Australian Airspace Discussion [Archive]

max1

24th Sep 2008, 23:45

LHRT

"James,

What logical reasons could you or Max honestly muster up to justify this to not be benficial to safety ?, "

Answer is, if you want this to be done 100% of the time make sure the controllers is not overwhelmed doing this to the detriment of their other separation responsibilities. i.e look at the traffic densities, peaks and troughs and make sure you have the staff to cover these. Don't confuse a lack of chatter with a lack of work, though sometimes this may be the case.

In the Benalla situation, it was the Route Adherence Monitor (RAM) that went off , not the Minimum Safe Altitude Warning (MSAW).

Away from the Benalla case, if I vector an aircraft outside of their planned route corridor I will get a RAM alert, alarms and flashing signs. If the computer believes that on an aircrafts climb profile it will enter a Danger Area it will give me a Danger Area Infringement Warning (DAIW) even though I have cleared the aircraft only to a level under the area.If an aircrafts estimate for a position off radar does not agree with the system I will get an Estimated Time Over (ETO) alarm. We get alarms all the time. Don't think that these alarms only go off to alert when things ARE wrong, they are to query us when the machine thinks something might be wrong, tp prompt us to check. When you are doing a lot of vectoring every aircraft may have a RAM alert.

Have a think about all the Aerodromes and ALAs along the East coast between 45nm North of Sydney and Coffs Harbour. Taree , Port Macquarie, Forster, etc etc. I will have a check at work and get a list for this one controller , and how many underlying airports there are and get back to you.

The controller doing this would also be doing sequencing for Sydney and Williamstown( Newcastle), and dealing with northbound departures out of Sydney, and military traffic into and out of the RAAF areas, co-ordinating with other sectors plus departures out of these other aerodromes.

When the pushes are on we are working our backsides off. What about during bad weather everyone attempting Instrument Approaches.

In these situations its like having a large military. In times of peace , we reckon they are over resourced and under -utilised, but in times of trouble we get upset and wonder how we ever let things get so rundown.

During slow periods it may be achievable, but when busy?

As I said happy to do it if mandated but give us the resources i.e People and computing power, to do it. Affordable Safety. I agree this would be beneficial to safety, but it will cost.
Ask Dick how many hours he has spent 'sitting in' with controllers in the last three years. Not how many he may/ may not have just spoken to, but how much first hand experience he has of sitting at the consoles in the last three years.

james michael

25th Sep 2008, 00:04

LHR

In order.

It is not a matter of 'beneficial to safety' - if you want absolute safety stay on the ground. It is a matter of ALARP and where the onus is carried - PIC or ATC.

There's lots of landing accidents - how about a tower at each CTAF to coach pilots in their approach?

Might have stopped BLA - doubtful, the radar coverage nearby is fairly poor. BLA has also been well covered elsewhere.

What do you mean about understanding IFR? What you are saying is no more or less than what I said. What I ASKED is at what point you expect ATC to stop holding your hand.

There is also the matter of TAAATS screen size due to the area covered and the number of blips, their proximity, and the approach points. From memory Armidale is masked because of the clutter.

I'm absolutely open minded. Yes, the procedure may just avert a fatality. Therefore, let Dick prepare a paper with appropriate safety case tailored to that proposition and circulate it for credible input and then submission. That's how it works out here, ego drumming on this forum is not a likely initiator of ATC change (or airspace change, or CASA Board change ..............).

Niles Crane

25th Sep 2008, 00:09

And please tell me.........what has the previous 2 pages to do with Regulatory reform??????

Dick, start another tread if you want to keep on about Benalla, don't hijack this one.:*

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

25th Sep 2008, 00:10

Good morning James,

I am glad you are open minded.

The onus should always be with the PIC, ATC all care no responsibility.

There's lots of landing accidents - how about a tower at each CTAF to coach pilots in their approach?

That won't happen as that will cost money.

IMHO that money would be better spent on more ATC staff, allowing a good work/home balance and appropriate salary packages to retain said ATC Staff.

Niles, you are quite correct, I will say no more on this topic.

T28D

25th Sep 2008, 00:16

Benalla = Disaster Regulatory Reform = Disaster

Maybe they are closer than you think

james michael

25th Sep 2008, 00:34

Niles

A timely reminder, one gets too easily diverted by Dick and his passion.

How about Dick starts a new thread, with a sticky to keep it handy, "ALL THE WAY WITH LBJ", and every time thread diversion occurs to the NAS the posts can quickly be shifted there :rolleyes:

Back on topic - Dick, I felt you were publicly unkind about Toller who is not on here to respond (although if he did he would probably receive a warning :)). Surely he only struck the same brick walls as did you and as will preclude your selection this time around for the Famous Five?

Dick Smith

25th Sep 2008, 01:14

Lefthanded Rock Thrower,

The only reason your eyes can glaze over when you hear the name NAS mentioned, is because you are ignorant of the full NAS features. Your statement is a bit like saying, when you hear the name Boeing 747 mentioned, your eyes glaze over because you have always flown DC3’s and DC6’s.

The US NAS as an airspace system is similar to the Boeing 747, that is, it has evolved into an incredibly safe system because of the enormous amount of money that is available, the very high density of traffic, the very bad weather conditions that can exist, the high mountain ranges and the wealthy litigious society. Anyone that has flown extensively in the US system, both in their radar covered airspace and their very large areas of non radar airspace knows that they system is one of the best in the world.

You appear to be bound by the old flight service uncontrolled airspace mentality. Because flight service officers were not allowed to use radar, we are still not using the benefits of radar in all of our low level radar covered airspace.

Lefthanded Rock Thrower, I left Australia in 1982 to commence my world flight considering that we were the best in the world. After the first half dozen countries I flew through, I realised that we were still in the 1930’s when it came to airspace and procedures. This was mainly caused by people who had their minds closed and simply wanted to keep the system we had used for decades.

To provide a proper minimum safe altitude alerting service at Benalla would cost nothing. No more air traffic controllers, no extra radar and in the case of the Benalla accident, six people would no doubt be alive today if the changes had been introduced.

Keep your mind closed if you want to and wait for the 100 plus deaths when an airline goes down at a place like Proserpine. Then the Royal Commission will no doubt force in simple NAS procedures, which will allow the air traffic control radar to be used as it was designed and assist in preventing CFIT accidents.

Max Dover

25th Sep 2008, 07:59

Dick Smith

I have flown in many parts of the world too - and I 100% agree with you we are living in the past. Remember once the retiring 747 captain who stated to an Australian approach controller on his final departure that he thought they were the second best ATCs in the world............and the controller asked who is the best and he said "Everybody!"
But our aviation industry in not just NAS....ADSB....blah...blah.
Why do you not use some of your political pull to stop the dillusion of Commonwealth airport assets. Nothing is being spent on airport infrastructure and GA airports (except security) and operators are dying on the vine with massive increases in landing charges and rents which were only supposed to be linked to CPI.
John Anderson (your mate) Mark Vaille (now at Virgin - unbelieveable) Warren Truss and now A Albanese - God help us! The ALCs are getting away with murder on RESA, new buildings in the obstacle limitation surface, airports being downgraded from certified to registered, runways being shortened or closed, ALOPs collapsing.....there will be no grass roots Australian aviation soon.
You fly fixed and rotary wing - look at the helipad at Bankstown. Call that safe?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

25th Sep 2008, 09:05

Re;
"You appear to be bound by the old flight service uncontrolled airspace mentality. Because flight service officers were not allowed to use radar, .."

AW GEE Dick,

Didn't you have the chance to 'fix' that....twice...??

All it would have taken then, would have been a 'directive' from your good self..........surely???:confused:

'IT' could have been the world's mostest, bestest, World's Best Practice Airspace.... and, with a little adjustment here and there - just like there WAS.....it could have been economical as well...,
:(:(

Cheers

max1

25th Sep 2008, 11:01

Apologies for the continuing thread drift.

Dick,

"To provide a proper minimum safe altitude alerting service at Benalla would cost nothing."

If you are implying that to enable and SAFELY MONITOR alarms for Minimum Safe Altitude (MSAW),Route Adherence Monitoring (RAM),Short Term Conflict (STCA),Danger Area Infringement Warning (DAIW) at all aerodromes where radar may, or may not have full coverage, into ALL Aerodromes that have published approaches will not cost anything, then you are frankly talking out your backside.

Speaking to the controllers who work 45nm N of SY, to Coffs Harbour, there are published approaches for Kempsey, PMQ, Taree, Maitland and WLM (when RAAF not there, it would be there responsibility. Into CNK they use MLD approach til visual.

Controllers report that @90% of the time on approaches,RAM alert activates.
When querying acft about RAM alerts the reply is " Roger, we are now tracking for 5 mile final, etc".
Other comments include that even though 2 aircraft have been given traffic on each other , say into and out of PMQ, the STCA will still go off.This needs to be assessed to make sure it is the 2 aircraft that have been given traffic or some newbie popping up on radar.

Very basically, the STCA works on one aircraft with a Flight Data Record (FDR) in the system, the radar then assesses climb/descent profiles on other nearby aircraft around it to work out if a collision risk exists, and really starts screaming and flashing if it thinks so. It can be disabled below certain levels and in certain areas so it doesn't put more of us in the 'funny farm'.

As I stated before, the alarms don't go off to tell us something IS wrong, but the computer thinks something MIGHT be wrong.

Also they find that when trying to pass new, unidentified traffic to aircraft, that aircraft are usually already monitoring the CTAF frequency to gain situational awareness and find the interruption unhelpful, and sometimes do not reply at all. What is the controllers duty of care now? Continue on with the calls of course, further distracting the pilot as they are entering a critical phase of flight.

Throw in some vectoring, co-ordination calls to other units, a new A/TAF to pass to aircraft, some delay instructions, multiple aircraft doing Instrument Approaches, aircraft not acknowledging calls due cockpit workload, and it all adds up. The sectors would have to be shrunk to a SAFER, more manageable size.

Dick, when you were last in a Centre? When have you ever walked in our shoes? Funny though, I still enjoy talking to aircraft.

Disabling these alarms for an individual aircraft is not really an option. Think if you disabled an alarm , then another aircraft popped up. Alarm disabled, disaster occurs. Some years later off to Coroners' Court to explain your actions to highly paid legal types, armchair experts commentating in the Media, you always second guessing yourself about what you may have done different, distraught relatives, and even if you believe your actions were reasonable you still have to live the rest of your life with the knowledge that you have played a part in the death of other human beings.

Food for thought?

Dick Smith

25th Sep 2008, 11:53

Max, Give me a phone call on 0418 640 221 and I will explain to the best of my abilities how the US and Canadian systems work.

In both of those countries ATC provides an excellent LSA/MSA alerting service when in radar covered en- route airspace.

It works because there is a disciplined system to report when visual or cancelling IFR. We do not have an equivalent procedure for our en-route radar covered class G airspace and thats why you cannot understand how it could work.

Why don't we at least try the procedure at just one airport?

Or are we not as capable as the North Americans?

If it requires the employment of some extra ATC's so be it- we are a wealthy country and value human life at a similar value to that in North America.

And the alarm system you describe is rediculous and exists because you have to provide a 1950's Flight Service type information service rarther than a proven NAS type service.

Why don't you contact a US low level en-route controller and ask how it works?

max1

25th Sep 2008, 12:20

Sorry, more thread drift.

"Max1

Brisbane Center controllers seem to have plenty of time to query enroute estimates - I have been "pulled up" twice in the last 2 weeks and heard a number of others getting the same treatment.

Had to explain (on the very, very busy CEN freq) our GS and the leg distance to the dude on the panel who insisted that the computer was telling him something different.

On each occasion we have been spot on with our estimates

Horatio,"

Horatio

This person was doing their job. You are not 'getting the treatment'. The controller would have been using the Bearing and Range Line (BRL) function to check the System (computer) estimate for your next position.

The computer uses your Flightplanned TAS and the FORECAST winds (note the Forecast winds are updated every 12 hours) to compute an estimate for your enroute waypoints. The BRL uses your current groundspeed over the distance to fly. The controllers BRL would have come up with the same answer as you, and this would also then not have agreed with the System.

If the System Estimate Time Over (SETO) and BRL are out by more than 2 minutes, or considered unreasonable, the controller is REQUIRED to check and confirm with the pilot as to the Pilot Estimate Time Over (PETO) .

As you would appreciate your G/S may not be constant over the entire leg and would change depending on the ACTUAL wind. I have had discrepancies of up to 10+ minutes when measuring with the BRL over long distances and usually find that the pilot estimate will be close to the system estimate , as the nav gear will usually build the forecast winds in to the estimate.

If there is still a discrepancy, the Pilot estimate will be considered sacrosanct. Its your backside on the line. On the rare occasions we have a PETO we still think may be iffy we will usually build a fair bit of fat into the separation standard, just in case. Were you going to go off radar?

I have lost count the number of times I have queried a pilot after they have given me an unrealistic time, which I have again queried, only to get the same answer , only to get a sheepish voice some minutes later saying that they have had another look ( thank you CRM courses) and the time is close to what I thought it would be. That's okay, that's my job. It is also funny that they usually won't agree with my estimate exactly, but move it a minute either side to let me know I wasn't completely right either.
Also, sometimes when it is queried and doesn't agree and I ask their Mach Number I get e.g."M.81"
" What did you plan?"
" M.78, but we're running behind schedule"

This is not a problem (yet), just let us know. If you are going off radar, or are off radar, this can have big implications e.g. Oceanic airspace.
I had an aircraft some years ago ( no names), going NZ-ML on Melbourne Cup Day and we were quite busy and running them tight in the morning, who got a report from Company that ML was fogged in, and pulled it back to min speed halfway across the Tasman without telling us. Turned up six minutes late at waypoint and caused all kinds of drama. Thats why we have big longitudinal separation standards off radar.

Horatio you weren't getting the treatment, the person was just doing their job. One day it may save someone whose estimate aren't spot on.
Come and have a visit someday. Happy to arrange it in Brisvegas.

C-change

25th Sep 2008, 12:39

Dick,
Why don't we at least try the procedure at just one airport?

If it requires the employment of some extra ATC's so be it-

Mate, I'm sure the procedure you're suggesting would work great and people would get used to it quickly but they DO NOT have enough staff to run the current airspace or even the major airports. Look at the TIBA Notams.

There is no extra ATC's. The whole world is short, RAAF and ASA cannot recruit or train more. ATC has been gutted and introducing more procedures right now will probably break some people, leaving even bigger gaps in a system that is slowing breaking down.

Sorry for the drift.

Dick Smith

25th Sep 2008, 20:40

C Change, So it is a staffing problem- not as others claim "impossible" to do. One day we will have enough controllers so I will look forward to getting the proper ATC service then. Lets hope it's before more lives are lost.

james michael

25th Sep 2008, 21:43

Dick

How about we leave this thread to the Senate enquiry into CASA and you start the LBJ thread - perhaps an opportune start would be the safety case you have put to the Minister/CASA/ASA to demonstrate your theory I will look forward to getting the proper ATC service then. Lets hope it's before more lives are lost.

Dick Smith

26th Sep 2008, 01:40

james michael,

It is all here. (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/the_book.php))

Obviously you haven’t read Unsafe Skies, why don’t you do so?

max1

26th Sep 2008, 01:57

Dick,
What you say re surveillance of Approaches is doable. Most problems in the world are doable if you throw the resources, committment and money at them.
My concern is that you try to intimate to people on this forum that it is a simple matter of flicking a few switches, writing procedures and away you go.
LHRT comes back after a telephone conversation with you telling us how simple it is and wouldn't cost anything. It will cost a fair bit in either extra controllers or bringing Flight Service back to life.

james michael

26th Sep 2008, 02:54

Dick

I am a wide reader - fact and fiction - and have read your "Unsafe Skies."

It strikes me as a book with some mix of opinion and fact, and has no doubt been read by many including those in CASA and Airservices who value different opinions.

But, it does not strike me as a safety case under the normal parameters for such.

I would expect something researched for the specific case you are putting and without the clutter of the rest of the book or the constant reliance on a 50 year old NAS system that is about to be overtaken by the benefits of LL ADS-B in Australia. If a safety case exists for Australia for your radar following theory for IFR to treetop level, make it for Australia.

Rhetoric is no substitute for fact - don't ignore Owen's comment that the radar is marginal at best below 085 at BLA and certainly at/below MSA. Of course, Owen's could be rhetoric also (apology Owen, just making a point) so it would be good to provide actual supporting data that are validated.

Dick Smith

26th Sep 2008, 02:58

Owen, The plane at Benalla was 1000' below the legal LSA of 7100' when 30 miles out and in solid radar coverage.

Even if the radar coverage went lower or there was ADSB at the airport the result would have been the same as we do not have a procedure in Australia to report to ATC when visual in class G airspace.

Other leading aviation countries have this procedure and lives are saved.

Jabawocky

26th Sep 2008, 04:55

Funny how my memory has come back to me about the use of ADSB and places like Lockhart River where I posted once about the use of ADSB plus software in the ATC system monitoring even the approach (which could be done....software that is) and that this extra layer be turned off when pilot reports visual in class G.

Now at the time I think I was hounded down by quite a lot on here and including yourself Dick. I would have to go digging under an older username but it did happen. So why the change of heart? Maybe benalla has made it more obvious because in this case the pilot was not a cowboy.

J:ok:

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

26th Sep 2008, 07:48

Owen Stanley,

Your arrogance and ignorance is breathtaking (wonder where you got that from?)

You claim to know so much more than me, you tell me ?.

Rather poor attempt at humour considering the circumstances ATC find themselves in.

If your are looking for sympathy, you are barking up the wrong tree, perhaps you should drop the short man tactics and actually read my posts completely. We are all debating a gentlemans debate here.

Irrespective of your personal opinion as to whether this would require more controllers is purley academic, why would something so simple in nature, with the potenital for such benefit be so hard for you to see as such?.

As a pilot I believe enabling a lowest safe (protected area) altitude monitoring system for IFR aircraft in RADAR coverage is a great idea ( to be honest I was quite shocked when Mr Smith explained that this system is not already inplace ).

If you as a controller are so over worked and so hard done by and the glass is really that half empty, find another job that brings you happiness.

If enabling this functions cost money, will it save lives ?, quite possibly, well why not atleast have a look at it instead of the closed minded arrogance and personal attacks you have presented.

All the ATC'ers I've personally met to date I view as consumate professionals and are great folks who I have a great amount of respect for, some on this forum paint a very different picture.

Incidently, good luck with the up and coming industrial action, you guys & gals deserve more money and a better work/home balance.

Dick,

I too have flown in many different countries airspace, and whilst there is certainly room for improvement, especially in comparision to the US system, I do not believe it to be the roulette wheel you suggest.

C-change

26th Sep 2008, 10:21

As a lot have already stated, what Dick is suggesting is completely acheiveable and can be done if the following tasks are completed.

1. A lot more controllers needed (back to FIS and ATCO numbers of another era)
2. Massive improvement in Radar Coverage (Big bucks)
3. Smaller sectors that people can stay on top off.

LHRT- This is a bit harse.
If you as a controller are so over worked and so hard done by and the glass is really that half empty, find another job that brings you happiness.

Its not as easy as just enabling software. If there is no coverage, there is no coverage and therefore no radar service. The boys and girls in ASA are only just keeping their heads above the water with what the currently have to do.

An example from a week ago. ONE controller looking after and area from 45D Sth of Syd, to BIK, under the CB steps, down to Albury,benalla, around to ESL, back up the coast to YMER, YMOR and NWA and up to 45D Sy. SFC to A085 (average). Big backyard for one person to monitor on one screen, lots of coord with all those agencies, A/TAFs,etc etc. In other words bloody busy and wafer thin. Anyone from Central Group care to elaborate or add more!!

Anyway, as others have said already this will cost big bucks but it can be done.

Bigger problem, even if money isn't, is where will the staff come from?

PS; I did hear that ASA will soon be providing straws to staff, to allow overtime and breathing to occur concurrently.

K-941

26th Sep 2008, 14:54

- Doable? Yes
- 100's of millions in all probability and a long long way off being realised

Q. What is the best remedy in the context being discussed?

A. Subsidised fitment of IFR sole use nav's for these class of aircraft which now days include map's and TAWS with much less chance of DR potholes

I seem to remember a proposal for such a thing kicking around some where here in oz that would provide both low cost IFR pilot SA and low cost ATS surveillance

A small country's GDP less than that being proposed in this wee chat :rolleyes:

Well said BTW Mr Mac :ok:

james michael

26th Sep 2008, 21:56

OS
Must catch up for coffee downstairs next time I am out there. As an aside, what's the distance on your screen between YBLA and the approach points - not Nm, inches or cms or part thereof?

K
Bravo. The BLA matter, to my knowledge, really hinges around a 2 line non-map GPS with a hard to see alarm that all is not well. A late model map GPS makes it quite obvious one is not where one thinks - even my handheld G495 does that plus terrain.

But Dick has stated, he can correct me if I'm wrong, that the LL ADS-B project offers no real safety benefits, so I must be wrong :ugh:

Instead, let's spend money on ATC holding our hands. Makes it easier to write a best seller :)

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

26th Sep 2008, 23:01

Owen,

Who mentioned monitored approaches, not me.

An automated program that monitors an aircrafts 3 dimensional position reference, say a GPWS data base, absolutley no input required from the controller unless the aircraft breaks the protected area outside say 5nm of the destination aerodrome and the alarm sounds.

I say again, not monitored approaches, simply a computer program checking an IFR aircrafts position against protected areas ( LSALT, Grid, MAS, MVA, Approaches) similar function to GPWS, but ground/RADAR based (mode A & C and/or ADSB-B).

Dick Smith

26th Sep 2008, 23:22

Why not try the system at just one high risk airport that has good radar coverage to low levels - say Proserpine.

If we introduced the proven overseas system where the pilot had to report when visual and until that time the LSA alarm was enabled at Proserpine it would clearly not require extra controllers.

If the controller missed the call the alarm would go off and the controller would ask the pilot if the aircraft was visual- if not climb immedietly!

Not rocket science but you do have to have an open mind.

james michael

26th Sep 2008, 23:34

Dick

I absolutely support the trial, your suggestion has opened my mind

Let's have some ADS-B equipped and TSO 146 equipped subsidised aircraft conduct a trial at Proserpine.

We will all need an open mind if the results demonstrate the pilots can do it without mummy ATC changing their nappies - as it will throw your case out the window.

LHR

How many alarms do you think the suggestion would create on -say - Owen's screen? Perhaps Owen can give an estimate?

Remember the boy crying wolf? There is a limit to the amount of alarms repetitively occurring before stress levels go overboard and/or alarms lose their credibility.

Why not have one alarm under the supervision of one (or two) pilots? It's called a TSO 146 GPS with terrain assistance and a map of where you are at what height - RAIM alarm of course being one alarm of note.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

26th Sep 2008, 23:47

James,

Personally this system is of very little benefit to me as a Pilot, the aircraft I fly has GPWS, dual TSO Garmin 530 / KLN 89 GPS, MFD, TAWS and Flight Director for coupled approaches.

Why not have one alarm under the supervision of one (or two) pilots? It's called a TSO 146 GPS with terrain assistance and a map of where you are at what height - RAIM alarm of course being one alarm of note.

Many many if not most IFR aircraft in Australia do not have all the toys.

Not really sure you guys understand the concept of automatic ?, the only time this alarm should go off is if an IFR aircraft is making a GRAVE error in altitude.

T28D

26th Sep 2008, 23:53

A GRAVE error is the one where the aircraft is below LSALT and granite enters the scene, too late then.

Lets not have any GRAVE errors please.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

26th Sep 2008, 23:58

T28D,

You are absolutely correct, but, many of these situations find the aircraft well below LSALT/MSA etc quite sometime before "the sudden stop", this could possibly be a window for ATC to save the day, chances are no one will ever know of the lives they've saved.

Dick Smith

27th Sep 2008, 00:02

James, The trial has nothing to do with ADSB as most aircraft flying into Proserpine are not yet ADSB equipped.

Lefty is correct- the alarm will only go off if everyone is about to die. There will be no false alarms if pilots report when visual-

It works all around the world and in our terminal airspace- why not at Prosepine.

James you primarily support the views of the Canberra bureaucracy- why is that?

james michael

27th Sep 2008, 00:05

LHR

I know what you are intending, the issue is surely how to program a system to recognise the variables associated with a computer program checking an IFR aircrafts position against protected areas ( LSALT, Grid, MAS, MVA, Approaches) Then we need to define a 'grave' error in altitude and apply that algorithm to the mix. At this point it is becoming reliance on an ATC getting alarms via a complex program distant from the real action.

Yes, many IFR aircraft are not TSO 146 equipped. The JCP subsidy (Navaid component not ADS-B per se) was to so equip ALL. I believe that alters the equation and places control where it belongs - the person who loses if they make T28's 'grave' mistake, not the ATC.

The other issue is radar and ADS-B coverage. It wasn't designed for cover to ground except where it has a clear view. Probably more effective cover with ADS-B but still not 'global'.

I understand the concept of automatic. I also understand why some alarms are turned off. I believe a lot of VCA could be prevented if the CTA step alarms were enabled - problem is picking an emerging VCA from the other 999 aircraft flying close enough to activate the alarm - but not actually penetrating.

james michael

27th Sep 2008, 00:14

Dick

James you primarily support the views of the Canberra bureaucracy- why is that?Pardon? I think you mean I don't support YOUR views.

My view is simple - ADS-B is the way of the future, the JCP provides ADS-B and for IFR TSO 146, both subsidised, and the ADS-B project as I know it today offers significant safety and economy benefits for aviation from GA to RPT.

On the other hand you require the radars to be kept for 5 years which turns OFF the ADS-B / TSO 146 subsidy until 2028 and leaves the emphasis with ATC to carry the can in the future plus denying aviation the benefits of ADS-B and denying many IFR owners the benefits of subsidised TSO 146 navigators.

If you call my view "the views of the Canberra bureaucracy" and imply there is something wrong with that, then I believe you are putting your NAS drive for ATC hand holding ahead of reality.

Should I add that you are lucky to get a response from me - I was going to ignore you because you put your own name to your post :D

Dick Smith

27th Sep 2008, 00:34

James, You have an extraordinary knowledge on these matters yet you hide your identity- why do you do this as it obviously prevents you having the influence you possibly should have?

Why not post your phone number so that Lefty and others can discuss the important issues with you- after all it is obvious that you have a detailed and in depth knowledge of the issues-more than just about anyone I know.

When I posted my phone number here I received lots of phone calls and had a number of really good discussions- I also learnt a lot as there are many things we can be talked about on the phone that are difficult to put in print.

There is no PPRUNE rule that prevents direct phone conversations on such important safety issues that I know of.

max1

27th Sep 2008, 00:35

LHRT,

What we (controllers) are trying to tell you is that the alarms go off all the time.

"An automated program that monitors an aircrafts 3 dimensional position reference, say a GPWS data base, absolutley no input required from the controller unless the aircraft breaks the protected area outside say 5nm of the destination aerodrome and the alarm sounds."

After your conversation with Dick, you seem to be an instant expert on the myriad alarms built into the ATC system, their parameters and how often they would go off. How often do you think an alarm set to your parameters would go off?

I have been told by the people working that airspace North of Sydney that 90% off the time the RAM alert will go off, necessitating "unnecessary" calls to the aircraft, who are trying to monitor the CTAF, tracking for final or avoiding other aircraft. Please don't think that your scenario would only require controller intervention when something IS wrong. As I have said before, the alarms don't go off when something IS wrong but when the computer THINKS something may be wrong.

An example I was given, one inbound , one departing outbound from Port MacQuarie. They have been given mutual traffic. Inbound aircraft starts to manouevre for final, RAM alert as aircraft has flown outside Route Corridor. Controller queries , aircraft already monitoring CTAF, multiple calls made to elicit response. Departing aircraft paints on Radar, STCA alert goes off. Traffic already given, alert goes off anyway.

I don't have an agenda, if I am directed to implement a new procedure, I will do it. My concern is that the procedure is able to be safely done and that I have been given the resources and training to do it safely.

As a PIC your responsibilty is to one aircraft, we are responsible for a chunk of airspace with multiple aircraft. Dick has no idea what really goes on, and what radar coverage really exists. After a conversation with him, please don't come on and quote him as some infallible font of wisdom in regards to the vagaries of the TAAATS system.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

27th Sep 2008, 00:47

Good morning Max1,

After your conversation with Dick, you seem to be an instant expert on the myriad alarms built into the ATC system, their parameters and how often they would go off. How often do you think an alarm set to your parameters would go off?

Not the case, I was shocked when Mr Smith explained this system was not already inplace.

In a previous life was a RADAR Technician in the ADF, working on much more primitive systems than you are currently operating (SPS 49, 52, 55, Krupp 1006/7, RVP and SYS1 ), and have a intimate understanding of how these primitive systems operate, including the manipulation of code to make these systems work better, so no, Mr Smith is not my mentor on this one.

If these alarms are driving you nuts, the parameters of the programs need to be modified or the alarms are inappropriate and need to be turned off, a computer is simple, garbage in = garbage out, correct the parameters and your hair will probably not fall out a fast.

How often do you think an alarm set to your parameters would go off?

Honestly, NFI, they were just suggested parameters.

Dick Smith

27th Sep 2008, 00:55

It's all very mysterious. The only people who push the $100m ADSB plan are anonymous.

Why doesn't the Department ever say a word to support the ADSB subsidy?

Why doesn't Mike Taylor ever say a word in support of the plan? After all he will be the decision maker on this.

Why doesn't Bruce Byron say something if this is such an important safety initiative?

Why hasn't a public statement or a press release been issued by AsA explaining their support fo the JCP?

Suddenly a new poster appears on this site running a campaign in support of the ADSB subsidy but does not identify who he is or where he came from!

max1

27th Sep 2008, 01:09

Dick,

Gotta love ya. So now you and LHRT are quoting each other as System experts.
LHRT "Dick told me, so it must be true"
Dick " As my learned friend LHRT says"

"Lefty is correct- the alarm will only go off if everyone is about to die. There will be no false alarms if pilots report when visual-"

Aviate , Navigate, Communicate. As it should be.
Dick, ever missed making a call to ATC because you were too busy doing the important stuff, or the frequency was congested,or you were already on the CTAF,etc. "the alarm will only go off if everyone is about to die". Not true, the alarm WILL go off if the pilot doesn't report visual.

It happens all the time, ATC appreciate this (or most do). The onus is on us to chase these.

Dick you say "There will be no false alarms if pilots report when visual-"
Thats a big IF. Also it will inhibit the MSAW warning, but what about the RAM. What are the repercussions if RAM is also inhibited?

Finally Dick, I am vectoring large RPT aircraft, things are tight, sequencing into Sydney, Wx is marginal, lots of chatter on the frequency. Alarm goes off under your scenario and have been going off all day as pilots are aviating, navigating and THEN communicating. What is my main priority? Ignore all the jets until I have established two-way comms and alerted the lighty, make sure I put in an incident report.

What would be the outcome of this report? As far as I'm concerned the pilot was doing the right thing, aviating and navigating, first and foremost. When the report hits the company, would they be stressing the importance of communicating over aviating and navigating, and making it the first priority.

If everyone was perfect we would not even be having this discussion.

T28D

27th Sep 2008, 01:09

Simple Dick, There is no subsidy, there will be no subsidy, and the Technology is unproven.

But for some ADSB is just a good idea, in the main unlike you and me they don't own aircract, they rely on the good will of others to allow them to fly albiet through rental.

But the real truth is they won't have the expense of the CAR 35 orders, the non manufacturer of the airframe inspired modification to standards that will not comply with a U.S. C of A and significantly devalue the aircraft benchmarked against the Blue Book.

All rather sad really, people with no responsibility making imposts on people with responsibilty who substantially don't want this thrust upon them.

Dick Smith

27th Sep 2008, 01:14

Lefty' You are correct -It's not as dificult to do as others make out It is more about resistance to change than anything else.

A MSAW alarm is considered by controllers in other countries to be far more serious than the many types of route monitoring alarms and is so acted on.

Hardly ever will there be a false minimum altitude alarm as it will only sound if the plane is below the legal minimum altitude and has not reported visual or cancelled IFR.

We are so behind international safe practice that we have not even introduced the correct procedures or terminology so this can work in radar covered uncontrolled airspace.

When this airspace was the responsibility of Flight Service Officers they were not permited to use radar so the could not provide a MSAW service and there was not the need for any pilot procedures.

There are new young controllers comming along who believe that this safety feature should be introduced into Australia.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

27th Sep 2008, 01:17

I think its time I did the smart thing and stopped wasting energy on people exhibiting blind ignorance;

Eyes closed, brains off and mouth engaged, good luck with that, I'm going fishing.

The world is flat !!!!.

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n229/Joshuacox_2006/Picture002.jpg

james michael

27th Sep 2008, 01:30

LHR

Don't under-rate the boat, send it to Dick to help with his fishing on here.

Problem is, people tend to swallow his rhetoric and crusades hook, line and sinker - that's why I am happy to promote an opposing view.

Dick

If you showed the same enthusiasm for making ADS-B and safety move forward as you do for innuendo about other posters and their rights to remain anon - people just might give you their phone number to share information.

It's good to see your positive comments about the new young controllers - you were last at a TAAATS centre ........... when?

ADS-B - the CTAF (A) and your NAS Class E airpace down to 1200' - Nirvana - all it needs now is a God!

Dick Smith

27th Sep 2008, 01:52

Let me give an example of how our system is based in the 1940's - before radar existed.

Imagine a charter flight in a King Air from Broken Hill to Bankstown.

It can't run into any moutains at flight levels in controlled airspace on the en-route section of the flight.

Look what happens on approach to YSBK in the best radar covered airspace in australia.

If still in IMC at WATLE the pilot is instructed by Sydney approach to "leave control area on descent- call Sydney radar 124.55"

We are set up for a classic CFIT as no descent altitude is given by ATC.

Lets say the pilot makes an error and descends too early and is about to hit a ridge in the famous Blue Mountains with peaks to 4000' amsl

Will the radar operator say anything? Unlikely because there is no MSAW enabled in that airspace and ATC would not know if the aircraft was visual and enjoying the view of the mountains as there is no requirement or procedure for the pilot to report when visual.

Flight Safety International states that the two most important mitigators to prevent CFIT accidents are ATC and Radar yet we do not utilse either for IFR approaches at one of the busiest airports in Australia.

But I bet we will within a few days of such an obvious CFIT happening at Bankstown. No extra staff or radar coverage will be required- just a simple change in pilot and ATC calls and the enabling of an already existing MSAW alarm.

But it will probably require at least 6 dead before even the ATSB concrete minds make a recommendation that we actually should use our existing radar to prevent CFIT accidents.

bushy

27th Sep 2008, 01:56

ASA gets most of it's money from the major airlines, therefore they provide most services to the major airlines.
(airports are the same)
They have to take some notice of the little aircraft because they get in the way of the big ones. There the interest stops.
That's why they want us all to fit ADSB, so they can see us and tell the big fellas where we are.
ASIO, customs, police AUSAR and the military also have an interest in ADSB. (I'm not commenting on whether this is good or bad, just stating what I see as fact) The GA pilot and operator get a small benefit from it.
There is not even VHF radio coverage over the whole country.

max1

27th Sep 2008, 02:24

LHRT,
What inbuilt alarms were on these systems?

Here is a very basic and dirty precis on some alarms in TAAATS.With these alarms we get an aural and visual alarm. With the STCA alarm it is a shrill continuous ringing.The others are more of a beep with a break and then more beeping. You must acknowledge these alarms to stop the noise, the visual cue usually a yellow writing will stay on your screen until you either deselect it or the problem is resolved.Alarms can be turned off manually for individual aircraft or parameters changed off line. Open flightplan, open AUR window which shows all alarms, select which one you want to turn off.Make note on aircraft on screen. To turn back on do the reverse. If you turn this alarm off, it will stay off for all sectors in your 'region'. i.e. if I turn it off and forget to turn it back on, the next sector will not have the alarms.
I'm sure I will be picked up on a few things I don't mention.

Route Adherence Monitoring (RAM) A corridor is built along an aircrafts PLANNED route, it can't allow for the landing runway because you don't know when you plan what your landing runway will be. If the aircraft deviates outside this corridor we get the alarm. Examples include when vectoring, aircraft deviating for weather, on approach to aerodromes, etc.

Cleared Level Adherence Monitoring (CLAM) On radar puts a 200' vertical buffer above and below an aircrafts Cleared Level. After maintaining a level if an aircraft deviates by more than 200' of its cleared level an alarm occurs. Also works on ADS-C and B.
If descent or climb profile reduces to a rate that the computer thinks the aircraft is no longer changing level an alarm will occur e.g. Long haul aircraft struggling to get to their planned level. Descending aircraft stopping off momentarily to avoid bad Wx.

Short Term Conflict Alert (STCA) As long as the computer 'knows' at least one aircraft i.e. we have a flight plan (Flight Data Record,FDR). The processors will look for profiles of other targets that will pass close i.e. may be in confliction. Alarm will go off even if aircraft have been given traffic, because the computer will THINK there may be a problem. Should save the day in controlled airspace. Do not turn off as previously unknown aircraft may come in to play as it climbs into radar coverage.

Danger Area Infringement Warning (DAIW) A no go area warning e.g Some military areas or whatever they want to make it. If on an aircrafts heading or climb profile it may penetrate this area an alarm will go off. Even though I have cleared the aircraft to a level below the area or aircraft will turn prior to the area, the computer looks at the climb profile or heading and works out that there MAY be a problem and alarm goes off. Controller may have accidently cleared aircraft to level, or on heading, inside the area and is saved.

LHRT the alarms go off all the time, the situation is usually under control but we get the alarms anyway. There are lots more 'bells and whistles' Minimum Safe Altitude Warnings (MSAW), Missed Position Reports (MPR) specific ones for ADS aircraft. Amended Route Conformance Warning (ARCW) where the FMS Flight Plan doesn't equate to ours.
Estimated Time Over (ETO) where the pilot and system estimate don't agree. There are yet more alarms to tell us that there is a problem with the automatic transfer of co-ordination messages with other centres.

A lot of thought goes into the enabling/disabling of these alarms. If the benefit of the alarm going off spuriously, is outweighed by the time it will save the situation it will stay on. Individual disabling of alarms is not the norm because of the slight chance of it not being re-enabled, or the situation it was disabled for e.g STCA that another situation occurs and the 'protection' is lost.

LHRT there is a lot more to the enabling/disabling of alarms, and their parameters, than the simplistic view that you and Dick have. Those of us that deal with them on a daily basis, under all sorts of situations, tend to be the knowledgeable ones. I hope this has brought some enlightenment. I am now off to watch the AFL GF.

Dick, I have no problem doing what you propose re- MSAW, just give us the training, surveillance and staff to do it. What I don't agree with is your attitude that it is a simple thing to do that 'wouldn't cost anything'.

The pilot accidentally descends, OR the pilot is not on correct frequency, the controller has other situations happening, the pilot gets visual and descends below LSA but doesn't advise centre as he/she is busy or the frequency is congested. The boy who cries wolf scenario develops, there really is a problem, but due to all the 'not real' alarms people become desensitised and the disaster occurs anyway.

Dick Smith

27th Sep 2008, 02:36

Max, That is not my belief, however, just to trial the procedure, say at Bankstown or Proserpine would have minimal cost.

I would even be prepared to fund the cost of the trial if AsA are that short.

james michael

27th Sep 2008, 03:01

Dick

Did not FSI also state that 50% of CFIT occur to aircraft without GPWS?

Was that not their safety alert?

Dick Smith

27th Sep 2008, 04:18

Yes, and it's the % of CFIT accidents that occur with aircraft fitted with GPWS that we should also help prevent.

If FSI say that two of the best mitigators are ATC and radar, why not use them.

I have GPWS in my aircraft and I have found they are not faultproof- thats why I would be happy to pay a little extra and have the safety backup of ATC and radar where it is already available.

You seem to be hell bent on protecting the existing AsA position- why?

Is it that your lifetime working for the Governmnent has somehow ingrained in you the belief that some type of infallibility results!

Dick Smith

27th Sep 2008, 04:26

Max How about a comment on BK. Surely you would agree that the obvious safety problem could be easily fixed?

james michael

27th Sep 2008, 04:44

Dick

I'm not hell bent on protecting the ASA position - I'm just exercising your 'open mind' on the alternatives.

A lifetime working for the Government? Not me so you had best review your thinking.

Perhaps post either the FSI report or the link to encourage more open mindedness?

I do remember this re GPWS:

TCAS safety rules were followed internationally by TAWS, the Terrain Awareness and Warning System, which is an enhanced ground proximity warning system that has been compulsory in the US for all turbine aircraft of six or more seats since March 29, 2005.

This is the greatest safety innovation of the past decade, yet there is no similar requirement for its use in Australia. Old ground proximity warning devices only look down and issue an alert to pull up, often when it is too late. TAWS looks forward.

If this requirement for TAWS had been in force in Australia on May 7 last year it is most likely that our worst airliner crash in 30 years at Lockhart River in Far Northern Queensland would not have occurred – yes, 15 people could be alive today.

Bit in red Dick - ATC or radar? :rolleyes:

peuce

27th Sep 2008, 06:59

The problem Dick & Lefty is that what you are proposing sounds great in principle ... but like all good ideas, the problems start appearing in the detail.

That is why we have Safety Cases, Cost Benefit Analyses and Technical Specs etc etc etc when a new idea is proposed.

Some of us believe we can see some of the potential issues in implementing your idea ( eg. at least one extra radio communication and at least one extra Controller input would be required for EVERY instrument approach to an uncontrolled aerodrome). You don't see those problems as relevant. Perhaps you are right and we are wrong.

I would suggest that the only way your idea has a chance of being implemented is if you (or someone you can persuade) puts, at least, a decent business proposal and safety case together and submitts them to ASA for consideration.

As has been said before, throwing it at us isn't going to get it done, and I think ASA has enough on its plate at the moment, so I can't see them initiating it.

Dick Smith

27th Sep 2008, 07:01

JM This is painful. Not one or the other,-both if they are available. Thats why our jets have 2 engines and for RPT, 2 pilots. Its called "fail safe".

Peuce, The safety case and policy decision was done years ago. Believe it or not , it is a fundamental part of NAS.

If such a procedure can work in the US, and in Canada, there is just a chance it could work here.

I pay a substantial amount for the IFR ATC service so I would like to have some assistance where the risk is greatest- like going into Bankstown or into Moorabbin over Mt Dandenong when in IMC.

Biggles_in_Oz

27th Sep 2008, 07:20

Mr Smith. In your example If still in IMC at WATLE the pilot is instructed by Sydney approach to "leave control area on descent- call Sydney radar 124.55"
We are set up for a classic CFIT as no descent altitude is given by ATC.
Lets say the pilot makes an error and descends too early and is about to hit a ridge in the famous Blue Mountains with peaks to 4000' amslUhmmm, get a VTC or WAC and mark WATLE on it.
If you're at WATLE, going eastwards to Bankstown, then all the high-terrain is north, south and west of WATLE., ie. it is not in front of you.

james michael

27th Sep 2008, 07:35

Dick

Great SY wx for fishing, eh?

I just found a ML VTC, motivated by BIO above, and find the Mt Dandenong TV towers on the VTC are 2567' at 15 Nm to run YMMB.

If you are in IMC with likelihood of hitting something 2567' high 15 Nm from the airfield ......................... time for a BFR or at least borrow my Garmin 495 as it will assist :)

max1

27th Sep 2008, 09:12

Dick,

I don't work that airspace, it is not even in the room I work in. Maybe someone working SY TCU would care to comment?

"Surely you would agree that the obvious safety problem could be easily fixed? "
Dick, I don't know, see above. There maybe a whole bunch of reasons why/ why not it is a good/bad idea. I don't have that expertise so feel it is not my place to comment. I do have a problem when you say that this could EASILY be fixed.

We(controllers) are not change resistant, over the last 10+ years the change to our workplace and procedures has been huge. Our underlying issue has been that we want the changes to be researched,resourced, and managed well.
Most of us have had no simulator refresher training for 3+ years (under whose tenure does that tie in with?) This means, unlike pilots, we are not put through the ringer in the simulator to see how we cope with unusual situations.

In the Benalla situation, after all the carry-on, the undeniable truth is either the pilot or his equipment stuffed up, you are advocating a role for controllers that WE are the last line of defence and will carry the can in this situation.
If you want that, ensure that we have the resources and personnel to do this. Unfortunately,(see previous posts and research Reason model) this situation will probably happen again, only this time a controller would carry the lions share of the blame.

Dick

"Lefty' You are correct -It's not as dificult to do as others make out It is more about resistance to change than anything else."

Tell me how easy it is do. If you want the pilot error to be picked up EVERY single time there is a mistake, without fail, it will have to be resourced properly.

What is the penalty/ responsibilty for the pilot who forgets to report visual, who forgets to report that he is deviating off track outside controlled airspace, who is not monitoring the correct frequency, who has descended below MSA inadvertently. You are putting the onus on the controller to pick up everyone of these, and from my straw poll in Brisbane Centre these situations occur multiple times on a daily basis, and so far we haven't had a CFIT with controller responsibility.
Does the pilot get three strikes and then his licence pulled? Even though he was aviating and navigating and THEN communicating. Your scenario has to be that the alarm will ONLY go off when there IS a real problem. As you have been told this is currently not the case. 95% of alarms are spurious because the controller already knows there is a problem and the machine is just checking.

Dick Smith

27th Sep 2008, 10:30

Biggles, what happens if the pilot is given the instruction to descend before WATLE?

All you and JM are doing is trying to justify that the 1940's procedures designed for FSO's are suitable for ATC's in 2008. They are not!

Re Benalla, no not the last line of defence and having to carry the can- just another line of defence that may result in people not being killed.

You appear to believe that in en- route airspace the controllers responsibility should be limited to aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance and not be involved in CFIT avoidance which is ten times more likely to happen.

How come ATC's in Canada and the US are happy to have this responsibility?

And the Kyeema ran into Mt Dandenong in 1938 killing 18 -if a pilot made an error when IFR in the same vicinity today ATC would not even know if the aircraft was visual or in cloud and would not be able to assign an altitude anyway.

Biggles_in_Oz

27th Sep 2008, 12:46

Mr Smith.
You originally sited a scenario with WATLE as the descent point., now you've changed it, (sigh), to have a descent before WATLE.
To be in CTA prior to WATLE implies a descent from above 7500'.
The terrain in that region is around the 4000' level., therefore a fairly high rate of descent, or a long shallow descent, would be required before a CFIT. (assuming IMC are to the surface).
If you're in IMC prior to WATLE, then you'd better be IFR rated, which means that you have a reasonable idea of where you are, and what the LSALT is in your region., so sure, the controller may clear you to leave CTA early, but they, (nor any sane person) would expect you to do a descent to below LSALT unless specifically cleared to do so.

I love the inherent security of having another set of eyes (ATC) watching what I do, but I have a glimmering of just how difficult and complex things can be from the ATC's perspective.

To take a common computer analogy., how often have you clicked the OK button to a popup message without fully understanding what you've just 'OKed' ?.
It's actually a widespread human problem, (and a major reason for the existence of the 'Recyle Bin').
I'd prefer to not have ATCO's becomming desensitised by frequent alarms occurring every time that I exceed some lateral or vertical tolerance.

ferris

27th Sep 2008, 14:04

Dick, often I read things in your post which clearly show your lack of understanding of the ATC task. Often I dont bother (as generally others have a go at trying to give you the expert advice you so often claim to listen to anyway :rolleyes: ), however...You appear to believe that in en- route airspace the controllers responsibility should be limited to aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance and not be involved in CFIT avoidance That is exactly the case. En route control and terminal control are two different disciplines. That is not to say that a controller is precluded from doing both- it just isnt the case in oz, and would require massive change on a fundamental level- I'll let you research why etc. rather than bore the audience with long explanations.
You also appear to deftly avoid aspects of the US system in your "just simply turn the alarms on and ask the pilot to report visual" scenario (beyond the already mentioned radar coverage, sector sizes etc etc).
THE US HAS FLIGHT SERVICE. SOMEONE (whose name suddenly escapes me?????) thought it would be a good idea to get rid of flight service in oz, as we didnt need the overservicing. OVERSERVICING!!
THE US SYSTEM HAS FLIGHT FOLLOWING. THE US SYSTEM has many things that oz could provide, but that would not be affordable. AFFORDABLE. Yet when you say the changes to MSA alerting would cost almost nothing because the computer does the monitoring and just provides alerts- WHO ACTS ON THE ALERTS? I wonder- did Dick Smith Electronics stores sack all the cleaners, then after a few years decide that the stores did need cleaning, but the shop assistants could just do the cleaning in between other tasks and therefore cleaning costs almost nothing? And with only half the compliment of staff....I wonder.....those lazy shop assistants...they could have an electronic device that detects when the dirt gets to a certain depth to alert the shop assistants to the imminent need for cleaning.....

Now, it seems that a poster here (whose name escapes me), is advocating that the ATC (note air traffic CONTROL) service provider, which due to fundamentally flawed philosphical collisions between safety and profit, is unable to provide even uninterrupted ATC, should now do flight service- and not just 1940's style flight service, but should be doing super-enhanced flight service. This same poster, who dismantled FS, now wants more of it. No FS in the NAS end state, yet MORE FS-type tasks. FS=advice. ATC= CONTROL. Yet here we are, having advocation of ATC doing advisory tasks. Cant wait til the US goes to their proposed in-or-out airpsace, then we can go full circle and have that advocated here. Surely you agree, Dick?

For those (LHR et al) who are swayed by the opinions of someone who is not an air traffic controller/FSO on these matters really need to get some clear thinking skills. Have a discussion with an ATC to get the other side of the story. (Are they change-resistant, or change fatigued? AsA is drowning with idiotic change).

ps. Dick, I would REALLY appreciate it if you could give me a blow-by-blow hypothetical description of how Benalla would've played out differently with your MSA alert scenario in place. You keep quoting it, so just tell us what you think would've happened- if your proposal to "use the radar properly" had been in place. This might change many people's minds- surely you agree?

Please, Left Handed Rock thrower, Dick, Dick's disciples- anyone...a blow-by-blow account of what would've happened at Benalla under the "report visual" proposal.

TrenShadow

28th Sep 2008, 01:09

OS
what's the distance on your screen between YBLA and the approach points - not Nm, inches or cms or part thereof?

I'm not OS, but I do work the same airspace with him and having just measured on the 420NM screen:

YBLA to BLAEI: 13 millimetres
BLAEI to BLAEE: 6.5 millimetres

Deepsea Racing Prawn

28th Sep 2008, 01:43

LHRT, nice boat.:ok:

Did you catch anything?

Dick Smith now calls you 'Lefty'....after only one phone call....makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

james michael

28th Sep 2008, 01:56

Tren

Gratias. Thanks for the 'measured' effort.

So if we multiply such items across the TAAATS screen my feeling is you will need really good eyesight and a visual scan for alerts far ahead of anything I need to do in the cockpit :)

Unless the alert program LHR (I think) suggested was very selective of only genuine alerts indicating risk, my thought is that ATCs would be micro managing their screens without much benefit.

C-change

28th Sep 2008, 11:16

The critical point being missed by lots of people on this thread is that there is not enough controllers to manage the current airspace, let alone take on more responsibilty.

Are we jumping the gun calling for a trial and implementation for a procedure (that I like) without the staff and other resources to carry it out properly?

You pilots out there need to be paying more attention and making a lot more noise about the lack of ATCO's and the large areas of Class C airspace that have NO controller watching during TIBA. This is a more critical and pressing issue. 3rd world procedure in an apparent 1st world country.

Fix the staff situation and anything down the track is possible. With enough staff there is no reason why Aust couldn't have a radar FS operating in class G (not withstanding the obvious coverage limitations). CLAM wouldn't be required, as no level asigned in class G, with software setup to Grid and/or track LSALT. When pilot calls on freq descending from CTA and receives traffic statement, add on " ABC, no IFR traffic, report when visual". ABC reports "visual" and clicking on something similar to the "C" prompt turns off Grid/LSALT alarm. If ABC approaches 200' of Grid/LSALT (similar to CLAM) alarm goes off and ABC challenged for in flight conditions or approach intentions.

Anyway its just food for thought and would only work with, 1. more staff, 2. smaller sectors and 3. much better coverage. I'm sure plenty out there will rip into me an I know this is more like a TMA procedure but it could be done if the above problems ever get solved.

One solution to improve radar coverage in the short term would be to include all Military Radar feeds into TAATS.
Why would you only take selected feeds? (Saves money)

Military ATC take all en-route and TMA feeds within 100Nm of each base.

Looking forward to your replies now that I have my flak jacket and helmet on.;)

K-941

28th Sep 2008, 11:41

Replace the word RADAR with Surveillance in the above summation and you have nailed it :ok:

ferris

28th Sep 2008, 14:00

C-Change. I doubt anyone in the industry doubts that it CAN be done, I take issue with the "one who knows all" that this is a simple thing- a mere change of procedure and the flick of an alarm switch. One never understands what his agenda really is.....I mean, he campaigns against ADS-B, the thing which would enable many of his wants, he rabbits on incessantly about putting resources to risks, yet seems happy to throw lots of resources at whatever risk he thinks fit (this very issue for example), closes FS, yet loves all the FS-type things they have in the US, campaigns like a bull in a china shop over things he claims strangle the life out of GA (holding at air force boundaries), yet remains silent on the real costs in GA (charging regime, corporatisation of infrastructure assets, fuel tax etc). He is an enigma.

Chimbu chuckles

28th Sep 2008, 15:57

Well said ferris - is enigma a clever word for prat?:E

As I said over and over again during the NASdebates, there is a LOT of stuff needs fixing before we get to airspace.:ugh:

Dick Smith

28th Sep 2008, 22:20

Ferris, You would understand my agenda if you spent 10 minutes on the phone with me. Despite over 1000 posts from yourself you still do not have the slightest grasp on what I am on about.

My beliefs are consistent and based on an objective criteria.

I have always stated that I am a strong supporter of ADSB - just not leading the world when we do not even use our present radar effectively.

I did not close FS - in fact if you look at previous threads you will see it was my legal action that has kept it going.

The AMATS changes that I was responsible for included two automated FS stations and VHF outlets across Australia - identical to the US NAS.

Have some guts and phone me rather than continue to defame me. ph 0408 640 221

And by the way- one of the greatest risks in Australia at the moment are further CFIT accidents because we do not make effective use of our present Radar- do you deny this?

ferris

28th Sep 2008, 22:53

I dont want to drag the thread too far away- but since you asked; YES, I deny/dont think that CFIT is "one of the greatest risks in Australia at the moment are further CFIT accidents because we do not make effective use of our present Radar". There are far greater risks- to whit 3rd world TIBA airspace, derailing of ADS-B fitout by amateurs etc etc.

A strong supporter of ADS-B? I thought someone with your ability to drive an agenda would be whipping this horse home instead of lining up the guns to stop it. Funny way of supporting something.

Didn't close FS???? That's just weasel words. You gutted it, then pretend to ride to the rescue of it's last vestiges.

Defaming you, Dick, would involve making statements that weren't true. Pretty sure if I had done any such thing it would've been lawyers at 20 paces long ago.

And I will indeed phone you. Gutless? :rolleyes: yeah, right.

Still waiting for your blow-by-blow description of what would've happened in the Benalla case you cite as being a shining example of how your proposition would save the day. I'm ready to be swayed- such a simple and transparent lesson for us all awaits. Surely you agree?

K-941

28th Sep 2008, 23:39

I have always stated that I am a strong supporter of ADSB - just not leading the world when we do not even use our present radar effectively.

I did not close FS - in fact if you look at previous threads you will see it was my legal action that has kept it going. :eek: :hmm:
Saying something after the fact does not erase the small forrest of documentation from the last 15 years of meddling that proves the exact opposite! ;) but if thats what you need to sleep at night :hmm: :D

For the record do you now support subsidised 1090ES ADS-B for GA and Flight Service OCTA? Just a yes or no will suffice :)

Dick Smith

28th Sep 2008, 23:55

No Not stop ADSB, just delay the decision so we have all the facts and it doesn't result in another MLS fiasco with tens of millions of industry money being wasted.

In a few days you will hear of another Airservices stuffup with tens of millions of dollars being written off. All of this money could have been used to train more controllers or pay them a market salary-- now the money has gone from Australia to the USA - just like the Seasprite ONE billion $ loss.

Re Benalla, this is how an ATC told me it would work.

When the aircraft went 500' below the LSA of 7100' about 30 miles east of Benalla the MSAW would have been activated as the Pilot would not have reported visual or cancelled IFR as he was still in IMC. The controller would have called the pilot to check if he had failed to report visual. The pilot would have reported that the aircraft was still in IMC. The controller would then have issued an urgent safety alert with the instruction to climb to 7100'

Six people would most likely be alive today.

Re Flight Service I did change the system so that FSO's were like FSO's in the rest of the world ie providing an ICAO type flight information service. Our FSO's were providing an en -route traffic information service as if they were some type of lower paid and lower skilled ATC.

The safety problem with the system was that we could not use the advantage of radar as the FSO's were not radar rated.

I will look forward to your phone call.

pocpicadoor

29th Sep 2008, 00:31

...bad weather on the eastcoast: 80 a/c doing 80 GPS APPs into 80 different aerodromes, each below the enr lsalt: 80 alarms...10 ATCs operating 10 sectors; 2 TIBAs.

Work it out Dick! More resources required.... more cost to the aviating public: user pays!!

How many other a/c were below LSALTs on visuals when the unfortunate BLA accident occurred?

Close ASA as a business enterprise: revert to Govt agency??

Dick Smith

29th Sep 2008, 01:01

Poc ATC costs us over $600 m a year. It's main purpose is to prevent accidents.

A most common form of airline accident is a CFIT.

In all leading Aviation countries I have flown in a procedure exists so that ATC is used to prevent CFIT accidents in radar covered enroute airspace.

A procedure does not exist in Australia because all enroute airspace below 12500' was previously the responsibility of radio operators who were not trained or allowed to use radar.The procedures have never been updated because of resistance to change and a lack of an ethos to copy proven success from others.

There will not be 80 alarms- there will only be an alarm from a pilot who has failed to report visual or is about to die.

Keep your mind closed until 120 people die at Proserpine, Canberra or a similar airport with good radar coverage and mountains in the vicinity. I hope it's not your family.

KeepItRolling

29th Sep 2008, 01:29

Dick et al,

ASA makes a profit of around $100m anually.

The 'management' of ASA make bonuses directly related to that profit.

I doubt that there are any ATCs who would argue that what Dick proposes re CFIT prevention is a worthy aim of ATC.

BUT

ATC's are not the ones signing the cheques. ASA are not about to degrade their profit by a single cent in the pursuit of mere safety.

You talk of software changes - where are the software engineers?

Controller recurrent training has been cut back to a level I can only describe as pathetic, let alone with any new procedures to be trained up.

Dick, if you want to change this change resistant culture you speak of, talk to the head bean counters (I'll bring my own popcorn) not the coalface controllers who are busting their privates to keep the current system running.

GA makes no profit, therefore there is no corporate interest.

Re-align the objectives of the board (and with it the government) away from mega profit to actually providing a service and you could find things happening in a way you could not have dreamt possible.

Off to the Bloody Tower.

Dick Smith

29th Sep 2008, 01:52

The AsA act says they must give primacy to safety. Why does't Mike Taylor ensure that they comply with the act?

Flying Binghi

29th Sep 2008, 01:54

The 'management' of ASA make bonuses directly related to that profit.

Hmmm...............:hmm:

james michael

29th Sep 2008, 02:39

Dick

Apology, this will be a longish post but it is my 'be nice to Dick' week so I need to be detailed, as I feel there is a very valid further discussion point in the KIR post.

Airservices data are as follows:
Of those aircraft weighing more than 15.1 tonnes (mostly RPT), 2,573 aircraft contribute $671 million towards the total revenue of $679 million (i.e. 98.8%).

An estimated 6,010 aircraft below 5.7 tonnes (and not flown by significant training schools), representing 65% of the total billable aircraft, are mainly aeromedical and private aircraft operating out of regional and GAAP locations; they contribute $4.0 million.

At the other extreme, around 2,000 customers together pay less than $50,000 per year. Out of the total customer base of 9,300, 33% of our billable customers contribute only $120,000 per year to our revenue (as shown in Figure 9). These customers use our services infrequently and are mainly transport (i.e. not training) flights. In this segment, 1,674 operators pay less than $250 per year; of those, 833 pay less than $50 per year.

Airservices make the following points and I believe they are relatively unarguable in a User Pays environment:
- Prices should have a relationship to the cost of providing services.
- Prices should encourage economically efficient resource use and allocation.
- The charging basis should recognise the key drivers giving rise to the need, or trigger, for investment in new services. (E.G your proposal)

The forthcoming SDE environment will group lower level GA and regional RPT separate from CC pairs and high level heavies.

What then do we have:
An ATC presence focussed on a relatively small number of IFR aircraft in E and G.

Now your philosophy is (my underline):
Where we fail in Australia is the treatment of IFR and airline aircraft at non-tower airports. Many times in my Citation I have had a superb service from the major airport and enroute, however when I land at a place like Port Macquarie, I am handed over into “do it yourself airspace” where I have to become the air traffic controller when in IMC. I would far prefer the system I have experienced in the USA and Canada where, at the busier non-tower airports, air traffic control is responsible for separation. I have found that in practice, the delays are not greater in these countries than those I experience in Australia, and the system (utilising Class E airspace in terminal areas) is very much simpler for the pilot – and I believe safer.

The consequence I suspect is that if they adopt what you propose and provide extra ATC to provide the service - then extra charging will follow. And, if you want ATC service for LSALT, RAM, etc, plus separation at CTAF, I do not believe you can argue it is not resource intensive.

I have not found anyone seriously arguing against the concept of extra ATC support providing an extra safety mitigator - the issue is who is campaigning for this two condom approach to safety other than you?

I still believe the provision of TSO 146 GPS plus ADS-B OUT and IN resolves much of your concern without the ongoing charging increase to all who fly IFR.

You are pursuing a campaign that may increase enroute charges for ALL operators flying IFR. User pays is here to stay. I would expect at least strong support from the RAAA if there is a substantial safety benefit.

Bing (M)
To answer your question on the other thread and save a second post there, I am quite happy to cite data from a reliable source but - as I mentioned with humour to Creamy recently - I research for myself and if you wish to query or canvass the data - YOU take it up with the source.

Flying Binghi

29th Sep 2008, 03:17

To answer your question on the other thread and save a second post there, I am quite happy to cite data from a reliable source but - as I mentioned with humour to Creamy recently - I research for myself and if you wish to query or canvass the data - YOU take it up with the source.

james michael, sounds like your running away there - is there something in the AK ADS-B data you dont want to discuss ???

Dick Smith

29th Sep 2008, 03:28

JM, you simply havn't got a clue. I understand you have never even owned your own aircraft-- I can see why.

Yes I am happy to pay for a proper IFR service at a place like Port Macquarie- and even happier when that service is given to the airline jets which fly there.

ADSB fitted to small VFR aircraft will have them all appearing on ATC screens wherever there is a ground station. What will ATC do with all of this extra information? No doubt they will provide a traffic information service on traffic that is already known about.

I know that this is what you are obsessed with. In the days before the AMATS changes RPT aircraft were given traffic information on all VFR aircraft.

This was a unique system to Australia and over a billion dollars has been saved since we decided to follow worlds best practice.

Not one life has been lost because of this change yet you are obsessed with bringing the VFR aircraft back into the ATC system again.

We now have TCAS- whats wrong with using that as the safety backup when all the other proven procedures have failed.

You are clearly convinced that AsA are doing the right thing for Australia. Why don't you get a job there and then "sell" there views without having to hide your name.

After all thats one of the reasons our forefathers went to war- to preserve the freedom of speech that you are so frightened to partake in.

xinhua2

29th Sep 2008, 03:34

Dick, A correction if I may, you say in answer to James M :

I know that this is what you are obsessed with.

In reality the man is only obsessed with his own self generated "Importance" the outcome will only dent his Ego.

When the inevitable demise of ADSB is announced he will slink away for a few days , but like a bad penny he will come back with the next techo solution to a problem that doesn't exist .

james michael

29th Sep 2008, 03:47

Bing (M)
Is it too hard for you to comprehend that if USA AOPA takes a position it is not up to me to spell it out for you? I'm a member, not their President - I don't even speak american.

See if this helps http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/File/Commdocs/hearings/2007/space/22mar/alterman_testimony.pdf

Dick

How does one have a 'nice to Dick' week when you go the man yet again and get even the first line of your reply wrong. This is typical attack by you when you lack fact and data and it is not aiding your credibility.

What did you smoke on the weekend :=
you are obsessed with bringing the VFR aircraft back into the ATC system again.Pardon? Son of JCP equips transponder equipped aircraft (you know, the ones in the system) with ADS-B and does not alter any existing system arrangements. What on earth are you on about?

Then you are back on about ones right to remain anon on here. Give it up Dick, the one obsessed is YOU. Every second post you challenge the rule at the bottom of this page. Some of us just don't want to be people of fame - accept it, Dick.

Readers will note you did not answer my questions, so just to re-summarise:
- are you aware your campaign will undoubtedly increase costs for all GA IFR operators if you succeed
- is the RAAA supporting your campaign
- is anyone supporting your campaign.

Xinhua
That was a quick return - nothing like backup I/D is there - a trojan effort :hmm:

Dick Smith

29th Sep 2008, 04:07

With ADSB wherever there is an outlet- and there will be 100's across Australia the ADSB equipped aircraft will appear on the ATC screen in Brisbane or Melbourne.

With transponders and TCAS the traffic will only appear on the TCAS screen in the aircraft when away from radar coverage.

This will mean ,just as now, ATC will not have paints of low level transponder equipped VFR aircraft on their screens from remote parts of Australia.

The difference is substantial and is no doubt why the FAA is not planning to mandate ADSB below 10,000' in non terminal areas.

james michael

29th Sep 2008, 04:44

Dick

Now I'm really confused.

You say a post ago I'm obsessed with bringing VFR aircraft back into the ATC system again.

Now you state ADS-B does NOT get them all there.

Which is it?

You say you want ATC to be responsible for separation even to busy CTAF.

You say you want extra ATC alarm coverage and monitoring of your situation when aviating.

Then you argue against bringing VFR into the ATC system.

Which do you want?

ADS-B outlets - there will be 100's accross AustraliaNow I have read your book, wouldn't it be reasonable for you to reciprocate and read the JCP? "Hundred's across Australia" - haven't I told you a million times not to exaggerate :):)

That's two first lines wrong in two consecutive posts, Dick. Given you are having a bad day and are not going to answer the questions, let's recess?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

29th Sep 2008, 04:51

Dear Dick,

"Re Flight Service I did change the system so that FSO's were like FSO's in the rest of the world ie providing an ICAO type flight information service. Our FSO's were providing an en -route traffic information service as if they were some type of lower paid and lower skilled ATC."

I DON'T THINK SO.................

I NEVER thought of myself or my job - service to the industry - as some form of a lower skilled ATC.

I DID think of myself as a professional FSO providing a much needed communications and flight information service to aircraft, large and small, operating OUTSIDE CTA, arriving and departing from AD's NOT in CTA, and to those INTERNATIONAL aircraft on long range international routes - particularly those over the oceans of the world.

Not to mention the all important SAR alerting and plain old HELP! More often than not, on HF.
(Most accidents occurred OCTA i.e. on the ground below the CTA ...)

We all understand the leaps in technology - sat. VHF links vs the 'old' HF etc - but, the 'system' as it is now, is, in my opinion, rather deficient in both services and safety margins.

Without the required numbers of STAFF - be it ATC or your 'dreaded' FSO's -
the 'system' is diminished severely.
The correct BALANCE of STAFF of all diverse qualifications to provide the diversity of services required - each well qualified in their own right, and using the proper tools available - e.g. what's wrong with a group of STAFF utilising RADAR to provide a 'different' service to those acft outside CTA, and thus being able to perhaps prevent some of those unfortunate occurrences you relate to on other forums??
Note - not a CONTROL function, but an ADVISORY, in flight information service.?

We did not know if conflicting IFR traffic were in IMC or VFR conditions - it was not necessary - we simply needed to know who was where in relation to each other....

Anyway, you know the rest of this story.........

Cheers to all,:ok::ok:

xinhua2

29th Sep 2008, 05:10

James M what on earth are you on about

Xinhua
That was a quick return - nothing like backup I/D is there - a trojan effort

????????????????????????????????????? :E

Dick Smith

29th Sep 2008, 05:16

Ex FSO GRIFFO, I think you have just given me an idea. Maybe if I get back in a position of influence, I could bring back the FSOs, give them radar, and train them to give a service to help prevent CFITs.

This may be the way to go as it looks as if the ATCs are not going to provide the service. This is sad because ATCs provide a CFIT prevention service in all radar covered airspace in both the USA and Canada.

You state:

We did not know if conflicting IFR traffic were in IMC or VFR conditions - it was not necessary - we simply needed to know who was where in relation to each other....

You are correct. That is because you only provided a traffic information service. However when radar was installed in the 1950s, it would have been great if a proper radar service (that also assisted pilots in not running into the ground) was offered.

I’m sure you will agree that the most common problem we have with professional pilots in Australia at the moment is running into the ground – not running into other aircraft.

K-941

29th Sep 2008, 07:24

GRIFFO, I think you have just given me an idea.I could bring back the FSOs, give them radar, and train them to give a service to help prevent CFITs.as well as all the other OCTA services (without VFR full reporting) they provided with such aplomb :D until you removed them :*

HURRAY :D finally :mad: you have come to grasp what many have been saying TO YOU and others for years!

Christ that was a hard slog :rolleyes: Maybe if I get back in a position of influence, I am sure there are many professionals who know very well what they are talking about who have been working on this for years. I am sure it will not be you :hmm: who makes the changes ;) but goodo anyway :E

Dog One

29th Sep 2008, 08:23

Some one is not stating all of the facts here. My understanding is that RPT CFIT accidents have been on the decline for some years now. The reason for the decline has been due to education, training and the installation of suitable equipment (EPGWS). I also understand that the Metro at Lockhart River was not EPGWS equipped, there was a lack of multi crew training, and very little CRM in the cockpit. This is a major reflection on CASA and the operator. After nearly 40 years in mult crew cockpits, my experiences indicate that CFIT prevention starts there, with procedures, situational awareness, checks and cross checks. EPGWS is the back up. I do not rely or expect one or two overworked ATC to provide me with terrain clearance. When you are enroute and you hear aircraft across the top half of Australia all working the same controller. Such a service would require a significant increase in staff at the coal face, which will never happen.

My greatest concern these days is going into CTAF's, where after giving all the necessary calls, you wonder at the silence from the many TCAS returns you have on your MFD. You also wonder how many other aircraft are out there with u/s or switched off transponders.

This country has wasted millions of dollars changing airspace to be like other countries, and has reduced the amount of services provided to the industry. In my view, ATC is necessary, there fore they should be a government department. Funded by the taxpayer for the taxpayers benefit and responsible to the taxpayer, such as Customs.

Dick Smith

29th Sep 2008, 08:55

With the same logic shouldn't the pilots also be working for the government- bit like Aeroflot.

The CFIT accidents have been on the decline around the world because all safety mitigators are used overseas.

Flight Safety International prescribes radar usage and ATC as the two most important mitigators.

We did not use the existing radar effectively at Benalla because we do not have the procedures in place.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

29th Sep 2008, 09:15

G'Day 'K9',

Don't get too excited mate - you'll only be disappointed......:}:}

Ex FSO GRIFFO

29th Sep 2008, 09:20

G'Day Dick,

Quote;
"it would have been great if a proper radar service (that also assisted pilots in not running into the ground) was offered."

YOU had the power....twice....to really 'change' things for the better.....but......:confused:

Quote;
"We did not use the existing radar effectively at Benalla because we do not have the procedures in place."

What if we substitute the word 'procedures' with 'STAFF to monitor and advise'...?

My thoughts, is all......

Chimbu chuckles

29th Sep 2008, 09:44

With the same logic shouldn't the pilots also be working for the government- bit like Aeroflot.

No Dick, that is a straw man argument.

I have said it before and I'll say it again. The ATC system, as it has evolved, exists ONLY because of and for the benefit of high density RPT Passengers/aircraft.

As such the 'Users' in 'User Pays' are the commercial passengers sat in the back of regional and domestic/international mainline aircraft. The 'Users' are also the tax payers of Australia who demand a safe aviation transport system to base an economy on.

If every GA aircraft disappeared from the face of the earth tonight the ATC system would remain essentially unchanged from tomorrow onwards. If every transport category aircraft likewise fell off the planet tonight the ATC system would be redundant in its entirety 5 seconds later.

That is why in the US (remember them - the system you never shut up about how good it is?) funds the Federal Aviation Authority - a non profit Government department through a system of ticket taxes on the airlines and a minimal fuel tax on everyone else.

That is the only fair system...anything else is despicable spin from dishonest politicians (tautology?).

Note we already pay fuel tax...and GST on that fuel tax...double taxation!!!!!

C-change

29th Sep 2008, 10:19

In my view, ATC is necessary, there fore they should be a government department. Funded by the taxpayer for the taxpayers benefit and responsible to the taxpayer, such as Customs.

It already is a government Dept. but the problem is, it is run just like a private sector corporation with an agenda to make money for its primary shareholder, ie the Government. They forgot about the "for the taxpayer" bit a long time ago.

Maximise profits, treat staff like crap, spend as little as possible to increase profits, look for further cost saving measures that also piss staff off and performance based bonus for managers that comply.

It would be interesting to hear from the older ATC's out there that worked for the Dept. of Civil Aviation and whether it was a better organisation with respect to service provided (Not airspace structure).

Most out there are still missing the point at the moment. Radar, ADS-B, whatever, serves no purpose at all when there is no one to monitor/separate/disable alarms etc.

K-941

29th Sep 2008, 10:42

cut and paste the posts immediately above from:-

- Dog One
- GRIFFO
- Chuck
and
- C-change

That is the story here :ok: the rest is piss poor spin to attempt to deflect past wrongs :=

You will be held accountable Mr :*

Dick Smith

29th Sep 2008, 10:50

K-941

29th Sep 2008, 11:26

At least those flying VFR here and keeping away from tower airports wrong :p much of the VH VFR operate at towered airports - and they mostly love it - and life! :ok: what they hate is the 'User pays' bills :=

pay virtually nothing to AsA -as it should be yep and still have the advantage of ATS safety - and they mostly love it - and life! :ok: except for the 'User pays' landing charge :=

One minute you want to drown the industry in ATC for IFR OCTA in the great fark all (and presumably the additional GA 'User pays' IFR charge := that you keep telling us YOU CAN AFFORD), yet do not want IFR to have 146 subsidised NAV's (with maps and TAWS) ala the JCP, and;

then you condone VFR avoiding ATC terminal areas! :confused: - hang on, what about WLM? or is it OK for VFR to go off the coast over nasty sea's, but just not you and yours in your VFR TURBINE helo?

Yet just today, in this august place, you rant on about how good GAAP (for VFR and IFR in VMC) is - which is it :hmm: :=

The piss weak 'zippers' you are using to attempt to hold together your burgeoning spin driven facade are failing fast - Mr :hmm:

Stand clear of the waste gate all :E - venting imminent :p

Dick Smith

29th Sep 2008, 11:57

VFR in a terminal area have the back up of being able to look out and see a mountain or another aircraft.

IFR dont have this backup when in IMC and thats why I would like to see us use our radar and ATC when it is available.

I strongly support ATC for busy terminal areas such as Bankstown--it all depends on traffic density.

Don't you understand risk management?

K-941

29th Sep 2008, 12:00

Oh I understand risk management ;) spin management is a different kettle of fish altogether :=

Dog One

29th Sep 2008, 13:11

Risk management is a very interesting topic. Practised by every one in one form or another. It was noted that Airservices didn't like the previous risk management of the introduction of E airspace outside of radar. When the DJ 737 got a bit close to the unknown VFR aircraft at Launceston, it was noted the haste at which a radar repeater was installed to prevent a re-occurrence. Risk management can be a useful tool or a dangerous tool, depending on the data used to reach conclusions.

Chimbu chuckles

29th Sep 2008, 13:28

Re the US-not a minimum fuel tax - a very substantial fuel tax which results in those flying VFR and getting virtually no service paying the same as those who fly IFR and getting a superb service.

US Fuel taxes are 21.9 cents/usg on jet fuel and 19.4 cents/usg tax on avgas.

That is 5.78 cents/liter Avtur and 5.125 cents/liter Avgas Dick

And that for full access to the ATC system.

Substantial?

We pay triple that in avgas GST alone and get sweet **** all for our money IFR or VFR!

Don't you understand risk management?

Do you?

I don't think you do. I think you're an enthusiastic amateur and a condescending, sanctimonious one at that.

We had a good system 25 years ago until YOU helped the beaurocrats and pollies destroy it.

ferris

29th Sep 2008, 15:38

Dick wrote Re Benalla, this is how an ATC told me it would work. I really wanted to be swayed by your compelling argument, Dick, but my suspicions that you know not what you do, are confirmed.
When the aircraft went 500' below the LSA of 7100' about 30 miles east of Benalla the MSAW would have been activated as the Pilot would not have reported visual or cancelled IFR as he was still in IMC Every aircraft in IMC will desend below the sector lowest safe. How do you propose to stop every single IMC descent triggering an alarm? Do you envisage a protected area around an aerodrome into which an aircraft may descend without alarming? How big should the area be? What sort of approach? Which runway? Different pilots, different aircraft, different profiles. Do you see, Dick? Do you?
The controller would have called the pilot to check if he had failed to report visual After having received traffic statement prior to descent, do pilots monitor area freq or CTAF, for how long, and when do they change? When is the inbound call made? This is single pilot IFR ops we are talking. How many CTAFs have VHF comms with the relevent centre down to the levels you need (decision height)?
The pilot would have reported that the aircraft was still in IMC. The controller would then have issued an urgent safety alert with the instruction to climb to 7100' No. I suspect that pilots, when queried about descending below the lowest safe, believe they know where they are- or they wouldnt be doing it- and (rolling eyes) would reply to such calls with a glance at the GPS and a "yes, yes, I know, as advised I'm ON DESCENT"- especially when the alarm/alert is so common that it gets ignored (like RAMs etc). Certainly, ATC dont and cant INSTRUCT pilots OCTA to do anything.
Six people would most likely be alive today. As sad as this particular situation is, I disagree. The usable radar coverage is marginal to 4500' there, and certainly does not exist at the terrain level. Even if you spent the many millions of dollars required to enable accurate terrain maps to be sampled by software watching for an infringement of, say, 1000' of any terrain, the radar coverage for the accident you hold up as the grail for your proposal DOES NOT REACH LOW ENOUGH TO ALARM PRIOR TO ANY CFIT. The error chain has to be broken much higher for radar to play a part. I put it to you that only a small minority of CFIT could be prevented by the existing surveillence capability. Especially when you consider the practical aspects of applying your "idea". ATC is not the tool to break the chain. It's a misuse/allocation of resources. The many millions of dollars your "idea" would cost would be much better spent equipping aircraft (pilots) with the tools.

Oh, and btw..The safety problem with the system was that we could not use the advantage of radar as the FSO's were not radar rated. If your grief with FS (as it was then) was as you describe- why didnt you give FS radar feeds and ratings? Seems emminently safer and more sensible THAN WHAT YOU DID. If you had so resourced FS, the industry wouldnt have saved the BILLION DOLLARS you incessantly lay claim to being responsible for, I suppose. And maybe six people would be alive today?

Affordable safety, anyone?

pps. Where is the billion btw? Industry would be very grateful to see it. I'm sure you'll agree

max1

29th Sep 2008, 21:25

Dick,
Its time for you to admit that in relation to the myriad alarms that go off on controller screens, that you really have no idea on how and why they go off. As I have stated TAAATS is a machine, the alarms go off where the machine thinks there may be a problem, not when all defences have been breached.
We have STCA (imminent collision risk, usually when aircraft are self separating after being given traffic),RAM (aircraft outside the flightplanned corridor, usually when aircraft are manouevering for approach OCTA), MPR (missed position report, aircraft not reported within 3 minutes) CLAM ( mode C disagrees with reported level, usually due signal garbling) and others. If I had a dollar for everytime a system alarm went off in Brisbane Centre, I kid you not, I would be a very rich man and not have to work. You seem to have blind faith in your supposition that alarms only go off when there IS a problem.

I have asked before and will now do so again. Get your US and Australian controllers to come on these forums and give us their FIRST HAND views on your second hand quotes. Ask your Aus controller mate how often the alarms go off. Could you name him/her on here or quote their experience.

Don't forget there are 11 000+ controllers in the US ( supposed to be about 13 000 but we'll leave FAA stuff-ups out), and about 750 in Australia, leave aside all the arguments about traffic density, and lets think about what the sector sizes must be.

Dick Smith

30th Sep 2008, 00:33

Ferris, this is so unbelievable I don’t know where to start my answer. It is obvious that your mind is totally closed or it is set in concrete.

I made no mention of aircraft (to quote you) “descending below the sector lowest safe”. I’m talking about the lowest safe altitude further than 25 miles from Benalla.

I don’t actually envisage any complex system around airports. I would simply copy proven systems from the United States, Canada or Europe.

You appear to be so isolated you think that if we are going to introduce this system we will have to design it ourselves – a bit like a Nomad – instead of just buying or copying a proven system.

You state things like:

Even if you spent the many millions of dollars required to enable accurate terrain maps to be sampled by software …

This shows your complete lack of knowledge. Any school child can click onto Google and read the altitude mapping taken by the space shuttle of the whole world. You can buy a complete TAWS database from Garmin for $500, giving the terrain contours for the world.

Giving Flight Service radar feeds and ratings would have been the height of stupidity when we already had trained air traffic controllers who could take responsibility for the lower airspace. No other country in the world has trained Flight Service operators to use radar. They use trained air traffic controllers because controllers can actually control aircraft – i.e. turn left, turn right, climb or descend. That is what they are trained to do.

My suggestion is that you lift up the phone and talk to one enroute low level US or Canadian controller who provides instrument approaches in radar covered airspace. They will tell you how simple it is, and how many times they have potentially saved lives.

Max1, it is a futile waste of time answering your posts. Your mind is obviously closed. Surely the number of air traffic controllers depends on the number of planes that are being controlled or given traffic information. Australia actually has more air traffic controllers employed per IFR aircraft than the USA.

This is not a fair comparison, however are you really telling me that we cannot provide an MSAW service for at least one airport – say Proserpine? I bet we will after 150 people die there.

Dick Smith

30th Sep 2008, 00:54

I know there are many people who read PPRuNe who have lateral thinking minds and would like to copy the best from around the world if it was to save the lives of themselves and their passengers.

What happens is the same old posters come on with their fixed views saying there is no way we can actually improve the service we give here.

I have received a number of private messages asking why I don’t get an American air traffic controller to come on and explain how it works there. The reason is simple. A number of years ago an American air traffic controller – the manager of Juneau Tower, Steve Turner – came on under the name ATCNORTH to explain how a US Class D tower works. In three or four posts these same Aussie ATCs came on and said he clearly wasn’t a controller as they didn’t accept his views.

In fact, Steve is not only an experienced professional air traffic controller, but he had been to Australia and stayed here with the President of the Australian Civil Air union. In the end, Steve naturally said it was a waste of time posting and explaining how international air traffic control works, because these people had their minds so closed they would never, ever listen.

As I stated previously, there are new young controllers coming along, and I notice from the phone calls and emails I receive that they have more of an open mind. I can see in the years to come that we will be able to move forward to more modern and safer air traffic control procedures.

For Ferris to claim that a pilot, when called and told that he was below the legal lowest safe altitude in cloud, would call back and say, “Yes, yes, I know, as advised, I’m on descent,” just shows the complete lack of understanding of how a pilot in IMC in a mountainous area in bad weather would react to such a call.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

30th Sep 2008, 01:21

Whilst several posts ago I bowed out of this topic as it was my opinion that many on this thread are so blind to a reasonable argument and dogmatic attacking anything Dick has to say that, well quite frankly I could not see any point in engaging in a public lynching, irrespective of that facts.

But now this thread has reach an all time low, Ferris in post: 122 you state it is normal for aircraft to descend below LSALT, in this case refering to Benalla, YOU ARE WRONG, I believe your attitude is quite negligent, if pilots descend below LSALT altitudes in IMC outside of MSA's and published approaches you have a duty of care to the pax of the aircraft to report them to CASA.

TNP travelling from YSBK to YBLA, tracking to BLA from AY:

NOTE:
Route LSALT is not published,
Grid LSALT is 7100,
25nm MSA 3000,
10nm MSA 3500,
The RNAV approach commences at ~11nm BLA.

If TNP was at 6100ft in IMC at ~30nm BLA, alarm bells should be ringing, someone is about to screw the pooch.

Ferris explain to me how on at 1042 ( Here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2004/AAIR/pdf/aair200402797_001.pdf) ), the pilot was below all relevant LSALT, i.e 7100 and outside the 25nm MSA, but thats OK ?.

A MSAW system would have alerted the ATCO to this situation, i.e the Aircrafts X,Y and Z position versus the GPWS database would have shown the issue.

I say again, I am not a supporter of the beast that was NAS, but this MSAW system would probably have saved the day in this situation.

Max and company you can prattle on all day about work load and staff, you are right, there is a ASA staff shortage and sectors are too big, it should be remedied, you guys and gals deserve more money and a better work/ home balance, do not let that get in the way of positive change/ progress.

To young pilots, do not listen to posters like Ferris, they clearly do not understand what happens in the aircraft, if you are in IMC, do not descend below LSALT until you enter a MSA ( via DME, TSO GPS or cross radial or station passage on an approach ) or get visual.

Think of the LSALT's and MSA as "protected area's", unless you can travel from one protected area to another without leaving a protective area, don't do it.

If you become dis-orientated on an approach, go around carry out the published missed approach.

For anyone interested, we caught half a bucket of school whiting and a couple Cod (lightly floured on the BBQ:)).

Dick Smith

30th Sep 2008, 01:53

Of course the obvious question is, “Why doesn’t CASA do something about this?” Talk about useless space. Remember that CASA now has the responsibility for airspace. Over a year ago, they set up the Office of Airspace Regulation, and even brought in from the United Kingdom a manager to run this.

What has happened since then? Just about zero. I wonder if they even read these posts and realise that an accident like Benalla could happen again tomorrow. Why is it that the organisation is so bereft of leadership that no one is simply game to make a decision.

Let’s look at the ATSB. Did they make a recommendation that Airservices should look at procedures at Benalla to prevent this type of accident being repeated? Of course not. Even though the ATSB recommends pilots read the Flight Safety Foundation document on Controlled Flights Into Terrain – and that document shows the most important safety mitigators are radar and ATC – they made no recommendation that we actually use the radar properly at Benalla and similar airports to save lives.

That is because the investigators at the ATSB are ex-military controllers whose minds are totally fixed in concrete. I’m sure their brains would say, “That is uncontrolled airspace. That means air traffic controllers do not have a responsibility. Five hundred people could kill themselves for all we care. Pilots shouldn’t make mistakes.”

As I’ve said continuously, we will end up with a major accident at Proserpine, killing over 100 people, and then the changes will be made. Let’s hope the people who are responsible are held responsible.

james michael

30th Sep 2008, 02:56

Tis always interesting to consider the lessons of history in examining the present. This link may assist newbies understand the full context of these discussions.

Four Corners - 29/03/99: Crash Through Or Crash. Australian Broadcasting Corp (http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/s20879.htm)

and

A dictim that might have kept CASA out of the pickles - Local News - News - Columns - The Canberra Times (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/columns/a-dictim-that-might-have-kept-casa-out-of-the-pickles/660819.aspx)

TrenShadow

30th Sep 2008, 03:19

LhRT:30NM BLA from AY would be within the 25 MSA of WGT, I believe in the 6300', if not the 3000' 10NM MSA (haven't got a map handy to confirm distances).Even with the 6300' case, if the a/c is showing 6100' on my radar console, that is within MODE C tolerance

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

30th Sep 2008, 03:57

Hi Tren,

A valid point (purley academic of course), except the distance AY-BLA is 54nm ( and Wangaratta is 6300 ), therefore 4 nm outside "protected area", which is not legal, i know this is splitting hairs, but the rules are quite clear.

I do not believe jumping between enroute aerodrome MSA's is a safe practice and would not offer a turbine any fuel savings, would significantly reduce ones capacity for maintaining the big picture

TrenShadow

30th Sep 2008, 04:30

My point being that the a/c at 6100' at 30NM BLA inbound from AY, would be within MODE C tolerance of a valid LSALT (WGT 25NM MSA) and thus TAAATS would have no cause to go DING.

Dick Smith

30th Sep 2008, 04:45

The aircraft in the Benalla accident was actually coming from Ulladulla, and clearly the lowest safe altitude for that route was over 7,000 feet.

James Michael, I loved reading the transcript of the 4 Corners show. It is interesting how little changes. The Class G trial was to use radar for the first time between Marulan and Ballina. The radar was actually used to get information on the so-called “near miss”, and the BASI recommendation in effect turned off the radar access and gave the airspace back to Flight Service Officers without radar. Very quietly (almost secretly) a few years later, they gave the airspace back to the radar controllers. I had won!

It is quite clear if you read the transcript that Trevor Jensen from Ansett had threatened Mick Toller. In those days Ansett could do no wrong, and they were protected by the Minister and the Government at the time.

It is still the same with Qantas. Of course, a major accident will change all that. The quote “Crash through or crash” came from a Labor Minister. It has certainly never been my view. My ideology has always been to copy proven safe systems and learn from the accidents that have already happened around the world.

It is interesting that not long after this episode, Rob Lee was removed from his position at BASI, and Mick Toller was not re-instated as CEO of CASA. Under Mick Toller, something like $100 million was spent on the regulatory reform process, with absolutely no results at all. I’m glad I didn’t stay around to be responsible for that huge money wastage with no action.

max1

30th Sep 2008, 05:42

Dick,
Thats interesting Dick, re-the ratio of IFR to controllers. I would be interested in seeing the figures. Also I will attempt to track down the figures for aircraft movements against controller numbers.

Dick, I do not have a closed mind, I have in fact said it could be done. I just don't believe it is as simple as you make out. I have asked you your exposure to the operation of our TAAATS system, its alarms, and the geographical area sectors cover. Still waiting for your answer.

If this trial is found to show that the alarms go off a great part of the time with many false alarms, then what? I am happy to trial this, I have said so previously, just give us the resources to do it. Have you actually read any of my posts with an open mind?

LHRT and Dick, you are assuming that every aircraft reports visual on time,that they all advise ATC when OCTA that they are amending their tracking to position for approach, that they all maintain a listening watch on ATC when calling on the CTAF frequency, and that they will not ignore ATC whilst doing something far more important (Aviating and Navigating).

Dick, you may be the perfect pilot, who never misses a call, who can simultaneously monitor the CTAF and the control frequency, never forgets a SARTIME,whose first thought after becoming visual, after flying an instrument approach in a nasty IMC environment would be to advise ATC, who has never deviated off your planned route when OCTA ( do you understand RAM)without advising ATC. If so, we should clone you.

Most ATC appreciate that pilots are human (No, not all before anyone starts.)and hopefully vice versa.

LHRT you state
"I believe your attitude is quite negligent, if pilots descend below LSALT altitudes in IMC outside of MSA's and published approaches you have a duty of care to the pax of the aircraft to report them to CASA."

This is our point, the pilot probably hasn't does this, he/she just hasn't reported that they are visual. This will trigger our alarms leading us to go through the process of chasing this up as a matter of first priority with the pilot. Are they still on our frequency, are they ignoring us because of more pressing matters that require their attention. So in these instances, which I have already said occur many times on a daily basis, all the other things we are doing like vectoring, holding,co-ordination,other radio calls, etc, get placed behind chasing up these pilots.
Think of one or two of these going on simultaneously. When the weather is bad, its usually over a large area.
Surely if this is mandated it will become our number one priority to confirm that the pilot is visual, as you would agree it is time critical.

This is the crux of the matter for ATC, continually chasing false alarms to the detriment of all the other things we do. Lots more staff required.
Dick, you think I am over playing the false alarms. You won't believe it until you sit in on a sector, and see it for yourself.
I hope you do it soon.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

30th Sep 2008, 05:47

Tren,

All very valid points, even with what you are saying, at sometime shortly after 1042 TAAATS would have gone "DING", the aircraft definately breached the GPWS profiles, definately at some point prior to the sudden stop, maybe, just maybe the ATCO could save the day with MSAW.

Someone earlier stated that Pilots are not allowed to make mistakes, that makes me a very very poor Pilot.

I challenge you to find me one that doesn't make mistakes.

max1

30th Sep 2008, 05:51

LHRT,

"Someone earlier stated that Pilots are not allowed to make mistakes, that makes me a very very poor Pilot.

I challenge you to find me one that doesn't make mistakes. "

Ditto controllers, hooray we're finally getting somewhere.

K-941

30th Sep 2008, 05:56

The Class G trial was to use radar for the first time between Marulan and Ballina.

Perhaps you might enlighten the newbies about the frequency :rolleyes: arrangements for your Class G trial

was it mutlicom :hmm: or something equally useless i.e. NOT on the ATC sector (RADAR) frequency for aircraft climbing away from and descending into MBZ's and CTAF's :yuk: :=

I seem to remember a C130 and a Kingair coming within a tally-ho paper (ish') of swapping paint whilst the radar sector controller was going white and giddy watching the two converging with no 'reliable' ability to contact :* :=

I am sure it will still be in the ATSB/BASI database :suspect:

Dick Smith

30th Sep 2008, 06:10

Max, it works everywhere else in the world without lots of alarms because they have updated there procedures to reflect where the real risk is.

We have never had a requirement to report when visual in uncontrolled airspace so no one could possible know if there would be too many alarms or not.

Re the Class G trial, I wanted AsA to provide a radar traffic information service to IFR aircraft in the Class G but AsA refused.

K-941

30th Sep 2008, 06:15

:= :* they did NOT refuse :mad: .. the dam'd controllers could not talk to the traffic they NEEDED to because YOU had OCTA traffic juggling the stupid multicom and other freq's that most often meant IFR were NOT able to listen to ATC DTI!

Facts mate stick to facts :=

ferris

30th Sep 2008, 07:39

LHR, you need to calm down and read my posts, not create straw-man arguments in very Dick-like fashion.you state it is normal for aircraft to descend below LSALT, in this case refering to Benalla, YOU ARE WRONG, I believe your attitude is quite negligent, if pilots descend below LSALT altitudes in IMC outside of MSA's and published approaches you have a duty of care to the pax of the aircraft to report them to CASA.
I DID NOT SAY "it is normal for aircraft to descend below LSALT. I said Every aircraft in IMC will desend below the sector lowest safe That is THE ATC SECTOR ALTITUDE. Do you know why? Because the sectors in Australia are so big that they will inevitably cover some high terrain, that may or may not be anywhere near the aerodrome that the pilot is descending into. Do I need to type slower so that you can follow? We are talking about taking operational aspects of flying and changing them into the ATC point of view. The only way Dick's "idea" will work is from the ATC point of view. The ATC cannot, and will never have, the pilots point of view (even though some ATCs have pilots licenses {as do I}). LHR, you need to rethink your position on this. I dont care if you cant understand my posts, and are so blinded by Dick that you have a closed mind. The ATCs keep repeating over and over that we CAN do this, but YOU dont realise what you are asking us to do, or the resources it will suck up. Why dont YOU get your ass into a centre, and give yourself some balance?
Ferris explain to me how on at 1042 ( Here ), the pilot was below all relevant LSALT, i.e 7100 and outside the 25nm MSA, but thats OK ?. Whether it's ok or not is irrelevent. How is the ATC going to know that it is not ok- that is the question. It's fine to just say "do this, do that" as Dick tends to do, but then someone has to come along and DO IT. Often, those people, the ones who will have to DO IT can see the ramifications and that it isn't going to be that easy, but there is just no way of getting that message thru to Dick (or his disciples)- he just dismisses it as "change resistance".

Dick- where do I start? It is obvious that your mind is totally closed or it is set in concrete. I dont believe it is. I have worked in 3 different countries as an ATC. 3 different "systems", 3 different rule sets, in some extremely busy airspace. I just happen to have a different opinion to you, and based upon the damage I have seen you do, and the way you do it, I dont just nod whenever you open your mouth. I am trying to convince some of my North American colleagues to join me in a phone conference with you. I will advise. Any school child can click onto Google and read the altitude mapping taken by the space shuttle of the whole world. You can buy a complete TAWS database from Garmin for $500, giving the terrain contours for the world. I thought YOU, Dick, would have a better understanding of proprietry software? Thats all fine and dandy, but ATC doesnt use Garmin gear. AsA use TAAATs, and any changes to it COST A MOTZA. I am informed by a friend in that field that, in his opinion, the initial changes would cost in the order of $15 million. He stressed that it may be more. Please, continue to talk about all the advanced gear that you like, garmin, TAWS etc- but remember somebody, his name escapes me, chose and ordered and paid for TAAATs. So unless you want to scrap TAAATs, please talk about all these changes IN TERMS OF TAAATs, and how TAAATs will perform the task you seek.
Your statement here No other country in the world has trained Flight Service operators to use radar. They use trained air traffic controllers because controllers can actually control aircraft – i.e. turn left, turn right, climb or descend is telling, and is, perhaps, a clue to where you are going with this. You suggest elsewhere a return of flight service officers, with radar. Imagine if they had been there all along? How many lives would've been saved? Always amusing to watch your twists and turns, Dick.

Dick Smith

30th Sep 2008, 08:38

K-941 The reason the National Advisory Frequency existed was because AsA refused to provide a traffic information service using ATC's in that airspace.

The UK has lots of G airspace and it works well using the existing radar controllers.

Ferris TAAATS was puchased including a MSAW system for all radar covered airspace using (Iwas told) manually inserted altitudes on a grid basis.

It is obvious that you support the present system no matter what anyone else says.

RE FS using radar- do you really think I was serious?

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

30th Sep 2008, 09:05

Ferris,

FYI, not a Dick Smith disciple as you put it, but at this point in time I agree with Dick on two very fundamental issues:

1) Many on here are very closed minded and appear to have a very much "deer in the headlights" hatred towards anything Mr Smith posts, is it Tall Poppy Syndrome or is it hatred bourne from the NAS "event" of not long ago.

NAS is dead in the water, build a bridge, you won.

2) That a MSAW system would considerably reduce the chances of CFIT OCTA with RADAR/ADS coverage ( FYI (http://www.icao.int/nacc/meetings/2007/SURV_SEMI/Day03_THALES_Gonzales.pdf), Pg 25, also FYI (http://www.flightsafety.org/news/nr97-19.pdf)).

Unfortunately not all IFR aircraft has E/GPWS.

Flying Binghi

30th Sep 2008, 10:20

build a bridge, you won.

Whats that saying, ...United we stand - divided we fall

ferris

30th Sep 2008, 10:49

Dick,
It is obvious that you support the present system no matter what anyone else says.

RE FS using radar- do you really think I was serious?
I think I have stated repeatedly that what you want can be done. But it will cost. You, who claim repeatedly to want to put resources to risk, seem to not want to know how much resourcing this will require and how much mitigation you will get. A curious position. As usual. And what's wrong with flight service using radar? Thats effectively what happens now with ATC trying to do FS on top of (or under) ATC. FS with radar would've been awesome. I have seen ATCs using radar to do FS save lives on 2 occasions, but thats a whole other thread. If someone decided to actually put the money that aviation generates back into it, we could have (should have?) the old-style FS, enhanced with radar. All it will take is a realisation that FS is necessary, and ATC is too overloaded to do it anymore. Thats the sort of change, Dick, that if you drove it would be embraced whole-heartedly by industry. Stuff that would REALLY help GA (and the industry as a whole).

LHRT, if you wonder why everything Dick says isn't embraced with gusto, re-read the above paragraph. A perfect example of why Dick should be assigned his due position when he opens his mouth, and why a very sceptical eye cast over whatever he says. It quite possibly is a reversal of a previously strongly held position of his, or actually pushing a totally different agenda.
Unfortunately not all IFR aircraft has E/GPWS.
Perhaps, if you looked at how much giving this role to ATC will cost, you might find you could install E/GPWS (or a suitable alternative) in every relevent aircraft. God forbid any rational dissention stand in Dick's way, though. Who looks like they have a closed mind now?

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

30th Sep 2008, 10:59

If its an agenda, how will Dick personally benefit from it ?, what drives him to see this occur ?.

The "Top Job" perhaps, lets be completely honest, any man that hugs a tree on national TV is quite certain he has very little interest in a high profile Government job.

C-change

30th Sep 2008, 11:05

This was a good thread a while back but then it became another Bash Dick Smith/Benalla/Swinging dick club. He said this, you said that, bla bla bla.
What happened to common sense and manners.

We are supposed to be professional people in a high tech industry. People trust us with their lives.

Any wonder nothing changes or improves.

How about we all get off our personnal soap boxes/vendettas etc and get back to discussing how things could be improved, ie the safety of those who fly, GA, RPT, MIL, whoever.

People died at Benalla and unfortunately people will die in the future but the focus should always on preventing as many as possible. We all do this every time we plug in or start up. Whether you agree with Dick Smith or not, he is raising a safety issue that he feels very passionate about. Nothing wrong with that (and no I'm not his love child).

In todays busy world it is all too easy to say NO and then justify the answer. Maybe if we started saying, Can this be done? Is it worthwhile? will things improve? and of course how much?

Where things are going wrong is when Pilots and ATC's rip into each other and the US and THEM club forms and nothing changes.

Dick, you need to spend some time in one of the centres. I think you would be surprised at how well you would actually be received and welcomed.

For other ATC's and Pilots, go and visit each others work places or get together and have a beer at the local flying club. You will be surprised what you can learn from one another.

On a more positive not, here is a link for all you aviators.

Airday Spectacular (http://www.airdayspectacular.com.au/)

K-941

30th Sep 2008, 11:06

LHRT

attempting to place perceptions after the fact that are opposite to past endevours lest he be tarred :ok:

soiled me thermals reading the last sentence :}

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

30th Sep 2008, 11:08

C-Change,

Great idea, who do I contact in Perth to meet the ATCO's, ask stupid questions and see the tools of trade ?.

40years

30th Sep 2008, 14:18

Dick,

You were told that TAAATS supported MSAW with a manual? insert of LSALT. You were told, or asumed, incorrectly.

Ferris is correct. The TAAATS MSAW is a crude blunt instrument. It cannot use proprietary terrain databases, it must have one constructed within its own software parameters. This has entailed thousands of hours of work by the DATA section in years past. The maintenance of the data equally requires hours of input (don't forget we are talking about obstacles as well as terrain, and obstacles change). Toalter this would require serious changes to the software, and probably involve changes to the way the software works for some of the other alerts. Someone mentioned 15 million dollars, and that would be well in the ball park. However, the greater obstacle would be getting the manufacturer to actually get a viable revised tool on line. Look at the posts elsewhere which make reference to Version 12 and 13, etc. It's a joke.

Secondly, you say that all that is required is a simple procedure.

Let's follow that through ON THE TAAATS EQUIPMENT.

A pilot is on descent and the MSAW erupts. The aural alarm sounds and keeps on sounding. The label flashes and gets a bright highlighted border.

The controller responds, challenges the aircraft, who says'i'm visual' or 'my God, you're right!'. The situation is resolved, the controller acknowledges the alert, the nagging sound stops, the label stops flashing but retains its bright border until the track disappears. System works.

Now in the next case, the aircraft is on descent, above the LSALT, and reports 'Visual' (your simple procedure). The controller acknowledges the pilot, reaches for his trusty mouse, and, in Dickworld, clicks on the track and cancels the looming MSAW alert. Lovely!
However, in the TAAATS world, the controller can click all he likes, he can't cancel the alert that he knows is coming, nor can he reliably and quickly notate a 'Visual' on the track. He then has to attend to a number of other calls elsewhere, and suddenly the MSAW activates on the aircraft that is visual. Short-term memory problem. Did he report visual, or was that the other bloke at Taree? He calls the aircraft - no response, gone to CTAF. He now has an alert he can't resolve, or if he can, still has the highlighted track.

Multiply this a few times and you will see that alert desenitivation will be a real possibility. A few years ago, there were some serious incidents where this reduced affect of alerts was a major factor.

This is the situation with TAAATS as it is, and as its likely to remain for the foreseeable future, EVEN IF THE BIG BUCKS WERE ALLOCATED.

This is not resistance to change, it is REALITY.

Chimbu chuckles

30th Sep 2008, 15:52

Never seen Dick do reality. If I had his money I'd probably struggle with it too.

Dick Smith

30th Sep 2008, 22:13

I founded the Australian Sceptics and am a total realist. Believe it or not, even if you have money you have to accept reality!

I understand we have the MSAW enabled in the Cairns airspace - is this true or don't we use MSAW even in terminal airspace with big mountains around?

peuce

30th Sep 2008, 22:58

Dick, I know bugger all about TAAATS and not too much on how ATC operates at Cairns ... however, from an idiot's of view ... if MSAW was operating at Cairns, we would be talking about an Approach scenario with about 10 aircraft all descending into the one aerodrome, on a small scale screen...

I would think that would be quite a different scenaio than an Enroute Sector with many more aircraft descending into many different aerodromes in many different weather patterns ..with many different trafic conflicts going on ... on a large scale screen

Dick Smith

30th Sep 2008, 23:15

C-change, you state:

Dick, you need to spend some time in one of the centres. I think you would be surprised at how well you would actually be received and welcomed.

No, not surprised, as I’ve always known that most controllers consider that I have genuine beliefs in furthering aviation in this country, and that in most things we would see eye to eye.

It is interesting that when I sold my Citation VH-MGC, the new owner put on the flight plan each time it was filed “Aircraft no longer owned by Dick Smith.” No doubt he thought an aircraft owned by Dick Smith would get some type of harassment from the air traffic controllers. This has never been true. I have had excellent and fair service from Aussie controllers.

Regarding visiting the Centre, I would love to do it but I don’t think you quite understand how paranoid the Airservices management is about me. It looks as if they are really insecure in their positions. For example, on this site on 5 February 2008, I was invited by one of the controllers to sit at the console at Melbourne Centre. I jumped at the chance and he said he would arrange it. (See here (http://www.pprune.org/d-g-reporting-points/304974-25-years-holding-williamtown-15.html#post3888235)). I was ready to fly to Tullamarine and spend half a day in the Centre.

What happened? He could never get it approved. I contacted the controller a number of times and management simply would not give an answer. I’m hardly likely to turn up at a Centre without it being pre-arranged – I know how that would be viewed by the management.

I once made an informal call to the controllers in a country town tower. I was welcomed like I have always been. The controllers were friendly and we discussed lots of issues – many we agreed about and some which we didn’t. Within days, a memo was sent around by Airservices – which obviously alluded to me – saying how people were not to visit towers without prior approval (or words to that effect).

Yes, I would love to visit a Centre, but I don’t want to unnecessarily get someone into trouble or affect their career.

Dick Smith

30th Sep 2008, 23:18

Peuce ,Why go to extremes so that no improvements are made.

Why not trial at just one airport with big jets and mountains- say Proserpine . Who knows it may just save 150 lives.

Willoz269

30th Sep 2008, 23:55

Am getting very old, but wasn't it you who closed Proserpine Tower?

max1

30th Sep 2008, 23:59

Dick,
I for one would enjoy having you at a centre, remote TCU or tower to show you what really goes on. We are professionals and do pride ourselves on what we do and would welcome the chance to show you what really goes on behind the scenes, and discuss your concerns. As I and others have said your proposal has merit, but it is not the simple matter you make it out to be.

To the other pilots reading this, please do not hesitate to ask ATC for assistance. C-change talks about an US and THEM mentality, lets try to knock this on the head. ATC are there to assist YOU. We can't always do the things you want due to work levels e.g. putting a flightplan in on the air. When we can when requested, we ring companies , refuellers , etc and try to do those things we are not required to. I know SY FLOW tries hard to accomodate runway changes to save taxying time.

We don't do things just to muck you about. We are not resistant to change, we want to make sure that what is changed will be better for safety than what we had, and achievable with the resources available. We are constantly changing things.

If you are unsure of your position or have a problem call us. Unfortunately for the pilot reading here who doesn't have much to do with ATC, the vibe probably coming out through these exchanges is that ATC would give me short shrift if I called. As Dick states "This has never been true. I have had excellent and fair service from Aussie controllers.". If you have a problem call, if you are getting anomolous nav data, call us. Don't hesitate, we are there to help, not dispense judgement on you.

Dick Smith

1st Oct 2008, 00:32

Whats the tower got to do with using the radar properly -the radar controllers are in the Brisbane Centre.

It appears that everything possible will be quoted so that the status quo remains and nothing new is ever attempted.

Some peoples lives must be boring.

max1

1st Oct 2008, 00:47

Dick,

You are reading these posts as though people are against you. Controllers believe your idea has merit and would improve safety. We are attempting to give you advice as to why it is not the simple matter of a cheap and quick software update, a few procedure changes, and away we go.

You surmise that the alarm would only go off when there is a grave and imminent threat to an aircraft, we are trying to tell you that the alarms go off when TAAATS thinks there may be a problem.

I have given an overview on here of the alarm functions and the myriad reasons they go off.

You state'
"It appears that everything possible will be quoted so that the status quo remains and nothing new is ever attempted."

Quite happy for your idea to come in, put it in at Proserpine. But to roll it out Australia wide will need large amounts of money and the personnel (not necessarily controllers) to do it. We are not trying to stop it, just trying to give you a reality check on what would be involved.

james michael

1st Oct 2008, 00:52

Apology - cannot resist a good laugh :)

It appears that everything possible will be quoted so that the status quo remains and nothing new is ever attempted.

Dick, this is the Airspace thread - ADS-B is a separate thread :D

(Smack's self on wrist and heads for hangar)

Willoz269

1st Oct 2008, 02:59

Quote:

Whats the tower got to do with using the radar properly -the radar controllers are in the Brisbane Centre.

It appears that everything possible will be quoted so that the status quo remains and nothing new is ever attempted.

Some peoples lives must be boring. - End Quote

What's the centre controllers got to do with Jets flying low around the mountains unless they are on final approach, in which case they would go to a regional tower, if it was there, unless you closed it down?

Spodman

1st Oct 2008, 03:08

MAX1 said If the System Estimate Time Over (SETO) and BRL are out by more than 2 minutes, or considered unreasonable, the controller is REQUIRED to check and confirm with the pilot as to the Pilot Estimate Time Over (PETO) Once upon a time Flight Checking Officers were tasked with checking pilot estimates in such a manner. Moving into TAAARTS, the implementation team were a bit stunned to not find a Rodoniscope on each console, Airways Museum Virtual Tour - Rodoniscope (http://www.airwaysmuseum.com/Museum%20Rodoniscope%20replica.htm) and so decided to waste everybody’s time by using the smegging ETO function instead, and writing a procedure that MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL to administer it, resulting in controllers bugging pilots regarding discrepancies involving sometimes an astonishingly small tolerance. If Australian ATC has time to administer complete bollocks like this maybe we could stop it and devote some time to ATC’ing in other internationally accepted manners. Other controllers just use what the pilot says, and mitigate pilots telling lies or making mistakes by implementing surveillance where the risk of errors causing unsavoury results is high.

Am going to read up on the msaw alert before I respond to the guts of this issue. Certainly agree that if a simple procedure will save lives, and it is done elsewhere, and is practical to implement, then we should do it. I don’t know either way if this is the case. It is also true that recent structural changes have placed all such airspace under the control of Regional Services, causing spectacularly huge sectors, rivalling the monsters that existed in the closing throes of Flight Service, as James Michael says (and it is true, whether he is secretly Adrian Dumsa, or El Cid or whoever is leading your paranoia parade today). The forthcoming spod: and mostly here alreadySDE environment will group lower level GA and regional RPT separate from CC pairs and high level heavies. It seems likely this is a precursor to a spectacular winding back of services on economic grounds and not an opportunity for implementing new ones.

RHS said When the aircraft went 500' below the LSA of 7100' about 30 miles east of Benalla the MSAW would have been activated as the Pilot would not have reported visual or cancelled IFR as he was still in IMC. The controller would have called the pilot to check if he had failed to report visual. The pilot would have reported that the aircraft was still in IMC. The controller would then have issued an urgent safety alert with the instruction to climb to 7100'… …There will not be 80 alarms- there will only be an alarm from a pilot who has failed to report visual or is about to die.So putting this into the ATC perspective: An aircraft is cleared to leave CTA or has notified on descent to no particular level, so the CFL shows ‘000’. … nor can he reliably and quickly notate a 'Visual' on the track. Well we can, when the pilot reports visual we change this to ‘VSA’, as is enabled now in the TMA. If the MSAW alert goes off we must “assess the integrity of the alert”.
:eek: CFL=’VSA’ - I don’t know if ‘VSA’ disables the MSAW or not, but if the CFL = ‘VSA’ it is not a valid alert, ignore it.
:eek:Obviously nowhere near destination – It’s probably valid, issue safety alert, "(callsign) LOW ALTITUDE ALERT, CHECK YOUR ALTITUDE IMMEDIATELY... (followed by advice on the minimum altitude appropriate to the aircraft's position)".
:eek:CFL=’000’ – Is either visual and hasn’t told us, or in the middle of an instrument approach, and maybe near the minima. Either way it could be a valid alert unless the pilot is following the instrument approach. Your sector has hundreds of instrument approaches, and even the meanest checkie can’t expect you to memorise them all. Select ‘local data’ in the ARRRRDS, removing the picture of the Cozy that is burnt into the monitor, then ‘approaches east’, there are 4 RNAV approaches, a VOR and an NDB for that aerodrome. You look back to the radar track, and his position is near one of them so ignore it. If you haven’t got time for the above, or can’t bear to move the picture of the Cozy just issue the alert. 80 times a day.

Thrower of Left Handed Rocks absolutley no input required from the controller unless the aircraft breaks the protected area outside say 5nm of the destination aerodrome and the alarm sounds.Why is that a sacred site? Plenty of aircraft CFIT within 5nm of airfields, judging by nasty photos in the crash comic. Why do you draw the line of ATC intervention there, rather than at 8,500ft where it is now?

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

1st Oct 2008, 04:12

Spodman,

Why is that a sacred site

Not sacred at all, just trying to simplify the concept.

With the commision of the ADS at Newman and the other shortly (MEK and LEO) coming online, it would be a great thing in the West for ADS equipped aircraft be provided with MSAW protection, ATCO's can jump inside my cockpit anytime i'm making a disasterous mistake in IMC, my wife and children would be quite gratefull.

Dick Smith

1st Oct 2008, 06:02

James Michael, I should have said, “Nothing new is ever attempted that follows proven overseas practices.”

You and I know (and you support) Australia always doing something new that has never been proven anywhere else in the world – the microwave landing system is an example. That normally means it won’t happen, or it won’t be successful, but we will still be able to say that we have open minds and we are always trying something new.

Dick Smith

1st Oct 2008, 06:22

Willoz269, you say:

What's the centre controllers got to do with Jets flying low around the mountains unless they are on final approach, in which case they would go to a regional tower

In fact, going to a regional tower doesn’t help, as our regional towers do not have radar rated controllers. Once the aircraft is in the tower airspace, by law the pilot must be on the tower frequency – so if he or she makes an error, they all die.

Look at the system used in most other countries. An aircraft remains on the Centre frequency (with the radar controller) whilst in radar coverage, and this gives the desired protection. The other advantage is that when the tower controllers go home, the Class D reverts to Class E airspace, and is still controlled for IFR flights from the Centre, and a radar service is given to help prevent CFIT accidents.

As you know, we have the ridiculous system where once the tower controllers go home, the whole airspace becomes uncontrolled and no service is provided. That is what nearly killed 87 people in Canberra. (See here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/unsafe/11chapter10.pdf)).

TrenShadow

1st Oct 2008, 08:47

With the commision of the ADS at Newman and the other shortly (MEK and LEO) coming online, it would be a great thing in the West for ADS equipped aircraft be provided with MSAW protection, ATCO's can jump inside my cockpit anytime i'm making a disasterous mistake in IMC, my wife and children would be quite gratefull.
Except that altitude information derived from ADS-B is NOT QNH corrected on our screens, and thus extremely unreliable at altitudes. Hence we are not allowed to use the level reports for vertical separation in CTA below FL130 (flight levels obviously being ok as everything is reference 1013)

So from an MSAW point of view, the precise time we might want to use the level information is when it's at it's most unreliable.

peuce

1st Oct 2008, 09:03

What is the datum for levels broadcasted by ADS?

Is it tied to the specific aircraft's altimeter setting? or a standard datum?

Edit: Thinking to myself later ... silly question, of course its encoding from the aircraft's altimeter. But isn't that just as accurate as asking the pilot what his altitude his ... as he reads it off his altimeter ?

Therefore, if you believe the pilot ... why can't you believe the ADS broadcast? ... or am I missing something here.

james michael

1st Oct 2008, 09:24

Dick

As long as you appreciated the humour - we may have differing views but occasionally we need to laugh together.

I feel you refer to ADS-B for Australia when you state You and I know (and you support) Australia always doing something new that has never been proven anywhere else in the worldNow Dick, I feel you are making a play on words there. ADS-B 1090ES is working well on ATC screens around the world, something you and I know quite well.

What is different in Oztralia is:
1. A lower level rollout
2. A cross industry subsidy
3. Linked TSO 146 GPS for IFR
4. The potential to roll out your NAS Class E airspace
5. Cheap availability of ADS-B IN traffic advice, unlike the USA scheme

I still cannot fathom why you are so negative to Oz using its intellectual capital to lead the world into the new technology and airspace architecture. Deity knows, except for the holes in the ground we ain't got much else to flog except our intellectual capital.

Your demand to retain the radars for 5 years cruels the cross industry funding and denies GA the opportunity. But, as you have noted, you can afford to pay for it :)

So, you've never done something new that's never been proven elsewhere in the world? Dick, I think I'll put my collection of your books and articles up for auction on Ebay on the strength of that :p

Peuce
Good question - GPS provides its own altitude but RS232 encoders provide their txpdr altitude - all separate from the altimeter that you and I might have forgotten to reset for QNH - now, how can we make ATC provide an alarm to fix that :rolleyes:

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

1st Oct 2008, 09:36

Transponders usually have their very own alt sensing system based on a calibrated 1013.

james michael

1st Oct 2008, 09:51

LHR

That's what I'm saying. Does not matter what we set on the altimeter, the txpdr encoder provides pressure altitude info for the mode C 1090 transmission out.

C-change

1st Oct 2008, 11:06

Dick,

Regarding visiting the Centre, I would love to do it but I don’t think you quite understand how paranoid the Airservices management is about me. It looks as if they are really insecure in their positions.

Sorry, I didn't consider that they would have tried to block a visit. I should have known better, when I was a trainee at their college, I wasn't allowed into the ops room without prior arrangement.

I guess I was hoping that they might let you in for a day but they would be frightened of you going public on any issues and dropping management in "the you know what".

I'd love to hear your thoughts on TIBA. My personal view is that this is the biggest threat to safety at the moment especially in TMA regions where CFIT and traffic both come into play.

Scurvy.D.Dog

1st Oct 2008, 15:53

Despite my better judgement, and under some pressure from others, I revisit this so called ‘place’ :hmm: :rolleyes: to ‘accurately clarify’ the realities of regional D TMA Op’s

… I offer the following for the readers who otherwise might be inclined to take on board the Smif spin as being some sort of warped reality!

Reader/s need to know that Smif has had this accurate/factual technical detail explained to him here and face to face (by me and others) time and time again. It relates to the real and practical differences in system safe guards in play between OCTA G, Enroute E, and Regional D!

Sh1ting me (and many others) orf to the max is that under the guise of the sceptic’s banner, he chooses to ignore reality in favour of emotive, inaccurate and frankly mischievous two second headlines like “they all die”!

Lets look at the garbage!
In fact, going to a regional tower doesn’t help, as our regional towers do not have radar rated controllers. Once the aircraft is in the tower airspace, by law the pilot must be on the tower frequency – so if he or she makes an error, they all die. bulldust!!

In fact!!!! Regional Approach/Tower controllers provide CTA/R clearances in accordance with Route LSALT, 25 and 10nm MSA’s, IAF assignments for IAP's, all of which are monitored in line with those clearances!

His attempt to compare Regional D TMA with en-route G (OCTA) services is scurrilous!!!!

The ‘reality’ here is that Regional APP/TWR have the ability/and specific knowledge to ensure that IFR are descending to ASSIGNED LSALT/Minimum’s, with (where provided) or without the addition of surveillance to monitor. This is in reality at least 2 additional layers of safeguard beyond OCTA G i.e no specific descent altitude clearances! .. how is that even remotely comparable? ... it is not!!

… Pilot determined OCTA IFR minimum safe descent altitudes V's ATC confirmed minimums in CTA TMA's are like chalk and cheese! :*

Perhaps the doomsayer Smif can cite OZ Regional APP/TWR CFIT accident data!? … NOT! :=

.. and so on we go:-

Look at the system used in most other countries. An aircraft remains on the Centre frequency (with the radar controller) whilst in radar coverage, and this gives the desired protection. … hmmm are you understanding the differences yet?

The other advantage is that when the tower controllers go home, the Class D reverts to Class E airspace, and is still controlled for IFR flights from the Centre, and a radar service is given to help prevent CFIT accidents. … OK, we all get the concept that Smif wants a system that provides for when there is no tower, or it ‘goes home’!

.. so, flying in the face of the available IFR onboard EGPWS, TAWS, etc he would rather you all pay for remote ATC TMA’s to provide terrain alert areas i.e. ATC manned CTA services over BLA, LHR, YSDU, YSWG, UOLD, YBRM, YPKA, and any other AD with like type op’s! ….. as well as the likes of, YBTL, YBRK, YBHM, YBAF, YBAS, YBMK, YBMC, YSTW, YSCH, YSBK, YSCB, YMAY, YMMB, YMES, YMLT, YMHB, YMPF, YPJT …. and at any other location he wants ATC protection (including the de-established tower at Proserpine under his watch)!! etc outside tower hours!

Oh my, all those CTA/R’s including all that CTA TMA service outside tower hours!!! ... how much cost to you, the paying industry compared with onboard funded systems that can provide TAWS etc?? :rolleyes:

But then again, the hypocricy in all this spinned garbage is this, do specific locations not count if no accident has occurred? :ooh: :E OR, does HE not want to operate IFR at ANY OCTA locations .. full stop? :rolleyes: ... and no rubbish about nasty mountains as terrain clearance buffers are the same no matter the elevation :=

As you know, we have the ridiculous system where once the tower controllers go home, the whole airspace becomes uncontrolled and no service is provided. That is what nearly killed 87 people in Canberra. (See here).

Ah … the old “try to scare the sh1t out of the punters line”!

… why misrepresent the real danger when clearly most high and medium capacity RPT aircraft have E/GPWS??? .. which is designed specifically to protect against mis-programing of holding patterns etc, not to mention MSA/LSALT etc in the FMS?

Answer! …. No real headline in this except for a media tart looking for a tag!! …particularly when (in this case) it is/was made perfectly clear that the aircraft could not have hit terrain given the onboard protection systems!!!

… he (Smif) also fails to mention that the particular TMA closure in question was a rare occasion indeed?

The reasons for attempting the misrepresentative spin are clear, he knows it, and so do we!!!!

RHS ... I wish I could be polite to you as C-Change quite rightly suggests! .... but I'm afraid I'm beyond that with you and your self-serving agenda's over many years :suspect: :mad: .. so I guess this means ... Piss orf tool!!! := … in the nicest possible way! :ok:

P.S. TW, ... as above to you too :suspect:

Willoz269

1st Oct 2008, 22:48

Dick,

Ever heard of procedural control? Get it in your head that a tower or a centre does NOT have to have radar to be safe. Procedural towers have set rules with inbuilt safety margins that when followed by all (pilots and controllers) provide an immensely safe ableit a bit restrictive environment.

You seem to have the idea that because you are flying, you are the king of the air, you dont have to tell anyone where to fly, require a clearance, leave you alone, etc etc, but if you do something stupid then a controller is supposed to be watching your every move and tell you immediately.

Have you seen how many radar returns there are to the west of Sydney? how many VFR aeroplanes are out there on any given day? The day you stopped providing "solutions" that work from your standpoint alone, and exist only in your limited comfort zone, I might start to listen to you.

Dick Smith

2nd Oct 2008, 07:39

Scurvy, You are a fundamentalist- that is -the way you were taught must be correct and must never be doubted.

Lets look at our nations capital.

If a G5 arrives with say ten pob outside tower hours (it happens) no radar service is provided below 8500' despite there being big mountains in the area and despite the fact that there is 24 hour manning of the en route airspace surrounding from Melbourne centre.

The aircraft is in a large black hole with no radar monitoring, relying totally on the pilots not making an error and the EGPWS system working.

This is despite the fact that Flight Safety International states that the most important safety mitigators to prevent CFIT accidents are ATC and radar.

At our nations capital we have both available ( from the centre) and use neither and you maintain this should not change.

In other leading aviation countries when the D or C becomes unmanned the airspace becomes class E and the centre controllers take over the responsibility..

Yes it may cost a few extra dollars - but why is that your concern? Do you know what it costs to operate a corporate jet?

We have Airlines operating into Launceston in cloud in Radar airspace but the controllers who are "controlling" them are not even rated to use the radar and you maintain that is OK.

I don't agree with you.

I don't blame you for the situation- it is a hangover from the days before radar existed.

To others- please have an open mind about what I am saying- the information came from professional controllers who have totally different view to Scurvy.

Dick Smith

2nd Oct 2008, 07:45

Wilo, the only reason we are forced to use procedural control in areas of good radar coverage is that the controllers are not radar rated. I support spending the extra money so we can come up to the safety standards of other countries before we have an unecessary accident

james michael

2nd Oct 2008, 08:00

Dick

The aircraft is in a large black hole with no radar monitoring, relying totally on the pilots not making an error and the EGPWS system working.

I hope the public are not reading this fearful crisis.

My red for emphasis.

Why did the pilots throw out their approach plates and turn off their (multiple) coupled GPS.

What shall we do in the large area without radar coverage?

Are you going to provide the link to the FSI paper?

Dick Smith

2nd Oct 2008, 08:27

James, Don't be so fixed in your views. Airline pilots all around the world have been involved in CFIT accidents and in nearly every case it was from human error.

If there is radar and ATC available, why not use it.

Or do you want to wait until 100+ people die before we make the safety upgrades.

HINT Key Flight Safety International and CFIT into GOOGLE and I bet you will find the info.

Dog One

2nd Oct 2008, 08:35

Mr Smith, your trumpet is starting to get out of tune. You keep mentioning that ATC and Radar are the biggest migators to prevent CFIT accidents, you forget to mention that non precision approaches, no GPWS/EGPWS/TAWS or no radio altimeters are equal migators. After following this thread, I get the feeling that you want ATC to make your inflight decisions for you.

FSI also have the slogan "The best safety device in any aircraft is a well trained crew"

Flight Safety Foundation Task Force issued many recommendations for the reduction of ALAs, based on the following conclusions:

Establishing and adhering to adequate standard operating procedures and flight-crew decision-making processes improves approach-and-landing safety;
Failure to recognize the need for and to execute a missed approach when appropriate is a major cause of ALAs;
Unstabilized and rushed approaches contribute to ALAs;
Improving communication and mutual understanding between air traffic control services and flight crews of each other’s operational environments will improve approach-and-landing safety;
The risk of ALAs is higher in operations conducted in low light and poor visibility, on wet or otherwise contaminated runways, and with the presence of optical illusions or physiological illusions;
Using the radio altimeter as an effective tool will help prevent ALAs;
Collection and analysis of in-flight parameters (for example, flight operational quality assurance programs) identify performance trends that can be used to improve approach-and-landing safety; and,
Global sharing of aviation information decreases the risk of ALAs.

There are more factors to CFIT than what you mention. In your illustration of a night approach into CB. This would not be a problem to a well trained crew, who have current charts/notams, conduct a full briefing and maintain situational awareness, and plan for a MAP at the minima if not visual.

Dick Smith

2nd Oct 2008, 08:58

Are you suggesting the Qantas crew were not properly trained and that is the reason the jet was below the legal minimum altitude as they all headed to their deaths?

See "Unsafe Skies" on the DICKSMITHFLYER website.

I have never suggested that ATC and radar are the only mitigators against CFIT.

Just that Flight Safety International say that they are two of the most important safety mitigators.

OZBUSDRIVER

2nd Oct 2008, 09:11

Popcorn, anyone?

G'Day Scurv, love your work:ok:

james michael

2nd Oct 2008, 10:02

Dick

Keyed in as you suggested - found the same as I've seen before on FSI.

Kindly provide the link to the CFIT specific you are quoting. I think we all need to see it in context.

Dog One

2nd Oct 2008, 10:13

In your post #173, you used these words

"This is despite the fact that Flight Safety International states that the most important safety mitigators to prevent CFIT accidents are ATC and radar."

In your latest post, you used these words

"Just that Flight Safety International say that they are two of the most important safety mitigators."

My bolding and italics

Dick Smith

2nd Oct 2008, 10:50

That they are the "most important" or "two of the most important" hardly makes a difference in the eyes of those with open minds who do not want to be involved in a CFIT accident.

We want everything available to help us when in IMC with mountains around - I do anyway.

Dog,do you work for CASA?

Gundog01

2nd Oct 2008, 11:07

No amount of ATC services will ever outweigh the benefits of a thorough and well structured approach brief. When all the boxes are ticked in a thorough, well structured approach brief there should be no reason for CFIT or other nasties. Surely the greatest cause of accidents such as benalla are rushed poorly planned approaches and poor crew attention (possibly training?).

Dick i understand it is always nice to have someone watching over everything you do, but surely someone with your business acumen can see that to deliver the service you are suggesting is not economically feasible. Does that mean it is wrong to suggest or pursue it..no. Climate change initiatives, global economic meltdown, interest rates, war in Iraq, budget suplus, rightly or wrongly these are the issues that are drawing attention and the big bucks.

It would be nice to fly in radar controlled airspace all the time and not have to worry about position reports or traffic separation, but that is never going to happen. Why? Because someone has done the risk analysis (i hope) and decided, you know what, the cost of implementing this outweighs the benefits derived. Sad but true that every potential aircraft accident has a price, and sadly, the governement cant pay to prevent each one.

james michael

2nd Oct 2008, 11:09

Dick

My mind is still open - I just need you to provide the link to the FSI info you are now ducking and weaving about.

Let's forget CFIT while you dig out the link. By the way, I don't work for CASA - it's gone to the dogs :D

You seem to be adamant that we must use all tools to avoid accidents - why are you opposed to ADS-B - surely ADS-B IN is a safety mitigator that should receive your full support? Or is your open mind closed to that? After all, GA lighties cannot afford TCAS.

K-941

2nd Oct 2008, 11:14

and what about the cross industry funding for TSO146 (W) nav systems :ok:

Flying Binghi

2nd Oct 2008, 12:24

You seem to be adamant that we must use all tools to avoid accidents - why are you opposed to ADS-B - surely ADS-B IN is a safety mitigator that should receive your full support? Or is your open mind closed to that? After all, GA lighties cannot afford TCAS.

Hello.... why do I smell a 'kickback' happening. Whats in it for me, eh :)

james michael

2nd Oct 2008, 21:55

Owen

For my info, it would seem traffic coming in to ML from BN would come close to over BLA.

How do you guys "see" or differentiate low level paints under high level paints, or is the high level tfc masked?

Reason for the Q is what happens when one blip is on top of another?

Bing (M)

You edited your last personal attack, you have been told before there is no kickback in this for me, try and debate the topic despite alternative instruction from your master.

Dick

Your green light was still on when I departed last night - but still no link to the FSI paper supporting your argument - let's have it please.

Thinking about this overnight it has finally dawned. You claim to be "open minded" - but the only parallel I can find is the pope. You relate everything back to the NAS religion, resist any change or views questioning the religion, and seem to be infallible.

I ask again - why are you not supporting the safety benefits of ADS-B and the cross industry funding to GA? Is it your religion's equivalent of the "Pill"?

Dick Smith

2nd Oct 2008, 23:39

Gundog, why is it economically feasible for ATC to provide such a service in radar covered airspace in Europe, Canada and the US but not here?

There is a cost but it is minimal compared to the huge cost of the AsA head office in Canberra.

Why don't you at least support upgrading the G airspace at Proserpine to class E ?

Then all IFR aircraft, mainly airline traffic, could get a full control service ,including terrain avoidance ,until they were visual.

How much per passenger? Not much compared to staying alive.

I can understand the management in Canberra being against this safety upgrade because their bonuses may drop a little but I can't understand why ATC's would be opposed. Maybe just resistance to change?

Dick Smith

3rd Oct 2008, 00:16

Owen Stanley, if a radar service is provided below 8,500 feet at Canberra when aircraft are in the “black hole” Class G, why wasn’t the Qantas crew in the serious incident (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/unsafe/11chapter10.pdf)) told that they were 2,400 feet below the legal altitude and about to hit Tinderry Peak? The answer is simple. No effective radar service is provided in that airspace.

For example, the pilot could be transmitting on the CTAF(R) frequency and is highly unlikely to hear a call from the radar controller to climb immediately as everyone was about to die. That is why in other leading aviation countries the system is designed to use the radar effectively.

I will say it again. In North America, including the USA, Canada and in Europe, an aircraft will remain on the air traffic control radar frequency until cancelling IFR or declaring visual. Until that point, it is the responsibility of an air traffic controller to ensure that the aircraft does not go below the legal minimum altitude.

You say:

This is why a lot of ATCs have no respect for you Dick.

You are totally wrong. There are many ATCs who email me directly and say I am 100% correct, and they could provide a proper service as professional ATCs do all around the world. They tell me that it is only a small number of older ATCs, who are totally fixed in their mind, that will not allow modern international procedures to be introduced into Australia. They tell me to keep up with what I am saying because eventually there will be a strong group of young controllers coming along with open minds, who will be prepared to support the provision of such a basic safety service.

If you can get aircraft taxiing at Canberra on your radar, you should be providing an air traffic control service to lower levels. That is what we are prepared to pay for.

If the pilot in the Qantas incident had not turned at that point, and if the EGPWS had not been working correctly, 87 people would have died and I can assure you that today we would be providing the internationally proven radar control service at Canberra for 24 hours a day.

If other modern aviation countries can use their enroute controllers to provide an approach service when the Class D and C airspace is closed, why can’t we? If it is only a matter of cost, that is what air traffic controllers should be saying. They should be saying – as some do – we would like to provide the service, it is purely the bureaucrats in Canberra being irresponsible and stopping this.

James Michael, I have said constantly I support the safety benefits of ADS-B, however our present airspace and procedures would not give those safety benefits. For example, if you had an ADS-B outlet at Canberra (or at Benalla) there would be no difference to the service that is provided at the present time. That is, the aircraft would be in good radar/ADS-B coverage right to the ground level, but air traffic control would not provide a service to prevent a pilot from a CFIT accident.

If we fix the airspace procedures, we can then use the advantages of ADS-B. If we wait until we introduce ADS-B and we have not conquered the total resistance to change regarding the procedures, we will not get the safety advantages.

I will take many years to get the fleet equipped with ADS-B – whether it is subsidised or not. Whereas to change to internationall proven procedures to provide a service which is given in every other modern aviation country in the world could be done in a far shorter time.

Keep your mind closed as much as you want to James Michael, keep supporting the status quo and the exact Airservices/CASA/Department “don’t change anything” direction, and more people will die.

Own Stanley, by the way, I know of nowhere else in the world where airline aircraft are on two different frequencies at one time – supposedly getting some type of service from each. That is, the scenario you describe at Canberra after the tower is closed. You are saying that you are providing a service by radar, and also the pilot is providing a service on a completely different frequency.

Safe air traffic control systems are not designed this way. What we do in Australia is simply an accident waiting to happen. No doubt then, after all the people die, we will make the changes which are commonsense to most people.

C-change

3rd Oct 2008, 00:36

CB is an easy solution but not easily solved.More staff allows for 24/7 ops with App and TWR providing a TMA service. No need for the en-route guys to do APP on ridiculous scales.

Niles Crane

3rd Oct 2008, 00:40

About 4 years ago I had a very heated telephone conversation with Dick and from that conversation I understood where he was coming from and why he wants USA / Europe radar coverage and control.

Dick was addiment that all he wants to do when flying is listen to his commercial radio, (ipod, cd's) at all times when not in a terminal area! :=

Dick, this is the most selfish proposal of airmanship I have ever heard and as I heard it direct from your mouth, I now listen to nothing you say. :E

Your arguments carry no weight for 2 reasons:

1. You are never wrong and you have no understanding of the word Compromise. Its either your way or the highway!

2. You never listen to those who are experts in a field. You always say you prefer to suck the brains out of anyone from the USA, but you never listen to those here at the coal face

Dick Smith

3rd Oct 2008, 01:17

Gundog01, you state that it would be nice to have radar controlled airspace and you believe the reason we do not have this is:

Because someone has done the risk analysis (i hope) and decided, you know what, the cost of implementing this outweighs the benefits derived.

I wish that were true. You will find that no risk analysis has been done on this particular issue. Airspace or procedural changes normally only come in after people are killed. I was the one who pushed for Flight Service airspace which was covered by radar to be taken over by air traffic controllers so we could use the radar – not only for traffic purposes, but also to help prevent CFIT accidents.

So far I have failed in relation to proper use of the radar. However eventually – hopefully before the inevitable accident occurs – we will introduce the necessary procedures so our existing radar coverage is optimised for safety.

I have been involved in airspace and regulatory change for over 20 years, and every change I have successfully introduced has been resisted by those who are against change.

I mentioned previously how the Victor 1 lane in Sydney was aggressively opposed by an ex-Department of Aviation bureaucrat, Mr Alan Green, who was then working for Qantas. He managed to stop the Victor lane from being introduced for over 18 months and nearly succeeded.

A small number of people who are in positions of influence and believe that everything we have done in the past is correct and it should never even be queried, let alone changed. For example, we still have airline aircraft on two-way routes flying accurately by GPS and RVSM along the centre line of the route. Over 100 people have been killed in Brazil because of this. I wonder when we will actually bring in a regulatory change in Australia that will help to prevent this type of accident.

james michael

3rd Oct 2008, 02:12

Dick

If this was not a farce it would be laughable.

How you goin' with that link to FSI?

Keep your mind closed as much as you want to James Michael, keep supporting the status quo and the exact Airservices/CASA/Department “don’t change anything” direction, and more people will die.I'm supporting a major change that includes traffic information in the cockpit. You are NOT.

Now, Dick, I want you AND EVERYONE to consider this next quote by you today very carefully If we wait until we introduce ADS-B and we have not conquered the total resistance to change regarding the procedures, we will not get the safety advantages.I have before me a local magazine that tells me the following (clipped to save space and my red for emphasis):

Not just a mock up, this is a working airborne model that has been well tried and tested locally.

The unit should market for around USD $6000 which puts it fitted to a VFR aircraft out here just about bang on the $10,000 subsidy.

So far so good, you can meet the requirement to send ADS-B OUT so you are ATC identified – but what’s in it for you flying around in Class G outside ATC cover?

The real benefit is that it has the bonus of including integrated ADS-B IN so ADS-B equipped traffic can be displayed on your panel mounted equipment (e.g. Garmin 430/530, and even G1000 glass screens) or handhelds like your GPS or your Palm Pilot.

Dick, do you have TCAS on your aircraft? Dick, do you or don't you consider that a safety benefit exists in a unit fitted to Australian GA aircraft AT NO COST TO THEM that gives traffic advisory (with aural alert being added shortly).

Dick, have you known of the existence of this unit and been unusually reticent in sharing the information - because it would overwhelm your position that ADS-B offers no safety benefits? I think Niles is bang on the money - how do we conquer your resistance to change?

Back to accidents - here is some data so we know the number of cases in total, perhaps you can trot out how many of these were ATC and RADAR preventable.

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/jamesmichaelresearch/FATALRPTCHARTER.jpg

Dick Smith

3rd Oct 2008, 02:21

Niles Crane, your following statement in post #192 is untrue and clearly defamatory.

Dick was addiment that all he wants to do when flying is listen to his commercial radio, (ipod, cd's) at all times when not in a terminal area!

Dick, this is the most selfish proposal of airmanship I have ever heard and as I heard it direct from your mouth, I now listen to nothing you say.

No such telephone conversation has ever taken place and I have never held such a simplistic belief. It is obvious that you have posted this on a thread discussing radar usage in an attempt to discredit me so that readers will not accept that my views are genuinely held.

I suggest that you contact me urgently on phone number 0408 640 221 or email [email protected] so we can discuss the facts of the matter and a correction can be posted.

If you do not do this, I will take action as I did with Caroline Tulip to obtain your identity through the courts. I will be successful and the costs will be high. If I am successful with the following defamation action, you will be paying these costs – and possibly more.

Niles Crane

3rd Oct 2008, 02:55

Dick, I apologise for my previous statement.

You are correct, the conversation never took place and your airmanship is exemplary.

I am sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Niles

Willoz269

3rd Oct 2008, 03:15

Dick,
Your Quite:

"How much per passenger? Not much compared to staying alive."

How was your cost case for how many lives could be expendable when you closed Proserpine and other towers??? Why are you telling us now that ASA should do what you DIDN"T do and spend millions in getting more people and coverage (either radar or otherwise) in Class G and mixed airspace to provide another layer of safety.

I ask you again, didn't you call this "affordable safety"???

Dick Smith

3rd Oct 2008, 05:13

Willoz269, during my time as Chairman of the CAA, the towers were closed or opened using the approved establishment and discontinuance formula. If I remember correctly, this values human life at about $1 million. A scientific approach was then used to work out whether the local tower was an effective way of spending the dollars.

You seem to have forgotten that the decision at the time was to go to the AMATS changes, which meant the airspace at Proserpine would go to Class E and be controlled from the Centre. Of course, this never happened because of resistance to change.

In relation to affordability, that is what I have always maintained. You should look to see if spending the safety dollars is an effective way of spending out resources. I believe that following the international system (where there is Class E airspace to low levels at busy jet airline airports) is a very effective way of spending the safety dollars.

It is interesting to note that CASA has refused to use the FAA establishment and discontinuance formula for towers such as Avalon. I understand this is because it will clearly show that the tower should be manned. Why otherwise would a proven formula not be used?

In relation to providing a better radar service at our non-tower airports, I can assure you that no safety study has been done. The prejudice against doing this is so fixed that no one has dared to actually see what it would cost and whether it was an effective way of saving the safety dollar.

If you would like to see what was planned with the airspace at the time of the AMATS changes in 1991, I suggest you look here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/unsafe/09chapter8.pdf).

max1

3rd Oct 2008, 06:01

A quick re-read through and we might appreciate why there is a level of angst in this thread.
I have tried to keep the posts in time order.

The tread started out with Dick giving his quick and easy take on how to use the radar, its inherent alarms and the available controllers to implement this at no cost. LHRT after ringing Dick comes back on as a convert, and quoting Dick as an Authority (read your posts LHRT).

People who actually work with TAAATS and in the centres say it could be done , would add to safety, but would cost alot and require alot more bodies to do effectively due to unique Australian sector sizes. Dick continues that it wouldn't take anymore people or cost anything.

Dick then decides okay hire more controllers. People continue to say it would give a greater level of safety but also point out what that cost would be. Dick then decides that we have admitted that it is not impossible, (I couldn't find a post of someone saying it was impossible, but lots of posts from people saying it was possible just not as easily and cheaply as Dick envisages)

Dick then gives all who don't agree completely with him a spray about their closed minds and resistance to change. Dick quotes ' But they do it O/S' even though it has already been posted that we have large geographic sectors compared to the rest of the World.

Here are some selective quotes:

Well apparently the software for this function already exists but is not turned on / installed
Nett cost would be pretty much zero, it certainly can not hurt.
LHRT ater talking to Dick.

I am quite happy to do this if directed, just show me how it can be done with the staff we already have on the areas of airspace we cover.MAX1

Honestly, why would you require more controllers ?.LHRT

All the equipment is in place, it is completely automatic, it would cost nothing. ( no more controllers, it might slow down your game of solitare as the computer would have another tiny little program running ).
Am I seeing someone resisting change for the sake of resisting change ?
LHRT

To have this system at Proserpine would require no more staff. Dick

What logical reasons could you or Max honestly muster up to justify this to not be benficial to safety ?, LHRT

Answer is, if you want this to be done 100% of the time make sure the controllers is not overwhelmed doing this to the detriment of their other separation responsibilities. i.e look at the traffic densities, peaks and troughs and make sure you have the staff to cover these. Max1

As I said happy to do it if mandated but give us the resources i.e People and computing power, to do it. Affordable Safety. I agree this would be beneficial to safety, but it will cost. Max1

To provide a proper minimum safe altitude alerting service at Benalla would cost nothing. No more air traffic controllers, no extra radar and in the case of the Benalla accident, six people would no doubt be alive today if the changes had been introduced. Dick

If it requires the employment of some extra ATC's so be it- Dick

Mate, I'm sure the procedure you're suggesting would work great and people would get used to it quickly but they DO NOT have enough staff to run the current airspace or even the major airports. C-Change to Dick

C Change, So it is a staffing problem- not as others claim "impossible" to do. Dick.

Dick,
What you say re surveillance of Approaches is doable. Most problems in the world are doable if you throw the resources, committment and money at them. Max1

Max1, it is a futile waste of time answering your posts. Your mind is obviously closed. Dick

What happens is the same old posters come on with their fixed views saying there is no way we can actually improve the service we give here. Dick

Dick, I do not have a closed mind, I have in fact said it could be done. I just don't believe it is as simple as you make out. Max1

This is the crux of the matter for ATC, continually chasing false alarms to the detriment of all the other things we do. Lots more staff required. Max1

1) Many on here are very closed minded and appear to have a very much "deer in the headlights" hatred towards anything Mr Smith posts, LHRT

I think I have stated repeatedly that what you want can be done. But it will cost. Ferris

Dick,
You were told that TAAATS supported MSAW with a manual? insert of LSALT. You were told, or assumed, incorrectly.

Ferris is correct. The TAAATS MSAW is a crude blunt instrument. It cannot use proprietary terrain databases, it must have one constructed within its own software parameters. This has entailed thousands of hours of work by the DATA section in years past. The maintenance of the data equally requires hours of input (don't forget we are talking about obstacles as well as terrain, and obstacles change). 40 years

Dick,
You are reading these posts as though people are against you. Controllers believe your idea has merit and would improve safety. We are attempting to give you advice as to why it is not the simple matter of a cheap and quick software update, a few procedure changes, and away we go. Max1

That normally means it won’t happen, or it won’t be successful, but we will still be able to say that we have open minds and we are always trying something new.
Dick (in regard to MLS but about Australian Aviation in general.There is truth in this.)

Yes it may cost a few extra dollars - but why is that your concern? Dick

If there is radar and ATC available, why not use it. Dick

"This is despite the fact that Flight Safety International states that the most important safety mitigators to prevent CFIT accidents are ATC and radar."
Dick

In your latest post, you used these words
"Just that Flight Safety International say that they are two of the most important safety mitigators."
My bolding and italics Dog One

That they are the "most important" or "two of the most important" hardly makes a difference in the eyes of those with open minds who do not want to be involved in a CFIT accident. Dick

Gundog, why is it economically feasible for ATC to provide such a service in radar covered airspace in Europe, Canada and the US but not here? Dick

CB is an easy solution but not easily solved.More staff allows for 24/7 ops with App and TWR providing a TMA service. No need for the en-route guys to do APP on ridiculous scales. C-Change

Over the last 10 pages , Dick has come out with an idea and viewpoint that others have seen merit but also problems with. By page 10 we have learnt, and Dick has hopefully come to realise that his idea has merit , but will require signicant upgrade to TAAATS functionality and an increase in controllers or warm bodies to man the radars to achieve his desired outcome.

I have been told I am closed minded, resistant to change, have fixed views, am a 'dinosaur' and the new breed will fix everything and embrace Dick, and it is futile to answer my posts.

Lucky , most of us have thick-skins. I have been disappointed that some have 'gone the man' and not the ball, on both sides of the fence. But understand the frustrations.

Dick, you do have some good (and bad) ideas but this isn't a p!ssing competition. This is actually a good but very expensive idea.

You talk about surrounding yourself with good people and listening to them. You might not realise it, but you have been surrounded by some good people here.

Gundog01

3rd Oct 2008, 06:35

Gundog, why is it economically feasible for ATC to provide such a service in radar covered airspace in Europe, Canada and the US but not here?

Dick surely you can answer this yourself. Take a look and the size of the aviation industries in the countries mentioned compared to ours. More industry equals more government support equals better services.

Now i'm not saying that justifies doing nothing, but it is an economical reality that the government won't hand out money for more ATC based on near CFIT incidents, when typically it is pilot error that leads to such incidents, not a lack of radar controllers.

Bob Murphie

3rd Oct 2008, 06:41

In the interests of accuracy james michael, can you give me a reference to the magazine you quote to state

“The unit should market for around USD $6000 which puts it fitted to a VFR aircraft out here just about bang on the $10,000 subsidy”.

I suspect you are being conveniently vague about the suitability and cost of fitment of this equipment and if, as I suspect it is unsuitable, does the subsidy extend to Non TSO’d equipment?

Dick Smith

3rd Oct 2008, 11:36

Owen ,Canberra clearly has radar to very low levels- you have told us so.

On post 187 you even told us you provide a radar service below 8500' when the airspace is class G.

You clearly do not provide a service that will stop planes flying into mountains there and that is what I am on about.

I agree that this will require en route controllers to be trained to do approach work (as they do in other countries) and also require smaller sectors.

All of this will cost money.

No one has ever looked at the cost and benefit of this because minds have been made up.

I do not agree that "class E without survailance has been proven to be dangerous and irresponsible"

It is certainly a step up from class G and two incidents in 12 months do not provide enough data to make such a finding.

I would prefer to have low level class E at a place like Port Macquarie because it not only includes a transponder requirement but you also get a control service if IFR.

james michael

3rd Oct 2008, 20:35

Max 1

Great compendium. All it needs is Dick's safety case.

Owen

Much appreciated - makes sense now.

Bob Murphie

Yes the article destroys the argument of your team doesn't it - ADS-B IN integrated in the unit fitted within the cross industry subsidy price and it will be TSO. ADS-B IN, as I think you have previously noted, was the safety feature on which much of the JCP hinged. Well Bob, here it is FREE.

I'll answer your question when Dick stops hiding from mine.

Dick

Here's my summary, much briefer than Max's.

You went Niles as a show of force yesterday - probably needed a diversion from the way your arguments are going down the gurgler. Yet you have no compunction in making improper comments about other posters who are anon, that being your excuse. Very poor taste in my opinion.

You have not provided a link substantiating your rhetoric about FSI and what they said. I suspect your ground shifting is because you are on quicksand.

You ramble on rhetorically about affordable safety and being open minded about it. Where is your support for the Australian (note, Bob) consortium launching the integrated ADS-B unit that enables all GA VFR and IFR pilots to have traffic from other ADS-B equipped aircraft ANYWHERE in Australia. RPT regional pilots would probably find that much more safety oriented than an ATC radar triple checking their choice of socks.

Answer - you test everything against your predetermined USA NAS religion and if it does not fit it is rejected by you. I believe Australia has no hope of airspace or associated technology innovation if you have anything to do with it - unless the yanks do it first. Debating matters with you is useless as you have no desire to do anything but push your crusade.

The stats on the aviation fatals are on an earlier post - should be easy for you to demonstrate to this group how many would have been saved by your proposals.

Bob Murphie

3rd Oct 2008, 23:34

james michael;

You have plucked some gadget from some magazine that may or may not be TSO'd in the future, (so it's not now), which you fail to elaborate on and use that as a case that somehow destroys "my teams" credibility? Whatever that "team" may be.

To be TSO'd the gadget obviously is C146 ICAO standard. This is the only gadget that would attract the subsidy.

(if that ever eventuates, then, we will see if it is free or not).

When was the last time you had a radio of any sort installed in an aircraft that qualifies you to know how much the fitment costs would be? and how exactly does "my teams credibility" fit into an airspace discussion?

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

3rd Oct 2008, 23:41

James,

You went Niles as a show of force yesterday - probably needed a diversion from the way your arguments are going down the gurgler.

As a spectator of that event I would have to disagree with your statement, it would appear Niles was bullsh1tting and Dick called his bluff, and won. Nothing evil in that.

Dick,

I do not agree that "class E without surveillance has been proven to be dangerous and irresponsible"

From my experience Dick, I would not agree with that statement, Class E without surveillance and below flight levels is in my opinion a very false environment.

I believe the present configuration of E in the west works ( above FL180 ) well as it is in the Flight Levels, pretty much everything up there is IFR, anyone with an aircraft capable of these operations is IR.

Having flown around SY in the short grey days of NAS, it was very very scarey, didn't the RAAF voluntarily ground all their aircraft ?.

Before anyone launchess another tirade against me, re-read post #142.

james michael

4th Oct 2008, 00:10

LHR

Not arguing that Niles may have been outside the pale - what I am pointing out is that it was an excellent diversion PLUS if you want to backtrack some other threads you will find that Dick had no compunction in denigrating others with improper assertions, in my case using the fact I was anon as his rationale that he could abuse a non-real entity. I am reminded of a philosopher (Greek or Latin, not sure) named Hypocrisies.

His burning need to identify other posters and try and flush them out despite the forum rules is probably part of that issue.

No tirade desired against you - you have put a reasonable proposition although I think your pendulum has swung past the middle since you rang Dick and received your hyper-injection of his religion :)

To cut to the chase, you will note Dick has not answered my questions. Should he do so, we will really move the debate forward re SAFETY, not his crusade for his interpretation thereof.

Bob Murphie

Yours is easy.

What team - the ones running interference for Dick and anti-ADS-B no matter the facts. No reader has to be a rhodes scholar to - as but one example - deduce the genesis of Xinhua, eh :E

TSO 146 is the only gadget that will attract the 'subsidy'? - Bob, have you considered reading the JCP? After you so do, you could also read the NFRM for ADS-B. But, to save you effort, here's an extract:

On and after 28 June 2012, the geographical position transmitted by the
equipment must be determined by:
(a) a GNSS receiver that meets TSO-C145a or TSO-C146a as in force on
19 September 2002; or
(b) another system acceptable to CASA for this purpose.

Bob, become like Dick - open your mind. :ugh: ADS-B IN for free in the subsidy changes the whole equation and deserves wide support.

What's it all got to do with airspace - ask any regional RPT driver - ADS-B allows the CTAF R to become the CTAF A with traffic info BOTH ways, plus you can put the cream on the cake with Class E cones over CTAF A and provide CTA protection all the way.

Flying Binghi

4th Oct 2008, 00:11

Just to underline the cost of TSO'ed ADS-B, probably a fairly accurate costing here -

Current Alaska (ADS-B) cost estimates range from $14,000 to $18,500 per aircraft for installation and the hardware.

Extract via -
http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/083108/hom_20080831035.shtml

As an aside, re how costs affect pilots - I was talking to somebody the other day who said they quit their AOPA (Oz) memberhip when membership costs near doubled. (plus its a rich mans club)

Flying Binghi

4th Oct 2008, 00:27

Bing (M)

You edited your last personal attack, you have been told before there is no kickback in this for me, try and debate the topic despite alternative instruction from your master.

james michael, So now your putting it that a 'free' ADS-B is not the kickback your after - or is there other 'kickback' possibilitys ???

re being told before - best remind me of the post.

james michael, I do note, again, that you are being unusually polite to me - no calling me "dickmite", "Flying Bung", etc, as what happened on other (now edited) threads.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

4th Oct 2008, 00:46

James,

although I think your pendulum has swung past the middle since you rang Dick and received your hyper-injection of his religion :)

Never a NAS convert, as per my post 142.

Am quite aware of who Dick Smith is and broadly what he stands for, his ethos is quite different to mine.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

I standby my statements regarding MSAW and the determination of some to try to sink any of Dicks opinions, i.e. where does Niles find his motivation ?, although I believe I know the answer to that one.

Change at any cost is something I do not agree with, change where needed/benefit is to be gained is a good thing.

People that resist change for sake of resisting change will be left in my wake.

tail wheel

4th Oct 2008, 00:52

"No tirade desired against you - you have put a reasonable proposition although I think your pendulum has swung past the middle since you rang Dick and received your hyper-injection of his religion."

For God sake, get off your sanctimoneous soap box, accept others have a right to opinions which may be contrary to your own and if you possess the qualifications and experience, start rationally and professionally debating the issue.

If not, the thread gets closed!!!

Why do I have to read this repetitious cr@p every day?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

james michael

4th Oct 2008, 01:06

Bing

Wow, this airspace discussion covers a lot of ground.

In order, your two posts.

I say again, there is NO kickback in this for me.

I am being polite to you because you have stopped the circular whizz bomb GPS argument.

I note your comment on the cost of TSO ADS-B at an early stage of the marketing cycle - the article I read is at a different time I believe.

Not sure how you move to an association membership re airspace but I had a quick google and it was actually fascinating and since you mentioned it, worth a researchers thoughts.

A quick search discloses AOPA Oz moved their subscriptions from $40 to $96 in 1995/96 - a massive increase at a time of evident political internal unrest.

I'm uncertain who was President around that time - any nominations would be of interest as it is somewhere around the Munro / Smith era I think but uncertain.

My research supports your thinking. Citing Tony Mitchell on 17 April 2001:
As we approach this election we all need to reflect on the fact that Boyd Munro and Dick Smith gave us "Location Specific Charging" and "User Pays". Dick Smith gave the Australian aviation world "Affordable Safety" which in the light of the CASA initiated Ansett farce might prove to be an even bigger burden than most of us are prepared to carry.
Think long and hard before we create yet another series of costly crusades.The last thing AOPA needs is a messiah, what it needs is a Committee of 9 "honest men". And you are certainly correct about the walkout of members thereafter. Citing Russell Kelly on 30 April 2001:

Roger, you and about 4,000 other members have left AOPA during the past 6 years.That's 95/96 to 2001 - perhaps Dick is better equipped to answer your rich man's club thought?

Back to airspace? ;)

james michael

4th Oct 2008, 01:16

TW

Apology, your post ensued while I was responding to Binghi.

LHR

change where needed/benefit is to be gained is a good thing.
At the risk of offending TW that is exactly why I have been asking Dick to debate.

If you read the JCP you will find some qualified and experienced analysis as follows:

CASA conducted an analysis of 26 ‘normal operation’ CFIT accidents that occurred between 1991 and 2000. Of these, 23 involved the pilot losing visual reference to the external environment through deterioration of the weather, a situation where a terrain display in the cockpit may have assisted with situational awareness.

Analysis concluded that up to 13 CFIT accidents (i.e. 50%) and 26 fatalities (50%) could have been prevented if the pilot had been able to effectively utilise information from a moving map terrain display in the cockpit and taken avoidance action.and

In cost-benefit work carried out by the FAA in 20059 to estimate the effectiveness of an ADS-B derived display of navigation and terrain information to aircraft not already equipped with a Terrain Awareness and Warning System (TAWS), the FAA concluded that the safety effectiveness was approximately 53 % in adverse weather conditions and approximately 18% when no adverse conditions prevail.and

Although the analysis does not examine potential midair collisions involving regular public transport aircraft, since none have occurred, it did examine a number of passenger-carrying and fatal charter collisions. Most of these were amenable to prevention using this technology. CASA therefore considers that widespread fitment of the light aircraft fleet should also result in reduced collision risk for air transport operations, particularly in the vicinity of aerodromes with a mixture of operations.

This analysis was also presented to ABIT in June 200510 and is available at
ADS-B Implementation Team (ABIT) (http://astra.aero/ABIT/index.aspx). The analysis also received favourable review from ASFA and the Flight Safety Foundation and was endorsed by ASTRA in May 2005.

In a finding similar to CASA’s conclusion, and following recent work to estimate the
effectiveness of ADS-B to reduce the risk of midair collisions, the FAA has
concluded that ADS-B should be approximately 72.3% effective at reducing collision risk, provided that each aircraft in a collision pair is equipped with ADS-B OUT and at least one of the aircraft is equipped with ADS-B IN11.I think the above is living proof that a positive focus by Dick and his team on SUPPORTING Australian ADS-B has a potentially higher salvation rate than his desires for radar backup of LSALT, route, etc. Give it some thought.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

4th Oct 2008, 01:39

James,

Excuse my ignorance, how is ADS going to reduce CFIT without MSAW ?.

TAWS, EGPWS, GPWS is a completely different bit of kit to ADS.

1) How will ADS alone prevent CFIT OCTA ?,

2) Will not ADS + MSAW = better protection against CFIT OCTA ?,

3) No doubt ADS + TAWS + MSAW + Misc ( training, approach briefings, CAR217 approval ) = the greatest level of protection against CFIT OCTA ?.

Bob Murphie

4th Oct 2008, 01:55

james michael;

So?... Does your gadget you found in a comic book meet TSO C145(a) or TSO C146(a) standard? (I understand 145 is the chip and 146 is the chip and motherboard. The chip having a problem with availability).

Open my mind! Why don't you ask yourself what will happen if the subsidy does not materialise. You and "your team" whoever they are, support without question the mandate of the equipment.

It amazes me (If you are who I believe you are), that you are such an expert as a private VFR day non owner pilot.

Also, talking about "outing" posters, please explain the genesis if xinhua2 for me.

max1

4th Oct 2008, 02:18

LHRT you state,

'I standby my statements regarding MSAW and the determination of some to try to sink any of Dicks opinions, i.e. where does Niles find his motivation ?, although I believe I know the answer to that one.'

I don't believe you will find people trying to sink Dicks ideas, just pointing out that it will cost tens of millions in updating software, and hiring more people to effectively monitor the airspace.

Form page one, people have said it will increase safety. The issue has been at what cost? Since your post on page one, do you now concede that it WILL cost money and need more people to effectively monitor the airspace?
How can you stand by your statements when even Dick has come around to the assertion that it will cost.

'I agree that this will require en route controllers to be trained to do approach work (as they do in other countries) and also require smaller sectors.
All of this will cost money.' Dick

P.S. Lets not muddy the waters by referring to Niles, he's jumped back in his box.

james michael

4th Oct 2008, 02:27

LHR

I didn't do the analysis but it is covered in the JCP and the JCP CBA in more detail. It seems CASA, ASFA, etc are of the belief that the TSO 146 will provide - first, terrain alert and second, supporting map data.

I admit to watching the terrain info on my G495 when flying in a/c with no other electronic support.

ADS alone will not prevent CFIT - it's what people do as a result of the cross industry funding to upgrade their GPS capability that will assist.

And, if we take Dick's point re radar surveillance being a safety increase - remembering there are others who decry the 'big brother watching' concept - then ADS-B is an extension of Dick's concept and there may well be a greater safety case with extended areas of surveillance.

I think that answers all three of your points? Dick's argument and mine are not mutually exclusive, rather they are supportive of each other. Others have done the CBA and safety case for mine, just need a case for Dick's.

Bob

You and "your team" whoever they are, support without question the mandate of the equipment.Pardon? Everything I have seen in support of ADS-B for GA is solidly underwritten with the covenant "subject to the subsidy".

Xinhua 2 genesis - reborn again immediately after a recent outing, following me around, interesting history of posts - draw your own conclusions.

TSO 145/146 - forget chips and motherboards and try
gps.faa.gov and
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/9b4559db46f3a0f985256cfb007c037e/8f5172f7537bbc6286256dad00643ce3/$FILE/C145a.pdf

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

4th Oct 2008, 03:05

Max,

The issue has been at what cost? Since your post on page one, do you now concede that it WILL cost money and need more people to effectively monitor the airspace?

No, the automatic function of the MSAW, is exactly that, the automatic funtioning of the MSAW program, that will only require input from an ATCO if someone is about to die.

An IFR aircraft reporting visual to an ATCO at its destination may slightly increase an ATCO's, what will be the nett effect ?.

Max hows this sound " If you are certain it will cost more money so be it, I personally do not care about that, it will save lives".

TIBA being used commonly is not due to over worked ATCO's, it is due to a shortage of ATCO's, a completely different argument, yes more staff more money etc etc.

GPWS data is readily commercially available, it is a whole load of ones and zeros in a certain format, if the format is different to the format required by TAAATS, you run the ones and zeros through a program that converts to the required format, Yes that might cost money but how much, not $10,000,000.00,not rocket science ( over simplistic view I know, but it will not take a room full of university trained computer programmers ).

'I agree that this will require en route controllers to be trained to do approach work (as they do in other countries) and also require smaller sectors. All of this will cost money.' Dick

I believe Dick is on the NAS wagon again, refer my post 142 and second last post, I'm not on that wagon.

WILL cost money and need more people to effectively monitor the airspace?

I believe your thoughts here have less to do with MSAW and more to do with your perception of either how inadequate the system presently is or it would be with NAS. Not talking about NAS or the present situation.

Not trying to muddy the waters with Niles, just voicing an opinion, I feel for Niles, I too have taken a licking on pprune and now try to choose my words carefully.

LeadSled

4th Oct 2008, 05:20

Folks,
A lot of TSOing and frowing on this thread, could we, perhaps simplify a few things

What is ADS-B ?? ---- It is just a method of communication, nothing more, in this case position and rate data to whoever is receiving it, for whatever purpose.

For ADS-B to provide any assistance in "hill abatement", avoiding the cloud with the solid center, it would have to be communications with some form of ground based (ie: TAAAAAATS) system that could, by whatever the technological means, derive and broadcast back a terrain warning, (to be displayed, sounded or whatever ,cattleprod equipped pilot seat) that selected life is about to become extinct, unless said selected life does something real smart, RFN, having been real dumb to get into the position in the first place.

The above is absolutely nothing to do with a proprietary GPS system, available right now, with some form of terrain warning, based on the widely available worldwide digitized terrain database, and the GPS position. There are many. This does not need TSO 145/146 GPS. It does not need a transponder of any kind. It does NOT need ADS-B. Not in my B747-400, or my GA fun machine.

Claiming reductions in CFIT as a benefit of "ADS-B" is just plain wrong/dishonest/fraudulent, unless it comes via the ADS-B datalink.

Given the planned availability of ADS-B ground stations needed to give widespread coverage to low level (ie; making ANY kind of automated ADS-B -- or ATC VHF voice) terrain warning reasonably available across Australia at low level just ain't going to happen any time soon.

Have a look at the published coverage figures planned, in the short and long run, no ASA coverage below 10,000 (except incidental to the siting) is planned, if my recollections are correct. And that's the "long run". It's all in the ASA documents and the JCP submissions, and these facts are not in dispute.

The estimate for coverage to 5000 ft. was in the order of 350+/-, which seems consistent with the FAA estimate of almost 500 stations for coverage to 1000 ft, over a roughly similar land area. And, what are ASA planning short term?? In the long term?? Without looking it up, I seem to recall (in the long run) about 150-160.

More facts: For the"airline" end of town, where ADS-B "IN" is available, you have two choices:

(1) As per the relevant RTCA standard, ADS-B IN can be processed ( if you buy the mod.) by TCAS 11, and the output will be exactly the same as for TCAS.
ie; the same as either both aircraft having TCAS 11, or one aircraft having having TCAS 11 and the other aircraft having a Transponder Mode C.

(2) Without TCAS processing, just a proximate traffic symbol on the moving map, if the ADS-B position "in" is displayed, as well as/instead of the proximate position derived from the transponder of the "other" aircraft.

Result, no benefit, compared to the present, where there is widespread fitments of Transponders with Mode C, for aircraft used "regularly". ie: "The rest" don't represent a serious in-air collision risk, because being airborne is such a rare event.

It would be a brave airline operations department that recommended maneuvering based on a proximate traffic symbol, in the absence of a TCAS resolution advisory (quite apart from matters of adhering to a clearance, in the absence of said RA)

Now to TSO's, and our mate James of the Michaels:

Dear James,

Could you please advise YES or NO answers to the following questions, re. your claims of a so far very shy manufacturer re. a "compliant", AUD $10,000 ADS-B IN/OUT/ALL ABOUT box.

(1) Does said box incorporate ( not an add-on to be paid separately ) a C145 or C146 GPS engine, and;

(2) Does the transponder component comply with DO 260A requirements for an ADS-B signal that can be used (if we, Australia, are going to comply with the regulations we have published, and met our obligations to ICAO, and by complying, not "complying by notifying a difference") for ATC purposes.

James, my dear chap, I suppose you do have a full and comprehensive understanding of the difference between most current TSO C-166 transponders, and those that comply with DO 260A. To save time,Yes or No will do.

The latter DO-260A are rather thin on the ground, those that are available are many multiples of AUD $10,000, and that's just for the transponder.

Just YES or NO to each question, without obfuscation and waffle.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Bob Murphie was essentially right about the difference between C-145 and 146. C-145 is for incorporation into proprietary FMCS type systems, C-146 is C-145 plus additional processing on a board to produce navigation outputs.

Contrary to the rubbish in various early CASA "cost benefit" and the JCP, there is NO relation between C-145 and VFR, C-146 and IFR. Indeed, there will be NO difference in the cost of installation, VFR or IFR, so why is VFR going to be slugged with/robbed off $5000.00, if the so far mythical subsidy ever becomes real.

PS2: A tricky little detail --- the "subsidy" is ONLY for ADS-B OUT, what's the chance a bureaucrat would only "subsidize" the "OUT" bit of the alleged AU box.

bushy

4th Oct 2008, 06:44

It's about time we looked at facts, and the facts do not seem to back up all the waffle about the wildly exagerated benefits light aircraft owners will get from ADSB, for no cost.
Looks like there are some salesmen around.

OZBUSDRIVER

4th Oct 2008, 07:32

Bushy and Leadsled, if the guy is correct...What then?

james michael

4th Oct 2008, 07:39

Bushy

If you are basing your belief on Leaddy's post - good luck.

Leaddy

I'm surprised at the technical accuracy you trot out but the factual inaccuracy. However, you are an acknowledged ADS-B naysayer so we have to agree to look at this from different ends of the ground.

In rough order:

Yes ADS-B is a comms method. After that you bend it a tad. You and I have read the JCP and know it is not just ADS-B.

The JCP is a marriage of convenience of ADS-B and Navaid replacement. One about 60M one about 30M from memory? But, either could be done INDEPENDENT of the other. Just convenient to mix them because of the TSO 145/146 issue of VFR non-panel map display and IFR panel map display etc.

Who has claimed ADS-B saves CFIT - I think you will find it is a JCP claim re the married package.

Your questions 1 and 2 - I said I saw an article not that I had a brochure. I am certain from the article I saw that more is expected when the consortium publicly announces its package and its specifications.

So I can give you a definite yes or no, as you wished.

Indeed, there will be NO difference in the cost of installation, VFR or IFR, so why is VFR going to be slugged with/robbed off $5000.00, if the so far mythical subsidy ever becomes real.Pardon? Would it have anything to do with both getting ADS-B but IFR getting TSOP 146 navigator subsidy for the NAVAID replacement?

And certainly the subsidy is only for ADS-B OUT. That's why a very smart marketer will include ADS-B IN as an INTEGRATED item so it is included as a given.

Can I quote you that Bob was right about 145/146? :)
145 is the chip and 146 is the chip and motherboardGiven the planned availability of ADS-B ground stations needed to give widespread coverage to low level (ie; making ANY kind of automated ADS-B -- or ATC VHF voice) terrain warning reasonably available across Australia at low level just ain't going to happen any time soon.Well, that's put a bullet in the ATC watching over us theory (now whose was that again?) - looks like you are plugging the value of the TSO 146 navigator with terrain? :p

Flying Binghi

4th Oct 2008, 08:25

I am being polite to you because you have stopped the circular whizz bomb GPS argument.

I see.

james michael, as far as I am concerned, the scenario I presented (in other threads) re the terrorist miss-use of GPS affecting ADS-B still stands. I am yet to see any real rebuttal.

I note if it was'nt for the hysteria, and what I read as near panicky threats and abuse of one particular poster, my posts on the subject would most likely have been 'sooner' to the piont.

james michael

4th Oct 2008, 10:14

Bing

You have a delightful sense of humour.

"Knife" - item for eating - item for killing people.

Fact - use of knives - lots of eating - small amount of killing people.

If we adopt your GPS / buzz bomb scenario we will forsake the use of all the positives of GPS because someone might misuse the technology. On the analogy, we may as well ban knives and go back to tearing at food with our hands (actually a little like the troglodyte return to caveman resistance to the positives of ADS-B when I analyse it).

Australian airspace will soon change to appreciate the marriage of new technology with safety. Those who believe otherwise obviously won't post on here - they are still using snail mail :rolleyes:

Oh, I just remembered your concern at being compared to Walter Mitty and some amazing James Bond analogy you purported. This may help (ah, apology this is the commonly accepted version, not your flight of fiction):

Walter Mitty appears in the short story The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, written by humorist James Thurber (http://www.answers.com/topic/james-thurber) and published in The New Yorker in 1939. Mitty is a meek and henpecked husband who daydreams of being a daring surgeon, heroic pilot and dashing naval commander. ("Throw on the power lights! Rev her up to 8500! We're going through!") Thurber's story was a mere 2100 words long, but the character struck a chord and "Walter Mitty" has become popular shorthand for any timid soul who dreams of a more dashing life. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty was made into a 1947 film with Danny Kaye (http://www.answers.com/topic/danny-kaye) as Mitty.Bing, when you have finished diverting the threads let's talk about Oz Airspace and how Leaddy, you, Bob & X, and even Dick - can support an Oz consortium joining with the regulators for Oz to exercise its amazing intellectual capability and lead the world in airspace management. There's a lot of people who can be saved from CFIT, and a lot of Regional RPT pilots, who just might thank you for your review of the situation.

max1

4th Oct 2008, 23:36

LHRT,

You state,

'No, the automatic function of the MSAW, is exactly that, the automatic funtioning of the MSAW program, that will only require input from an ATCO if someone is about to die.
An IFR aircraft reporting visual to an ATCO at its destination may slightly increase an ATCO's, what will be the nett effect ?. '

Go back and read the posts about alarms and how often they go off.Posts 15,24,56,59,66 would be worth a re-read.

The nett effect at the moment with the RAM alarm, is that when pilots are told that control services are terminated they tend to get the mindset that seeing they are no longer 'tied' to an airways clearance that they don't need to advise ATC if they are changing their tracking.
Sectors along the J-curve have told me that they have up to 90% of aircraft OCTA positioning for approaches set off the RAM alert, with all the work involved in trying to raise the aircraft and ascertain their intentions.

Your comment, 'that will only require input from an ATCO if someone is about to die.' No it won't it , it will require immediate action if the alarm goes off.

As I have said, and said, if a pilot does not (forgets, or considers giving the flying their full attention due busy cockpit environment, don't forget 'Control services terminated' mindset)or cannot (frequency issues) report visual the alarm will go off because the machine hasn't been told there isn't a problem.

Do you have alarms that go off in your cockpit even when you know you don't have a problem? What mindset might this give you?

What does the C stand for in PIC, if flying an approach in IMC it is up to this individual to assess the priorities of cockpit workload, and when they are able to advise ATC when visual. Ater all they are now OCTA and not restricted to a clearance.

I appreciate that we come after Aviating and Navigating when the aircraft is OCTA. Your premise in regards to MSAW would work if we live in a perfect world, our experience here as ATCs shows otherwise.

As I said will be happy to do this, if given the resources.

james michael

5th Oct 2008, 00:27

Morning, Max.

Might be time to do some more myth busting. For two reasons:
1. Remove the myth that ASDS-B does not offer extended surveillance over the Australian continent, and,
2. Reinforce the staffing matter - given the extended ADS-B surveillance capability ATC will necessarily be getting more RAM and MSAW alerts.

Re the first, the cover of interest to us is the 10,000'. Those who wish to debate the 5,000' coverage can deduce smaller circles than shown and base the calculation on the VHF radio range figures for 5000' versus 10,000' (although in much of the area shown I have no desire to be at or below 5000' of an afternoon as I'm not a big rap for unnecessary turbulence).

In terms of SAFETY and - given the cross industry funding - AFFORDABLE safety, is there anyone who wishes to debate that the ADS-B coverage does not make them feel happier about ambulating outback?

So what we have if Dick's proposition is accepted is a massive increase in ATC availability enroute. Couple that with the JCP TSO 146 navigator subsidy for moving map and terrain, but most fundamentally - all ADS-B equipped aircraft with ADS-B IN or TCAS capability being able to see each other - and someone tell me there is no safety benefit :ugh:

(PS good news the way things worked out in SY/IRC)

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/jamesmichaelresearch/RADARVSADS-B.jpg

Flying Binghi

5th Oct 2008, 01:40

Via james michael, we get -

Oh, I just remembered your concern at being compared to Walter Mitty and some amazing James Bond analogy you purported. This may help (ah, apology this is the commonly accepted version, not your flight of fiction):

Via - Walter Mitty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mitty) - Use of the term as an insult, we get - ...Tom Kelly, a spokesman for British prime minister Tony Blair, publicly apologised for referring to David Kelly as "a Walter Mitty character"... David Kelly (weapons expert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert))

---------------------------------------------------------

james michael, I note in the U.S. there is a little bank problem. My reading of the background to it, is it was caused by greed. It looks to me as though many knew what would happen though just couldnt resist those short term profits and bonuses.

I'm wondering, after reading about the other ASA problems covered in pprun, if there isnt a bit of short term thinking happening with ADS-B ?

Fact - use of knives - lots of eating - small amount of killing people.

I note in Oz that we have security fenceing of regional airports, and ASICs - all aparently just in case Osama gets his hands on a little aircraft and flys off into the nearest building, or whatever. james michael, perhaps your "knife" scenario is valid in the ASIC/Fenceing situation.

As to unmaned GPS guided flying terror weapons that have been deliberatly designed for the job intended, I dont think the knife analogy stacks up.

Chimbu chuckles

5th Oct 2008, 03:53

What is the ADS-B coverage at 6000'?

Just curious to see how many CFITs it might actually be in a position to influence. Let alone how many SAR efforts - you'd need coverage down to about 2000' to really influence that.

Flying Binghi

5th Oct 2008, 04:23

What is the ADS-B coverage at 6000'?

Excellent piont Chimbu chuckles. You have drawn my attention to the 'terain shading' effect that is evident in the coverage map provided by JM.

james michael

5th Oct 2008, 04:24

Chimbu

A good question and a good point.

SAR first - I think the claim in the JCP is ambitious because the 406 ELT/PLB is the first line of defence, not ADS-B.

However, where there is no ELT/PLB signal heard, there may be value in the last known track seen as far as possible on the TAAATS console record in narrowing the circle of uncertainty. Given the greater area of coverage of ADS-B there is more chance of some line being available.

6000' range second - don't have an answer because the pic you saw is what ASA provided and it only gives 5 and 10K.

However, let's go back to Mr Thom who cites <5000' radio horizon 60 Nm, 5000-10000 radio horizon 90 Nm. (The equation from the ARRL handbook, refraction excluded, is d (Nm) = SqRt 2h (h in feet).

Therefore if you reduce those darker blue circles to two-thirds of their size on the pic that would be your worst case scenario at 5000'.

I say worse case because every attempt is made to position antennae on high ground for the purpose of maximising range. Therefore, one expects a better range than above.

So, looking at the map I linked, there are unarguably holes (although not sure how many of those holes are 'well travelled') but the ADS-B coverage of your journey is far more reassuring than what now exists.

From memory there are also a discretionary 9-11 extra ADS-B tower locations still being negotiated - that increases it further.

CFIT = TSO 146 GPS with terrain. There was never any claim to my knowledge that ADS-B was the answer - some earlier writers are confusing the TOTAL JCP thrust with the ADS-B partner in the marriage.

As Max noted earlier, many PIC want to be in "C" (i.e. command) of their own destiny. FTDK being an extreme example requiring 4 alternators and batteries to power the command console. $15K toward ADS-B plus TSO 146 NAV is the most likely CFIT defence. :)

Bing

Not worth a response in its own right, however, delete Mitty, insert McCarthy. We cannot go through life diverting (threads included) from technology because of one-percent hypothetical risks (although I admit margarine is off my shopping list).

Edited to add - terrain shading depends on where the base station aerial is located - hint - ask someone how far up the East coast the Tassie WaMLAT is seeing. ;)

Bob Murphie

5th Oct 2008, 04:28

He doesn't want you to know what the coverage is at 6000ft. The maths are an "anal pluck"

Quote: "Re the first, the cover of interest to "us" is the 10,000'."

Who is this Royal "us"? Do we assume this is your canvassed majority of Day VFR owner pilot flights in Australia? Or just another sales speil? I guess this includes the 8,000 odd RA-Aus people who can't fly that high anyway.

The illustration, except for existing radar, shows nothing to do with flying below 10,000ft and as for CFIT, how many airports are at or above 10,000ft in Australia?

From memory, and I'm sure someone will argue this point, all aircraft must descend at some point in time to ground level which unfortunately leaves Oodnadatta out in the cold for this ADSB.

Flying Binghi

5th Oct 2008, 04:54

Not worth a response in its own right, however, delete Mitty, insert McCarthy. We cannot go through life diverting (threads included) from technology because of one-percent hypothetical risks (although I admit margarine is off my shopping list).

james michael, I will accept that answer as your way of saying that you have no way to rebut the scenario. (I'm a bit mistified where the one-percent came from ?)

Speaking of banks again - isnt the ASA long term goal to get rid off most non GPS nav-aids and put most of its eggs into GPS based nav, etc ? ...and I wonder if after a few years - all non GPS nav-aids will go, probably radar to ? ...it may-be like airport privatisations (not related to ASA), promises not kept.

james michael

5th Oct 2008, 05:00

Oh Bob, if you were a horse you certainly wouldn't have the luck of Weekend Hustler - it's more like foot in mouth outbreak ;)

In order:

Happy to show the 5000' coverage because I found it in a non-JCP doc.

"Anal pluck" - I think that 'wreckedum' - I apologise for not being able to alter the factual and mathematical rules of radio propagation to support your theories :)

The Royal "Us" - conspiracy theory reigns supreme. The 10,000' circles were of interest to US - i.e. those reading this - because, Bob, the 30,000' ones were CERTAINLY not of interest to US.

Agree not many airports at or above 10,000'. Just as well, or you could drive. But, we do tend to AVIATE above airfield height (except when taking off or landing) :p

Oodnadatta out in the cold. Bob - none out of ten, go to the back of the class for not reading the homework. Oadnadatta, last I saw, gets dual ADS-B site.

Here's the 5000' chart - circles seem about what I estimated earlier - no? And I feel you will find they cover a large expanse of NON radar area.

Hint - you may need to relate the map to population centres, mobile phone coverage, etc.

http://i459.photobucket.com/albums/qq314/jamesmichaelresearch/ADS-B5000.jpg

james michael

5th Oct 2008, 05:10

Bing

Up the back of the class with Bob :E

Does no knocker read the JCP before entering this debate?

JCP:

Ensuring that a ‘backup’ network of some 165 navaids remains. This backup network would provide a continuation of navigation services in the event of a GNSS failure. It has been designed to ensure that IFR operations can continue if GNSS is unavailable.Bing you wonder if after a few years - all non GPS nav-aids will go, probably radar to ?Have you considered that the airlines who pay around 99% of Airservices charges might have a say in retention of navaids for the very reason quoted in the JCP?

Radar too? Should there be one of your hypothetical GNSS disruptions (and perhaps for defence reasons) the JCP is about removing EN ROUTE radar and retaining it in primary areas.

While you and Bob read the JCP, I'll do some lawnmowing. This info today has been most valuable in demonstrating to readers just how far ADS-B covers beyond radar - almost a reminder of John Flynn and his "Mantle of Safety" ;)

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

5th Oct 2008, 05:13

ADS-B is no silver bullet to Australia being so damn big.

Chimbu with a flight from say Mout Isa to Perth in a GA aircraft, distance of 1430 nm, you will presently be in RADAR for approx 90nm at 10,000ft, ~60 at 5,000ft (coming into Perth).

With ADS-B, perhaps half of that trip you will be within ADS-B/tracked by TAAATS at 5,000ft, ~700nm. ADS-B all the ways at 10,000ft !!!!!!.

Certainly this is a step forward ?.

The nett effect at the moment with the RAM alarm, is that when pilots are told that control services are terminated they tend to get the mindset that seeing they are no longer 'tied' to an airways clearance that they don't need to advise ATC if they are changing their tracking.

Hi Max,

ATC currently only provides a FIS in Class G, no clearance required;

So wouldn't turning the RAM alarm off for IFR flights OCTA reduce your work load, why does ATC even care about RAM OCTA ?.

EG, If an IFR aircraft is to fly from say Perth to Esperance, when descended through FL180, it enters Class G airspace, ATC being the consumate professionals they are, pass traffic.

Q. If the aircraft then deviates off track to line up for an approach at ESP and descend to Grid LSALT or 25nm MSA (presently off track, so can not use Route LSALT), your RAM alarm goes off and you question the PIC, What has the PIC done wrong ?, you know because he/she set an alarm off in Class G airspace ?.

Q. Should this alarm be disabled when in OCTA or is this the first step in the 3 dimensional management of IFR aircraft OCTA (RAM plus MSAW) ?.

Flying Binghi

5th Oct 2008, 05:25

Bing

Up the back of the class with Bob http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif

Does no knocker read the JCP before entering this debate?

Miss-representing my posts again :hmm:

Please re-read my other posts, in this and other threads, james michael.

From what I've seen of ASAs track record re staff planning etc, I think my assesment will be borne out in time... plus, theres those pesky terrorists to worry about - thats the thing that you've mostly attacked me about james michael ...does something worry you there ?

As to ordering me to the back of the class.....do you think I would be in your 'class' ?..... Heck, I prefer to go to classes where I might learn something apart from double-speak and gobledy-goop :cool:

LeadSled

5th Oct 2008, 05:38

Folks,

We have now established at least four things:

(1) James Michael has no idea whether the alleged AUD $10,000 device that so carefully matched the "not yet agreed by the airlines who have to finally fund it proposed subsidy" has no idea whether the $10,000 device meets the published standards for an ATS-B.

If it's the same "draft" brochure I have ( a bit of "brochuremanship" here**), the answers are;
YES, when you buy the add-on GPS box from FreeFlight Inc., and;
NO.

(2) James Michael (and his alterego and mates plugging for the mandate) have no idea whether the subsidy will meet the cost of the mandate, or half the cost of the mandate, or 10%. In fact, they have no idea of the real world installed cost of minimum equipment to satisfy the mandate.

We do know approximately the cost in QF Dash 8s, about fifteen times (15) the proposed $25,000 Regional subsidy -- 'TIS all on the ASA web site (or was, last time I looked).

The best guesstimated price so far, from GARMIN (but the DO 260A certification is not complete) is about AUD$35,000 - $40,000 installed, with AUD$1=US$0.86

(3) James Michael has no understanding of the difference between the C-145 and C-146 GPS TSOs.

(4) James Michael is a serial obfuscater, YES and NO are insurmountable obstacles.

I love this bit about me being an "ADS-B naysayer", as I was involved in the development and demonstration of a locally developed (the Au first? we think so) ADS-B "technology demonstrator", both ADS-B IN and OUT, and including a analogue panel display of proximate traffic, more than 10 years ago.

That bit is actually quite easy, as we proved!

It's the cost of meeting the required TSOs, GPS wise, and more particularly the DO 260A transponder requirement, all for a very small market ( and even the US market for UAT based equipment is small, compared to production runs big enough to get any real economies of scale) that make the end product VERY expensive.

James, old chap, YOU KNOW exactly what I oppose, and that is the imposition by mandate of a system that, by every competent and fair analysis, has no COST/BENEFIT justified advantage for most of GA, and precious little for Regional airlines. Indeed, very little, if any, demonstrated benefit at all, beyond a useful datalink. A $100M-$200M subsidy, ultimately paid by the (major) airline traveling public (reduced ASA charges) or the public at large ( reduced ASA dividend) --- this is economic waste, and the aviation sector and the country cannot afford to waste money, and certainly not on this grand scale.

In the future, ADS-B will be a very useful tool for ATC, where traffic density warrants radar/radar like services --- and that is what FAA/Eurocontrol are planning to use it for ---- not trying to justify it by claiming all sorts of almost mythical benefits.

ADS-B is NOT a substitute for ACAS/TCAS II or GPWS ---- just a very useful datalink ---- but in the Transponder Mode S implementation a very limited datalink.

Very limited, because of the very, very limited bandwidth, compared with UAT or VDL-4. And, as it has transpired in the real world, a very expensive datalink --- quite embarrassingly the opposite to the claims of the original promoters of "1090ES" as the "cheap and easy way" ---

Particularly for "promoters" who didn't hold the patent rights underlaying either UAT (CDMA) or VDL (TDMA), and for broke airlines that swallowed the "cheap and easy" bait.

Remember the ASA presentations --- just a wire and a 1.44 floppy - "TIS" all "airlines" would required, said they. You do remember what a 1.44 floppy is, things that came before CDs, that came before DVDs. Seeing that most FMCS run on Motorola 68000 series CPU, I guess that the 1.44 is "appropriate contemporary technology".

Sadly, another small part of the reason why "1090ES" was such a dumb idea, and ICAO had it right in the first place, airlines in the future are going to need a broadband transceiver for multiple uses --- Let's call it a Universal Access Transceiver, or UAT for short --- and VDL does the same job, but no catchy name.

See the FAA/Eurocontrol timetable (mandate) to require (almost) all routine ATC communications to be transferred from voice to datalink. So, the poor sodding broke airliner sector is going to wind up carrying the initial and ongoing expense of both UAT/VDL and of 1090ES. Smart, or what ??

Should I regard my copy of that ASA presentation as a collectors item, or evidence for the Senate inquiry.

Remember that the $$$$many tens of millions ---- nice big impressive numbers, serious Ooooh!! Aaaah! factor numbers --- of savings claimed by ASA --- actually translated to something like 3% on the bottom line. An insignificant amount in the big picture, and that was the estimate ---- anybody want to wager that any real savings to ASA would have been realized, at all. All these numbers are in public documents.

Remember --- the claimed cost of maintaining/replacing the remote SSR heads is also hotly disputed, a core cost saving factor in the JCP, with local cost claims some ten times the demonstrated NZ replacement costs of identical SSR heads.

Even all the much touted "four dimensional" approaches, and other time/cost saving for the big end of town, RNP etc, are NOT dependent on ADS-B --- that can and is being done now!

As soon as massive subsidies are involved, it is axiomatic that there is NO BUSINESS CASE, (and that includes the cost of accidents and incidents ) for the imposition on GA.

As we have seen, time and again, with GRAS just the latest example, we have never been short of boffins, who may have great pet ideas, technologically, demanding subsidies for their pet ideas ---- because there is no business case for them to stand on their own two feet.

Don't anybody forget --- The first CASA ADS-B "cost/benefit" study showed all sorts of cost/benefit justified benefits for airlines, and NONE for GA, so the CASA airspace people's (not CASA senior management, I hasten to add) attitude was --- CASA priority is the paying passenger, so GA will just have to lump it.

Then the seriously gross errors in the CASA calculations were pointed out, and, low and behold, the airline benefits evaporated.

Surprise, surprise, CASA cost/benefit study Mk.II suddenly finds all sorts of "GA safety benefits" ---- is this double incompetence that these were not discovered in the first place, or "creative" thinking to justify the unjustifiable ??

Very much the latter. The conduct of these studies, by (now) former CASA employees, was a travesty of how a cost/benefit study should be conducted.

The fact remains: For the bulk of GA and Sports and Recreational Aviation, ADS-B is a technological answer looking for a problem.

However --- Widespread adoption of C-145/146 based GPS devices --- with terrain warnings, virtual terrain displays and all sorts of other possible add-ons ( and making the cost savings of obsolete and/or remote navaid removal possible) are all proceeding apace --- without subsidy.

The really sad thing is that -- ASA kiboshing WAAS --- in the vain hope that would make the now aborted GRAS attractive ---- has robbed us of the ability to have CAT 1 precision approaches nationwide, almost anywhere you wanted to do an adequate obstacle survey, and precision vertical guidance (boffin-speak for a glideslope) for any approach.

With due recognition of Norman Lindsay; "ADS-B ain't no Magic Pudding" --- And that goes double for what is left of the GA pudding.

Tootle pip!!

** With aplogies to Rollo Freelunch, Head of PR for Sir Charles Boost, late of Straight and Level, c/- Flight International.

PS: James the Oracle, pray tell how the (if and when it ever happens) ADS-B coverage down to 10,000ft helps the majority of the Australian fleet, the ones the target of the mandate, which are unpressurized, with very few even oxygen equipped to operate above 10,000.
Why didn't you put up the diagram for 5000'coverage?? Perhaps because it would illustrate how unlikely it was that ADS-B coverage in the GA altitudes would ever eventuate, except as might be incidental to a mast sighted for high level coverage ??
I suppose you do know that ASA have given no undertaking to provide any low level service, just because "it's there". Indeed, quite the opposite, unless you are a "client", ie; they can send you the invoice.

james michael

5th Oct 2008, 06:38

Leaddy

I think you join the other two at the back.

Not going to spend the time going through your bit by bit - but let's examine the start and finish of your post as samples.

(start of your post): If it's the same "draft" brochure I have ( a bit of "brochuremanship" here**), the answers are;
YES, when you buy the add-on GPS box from FreeFlight Inc., and;
NO.

Sadly it ain't, and the rest of your argument goes down the gurgler with it.

(end of your post): Why didn't you put up the diagram for 5000'coverage?? Perhaps because it would illustrate how unlikely it was that ADS-B coverage in the GA altitudes would ever eventuate, except as might be incidental to a mast sighted for high level coverage ??

Your post was at 16:38. Perhaps check mine at 16:00 :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Checking under the bonnet we find no COST/BENEFIT justified advantage for most of GA, and precious little for Regional airlines

If ADS-B IN is provided FOC, that argument joins the rest. Then you might note the LHR post re coverage from The Isa to Pth as but one minor example.

Then the end - and what a statement I suppose you do know that ASA have given no undertaking to provide any low level service, just because "it's there". Indeed, quite the opposite, unless you are a "client", ie; they can send you the invoice.

Now Leaddy, I do/have used numerous ASA services and while VFR have not received an invoice - should I write and tell them? Flight following, flightwatch. nav, position, speed advisory, being tracked across water with a faulty txpdr, Bass Strait crossings - not a cent.

They don't have to give an undertaking to provide a low level service - it's purely an extension of the great services they provide TODAY (and that Dick desires extended even further).

Established four things - in your dreams. Go have a beer and watch for ADS-B (coming to an airspace near you ;))

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

5th Oct 2008, 06:54

VH-ABC: Flight watch, ummm, errrrrrr, ABC VFR C172, we are uncertain of our position.

Flight watch: squark 1234 and climb to 10,000ft,,,

4 minutes later,,,

Flight Watch: Jack ass is identified, you are overhead Burketown, look out the lefthand side windows (I just love lefthanded storys:)).

Better than the present set up.
http://www.nkycvb.com/images/photo_gallery/Roulette-Wheel_HR.jpg
Just wanted to make the page even wider, since you guys put all those ADS-B coverage maps in.

james michael

5th Oct 2008, 07:01

LHR

Sorry about the maps - but a pic beats a thousand hypotheses :)

Here's two links - not Regionals but similar issues often in worse conditions:

Australia's flying doctors prescribe ADS-B (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/10/15/218135/australias-flying-doctors-prescribe-ads-b.html)

and

http://www.astra.aero/downloads/ABIT/RFDS_ADS-B_BRIEF.ppt (from someone who, like Leaddy, has been involved in early days of ADS-B)

Flying Binghi

5th Oct 2008, 07:18

Leaddy

I think you join the other two at the back.

Not going to spend the time going through your bit by bit - but let's examine the start and finish of your post as samples

One minute LeadSled is an acceptable reference, the next compleatly wrong - make up your mind james michael :hmm:

via post number 40 http://www.pprune.org/d-g-reporting-points/344553-no-agreement-usa-ads-b-2.html

...So if Leady is credible - and I have a high regard for much of his research...

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

5th Oct 2008, 07:23

Hi JM,

Have been a very small cog in that very big well run machine you speak of for about six months, the ADS-B is fantastic, especially when tied in with TCAS, MFD, TSO GPS etc etc.

With the new ADS stations on and coming on over the next couple of weeks, it is a fantastic support tool (save ATCO's work, less position reporting, lets be honest ASA is not going to cough up for equivalent RADAR coverage).

Unfortunately, as per usual, many operators that can afford these safety tools have not been proactive in their acceptance.

Like GPWS, I guess CASA will soon enough see the Safety benefits, as its all about Safety, and mandate these new tools for commercial operators, I look forward to this day.

Flying Binghi

5th Oct 2008, 07:29

...as its all about Safety...

Me-thinks youve missed some threads here Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower :hmm:

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

5th Oct 2008, 07:36

FB,

Well clearly I am not that bright, how about you explain it for me, please use small words :).

Flying Binghi

5th Oct 2008, 07:45

FB,

Well clearly I am not the bright, how about you explain it for, please use small words

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower, I'll let you do your own research there.

Perhaps start with "many operators that can afford these safety tools have not been proactive in their acceptance" ...sorry I copied your post, I caint writ long words :)

frothy

5th Oct 2008, 07:53

LHR
Your right about the page width, pain in the a*rse. Why not just post a link and not inconvenience anyone who mght have had a small amount of interest but now not prepared to scroll to follow some of the cr*p being spruiked. Isn't Pprunes better if "User Friendly". And No that is not5 a "motherhood" statement:ok:

Frothy

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

5th Oct 2008, 07:54

How many operators cried poor when CASA mandated GPWS/EGPWS, the outcry in the newspapers etc etc, or the Cessna SID ( although I feel that was very very very very poorly executed).

In the case of GPWS, I believe there is sufficient statistics to prove it was a good move for Safety, a big thumbs down for the popularity vote.

If operators can't afford to be in the Aviation Industry, how can they afford to be in the Aviation Industry ?, if you catch my drift.

james michael

5th Oct 2008, 08:03

LHR

Every cog in that org is vital and it is nice to know that the people who fly to provide the mantle of safety are getting their own mantle of safety via ADS-B.

Steve Lansell, with whom I have dealt, has done a great job in achieving the RFDS ADS-B cover in WA.

In theory early identification via ADS-B should also make it a smoother clearance into the CTA. I know RFDS were having more than enough trouble getting cleared across to Jandakot some time ago unless Med1.

Since this thread is about 'airspace' apply some thought to the current alphabet soup and what can ensue under ADS-B. Are Classes A to G here for the long haul?

Bing

You are vexatious. I said, as you well quoted I have a high regard for much of his research...Much does not equal all. Try "Mindwatching" by the Eysencks and you will find "the phenomenon of experimenter bias has been demonstrated many times ......"

Leaddy has a bias and what I see rose coloured he sees as everyone being captured in the system, everyone being big brothered, and everyone having to fit a B747 panel to squit ADS-B. I admit to my own bias about the pros of ADS-B. Guilty, yer 'onner.

Leaddy

Did you say ASA had kyboshed WAAS? I know they have kyboshed GRAS. More info (as I value much of your research, sorry Bing ;))

james michael

5th Oct 2008, 08:07

Frothy

As one who has not had much experience until today in inserting pix, I thought it was easier for the reader to put the pic in than the link - not getting any page problems this end.

More info - is it better I just post the link? Be nice please.

LHR

CASA withdrew the Cessna 300 SID for private ops - absolutely agree it was NOT well handled but the return to FAA/manufacturer guidelines for private ops does indicate CASA are listening (praise where due).

Flying Binghi

5th Oct 2008, 08:11

...as I value much of your research...

james michael, I'll let you and LeadSled work it out then :)

Flying Binghi

5th Oct 2008, 08:50

Hmmm, I wonder if this relates to our little Oz airspace discusion -

Currently there is a big push in the US for "user fees" The Government wants to charge a $25 per flight user fee. This is being strongly resisted by the GA people and is currently held up in Congress and the Senate, but not defeated. President Bush has threatened a veto if some form of user fee on GA is not passed. With ADSB that can't be turned off their Airservices people will be able to not only charge a per flight fee but also a charge per mile fee

Extract via - you'll have to type it - ragandtubeaviator.blog and spot (one word) .com

peuce

5th Oct 2008, 09:00

An observation about these debates ... and I don't point at anyone in particular ...

When it comes to providing a terrain collision warning service ... we are told to "bring it on" ... "don't worry about the cost" ... "we'll pay for it".
However, when it comes to implementing ADS-B ... the proponents won't be taken seriously unless they can identify every cent to be spent, provide a copy of the chip board code and table survey charts detailing coverage at Argadagada

On the surface, there appears to be a lot of double standardeers poking their heads up in these pages

Gundog01

5th Oct 2008, 09:19

This thread has degenerated into a pissing contest, he said, she said, blah blah blah. Can anyone please add somethng constructive. (Note. I realise this its self isnt constructive).

OZBUSDRIVER

5th Oct 2008, 11:41

Leadsled, you are supposedly reknowned for your enclopaedic memory. Your arguments were shot down early last year on one of Scurvy's threads.

UAT was invented BEFORE ADS-B

TSO145 chipsets ARE available

Mode A,C,S 1090ES DO260A transponders are avilable right now. EU2600 and fit in the same hole as the KT76. Complete with that cable:ok:

not yet agreed by the airlines who have to finally fund it proposed subsidy

The Q and DJ have already signed off on ADS-B. In fact they urge DoTaRS to get out of the way and let it happen!

ADS-B and WAMLat is a very potent tool.

You say,Do you want AirServices watching your every move? I say, YES!
Not for my own direction, but for my position and intentions be known to pass on as KNOWN traffic to the people that PAY for the service. RPT and IFR.

And finally, does Aus GA need a unique broadband service? Who is going to pay for the bandwidth? What are you going to download? METRAD has a huge hole around Cobar that needs filling so pretty useless for anyone outside the J-Curve. Do you really need realtime MET and NOTAM services? I can already get that with my laptop tabletPC and a broadband connection right now. Just need to be near a mobile network.

Flying Binghi

5th Oct 2008, 11:52

Your arguments were shot down early last year on one of Scurvy's threads.

Ah, yes, OZBUSDRIVER - I have given you and Scurvy a hint via PM - care to play ? :)

max1

5th Oct 2008, 14:04

LHRT,

You state

'So wouldn't turning the RAM alarm off for IFR flights OCTA reduce your work load, why does ATC even care about RAM OCTA ?.

I thought the whole premise to Dicks argument, and by default yours, was that if we have the radar coverage AND the ability to alert pilots that this is what we should be doing. Whether it is CTA or OCTA. Dick, goes on to state that he would like to see a FS type function WITH Radar.

I thought you were talking about a duty of care scenario?

From the first page.

One of the reasons NAS was high on the agenda is that we do not use the radar properly in the enroute airspace below 8,500 feet. I could see lives were going to be lost. Already six lives have been lost at Benalla and I would imagine we will end up with an airline accident with possibly 100 plus deaths at a place like Proserpine. Remember we still have the old flight service non radar procedures below 8,500 feet even where we have good radar coverage Dick.

If you are flying on an IFR flight plan in this area (radar coverage) be it any class of airspace, say "G" (OCTA), and you descend below the LSALT, MSA or MVA, wouldn't it be great if the RADAR system recognised you were below this safe altitude, alerted the Flight Watch, Centre operator that your were doing so.LHRT

A reason we may care about RAM, might have to do with an ability to give unverified traffic OCTA i.e. a FIS .
e.g. aircraft has control services terminated. RAM alert inhibits on leaving CTA, aircraft deviates from planned track, aircraft cleans up other traffic that previously wasn't an issue.

LHRT what you are trying to achieve will enhance safety, but at a financial cost. As ATCs have been saying from the outset, happy to provide this additional service if resourced for it.

We signed on for this, but I hope you can empathise with what an ATC feels when involved in something like Benalla. Its not till you see up-close and personal the anguish that people feel even if the incident didn't involve a loss of life. Not sooking, but if this is not resourced PROPERLY, we will still have these incidents. For a pilot it would be like getting behind in the Approach , not in front of it, and still be required to carry out the landing, we wouldn't have the Go-Around option.

TrenShadow

5th Oct 2008, 16:11

The aircraft in the Benalla accident was actually coming from Ulladulla, and clearly the lowest safe altitude for that route was over 7,000 feet.
Dick, LHRT,

It's been a week and lots of ADSB techo discussion has since passed, but I wanted to revisit this point.

At what point should TAAATS go DING with a MSAW alert for an aircraft on RADAR?

Firstly, as previously advised, the a/c must be on RADAR, as ADSB is not QNH corrected and the level readout is plain WRONG at altitudes (except for the trivial case where local QNH happens to equal 1013). The machine must then allow for MODE-C tolerance of 200'. So before we even start working out what the "lowest safe altitude" is for the aircraft's present position, TAAATS should NOT DING until the a/c is 300' below whatever we come up with.

Dick, as you rightly point out, the GRID LSALT coming from UDA to BLA is over 7000'. To be precise, from abeam CRG to abeam AY, it's 7900, then 7100 to BLA. However, it would be simplistic for TAAATS to just look at grid LSALTS, as many spurious alerts would be generated for aircraft legally flying in IMC below those levels within those grids.

How you ask - they could be established on the AY-CRG track with a track LSALT of 5700. Or airworking within 25NM CRG, remaining wholly in the western quadrant with a MSA of 6200. etc etc.

I have drawn up a diagram showing a DCT track from UDA to BLA (in red), overlayed with various circles. As you can see, the route remains wholly contained within the overlap of BLA/WGT/AY/CRG MSA circles.

Adding some numbers.
The AY 25NM MSA to the south is 5400'
WGT 25NM to the east is 6300', 10NM is 3000'
BLA 25NM is 3000' to the north, 5000' to the south and 3500' within 10NM

So, from the time the track enters the 25NM AY ring, 5400' is a justifiable LSALT until it leaves the AY ring at approx 40NM BLA. The next 10NM or so until it enters the 10NM ring from WGT, the best MSA is 6300'. After that, you have 3000' within 10NM WGT followed by 3500' within 10NM BLA.

Thus far, the machine SHOULD NOT DING unless a radar paint is at 5100' within 25 AY, or 6000' for the 10NM only covered by 25 WGT, or a miserly 3200' (well below radar coverage) once west of 10NM WGT.

Not finshed yet though... The dumb computer must also take into account published route LSALTS. "But he's not on one" I hear you saying. True. However, for the approx 10NM the track is ONLY covered by the WGT 25NM MSA (6300'), it IS within the procedural tolerances of either/or of the AY-ELW and AY-SBG tracks (6.9 degree NDB splay from AY and tracks are 12 degrees apart). So, this section covered only by WGT 25 MSA can be further reduced to 5300' worst case being the AY-ELW track (both these tracks highlighted in blue).

In summary, the dumb computer, assuming knowledge of grid, route, and MSA LSALTS would have NO cause to go DING on any aircraft indicating a MODE C level of 5100' or above.

http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp228/TrenShadow/UDA-BLA.jpg

welcome_stranger

5th Oct 2008, 22:51

Also note the lowest on the W465 to the SW of WGT (which almost goes over BLA) is 4000 and the system would have the flight on that track on tolerances.

So from ABM WGT (4000) to BLA the system wouldnt ding until the acft was below 3700. Meanwhile ML TWR has just issued a RWY change and the controller has 4 holding at ELW to allow approach time to resequence everyone else.

Ding what ding???

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

5th Oct 2008, 22:57

Tren,

Haven't we already looked at this, Page 7, post 126 or there abouts ?, nice picture by the way.

Did not we agree that sometime shortly after 1042am and before the sudden stop, the aircraft did breach the protected areas ?.

So what is your point ?, IF in RADAR coverage this aircraft would have made TAAATS MSAW go "BING' at some stage, it might have saved the day.

Perhaps you could also transpose the actual track of the aircraft as per the ATSB report and zoom in on the last 5 minute of flight ?.

I thought the whole premise to Dicks argument, and by default yours

Come one Max, I know you're smarter than that.

I'm sick of this round about, if you've read the JCP you'll know that MSAW OCTA and ADS-B are going to happen, bye bye.

OZBUSDRIVER

5th Oct 2008, 22:59

Trenshadow, Excellent post:ok::ok::ok:

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

6th Oct 2008, 01:41

The point is, and this has been made over and over and over again, is that the damn thing wont go 'ding' if there is no surveilance at the levels it's meant to go 'ding' at

Owen, without trying to sound condescending, DERRRRR !!!!, Never has it been suggested that ATC mysteriously find more RADAR coverage, use what they've got.

If you believe the current RADAR coverage combined with MSAW protection would not have saved the day at Benalla, so be it.

Then comes the ADS-B nay saying, ADS-B will be sending PH (pressure height) data (i.e 1013 mb / 29.92"), whilst this is not on area QNH, neither is Mode C on the SSR, Mode C is also of the same type, if not the exact same PH encoder, do you guys really understand that little about what goes on ?, from my understanding TAAATS then levels all the data with the Area QNH's.

FYI
"You may ask, "how about the altitude reporting part?" Well, the first thing to remember is the Mode C is always referenced to pressure altitude which is 29.92" barometric pressure. The important thing to remember is that you should have your altimeter baro-scale set at the pressure the controller has given you. Now you say, "if my altimeter is set at let's say 30.23" and Mode C is putting out at 29.92 there will be an error on the controllers screen! The controller's computer will take the Mod "C" output based on 29.92" and convert it to barometric pressure at your present position." taken from Transponders for Dummys (http://www.avionicslist.com/articles/how_transponders_work.php)

So no, it is not connected to the back of ones altimeter.

So ADS-B should work just fine for MSAW.

The point is Dick there is no point implementing an airspace system if you haven't got the surveilance to provide it.

And that I believe is the main reason NAS made such a big splat with its fall from grace.

Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower

6th Oct 2008, 03:17

I dunno, probably cry in the privacy of my own home

Does someone need a pprune hug ?:}.

Since the day of the BLA accident Dick has blamed the ATC'S involved for the loss of life.

I do not, the ATC guys and gals do a stirling job, they have a hugely difficult job and deserve the same level of support that I get in my little aeroplane, GPWS (MSAW), TSO GPS (RAM), TCAS (STCA), moving map and airspace warnings (DAI) etc etc, it just scare me to think about going back to flying an aircraft without all those levels of protection.

All I'm trying to point out to our airspace crusader is what he is suggesting WILL NOT WORK with the current surveilance.

No argument from me. I feel it a shame that a man with such power and passion could not be used more contructively, for a man that in my opinion is clearly very very intellegent to keep coming back to the same spot in space and time is disappointing.

Re: the ADS-B info, was not directed at you.

TrenShadow

6th Oct 2008, 06:54

Haven't we already looked at this, Page 7, post 126 or there abouts ?, nice picture by the way.
Yes. and thanks :)
Did not we agree that sometime shortly after 1042am and before the sudden stop, the aircraft did breach the protected areas ?.
Nope... The ATSB report's lowest observed radar altitude is 5100'. I have shown how 5100' could be considered VALID and SAFE by our lovely French piece of engineering.

So what is your point ?, IF in RADAR coverage this aircraft would have made TAAATS MSAW go "BING' at some stage, it might have saved the day.
My point is that exactly the radar coverage that was present on the day would quite possibly NOT have made the machine go BING, despite Dick's (correct) claim that the aircraft was on radar and below the GRID lowest safe of 7000' plus.

Perhaps you could also transpose the actual track of the aircraft as per the ATSB report and zoom in on the last 5 minute of flight ?.
Working on that now, although it's a little hard to do exactly... Certainly from what I see can on the atsb's diagram, that last observed radar paint was within 25NM BLA at 5100' - which is kosher as the 25NM MSA is 5000'. The only question is whether the diversion left of track took him outside the tolerances of the AY-ELW track, within the 25NM MSA WGT of 6300' (or possibly even outside that with the grid of 7100'), and what altitude was observed at the time...

Then comes the ADS-B nay saying, ADS-B will be sending PH (pressure height) data (i.e 1013 mb / 29.92"), whilst this is not on area QNH, neither is Mode C on the SSR, Mode C is also of the same type, if not the exact same PH encoder, do you guys really understand that little about what goes on ?, from my understanding TAAATS then levels all the data with the Area QNH's.
All correct. Transponder sends out PH reference 1013. TAAATS uses QNH feeds from a selection of locations (ML, WG, CB, AY to name a few) and has grids defined which determine which locations local QNH to correct the radar altitude with. An aircraft overhead AY will be corrected with the AY local QNH. Overhead BLA will be corrected by AY or ML (not at work to check which at the moment). As long as everyone is operating on Area QNH and no local QNH is more than 5 different to Area all is kosher.

AT THE PRESENT TIME, there are no QNH feeds into TAAATS from areas outside radar coverage, but within ADS-B coverage. Hence, TAAATS cannot apply QNH correction. No doubt at some distant point down the track the plan will be to connect QNH sensors at each ADS-B ground station and at that point in time we will be able to use ADS-B altitude below FL130.