NAS "report" - OZ Flying JUL04

[karrank]

NAS - Not Absolutely Settled. It says its written by Paul Phelan, but like the besieged DHS on another thread I doubt this identity. Using a new nom-de-guerre to go with the previously used Wes Willoughby?

First I offer the following extracts from a certain Lancair pilot that had a good look at a B737:
ATC asked me to report sighting a Virgin 737... I did so, and continued to monitor his progress afterwards. ...(later) I confirmed I had him in sight. ...He went past, closer than what one would prefer...
I hadn't read this bit before, and consider it an appalling example of what happens when you deliver avoiding "bangs" to the lowest common denominator. There was no need for ATC to identify this guy, at least until the projected flight following service is implemented (and how clever an idea was it to implement one without the other???), there was no need for ATC to enquire if EITHER had sighted the other. The service applicable to a VFR aircraft in E is clearly indicated in MATS 9.1.1.1 & AIP 1.4: Separation service: Nil. Service provided: RIS on request If anybody doesn't know what this means look at AIP gen 3.3 1.2:At pilot request, and, if possible, a controller providing radar services will suggest a course of action to avoid other aircraft. Ultimate responsibility for aircraft and terrain avoidance rests with the pilot in command.
Why was separation not applied by ATC? Because Dick Smith (or Paul Phelan) had implemented a system that does not apply separation in this case. Instead of applauding ATC providing the service NAS had REQUIRED him to HE'S WHINGING AGAIN, while still saying anything ATC have to say against the system has nothing to do with safety but is an attempt to make jobs or return to the 1950's:mad:

Paul (or Dick) quotes MATS 5.2.1.2 (as Dick has before on this forum) to justify the Yuppie-killer (Lancair) pilot's assumption he was recieving a separation service, despite repeatedly reporting sighting the other traffic (making separation unneccessary in ANY US bug-smasher airspace). The options include:a. traffic information; or... The aircraft under radar control had traffic, so ATC had no need to proceed to b. or c. or invent his own d. Regardless the ATC then proceded to overservice by:

:8 Indentitying and verifying the Yuppie-killer,
:8 Passing traffic to the Yuppie-killer without a pilot request,
:8 Enquire into whether they had sighted each other,
:8 Retaining ident and providing an ongoing service and updating the traffic repeatedly.

And Dick (or Paul) calls the ATC "criminal", and has not apologised, unless it counts that he now doesn't like what the Virgin crew did either.:ouch:

By the way, I notice c. in the article is followed by "(my underlining)", just like it did in Dick's post on this forum. More evidence that Paul is really Dick. Or at least A dick.

The article concludes with a fairy story about what is being introduced in NOV04. Have you talked to anybody lately Mike?

[404 Titan]

karrank

While I think Paul is a bit of a **** I can assure you he is a very really person with his own personal twist on things which I mostly don't agree with. He lives in Cairns and has been writing for Oz Flying for a long time. He even use to be the editor. I recall DS abusing him once right in front of me and many others at the NQAC for an article he wrote that didn't gell with Dicks own point of view.

[Woomera]

Alas, the NQAC misses Paul's patronage each Friday evening. He's moved inter state.

[Lusimtingting]

Woomera

Is ' Mudguard ' still a regular at NQAC ?.



Haven't been to the NQAC or Cairns for many years.

Woomera

[Paul Phelan]

I can assure you all that to the best of my knowledge Dick Smith isn't posing as Paul Phelan. Also I'd suggest you re-read the article as an aid to developing some basic comprension of what you read. Nowhere did I suggest that the Lancair pilot "assumed he was recieving a separation service." I'd add that the pilot concerned, who was flying for Max Hazelton when I first met him in the early sixties and had been operating a large and successful aerial agriculture business until he recently retired, can hardly be described as a "yuppy." I rarely visit these pages nowadays, because I get bored with the repetitive way people anonymously hurl second-hand insults at one another, which is characteristic of individuals with deep-rooted inferiority complexes, who don't have enough originality to compose new and entertaining insults. In some cases it not a complex at all, it's just reality.

PS: Can somebody define "bug smasher" for me? Is it a single engined aeroplane? A propeller aeroplane? An aeroplane that only takes one pilot to fly it? Anything lighter than a B737? You really shouldn't call aeroplanes names. They can develop inferiority complexes too, you know.

[Woomera]

:}

[KLN94]

Paul Phelan

I would have thought that the term 'Bug Smasher' was more an endearing term rather than a derogatory one. I take it to refer to any piston powered aeroplane that traditionally stays below 10,000 feet and therefore in the range of bugs that invariably end up smeared all over one's windscreen...

[karrank]

OK Paul, I'll do you the courtesy that seemed beyond Dick and admit you appear to be a real person. I was really only p1ss-taking about his efforts to prove VOR is Adrian Dumsa. On the other hand I won't apologise, because the article may as well have been written by him for all the balance it displays.

One paragraph from Ted Lang, and three from you (plus others cut'n'pasted from Dick's PROON ravings) which are just flat-out wrong. The service applicable to a VFR in E airspace is traffic, on request, in radar coverage only. Full stop. This is what Dick implemented. If you don't like that, start agitating to change it rather than relying on rumours about the magical overseas.

"...assumed he was recieving a separation service."
I'm at a complete loss to understand why ATC didn't limit the 737 to (say) 17,000 until our paths had crossed, or perhaps given him a suggested vector i.e. Separate. By just printing stuff from one side of the PROON debate or DICKSMITHLYER ravings you have not helped clear up this pilot's expectations.

I wasn't calling Daryl a yuppie, I was calling the Lancair IV a Yuppie-killer. If he is not a yuppy he can probably expect a long and happy time with it. And I probably only called it that coz of burning jealousy. It would look reasonably good tied up at my local, but I'd rather have a Cozy.

Bit surprised you haven't heard of a bugsmasher...