Further CASA CTAF problems shows not working! [Archive]

Ex FSO GRIFFO

13th Mar 2016, 04:41

The above frequency congestion was 'well flagged' before what were then 'FS' freqs / transmitters / receivers being 'taken over' and re-allocated to ATC freqs as / when FS was 'wound down'.

There was 'no fat' left in the system for future contingencies.

In WA, there were just 3 VHF freqs 'surplus to requirements', so these were allocated to 'Flightwatch'....2 in the Kimberley and 1 at Parkerville in the hills just east of Perth if I remember correctly.

That is, in WA, there were NO freqs left other than ATC ones for GA to call on, or to talk to each other, - initial call - except for these 3.....
'Tis a looong waaay from the Kimberley to Perth in a GA aircraft.

So, what was GA to do?

In announcing 'intentions' approaching a country aerodromes, not in a CTAF, they had, by necessity, to be on the local VHF so that other aircraft in the vicinity could hear the call.
Hence, the request to re-insert the VHF freq areas on the charts, or at least, insert the location and freq of the VHF outlet so that pilots could see which one they might be closest to...

Sure, when in the CTAF, they were on the discrete freq., but descending into and climbing out of the CTAF, these calls were on...ATC freqs.

Nobody in the airspace design team took any notice.
They just 'ploughed on'.

And lo and behold...it came to pass....

The 'solution' of course, is to install new VHF equipment / outlets in areas selected by traffic volumes for GA to use, say at or below Alt 10,000ft, and leave the ATC freqs for use for those aircraft that fly in the Flight Levels above 10,000ft.

But, this would cost, and is Airservices willing to spend...??

Whaddya rekon....??

No Cheers:=

p.s. That may have been 1 in the Kimberley at Argyle, I think, and 1 at Hedland, on reflection.... I think.....my 'electrons' are fad i n g ....

Aussie Bob

13th Mar 2016, 05:09

Dick, all you say about the Vale is correct, an application was lodged to get this ala on the charts a long time ago and it still has not happened. The "incorrect" frequency has also been used for a long time. The slowness and difficulty in putting this long time strip on the map is inexcusable

Ex FSO GRIFFO

13th Mar 2016, 05:51

AsA could probably afford to spend a 'cuppla quid' without having to 'pass it on'.
Whether they would or not......another question.....

A look at the last financial year's report will indicate how much profit was passed back to the Fed Govt, and to AsA, and to 'the industry'....

There are others much more attuned to this than I am.

Rotsa Ruck

Cheers:ok:

Dick Smith

13th Mar 2016, 06:51

Sunny. Yes the proven system that is based on the one being used in North America with 30 times the amount of traffic in about the same land area. Yes. Thirty times.

I love the plan. Resist change in every way you can and then say it's now so long delayed we need to design a new system. That will take years and then you resist that.

Go flying in North America including the huge areas of Canada with no surveillance and " free in G" IFR flying at no cost with never an accident.

And multicoms that work even at airports that are not marked on charts. And not a frequency boundary marked on a chart.

The NAS is still the best in the world. But keep resisting copying the best while you destroy our aviation industry. Keep your mind closed. Let's get the people at CASA who have been re writing the regs for 20 years to do the new airspace plan- now that will stop any change.

Pinky the pilot

13th Mar 2016, 06:59

3 VHF freqs 'surplus to requirements', so these were allocated to 'Flightwatch'.

Ah yes, Flightwatch VHF frequencies....

I will admit that it was now just over 11 years ago when I last flew a certain mail run as second pilot (with a great bunch of Blokes and one great Sheila!:ok:) and the number of times we attempted to contact Flightwatch on the published VHF frequency when we were in range, were numerous.

Not once did we ever get a reply! Always had to go back to HF.:hmm:

Cheers Griffo.

Dick Smith

13th Mar 2016, 07:12

Griffo. You say " the above frequency congestion was well flagged"

Only by people like you who would not accept that there was no need for VFR aircraft to make announcements on ATC frequencies.

You are obviously one of the people behind the scenes driving the present CASA requirement that is opposed by every RAPAC.

For a start Mark Skidmore has said there is no frequency congestion . So the Sheffield deal may not have happened.

And if the NAS was followed all of these unmarked airports would operate on the multicom of 126.7 and there would not be a problem.

Remember the man in charge of airspace at CASA , mr Peter Cromarty is ex British CAA , which has undoubtedly the worst airspace allocation in the world .

Imagine. A decision is made to go to the NAS which is closely based on the North American system so they put someone on from the UK and can't work out why nothing happens!

Eyrie

13th Mar 2016, 07:16

Well Griffo, you just demonstrated that you never understood the 2003 NAS procedures.
Listen on the local CTAF's and/or 126.7 while enroute.
I always found that I had much better situational awareness of important things that I might need or like to know that way.
It wasn't difficult but many just COULD NOT get their minds around no area frequencies for VFR.
Then in the first month or so after the 2003 intro, the ATC people managed to create 2 "incidents" that weren't, out of whole cloth.
However do those silly cowboy Americans ever manage to fly cross country with their system?

Please don't say radar coverage as most of the VFR traffic isn't even required to have a transponder, even in Class E, below 10,000 feet.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

13th Mar 2016, 07:19

G'day Pinky,

I can't say 'for sure' why that was the case, but can only guess that you were actually on an ATC freq addressing the call to 'Flightwatch', in which case, the ATCer (or 'es) would have answered your FW request 'when workload permits'.....

More important 'core business' first, and we all understand that.

The call on HF was, at that time, a dedicated 'FW' HF function at a separate console, I would imagine.

I am not 'current' on what it is these days.....
Perhaps one of our 'usual suspects' can answer that.

Cheers:ok:
PUT THAT 'RED' DOWN....YOU Don't know where its been.....
:p

Dick Smith

13th Mar 2016, 07:20

Most importantly. The FAA has installed over 600 ADSB ground stations with coverage down to 1000 agl over 90% of the land area .

When their very reasonable ADSB mandate comes in in 2020 are they going to have to change the NAS?

No. Because it's designed to work with modern survailance .

How can it possibly work without any ATC frequency boundaries marked on the charts so pilots at non mapped airports know which ATC frequency to jam when they are giving circuit and taxiing calls? It's all very mysterious!

But we certainly would not want to copy or even ask how it works. Remember we designed the Nomad. They designed the 747 and the Space Shuttle

Lead Balloon

13th Mar 2016, 07:21

[J]ust because you didn't get booked doesn't mean that you understood all the local rules, that you didn't break the rules, that you weren't unsafe and that you didn't cause an accident.Sounds like the logic AVMED uses to discriminate against pilots with CVD. Everything is twisted so as to support the foregone conclusion.

Amazing the amount of international travel Dick has done without being caught for breaking the local rules of which he wasn't aware, or caught for causing an accident. I suppose we should construe that as meaning other countries don't have effective compliance and enforcement systems? One wonders how the rest of the planet survives. :rolleyes:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

13th Mar 2016, 07:30

Hi Dick,

Re "Only by people like you who would not accept that there was no need for VFR aircraft to make announcements on ATC frequencies."

Nope! Not me your honour...

And I ain't working 'behind the scenes' either.

I used to be on the WA RAPAC, but not since the year 2000.

(Redundo....TA!)

But, the situation remains, that IF a pilot requires 'assistance', weather, or some other Flight Info, then besides the ATC freq., what else?

Cheers

And, as an aside..... Re "You are obviously one of the people behind the scenes driving the present CASA requirement that is opposed by every RAPAC."
HA HA HA HA HA

Thanks again for the redundo.......

AmarokGTI

13th Mar 2016, 08:02

The only time I have ever found an issue (I operate multi engine IFR turboprop into CTAFs daily) is when people use the CTAF as a chat frequency, or when people stupidly give inaccurate position information.

Arm out the window

13th Mar 2016, 08:04

Yet more Dick Headlines, hooray.

a fly in at an unmarked airfield

A fly-in would imply quite a few aircraft turning up. If the airfield wasn't marked on charts, and the organisers of the fly-in knew that, then it was irresponsible of them not to foresee that there would be a lot of calls on the area frequency and to arrange alternative procedures. Immediate thoughts that spring to mind:

a) Be smart enough to inform those attending to use either 126.7 or the numbers so as to avoid such a debacle, or

b) if there was any confusion about what should be done and fear of recriminations about being on 'unauthorised frequencies', get onto CASA or Airservices and ask them what they'd like done! Or is that too much like rocket science?

It appears ATC could not cope with the calls

Jeez, that's a surprise, a heap of unexpected traffic because of a fly-in whose organisers didn't think to make provisions for getting them on a more appropriate frequency, who'd have thought?

I wonder how long the military mentality in CASA of protecting those who have made a mistake will last?

Clearly a military issue - if I was you, I'd start up a campaign to stop young people joining the services. This is continuing brilliant stuff from you, Dick, do keep it coming.

Dick Smith

13th Mar 2016, 08:30

Arm. It's not smart for organisers to advise pilots not to comply with a CASA wind back requirement that was actually sent out in a special notam.

They would most likely end up with a prosecution.

You are suggesting this could be solved by lots of discussion/ approvals from CASA.

Why not support that we go back to the Aus NAS requirement of using the multicom at these un mapped airports.

Then that would require the leadership at CASA to say an error had been made.

Aussie Bob

13th Mar 2016, 08:36

AOTW, you are merely guessing. In fact the organisers had a great handle on the event. A NOTAM was applied for to list the ALA and fly in. It was requested that the NOTAM nominate 126.7. The NOTAM was raised but CASA refused to list 126.7 as the preferred frequency on the NOTAM or agree that its use would be prudent.

While it was tempting for the organisers to use 120.7 and thus block ATC transmissions at YDPO and further afield all day , it was decided to use 126.7 regardless which was technically illegal and contrary to what CASA suggested. Unfortunately this lead to aircraft arriving on both frequencies because it was impossible to anticipate just who was coming and get the news to everybody. If there had been an incident, I am sure some awkward questions would have been asked

If you call that a satisfactory outcome, I would tend to disagree with you.

BTW around 50 aircraft flew in and the organisation was impeccable.

Arm out the window

13th Mar 2016, 08:36

Why wouldn't they call the local CASA FOI and say "We're having a fly-in, expect a lot of aircraft, should be a fair bit of congestion on the area freq so how about we use an alternative frequency, we suggest 126.7."

That would have been smart, and to not do so is either showing lack of foresight, or an intention to deliberately overload the frequency in order to highlight the issue. You wouldn't have had anything to do with it I suppose?

Edit: Sorry Aussie Bob, I replied about half a second after you did. If CASA refused to be sensible about it, well fair enough, they're in the wrong.

Aussie Bob

13th Mar 2016, 08:44

AOTW I can assure you a huge effort was made to make 126.7 the frequency and it fell on deaf ears. The request was both verbally and in writing, made in plenty of time prior to the event.

In fact, overloading the system was what CASA seemed to think was correct.

Arm out the window

13th Mar 2016, 08:49

Yep, understood - that's just a crazy decision by whoever at CASA responded to the request.

Trevor the lover

13th Mar 2016, 09:30

Dick

I had 13 years in the military, and I have now had 20 years experience outside the military. I have had a FRIGGIN GUTFUL of you bashing the military every time you post here. What has a fly in in Tassie got to do with the Military???????? Nufn. But you shove in a military bash anyway.

The RAAF was the most professional and competent unit with the best and most dedicated people I have ever been associated with.

I have been BOTH a military and civvie aviator. You have not.

Next time you bash the military on here with useless, childish and irrelevant rubbish, I'm gunna come round and punch you in the head. I am sick of your offensiveness.

Trevor the fighter

Dick Smith

13th Mar 2016, 09:46

Trevor. Why after 30 years can't the military copy the best from around the world and put in some tower airspace at Willy and allow their controllers to use proper skills as they do in North America.

I happen to believe our Aussie military controllers are as capable as those overseas. it's just the pathetic leadership that can't make any changes at all.

Why can't they use D airspace when there is no military traffic? They simply can't make any change decisions at all. They sent those five to their deaths and it will happen again unless I and others can get in some change.

Notice how not one named military Controllor is ever a spokesman- it's because the system is designed to make sure no one is ever held accountable.

I will get more and more major media coverage on this. Now talking to 60 Minutes.

I see similarities with Cardinal Pell. Always protect the system if you are in charge. Never ever do what is ethical.

Biggles_in_Oz

13th Mar 2016, 10:32

Seems to me that someone is hankering for a seat in one of the parliaments.

Lead Balloon

13th Mar 2016, 10:38

Dick

The current frequency arrangements for aerodromes that are not marked on charts have nothing to do with the preferences of ex-military personnel. You really do need to get that through your head, because alienating and angering a bunch of ex-military people is not doing your cause any good.

Your blaming the military is like your spelling of "rediculous": Patently wrong.

AOTW

Many of your genuinely well-meaning posts demonstrate how cut off you are from the way the system works for the mere private citizen. You'd think that getting a strip marked on a chart would be easy - after all, that is, apparently, why people have a legal obligation to have (and pay for) the current charts, and why there is a bureaucracy set up to produce those charts. You'd also think that getting a NOTAM published with a discrete frequency for a fly-in activity would be easy. And you'd think if such a NOTAM were published you could rely on most people to read, understand and comply with it.

Unfortunately, that's not the way it works for the plebs who presume to believe that they are entitled to a service in return for their income tax, fuel excise and GST, among other costs. The system is now so broken and confusing that most people just use the Mike Sierra Uniform procedure. A wonderful consequence of over 20 years and over 200 million of 'reform' down the gurgler.

All in the name of 'safety' of course. :ugh:

Pinky the pilot

13th Mar 2016, 10:47

Seems to me that someone is hankering for a seat in one of the parliaments.

Well Biggles, I wouldn't necessarily see that as a bad thing M'self.:ooh:

Purely, for what I consider a self evident reason; Aussie Airspace and GA in general are f:mad:d and in desperate need of decent and sensible reform.:ugh:

The current Administration of this have shown themselves time and time again, incapable of carrying out this reform.:yuk:

Whether this is due to pure incompetence, ignorance, arrogance or malicious intent is for others far more educated in the subject than I to decide.:confused:

All I know is that Aussie Aviation, especially GA, need a voice somewhere in the halls of power that can be heard by even the most deaf of those in Government.:=

Currently, we do not have that voice.

Arm out the window

13th Mar 2016, 10:54

LB, I'm far from cut off from the system - I fly in CTAFs and G every work day in GA aircraft and have also been on both sides of the dreaded military / civil fence for years each side, so I'm just speaking from my own point of view.

Dick's flagrantly provocative anti-military stance is becoming more and more annoying and just serves to piss people like me off! Aussie Bob explained the situation clearly, and I'm well on side with the idea that what happened wasn't right.

I never mentioned the difficulty or otherwise of getting an airstrip published on charts, never tried to do it, but if model aircraft flying fields and hang gliding areas can crack a mention on VTCs and the like I'm stuffed if I know why they would refuse to put a well-used airfield on.

fujii

13th Mar 2016, 11:00

Dick,

Isn't it time you turned on your spell checker?
survailance, rediculous, Cardinel.

Lead Balloon

13th Mar 2016, 11:09

All safety has to be affordable, Sunny. That's why the response to the Germanwings tragedy wasn't a requirement for a third pilot with duty time in every cockpit to cover when the PIC or copilot go to the toilet, or an AD requiring that cockpit doors be moved backwards so that the toilet is secure to the crew.

An easily foreseeable risk - another 150 or so dead people - yet the obvious mitigators of those risks have not been implemented. The reason is simple and stark: It's not a cost that's justified by the risk. In short, it's not "affordable".

Those who feed off the mystique of aviation need to realise that the only way to achieve perfect aviation safety is to ban it. At that point you're going to have to find some other fear to feed off.

Dick Smith

13th Mar 2016, 11:28

Fuji. Thanks. I think I fixed a few of the spelln arrows !
At least I can spell the airspace categories A to G !

Lead Balloon

13th Mar 2016, 11:29

I never mentioned the difficulty or otherwise of getting an airstrip published on charts, never tried to do it, but if model aircraft flying fields and hang gliding areas can crack a mention on VTCs and the like I'm stuffed if I know why they would refuse to put a well-used airfield on.QED.

You should try it some time. They won't "refuse". They just won't respond in a practicable way. It is, after all, "user pays", and private citizens don't pay income tax, fuel excise, GST or anything else for the "privilege" of flying.

One of the more bizarre interactions I've recently witnessed was the 'safety'-based refusal to establish a permanent broadcast frequency for the Lake Eyre region and all ERSA entries for airfields in that region, eventually and strangely followed by the establishment of a permanent broadcast frequency for the Lake Eyre region and a corresponding amendment to all ERSA entries for airfields in that region.

It just 'happened'. No acknowledgement that, upon reflection, the regulator and the ANSP realised they were just being mule stupid.

actus reus

13th Mar 2016, 12:16

Mr Smith,

I usually have some sympathy for what you say in that there is generally, in my opinion of course, some truth in what you say; however, you get too much collateral damage (oops a military term!).

You had TWO opportunities to fix this when you were in charge of CASA and its predecessor.

How did you go? Oh, I know, you blew up Flight Service in the name of NAS but somehow forgot that Flight Service that we used to have in OZ is exactly what you get in the US today.

Your rear guard attempt to rewrite your OWN history in this sorry mess is sad, sad, sad.

And I will say, I am ex-military and I firmly believe that you have NO IDEA what military flying requires: no idea, zilch, zero, nada.

You are right though, 'Sixty Minutes', that august source of nothing they do not spin for ratings or run with due to the 'celebrity' status of the source (not with everything but certainly in issues such as 'airspace' which the average punter could not give a toss about) is the way to 'fix' things.

Money does not equate to status in the aviation world. Unless of course you have to pay AsA their outrageous costs.

There we go; bring back Flight Service, that you removed, and use all your unquestionable influence and ability to get something into the press or onto TV about AsA and the 'user pays' model they seem to be welded to and do some good.

Stop knocking the military; otherwise they actually might take you seriously.

Lead Balloon

13th Mar 2016, 12:25

Dick was never in charge. He was duchessed into believing he was in charge, in the interests of political expediency.

5 minutes of research into the powers of the Chairman of the CASA Board is instructive. :ok:

actus reus

13th Mar 2016, 13:17

Capn Bloggs

13th Mar 2016, 13:27

I go away flying for a day (bossing about GA in a CTAF, Leddie, you would have had an apoplexy!!) and come back to this!! Needless to say, Dick, you're still full of it. :) :}

Howabout

13th Mar 2016, 14:40

Once again, the insulting innuendo with no basis in fact. As I said on the other thread, the PIC had choices and didn't exercise them.

They sent those five to their deaths....

Your use of the word 'sent' is deliberate - I know that, and I know that it's for PR purposes. Nonetheless, IMHO, it's dishonest, and implies to the unwashed that the RAAF 'controlled' and, therefore, 'directed' the aircraft over the Barrington Tops; rather than the PIC making that decision. The words 'sneaky,' 'underhanded,' 'manipulative,' 'disingenuous,' 'opportunistic,' 'manic,' and 'possessed' all come to mind; along with a long list of other synonyms. But that's just my opinion.

I will get more and more major media coverage on this. Now talking to 60 Minutes.

Good luck with that one. 60 Minutes these days has about as much credibility as those breakfast shows that are fluff. In any event, your potential bogan audience will probably prefer be tuned in to some reality TV show on cooking, surviving in the jungle, or seeing what the Kardashians are up to.

You still have potential for good, Dick. But you just continually screw it with emotive scare campaigns!

Ex FSO GRIFFO

13th Mar 2016, 15:05

Hey Dick,

I just 'HAD' to go and post a 'p.s.' to post #20....
A bit (LOT) 'presumptious' of ya mate, I s'pose I should appreciate the 'compliment'.
And, after trying a glass or two of red - just like someone else I know - I just thought I should thank you.

But, alas, I canna claim na fame for recent RAPAC etc etc

I gotta good laugh however......

Cheers:ok:

actus reus

13th Mar 2016, 17:11

Mr Smith,
You have done some amazing things yourself as a pilot and I am the first to congratulate you on your ability to continue through what must have been some very 'puckering' moments.

However, if your 'day' job is teaching people how to do high angle, dive bombing at night from the back seat of a fighter, then you can get that 'pucker' factor without any fanfare at all.

RAAF ATCs come to the fore when there are MULTIPLE aircraft, most of which have no gas, all trying to land ASAP; something that I know civilian ATCs can handle (many of those boys and girls are ex military anyway) but they are not called on to do it often if at all. They have other challenges which I guess are equally demanding at times.

The 'management' in the military is not the problem. It is 'attitude', the approach to getting the job done with the minimum of fuss, which most probably is the same in the civilian world, and an understanding of a 'duty of care'.
So, go ahead with knocking ATC/Military/lack of short cuts in Willy's airspace but leave the people out of it: including senior management of the RAAF.

