Dick Smith: Legal Action against CASA re. CTAFs [Archive]

LeadSled

31st Mar 2016, 21:51

http://rosiereunion.com/file/skidmore.pdf

Folks,
The above link will take you to a letter that is the opening of a legal action by Dick Smith against CASA.

As you would expect, Dick has taken legal advice from leading Senior Counsel.

Mark O'Brien, the instructing Solicitor is one of the top solicitors in Sydney. O'Brien was, for many years, Kerry Packer's solicitor of choice and a formidable lawyer.

With these sort of people behind the action, it must be a very strong case, and fully supports the views of the RAPACs and others on VHF frequency usage.

See for yourself.

Tootle pip!!

Capn Bloggs

31st Mar 2016, 23:18

it must be a very strong case
Gee, it MUST be... :cool:

LeadSled

1st Apr 2016, 00:27

Bloggsie,
If you actually bothered to read it and understand, you would see what a compelling narrative and legally strong case it actually is.
Tootle pip!!

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

1st Apr 2016, 01:24

legally strong case
I'd reckon 100% of lawyers in a court room would think they have that, but only 50% of them are right :ok:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

1st Apr 2016, 01:33

All lawyers have an 'unloseable' case until they do, and then they send you the bill, so they don't....

Does that make sense...?

Must be the 1st of.....

Cheeerrrssss :confused:

Aussie Bob

1st Apr 2016, 02:49

I wish it could be worked out without the solicitors. While 126.7 could be one solution, the needless commentaries I heard this morning blocking it for miles will only increase and the one radio aeroplane will not be on this frequency over an unmarked farm field anyway. Calling on the area is not much of an option either it appears, so what is the answer? Do we really need a court to work it out? Perhaps 2 radios? Perhaps no radio? Perhaps just legislate lighties away? I dunno.

Dick Smith

1st Apr 2016, 03:28

Aussie. The answer is really simple. Just copy the country that has about thirty times the amount of traffic in the same land area.

In North America they have half a dozen CTAF frequencies available. Simply allocate one of those frequencies if there is too much traffic in a given area. We already do that.

Interesting how it's not in your realm of thinking that we should copy the best proven systems from anywhere!

Capn Bloggs

1st Apr 2016, 04:05

Calling on the area is not much of an option either it appears
Not actually as stupid as it sounds. Over here, the high-flyers (F290 and above) are generally on a different freq to the low levellers and so will not be comm-jammed by rampant calls on Area...

Aussie Bob

1st Apr 2016, 06:17

Interesting how it's not in your realm of thinking that we should copy the best proven systems from anywhere! I never said that Dick, it is well within my realm of thinking. My main point is that I wish it could be done without solicitors. I am also impressed that you are having a go too, no doubt not a cheap exercise.

dhavillandpilot

1st Apr 2016, 06:37

Remember the saying

"Owe a bank 200,000 and you have a problem, owe them 200,000,000 and they have the problem"

Dicks tilt at CASA has all the hallmarks of CASA having the problem.

My guess it will be quietly decided over tea and biscuits.

If he wins this one what about ADS - B???????

Dick Smith

1st Apr 2016, 22:20

Dhav. Unlikely over tea and biscuits. They will throw an enormous amount of the industry's money at this to make sure no one ever gets any success through legal action.

It's how the Canberra bureaucracy works - protect any individual within the group who makes a mistake .

It won't cost me a cent as I will take the money from what would normally be donated to organisations like the RFDS and Angel Flight. I would imagine hundreds of thousands of dollars will be siphoned to the legal fraternity while CASA supports the incompetent.

I find Sir Angus and Mr Skidmore are similar to Cardinal Pell. That is all thoroughly decent people who think that their prime job is to defend the. " the system" and those in it against any outside criticisms or attacks. It is sad.

When I first went on the CAA Board the Chairman Allan Woods took me aside and said from then on I must support all CAA personel and the decisions they made. Very strange I thought.

Sunfish

1st Apr 2016, 22:29

dick, they won't change, period. they regard themselves (in Canberra) as 'rulers'. Their customer is the minister, not aviators, least of all GA or recreational pilots. entry to the magic circle is now via the military or legal professions. sorry, I'm feeling cynical this morning.

Arm out the window

2nd Apr 2016, 00:01

I reckon they'll see sense and make it 126.7 - just my uninformed opinion, but it seems pretty clear-cut that cluttering the area freq is anti-common sense.

With it, though, there needs to be a push for getting people to cut out unnecessary calls to avoid clashes on 126.7 at airfields close to one another - just one inbound to an airfield or taxiing, and rolling and base calls if needed (or not if you can see all the circuit traffic and know you're clear).

I agree with Dick here and wish him well with this push. Can't say I've become a fan of his rhetoric though - Cardinal Pell eh? You are a master of propaganda, Dick!

Capn Bloggs

2nd Apr 2016, 00:55

cut out unnecessary calls to avoid clashes on 126.7 at airfields close to one another
And we know where that idea came from, don't we Dick? Yet another "good idea at the time" that CASA quite rightly fixed up later. But we are still stuck with it. First, it was the "don't say anything!" letter to us all, then it was the NAS talk "yourself around the circuit" nonsense and finally, as it was and should always have been, two mandatory calls and the rest "on demand". For every one of these changes, it has taken 10 years to sift through the system. Shame on you.

Cardinal Pell eh? You are a master of propaganda, Dick!
Propaganda??

In North America they have half a dozen CTAF frequencies available. Simply allocate one of those frequencies if there is too much traffic in a given area.
So, far more traffic than us (15x, was it?), the same area, and only 5 CTAFs plus, I assume, 126.7. Sounds like that'd work...

Dick Smith

2nd Apr 2016, 01:14

Bloggs. I have no idea what you are raving about. The NAS works superbly in Canada and the USA and it could do so here.

The problem is that it is half wound back here. Giving circuit calls on ATC frequencies is madness in most people's view.

This morning Sydney radar was paralleled with Sydney departures resulting in VFR announcements jamming the departure frequency. Once again complete madness .

Capn Bloggs

2nd Apr 2016, 01:24

Good, report it to your RAPAC convenor and he/she can take it up with CASA. It did ask for feedback re VFR broadcasts on ATC frequencies, so this is the info that should be provided.

FYI, I am not arguing against being on the Multicom, Dick. I can see both sides of the argument. I'm merely being sceptical. After all, your track record so far WRT Alerted See and Avoid in E and verbal diarrhoea calls in the circuit is not good...

What frequencies were involved this morning and roughly what time? I'll pull them off LiveATC and have a listen.

Dick Smith

2nd Apr 2016, 01:39

Unfortunately I cannot give a time however it happens each weekend when the the frequencies are combined. Often caused by float planes north of Sydney on 124.55 I suggested to CASA that the 120.8 victor lane CTAF be extended to cover the Hawkesbury River. Got no where of course.

You only need one VFR self announcement on a departure frequency at the wrong time to cause problems. Does anyone know of any other country where VFR self announce on Departure frequencies of a big international airport? I bet not.

KyleTheAviator

2nd Apr 2016, 02:19

Wow is this Dick Smith the famous Aussie Entrepreneur?

I think its great that someone with the connections, resources, & industry experience is prepared to fight for the betterment of the people/industry. Thank you.

It's how the Canberra bureaucracy works - protect any individual within the group who makes a mistake .It's ironic that in a so called "democracy" the people really have little say, and while there are legal mechanisms for justice, they are pretty much unaffordable for almost all in society.

Something has to change. Im sick of ministers steering the direction of the nation, with ZERO qualifications or experience in the area which they govern. Turnbull was the communications minister, did he have a technical background in telecommunications or IT? No hes a lawyer and a Goldman Sachs banker. Abbot was minister for women?? its a joke right.. :yuk:

Most politicians are ex lawyers, and this is the problem. The only way they know how to solve problems is with more legislation or harsher penalties. This is the lawyer mindset. But it's ineffective. Example: Some states in US even have the death penalty for some crimes (arguably the harshest possible penalty), but those crimes still occur. Infact, the homicide rate is often lower in non death penalty states
Deterrence: States Without the Death Penalty Have Had Consistently Lower Murder Rates | Death Penalty Information Center (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates)

Real world solutions & improvements are the product of Science, Engineering, Healthcare, & Business. I believe that people that have lived and breathed in the relevant industries, with first hand real world experience, are the only people that can truly understand the issues and come up with effective solutions.

I challenge anyone reading this to pick a minister in charge of a sector, and research their career history. Most have ZERO relevant experience/qualifications... and these people rule the future of our nation :uhoh::yuk:

I wonder how many people in CASA that dont even hold a PPL/CPL :confused:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

2nd Apr 2016, 03:18

Now, THERE's an 'interesting' question Mr K.......

Not 'enough' it would seem.....

Cheers:}

aroa

3rd Apr 2016, 11:09

I would guess 90% of CAsA dont have aviation experience or PPl/CPL
Its full of career bureaurats building many empires within the Greater CAsA Caliphate...the controller and ruler of Aviation and the GA peasantry.

Its one of the great cons in federal government that $$ squillions can be urinated away by an Agency on the pretence that all the paperwork, fees and burdensome rules are actually making it "safer"
Its a crock of...but there is no political interest, knowledge or will to do anything about it.
Advance Australia where..down the gurgler?.
Exciting times, innovation etc are just all money spending thought bubbles in political heads.
We have reached the stage where we dont need these people any more and a revolution by the people, for the people is our only hope.
Dream on...

Capn Bloggs

3rd Apr 2016, 11:17

A blast from the past (2003)... Hell hath no fury like... scorned!! :)

http://s26.postimg.org/yj1s8pnex/nassue.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Lookleft

4th Apr 2016, 00:16

Whatever became of Air Safety Australia and the 2000 pilots it represented? They don't seem to have such a high profile in the current debate or did BM find another cause to champion?

mickjoebill

7th Apr 2016, 03:40

What frequencies were involved this morning and roughly what time? I'll pull them off LiveATC and have a listen.

Dick,
Presumably you'll need to present examples of congestion?

If you could use the help, perhaps Ppruners could be enlisted to monitor
frequencies?

Mickjoebill

Dick Smith

9th Apr 2016, 11:54

Mickj. No. Not examples of congestion. Little chance of congestion in Australia.

It's that one call. The chance in 1000 where it blocks an important ATC instruction.

That's why Airspace Regulators in other countries do not allow VFR non directed announcements on ATC frequencies.

I would also imagine it's about ATC professionalism in those countries - the controller is in " control " of the frequency .

topdrop

9th Apr 2016, 12:31

ICAO specify broadcasts should not be made on Approach Control Frequencies - no mention is made about area control frequencies.

Dick Smith

10th Apr 2016, 00:16

Agrajag

10th Apr 2016, 03:27

So on the weekend when Airservices connects Sydney radar class G frequency of 124.55 to retransmit on the Sydney approach/departure frequencies that's in conflict with the ICAO very sensible decision.

And our ATCs say nothing!

You have float planes yakking away at Brooklyn Bridge blocking out communication to a Qantas 380 on departure to LAX.

Dick, I'm going to keep saying this until it sinks in:

It doesn't happen! Maybe that's why the ATCs don't have to say anything in complaint.

The mere fact that you have a bee in your bonnet about the likelihood, doesn't make it so. Neither will hysterical tabloid claims about floatplanes interfering with A380s.

Only in Australia. It's amateurish. I wrote to CASA suggesting that the 120.8 Victor Lane frequency that I introduced after great resistance be extended to the Brooklyn Bridge area to reduce the chance of VFR self announce calls blocking ATC instructions on approach and departure frequencies. Got nowhere as they resist change.

Perhaps it didn't happen because someone examined whether it was actually a problem, heeded the results and concluded that it wasn't. (Maybe they even asked a few people who regularly fly airline jets in that airspace.)

If that's what you call "resistance to change", here and in a heap of other interminable threads you've started, so be it. Sometimes a good reason for resistance to change is that none is needed.

Certainly, if I was the one deciding on such changes, I'd be taking some advice from those regularly using such airspace - at both ends of the comm link. I'd hope not to be consumed by a personal agenda, unrelated to the demonstrated facts.

Dick Smith

10th Apr 2016, 04:20

No. It's just resistance to change. I have experience with that since " 2 years in the aviation hall of doom ". days.

When Mick Toller started with CASA he mentioned to me that as a Cathay 747 skipper he couldn't believe on departure from Sydney he and his crew had to listen to VFR aircraft talking to each other in the light aircraft lane. He said this would not be allowed anywhere else in the world.

I said " now you will be in a position to fix it"

Of course nothing has changed- probably won't until there is a horrendous incident or accident. I agree. Hasn't happened yet- but that's no reason not to try and fix the problem which has only been caused because , before I made the AMATS changes , those calls would have been on FS frequencies and not affect ATC approach and departure traffic.

And it would be so simple to fix- get the float planes to call in the circuit at Cottage Point on the CTAF 126.7. Oh. Stupid me. I forgot . Latest CASA regs supported by Mr Skidmore say calls at unmarked aorodromes( water landing areas?) must be on the area frequency- which in this case is 125.8/124.55 - the frequencies that are re transmitted on Sydney Departures. Can't win!

Dick Smith

10th Apr 2016, 04:29

Agra re " doesn't happen"

I tried to get some low level NAS class E in at places like Benalla.

Now six dead.

It does happen if you resist change and don't copy the best.

le Pingouin

10th Apr 2016, 04:42

Which has precisely what to do with overtransmitting?

Lookleft

10th Apr 2016, 04:51

I tried to get some low level NAS class E in at places like Benalla.

Now six dead.

You also pressured the ATSB to issue a recommendation that all turbine aircraft and helicopters of 6 seats or more be fitted with TAWS to prevent another Benalla. They did that so why aren't you banging on about CASA not following the rest of the world by mandating another expensive bit of equipment be installed?

itsnotthatbloodyhard

10th Apr 2016, 05:08

he mentioned to me that as a Cathay 747 skipper he couldn't believe on departure from Sydney he and his crew had to listen to VFR aircraft talking to each other in the light aircraft lane. He said this would not be allowed anywhere else in the world.

I said " now you will be in a position to fix it"

Of course nothing has changed- probably won't until there is a horrendous incident or accident. I agree.

Dick, please listen. Please.

I use Sydney Departures with almost depressing regularity, and there is simply not an issue with VFR aircraft in the lightie lane talking to each other. (Insert retort here along the lines of "Well there aren't any VHF aircraft any more because of the RAAF/frequency boundaries on charts/resistance to change/whatever.") Maybe it was an issue back when Mick Toller was a CX skipper, but that was a long time ago. If there was really a problem now, I'd be squealing as loudly as anyone.

I'll say it again: this is simply not an issue. And even if it was, what in the name of God is this horrendous incident or accident that you claim will happen?

If you've got coherent and sensible arguments to make, then I'm sure people will get on board with them. This is just a beat-up.

Agrajag

10th Apr 2016, 06:53

When Mick Toller started with CASA he mentioned to me that as a Cathay 747 skipper he couldn't believe on departure from Sydney he and his crew had to listen to VFR aircraft talking to each other in the light aircraft lane. He said this would not be allowed anywhere else in the world.

I said " now you will be in a position to fix it"Perhaps having to share the frequency with menial lighties offended his delicate ears. But did he say he was ever overtransmitted? Did he ever feel that his safety was threatened?

Of course nothing has changed- probably won't until there is a horrendous incident or accident. I agree. Hasn't happened yet- but that's no reason not to try and fix the problem which has only been caused because , before I made the AMATS changes , those calls would have been on FS frequencies and not affect ATC approach and departure traffic.

And it would be so simple to fix- get the float planes to call in the circuit at Cottage Point on the CTAF 126.7. Oh. Stupid me. I forgot . Latest CASA regs supported by Mr Skidmore say calls at unmarked aorodromes( water landing areas?) must be on the area frequency- which in this case is 125.8/124.55 - the frequencies that are re transmitted on Sydney Departures. Can't win! So maybe it didn't need fixing? And you didn't need to "win"?

Maybe, it's because the lightie overflying Cottage Point would actually like to hear that a floatplane is about to launch from under them? Perhaps that might be because the lightie may not even be aware that there's an alighting area there, so he is correctly on 125.8? And maybe the floatplane would also like to hear from the lightie he's about to share the sky with?

And, since you studiously ignore all assurances that your alleged problem doesn't exist, maybe the only person you've ever listened to is the one who agreed with your personal crusade?

Car RAMROD

10th Apr 2016, 07:12

Stop resisting change Dick and get ADSB!

Bugger I just realised, I'm in the wrong thread! I get lost amongst all the threads harping on about the same things again and again!

Dick Smith

10th Apr 2016, 07:59

I was the one who was involved in removing the Flight Service duplicated system. You were clearly not - so have no responsibility.

I have a responsibility to finish the job or ensure we go back to the pre AMATS system where VFR did not make announcements on ATC frequencies. It's amateur- I want a professional internationally proven safe system.

Dick Smith

10th Apr 2016, 10:23

Bloody hard. It's about the holes in the cheese lining up.

As just one example look at ATSB report 199601917 of a serious incident on the 21 June 1996 between a 747 and a BA146.

There was the possibility of a disastrous mid air with 100s dead because the ATC was distracted by a VFR pilot making self announcements .

Yes. You don't hear so many VFR calls on Sydney departures because I have done everything I can to advise pilots that their family or friends may be on board the Airline that is involved in a mid air because the ATC is distracted by their calls.

Also the NAS documentation made it very clear that VFR should not make self announcements on ATC frequencies.

But I can see you want a real accident before we copy those experienced from overseas accidents

Yes. That's the history of aviation. Make the changes after people die!

And Agra. If the 120.8 CTAF covered that area there would be no need for calls on ATC approach frequencies and an alerted see and avoid environment would result.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

10th Apr 2016, 11:45

It seems that the problem in that incident was that the VFR pilot was unnecessarily prefixing his calls with "Brisbane Centre", so it wasn't really self announcements per se that were the problem, more the misunderstanding of the newly introduced RAS system by the VFR pilot, which then required the ATC to respond. Under the RAS, VFR pilots were quite entitled to call ATC, so the pilot was not incorrect in being on frequency. It didn't help that the ATC also used an inappropriate separation procedure in the first place between the 747 and the 146.
It seems that in the 20 years since that incident, the issue does not seem to have been much more of a problem.

itsnotthatbloodyhard

10th Apr 2016, 13:26

Yes. You don't hear so many VFR calls on Sydney departures because I have done everything I can to advise pilots that there family or friends may be on board the Airline that is involved in a mid air because the ATC is distracted by their calls.

So if I understand right, it goes something like this:

Dick: There's a shocking problem with YSSY DEPS that may cause a horrendous accident!

Pilots who frequently use YSSY DEPS: No, there's no such problem.

Dick: That's right, but only because I, personally, have solved this problem.

That's excellent news. I'm sorry, I failed to fully comprehend the extent of your powers. Presumably you could use those powers to solve the current overall non-issue in exactly the same way, instead of taking it to court. The Federal Court's valuable time will be spared, large amounts of public money won't be spent on lawyers, and highly improbable horrendous disasters will continue to be highly improbable. A big thumbs-up from me. :ok:

gerry111

10th Apr 2016, 14:28

"And it would be so simple to fix- get the float planes to call in the circuit at Cottage Point on the CTAF on 126.7."

Dick,
I sometimes have the wonderful pleasure of driving my friends' 40' wooden boat that is usually moored at KMYC, Cottage Point along Cowan Creek and up to Refuge Bay or other places around the Hawkesbury River.

Often, an amphibious Beaver or Caravan will take off towards us as we cruise along. It's a rather brilliant experience and I believe perfectly safe.

But the next time that I have the pleasure of doing this, I'll be concerned that a QF A380 may crash somewhere due to all the local communications jamming Sydney Departures.

Dick Smith

10th Apr 2016, 23:06

Traffic. Are you really suggesting that if the VFR pilot had made the same number of calls but without the prefix that the breakdown of separation would not have happened?

Surely any calls must be listened to and therefore can be distracting.

Why do you think in other countries (and also in Australia before the AMATS changes ) it is prohibited for VFR to make non directed announcements on air traffic control frequencies that are also used for separation purposes?

What's wrong with Australian rules protecting our Air Traffic Controllers from an unfair situation and a chance of losing their career because of the calls taking attention away from the real task- keeping passenger jets apart.

What's wrong with having a similarly disciplined system to Europe and North America?

Lookleft

10th Apr 2016, 23:15

Dick you didn't answer the question about the TAWS recommendation that you agitated for. This equipment would also have prevented the Benalla accident yet you continue to focus on the ATC component. Why do you not agitate for the introduction of TAWS for all turbine aircraft/helicopters of 6 seats or more just like they have in the US, which as we all know by know is the place of aviation worlds best practise?:confused:

Dick Smith

10th Apr 2016, 23:16

Traffic. Remember that just about every recommendation from the ATSB after an accident looks at the situation from a concrete minded Australian viewpoint. Look again at the post from Leadslead quoting Billy Hughes.

That's why after the MDX fatal they never even suggested that in similar situations the pilot should be allowed to communicate directly with the radar operator. Took me years of constant resistance to change that one!

Or in the case of the Benalla fatal accident the ATSB never suggested that the AMATS proposals be looked at again and Class E be introduced at some airports with mountains on the approach path.

It's clear the ATSB rarely ask for advice from other leading aviation countries on how accidents can be avoided.

Look left. I probably gave up. Every change I agitate for is resisted. I thought we were harmonised with the US on that one. Can anyone advise?

Lookleft

10th Apr 2016, 23:52

Its not that hard to look it up yourself Dick its called the internet:

9.1C A turbine-engined aeroplane that:
(a) has a maximum take-off weight of more than 15 000 kg or is carrying 10 or more passengers; and
(b) is engaged in RPT, or charter, operations;
must not be operated under the I.F.R. unless it is fitted with:
(c) an approved GPWS that has a predictive terrain hazard warning function; or
(d) if paragraph 9.1CA applies — a GPWS that meets the requirements of Civil Aviation Order 108.36 (a CAO 108.36 GPWS); or
(e) if the aeroplane has a maximum take-off weight of 5 700 kg or less, but is carrying 10 or more passengers — a TAWS-B+ system.

And the US requirement:

c. § 135.154 states that no person may operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered
airplane configured with 6 to 9 passenger seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that
airplane is equipped with an approved terrain awareness and warning system that meets
the requirements of Class B equipment of TSO-C151a. It also states that no person may5/22/00 AC 25-23
Page 9
operate a turbine-powered U.S.-registered airplane configured with 10 or more passenger
seats, excluding any pilot seat, unless that airplane is equipped with a terrain awareness
and warning system that meets the provisions of Class A equipment of TSO-C151a.

So my question again is why aren't you agitating for worlds best practice with equipment that can save lives (i.e Benalla) but instead focusing on ATC procedures?

You state that "you probably gave up", but from the way you have bombarded prune with your crusade against the "half wound back system" that doesn't seem to be your style.

Capn Bloggs

11th Apr 2016, 00:07

Or in the case of the Benalla fatal accident the ATSB never suggested that the AMATS proposals be looked at again and Class E be introduced at some airports with mountains on the approach path.
It didn't need to, because the ATSB proposed fitting TAWS, a better option than costing industry millions of dollars a year to provide low-level Class E, noting that there hasn't been a repeat of that accident scenario since, with no Class E. The time for Class E for terrain protection passed many years ago. On-board protection systems are more efficient and cost less. I suggest you stop dwelling in the past, Dick, and embrace the real world.

Dick Smith

11th Apr 2016, 00:17

Because I feel a personal responsibility re airspace and not in relation to TAWS.

I have sleepless nights over the fact that the really sensible decision made by the ARG to move to the NAS has never been fully actioned.

It's now a half wound back stuff up because of resistance to change and sheer ignorance of those who are responsible for airspace regulation in Australia.

And as I have shown CASA didn't even support the wind back at the time.

I feel satisfaction for making the change so that all pilots can now communicate directly with a person who has a radar screen- not be forced by 1950s rules to remain on a frequency where the operator was prevented from accessing radar.

How many lives that has saved we will never know.

This change was resisted in every way at the time- even the class G radar trial was reversed and the radar covered airspace between Canberra and the Gold Coast was given back to Flight Service. Madness!

Dick Smith

11th Apr 2016, 00:20

I understood we had harmonised with the USA on TAWS.

And Bloggs, there are places where E could be introduced at no extra cost . And TAWS is not infallible.

Capn Bloggs

11th Apr 2016, 00:33

And TAWS is not infallible.
Oh for goodness sake, Dick.

there are places where E could be introduced at no extra cost
Prove it!

Lookleft

11th Apr 2016, 02:21

I understood we had harmonised with the USA on TAWS.

I have given you the evidence Dick that it hasn't so what are you going to do about it? If the Benalla aircraft had TAWS the accident would not have happened as it would have warned the pilot that he was approaching high terrain.

If you truly want to make aviation in Australia a safer place why don't you use your considerable energy and influence to align the Australian regulations with that of the US? You felt that it was urgent enough to pressure the ATSB to make a recommendation to CASA about aligning the regs, yet now you state that it is not infallible while in the same breath you consider your crusade against the current airspace rules to be the answer to any future Benalla style accidents.

As far as I am aware there has not been a single CFIT of an aircraft fitted with TAWS or EGPWS since its introduction so your assertion that:

TAWS is not infallible.

is wide of the mark.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

11th Apr 2016, 03:27

Traffic. Are you really suggesting that if the VFR pilot had made the same number of calls but without the prefix that the breakdown of separation would not have happened?

Yep, as far as the distraction part went. It was the "Brisbane Centre" that made all the difference. The breakdown was primarily due to an ATC procedural error, so that would not have changed.

Surely any calls must be listened to and therefore can be distracting.

Nope. Ask any ex FSO who used to sit there monitoring multiple VHF area freqs and HFs how you soon learned to filter out calls not intended for you. Pilots do it all the time. I'm sure that during your oft mentioned cross country flight where you heard 1200 calls that you mentally disregarded almost all of them without a second thought. I have described before how I had an ATC sit if for a shift on my console back in Melbourne FSC days, and he was horrified at the constant noise on frequency. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but when you listen to a radio all day, you develop a filter as part of the skill set. Since it doesn't seem to have caused another similar incident, I'd reckon the relevant ATC quickly developed it, if they didn't have it already.

