Class C radar direction [Archive]

Dick Smith

6th Nov 2006, 03:32

Chimbu chuckles, if you have never been delayed or re-routed when transiting non-radar Class C, you have been extremely lucky. However that is not the main issue at stake here.

You state:

I have never been able to get my head around why non radar Class C is dangerous when Class E is not. What you fail to mention is that our non-radar Class C is operated by the Class D controller in the airspace below. This takes the attention of the controller away from runway activities. I thought most people knew that one of the most common types of fatal accidents now is an accident on the runway – quite often where an air traffic controller’s attention has been diverted.

You don’t seem to understand that the chance of two planes colliding on a runway, on final, or in the circuit area is many times greater than two planes colliding above 4,500 feet. That is indeed why we have an airspace system with different classifications providing different services as the potential risk increases.

Yes, put in Class C with additional controllers so that controller workload in the Class D below is not affected, and I agree with you. It will be safer but it will also be more expensive.

Alidad, yes I did instigate drive for airspace management change because I didn’t consider it sensible that I would have to fly my aircraft in the uncontrolled airspace – in full radar coverage – but not be allowed to talk to a radar controller.

At the present time I don’t consider it sensible when I descend into a mountainous area (such as Proserpine) and be forced to change off the radar frequency when I most need it – that is, doing an approach close to mountains.

I have never said that private enterprise can do things better when it comes to airspace design. I have similar views to you. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with copying the best from around the world.

I also point out that the stated reasons for the NAS reversal by Airservices Australia was because they did not follow the correct procedures in introducing the airspace. It had nothing to do with me. I suggest you talk to the people at Airservices.

The only time I have had legislative responsibility for airspace changes was when I was Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. I was responsible for the introduction of the AMATS changes, which were competently introduced and were probably the most substantial changes that have ever taken place. Remember, before then VFR aircraft would have to operate “full position” and fly at IFR levels at a cost of about $100 million per year. Since then, about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out by the industry and safety has continued to improve.

By the way, why is it that you, and others, who are doing everything you can to undermine the Government’s NAS policy, never use your own names? Why is it that you attack me personally rather than debate the facts? Could it be that you have a vested interest in the status quo?

In relation to you personally attacking me because of my age, at 62 I still have plenty of energy. After all, Nelson Mandela got out of prison and became the President of South Africa in his 70s.

Also, why is it that no one comes on from Airservices in an official capacity to explain their view on NAS? Is it because most controllers would prefer to go to the professional NAS system? It is far more an ATC orientated system – whereas our present system is still “flight service procedure” based in the lower levels. NAS is a disciplined system which provides very clear responsibilities for air traffic controllers. That is why it is so professional and why it is Government policy.

Howard Hughes

6th Nov 2006, 03:48

Howard Hughes, you don’t seem to understand how our airspace charging system works. There is no charge for VFR aircraft to transit through Class C airspace.

The problem is that the procedural separation standard can be 10 minutes – i.e. 30 nautical miles for a 180 knot aircraft. With terminal radar the separation standard used under NAS in the USA is typically “target resolution” – mostly less than one mile.
Well that being the case, why would anyone do anything so ridiculous as fly around Class C? I have been flying for 24 years and can count on one hand the number of times I have been refused, or delayed a clearance into Class C airspace, this included a 2 year period where I operated exclusively out of Class C.

Separation is not only measured in distance, try this one....

VH-HHH " HHH Request clearance @ 3000"
ATC "Clearance not available due traffic ahead"
VH-HHH "Request descent to 2500"
ATC "HHH track direct to the field @ 2500"

Now if your smart enough, or have better performance, you can even get ahead and be number one!!

You should try it sometime.:ok:

PS: I may not know what it costs to fly in our system, but I do understand how it works...;)

Dick Smith

6th Nov 2006, 04:42

****su_Tonka, I find it difficult to answer your last post. You seem to have a “fundamentalist” view that the only answer to the airspace above Albury is Class C with terminal radar.

The directive from John Anderson said nothing about putting Class C airspace above Albury and other Class D airports. The directive simply said that where Class C was required that a terminal radar facility would also have to be installed. It is quite clear that the Minister wanted Airservices to really examine if Class C airspace was required at such locations. After all, Government NAS policy approved by Cabinet clearly showed that Class E would be allocated at such locations.

Could I ask you to think laterally and examine whether Class E airspace could be used? After all, Airservices are operating Class D towers with Class E airspace above in the USA now. They are doing it with very high levels of safety – in fact, higher levels than we would get with our Class D here, because in the USA the Class D is of smaller dimensions so air traffic controllers can concentrate on aircraft close to (and on) the runway.

By the way, why is no one answering the original post? That is, how would an air traffic controller handle a VFR aircraft at Albury in the circumstances quoted?

Dick Smith

6th Nov 2006, 05:03

Howard Hughes, you state:

this included a 2 year period where I operated exclusively out of Class C. By the sound of it you mean Class C with a terminal radar facility. Well yes, I agree, there wouldn’t be great delays.

But why not answer the scenario I have given on the first post in relation to Albury? Or perhaps we should go up together this weekend and do a test flight. It's not called "road block" airspace for nothing. Would you come?

OZBUSDRIVER

6th Nov 2006, 05:15

EDIT- FOR PROPRIETY
There is a very good reason why there is a change to the directive. Because of pressure applied about low level ADS-B The directive has been de-railed to install radar or RADAR-LIKE equipment in ten key airports. The only way there was ever going to be radar facilities at these sites for a million a pop was to have an ADS-B receiver at each site AND fitment to ALL (or enough to reach critical mass) aircraft of ADS-B out as minimum equipage. This was a very important roll-out and has set back the industry untold years. Mis-information about security and spoofing signals has cost this industry millions to repair and refurb of old world radar heads for enroute airspace. There will never be an economic outcome to install a radar installation at the designated sites and remain under the stipulated cost. For all of the perceived concerns with ADS-B the benefits far outweigh them. This system that would have been the single greatest leap in avionics since the fitment of radio.

Ratshit

6th Nov 2006, 07:29

The reason that many pilots I know flight plan around the airspace is that it can save time – rather than being held or diverted at right angles to where they want to go. It has often happened to me

G'day Dick!

I seem to recall that I did agree with Dick Smith on something recently - but I'll be damned if I can recall what it was.

As for the current thread - Maybe I gotta get out more!

I been boring holes in the airspace below 10,000 ft for quite a few years, mostly IFR in the Bo lately and I never flight plan around noth'in (except maybe known active restricted areas where FA18's may take exception to my presence). I pay my money like the next guy, so I am coming through in as straight a line from A to B as I can get.

Can't remember the last time I was "held" and don't think I have ever been diverted at right angles (Oh there was that time when I was instructed by a trainee controller to "turn right heading 270, and I replied "you (a general "you") mean into the side of that hill there" - but that's a whole other story!

Been into Proserpine lots. Can't really see that the issue at YBPN is any different to YLHR (go in there regularly too). If we (?) fly the approach as she is writ we (?) will live to fly another day.

I was a bit surprised the day I found myself in the YBMA circuit with a Virgin 737 but I soon got over that (let them go #1 even though I was there first).

I will give Dick Smith the benefit of the doubt that he has a point - but man I just can't see it.

R:cool:

peuce

6th Nov 2006, 08:31

Shitsu_Tonka

6th Nov 2006, 12:43

Everybody,

There is little to be gained from name calling Dick Smith - playing the man does no justice to any side of the argument. The facts, and the strength of the arguments alone should be all that is neccessary. I would expect Dick, or any other poster for that matter, would then feel equally compelled to comply with the same standards. Most debates previously played out in this place have stood on the merits of the arguments - not the personal insults.

Dick, a few of your points:

I thought most people knew that one of the most common types of fatal accidents now is an accident on the runway – quite often where an air traffic controller’s attention has been diverted.

An ATC is not always looking at the Runway (after all, when would they drink their coffee?) - there are a myriad of other tasks that need to be completed. It's a bit like saying that because the frequency is not busy, an Air Traffic Controller is not busy. As well all know that is often not the truth. The ability to complete all these tasks with constant diversion and interruption is of course one of the vital skills that an ATC must posess from the outset.

Where neccessary and workload is even higher, there will be more than one person in the tower observing the Runway environment.

Yes, put in Class C with additional controllers so that controller workload in the Class D below is not affected, and I agree with you. It will be safer but it will also be more expensive.

Dick - you are 100% correct on this one, and it is great to see you supporting the case for more controllers. Civil Air have been arguing this point for some time now with respect to staffing levels. With the devolution of more and more duties from Flight Service to the sector controllers, as well as the immense growth in Aviation in Australia, there is an ever increasing need for adequate staffing levels.

By the way, why is it that you, and others, who are doing everything you can to undermine the Government’s NAS policy, never use your own names? Why is it that you attack me personally rather than debate the facts?

What does it matter Dick - if the argument itself is sound?
For example you said you heard a rumour in Canberra - but you don't give the name of the person, and nor would we expect you to - because you are protecting the privacy of your source.
If every source got named in public, you would not get information on what is 'really going on', right? Hence, I doubt anyone would get much information out of PPrune either. Only the sanitised, PR spun Media Releases which are carefully crafted to sound positive and say nothing. Don't you agree that PPrune would be so sterilised as to be pointless? After all, don't you post here becasue you can get an honest response?

Creampuff

6th Nov 2006, 17:58

Dick

What a Minister doeth, a Minister may undoeth.

It’s pretty clear that John Anderson’s decision to give the direction to AA, on the eve of the issuing of the writs for the last election, was intended to keep you on side for the duration of the election. It worked a treat.

As to AA’s potential problems in having not yet implemented the direction, did the direction specify a period in which it was to be implemented? If the direction is now revoked or amended, it's all academic really.

Howard Hughes

6th Nov 2006, 20:04

Howard Hughes, you state:
By the sound of it you mean Class C with a terminal radar facility. Well yes, I agree, there wouldn’t be great delays.
But why not answer the scenario I have given on the first post in relation to Albury? Or perhaps we should go up together this weekend and do a test flight. It's not called "road block" airspace for nothing. Would you come?Actually it was Alice where I was based, no radar but has C over D. I would concede that Albury is a slightly different case with considerably more overflying traffic, but the principles are still the same, there is more than one tool of seperation available to both ATCers and pilots. I would love to come along on a test flight with you, but I have just started a new postion and rostered to work this weekend. The good news is however my new position will take me quite often into Albury and I will be in a position to see first hand this "road block airspace". Now I admit I will be IFR, but I will be doing everything I can in order to ease the flow of other pilots.

Cheers, HH. :ok:

peuce

6th Nov 2006, 21:19

Umm.. couldn't we end almost every initial post on PPRuNe with "End of Story"
I thought the point of a discussion board was to discuss?? :confused:
Let me help a little if I may.
What do you think about that peuce ?

I like to be brief and to the point ... and I assumed most would read between the lines ... to save me htting the keys ... just lazy I guess. My point, which I'm happy for anyone to discuss, is that Airservices has asked the Government to change a decision. The Government is in the best position to know whether Airservices has broken any rules or requirements ... and whether it, the Government, still has a go forward policy on NAS ... or any other policy. Taking into account the current environment, its current policies and its view of Aviation, it will make a decision and pass that on to Airservices.

If someone doesn't want the Government to make a decision, or wants it to make a different decision, then the best way to be involved in such deliberations would be to run for Parliament.

Oh, no ... now look what you've made me say ....

Dick Smith

6th Nov 2006, 21:55

Ozbusdriver, you state:

The directive … to install radar or RADAR-LIKE equipment in ten key airports.

This is not correct. The directive did not call for “RADAR-LIKE equipment”. It clearly stated an “approach radar control service”. It was made quite clear to Airservices that ADS-B would not suffice as it is more equivalent to secondary radar – i.e. that ADS-B equipment alone would not suffice as it will not show up aircraft which are not fitted with ADS-B.

I agree that Airservices went off on a tangent and implied that the directive would allow ADS-B.

Ozbusdriver, I certainly gave no misinformation about security and spoofing signals in relation to ADS-B. The details I gave were factual. That is, the ADS-B as proposed by Airservices can be easily spoofed and aircraft such as those of the customs and police can be easily tracked. I’m sure that with proper design, both of these problems can be fixed, however this has not been done as yet and did not seem to have even been thought about by Airservices.

I’ve always supported ADS-B, and I’ve always stated this. However I believe we should harmonise where possible with the system that is going to be most widely used in the world – therefore it will be less expensive.

Are you really suggesting that Airservices canned their whole low level ADS-B project because of a couple of press releases from me? Wow, they can’t have been very committed – considering they didn’t even answer the points I made, they just simply announced they were cancelling the project! I can imagine the frustration of working for such an organisation. Basically there is not proper communication to the staff and customers. I still don’t know the real reason they cancelled the ADS-B project, do you?

****su_Tonka, you state:

it is great to see you supporting the case for more controllers.

Yes, I support the case for more controllers if Class C airspace is required above Class D. However you don’t answer the obvious question. If Class E airspace above Class D is the standard in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe, why can’t it be the standard here? You have not answered this.

You also make no comment about the fact that Airservices Australia is operating Class D control towers with Class E above in the USA. Surely they would not do be doing that unless it met adequate safety levels.

If Class C airspace is required above Albury, why is it that Class G airspace is accepted for Avalon? That is, right in the circuit area with lots of small planes mixing with jet airliners and with no air traffic control at all – simply “do it yourself” radio calls. This system is not allowed anywhere else in the world as far as I know. It is interesting that you never make a comment against it. I would have thought that you could do this using your pseudonym, as it is hardly likely to threaten your job.

Dick Smith

6th Nov 2006, 22:27

Creampuff, you state:

It’s pretty clear that John Anderson’s decision to give the direction to AA, on the eve of the issuing of the writs for the last election, was intended to keep you on side for the duration of the election. Could you be judging John Anderson on what you would do in the same circumstances? I believe John Anderson issued the direction because he wanted Airservices to comply with Government policy that he had put through Cabinet.

I also believe that there is evidence to show that John Anderson saw political risk in allowing Airservices to go ahead with Class C airspace without radar when Government policy clearly showed that radar was required. No doubt John Anderson could see that it would be he, or a subsequent Minister, who would be held accountable if there was a midair collision in this airspace.

I take it as a great compliment that you give me powers that I clearly don’t have. It is interesting. I’ve heard others claim that the recent redundancies at CASA are something to do with me. This seems to be despite the point that some of my good friends at CASA have now been declared redundant!

Creampuff, you state:

If the direction is now revoked or amended, it's all academic really. Yes, I agree, but what happens if it is not revoked or amended? It seems strange to me that in a two year period of Airservices constantly requesting for it to be revoked or amended, that this hasn’t happened.

Anyway, thanks for the compliment about my alleged powers.

Shitsu_Tonka

6th Nov 2006, 23:00

Yes, I support the case for more controllers if Class C airspace is required above Class D.

What about simply if the workload requires it? For example Class E above D may actually require more controller surveillance than Class C according to some risk assessments.

However you don’t answer the obvious question. If Class E airspace above Class D is the standard in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe, why can’t it be the standard here? You have not answered this.

Because we have Class C instead I suppose. Isn't this closer to the 4 lane freeway of airspace versus closer to the 'dirt road' airspace?

You also make no comment about the fact that Airservices Australia is operating Class D control towers with Class E above in the USA. Surely they would not do be doing that unless it met adequate safety levels.

I think it meets the USA standards.

If Class C airspace is required above Albury, why is it that Class G airspace is accepted for Avalon? That is, right in the circuit area with lots of small planes mixing with jet airliners and with no air traffic control at all – simply “do it yourself” radio calls. This system is not allowed anywhere else in the world as far as I know. It is interesting that you never make a comment against it. I would have thought that you could do this using your pseudonym, as it is hardly likely to threaten your job.

You assume a lot. I actually agree with you - Why isn't Albury Class C by now?!

Spodman

7th Nov 2006, 01:08

Remember, before then VFR aircraft would have to operate “full position...”No they didn't. CHTR did, the others had the ability to operate full reporting if they wanted to or go SARTIME or NOSAR. You took it away. In case you were wondering I support that concept, but get it right.What you fail to mention is that our non-radar Class C is operated by the Class D controller in the airspace below. This takes the attention of the controller away from runway activities. I thought most people knew that one of the most common types of fatal accidents now is an accident on the runway – quite often where an air traffic controller’s attention has been diverted.This is manufactured drivel. If the people in the tower are too busy, then they put more people in the tower. All the towers lost airspace in NAS 2B, (eg. LT used to own up to FL125, now only 8,500FT) I'd say all you need to get support for E above D is to admit there is a clear and obvious increase in collision risk involved in that arrangement compared to C above D. The risk is still As Low As Reasonable Possible, and the justification would be the increased efficiency of the airspace. Just try it instead of repeating the drivel above which the controllers involved know is complete claptrap.Could I ask you to think laterally and examine whether Class E airspace could be used?Fine by me, I eat what is set in front of me, subject to the above. While we're all thinking laterally though, why not do here in non-radar C what the septics do when the radar is off in their C airspace. AIM 3-2-4 refers:Separation and sequencing of VFR aircraft will be suspended in the event of a radar outage as this service is dependent on radar. The pilot will be advised that the service is not available and issued wind, runway information and the time or place to contact the tower...Separation of VFR aircraft will be suspended during CENRAP operations. Traffic advisories and sequencing to the primary airport will be provided on a workload permitting basis. The pilot will be advised when center radar presentation (CENRAP) is in use. This would support alerted see-and-avoid, which beats the crap out of C402 flying through holding patterns at FL175 with their mode C off, or homebuilts thinking they have cleverly self-separated by a 1 radial offset, (remember??)At the present time I don’t consider it sensible when I descend into a mountainous area (such as Proserpine) and be forced to change off the radar frequency when I most need it – that is, doing an approach close to mountains.Fine. Could you please knock up the NAS 'characteristic' that will achieve this? There isn't one at present. I know in your private self you are working to the concept of Enroute ATC applying control services to IFR flights in all airspace, down to almost ground level, but it isn't in the document and it is a bit mysterious when it is supposed to happen. When do all the enroute ATC get the training in approach procedures (couple of months worth per controller) that will facilitate this? Get started on CH42 & 43, stat!By the way, why is it that you, and others, who are doing everything you can to undermine the Government’s NAS policy, never use your own names?If anybody cares what my name is it is in my profile. Hopefully they will read my words and consider them for their worth without the artificial reinforcement attached to the trademark of a determined media tart. If I stand up in a meeting and exhort, "Please, USE the Mark Spedding(tm) name to sell this," I wouldn't expect big results...:{ Another reason is that I have been effectively gagged from doing so since you were CAA chairman. Since then all employees of ASA (and its forebears) have not been permitted to comment on the policy of the department (and its successors) under pain of unemployment. I can't say what I think about that, erm, for the same reason. Anybody that wants to disagree with ASA, (I wouldn't boss, really) has to use a nom de proon.

Albizia

7th Nov 2006, 01:38

By the way, why is no one answering the original post? That is, how would an air traffic controller handle a VFR aircraft at Albury in the circumstances quoted?
"REX378, cleared visual approach, requirement reach A065 by 8 dme AY"
Assuming VFR tracking west 270R to east 090R via overhead AY

Dick, if the VFR isn't tracking directly overhead there are also a number of what are referred to as "prominent topographical features" which can also be used for procedural separation.

I am an ex AY ATC, and cannot ever recall turning someone 90 degrees or similar, in fact with the topography, river, roads, towns, it is quite easy to separate procedurally in and out of AY. I even spoke to you a few times as you flew over without delay:) .

The oft quoted 10 minutes that you refer to for procedural separation is not really a tool that is used that often is a Class D/C tower, there just isn't enough airspace, the 10 minutes is more an enroute tool. The 15/30, 10/20, 5/15, 1 NM procedural buffer, lateral separation are much more often used by towers. I'm sure you have access to MATS so I won't go in to too much more detail.

Sometimes yes, the VFR aircraft may need to adjust track slightly, same as sometimes the IFR does (ever heard a clearance similar to "REX379 track amended 200R till leaving A085 thence direct ELW planned route"?). I'll give you a hint, nine times out of ten that is due to a VFR out there at A075, that wait for it, the IFR is being moved around.

"Clearance not available remain outside class C/D airspace" does not mean a clearance won't ever be available, it means I am sorting something out with someone else who already has a clearance, and as soon as I can I'll give you one. Hint, call 10 minutes prior to boundary and I doubt you will ever need to change heading by more than 10 degrees or so to get your clearance.

Of course those who report position as 378NM to run MIA may need to call a little earlier!

Can our airspace be made more efficient, absoloutely! However I don't believe that the "road blocks" over C/D towers is where we need to start.

JavaJohn

7th Nov 2006, 01:54

"By the way, why is no one answering the original post? That is, how would an air traffic controller handle a VFR aircraft at Albury in the circumstances quoted? "
The scenario given was a VFR transitting Albury from west to east at 7500, plus an IFR inbound to Albury from the south.
The VFR might be asked to 'report overhead'.
The IFR would be given descent with a requirement to be at or below 6500 by 10 DME Albury.
BTW, radar separation is either 3 miles or 5 miles, depending on the capability of the radar. In rare circumstances I recall, it could be 1 mile, eg using RAAF PAR, but that was long ago and I could be wrong. I am fairly sure it cannot be "less than 1 mile'.
There are many means of separation and many separation standards (the two are not the same thing) which is why the manual is so large.

Dick Smith

7th Nov 2006, 03:47

Spodman, you state:

I know in your private self you are working to the concept of Enroute ATC applying control services to IFR flights in all airspace, down to almost ground level, but it isn't in the document (my underlining).

Unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable.

You, and a number of your colleagues are so convinced of the myth that I make up my airspace views as I go along that you obviously haven’t even bothered to look at the NAS document that I prepared with Qantas.

What do you mean

…it isn’t in the document Have a look at the NAS document, prepared on 14 December 2001 (nearly 5 years ago) as approved by Cabinet here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/nasfinal_001.doc).

First of all, the NAS document states under Executive Summary:
Provides an IFR separation service to 700’ AGL at non-tower terminal airspace at selected locations. On page 8, under Interim Design Model, it states:

… it is proposed initially to introduce low level Class E corridors, and on a trial basis to a limited number of aerodromes, Class E terminal airspace (base 700 ft AGL) to demonstrate cost/benefits and test the TAAATS procedural management of low level Class E corridors. Surely nothing can be clearer than that.

Later on (under the same Interim Design Model heading) it states:
Class E airspace will be established lower to 700 ft AGL in terminal areas with published let down procedures but without tower services.12 On page 16, Note number 12 states:

Initially this airspace will be at two airports – possibly Mt Isa and Longreach for ATC and pilot training purposes – with the plan to move to an end result of the airspace dropping to 700’ wherever required by IFR traffic services. It is noted that this will require extensive training for air traffic controllers. Nothing could be clearer.

Spodman, because of your statement:

…but it isn’t in the document the above clearly shows that you haven’t bothered to read the document. Why would this be so? Is it because you have made up your mind that there is just no way we in Australia will move to this safer system?

Just so you understand, I have been working for over 10 years to improve the service in low level airspace. If US and Canadian enroute controllers can provide an excellent terminal service in Class E non-radar airspace, I believe it should at least be tried here. I had been in touch with the operators at Longreach and they wanted to cooperate in a trial of Class E to 700 feet. Of course, there is a complete vacuum of leadership at Airservices, so this has never gone ahead.

I remember I tried to get Class E airspace in after 1992, but I was told that this could not come in until TAAATS was completed – what a furphy. Now that TAAATS is in, I’m told that we need ADS-B for Class E to work – i.e. anything to resist change.

Can I suggest that you and your colleagues have a thorough look at that NAS document which I prepared with Qantas? There are probably other things in the document that you haven’t seen. You have to read it first, don’t you?

Dick Smith

7th Nov 2006, 04:10

Albizia, you solve the problem by moving the VFR aircraft so it tracked lots of extra distance via overhead Albury. The particular flight I was talking about was about 20 miles to the south of Albury and going from west to east.

I would be interested to know what “prominent topographical feature” that an inexperienced VFR pilot would know when crossing such an area. In practice I believe it would not be possible.

Anyway, could you advise if there would be any safety problem if I get half a dozen VFR aircraft, and a few IFRs, to do some practice flying at Albury in Class C and set up typical scenarios on a CAVOK day? Do you think the controller would be overloaded? Do you think there could be any safety problems with this or would it be a reasonable test?

I look forward to your advice.

Spodman

7th Nov 2006, 05:27

the above clearly shows that you haven’t bothered to read the document. True, these items are in the document you prepared to sell the concept to the minister. It did its job and is now lining cat boxes around the country, I didn't know it was in the rating paper. I'm talking about the implementation 'characteristics', and it isn't there. Those that are there (like #12) seem to indicate even C towers will retain airspace. You can get as agressively defensive (:confused: ) as you like, even your supporters don't really know what it is you want. As usual you take any question as an attack. It may come as a surprise that while I personally hold a very low opinion of your good self I genuinely support airspace reform.

Your answer also clearly demonstrates you haven't read my questions. What about the concept that running non-radar C airspace the way the yanks do would mean none of the diverting of VFR flights you find so painful?

Why not make a clear statement about increased risk for E over C?

mjbow2

7th Nov 2006, 06:10

I can assure you Dick's supporters do know what he wants and we share his vision.

CrazyMTOWDog

7th Nov 2006, 07:10

And just what is this vision???????
Catch the bus and train instead?:ugh:

Albizia

7th Nov 2006, 07:31

whilst a VFR aircraft wants to fly across the approach airspace at 7,500 feet from west to east.

Dick, sorry I didn't realise from what you wrote above that the aircraft was 20NM south, that's why I wrote "assuming" in my second line. I would not move an aircraft 20 NM south of AY to overhead in this example, so please don't say I "solve the problem by moving the VFR aircraft so it tracked lots of extra distance via overhead Albury". If you can move the goal posts so can I. If the aircraft was 20 NM south, the SF34 would be kept above initially and one of the plethora of procedural standards (I now have radar to help, so I can't remember them all) would be used to get the SF34 below. In VMC one of the best is sighting. Also, 20NM south of AY at A075 radar can be useful. AY tower now has TSAD as well, this enables excellent traffic to be passed

Prominent topographical features are on maps, I would expect a VFR pilot to be complying with regs and have appropriate maps for the flight. Down in that area there are a number of large towns, the ML freeway etc. I don't have an AY VTC with me, and 5 years is a long time to remember the names of everything.

Being a CS TWR controller it would be inappropriate of me to comment on your "safety problem" caused by "your reasonable test", although I'm sure that the ATC's there would process all traffic expeditiously and safely.

I will stick to commenting what I know, and that is that procedural traffic can be safely and expeditously processed by a number of methods, not all of which require 10 minutes or massive diversions by aircraft.

Dick, I answered your question as to how an ATC would handle your scenario, based on an assumption, I have answered again when you have elaborated (changed?) where the VFR was. Failing an exact scenario with tracking, estimates, position reports etc we could go round all day as to how and why.

I don't intend to do that.

Creampuff

7th Nov 2006, 09:05

Dick

Re the direction, I think I’ve made this point numerous times before: if Mr Anderson or the coalition of which he is a part really wanted approach radar at all class c towers, or anything else to do with airspace management for that matter, they would simply pass a law to make it happen. They have a majority in both houses, remember?

The government could sack those troublesome Airservices neddies in a trice for not implementing the direction, but they haven't been sacked. Don't you understand why?

The direction let Mr Anderson have his cake and eat it.

Shitsu_Tonka

7th Nov 2006, 11:28

mjbowI can assure you Dick's supporters do know what he wants and we share his vision

OK - I'll bite. What exactly is the vision you share Mjbow?

Albizia Good reply.

Dick, I am sure you now feel reassured by the response from an experienced former Albury tower controller, that the options available are not at all restrictive to your VFR operations. As you can see, the airspace as it stands is very flexible and able to deal with the prevailing traffic levels without imposing the expensive burden of extra resources upon the GA businesses you talk of. Is this not simply a case of placing the levels of affordability in safety resources where they provide the best level of safety outcomes? Is that not something you agree with?

Anyway, could you advise if there would be any safety problem if I get half a dozen VFR aircraft, and a few IFRs, to do some practice flying at Albury in Class C and set up typical scenarios on a CAVOK day? Do you think the controller would be overloaded? Do you think there could be any safety problems with this or would it be a reasonable test?

But what would be typical about that, if you are "getting" the aircraft to do it to prove some point? Surely, the real point is that this is not a usual traffic scenario - i.e. the normal average traffic levels do not warrant the expense of what you are proposing? Any delays or restrictions imposed on an artificial scenario would be simply to manage the demand upon the airspace in an extremely unusual period of demand - I doubt safety would be at all a problem. The controller would manage the demand in an orderley manner to ensure the required separation and level of safety is met. Even when a Terminal radar approach service is provided, demand from time to time outstrips capacity - do you agree that there are holding patterns published and utilised at KLAX, KORD etc? This is simply a traffic management system to ensure that the approach controller is not overloaded - no different to YMAY.

Spodman

7th Nov 2006, 11:29

Anyway, could you advise if there would be any safety problem if I get half a dozen VFR aircraft, and a few IFRs, to do some practice flying at Albury in Class C and set up typical scenarios on a CAVOK day? Do you think the controller would be overloaded? Do you think there could be any safety problems with this or would it be a reasonable test? Wot? Again? It happened on the 27th NOV 2004. Nobody noticed.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=144117&highlight=day+of+action I can assure you Dick's supporters do know what he wants and we share his vision. Maybe you could answer some of the questions he doesn't?

Scurvy.D.Dog

7th Nov 2006, 12:53

Rumour has it that at a meeting on 14 September 2006 in Parliament House, Warren Truss told the industry that he had been approached by the Airservices Board to remove the Class C radar direction. …. Do you suppose Minister Truss was putting the ‘reasonable request’ to industry reps because it is justifiable and reasonable? This direction was given by Minister John Anderson on 31 August 2004 to ensure that Airservices complied with the Government’s NAS policy … ensure …. why is that I wonder …. Lets see, a cost benefit analysis would then only have the option of non-radar E or installation of million dollar radars for C …. Whatdya know, that might force change an analysis outcome when procedural C is artificially excluded …… odd thing is though that ICAO airspace classifications increase safety outcomes from G through to A … at no point does ICAO stipulate radar (Prim and/or SSR) for E, D or C …… perhaps the directive has no basis or legitimacy from an airspace architecture point of view ….. so why would it have been done at CoB on the evening before the Gov’t went into caretaker mode …. Surely the cost of radar would be enormous for a struggling regional industry????? …….. clumsy!The NAS policy requires terminal radar for Class C airspace. …. Why? This is for obvious safety and cost reasons. … could you explain those reasons?? .. and whilst you are at it explain why radar is required for C terminals yet is not for E terminals … when clearly C procedural is acceptably safe (as both VFR and IFR are subject to an ‘air traffic control service’) as all traffic is known ….. yet, in E only IFR (50% of the traffic is subject to an air traffic control service’) and without radar VFR would not be knownYes, you can operate Class C terminal airspace without radar, but you can only do this by often delaying, and therefore adding to costs for VFR aircraft. glad to see you accept that Procedural C works, if fact it has worked successfully for years in regional areas …. Please provide your data to support the delay costs for VFR (as well as IFR) in C Imagine a scenario of an IFR aircraft (whether it is a Dash 8 or a Cessna 172) coming in from the south into Albury in VMC conditions whilst a VFR aircraft wants to fly across the approach airspace at 7,500 feet from west to east. … imagine …. I guess that is how airspace decisions are made …. Imagine ….. lets not imagine, lets use facts! The MATS sets out the myriad of standards (such as vertical, lateral, visual, pilot visual etc) that may be used to resolve any number of conflicts. In your scenario (in any D/C TWR) the conflict might be resolved (dependant on actual weather) using prominent topographical features, DME/GPS distances (+ tolerances) from topo points, vert until the IFR or VFR can see the other 1000ft above or below and apply pilot visual separation for descent/climb through and the list goes on …. You know this because it has all been said before (here and elsewhere)What normally happens is that the VFR aircraft is extensively diverted or told to “remain OCTA.” … support this with factual data!Of course, once the tower goes home, or at places such as Ballina, Ayers Rock and Broome, there is no similar “road block” … road block …. No … an air traffic control service to prevent high speed aluminium welding at altitude …. What would you prefer???– so it is obvious that it is not required for safety reasons. …. No …the Draft CASR Part 71 sets out the thresholds for services, design aeronautical studies determine the appropriate service level …… why is Part 71 still only draft Mr Smith??Most pilots I know flight plan around this Class C non-radar “road block” airspace and take the extra costs (which sometimes can be the “straw that breaks the Camel’s back” to make their business unviable) rather than end up holding or diverting. … do they plan around it because you tell them they will be diverted or delayed?? …. Or is it because they are not use to and therefore not comfortable with complying with an airways clearance designed to keep them, their passengers and other airspace users alive???No wonder GA is going broke. …. What is really sending marginal (financially) operators broke?? …. ATS … or all the other much larger user pays charges? …. Who championed those??Of course, there are those who believe there is no need for Class C and terminal radar, as Class E airspace is suitable in link airspace above Class D. Have a look at this to see the Voices of Reason support for Class E airspace in these situations and the “dangerously naïve” statements made in Australia. … shall we quote some of the other VoR quotes relevant to AusNAS?? … such as C being demonstrably safer than E or that C over D towers cost exactly the same (or less) than E over D!Remember, our Class E airspace is even safer because we have a unique mandatory transponder requirement for all VFR aircraft … of what use is that without ATS surveillance and/or TCAS …. Cause that is all that will augment UNALERTED SEE-AND-HOPE TO AVOID – there is no similar requirement in North America. …. and they have ‘almost’ blanket PRIM and SSR coverage …. and where they do not VFR are REQUIRED to broadcast … as well as a number of Class E collision each year….. it is still demonstrably less safe than what we have! FACTThat is the whole point I am making - the policy hasn’t been changed. In fact, it is far more than policy, it is a legal direction given by the Minister in writing to Airservices. …. Our Fed Gov’t (and the advisors) are not silly enough to force another cost onto industry for unnecessary and costly radars OR reduce safety levels to non-radar E …. Because it is clear who would carry the can for that given the Minister has taken responsibility (on your advice NAS/ARG) for the radar C decision! …. They are not always stupid!I understand that they haven’t even ordered the required radars. Note that the directive says the radar should be put in place “At the earliest time it can be supplied and installed.” … see previous …. Is the penny dropping yet?Perhaps Creampuff can comment on the risk to the Airservices Board members from not complying with this legal direction for over two years? … Airservices do as the Minister says … who is carrying the Risk??Surely you are joking? No, the direction has not been rescinded. In fact, the Government has recently confirmed NAS policy. … The Name is a bit like a fashion label (subject to change at a moments notice) Yes, it would be necessary to make it public! That is required by legislation – surely you know this. John Anderson made the direction because it was stated Government policy. That is, Class C airspace requires terminal radar. ….. nice little catch 22 that eh, in the poo if they do, in the poo if they do not …. perhaps they might have to provide a sacrificial lamb!Howard Hughes, you don’t seem to understand how our airspace charging system works. There is no charge for VFR aircraft to transit through Class C airspace. … ironic seeing as that was one of the reasons you said AusNAS was to save VFR ….. and it was already free!The problem is that the procedural separation standard can be 10 minutes – i.e. 30 nautical miles for a 180 knot aircraft. With terminal radar the separation standard used under NAS in the USA is typically “target resolution” – mostly less than one mile. …. Yup, and what they are doing IFR and VFR amounts to RADAR D .
…. Again, we suggested using D below A100 in regionals …. You did not listen!Imagine the difference! 30 miles separation compared to 1 mile. … huge …. If that’s is what it was …. Regional D/C do not use 10mins/30nm FACT …. Please stop intentionally misleading readers!
I agree that there are some circumstances where the separation in procedural non-radar Class C can be reduced, but often this does not happen. .. that is not what you said in the previous sentence …. And where is the supporting evidence of the claim but often this does not happen … no basis in fact!My vision follows the NAS policy. …. Your vision … do any of us silent majority that operate in the system count??Chimbu chuckles, if you have never been delayed or re-routed when transiting non-radar Class C, you have been extremely lucky. …. Extremely lucky .. or is that the norm??? However that is not the main issue at stake here. not what you said above
What you fail to mention is that our non-radar Class C is operated by the Class D controller in the airspace below. This takes the attention of the controller away from runway activities. … no, coordination with centre for approach management when the airspace split is low (just above circuit height) is what causes aerodrome controller distraction …. Class D/C App/Twr controllers have been operating these airspaces safely and in the most efficient fashion for years …. If you move the function to the centre, the delays increase as does the cost of training separate App controllers …. Why have industry pay more for less?? … why do you want that??? I thought most people knew that one of the most common types of fatal accidents now is an accident on the runway – quite often where an air traffic controller’s attention has been diverted. …. Be careful Mr Smith … the argument is getting very loose bordering on reportable! Airspace architecture is not often the issue … it is ATS resources … more often than not, Runway incursions occur at primary aerodromes with separate Approach units …. Your argument does not hold water in the context of regional D/C App/Twr’sYou don’t seem to understand that the chance of two planes colliding on a runway, on final, or in the circuit area is many times greater than two planes colliding above 4,500 feet. That is indeed why we have an airspace system with different classifications providing different services as the potential risk increases. .. and as has been explained to you repeatedly, D is for visual range, C is for beyond visual range …. That is why the rules are different … that is why with RADAR/ADS-B available to the Twr/App controller D services could be provided up to A100 or perhaps higher FL125 … that is where the TWR/APP Centre split should be .. not lower!!Yes, put in Class C with additional controllers so that controller workload in the Class D below is not affected, and I agree with you. It will be safer but it will also be more expensive. …more expensive by a huge amount (including radar installation) … safer, very marginally above what we already have! … HUGE COST INCREASE >> MARGINAL SAFETY ENHNASEMENT ….. remind us of your vision again! ….. oh yeh .. let’s settle for non-radar E .. NO COST SAVING >> SAFETY REDUCTIONAt the present time I don’t consider it sensible when I descend into a mountainous area (such as Proserpine) and be forced to change off the radar frequency when I most need it – that is, doing an approach close to mountains. … and how exactly is an enroute controller expected to zoom into a range suitable to monitor terrain clearance …. Do they ignore the other aircraft now out of view??? ….. IF you cannot competently fly your aircraft into sparsely traffic'd regionals in IMC without the assistance of ATC … should you be flying IFR??I have never said that private enterprise can do things better when it comes to airspace design. I have similar views to you. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with copying the best from around the world. … the best from around the world …. That would be where exactly?? … and please save us the US rhetoric! NTSB data says it ain’t true!I also point out that the stated reasons for the NAS reversal by Airservices Australia was because they did not follow the correct procedures in introducing the airspace. … it all went across your desk, you were the one who pushed the ‘reference system issue’ and the resistance to aeronautical studies of specific volumes … the ARG and NAS was yours .. you have said it so many times It had nothing to do with me. :rolleyes: I suggest you talk to the people at Airservices. …. Very principled! := The only time I have had legislative responsibility for airspace changes was when I was Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. I was responsible for the introduction of the AMATS changes, which were competently introduced and were probably the most substantial changes that have ever taken place. Remember, before then VFR aircraft would have to operate “full position” and fly at IFR levels at a cost of about $100 million per year. Since then, about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out by the industry and safety has continued to improve. …. Cost savings and improved safety …. OKBy the way, why is it that you, and others, who are doing everything you can to undermine the Government’s NAS policy, .. that would be Dick Smiths AusNAS policy adopted by the government never use your own names? Why is it that you attack me personally rather than debate the facts? .. debate the facts .. exactly what we are and have been doing for years Could it be that you have a vested interest in the status quo? …. What.. staying alive!In relation to you personally attacking me because of my age, at 62 I still have plenty of energy. After all, Nelson Mandela got out of prison and became the President of South Africa in his 70s. … there we are … President Dick …. I guess you compare yourself to Mr Mandela for the work you have done for the people then?Also, why is it that no one comes on from Airservices in an official capacity to explain their view on NAS? .. you are joking right :ooh: Is it because most controllers would prefer to go to the professional NAS system? It is far more an ATC orientated system … seems we have the interests of the industry at heart rather than self interest as you have repeatedly accused us of – whereas our present system is still “flight service procedure” based in the lower levels. NAS is a disciplined system which provides very clear responsibilities for air traffic controllers. … no that was the problem with E, it was explained then and since That is why it is so professional and why it is Government policy. … yup OK :rolleyes: Anyway, could you advise if there would be any safety problem if I get half a dozen VFR aircraft, and a few IFRs, to do some practice flying at Albury in Class C and set up typical scenarios on a CAVOK day? Do you think the controller would be overloaded? Do you think there could be any safety problems with this or would it be a reasonable test? … if you artificially inflate normal traffic in the terminal area of AY by deliberately adding complexity and densities well above normal whilst trying to create delay scenarios or errors … be it on your head :=
…. It is quite clear to anyone regularly operating into or out of towered regionals what the traffic levels normally are …. I say again, if you deliberately overload the controller at AY in some attempt to be able to grab attention and say “OH I was delayed by 2-3-4 mins” or “Oh my, he made a mistake because of the traffic levels”, I hope you are charged with reckless endangerment :mad: ….never heard anything so pathetic … if you want real data on delays etc ask for data collection of normal traffic over a period …. Come to think of it, if this is such an issue for you, why have you not asked for this information earlier :suspect: ….. I suspect because it will not support your assertions! :yuk:

Lodown

7th Nov 2006, 16:48

Just an observation: downgrading C over D to E over D isolates the D controllers a little more and pushes them out of the "system". Roll on the efforts for regional tower privatisation.

If this thrust at Albury doesn't work, is the next one scheduled for Broome again?

jumpuFOKKERjump

7th Nov 2006, 21:51

...Dick's supporters do know what he wants and we share his vision. Having visions now are we, I can just imagine the scene...

ATC: Well where'd these procedures come from then?

(holy music up)

Richard: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft the NAS plan from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Richard, was to execute NAS. THAT is why we will implement them!

Airline pilot: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing documents is no basis for a system of airspace! Supreme implementation power needs from a mandate from the industry, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!

Richard: (yelling) BE QUIET!

Airline pilot: You can't expect to reorganise an entire industry just 'cause some watery tart threw a book at you!!

Richard: (coming forward and grabbing the man) You haven’t even read the document!

Airline pilot: I mean, if I went 'round, saying we need to close all the freeways, just because some moistened bint had lobbed a magazine at me, they'd put me away!

Richard: (throwing the man around) Unbelievable, unbelievable, UNBELIEVABLE!

mjbow2

7th Nov 2006, 21:54

CrazyMTOWdog
****su- Tonka
Spodman

Let me state it as clearly and Unambiguously as possible.

FULL NAS IMPLEMENTATION.

MJ

Shitsu_Tonka

7th Nov 2006, 23:55

mjbow2

ok - but why?

Scurvy.D.Dog

8th Nov 2006, 00:17

Lodown
.
... yes alas that chestnut is still floating around ... reality is that it matters not whether it is C or E the complexity increases with reduced vertical split ... but you are right .. there are the usual protagonists arguing for privatisation ... you can imagine the cost to industry implications :hmm:
.
.... Oh well, greater minds than us eh :suspect:
.
MJ
.
I take it you will be whinging to Dick Smith when your costs escalate and/or you are swapping paint with VFR's … or will that be AsA’s fault also :hmm:
.
Fokker
.
.. love it :-)

Dick Smith

8th Nov 2006, 01:53

Spodman, in relation to the official NAS document which has been approved by Cabinet, you state:

is now lining cat boxes around the country This may be what you hope for, but it is official Government policy and it is a damn good document.

The implementation characteristics you are talking about I believe come from an Airservices Discussion paper V1.4. Do you understand that Airservices has a commercial vested interest in not supporting the Government approved NAS policy? Why else would Minister Truss have made the decision to move the legislative responsibility for airspace away from Airservices to CASA?

The reason is simple. There is a conflict of interest in having the people in charge of the legislation also being able to profit personally from the decisions they make. It would be the equivalent of having the executives of a toll road company, who get a bonus on the profits of the organisation, having the legislative responsibility of where toll roads should go – obviously a conflict of interest.

You state:

Why not make a clear statement about increased risk for E over C? I have covered this consistently. You cannot just separate the Class E airspace away from the Class D airspace controller who has to spread his or her workload. What is the use of changing Class E to Class C to make it “safer” whilst decreasing the safety of the Class D below where the collision risk is far higher? That is why we have different airspace categories. It is to give the same level of safety (as far as possible) at each location.

Surely it is obvious to you that the risk of collision below 4,500 feet is greater than the risk in the link airspace above? Why then are you supporting Class D airspace where the risk is greater and Class C airspace where the risk is obviously less? This is a classic example of “upside down” airspace. It’s like designing an airline aircraft with the thick part of the wing outboard and the thin part connected to the fuselage.

Albizia, I did not change the scenario at Albury at all. On the initial example I did not give a distance. It was you who decided to pick a distance south of Albury for the flight to make it as convenient as possible. The distance I picked (20 miles) is a typical example of what happens when someone is flying in that airspace.

Creampuff, you state:

The government could sack those troublesome Airservices neddies in a trice for not implementing the direction You will find, if you check, that all of the Board members have been replaced since the direction was given, so obviously you are correct.

Scurvy.D.Dog, unfortunately I just don’t have the staying power to answer every one of your points. Or why don’t you organise a bit of a casual meeting in Launy where we can debate the issues and people can decide for themselves which is the best outcome for Australian aviation?

I can answer a few small points. You state:

why is Part 71 still only draft Mr Smith?? I’ve answered this one on PPRuNe before. There is a mythical claim that I have somehow stopped Part 71 from being completed. Once again, a great compliment, but simply not correct. I have never been asked by a Minister, or anyone else who has the decision making ability, about Part 71.

I did note that Part 71 is written in a way to keep the status quo. That is, the hurdle rates for establishing Class D and Class C airspace are so high that the status quo will remain. It is a classic example of “over consultation” with the industry which has a profit advantage in making sure that there are no Class D towers at places like Ayers Rock and Avalon.

I love your comment:

Twr/App controller D services could be provided up to A100 or perhaps higher FL125 … that is where the TWR/APP Centre split should be .. not lower!! Talk about resistance to change! I thought FL125 was where it was a number of years ago. Yes, this maximises the number of tower controllers and gives them a staggering amount of airspace. However my belief is that we follow what Airservices are doing in the United States, where the tower airspace is as small as possible (2,500 ft AGL and 4.3 miles) allowing the controller to concentrate where the collisions are likely to occur – in the circuit area, on the approach to the runway, or on the runway itself.

If you have one tower controller at a place like Albury or Coffs Harbour being responsible for the close-in traffic, as well as traffic to FL125 (including all overflying traffic), this is an incredible diffusion of responsibility. Note that NASA did a study on this and found that such a diffusion of responsibility increases the chance of an unnecessary collision.

… and how exactly is an enroute controller expected to zoom into a range suitable to monitor terrain clearance …. Scurvy.D.Dog, there is no need to. The minimum safe altitude alarm (or equivalent) in the TAAATS system would be enabled, and is only disabled when the aircraft reports that it is visual or on the approach. This works in other countries so you would think it would work here and it may save a few lives – Benalla is an example.

You state:

you were the one who pushed the ‘reference system issue’ and the resistance to aeronautical studies of specific volumes … Yes, because commonsense said that by looking at a reference system we could get very good data on how safe the resultant airspace would be. The aeronautical study way (as used in the Class E above Class D Airservices safety case) can end up with manipulated data to support the status quo. This is what happened. If we can accept Boeing 747 previous safety history for certification, why not do the same with airspace?

Lodown, you state:

Roll on the efforts for regional tower privatisation. I don’t necessarily like the idea of privatisation – that could end up like the airports – but I can’t see what is wrong with what Airservices is doing in the USA. That is, giving a competitive quote to the FAA to operate small towers at a very much lower price, without the huge overheads of a federal organisation. The same thing could happen here. I have been contacted by air traffic controllers who would like to operate their own towers on a competitive basis. All air traffic controllers insist on competition in just about everything else they purchase – why can’t pilots benefit from a little bit of competition when it comes to purchasing air traffic services?

Shitsu_Tonka

8th Nov 2006, 03:04

Scurvy.D.Dog, there is no need to. The minimum safe altitude alarm (or equivalent) in the TAAATS system would be enabled, and is only disabled when the aircraft reports that it is visual or on the approach. This works in other countries so you would think it would work here and it may save a few lives – Benalla is an example.

Dont you think that is a big call Dick?

If an enabled MSAW was inhibited when the pilot called established on the approach how would that have saved the aircraft at Benalla?

Mjbow,

You obviously don't fly around aerodromes with busy CTAF's - if you did there is no way you would completely endorse the NAS and it's required and recommended radio broadcasts. The frequency congestion and overtransmissions are ridculous and dangerous.

Chief galah

8th Nov 2006, 04:07

Of the ex pilots I have worked with, not many have made good ATC’s.
Of those not so good, it's been obvious their thought processes have been along different paths to those of the better career controllers.
That appears to be the case in the proposals/scenarios put forward by pilots in this thread. Pilots supposing how controllers should act is just an example of how wrong their concept is of the ATC game.
Controllers dread the thought of being involved in the unthinkable incident. They know that no matter what airspace rules are in place, the various legal personnel will find a way to attribute some blame to ATC.
This is why low level E airspace is an anathema to controllers. Controlling IFR’s and having unnotified VFR’s in the same airspace, just does not make sense to them.
As Albizia pointed out, Tower can provide much more efficient control than Centre, because the separation standards available in Tower airspace are considerably less restrictive than in Centre airspace. I don’t think our thread instigator realizes this.
I also think that one man's VMC is the others IMC. It's all very well to say CAVOK, but in between that and IMC, there are a myriad of conditions that make "see and avoid" questionable.

CG

peuce

8th Nov 2006, 05:02

this is an incredible diffusion of responsibility. Note that NASA did a study on this and found that such a diffusion of responsibility increases the chance of an unnecessary collision.

This is why people get confused by your position and feel that it changes with the breeze.

You are the one who decided to integrate Flight Service tasks into the ATC system ... so that Controllers have to seperate some of their aircraft, give traffic to another segment and ignore others.

If this isn't an "incredible diffusion of responsibility" ... what is?

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

apache

8th Nov 2006, 05:48

My vision follows the NAS policy

wonderful... my vison follows PLAYBOY policy.

Shitsu_Tonka

8th Nov 2006, 05:52

On your comments on post NAS airspace (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Road_block_airspace.php) you have some diagrams using the word ROADBLOCK.

http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/radar_north_post_nov.jpg

Considering what Albizia and others have said here, there does not appear to be any evidence to support your assertions that there are even delays, let alone ROADBLOCKS. After all, Roadblocks according to the Oxford Dictionary means: a barrier put across a road by the police or army to stop and examine traffic.

Your use of the word ROADBLOCK is not only emotive, it doesn't even make sense.

Where is there any benefit for anyone in going through the rigmerole, yet again, of reclassifying the airspace and providing a lower level of service (Dirt Road'ish some might suggest) for no proven economic benefit, and a definite degradation of the level of safety and service that is provided?

Couldn't the limited resources that are available be better spent in other ways? For example, more radar coverage to provide E Airspace to a lower level where G currently exists? (Of course some interest groups would probably lobby against this because of the Transponder requirment).

What about a radar approach service for Avalon or even Maroochydore?

I assume this kind of decision would now be in the hands of CASA(OARS) with all their expertise in such matters?

Shitsu_Tonka

8th Nov 2006, 06:15

This just in... from Feb 2005

Deputy PM committed to air radar
By BRAD WORRALL

THE Federal Government has denied claims the installation of radar at Albury airport would not go ahead.
The election promise by Deputy Prime Minister Mr John Anderson would proceed as planned a spokesman from his office, Mr Bill McKinley, said.
“The decision to install radar at Albury is legally binding and will go ahead,” Mr McKinley said.
“Airservices Australia identified it as one of 10 regional airports where safety would be improved by radar.
“Nothing has changed since that time.
“Unless an independent analysis can show the airport is safer than the previous advice that recommended the radar then nothing will change in the future.”
Labor Senator Mark Bishop claimed that a cheaper option of air traffic control would and should be adopted.
The Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast technology allows planes to continuously broadcast their position, altitude and other data.
It also relies on all aircraft having transponders to report their position via the GPS system.
“We use the ADSB system in the centre of Australia where there is a radar black hole,” a Government spokesman said.
“The technology has enormous prospects in the future but at the moment is limited to aircraft travelling above 30,000 feet.
“It will be rolled out in time but at the moment it will not help improve air safety in the 10 regional centres identified by Airservices last year.”
It is understood that Airservices Australia is reluctant to spend the|$100 to $140 million required to implement the radar in the regional centres.

This new doubt, at the time, over the commitment to the policy probably stemmed from JA's Media Release (http://www.ministers.dotars.gov.au/ja/releases/2004/October/a147_2004.htm) during the heady days of the 2004 Election campaign:

LABORS PLAN TO REDUCE SAFETY AT TEN REGIONAL AIRPORTS
The Labor Party's aviation policy shows again why it cannot be trusted to govern Australia.

The policy makes it clear that Labor would reduce aviation safety at ten major regional airports, compared to the level of safety under a re-elected Coalition Government.

The Coalition Government has directed Airservices Australia to install new radar facilities at Albury, Alice Springs, Coffs Harbour, Hamilton Island, Hobart, Launceston, Mackay, Maroochydore, Rockhampton and Tamworth.

The radar facilities will include primary and secondary surveillance radar, terminal control area workstations in the main Airservices Australia air traffic control centres, tower displays and VHF radio and communications links.

The new radar equipment will increase safety for the 3.8 million passengers a year who travel through these airports.

Labor would rescind the direction. It would not require Airservices Australia to install the radar equipment at these airports, because it says it would be too expensive. It is a shocking and cynical decision; it shows that Labor cannot be trusted with critical issues like aviation safety. - (My underlining)

Hmmm, so what does this say about John Anderson and his governments 'commitment', and degree of 'cynicism' then?

Australian Financial Review September 2, Page 3

Air traffic regulator and operator Airservices Australia yesterday said a last-minute directive from the federal government to install radar in a string of regional airports could cost the aviation sector, including Qantas, as much as $150 million.
Airservices spokesman Richard Dudley told The Australian Financial Review that the regulator learned of Transport Minister John Anderson's order only on Tuesday afternoon when a staff member spotted it on an aviation website.
Mr Anderson's move came after the Airservices board decided on Friday to introduce changes to airspace rules that will mean pilots at a number of regional airports will have to fly under the control of an air traffic controller not just upon landing and take-off as is now the case but also as they approach and circle above an airport.
In a move designed to improve safety, Mr Anderson said that "at the earliest time" Airservices should provide those airports affected by the change with an operating air traffic control tower and radar.
Mr Dudley said Airservices estimated about 10 airports would be affected, including Launceston, Hobart, Mackay and Alice Springs.
The cost of the radar, extra training and additional staff was expected to be about $150 million, he said.
But he said Airservices still had to clarify with the government where that money would come from, saying that if it did not come from the government, "it would be paid for by our customer base."
However, a spokesman for Mr Anderson said: "We're of the view that it won't be an impost on the general aviation sector."
Asked if the announcement had come as a surprise to Airservices, Mr Dudley replied: "Just a little."
"The board of Airservices Australia were certainly not consulted in relation to this direction."
A spokesperson for Qantas said the airline was aware of the change but would wait until it had a formal briefing from the government before making a comment.
Mr Anderson's spokesman said his impression was that the matter had been discussed with the regulator.

There seems to be little doubt when you read through the press articles at the time (Yes - I have them all archived) that the direction from John Anderson was politics of the highest (or is that lowest?) order, during the run up to an election campaign. Even Airservices Australia's response at the time was questioning, between the lines, the economic logic of it all.

Why is it really any surprise at all that the 'earliest time' has stretched out to now? The direction appears to be practically ambit.

I am sure you will agree(?)

BTW - this was the directive:

“I, JOHN DUNCAN ANDERSON, Minister for Transport and Regional Services, pursuant to s.16 of the Airservices Act 1995, give the following direction to AA.

If:

(a) On the date on which this direction commences, a volume of airspace above Class D airspace above an airport was classified as Class E airspace, and

(b) After the commencement of this direction, AA re-classifies that volume of airspace to Class C airspace, AA must, in performing its function under s.8 of the Airservices Act 1995 of providing facilities and services, provide an operating ATC control tower at the airport and an approach radar control service at the earliest time one can be supplied and installed."

SM4 Pirate

8th Nov 2006, 06:56

I have covered this consistently. You cannot just separate the Class E airspace away from the Class D airspace controller who has to spread his or her workload. What is the use of changing Class E to Class C to make it “safer” whilst decreasing the safety of the Class D below where the collision risk is far higher? That is why we have different airspace categories. It is to give the same level of safety (as far as possible) at each location.

Surely it is obvious to you that the risk of collision below 4,500 feet is greater than the risk in the link airspace above? Why then are you supporting Class D airspace where the risk is greater and Class C airspace where the risk is obviously less? This is a classic example of “upside down” airspace. It’s like designing an airline aircraft with the thick part of the wing outboard and the thin part connected to the fuselage.

Ok, now it's my turn to bite.

The risk is the risk is the risk. We have what we have; to change the risk, you must have a positive 'Cost Benefit Analysis', risk must be reduced or where it increases there must be savings.

E is more ATC costly than C in the enroute environment (cost neutral in a tower environment). E is more risky than C, fact. (So where you replace C with E you have negative CBA; not so where you replace G with E, reducing risk does not need fiancial offset, just needs to be justified and consulted properly)

This is why ASA rolled back and you know it; they were liable in the event that a VFR pilot with low hours got it wrong and failed to see and avoid when they would have been previously subjected to a clearance. I believe one board member (at the time) was happy with carrying that liablity many others were not.

So the 'phase' of NAS increased risk without realising a cost saving to justify that increased risk; it doesn’t matter that you reduced risk at the circuit, cause you can argue that didn't improve or got worse, cause the ATCs still had the airspace up higher, it was just class E. Even if end state reduced risk, you weren't at end state until you actually got there.

Using the logic that C over D = roadblock, the IFR aircraft in E were more distracting to the class D tower controller than when in Class C as now there are unknown VFRs out there getting in the way, (which needed reaction not planning, very hard without surveillance); ie The risk increased in the airspace above Class D (E vs C) and it increased the risk in the circuit because the ATC were more distracted by the Class E above when compared to Class C)

Dick, I agree with some of your logic about risk and the need for change, just not the conclusions that are drawn from that logic.

Ok I must be one of the "f-worders" that we're not allowed to mention, right, in the past that is the bucket I have been put in.

The same logic you apply to the poor tower bodies not being able to look away from their empty circuits and runways where the risk if 'higher', (only when there is traffic there) is not applied to the enroute environment that can just by the effective stroke of the pen take on all that Class E (effective ATC scanning rates and concentration ability is sadly reduced now, cause we spend a lot of our time scanning empty screens for that mythical VFR pop-up, had one today and had to issue a safety alert, love Class E) and equally so take on low level E let downs to 'protect' the IFRS from CFIT outside (in many cases) effective surveillance; so what is the point.

What is the point of Class E above FL180? Is it ICAO or FAA complient?

There is such a thing as Class C enroute airspace, but there is no such beast for tower operations that are not commensurately supported by an approach service; at present that approach service is conducted in the tower; take it away to save the circuit/runway risk and who does it? Class E is the panacea for the risk reduction in Class D, no address them a separate issues.

I would love to see you state that Class E airspace should be introduced along the lines of your characteristics, but support the controllers when they say to do it effectively they need surveillance and more consoles so that LSALTS etc can be effectively managed; ie you can't monitor a procedural approach in class E, and you can't monitor one or more approaches a large enroute screen safely without increasing the risk elsewhere.

Points where I agree with Dick Smith:
1) IFRs (especially PAX carrying ones) should get at least Class E protection to the IFR minima.
2) IFRs should be able to declare themselves VFR when they reasonably decide it is safe.

But point 1 will come at more cost, is that cost worth the risk you are addressing. Dick your message is that the naughty ATCs and IFRS get in the way of VFR or set-up roadblocks to exclude VFRs; but what is reality.

If you want to get the big end on town you need to link the NAS to LTOP to get your CBA over the line; ie introduce NAS and we'll stop fuel wasting noise sharing. (but that's worth it's own thread).

I have controlled now for over 10 years, and always had Class C (excluding the 12 month event) not once have I denied a VFR a clearance; I have said the phrase "Clearance not available remain OCTA" closely followed by "standby" implying I've got nothing and I need to talk to someone else to organise the clearance or find some details if I'm the only one involved.

Dick I have in the past attempted to make my points to you directly, I would love to do so again, but would love for you to listen to me, not just talk over me. I think that airspace reform can happen, should happen and must happen; but the method currently applied, crash or crash through, manipulate and politicise the process, hang on a few dodgy words published by a minister but drafted elsewhere is not the best way forward.

Where is the ‘vision’ beyond the USA system, where is the vision beyond CASA draft part 71. Why introduce characteristics not used at large, “VFR on TOP” “Visual climb and Descent in E”, “Flight Following – RIS” etc; all ‘headline events’ all not wanted or used in general, although RIS is at least seen daily, unlike the others limited to annual events.

Where it appears to fall down from my end, is change management / consultation is not real; it is stated to be real, but consultation is not a briefing. The CTAF (R) / CTAF / MBZ and the area frequency debacle is a classic example; it was a change, with a change in risk; not in itself dangerous, but changed. The people opposed to the change did so because they could see benefit from the change; but they could see the change causing location specific problems. Has the world ended in the CTAF environment, no, is the circuit safer, probably but it’s really hard to tell, is the surrounding airspace more risky with frequency confusion abounding, absolutely, but is that risk a show stopper, no.

That is enough for now; I don’t want this to be a thread going down the usual lines of ‘f-worders or the flat earth society’ and ‘terry towellers and sheep’ on opposite sides; where I fear it is headed (and ultimately bans all around again); but perhaps both sides could take a deep breath before hitting the post button. Consider this ‘do I need to criticise the person to prove my point’; despite the difficulty in doing that; I’ve probably done it myself…

Enough for now, I'm getting back in my box.

fixa24

8th Nov 2006, 09:07

I currently control at a class d tower, and have NEVER refused a clearance to any VFR aircraft. I have been able to issue one at alternate levels, a few times i have had to hold special VFR aircraft out for no more than 5 minutes in IMC conditions to facilitate IFR aircraft instrument approaches.

This crap about being refused clearances really irks me... :*

Yet daily i see aircraft skirting my airspace at low levels, bumping around the weeds and mountains, but for a simple clearance request they could have been cruising in smooth air.:ugh:

Scurvy.D.Dog

8th Nov 2006, 10:46

…. in one ear and out the other
.
It is clear from the wide spread opinion and technical understanding displayed in this thread (and myriads of threads past), the arguments we mount are sound, based on factual, practical experience and data.
.
Unless and until you can mount sensible contrary plans that are supportable in factual and practical ways that Improve safety beyond what we currently have, then opinions will not change!
.
…. I might add, I and others who have no other interest except a fierce defence of common sense, efficient, safety practical application of air navigation services, will continue to show the folly of ill thought out, questionable attempts to further undermine our industry, and that includes commercial, recreational and sport aviation … all apparently in the name of change for changes sake! (I suspect the real reasons for your vigour are somewhat more self centric, and well known to most, however I will no longer be giving you currency to complain in this place)
Scurvy.D.Dog, unfortunately I just don’t have the staying power to answer every one of your points. … staying power? .. or is it you have no supportable retort? …. How about having a crack at the important technical questions raised …. otherwise your ‘fobbing off’ is typical and cheap! Why don’t you give me a ring on 02 9450 0600 or 0408 640 221? … why don’t I, because I am not about to have you claim X or Y was said in a phone conversation with no recourse. That is why the arguments are mounted here and elsewhere with a wide audience as participants/witnesses … is that why you would prefer the phone? Or why don’t you organise a bit of a casual meeting in Launy where we can debate the issues and people can decide for themselves which is the best outcome for Australian aviation? … the industry in Launy have open access to me 24/7 … we provide first class terminal area and tower services to local GA, Charter, AeroMed, Commercial Regional and RPT operators (QANTAS, VIRGINBLUE, Eastern Airlines and JETSTAR) …. I am sure they would have a view on the services we (and our colleagues from ML Radar) provide, and I would not presume to comment on their behalf, however I am sure they will post if they have anything to say (good or bad) .. I am well aware of the number of industry personnel (both locally and elsewhere) who read these pages! … what I can tell you is that I (and my colleagues) sleep well at night!
.
… as for a ‘casual debate’ … what is the point … you have on a number of occasions in the past been approached by me (in person) to discuss some of these issues … your inability to listen to or accept a contrary view from anyone is borne out in this place also. It makes the exercise futile … I do not like or appreciate being talked at or over!
.
You know who I am, and my work for industry, both professionally as an ATC, and as a voluntary Unicom service provider (at GA airshow and fly-in events) … I do not give a rats ring gear that you know who I am …. I also do not care for your attempts to silence dissenting opinions with threats ….. I stand by the opinions I hold, and the comments I make as I can back them with testimony and documented fact ….. your modus operandi to attack those who disagree shows the hollowness of your agenda .. were it robust or justifiable .. it would not matter to you (or anyone else for that matter) what any of us think ….. go your hardest!
.
… re: Part 71 …. were you the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority during the early CASR drafting process?
... were you liasing with CASA and the Minister for Transport in your capacity as a member of the Airspace Reform Group?
.
.. you were able to introduce CA/GRO (Flight Service by another name) and remove Flight service (F) services prior to that … are you suggesting you had no influence, input or knowledge of Part 71?
.
… and please do not think that I am in any way complimenting you!
I did note that Part 71 is written in a way to keep the status quo. That is, the hurdle rates for establishing Class D and Class C airspace are so high that the status quo will remain. …. How do you suppose those thresholds were reached? …. or is that another baseless slur directed at a wide cross-section of industryIt is a classic example of “over consultation” with the industry which has a profit advantage in making sure that there are no Class D towers at places like Ayers Rock and Avalon. …. ‘over consultation’ …. speaks volumes … what would you prefer .. unilateral decision making …. How many industry groups were included in the consultation AND formulation of your ‘vision’ AusNAS? .. what a load of cobblers …. and, I might add, a slanderous slur at those in industry involved in the consultation and formulation of these service thresholdsI love your comment:Twr/App controller D services could be provided up to A100 or perhaps higher FL125 … that is where the TWR/APP Centre split should be .. not lower!!
Talk about resistance to change! I thought FL125 was where it was a number of years ago. ….. funny thing that! ….. why do you suppose it was at that height …. Bet you cannot rattle off a list of reasons why it would be better (safer and more efficient) at a lower level!? Yes, this maximises the number of tower controllers and gives them a staggering amount of airspace. … cobblers … state how and why that is true … cause I can sure as hell tell you why it ain’t .... and before you go on about radar again .... compare apples with apples .... compare centre procedural and twr procedural or centre radar with tower radar .... because in this day and age, the data can be provided to either/both locations! However my belief is that we follow what Airservices are doing in the United States, where the tower airspace is as small as possible (2,500 ft AGL and 4.3 miles) … Airservices inherited the airspace arrangement at those towers allowing the controller to concentrate where the collisions are likely to occur – in the circuit area, on the approach to the runway, or on the runway itself. …. Hmmm.. see the difference, separate Radar approach provided (and paid for) by the FAA …. Do you see the difference? .. and why this arrangement is different in the Australian context?If you have one tower controller at a place like Albury or Coffs Harbour being responsible for the close-in traffic, as well as traffic to FL125 (including all overflying traffic), this is an incredible diffusion of responsibility. …. No, sensible, safe allocation of finite resources …. You were banging on for years about ‘affordable safety’ … seems to me (and others) you are so concerned about your previous aviation polices turning around and bitting you on the empennage that you now want the industry to pay a bucket load more money for things you spent years trying to get rid of, such as ATC Towers (in favour of Unicom or CA/GRO), FS (in favour of ATC providing the FS function), Full SAR availability for VFR (in favour of Mum held SARTIMES) the list goes on …. Note that NASA did a study on this and found that such a diffusion of responsibility increases the chance of an unnecessary collision. ….. nice headline, but as usual you do not tell the whole story …. NASA also included traffic complexity and densities in that outcome …. Design Aeronautical Studies determine those things …. you know .. those Design Aeronautical Studies you so despise and trivialise!you were the one who pushed the ‘reference system issue’ and the resistance to aeronautical studies of specific volumes …
Yes, because commonsense said that by looking at a reference system we could get very good data on how safe the resultant airspace would be. …. Common sense … that would be common sense that ignored the advice of safety and airspace experts from CASA and AsA that pointed out the differences and the net safety impact?The aeronautical study way (as used in the Class E above Class D Airservices safety case) can end up with manipulated data to support the status quo. This is what happened. …. Provide proof of this slanderous slur or retract it immediately …. If there were any veracity to your claim you would have continued with your anti-rollback court case …. why did you not continue with that? If we can accept Boeing 747 previous safety history for certification, why not do the same with airspace? … because you cannot introduce a DeHavilland Comet and call it a Boeing 747 ….. the product must be the same for Christ sake!

Chris Higgins

8th Nov 2006, 11:02

Scurvy,

I don't think that his intentions are anything less than admirable; to drag Australia kicking and screaming into the 21st century making available affordable technologies to improve safety.

I did not witness the vindictiveness that many have alluded to in Dick Smith.

Scurvy.D.Dog

8th Nov 2006, 12:06

I don’t necessarily like the idea of privatisation – that could end up like the airports … glad you have grasped that concept! – but I can’t see what is wrong with what Airservices is doing in the USA. …. One assumes it would be a ‘light’ quote to get in the door …. How much do you think they make (considering it still costs the US/industry separately to provide approach services via the FAA)? … how much ‘actual’ cross subsidy in human capital and support services goes to those towers from the ANSP in Australia?That is, giving a competitive quote to the FAA to operate small towers at a very much lower price, without the huge overheads of a federal organisation. … perhaps it would be appropriate to compare the costs Airservices Australia federal organisation carry in support of the contracted US towers?The same thing could happen here. …. are you suggesting that the Federal ANSP (Airservices Australia) would provide tower contractors:-

- Tech support personnel
- Tech systems
- Land hold and lease costs
- Data access (radar and/or ADS-B)
- Building maintenance
- Operational compliance costs
- Operations Support (mapping, documents etc)
- Insurance (operational)
- .. and the myriad of other time and cost requirements not listed

…… for free? … NOT … cross subsidisation is not permitted remember!I have been contacted by air traffic controllers who would like to operate their own towers on a competitive basis. … if there are any (perhaps those cut lunch commandos)…. They must be intellectual giants …. Are they really thinking they can REALLY provide ATS Tower and Approach services for less?

They are going to provide there own:-

- Quality ATS Personnel (at an acceptable rate … you know … peanuts and monkeys)
- Operations Support (mapping, documents etc)
- Licensing and compliance (medical etc)
- Training and retention of operations staff
- Operational compliance costs (Regulator Audits etc)
- Insurance (operational)
- Specialist Aviation systems Tech support personnel
- Specialist Aviation Tech systems
- Data access (radar and/or ADS-B)
- Aviation Security compliance
- Time involved with stakeholder consultation and compliance
- IT systems
- IT support
- General maintenance contracts and/or personnel
- Building maintenance
- Insurances (other)
- Rates
- Land hold and lease costs
- .. and the myriad of other time and cost requirements not listed
.
.. for less than the National ANSP with the synergies and economies of scale available? ….. you must be joking!
.
… and if it were contemplated to provide some of these services to a contractor for free to enable a false reduction in contract cost …. It will be counter argued that the same cost relief should be applied to the AsA provided tower service!All air traffic controllers insist on competition in just about everything else they purchase – why can’t pilots benefit from a little bit of competition when it comes to purchasing air traffic services? … I have to say that is one of the daftest comparisons I have ever heard! … as consumers of goods, we make decision on whether there are multiple options available, we all consider quality, price, etc when deciding on which brand to buy!
.
Air traffic services are natural monopolies and as such require price regulation (such as occurs with the ACCC)!
…. Would you have a situation where lowest price is the only criteria on which to base a purchase decision?
.. or have that purchase decision made for you by a system that perhaps only looking at lowest cost??
.. the industry will not really know how safe or expeditious that contracted service will be (because you cannot try before you buy), and once that contract is awarded, there is no going back!
.
… for someone who purports to be a champion of safety and quality of services for the Australian travelling public …. You really have some strange perhaps even ideologically naïve ideas!

Chris Higgins
.
… the usual sagacious input …. like him, no answers to the technical, just baseless accusations!
.
I don't think that his intentions are anything less than admirable; to drag Australia kicking and screaming into the 21st century making available affordable technologies to improve safety. .. you are entitled to your opinion, perhaps like the rest of us, you might explain why you hold that opinion!I did not witness the vindictiveness that many have alluded to in Dick Smith. … that is probably because you have not held a supportable contrary view to him! … :rolleyes:

Spodman

8th Nov 2006, 13:11

…but it is official Government policy and it is a damn good document.Said minister doesn’t seem to agree.

http://www.dotars.gov.au/aviation/airspace_reform/management.aspx

“But if we are to maximise the benefits of future stages, we will need to change how we approach its implementation.

Future stages will be implemented subject to the results of an enhanced analytical process, including cost-benefit and a single common risk management framework. This will include the use of an Australian Standard Risk Management Framework that is being formulated between relevant aviation agencies. Future reforms will also be subject to the results of closer consultation with stakeholders and take account of the impact of upcoming technological developments. The analysis will take account of developments in the airspace regimes of other jurisdictions, including within the United States and the European Union, to challenge our systems and approaches, and to help decide future changes in Australia.” (my bolding)

Like I said, in the catbox. The implementation characteristics you are talking about I believe come from an Airservices Discussion paper V1.4. So you don’t like them now and are walking away??? Or are you actively fighting against the ‘characteristic’ concept now. I wish I’d bought a program. Surely it is obvious to you that the risk of collision below 4,500 feet is greater than the risk in the link airspace above? I expect there would be more collision pairs if you analysed the traffic, but don’t agree there is more collision risk in the current, proven, airspace arrangements. Spin it how you like.The minimum safe altitude alarm (or equivalent) in the TAAATS system would be enabled, and is only disabled when the aircraft reports that it is visual or on the approach. You said earlier you wanted us to monitor the approach. At the present time I don’t consider it sensible when I descend into a mountainous area (such as Proserpine) and be forced to change off the radar frequency when I most need it – that is, doing an approach close to mountains. How will we do that with MSAW if we turn it off when you say you’re doing an approach? It isn’t actually practical to turn it off for each arrival, we will just have a new opportunity for frenzied beeping and “help! Help! Everything is normal!” messages from TAARTS. We will need to zoom in. what would you prefer .. unilateral decision making ….While your lengthy discourses are a good read Mr. Dog you have summed him up beautifully in 7 words. Well done:D

Chris Higgins

8th Nov 2006, 17:35

Scurvy,

After 23 years of flying and being licensed...or licenced in three different countries and having just returned from France and Italy in a Citation X, I can state unequivocally that Australia has the most bastardised and difficult to understand governing agency, charging system, and airspace system in the world.

I can't believe that somebody who has retired from QF or CX, (who has some street credibility and knows what s/he is talking about), hasn't taken the reigns and fixed it once and for all.

Lodown

8th Nov 2006, 18:38

There have been riders from the FAA, RAAF, CX and elsewhere willing to take the reigns. They've been, tried and gone, several through the influence exerted by the subject of your email.

Chris Higgins

8th Nov 2006, 20:50

Lodown,

I'm not championing any one individual; this is not an election campaign. It's about fixing something that's broken.

I don't care who fixes it, as long as it gets done.

If you don't like Dick Smith, find somebody that you all do like and get it done!

Dick Smith

8th Nov 2006, 21:30

Fixa24 you state:

Yet daily i see aircraft skirting my airspace at low levels, bumping around the weeds and mountains, but for a simple clearance request they could have been cruising in smooth air. I’m sure you realise the significance of what you have said. That is, those pilots perceive that there will be a problem if they try to get a clearance through your Class D airspace (or presumably Class C if they are flying a bit higher).

Why do pilots have that perception? I can assure you it is because of practical experience. While I am delighted that you have never refused a clearance to VFR aircraft, I can assure you that VFR aircraft are often extensively delayed or diverted because of our procedural separation standards – which probably come from the 1930s.

Anyway, why don’t you get Airservices to communicate to pilots (the ones that are skirting around the airspace) that if they call up they will get a friendly direct clearance? That would be a move in the right direction.

SM4 Pirate, you state:

increased the risk in the circuit because the ATC were more distracted by the Class E above when compared to Class C I can understand what you are saying, however if you talk to an American controller (or no doubt to Voices of Reason who posted this here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Is_Class_E_safe.php)) it is obvious that this “distraction” is pretty well a unique Australian problem. US controllers love Class E airspace. US airline pilots love Class E airspace. So what is the difference? I reckon it is a complete lack of education and training.

Could I suggest that Aussie controllers talk to the controllers in the contract towers that Airservices are running in the United States? I’m sure they will tell you that they love the airspace configuration because they can concentrate in the area where aircraft are most likely to collide. You will find that the controllers in the Class D towers (both contract and non-contract) in America are not “distracted” by VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace above.

Lodown, please keep to the facts. I have not at any time been sacked from any aviation position.

Atlas Shrugged

8th Nov 2006, 21:32

who has some street credibility and knows what s/he is talking about
That just about sums it up, doesn't it!

Dick Smith

8th Nov 2006, 21:34

mjbow2

8th Nov 2006, 21:35

Chris Higgins is absolutely right.

Once again, we see a group of controllers hi-jacking the most genuine attempt to drag our Airspace out of the dark ages and into the 21st century. Shame on all of you! As with Chris Higgins, I have experienced airspace and controllers on 4 continents including in the US for 7 years. I am not an airspace administrator, designer, statistician, or any other professional that considers and designs airspace but I am the consumer of these services and as such I have considerable experience as a consumer of the Australian product over several others. As a user of Australian airspace and ATC services, it does not come close to the system in place in the US. Don’t take this in any way to be an attack on our controllers. I agree with Dick here that we have among the most professional and skilled controllers anywhere, its just that they are using an antiquated and busted system with band aids stuck all over it from years on neglect.

****su-Tonka.

If you doubt my experience at busy uncontrolled airports or with any aspect of operating in NAS then I am sorry, you will have to live with it. I can tell you that I have flown, many hundreds of times at an uncontrolled airport that had daily aircraft movements right on the trigger point of class D (FAA trigger point, not Aus) using the mandatory and recommended radio procedures. That airport just recieved its tower last year! You seem convinced that pilots cannot use common sense in a CTAF.

En-Rooter

8th Nov 2006, 21:54

As an ATC who flys privately and commercially I feel I can add a little perspective.

Class E WILL NOT work a) without appropriate radar coverage b) VFR aircrafts transponders (and radios) being calibrated to an IFR standard and c) VFR aircraft using the correct radio procedures and STAYING AWAY from IFR routes rather than navigating on them with their GPS.

I work sectors in the J curve that have rather serious holes in radar coverage and I see EVERY DAY, VFR transponders without mode C or serious mode C errors. Attempts to call them prove fruitless. I'm not there to dob you in, just let you know that your transponder is not working.

I and many other ATC's donot want to attend coronial inquests when this turns pear shaped, simple as that!

Albizia

8th Nov 2006, 21:59

****su_Tonka, I have just had this brilliant idea after reading your John Anderson media releases. Why don’t we get some US controllers out to Australia to show how Class E above Class D can be operated without any problems? Remember what Voices of Reason said?
Or better still, why don’t we send some Aussie Class D controllers over to the US Class D towers which are operated by Airservices? Surely that will solve the problem. If the United States can run Class E over Class D (sometimes with radar and sometimes without) with incredibly high safety levels, surely we could learn from this. It is just an idea. What do you think?

Dick

What a brillaint idea! Never happen though, overseas trips are the reserve of management.

I do believe that our airspace system can be made more efficient. Personally I don't care what our airspace is classified, so long as I am trained properly to provide the services required I will be happy. If industry want E over D, or C over D, or B everywhere, so be it.

Shitsu_Tonka

8th Nov 2006, 22:30

Dick Smith
That is, those pilots perceive that there will be a problem if they try to get a clearance through your Class D airspace (or presumably Class C if they are flying a bit higher).

Why do pilots have that perception?

Hmm - maybe from reading all your comments at face value Dick?

Anyway, why don’t you get Airservices to communicate to pilots (the ones that are skirting around the airspace) that if they call up they will get a friendly direct clearance? That would be a move in the right direction.

Agreed - an excellent idea. You just need to find someone who can communicate this to management. The Air Traffic Controllers would be all for it. They like providing the service.

Mjbow,

Once again, we see a group of controllers hi-jacking the most genuine attempt to drag our Airspace out of the dark ages..
Once again, CONTROLLERS are rubbishing the system and dreaming up every conceivable reason not to improve to a better system...
Don’t take this in any way to be an attack on our controllers. I agree with Dick here that we have among the most professional and skilled controllers anywhere

Hey, no offence taken buddy! Just let me know when you are going to next wrap a compliment in a chocolate coated fist.

On the CTAF's - it still sounds like you haven't flown in an Australia CTAF since the new rules came in last year - am I correct?

mingalababya

8th Nov 2006, 22:43

****su_Tonka, I have just had this brilliant idea after reading your John Anderson media releases. Why don’t we get some US controllers out to Australia to show how Class E above Class D can be operated without any problems? ... What do you think?
Or in the short term, why not invite some US controllers to this thread and have them join the debate? It should be interesting. :)

peuce

8th Nov 2006, 22:49

Why don’t we get some US controllers out to Australia to show how Class E above Class D can be operated without any problems?

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but I think we have to continue to highlight these things ... in case someone important reads this thread.

Australia has moved away from the American system:

traffic information provided in G
flightwatch to be provided by ATC
limited radar coverage

It's long past the time where it could be an apples and apples comparison.

Wherever we go now, it will have to be an Australian specific solution.

Shitsu_Tonka

8th Nov 2006, 22:52

Chris Higgins

I can't believe that somebody who has retired from QF or CX, (who has some street credibility and knows what s/he is talking about), hasn't taken the reigns and fixed it once and for all.

Somebody from Cathay did - or tried to. He was seen off.

Anyway, what makes you think a retired airline pilot is going to be the person to do it?

What do they know about ATM apart from having tooled along in it? It would be like making an experienced Air traffic controller an airline Fleet Management Captain. No disrespect to airline pilots, but they are used to thinking one airplane at a time in terms of efficiency - normally their one! ATC/ATM need to think in hundreds at a time strategically, and a dozen at a time tactically. It's just a different outlook - even if you have 23 years experience and have a shiny NetJet Citation X.

One of Dick Smiths biggest criticisms on his website is that the whole system is geared towards the big end of town - the airlines. Isn't putting an airline man at the top of the system like putting the fox in the henhouse with respect to Mr Smiths view?

How will this help the GA and private operators, who cause Mr Smith claims to champion?

mjbow2

9th Nov 2006, 00:18

I am sorry if you think I am anything but sincere in my compliment of Australian controllers.

With regards to Australian CTAFs. You are completely incorrect!

MJ

Shitsu_Tonka

9th Nov 2006, 00:38

OK mjbow, I will take your word for it. In which case I fail to see how you think the new radio calls are anything but a schmozzle at a busy non-controlled aerodrome - especially where 2-3 aerodromes are in close proximity. Even with the most professional, succint and disciplined RT (which not everyone has, especially when pilots are at early stages of learning), it is impossible to make all the required calls for all aircraft.

The RAPAC minutes from all around the country seem to concur.

Another great NAS victory over commonsense in my view.

mjbow2

9th Nov 2006, 01:55

In which case I fail to see how you think the new radio calls are anything but a schmozzle at a busy non-controlled aerodrome

Well of course, that is understandable. As a controller in Australia how could you possibly have experienced how successfully the US CTAFs work, how anything about the US styled NAS works? Just because you 'fail to see' it, that doesnt mean it does not work. It does work but unfortunately you fail to see it.

Chris Higgins

9th Nov 2006, 02:01

****su Tonka,

The next time I am in a restaurant and the waiter comes to me if my meal is okay, shall I tell him to ask the cook, because as the end user of the product...I have no idea?

The Australian Airspace System has always frowned upon the grass-roots employers, enthusiasts and small capacity RPT. Unfortunately with the geography of Australia and the sparse population, the very agency that is set up in the name of public service-has not done any public service.

G/A is dead, the system you support is management top-heavy, you don't have a clear line of communication within your own industry and training has suffered from all of the changes and the ensuing confusion.

Whether I fly around Port Macquarie in a Cessna 152 or into MIlan Italy in a Citation X, a cursory observation tells me that things are not right back at home.

Dick Smith may not have all of the answers..so what are your answers?

I am going to Washington DC tomorrow to take my kids to the Air and Space Museum and then get the two youngest ones their Australian Passports. I won't be able to answer anything you might have in reply for about a week.

Respectfully,

Chris

Shitsu_Tonka

9th Nov 2006, 02:42

mjbow

We already have those US CTAFS here - they are not working (from a pilots perspective). Why is that? Are you saying Australian pilots are dumber than Americans?

Chris
The next time I am in a restaurant and the waiter comes to me if my meal is okay, shall I tell him to ask the cook, because as the end user of the product...I have no idea?

In this curious analogy, the cook is not the airspace manager - the cook is the air traffic controller. The owner of the restaurant is the airspace manager - and he has to keep ALL of his patrons happy over the course of running that business - not neccessarily just one diner who didn't like his meal.

Besides, you know that I am not saying pilots should have no say in the system. I am saying that their day to day job is not to consider the entire system and how it has to be managed for all - their day to day job is to consider how it should work for their particular operation - it is a much narrower perspective.

Please don't blame the ANSP in Australia for the farce that has occured over the last few years - they have had little say in it. It has been a game of politics, and you know it. And you know very well who the players have been.
---------------

Dick Smith does make some very interesting observations / claims in his letter to The Australian Financial Review (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Ten_years_of_aviation_safety_neglect.php):

Even when as minister John Anderson was right, he was too weak to deliver his policy outcomes. Government policy was to adopt world’s best practice where high density airspace (known as Class C) is used and install an approach radar facility, because without one, it is impossible to know with certainty the position of all aircraft in the vicinity.

Shitsu_Tonka

9th Nov 2006, 08:27

Sometimes it is good to know the correct frequency.... even in those mighty worlds best practice US CTAFS:

(From todays Avweb Flash (http://www.avweb.com/news/sayagain/193622-1.html))
Two Bonanzas Land On Same Runway, At Same Time

On Monday afternoon, pilot Robert Johnson had just touched down in his Bonanza at the Los Alamos County Airport in New Mexico when his passenger noticed an ominous-looking shadow just ahead. Another Bonanza, on short final, was trying to land on the same runway, and crashed into the top of Johnson's airplane. Unhurt, Johnson struggled to maintain control as the two entangled aircraft rolled down the runway and coasted to a stop. The pilot of the second airplane, who also was uninjured, said he'd mistakenly been tuned to the wrong radio frequency, and the first Bonanza was not visible to him as he flew the approach. Johnson and his passenger were unable to open the doors or windows and had to be extricated from the cockpit by rescue workers. A similar accident occurred in Florida in December 1999. A Piper Cadet and a Cessna 152 collided on final and landed while stuck together. Nobody was hurt, and damage to both aircraft was minimal. The airplanes were separated and the Piper flew home the next day. Both the Piper pilot and the 152 pilot spoke with AVweb's Joe Godfrey to describe their experiences.

CaptainMidnight

9th Nov 2006, 08:30

mjbow You believe it is ATCs "hijacking" & "rubbishing" NAS implemetation & airspace reform.

Wrong.

Industry reps - your fellow aviators - have repeatedly voiced their concerns as the following extract from a forum's minutes indicates:
5.4. NAS
A representative from the NASIG was not present at the meeting. However, members gave the following comments on the NAS model.
• It appears to be the national opinion that the NAS model was “steam rolled” by the Minister contrary to concerns from many operators.
• The model has been implemented to suit small aircraft operators, not medium or heavy aircraft operators.
• TCAS is being used as a primary tool for controlling aircraft.
• Operator concerns have been highlighted in various forums around the country, but to no avail.
• The education package should have been delivered 3 months prior to the changes becoming effective to ensure pilot education was thorough and complete. The package was delivered only in the last couple of weeks. Some pilots are yet to receive the information.
• NAS’s further proposal of removing MBZ’s in the next stages is of serious concern and is objected to strongly by industry.
• Further changes to the airspace should not proceed until ADS-B has been implemented.
• Industry refutes the quoted 70million dollar saving NAS will provide. They believe the savings do not exist and industry has been mislead by the Minister and NASIG.
• NASIG have promoted that the RAPAC forum has been used for consultation with industry. In truth members believe this has not occurred as proper consultation was not administered.
• Pilot knowledge of NAS is minimal. This in itself highlights a problem with the implementation process of the new system.
Chris Higgins You say the airspace system is "bastardised" and difficult to understand. Given the above from people who fly & work in the system here every day, - respectfully - would you not think they are more qualified than you to comment and provide input on reforms? Many did during the LLAMP project which had widespread industry representation, but when it was heading in a direction a certain individual didn't agree with it was overturned, and industry has been p:mad:ed ever since. And perhaps the reason it is currently confusing is directly a result of the botched reform attempts including NAS over the last 6 years or so??

Any attempt at reform must have the agreement and support of industry - surely you agree with that? And the above indicates NAS does not have widespread support.

It is also interesting to note that while attempting to copy & paste the "proven" U.S. system, a widespread airspace reform program has commenced due to ".... The U. S. airspace has remained largely unchanged for decades ....".

CrazyMTOWDog

9th Nov 2006, 09:14

CaptainMidnight, Bravo Bravo:D

To mjbow, chris and dick, what is your vision now?

If you love the US system so much, then fly there and leave us alone:eek:

Chimbu chuckles

9th Nov 2006, 09:40

Interesting innit?

Mr Smith views 'road bock' airspace, and it's attendant HUGE financial burden, as a major factor in the need to have his airspace model but no one ever seems to have suffered the delays which he insists are real and a major impediment to a viable GA.

Virtually no one in the industry believes the changes we have seen so far to CTAF procedures etc are an improvement over what we had...that is because they are demonstrably not an improvement. They may on a VERY good day be no worse but they sure as hell are not better....therefore they were a waste of time and money.

Nobody, including the Americans, view the US system as the best system..except Mr Smith. To the Americans it is simply the system they have been saddled with for many and varied historical reasons...and a system which is groaning under maladministration.

The one part of the US system which is worlds best practice...the charging system...is not being considered. In fact even the US industry is fighting to keep that 'proven system' against the efforts of the (mostly bankrupt) airlines efforts to shift costs away from them and onto anyone else they can think of.

Mr Smith, and others, whether you like it or not the ATC system exists for the benefit of the big end of town not everyone else. To prove that theory, as i have said many times before, think of the system requirements if all of the airlines ceased to exist.

The whole ATC system would be redundant.

If all of 'GA' ceased to exist tomorrow the system would remain in place largely unchanged.

The system exists to safegaurd passengers...they are the major beneficiary...get them to pay for it via ticket taxes as per the US model.

The system exists for the airlines...get them to collect the ticket taxes therefore requiring very little Govt infrastructure to collect said taxes.

The system is then funded by the Govt from user pays fees.

CASA. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority would be similarly funded by the users that require it's existance...the airlines and the GOVT!

Anyone want to postulate what CASA might look like the day after GA died...and the day after the airlines ceased to exist?

The GST we pay on every liter of fuel, minute of labour and $1 of spare parts covers many times over any 'burden' we put on the system by our private participation.

And don't give me that **** about GST being a state tax and not a federal one...the Federal Govt may remit the vast majority of GST to the states but that is money gained by additional taxation that replaces the taxation that used to go to the states before GST. No matter which way you cut it the federal govt benefits from GST.

Dick if you want to put your stamp on Australian aviation and be remembered as a great Australian by everyone instead of only everyone not connected with aviation why not use your considerable public persona to effect change where it is really needed...and fight to introduce the US charging system as opposed to their airspace system?

The biggest impediment to 'GA' is user pays...because as 'users' we are being asked to pay several times over...and what really hurts is as our costs go up we are being delivered less for our money.

Fight to remove the real burden on aviation....that is not the airspace system.

mjbow2

9th Nov 2006, 09:49

I shall presume it was you who edited my post without even the common courtesy of informing me or any of the readers of your censorship!

Why on earth can't I challenge any contributors motives on here. Let the arguments stand or fall on their merits. I seem to remember reading that statement somewhere.

Dick Smith offerd a contributor to call him and discuss their differences. He/she refused claiming it was pointless talking to him. Fine, but as a reader of his continuous attacks on Smith on these pages the poster concerned obviously doesn't really believe his own words. If he did he would not engage Smith here!

Posters like this have lost all credibility. As do you when you blindly censor these pages.

DirtyPierre

9th Nov 2006, 09:53

C'mon guys, stop feeding the trolls.

If we say nothing and just go about our day to day business, then Dick, mjbow, and Chris Higgins, can talk amongst themselves in their own little self appreciation society and let the aviation professionals get on without this distraction.

As far as I'm aware, NAS is well and truly still running. The process has been slowed up because of the debacle of the NAS 2b experience. More checks and balances.

Radar hasn't yet been installed because of the long lead time to plan the radar installation, invite tenders for the project, implement the project, conduct post implementation review, etc, etc.

AsA is currently working on a radar replacement project right now. This relatively simple project of replacing existing radar heads will take years to complete. These things don't happen quickly.

At the same time, AsA is involved as a world leader in developing new technologies and procedures for air traffic management. ADS-B is but one of these developments. So your notion, Dick, of radar being the end game for ATC, is 1980s thinking. Move into the 21st century and have a look at what we're using now.

And I'll say this one last time (I've said it before),

AUSTRALIAN CONTROLLERS WANT AIRSPACE REFORM!

but as professionals, we cannot let a mismanaged, unsafe, and illogical system of air traffic management become the norm for Oz.

Shitsu_Tonka

9th Nov 2006, 10:59

Chuck - That has to be one of the most coherent posts I have ever read on PPrune.

Now if only this outbreak of uncontrolled common sense in the last batch of posts could carry through to the political level.

Scurvy.D.Dog

9th Nov 2006, 11:50

Dick SmithFixa24 you state:
Yet daily i see aircraft skirting my airspace at low levels, bumping around the weeds and mountains, but for a simple clearance request they could have been cruising in smooth air.
I’m sure you realise the significance of what you have said. That is, those pilots perceive that there will be a problem if they try to get a clearance through your Class D airspace (or presumably Class C if they are flying a bit higher). … I would suspect a lack of familiarity with ATS interaction (AMATS), concern for making a reportable mistake, or pilot consideration of the terminal area where RPT and other arriving climbing and descending traffic perhaps they think it is worth keeping clear of! … if it is not safe to conduct flight at low level VFR around CTA … why would they do it? … and who’s fault is that?Why do pilots have that perception? I can assure you it is because of practical experience. .. how exactly can you ‘assure’ us of that, is it your word, or are there statistics that support this notion?While I am delighted that you have never refused a clearance to VFR aircraft, I can assure you that VFR aircraft are often extensively delayed or diverted because of our procedural separation standards .. again how can you assure us? With what? – which probably come from the 1930s. …. No, current procedural approach standards have been formulated internationally and refined over many years… I happen to have historical copies of AOI and the documents that preceded AOI … our current standards are at best 10-15 years old and tailored (internationally) for procedural approach!Anyway, why don’t you get Airservices to communicate to pilots (the ones that are skirting around the airspace) that if they call up they will get a friendly direct clearance? That would be a move in the right direction. ..we do that all the time through RAPAC and direct involvement with GA …. Perhaps you might stop assisting them into thinking it is a ‘road block’ or some sort of big brother trap that should be avoided! …. however if you talk to an American controller (or no doubt to Voices of Reason who posted this here) it is obvious that this “distraction” is pretty well a unique Australian problem. .. where exactly is the incident data that supports this notion that D controllers in Australia are distracted? … you must accept the idea that to be able to say there is a problem requires incident data that supports the case .. where is it? … simple question! US controllers love Class E airspace. US airline pilots love Class E airspace. So what is the difference? as has been stated by US controllers, the services they provide are not strictly E, more a hybrid Radar D, along with legal protection if it goes pear shaped! I reckon it is a complete lack of education and training. …. education and training in the differences between the US airspace rules and ICAO E?Could I suggest that Aussie controllers talk to the controllers in the contract towers that Airservices are running in the United States? …. Already have, August last year in Bowral NSW (annual Tower manger conference)!I’m sure they will tell you that they love the airspace configuration because they can concentrate in the area where aircraft are most likely to collide. … perhaps that is right, it also assumes RADAR in the tower, separate radar approach (all paid for by the US Fed gov’t) … in Australia, who would pay for that flash extra stuff when we have a different and arguably more efficient (less resources for a similar outcome) way of skinning the same cat!You will find that the controllers in the Class D towers (both contract and non-contract) in America are not “distracted” by VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace above. … Australian controllers are not distracted either …. Prove otherwise! I have just had this brilliant idea after reading your John Anderson media releases. Why don’t we get some US controllers out to Australia to show how Class E above Class D can be operated without any problems? …. We did that, as you would remember, the DoTaRS paid for an FAA controller (at the ARG request as I remember) to come to Australia, and who initially had no contact with actual line controllers rather … NASIG personnel only, this was during the early part of the AusNAS2b odyssey!
…. In August 2004 (just prior to the rollback decision) that same FAA controller met with the Check and Standards Regional D controllers in Canberra (I was present), the issues were discussed, the problems explained, the net safety outcomes discussed, and he understood exactly why we had issues, and that C was demonstrably safer, more efficient and considering the change had not been subject to design aeronautical study .. was in need of assessment for possible rolled-back … It is a matter of record!Or better still, why don’t we send some Aussie Class D controllers over to the US Class D towers which are operated by Airservices?It is clear this debate will continue forever unless some definitive discoveries are made in the presence of all sides. … the cost of allowing that festering is untenable and unacceptable …. it is not doing anyone or the industry any good!
.
…OK.. further Discovery
.
… If we are going to send another working groupto the US , it should be ‘Operational’ controllers (I assume you would prefer salaried staff not contractors)! .. the most effective group framework for doing so would be the following:-
.
- 7 experienced Check and Standards controllers
1 National Class D/C Check and Standardisation controller (preferably the one who is working at and checking the other D towers with C approach)
1 Local class D/C tower UTM (checkie) from a regional tower with no surveillance availability
1 Local class D/C tower UTM (checkie) from a regional tower with full surveillance availability
1 Local class D/C tower UTM (checkie) from a tower with partial surveillance availability
2 experienced Enroute Radar (checkie’s) those who would likely be the ones providing the additional approach services (in your model) to look at the Approach radar components
1 experienced Approach Radar (checkie) to compare Approach radar services Aus C v’s US
.
... Visit US towers as follows:-
.
- An AsA contract tower in Hawaii (class D equivalent) 3 days
- A regional US FAA D tower with separate radar App 3 days
- A regional US D Tower that provides the E terminal airspace also 3 days
.
.. with travel (no mucking about) probably a fortnight!
.
.. as part of the process, a report to be published setting out:-
.
- Legislative differences and similarities
- Operations differences and similarities
- Infrastructure differences and similarities
- Industry cost and charging differences and similarities
- remedial actions that might facilitate similar services against ALARP requirements
.
The 'unedited' final report to be published to the Secretary of the DoTaRS, The Transport Minister, RAPAC and here on PPRuNe.
.
… the exercise funded at nil cost to industry through the Minister by DoTaRs (I am sure you would assist finacially, however that would be a conflict for both parties)
.
… staff secondment from AsA to DoTaRS for the 2 weeks (assuming we can be released from the operational rosters), perhaps around Mid January!
.
… over to you!
.
Re other:-Surely that will solve the problem. If the United States can run Class E over Class D (sometimes with radar and sometimes without) with incredibly high safety levels, … I keep harping back to the fact that they have what they accept as high safety levels, as I am sure you would accept though, they also have IFR/VFR mid-airs in E, comparatively, how many have we had any in our terminal C surely we could learn from this. …. I have an open mind (believe it or not) …. Remember your visit to Tamworth Tower! … remember the conversation (we sure as hell do) …. and the piece of paper you signed that day …. Do you still believe you had a full grasp on exactly what ICAO E really was?!
.
MJ
.
... depending on the response to the above proposition, I might just contact him!Once again, we see a group of controllers hi-jacking the most genuine attempt to drag our Airspace out of the dark ages and into the 21st century. Shame on all of you! .. easier to say that rather than debate the technical … come on, tell us why we are wrong! As with Chris Higgins, I have experienced airspace and controllers on 4 continents including in the US for 7 years. I am not an airspace administrator, designer, statistician, or any other professional that considers and designs airspace but I am the consumer of these services and as such I have considerable experience as a consumer of the Australian product over several others. … don’t you like CA/GRS? .. that was Mr Smiths baby! As a user of Australian airspace and ATC services, it does not come close to the system in place in the US. … and are you going to explain why?Don’t take this in any way to be an attack on our controllers. I agree with Dick here that we have among the most professional and skilled controllers anywhere, … the same controllers that were called ‘basically criminal’ for operating AusNAS class E as it was required by law and by ICAO its just that they are using an antiquated and busted system with band aids stuck all over it from years on neglect. …. That would be 10-15+ years?Once again, CONTROLLERS are rubbishing the system and dreaming up every conceivable reason not to improve to a better system and I seriously doubt, by the vitriol peddled in these pages that any change in airspace design would be accepted. .. dreamed up … not improve … better system … vitriol … Come on MJ … no dreams just facts … we want to improve not go backwards … we can have a better system (than the US) …. Vitriol is an easy accusation if you have no technical counter arguments! I can tell you that I have flown, many hundreds of times at an uncontrolled airport that had daily aircraft movements right on the trigger point of class D (FAA trigger point, not Aus) using the mandatory and recommended radio procedures. That airport just recieved its tower last year! … how many airprox’s and midairs occur in US CTAF’s? … it is easy to find it on the NTSB site …. shall you or I? You seem convinced that pilots cannot use common sense in a CTAF. .. tis not offen the pilots not using common sense, rather the procedures that are at issue ... RAPAC meetings asked the same question … what was the safety advantage of US CTAF over Aus MBZ? …… you can guess the answer!
.
Chris HigginsThe Australian Airspace System has always frowned upon the grass-roots employers, enthusiasts and small capacity RPT. Unfortunately with the geography of Australia and the sparse population, the very agency that is set up in the name of public service-has not done any public service. … how exactly do you reconcile that? … don’t those agencies follow Political direction and Lobby group consultation … who do you suppose has been at that game since you stopped plying the skies over Port?G/A is dead, the system you support is management top-heavy, you don't have a clear line of communication within your own industry and training has suffered from all of the changes and the ensuing confusion. .. who do you suppose is responsible for that?Whether I fly around Port Macquarie in a Cessna 152 or into MIlan Italy in a Citation X, a cursory observation tells me that things are not right back at home. …same question as the last!Dick Smith may not have all of the answers..so what are your answers? …. Do you read our posts?I am going to Washington DC tomorrow to take my kids to the Air and Space Museum and then get the two youngest ones their Australian Passports. I won't be able to answer anything you might have in reply for about a week. .. have a great time, look forward to your return :ok:
.
.. over to you Mr Smith!

Self edited to remove some jabs ..... in good faith

Philthy

9th Nov 2006, 13:41

Hey, if the Aussie Towers have more airspace than their Seppo counterparts (presumably with the same number of staff), doesn't this make Aussie controllers much more efficient?

Maybe the Seppo controllers should come here and we could teach them how it's done.:ok:

max1

9th Nov 2006, 20:49

20+ years in the ATC game, and can't ever remember denying a clearance, maybe a short wait(1-2 minutes whilst getting or making up a flightplan) and that is pretty rare too.
To the GA guys out there, do not be afraid to call up ATC. We are there to assist, nearly all have an interest in aviation that got us into the job in the first place. Controllers are also GA pilots, gliding enthusiasts, skydivers, airline passengers,ex RAAF, etc etc.
Whilst we're on ASA running Towers in the US competitively, (a rumour doing the rounds),maybe the quote we gave neglected to include a remote allowance of around 20%, and we are actually losing money on the deal.

Whiskey Oscar Golf

9th Nov 2006, 21:04

Thankyou Mr D.Dog, this argument has been going on for way too long. We all want reform no question, we just don't want it based on the U.S. system when our requirements and budgets are very different to thiers. We can figure it out ourselves using a bit here and a bit there with new tech and the expertise of all industry proffesionals as well as weekenders. As we have done with most things in the past we have the ability to evolve something that suits our unique circumstances.

Why is it that idea's that haven't got industry support keep getting thrown up? Why is it a dated system that doesn't really fit the aussie model constantly being touted as worlds best and what we need?

Mr Smith I respect your courage in popping your head over the Parapet in order to further your plans. I do think it may be more helpful to not use your real name when posting these discussions, this is an advantage of this forum. This would give us a chance to view your topics without the visceral emotion your name seems to bring. It may result in a more independent dissection of NAS.

There's my 2 cents for what it's worth.

Dick Smith

10th Nov 2006, 01:04

Albizia, you state:

Dick

What a brilliant idea! Never happen though, overseas trips are the reserve of management. Well, they weren’t in the past. If you remember, when I was Chairman of the CAA I organised overseas trips for coal face controllers – they were incredibly successful. It was agreed that the controller would write a report when back home explaining what was perceived to be “better”, and what was perceived to be “worse”, than what happened in Australia. I still have a number of those reports - they were fantastic. Unfortunately however, no changes were made. This is because of the resistance to change of many people.

I can assure you that if I had any direct responsibility for the management of airspace since I retired as Chairman of the CAA in February 1992, I would have made sure that coal face controllers were involved directly during every step of the way.

I’m amazed how Airservices just send managers overseas and don’t send the coal face controllers. It is utterly crazy. It would be a bit like Qantas ordering a new Boeing jet and sending the management over to check it out, but not sending the pilots to even do a familiarisation or sim check in the new aircraft.

****su_Tonka, you state in relation to Airservices communicating to pilots:

Agreed - an excellent idea. You just need to find someone who can communicate this to management. The Air Traffic Controllers would be all for it. They like providing the service. I can understand there are many times when we need whistleblowers and it is important for them to remain anonymous.

However what I find fascinating is that somehow the Airservices management has prohibited their controllers from stating what they genuinely believe about airspace. This is extraordinary. It is not a state secret, it is not party political – it simply needs to be a scientific equation of allocating the ICAO categories commensurate with risk. It really shows that the air traffic controllers at Airservices are being severely let down by being prevented from stating in an open way what they really believe.

Mingalababya, in relation to US controllers coming to Australia you state:

Or in the short term, why not invite some US controllers to this thread and have them join the debate? It should be interesting. Mingalababya, that has happened previously. A US air traffic controller from Juneau tower came to PPRuNe. I had spoken to this bloke a number of times on the phone and he had even been out to Australia as a guest of the President of the Civil Air union. I’m sure he is still there in the Juneau tower, but I doubt if he’d come back on the forum again because controllers in Australia universally rubbished him and said he didn’t know what he was talking about.

By the way, Juneau tower is situated in the capital city of Alaska and has over 100,000 movements per annum, with no radar below about 11,000 feet.

****su_Tonka, I tend to agree about the problems in the new CTAFs. I personally don’t even understand how they actually work. Remember, we were going to have stock standard US CTAF procedures but at the last meeting Warren Truss agreed to meet with a dozen or so Chief Pilots from the regional airlines, and other small airlines. He agreed that “compromises” would be made. This resulted in a mish-mash of old Australian 1930s Flight Service procedures with modern US CTAF procedures.

I agree that the result is a nightmare – but don’t blame me for it. I had nothing to do with it and was not involved in any way – other than being on the original ARG panel (with the current Chief of Defence, Angus Houston) and making a decision to go to the proven US system. I’m sure no one on the Aviation Reform Group ever envisaged that pilots who had never flown in the US system would be allowed to make changes so the whole thing became a mess.

CaptainMidnight, you mention the LLAMP project (Low-Level Airspace Management Plan) and state:

but when it was heading in a direction a certain individual didn't agree with it was overturned I thought PPRuNe readers should look at some of the points about the LLAMP project – i.e. below 12,500 feet you moved off the radar frequency and went on to a giant Designated Area Frequency where every pilot became their own air traffic controller.

Chimbu chuckles, yes, I know – you want me as a wealthy Australian to campaign for a system where general taxpayers (many PAYG workers) subsidise my flying. No, I won’t be doing that. You will need others to be involved.

Scurvy.D.Dog, thanks for your great long post. I can see that you have a tremendous interest in this. Unfortunately I can’t help you in relation to getting operational controllers over to the USA to see how the system works. All I can say is that if I were the Chairman of Airservices it is the first thing I would organise. The cost would be next to nothing compared to the goodwill it would put in place.

Fortunately I travel a lot and I have been able to stand beside the controllers in non-radar towers in many countries in the world. I have also been able to fly in the airspace. From this experience I genuinely believe that the US system is simply the best in the world. Why wouldn’t it be? They have an unlimited amount of money to throw at it, they have a litigious society, and they have an extremely high standard of living and some of the lousiest weather conditions. It is obvious that the airspace would evolve like a Boeing 747 to be incredibly safe and move a tremendous amount of people/aircraft.

fixa24

10th Nov 2006, 01:49

Fixa24 you state:
I’m sure you realise the significance of what you have said. That is, those pilots perceive that there will be a problem if they try to get a clearance through your Class D airspace (or presumably Class C if they are flying a bit higher).
Why do pilots have that perception? I can assure you it is because of practical experience. While I am delighted that you have never refused a clearance to VFR aircraft, I can assure you that VFR aircraft are often extensively delayed or diverted because of our procedural separation standards – which probably come from the 1930s.
Anyway, why don’t you get Airservices to communicate to pilots (the ones that are skirting around the airspace) that if they call up they will get a friendly direct clearance? That would be a move in the right direction.

Dick... i have no idea why this perception exists here or any other tower. Already there has been numerous controllers respond here saying they have never refused a clearance. So you saying that they skirt CTA due to past experience just doesn't add up. I believe it's more of a case of pilots too scared to talk on the radio. I have witnessed many times aircraft transitting MBZ's (when they existed) not saying a single word on the radio. Whether this is by mistake or on purpose its severely poor airmanship. This wasn't a quiet MBZ either. I believe you are familiar with YBPN.

I believe it's now become a culture thing with pilots. I have spoken to pilots who have done all their training at regional airports with a tower and they are still afraid to speak on the radio for saying the wrong thing. The pilots that train at GAAP airports are the worst... But this thread isn't about that.

Procedural standards? Crikey... not as restrictive in a tower environment as you would have everyone believe Dick. Most of the time, we just pass traffic to the IFR about the VFR... OMG...:eek: yes. we do do it. The biggest standard we use here is the 10nm same track longitudinal standard. Or there is the 12nm CEP with GPSRNAV.. but don't often use that. Most of the time it's the 5 DME inside 15NM for arriving aircraft. And of course, we have Visual separation, which allows us to run things a hell of a lot tighter than your class c friends can.. Procedural standards can be much smaller than radar ones.....:ok:

CaptainMidnight

10th Nov 2006, 03:23

CaptainMidnight, you mention the LLAMP project (Low-Level Airspace Management Plan) and state:
I thought PPRuNe readers should look at some of the points about the LLAMP project – i.e. below 12,500 feet you moved off the radar frequency and went on to a giant Designated Area Frequency where every pilot became their own air traffic controller. Look [URL link deleted]

So I don't know specifically what you are on about, but I can say that the DAFs were being designed to be as small or as large as suited the need in a particular area, operating in the same fashion as FIAs before CTAF & MTAF came in. Thus on a DAF you only heard aircraft in the same area as yourself, unlike the NAS debacle, where suddenly EVERY single AD & ALA in the country uses 126.7 unless it has a discrete CTAF or CTAF(R). The mess that currently exists on 126.7 is a direct result of a badly thought out and executed policy.

And with LLAMP strangely enough, local operators were consulted and forums held for them to provide input re DAF design, unlike NAS where little or no consultation was conducted ("the time for consultation is over ...", and concerns and input virtually completely ignored.

On that point, it is interesting to note you did not comment on the rejection of NAS and obvious ill-feeling expressed in the forum minutes I quoted.

OZBUSDRIVER

10th Nov 2006, 04:30

Dick Smith, you said-Chimbu chuckles, yes, I know – you want me as a wealthy Australian to campaign for a system where general taxpayers (many PAYG workers) subsidise my flying. No, I won’t be doing that. You will need others to be involved.

That is not what he said. A tax on airline tickets pays for the use of the airspace. If you stopped flying your aircraft tomorrow, and I stopped flying tomorrow would ATC know any different. If the airlines stopped flying tomorrow, it would be a ghost town up there. ATC from the beginning from Flight Services right up to ATC with full SSR facilities and TAAATS is soley for the safety of its biggest user. THE AIRLINES! GA in the states also still use a tax on fuel which we used to have until someone lobbied hard that bush flying pilots unfairly paid for a service they didn't use....but they did , until FSUs became history. If a fuel tax was administered and EVERY LAST CENT went back onto services for ALL aircraft, like the upkeep of the Nation's GA airport infrastructure before developers manage to steal it all away. I for one would be for that. AS a professional user of the Nation's highway system who pays a considerable amount of fuel tax and GST to the States I am more than welcome to allow you to share the road with me. Provided you obey the rules and play nice with my trucks. Afer all you pay for the same road with what little tax you pay through your fuel usage, I consider that fair.

Jerricho

10th Nov 2006, 08:43

Why don’t we get some US controllers out to Australia to show how Class E above Class D can be operated without any problems

Mr Smith, I am a radar controller in Canada who works 2 Class E Terminal Areas and believe me, it is NOT operated as Class E but a very much bastardised version of Class D. Even then the IFR/RPT drivers aren't huge fans of the classification.

Get your facts straight (I have told you this before :rolleyes: Seems you don't want to hear)

No Further Requirements

10th Nov 2006, 09:07

From what I have heard, this is also common practice in the US E radar airspace - contollers end up 'separating' IFR from VFR in E so they don't collide. Which, of course, is completely uncalled for in the rules of E airspace. Or, you could do what was required like up at Maroochy, and get called 'criminal' because you applied the rules correctly.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't......

Cheers,

NFR.

Scurvy.D.Dog

10th Nov 2006, 15:27

A US air traffic controller from Juneau tower came to PPRuNe. …
....but I doubt if he’d come back on the forum again because controllers in Australia universally rubbished him and said he didn’t know what he was talking about. … I am not sure he was rubbished, the merits and comparison of their E v’s our C (and I think from fading memory AusNAS E) were discussed. The resulting differences were borne out along similar lines to this discussion … I also seem to remember some discussion regarding VFR broadcast requirements due the lack of surveillance coverage .. stand to be corrected though!Scurvy.D.Dog, thanks for your great long post. I can see that you have a tremendous interest in this. … my interest is solely in discharging what I see as my professional responsibility to informed debate on airspace architecture and operations practice in the field for which I am responsible.. nothing more nothing less!. The fact that folks choose this vehicle to engage these discussions is neither here nor there! .. it gives me no pleasure to disagree with other views!Unfortunately I can’t help you in relation to getting operational controllers over to the USA to see how the system works. .. that is unfortunate! .. positive outcomes could be achieved by such a process!Fortunately I travel a lot and I have been able to stand beside the controllers in non-radar towers in many countries in the world. I have also been able to fly in the airspace. From this experience I genuinely believe that the US system is simply the best in the world. … after all that has happened, and all that has been written here, you clearly hold that view strongly .. fair enough! .. I guess we will have to agree to disagree!They have an unlimited amount of money to throw at it, they have a litigious society, and they have an extremely high standard of living and some of the lousiest weather conditions. … it would be nice if our industry also had unlimited money to throw at the issue!
.
.. and yes, sadly, Australians in ever increasing numbers are adopting that overly sensitive 'glass house' litigious nature! ..it does nothing for our international reputation for 'thick skins' and 'broad shoulders'!
.
.. perhaps our standard of living in Australia is focused on other, more rewarding things than just money!
.
.. and thank goodness we do not have their weather! :ooh: It is obvious that the airspace would evolve like a Boeing 747 to be incredibly safe and move a tremendous amount of people/aircraft. … I agree in principal that the US system has evolved through necessity into a unique creature that does handle large volumes of aircraft and people, I am just not certain it is technically ICAO E
.
P-A-F :}
.
.. for fear of missing your point (as this tax stuff is not my thing)Yes, and the GST I paid on my computer keyboard is covered many times over by any burden I put on Australia by purchasing it. It is a tax. It was put in place to give states a growth tax. .. errm, isn’t Chuck talking about funding a federal ATM system?
.
At the moment, ATS is charged to IFR and VFR (landing) via location specific and enroute charges .. IMHO, Chuck’s argument regarding the system and who it primarily caters for is sound (although all users must have access and utility etc), therefore, I agree with him that the US system of funding ATS is the logical method! Next time you are shopping, ask a random person if you think people flying a light aircraft at the local airport should be exempt from the GST. I'll bet you a carton the answer would be no. True, however, you would have to explain to that random person that the pilot and owner are paying GST on everything related to that aircraft except ATS?!
.
… perhaps you would also ask that random person if they think they should be paying GST on their shopping items?
.
… particularly seeing as the GST was overdue and well needed. ;)
.
…. 'growth' tax …. more like a 'goitre' :p :E
.
Night All!

Chief galah

10th Nov 2006, 21:43

I was fortunate enough to participate in CAA's Overseas Awareness
Program that ran in the early 90's. I believe Buck Brooksbank was at the helm at the time.
A good thing to come out of that program was for Melbourne to look at it's runway utilization resulting in the 16 arrivals and 27 departures mode.
To bad the SID's and STAR's introduced later meant hellishingly long track miles for some, which waters down the runway efficiency.
We visited Oakland Centre on several occasions, and I am still perplexed as to why a centre controller was vectoring a helicopter
for a instrument approach to a remote location out in the "sticks".
He commented himself that it was a difficult task with the radar scales available to him.
It seemed to take a lot of his attention as well.
At the same time, a Learjet blasted off from somewhere else, VFR, because an IFR clearance was not available.
Lots of controller coordination and keyboard input to deal with this event as well.
More distraction from his separating responsibilities with traffic at higher levels.
So it seems that no matter what airspace system is in use, someone is going to have to deal with it,
whether it be tower or centre. If the centre staff are spread thin, then their extra workload with setting up approaches
to remote locations may well be much higher than that of the tower.
I think it is easier and more efficient for the towers run their own approaches and leave the centres to do the higher level separating.
Recently, I visited Cambridge tower in England, a private operation with a E CTR.
If we think the alphabet airspace system is universal, then this message didn't get through to the chaps there.
Their VFR operations were much more restricted than any C airspace we have here.
CG

max1

10th Nov 2006, 23:50

I am amazed that someone with no ATC experience, rating etc can say they stood next to someone in a tower, watched what they were doing, and declare that what they are doing is the best in the world.
I would not presume to sit in a cockpit observe the pilot and declare that this is the best aircraft in the world.
It bothers me when reporter grabs a passenger off a flight and then report that the passenger believes that the go around was 'dangerous' or 'seconds from death' or that the pilot was just coping.
In almost all situations , it is not until something is put into an overload scenario that you can appreciate how good it is in a normal day to day environment.
I also think we need airspace reform.

Dick Smith

12th Nov 2006, 21:45

Fixa24, you mention pilots being too scared to talk on the radio – especially to enter a CTA in Australia. I couldn’t agree more. You probably know that a major part of NAS is simplifying the procedures.

For example, to enter Class D airspace in the USA you simply make a request in English. The friendly controller comes back and gives instructions on what to do. In Australia you have to actually receive a full airways clearance, and pilots are scared that if they don’t repeat it back perfectly, they will be criticised – or worse still end up with a CASA inquiry.

A number of years ago I was flying into Alice Springs in my Caravan with two American pilots. I suggested that they call for the clearance. They couldn’t believe it. They were given a complex clearance, with a clearance limit at a place with an Aboriginal name about another 10 miles on. Of course they used the American system and just came back with the call sign. They were very promptly told by the controller that the whole clearance would have to be repeated – which my American friends did in their US accents.

It is interesting that a major part of the original airspace changes in 1991, then again with Airspace 2000 and again with NAS, was to simplify the procedures for VFR pilots. This has been opposed in just about every way. Unfortunately there are some air traffic controllers and airline pilots who believe that if the procedures are complex, it somehow adds to safety. Of course, with low time VFR pilots the simpler and more straightforward it is, quite often the higher the resultant safety levels will be.

CaptainMidnight, some of the DAFs (Designated Area Frequencies) contained up to 15 airports. Imagine that! 15 airports all on the same frequency, with everyone talking in the circuit area.

You mention:

And with LLAMP strangely enough, local operators were consulted and forums held for them to provide input re DAF design I think this is like getting a group of pilots together to design an aircraft. It is just not within their skill set. Airspace has actually not been designed, it has evolved over 100 years of flying. Changes are made (sometimes minor, sometimes major) when an accident or serious incident occurs. The resultant airspace can be incredibly safe and efficient if there has been a lot of pressure from a lot of aircraft – that’s just plain commonsense.

Consultation is one thing, however getting pilots and other people from the industry to actually design airspace is another. I am one for copying a proven system – especially if it is proven safe like a Boeing 747 or a Citation.

Max1, you state:

I am amazed that someone with no ATC experience, rating etc can say they stood next to someone in a tower, watched what they were doing, and declare that what they are doing is the best in the world. No, it is not as simple as that. I’ve also flown extensively in the USA and in many other countries. I recently completed the Citation CJ3 single pilot course at Wichita, including flying my aircraft numerous times in the area. I then flew the aircraft from Wichita to Seattle, Anchorage, Bethel, then across to Russia and Japan before heading to Australia. With this flying – all IFR – you get a very good idea of what is an efficient and safe airspace system.

I have made it my job to study airspace over the last 15 years. I have been able to put time in that many others have not been able to. I have then asked advice from experienced people who have not only flown, but been controllers in other countries in the world. That is how I have formed some of my opinions.

I agree that I am not a coal face controller with a rating, however I have spoken to many operational controllers and asked for their advice. I have then used commonsense to evaluate which way I believe is the best for a country like Australia.

peuce

12th Nov 2006, 22:01

I agree that I am not a coal face controller with a rating, however I have spoken to many operational controllers and asked for their advice.

Problem is that you appear to consider the words of US Controller as gospel, Australian Controllers' as herecy

I have then used commonsense to evaluate which way I believe is the best for a country like Australia.

Problem is the professionals use calculations, formulas, standard design techniques and safety assessments.

Jerricho

12th Nov 2006, 22:22

You not going to reply to my observation Mr Smith?

Border Collie

13th Nov 2006, 01:35

Back to the gist of the OP.
I work in a class C Terminal Area radar environment and as such consider I am lucky, as the rules are fairly black and white. I don't have to worry about the variations of responsibility that comes with D and E airspace; I separate, I sequence and as a rule apply 'capital city priorities'.
This priority concept has been around for quite a while now, and is due for review. I understand the direction is heading towards a generic 'class C radar towers' priority, which will align the present Gold Coast and Cairns TMAs with their capital city cousins, and any other class C location to which radar is installed in the future.
I guess the analogy is like when a bus puts on it's indicator to leave the stop, or change lanes, the cars must give way. Only in our case it is up to the controller to manage this, as these priorities are clearly mandated in our instructions, as they will be soon for all class C radar TMAs.
You are free (literally) to fly through my airspace, but expect delays if you are there at the same time as lots of fare paying pax on RPT aircraft.
Cheers

Shitsu_Tonka

13th Nov 2006, 02:01

pilots are scared that if they don’t repeat it back perfectly, they will be criticised – or worse still end up with a CASA inquiry.

Oh come on Dick. What claptrap.

Based on your one example of a couple of yanks who couldn't be bothered to read the local AIP before flying in a foreign country?

Any other compelling evidence?

I am sure you know very well, that the 'second best' types of procedures that the US use were developed after the PATCO strike in 1981. They simply no longer had the resources to do the job they used to - so changed the procedures to suit. What do you say about the comments from the controllers in North America who actually have to deal with this E and D and don't agree with you?

Spodman

13th Nov 2006, 21:32

Could the Airservices enroute guys provide an approach service to the same degree as the yanks??? I am not aware of any genetic differences that would preclude it. It would just take big gobs of training for all ATC concerned. At the moment that would be all enrooters, but it is worth noting that under the SDE project being contemplated at the moment the number requiring training would be substantially reduced. Only Regional Services would be involved, and any infighting between Towers & Enroot will all be contained in the same division...

If SDE is implemented first they would be able to directly compare the costs of providing the service now with what is intended if further NAS stuff is implemented. Veeeerrrrryyyy interesting:}

Chimbu chuckles

14th Nov 2006, 05:06

PAF who do I think should pay for the system?

Well given that the entire aviation infrastructure is a natural monopoly and arguably essential national infrastructure, the bulk of which was initially paid for by tax payers over the perceeding decades I would suggest it should be paid for by the national Govt.

That they would then seek to recapture some or all of that expense is not unreasonable.

As such I would suggest the US system is a very fair one.

Every passenger pays a small levy on their ticket...it would only amount to a few $ each. This is in fact what the airlines essentially do already as they have the ability to pass on costs in this manner.

'Non revenue' GA pay a small fuel levy...in the US it amounts to a few cents a gallon.

If this was done instead of privatising airports it would, without doubt, be cheaper for ALL concerned, pax and operators alike, because you wouldn't have corporations like MacBank gouging every cent they can out of the airports.

How many tickets are sold anually on the airlines...50 million, 100 million?

$2 or $3/ticket and the entirety of CASA and AsA would be fully funded and a dividend returned to consolidated revenue to waste any way the Govt of the day sees fit....or they could plow it back into making the system better for all Australians...more jobs in relatively well paid jobs like...oh I don't know...engineering, ATC etc etc...Riiight:ugh:

As to GST?

Once upon a time the states were funded, mostly, from general federal tax revenues. Then the GST was introduced and many state taxes were supposed to dissappear...but many didn't.

Whatever way you cut it extra taxation revenue has been raised by the federal govt (LOTS) and it is used instead of the taxes we were paying before to fund the states...only problem is we are all essentially STILL paying the same personal tax as we were before...give or take a % or 2.

Buy a house and the thieving c&*t$ want 10's of thousands of $ in stamp duty...what is stamp duty BTW? I am fecking sure it doesn't really cost that much to 'stamp duty' a house...and why does it cost twice as much to 'stamp duty' a $400k house as a #200k house?:ugh:

1/5th of my aircraft insurance policy is taxes...about $500 EACH for GST and stamp duty.

I pay 13+ cents a liter in GST on avgas. If you own a car in Australia you are paying 10% GST on fuel excise!!!...that's gotta be worth 5 cents a liter all by itself. On top of that fuel GST and the GST on the fuel excise you pay all sorts of $ in stamp duties when you register/insure your car.

Australians are being ripped off left and right.

I have no problem paying for what I use...I object in the strongest terms to paying 4 or 5 times.:ugh:

Just what will it take for the population to wake up?

Shitsu_Tonka

14th Nov 2006, 05:53

An election?

Nope - that won't do it. all hail Kim-Il John.

Scurvy.D.Dog

14th Nov 2006, 15:08

Folks,
I hate to disagree, but you've missed the point in sending tower controllers to/from Hawaii. .. the point is nailing the differences in airspace rules application and regulation (their's ain't ICAO E or D or C), and putting this to bed once and for all!The procedures in use are already very similar to what's used in the towers on the Queensland coast (up to A045 in Queensland and up to A025 in Hawaii). The real difference is the Hawaii radar HUB that provides the approach service. .... errm not really, their D towers are practically speaking VFR only! ... the other issue is their separate pseudo class D ish E approach, and how that compares to our ICAO C approach services! Could the Airservices enroute guys provide an approach service to the same degree as the yanks??? .... of course!, however ..... how many extra controllers, how much cross training, for what cost , safety and efficiency benefit? If SDE is implemented first they would be able to directly compare the costs of providing the service now with what is intended if further NAS stuff is implemented. Veeeerrrrryyyy interesting …. Indeedie!
.
.. it will be very interesting to see how the costs of various machinations of Regional Approach services costs are compared and quantified….
.
… aside from issues of additional workload (coord etc) and combined services compatibilities (Enroute + App V’s Tower + Approach) .. which variation is going to have the responsible controllers less likely to be looking at something 200nm miles away .... which is a practical and logical combination of duties (enroute + app) or (tower + approach)?
… it would be short sighted to take a function off towers they already do efficiently, only to have additional costs incurred and lose traffic management efficiencies! …
.
..the lower the split the more interaction required between TWR and App/Enroute!
.
.. the A045 split works … one should ask, how does it ‘work’ when comparing to an A085 or higher split?!
.
… at A045, how often is TWR separating arr/arr/dep traffic in Enroute airspace (with the additional necessary coord etc) V’s the A085 split TWR’s … with or without radar/TSAD?
.
…. We know how many operational staff positions the service currently requires … lets see how many after this next odyssey?!
.
.. that should have them out of the trenches :p :}
.
… and one for you all to ponder as yee sleep tonight … ask yourself why there would be a push to further load enroute with regional approach??
.
.. then ask yourself if you would prefer combined D Tower/App to the surface (including aerodrome services) as it currently is, OR Remote approach to say 2500’ AGL then a CTAF UNICOM or CA/GRO or perhaps a US VFR only ‘claytons’ D TWR?
.
.. and if you think option number last sounds OK …. Think about a cloud-base around 1500’ to 3000’ AGL …… really think about the practical traffic management implications of that!!
.
… enroute guys and girls and yee IFR pilots … have a good think about the implications i.e. breaking visual to the VFR circus below … DME Arrival O/S with an IFR in the early departure phase etc ….. different frequencies … different/less services … bugga all if any cost savings! …. Tis not rocket science!
.
… quality, safety and efficiency costs …… is there any real cost savings? ..and is that worth the negatives? :hmm:
.
.. try having an accident and see how much ‘cheap and nasty’ costs! :oh:
.
.. night all!

Shitsu_Tonka

16th Nov 2006, 05:35

Reading back from the first post of this thread, there are a lot of un-answered questions.

But there are a lot of answering questions with a new question.

Dick Smith

28th Nov 2006, 22:57

Coral, you state:

Whats happened Dick - lost interest again? Can't answer the tough questions? Actually I’ve been overseas in the UK and other places. I have also been involved in attempting to have influence to prevent the outrageous sell-off of Qantas. I believe I will have some success there.

To those on PPRuNe who complain about Geoff Dixon, I can assure you that when Qantas is funded (read owned) by US banks that the airline will be torn apart for the maximum short term return, and the management (if you could call it that) will be totally ruthless in maximising their own incomes.

Roger Over, you state:

I hate to disagree, but you've missed the point in sending tower controllers to/from Hawaii. The procedures in use are already very similar to what's used in the towers on the Queensland coast Oh, I wish this were true. I would suggest you talk to the major charter operator at Hamilton Island. Ask about the number of times his helicopters are held at the control zone boundary, orbiting over water, with the implicit safety problems.

As stated on this thread, US Class D towers are basically VFR. The IFR separation is conducted from the Centre using radar where it is available. Of course, over 50% of US Class D towers have no radar coverage available in the airspace immediately above the Class D.

I suggest you try flying VFR into Tamworth when there is a bit of training activity going on, and possibly and airline aircraft approaching or departing. You will find that it is one of the most complex procedures out. In fact, I’ve heard pilots say that they will never go back there again because it was so intimidating.

Remember, in the USA, Class D operates in a similar way to our GAAP procedures. That is, you do not actually request a clearance as a VFR pilot – you state what you want to do. Quite often the controller will simply come back and say “Join downwind, follow a 737.”

I can assure you that the US Class D system is incredibly simple and friendly. There is no comparison with what we do here in Australia.

bushy

29th Nov 2006, 01:45

I think Dick is right. It could be sold, asset stripped, and resold, just like Ansett was.
There is lots of cash to be had if everything, including the aircraft is sold, and contracted/leased back. Then lots of activity, to make it a saleable item. And get a big bonus for the exec's. It will resell, as it is the only way to gat Terminal space/slots etc at the major airports.
Air NZ got sucked into that, with Ansett.
Looks like it may happen again, with Qantas, and ?????

DirtyPierre

29th Nov 2006, 04:39

Quite often the controller will simply come back and say “Join downwind, follow a 737.”

Ah sorry, what about maybe "Caution wake turbulence" added there.

Gees Dick, stop this half the facts stuff. Leave airspace reform to the professionals.

Now I hear you know about running a business and how passionate an aussie you are. What about you get into Geoff Dixon a little more with his sell off/dismantling of the Aussie Icon we know as Qantas.

Oh and BTW, Qantas are a bigger influence on what AsA and CASA do then nearly anybody else so it makes sense to get on their Board if you want to change things.

topdrop

29th Nov 2006, 06:14

Oh, I wish this were true. I would suggest you talk to the major charter operator at Hamilton Island. Ask about the number of times his helicopters are held at the control zone boundary, orbiting over water, with the implicit safety problems.

So, it's safe to operate over water, but not safe to orbit over water. :sad: :ugh:

Chris Higgins

29th Nov 2006, 12:49

Topdrop,

It's also safe to drive through an intersection, but not safe to park your car and leave it there!

I can assure you that Mr Smith does know what he is talking about with regards to Class D operations and the procedures he has outlined are the same as I have followed for the last sixteen years...and no, I don't need big brother to tell me to stay clear of wake turbulence.

Some of you Australian controllers seem to think you are "controlling" UAVs. These planes have pilots..or didn't you know that?!

Chief galah

29th Nov 2006, 19:27

How do UAV's participate in "see and avoid"?
CG

Philthy

29th Nov 2006, 23:39

– especially if it is proven safe like a Boeing 747 or a Citation.

...And how many of them have spudded in over the years?

Come on Dick, the entire rest of the world (and even most of the thinking people in America) thinks the lack of readbacks in the USA is a safety hazard and their 'clearance-by-acknowledging-your-callsign' procedure a joke.

As for me, I'm brushing up on my approach phraseologies: "ABC, climb to and maintain six thousand, hold at Bendigo, expect delay for approach clearance due to departing traffic..."

Chris Higgins

29th Nov 2006, 23:50

Philthy,

You really don't know what you're talking about. I am the first to admit that the Americans read back way too much, which combined with some non-standard phraseology really makes people like the Poms angry.

The American AIM, the equivalent to the AIP gives quite good guidelines and in many way it's very similar to any other ICAO country.

The rest of the world copies the Yanks anyway. Europe sounds more American every time I go over there.

Philthy

30th Nov 2006, 00:55

Philthy,

You really don't know what you're talking about.

No? Try reading this, then: http://www.mtc.gob.pe/portal/transportes/aereo/aeronauticacivil/alar_tool_kit/pdf/ao_jan_feb97.pdf

Like the airspace procedures, it's not what's in the AIM but what really goes on that counts.

Chris Higgins

30th Nov 2006, 02:18

So you believe everything you read too? Have you even been to America, or anywhere outside of Victoria for that matter?

Hey listen up!

You guys have been crying like babies about Dick Smith and not one of you has come up with a constructive alternative to any of his proposals.

Your, "We are the best in the world...yada yada yada blah blah blah" is a bunch of bull**** and you know it.

You have very few mountains, great weather and not a whole bunch of traffic and quite frankly, you shouldn't have anyone holding anywhere:-ever!

Stop the Dick Smith bashing and while you're at it, explain to me how anyone is made to hold anywhere on the reef?!

WilliamOK

30th Nov 2006, 02:39

If I may weigh into this debate at such a late change, Chris Higgins, I think the problem with Australians accepting new airspace laws or airspace reform is that there is a component of the Australian psyche that is resistand to change, and it doesn't just occur in Aviation, it happens to all facets of Australian culture. You just have to look at the track record of referendums in Australia. I know this is a generaisation, so don't shoot me down in flames, but Australians as a whole, are resistant to change of any sort. Its a case of "It works well enough now, so why change it?" even if the change could be for the better.

Just my 2 cents anyway.

Atlas Shrugged

30th Nov 2006, 03:27

Chris Higgins,

You guys have been crying like babies about Dick Smith and not one of you has come up with a constructive alternative to any of his proposals.

Neither have you sir := :=

Philthy

30th Nov 2006, 03:48

So you believe everything you read too?

Touchy aren't we, Chris? Let's just say that I give the Flight Safety Foundation considerably more weight than your or Dick's opinions.

But then that's always been the problem in this debate hasn't it? Opinions v. facts.

VVS Laxman

30th Nov 2006, 06:37

you shouldn't have anyone holding anywhere:-ever! Chris, comments like that indicate to everyone who actually understands air traffic and airline schedules that you have no idea (don't mention LTOP or Noise abatement flight paths or runway limtiations, political movement caps or not, or due lack of high speed exits, aerodrome design etc.). Such a bold statement makes me instantly dismiss your other points (valid or not) as I have formed my view of the worth of your posts. Good luck to you; leave us be.
Almost all holding in OZ is due to a lack of concrete, not a lack of airspace; lack of awareness in the GA community of calling more than 10 seconds before you need is another significant factor; then there are the staffing delays...
Saw a very good article from the Chicago tribune earlier in the week where whole segments of airpace were reduced to 15 IFR movements an hour due lack of staff, oh yes it is a wonderful system in the USA, let's have it here, but bet they enjoyed the otherwise frustrated VFRs (delayed IFRS going VFR) flying about in E instead; all in the name of a safe system, not!
Remember the eurocontrol study; Australia has far less centre controllers per head of aircraft and a very similar number of tower controller/aircraft ratio when compared to the FAA.
It's not all about the 5NM or the 30NM from the runway; that's just the dead horse that is getting flogged again.

What do you think of this warning issued by IFALPA? http://www.ifalpa.org/sab/07SAB08ClassB_Operations_in_US.pdf
Seems all is not safe outside Class B, unless directly above it.

Chris Higgins

30th Nov 2006, 10:43

I'm a little touchy?

Oh yes the Flight Safety Foundation...they call here all the time asking for money.

In the last sixteen years of worldwide flying I have held less than one hour of total time here in the United States. This includes four and a half years in JFK as a scheduled captain on an annoying turbo-prop, it also includes regular visits now in the Citation X to Los Angeles, Boston, Miami, Dallas, Chicago and St Louis..among others.

By comparison, I went to Bankstown and could not get off the ground for an hour to shoot approaches at Wollongong and we had to cancel IFR and transit beneath the steps to get back!

Airline schedules? Political movements? Get off the grass!! Next you'll be blaming sunspots! Your job is to move aircraft why they bleed fuel and piss-off passengers for being late and blame it on you. You knew this going into the profession and if you don't like it you should leave.

Sorry!

Next!!

Chris Higgins

30th Nov 2006, 11:16

Okay you guys want something constructive.

1. Listen to Dick Smith and accept much of his experience at Class D airports.

2. Build more radar sites in Australia.

3. Pour more concrete, if indeed, congestion at airports is really that big a deal.

4. Establish a proper education and training program via software courses and do this well before the implementation date.

5. Totally overhaul the pilot training sylabii in Australia: get rid of multiple choice exams where the answers are known well in advance and get rid of the designated examiners and put that all back in control of CASA. The pilots that are being sent over here from there are a disgrace and you all know it. Also, make all Australian CPL holders get an instrument rating as part of their qualification just like it is in most countries now.

6. Send working teams of controllers and regulators to Americas busiest airports and have them trained here, so you all actually know what you're talking about, rather than reading about it in the Newspaper or on the 'net.

7. Establish a deadline for completion and stop leaving the entire airspace in "limbo" while you guys throw stuff back and forth at each other.

That's just for starters!

J430

30th Nov 2006, 11:40

CH

7 out of 7, but why stop there..............

8. Impliment ADSB...Across the fleet.....A380's to Pidgeons with weed-whacker motors and gliders......THE WHOLE fleet.

9. Take the stick to ASA and relieve the strain on ATC'ers, if we need a handful more, the cost overall is peanuts. trim back some executive fat to pay for it.

10.........anybody else care to add

PS I have never had an ATC problem up here.....but I do live in Gods country (no Mr Dixon not yours...)

J:ok:

Whiskey Oscar Golf

30th Nov 2006, 12:10

Sounds Good Gents, who's paying? I like the ADSB, should be implemented now, across the whole fleet as you said. Do other people also have experience in Class D airspace?

Scurvy.D.Dog

30th Nov 2006, 12:41

Chris, 6. Send working teams of controllers and regulators to Americas busiest airports and have them trained here, so you all actually know what you're talking about, rather than reading about it in the Newspaper or on the 'net. … do you seriously think Aus ATC’s are not aware of how US ATC do the job ?? .. as we have said adnauseoum …. are you Daft? …. Apparently! .. but that’s OK, you are not alone!
.
I (and many others) can assure you that Phil knows of which he speaks!
.
Not only is he a very very experienced Air Traffic Controller ... his work for industry (across all spectrums) is .. well ... Legendary!
.
... you sir are quite frankly not anywhere near the same league! ... his work (mostly unpaid) is second to none!
.
.. as one, who has had the pleasure of sitting beside Phil providing voluntary ATS for industry events (including airshows) ... your hollow slights are pathetic at best ... invective at worst, based on shallow, sycophant motherhood statements …. Drivel really! … even American ATC’s are questioning the way the rules are applied in your Utopia! .. Aussie patriot?? … neh …. Some other motive me thinks!
.
.. your continued accusations toward ATC's in this country are ridiculous! ... the options and improvements you bemoan have been repeated time and time again! .. ignore them if that suits you! ….. but then… well.. a 10 pilot is beyond question even in Bush (big boy) eyes, let alone Bonsai (Little Bush’s) eyes!.
.
.. if what we (Aussies vice American apologist’s) say is baseless ..... EXPLAIN WHY! ... no spin ... no motherhood statements .. just technical and procedural FACTS!
.
Re Bankstown
.
When?
.
- was 07 in use at SY?
- was 11 in use at BK?
- what was the weather doing?
- what was your flight plan track out of BK?
.
..I worked there for 6.5 years (recently) so bull will not fly!
.
.. and the motherhood statements ...OK... do US controllers 'separate' IFR?
.
.. go on Guru .. by how much an under what circumstances?
.
.. and if you think other revelations in this place will give you and your mate licence to run amuck .... think again!
.
.. OH.... but we all play the man and not the ball ….. look in the mirror .. countenance … anything else????
.
...Next .. ferkwit!
.
J430I have never had an ATC problem up here.....but I do live in Gods country (no Mr Dixon not yours...)
… yep … mate, you .....and a select few :p are a special bread (QLD’nder :E ), most of us ATS personnel spend our lives trying to wind-up :E :} .... QLD customers!! ..:E :E .... oh the power :D :p :)
.. but you all know you get the best track outa town (DCT YSCB) ;) :p ... a good natured wind -up!! :E :ok:

gaunty

30th Nov 2006, 13:03

Inside Avionics

IN A NEW CONTRACT FROM AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA
Aviation Week & Space Technology
09/11/2006, page 60

Edited by David Hughes

IN A NEW CONTRACT FROM AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA, Sensis Corp. will supply multistatic dependent surveillance over Tasmania, with coverage down to the ground at Hobart and Launceston airports. The system initially will provide en route surveillance with multilateration and Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, with accuracy of better than 150 meters (490 ft.). Full-scale operations will begin in 2008, and maintenance will be simplified for the Australians with a Sensis remote control and monitoring system. Multilateration works by timing the arrival of transponder signals at a series of antenna sites and then triangulating the aircraft's position based on time differences in signal arrival. With ADS-B, aircraft broadcast their position to receivers on the ground based on GPS and other sensor data. The Asia-Pacific region is a leader in deploying this new technology. For example, Sensis rival Rannoch Corp. recently completed a similar system over the Taiwan Strait for the Taiwan Civil Aviation Authority (AW&ST Aug. 7, p. 57). And Airservices Australia and SITA are demonstrating an ADS-B system in Indonesia (AW&ST Mar. 13, p. 53).

UPS Pioneers ADS-B
Aviation Week & Space Technology
11/06/2006, page 56

David Hughes
On Board UPS 903

Cargo carrier UPS plans to save fuel and improve runway safety next year

Printed headline: ADS-B PIONEER

Years before ADS-B became a top priority at the FAA, UPS installed the equipment on its flight decks. And the package carrier plans to build on this foundation in 2007 with major advances on its Boeing 757 and 767 fleet.
The FAA is fortunate to have a big U.S. airline pushing ahead aggressively with Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast because getting other carriers to buy new avionics will remain a key challenge for the agency. The UPS effort may encourage others to follow suit, once the benefits of such operations are demonstrated.

UPS 767s have a 5.5 X 4.5-in. cathode ray tube to display ADS-B target aircraft. A triangle (lower center of CDTI at left) shows "own-ship" position. The position of other ADS-B-equipped aircraft are also depicted, such as UPS 350 (noted in green at top center of display). Targets are also spotted by the 767's TCAS. Credit: UPS
This Aviation Week & Space Technology pilot recently rode in the jump seat of a UPS 767 freighter from Los Angeles to Louisville, Ky., to observe the existing ADS-B displays in use on the flight deck. And a month later, in Phoenix, I was briefed on new software in development that will enable the major step forward that UPS intends to take next year with ADS-B (see p. 60). Aviation Communication & Surveillance Systems (ACSS), a joint venture of L-3 Communications and Thales, is testing this software at its Arizona laboratory.
The UPS operations room at Los Angeles International Airport is in a cargo warehouse. James F. Haney, a UPS 757/ 767 captain, who would be in the left seat during takeoff, briefed me on what to expect. He said more than a dozen UPS freighters would be taking off from the West Coast just before dark headed for the company's WorldPort hub at Louisville International Airport. These are critical flights for the nightly UPS operations. Since the East Coast time zone is 3 hr. ahead of California, many of the freighters were already en route to Kentucky from the Atlantic seaboard.
But the package-sorting operation at Louisville would not be finished until the West Coast airplanes arrived. Only then could the final loading of 100 or more freighters on the ground be completed so they could be dispatched to cities all over the U.S.
This is an environment where delays of just a few minutes are significant. So I began to see why UPS is forging ahead with improved ADS-B capability.
UPS's 757s and 767s are already equipped with 5.5 X 4.5-in. CDTI (cockpit display of traffic information) systems originally supplied by a UPS-owned avionics company that's now owned by Garmin (see display, above left). But UPS plans to retrofit this entire fleet of aircraft with Class 3 electronic flight bags with displays to the left of the pilot and to the right of the first officer.
The current setup provides closure rate and distance to other UPS aircraft in the West Coast stream that have the same ADS-B equipment. These aircraft broadcast their GPS-derived positions continuously via 1090 MHz. on the extended squitter function of a Mode-S transponder. We were able to receive the information via line of sight, up to about 150-200 naut. mi. away. This helped us guide our arrival at Louisville as the West Coast stream of freighters lined up for landing.
Haney is a volunteer on the Independent Pilots Assn.'s safety committee and is active in the UPS pilot union's effort to work with the company to implement ADS-B. He maintains an Internet forum where IPA pilots can ask technical questions about ADS-B and receive prompt answers. He believes he can make a contribution to the program based on what he sees as a pilot flying the company's aircraft every day.
Soon, we were in the 767 cockpit. Haney occupied the left seat and Capt. Jack Blake, the right. The CDTI system has a dedicated but small cathode ray tube on the pedestal in front of the throttle quadrants. Haney said it looked like cargo loading was not complete, and we would probably have to depart a few minutes late--an event that would definitely draw the attention of the UPS air operations center in Louisville.
The CDTI system also has a traffic conflict function that monitors all ADS-B transmitting aircraft. This feature would alert us to any conflict by changing the target aircraft color to yellow--but there would be no avoidance maneuvers communicated to the pilot, as is the case with TCAS (which is also installed on the aircraft).

Aviation Communication & Surveillance Systems is creating SafeRoute ADS-B software for UPS. In this runway-incursion example, "own ship" (pink triangle) shows that the aircraft has crossed the hold-short line for Runway 29 (outlined in red to warn pilot) where another aircraft is taking off (colored red as a warning). An audio alert sounds.Credit: ACSS
Eventually we pushed back from our parking spot a few minutes behind schedule because of late-arriving packages. But UPS dispatchers always plan for this, and we were carrying a little extra fuel so we could speed up to make up time on the way to Louisville. We could see a few other ADS-B-equipped airline aircraft on the ground on the CDTI display. Haney noted that airlines taking delivery of new aircraft off the production line often receive them equipped to transmit "ADS-B out" data to other aircraft. He also pointed out that the situational awareness provided by ADS-B could be a lifesaver if another aircraft approaches from behind where it can't otherwise be seen.
We were cleared for takeoff on the 12,000-ft.-long Runway 25R, and soon the 767 was airborne headed out over the Pacific Ocean. ATC soon began to turn us back to the east. The aircraft's takeoff weight of about 300,000 lb. included about 35 tons of cargo. It got dark quickly as we pointed the nose away from the setting Sun.
Although we could not see them yet on the ADS-B display, we knew that UPS freighters were also launching about this time from Long Beach, San Diego, Burbank, Sacramento and Oakland, Calif., among other airports along the coast. Soon we spotted UPS 905 about 5,000 ft. above us and traveling about 50 kt. faster. That aircraft had just departed from Long Beach. Haney said we would be following 905 all the way to Louisville. The CDTI system would show closure rates when the aircraft ahead entered into a 40-deg.-wide cone off the nose of our aircraft.
The CDTI display has two symbols, and the bullet-shaped one indicated we were not receiving a "quality" ADS-B signal from the traffic ahead. This could have been caused by poor position data on the target or sporadic reception of the signal. Even so, it's possible to see the aircraft ahead or behind on the display, as well as how far away it is. However, when a "quality" signal is present, a chevron-shaped symbol appears instead. Data next to the chevron shows the target aircraft identification, its altitude relative to "own-ship," and whether it's climbing or descending. And when the pilot selects a chevron to retrieve more data, the other aircraft's flight identification, weight class, ground speed in knots, and range in nautical miles are shown in the lower left of the CDTI display.
In addition to presenting ADS-B aircraft, the CDTI can show TCAS-equipped targets as well. Two different perspectives can be selected for presentation on the CDTI: One is a full compass rose with own-ship represented by a triangle in the middle of the display. On this type of presentation, it's possible to see other freighters behind as well as ahead. The other perspective is the top half of the compass rose showing an enlarged view of the path ahead.
On this night, UPS was not running any trial of its future goal--en route merging and spacing of its freighters so they arrive in the Louisville area single-file and ready to begin continuous-descent approaches in sequence.
"Consistency is one thing that gets you [more] capacity," said Bob Hilb, UPS's advanced flight systems manager. In an earlier discussion, he said the aim is to drive in much closer to the big UPS hub before pulling the throttles to near idle and coming down fairly quickly to touch down within seconds of the expected arrival time.
This tactic avoids the problem of descending to low altitude and being vectored around by ATC as controllers work to line up aircraft with the right spacing for landing. "All of that low-attitude vectoring is pure cost and no benefit at all," Hilb said, adding that if just 10% of the low-altitude maneuvers that are now occurring in the U.S. were eliminated, most airlines would be making a profit.As we arrived near Louisville at around 2 a.m. on a clear night, our aircraft was sequenced into a pattern approach to the airport. We could see lights ahead as other aircraft flew wide downwind and base legs to final. The "good news" was that there was not a lot of low-altitude vectoring, as might have been required during low visibility.
And this revealed another benefit of ADS-B: If visibility had been deteriorating, we would still have been able to see all of the other UPS aircraft on the CDTI display. This might have allowed us to maintain visual-flight-rule type of separation even in instrument conditions. Some of the regulations that would apply to such situations have yet to be ironed out by the FAA, although the agency is working on this issue.
Haney said the CDTI display helped him to plan his approach and the required configuration changes, such as when to extend the gear and flaps. Blake showed me how he used the 5-mi.-range rings to keep better track of how far behind the lead aircraft we were. The aim was to stay about 5 mi. in trail.
We finished the night with a visual approach to Runway 35L at Louisville, and wasted no time taxiing to park near a row of other UPS freighters. Ground handlers scurried around tending to aircraft and loading cargo. We taxied right up to a huge warehouse, and our packages were soon inside being sorted for the outbound leg.
Haney and I walked inside the UPS flight-ops room to check the schedule of outbound flights scrolling by on digital screens. Then we had a post-midnight cup of coffee in the cafeteria, where pilots and flight engineers relax for a few minutes while they wait to launch back into the night for the next leg of their journey.
By next year, the operation should be even more precise and timely, thanks to the pioneering ADS-B efforts of the management and union pilots leading the way at UPS.

So tell me again why we dont have universal use of ADSB?

Icarus2001

30th Nov 2006, 22:17

MODERATOR ALERT

I thought personal insults were verboten in here?:=

They are. The children have been given three days to think about their manners.

Dunnunda Moderator

Shitsu_Tonka

30th Nov 2006, 22:21

Brisbane has 27 aircraft scheduled to arrive within a 45 (oops!) minuteperiod, with one runway available. The arrival rate is 2.5 minutes (allows for departures and wake turbulence).

Tell me Chris how your loud bluster overcomes the maths of the problem and through shouting 'No Holding Ever', all the aircraft get to land without delay? I believe you could make a lot of money! And make a lot of pilots and controllers happy at the same time.

I don't think Airspace reform, or those that administer the airspae, has much to do with building more concrete mate - and as you well know, THAT is the limiting factor to movements in Australia, NOT airspace.

You can loudly blow your horn about more infrastructure - we would all like it - as someone else has said: who pays?

I don't think the GA user want to pay for it directly (I know I don't).

Icarus2001

30th Nov 2006, 22:30

ANSWERS TO CHRIS HIGGINS

1. Listen to Dick Smith and accept much of his experience at Class D airports.

Why accept the opinion of a SINGLE USER of an airspace system. If I drive a car for 30 years does that mean I am qualified to design and build one? Yes we should adopt the BEST from overseas, as far as I can see RHS wants to cherry pick parts of the US NAS without the underlying infrastructure.

2. Build more radar sites in Australia.

Too expensive and completely unnecessary with ADS-B on the way

3. Pour more concrete, if indeed, congestion at airports is really that big a deal.

Clearly you doubt congestion. Next time you visit OZ spent 2-3 hours monitoring an airport at PEAK times. ANY captial city airport. Heck I reckon one of the ATCOs here would let you sit in the tower and watch if you promised to keep quiet. At Perth we have NOTAMS every week to say various taxiways are blocked due parked aircraft. There is not even enough room to park the damn things. We are in a resource boom here so FIFO is going crazy.

4. Establish a proper education and training program via software courses and do this well before the implementation date.

Speak to RHS about this. This exactly the opposite of the last two NAS changes. They were unmitigated disasters, a how not to implement something example. Last minute amending documents that barely arrived by implementation date. Chart changes that were reversed at the next amendment as they were independently found to be dangerous.

5. Totally overhaul the pilot training sylabii in Australia: get rid of multiple choice exams where the answers are known well in advance and get rid of the designated examiners and put that all back in control of CASA. The pilots that are being sent over here from there are a disgrace and you all know it. Also, make all Australian CPL holders get an instrument rating as part of their qualification just like it is in most countries now.

OFF TOPIC ALERT. We are talking about AIRSPACE. Anyway, the US system you admire and operate in uses multi choice EVERYWHERE and due to FOI laws EVEN PUBLISHES the blasted things for everyone to rote learn!

6. Send working teams of controllers and regulators to Americas busiest airports and have them trained here, so you all actually know what you're talking about, rather than reading about it in the Newspaper or on the 'net.

Do you honestly believe ATCOs do not travel either privately or as part of their job to see what goes on overseas? Really? Come on Chris...

7. Establish a deadline for completion and stop leaving the entire airspace in "limbo" while you guys throw stuff back and forth at each other.

Agree entirely. The problem is that to have a deadline you need to know what the end state is. NAS documents actually state that there is no known end state at this stage, have you read them Chris? If NAS is so great, bring it on. It is the ARG and NASIG that have gone VERY QUIET of late.Now we are getting another level of bureacracy to manage airspace

Have a nice day.

Chris Higgins

30th Nov 2006, 23:02

Icarus 2001,

Believe it or not, one of the best replies I've ever read. No I'm not taking the mickey out of you, you obviously care enough to respond so let me offer something back to you in turn.

ADS-B may o rmay not solve the problems we speak of. You're obviously sold on the idea, but radar sites can provide redundancy too. Yes, it's expensive, but what isn't. It's also proven design.

Gaunty provided an excellent copy of an article about reducing low altitude routing and the cost savings in fuel consumption alone. You would think the Yanks would be all over this article, and I can't figure out why they're not.

I see on another post you feel the 737-200 with a combination of charter and scheduled flying could be profitable. ADS-B might, indeed be the answer to help that operation as well, although the scheduled run seems to be thin on conflicting traffic.

You and I both know that you can't even fly passengers on IFR flights outside of 25 miles in the USA without an instrument rating, to do so commercially, you also have to have 1,200 hours! Not a wet licence and a 175 hours like in Australia. The Yanks realised years back that the Freedom of Information Act would make a mockery of their theory courses, so that was their antidote.

I have no doubt that you have problems on the ground with congestion. The reference to pouring concrete was to be taken quite literally. You have to have infrastructure.

Any new airspace with "heads down technology" in the cockpit also prevents see and avoid. There was and still is a widespread reluctance to deal with controllers in the Australian general aviation movement and an instrument rating with a requirement for flight to capital city airports would help alleviate this concern. It will also help put an end to the stories of incompetence that many controllers have told in these threads of general aviation pilots who do not comply with clearances or bust CTA boundaries.

The need for an instrument rating on the Australian Certificate is long overdue, so is the need to "retire" some of these testing officers who are running printing presses, not responsible assessments. It's totally on thread.

Whining about the failures of the past and the lack of foresight in training and distribution as the last changes occurred is totally irrelevant to this discussion. We only have what is here and now and we can only hope to plan for the future!

Thank you, I will have a nice day and I hope you do too!

Chris Higgins

30th Nov 2006, 23:06

Brisbane has 27 aircraft scheduled to arrive within a 45 hour period, with one runway available. The arrival rate is 2.5 minutes (allows for departures and wake turbulence).
Tell me Chris how your loud bluster overcomes the maths of the problem and through shouting 'No Holding Ever', all the aircraft get to land without delay? I believe you could make a lot of money! And make a lot of pilots and controllers happy at the same time.
I don't think Airspace reform, or those that administer the airspae, has much to do with building more concrete mate - and as you well know, THAT is the limiting factor to movements in Australia, NOT airspace.
You can loudly blow your horn about more infrastructure - we would all like it - as someone else has said: who pays?
I don't think the GA user want to pay for it directly (I know I don't).
Are you seriously telling me that you can't get 27 aircraft down in 45 freakin' hours!!! Surely you can't be serious!! Hopefully you mean 45 minutes, right?!!
We really need to get some new controllers in Oz right now!!:D

Chris Higgins

1st Dec 2006, 03:43

Chris, … do you seriously think Aus ATC’s are not aware of how US ATC do the job ?? .. as we have said adnauseoum …. are you Daft? …. Apparently! .. but that’s OK, you are not alone!
.
I (and many others) can assure you that Phil knows of which he speaks!
.
Not only is he a very very experienced Air Traffic Controller ... his work for industry (across all spectrums) is .. well ... Legendary!
.
... you sir are quite frankly not anywhere near the same league! ... his work (mostly unpaid) is second to none!
. your hollow slights
.. as one, who has had the pleasure of sitting beside Phil providing voluntary ATS for industry events (including airshows) ...are pathetic at best ... invective at worst, based on shallow, sycophant motherhood statements …. Drivel really! … even American ATC’s are questioning the way the rules are applied in your Utopia! .. Aussie patriot?? … neh …. Some other motive me thinks!
.
.. your continued accusations toward ATC's in this country are ridiculous! ... the options and improvements you bemoan have been repeated time and time again! .. ignore them if that suits you! ….. but then… well.. a 10 pilot is beyond question even in Bush (big boy) eyes, let alone Bonsai (Little Bush’s) eyes!.
.
.. if what we (Aussies vice American apologist’s) say is baseless ..... EXPLAIN WHY! ... no spin ... no motherhood statements .. just technical and procedural FACTS!
.
Re Bankstown
.
When?
.
- was 07 in use at SY?
- was 11 in use at BK?
- what was the weather doing?
- what was your flight plan track out of BK?
.
..I worked there for 6.5 years (recently) so bull will not fly!
.
.. and the motherhood statements ...OK... do US controllers 'separate' IFR?
.
.. go on Guru .. by how much an under what circumstances?
.
.. and if you think other revelations in this place will give you and your mate licence to run amuck .... think again!
.
.. OH.... but we all play the man and not the ball ….. look in the mirror .. countenance … anything else????
.
...Next .. ferkwit!
.
J430 … yep … mate, you .....and a select few :p are a special bread (QLD’nder :E ), most of us ATS personnel spend our lives trying to wind-up :E :} .... QLD customers!! ..:E :E .... oh the power :D :p :)
.. but you all know you get the best track outa town (DCT YSCB) ;) :p ... a good natured wind -up!! :E :ok:

Love the "personal bread"...yum, yum. Or do you think this brain wave means "breed".

Good to see those Aussie aircraft are in the hands of people who can't spell as well as my eleven year old.

Personal enough for you Icarus?

2b2

1st Dec 2006, 04:19

good ploy that - bring out the Spelling Police when your arguments get taken apart.:ugh:

Shitsu_Tonka

1st Dec 2006, 04:42

Yes - well done, I meant minutes.

Good pick up.

But does this change your smart-ass answer? I doubt it somehow.

[You sure do remind me of someone.]

Scurvy.D.Dog

1st Dec 2006, 04:54

.. fanks fr prividing shuvch comtrehensif ansores two the teknicle stuf! If I was sent down there to sort this crap out, I'd weed your type out in a minute mate! ... I am sure when Dick is made head of some organisation or authority after the next federal election, you will be the first he calls ..... bring it on I say :p :E
.
haf eh lubly dey dik lid :ok:

DirtyPierre

1st Dec 2006, 05:09

guys, guys guys....

I'm beginning to think that Dick makes better and more coherent arguments than Chris. At least Dick doesn't type ANGRY!

...and no, I don't need big brother to tell me to stay clear of wake turbulence.

Chris, it is a requirement that ATC use the phrase "caution wake turbulence" in certain situations, and in others provide a wake turbulence separation standard as detailed in AIP and MATS.

The reason.... maybe some pilots forget about wake turbulence, just like they forget to select gear down, or flaps down, or get too high or too fast on final. In other words, ATC is part of the Safety Management System for aviation. Not, as you seem to see ATC, as some sort of road block to the free spirit of a pilot, or some sort of big brother.

It's not 1984, its 2006. You're thinking is 2 decades behind the time. ADS-B, Multilateration, Mode-S, CPDLC, etc are here. When next you come to Oz you may hear the term "Surveillance Service Terminated" and I'll bet you wonder what it means?

Chris Higgins

1st Dec 2006, 10:24

Me type angry? You guys are making me laugh, not get pissed off! You guys are hilarious!

Surveillance Service terminated...yeah, I've been hearing that in Canada since 1993. Do you think you guys invented micro-management?!

I keep hearing these assertions that I'm some kind of hired gun for Dick Smith.

Nope!

Haven't seen the guy in about two years and haven't even spoken to him on the phone.

So, whenever somebody has a dissenting view, I guess it's easier to yell, "Traitor! traitor!!"

ferris

1st Dec 2006, 10:32

I think Chris (like many pilots- especially Dick) doesn't really understand ATC- nor is it reasonable to expect them to. In much the same way that Dick doesn't understand screen-scale, and one's ability to provide service based upon that scale, Chris doesn't understand delay and it's absorbtion.
If you look at how JFK deals with delay, they do not tend to use a hold solution, such as Heathrow (or SY) does. They use extended finals. I have seen them out to 90nm or more- and anyone can watch via the web at various places. Whilst controllers will understand this may produce a perception that US controllers are somehow producing less delay (because they hold far less), it will also give rise to statements such as those in the article relating to low-level vectoring costs.

It also demonstrates why people with Chris' level of understanding think they can fire all the trouble-makers and do it better. Genius.

Chris Higgins

1st Dec 2006, 11:17

In over 800 approaches and landings at JFK I have never seen an extended final or situation based scenario that you have just concocted. You Sir, clearly don't have a clue and have never observed JFK!

By comparison I can remember holding over the West Pymble locator in a Mooney at almost 9:00 pm at night in the late 1980s.

Alright, I'll call a personal truce here if you guys can remain civil in kind.

Icarus brought up an important point about infrastructure. I don't know why you would only have one runway serving 27 aircraft in 45 minutes at Brisbane and I don't know why the situation has become so dire that aircraft are being left on taxiways for lack of apron space, but I think it's a good place to start.

I'm not a big fan of Land and Hold Short operations, and I'm sure you are used to using simultaneous crossing runways, so I'm sure that possibility has been exhausted. There's no way out of it, you're going have to start a big public works program to get the airports expanded.

Something also has to be done about the antagonistic culture that has now become part of being an Australian controller. The apology sticky on the top of the Dunnunder Godzone is indicative of a pervasive behaviour that we have seen on these boards for several years now. You all seem to struggle for answers when confronted and resort to personal attacks without source or foundation. I'm sure you guys think this makes you look smart, but looking back on some of your own threads, you all look pretty stupid doing this.

For one person, it cost how much to recognise this?

I don't need to defend my personal abilities or my personal integrity. I can still understand why we do a full-alignment on IRSs even though the FMS position is GPS backed, before going over water into RNP airspace, but I'm sure if you ever got to read a thread about training in Oz a few months back, before it got pulled there are plenty of people that don't! Training at all levels has fallen behind in Australia. You can't deny it, or we wouldn't be arguing about ways to reinvent the wheel.

I'm sure you guys all do good work, within the frame work, standards manuals and equipment that you've been offered to get the job done with. All I'm saying is that from an end user stand point it doesn't compare in ease or speed of operation to the rest of the world.

There are plenty of people and situations to believe, but the bottom line is that change is inevitable and I hope that we can all believe that any change must be made for the better.

Chris Higgins

1st Dec 2006, 11:22

Ferris said;

"also demonstrates why people with Chris' level of understanding think they can fire all the trouble-makers and do it better. Genius."

Firing trouble makers is a great idea as far as I'm concerned. People who can't work as part of a team and run around as a renegade on the taxpayers behalf have no place in public life.

ferris

1st Dec 2006, 12:03

In over 800 approaches and landings at JFK I have never seen an extended final or situation based scenario that you have just concocted. Thanks for proving the point, Chris. As the pilot, how, exactly, do you determine where APP is feeding them to/from ie. as you are under vectors, how do you know how much delay you are absorbing, how much on the downwind, how much on the distant point to your position in the string etc. etc.?
You don't.
I did not "concoct" the way JFK handle their traffic. It is on the web for anyone, even you, to observe. How many times, before or after your 800 approaches, or on any other occasion, did you take the time to visit the controllers and observe (their very skillful) approach cell? Because, Sir, based on your statements here, and lack of understanding of ATC at JFK, or anywhere, I'll bet it was NEVER.
Your lack of appreciation of your lack of appreciation of how out of your depth you are is......funny. You are not the airspace messiah you believe you are. Lots of us have worked o/s.

Chris Higgins

1st Dec 2006, 12:11

Ferris, I was reguarly in both the Tracon and the tower at JFK and on Long Island. It was part of my duties as an Executive Council Chairman for the Airline Pilots Association as a safety chairman and controller/pilot liaison.

The feeds that you speak of are from basic jet airways and low altitude VOR routes and did not extend for any more than about eight miles from the final.

Also, the last time I was in Sydney I was given the opportunity to visit your Air Services control centre in Mascot.

In addition any pilot can see the line of traffic on final, or for that matter on approach particuarly at night or on TCAS.

ferris

1st Dec 2006, 12:29

Then why do you understand so little about it? Whilst LGA is far worse, JFK's "8nm" is out to 40nm daily, and frequently further.
It's done differently to holds. The "ease of use" of the system is an entirely different thing. Surely your experience of the two systems allows you to see the cultural difference?
In addition any pilot can see the line of traffic on final, or for that matter on approach particuarly at night or on TCAS. Please don't get sucked into thinking you see the "big picture' on TCAS? That's penalty box 101 stuff.

Chris Higgins

1st Dec 2006, 12:32

La Guardia is no different. We were cleared in by the Freeway Visual from Bermuda, not long ago. The finals might look long...remember most of the traffic is coming in from Europe!

Anyway, I've got to go and meet with a new tenant on one of my apartments, fix my kids minibike that he blew up and file some tax paper work then come back and finish an expense report. I'll talk to you all in a few days.

gaunty

1st Dec 2006, 14:11

Look fellas, if I didn't have to go do a 6 month recurrency on my new G550 in Dallas, get the VGS adjusted, visit with Roger Sperry, then pop on down to pick up the family in Mustique and on to the Villa in Bellagio I'd join in the debate. But then I have to go down to Milan to select the fabrics for the spa resort reno in the Maldives and be back in Oz in time for Chrissy with the folks.

So I'll talk to you all in a few days.:ok: :rolleyes:

DirtyPierre

1st Dec 2006, 18:40

Gaunty,

Thank you for the humour. Better than Friday Joke thread on Jet Blast. :D

Chris Higgins

2nd Dec 2006, 01:51

Look fellas, if I didn't have to go do a 6 month recurrency on my new G550 in Dallas, get the VGS adjusted, visit with Roger Sperry, then pop on down to pick up the family in Mustique and on to the Villa in Bellagio I'd join in the debate. But then I have to go down to Milan to select the fabrics for the spa resort reno in the Maldives and be back in Oz in time for Chrissy with the folks.
So I'll talk to you all in a few days.:ok: :rolleyes:

Swing by here too Gaunty! It's starting to snow and if it stays cold we can go skiing mate!!

Shitsu_Tonka

2nd Dec 2006, 04:56

Alright, I'll call a personal truce here if you guys can remain civil in kind.

Thats mighty big of you - considering you took off the civil gloves and started flingin mud and insults in the first place mate! Talk about chutzpah!

Something also has to be done about the antagonistic culture that has now become part of being an Australian controller. The apology sticky on the top of the Dunnunder Godzone is indicative of a pervasive behaviour that we have seen on these boards for several years now

Well, thats a good start to being civil, declaring those who disagree with you to posessing a universal culture of arrogance!. [Anyhow, I think the lady in question in that apology actually admits to not being a pilot or controller, but someone who works for CASA - no?]

Antagonistic? Arrogant? Have you got a mirror in one of your Caribbean beach houses mate?

Your bragging shows just how insecure you are that your arguments cannot stand on their own merit - but require the embelishment of trotting out your CV of experience and personal treasures with every post as if to proclaim: "I am right - you are all wrong because I have more toys". To coin an oft touted phrase of late - it's Un-Australian. More importantly, it makes them even less convincing.

I really wonder what they made of you when you went to the TRACON and told them all how to do it - yes, you sure do remind me of someone.

Anyhow, I have got to go change the oil and plugs on my "Kingswood", and check on my "Coopers" home brew before I mount my 1979 "Malvern Star" for a quick peddle down to the milk bar to get some "tally-ho's".

I might not be back for a week. In the meanwhile, why not see just how well the US system really works: http://www.avoiddelays.com/

Or perhaps you can absorb your quivering anticipation of my return with some research:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Getting out of New York is never easy, but no one has been having a tougher time leaving the city's gravitational pull lately than travelers on Comair.

Twenty-five of the nation's 50 most frequently delayed flights in September were Comair planes to or from Kennedy Airport, according to a monthly U.S. Transportation Department report.

The absolute worst? Comair Flight 5283.

The evening rush hour jet from JFK to Washington Reagan National Airport landed late 100 percent of the time in September.

Planes flying the route arrived an average of 79 minutes behind schedule, on a trip that involves less than an hour of flying time. Three of the 30 scheduled flights were canceled altogether.

The delays are blamed on several factors, including chronic congestion at New York's airports.

The delays made for a frustrating month for frequent fliers like Anthony Marcus, who was on three delayed Comair flights in September while traveling between New York and his home in Washington.

Marx blamed the airline's performance on steadily worsening congestion in the Northeast, where Comair flies an ambitious schedule on some of the most heavily trafficked routes.

This year, New York's three major airports are expected to handle a record 104 million passengers, up from 81.1 million in 2002, according to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

All three -- JFK, Newark Liberty International and LaGuardia -- already rank among the airports with the nation's worst on-time records, although their delays aren't quite as bad as those at Atlanta, Chicago and Philadelphia.

The Port Authority has warned that things may only get worse.

"Understand that this is the most congested airspace in the world," said spokesman Pasquale DiFulco. "We know growth is coming, and we only have so much airspace, and you can only fit so many planes in the sky."

At peak operation, JFK can handle a takeoff or landing every 45 seconds, but these days that is often not enough. On many weeknights, dozens of planes wait in hour-long lines for an available runway.

Flight 5283's taxi time at JFK averaged 73 minutes per trip in September. Thirteen of those oft-delayed flights actually left the gate on time or early, but still wound up waiting for as long as an hour and 42 minutes to take off.

And for all its troubles, Flight 5283 was only marginally worse than several other Delta Connection flights at JFK.

Coming in at No. 2 and No. 3 on the least-on-time list were weekday Comair flights from JFK to Atlanta and Buffalo, each of which was late more than 95 percent of the time. No. 4 was a Comair flight to JFK from Washington Reagan.

"It's like you're being held hostage," said Christine Perkins, a frequent Delta flier from Medford, Massachusetts, who recently suffered through a 2 1/2-hour delay at JFK while waiting for a Comair connecting flight to Boston. "These days, it seems like all you need are a couple drops of rain to cause a delay."

Hmm - so what do the FAA attribute delays to?:

FAA website:
Delays occur every day at every major U.S. airport. Schedules are made to reduce operating costs and maximize revenue without regard for other airlines, terminal airspace or airport capacity. At “peak” times, dozens of planes are simultaneously taxiing for take-off or queuing above the airport in a finite amount of terminal airspace. This is where the laws of physics kick in. Given runway capacity, only certain number of flights can depart and arrive within a specified time period. Therefore, scheduling during peak hours contributes to delays at busy airports even in good weather. All scheduled flights will not be able to arrive on time. Responsible scheduling of flights within airport capacity limits will go a long way toward alleviating delays. (My underlining)

So it seems, the same physics that occur in Australia, actually (gasp!) occur in the United States of Higgins as well.

Source: airguideonline.com

Ground Stop
Weather causes 75% of all delays. But this summer, many delays have been due simply to poor coordination between the FAA's regional air-traffic-control centers and to ham-handed recovery efforts after storms, say FAA managers and airline operations officials.

At times, regional centers unilaterally halt the flow of airplanes, often without even telling the central command center, the FAA says. Instead of employing less-restrictive delays, overloaded controllers have been quicker to order "ground stops" that leave planes loaded with passengers and parked without a scheduled departure time.

And frequently this summer, controllers seeking to better manage their growing workload have imposed 60-mile separation requirements between airplanes; five miles is the standard minimum separation for planes cruising at high altitudes.

"It's the FAA"
"Gridlock is not a problem for the future -- it is happening now, today, as we speak," says Gordon Bethune, chairman and chief executive of Continental Airlines. Continental's flight attendants now hand out cards after a delay of one hour, saying that the aircraft is under the control of the FAA once it leaves the gate and urging customers to write to Congress about air-traffic problems.

In a review of FAA and airline operations conducted by a joint committee of FAA evaluators and airline officials, the group uncovered numerous instances where controllers were slowing traffic based on inaccurate information, or simply for their own convenience.

On the Tarmac
American Flight 362, the 3 o'clock flight, pushed back from its gate at O'Hare with extra fuel on board and the ominous warning of long delays trying to get to New York.

The deck was stacked against that flight in many ways. Planes at big airports are often grounded ahead of those at small airports out of convenience, FAA officials admit. The reason: Controllers can thin out traffic with one phone call to a major airport like O'Hare, rather than calls to six smaller fields like Fort Wayne, Ind.

Planes at Midwest airports also have a tougher time getting a slot on airborne highways when traffic is spread out. When controllers impose 60-mile separation requirements, for example, airways are filled to capacity by flights from the coasts.

Further, Flight 362 had to fly through the FAA's Cleveland traffic-control center, the busiest and most troublesome of the regional centers because it funnels traffic into and out of the Northeast. Because the traffic is so heavy, controllers at Cleveland have at times this year taken the drastic step of imposing 100-mile separation requirements between planes, to make their workload manageable, the FAA says.

The FAA blames the Cleveland problems on a difficult transition to new equipment, frequent storms and heavy volume. The Cleveland center routinely handles 10,000 airplanes a day, the FAA says. Two years ago, 8,000 a day was considered busy and 10,000 was a major event.

The controllers' union says Cleveland-center controllers are simply being safe. "The airlines are getting beat up by their customers, so they point the finger back at the FAA, and a lot of it is undeserved," says Randy Schwitz, an official of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

With so many planes, delays are inevitable at some airports even in good weather. Newark, N.J., for example, can handle a maximum of 48 arrivals an hour. But some hours, airlines schedule 55 to 60 arrivals, guaranteeing some late arrivals, the FAA says.

With nowhere to go, Flight 362 taxied to a holding pad at O'Hare's Runway 9 Right. Two earlier American flights bound for New York's La Guardia airport were already sitting there waiting. Across the tarmac at United, the 2 p.m. La Guardia departure hadn't bothered to board, and the 3 p.m. had been canceled.

Flight 358 pushed back at 4:22 p.m., American says, and after a relatively routine one-hour delay, took off at 5:25 p.m.

Flight 362 and many other New York-bound flights remained on the Runway 9 Right holding pad. The FAA says it offered the long Southern routing to two American planes sitting on the holding pad at 5:52 p.m. But because of a lack of fuel -- they had been idling for more than three hours already -- they declined.

By 6 p.m., passengers aboard the still-stranded 3 p.m. departure were growing increasingly angry. The FAA says its specialists at the central command center were trying to work out a new route, but couldn't. The plane taxied back to a gate at 6:55 p.m. to unload a few furious customers who no longer wanted to make the trip.

On the way back in, the captain heard on the radio that routes to New York were soon opening up. But rather than risk further passenger rage, the captain decided to head to the gate.

(my bolding - 48 an hour at Newark? Why so few Chris? They have a LOT of concrete!)

http://www.skypic.com/newyork/1-8341.jpg