Airservices option 3 and Industry model link [Archive]

NAPAC Convenor

5th Jul 2004, 00:01

All,

The link below is to a powerpoint presentation on two options under consideration to address various concerns arising from November's 2b introduction. The information has been briefed to the State RAPAC Convenors as well as presented at a number of recently scheduled meetings. Information has also been distributed using the various RAPAC address lists to the normal participating organisations.

As with any change there are differing views to the proposal and it could be said there are strongly polarised views. The ASA option 3 proposal is developed in house with the Industry proposal being sourced from various industry inputs. There is also a view that the current system is not generating a large number of incidents so it is not unsafe!.

For consideration! http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/forums/RAPAC/rapac_airspacereclass_briefing.pdf

Feedback through your State Convenor please.

NAPAC Convenor

gaunty

5th Jul 2004, 00:50

At last a very professional and relevant proposal for airspace reform. :)

Myself and several others in an organisation we were elected to represent were subject to severe harassment, vilification and character assasination for our attempts to lead them in the fight for this form of consultation on airspace reform.
We can't take responsibility on our own for achieving it, we didn't even profess to be airspace experts.
We were not even resisting reform we just wanted relevant, informed and proactive industry participation, not ideologue dogma and polemic. :( We don't need to revisit that arena again.

Now you've got real and professional consultation please, please, please participate and get it "right", for whatever "it" means, that in itself will the reward for our and many many others efforts. :ok:

Aussies are over represented as leaders in almost every field of endeavour because we add our best to the best of the best, and with our own resourcefulness mould it to our own unique environment, lets keep it that way. The world needs leaders like no other time in our history.

Aussies don't and never have run regulatory organisations for their own personal gain.
Aussies don't and never have tried to impose their personal view on their world by fair means or foul.
Aussies have always worked closely together because survival in our unique and isolated environment demanded that we do so.

Chimbu chuckles

5th Jul 2004, 02:56

Well...the difference between professional input to airspace reform and amatuer...night and day really!!!.

At first pass it seems all good however I'll be going through it a few more times to get my head around it completely before commenting in depth.

Chuck.

Hempy

5th Jul 2004, 04:20

Have done some very early "proof of concept" work on option 3. My guess is Dick will have his knickers in a knot about the VRA's :}

KLN94

5th Jul 2004, 08:06

HEMPY

"Have done some very early "proof of concept" work on option 3. My guess is Dick will have his knickers in a knot about the VRA's"

And the Frequencies going back on the charts...

gaunty

5th Jul 2004, 08:53

It was THAT simple, frequencies on the charts in transition:rolleyes: and an "E" frequency clearly identified would have saved I don't how much money and a whole heap of time and angst BS.

But no, it was "easier" to comprehensively dissemble, mislead and say "whatever it takes" to get "agreement". Ideology v common sense.:yuk:

Dog One

5th Jul 2004, 10:44

Option 3 is the way to go. The idea of a VFR Reporting Area prior to entry to E airspace is no different to requesting a clearance to enter C airspace. If a clearance is available, then the VFR can transit the airspace, if clearance is not available, it means that there is conflicting traffic, which is a lot safer for all concerned, as we are not then relying on TCAS to provide seperation.

After revisiting the ATSB's report on see and be seen, the facts contained leave Airservices no alternative. As one who daily dices with E outside radar, I can't wait to see some protection provided for our fare paying passengers.

On with option 3 now!

tobzalp

5th Jul 2004, 11:07

I have a feeling that the industry option may be the winner. It is strategically called the Industry option for a reason.

Obi von Kenobi

5th Jul 2004, 13:22

I have a feeling that the industry option may be the winner. It is strategically called the Industry option for a reason. I have a bad feeling about this...

Roger Standby

5th Jul 2004, 15:00

It's great to see some common sense being applied to resolve these issues.

A couple of side notes for consideration...

* once a vfr callsign has been acknowledged, he/she can proceed into the vra... "ABC, standby" will invariably be replaced by "aircraft calling Centre, standby". Two minutes later, "Centre, ABC are you ready to take our vfr details yet?", "Aircraft calling Centre, standby". If things are busy, and the vfr doesn't have a plan in the system, the controller has to quickly create an FDR for that aircraft. Some may say in a radar environment the controller can radtag the a/c, but SAR and a lot of the other system warnings won't work with a radtag and if it turns to hell, the controller knows who's going to wear it.