Bloggs,
How do you think any 'lead' would go on a dark night at Saltash or the shooting world?

In the civilian realm, most probably only AG pilots, particularly those who do night spraying on cotton or some such, would know how 'exciting' a day to day job can be.

No elitism intended here; aviation is tricky from the air and from the ground (ATC). We all do our best.

Get that on 'sixty minutes'.

Sunfish

13th Mar 2016, 21:04

Trevor:

The RAAF was the most professional and competent unit with the best and most dedicated people I have ever been associated with.

With respect, Trevor, "competence", "professional" and "dedicated" are irrelevant to this discussion for obvious reasons that I don't need to go into.

What I think Dick is talking about is a well known and highly dangerous and unique military mind set that is extremely resistant to change in any form and regards any disagreement by anyone as disloyalty, sedition, disobedience or outright treason, and therefore deserving of punishment. We are not talking about the personal attributes of individuals. Furthermore this mindset is exclusive to the military and has no "civilian" counterpart except perhaps in the imagined behaviour of very senior judges.

I have personally seen that mindset exhibited by RAAF officers outside the service and it is extremely unpleasant to observe. If this type of ex officer inhabits CASA then we are in deep trouble and people will eventually lose their lives because of it.

Furthermore, the behaviour I characterised above is a very well known military problem that has gotten a great many soldiers, sailors and aviators killed in a variety of wars.

Tp put that another way Trevor, "loyalty", "professionalism" and "dedication" have combined many times to frustrate efforts by experienced and knowledgeable subordinates to change the disastrous course of action taken by senior military officers in many campaigns and if CASA staff value those traits above the application of sound common senses proposed by Dick Smith then we are in very dangerous waters.

To put that yet another way Trevor, get a copy of "The Rules Of The Game" by Andrew Gordon and read about the Royal Navy and the problems from about 1870 to this day of the military mind coping with technological change and the tug of war between the desirable character traits of "Obedience" and "Initiative".

Disclaimer: my DIL is RAAF and she and her service sisters are wonderful, as are many of the fine RAAF gentlemen I know.

itsnotthatbloodyhard

13th Mar 2016, 21:40

Sunfish, do you have any idea how much the RAAF has changed in recent years, both culturally and technologically? Anyone who left 15 or 20 years ago, as I did, would barely recognise the place now. Perhaps, in doggedly sticking to your preconceived notions, you are resisting change yourself.

Dick: Endlessly repeating an untrue assertion does not make it true. It just makes you serially dishonest. If you keep it up on your forthcoming Major Publicity Campaign, then you deserve to be bitten on the arse for it.

Arm out the window

13th Mar 2016, 21:56

Sunfish, you may well have seen ex-military people exhibiting a change-resistant mindset, as we all have I'm sure, but your assertion that this trait is unique to the services is ludicrous. Any group has its share of them.

Sunfish

13th Mar 2016, 21:59

..And back on topic. I now live pretty much under TOD for YMML. The suggestion that I use the area frequency for my bug smashing pursuits would be dangerous fortunately there is a local airstrip with a designated CTAF not too far away so I just call on that.

Sunfish

13th Mar 2016, 22:17

AOTW, I disagree, this "change resistant mindset" is a purely military phenomenon. There is no civilian counterpart. I will try to explain.

All military organisations rely on a structure of Officers and other ranks. The first and absolute requirement that is taught is "obedience to orders" of your superiors. There is absolutely no civilian organisational counterpart of this stricture in a democratic free market economy, ever.

It is drilled into the heads of every Officer and NCO that everything, including your very life, is subservient to the obedience of orders from a superior. This tension, between "orders" and "life" has been the subject of tens of thousands dramas since the dawn of time.

This is such a basic requirement that we later have to try and beat it out of some officers because we want them to show something called "initiative" not blind dumb obedience.

…So we then take an authoritarian ( in peacetime the authoritarians control the defence forces) officer who is used to being obeyed without question by his deemed subordinates and shove him in a civilian business environment where not only is there not a rigid hierarchy like she was used to, but people actually answer back! The horror! Quite a few cannot stand this and then seek to remould the organisation to their alma mater, chiefly by hiring their friends who have the same traits, being part of the same club.

Needless to say, if folk with this personality inhabit CASA then Dick is absolutely right to criticise the CASA culture.

I worked for Two of these military types at different times. It was an extremely unpleasant experience and of course entirely unproductive for the organisations concerned. Both of them presided over businesses that should have thrived except for their resistance to any form of change.

Capn Bloggs

13th Mar 2016, 23:56

If if if...
if folk with this personality inhabit CASA then Dick is absolutely right to criticise the CASA culture.

if CASA staff value those traits above the application of sound common senses proposed by Dick Smith then we are in very dangerous waters.

Dick Smith

13th Mar 2016, 23:56

Sunfish. You have explained the problem as I have experienced it over the past 30 years.

And it's holding back Australian aviation because many of the people with this military indoctrination have infiltrated the civil side.

All so sad- all they had to do was search around the world and copy the procedures that give the required level of safety at the lowest cost.

Arm out the window

14th Mar 2016, 00:57

This is such a basic requirement that we later have to try and beat it out of some officers because we want them to show something called "initiative" not blind dumb obedience.

Who's this 'we'? You're the voice of sweet reason, eh?

I understand that you want to put across the point that ex-military people don't understand the real world, and that only non-military and therefore 'real' people can understand, but that is such patent bull that only those wanting to jump on the RAAF-bashing wagon will swallow it, no matter how many times you and Dick repeat it.

You've had a few run-ins with ex military types? Well, me too, but just as many with similarly pig-headed people who never wore a uniform. One trait of most ex-military pilots and air traffickers I know is that they're generally (and there are exceptions of course) reliable, honest and have integrity. Perhaps if you don't get on with them, you might want to have a look in the mirror!

We can get into another to-and-fro match if you like, but your modus operandi is to make a bunch of sweeping pronouncements and then disappear when you get cornered in a logical argument, so perhaps not.

Arm out the window

14th Mar 2016, 01:04

The first and absolute requirement that is taught is "obedience to orders" of your superiors. There is absolutely no civilian organisational counterpart of this stricture in a democratic free market economy, ever.

This is a pearler too - what about the obedience to the boss (or at least the appearance of same), or get the sack! It seems you may not have spent much time in GA companies yourself if you haven't seen that one happen time and again!

Dick Smith

14th Mar 2016, 01:31

The best change agent I ever had working for me at CAA was head of regulatory reform Ron Cooper.

Ron was ex RAAF and was responsible for amazing changes that saved the industry tens of millions of dollars.

So there are certainly ex military people who will both support and instigate change.

Just don't seem to be any in positions of influence at the present time.

cogwheel

14th Mar 2016, 02:05

I believe Dick may be referring to the officer presently in charge of procedures - a former RAAF navigator.

Aussie Bob

14th Mar 2016, 02:49

So, ... If I organise a fly in at an ALA, not on the charts, where the area frequency should be used and I change procedures myself and tell everyone to use 126.7 to save area frequency congestion, am I breaking the rules?

In short, a few posting here would encourage me to do just this but my belief is that doing this is currently in contravention of some piece of legislation.

My next question is, if I can break this rule, surely I can break any rule if I think it operationally expedient or just plain common sense.

Finally, if it is simply common sense, does this make me immune from prosecution if it goes pear shaped?

CaptainMidnight

14th Mar 2016, 03:05

If AIP says to do one thing and you tell people to do something else, then yes they would be in contravention of AIP.

For fly-ins where a large number of aircraft are expected and the likelihood of increased chatter on an FIA is likely and thereby present a problem to other airspace users, the procedure is to do what I note the organisers apparently attempted to do i.e.

contact their local CASA office and request a NOTAM be published and in particular a tempo CTAF allocation (there are specific frequencies reserved for airshows/fly-ins).

Now, in the case of this particular fly-in, why whoever in CASA refused the latter aspect is probably subject to an internal "please explain" :)

It makes me wonder if the local CASA (VIC/TAS) office was involved, or instead CASA"s Office of Airspace Regulation.

Aussie Bob

14th Mar 2016, 03:14

Captain: CASA's explanation is that they have no power whatsoever to write exemptions against the directions given in the AIP. Therefor, no exemptions can be given for an ALA to nominate a frequency in contravention to the AIP instructions.

Simply put, no matter what the case may be, they cannot do it.

Aussie Bob

14th Mar 2016, 03:17

I should add to the above, if everyone at this ALA complied with the AIP, something would have been done by now. As well as the fly in, this ALA has recently been a major bush fire base with literally thousands of movements over a period of 6 weeks, all in contravention to the AIP.

Therefor, the question remains, if we can break this rule, what others can we break with impunity.

CaptainMidnight

14th Mar 2016, 03:23

Interesting.

The procedure I outlined is what they have been doing for years all over the country, tempo CTAFs for both fly-ins and airshows.

Sounds like either a newbie who has NFI or someone being pedantic. They do have the authority - they are the airspace and safety regulator.

The next Henty field day will be ...... interesting.

Lead Balloon

14th Mar 2016, 03:24

Er, I think a look at Hansard may be enlightening.
I am talking about the CAA when Mr Smith was VERY involved; no?
THEN we have the CASA Board but that was the second time around when the current ACT was not the then ACT.I do have some insight into what the original Civil Aviation Act and every amendment since said and say about the powers of the Chairman when Dick was Chairman of the CAA and the Chairman of CASA. All of that legislation is available on line.

The Chairman does not have, and has never had, any regulatory powers. The very limited internal governance powers are there for anyone who can and wants to read them.

Dick has political power. Pollies don't want to get him offside. That's why they keep giving him toys to play with, while nodding and smiling and ignoring him. This year should therefore be interesting.

LeadSled

14th Mar 2016, 05:11

CASA's explanation is that they have no power whatsoever to write exemptions against the directions given in the AIP. Therefor, no exemptions can be given for an ALA to nominate a frequency in contravention to the AIP instructions.Aussie Bob,
Looks like CASA's internal training/indoctrination has gone to hell in a handbasket again.

If an AIP reference to an enabling regulation is involved, that AIP entry is, in simplistic terms, enforceable, but everything in the regulations can be subject to exemption by Legislative Instrument. Indeed, the same process has purportedly been used to create exemptions from provisions of the Act, a very "creative" legal process of, in my opinion, very doubtful legal provenance. But be clear, there is nothing restricting creation of LIs under the LI Act, nothing the least bit improper.

CASA has hundreds, maybe thousands of LIs in force at any one time.

The rest of the AIP is useful information, not holy writ --- but you would never know, the way some FOIs "enforce" the AIP. The bulk of the AIP is not L-A-W

Tootle pip!!

Aussie Bob

14th Mar 2016, 06:10

Which perhaps explains why CASA want applications in writing and give a phone answer in return.

Thanks Leady, but clear as mud to me, if I never pick up a CASA rule book again it will still be too soon.

Sunfish

14th Mar 2016, 06:19

AOTW:

I understand that you want to put across the point that ex-military people don't understand the real world, and that only non-military and therefore 'real' people can understand, but that is such patent bull that only those wanting to jump on the RAAF-bashing wagon will swallow it, no matter how many times you and Dick repeat it.

You've had a few run-ins with ex military types? Well, me too, but just as many with similarly pig-headed people who never wore a uniform. One trait of most ex-military pilots and air traffickers I know is that they're generally (and there are exceptions of course) reliable, honest and have integrity. Perhaps if you don't get on with them, you might want to have a look in the mirror!

We can get into another to-and-fro match if you like, but your modus operandi is to make a bunch of sweeping pronouncements and then disappear when you get cornered in a logical argument, so perhaps not.

But for your last sweeping statement about disappearing, I would have let your uninformed comments through to the keeper and gone back to topic, however you accuse me of not following through on my argument and in any case it is better to get what we mean by "Military attitude problem" , whether RAAF, Navy or Army) precisely clear.

We do NOT mean that the Officers concerned are not fine, honest, decent upstanding fellows you would buy a beer for.

What we are talking about is the necessary military requirement that requires unquestioning obedience to an order, even unto possible death. I served as a lowly Lieutenant and I can assure you every officer knows what is taught and it hasn't and can't change. Going into battle is not "optional" if you run away from the enemy you can even get courtmartialed. There is no civilian equivalent. Your boss might sack you yes, but he can't put you up against the wall and shoot you for cowardice.

So what we are talking about is a habitual obedience to people higher in the hierarchy than you are. Everyone in the services knows this and accepts it. Try walking with half your platoon behind you carrying enough explosives and ammo to level a city block, you better believe they obey you. There are no doubt exactly similar requirements for trust an obedience in the RAN and RAAF.

The problem, again well documented, comes when a senior officer makes a mistaken order or one that is just plain wrong or based on faulty information. You are still required to obey that order. I say again, disobedience is not optional (leave Nuremberg out of it) in the military if you query the order, attempt to argue for something else or dispute the utility of what you are told to do, then that is insubordination or worse even up to the possibility of being charged with mutiny. This is again documented. It takes great tact and very quick wits to perhaps save a senior officer from their mistake this is again well documented.

Thousands of troops and Naval ratings have died because officers decided to "follow orders" when it was blindingly obvious that the orders were wrong or counterproductive, but hey, the military is not a democracy!

What Dick Smith is alluding to is this habit among a percentage of senior military officers thrust into a non military environment of expecting obedience to their wishes from their imagined subordinates as if they are still in the military and equating any query, disagreement or challenge as a direct personal affront. I agree 100% with Dick on this because I've had the unfortunate honour of working for Two of them at different times and it is both unpleasant and inefficient with no good outcomes for anyone, least of all the organisation.

I am not saying that all ex military are this way inclined, far from it, but there are a certain percentage that will pine for the service they left and try and replicate it in the organisation they inhabit. This is the source of reference for remarks about "group captains clubs" and suchlike cliques and exclusive sets and its a rotten way of running an organisation if it occurs.

Arm out the window

14th Mar 2016, 06:54

I'm not sure why you feel I need educating about what military officers do and don't do, Sunfish - I was one for over 20 years, and amazingly have been able to function pretty well in civilian life for almost as long, both in business for myself and as an employee. My comments are far from uninformed.

Dick's numerous provocative threads about how the RAAF have stuffed up Australia's aviation systems, cannot think outside narrow boundaries, are blindly obedient and so on are simplistic, offensive and plain wrong in my view.

Your suggestion is fundamentally that military training to follow orders renders people incapable of not doing so when the situation calls for it. I'm sure that as a Lieutenant you would have known that if an order is unlawful, it is your duty not to follow it.

The argument being made by Dick, and backed up by you, is that somehow being ex-military means any CASA employees can't think for themselves, will defend the established order at any cost, and want to kill GA.

This is rubbish. Why don't I want to kill GA? I should, being an ex-military automaton, but strangely enough I'd like to see it flourish, as I'm sure do the majority of my 'kind' who may have made their ways into various jobs throughout the aviation industry.

As for your habit of spraying off a volley and disappearing, I stand by that assertion and will back it up with examples if you like.

Sunfish

14th Mar 2016, 09:21

Not disappearing AOTW. I didn't say ALL ex service people behave that way, only some, obviously not including you.

The phenomenon I speak of - a rigid military mind, not every military mind, trying to cope in a laissez faire private sector is what we are talking about and I stand by what I said - its not a pretty sight because the military mind is not very good at handling dualities and decision making under considerations of great uncertainty.

My suggestion is that you get a copy of "The Rules Of The Game" by Andrew Gordon that documents the struggle between authoritarians, Autocrats and technical specialists from about 1870 to the present day in the Royal Navy.

Suffice to say is that if there are ex RAAF authoritarians in CASA then they need to be discovered and removed. The Two I worked for were nasty pieces of work with closed minds. One destroyed a public company, the other thousands of aviation jobs via government.

As for disappearing, I've given you one reference. I don't expect to have to run a training course. Do your own research.

Aussie Bob

14th Mar 2016, 09:25

AOTW, if you look at politics, it is a bunfight run by bull****artists. Lies, untruths and innuendos are the language politicians speak. If you want to draw attention to anything political you proceed to sprout rubbish about it with a few half truths and a few facts thrown in.

I can't stand it, I have no interest in politics and I am not going there. I never vote.

That said, all Dick is doing is what 99% of politicians do worldwide. Single him out if you like, but he is no different than our elected and wannabe politicians and I wish he would join the political party (as an independent).

Arm out the window

14th Mar 2016, 10:14

Sunfish, you can invoke this cartoon military image all you like, and blame all the ills of the aviation world on it, but it's not helping anyone. If anything, military competence implies the antithesis of what you're saying - the ability to make decisions under conditions of great uncertainty, such as in times of conflict!

Anyway, you reckon ex-RAAFies have stuffed aviation, I don't, so perhaps we should just leave it there. I venture to say that if you sacked all these military people and replaced them with people from any other sector of the community, they wouldn't fare much differently, you just wouldn't have such a convenient handle with which to attack them.

Aussie Bob, yes, politicians live in a world of bull**** and media spin. That's the opposite of what I'd like to see but apparently we're stuck with it. However, if this is Dick's style of getting a message across there's no way I'd vote for him - it's blatant **** stirring in my book, not honesty, and he seems to just say any provocative thing to get a reaction, a bit like any publicity is better than none. Classic shock journalism - pose a provocative question, throw in a bit of suggestion and innuendo, but then when it comes down to it the real story is a disappointment after the hyped buildup.

Sunfish

14th Mar 2016, 11:15

Unfortunately AOTW, it is not a "cartoon military image" as thousands of accounts confirm, Gallipoli, the Somme and Jutland being proximate examples.

If these clowns inhabit CASA as Dick suggests, then we are in trouble. You are entitled to argue that robust CASA hiring practices exclude such folk, but not that they exist.

le Pingouin

14th Mar 2016, 14:17

Sunfish, you meet such people in all walks of life, they aren't limited to the RAAF.

Plazbot

14th Mar 2016, 15:29

I've seen it all now. The Somme > ?? > Demise of GA.... with the common factor being military 'minds'. You a$$hats have outdone yourselves this time.

Dick Smith

14th Mar 2016, 22:37

How come Sir Angus Houston supports the 1950s system where the Firies at places like Ballina are prevented from manning a Unicom like they do in North America?

It's all about protecting the " System" and the status quo.

He has been quoted in the media about this.

Ballina airport management now have a tender out for ATCs to provide a Unicom as a paid service.

The cost will be passed on to every pilot who uses the airport doing further damage to GA. The US does not have one Unicom operated by paid ATCs.

How come we have never trialled at least one non tower airport in Australia with class E to 700 agl? It's all about zero leadership and resisting change.

Who has been in charge of CASA for the last 15 years? You have it. - ex military people who clearly can't even think of leadership is testing just one airport with class E operated by existing en route controllers to see if it could work.

wishiwasupthere

14th Mar 2016, 22:48

I thought it was a 1930s system?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

14th Mar 2016, 23:40

Ballina airport management now have a tender out for ATCs to provide a Unicom as a paid service.

They are actually tendering for someone/anyone (generally only ATC or recently ex-ATC qualify for the licence provisions now) to provide a CAGRS, which is a whole different kettle of fish to a Unicom. And I'll bet that the tender cost will be recovered by user pays.
Why doesn't one of the local operators at Ballina provide a Unicom now? There is nothing stopping them. Wait...maybe because they see no value in it perhaps? So the alternative is basically forcing the AD operator to provide some sort of service, so of course they are going to recover their costs. After all, having any sort of ground to air service comms is not going to cause an increase in traffic into Ballina, so where is the cost benefit to the council? They will simply be providing additional services to people who would already be going there, even if that service wasn't there.

Capn Bloggs

15th Mar 2016, 00:03

How come we have never trialled at least one non tower airport in Australia with class E to 700 agl? It's all about zero leadership and resisting change.

How about you show us the cost-benefit first. I see elsewhere that Australian ATC's already control twice as much traffic as your beloved Yanks. Who's going to provide the approach services?

The US does not have one Unicom operated by paid ATCs.
Nor does Australia, nor will it...

Howabout

15th Mar 2016, 01:59

Good point on cost-benefit, Bloggs.

When I was still in the game, I advised the incoming GM of the OAR that the only way he was going to resist unrelenting pressure from 'Mr I Want' was to have an ironclad defence when it came to stuff like Senate Estimates. From my perspective, it was bloody obvious that some of these gormless politicians were being fed their lines.

I told the guy that no one would be able to take him down if his basis for justifying/rejecting airspace change was underpinned by two fundamentals - cost-benefit and risk analysis - and that he held firm in that respect. Logical, really. I'm sure you will agree!

That said, on the subject of Unicom, I reckon that a fair argument could be put for its introduction. Costs would be minimal, but benefits would need to be quantified formally, as opposed to 'I believe.'

Secondly, those proposing change, in my opinion, should be the ones to put their case forward with solid cost-benefit and risk analyses. There are some decent consultants around (I'm not one of them; I'm permanently retired) that could put together a credible argument for Unicom and submit same to the OAR. But it must be a formal submission with the 'i's dotted and the t's crossed. 'I want,' or 'I believe' is just not good enough.

Finally, Sunfish appears to me to have taken on the mantle of the 'wise philosopher.' Unfortunately, IMHO, he fails philosophy 101 in respect of the military having a 'unique mindset,' and blows his argument out of the water with that sweeping generalisation in one fell-swoop.

You see, Sunny, all arguments are based on underlying assumptions; otherwise it would not be an argument, it would be fact. If an underlying assumption is flawed, then the argument falls in a heap. I won't rehash what you've said previously; it's on the record. But check out the 'Church,' as one example, for some of those flaws you subscribe to the military as being 'unique.' Your underlying assumption is flawed. Consequently your argument don't amount to a hill a beans.

Lead Balloon

15th Mar 2016, 04:22

Regulatory arrangements based on cost-benefit and risk analyses? There's a novel proposition.

Proponents for change must provide the cost-benefit and risk analysis to justify the change? There's a political proposition. The status quo is treated as an objective truth - an approach that is, in effect, merely an appeal to authority. "Someone in authority made the rules, so the rules must be OK because why else would that someone have been given authority to make the rules?"

I'd be interested in your thoughts, Howabout, about how pilots with CVD would go about changing CASA's return to the Middle Ages. Given that there is no material risk to which the regulator's approach to CVD is a rational response, there is no cost-benefit data to support the regulator's approach. How does one have a risk and cost/benefit based argument with an authority that simply sticks its fingers in its ears and chants: "lah lah lah lah lah lah lah"?

How is it that the arrangements in first world aviation countries, facilitating movements of traffic at volumes that would cause most of the staff of the government alphabet aviation agencies in Australia to adopt the foetal position, are not evidence of the efficacy of those arrangements?

It may be that those arrangements would require more tarmac and more resources to work equally effectively in Australia. If that's true, let's hear that as a response to Dick's arguments.

We all know Dick's off with the fairies with some of his arguments. (My favourite is his assertion that millions were "saved" by "the industry" as a consequence of the reforms that have occurred over the last couple of decades. What actually happened was that the consolidated revenue that was otherwise paying for aviation infrastructure as a public good is now being p*ssed up against the wall by profligate governments.) But let's not join him at the bottom of the garden. Let's instead identify the objective increases in risk or the objective increases in costs that are not justified by what he's advocating.

For instance, any objection to making the RFFS at Ballina a CAGRO is merely a demarcation issue. A mere relic of Australia's 1970s industrial relations arrangements. There is no objective risk or cost/benefit objection. It's just politics, plain and simple.

Capn Bloggs

15th Mar 2016, 04:57

It may be that those arrangements would require more tarmac and more resources to work equally effectively in Australia. If that's true, let's hear that as a response to Dick's arguments.
No, that's Dick's job! He wants more service, he can 1/prove it will cost the same and if not, 2/will improve safety so much that the extra cost will be justified. If you want change, it is up to you to justify it, not for the incumbent to justify the status quo! You could have every crackpot wally shooter's party nut demanding this and that with the system then being tied up in knots probably for nothing. In the eyes of the majority, the law was not an ass when it was passed. It may be an ass now, but it not up to the current rulers to justify. It is up to the change-merchants to justify a change, not the other way around.

Dick's not making arguments, he's demanding, with no justification apart from the old mantra "this is the way they do it in the USA".

For instance, any objection to making the RFFS at Ballina a CAGRO is merely a demarcation issue. A mere relic of Australia's 1970s industrial relations arrangements. There is no objective risk or cost/benefit objection. It's just politics, plain and simple.
Sounds impressive, LB, but it's irrational. Do you think training anybody to CAGRO standard is cost-neutral? Demarcation dispute...between whom? ATC? Do they want to put in a tower so are blocking a CAGRO? That ain't gunna happen because CASA (created by Dick, IIRC) has clear establishment criteria and it doesn't make the grade. A relic?? There is a cost objection for a CAGRO, I will give Dick that much. He wants Joe Bloggs "who might be on the airport" to provide critical info to RPT jets carrying 100+ punters because it won't cost. Surprising coming from an ex-businessman who would be keen to have his airport workers doing work for him instead of being untrained pseudo ATCs. CASA quite rightly has requirements for people passing operational info, and so it should. This costs money.

peuce

15th Mar 2016, 05:06

For instance, any objection to making the RFFS at Ballina a CAGRO as well is merely a demarcation issue. A mere relic of Australia's 1970s industrial relations arrangements. There is no objective risk or cost/benefit objection. It's just politics, plain and simple.

Perhaps a bit of a generalisation in itself?

I haven't done one, and perhaps no one has....but I daresay a risk analysis of the Firies doing CAGRO may uncover a few worries. A few things that pop into my mind:

Increased training = increased fatigue
Increased time concentrating and listening out for radio calls = less time available for fire fighting training and development
Increased time managing a potential complex communication exchange during an emergency = less time available to put out fires = more staff required

I'm sure there's more.
My point is...it's possibly not as simple or clear cut as it may seem.

Howabout

15th Mar 2016, 05:39

LB,

CVD, and the approach to it, in my opinion, is stupid.

But that has nothing to do with this topic.

There must be a rational, facts-based system for change. Otherwise it will always be opinion and the 'might is right' path. What else would you suggest?

Allowing someone to dictate change based on emotion and opinion?

What we have ain't perfect, but it's a damned sight better than 'I want.'

Sunfish

15th Mar 2016, 09:31

Howabout:

Finally, Sunfish appears to me to have taken on the mantle of the 'wise philosopher.' Unfortunately, IMHO, he fails philosophy 101 in respect of the military having a 'unique mindset,' and blows his argument out of the water with that sweeping generalisation in one fell-swoop.

You see, Sunny, all arguments are based on underlying assumptions; otherwise it would not be an argument, it would be fact. If an underlying assumption is flawed, then the argument falls in a heap. I won't rehash what you've said previously; it's on the record. But check out the 'Church,' as one example, for some of those flaws you subscribe to the military as being 'unique.' Your underlying assumption is flawed. Consequently your argument don't amount to a hill a beans.

You are showing your complete ignorance of anything to do with the military mind as documented in thousands of texts.

As far as "unique mindset" I am referring to the requirement for obedience unto death. That is everything and there is no civilian equivalent.

I have referred to again a well documented military mindset resulting from the latter which regards anything other than unquestioning obedience to the wishes of a senior officer as a crime. This is again we'll documented.

Further documentation is provided by the endless stream of papers attempting to reconcile obedience to orders with "initiative - which b definition may include disobedience of orders.

I have therefore made the less than stellar deduction that if CASA employes any of the latter mindset that we are in trouble.

That we are in trouble is already documented in the Forsyth review.

To put it another way; the Navy does not assert a right to control navigation in Australias maritime zone, nor do former naval persons infest our maritime authorities.

On a personal note; The Army and Navy ( including naval aviation) in my experience get on famously and I have the headaches to prove it. Why did I leave the odd RAAF dining in night with both a headache and a feeling that i was watching a variety of axes being ground? However my argument is not based on these personal perceptions, there is a wealth of military scholarly work on the subject of dealing with military officers who are convinced beyond reason that its there way or the highway..

---and there are tens of thousands of dead to illustrate each case.

actus reus

15th Mar 2016, 13:02

Plazbot,
You got it 100% correct.

The thing that seems to me to be missing is the simple issue of 'personal responsibility'.

It is everyone else's fault and now, as the options to find someone to blame and the available patsies are rapidly running out, we have decided that it is the 'military mind' that is at fault.

FFS

gerry111

15th Mar 2016, 13:44

Sunfish,

May I commend an interesting book for you to read? It has lots about the Battle of the Somme in 1916. The book is: "Gas! The story of the Special Brigade." by Major General C.H. Foulkes. (My paternal grandfather was a Cpl member). They were the British army guys who did the gas plumbing and gas attacks on the Western Front. (All the Special Brigade Corporals were young guys who importantly had degrees in chemistry.) It was accepted then that most of the army troops came from rather poor, uneducated backgrounds. The troops were issued with gas masks but some of them thought that simply wearing them around their necks would suffice!

These Special Brigade people were recruited from the British Merchant Class. And were wisely rather dubious of the talents of the Upper Class from where the officers came.

My copy of the book was edited by my Grandfather long before he passed away in 1965. He certainly wasn't a "yes- man" for his bosses. (Indeed quite the opposite.) From my 12 year experience in the RAAF, Australians never simply blindly followed their leader there either. Leadership respect had to be earned.

Howabout

15th Mar 2016, 13:57

You are showing your complete ignorance of anything to do with the military mind as documented in thousands of texts.

Funny, Sunny. For a few moments there, I seemed to remember that I had 36 years (and eight days). 40 years tomorrow (St Pat's), since I walked in the gates. And I studied countless 'military texts' at Staff College.

So, yeah, Sport, I do have a bit of a clue!

'Obedience unto death?' There's a hoot. Get a commander that unnecessarily puts his peoples' lives at risk and his will be. That's reality.

In all my time, I dealt with rational, motivated and professional people that exercised logic. There were a few dickheads, for sure, but they were just reflective of wider society.

And, not finished yet - the Navy does not assert a right to control navigation in Australias maritime zone

Neither does the RAAF in the vast majority of Australian airspace. But I think you'll find that Navy does its bit, as well, in respect of national security and 'navigation.'

I remain stumped over your assertions regarding 'military incompetence' and Navy and Army getting on. Can't see the point there.

Look, and this is just a personal plea: if you are going to pontificate, will you please get your syntax in a pile?

'Australias maritime zone' and its there way or the highway..

For someone that seeks to lecture, your grammar sucks.

Sunfish

15th Mar 2016, 21:40

How nice for you Howabout not to have met any complete A Holes of the sort of which I speak and thank you for pointing out the spelling mistake, I blame auto complete for it.

I agree with you about Australian troops, I was taught the same thing. In infantry we were warned "if your platoon sergeant suggests you ask for a transfer….. do it".

However this does not change the fact that there is a type of military mind that does not make the transition from the services to civvy street very well.

The Two I had the displeasure of working for were both ex RAAF engineering officers. Both freely admitted they had joined to get a free degree. Both left early ( i.e. they didn't retire) and took their training with them. Both were humourless automatons with the personality of a North Korean border guard. Both were highly resistant to any form of innovation or change. Both expected that their orders were to be obeyed to the letter. Mentally they had never left the service. Needless to say, both were incompetent at what they were allegedly hired to do.

Unfortunately I think the problem may be more widespread in the RAAF so do some others, the RAAF F111 reseal/reseal program:

The F111 Deseal Reseal Board of Inquiry - Volume 1 (http://www.airforce.gov.au/docs/Volume1.htm)

Fuel tank workers worked under the threat of disciplinary action. As one said,

'I recall one of the fellows got his brother who worked in a lab in Melbourne to test it (SR51) and he was told to get out of the Section as quickly as possible. We accepted that opinion rather than the medical opinion, but there was little we could do about it because we were under strict orders. If we asked to be transferred we were told that we had to do our time, which was two years at that stage'2.

……….These perceptions were not unfounded. One worker who refused to re-enter the fuel tanks was charged with an offence, convicted and sentenced to seven days detention at Amberley4.

…..The traditional reaction of military organisations following safety failures is to hold an inquiry with the aim of seeing whether anyone is to blame. According to a Navy witness who gave evidence to the Board,

'This created a culture of punishment, where the essential theme was to identify and then to apportion blame, frequently to the last person in the chain of events. The underlying principle is that the threat of punishment influences Navy and individual behaviour to the extent that safety gains a higher priority'27.

However, a vital aspect of contemporary safety management is to encourage the reporting of near miss events and even violations of regulations which compromise safety, as was stressed in an earlier Chapter. Both Navy and Air Force (the Directorate of Flying Safety) are now giving prominence to the reporting of such incidents to facilitate organisational learning. A culture of blame suppresses reporting and makes such learning impossible. Both Navy and Air Force are therefore stressing the need for a no blame culture if reporting is to be encouraged.

[B]This raises the question of whether a no blame culture is consistent with the military discipline system. The Directorate of Flying Safety (DFS) has wrestled with this question and concluded that within a general no blame reporting culture there is still the possibility, indeed the desirability of taking disciplinary action for certain kinds of violations. Drawing on reason28, DFS advocates a 'substitution test',

'Is it likely that someone with the same training, experience etc would have made the same mistake (or violated procedures in the same way) given similar circumstances? If the answer is yes, the issue is more organisational/systemic, and therefore personal punishment is unlikely to be effective'29.

One implication of this principle is worth drawing out. The question is not simply whether a violation was deliberate or inadvertent. A violation may have been deliberate, but if others would have been likely to violate procedures in the same way, the violation should be regarded as system-induced and therefore not warranting punishment. Thus, if a worker takes a short cut in order to get the job done, and others are doing likewise, the substitution test requires that this be seen as a systemic matter. Again, if a worker fails to wear PPE, despite being instructed to, and others do likewise, the substitution test points to a systemic problem - the uncomfortable nature of the PPE, time constraints and so on.

At this point there is a striking and important convergence in approach with the discipline system. The Discipline Act provides30 that where a charge of negligent performance of duty arises, a service tribunal, in deciding whether the member behaved negligently, has regard to the standard of care of a reasonable person, which is assessed by having regard to the standard of care that would have been exercised by a reasonable person who was a member of the Defence Force with the same training and experience in the conduct which gave rise to the charge and engaging in the same conduct.

The Defence Force in its recently promulgated Prosecution Policy31 is sensitive to these issues and enables a prosecutor to take into account in effect the substitution test. It is also appropriate for the prosecutor to take into account whether disciplinary proceedings will have an adverse effect on the morale of a unit or are not in the interests of the service.

My comment: Now we know where CASA gets its punitive ideas - from former RAAF officers who rejected the current military discipline structures.

If you wish to read more, get a copy of "The rules of the game" by Andrew Gordon which details the management of the Royal Navy from 1870 to the something like the present day.

Also look for a copy of "On The Psychology Of Military Incompetence" by Norman Dixon.

These creatures do exist, hopefully not in great quantities, and if any are in CASA, as some suggest, thier presence is not beneficial.

buckshot1777

15th Mar 2016, 22:24

For instance, any objection to making the RFFS at Ballina a CAGRO is merely a demarcation issue.No, its not a demarcation issue.

Peuce is correct.

Airservices firies have gone through a selection and training process to fight fires, not to also provide an air traffic service.

What if individual firies don't want to perform a function they weren't hired for? What if during the training process they don't demonstrate the required skill or aptitude? What do you do with them? Some staff capable and some not?

Last we heard @ RAPAC early last year was that neither the firies or their union were interested in being obliged to provide even a UNICOM service.

As the man said:

My point is...it's possibly not as simple or clear cut as it may seem.

itsnotthatbloodyhard

15th Mar 2016, 22:43

Sunfish: these two ex-RAAF officers (a valid statistical sample?) that you repeatedly refer to, and who seem to have influenced your opinions so much - I'd assumed they were long-term careerists, deeply ingrained in the ways of the military. Now we find they left early and had never intended to make a career of it - yet we're expected to accept that they epitomise the 'military mind'? If you yourself left early and never intended to make a career of it, why do they exemplify the 'military mind' any more than you do?

I'm sure there are plenty of books on military cockups and incompetence. Equally, there are plenty of books on military successes and ingenuity, which are inconvenient to your generalisations and go unmentioned. Instead, we're to draw our conclusions on current military thinking and competence from what happened at the Battle of Jutland...

Seems to be a case of carefully selecting and moulding the facts to suit your personal prejudices.

Howabout

16th Mar 2016, 04:26

So it was someone else at fault?

..and thank you for pointing out the spelling mistake, I blame auto complete for it.Actually, there were three major syntactical cock-ups in what you wrote. If you want to pontificate, at least re-read what you have written before hitting send. Bad syntax just sticks you in the 'bogan bin,' in the company of the few emotive crack-pots that inhabit this forum.

That said, Sunny, some of your posts on other threads are worth bottling. But, for mine, you've let a puzzling bias cloud your judgement on this one. I cannot reconcile the rationality with the irrationality of having a seeming hate on for the military.

You just let yourself down with emotive sniping.

As pointed out by INTBH, picking out two opportunists to make your point does not a valid sample make. Opportunists are not confined to the military.

You paint us as a unique, myopic breed lacking vision - in short, automatons. I'd like to know where the pioneers that trail-blazed international air routes way back when aviation was in its infancy fitted that stereotype. The majority were ex-AFC, ex-RAAF, or still serving. Check out DCT Bennett and Smithy as regards courage, initiative and vision.

LeadSled

16th Mar 2016, 05:13

Check out DCT BennettHowabout et al,
You should do that, it will illustrate exactly what Sunny is talking about.

Read the book, Star Dust Falling, by Jay Rayner, where the intransigence of AVM Don Bennett, and the way he ran British South American Airways, where he was completely resistant to change (particularly changes such as the use of DF, much less ADF --- none of that Yankee horses----t) created disaster.

DR and Astro for navigation, nothing more.

Or read the accident reports on the losses of the BSAA aircraft, the Government inquiries, and the company finally going out of business, having first established a second to none history of losses of life that made it, by far, the most dangerous of the post-WWII British airlines.

Back in the day, (I still have mine) we all had to have a copy of "The Complete Air Navigator", the textbook for aviation astro-nav, but???

There is no question of Don Bennett's critical contribution in WWII, aka Pathfinder Bennett, and equally, there is no doubt about his disastrous contribution to civil aviation.

There is no equating those who serve in the military in wartime (or any time), and then move into successful aviation careers in the civil aviation field, and the type who moved directly from military retirement straight in a government civil administrative job, with little (generally nil) civil experience, and all too often a mindset that was variously skeptical, suspicious or downright anti "profit orientated commerce".

The general attitude that "commercial aviation" has to be rules with a rod of iron, because "civvies" will automatically cut corners at every chance, to minimise cost, and completely ignore the safety of the passengers is hardly unknown.

In short, the "military mind" that Sunny is talking about is completely distrustful of civil aviation, the civil approach to administration, and all those employed therein.

Of course this doesn't apply to the majority of military/ex-military persons, but it does apply to enough that it has been a long running disaster for civil aviation in Australia, right back to civil aviation administration in Australia commencing as a branch office of the Air Ministry, under the redoubtable command (yes, command) of one Lt.Colonel H.C.Brindsmead, OBE, MC, first "Controller of Civil Aviation".

Lookleft

17th Mar 2016, 03:21

Thats a very long bow you had to draw LS to go back to Don Bennett. Despite the alleged carnage those "dreadful" RAAF chappies have wreaked on the civil aviation scene you completely missed the contribution of those from the same background who set up QANTAS post-war (I'm sure you must have flown with a few of them) and those who established TAA. I'm also certain that there wasn't an ex-RAAF member at the helm of Ansett as it was driven into the ground.

I have certainly met some who have virtually stated word for word your comment:

The general attitude that "commercial aviation" has to be rules with a rod of iron, because "civvies" will automatically cut corners at every chance, to minimise cost, and completely ignore the safety of the passengers is hardly unknown..

One bloke I came into contact with stated that it should be illegal to fly between Cowra, Young and Cootamundra without an autopilot even though bank runners were doing it day in and day out without any problems. I have also come into contact with absolute gentlemen who understood the different nature of civil and military aviation.

I would suggest that it is not their background that makes for the wrong sort of person in CASA but that it is their personality. Maybe CASA should introduce some form of psychometric testing to find those with the appropriate temperament to do the job.

gerry111

17th Mar 2016, 11:18

Lookleft wrote:

"I'm also certain that there wasn't an ex-RAAF member at the helm of Ansett as it was driven into the ground."

I agree that is correct.

But I wonder what Gary Twomey has gone on to do?

Howabout

17th Mar 2016, 11:56

Leady,

Off thread, I know, but Bennett didn't seem to do too bad with his DR/Astro when he flew the London/Jo'Burg route. Never been done before.

He was, I'm sure you know, classed as a 'Master Navigator.'

This is probably a topic for a 'non-combative' discourse, and I certainly did not know he was resistant to DF/ADF.

But maybe there is a loose (loose) parallel in a distrust of automation in the current age as regards an inability to hand-fly and just hit VNAV at 1500 in the climb.

Modernity is all fine and beaut, but I wonder about the basic skills that you and your compatriots had and whether there is not a (tenuous) connection.

Do you think there's anyone around today that could replicate Gordon Vette's effort?

Right, or wrong, maybe Bennett dreaded a degradation in what he regarded in his age as a threat to the fundamentals. Who knows? And no argument.

That said, I will attempt to source that book on Amazon in my dotage.

Cheers

LeadSled

17th Mar 2016, 13:29

Thats a very long bow you had to draw LS to go back to Don BennettFolks,
I didn't bring up Pathfinder Bennett, that was somebody else; but the terrible record of BSAA is a matter of fact, as was his refusal to fit anything in the way of avionics aids to the aircraft.
As I said, he made Sunny's point.
The official inquiries were unequivocal about his approach to operations, and their contribution to the loss of aircraft and lives.
Lookleft,
Once again, read and understand what I have actually said, not what you want me to have said.
who set up QANTAS post-war

What are you on about, Qantas has been around since about 1922, and started international services in the mid-1930s.
Tootle pip!!

itsnotthatbloodyhard

17th Mar 2016, 14:30

Quote:
who set up QANTAS post-war

What are you on about, Qantas has been around since about 1922, and started international services in the mid-1930s.

Was there another war a bit before 1922? Could he have meant that one, perhaps?

Lookleft

17th Mar 2016, 21:34

The QANTAS that was established before WWII was a shadow of its former self after the war. Yes there was continuity during the period 1939-1945 but its international services had to be built from scratch and it needed its ex-RAAF people to do that. Yes you are correct LS you didn't bring up Don Bennett but in your usual pontificating style you expanded into areas of irrelevancy to demonstrate your superior knowledge on pretty well everything.

TTFN:ok:

Capn Bloggs

18th Mar 2016, 00:03

in your usual pontificating style you expanded into areas of irrelevancy to demonstrate your superior knowledge on pretty well everything.
Where's that Like button?! :}

Radar Man

18th Mar 2016, 10:01

an application was lodged to get this ala on the charts a long time ago and it still has not happened. The "incorrect" frequency has also been used for a long time. The slowness and difficulty in putting this long time strip on the map is inexcusable

Aussie Bob: it's up to the owner of the ALA to want to put it on a chart, not us. There are owners taking their ALA's off charts to minimise the aggravation by certain councils and greenies.

Radar Man

18th Mar 2016, 10:19

Somehow this thread started on CASA radio frequencies, deviated off onto the Australian military, and 5 screens later ends on QANTAS and World War II. Have got vertigo and am on instruments!

It is a fact that military-experienced persons were working recently in CASA: two individuals came from the military to work in the Authority, made changes to the AIP to do with radio frequencies in Class G, tried to deal with the industry fallout, then retreated back to the military, leaving the civilians amongst us to sort out the mess. I'm not blaming the military, but who in CASA hired them to do the dirty work of bashing more nails in the NAS coffin.

Sunfish

18th Mar 2016, 21:07

Howabout:

you've let a puzzling bias cloud your judgement on this one. I cannot reconcile the rationality with the irrationality of having a seeming hate on for the military.

Howabout, I apologise if I haven't made myself clear. I don't have a "hate on for the military" at all> I said so in my opening post. I couldn't if I wanted to. I served, my daughter in law is RAAF, I worked with many fine RAAF people in aviation and deface businesses.

What I said was that there is a small proportion of people who enter the services who fall prey to a mindset that can exist only in a military culture and who wreak havoc in the services and in civvy street when they leave if they are allowed to get into positions of authority.

This is documented. Get a copy of "On The PsychologyOf Military Incompetence" by Dixon.

The only you can rightly construe as "RAAF bashing" is my personal observation is that I'e seenTwo of these characters close up who were ex RAAF. I've never seen an Army or Navy one.

I hope you won't think me flippant by saying it might be comforting as a RAAF pilot to have a tyrant as OIC squadron maintenance, but that attitude doesn't do much good for us civilian aviators.

Arm out the window

19th Mar 2016, 00:28

Your tune has changed, Sunfish!

We are not talking about the personal attributes of individuals. Furthermore this mindset is exclusive to the military and has no "civilian" counterpart except perhaps in the imagined behaviour of very senior judges.

We're not talking about individuals? So 'we' must be talking about a collective phenomenon.

What I said was that there is a small proportion of people who enter the services who fall prey to a mindset that can exist only in a military culture and who wreak havoc in the services and in civvy street when they leave if they are allowed to get into positions of authority.

Oh, so we are talking about a few individuals!

If that's the case, your argument fails and your repeated references to this military element who are apparently to blame for everything are exposed as either unsupportable generalisations or simple malice which you attempt to prop up with bluster.

Dick Smith

19th Mar 2016, 00:42

Radar Man. Fascinating. Can you explain further re the military people making the CTAF frequency changes then retreating back to the military. How do people go back? Did this actually happen?

I must admit I did speak to an ex military bloke at CASA Operations and he was convinced the wind back was correct with circuit calls to be on the area frequency as they were in the 1950s.

Also Mark Skidmore has made it very clear he also supports the wind back so aircraft monitoring area frequencies can hear circuit traffic at un map marked airports.

He says he is not concerned about the potential blocking of ATC instructions to IFR aircraft. These Ex RAAF people stick together . A sort of group think. They are not concerned that countries such as the USA , Canada and the U.K. have no similar requirements.. In fact most ex military types have no real interest in how other leading aviation countries run there airspace procedures.

Copying the best from around the world is not in their training!

Capn Bloggs

19th Mar 2016, 03:29

bashing more nails in the NAS coffin.
I hope they used Stainless Steel ones. I don't want normal ones that will rust out allowing the lid to pop off! :}

Howabout

19th Mar 2016, 05:41

OK, Sunny. Getting involved in invective isn't my preference either.

But I do get a bit on the protective side when generalizations tarnish the many good people for whom I worked.

That said, you wrote a rather good dissertation on the traits that make a 'psychopath' some time back and I read it with interest. I worked for one that delighted in using rank and humiliating the 'lesser' a few years before I bailed.

This bloke had no inter-personal skills, just rank to back him up. He was a bully, but I seriously doubt the type is confined to the military.

Dick: I think you've got your wires crossed. While NAS, overall, was a cobbled-together piece of rubbish, with no justification - including no cost/benefit and no risk analysis - I was open minded on CTAF and told CASA so.

In respect of your constant charges about 'RAAF Group Captains,' and I never reached that heady rank, I was dealing with pure civilians that had never done military time.

As the mil representative, in an open forum in Canberra, I declared that we were minor players, but would live with what ever decision was made by CASA!

The wrong decision was made, IMHO, but it was a CASA decision, not a RAAF decision.

Your military bashing is becoming tiresome. We were far more open to logical argument than you ever gave us credit for.

Glad I'm retired and out of this repetitive BS that just pushes a personal barrow.

Dick Smith

19th Mar 2016, 06:03

Capn Bloggs

19th Mar 2016, 06:49

it's important you explain your particular reasons and what parts are rubbish?
It's important you explain how much terminal E (some of which would be unsurveilled) will cost! Your abject refusal to answer means that you're the ideologue, not others. We have half the controller-to-aircraft ratio that the USA has. How many extra would be required to run terminal E? You haven't even bothered to find out, have you?

Until you introduced, in the early 90's, the mishmash of continually changing terminal radio arrangements that resulted in near misses that you and LedSled have trumpeted, all IFR aircraft were operating in a simple, safe radio environment with third party FSOs looking after them. Even now, CAGROs provide the same safety backup, but you hate those as well, preferring "anybody on the airport" to do the job.

LeadSled

19th Mar 2016, 07:53

----------- have wreaked on the civil aviation scene you completely missed the contribution of those from the same background who set up QANTAS post-war

Lookleft,
And I know many ex-RAAF who have also been successful in business ---- and what you miss is that Sunny is talking about (and has experienced) a particular military mindset (not confined to the RAAF, in my experience) that bears no relation whatsoever to the person who leaves a civilian career to join up "for the duration", and in great majority of cases, return to their civilian occupations after "it is all over". The majority of WWII in QF after WWII and Korea were in this category.

The great majority of ex-RAAF WWII pilots I have flown with have been in the latter category, well after WWII quite a few came into QF from the CAF, as Sgt/Pilots.

We did have a couple of what Sunny is talking about, career military before/during WWII (and not necessarily Air Force) but wound up in QF after WWII, and they were shockers, including one chap whose nickname was "The Elephant's Trunk", the biggest drawback in QF.

Nor is this mindset necessarily applicable to all career military (and not limited to commissioned officers) that is not what Sunny or I have said, but it applies to enough that gravitate on leaving the military, straight to the public service, or a job in a big company that is almost as bureaucratic as any public service department.

The text books and learned papers on the subject are not figments of some fervid academic imagination.

Reg Ansett had a very particular view on the subject, for many years, fundamentally, he would not hire ex-military pilots, and made no secret of his views on the subject.

Tootle pip!!

Dick Smith

19th Mar 2016, 19:30

Bloggs. I don't hate cagros. Just concerned that they cost so much more to our industry than the North American type Unicom.

Re cost of class E down to 1200 agl in the non tower terminal area.

There are places where it could be introduced at no measurable cost increase.

Also if the existing en route controllers can provide a class E terminal service in the USA and Canada we should try it here.

Remember we have had a number of serious incidents including two professional pilots on different frequencies attempting the same approach at the same time at Bundaberg in IMC

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

19th Mar 2016, 23:23

two professional pilots on different frequencies

Obviously not that professional then?

Capn Bloggs

19th Mar 2016, 23:53

Gawd Dick! When will you get it into your @#$% head they do half as much work? Did it ever occur to you that there are twice as many ATCs in the USA so they can provide E down to 1200ft (what happened to 700ft??).

Bundaberg would not have been solved by any of your airport wallys running a Unicom!

Cut the ideological nonsense and have a dose of reality, will you?

Aussie Bob

20th Mar 2016, 08:40

Did it ever occur to you that there are twice as many ATCs in the USAYep Blogsy, so correct, but did it occur to you that there are over 10 times as many aircraft?

le Pingouin

20th Mar 2016, 10:36

Bob, it's per controller not in total.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

20th Mar 2016, 12:24

Actually, there's 15 times as many atc (1000 vs 15000) in the US, so even if
there are over 10 times as many aircraft
means they still have/need more staff to provide what they do.

Irrespective of this, where does it specifically say in the US regs that a UNICOM operator can provide a traffic service. I can find examples where they are forbidden to provide some info in certain circumstances, so is it just one of those "good ol' boy" things that happen and everyone turns a blind eye to the legality of it. The few references I can find seem clouded by discussion of traffic exchanged on the UNICOM frequency (self-announced aircraft to aircraft) vs traffic provided by a UNICOM operator. Traffic info is not one of the things listed that a ground operator will or can provide. A couple of very general articles mentioned that traffic may be advised, if the operator wishes to, but this seemed anecdotal, and frankly to me, damned dangerous.

Lookleft

20th Mar 2016, 23:26

The following is a good example of what happens when using rhetoric,hyperbole and generalisations to create an argument, you end up chasing your own tail and discrediting your own argument. Just follow the dots.

The argument put forward was that ex-military people (as a generalisation)are incapable of leaving their rigid thinking behind and are bad for any civilian organisation, which is why CASA is hopeless.

Nor is this mindset necessarily applicable to all career military (and not limited to commissioned officers) that is not what Sunny or I have said, but it applies to enough that gravitate on leaving the military, straight to the public service, or a job in a big company that is almost as bureaucratic as any public service department.

Because of this an aviation icon decided that they were not going to employ ex-RAAF pilots in their organisation:

Reg Ansett had a very particular view on the subject, for many years, fundamentally, he would not hire ex-military pilots, and made no secret of his views on the subject.

But we know that another iconic aviation organisation was quite open to employing the ex-military pilots that apparently Sir Reg despised, and so logically that organisation was inefficient and tainted by having so many of the hopeless incompetents in its employ.

So now another iconic aviation personality in his efforts to introduce an efficient and world class airspace classification system goes to where he thinks worlds best practise is to be found in limitless quantities:

I put a tremendous amount of time together with experts from Qantas in putting this proposal together.

So there you have it. If only Dick had sought expert advise from Ansett then his airspace changes would have had more success.

TTFN

renegade154

21st Mar 2016, 00:05

Dicks assertion that Unicom in the US provides traffic information seems to be completely at odds with the FAA regs, attached.

87.213 Scope of service.
(a) An aeronautical advisory station (unicom) must provide service to any aircraft station upon request and without discrimination. A unicom must provide impartial information concerning available ground services.
(b)(1) Unicom transmissions must be limited to the necessities of safe and expeditious operation of aircraft such as condition of runways, types of fuel available, wind conditions, weather information, dispatching, or other necessary information. At any airport at which a control tower, control tower remote communications outlet station (RCO) or FAA flight service station is located, unicoms must not transmit information pertaining to the conditions of runways, wind conditions, or weather information during the hours of operation of the control tower, RCO or FAA service station.
(2) On a secondary basis, unicoms may transmit communications which pertain to the efficient portal-to-portal transit of an aircraft, such as requests for ground transportation, food or lodging.
(3) Communications between unicoms and air carrier must be limited to the necessities of safety of life and property.
(4) Unicoms may communicate with aeronautical utility stations and ground vehicles concerning runway conditions and safety hazards on the airport when neither a control tower nor FAA flight service station is in operation.
(c) Unicoms must not be used for air traffic control (ATC) purposes other than to relay ATC information between the pilot and air traffic controller. Relaying of ATC information is limited to the following:
(1) Revisions of proposed departure time;
(2) Takeoff, arrival or flight plan cancellation time;
(3) ATC clearances, provided a letter of agreement is obtained from the FAA by the licensee of the unicom.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

21st Mar 2016, 00:41

I think that clause is in there to prevent over-zealous refuellers or baggies getting a little ahead of themselves and over stepping the mark.
It's this bit:
or other necessary information
(which is repeated in the FAA AIM UNICOM section and FAA Radio UNICOM licensing section as well) which opens the door to supplying traffic info at the discretion of the operator (after all, someone has to decide what is "necessary information"), and then only for the provision of any information at the request of the pilot. They are quite specific about what info can be provided ie runways, fuel, weather, taxis, hotels etc, but they do not specifically include traffic info, which is strange if it was that important (but neither do they specifically exclude it). The sections from the FAA regs that apply to FSS stations definitely say that traffic advisories will be provided by them (but they are an FAA facility), but as I said, for Joe Bloggs UNICOM it is very vague. Maybe it's because they intended that local traffic would be assessed and dealt with by the person's most affected, and qualified to deal with it - the pilots, and that it is a little too important to be left in the hands of the hit and miss (excuse the pun) service that is UNICOM.

le Pingouin

21st Mar 2016, 06:00

So Dick, on what regulatory basis do US UNICOMs provide traffic?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

21st Mar 2016, 09:11

Re " I don't hate cagros."

Phew! That's nice.......

Cheers :p

Dick Smith

21st Mar 2016, 11:04

For 25 years there are those who have successfully prevented the introduction of cost efficient and safety improving North American Unicoms.

The Unicoms are successful because the legislation is intentionally non prescriptive.

Re traffic info- have a look at the FAA suggested phraseology on page 641 of the 2015 FAA
Aeronautical Information Manual. 4-1-9

" Frederick Unicom ..........- request wind and traffic information Frederick"

Now nothing could possibly be clearer. The FAA document would not specifically mention " traffic" if traffic could not be provided.

And clearance requests and the actual IFR clearance can be passed via Unicom once a simple letter of agreement with the centre is issued . In most cases the Unicom operator has no air traffic type qualifications at all.

This non prescriptive system has worked for over 50 years giving every bit of information that is useful to the pilot with great success and very high levels of safety in a country that is both highly litigious and has over 30 times the traffic .movements .

Most importantly Unicom operators in the US do not require any liability insurance. In the entire history of Unicom operators in the US not one operator has ever been sued for liability.

le Pingouin

21st Mar 2016, 12:07

Good luck with reforming our legal system as well then Dick.

Dick Smith

21st Mar 2016, 14:15

That's another fabricated myth.

There is no need to change our legal system.

I was told that in 1990 when we had prescriptive requirements for landing areas -ARG 7 and ARG 8

We changed to the FAA non prescriptive guidance type material and there has not been one problem since.

LeadSled

21st Mar 2016, 14:32

Obviously not that professional then?

traffic,
Obviously so, as true aviation professionals never make mistakes, and are totally immune from human factors issues in all aspect of aircraft operations.

Do something useful, and dig out the ATSB report, and learn something, about how all involved had the correct information, including a notam frequency change between chart issues, but, in the heat of the moment ----.

Tootle pip!!

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

21st Mar 2016, 17:01

"request wind and traffic information Frederick"

I had already seen that and it is the ONLY instance in the FAA docs where UNICOM traffic is mentioned - in the "suggested" phraseology for use by a taxiing aircraft. No mention for an inbound aircraft, no mention in any other phraseology section, no mention of the return phraseology, no mention of what criteria the traffic should be assessed upon, no mention that traffic advise can be provided, no mention in the descriptive duties of a UNICOM, no mention in the licensing standards for a UNICOM radio station. It barely seems adequate for a regulatory basis.
I guess it's lucky for US aviation that they "suggested" it.

Most importantly Unicom operators in the US do not require any liability insurance. In the entire history of Unicom operators in the US not one operator has ever been sued for liability.
Do they not require it because they are legally exempt, or are they chancing their arm because no one has been sued yet? They must be one of those true aviation professionals who never make a mistake, eh Leadie?

Ex FSO GRIFFO

21st Mar 2016, 20:40

Sorry Dick, but here's another 'fabricated myth'....

"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced, And It Will Cost You Less"

No Cheers, Nope, None At All...:sad:

Dick Smith

21st Mar 2016, 22:58

Traffic. What of course you are leaving out is how the system has worked in practice for over 50 years.

In the USA the Unicom operator gives any information that may be useful re improving safety.

At most of our airports there is no one on the ground listening on the CTAF to report even if the voice modulation on the transmitter has failed.

It has worked so well in the USA and Canada that there are no plans to make the regulations more prescriptive.

For 25 years I have been working on copying this system- one day I will get success as new blood comes into the industry and the concrete minded ones die out. You watch!

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

22nd Mar 2016, 04:40

And what I have repeatedly asked you Dick, is why are there are not more UNICOMS in Australia, when it is already perfectly legal to operate one?

Dick Smith

22nd Mar 2016, 07:22

I understand it's not possible to give a US style Unicom service here .

For example Clive Wilson at Lord Howe can no longer provide a WX and traffic advisory service he has in the past.

His details were removed from the ERS a few years ago.

Someone from CASA has told him verbally that he can go ahead and give the service but he has asked for confirmation in writing and this is not forthcoming .

If CASA allowed FAA style Unicoms we would not need expensive CAGROs

Howabout

22nd Mar 2016, 08:13

Howabout. You describe the Australian NAS as a " cobbled - together piece of rubbish".

I put a tremendous amount of time together with experts from Qantas in putting this proposal together. I travelled around the world asking advice from airspace regulators in the UK , France , Canada , New Zealand and the USA.

Would you be prepared to talk to me about this?

On the first point, I was intimately involved and had to tow the party line, being in uniform at that time. I had to sit there and watch incidents that were caused by nothing other than blind compliance to ideology. Why the hell was C converted to E that almost led to disaster at Launy when the Airservices guys were providing a totally competent, safe separation service with C for no extra cost? A degradation of service that put peoples' lives at risk. Ideology!

There was another incident close to Darwin, where two Metros almost created an aluminium shower because C was converted to E with zero justification. That one was never reported because it complied with E rules, and the company had them both go VFR in E to 'save costs.' A head-on narrowly avoided because a bunch of switched-on controllers in Darwin (the dreaded RAAF) picked up on what was going on. That one still haunts me.

As regards the second point - a total waste of time.

You are always on TX, never on RX.

Dick Smith

22nd Mar 2016, 09:09

The C was converted to E at Launceston so the Tower Controllor could concentrate where the risk is highest. That is near and on the runway. That's no doubt why Broome has E over D as do all other modern aviation countries.

C over D is clearly " upside down " airspace because the risk is obviously higher where traffic gets closer together.

You want it that way because that's how it was in the past. Your mind is set in concrete and you have no understanding of risk management.

The so called " serious incident" was not an incident at all. The VFR pilot had the Virgin aircraft sighted at all relevant times and was always going to remain clear. That's how alerted see and avoid is supposed to work.

The Virgin pilot never sighted the VFR aircraft and if we did not have our safer mode C class E transponder mandate no incident would ever have been reported because the Vigin pilots would never have known the VFR aircraft was present.

One day we will kill people because a Controllor at a place like Albury is attempting to separate aircraft in Class C en route airspace above while two aircraft collide on the runway due to the fact that the high workload is moved to the low risk area. It's the only reason that other modern aviation countries place the higher classification airspace where the collision risk is greater- that is closer to the runway . Just commonsense while we resist any change.

In effect. If in 1949 we just had controlled airspace and un controlled airspace we must never ever change that by following the experience in countries where traffic densities are thirty times higher

Dick Smith

22nd Mar 2016, 09:23

More importantly. The reason we are not using the existing radar rated controllers in the Melbourne Centre to provide a proper radar approach service into Launceston is because we can't change to the system used in leading aviation countries where the tower controllers just concentrate on the tower airspace where the risk is highest.

No doubt in the 1950s or whenever Launy tower went in the tower controllers had huge airspace to 30 miles or so.

So we must never change that. Leave the 1950s procedures set in concrete for ever even if it means keeping procedural control with its clear lower level of safety.

What a complete waste of $6 m of our industries money for the multilateration system. Yes. I have heard the AsA lie - that it was never intended to operate in terminal airspace.

Howabout

22nd Mar 2016, 10:18

As regards NAS, and in respect of Launy, Alice, Darwin, and other places, you attempted to fix a 'problem' where one did not exist, at no saving. Alice was a classic example of controllers doing their job in non-radar Class C. Would you like to quote an incident where those controllers were hampered in doing their job because it was Class C, where E would have been a 'safety improvement and a cost saving?' Just one! Just one, Dick?

And, oh, the 'Radar Direction' letter to the idiot minister. Wasn't that a beauty in respect of manipulation. As your beloved Yanks say, 'Anderson couldn't find his ass with both hands' when it came to gullibility in matters aviation.

I was there when that letter was written and gagged at what I considered to be lying, and gave my opinion that it was total BS.

You see, Dick, there was a good case to say that, in this day and age, Class C should have radar. I'd have agreed with that argument.

Instead, the argument was twisted to say that you can't have Class C without radar - because the baseline is the States, where C has radar. Consequently, the argument was put to the idiot that you can't have C without radar. That was duplicitous in the extreme.

Howabout

22nd Mar 2016, 10:51

Missed this one and I was there Dick.

C over D is clearly " upside down " airspace because the risk is obviously higher where traffic gets closer together.

Nobody wanted Class D. It was stupidly introduced as a sop to try and shut you up. My recollection was that 'Give him something' was the Airservices' position. Influence!

We wouldn't have this argument about 'C over D' if it had all remained C, you weren't pandered do, and what worked was left alone.

Dick Smith

22nd Mar 2016, 11:42

All non radar towers in the USA and Canada are class D. Are you suggesting there is a safety problem with this when we have jets going into places like Ballina in class G? That would never be allowed in the USA.

I know. It's all ok because that's what we did when you were trained - it must be ok!

Do you warn your friends not to fly in North America? I bet not!

And hold on. Gatwick in the UK is class D. Bet you don't have a problem flying there!

Set in concrete. Never keep an open mind to copy the worlds best. Just never ever change.

Dick Smith

22nd Mar 2016, 11:50

The radar direction letter came because it's clearly not possible to operate C safely without primary and secondary radar.

How would the controller know where the VFR aircraft was located when above say 7500'?

You can't put a VFR aircraft on a procedural IFR route or position if the aircraft is not fitted with IFR aids.

I forgot. I know how you handle this non radar class C problem - "remain OCTA"

Sterling Archer

22nd Mar 2016, 13:52

https://i.imgflip.com/118sa9.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/118sa9)via Imgflip Meme Maker (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)

le Pingouin

22nd Mar 2016, 15:15

The delusion continues - the Launy incident was a bloody Airprox.And the Tobago pilot was a bloody idiot. You talk about dirt road services, well that event was about as appalling as it gets without there being a collision and was totally in accord with your beloved US procedures. Rather demonstrates how dirt track they are. The fact is it nearly killed a plane load of people.

Believe what you want Dick, but when you come out with pearlers like that you do yourself absolutely no favours.

Maybe you'd care to re-familiarise yourself with the actual report: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24413/aair200305235_001.pdf

The Tobago pilot thought 2 degrees at 15 miles would be enough - the fact is he clearly had no understanding of nav tolerances and didn't consider what would happen if his estimate for the passing was out by even 30 seconds. You bang on about pilot arranged separation - well this wasn't even arranged. It was a guess from someone who clearly had not a clue - the lives of a plane load of paying passengers was put in the hands of the clueless.

Car RAMROD

22nd Mar 2016, 15:33

One day we will kill people because a Controllor at a place like Albury is attempting to separate aircraft in Class C en route airspace above while two aircraft collide on the runway due to the fact that the high workload is moved to the low risk area.

So, you are implying that the en route controller is going take the word of a class d tower, whilst the aircraft are in the en route controllers airpaace, and then the class d controller is going to have two aircraft prang in his airspace?

Really?

Get off your high horse.

Despite what you imply, actual co-ordinated handovers occur between D and enroute which actually help the traffic, you know why, because they co ordinate! I don't expect them to be killing people by trying to control aircraft in other airspace, that really is just ******* stupid.

Please, stop the scare tactics.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

22nd Mar 2016, 16:32

when we have jets going into places like Ballina in class G. That would never be allowed in the USA

Once upon a time, it wasn't allowed in Australia, we had a system where RPT jets could only operate in controlled airspace, and they even built towers at busy airports to cater for them.
But that got changed.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

22nd Mar 2016, 21:51

I understand it's not possible to give a US style Unicom service here
I'm not asking about a US style Unicom, I'm asking about the Aussie one.
If CASA allowed FAA style Unicoms we would not need expensive CAGROs
How? Operators don't do Unicoms that supply info to our regs now. What makes you think they are lining up to provide one with more? As for CAGROs, how many are there in operation in AUS? One? Maybe the rest of the industry doesn't think we need them either.
If Ballina put one in because they have to be seen to be doing something due to the scaremongering to the media about "how dangerous it is to fly there" and the costs are put straight onto industry, the industry will know who to thank when they get the bill.

Dick Smith

22nd Mar 2016, 22:59

We don't have many CAGRO s because the cost is incredibly high. Last time I checked the Ayers Rock CAGRO was costing over $400k a year.

We don't have UNICOMs because they are next to useless as known traffic and weather can't be provided under the rules.

That's why Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer is listed in the ERS and no longer can provide a safe Unicom service at zero cost.

Dick Smith

22nd Mar 2016, 23:28

Re the Launceston incident. Note how no recommendation is made to reverse the NAS airspace .

What is left out is the Tobago pilots continuing statements that he had the Virgin aircraft in sight at all relevant times and he believed there was never ever any chance of a mid air.

In the USA and Canada there is no transponder requirement in E above D so no incident would have been reported because the Virgin pilots did not sight the VFR aircraft at any time.

The Tobago pilot stated that the aircraft were at least a mile apart when they went through the same level and he was using alerted see and avoid to maintain separation.

That's actually how the system works all around the world. In fact ICAO class E and G has no radio requirement at all for VFR aircraft so un alerted see and avoid is the way it works in ICAO compliant countries

In Australia as well as having very low traffic densities we add mandatory radio and mandatory mode C transponders to make the class E " belts and braces" yet the concrete minded ones still say Class E can't work safely.

gerry111

23rd Mar 2016, 00:04

I think you may mean 'sight'? :confused:

Dick Smith

23rd Mar 2016, 00:14

You are correct. Thanks!

Car Ramrod. I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever spoken to an American or Canadian class D Controllor and asked how the system works there?

I remember once how I got the Juneau Tower head to come on this site and explain how D worked in the USA. Within hours there were posts claiming he could not possibly be an ATC because of his comments.

I am sure it must be in the archives!

itsnotthatbloodyhard

23rd Mar 2016, 00:19

What is left out is the Tobago pilots continuing statements that he had the Virgin aircraft in site at all relevant times and he believed there was never ever any chance of a mid air.

He also believed that the 737 was turning, when it demonstrably wasn't, and that a 2 degree radial difference at 15 miles would afford adequate separation. I can't say that really fills me with confidence.

If I've got this right, Dick, then a situation that resulted in a TCAS RA and a miss distance within 200'/1 nm is not even an incident - merely a good system working the way it was meant to. Yet the possibility of holding at Anna Bay is an intolerable risk that will inevitably kill young families. God help us.

Dick Smith

23rd Mar 2016, 00:49

I can’t help myself but post again a couple of posts from 2004.

The first one from Voices of Reason headed “Class E Airspace is Safe” and the second one from “The Leyland Brothers”.

I’m told the Voices of Reason was a previous head of air traffic control at CAA but I have never been able to get this confirmed. I think both posts have some really good common sense information.

Voices of Reason 21st Apr 2004 16:19
________________________________________
Class E Airspace Is Safe

Class E Airspace and United States Practice

We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.

EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.

There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.

There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.

There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.

We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.

Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.

NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.

Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.

NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.

the leyland brothers 21st Apr 2004 17:02
________________________________________
Same in continental Europe - plenty of class E and it seems to work just fine.

You dont see European pilots or controllers bitching and whinging like teenage girls.

Whats wrong with Australian pilots and controllers? Are they somehow not as good as pilots and controllers elsewhere?

itsnotthatbloodyhard

23rd Mar 2016, 01:03

There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.

I'd consider an RA with a miss distance of less than 200'/1nm a bit of a hint that something might be unsafe, but you're right, there's probably something wrong with me.

Dick Smith

23rd Mar 2016, 01:56

So why don't you comment about all our airline aircraft flying around in uncontrolled G terminal airspace like Ballina where there is no transponder requirement so TCAS won't work at all?

And there isn't even a Unicom to confirm the " calling in the blind" announcements are actually working!

I know of course- that's how we have done it since the 1950s and our minds are set in concrete so we must never re allocate airspace categories based on risk. Always keep the status quo.

Lookleft

23rd Mar 2016, 02:55

You dont see European pilots or controllers bitching and whinging like teenage girls.

Whats wrong with Australian pilots and controllers? Are they somehow not as good as pilots and controllers elsewhere?

Really Dick, OAM and solo helicopter pilot, thats what your argument comes down to?

A sexist comment and schoolboy taunts!

I can see now why your reforms didn't get through when you were Chair of CAA.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

23rd Mar 2016, 03:01

We don't have UNICOMs because they are next to useless as known traffic and weather can't be provided under the rules.

That's why Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer is listed in the ERS and no longer can provide a safe Unicom service at zero cost.

So because he couldn't provide traffic and weather advice (the latter of which he can still provide [limited by the MOS to: "General aerodrome weather reports provided by a Unicom operator are to be limited to simple, factual statements about the weather"] which seems to be basically all the US system provides) he stopped supplying any service at all?? Wow, all that other handy stuff a Unicom is meant to provide must be important then.
My mind boggles that you actually believe that there are hundreds of FBO receptionists, baggage handlers and refuellers around the country all poised with their thumb over the press to talk, just itching to jump in and help sort out that mess in the circuit, but gagged because they can't pass traffic?

that's how we have done it since the 1950s

Actually, as you well know, up to around 20 years ago all airline (and other IFR) aircraft were provided with a minimum of either a dedicated separation service, or a directed traffic service about all other known aircraft (with unknown VFR traffic being covered by looking out the window just like now - yep, alerted and unalerted see and avoid) in any airspace they flew in.
But then things got improved.:confused:

Dick Smith

23rd Mar 2016, 03:42

Lookleft. That was clearly a post from someone calling themselves the Leyland Brothers.

It was not my post or view at all.

Traffic. Yes that full position/AFIS system cost at least $70 m a year.

That means about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out since I abolished the system.

I wanted to move to the proven low cost North American system where third party confirmation was provided by a low cost Unicom operator- a person already at the airport.

And where we have at least one airport where the free service can be provided- Lord Howe - it is prevented by CASA.

I bet lots of airports would have the service if it was non prescriptive like the USA.

Lead Balloon

23rd Mar 2016, 04:19

That means about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out since I abolished the system.Alas, that $1.4 billion was not reallocated so as to achieve benefits for aviation. It was instead p*ssed up against the wall by successive profligate governments. Yeah!

Ironically, Dick, your abolition of the system paid for the Seasprite debacle. Kaman Corporation is eternally grateful to you and the other suckers in the Australian aviation industry for the $1.4 billion. :ok:

The Seasprite project was much better use of the $1.4 billion 'saved' from the aviation industry, I'm sure you would agree. :E

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

23rd Mar 2016, 04:41

That's why Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer is listed in the ERS

From the story in the The Australian June 13 2015, it seems his details were removed from the ERS at the request of the Airport Operator. Nothing to do with CASA or AirServices. Aerodrome information in the ERS is provided by the aerodrome operator, so they decide what goes in there.

Howabout

23rd Mar 2016, 04:44

The radar direction letter came because it's clearly not possible to operate C safely without primary and secondary radar.

How is it 'clearly not possible'? No facts, just opinion.

That said, and as I stated before, if the argument had been put that we should, as a modern aviation country, have radar in Class C these days, then you'd have had got no argument out of me. Instead, we got a 'too clever by half' letter to a gormless minister with the clear intent (IMHO) of deliberately deceiving him.

How would the controller know where the VFR aircraft was located when above say 7500'?

Simple, Dick. When I worked in the trade, and the memory is getting a little fuzzy, VFR were required to lodge a FPL - except, I think, NOSAR for flights less than 50nm.

On the FPL, there were the tick/flick boxes that allowed the VFR pilot to indicate what aids he/she was qualified to use. In my time, the great majority were qualified to use the three basics - ADF, VOR and DME. In short, they were qualified to give you a legitimate instrument-position report. If they ticked the box on a particular aid, they were telling you that they were qualified to use it and that the info could legitimately be used for separation.

For those that did not have any quals, the VFR routes in to and out of places like Darwin and Alice provided guaranteed visual fixes in respect of separation.

Then came the 'Flight Note.' What an innovation that was, whereby the controller didn't have a clue as to what the capabilities of the PIC were in order to expedite traffic flow. That was a breathtakingly stupid move in respect of 'system efficiency!'

You can't put a VFR aircraft on a procedural IFR route or position if the aircraft is not fitted with IFR aids.

See above as regards the great majority being so fitted and qualified!

I forgot. I know how you handle this non radar class C problem - "remain OCTA"

Yeah, us 'ground-based radio operators' just get great delight in screwing VFR around.

fujii

23rd Mar 2016, 05:07

You have to give Dick some credit. He is no longer comparing the Australian system to the 1930s. He is now referring to the 1950s.

Lead Balloon

23rd Mar 2016, 05:13

And he's no longer saying that the changes "he" made resulted in savings "to the industry". I think it's finally dawned on him that the cessation of funding of aviation infrastructure as a common good did not, in fact, result in the industry saving a cent.

Howabout

23rd Mar 2016, 06:31

LB and Fujji,

I saw, directly, the amount of money that was wasted on 'ideology.' The dollars were massive for no gain. Other than fracturing the industry.

All because a certain individual had enough 'political pull' (IMHO) to push a flawed agenda. No system safety case, no cost/benefit - not even a very basic risk analysis. There was an 'implementation safety case,' but it was tosh from my perspective. Merely designed to ram through an agenda based on nothing more than opinion and ignoring the proposed system flaws. The 'inconvenient truths' were ignored because they were inconvenient to the argument.

The worst few years I ever spent in any job.

Dick Smith

23rd Mar 2016, 08:30

Rediculous statements re the money saved not assisting the aviation industry but somehow being used to fund the Super Seasprite disaster.

Bringing the staff from 7000 to 4000 clearly saved the aviation industry a fortune. Most of these people were paid by the aviation industry and that's where the saving went.

AsA has never been funded by the taxpayer- always by the industry.

Howabout. What money was wasted on the ideology of removing mandatory full position reporting for VFR? It saved a fortune. What money was wasted by giving operational control to the industry? What money was wasted on the ideology by closing down Mt Isa tower and the RFFS at all the secondary airports?

All a huge saving to our industry that would have been in a a far worse situation now if the changes and savings were not made!

And how come you are all gutless and anonymous. If you really believed in what you were saying at least one of you would post under your own name . There is nothing in the prune rules which prevent posts under a real name!

Lead Balloon

23rd Mar 2016, 10:57

Bringing the staff from 7000 to 4000 clearly saved the aviation industry a fortune. Most of these people were paid by the aviation industry and that's where the saving went.How do you figure that, Dick? How did the aviation industry pay for it?

It all used to be paid for out of appropriations from consolidated revenue, for the common good. Governments used to think that aviation infrastructure and encouraging aviation were good ideas in a country that wanted to be at the cutting edge of technology and innovation. Pilots used to get AIP for free, because governments decided that spending taxpayer's money to provide AIP for free to the user was a good idea and beneficial to society as a whole.

It's just like public education. Governments have decided that a public education system is a good idea and beneficial to society as a whole, so governments appropriate money out of consolidated revenue to run a public education system. I don't mind that, even though I don't use the public education system (or the public hospital system, or Medicare or the PBS or some highway that was constructed at taxpayer's expense).

Now airports in Australia are just monopolies for rich mates to suck wealth out of a hapless public. The aviation industry in Australia is being regulated to death by the aviation 'safety' industry that feeds off the mystique of aviation.

"User pays" is just code for: You're politically weak, so just suck it up.

Not blaming you for those outcomes, Dick. But, crikey, the outcome could have been a lot different if the focus of your energies had been informed by even a superficial knowledge of how governments and politics work, beyond the 101 concept that politicians don't like the prospect of losing their cushy jobs.

But you are correct about RPT operations in G. It is surreally stupid (and so Australian) that RPT operations can occur in G (or is it F?...) without a 'safety' eyebrow being raised, but if one aircraft gets close to another in some other class of airspace in which that proximity is a 'no no', it's conniption time, even though it's OK for those aircraft to be that close in G (or is that F?).

And for the last time, can you get some young relative to show you how to turn the spellchecker on?

Sunfish

23rd Mar 2016, 11:46

Even young Sunfish has had to self separate from Rex at YBHI. it makes me feel really grown up.

However on another occasion,, with rain showers and not great weather, I was glad that no one was arriving because I had my hands full.

Dixk is right. Not good weather, a gung ho RPT aircraft expecting a competent GA pilot who is found wanting and……..

le Pingouin

23rd Mar 2016, 13:41

Dick calls G "dirt track". But how is E without surveillance any less dirt track? As the AIRPROX near Launy demonstrated it is no different. A clueless VFR can still kill you in exactly the same manner - there is no difference Yet he was happy to replace C where the IFR and VFR would have been separated with dirt track E.

Howabout

23rd Mar 2016, 15:41

First off, Dick, you are not wrong about everything.

As you rightly point out The Isa was a waste. A hangover from the days when Viscounts and DC-4s plied the BNE/DAR route and didn't have the range.

I also had no problems with the withdrawal of RFFS from the secondaries. If one ran the numbers on a cost/benefit basis, the outlay was not justifiable.

'Operational control' was a crock IMHO. Getting hassled by some fool in 'Operations,' trying to dictate to me, and who couldn't hold down a real job at the coalface, was a waste of my time when sh*ts were trumps. So a tick on that one as well.

As for mandatory reporting, I'll agree to disagree. My previous missive in respect of flight planning and being able to discern who was capable of giving position reports for the purposes of expedition, separation, and facilitating VFR to the maximum extent, sums up my position.

On balance, however, you made some pretty reasonable decisions in respect of the issues that you've raised. There was undoubted waste in the system.

But, but, you just can't seem to help yourself when it comes to language and the selective use of facts:

AsA has never been funded by the taxpayer- always by the industry.

That is a 100% correct statement, but lends the impression (doesn't it?) that AsA, as a 'GBE,' has always run the system; when, in fact, 'user pays' is a relatively contemporary development in respect of our ATM system. And who thought that one up??? Thinking, thinking, thinking....

As LB rightly points out. And thank you LB; couldn't have put it better myself:

It all used to be paid for out of appropriations from consolidated revenue, for the common good. Governments used to think that aviation infrastructure and encouraging aviation were good ideas in a country that wanted to be at the cutting edge of technology and innovation. Pilots used to get AIP for free, because governments decided that spending taxpayer's money to provide AIP for free to the user was a good idea and beneficial to society as a whole.

It's just like public education. Governments have decided that a public education system is a good idea and beneficial to society as a whole, so governments appropriate money out of consolidated revenue to run a public education system. I don't mind that, even though I don't use the public education system (or the public hospital system, or Medicare or the PBS or some highway that was constructed at taxpayer's expense).

For the 'common good' in respect of where my taxes went, and I never had a problem with that as regards the funding of vital infrastructure and services. And then we got 'user pays,' and we are here where we are, where we are.

BTW, and neatly avoided: my original referred to what I regarded as the scandalous waste of taxpayer dollars (mine) on that recurring hobbyhorse - 11/11, Airspace 2000, Son of Airspace 2000, the G Airspace Trial and, woo-woo, NAS.

I saw it all, Dick. It was public money (probably in the millions) p155ed down the drain for no gain. Why? Because all of those failed initiatives were, IMHO, based on nothing more than opinion and 'I want.' No rigorous analyses in respect of cost/benefit nor risk - just opinion and 'I want.' Such an approach cuts no ice with me.

actus reus

23rd Mar 2016, 16:31

Balloon,

Stay away from comments about government funding.
When the 'Finance and Deregulation' department HAD deregulation which was before Abbott moved 'Dereg' to Prime Minister and Cabinet, there were:
the FMA ACT (which covered the department and the eighteen other departments in the Federal Government),
the CAC ACT (which covered CASA and other statutory agencies), and
GBEs (which covered AsA and others).

FIN wanted to move everything (more or less) to the GBE governance model which meant, along with other things, that some entities would e.g. require a Board and some would not.

That plan stalled with the Abbott move but the consolidation of the FMA and the CAC ACTs has gone ahead.

'Appropriations' which come out of the BUDGET fund the old CAC ACT and FMA ACT people but appropriations do not fund GBEs.

'Consolidated revenue' is what is left unspent at the end of the financial year and has absolutely nothing to do with 'appropriations'.

In fact, under the old (seeing as you are talking about 'remember when...') CAC ACT entities like CASA did not have to return the excess at all but in a somewhat ironical situation, they could not spend it either!! It basically had to sit in the bank.

If anyone other than a GBE wants to spend money, then they have to put together what is called a New Policy Proposal (NPP) and it is up to the relevant minister to decide if he or she will go into bat with the Finance Minister and ask for the cash.
For CASA or someone who has a surplus in the bank, the Board has to agree to return the money or not. The government cannot just 'take it'.

If CASA wanted to use the surplus in the bank for something, then before they can do THAT, they have to convince the Finance Minister to allow them to 'register a loss'; something that the LIBS were adamant under Abbott no CAC agency could do.

Might have changed now as it is Thursday, March 24th after all.

Government funding after WWII was mostly given to the Royal Aero Clubs (they were specifically mentioned) to promote aviation just as some RAAF pilots found themselves seconded to QANTAS before the war had ended (the legendary Captain Hughie Hemsworth, a fantastic pilot and one of the funniest people I have ever met was just such an example).

Back then, everyone knew the war would end soon and aviation had demonstrated it was going to be the future of transport.

Same reason the ICAO predates the UN (the Chicago Convention was signed in 1944) and why ICAO has a different structure to other UN agencies, 'specialist' or otherwise.

Funding to grow the GA world stopped long, long, long ago.

Lead Balloon

23rd Mar 2016, 20:54

Ah the joys of undergraduate research. You'll probably scrape a Credit for that essay, AR.

You forgot to mention 'the vibe, Mabo and the Constitution. On the subject of the Constitution, I note section 81, which says:81 Consolidated Revenue Fund
All revenues or moneys raised or received by the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, to be appropriated for the purposes of the Commonwealth in the manner and subject to the charges and liabilities imposed by this Constitution.And no: I don't need a lecture about whether statutory bodies corporate are part of the executive for the purposes of section 81.

You'll get to constitutional law later in you studies.

Hang in there. Only a few years to go! :ok:

Dick Smith

23rd Mar 2016, 23:02

What's seems to have been forgotten is the fact that before the " user pays" was introduced by the Hawke government after the Henry Bosch recommendations there were very steep
" air nav" charges for all aircraft.

If I remember correctly my twin Comanche cost about $3 k a year and 182 about $1500.

Fly one of these aircraft today and if you don't keep it at expensive airports the AsA and CASA charges are far less.

Can anyone remember these charges? Anyone have a list of what they were?

actus reus

24th Mar 2016, 04:25

Balloon,
You are no business man are you?

"Revenue" = what comes IN.

"Appropriation" = what goes OUT.

You have to have the 'going out' before you can get any of the 'coming in'.

In any event, CASA is not funded from 'consolidated revenue'.

I guess you have been a raving success with some other formula?

Howabout

24th Mar 2016, 06:06

Dick, what went hand-in-glove with 'user pays' was airport privatisations. That was part of the mix.

You state that:

Fly one of these aircraft today and if you don't keep it at expensive airports the AsA charges are far less.Maybe the AsA charges are 'far less' if you launch in to G out of a 'country airport,' but for those in metropolitan areas what's the choice? Regardless of AsA charges, I'd offer that the bigger imposition is getting 'stiffed' by 'airport owners' under the grand plan. In short, the average Joe being at the mercy of corporate greed. Whereas, once upon a time in the golden age of GA, costs were comparatively minimal when airports were federally funded for the 'common good.'

As corporate greed goes, I'll give you the closure of Hoxton Park, the removal of the E/W option at Bankstown, and the maneuverings at Jandakot to turn a profit on the land value.

In addition, and it still P155ES me off to this day; the demise of the Darwin Aero Club came about because they could no longer afford the charges once 'privatisation' became flavour of the month.

A vibrant, professional little club, that offered affordable flying and trained many. I well remember spending many a night after the working day just talking to some of the studs over a beer about ATC practices, procedures and standards. It was my way, and that of some of my colleagues, in contributing to their education.

Trashed under the 'master plan' of 'user pays.'

Lead Balloon

24th Mar 2016, 06:29

Gosh actus - you should get onto the Finance Minister and tip him off on the work of fiction that is the CASA Annual Report.

The most recent one has a line item called "Revenue from Government" in the amount of about $43 million. ($42.801 million to be precise.). That amount was appropriated out of the consolidated revenue fund as part of the usual annual budget and appropriations bills process.

That line item is separate from the Fuel Excise line item (in the amount of about $118 million ($117.871 to be precise), appropriated out of the consolidated revenue fund as a consequence of the Aviation Fuels Revenues (Special Appropriation) Act 1988.

(You do realise that fuel excise is just a kind of tax that must be paid into the consolidated revenue fund first, before there is anything available to be appropriated and spent (unless you know someone with the surname Khemlani ... )?

There is another Commonwealth safety agency that is funded substantially by appropriations from the consolidated revenue fund. Section 48 of the AMSA Act says, with the crap removed:(1) There are to be paid to the Authority amounts equal to: ...

(2) Amounts payable under subsection (1) are to be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly.But you'll learn all this in your later years of undergraduate study. :ok:

actus reus

24th Mar 2016, 08:01

Balloon,
This is a circular argument!
I politely suggest that you consider going off and dispensing your wisdom and high dungeon on others.

And by the way, I am quite happy with my academic qualifications but I appreciate your concern.

I fear for India if you are there helping them out.

Lead Balloon

24th Mar 2016, 08:45

high dungeonQED.

Just when I'd thought I'd seen every malapropism possible. :D

Howabout

24th Mar 2016, 09:00

God save us from the opinionated that can't speak basic language and seek to lecture.

There are plenty of remedial courses in language, AR. I suggest you take one of them before you embarrass yourself further.

It's 'high dudgeon,' not 'high dungeon.'

The latter, I believe, has something to do with paying to be whipped and getting walked on by some chick in stilettos.

If you want to flaunt your undoubted knowledge, learn a bit of syntax. Yeah, foreign word, I know.

Dick Smith

24th Mar 2016, 09:17

Howabout. I am glad some of the changes I made pleased you.

Re user pays. That was a labor government policy decision before I was involved in any way with CAA.

My view was that the only way user pays could work is with a very substantial reduction in the cost of the system

That's what I concentrated on. One day I may be able to finish what I started. Now some won't like that ! But others will benefit.

actus reus

24th Mar 2016, 09:31

Howabout,

How about you become the PPRuNE spell checker?

The appointment of someone to that position is well overdue I say.

Howabout

24th Mar 2016, 10:39

Spell-checkers are fine AR and work OK.

But this is basic language, not spelling.

Google 'syntax.' Your 'high dungeon' remark was the best schoolboy howler I've seen in years.

Howabout

24th Mar 2016, 11:01

OK, Mods, what happened to the rest of the last page that has disappeared into the ether??

Howabout

24th Mar 2016, 12:42

Re user pays. That was a labor government policy decision before I was involved in any way with CAA.

That wouldn't be 'selective language' by any chance? The government of the time seemed to me to have been externally influenced to adopt 'user pays.' Would you have any idea as to who may have been the prime mover on that one before you were 'involved' with CAA?

You see, Dick, I just personally find that to be an incredible disclaimer.

OK, OK; you just inherited 'user pays.'

actus reus

24th Mar 2016, 13:03

Howabout,

Maybe the last bit went missing because there was a spelling error or a syntax problem?

Falcon Code #902

Dick Smith

24th Mar 2016, 22:38

Howabout. You can blame me for lots of things but certainly not user pays or selling off airports.

I had no involvement in any way. Either behind the scenes or in the open.

I had not read the Bosch report and therefore made no submissions.

Charlie Foxtrot India

25th Mar 2016, 02:52

Howabout, the only posts that have been deleted or edited have been done by the poster themselves, not the mods.

As you all know, if you don't like the way Pprune runs you are free to start a forum of your own.

One of the reasons for the forum rules is so that these pages won't be used for childish arguments and ego trips because they are so BORING for everyone else who is trying to have a reasonable, adult discussion.

If you want to be the spelling and grammar police, do it via private message if it means so much to you, otherwise you just look like an arrogant bully.

Patience wearing thin.

Clare Prop

25th Mar 2016, 03:05

I don't always agree with everything Dick says and wish he could direct his talent, profile and resources to things that really would make a difference to us, such as making a stand against the rampant tilt up concretisation of the airports and the corporate mindset of the leaseholders...something he would be more familiar with than many of us... But I do admire the bloke and doubt he got where he is today by an anonymous keyboard warrior attempting to bully him!!

The area frequency for unmarked aerodromes is a ridiculous concept and just another example of a thought bubble that sitting around a table with a few people from industry that actually work VFR in G every day might have nipped in the bud. Why should a VFR pilot monitor Melbourne Centre and listen to Emirates at FL 360 when the 172 departing from the nearest aerodrome on 126.7 would be more likely to be traffic they might actually need to see and avoid.

Howabout

25th Mar 2016, 04:09

Fine, CFI, your advice has been Rx'd.

My apologies for being a pedant! I won't get on my 'high-horse' again in that regard

That said, frustration does intercede, and is not all directed at AR. My apologies to him/her. Call it 'collateral damage' if you will.

When one asks a valid question to an unsubstantiated remark, one gets nothing other than obfuscation and 'selective use of language/facts.'

I'll live with it, but won't shut up when it comes to 'rewriting history.'

Ban me if you must and, once again, apols AR. Too much giggle juice in the early hours!

actus reus

25th Mar 2016, 05:01

Howabout,

Thank you, but there is no need to apologise.

No offence meant from me either.

I sometimes enjoy the banter too much myself but I do try to not go around the axle about things too much these days.

I do agree with you though; unsubstantiated statements also catch my eye. They add interest if nothing else.

Dick Smith

25th Mar 2016, 06:44

Geez. I would like to meet some of you one day- especially my most strident critics!

Maybe I could organise a special event at Bowylie- plenty of free grog like I did for the Sydney ATCs at Australian Geographic- and I could wear a blindfold or we could have a masked ball so everyone was still anonymous!

Dick Smith

25th Mar 2016, 07:08

Clare Prop. Once they started the wind back of the NAS by printing a special chart with all the ATC frequency sector boundaries on the rot set in.

It was then not possible to continue with the NAS education package because NAS will not work correctly with such a design- or more to the point. Non design!

The CASA advice to monitor and give circuit calls on the ATC area frequency is the logical result of the wind back.

In fact there appears to be no one at CASA who as any idea or plan in relation to airspace design.

Over the last eight years I have offered to give a briefing on what the Government approved NAS policy was. They will not have a bar of it. Clearly don't want to be contaminated by a rational plan that has been well proven in both Canada and the USA.

Even Mr Skidmore appears to have been immediately captured by the existing iron ring of concrete mindset and has not instigated any review of why the NAS policy was wound back just as it was starting to work.

And Angus Houston was one of the strongest supporters of NAS when he was a member of the Aviation Reform Group that made the NAS recommendation to John Anderson.

So be wary of his claim in The Australian newspaper that he was only supporting NAS because " it was Government policy". I even have a copy of a letter from Angus to the ARG confirming that the NAS as he saw it was to follow the US system.

LeadSled

25th Mar 2016, 08:00

Folks,
Just to clear something up, "User Pays" was the result of the Bosch Report many moons ago, and related to Commonwealth Government service charges generally.

It was NOT aviation specific, and long pre-dated anything Dick Smith being appointed to any aviation related government board.

Tootle pip!!

MarkyMarkOZ

25th Mar 2016, 08:02

Darn it. I just ran out of popcorn reading this thread,... can you all please hold the drama whilst I go get some more popcorn...

Can I suggest I would not need more popcorn if the debate stuck to the issues rather than the purile personal and spelling/grammarnazi attacks? Ding, ding,.. round 2!

Clare Prop

25th Mar 2016, 08:23

Hi Dick, as someone who flew in the USA and Europe prior to arriving in 1993 to the most illogical system I'd ever come across and that you were trying to change at the time into something that would match other ICAO countries, this is one area I am in full agreement with you.

I can understand the frustration; a few years back a certain new DAS sat around a table with a bunch of us whose combined experience of the airspace we were talking about would have gone into tens of thousands of hours while his would have been 9/10 of F. all... then proceeded to ignore us and present an fait accompli even more illogical than the current system. I'm sure you can join the dots ;)

missy

25th Mar 2016, 10:33

like I did for the Sydney ATCs at Australian Geographic

And that went well (not), always on TX and never on RX.

gerry111

25th Mar 2016, 12:09

Missy,

I'd always assumed that Dick (as a national icon and treasure) would be a really good listener?

The free drinks that he offers for his proposed 'do' at Bowylie are very attractive to me. I would turn up without a mask as I've previously "outed" myself to him.

Dick, Please PM me with my invitation. :D

Dick Smith

25th Mar 2016, 12:59

Any success I have ever had has come from asking advice and then carefully listening to the answers. Sometimes the advice I receive is conflicting.

That's where common sense has to be used to decide which is most likely to be the correct advice.

My success in business has come from travelling around the world and copying the best.

This formulae has always worked.

Those who claim I don't listen actually mean I haven't taken their advice.

With airspace I spent three years travelling overseas and asking advice from the airspace people in the leading aviation countries.

If Angus Houston and others had not acted to ensure I was not a member of the NAS implementation group I then would have been able to communicate to pilots and ATCs the reasons we were planning to move to a better system.

I managed to get the first part in- that is a pilot would be able to communicate directly to the person with the radar screen when in an area covered by surveillance . Before this pilots in radar covered un controlled airspace were forced by law to only communicate to a person who had no radar screen. That's why the pilot of MDX , in good radar coverage, was never told he was heading at near a right angle to his planned route.

The second two parts have been stopped by shear ignorance. That is an actual separation service when in IMC in the terminal area at busy non tower airports and a zero extra cost Unicom service giving CTAF calling confirmation plus known traffic and weather as they do in North America.

But never fear. We now have a new generation of young pilots and ATCs coming along and already I find many are open to copying the best from anywhere around the world.

le Pingouin

25th Mar 2016, 13:53

How is mixing high capacity RPT with clueless VFR in non-surveillance E "best"? It very clearly is not, as demonstrated near Launy.

Dick Smith

25th Mar 2016, 13:58

Are you really suggesting that at a place like Ballina that E with its mandatory transponder requirement is not safer tha G with no transponder requirement ?

le Pingouin

25th Mar 2016, 14:45

But you seriously thought E without transponder was a suitable replacement for C because that's what you introduced at Launy.

Howabout

25th Mar 2016, 16:28

If Angus Houston and others had not acted to ensure I was not a member of the NAS implementation group I then would have been able to communicate to pilots and ATCs the reasons we were planning to move to a better system.

How we twist the facts. You were never excluded. In fact, you were intimately involved at the oversight level with Angus, the Chair of CASA, the Chair of AsA, and the Secretary.

You were never excluded - you had extraordinary access. More, in my opinion, than your exploits and influence warranted. You were at the head table!

See, the problem was that the penny finally dropped that we were being sold a bunny. Hence 'Rollback' in 2004 after that hellish incident at Launy.

As for Angus, you continue to slander him. He committed his troops - reread the original NAS Handbook - to total compliance. His only caveat (roughly worded) was that 'operational capability and safety' were not compromised.

Angus stood by his word and he also had nothing to do with 'Rollback.'

I just can't figure, Dick, why you seem to have a hate on for Angus.

Dick Smith

25th Mar 2016, 22:00

That is rubbish. Angus called me to a meeting in Canberra on the 8th April 2002 to specifically tell me that a decision had been made that I not be on the NAS Implementation Group. On the 22 May the minister John Anderson then wrote to me and confirmed that decision.

I quote from the ministers letter

" With regard to your role on the IG I have given due consideration... to your presence on the Group ..... - however I believe you will add greater value in providing strategic oversight.......-rather than simultaneously participating in the day to day activities of the IG.

He then sent me a copy of the revised Terms of Reference which deleted my involvement with the Implemenation Group.

At the meeting with Angus Houston mentioned above I said that I believed the reforms would not go ahead if I was not on the Implementation Group in a " hands on" way.

Angus said I was wrong because " defence was totally committed to the airspace changes, and that this time the changes would definitely go ahead"

In fact no measurable NAS changes were made to military airspace from that point on and the important change of removing the ATC frequency boundaries from charts was the reversed.

He was either the instigator or more likely the messenger to keep me off the Implementation Group so those with concrete minds could stop Australia moving to the best Airspace system in the world . And it worked.

I don't " hate " anyone. The present CTAF calling problems have been caused by the wind back of NAS when the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts. No such system exists anywhere in the world.

You should ask Sir Angus why he called me to the private meeting to tell me I was not to be on the implementation Group. I have asked him and not received a satisfactory answer.

Dick Smith

25th Mar 2016, 22:37

And E above D is certainly safer at Launy as it allows the tower Controllor to concentrate on the airspace close to the runway where collision risk is far higher.

C would be safer again if it was covered by a terminal radar Controllor in the Melbourne centre but that would mis allocate safety dollars.

Broome is the only new class D in Australia and you will note it follows NAS and other leading aviation countries and has E in the link airspace above.

Le Ping Why aren't you campaigning against Broome?

fujii

25th Mar 2016, 22:59

Dick, as I have mentioned before. You can't have a terminal controller providing LT or HB services from Melbourne because there is no Terminal Area Radar installation at those airports. En-route radar does not provide the required refresh rate nor does it provide low coverage. If it were to be provided, where would the $millions be recovered from?

Dick Smith

25th Mar 2016, 23:22

Fuji. $6m has been spent on a terminal multilateration system that SaabSensis claims works to ground level at Launy and Hobart.

If it doesn't do this then get them to fix it so it does

And in the USA and Canada every en route low level Controllor is also approach rated.

Why can't our controllers be trained to actually "control". Not just give a 1930s traffic service at non tower airports. PATHETIC.

le Pingouin

26th Mar 2016, 03:01

Who is going to pay for the extra controllers, the extra training, the extra consoles (which we can't fit in to TAAATS anyway) and assorted infrastructure?

Safe? Tell that to pax on that 737 that were nearly killed by the clueless Tobago driver.

LeadSled

26th Mar 2016, 03:38

---- with clueless VFR in non-surveillance E "best"?Safe?
Tell that to pax on that 737 that were nearly killed by the clueless Tobago driver.
Le Ping,
Why the continual denigration/assumption that VFR are clueless??, a common assumption/attitude among self-confessed and self-described "professionals", whatever professional actually means in this context, as being a commercial pilot has never formally been recognised as a profession.

For example, of the long list of professions whose members can witness under the Statutory Declaration Act 1959, commercial/airline pilot is not one, but a cabin crew member who was a nurse can so do.

Does an owner/pilot like CASA CEO/DAS AVM (Rtd.) Skidmore, AM, automatically become "clueless" when he flies VFR, or is there some other particular defining characteristic to determine automatic VFR cluelessness.

Tootle pip!!

PS:
Angus ------- also had nothing to do with 'Rollback.'
That may well be technically correct, as the real reason for the rollback was a matter of actions taken by the then CASA DAS/CEO as a result of the famous/infamous bottom-drawer letter, despite the success of the 12 months trial, and one the eve of that part of NAS being declared permanent. The rollback DID NOT happen because of the Launceston vastly over hyped (industrially) incident, despite the fond and undoubtedly sincerely held belief of many of you.

Capn Bloggs

26th Mar 2016, 07:39

Why the continual denigration/assumption that VFR are clueless??, a common assumption/attitude among self-confessed and self-described "professionals", whatever professional actually means in this context, as being a commercial pilot has never formally been recognised as a profession.

For example, of the long list of professions whose members can witness under the Statutory Declaration Act 1959, commercial/airline pilot is not one, but a cabin crew member who was a nurse can so do.

Does an owner/pilot like CASA CEO/DAS AVM (Rtd.) Skidmore, AM, automatically become "clueless" when he flies VFR, or is there some other particular defining characteristic to determine automatic VFR cluelessness.

Unbelievable but expected, another good old rant sledging professional pilots. The SD reference to commercial pilots and ex-nurses borders on lunacy and complete and utter irrelevance.

The "particular defining characteristic" is the inability (despite thinking one can) to safely separate oneselves from 100+ punters in a 50 tonnes aeroplane, almost killing them all in the process without telling the RPT crew you are there. You just don't get it, do you?? Skates wouldn't fall into that situation because he's been trained properly, and would quite happily pipe up when confronted with a conflict. What you and Dick don't get is that it doesn't matter what type of airspace it is, the only way aeroplanes will be kept apart is if they know about each other (that's not "lookout", either). Class E places all the onus and decision-making on the weakest link, as clearly demonstrated at Launy. The fact that you deny it just goes to show your either/ ignorance or blinding bias.

Why aren't you campaigning against Broome?
Don't worry, there was plenty of campaigning against dirt-road E. The controller is controlling the airspace anyway, why on earth would you deliberately exclude VFR from the high-workload, high-risk terminal airspace? RPT jet crews have enough on their plate during descent without having to worry about/trying to look out for, unannounced VFRs that might be in the way. And don't give us the "they've got TCAS" stuff. TCAS is not a traffic/risk management tool.

The present CTAF calling problems have been caused by the wind back of NAS when the frequency boundaries were put back on the charts.
Absolute nonsense! For many years after NAS :yuk: was introduced, The rule was Multicom all all airports without a published CTAF. It had nothing to do with charted Area freqs. The fact that someone n CASA decided to go back to operating on the Area freq is completely irrelevant to freqs on charts. Your arguments are getting more irrational by the day.

Oh, and by the way Dick, you still haven't answered the question about how much extra it will cost to put in and run terminal E airspace in the regions. Obviously your either don't know, can't be bothered to find out, or do know that the answer involves even more cost to industry...

Lead Balloon

26th Mar 2016, 07:57

Unbelievable but expected, another good old rant sledging professional pilots. The SD reference to commercial pilots and ex-nurses borders on lunacy and complete and utter irrelevance.Gosh.

I think LeadSled was merely pointing out an objective fact: There is a list of occupations whose members are recognised, by law, to be adequate witnesses of the swearing or affirmation or declaration of important legal documents. "Pilot" isn't on the list anywhere, but "nurse" is, in some places.The "particular defining characteristic" is the inability (despite thinking one can) to safely separate oneselves from 100+ punters in a 50 tonnes aeroplane, almost killing them all in the process without telling the RPT crew you are there. You just don't get it, do you?? Skates wouldn't fall into that situation because he's been trained properly ...I see.

Skates was "trained properly", but any other pleb engaged in private operations who hasn't been equivalently trained is going to put those 100+ punters in a 50 tonne aeroplane at risk of death.

But you'll fly in G (sorry F)?

Just for the record, Bloggs, I find your attitude offensive, and I hope that one day you'll get some experience operating in an environment with first world traffic levels so that you will be able to reconsider your overblown rhetoric.

Howabout

26th Mar 2016, 08:02

You should ask Sir Angus why he called me to the private meeting to tell me I was not to be on the implementation team. I have asked him and not received a satisfactory answer.

Dick, you know how the system works. That advice, and letter, would have come from the minister's dept, not Angus. Defence doesn't write stuff for, nor push barrows to, anyone other than MINDEF. Any other approach is entirely inappropriate. You just do not go across portfolio boundaries!

He may have been the 'messenger,' but maybe he was the 'messenger' because no one else had the courage and honesty to stare you in the eye!

In fact no measurable NAS changes were made to military airspace from that point on and the important change of removing the ATC frequency boundaries from charts was the reversed.No, because NAS fell over in a heap after Launy and 'Rollback in 2004; not before, in respect of changes to military airspace. I was there! In fact, I spent weeks (and nights) writing the entire implementation plan for US SUA at the direction of Angus to hold up our end of the bargain.

NAS failed because, as a package, it was ill-thought out, relied on opinion, there was no system safety case, no cost/benefit, and no thorough risk analysis that justified introduction. The whole disaster split industry and was painful to be a part of.

That said, and despite the foregoing, I (intuitively) never had any real issues with the pure US CTAF model, and to this day cannot see what all the fuss is about.

No problems either with a basic service, such as a Unicom. The resistance quite baffles me on that one. No cost, and an understanding that basic info would only be provided on an 'opportunity basis.'

Lowering E to A085 was a 'no brainer.' Why was climbing in G with no traffic safer that climbing in E while awaiting clearance into C? Still scratch my head on that one.

But, having said all that, the 'package' was flawed from the outset. It just never had the required 'confidence-checkers,' Dick, that wider industry could support. And that's why it failed. Opinion and 'I want' just didn't make it over the line.

Dick Smith

26th Mar 2016, 08:28

And there is no doubt in my mind that if I was on the implementation team the system would have come in as the AMATS changes did when I was hands on.

You will now never know because of the successful campaign to make sure I was not on the implementation team.

In my business career I have introduced new systems by following the success of others.

You support my Unicom idea whereas lots are totally opposed. Other things you are against others support. I just want to copy the best.

And the ATSB made no recommendation that NAS should be reversed because of the Launy incident.

Dick Smith

26th Mar 2016, 08:35

Le Ping. How come existing En route controllers can do approach work in the USA without extra consoles but this does not seem possible here?

Could it be that fixed in your mind is the unique Australian way and you are not willing to copy the superior US system?

Capn Bloggs

26th Mar 2016, 08:47

And, Lead Balloon, I find your nitpicking-nonsense rather annoying too. That comment by LS and your followup is completely, totally, and utterly irrelevant to the "objective" (are there subjective facts??) fact that the Tobago pilot thought he could keep Mum (because E allowed him to) and keep clear.

Your continued sniping adds nothing to the real debate. It's almost as if you and LS are one in the same....

No problems either with a basic service, such as a Unicom. The resistance quite baffles me on that one.
I have said it umpteen times before and will say it again; in the regions, where Unicoms may "help", there is just nobody to do it. There's nobody there apart from the staff checking in pax for the flight out. The current situation, with auto VHF weather, allows us to check and recheck the QNH and wind during the arrival; removing untrained (ie no-cost) humans from the chain improves safety. While it would be nice to have an FBO and a follow-me girl, this just isn't going to happen. Technology has moved on. I remember one occasion where the person on the radio said the QNH was 1009. The TAF said it should have been around 999 (cyclone approaching). When we quizzed her, she said "it's never below 1000!". How to fix that? Training! Cost! She leaves after 6 months... more training. More records. More red tape for the operator or airport. And Dick talks about the Unicom giving traffic? Is he serious??

Why was climbing in G with no traffic safer that climbing in E while awaiting clearance into C?
So, we have ATC unable to give us a clearance because another aeroplane is so close, forcing the IFR jet to go VFR until we reach C... That is "badder" than having a Directed Traffic Information Service that allows the crews to sort out the upcoming confliction before it happens. You were right about the "no cost/benefit", Howabout. Still, after all these years, Dick has been unable to produce a CBA on Terminal Class E in the regions. Where I operate, we don't even have VHF comms on the ground, let alone surveillance to the ground, and the controllers are flat-out anyway. Without lots of dollars for ground infrastructure and extra controllers, Class E would just be an embuggerance.

le Pingouin

26th Mar 2016, 13:27

Dick, sector sizes are based around workload - providing an approach service is more workload intensive than simply providing traffic so to cater for this a sector will need to be smaller. Also providing an approach service on a 500NM wide screen is hardly ideal and do you really want the controller fixated on the approach service (out of necessity) in one corner of his screen while ignoring the other stuff is going on elsewhere? Would you hand fly an ILS approach in ****ty weather and try to play a game on your phone at the same time?

Maybe, just maybe they can do it in the US because their sectors are the right size to handle it. You're not wanting to copy the whole system - you're wanting to shoehorn it in regardless of whether it will actually fit into the current infrastructure.

Maybe you need to get that into your fixed mind......

Show me that it can be done with current resources. Show me where you are going to get the extra controllers to allow for training for the approach rating - training requires time away from the console so someone needs to be available to fill the seat. Where are we going to source all the instructors, the sim time.

I know you won't because you've been asked this countless times in the past and never answer.

le Pingouin

26th Mar 2016, 13:42

LeadSled, the pilot of the VFR Tobago involved in the Launcy AIRPROX was quite demonstrably clueless - just read the report. 2 degrees at 15NM was adequate? It nearly killed him and a 737 load of pax.

The VFR pilots who do have a clue (and that's probably a large percentage) are not the threat, it's the percentage who are clueless that are. I've witnessed many, many VFRs fly through active restricted areas that are active every day, i.e. they didn't just get caught out by missing a NOTAM. Seen numerous merrily fly through CTA without a clearance while not listening on any frequency ATC has access to. I've seen them fly through approach paths at major airports requiring evasive action by RPTs.

It's not about denigrating, it's about surviving the lowest common denominator - the clueless VFR.

Lead Balloon

26th Mar 2016, 21:38

[I]t's about surviving the lowest common denominator - the clueless VFR.Yet it's apparently OK for RPT to mix with clueless VFR in G.

(Or is it F? I keep forgetting whether it's you or Captain Midnight who insists it's F. Or maybe it's Capt Bloggs...:confused:)

Dick Smith

26th Mar 2016, 22:09

I spoke to the pilot flying the Tobago at Launy. He said that he had the Virgin aircraft sited at all relevant times and there was never ever any chance of a collision. That's how alerted see and avoid works all around the world .

The system worked as designed . Because we added the extra mode C transponder mandate in Australia his aircraft appeared on the TCAS and that was then used to reverse the proven airspace system .

Virgin aircraft fly everyday in class G terminal airspace with no transponder requirement for VFR and you accept this because that's what we have done for years. In effect your minds say that if it's the way We have done it before it must be acceptable. If Launy that day had been like Ballina there would have been no incident reported as a transponder would not have been required in the VFR aircraft. Remember the Virgin crew never sighted the Tobago. It only appeared on the TCAS.

The aircraft passed a mile apart- clearly adequate for an alerted see and avoid system in good VMC. Such separation happens all the time in 100s of G airports in Australia every day.

Dick Smith

26th Mar 2016, 22:27

Le ping. Thanks for saying the sectors are based on workload. Could you contact Mr Skidmore and explain this to him. He and others think it reflects VHF coverage of the ground station. Under NAS we suggested monitoring the nearest VHF outlet if communication to ATC was required. All the " workload designed" frequency boundaries were put back on the charts and even at 8500' there are many places where there is no radio coverage to a ground station on the now required frequency. Crazy. Just trying to return to the 1950s! Same re Launceston. Get a rational brain is my suggestion.

Lead Balloon

26th Mar 2016, 22:28

He said that he had the Virgin aircraft sited at all relevant times and there was never ever any chance of a collision.But Dick, the Tobago pilot misjudged the side on which the 737 would pass. The Tobago pilot's subjective assessment of the collision risk is therefore meaningless.

The objective collision risk was infinitesimally small, not because of the Tobago pilot's judgment of the risk, but rather because there was an infinitesimally remote possibility that the aircraft could have collided even if both pilots had tried to collide.

Dick Smith

26th Mar 2016, 22:41

La Ping

FAA controllers I have flown with here in Australia reckon our traffic information service at non tower airports is often more labor intensive than a class E separation service.

But you wouldn't know because for 25 years since the AMATS decision you and others have prevented a trial of class E at even one location anywhere in Australia .

That's why I will not give in to ignorance. I can assure you one day I will get a trial going and then we can see if Australian ATCs can be as professional and as capable as those in other leading aviation countries. Nothing has convinced me that we have to be second rate here.

I don't want more needless deaths like Benalla where the ATC following the inferior Australian training and regulatory requirements did not inform the pilot that the tracking alarm had gone off. Why? Because the pilot was heading to class G airspace and it wasn't the ATCs responsibility if the pilot made an error and killed everyone on board,

Class E at Benalla would have most likely meant all those people would be alive today yet you constantly try and keep a discredited system that clearly kills people.

How many more deaths before you will support a trial of just one airport with E to 700 agl being operated by the existing en route Controllor? I wonder.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

26th Mar 2016, 23:20

then we can see if Australian ATCs can be as professional and as capable as those in other leading aviation countries
And yet you still can't see why you get people offside?

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

26th Mar 2016, 23:24

the pilot made an error and killed everyone on board
Unfortunately, ATC can't and will never be able to stop that from happening.

Arm out the window

27th Mar 2016, 00:02

then we can see if Australian ATCs can be as professional and as capable as those in other leading aviation countries

Does he just do it for effect, or not think before he hits enter? ... anyone who had to jump into the shoes of Aussie air traffickers would soon get a taste of how good they have to be, I'm sure - I've just been on the receiving end but I think we can all agree that these guys and girls do an extremely demanding job and generally very well, with the odd stuff up that can't be excluded from any human endeavour.

itsnotthatbloodyhard

27th Mar 2016, 00:35

I spoke to the pilot flying the Tobago at Launy. He said that he had the Virgin aircraft sited at all relevant times and there was never ever any chance of a collision.

Dick, as people keep trying to tell you: the Tobago pilot thought that 2 degrees at 15nm would be fine. He clearly misjudged the path of the 737, believing it to be turning when it wasn't. He triggered an RA, and passed within 200'/1nm (even after the other aircraft complied with the RA). His assessment of the collision risk, or the acceptable miss distance, is quite clearly worthless, and I'm surprised you keep coming back to it.

Sunfish

27th Mar 2016, 00:48

I'm afraid I have to agree with Dick. if something works well overseas in an environment that we can broadly replicate in Australia then why not copy it instead of reinventing. the wheel each time?

it is, in my opinion, up to those those who want to reinvent the wheel or revert to 1950's procedures to demonstrate that their system will produce a better safety outcome which in my opinion, should be analysed by an independent ATSB as the final authority.

to me the combination of a profit driven ATC service, combined with a hidebound ineffective regulator produces the worst of all possible worlds for achieving safe aviation.

to put that another way, we seem to be copying the bureaucracy of Europe, the cultural resistance to innovation of the British, the (apocryphal) attitude to safety of Italy, the business ethics of China and the punitive practices of Saudi Arabia.

actus reus

27th Mar 2016, 01:15

There are many points, obviously, for all sides of this discussion.
However, having flown B777 test flights out of Everett on a weekend (i.e. 'G') and out of places like Glasgow Montana (not the 'international airport, the ex USAF base owned by Boeing) where there is Nothing in the way of airspace, ATC always provide a service.

This intrigued me so when I questioned an ATC supervisor about what service ATC gave to IFR aircraft in 'G', he was a little confused.

His answer, 'we give IFR a full service as best we can regardless of the airspace classification the aircraft is in. Most controllers do not even worry or care what the airspace classification is', or words to that effect.

Isn't that what we want as an 'end game' here in OZ regardless of how we get there or what we call the airspace?

actus reus

27th Mar 2016, 01:20

I am not an airspace expert by any means and I certainly bow to those who are airspace experts; however, if we are going to play the 'name game', looking at the ICAO definitions of airspace what we call 'G' seems to me to actually be 'F'.

Le Ping,
This seems to be your bailiwick, is that correct, we actually have 'F'?

Vref+5

27th Mar 2016, 01:45

If my memory regarding the Launy is correct, the RPT jet was given the option to either turn left immediately for a RH downwind and base, or to overfly and join for LH downwind and base. The crew of the jet did not transmit precisely what there intentions were, and did their own thing (overfly for LH downwind). So they did not do themselves any favours, instead of being in an alerted see and avoid area, it became see and avoid only, based upon their actions. So if the critics of the Launy incident do not want to see a repeat of that incident, then something has to be done with all of the aerodromes in Class G that are serviced by RPT. Mandating radio carriage in Class G isn't it, because a non radio aircraft is an aircraft which (1) doesn't have one fitted, or (2) is on the wrong frequency, or (3) volume is too low, or (4), or the PIC presses the map light instead of the transmit button, or (5) doesn't use it properly, or (6) the list goes on. The mitigator has to be a third party, that's the whole premise of the ICAO airspace model. Risks becomes intolerable due to mix/volume, introduce another mitigator.

Dick Smith

27th Mar 2016, 03:50

Actus. You are 100% correct. In other countries such as the USA , Canada and the U.K. ATCs just separate IFR whenever they can. It's only in Aus that ATCs are trained to be obsessed with airspace categories. It's because of our history and a total lack of leadership

Dick Smith

27th Mar 2016, 03:54

Dick Smith

27th Mar 2016, 04:01

Traffic. My comments are accurate. I get a control service en route on a one way air route when the collision risk is minuscule . Then in the terminal area at a place like Mt Hotham I get no separation of MSA service at all. And that's where the risks are clearly higher.

Many ATCs I talk to would like to give a proper service but are stopped by near zero leadership. Of the type that posts on this site!

le Pingouin

27th Mar 2016, 04:43

Lead Balloon, the point is Dick replaced "C" with "E" in non-surveillance which directly lead to that AIRPROX near Launy. Our "G" is closer to "F" than anything else.

le Pingouin

27th Mar 2016, 04:50

So Dick, you finally admit that the service you're getting in the US is not as per the NAS model but the result of over-servicing and controllers ignoring the the very airspace model you're wanting to introduce.

If you believe the system worked as per spec then that system is incredibly broken - it nearly killed a 737 full of pax. Without TCAS there's every chance they would have flown right though the Tobago because the Tobago pilot clearly didn't have a clue. When the lowest common denominator is a clueless VFR you're in trouble - E is a system designed to fail.

LeadSled

27th Mar 2016, 04:56

------ and utterly irrelevant to the "objective" (are there subjective facts??) fact that the Tobago pilot thought he could keep Mum (because E allowed him to) and keep clear.Bloggsie,***
As Lawrence Welk would say:"Wunnerful, wunnerful".

Objective: When use as an adjective(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
impartial (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+impartial&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIHjAA), unbiased (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+unbiased&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIHzAA), unprejudiced (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+unprejudiced&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIIDAA), non-partisan (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+non-partisan&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIITAA), disinterested (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+disinterested&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIIjAA), non-discriminatory (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+non-discriminatory&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIIzAA), neutral (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+neutral&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIJDAA), uninvolved (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+uninvolved&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIJTAA), even-handed (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+even-handed&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIJjAA&biw=1280&bih=635), equitable (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+equitable&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIJzAA), fair (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+fair&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIKDAA), fair-minded (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+fair-minded&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIKTAA), just (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+just&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIKjAA), open-minded (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+open-minded&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIKzAA), dispassionate (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+dispassionate&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoILDAA), detached (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+detached&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoILTAA), impersonal (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+impersonal&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoILjAA), unemotional (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+unemotional&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoILzAA), clinical (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=define+clinical&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3_OTx-d_LAhXkhaYKHU_iAmgQ_SoIMDAA)

Subjective: When used as an adjective:1Based on or influenced (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/influence#influence__10) by personal feelings, tastes (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/taste#taste__2), or opinions: his views (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/view#view__6) are highly subjective there is always the danger (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/danger#danger__2) of making a subjective judgement (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/judgement#judgement__2) Contrasted with objective (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/objective).
1.1Dependent (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dependent#dependent__2) on the mind or on an individual’s (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/individual#individual__9) perception (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/perception#perception__7) for its existence.

In (objective) fact, your whole case, and that of your cohort who cannot accept ICAO airspace classification, and the ICAO separation assurance standards, is entirely subjective.

To suggest that it is an "objective fact" that the Tobago pilot in the Launceston incident. would have run smack into the airline aircraft, in the absence of communications, and it was only the TCAS activation that saved the day is too silly for words.

Are you seriously saying that, in conditions of severe clear, undisputed VMC, with the undisputed fact that the Tobago pilot (who was quite an experienced pilot, and objectively an entirely rational person) had the traffic, at all relevant time, clearly in sight, would have just sat there and collided with the airline aircraft.

Are you seriously saying that the Tobago pilot was so incompetent and irrational that his behavior amounted to suicidal. That his instinct for self-preservation had taken the day off. Where is your objective evidence.

Such a clearly subjective view on your part is so far from any known definition of "objective", that it should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Unfortunately for you, objectively, the clearly distinguished FACT that Class E airspace is widely used around our world, on a day to day basis, as part of the safe and efficient handling of IFR and VFR traffic ( "safe" here meaning to an acceptably low level of risk, at least equal to the ICAO separation assurance standard) is the most OBJECTIVE evidence that you and your cohorts views on unacceptable levels of risk represented by Class E as an airspace category are entirely SUBJECTIVE.

Similarly, your entirely subjective view that our current arrangements in G (which you subjectively claim is F) are some how lower risk (safer) than the same airspace being E to 1200ft. AMSL is objectively wrong, based on the results of rational analysis, including analysis using Airservices models, and, of course, ICAO SARPs. and Docs.

Clearly, I, and many others of wide experience regard your views as something more than merely subjective, we believe they have been clearly demonstrated to be irrational. See, among others, the various posts of "Voice of Reason".

Indeed, I am bound to (once again) remind readers of the then AFAP Technical Director's demand that "perceived risk", even when it could be objectively shown to be exactly that, perceived, and to not objectively exist, that nevertheless the ill-conceived perception had to be addressed with regulatory mitigation.

How do you regulate to mitigate totally subjective, indeed mythical, threats? That is beyond reason, or Reason.

Tootle pip!!

*** Bloggsie: Recent academic studies show that addressing you a Bloggsie, as opposed to Bloggs, will adduce in you greater feelings that my comments are friendly and more likely to be accepted. I wonder if, in your case, you conform to the academic profile??

LeadSled

27th Mar 2016, 05:10

However, having flown B777 test flights out of Everett on a weekend (i.e. 'G') and out of places like Glasgow Montana (not the 'international airport, the ex USAF base owned by Boeing) where there is Nothing in the way of airspace, ATC always provide a service.Actus,
That was because you were in Class E ( tower airspace reverts to E when an FAA Class C or D tower is closed) and elsewhere there is very little G in US, it's E down to 1200/700 agl.
Tootle pip!!

le Pingouin

27th Mar 2016, 05:20

Sunfish, the problem is that no matter how good or bad the starting and enpoints are the transition has always been set out in stages. You end up having a mixture of the new and the old leading to confusion. Learning to operate in a new system primarily by using it where lives are at risk is a serious issue that education alone clearly can't handle properly. It's a bit late for a pilot to discover gaps in their knowledge or subtleties that they failed to grasp when they're failing to separate themself from a 737 near Launy.

The system might work well in the US because it's a mature system that they all grew up with and were trained to fly in from scratch. How is it possible to transplant that directly to another country? You can bring all the rules you want but that doesn't bring the generations of cultural knowledge that goes with it. The little tricks you pass on to new pilots on how to make it all work that aren't part of the rules.

Dick has admitted further up the thread that this goes on with controllers - they don't actually do what it says on the NAS tin, so even if we followed the NAS model we wouldn't be providing the same service.

Howabout

27th Mar 2016, 05:45

Vref. You are correct. The alerted see and avoid was made more difficult because the airline crew did not communicate where they were heading . Same could happen in G. That's why it's important to remain alert at all times.

I'd just ask if this would have been an issue if the airspace had remained C at no extra cost. And there was no extra cost in keeping the airspace Class C. And, I'll cut you short on this one. Arguments to the effect that Tasmanian VFR traffic bears extra costs because of Class C is a total fabrication if you want to put that argument. There just is not enough around that precludes offering expedition and service in C.

It was ideological change, Dick, that wasn't predicated on cost/benefit. I'll keep repeating that line. There was no cost saving in going to E, and negative benefit as regards that incident.

In conclusion, I have no issue with airspace re-classification if there are clear benefits that offset the cost of maintaining a previous regime. But, in the case of Launy, it was just blind ideology.

Dick Smith

27th Mar 2016, 07:29

The benefit was getting the GA organisations to agree with a mandatory transponder requirement for all E. The first such agreement I know of anywhere in the world.

I convinced the GA organisations including AOPA that to reduce the giant road blocks in the sky it would be worth agreeing to mandatory mode C even though there was no cost benefit study. In fact the FAA stated that they had no requirement for mandatory transponders in E over D because there was not a measurable safety problem.

Then AsA acted in a totally unethical way and removed the E but then insisted that CASA let the transponder mandate remain in all E and in non radar C- which previously did not have a transponder mandate.

Howabout most pilots I know including myself ,when flying VFR , take the extra distance and fly around non radar class C. Otherwise you get delayed and stuffed around as the poor procedural controller in a tower has to some how keep you separated . It is clearly a giant expensive road block in the sky.

fujii

27th Mar 2016, 07:37

Dick, re your comment that US and Canadian enroute controllers provide an approach service. I posted this question on the ATC forum:

Do US low level en-route controllers also hold terminal ratings. If so, do they provide the services concurrently or do they rotate through positions?

The answer from the US was: no... Enroute controllers do not hold terminal ratings.

WAM is not approved for 3nm terminal separation.

Dick Smith

27th Mar 2016, 07:44

Most importantly. Taking a tower controllers attention away from passenger traffic in the circuit area and on the runway while having to separate an en route VFR aircraft that is crossing the class C 20 miles out is crazy. It's an accident waiting to happen FAA controllers tell me.

Or are you telling me our controllers in Australia can do this without any reduction in safety?

Dick Smith

27th Mar 2016, 07:50

Fuji. That's of course the whole point. Fixed in your mind is that because some 1950s unique Australian rule ( probably industrially driven) requires a terminal rating to provide a control service at a non tower airport then we must never change and follow more modern procedures from other leading aviation countries.

Get with it. Get your Union to put the safety of air passengers in front of keeping 1950s practices!

WAM is supposed to be so accurate it can be used to accurately position aircraft on taxiways so why don't you move to get it to be used properly in the terminal area in Australia? Or is that an industrial issue as well?

Am I on to you?

Lead Balloon

27th Mar 2016, 07:51

[T]he point is Dick replaced "C" with "E" in non-surveillance which directly lead to that AIRPROX near Launy. Our "G" is closer to "F" than anything else.So there's never been an AIRPROX in C, Le P?

You seem to be confusing correlation and causation. (Exquisite use of language though: "directly lead to" the AIRPOX.)

I've checked. Captain Midnight said there is no F airspace in Australia. You can't both be right.

However, I tend to believe you, Le P, because G being F would be the more absurd outcome that is so often implemented in Australia. There are many points, obviously, for all sides of this discussion.

However, having flown B777 test flights out of Everett on a weekend (i.e. 'G') and out of places like Glasgow Montana (not the 'international airport, the ex USAF base owned by Boeing) where there is Nothing in the way of airspace, ATC always provide a service.

This intrigued me so when I questioned an ATC supervisor about what service ATC gave to IFR aircraft in 'G', he was a little confused.

His answer, 'we give IFR a full service as best we can regardless of the airspace classification the aircraft is in. Most controllers do not even worry or care what the airspace classification is', or words to that effect.

Isn't that what we want as an 'end game' here in OZ regardless of how we get there or what we call the airspace?Hear! Hear! actus reus.

le Pingouin

27th Mar 2016, 08:06

Industrial issue? FFS Dick, go ask CASA - they're the ones who say how surveillance can or can't be used. They're the ones who say what ratings you need to perform what task.

le Pingouin

27th Mar 2016, 08:12

Yes there have been AIRPOXs in C because someone screwed up, not because the system was working as intended.

If the airspace had been C as it had been before and after the misadventure into E then the AIRPROX would not have happened. The change to E was the major contributing factor. I'm being a little fast & lose with language because Dick does it all the time.

Looking at the definition of F the service we provide is far closer to that than G.

Lead Balloon

27th Mar 2016, 08:24

You are, indeed, being a little fast and "lose" with language.

You're certain the AIRPROX wouldn't have happened if the airspace had been C, and that collisions can happen in E without anyone screwing up?

I think the definitions of "objective" and "subjective" that LeadSled posted earlier are worth frequent reiteration.

Dick Smith

27th Mar 2016, 08:32

ICAO says class F is for temporary use. 50 years temporary ?

And as I have said before ICAO class F is non radio for VFR. And all of our class F proponents are totally obsessed with mandatory radio requirements for VFR otherwise we are all going to die!

So our mandatory radio class G areas are clearly not F. !

In fact ICAO did not allocate an airspace classification for our pre 1991 class G.

That's why I why I got involved in the change. And it's more likely going to happen as the old troglodytes die out.

Dick Smith

27th Mar 2016, 08:44

Le Ping. Re your post 201. I believe I can show you how it can be done ( that is some class E at non tower airports) without increasing AsA costs..

May mean a few less in head office and I have experience in that field!

But we need to talk. Is that possible to arrange?

fujii

27th Mar 2016, 09:12

Dick, you aren't on to me, neither does it have anything to do with the union. I retired 18 months ago after 42 years. During that time I never told pilots how to operate their aircraft as some pilots try to tell air traffic controllers to do their job.

Capn Bloggs

27th Mar 2016, 10:22

You are, indeed, being a little fast and "lose" with language.

You're certain the AIRPROX wouldn't have happened if the airspace had been C, and that collisions can happen in E without anyone screwing up?
You're at it again, Balloon. Nitpicking about things which are totally irrelevant to the argument. Ping is spot on and you know it. If you don't, stop posting and learn.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

27th Mar 2016, 11:27

Many ATCs I talk to would like to give a proper service
So once again, you imply that the service you get now from Australian ATC, in the airspace they control, to the rules they operate to, is unprofessional and half-baked. In my opinion, there is only one person being unprofessional, and I mean that in every sense of the word.
Many of the ATC I talk to could not give a rats about providing any additional services. They are flat out providing the service they give now, with the numbers and resources they have. Mostly, they don't care what you think. They do their job to the best of their ability, and if the rules change, they'll do that job to the best of their ability. They don't make the rules, and they certainly are not going to work outside them. You bang on about "no cost", but there is always a cost. You, however, are happy as long as someone else is paying it.

le Pingouin

27th Mar 2016, 12:06

Dick, I'm just a controller with zero organisational influence. You could convince me we could send a wombat to the moon without raising AsA costs and I could wax lyrical at work, but it wouldn't help get the wombat launched.

By current resources I don't mean money. Controllers don't grow on tress - we need training which takes time and additional training resources. Sectors need redesigning, which again takes resources. You can throw all the money you want at it but you won't find the resources necessary to achieve the changes off the street.

As mentioned elsewhere even if you convince CASA we no longer need an approach endorsement to provide an approach service we still need the training to allow us to do it. More resources.

Mr Approach

27th Mar 2016, 12:10

Dick and Fuji - WAM in Australia is approved for 5 NM separation in Tasmania and 3NM separation in the air in the Sydney basin where it also provides Precision Runway Monitoring (PRM). On the ground at four airports it is used for surveillance and provides situation awareness, not separation. The accuracy of multilateration is not in doubt but the number of ground units has to rise to meet the accuracy requirement. For example Sydney airport has approx 14 ground stations for surface movement; Tasmania has approximately the same number to cover the whole island.

Incidentally each multilateration receiver is also an ADS-B receiver and only needs one station to pick up a position. Multilateration requires between 3-4 stations to be receiving a transponder to establish and maintain an accurate track.

Mutilat which requires a transponder (preferably Mode S) is a great surveillance tool midway between SSR, which also requires a transponder, and ADS-B, which requires a new piece of equipment. ADS-B is the way of the future until someone invents something better.

le Pingouin

27th Mar 2016, 12:36

Balloon, I fully confess to the sin of omission of the letter "o". I'll sacrifice another rubber chicken as penance.

Let's put it this way, for that AIRPROX to have occurred in C the controller would have had to screw up (an unlikely event) as well as the rest of the events occurring. i.e. it can't be anything else than a considerably less likely event, probably by a couple of orders of magnitude.

E relies on pilots listening, hearing and then interpreting correctly. If any of these fail then all you're left with is unalerted see and avoid, something that is acknowledged as being a very poor means of avoiding collisions. Is that objective enough for you?

mgahan

27th Mar 2016, 13:29

All this talk about Class F airspace being "temporary" encouraged me to look at Annex 11 and PANS/ATM (Doc 4444). Interesting words.

The note to 2.6.1 in AN 11 says, " Note.— Where air traffic advisory service is implemented, this is considered normally as a temporary measure only until such time as it can be replaced by air traffic control. (See also PANS-ATM, Chapter 9.) " No mention of the airspace being temporary.

Can one of you more enlightened folk give me the reference about the airspace being temporary?

MJG (decrepit old aircraft separator, expect for the time I spent regulating civil and military airspace)

Lead Balloon

27th Mar 2016, 21:43

Let's put it this way, for that AIRPROX to have occurred in C the controller would have had to screw up (an unlikely event) as well as the rest of the events occurring. i.e. it can't be anything else than a considerably less likely event, probably by a couple of orders of magnitude.

E relies on pilots listening, hearing and then interpreting correctly. If any of these fail then all you're left with is unalerted see and avoid, something that is acknowledged as being a very poor means of avoiding collisions. Is that objective enough for you?That's less subjective, Le p.

But apparently that risk is 'objectively' acceptable for RPT in ForG in Australia, despite the clueless VFRs.

And apparently it's 'objectively' OK for Qantas et al jets to fly through E in e.g the USA, despite the traffic levels being a little higher than in Australia. Perhaps the USA has fewer clueless VFRs?

And AIRPROXs still occur in C.

This 'debate' reminds me of the lean of peak 'debate'. Those against LOP say every problem suffered by an engine operated LOP is caused by operating LOP and wouldn't have happened if the engine had been run ROP. But every problem suffered by an engine operated ROP is caused by .... well ... eerrrmmm ... very rare random failures unrelated to the mixture setting.

Go figure. :confused:

LeadSled

27th Mar 2016, 23:12

(an unlikely event)Le Ping,
Why!!
Controllers screw up just like any normal human being, (aka human factors) even if the Airservices "policy" claims super-human performance for their employees, once claiming an error rate of less than 10 to the minus 6, super-human or an absurd proposition. When, in the same "study" the claimed error rate (in receiving and correctly executing a clearance) for pilots was variously 1:1 and 1:2.

That is, Airservices claimed pilots screw up variously every time to only half the time, 100% of the time to only 50% of the time.

Somewhat "subjective facts", I would say, and certainly not "objective" for either controllers or pilots.

I, personally, have been on the receiving end of some grand screwups in AU, usually the controller "losing" me.

Got left at 7000 on left base for 34L at YSSY one morning, where you would normally be cleared to 3000' ---- and no, it was not "other traffic", it was profound apologies. And that is just one of many, over the years. Wonderful, how well a B747-400 sideslips, once "found" and suitably cleared ( XX10, cleared visual approach) we were back on profile, stable at 1000'. All good fun!!

My subjective observation would be that ATC screwups seem to happen more often in Australia than where I spent the other 80%+ of my hours, ATSB stats. on loss of separation rates are instructive, but I am not claiming it as an objective fact.
Tootle pip!!

Capn Bloggs

28th Mar 2016, 00:17

On and on we go, warries about LOP and Sled being left high and dry umpteen years ago! A error or mistake is one thing; an airspace system that allowed the lowest common denominator to determine the outcome of a conflict, with no requirement to announce their own position, is ludicrous, as was amply demonstrated at Launy.

But apparently that risk is 'objectively' acceptable for RPT in ForG in Australia, despite the clueless VFRs.
Err, yes, because the traffic levels are less (not to mention mandatory carriage and use of radio >5k, in a CTAF, mandatory use of Transponders if serviceable and in any case at all times above 10k, need I say more)! Traffic levels go up, a tower goes in. Guess what people, towers are for controlling. Ideally, you'd think aeroplanes would be talking to the tower. But no, no need to at Launy because it's Class E! See and Avoid rules, OK!

As for this nonsense...
If my memory regarding the Launy is correct, the RPT jet was given the option to either turn left immediately for a RH downwind and base, or to overfly and join for LH downwind and base. The crew of the jet did not transmit precisely what there intentions were, and did their own thing (overfly for LH downwind). So they did not do themselves any favours, instead of being in an alerted see and avoid area, it became see and avoid only, based upon their actions.
Surely you can't be serious, Shirley? How on earth can the Virgin 737 participate in Alerted See and Avoid if it didn't even know the Tobago was there? Alerted See and Avoid requires both parties to be involved. Clueless... Or we could just revert back to verbal diarrhoea as Dick had us doing around the circuit there for a while...

So if the critics of the Launy incident do not want to see a repeat of that incident, then something has to be done with all of the aerodromes in Class G that are serviced by RPT. Mandating radio carriage in Class G isn't it, because a non radio aircraft is an aircraft which (1) doesn't have one fitted, or (2) is on the wrong frequency, or (3) volume is too low, or (4), or the PIC presses the map light instead of the transmit button, or (5) doesn't use it properly, or (6) the list goes on.
See my comments above. No-radio not permitted above 5k, ask the controller for a check call in Class G if you want, Beepback in CTAF to confirm. It's not that hard...
The mitigator has to be a third party, that's the whole premise of the ICAO airspace model. Risks becomes intolerable due to mix/volume, introduce another mitigator.
At Launy/Karratha, Broome, Alice, it's called a... Control Tower. At Ayers Rock, Port Hedland, soon to be Ballina, it's called a AFIS/CAGRO. :cool:

So our mandatory radio class G areas are clearly not F. !
That's what's so ridiculous about alphabet soup airspace. Trying to put labels on a setup that already exists and, given the chaos that has ensued since Dick embarked on his crusade in the 1990s, and the current state, largely unsuccessful (quite apart from probably driving pilots in their droves away from the pastime). We have, actually, achieved nothing. Nothing. Even though "everything" has changed, Nothing has changed. We still have a great airspace system. Simple, CTA and Non-CTA, mandatory radio when required, taking advantage of new technology eg transponders, ADS-B, beepbacks, auto-weather stations. Dick and Leadsled are really miffed can't fly their C150 through the arrival paths of the A380s going into Sydney using See and Avoid as the only method of separation, but then again, you can't ride a horse and cart on a freeway. Get real...

itsnotthatbloodyhard

28th Mar 2016, 00:54

Got left at 7000 on left base for 34L at YSSY one morning, where you would normally be cleared to 3000' ---- and no, it was not "other traffic", it was profound apologies. And that is just one of many, over the years. Wonderful, how well a B747-400 sideslips, once "found" and suitably cleared ( XX10, cleared visual approach) we were back on profile, stable at 1000'. All good fun!!

Awesome stuff, and there's nothing the pax enjoy better than a massive sideslip :ok:. Of course, a quick "request further descent" on mid-downwind might also have done the trick, although without the same opportunity for heroics. ;)

Dick Smith

28th Mar 2016, 01:16

Bloggs. Achieved nothing? You appear to like the beep back... I personally built the first one and moved it to the Jabiru factory in Bundaberg after the horrific incident on the 16 TH May 1997 where a professional air crew were on the wrong CTAF frequency in IMC on approach after using an out of date chart.

See ATSB report 199701646

For the next month professional pilots flying into Bundaberg complained about the beep blocking the frequency. Leroy Keith contacted me and asked me to remove the unit. I explained the beep was only 300 ms long and decided I would delay the removal until I could fly to Queensland again.. Yes. After a couple of months many airline pilots with lateral thinking minds said it should stay and the rest is history.

And the AMATS changes I brought in in 1992 saved our industry over $70 million per year and not one life has been lost because VFR are no longer forced to go full position reporting on flights of over 50nm.

That's $1.75 billion saved by our industry since then.

Capn Bloggs

28th Mar 2016, 01:42

You appear to like the beep back... I personally built the first one and moved it to the Jabiru factory in Bundaberg after the horrific incident on the 16 TH May 1997 where a professional air crew were on the wrong CTAF frequency in IMC on approach after using an out of date chart.
Yes I do. I'd rather listen to a Beepback than any old "person on the airport" trying to be an air traffic controller. And let's not forget that the shambles in Bundy was a direct result of you demolishing a system that worked (AFIZ/Remote AFIZ) and replaced it with nothing.

And the AMATS changes I brought in in 1992 saved our industry over $70 million per year and not one life has been lost because VFR are no longer forced to go full position reporting on flights of over 50nm.
So don't continue whining about VFR not being able to contact ATC because of those stupid lines on charts and how dangerous the situation has become "how can I contact if in an emergency bla bla bla" if you're not prepared to put in a flight plan.

le Pingouin

28th Mar 2016, 02:54

Sled, yes unlikely. I'm not claiming perfection, just I don't see myself surrounded by controllers who have been stood down every second week due to a breakdown of separation.

le Pingouin

28th Mar 2016, 02:58

Balloon, I'm talking about replacing C with E as occurred around Launy. I have no problem with E replacing G but have no faith in being given the resources to achieve this - it will just be tacked on as an extra duty for an already busy controller.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

28th Mar 2016, 03:40

As I recall those days Dick, wasn't it a 'Flight Notification' was required for flights over 50nm from the departure point?

i.e. A VFR flight could file a Plan nominating a ROUTE and a SARTIME, with no intermediate 'reporting points'?

If I remember correctly, this was 'in' in the early days - early 60's perhaps - then 'out' for a time (Progress...?), then 'in' again with the unfortunate demise of a VFR '310' ex Griffith for Bankstown, (mid to late 60's..?) and despite a huge search around the Blue Mountains area where the weather was 'bad', the wreckage was eventually located on the 'lee side' of a hill just 50 or so nm from Griffith, where it was also 'bad'.

At the time, we were told it was decided to re-introduce the 50nm 'limit', so as to reduce the search area and possibly still be able to provide assistance....

As I recall, the only 'mandatory' Full Reporting for VFR, was to transit CTA, and the 'Designated Remote Areas' published at the time, for those aircraft sans EPIRB (Called VSB at the time...)

A VFR with EPIRB could go on a SARTIME thru these 'Remote Areas' so designated.

(Areas around the Snowy Mts, The Kimberley North of Derby, and the track Darwin to Alice, except 'via the h'way.) ?

A VFR sans EPIRB had to go Full SAR, which usually meant the carriage of HF.
No 'Continuous VHF', or, No HF,..... NO GO! (Called pi55 poor planning at the time...)

Cheers:ok: