Dick Smith and Broome Airport

[WALLEY2]

Dick,
I hope this message finds you and yours well. As you are aware there is some debate over the height and radius of the ATC to be installed at BME and KTA.

For the record we (BME) think as do most airline Chief Pilots and ATC that 25Nm and 4500ft is required and have asked CASA to give us the DAS that shows us this no cost addition to safety is incorrect and that Chief Justice Gibbs ruling on negligence does not apply.

To date I have not received a DAS from CASA for this terminal airspace change.

I hope an increase incidents and not a catastrophe will prove the point that the radius is too tight for effective ATC comms.

Cheers Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIAG

[CaptainMidnight]

G'day Mike

My thoughts posted on the other thread:

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/408230-nas-rears-its-head-again-53.html#post5702390

[Dick Smith]

CaptainMidnight

By the look at your post#1052 on the other thread, NAS rears its head again, you seem to think do-it-yourself calling-in-the-blind radio procedures in G are safer than having ATC in a tower actually controlling circuit area and runway traffic.

It would be great if this was the truth, however it is not so.

What many pilots don’t seem to understand is that the chance of colliding with another aeroplane thirty miles away from an aiport is many thousands of times less than the chance of colliding with an aircraft in the circuit area or on the runway. That’s why non-radar towers throughout the world have very small amounts of airspace.

For example, in the USA it’s generally 4.3 miles radius 2,500 feet AGL. In the UK, the non-radar towers are generally two nautical miles radius and 2,000 feet.

At first thought it may seem that by making the airspace larger for the Controller that safety will be improved. Airspace safety experts from around the world who I have spoken to do not agree with this, and this is supported by the fact that our busy airports such as Bankstown, Moorabbin and Parafield have very small control zones.

Whenever I’ve spoken to FAA or UK airspace experts, they claim that non-radar towers should be responsible for a small amount of airspace so the ATC can concentrate where the collision risk is greater. Generally speaking, they say that by increasing the area and having overflying traffic calling or being involved in the ATC system will reduce safety as it dissipates the attention of the Controller from where it really matters.

Walley2
On this particular Broome issue I’ve spoken to a retired FAA ATC who resides on the west coast of the USA and is very much involved with Australia. His belief is that safety will certainly be decreased if the airspace is increased in size when compared with what has evolved with the US NAS.

Yes, it may work for a number of months or years. But one day, if the Controller’s attention is taken away from the circuit traffic because a VFR aircraft calls fifteen miles away when transiting, this will be the day when the accident happens and people are killed.

Of course there is a chance of a collision in the link airspace, however industry experience over decades with millions of flights shows that the chance of a collision in E airspace above D is incredibly small. That’s the only reason the US does not have a transponder requirement for VFR aircraft in E airspace over D where there is no radar coverage. About 50% of their 350 Class D aerodromes have no radar coverage in the E airspace immediately above the D. The reason they have told me that they have not introduced a mandatory transponder requirement for VFR so TCAS can be more effective in airline aircraft is that they have not experienced those types of accidents – they say most of their accidents involving airline aircraft are CFIT.

Walley2 of course, if your study shows that there is a measurable risk in the link airspace above 2,500 feet, then I will totally support putting in a proper system to minimise that risk. Of course, that needs to be Class C with a terminal radar facility. Anything less would be next to useless because the Controller would not know where the VFR aircraft was located (ie. “I’m over the 28th sandhill about 15 miles to the east heading north”).

Of course there is a cost increase with this, but I’m sure you as the airport owner would never put profits before passenger safety.

[peuce]

Dick,

When you say just plain dumb things like this:

Walley2 of course, if your study shows that there is a measurable risk in the link airspace above 2,500 feet, then I will totally support putting in a proper system to minimise that risk. Of course, that needs to be Class C with a terminal radar facility. Anything less would be next to useless because the Controller would not know where the VFR aircraft was located (ie. “I’m over the 28th sandhill about 15 miles to the east heading north”).

It both, removes what credibility you have left, and reflects your limited knowledge of how Air Traffic Control works ... in the real world.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick something puzzles me with your statement-
That’s the only reason the US does not have a transponder requirement for VFR aircraft in E airspace over D where there is no radar coverage.

Why did you push so hard to get mandatory tranponder requirments here (http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/133792-nas-debate-other-opinions-2.html)?

The most important point is that this airspace has a unique mandatory transponder requirement.

