Airlines baulk at air safety reforms

[Wirraway]

Thurs "The Australian"

Airlines baulk at air safety reforms
By Steve Creedy Aviation writer
August 19, 2004

THE federal Government has suffered a further embarrassing blow to its National Airspace System after airlines raised safety concerns over changes to be introduced in November.

The reforms had been put on hold until next year after chief pilots from Qantas, Virgin Blue and Regional Express raised a series of issues this week, Transport Minister John Anderson's spokesman said last night.

Mr Anderson's spokesman said the Government still wanted to introduce the changes to radio broadcasting from aircraft as they approach airports without air traffic control towers, but wanted the airline industry on board. "Obviously we were fairly hopeful that (the changes) would go ahead in November but if people raise issues we have to have a look at them," he said.

An intense lobbying campaign is under way to stop Airservices Australia reversing some of last year's changes in the wake of studies showing they resulted in an increased risk of collision over some regional airports.

Aviator Dick Smith and organisations claiming to represent more than 200,000 private and sports aviators have labelled the studies flawed and accused bureaucrats of sabotaging the reforms.

Mr Smith yesterday accused Mr Anderson of trying to destroy country aviation by postponing the changes and said airlines were running aviation safety in Australia for their "own selfish interests".

He said the changes would have allowed country pilots to fly straight into airfields with the higher safety and lower costs enjoyed by their city counterparts.

Mr Anderson's spokesman and Qantas rejected Mr Smith's claims, and Virgin Blue last night threw its weight behind Airservices, saying it believed the agency had done a professional job.

"We're also appreciative of the consultative approach of Airservices and CASA in further reviewing (the reforms) before implementation takes place," said Virgin spokesman David Huttner.

"Certainly one of our major concerns, which is retention of mandatory radio call-out at significant regional airports, is something we think benefits all parties as it can only further enhance safety."

========================================

[NAMPS]

Aviator Dick Smith and organisations claiming to represent more than 200,000 private and sports aviators...

Does the 200,000 include model plane builders too?

[chief wiggum]

He said the changes would have allowed country pilots to fly straight into airfields with the higher safety and lower costs enjoyed by their city counterparts.

What is he talking about ?

Where are the lower costs ? and where is the improved safety ?

[CaptainMidnight]

.... more than 200,000 private and sports aviators .... Last I heard there were only a total of around 70,000 licensed pilots in Australia.

Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story.

[poison_dwarf]

At the start of NAS the airlines national and regional stated clearly that they would support NAS, these quotes come from the very first workshop and continued until the last. It was nothing but lies it is now the case that they have resisted change all the way, they will only accept changes that benefit them. These airlines are now controlling the countries airspace and forcing the travelling public by using scare tactics to accept their views, these views are not qualified or quantified they are based on nothing more than feelings of perceived hazards. Basically the airlines have cost the Australian taxpayer millions based on gut feelings. They are demanding changes to suit their needs that will put aviators and the travelling public at risk.

Do we let truck drivers design road networks, train drivers design the rail network? Of course we do not so why allow pilots to design airspace. Do not confuse me with someone that supports NAS I have mixed views on the whole thing. I am a pilot I do not purport to be an expert in airspace even though I fly in the dam thing for a living. But I am tired of listening to the drivel that is coming out of half these posts. Plain and simple pilots and controllers should not be running airspace there are people with adequate qualifications for this task. We have a high death rate in general aviation; having flown in most other countries I am not surprised. Airspace reform is only part of the answer.

Australian is not like any other country we are unique are some of the comments I have read, absolute crap try flying in other countries its about time we all grew up and left airspace reform to airspace designers. We have one of the most complex systems I have ever seen but at least the scenery makes up for it. Our system is a bandaid system just add a little bit hear and they’re another bandaid to fix the problem. That’s my 2cents worth.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Poison dwarf, I have been down this road before but I can rehash the same figures again if you like. When comparing Australia, the U.S.A and Canada, Australia has the lowest GA accident rate, and the lowest GA fatality rate per thousand movements. So unless you can back up your comment,

We have a high death rate in general aviation; having flown in most other countries I am not surprised

then withdraw it please.

Please tell us all if the controllers and the pilots are not the ones to design airspace, then who is?? Surely a controller knows what the best way to expedite the safe movement of traffic is. The airspace is designed with this in mind. The airlines are the majority users of the airspace and the pay for the running and the upkeep of the entire infrastructure, so why wouldn't they and their pilots have a large say in the design of the airspace. As I see it, the pilots and the controllers, would have a much better idea at designing workable, safe airspace than a cowboy aviator (term used loosely), and a few of his wealthy mates.

[Hugh Jarse]

Chief Wiggum, it's really simple: If they don't have to use their radios, then Avcharges (or whoever they're called) can't record the callsign of aircraft landing at the various regional airports and therefore can't collect the landing fees which rightfully are due to the aerodrome operator.

A significant cost saving to the non-radio user and a loss of fees which pay for the upkeep of said aerodrome.

I guess we could use an "honesty box" system where users could place a few bucks in the kitty when they land.

But we all know what a bunch of tightarses they really are, and that this would never work. :yuk:

[Capt Claret]

poison_dwarf,

Perhaps you could help me. I have to traverse an airspace parcel 19,500 vertical feet and laterally about 60 to 70 nm, Class E, no radar, on a regular basis.

In this parcel of airspace there are at least three possible appropriate frequencies for the VFR pilot to monitor, as advised in the NAS2B training material.

My aircraft has only two VHF comms and on departure Class E is entered within about 2 minutes (2700' AGL). How do I manage this situation so that I can know that there is no VFR operating quite legally in Class E, that is a conflict with me? 44,000kg at 220 kias won't leave much of him/her if we hit! :ooh:

As only a pilot but responsible for the safety of the aircraft and passengers, I think this situation is far more dangerous that pre NAS2B where I was flying through Class C & D and every one had to be talking on the same VHF frequency.

I may only be a pilot and not an airspace designer but I know that NAS2B is far less safe for all airspace users than pre NAS.

[Feather #3]

Of course, if they really were "Air Safety Reforms" , the airlines, or for that matter, anybody else, wouldn't object at all!!??:uhoh:

Steve needs to word his headlines more carefully. :rolleyes:

G'day ;)

[Bizpax]

Well, well, if what Steve Creedy reports is true, then the Minister for Transport was advised the airspace changes entailed unpalatable increased risk for passengers at regional aerodromes and, unable to publicly make a decision that would show he was given a crock of #### to agree to or worse still has been lying, passed the buck to the airlines.

Well thank Godzilla the airlines understand risk, liability and their passengers. All I want is to worry about the safety of my new el cheapo airline and my meetings for the day, not whether some VFR idiot is going to stray into our path when I fly into Ballina.

It appears commonsense, reason and logic are starting to win -now for the the undoing of the changes that are in place. We're still waiting, the 3 million of us!:ok:

[poison_dwarf]

Capt Claret

"I may only be a pilot and not an airspace designer but I know that NAS2B is far less safe for all airspace users than pre NAS."

Your words, in fact you don’t know you are only expressing your view that is hitting the nail on the head and the root of all of all the problems in NAS if people would stick to the facts then we would not have this problem. Yes you may well feel that you have greater protection in class C over D but the world has proven that that level of protection is not needed and is expensive the reality of the maths is it makes very little difference.

AirNoServicesAustralia
You cant be real you are attempting to quote death rate per movements based on a country with 6 times the traffic density, please do not let me have to do the maths for you. Check out the NTSB v ATSB figures yourself go to the library and figure out how to use the traffic density factor you will then understand how high our death rate is in comparison to the rest of the world.

But you will probably take the easy route pick apart my post use your own pre conditioned fears about poorly trained pilots out there to kill the travelling public. The day we do stick to facts we might progress I have wasted too much time on this forum as it is. Personally I do not care about NAS one way or the other when all you so called professionals kill off aviation in Australia for your personal agendas then fine, I am retired rich and will always be able to fly.

The airlines should be ashamed they used and bleed GA for their personal gain they have no input to the industry they rely on young men and women to put themselves into dept to service their needs it is about time they put something back and trained their own. As for ASA lets not go there rotten to the core, the board that is cowboys the lot of them.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Poison Dwarf you've wasted more than just your own time contributing on these forums but here goes,

Fatal accident rates per 100,000 hrs flown GA.

.........Oz Canada US
1990 1.41 1.87 1.55
1991 1.20 2.79 1.56
1992 1.51 1.99 1.80
1993 1.29 2.01 1.75
1994 1.47 1.28 1.81
1995 1.25 2.19 1.65
1996 1.28 1.64 1.45
1997 0.92 1.55 1.38
1998 1.22 1.21 1.45
1999 1.14 1.18 1.16
2000 1.00 1.29 1.11

So you will note the U.S.A in these ten years in fact never had a lower fatal accident rate than Australia.

And then we come to the Number of fatalities in these accidents.

GA fatalities per 100,000 hours flown.
..........Oz Canada US
1990 3.00 3.73 2.69
1991 2.57 4.63 2.84
1992 2.97 3.15 3.46
1993 2.70 3.98 3.23
1994 2.99 3.01 3.26
1995 2.10 4.13 2.95
1996 2.39 2.61 2.54
1997 1.52 3.22 2.52
1998 2.45 2.96 2.49
1999 2.17 2.32 2.14
2000 1.81 2.15 1.92


Whether the US has a 100 trillion hours flown and Australia has 100,000 hours flown by GA, these figures are accidents per 100,000 hours flown. The only effect higher traffic density would have would be an increased number of mid air collisions between the GA traffic, and this is a miniscule proportion of the above quoted figures, or as AOPA America puts it in their report on GA accident rates for 2000,

The number of mid-air collisions increased by one to 18 in 2000, with ten accidents resulting in fatalities. "Mid-air collisions are still extraordinarily rare, less than 1% of all accidents, and the number of mid-airs remains fairly constant year to year," said Landsberg.

Removing those from the equation Australia still has a lower number of fatal accidents and a lower number of fatalities per 100,000 hrs flown than the U.S.A (and Canada)

Maybe you could visit the library dwarf and unlike Dick Smith and his cronies, actually back up what they say with figures from credible sources. I look forward to your response. And while you are at it, rather than again saying airline pilots and controllers should not design airspace, please tell us all who should. You said "Airspace Designers"???? Which university or school of further learning runs the Airspace Designers course????

[WALLEY2]

Poisoned Dwarf

Using your definition of persons who should have a say in safety reform, would you care to comment on the make-up of the original ARG that proposed 2b and 2c?

I think comparing senoir QF pilots to truck drivers is a bit harsh. Certainly ICAO and CASA would include them in any study panel as they would ATC who have to work daily guiding aircraft through 3 dimensional space.

Finally as the only organisation that did use professional airspace designers and airline captains and ATC ops personnel plus stakeholder interviews and pilot surveys in accordance with International and Australian Codes- Let me advise you, not to expect respect or rave reviews from those who attempted to impliment airsace reform without the personnel you state are needed.

The airlines have a legal and moral responsibility to protect their passengers. With our safety case findings and CASA- AsA studies plus the High Courts Chief Justice ruling on negligence what would you have done?

The Airlines have acted correctly and can not do otherwise until experts, like those you propose, prove there is no drop in safety under the proposed change. As without cost savings between Mandatory and Recommended calls you cannot impose a system that reduces safety, that is a negligent act and if you did it knowingly that would be wilful negligence.

However the Chief Justice is only a lawyer in a legal system designed by others, bit like a truck driver designing roads wouldn't you say?

Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIAG

[Voices of Reason]

As of the 27th of November 2003, ICAO established a requirement for States to set safety levels for provision of air traffic services in airspace and at aerodromes.

Here is the exact requirement from Annex 11 to the Chicago Convention, of which Australia is a signatory:



As of 27 November 2003, the acceptable level of safety and safety objectives applicable to the provision of ATS within airspaces and at aerodromes shall be established by the State or States concerned. When applicable, safety levels and safety objectives shall be established on the basis of regional air navigation agreements.

Note.- The acceptable level of safety may be specified in qualitative or quantitative terms. The following are examples of measures which could be used to express the acceptable level of safety:

a. a maximum probability of an undesirable event, such as collision, loss of separation or runway incursion;
b. a maximum number of accidents per flight hour;
c. a maximum number of incidents per aircraft movement;
d. a maximum number of valid short-term conflict alerts [STCA] per aircraft movement.

An ATS management programme shall, inter alia:

a. identify actual and potential hazards and determine the need for remedial action;
b. etc


We have not been able to find a difference that Australia has lodged to ICAO in respect of this Standard. Neither have we been able to find public data in Australia that lists the safety metrics for airspace and aerodromes.

It seems to us that any discussion on risk tolerability is moot without these metrics being available in the public domain. We have been shown risk metric material that was developed for Mr Dick Smith’s Aviation Reform Group, but we understand your regulator rejected that material. We have also seen draft guidance only material developed by your regulator, which is somewhat tired.

Can anyone provide advise on the risk metrics adopted by Australia to comply with ICAO requirements?

[gaunty]

Voices of Reason

Probably the same place Dick got his "200,000 private and sports aviators" in a country with a population around 20,000,000

Lets see AOPA US has over 400,000 members and that is a very significant %age of the US "private and sports aviators" in a country with a population around 280,000,000.

And he complains Oz GA is being "killed off", :rolleyes: I suspect that on his logic the US should be beating a pathway to Oz to find out how we are doing it.

I don't know (I do really) what happened between June 2003 and Nov 2003, when I, in the presence of two others was personally assured by the CEO of Airservices that there would be NO changes to airspace by the NAS without a formal DNV or similarly accepted metric being applied.
A reassuringly sensible and responsible approach from the guy and his board who were going to have the "duty of care" can attached to their and his person.
It was made very clear that personal "feelings" or "prejudices" would have no place, it would either stack up with a scientifically accepted methodology or it wouldn't. Whatever issues that were revealed would as you would accept and of necessity have to be dealt with.
I had then and do not now have any reason to doubt that it was sincerely given and the truth.
I have been pilloried in other places for holding the view that our public servants are for the most part highly competent and dedicated practitioners and deserve respect for that.

Somewhere along the way a whole lot of people got "monstered" into proceeding with something with which they were not happy and it wasn't just the so called "union thugs" or "executive swine".:rolleyes:. The evidence is there in plain view.
A rhetorical question really, but are you able to provide evidence of a "monstering" process being part of aviation reform in other First World countries?

The reason offered for "frequencies and boundaries" NOT appearing on the "new" charts in transition, notwithstanding that the whole of industry had agreed that it should be so, as part of a formal consultative process was, "it's not part of the US system so it wont be here" a decision attributed to Mr Dick Smith

If this was not so was it a formal decision of the ARG as a group, when was it taken and how was it formally communicated to the industry as part of the "consultative" process?

And what metric, if any, was applied to that part of the process beyond the usual anecdotal "I believe" and "its the same here as it is there" scientific?? routine that has been so thoroughly debunked here.

So far the only "metric" we have seen is the privately funded Broome DAS, God bless em :ok:, and didn't that put the "duty of care" wind up em all and the incontrovertible "black letter law" and "evidence" provided by yourselves.

I'm getting really tired of the Australian flag being waved in my face to justify what is IMHO exquisitely unAustralian behaviour.

[poison_dwarf]

AirNoServicesAustralia your figures are not the figures published in the ATSB or NTSB website, granted the figures are a little like apples and oranges but overall a blind man can see that our death rate is almost twice that of America we do not even include AUF, experimental or sports aviation in our stats the real truth is we do have a very high death rate in general aviation. I am not saying for 1 minute that NAS is the answer. Traffic density evaluation is critical and has very little to do with mid-airs, it causes other contributing human factors like unforced errors due to situation overload there are many references to this in recent reports.

Walley 2 It does not matter how senior a pilot is he is only qualified to give an opinion base on his limited overall picture. Simple question should a senior Capt. be allowed to design and build an aircraft just because he flies it every day? Airspace is the same just because we fly in it most days it does not mean we are experts in the field we only get to see a small part of the picture and the same applies to controllers.

ASA, well I believe recently ASA attempted to gain more class C airspace over Mt Mc Quoid because of a class B hazard warning, at the workshop your so called senior captains and controllers thumped their hands down and nodded their heads in agreement. All these experts believed there was a great hazard just above this area. Oop, s ASA were instructed to produce the movement figures over the last year and guess what no aircraft, well blow me down, a listed Class B hazard pilots and controllers demanding class C protection maybe they should invite some aircraft along. ASA apologised to participants and promised to start quantative analysis of hazards and when was this all of about 6 weeks ago. So they finally decide to take the correct approach after nearly 2 years of wasting taxpayers money these are the controllers and pilots you refer to mmmm-nice one.

Just one more item doing a degree in aerospace engineering will in fact give you the option to study airspace design and yes there are probably a few qualified people out there that could do the job. But lets not let facts and the truth get in the way of a good story or safety for that matter.