Changes to Instrument Approach Chart Titles

[Binoculars]

I've been around for enough summers to know that some things just are. You can scratch your head and wonder at the stupidity involved all you like, but it generally goes ahead anyway.

We have another classic example before us with the latest changes to the titles of approaches, specifically changing VOR/DME approaches to VOR approaches with a runway attached, as opposed to VOR approaches without a runway attached.

Apparently a Safety Assessment and Risk Management workshop :rolleyes: was conducted, and two possible hazards were identified as a result of the change.

Now I'm a very simple type with simple thought processes, so at this stage I would have thought that the obvious answer was to scrap the changes. Well, nooooo........

Instead a National Instruction has been issued by AirServices as a "Safety Requirement to those hazards". Additionally a NOTAM will be issued advising pilots to be precise when requesting instrument approaches.

And just to make sure we get the message, "clear phraseology is required to ensure there is no confusion".

So to sum up, yet another procedure that was readily understood by everybody has been changed for no reason that has been made clear to us, and replaced with a procedure which has admitted hazards attached in the form of possible confusion. However when an incident occurs because of this confusion, those responsible for the promulgation of the change will be off the hook because they told us we all had to be more careful.

Though simple, I am quite a reasonable man, and if it can be shown that there was a very good reason for this change, I would accept it and apologise. If the only answer involves some vague concept of "harmonising" it is my belief that those responsible for the change have a lot to answer for.

Can somebody from the paper shuffling empire PLEASE explain just WHY this change was promulgated?

(Come on people, I KNOW you read these pages.) :hmm:

[Uncommon Sense]

Bino's,

could you post the latest NI info or NOTAM on this?DISREGARD - found it here:


DOC C0203/04
CHANGES TO INSTR APP CHART TITLES
WITH REGARD TO AIC H12/04
PILOTS REQ INSTR APP MUST USE THE FULL PROCEDURE NAME. RWY AND SUFFIX
ARE KEY ELEMENTS TO INDENTIFY SPECIFIC APP BEING FLOWN. WHERE A
SPECIFIC VERSION OF AN APP IS RQ, AS DEFINED IN THE MINIMA SECTION,
THIS MUST BE STATED. WHERE A CIRCLING APP IS INTENDED THIS MUST BE
STATED
FROM 11 240423 TO 02 240100 EST


The subject was also raised on this thread (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154646) specifically to do with the ILS with GP out of service.

The AIC (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/sup/h12.pdf) supposedly explains the logic behind it. I think it comes from the Manager Operational Integrity (!) whose contact details are published here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/contacts.asp?id=18).

What is the specific problem you are having with it?

[Binoculars]

It's in NI 17/2004, released today 20/12.

My specific problem? I simply see it as another change with possible adverse safety implications and no obvious benefits. Rather like NAS in that regard. When Flight Number callsigns were introduced I was vocal in my opposition for the same reason of potential confusion, a stance which I see justified on a regular basis. But like the ludicrous state of the readability of our Notams, that was more or less forced for reasons of computer compatibility, and had definite advantages for at least some parts of the system.

This time I see no possible benefit. Do you? Does anybody?

Edited after reading the AIC to accept the problem of the electronic databases. I'll have a think about that while I ponder whether changing the properties of the database would have made more sense. If I come to the conclusion I am wrong I will delete the thread, which all concerned may take as an apology.

[Uncommon Sense]

The only benefit, is as CASA said in their magazine, the GPSRNAV databases.

I am more concerned at getting some solid policy from HATC on approach nomenclature on the air. Too many legal holes in it right now.

[Binoculars]

OK, on consideration I accept the database input factor, and having been exposed as not reading the AIC until tonight I will withdraw all accusations of, umm, well I didn't make any really, but I withdraw the implications.

Not being equipped with an ILS in my small part of the world, I hadn't read the thread you posted, but it doesn't change my unease, so I'm going to leave this here as a potential source of discussion. If there is none generated it will disappear into obscurity by itself.

My basic point remains though. Isn't there something wrong with a system that is delivering more potential problems than before because we are slaves to the technology rather than vice-versa? Nothing is surer than that we will be hung out to dry for any incident involving nomenclature confusion on the basis that we were told to be careful.

Maybe it's just change fatigue after ten years of it non-stop. Or maybe I'm just getting old and grouchy.

:confused:

[Uncommon Sense]

Change Fatigue is one of the real issues out of this.

I have a personal theory, that with so many managers needing to show some change or another to gain a performance bonus (look what I did!), there is definitely change for change sake. They are just trying to get noticed!

[Bear in mind I am a card carrying cynic right now.]

But it seems it has really got to the point where as a technique for survival those who have to digest all this constant change are just switching off to it - applying the bull**** filter perhaps? - and just sticking with what they know.

This was in my opinion one of the problems with NAS for all the 'occassional' pilots - there was just so much to keep up with it was impossible to stay current if you flew infrequently. How many changes have had to been endured over the past 12 years - all in the name of simplification!

It seems the well earnt adage of: "If it ain't broke don't fix it" has been well and truly forgotten. Only now we are going to end up with - "It was fixed - we broke it by enhancing it - but we have fixed it again by issuing an instruction warning everyone it's being fixed if you do it how you used to do it but call it something else."

[captain marvellous]

Perhaps if Australia were not so far out of step with the rest of the world then there wouldn't need to be quite so many changes.

If you want to know WHY Australia is so far out of step then I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror. :mad:

You can scratch your head and wonder at the stupidity involved all you like...

We have another classic example before us with the latest changes to the titles of approaches...

I am quite a reasonable man, and if it can be shown that there was a very good reason for this change, I would accept it and apologise.OK, on consideration I accept the database input factor, and having been exposed as not reading the AIC until tonight ...is a great example of the kind of blinkered vision and small-minded ignorance upon which the change is bad brigade have based their resistance to everything. It's this kind of small-town mentality that has kept Australia an aviation backwater for decades.

And as for "change fatigure" :rolleyes: --- if you can't stand the heat... :mad:

[tobzalp]

Binos. My total knowledge come from Airsafety Amgazine. they shoed a piccy of the GPS description v the plate. The GPS data base that I assume was a non AUS company called the approach something different. I assume that this is one of the worlds best practice (NAS :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :yuk: :ugh: aligning) procedures.

[Uncommon Sense]

It appears Captain Marvellous lives up to his name.

Let he without 'failing' cast the first stone?

I am in envy of your faultless history Captain Marvellous.

It is heartening to see that all of us but for the great Captain Marvellous are sick to the teeth with the constant change.

All hail thou.

[itchybum]

The thing is, airline pilots in Australian airlines need an absolute minimum of high school English to be considered eligible for employment but anyone can get a CPL and fly charter. As you can see from many of the posts around here, a lot of pilots struggle with English grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax.

Pilots might wonder why English comprehension is important for pilots and here it is. It’s a bit of a drag if the driver is unable to read the charts and choose the correct procedure…. maybe this guy shouldn’t be flying if he doesn’t know his ABCs.

The education level requirements are what need changing. Smarter pilots might mean fewer accidents and more cash, moolah, wompom.... you know, dead presidents…. Michael Jackson, Gerald Ford…..

If the ATCOs have trouble reading the English language then this extends to the ATCOs too.

[Uncommon Sense]

Comprehension is Understanding.

Understand what this topic is about - that is a good start.

It is not about who has a Ph. in English to their name. It is about clear and unambiguous instructions and charts.

Elitism in a language that is common to some, but not the first language of MOST using the system is misplaced.

Have a look at the history of accidents and human factors and the argument about comprehension shows that , YES - the common denominator DOES need to be a little lower than some of you, who are obviously Oxbridge graduates.

Stick to the argument.

[Time Bomb Ted]

Once again Uncommon Sense you have enlightened us with your insights.

TBT

[Blastoid]

I'm hearing you Binos. :ok:

Haven't yet read the NI, just having finished the cycle I await it in a couple of days, but I have been thinking about this a lot recently, especially with may training aircraft requesting "VOR/DME" approaches vice the *NEW* "VOR" approaches. (Binos, a pocket-rocket flying school that frequents your way springs to mind).

I personally believe the runway NON-specific VOR/NDB approaches should be re-designated "VOR letdowns" or the like to clearly differentiate them from the runway-specific VOR approaches (which in most cases have the minima on runway centreline). Sure, TSADs are a great thing but there are still several procedural towers out there without one and I think this can lead to confusion.

Sure it doesn't affect me much in the enroute environment, but when we all own E down to 700' AGL .. :{ it will come back to bite!!

[tobzalp]

Look at the trio this thread brought out and noone has even mentioned Dick Smith yet!

ooops there I did it.

[Binoculars]

To the Dick Smith supporters who are still stinging over the rejection of NAS, fill your boots with criticism of me if it makes you feel better.

Captain Marvellous, I can only bow to your expertise. But if I cared at all about your criticism I would have deleted this thread. Do you have anything useful to say about the topic itself?

Unlike some on here, I believe if you dish it out you should be prepared to take it, so the thread remains.

[itchybum]

Understand what this topic is about I do understand what it's about. I also understand you whinging about change for the sake of change won't, well, change anything.

Yes someone might be justifying his job with these changes. Well that's bureaucracy at work.

Meanwhile, anyone who is smart enough (and that doesn't have to be all that smart, nowhere near the lofty uni qual. you mention) will be able to "READ THE INSTRUCTIONS".

I really can't see why that is such a big problem. You sound like the crowd who are slowly dumbing the system down.

[Uncommon Sense]

Ok. No Problem then.

Personally I am fine with it.

But it's not me I am worried about.

Just because we can read the instructions doesn't mean the instruction was neccessary or well thought out in the first place.

You may have noticed: there is a bit if that going around lately.

And it just may be that the 'dumbed down' 'lowest common denominator' is the guy that ploughs across your track even though YOU have smugly read the instructions perfectly.

It's like being on the road - it's the other guy you have to watch out for.