[CaptainMidnight]

you seem to think do-it-yourself calling-in-the-blind radio procedures in G are safer than having ATC in a tower actually controlling circuit area and runway traffic.No ..........


at BRM aircraft don't call "in the blind", they talk to the CAGRO and get a directed traffic information service within the 30NMs and
I made no mention of the ATC TWR service in Class D, which is clearly an improvement, however:

I was referring to the overlying Class E, and said in particular "standard" Class E would mean no communication required with ATC for VFR - only at best monitoring - and as previously outlined even no-radio types could be in the E.
“I’m over the 28th sandhill about 15 miles to the east heading north”)You are making VFR aircraft look foolish, and not doing them any favours.

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, how does a controller know if a vfr aircraft position is accurate in procedural class C when out of site?

Lets say we have C without radar to FL245 at Broome- similar to Alice.

A VFR aircraft calls up northbound when at 9500' about 30miles SE of Broome. How does ATC separate this aircraft from an inbound IFR coming from the west and descending from 14500' ? Must be really easy!

[Capn Bloggs]

About 50% of their 350 Class D aerodromes have no radar coverage in the E airspace immediately above the D.
I believe there are around 29, yes 29 class D towers with E above in the USA with the number of movements equivalent to ASP, BME and KTA.

There are literally dozens of Class D towers with TRSA radar services. A significant number of equivalent towers are are Class...wait for it...C!

Get your "facts" right, Dick. Can we believe anything you say? :confused:

Whenever I’ve spoken to FAA or UK airspace experts, they claim that non-radar towers should be responsible for a small amount of airspace so the ATC can concentrate where the collision risk is greater.
Oh, so how do explain the ONLY near-misses in E that have occurred in the AUSNAS have occurred a fair distance from the airfield?

Once again, you demonstrate how out of touch with reality you are. A "Dick" zone at KTA or BME will be real fun with 3 jets and a couple of lighties all arriving at 5nm the same time. And you reckon the runway/circuit is the most dangerous place. Wrong. Oh, I forgot, the Enroute controller will be sequencing, using procedural standards, all the jets (except those that have chosen to go Free in E+). And don't worry about the bugsmashers also tracking for the airport/base/3nm final: "keep your eyeballs out and you'll be right". After all, the CARs ORDER me to lookout and prevent collisions. :yuk:

[peuce]

Dick,

........A VFR aircraft calls up northbound when at 9500' about 30miles SE of Broome. How does ATC separate this aircraft from an inbound IFR comming from the west and descending from 14500' ? Must be really easy!

Please tell me that your are aware that we have been doing "procedural " Class C in Australia .... since ... since, before you put together your first transistor.

Basically, aircraft (both IFR & VFR) provide position reports. From that information, the Controller calculates potential conflicts and works on a plan to ensure the conflicts are removed or managed.

I can see a few quick ways to keep your examples apart:

Track the VFR over water, the IFR over land
Assign levels that keep them apart


A good current Controller would have another half dozen solutions up his sleeve. That scenario is not really a biggie.... as long as you know about both of them.

So how does a controller know if a vfr aircraft position is accurate in procedural class C when out of site?

It's a pilot responsibility to provide accurate position reports.
If he doesn't .... well, he risks the life of himself and others.
What if forgets to put his gear down?
What if he has too much power on?
What if he's drunk?
What if his license is out of date?

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs, I support class C where safety requires it- always have.
But it needs to be properly manned and equipped.

Your so called "near misses" were not. At Brisbane both aircraft were on the radar frequency and the RA would not have been generated if the correct procedures were followed.

In Launy the VFR aircraft received a radio alerted traffic advisory on two frequencies and always had the other aircraft in site. Or are you now saying that alerted see and avoid does not give acceptable safety levels?

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, so how would ATC separate the aircraft at Broome with the example I have given?

The VFR would have to go 35 miles of course to track over water!

Is that what you call " no extra cost" class C.

[Blockla]

Dick your argument about the tower concentrating on the 'circuit traffic' where the risk is greatest is completely undermined by this 'distracting' Class E mandatory broadcast area run from the Tower; how is the non circuit traffic workload less than Class C or Class D airspace? This hybrid 'new and unique' Australian outcome is a crock and you know it!

[Capn Bloggs]

In Lony the VFR aircraft received a radio alerted traffic advisory on two frequencies and always had the other aircraft in site.
NO HE DIDN'T! He heard the 737's initial call to Launy tower, and that was it. He then based his subsequent actions entirely on what he thought was going on, which lead the the near-deaths of 100 or so punters. For what cost? So you can Free in G+E+?

Or are you now saying that alerted see and avoid does not give acceptable safety levels?
Not when the other aircraft, the RPT (and ATC), has not got any idea about what is going on with the VFR traffic.

You just don't get it, do you? When only one aircraft knows about the other, then there's a 50% chance that the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR is going to determine the outcome of the encounter. That is NOT Alerted See and Avoid, in my book.

And furthermore, this is exactly what'll happen in Broome and Karratha. The system is set up to fail.

[Dick Smith]

Blockla , my argument is not undermined, my argument supports your view that it is a "crock"

What makes you believe that I support the "new and unique" system.

I have consistently supported proven systems- not experimentation!

[peuce]

Dick,

Bloody hell ... now my bodgey separation techniques are being used as NAS fodder!!

Okay, so I don't know up from down ... over in the west. However, even allowing for misplaced ocean, I don't think a 35nm diversion is likely. If it was, then let's step descend them both till the Tower can take over. Might cost him 50c extra??

Once Broome Control Zone is established, once Broome Tower is built, once a Controller has set up digs and once the procedures have been developed and once that Controller is rated ... ask that question again ... and you'll get the correct answer.... which I'm sure would be monetarily satisfactory.

BUT, say it was the proposed E above D ... would the answer be much different?

[ozineurope]

Dick re your VFR v IFR.

Track the VFR north bound remaining east of the Great Northern Hwy til north of the BRM - DBY road then direct remaining north of the BRM-DBY road til 5-6nm when tower will see him. Keep the IFR coming straight to the VOR/NDB with a clearance limit of the xx DME/RNAV/or til visual (Lat sep chart displayed at tower to depict where lat sep exists/breaks down). Level assignment in accordance with LSALT/CTA steps.

That's called procedural separation and we did it in Hedland for 25 years. And I worked that out from Frankfurt with no maps. I am sure if some of the current procedural tower people had the time or inclination to answer your spurious, non events their solution would be even less restrictive than this one.

[Blockla]

What makes you believe that I support the "new and unique" system.

I have consistently supported proven systems- not experimentation!So where is the link to your press release criticizing CASA/OAR and/or the minister for attempting this experiment we don't need to have? One can only imagine, I'm sure you'd agree, that if they determined Class C steps were appropriate you'd be out there banging your drum about the benefits of Class E.

[ozineurope]

Dick you say "...our busy airports such as Bankstown, Moorabbin and Parafield have very small control zones." Yes they do. But they are not typical procedural towers either. They are designed to encompass the circuit area and minimal transit areas to afford industry a place to train on circuits and in training areas. They are not designed to service airline or charter traffic over 7000kgs MTOW.

Another furphy.

[max1]

and this is supported by the fact that our busy airports such as Bankstown, Moorabbin and Parafield have very small control zones.

The actual fact is that they are so close to major airports that they couldn't be any bigger!

Come on Dick tell me how they could be made any bigger and not impinge on Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.

[Dick Smith]

Oz, pull the other one, if the VFR remains east of the highway it will be up to 15 nm from the tower when abeam.

The controller would have to have good eyes!

And what happens if he can't sight the VFR?

Get the IFR to start orbiting?

That's why C requires radar in other astute aviation countries.

The VFR was not inbound- it was heading north.

I remember how it was done at Port Headland - "Clearance not available -remain OCTA"

[ozineurope]

Never heard it from me Dick. In fact I bet you never actually did hear it from anyone. But hindsight is a funny thing hey.

OK so give us details of the track-destination of the VFR and I'll give you the procedural fix. Without maps or lat sep diagrams, I'll just use 32 years of ATC experience ranging from radar towers, radar TMA, procedural TMA, GAAP TWR, procedural tower, airspace design, SID/STAR design, Red Bull procedures design, Ab initio training, radar training and commonsense. Oh and a dash of international airspace design exposure as well.

And no the IFR would not hold it would get a visual approach becuase the I dont need to see the VFR when I establish lateral/horizontal/vertical separation.

Jeez some people thing we were just put here to get in their way.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
Oz, pull the other one, if the VFR remains east of the highway it will be up to 15 nm from the tower when abeam.

The controller would have to have good eyes!

And what happens if he can't sight the VFR?

Get the IFR to start orbiting?

That's why C requires radar in other astute aviation countries.

The VFR was not inbound- it was heading north.
And how, pray tell, do you expect IFR-RPT-me to do any better if the VFR was in E? Just say "stuff it, we're going down through your level. We'll pick you up sooner or later."? I would be causing chaos on the Centre freq as I organised my own separation until I picked him up visually (unlikely until I was on top of him). Maybe I would hold myself up and cost a hundred or kilos of CO2. I know. I'll change to VFR. That'll fix it.

Admit it, you don't know what goes on in the real AUS world. Your attempt to implant a totally different NAS into ours will end in tears, just like it has done in the past.

[Dick Smith]

Max, Moorabbin could go out to 7nm - it does not because of the reasons I have stated.

Bloggs, I have just spoken to the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launy incident. He is fed up with being defamed by you and asks that you phone him on 0428 142 361 so he can confirm that he heard the airline on both the area and tower frequencies and at all times had the airline in sight and that at no time was there chance of a collision.

Hopefully then you will stop spouting on in such a negative way about a system that can bring safety advantages to our country without being modified in the way that Blockla does not like.

And if you rely on the myth that when you now descend in G to Broome that all aircraft on on the correct frequency and listening for your inbound calls (with the correct frequency dialled in and the volume up) you are kidding yourself and your passengers.

[le Pingouin]

Now, who do we take the word of? Someone who was almost involved in a collision with an RPT jet or the official report?

It was an AIRPROX:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2003/AAIR/pdf/aair200305235_001.pdf

[Dick Smith]

Yes, and the ATSB did not recommend or even suggest that the E airspace category be changed.

Now why would that be? Could it be that they considered the airspace category satisfactory? Obviously!

[ozineurope]

Still waiting for the scenario Mr Smith.

[ozineurope]

No- none of the present GAAP zones go further because they dont need to. They are designed around the circuit area and the transit lanes to/from associated training areas.

Dont get sucked in - JT, AF, PF, MB, BK have nothing to do with BM or KA and the associated airsapce proposed for those towers.

[Capn Bloggs]

I have just spoken to the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launy incident. He is fed up with being defamed by you and asks that you phone him on 0428 142 361 so he can confirm that he heard the airline on both the area and tower frequencies and at all times had the airline in sight and that at no time was there chance of a collision.

Everything I have said about the Launy incident is based on the ATSB report. I do not accept that a near-miss that resulted in a TCAS RA, with only one pilot seeing the other aircraft is a good-enough outcome for an RPT operation. When both pilots see each other in good time, fair enough. I've done plenty of comfortable high-speed 180° passings in my time with hte other pilot seeing me as well. What would have happened if the 737 has done a sudden turn into the Tobago to avoid a bird?

In Launy the VFR aircraft received a radio alerted traffic advisory on two frequencies
That is not what the ATSB report said. If the report is wrong, then I suggest that somebody alert the ATSB and have it corrected.

I reiterate what I said a couple of posts back. It is unacceptable to have the outcome of an encounter decided solely by one party, who may well be the less-experienced of the two. I have said in other posts that the Tobago pilot was misled by the NAS 2b literature which said "Don't Talk"; I see someone has seen the light and, as of 3 June, ditched the famous "don't talk" clause in AIP (ENR 1.1 56.5).

The irony about Launy was that, had the 737 crew known about the Tobago, the outcome would have been totally different, much safer and at no cost to anyone. Some of us have been banging on for years that both aircraft have to know about each other for See and Avoid to work, but you simply refuse to accept this, preferring the "stealth" technique - listen and avoid. It just doesn't work, but that is exactly the system you are foisting on us. At least someone in OAR understands the issue and created a Broadcast Area for VFR, non-standard as it is.

Lastly, I do not intend to defame anyone. If the pilot feels defamed by what I say, I apologise. I am merely trying to point out the problems with the system using Launy as a case-in-point. And I will say again: in my opinion, the Launy incident was a totally unacceptable result of the flawed unsurveilled E-over-D concept.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
And if you rely on the myth that when you now descend in G to Broome that all aircraft on on the correct frequency and listening for your inbound calls (with the correct frequency dialled in and the volume up) you are kidding yourself and your passengers.

So what's the option? For goodness sake, you're running around yelling and screaming but not proposing any solutions that are better than the current setup (I contend they are worse)!

Oh, by the way, correct freq and volume up is easily checked by the VFR using a bit of airmanship and doing a quick check-call with Centre, and when they get to the "vicinity" :confused: of the airfield, talk to the CAGRO (remembering there is a requirement to broadcast at 30nm at BME).

[Blockla]

Hopefully then you will stop spouting on in such a negative way about a system that can bring safety advantages to our country without being modified in the way that Blockla does not like.I certainly don't like making workarounds where no workaround is required. Either E is safe enough or it isn't; if it isn't which appears to be the case as 'enhanced E is necessary' then there are perfectly good options available, namely D or C airspace; we have good knowledge about how these structures can be used safely; this little experiment is not justified nor required when other options are readily available.

Your VFR vs IFR East of Broome is a furphy; changing the airspace category in which the conflict occurs does nothing for the safe resolution of that conflict. If the VFR can't see the traffic, it doesn't make it safe or obvious that they are nowhere near each other...

The same manner in which the VFR 'can separate/segregate itself in E' is available as the standard applied in D or C only another standard is used until one or both sight each other.

The difference is that in C or D the VFR is known to all parties 'and visual acquisition must occur before the verticals are given away'. and nobody is relying on the VFR monitoring and making the right decision or simply ploughing on as I couldn't see the traffic so it must be safe.

[peuce]

1st .... OZINEUROPE ... thanks for getting me ot of that jam. I didn't know we were betting sheep stations on my non-controlling skills.

2nd ... DICK ...

...he can confirm that he heard the airline on both the area and tower frequencies and at all times had the airline in sight and that at no time was there chance of a collision.

With all due respect to the pilot involved, he really couldn't swear on a stack of Bibles that a collision was not possible. He doesn't know what the other pilot was thinking, knew, was about to do, was considering doing ... unless he talked to him. It's the "unknown" of Class E that's the problem ... like Class G .... which has the same problem. That's why we are trying to make BRM/KTA BETTER than current.

...and the ATSB did not recommend or even suggest that the E airspace category be changed.Now why would that be? Could it be that they considered the airspace category satisfactory? Obviously!

I can't speak for the ATSB, nor can you. I would imagine that they observe and monitor trends ... and form their opinions from that. Just as they didn't recommend the closure of CG Tower as soon as there was a prang there ... a much more serious event indeed.

And if you rely on the myth that when you now descend in G to Broome that all aircraft on on the correct frequency and listening for your inbound calls (with the correct frequency dialled in and the volume up) you are kidding yourself and your passengers.

Quite true ... that's why we're looking for an improvement. We don't want to have to .....rely on the myth that when we descend in E to Broome that all aircraft on on the correct frequency and listening for our inbound calls, with the correct frequency dialled in, the volume up and their transponders on and calibrated. We want ATC to know about everyone ... why wouldn't we?

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs, the ATSB report states "The pilot of the Tobago was monitoring the Launceston and Melbourne Centre ATC frequencies-"

Thats pretty clear to me.

And Peuce if you want to know about everyone you need both primary and secondary radar- thats what Andersons class C direction covers.

[Jabawocky]

peuce..... :=We want ATC to know about everyone ... why wouldn't we?
What did you say that for....now you will have Frank banging on about big brother and civil rights and so on...:uhoh:

[le Pingouin]

Bloggs, the ATSB report states "The pilot of the Tobago was monitoring the Launceston and Melbourne Centre ATC frequencies-"

Thats pretty clear to me.Does not equate to "In Launy the VFR aircraft received a radio alerted traffic advisory on two frequencies".

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
Bloggs, the ATSB report states "The pilot of the Tobago was monitoring the Launceston and Melbourne Centre ATC frequencies-"

Thats pretty clear to me.

And what did he actually hear? It's in the report. He certainly didn't hear any calls from ML Centre or did he get

a radio alerted traffic advisory on two frequencies

He merely heard the first call by the 737 to Launy "ATC" and then subsequent calls about the 737's options for getting to the airport. They were not "radio-alerted traffic advisories".

[peuce]

Dick,

And Peuce if you want to know about everyone you need both primary and secondary radar- thats what Andersons class C direction covers.

Geez, that would be nice Dick, but REALITY 101 ... CBA.
AND, you are wrong. We've been running Procedural (position report based) Control for eons. We still do it in the GAFA. And we know everyone ... that we are supposed to know.

You don't seem to want to accept (the reality) that procedural control exists.

Jaba .... Frank has a right to his opinion, so I'll just have to weather the inevitable storm. But, in this day and age of more complex and faster aircraft, I don't think we can continue to plead freedom and privacy, at the expense of safety ... at least not in all locations.... and I consider BRM/KTA to be one of those locations.

[tail wheel]

Welcome back to Episode 647 of Circular Arguments & Mobile Goalposts

.... with the same dissenters/protagonists/antagonists as the previous 646 episodes!!!!

:mad: :mad:

[peuce]

We have certainly hijacked Mike's original thread.

It kind of reminds me of the Cronulla riots ...:*

Biffo and mayhem, moving from the beach, to the suburban streets, to the shops, to the trains ... any opportunity to carry on the dust up.:ouch:

[tail wheel]

It kind of reminds me of the Cronulla riots ...

Me too.

And I don't intend spending a few hours each day arbitrating in a street brawl!

:mad: