Dick Smith's letter to the PM re Tasmania. [Archive]

LeadSled

19th Jul 2010, 07:32

Bloggs,
At least you have to be given 10 out of 10 for blind obstinacy about "VFR Threats" in Class E, that apparently don't happen if it's Class G.

And 10 out or 10 for not having a clue about the risk management hierarchy of ICAO (not just US) airspace classifications.

Indeed, you would have been distressed to hear John McCormick's comments at the last CASA SCC meeting, in particular his comments about the nonsense claims by particular Australian pilot groups, that E airspace "requires" radar, and stating the formal ICAO position that radar is for efficiency -- increased movement rates, not "safety".

The acoustics were not too good, but he did use a less than complimentary expression, I think it was "troglodytes". He made the point that London Garwick is a Class D zone, but handles a level of traffic unknown at any Australian airport, and all on a single runway.

The head of OAR followed up, pointing out that, theoretically, radar is not required in any ICAO class of airspace ---- notwithstanding the fact that Class C and B airspace are almost universally "radar controlled".

Tootle pip!!

LeadSled

19th Jul 2010, 07:38

Folks,

See below from the Dick Smith Flyer, and watch tomorrow's newspapers in Tasmania.

Important Information on Launceston Air Incident
Public Announcement in Tasmanian Newspapers

Dick Smith Flyer (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_58.php)

Tootle pip!!

Howabout

19th Jul 2010, 08:05

The head of OAR followed up, pointing out that, theoretically, radar is not required in any ICAO class of airspace ---- notwithstanding the fact that Class C and B airspace are almost universally "radar controlled".

Then riddle me this Lead: why does Dick, who's side you are on, constantly, interminably and illogically refer to the Minister's 'Direction Letter' that if it's Class C it must have radar? Must have radar!

Lead, you can't have it both ways.

Dog One

19th Jul 2010, 08:05

I can remember when Launy tower was H24. Extend the hours to cover the RPT flights and away goes the problem. Provision of ATC shouldn't be on a user pays system, it should be a government responsibility.

One can imagine the headlines tomorrow in Tasmania, sensational bulldust. From all accounts Smith is not all that popular in Tasmania and it could bite him on the bum.

gobbledock

19th Jul 2010, 08:24

Perhaps 'Dick' has been using his superb invention the 'Decision Maker' to make the right choice about which airsapce classification is best ??

OZBUSDRIVER

19th Jul 2010, 08:32

Dog One...in one!:ok:

Henry Bosch said the same thing.

LeadSled

19th Jul 2010, 08:39

Howabout,

I don't want "it", whatever "it" is, both ways.

I merely stated the theoretical ICAO position, and the actual position.

If you want my personal position, it is that the ICAO position on provision of radar is long outdated, given the risk management basis of ICAO airspace classification. It is difficult to see a level of traffic that genuinely requires Class C to achieve the necessary separation assurance, without, in practical terms, needing radar.

Hence the preponderance of radar in Class C.

Tootle pip!!

Capn Bloggs

19th Jul 2010, 08:42

Ledsled,

Class D at Gatwick? Good. Let's do it here. Up to C.

Radar improves efficiency? Agree. Tell your mate Dick, who can tell his mate John Anderson to pull Dick's demand that John issue a mandate to install radar for C. I think I got that right. :confused:

At least you have to be given 10 out of 10 for blind obstinacy about "VFR Threats" in Class E, that apparently don't happen if it's Class G.
You've had a couple of months to research it: what is meant, exactly, by "Continuous Two Way" comms by VFR in E? Waiting, waiting, waiting...

Risk Management? "Vanishingly small" risk of a Tobago Airprox with a RPT jet in E soon after non-radar Free-in-E is introduced. Keep at it, son. You'll go places. :ok:

Can't wait for the Tassie announcement tomorrow. What's the bet Dick will be making it from a tree with Bob holding the brolly? :}

LeadSled

19th Jul 2010, 08:58

"Continuous Two Way"

Bloggs,

If "Regional" examples are anything to go by, it means non-stop yacking, so that some aircraft who might like to comply with CARs 166 can't get a word in edgeways.

This is probably allied to the "Marconi" theory of lift ---- when the lips stop flapping, the aeroplane quits flying.

As to your fundamental ignorance of simple and straightforward statistical terms, we all know you don't have a clue, but I, for one, am somewhat mystified as to why you want to keep underlining said ignorance.

Tootle pip!!

OZBUSDRIVER

19th Jul 2010, 08:59

Plumbum?

Just man the TWR and with the installed equipment, there is no problem. C over D...its very simple with radar and wamlat.

Anyway...you guys missed the boat...even if the wranga wanted to change anything..she is now hamstrung by the caretaker provisions of the election period....you guys are spouting nothing but hot air and windbaggery of the poorest standard.

LeadSled

19th Jul 2010, 09:02

Henry Bosch said the same thing

Oz,
He did???
Care to provide a reference.
Tootle pip!!

Capn Bloggs

19th Jul 2010, 09:19

Ledsled,

"Continuous Two Way"

Bloggs,

If "Regional" examples are anything to go by, it means non-stop yacking, so that some aircraft who might like to comply with CARs 166 can't get a word in edgeways.

Just keep ducking, just keep ducking... Stay on the ball, sled me old. No clue about "Continuous Two Way"? I hope you don't operate VFR in E... Methinks you're not the expert you make yourself out to be if you can't answer such a fundamental question.

As to your fundamental ignorance of simple and straightforward statistical terms, we all know you don't have a clue, but I, for one, am somewhat mystified as to why you want to keep underlining said ignorance.

Oh, I understand Vanishingly small means "jeez, it just happened when it wasn't supposed to, for the next thousand years!" :ok:

Stationair8

19th Jul 2010, 09:24

Is it a full moon by any chance?

www.dicksmithlyer.com.au (http://www.dicksmithlyer.com.au)

Capn Bloggs

19th Jul 2010, 09:29

Stationair8,
Is it a full moon by any chance?

www.dicksmithlyer.com.au
With a website like that it is! :ok:

Reminds me of that other exquisite publication of a few years back during one of the previous NAS debacles: Aiming Higher alias "The Flaming Liar".

LeadSled

19th Jul 2010, 09:30

I hope you don't operate VFR in E.I certainly do, and I get so uptight about the "safety" of E, that it always put my pulse rate up from 58 to at least 58.5.

It's a very great pity that you and your cohorts apparently don't have any experience outside you local " little Australia" comfort zone, part of the point John McCormick was making last Wednesday at the SCC --- then you might find how myopic your local focus is, and how much better a number of countries do it, compared to Australia.

Actually, your "fun" definition of Vanishingly Small is quite incorrect, once again underlining your fundamental ignorance of even quite basic statistical method.

Tootle pip!!

PS: The only definition I know of ( my words) re: Continuous Two Way Communications means the ability of two stations to communicate, when required, without a technical break. Which means no "out of range", however you want to put it. It includes HF voice, despite all its shortcomings.

That comes from UK CAA CAPs, when I find a copy, maybe I will get around to scanning it and posting.

Only in Australia would anybody get so wound up about it, rather than accepting the obvious everyday meaning.

Capn Bloggs

19th Jul 2010, 09:35

Ledsled,

Yes Yes Yes, come on, cut the warries (JMac has already spun me the VFR-in-E-over-LAX furphy, where VFR have to be on freq, talking, with a transponder - good idea that) and tell us what is meant by "Continuous Two Way", you know, the procedure you use every time you fly in E. :=

Continuous Two Way Communications means the ability of two stations to communicate, when required, without a technical break.
Oooh, OK, I'll try that tomorrow with MEL Centre, since the same rule applies to IFR, and see how far I can get.

Actually, your "fun" definition of Vanishingly Small is quite incorrect
OK, I'll bite. What is "Vanishingly small " in statistical terms? I'll use it in a letter to the Tassie editor tomorrow.

LeadSled

19th Jul 2010, 09:43

(JMac has already spun me the VFR-in-E-over-LAX furphy, where VFR have to be on freq, talking, with a transponder - good idea that)Bloggs,

Get out and smell the roses.

The transponder requirement over KLAX has nothing to do with E airspace, and everything to do with the transponder veil that surround all Class B airspace in the US.

Sure, there is a frequency to be on, but read the KLAX local chart for VFR lanes ( through the B) --- then tell us all where the "mandatory" talking is !!

Have a look at where the E starts, height-wise, over KLAX.

KLAX and KSFO are the two areas I know really well, both in large and small aircraft, ( and so does John McCormick) you are looking at it from your myopic "little Australia" perspective --- but what else would we expect.

Tootle pip!!

Jabawocky

19th Jul 2010, 12:13

The missed approach from the 32L ILS is :- Track 313, climb to A031 ............

.... and where did the Virgin 73 hold? .... hmmmm ..... why ..... one might hypothesise that the FMS flew the MA then said, "well what now" ... crew response .... Enter Hold

... none of this would have happened if the MA was - track 313 to A041, passing A031 turn left, track to the LT VOR, then to NIE

by doing so, provide a vertical and lateral race track to and from the IAF for the ILS

BUT HEY, NOBODY FROM ATSB, CASA OR ASA ASKED THOSE WHO KNOW THE AIRSPACE FOR ANY INPUT.

Perhaps a plate amendment might be a far more effective fix rather than a one in one out Class E million dollar ****-up :ok:

Capn Bloggs

19th Jul 2010, 14:16

Ledsled,
I shall consult my brain's trust on the RT but the transponder requirement (1201) is for the lane, not because the aircraft is in B specifically. What this shows that "standard ICAO" airspace is an oxymoron. Countries quite rightly chuck in extra requirements or change the basic ICAO guidelines as they see fit (as Peter Cromarty well knows from his UK time). The fundamentalists who say E is this, E is that and it can't be anything else should get their heads out of the sand as the yanks have done.

Anyway, back to Launy. What we have there, at last (one wonders if it was introduced only because of the publicity of the VFR airprox - certainly, the portable radar was) is surveillance in the form of MLat. What a golden opportunity to get VFR in the system and improve safety for all. But no, it's not about that, is it Ledsled and Dick? It's about the Free in GE brigade being able to go wherever and whenever they please and to hell with anybody in their way. VFR are not "allowed" to be actively involved, are they?

To take up a point you raised earlier:
At least you have to be given 10 out of 10 for blind obstinacy about "VFR Threats" in Class E, that apparently don't happen if it's Class G.

G is the same as E WRT radio (more stringent, actually) and transponder use above 10k. But more importantly, IFR calls in G are designed specifically for VFR to build a traffic picture. In E, our calls are not. Until we call the tower, we make NO position calls that would benefit VFR. She's eyeballs out and hope for the best. Good system...not.

Jaba,
I too was a bit surprised when I read the Virgin crew firstly held at the altitude they did and secondly held where they did. I would have been tootling along at 7000ft or so down to the south east ready to do my next ILS after JQ got out of the way or at least to the overhead then hold on final. So let's introduce blanket Class E (and make no mistake, this will end up everywhere, surv or not, if Dick gets his way) to fix this problem. Hugely hypocritical of Dick to not therefore demand an immediate return to C over D to prevent a recurrence of the Tobago Airprox.

If declining pilot standards caused this issue, then surely the same declining pilot standards will increase the probability of a "silent" VFR not assimilating IFR traffic in E and having a midair?

You can't have it both ways, NAStronauts. Your current argument is irrational. As for vanishingly small, that fairly describes the level of logic of the argument.

Oh, and by the way, where's the CBA on E over D verses C over D?

Frank Arouet

19th Jul 2010, 23:22

Big news in the Hobart Mercury and Launceston Examiner today.

Expert slams Tassie airports Tasmania News - The Mercury - The Voice of Tasmania (http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/07/20/159985_tasmania-news.html)

Dick Smith says Tasmanian flights need better radar approach rules Airport radar `needs upgrade' - Local News - News - Politics - The Examiner Newspaper (http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/politics/dick-smith-says-tasmanian-flights-need-better-radar-approach-rules-airport-radar-needs-upgrade39/1889526.aspx)

At 10.16pm on 1 May 2008,
in pitch darkness and
in bad weather, two jets – a Virgin 737 with 121 people
on board and a Jetstar A320 with 101 people on board -
were about to land at Launceston Airport.
There was, however, fog down to 200 feet so both
aircraft climbed away to circle for another attempt. The
aircraft were operating in an archaic, “do-it-yourself”
1920s-style airspace system where each pilot had to radio
the other pilot and work out how their aircraft should avoid
collision.
In other countries, the air traffic control radar operator
would give instructions to keep the aircraft apart.
When, by sheer luck, the Jetstar pilots saw the Virgin
Blue’s landing lights coming towards them through a break
in the fog, they climbed past its altitude to miss both the
other jet and terrain.
No doubt the passengers had no idea that both aircrews
– already under high mental loading from flying a difficult
bad weather instrument approach at the lowest level –
were not able to use the excellent radar system which
covers the airport, as the correct controlled airspace
system under the previous Government’s policy was never
introduced.
What’s more concerning is that after an unexplainable
two year delay, the final Government Report on the
incident published by the supposedly “independent”
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (“ATSB”) was changed
after secret submissions. The Report made no safety
recommendations at all and ignored the perilous neglect of
not using our existing radar to keep our skies safer.
Why did the ATSB fail to make the obvious
recommendation – that the radar should be used at
Launceston as well as Hobart Airport to save passengers’
lives?
A dossier on such lack of leadership and dangerous
failings in our skies, including a detailed letter to our Prime
Minister Julia Gillard on the subject, is published on my air
safety reform site.Introduction (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/)

CharlieLimaX-Ray

19th Jul 2010, 23:41

Launy tower used to be open 24 hours a day until the early 1990's when the experts decided it should close at 10pm .

A question for Mr Smith, who actually signed of to reduce the tower hours in the early 1990's and for what reason?

Wasn't the grand plan to actually close the tower permantly?

peuce

19th Jul 2010, 23:55

This is how I look at it.

From my experience in ATS, IFR pilots have been successfully self-separating themselves during instrument approaches in G(F) since Moses was a child. In the majority of cases they use vertical arrangements to assure separation.

So, it's not an inherently un-safe procedure.

Now we have 2 fast IFRs, who probably haven't had as much experience in self-separating ... stuff it up. There was no separation assured.

The questions for me now are:

Should IFR Jet RPT aircraft be self-separating?
If yes, should re-training of the offending pilots be sufficient? Or, should we put in place a 'system' to protect them, if they similarly stuff up again?
If they shouldn't self-separate, how do we arrange for the provision of appropriate ATS intervention at that location?

Is it ATSB's responsibility to ask those questions?
If it is ...then obviously they have decided that self-separation is OK

mjbow2

20th Jul 2010, 01:35

Can someone actually point to another country that actually allows self separation for 2 airliners where radar coverage exists? Which country actually allows this? Answer this Class E deniers!

It is stunning that the ATSB has not recommended the proper use of radar and now multilateration. If I were a family member of the Mount Hotham or Benalla victims I would have sued CASA for failure to implement the life saving use of radar which would have clearly prevented both those accident.

It has been on the government agenda for over 10 years and been resisted by incompetent bureaucrats for far too long.

Do we really need to kill 222 people in mid air collision in radar covered airspace to prove the stupidity of the ATSB, CASA and Air Services Australia?

What is so painfully obvious that all you class E deniers fail to see is that the closest we have come to a mid air collision with an airliner and/or a CFIT in recent times have involved IFR, not VFR aircraft in radar covered non controlled airspace.

Orange -IFR/IFR (airliner)
Canberra - IFR/terrain (airliner)
Benalla -IFR/ terrain
Mount Hotham - IFR/terrain
Launceston - IFR/IFR (airliner)

All of these incidents and accidents have happened in uncontrolled radar covered airspace that Australia has refused to upgrade to controlled airspace. Astonishing stupidity.

When CASA kills, yes kills hundreds of people in radar covered class G airspace because you lot refused to employ common sense I just hope I am not your pilot.

I have instructed my family to sue CASA and Airservices should I be involved in a midair collision or CFIT accident in radar covered Class G airspace for failure to implement NAS airspace model which is mandated by the Airspace Act 2007.

You are so concerned about VFR aircraft in clear weather that you fail to see the REAL threat... IFR/IFR-and terrain in bad weather. Remarkable stupidity.

Upgrade to NAS now, before its too late.

MJBOW2
Airline Pilot

peuce

20th Jul 2010, 01:55

It has been on the government agenda for over 10 years and been resisted by incompetent bureaucrats for far too long.

So has a flat rate of tax ... but I can't see that coming in anytime soon.

All of these incidents and accidents have happened in uncontrolled radar covered airspace that Australia has refused to upgrade to controlled airspace. Astonishing stupidity.

So I assume your position is that, no matter what the cost benefit position is ... if there is radar coverage ... it must be controlled airspace and it must be manned. Is that a reasonable and realistic position to hold?

mjbow2

20th Jul 2010, 02:08

Peuce

I would welcome with open arms a scientifically validated Cost benefit Analysis to determine airspace design.

Common sense tells us that if a scientifically validated Cost Benefit Analysis were done in this country we would NEVER have Class C over D or C over E. If our airspace design wasn't so bloody dangerous at regional airports it would be world class joke!

And yes, there is an extraordinarily cost effective class of controlled airspace available for all radar covered areas. Arguably a pittance more to run than class G. Its called Class E.

Upgrade to NAS now!

Capn Bloggs

20th Jul 2010, 04:52

MJBow2,
I have instructed my family to sue CASA and Airservices should I be involved in a midair collision or CFIT accident in radar covered Class G airspace for failure to implement NAS airspace model which is mandated by the Airspace Act 2007.
Class act, mate. You say that but you fly in it.

NAS airspace model which is mandated by the Airspace Act 2007.
Wrong.

As for Benalla and Mt Hotham, if you're prepared to cough up a million or so for another console just to "protect" those operations from CFIT, then go for it.

Canberra? You are aware that the MSAWS of TAAATS is available in any class of airspace (being part of the FIS), are you not? The service is not dependent on E.

if a scientifically validated Cost Benefit Analysis were done in this country we would NEVER have Class C over D or C over E. If our airspace design wasn't so bloody dangerous at regional airports it would be world class joke!

C over D "bloody dangerous". Please explain.

For the NAStronauts generally, hundreds of thousands of IFR flights have successfully self-separated in Australia's G+ over decades, and saved millions and millions of dollars. All RPT would have had the benefit of a Flight Service station to keep tabs on what was going on. But that was all chucked out when Dick arrived with his fabled non-radar E that did away with FSSs; let's not mention it would have gridlocked the airspace system.

Now, we have a "breakdown of separation", with you all screaming from the rooftops. But when the lighty almost cleaned up the 737 at the very same place we are talking about here (after only a couple of months of E airspace), you screamed that "they missed, didn't they?!!!!, what is the problem??!!. There are no separation standards in E!!". There are none in G, actually, either, for that matter). This incident was a result of a failure of the system. The lighty incident was the result of a fundamentally flawed system that provided NO protection from the outset. It is a bit rich implying we had only one VFR/IFR conflict ion but we've had 5 IFR incidents. The reason for only 1 VFR/IFR airprox is that the airspace type was SHUT DOWN soon after. You are statistical fraudsters, bending and twisting the arguments to suit your Free in GE paranoia. VCA's? Why don't we add a 10nm buffer to all CTA to reduce the risk to IFR RPT pax?

The other aspect of your scare-mongering is that MLat has only been in operation in Tas for a few months. Give the system a break, for goodness sake!

I am not opposed to radar/surv E, provided VFR advises the controller he's there for a transponder check (let's use the technology to protect everybody). I do not agree, however, that an A380 should have to dodge a VFR in E. You can't ride a horse on a freeway, so get/keep out of the way of a multi-hundred pax jet.

So, C/D during tower hours, surv-E outside (which means VFR advise ATC they are there - you know, "Continuous Two Way"). Oh, and a bit of re-training for certain IFR pilots on keeping out of each other's way!

I suppose we do have Dick to thank. If it was not for him introducing non-radar E in 2003, the lighty/737 airprox wouldn't have happened, the temporary radar wouldn't have been put in, and MLat wouldn't have been set up. I wonder what it's going to take to get the same in BME and KTA? I know - put in some non-surv E over the top and have an airprox. Oops, isn't that what OAR are going to do?

Howabout

20th Jul 2010, 05:22

mjbow2,

And yes, there is an extraordinarily cost effective class of controlled airspace available for all radar covered areas. Arguably a pittance more to run than class G. Its called Class E.

I think the professionals, as opposed to 'aviation expert(s)' might disagree. I'd wager my house that the cost of providing E as opposed to G would be significant. However, if the move was made why not go C, which provides a higher level of protection for RPT? The professionals have repeatedly informed us that the delta between E and C is non-existent or, at worst, 'vanishingly small.'

I just do not understand your slavish adherence to an airspace classification that relies on chance when it comes to IFR/VFR separation; a metaphorical spin of the roulette wheel if you like. I am reminded of born-again Christians that have just attended a Billy Graham rally.

By the way, I think there was a typo in one of your previous entries:

Upgrade to NAS now!

I think that maybe you might have meant 'Downgrade to NAS now!'

The Chaser

20th Jul 2010, 06:01

mjbow2

You are a funny ol' thing ;)

USNAS or DickNAS? .. as we all know the two are light years apart in real terms. :=

In the case of Launy and Hobart, what do you recommend:-

1. DickNAS .... Class E over little D; or
2. USNAS .... Class C or B

As those are the two options in real life.

As has been demonstated in proper Aerostudies of late, the current

3. Australian/ICAO C over D is safe, efficient and not in need of change ;) ask some of the crews who operate through on a regular basis if they think C over D (done from the tower) is less than best.

As for sueing, who should folks sue if Airlines cannot stick to operating during published service hours, or their bean counters decline offers of out of hours service coverage?

Hmmm, thought not :D

peuce

20th Jul 2010, 06:58

Mjbow2,

I would welcome with open arms a scientifically validated Cost benefit Analysis to determine airspace design.

Wouldn't we all ... but I don't think we're gunna get one at BRM/KTA/AV

Common sense tells us that if a scientifically validated Cost Benefit Analysis were done in this country we would NEVER have Class C over D or C over E

Common sense eh? Is that like ... "I believe"?
Preempting a CBA in such a way actually negates the need for the CBA.
The assumption is that the CBA better show what you "believe" or else !

My common sense, taking into account what I know about ATS arrangements and costing, tends to think that you may be very dissappointed in the results.

Dog One

20th Jul 2010, 08:56

Mjbow

Could you enlighten us unworthy pilots how radar would have prevented the Hotham accident. From my reading of the ATSB report, the pilot pressed on a home made approach after being advised of the conditions from the ground. With such determination, any ATC involvement would have been brushed aside and the outcome would have been the same.

Why is Launceston airport different from Broome and Karratha. Why does your zealous leader worry about the possibility of people dying in Launceston and not Broome and Karratha.

What is different about the airmiss between the 737 and A320, and the 737 and the light aircraft. The death toll in the former would have been about 180.

Stationair8

20th Jul 2010, 09:32

One thinks that Dick may have given himself a scare going into Hobart or Launceston when tower has been closed? Don't like DME arrivals and then a circling approach on a dark night, or an ILS into Hobart on a sh#tty south easterly night down that long ILS having to activate the PAL lighting, talk on the CTAF, talk on area freqency?

Are you man or a mouse?

Why now show such concern for the airspace in the Apple Isle?

Ansett and Qantas were the only companies that ever requested to have the tower remain open if the scheduled flights were going to be delayed.

What about Avalon, Essendon, Newcastle, Alice Springs they going to get this new system as well Dick?

Who closed a number towers, got rid of Flight Service many years ago and took away operational control?

By the way one of your former Flight Service mates from Cooma said to pass on his warmest regards.

Looking forward to your reply Dick?

tasdevil.f27

20th Jul 2010, 10:19

I bet the guys up at LST wouldn't be happy with you Dick, saw the news tonight and it's turned into a scare campaign, maybe he has been hired by a competing airport to help boost the numbers flying in......

Seriously Dick what is your real intentions.....

Dick Smith

20th Jul 2010, 10:32

Quite simple - to ensure that the radar and multilateration system is used in approach/departure airspace , not just en -route.

Won't cost much and it could prevent an accident!

Stationair8

20th Jul 2010, 10:40

What about YDPO and YWYY?

What about Albury?

What about Mount Gambier?

What about Mildura?

le Pingouin

20th Jul 2010, 11:41

Scratch the radar Dick as the plug has been finally pulled.

Won't cost much? Really?

Who do you envisage providing the service?

The Chaser

20th Jul 2010, 12:30

to ensure that the radar and multilateration system is used in approach/departure airspace , not just en -route.

If a CBA/Aero study supported [which it won't] the need for a 'separate' surveillance based APP/DEP in Launy or Hobart, then the best [most efficient, cost effective] option would be an APP/DEP SUR service run from the tower [i.e. located in the tower] and combined with the current tower/approach rosters.

Do you support that widely used international practice?? :E

Jabawocky

20th Jul 2010, 12:50

OK Dick, lets sort it out here and now

1. Virgin crew stuffed up
2. Virgin crew should have kept climbing or bugged off somewhere else and held rather than holding off the end of an ILS when they knew full well a JQ A320 was shooting an ILS behind them and could also miss out.
3. Approach plates....like the current one in my hand says climb to 3100..... This plate was clearly written with an ATC service in mind, refer my previous post. The ILS plate needs re-writing. Simple as that.
4. Radar or Multilat...well contrary to your statements on radio and other media outlets, WAMLAT is used in Launie and Hobart every day. Sure its Class D but its used for SA by the tower and CEN folk.
5. In this case the airlines were given the option and declined.
6. The media reports suggest it is a crazy risk 24/7...yet we all know thats not true.
7. Radar rated folk in Melbourne......lets get real, you want approach rated folk in Melbourne after Tower hours to cover about 5 or 6 arrivals a year???
8. Sure they could provide Class E after hours.....but for the cost of keeping approach rated folk in Melbourne for the 5-6 arrivals after hours a year it would be far cheaper and make more sense to have the Tower guys in for a full shift or on call when needed..........you just need to force the airlines to pay for it. How do you have folk in MEL CEN rated and CURRENT (21 days) for 5 or 6 flighst a year.......ohhh and every other D/C tower that is closed at night.
9. When Class E approach can not be provided.....what then? Call in the Tower guys???
10. I think you do not understand the difference from a busy daytime terminal area to an after 10pm area. Maybe the USA is busy 24/7......but Tassie is not.
11. I have been into LST in cloud....not that scary. Even with a VB jet departing.....ohh yeah the TWR was manned and managed it well, I am sure others here know what I mean.
12. So its not about using radar, which they do, its maybe all about getting the ILS plate fixed for the odd time when the tower is closed.

The rest is all about frightening the public. For heavens sake the VB/JQ folk never even had an RA and if they had requested the tower stay open.....it would have.

Your focus is clearly in the wrong area, and that is a great shame.

J

The Chaser

20th Jul 2010, 12:56

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:ok:

To be fair to the VB Crew, I reckon they did what 'FMS Betty' expected them to do after missing out. I don't blame them! ;)

peuce

20th Jul 2010, 13:02

To put it another way Dick ...

If two RPTs mis-managed their self-separation at Yulara , after hours, would you insist on an Approach service being installed there?

Jabawocky

20th Jul 2010, 13:06

You have a point Chaser....but hey they are paid to think about the full picture..Just unfortunate they found the week link in the approach plates, and did not have the forsight to deal with it when circumstances came to bite them on the butt:uhoh:

Peuce....stop being childish...if not correct :ok::E

Howaboutit Dick.....Answer all my pointes there. Convince the rest of us we are just head in the sand.

Freedom7

20th Jul 2010, 13:13

Dick,

The surveillance system is being used by the ATC's at LT and HB. Many of the then have held RADAR ratings and are highly experienced at their profession.

When do you plan on coming down and apologising to the Tasmanian people for the scare campaign you have created?

Freedom7

20th Jul 2010, 13:25

Some facts Dick - maybe you can stick it in your Flyer

Dear Sir/Madam,

In response to concerns about aviation safety in Tasmania, I would like to make the following observations:

The incident in Launceston was neither a "near miss" nor gross abrogation of responsibilities on behalf of the controller involved. In this scenario the tower controller may have been able to extend to cover the arrival of the two jets but both were operated by companies that have a policy of not wanting the tower to stay open, as it attracts additional charges. When the tower is open, controllers separate the aircraft down to the ground. The Air Traffic Control service could be provided by local ATC should it be required by government and airline operators. At present the operators are unwilling to pay for the service.

The proximity of the aircraft was less than desirable but not dangerous. Of more concern from the findings of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report were that it appears the separation may not have been effectively managed in the 2 cockpits to ensure that that no collision risk could occur. Airborne collision avoidance systems fitted to both aircraft did not alert the crews of the possibility of a collision because such a risk did not exist. The systems did provide valuable information to the crews as to the relative positions of the aircraft and, ultimately, positive action was taken to emplace more separation between the flights.

The availability of the since decommissioned radar at Launceston at the time of incident was, unfortunately, immaterial to the outcome. The aircraft were operating on a frequency specific to Launceston and not accessible by Melbourne ATC. The controllers, who did have access to radar, simply could not talk to the aircraft.

Had Launceston tower been open, the local controller would have managed the separation without radar as they do not have a display that is usable for Air Traffic Control. Whilst it may seem unsafe to the uninitiated, there are hundreds of thousands of aircraft movements across Australia every year, safely managed by highly skilled ATC and air crew without radar.

Particularly in Tasmania, the ability to hop on a flight across Bass Strait provides an invaluable link for many to keep in touch with friends, family, work, holidays and study. So should we be scared? The incident, in context, is certainly a less than desirable situation for the customers relying on air travel. We should be concerned, and hold the authorities involved responsible for emplacing procedures and/or services to prevent future occurrences, but need not be frightened. The simple truth is that the most dangerous part of the journey remains the drive to and from the airport.

President, Civil Air
The Australian Air Traffic Controllers' Association

noknead

20th Jul 2010, 23:48

I'm really enjoying the spirited banter in this post.:)

In case any of you missed it in the last post from Freedom, radar is no longer operational in Tassie and we now only have WAM.:{

All arguments referring to radar are null and void. We all have to trust that WAM will now be as reliable and accurate. I'm told it's better but I will reserve my opinion at this time.:oh:

Freedom7

21st Jul 2010, 01:29

From The Mercury website,

A JET will hit another jet or a mountain because of the archaic system used to separate aircraft near Australian regional airports, including Launceston and Hobart, says an experienced Virgin Blue pilot.

The pilot, who flies to both Tasmanian airports and has flown extensively overseas and within Australia, said it was only a matter of time before there was an accident.

He said it was disturbing that antiquated separation procedures, involving aircrews radioing each other with their positions, was still used at regional Australian airports when full radar coverage was available.

"It is just ridiculous," he said.

Overseas, radar-based systems were the standard.

The pilot's comments followed criticism by former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman and adventurer and entrepreneur Dick Smith of a "third-world" aviation system in Tasmania.

Mr Smith's comments were prompted by an Australian Transport Safety Bureau report last month of two aircraft narrowly avoiding colliding near Launceston Airport.

The report, completed two years after the incident, made no recommendations.

Federal Transport Minister Anthony Albanese said yesterday he asked in May last year for a report on the safety of air traffic services at 10 regional airports including Launceston.

This month he had received CASA's final report and had asked Airservices Australia, which provides air traffic control, to work with CASA to implement the report's recommendations to enhance safety at regional airports.

The Virgin Blue pilot said it was normal to drop radar coverage from Melbourne about 30 nautical miles from Launceston and Hobart airports, despite the two Tasmanian airports having radar systems, and start talking to the local towers.

Outside Tasmanian control tower operating hours, air crews needed to talk to each other to maintain separation.

Pilots' biggest workload was landing and departures and taking away the separation provided by radar increased the workload greatly.

The pilot said the near miss over Launceston would have been avoided if Melbourne radar had had control over the aircraft movements, and it would have provided full separation right to the runway.

Jetstar spokesman Simon Westaway said operations at Launceston and Hobart airports were safe and Tasmanian airspace was safe.

Virgin Blue spokesman Colin Lippiatt said flight crews in the Launceston incident had been aware of each other and of the need to maintain adequate separation.

The ATSB said it stood by its investigation of the Launceston incident and the report was an "appropriate reflection of the circumstances".

Dear Mr Experienced Virgin Blue Pilot, and Dick,

The pilot said the near miss over Launceston would have been avoided if Melbourne radar had had control over the aircraft movements, and it would have provided full separation right to the runway.

:confused:

Who is going to issue the Landing clearance/MA? - ML Radar:=

If you require a service ask for one. Then the near miss over Launceston would have been avoided.

Controllers would be be more than happy to provided any services as agreed between ASA and Airline companies.

And regardless of whatever your fantasy of Tasmanian airspace is it does not matter what airspace ML own, you still need the coalminer looking out the windows and the Runway.

:ok:

Capn Bloggs

21st Jul 2010, 01:51

Nokhead,
All arguments referring to radar are null and void.
Unfortunately, the great unwashed, aka unknowing public, aka targets for Dick Smith's disgraceful scare campaign, don't understand what Multilateration is, so "radar" will have to do.

Kangaroo Court

21st Jul 2010, 02:13

Tell me again why anyone is opposed to ATC and radar coverage for RPT arrivals and departures? You've got to pay the piper eventually...or risk hitting one-right?

Jabawocky

21st Jul 2010, 02:27

Tell me again why anyone is opposed to ATC and radar coverage for RPT arrivals and departures? You've got to pay the piper eventually...or risk hitting one-right?

Nobody is opposed to it.

Tasmania has "radar" from the WAMLAT system and its used as a SA tool in Class D services from the surface to A085, above that its MEL CEN. So whats the big deal?

Now after tower hours its Class G, just like much of the country. YBSU for example. No big deal again.

If there is RPT after tower hours, its most likely due to delays, and if requested an extension of the service is available. So what is the big deal?

Why have approach rated guys sitting in MEL when the Tower can be manned with the tower/app guys for a fraction of the cost of having additional folk being trained and kept current for the odd time (5-6 times a year) in MEL CEN.

What Dick says is true....you could have it, what he fails to understand is the system is already in place and is better, and cheaper. All you have to do when there is a severe delay due weather or a/c breakdowns is request the tower be manned for a very small cost.

Media beatup for some hidden agenda me thinks! := Using facts in isolation to scare the public for some hidden agenda.....well its not that well hidden to us here though is it:hmm:

J

peuce

21st Jul 2010, 02:40

Jaba,

You've just about hit the nail on the head and covered all the issues.

The service is there for the asking (and paying) already. And who could argue against User Pays.

But obviously, the user doesn't want to pay ... so direct your campaign at the Airlines, Dick ... if you must.

P.S. Does anyone know what it actually does cost to keep the Tower open?

Capn Bloggs

21st Jul 2010, 02:44

Kangaroo Court,
Tell me again why anyone is opposed to ATC and radar coverage for RPT arrivals and departures? You've got to pay the piper eventually...or risk hitting one-right?
Because keeping the tower open is cheaper and achieves the same aim. For goodness sake, the system does not need a full-blown radar approach service if there are two flippin' jets arriving at the airport.

If Dick gets his way, the cost of keeping the tower open (or CASA having the balls to mandate the tower being open for jet operations) will pale into insignificance compared to creating and manning the extra ATC consoles just to provide ATC remote "approach" services at jet airports around the country, even if only at surveilled airports.

The other big issue is ATC control of an IFR that also has to manage a CTAF arrival. That will unnecessarily increase risk.

This is simply another disgraceful attempt by the NAStronauts to get E airspace, nothing else. Why else would they not just scream "keep the tower open"?

As for the Virgin pilot mentioned above, I'd strongly suggest you take a look at the standards of your pilots before sledging the airspace system. I'm not a rocket scientist, but it strikes me that holding in the middle of the Missed Approach path at the Missed Approach altitude is not the smartest idea in the world.

And CASA/Jmac, grow some balls and mandate tower services for jet ops where a tower is established. :ok:

noknead

21st Jul 2010, 03:16

Arrhhhhh.... Eye Capn Bloggs. Back in me box........:}

noknead

Howabout

21st Jul 2010, 08:00

As a reader of solid journalism, Bloggs, I know what goes on. I also watch A Current Affair! I do get all the information! I am probably better informed than you are! In between putting my bets on the dogs, getting pissed, watching porn, beating the wife and trying to shag that Sheila next door, I know this stuff!

I place more faith in the aviation experts than I do with your stupid rants. High quality news programs confirm this; even though I flick back and forth between these superior programs, the third race at the local dog-park and that chick with the nice ones.

The fact is, Bloggs, that a highly respected newspaper agrees with aviation experts. Where does that leave you?

By the way, my sister that's married to my brother agrees.

Freedom7

21st Jul 2010, 08:12

The fact is, Bloggs, that a highly respected newspaper agrees with aviation experts.

Care to expand?

ferris

21st Jul 2010, 08:15

Care to expand? He's taking the piss :rolleyes:

Howabout

21st Jul 2010, 08:17

Jeezus, Freedom! Read it again!

Freedom7

21st Jul 2010, 08:25

Thanks, have taken my medication and its clear as mud, tis a tad difficult with all the editing/deleting of posts:sad:

Capn Bloggs

21st Jul 2010, 08:30

By the way, my sister that's married to my brother agrees.
Arrrh, the editor of the noos paper in question...

Freedom7, hang in there. We have to make our own fun as the NAStronauts have suddenly run for cover (again). Maybe they're working on all those CBAs that will conclusively show that remote radar approach services in the boonies, and E airspace over the top of non-radar control towers will deliver vanishingly small chances of midairs whilst at the same time save squillions of dollars! :}

Stationair8

21st Jul 2010, 08:35

But what is Mr Smith's real agenda?

peuce

21st Jul 2010, 08:43

Howabout,

I've long since given up on using sarcasm, subtlty, tongue-in-cheek and irony to make a point in PPRUNE ... they mostly don't get it ... because they're all so het up.

But your point is interesting. No matter the facts, the "big noise" stirring the masses, will usually ellicit the required knee jerk reaction from the pollies and feds. It's very difficult to counter.

P.S.

But what is Mr Smith's real agenda?
E Airspace rules, OK !

ymlt2

21st Jul 2010, 10:15

On a side note the portable radar at LST has been pulled down and is heading back to the big island tomorrow.

Capn Bloggs

21st Jul 2010, 10:23

How about sending it to Karratha. "Not a hope in hell, Bloggs. No votes/Greens there. Besides, where's Karatha?".

PS: Tailwheel, would you mind leaving these posts on the BB? We may be re-hashing old topics but that's exactly what the NAStronauts are doing.

peuce

21st Jul 2010, 10:29

Hey Griffo,

You still got that Jindalee thingy over your side?
Couldn't we use it for KTA/BRM?

I seem to remember it used to be pretty spiffy at tracking road trains along the NW Coastal Highway!

Howabout

21st Jul 2010, 10:52

Peuce,

Bloggs nailed it:

We have to make our own fun as the NAStronauts have suddenly run for cover (again).

In short, and despite the frustrations, we keep on the logic line. We have an occasional blow-off of steam, but we stay rational. Humour helps and the opposition is pretty dry and boring on that front.

BTW, I have another sister that's married to my mother's brother. She likes your handle and wonders whether you'd be interested.

mjbow2

21st Jul 2010, 12:10

Peuce

Who or what has changed your mind? For a while there you were actually supporting common sense use of radar and dare I say it, Dick Smith.

As for a CBA- not one scientifically validated Cost benefit Analysis has been done for C over D. Not one! If it were you could NOT assign a lower level of risk mitigation (Class D) in the highest risk area and then put a higher level of risk mitigation (Class C) where the risk is actually less. Its a remarkably simple concept Peuce and I know you understand it but you push a fundamentalist line that can only survive if you ignore the truth.

Howabout

I just do not understand your slavish adherence to an airspace classification that relies on chance when it comes to IFR/VFR separation.

You Class E deniers have never objected to the vast swathes of Class G we fly though hundreds of times to get to airports like Balina and Proserpine etc. Your fairytale belief system however says it would be inherently unsafe if we turned it into Class E. Remarkable insanity!

The chaser

1. DickNAS .... Class E over little D; or
2. USNAS .... Class C or B

As those are the two options in real life.

As has been demonstated in proper Aerostudies of late,

Interesting you did not refer to these 'proper Aerostudies' as scientific Cost Benefit Analysis'.

What an astonishing thing to say. So you would you support US NAS Class C at Launceston and Hobart. That’s fantastic. Both Class C and B have class E surrounding and above them. I would fully agree to having Class C at these airports, as long as it was supported by a scientifically validated CBA.

3. Australian/ICAO C over D is safe, efficient and not in need of change ask some of the crews who operate through on a regular basis if they think C over D (done from the tower) is less than best.

I am one of the crews that operate at C over D. Every single pilot I fly with hate them. We cannot fathom why all this reporting of altitude an distance etc is required when there is a perfectly good radar that could be used. Its insanity.

If you really believe giving the tower huge amounts of airspace so they can procedurally separate then why don’t we use procedural separation at Sydney and Melbourne etc. It’s obvious, the busier an airport gets the harder it is to procedurally separate. The fact is that radar separation is far more efficient than procedural

Dog one

Could you enlighten us unworthy pilots how radar would have prevented the Hotham accident.

What is different about the airmiss between the 737 and A320, and the 737 and the light aircraft. The death toll in the former would have been about 180.

Dog one its obvious had there been Class E on descent to Hotham, the pilot would never have been allowed to fly off course to the approach IAF. This has been pointed out many times before.

You Class E deniers never mention that there was actually no chance of collision with the Tobago in Launceston as the Tobago pilot had seen and avoided the 737.

Dog one, How about this for common sense! The difference between Karratha, Broome and Tasmania is the mountainous terrain in Tassie and there is outstanding surveillance there already so why not use it properly.

Freedom 7

Who is going to issue the Landing clearance/MA? - ML Radar

Are you for real? Who normally issues a landing clearance at a CTAF? No one, Its a CTAF! You fundamentalists will launch any specious obfuscation possible to muddy the waters without actually thinking about what you're saying.

And Capn Bloggs is still spruiking the same old line

The other big issue is ATC control of an IFR that also has to manage a CTAF arrival. That will unnecessarily increase risk.

You don't get to make up facts. Bloggs, Freedom 7 instead of letting your imagination run wild, just ask how it works. They have been doing it with the NAS airspace for years in the United States. Clearly neither of you have any experience with the proposed airspace.

Capn Bloggs

21st Jul 2010, 12:29

MJBOW2,
If it were you could NOT assign a lower level of risk mitigation (Class D) in the highest risk area and then put a higher level of risk mitigation (Class C) where the risk is actually less. Its a remarkably simple concept
Take your blinkers off and use a bit of commonsense: make it Class D all the way to Class A. Alphabet soup airspace. Illogical categories of airspace with inappropriate rules for each category. Exactly why ICAO is getting rid of it.

You Class E deniers never mention that there was actually no chance of collision with the Tobago in Launceston as the Tobago pilot had seen and avoided the 737.
Please tell me you're joking! No chance? That's not what the ATSB said. And funny about the RA. Yes, they eventually missed by a few hundred feet. Was it planned that way? If it was, any system that relies on a pilot avoiding a jet by a few hundred feet when the jet crew doesn't even know he's there is fundamentally flawed. This point alone demonstrates that you NAStronauts have no credibility.

instead of letting your imagination run wild, just ask how it works. They have been doing it with the NAS airspace for years in the United States. Clearly neither of you have any experience with the proposed airspace.
How does it work, MJBOW2? And when considering your answer, I will not be cancelling IFR just to make it work.

Plazbot

21st Jul 2010, 12:33

You Class E deniers never mention that there was actually no chance of collision with the Tobago in Launceston as the Tobago pilot had seen and avoided the 737.

'Seen and did not hit' is the correct term. Go and reread the report and you will see that the pilot mentions that he thought the jet was going one side and ended up the other.

peuce

21st Jul 2010, 13:06

Mjbow2,

Who or what has changed your mind? For a while there you were actually supporting common sense use of radar and dare I say it, Dick Smith.

Wash your mouth out with soap!:uhoh::}:mad:

Only joking....

Actually, I don't support or oppose people ... I support or oppose their arguments. Dick's a good bloke and I think he believe's his arguments are correct and right. That's why it's no use having a go at someone who believes they are doing the right thing. In fact, he could be 100% right and I could be 100% wrong. The only way to test our arguments is to place them in front of our peers and let them be the judge.

The challenge is ... to be able to withdraw when it appears that you're ideas are supported by a very small minority ... although, once again, the majority could be wrong, I suppose. However, our democracy allows the majority to rule ... even if they are wrong.

Enough fluff, to your points:

My current thinking is that, if we have surveillance, it would be prudent to use it, as I said earlier, for some form of ATS ... greater than ICAO Class G. What that form takes, depends on the requirements of that particular volume. Requirements include traffic mix, density, numbers ... balanced off against the economic and resource cost. That seems to be a fairly logical process to me.

What I don't agree with is the declaration of blanket Class E airspace where we have surveillance. That's just funamentalist stuff, as far as I'm concerned.

Cost Benefit Analyses .... I agree with you. If we haven't done CBAs for C over D etc ... and there's broad agreement that we have a problem with C over D ... then go for it.

Some may think there's no logic in having a higher category over a lower category, but it seems to work. It's horses for courses. One way of looking at it is ... down low where we have to move a greater number of VFRs amongst IFRs ...the more flexible options of D are more useful. Up higher, with less VFRs, the greater restrictions affect fewer aircraft. So, from my point of view, I can live with that.

As to having procedural C over D, managed by a Tower ... where there is radar coverage in the C ... that definitely is a problem child. Logically, you would think that you could just give the C to the bloke that works the radar and all would be solved. Unfortunately, in your scenario, the complications include the fact that the Radar C guy above would have to be Approach trained, rated and current. Also, additional coordination would be required with the Tower, and, presumably, that would have to come at a much later time in the arrival sequence. Or, you could train the Tower guy to Approach standards. These all have logistical and economic costs associated with them. But I'm happy to support a CBA that looks at it.

You Class E deniers never mention that there was actually no chance of collision with the Tobago in Launceston as the Tobago pilot had seen and avoided the 737.
This argument doesn't quite hold water as the 2 jets saw, and knew about each other at Launy also. There was never a real chance of a prang. So ... same, same.

And I don't think you could call most of us "Class E Deniers" . We, like yourself, just want to see the CBAs before throwing an E blanket over Australia.

mjbow2

21st Jul 2010, 13:29

Gents,

I'm away for a few days. I will however return to answer the posts as soon as I get back.

The Chaser

21st Jul 2010, 13:47

as long as it was supported by a scientifically validated CBA
No one is suggesting anything different. The recently conducted Aerostudies assessed the current system for safety acceptability. Surely you can see the difference. ;)
The fact is that radar separation is far more efficient than procedural
I agree in principle, provided the APP service is co-located in the tower so visual and other separation can be seamlessly intergrated with surveillance based TMA, AND, where traffic permits, combined i.e. during quiet periods and at night.

Economies of scale etc The additional infrustructure [if deemed necessary] is better added to the existing APP service than establishing duplicate services and rosters. IMHO ;)

Movement at the station it seems :E

Minister intervenes and orders full radar separation of passenger jets using Launceston Airport – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/07/21/minister-intervenes-and-orders-mandatory-radar-separation-of-passenger-jets-using-launceston-airport/)

Won't the report be interesting reading :)

Freedom7

21st Jul 2010, 13:57

Mjbow2

Tug on the heart strings did we Mr Experienced Virgin Airline Pilot?

I am one of the crews that operate at C over D. Every single pilot I fly with hate them. We cannot fathom why all this reporting of altitude an distance etc is required when there is a perfectly good radar that could be used. Its insanity.

Does not show much experience or professionalism does it?

Freedom 7

Quote:
Who is going to issue the Landing clearance/MA? - ML Radar

Are you for real? Who normally issues a landing clearance at a CTAF? No one, Its a CTAF! You fundamentalists will launch any specious obfuscation possible to muddy the waters without actually thinking about what you're saying.

Who mentioned CTAF? ahh you did. Don't take quotes out of context to misinterpret the facts. If you want a normal service ask. If out of hours service was provided this incident would not have happened.

Ok time for the Muppett show (Howabout, Bloggs I think I am getting the humour thing - and it does help:))

just ask how it works.

How does it work? Please use the incident in question:ok:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

21st Jul 2010, 16:10

Hey Mr 'P',

No one's supposed ta know 'bout that.......SSSSHHHHhhh.......:p:p

They tell me its OK for picking up boats orf the coast as well.......now there's a thought!!:E:E

Dog One

21st Jul 2010, 22:00

Dog one its obvious had there been Class E on descent to Hotham, the pilot would never have been allowed to fly off course to the approach IAF. This has been pointed out many times before.

Sorry mjbow2 - with the mind set in the cockpit that night, that CFIT was going to happen and E airspace wouldn't have prevented it, He even could have been taken out by a VFR aircraft transiting the airspace!

Tell me, have the mountains in Tasmania grown in the last 20 years?

We operated for many years in Tasmania with minimal racking aids other than the VAR's at LT, DPO and HB. Tracking WY - HB was via the WY NDB to TTR Locator. Both HB and LT towers were H24, and the FSU's at WY and DPO were available to cover RPT movements.

Through proper training, route checking and experience, passengers were safely transported from A to B.

You appear not to appreciate the urgency of the RA between the 737/Tobago. Don't DJ train you to respond to RA's? The situation was serious - the TCAS calculated an impact time and avoiding action was required. This is the greatest danger with E airspace, the uncertainity of VFR aircraft doing there own thing, and the reliance of TCAS to prevent the loss of lives.

tail wheel

21st Jul 2010, 22:14

Actually, I don't support or oppose people ... I support or oppose their arguments. Dick's a good bloke and I think he believe's his arguments are correct and right. That's why it's no use having a go at someone who believes they are doing the right thing. In fact, he could be 100% right and I could be 100% wrong. The only way to test our arguments is to place them in front of our peers and let them be the judge.

One of the best posts I've ever seen on PPRuNe. :ok:

You may professionally debate the issue but personal vitreol and irrelevent comment will continue to be removed. Those who resort to personal attacks and sm@rt ass comments are merely confirming their inability to discuss/debate a matter in a mature, rational and professional manner.

This applies to any thread, not just this thread.

Stationair8

21st Jul 2010, 23:08

WE call that affordable safety!!

Just been in the dungeon, and found an old ERSA from 1989 showing Launceston Tower H24. Wonder who would have reduced the towers hours then? Wonder why they would have reduced the tower hours?

mjbow2 how many CFIT incidents in Tasmania over the last 50 years?

peuce

22nd Jul 2010, 00:33

But your point is interesting. No matter the facts, the "big noise" stirring the masses, will usually ellicit the required knee jerk reaction from the pollies and feds. It's very difficult to counter.
I am now officially ... a clairvoyant!

If, what Ben Sandilands says, is true:

In the case of at least Launceston and Hobart, the Minister has today directed that this means the use of controlled separation as soon as possible.

Albanese’s intervention, which is clearly intended to close down a politically sensitive situation, goes right over the top of CASA’s Office of Airspace Regulation, which was set up to take safety related decisions concerning air traffic procedures off AirServices Australia, thus removing the potential for conflict between the commercial objectives of the air traffic control provider and the regulatory requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Once again, if it's true, and depending on what the direction is ...it kind of makes a mockery out of our general agreement that logical studies and CBAs be the basis for airspace change.

Clarity

22nd Jul 2010, 01:32

A Writ of Mandamus could be of use
Mandamus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus)
:ugh:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

22nd Jul 2010, 03:05

AAhh Mr Peuce,

Its always been things OTHER than 'logical studies and CBA's'.......
(They were only produced to 'prove' the argument....you know, get the result we want...)

Things like ... IDEOLOGY ... DOLLARS ... or, in a nutshell ...
'I wanna do it MY way' ....... E airspace E airspace E airspace

In machine telegraphy, E E E means 'ERROR'......now is that a hint or what..??

'Evolved Safety'... is what we used to have ?? And when it was 'reduced' to a lean machine, to service IFR only - basically - and 'AFIZ's, it worked very economically.
Read the history of Aus. Aviation.

Hi Cap'n, - re 'Alphabet soup airspace. Illogical categories of airspace with inappropriate rules for each category. Exactly why ICAO is getting rid of it.'

Is there a possibility here that we could RETURN to CTA / OCTA ??
LET's ALL "MOVE FORWARD", and do it NOW!!.....( apols to Julia)......

peuce

22nd Jul 2010, 08:12

Thank you Clarity,

A Writ of Mandamus could be of use

I don't know if your statement is in reference to Dick Smith's threat to take "legal action" against the Government ... or as a suggestion to use as a tool to enforce the Government to revert to using rational process in administering airspace.

Although I got lost after the first hirtherto, whereas and who-so-ever ... it is certainly appears to be an interesting Constitutional instrument.

If only I had the money to do something with it?

P.S. Griffo, yes there's always been half a cup of politics in the airspace design recipe. It would be nice to be able to bake the cake ... politics-free, but can we ever realistically see that happening?

Howabout

22nd Jul 2010, 08:45

Agree with tail wheel. Good post Peuce and right on the beam. We attack the arguments, not the proponents. Arguing facts is positive; attacking personalities is just evidence of a lack of knowledge, an inability to coherently argue a case, both, or, dare I say, the route to be taken when one's been comprehensively buggered but won't admit to it.

Interesting missive from Sandilands. I wonder where he gets his information. I've seen nothing anywhere else (not even on a Current Affair - for the benefit of F7). It will be very interesting to see how the Minister's concerns are addressed.

I've just dragged out the Launy/Hobart VTC and it seems to me that if MLAT (or whatever abbreviation is correct) is employed for an approach service, then the airspace architecture doesn't need to be changed; the hours just need to be extended.. The 'dream' of Class E, justified by a 2008 incident and the availability of MLAT (WMLAT/WAM/whatever?) appears to me to be rather opportunistic and cynical.

The fact is, that if the Sandilands report is correct, all that's required are personnel, training, approach qualifications and, either the facility to provide the service from Melbourne or do it from the tower. No, 'all that's required' doesn't imply it's simple - just that E wouldn't make it any easier.

E is not necessarily the only alternative, which I (personally) think is the whole object of this exercise. In short, the incident and the availability of WAM are 'stalking horses' for E. Just my reading of the tea-leaves after having read the letter to the PM on the website. I must, however, admit to admiration as to the timing and the strategic stampeding of the cattle one week into an election campaign. It's a consummate playing of the political card and, despite my disagreement with the desired outcome, it's very smart politics.

D1, you are showing your age! From memory, and correct me if I am wrong, WYD was the last operational VAR site - it was certainly in Tassie. Jeez, it was whiz-bang stuff when I was a kid. My old man was probably one of the last qualified LAMEs on the kit. I remember sitting in the cockpit of a TAA DC-4 freighter (smelt of cow-dung on a 30 deg DAR wet season day) as he tried to explain the theory to a 10 year old kid.

No doubt, if Sandilands is correct, the next couple of days will be interesting.

Freedom 7; my older sister (the one married to my uncle) was a big John Glenn fan. She's dropped her fascination with Peuce and wonders whether you'd be interested in a liaison. Something about astronauts' endurance etc.

OZBUSDRIVER

22nd Jul 2010, 08:59

ABC Tasmania NEWS (http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/07/21/2960608.htm?site=hobart)

peuce

22nd Jul 2010, 10:10

Howabout,

If she's that fickle, I'd advise F7 to steer clear!

Freedom7

22nd Jul 2010, 11:27

Tony (the Big One),

In the case of at least Launceston and Hobart, the Minister has today directed that this means the use of controlled separation as soon as possible.

We have always had controlled separation at Launy and Hobart international:p

The fact is, that if the Sandilands report is correct, all that's required are personnel, training, approach qualifications and, either the facility to provide the service from Melbourne or do it from the tower. No, 'all that's required' doesn't imply it's simple - just that E wouldn't make it any easier.

Howabout, Do it from the Tower. They do it now, they have Approach ratings, they are there. What is required is Certification and Licencing of the WAMLAT system so the ATC's can provide more controlled separation and actually use the technology that is there today. The ATC's use this info now but for procedural separation.

There is no staff, training time or facilities to have Local APP cells or Centre based TCU's to satisfy Tony's wish in the immediate future. (more on this later)

Anyway, Whats her name? She must be able to don 3 beanies. Us North Island ring'ins have taken the 2 heads thing to new standards:O and I can hold long enough to not wee in the suit:ok:

peuce

22nd Jul 2010, 11:36

Now, getting back to the subject .... Dick Smith's letter ...

As Howabout observed, what a great piece of timing that was.
How the Minister responds to the broadside will be known in good time, because he is currently "looking into it" .

Dick,

While you await the Government's reaction (knee-jerk or otherwise), I have a suggestion for you. While you're on a roll, why not use your considerable network of contacts and resources to push the Government on the real issue.

In this forum, you are often thwarted by the response ... "we'll work any type of airspace asked of us... provided the appropriate resources, equipment and training are provided".

One of the reasons that those goodies aren't forthcoming is that the Government virtually pilfers large amounts of money from the Industry annually and spirits it away into consolidated revenue... never to be seen by the Aviation sector again.

Most years the "dividend" paid to consolidated revenue has been around the $100M mark. Last financial year, during the GFC, ASA managed to get a raincheck from the Government.

The Airservces Australia Act 1995 Part 5, Division 3, Paragraph 53(3) states:

A service charge must be reasonably related to the expenses incurred or to be incurred by AA in relation to the matters to which the charge relates and must not be such as to amount to taxation

ASA consistently over charges the Industry by around $100m annually. This looks, sounds and smells like a tax to me. If not, then it's consistently dismal financial management.

Could you imagine how $100m a year could be used? Perhaps provide equipment and training to enable the Radar Approach rating of Tower Controllers. Perhaps fund the training of additional Controllers to man low level surveillance airspace?

Your current Tasmanian stir may get the Minister to decree that ATC must be provided for all Jet RPTs or similar. What will then happen is that ASA will say that they don't have the resources to do that ... but they'll include it in their forward planning.

My challenge to you is ... if you really want to make a difference and ensure there's available resources for new Airspace and ATC initiatives ... help us get our money back.

Capn Bloggs

22nd Jul 2010, 12:22

Good to see my tax dollars going into a balanced story by Auntie (Freedom 7, keep your mitts off her! :E).

Did I see a picture of the dawghouse??!!!:}

http://i521.photobucket.com/albums/w334/capnbloggs/doghouse-2.jpg

The Chaser

22nd Jul 2010, 13:18

Bwhahahaha :D :} ..... pissa Bloggsie :ok:

I can tell ya, he is giggling his head orf' bout' the 'ready fire aim' campaign, and the 'wise-up' that has occured by most all [including media] since ;)

Gorn' very quiet in the last 24hours eh, and not a peap out of Albo's office :E

peuce

You asked about the out-of hours charges

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/pilotcentre/avcharge/price/contract2010/standard_contract_may2010.pdf
3.4 The charge for terminal navigation facilities and services outside the rostered hours which are made available following a request by you is, in addition to the charges under clause 3.1:

Before or after normal hours Charge

Up to 30 minutes $37.00
Over 30 up to 60 minutes $76.00
Over 1 hour up to 3 hours or recall of staff $381.00
Each additional hour or part hour $95.00

Jabawocky

22nd Jul 2010, 20:28

That is bloody cheap motoring......so whats the fuss all about when its that economical. Hardly worth the fuss Dick!! It did keep the listeners entertained in Tassie for a day or two though.;)

Even procedural (greater seperation) with the WAMLAT SA ....what more could you want!

Rolls Royce service at a Hyundai price....or indian taxi!

Bloggs....Thats almost a POTY mate:ok:, and thats kind of how I remember it too!:D

J

89 steps to heaven

22nd Jul 2010, 21:16

There obviously is a lack of understanding how the current radar en-route / procedural tower system works by some.

High level aircraft inbound to the station normally transfer to Tower at 25nm where the pilot is advised that radar services are terminated. This does not mean that the aircraft become invisible to the en-route controller. Many times, the tower will use radar advice from centre after the aircraft has transferred to the tower to expedite the arrival.

Closer in to the station, the tower sometimes can provide a better service separating, especially with a mix of arriving and departing aircraft and reduce delays that would occur with a pure radar service.

Between the two facilities, it is a co-operative control system that works well with the resources we have. We can improve what we do, but the lead time for the resources means it just will not happen in the short term.

As for coverage for late arrivals, I have had Tiger, Virgin and Jetstar pilots ask for the tower to cover their operations on odd occasions. Just ask, we will try to be there for you.

peuce

23rd Jul 2010, 02:03

3.4 The charge for terminal navigation facilities and services outside the rostered hours which are made available following a request by you is, in addition to the charges under clause 3.1:

Before or after normal hours Charge

Up to 30 minutes $37.00
Over 30 up to 60 minutes $76.00
Over 1 hour up to 3 hours or recall of staff $381.00
Each additional hour or part hour $95.00

I'm speechless ... I'm without speech! :sad:

For the sake of $76, two Airlines put themselves through this?
Imagine if they hadn't pulled it off :{

There's your headline Mr Smith!

peuce

23rd Jul 2010, 02:13

Now that I'm over the initial shock ... what should, if anything, be done about these situations?

Should ASA pull up stumps at 6 ... and let the teams continue to bat ...unless asked to stay around ... thereby putting the safety onus on the Airlines?

Or, should CASA decree that ASA will keep umpiring till all RPT Jets are bowled out?

I don't know?

But I do know that, if I was a pax, I'd want the Umpire to stay around for a while.

Freedom7

23rd Jul 2010, 02:55

The Umpire would be happy to stick around.....

Frank Arouet

24th Jul 2010, 04:15

24-hour traffic control at airport - Local News - News - Politics - The Examiner Newspaper (http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/politics/24hour-traffic-control-at-airport/1894175.aspx)

LAUNCESTON Airport will be under 24-hour air traffic control within six months, Transport Minister Anthony Albanese announced last night.

The announcement coincided with the release of a Civil Aviation Safety Authority report that includes a review of airspace management and safety at Launceston Airport.
Launceston Airport's air safety was questioned this week by high-profile businessman and aviator Dick Smith for its lack of airspace control between 10pm and 6am, when aircraft are required to land without control tower assistance.

The concern relates to a 2008 incident at Launceston Airport in which two passenger aircraft had a near miss when attempting a late- night landing in bad weather.

Mr Albanese said the report identified "no imminent safety concerns", but that growing use of the airport required additional safety measures.

"All recommendations made by the independent safety regulator ... following its review of the existing air traffic control arrangements at 10 major regional airports will be implemented," Mr Albanese said.

"In the case of Launceston and Hobart this means all passenger aircraft flying into and out of these airports will at all times be supervised by an air traffic controller."

Opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss this week challenged Mr Albanese to release the Civil Aviation Safety Authority report, which he received several weeks ago, accusing him of using caretaker government protocol to keep the report under wraps.

Mr Albanese said the report in fact showed the failure of the former government to enforce a ministerial direction issued in 2004 by the then federal transport minister, John Anderson.

"That direction required Airservices to expand air traffic control surveillance at all 10 major regional airports," he said.

Under the new protocol, Launceston's airspace will be controlled by Melbourne Airport's air traffic control between 10pm and 6am.

OZBUSDRIVER

24th Jul 2010, 05:31

Interesting. Safety report said C over D. Portable radar has been switched off, packed up and moved. That leaves only WAMLat as the primary means BLW 4500ft. The directive stipulated radar only. Does this mean the argument is now changing to include other technologies? Very interesting.

peuce

24th Jul 2010, 06:03

If you take the Minister's words literally ....

"In the case of Launceston and Hobart this means all passenger aircraft flying into and out of these airports will at all times be supervised by an air traffic controller."

...there will be no change. IFRs are already being "supervised" by ATC in G Airspace.

But I daresay ... he means more than that ...

P.S. In the interests of transparent Government, as required by the Government's Airspace Policy, I'd really like to see CASA's report.

Howabout

24th Jul 2010, 06:31

Very good point OZ. It did refer to radar and not WMLAT. On the other hand, IMHO, the amiable dolt that was conned into signing off on it wouldn't have known what he was signing off on anyway.

That said, in this day and age all technology that's available should be used if the benefit outweighs the cost - I agree with Dick on this point.

What I don't agree with is (my belief) that all this is being used to dump C and replace it with E - read the letter to the PM about 'the proper airspace classification.'

Page 4 -The ATSB Report does not mention that Airservices Australia had recently commissioned a wide area multilateration “radar system” which gives even greater accuracy for Air Traffic Controllers to separate traffic and prevent controlled flights into terrain as long as the correct airspace is allocated.(my bolding).

peuce

24th Jul 2010, 06:51

If Dick changed the words from 'correct' to 'most appropriate' I'd have to agree with him.

What is 'incorrect' airspace ?

The only difference between us is that Dick already "knows" what airspace category is appropriate ... before any analysis takes place. I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may.

konstantin

24th Jul 2010, 08:24

And we all know that tower controllers grow on trees, 6 months for the introduction of 24/7 coverage, no wukkas Tones maaate.

Surely you wouldn`t add on the controlled airspace function down to ground level to the ML enroute sector (courtesy of a WAMLAT feed into the TAAATS machine, oops, no more radar) - um, who would then give the landing and takeoff clearances and provide aerodrome control?

If it is to be done from ML centre I smell tower airspace reclassified to E outside tower hours and one in / one out. Non? Oui?

Can`t wait for a detailed proposal (as opposed to pre-election hype) to surface, this will be fun to watch!

ymlt2

24th Jul 2010, 09:02

A 24/7 manned tower, not sure what they will be controlling on weekends for instance when some nights nothing moves apart from a few rabbits.

peuce

24th Jul 2010, 09:05

Well, there's nothing on CASA's website or the Minister's website yet.
Although the Press Release about cancelling two AOCs was up on the site pretty damn quickly!

I guess we'll eventually get to hear about it ...

Capn Bloggs

24th Jul 2010, 23:39

Kon,
Surely you wouldn`t add on the controlled airspace function down to ground level to the ML enroute sector
That's exactly what is going to happen, as will Tobago, sure as anything. :cool:

maralinga

25th Jul 2010, 05:59

And whats the problem with that, assuming that the appropriate resources and staff are applied?

peuce

25th Jul 2010, 06:23

Maralinga .... exaccerly!

You can promise anything you like ... knowing that the resources aren't there to provide it. You still come out looking like the good guy. ... "well, I tried !"

Roger Sir

25th Jul 2010, 06:36

And whats the problem with that, assuming that the appropriate resources and staff are applied

Just that unfortunately. Resources and staff. Neither are in abundance atm unless you are in P&C.

If we are looking for the Tower to open 24/7 we need another controller or two. Not much of a problem normally but these are difficult times with the college delivering a steady dribble of trainees. Nowhere near enough to replace the continuing drift to the sandpit. ( i know of 4 resignations in the last few weeks, 3 in Vegas and 1 from the deep south. More to come i`m sure! )

If ML centre are going to look after the airspace when the Tower controller goes home then i`m assuming the contoller on duty will need an approach rating & some sort of endorsement. I`d hazard a guess and say no en-route controller currently looking after the airspace has an approach rating. i.e training/resources required. :=

Freedom7

25th Jul 2010, 07:22

If ML centre are going to look after the airspace when the Tower controller goes home then i`m assuming the contoller on duty will need an approach rating & some sort of endorsement.

and RTCC, FREQS, etc. Oh, and a remote ADC rating.....easy:confused:

12-47

25th Jul 2010, 11:15

Dick, I'm a little confused here. Airspace structure aside, your contention seems to be there's a surveillance system available in Tassie that isn't being used to its fullest extent. However, looking at the media reports, the only reported 'outcome' thus far appears to be Under the new protocol, Launceston's airspace will be controlled by Melbourne Airport's air traffic control between 10pm and 6am. Is this the outcome you wanted or is it the result of some sort of meet half way agreement?

konstantin

25th Jul 2010, 15:58

Roger Sir - thank you for the back-up info, `tis wot I hear too :ok:

As I have said, this will be fun to observe from the pleb stalls...

Freedom 7, you rock! - "remote ADC rating"...yeah, I can just see the new procedures;

"QFAxxx, no reported IFR traffic, visually verify runway clear, broadcast roll commencement on CTAF and Area frequencies, clear for take-off at pilot discretion, cross-check IWI, confirming clear for take-off"

:yuk: :yuk:

LeadSled

25th Jul 2010, 23:41

Launceston to stay potentially lethal – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/07/25/launceston-to-stay-potentially-lethal/)

Folks,

The above link is to an article by Ben Sandilands on his Crikey blog. It is well worth a read, Ben is an influential aviation and transport journalist, and has been for over 30 years.

I rather suspect many of you will disagree with him, but his opinions are in the real world, not just the narrow inward looking little world of Australian domestic pilots and ATC.

Tootle pip!!

Jack Ranga

25th Jul 2010, 23:55

I find it incomprehensible that the Virgin aircraft did not climb to 4100ft whilst holding? Common sense really.

I find it incomprehensible that this report took 2 years to complete, I could have had it done in a week or so.

I find it incomprehensible that CASA or ATSB didn't have a problem with the Virgin crews actions?

Who does Albanesse think he is kidding? Really, are people that stupid in Australia that they can't see through his 'fix'

peuce

25th Jul 2010, 23:56

Leadsled,

I rather suspect many of you will disagree with him, but his opinions are in the real world, not just the narrow inward looking little world of Australian domestic pilots and ATC.

I know, you're the only one marching in step ..the rest of us are out of step.

Mr Sandilands' article is interesting. It appears that he has spent many hours pouring over PPRUNE. Also interesting are the comments on his article, especially the one from "Quizzical"

I love the '3 condom approach' reference, and those extra condoms are nice to have ... but even they come at a cost.

That's not to say you shouldn't wear them ... just that you have to be aware of, and calculate, that extra cost.... a cost benefit analysis.

LeadSled

26th Jul 2010, 00:16

..the rest of us are out of step.

Peuce,

As far as the aviation scene in the developed world goes, you've got that on right, and sadly, it is not confined to matters airspace management.

The results are reflected in our long term (all aircraft, not just jets) safety record. A detailed study, based on ICAO definitions, not home grown, is not flattering to Australia. The jet incident record is nothing to write home to mother about, either.

Or perhaps you think the last two ICAO and FAA audits got it all wrong, and Australia is the only soldier in the battalion in step.??

Tootle pip!!

OZBUSDRIVER

26th Jul 2010, 00:17

Yep, have to agree, peuce. Sandilands is entitled to write whatever he wishes...factual or opinionated...that is the choice of the reader to believe what is presented. Just wish he would give attribution for his info.

Reading between the lines...the Anderson directive stipulated radar approach for class C...with this directive rescinded...one wonders what type of airspace the NAStronauts will attempt to push for after the caretaker period?

peuce

26th Jul 2010, 00:42

Leadsled,

As I've said many times before ... Australia is a Democracy and the majority rule ... whether they are right or not.

That, of course, doesn't negate your right to try to reform the majority.

The majority seem to say ... we know we can never get it 100% safe ( which I thought was your position), we are happy to reduce bad stuff as much as possible by trying to Control things ... but only where the cost is justified ... not just because we can.

Stationair8

26th Jul 2010, 06:29

So when will we see this "new improved" radar control at Yulura, Mildura, Ballina, Karratha, Broome, Mackay, Hamiliton Island, Gove, Alice Springs, etc?

Afterall what is the difference in landing at Alice when the tower is shut than at Launceston?

No doubt we will see a push for Canberra tower to be manned 24/7?

Why is Dick pushing for radar at Devonport now? Once upon time it was a Flight Service base, then a MTAF, then a MBZ now its a CTAF-R.
Why a radar service for a handful of Dash-8 flights a day?

Nothing to do with Launceston being in a very marginal seat for the federal election, by any chance?

Having a look back through the accident files for Launceston most accidents have happened when the tower is open.

March 1995 Trojan 2 Fatalities

September 1993 VH-WGI Piper PA-31/350 CFIT 6 fatalities

August 1982 DH114 Heron VH-CLY 0 Fatalities

March 1965 Fokker Friendship.

Perhaps the skygods that fly the big shiny jets for Virgin and Jetstar, need to brush up on there procedures for operating OCTA . The crews that fly the B737 freighters up and down the East coast seem to be very capable of seperating them selves from other VFR or IFR traffic when operaing OCTA at night time.

Freedom7

26th Jul 2010, 06:35

I rather suspect many of you will disagree with him, but his opinions are in the real world, not just the narrow inward looking little world of Australian domestic pilots and ATC.

A Journalist with an opinion in the real world, is that an oxymoron?

The incident at LT would not have happened had services been requested by either Jetstar or Virgin airlines.

Let it be noted that the Julia flew in to Launy last night. Not one peep out of any Nastronaut or journalist - why - because the Tower extended the service. And much cheaper than 2 pages in the newspapers. I bet the left one out of my donkeys yous were just itching to spray that one.

From "THE SCURVY PLANET"

PRIME MINISTERS ACFT 'JULIA ONE' FLYS TO THE THIRD WORLD NATION OF LAUNCESTON TASMANIA WITH NO ATC COVERAGE and almost hit a mountain too

Anyway Julia was last seen surveying the Radar site with about 20 Journalists:D

Stationair8

26th Jul 2010, 06:50

One would expect the highly trained RAAF pilots to follow the correct procedures and either fly a DME arrival or go out to Nile for the ILS, so why would they run into a mountain then?

For ****'s sake, Paravion had some blokes with brand new instrument ratings flogging around in that sh#tbox old C310 VH-IFF(1 VOR, 1 ADF and 1 Australian DME) on the bank run for years without flying into a hillside or mountain. Ted Rudges guys used fly into Launceston in the Doves on night freight. The IPEC guys used fly in and out of YMLT and YMHB for years in the Argosies and then the DC-9 without any dramas.
Why all of sudden the big drama of flying into Tasmania at night time?

The mob out of YMMB flog in and out of Wynyard and King Island night time all on their ownsome. Look at the amount of high terrain in around the Wynyard circuit area.

Freedom7

26th Jul 2010, 07:02

And the additional follow up link to Leadies....

Launceston incident…the Minister says ’supervision’ means ‘total control’ – Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/07/26/launceston-incident-t)

Over to yous:ok:

OZBUSDRIVER

26th Jul 2010, 07:36

4. The aircraft that were involved in incident are not scheduled outside of current tower hours (and therefore avoid charges). On the night in question both aircraft were running late – therefore they arrived outside of tower hours – i.e. it isn’t the schedule and it isn’t about avoiding charges.

That means...the airlines are paying for a service they are not receiving...or...they will get charged if the tower guys are asked to stay back for an hour or so.

A strange thing to say...not being charged at all? or not liable for charges outside of hours?.or...are charged as per the regular schedule within normal tower hours? and will be charged for service outside tower hours? Very obtuse statment, Mr Minister

peuce

26th Jul 2010, 07:37

Thanks for lumping that on us F7 ...

My cynic meter has just popped its woofle valve :{

Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010
Airspace Act 2007
I, ANTHONY NORMAN ALBANESE, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, make this Statement under section 8 of the Airspace Act 2007.
Dated (10 December) 2009

15. Changes to an existing airspace classification or designation should be the consequence of a clear and consistent risk management process.
16. CASA‟s risk management process should be consistent with published Australian Standards for risk management as updated.

41. The airspace strategy requires transparency so that the aviation industry has clear insight into the way in which airspace administrative decisions will be developed, taken and implemented including industry and agency consultation. The strategy does however recognise there will be times when urgent decisions are required to meet a safety imperative.

Then the CASA Regional Aerodromes report, on which the Minister has based his directive, says:

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) recently conducted studies of the 10 Regional Aerodromes (2009-2010). The studies found there were no imminent safety concerns identified at the 10 Regional Aerodromes.

Why do I feel that we have no process anymore ... other than political?
Why am I surprised about this?
Will it ever change ... regardless of incumbent party?

NOPE :(

P.S. Mr Sandilands, you are free to reproduce this in your column as well :E

Capn Bloggs

26th Jul 2010, 07:55

Stationair8,

then a MBZ now its a CTAF-R.

Get with the program, will ya?!

It's now back to being a "CTAF". := :} ;) :ouch: :E

peuce

26th Jul 2010, 08:03

Just to prove I'm not always negative, here's a suggestion for fixing the "Launceston Problem" .

Dear Mr Albanese,

I am impressed with your expertise, and strength, whilst using a sledghammer to open an accorn, however, perhaps a more subtle approach may be in order.

As a suggestion, how about this:

Let's presume that a Jet is late once at each of, say, 10 Towers, each week of the year. That would amount to about $40,000 in late fees for the year. How about you return $40,000 of the tax that the Industry pays each year ... to cover that and make it mandatory that Jets call out the Tower ... if late. Short term problem solved.
For the longer term, as surveillance technology and equipment develops and becomes readily available, get ASA to include it in its capital program and gradually deploy it across the country, on a priority list. At that time, upgrade the Control structure in those locations to a surveillance based one.
But remember to take into account the airborne equipment requirements as well. Long term problem solved.

I trust you'll take these suggestions in the spirit in which they were given.

Your mate peuce.

OZBUSDRIVER

26th Jul 2010, 08:20

Note to Mr Sandilands...actually get out there and investigate how this incident unfolded and look at how separation was compromised. It has nothing to do with tower hours and everything to do with a breakdown in procedures. The meat of this argument rests in the cockpit of that DJ 73...why?

Capn Bloggs

26th Jul 2010, 08:29

The meat of this argument rests in the cockpit of that DJ 73...why?
And the JQ for accepting an unacceptable situation.

And Peuce, please be logical and practical will ya?! :=

PLovett

26th Jul 2010, 09:38

OZBUSDRIVER,

actually get out there and investigate how this incident unfolded and look at how separation was compromised

What incident, what compromise of separation, what breakdown of procedures? There was no TCAS advisory let alone any resolution required. The only element of surprise was that the Virgin Blue aircraft was closer than thought by the Jetstar crew so they decided to climb to 4,100' rather than the missed approach altitude of 3,100'.

What are the separation standards for Class G? Serious question as I don't have the information to hand at present. I suspect that if it hadn't been for the radar controllers in Melbourne watching the events on their screens nothing more would have come of it as the two aircraft came 0.2 nm closer than their separation standard.

peuce

26th Jul 2010, 09:39

First, I know ... I'm starting to get on my own nerves as well. However, my therapist said it's better to get these things off my chest ... so, who am I to argue with a professional?

I was starting to feel that I might have been a bit too harsh with the Minister.
I was thinking that perhaps what he is talking about are 'aspirations' .. you, know, in the fullness of time stuff.... rather than 'get your arses down to Launy, now!' type stuff.

I mean, who could argue against getting surveillance installed where we have control services.

But, as I was lying on the therapist's couch scratching my head, I thought ... but that really is years down the track. Wasn't the raison d'étre of his cunning plan to stop the recent horrendous goings on at Launy from happening again?

How long to get surveillance and equipment sourced and installed, some Controllers plucked out of someone's backside and training and rating completed? That's looking like the 12th of never to me.

So what have we really ended up with?

No change to procedures at Launy
A long term plan to equip up

Bugger all !
We're all going to still die at Launy!

Doctor ... ???

MrApproach

26th Jul 2010, 09:45

Peuce

"For the longer term, as surveillance technology and equipment develops and becomes readily available, get ASA to include it in its capital program and gradually deploy it across the country, on a priority list. At that time, upgrade the Control structure in those locations to a surveillance based one.
But remember to take into account the airborne equipment requirements as well. Long term problem solved."

Isn't this the dreaded Class E airspace?

peuce

26th Jul 2010, 09:54

Mr Approach,

Isn't this the dreaded Class E airspace?

Not necessarily.
Surveillance can also be used in C,D,B,A ... and even G(F)

I'm for whatever is the most appropriate for that particular location.
But definitely NO E ... without surveillance.

OZBUSDRIVER

26th Jul 2010, 10:22

PLovett, Yep, if it wasn't for ML coming up on frequency, no one would be the wiser.

Maybe, I should have put separation inside "". I still think this whole thing is a beatup to push an agenda. Very clever and well crafted, but still a beatup. Government in caretaker mode so...basically...powerless.

PLovett

26th Jul 2010, 11:00

OZ, happy to agree with you.

The whole thing is a total beatup to push for E airspace in place of D after the boys in the tower have put the cat and milk bottles out.

As some may have guessed I was the bunny interviewed for the ABC news item. What didn't come across very well was that we, the other guy in the sim and I, are not opposed to having some form of controlled separation after hours but to slate the present process in G as archaic and totally dangerous was exaggeration and unnecessarily sensationalist.

What we were trying to show in the sim is that with all the bells and whistles that the modern generation of Bo/Bus contains safety wasn't an issue. We actually simulated the flight path of the Boeing in the holding pattern that night to show that the TCAS didn't come into play. It still wouldn't even when we tried flying the Boeing back towards the VOR at that altitude and with the Bus climbing through 3,100' on the missed approach. To make it produce a RA we actually had to get both aircraft to fly towards each other at 3,100' which would have created a real problem as 3,100' is the MSA where they were.

OZBUSDRIVER

26th Jul 2010, 11:17

PLovett:ok:

E is all this is about. I am very interested to see how AirServices will be able to impliment control services from ML, right down to the ground...in whatever flavour of airspace.

It is so simple to have the Dawg and his buddies work a bit of OT...for the right coin:E...and have that set of eyes where it matters most...as Smith is want to saying.

LeadSled

26th Jul 2010, 13:31

It has nothing to do with tower hours and everything to do with a breakdown in procedures.

Oz,
It must be something I have completely missed in the last 40 years or so of flying.

Could you please direct me to the details of the published "procedures" I "must" follow, to ensure no breakdown of "separation" in Class G.

Indeed, I have always understood that the very great danger of pilots attempting "do it yourself" air traffic control was that pilots are not trained controllers (even if many Regionals think they are) and with no third part controller, just what happened at Launy is exactly what you would expect to eventually happen.

Tootle pip!!

le Pingouin

26th Jul 2010, 16:22

Jeeeezuzzzz Leadie! What do you think happens day in day out in class G? How do you avoid hitting each other now climbing/descending in IMC prey tell? Seems to happen successfully hundreds of times every week.

Or is this one of those not so vanishingly small things? Hmmm, a Tobago nearly cleaning up a 737 isn't a problem but this is?

OZBUSDRIVER

26th Jul 2010, 22:22

Plumbum???? Go and look here (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/pending/dap/MLTII01-124.pdf) Do you understand "Published" now?

Where on this plate does it depict a holding procedure on the outbound leg of the missed procedure.

Reading the report, both pilots were in contact with each other, the DJ pilot allowed some distance before he started into the hold...they got 0.2nm too close for the alarm on the console in ML. TCAS did not go off nor as demonstrated by senior pilots for the media, would it ever go off.

Yet, someone decides there is an issue of grave danger on the airways. Why was this report sat on? It was made mention of in the Launceston study months ago yet someone decides right now, after an election is called, in a very marginal bellweather seat, to throw mud....who actually "Sat" on the report?:hmm:

noknead

27th Jul 2010, 00:10

4 small points please if I may.

1. I feel the VOZ crew should have climbed to 4,100 as that would give the JStar plane room to climb to 3,100 and this whole item wouldn't be happening. BUT I don't know, I wasn't there, so I can really only guess what was going on. I am not making any judgement or accusation.

2. Even though the controller in Melbourne could see all this, nothing could be done as the planes were on the separate frequency, 118.7. There's another issue....:uhoh:

3. Even though radar has been pulled out of TAS we still have WAM with coverage down to the ground both at HB and LT so surviellance is not an issue at either airport. :confused:

4. 24 hour tower coverage is NOT required. Rabbits really are the major traffic after about midnight except for the occasional PA31 or QF 737 freighter.

Let's be sensible. :ooh: A short term quick fix, and maybe long term, would be for ASA to get their act together, provide the staffing and go back to the proper hours of coverage, provide a service :eek: to allow for !!customer!! aircraft to depart/arrive with tower services........ like it used to be 10, 15, 20 years ago. :(

It's not that hard guys!!!!!! Really......:)