* in these modern times of no Flight Service and the bulk of the nation being run from two major centres, it is unfortunate that the old local knowledge just isn't what it once was. "Centre, ABC, C172 tracking Joe's Dam for Pete's farmstead, A055". Ah, sorry, where's that and how do I put it into a FDR???

Overall the changes seem to be a great step in the right direction, but the implications of the VRA need to be well thought out. I had another point on it, but at this late hour, it's gone- will have to revisit it later.

Cheers,

R-S.

Capcom

5th Jul 2004, 15:18

Political expediency

Industry option…….Yup, lets hobble together something that resembles D but still call it E so lie-low John does not have to back away.:rolleyes:

It has been looked at and I can assure you it is a dogs breakfast :yuk:

If VFR must have:-

- Point to point coordination (ATS)
- Frequency announcements and replies (Otherwise no entry)
- Notification of track or altitude change 1 min prior to doing so
- Estimate updates required for changes of 2 minutes or more
- Directed traffic information (IFR/VFR VFR/VFR)

Tis Claytons D…………..BUT practical application will mean:

- Frequency loading (Loads of Traffic info instead of separation/segregation)
- VFR and IFR restricted levels
- VFR NOT subject to a clearance
- ATS left in limbo as we technically CANNOT separate VFR and IFR as the VFR is NOT subject to a clearance and therefore not receiving an ‘air traffic control service’ (prevent collisions)
- IFR still not receiving the service protection they were and still are paying for
- It was free to VFR when it was C so why settle for this crap

Lets stop mucking about

It is either a return to C above D…………OR

Assess an extension of D above existing D with the separation of Tower and Centre airspace at the VFR level closest to 1000ft above the highest IFR approach commencement altitude for the associated aerodrome.

As long as the climb and descent areas are protected with D or better then I personally do not give a rats ring gear what surrounds it, E or G.

If those from airlines who support this VRA proposal think it will restore the comfort levels, think again!:hmm:

If the rest of you (Pilots and ATC’s) think it is a smelly cat, PLEEEEEEEEASE furchrist sake say so to your team leaders, line checkers and safety pilots etc. Time is running out

Lets fix it right this time.:ok:

Cap

P.S My concern is the systemic sleeper aspect of this!........How long did it take for SIMOPS to REALLY go pear shaped with O/S INTL crews?!?!?!?!?

The weakest link and all that............ :\ :ooh::sad:

WALLEY2

5th Jul 2004, 16:51

NAPAC.

Ppruners,

It does not get any better than this. Here we have total disclosure of proposed developments in a timely manner.

I know vip in this area but recognise an open approach like the Broome DAS.

One of Dick Smiths main reason for his non-consultative approach was because he believed this open approach could not work.

PLEASE GRASP THIS CHANCE WITH BOTH HANDS AND MAKE AN ANALYSISED STUDIED APPROACH. THIS SURELY WILL GET A BETTER SYSTEM AND SHOW THE NON CONSULTATIVE NASIG ATTACK WAS FLAWED AND RIDICULOUS.

FORGET THE PAST GIVE IT 100%. VoR would this be your advise also?

Only if this approach is shown to be a cinical exercise, should you return to the trenchs.

It is suprising when after a long battle it is actually dificult to realise you have won. There is no doubt you guys have won a battle, do not immediately attack again, wait till the smoke clears and after you have co-operated and had imput, determine if it was only a battle and not the war.

DO NOT PROVE DICK RIGHT BY BEING NEGATIVE AND NITPICKING TRY AND REALISE IN ANY CHANGE THERE WILL BE IMPROVEMENTS BUT SOME PROBLEM AREAS WHERE YOU DISAGREE.

THE ONLY TWO PERTAINENT QUSTIONS YOU THEN NEED TO ASK YOURSELF ARE:

1 IS IT AN OVERALL IMPROVEMENT?
2 ARE THE PROBLEM AREAS WHILE NOT IN YOUR OPINION OPTIMINAL-MANAGEABLE AND SAFE?

This reads a bit stuffy but it is the zone we at BME appear to be in (thank God) and will give the professionals now incharge every courtesy and try to get a workable solution that we can say " Well not exactly what we had in mind but it is safe(ALARP) and addresses the DAS findings."

