary they are. Over paid?? Try doing some research and find out what controllers are paid in the US, Canada and Europe. They are all paid vastly more than Australian controllers of similair experience. Maybe since you are supposedly "inside" the system, you can put up some numbers to support your wild statements. Come on, none of these DickSmithisms of I have seen, a friend told me, I believe. Put up exact figures, rates of pay, numbers of accidents etc, or shut the hell up idiot.

Obi von Kenobi

26th Jul 2004, 02:59

Obi, Obi, Obi, It's good to see you again, Jar Jar.

tobzalp

26th Jul 2004, 03:21

http://users.bigpond.net.au/plazbot/aopa.jpg

Uncommon Sense

26th Jul 2004, 06:54

Is there anything sadder than a failed air traffic controller who can not accept that they were not good enough to make the grade - who then makes unfounded accusations against those who did?

Yes. I have figured out who you are. Why do you still work there? Pathetic.

AirNoServicesAustralia

26th Jul 2004, 11:27

Sorry, I know I am just encouraging the whacker, but one last thing. It's amazing that according to WW, Oz controllers are the worst in every respect, they are dangerous, lazy fraudsters basically. Yet in the Middle East, currently the biggest employer of Expat ATC's in the world, Australian controllers are held generally in a very high regard. The companies that employ here, find them to be well trained and dilligent workers. In the UAE the Australian controllers never have a problem stepping up to the much higher traffic levels around Dubai, whereas a number of Scandinavians, and recently an American failed to meet the required standard. So WW tells us the Americans should come out to Oz cos they are the worlds best. Does WW really know what he is talking about, and if so, back it up with some hard evidence.

tobzalp

26th Jul 2004, 12:12

ANSA, don't bother dude. You are just defending something that he/she/it could not be. He/she/it will not understand but will i expect respond with some "OMGBS WTF YOO ARE ALL LIARZ ETC RORT DICKDICKMEPLZ FS2003" type sh!t.

World's Worst

26th Jul 2004, 15:27

Tobbie, baby!

Nice to hear ANSP admit that even the muddle east has more traffic that poor old Oz. Bet the tax free salary’s great too. Guess there’s no O/T or E/D payments though.

No as to my qualifications, well, I can’t remember failing an ATC course, but some I work with reckon I didn’t even do one. Anyway, they still work with me, warts and all.

You guys are all skirting round the point.

I don’t have to qualify my statements about safety. Airservices has already investigated it and admitted they have a major problem. Haven’t told Joe Public though.

Why won’t you clear the air and state your base salary, and what you earned last year. It’s easy to work it out. Just take a look at the Group Cert. The difference is O/T and E/Ds. Some was legit, some wasn’t.

And to the guy who set up a thread for me. Thanks, but no thanks. This is a good one. I have to support woomera in trying to get the thread to 30,000 views. They get an advertising bonus based on number of views, you know. Check it out.

Your pathetic bleatings are nauseous. Your last shot at Woomera got right up my nose.

You won’t be further contributing to the statistics on this thread.

:mad:

Woomera

Richo

27th Jul 2004, 03:20

Can anyone tell me just what happened at the metting on Friday?

I have heard the rumors of the ROLLBACK, but did it or is it going to happen.

If we don't have any definite responses, maybe somone has the the goss. if the rumour was true and the supposed topic was also true.

Just tell me that this whole NAS thing is going to go away, its really becoming a nightmare of uncertinty within the industry. This is not what we need, Please someone show some leadership, certinaly the Minister is not capable of doing so. Or at least his minders are keeping him very much in the dark.

While the heads are being banged together at the top (and elswhere) we the users and workers in the system are suffering, this is a very undesirable combination and creating another VERY weak link in the chain.

Richo

Uncommon Sense

27th Jul 2004, 05:09

Board Meeting this Friday 31.7.04

DirtyPierre

27th Jul 2004, 06:29

Uncommon Sense is right. the board meeting is scheduled for 31/07/04 - Friday.

Don't expect any announcement til the following week. I will, however, be consulting my snouts for any reliable rumours during the weekend.

It will be interesting to see just what sort of political pressure is being brought to bear. AsA has already lost one Chairman of the Board, and Bernie, the CEO, seems to be positioning himself to make a tactical withdrawl. After all, he must have some political nouce getting to his present position. Watch him to see which way the wind blows.

Watch this space.

Chris Higgins

27th Jul 2004, 13:59

I am not sure what I find more offensive...World's Worst's accusations or the reaction of those other contributors to this thread.

" I think he doth protest too much!"

Perhaps there is an element of truth to World's Worst's accusations, because the rebuttals have been too emphatic.

He seems to be a controller, well versed in Australian Operations, with an intimate knowledge of staffing in Sydney.

"Where there's smoke there's fire".

AirNoServicesAustralia

27th Jul 2004, 15:01

Thats the way Chris you have a reputation for making unfounded, and downright wrong statements, so feel free to here as well. By your reasoning all the controllers in Australia, who like any other proffession are proud of what they do and how they do it, should sit and say nothing. They should accept the mouthing off of a bitter and twisted wash out, and say nothing in their defence. If you want to weigh into this debate, do something Worlds Worst or anyone else couldn't do, back it up with figures.

FYI, with TCAS these days, pilots know when there has been a near miss, and so it would be crazy to try and cover up anything as a controller. Also most controllers would love nothing better than to have enough staff not to have to work overtime and Emergency duties, but as I said before due to the incompetence of managers, there is always a flood then famine approach to staffing, ie. give everyone VR, oops Recruit like crazy, oops give everyone VR oops etc.

Why I should be surprised that you would jump on WW's side of the fence is a mystery though, I mean anyone who proudly says GA in the USA is safer and has a lower accident rate than Australia, even though all data shows otherwise, can't be believed on anything. And then to try and delete all incriminating posts to try and cover the tracks of their unresearched waffle, shows just how much backbone that individual also has. As I said, someone on here back up your statements about Australian controllers or quit it and go back to pulling wings off flies.

World'sWorst

27th Jul 2004, 17:02

Now, now, ANSA.

I know you've been away, mate, so maybe you should check your facts.

I stood at a senior management briefing last year where they showed us a presentation on the fabled BOS review. BOS, as in Breakdown of Separation. They cited several hundred in a three year period if I remember right, and most of them were controller errors.

That report was public knowledge amongst us controllers, but never hit the streets.

So don't give me that holier than thou how wonderfully skilled we are as professionals stuff. One in ten of us is making a major error every few years.

I put stuff about E/D rosters on another thread because my licence to play here was pulled.

What's this got to do with NAS. A lot. Coz if ATCs want to be heard, they have to be respected, and I reckon we're not respectable enough to talk about airspace design when we can't even do basic ATC, and we get paid too much to do even that.

Chris Higgins

27th Jul 2004, 18:12

Air No Services.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I pulled references from another thread because I found my sources incorrect and admitted to that freely.

You have lowered your profession to making personal defammatory insults towards people you have never even met!

You sit in a foreign land also, and consider yourself to be the only one that can make an objective comment. Your comments are neither objective nor in any way superior to anyone elses.

I am not here to support World's Worst, Dick Smith or anyone else for that matter. It's time to cut all the crap and get to the truth.

1. Are there incompetent ATCs in Australia being covered up by their peers?

2. Are there a high number of ATC events in Australia?

3. Are there controllers now, or were there ever controllers, especially in Sydney, double-dipping, or rorting the system to gain illegal work hours?

4. What world standard are Australian Controllers held to?

5. What is the starting pay scale?

6. What is the top pay scale, with overtime?

7. What was Bernie Smith's salary last year?

and, finally!

8. Why did you leave Australia to work in the Middle East?

Sincerely,

Chris

Here to Help

27th Jul 2004, 19:25

Take it to another thread.

I'll make a new one if you like. Note Woomera's comment on my previous locked thread - "Now if any one can provide some real proof of this alleged behaviour, they should take it to the appropriate authority."

Mr Higgins, how would you like it if your Bondi thread was hijacked, the way this one is?

Start a new thread on the subject.

Chris Higgins

27th Jul 2004, 20:15

No it's relevant to the topic.

Did Dick Smith fail us or did Australian controllers?

That's really the question!

tobzalp

27th Jul 2004, 20:24

You are kidding me. Are you suggesting that Aus ATC are to blame for the NAS rubbish? Expand on this with facts and reasoning thanks.

World'sWorst

27th Jul 2004, 21:39

Geez, guys, don’t start me on controllers and NAS.

All the way along it’s been we can’t do this, we can’t do that, what about the liability, what about the unknown traffic, what about the training, what happens if, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Give me a break.

The line controllers have busted a gut to get training done, to meet the ridiculous timelines the big boys set. All the while the union bleats that we can’t possibly do it, so everything gets watered down.

Meantime, back on the line, ordinary controllers just get on with it.

Remember the G demo. What a horse’s rear. But we coped and provided a 5 star service. It was the idiots in management who let us down – and really poor airline training. Remember the bleating about east coast Class E. Can’t be done. Well, could be done, and has been for years with a first class service.

What I’m saying is that despite what you hear and read, controllers who try really can provide first class services – it’s the lazy majority who stop us giving pilots everything Dick wants in NAS and more.

I certainly do, and a few around me. I earn my dollars. Others don’t.

Chris Higgins

28th Jul 2004, 00:39

I think this guy is for real!

ferris

28th Jul 2004, 00:43

Chris (and others),
I had intended to attend your gabfest, as I am here atm- but I've changed my mind. I don't believe you are impartial, nor understand where the airspace problems lay. How could you have followed the debate, yet somehow believe the controllers are in any way, shape or form, able to affect how NAS pans out? There is little point attending if things like controller ability and pay rates are even remotely perceived as part of the problem. "Where there's smoke, there's fire"? Please.
There are reams of posts about whether controllers were running an 'industrial campaign' (because Dick's camp use it as a catch-cry to explain oppostion to NAS), so, once again, we are just going over old ground.