Good luck Mike

Voices of Reason

5th Jul 2004, 18:29

Once again the points that you and we have been making over the last several months have been ignored by your service provider and regulator.

It is now July 5th/6th.

The submission that has been put forward anticipates an implementation by the 25th of November. That is 4½ months away.

We understand from an examination of previous documentation and posts to this site that the lead times for document production vary from 2 ½ months for basic documents, to 3-4 months for charts.

What is being proposed has implications for charts.

That would appear to indicate that a decision has already been made, and that the 2- or 3-week window for consultation is no more than “lip-service”.

The presentation made by your service provider admits that the analysis work has not been completed. Risk mitigations cannot be determined until that risk analysis is complete. Training and education material to fulfill those safety mitigation obligations cannot be met until the risks are understood and mitigations determined. Training and education needs to be tested with those who are being trained.

Your Director of CASA has already stated publicly that he will require 3 months of training and education – AS A MINIMUM.

The effectiveness of training and education material has been at the heart of your concerns over airspace reform – yet your service provider and regulator are once more proceeding down a precipitous path of last minute and rushed material – TO MEET A PRE-ESTABLISHED DEADLINE.

We think the process is a step in the right direction, and we understand the strong feeling that a “rollback” is required.

But at the very least your service provider should seek to regain the moral and technical high ground by implementing it correctly and in accordance with their own published safety and change management practices.

Feather #3

5th Jul 2004, 22:03

I wonder, though, in any instance, just how much traffic would really be inconvenienced by either the C over D or the VRA in E proposal?

As an irregular "transitter" of CH and AY airspace, the former a bit like a tollgate on a highway to VFR coastal traffic, I haven't heard too many instances of flights having drama.

I call AY TWR to ask if there's any traffic when going across their northern E step and they don't seem to mind. Likewise, CH are always obliging within the limits of D separation. One would like to assume that other coastal locations [the major complaint for reduction of C to D/E stautus] provide similar expedience.

So, as much as I applaud either proposal, if we are thinking of an inconvenience factor to pilot or ATC, just how big is the perceived "problem"?:confused:

G'day ;)

On eyre

5th Jul 2004, 23:14

Dog one

I agree entirely.

Option 3 is the only way to go. Lets get on with it, all get used to it, keep the fare paying passengers (and ourselves) safe, suffer little inconvenience and get aviation rolling again.

yarrayarra

6th Jul 2004, 00:44

Hate to throw a spanner guys.....
Trial conducted re VRA at AY suggested the workload to the controller was so high that it required an extra controller to enter the aircraft's info into TAAATS- this is required in order to have the aircraft displayed on the screen (as a flight planned track because there is no radar, or inconsistent, coverage below about F110)
The original training exercise had 14 odd IFR aircraft taken out to be replaced by 8 VFR and the exercise became unworkable due to the increased workload and distraction.
One of the problems becomes the amount of increased coordination between AY tower and the controller of the airspace overlying AY as traffic info will need to be passed back and forth. The controller is being distracted from their primary focus on separating by "heads down" data entry. Now I'm all for getting the industry involved, transparency etc but this option has been formulated from only one direction. Only a small percentage of an ATC's workload is actually talking to aircraft- the majority goes on with coordination, system interaction etc. Remember the duck above and below water-line!!!
We'll all have to work with whatever is handed to us, but all I see is another band-aid. I fear, however, that because it's seen as the "Industry Option" it HAS to be right and it will get up.
I had great hope in November last year that right would win out in the end,and NAS would fall over at the last minute- ALAS.
Personally- I'm for option 3. Just let the controllers do their job.
The KISS principal for me- Keep It Super Simple
SIMPLE=SAFE:ok:
Good luck

Hempy

6th Jul 2004, 02:29

Yarrayarra,

I admit that the VRA FDR entry requirements are time consuming, but give it a bit of a chance. By the sounds of things, you were either one of the Sim guinea pigs, or have spoken to someone who was. The SimEx, unfortunately, WAS over-developed and was too busy considering the fact that the "bum on seat" was dealing with these new procedures after a 15 minute briefing. The procedures haven't been fully developed (coord requirements etc.) yet so try and keep an open mind at this stage.
As an aside, I remember all the doomsayers during TAAATS transition complaining how they would never be able to adjust to a mouse and a keyboard and data entry after scribbling on paper strips for 20 years....

Chimbu chuckles

6th Jul 2004, 05:09

I have a question...or three!

Outside the J curve probably means outside radar coverage..why still have enroute E between FL180 and FL245? (where regionals generally cruise)

Why not have the upper level of E at around FL140 thus keeping unreported VFR away from relatively high performance IFR?

Surely up to FL140 gives 99% of VFR traffic enough room to move?

Is VRA a wrinkle that will prove complex to understand/in practice for joe average, uncurrent VFR pilot?

Re comments by VoR re timing...I can only agree.

The general thrust of the subject matter at hand is a big step in the right direction but still needs tweaking. I am concerned that while a step in the right direction it still is not as user friendly and as 'safe' as we had pre Nov 2003.

What could be simpler to understand as two levels of airspace CTA and OCTA for joe average ppl who flys relatively few times a year?

Why the busta gut effort to not enforce filing flight plans?

Wouldn't that make life simple within VRAs (if we must have them)? JA PPL simply calls on appropriate frequency approaching the edge of the VRA with callsign, position, altitude and estimate for wherever. He's assigned a transponder code and...oh that would be like Class C..silly me I remember now..to f**king hard.

Chuck.

Bizpax

6th Jul 2004, 06:09

I see that DS is complaining again of not getting a clearance when he wants one... maybe some aircraft carrying passengers like me is in the way and the ATCs are keeping me safe! What a nerve that man has! Perhaps we passengers should sue DS or the government for putting us at increased risk with NAS2B. Perhaps Voices of Reason could fill us all in on how much extra risk we are exposed to while we are waiting for NAS2B to be corrected.

SM4 Pirate

6th Jul 2004, 07:42

Outside the J curve probably means outside radar coverage..why still have enroute E between FL180 and FL245? (where regionals generally cruise) The theory is that IFRs like E in these levels, VFRs can't go above FL200, (without CASA approval) if you take away the E above FL180 then you wouldn't be able to use the VFR climb and Descent, VFR on TOP or IFR pick-up procedures, sic. RA a wrinkle that will prove complex to understand/in practice for joe average, uncurrent VFR pilot? Yes of course... The theory is they will just stay clear cause it will scare them like class C?Why the busta gut effort to not enforce filing flight plans? Couldn't agree more, it will just make it workload intensive for the controllers.The KISS principal for me- Keep It Super Simple KI Simple Stupid? Wouldn't that be novel; how would a simple solution appease all the industry players?That would appear to indicate that a decision has already been made, and that the 2- or 3-week window for consultation is no more than “lip-service”. Is this the consultation? Does Option 3 need consultation, it's not open for debate, it was conceived after consultation for options one and two? The Industry option is widely consulted is it not, didn't industry create it via the consultation process from Option 1 and 2, it has been hazard assessed; it's just the safety cases that are still under construction, but they are nearly done. Your Director of CASA has already stated publicly that he will require 3 months of training and education – AS A MINIMUM.That would be 25 August would it not? They've still got a month and a half...The effectiveness of training and education material has been at the heart of your concerns over airspace reform – yet your service provider and regulator are once more proceeding down a precipitous path of last minute and rushed material – TO MEET A PRE-ESTABLISHED DEADLINEThat is how we do business... We need to meet the next MAP publication date; we are legally exposed are we not?

For mind option 3 is ICAO compliant, IO is not... Logic would then suggest that IO will get the legs.:*

If we were voting my vote would go to Option 3... But the IO is better than what we have today, even if the VRA stuff is dodgy...

P.S. why no internal briefings on these things, the NAS SMEs and GTSs have been busy working on something, one presumes on this...

tobzalp

6th Jul 2004, 08:22

SM4 Pirate wrote P.S. why no internal briefings on these things, the NAS SMEs and GTSs have been busy working on something, one presumes on this...

There were back to back meetings for GTS types in Bris and Mel a few weeks ago where each one did a TNA for their staff listing the training requirements for O3 and IO.

It appears that IO (and O3) is on the surface a doable event by the Nov 25 map date if the board can make their decision at the July meeting or even put it off for a month and still get there without cutting any educational corners. I think however that the training deficiencies will once again show up on the pilots side of things as I am sure it will be via a half arsed mail out booklet like last time.

farqueue

6th Jul 2004, 17:29

More of a question, I have looked through the slides and all of the E seems to now be above 10,000', so O2 or pressure to play in it. And it seems, in the wedding cake views to be VERY small, but I have not worked out the horizontal extent.

But, why not bucket E and have C instead? No special procedure needed, one radio procedure fits all, and you are in OCTA or not...

WhatWasThat

7th Jul 2004, 05:35

Vicious rumour is that a letter change from E to C over D is politically untenable (constitutes a recognition that it was never that good an idea and all that).

E F180 to F245 is being maintained because of the 3 or so VFRs that can get up that high who are demanding that their right to do so without talking to anyone must not be infringed!!!

The idea that the majority of IFRs like it that way is demonstrably untrue- maybe it would be different if the E procedures weren't so crap.

scramjet77

7th Jul 2004, 05:39

At first glance option 3 appears to be a “giant leap” forward in the right direction. However a few questions arise in my interpretation of the proposal.

1. Why the rush (yet again) to implement another change by November the 25th. This WILL NOT give time for industry (both private and public) to asses, establish, distribute and implement training and familiarisation packages.

2. Why the tiny “strip” of Class E airspace within the Northern and Southern parts of the J curve? These strips appear to be so small as to be entirely redundant causing more work for no result.

3. Establishment of VRA’s. Why? If the possibility of collision is deemed to be higher in certain areas, why not maintain class C airspace? A VRA at first glance, will only create higher work loads for all concerned, with no added benefit. Wasn’t the entire farce called NAS brought about in the first case in order to “SIMPLIFY” the way we all work? To me a VRA is a “rebadged” form of class A clearance requirements.

While I applaud the changes proposed in OPTION 3 and believe that the basis of the proposals provide a sound and solid foundation, lets not get carried away with trying to be all things to all people. There is some truth in the cliché that “a camel is actually a horse designed by a committee”.

Why did we ever change from what we had pre NAS 2b? Be aware, the war is not over yet. DS will still be trying every trick in his large repertoire to have his own way.

Dog One

9th Jul 2004, 10:11

Can some one give a detailed statement as to how much money we are saving by introducing E airspace outside of radar, or really E airspace fullstop. There is no reduction in staffing levels, there is no reduction in IFR en route charges to IFR planned aircraft. The only winner is the VFR operator.

Where is the massive cost saving that will rejuvenate the GA sector?

From my decades of experience in the industry I cannot see any benefit.

Can some one please tell what I have missed?

yarrayarra

10th Jul 2004, 05:23

Dog One:- there isn't any.
My understanding that any changes would not be implimented unless they complied with two requirements:
1. No degradation of safety
2. Cost saving
Look at all the posts since before Nov 2003 to the present and all the documented airprox events etc.
You can only conclude that NAS has failed on both counts.

SM4 Pirate

10th Jul 2004, 07:29

There appears to be significant Cost Benefit Analysis, (risks and hazards vs. costs) underway and a decision from the ASA board later this month, and probable court action next?

Both of these options represent increased safety over today's system (lets not mention pre 27 Nov 03). Both are likely to have minimum impact on “overall” costs. The Industry Option will have some benefit to the VFR operator over Option 3; but probably require extra "Planner Controllers" to achieve this benefit to the VFR pilot.

Option 3 definitely looks like better safety for your buck, but only if you currently spend a buck, VFRs may have to travel further under a “clearance not available” scenario, regardless of the realities of that.

I would imagine that there will be a significant push from the VFR end of town to have the "Industry Option" over Option 3 at all cost; but it will be a bitter pill regardless as those who would insist on the Industry Option would be insisting in the first instance, no change.

Why is the Sydney airspace so complex? Brisbane, Adelaide, Cairns, Perth and Melbourne have very simple distance based airspaces, with the same levels at the same distances, why not Sydney? The more complexity the more chance of error from controllers and pilots will this help the VCA statistics?

My biggest question is what else will arrive in the 25 November changes? I heard a very vicious rumour about US CTAFs replacing MBZs and CTAFs in this round.

Are CASA appeasing the NASIG again (for what reason) and attempting to cut corners on training to get it in? What exactly is meant by a CTAF(R)?

CaptainMidnight

10th Jul 2004, 09:25

NAPAC Convenor

Re. this "Airservices" option 3 vs. "Industry" option - can you outline the parties behind each i.e. who created each, and who endorses them?

Reason I ask is I'm told that options 1, 2 and now 3 have evolved with industry input and endorsement via forums (i.e. not cooked up by Airservices in house) , whereas the "Industry" option is a curved ball from select parties.

yarrayarra

10th Jul 2004, 23:07

NAS Update:

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed down from generation to generation, says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.

At AirServices Australia however, a whole range of far more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:

• Change riders.
• Buy a stronger whip.
• Do nothing: "This is the way we have always ridden dead horses".
• Visit other countries to see how they ride dead horses.
• Perform a productivity study to see if lighter riders improve the dead horse's performance.
• Hire a contractor to ride the dead horse.
• Harness several dead horses together in an attempt to increase the speed.
• Provide additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
• Appoint a committee to study the horse and assess how dead it actually is.
• Re-classify the dead horse as "living-impaired".
• Develop a Strategic Plan for the management of dead horses.
• Rewrite the expected performance requirements for all horses.
• Modify existing standards to include dead horses.
• Declare that, as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overheads, and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line than many other horses.
• Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

This is so close to the truth it's scary!!!!

Hempy

11th Jul 2004, 03:18

At AirServices Australia however, a whole range of far more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:

• Change riders.
• Buy a stronger whip.
• Do nothing: "This is the way we have always ridden dead horses".
• Visit other countries to see how they ride dead horses.
• Perform a productivity study to see if lighter riders improve the dead horse's performance.
• Hire a contractor to ride the dead horse.
• Harness several dead horses together in an attempt to increase the speed.
• Provide additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
• Appoint a committee to study the horse and assess how dead it actually is.
• Re-classify the dead horse as "living-impaired".
• Develop a Strategic Plan for the management of dead horses.
• Rewrite the expected performance requirements for all horses.
• Modify existing standards to include dead horses.
• Declare that, as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overheads, and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line than many other horses.
• Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

This is so close to the truth it's scary!!!!

:ok: :ok: Can I borrow this sometime? :p

yarrayarra

11th Jul 2004, 03:58

Hempy- be my guest!!

NAPAC Convenor

11th Jul 2004, 10:03

Captain Midnight

If I recall correctly ( don't have the file here ) the first 3 options were driven by Hazard ID workshops etc together with ASA board directions for ALARP. ALARP being as low as reasonably practical and not costing industry a motza.

The "industry option was dumped on some of ASA staff to put together on behalf of specific parts of industry. As far as I have been able to determine there is not an industry generated document put to ASA to coveroff option "I". If it is around at least no one is prepared to hand it over.

Hope this answers the question.

DirtyPierre

11th Jul 2004, 23:05

Hate to say this, but the Industry Option is a bit like a horse designed by a committee......a camel.

VFR reporting areas in E?

Hmmmmm....I agree ....lets use the KISS principle.

If we keep airspace as simple as possible there is less chance for a stuff up...proven fact!

VRAs are a load of ****e! If VFRs need to report, give positions, be coordinated between ATS units, then why not give them a clearance as well. No additional workload for the controller, the controller can regulate his workload, and the VFR aircraft can provide a flight plan (remember them) to ATC prior to entry (like prior to actually getting into the acft and blasting off).

If a controller already has a flight plan to work with, then a clearance is far easier to get. That is, the controller doesn't spend a couple of minutes typing in a flight plan for someone who could have put it in prior to getting into the acft (like when he got his notams and weather).

Lets get with the program. VRAs WILL cause additional workload for ATC, meaning that there will be no cost saving. We want cost benefit with safety. Where's the cost benefit with VRAs?

By the way, are VRAs ICAO compliant? Is this another variation of a variation of an ICAO airspace design?

DP