World's worst can't decide whether it's management or lazy controllers he hates. Rat smell getting stronger. Oh, and Chris, here's some smoke for you:
World's worst was the controller fired because he nearly put 2 together recently. He was also the liason officer for the 'Class G trial', and a lot of the blame for poor airline training rests with him. He is very bitter about being in SY (where his loss of license incident occurred), because he wanted to go to a 'country tower' but was refused transfer by management. He was an opponent of LLAMP (because after the G demo debacle wasn't invited to contribute), and keen to see it fail.
Does what he is saying now make sense to you? Is it all fitting into place? I hope so- because I made it all up. But remember- "where there is smoke, there is fire".

As to your questions.
1) If you understood ATC, you would realise incompetent ATCs don't stay on the console. They become managers. (would be funny if it wasn't true).
2) I don't know. If they are being covered up (as you insinuate), how would any data be useful, anyway?
3) Illegal work hours? No. Excessive amounts of overtime. Yes. You need to look at the REASONS for that overtime, not the fact of the overtime. It is common in many industries to employ less people than required, then work your employees harder. Reasons such as; bean-counters deciding it is cheaper to have less employees working extra hours, inability to plan staff levels BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT WHAT THE AIRSPACE WILL LOOK LIKE, OR WHAT SERVICE WILL BE GIVEN TO WHOM, how much training (that wasn't planned for) will have to be given before being scrapped and re-done. Or how many employees just get jack of the whole debacle and leave to go overseas.
4) World standard. Good question. I know that 2 trainees started with us recently- an aussie and a yank (with 25 years exp in a major centre). The yank didn't check out, even with extra sim and training time. The aussie had no trouble. So you tell me. (oh and ww, in the 'muddle east' we work twice the movements of eurocontrol).
5) Start pay is about 40k
6) Top pay is about 120k. Overtime is on top, but largely depends on the individual. Some work none (or as little as possible), some work every bit they can. In a year like the NAS debacle, it would be possible to make 40k in overtime.
7) Don't get me started on what exec pay is like. He made more than the head of the largest govt dept. (as did the next 3 below him) Work that out.:hmm:
8) Why leave? Unable to get ANY annual leave, let alone when you want it. Management skill non-existent. HR policy designed around how to possibly piss controllers off and pay them less. Non-existent career progression (see comment about promotion of incompetents). Getting rung up 9 times over the one weekend you have managed to score off, to come in to work overtime (again). Dealing with the miriad changes foisted on you daily in regards technical aspects of the job, NAS, TAAATS, etc. I could go on for hours, but it gets boring.

Good luck with the love-in. It won't achieve a single thing.

Chris Higgins

28th Jul 2004, 01:55

What you say makes perfect sense and I certainly do not condone false accusations by anyone.

Whether I fly in Sydney or down between mountains in Colorado at night, a healthy level of cynicism keeps me alive. Such afflictions help the average controller too!

We have to be careful not to cross the line, between healthy cynicism and paranoia. Sadly, I think this has been happening on these forums.

"Dick is out to get us! Crucify him! Crucify him!", may as well be a common mantra.

What I personally find concerning is that World's Worst seems to be a controller with very intimate knowledge of the intracacies of Australian ATC. What does he have to gain from making such "unreal" accusations. Remember the basic Hollywood B-grade movies: motive and means?

I have been overwhelmed by e-mails since Dick Smith proposed a meeting in Sydney. I called it the Bondi Beach Project because it's not about me or Dick Smith...it's about Australia. Bondi Beach is very symbolic of Australia. I have tried to direct some attention away from Dick Smith and restore some balance to these discussions. I've never met Dick, I really don't care what he or Tobzalp or anyone else for that matter thinks of me or what I'm doing. This is about people who disagree, finding a workable solution to what's ahead. I sure as hell don't want bodies falling from the sky and even my adversaries on this discussion board feel the same way!

There is a new reality that Australia must face. One that I was made painfully aware of at a young age whilst pursuing motocross. Australia represents only 3% of the world's market in most consumer products. Ask any of the Ford workers that were laid off in Geelong how long it took to find work? That 3% is shrinking with the power house economies of China and most of SE Asia taking off. Can we really afford to be pissing away $100 million at a time trying to figure this out?

It would have been impossible for me to make a living racing motocross in Australia, but Suzuki is paying Ricky Carmichael $10 million a year for two years just to do what I wanted to do as a young lad. You guys get pissed off at the very inclination that another Aussie has turned Yank on you, but fair's fair. Do I really want to go back to Qantas and not get a window seat for five years and start again on flying instructor pay? Or settle into a multi-million dolar career here as a domestic and international biz-jet captain, develop two other businesses and perhaps save my dough and retire in Port Macquarie?

America has a rough road ahead. ATC is not perfect here either. We are losing jobs abroad too to cheap labour.

The bottom line is...if there's any patriotism left in any of us, we will try and figure this out together and bloody well quick, before there's an accident!