As for ATSB recommendations, do you seriously think that following an isolated incident clearly due to pilot error (that has never happened again), that the ATSB are going to recommend that the entire airspace system be redesigned? As for Benalla, there were safeguards built into the existing system that were not acted upon, and these were addressed by the recommendations (and acted upon - and it hasn't happened again). Case closed. The pilot didn't need E airspace every other time he went there. Neither did the guy who landed before him, or the guy after him. I thought E airspace was needed because of the amount of traffic, not because there were hills nearby. Gonna be a lot of extra E if that's the criteria.

Dick Smith

11th Apr 2016, 03:52

This shows how dis functional CASA are.

They were pushed by Airservices commercial interest to bring in unique $30 m plus GA ADSB requirements that will have no measurable effect on safety but they haven't gone ahead with the most basic TAWS requirement .

I am clearly at fault here. I thought that we had harmonised with the USA on this one.

I will try and do better next time.

Traffic You claim VFR calls on ATC frequencies are not distracting.

Doesn't sound logical to me. Sounds as if you will do anything to keep the status quo and stop change. Suggest you look at the accurate Billy Hughes quote on the other thread!

Ex FSO GRIFFO

11th Apr 2016, 05:00

If the call is not directed to you, or its a call to / from an aircraft, to / from another aircraft, or a call in which you may have 'no interest', for whatever reason - then it is treated as 'white noise' and is mentally disregarded....

'Filtered out', if you like.... A bit like being in a crowded room and focussing on the one conversation with the person to whom you are talking....

But, as FSOs, we had a form, a 'scratch pad' called a 'CA71', on which many of these transmissions were recorded (In our own shorthand sometimes/mostly) subject to workload, 'just in case'. Was part of the job, and at times, was very 'handy' in the event of an enquiry.....saved lots of time listening to tapes.

Even whilst aviating, if you hear a callsign 'near you' which may be 'of interest', do you not scribble down the callsign, just in case?

Happens all the time.

Do you go into 'crash mode' when the radio sounds like a Sydney Radio Taxi network on a Sat. night?

Cheers:ok:

Howabout

11th Apr 2016, 07:41

Despite some fundamental disagreements on the wider issues, I'd like to see E down to 700 AGL tested somewhere; to either prove, or disprove, its efficacy. Nothing more than a trial at one location.

However, the cost must be tested against the benefit and 'opinion' ignored.

Intuitively, and given my past, I feel that an 'E Trial' would come down on the side of 'benefit,' but that is just MY OPINION. The cost/benefit test must apply.

I regard myself as having a neutral stance these days, despite the fact that I have crossed swords with Dick on many occasions.

I now look in from the outside in retirement and think 'so much wasted energy on both sides of the house!'

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

11th Apr 2016, 07:54

Doesn't sound logical to me
Again, purely your opinion based on your own preconceptions and or lack of experience/expertise in the appropriate subject, at the appropriate level.

Vested interest. No. Just happy to throw logical rebuttals up against illogical arguments.

From the same article the Hughes quote came from (and to requote a section Howabout used previously:

(Change) cannot be achieved by floating an idea and hoping it will be accepted. Hughes was right; such an idea simply will be treated with contempt.

In a democracy, it is necessary to convince the public that what you are doing has to be done.

To achieve real change, the public has to be convinced the course of action taken by the government is necessary and that there is no other way.

So rather than just cherry picking decades old incidents with tenuous at best links to your argument, convince the public with logic, facts and necessity. At the moment there seems to be no necessity for 90% of the topics you raise. Just concentrate on the 10% and you might have a hope.

malroy

11th Apr 2016, 12:38

Howabout,
We already have control to 700' outside tower hours as YBRK and YBMK.
Can't remember whether it is E or C.
Cost a bit to implement (extra frequency, extra consoles, extra staff, new airspace and procedures, plus extensive training to give enroute an approach rating, plus recurrent training, as traffic is too light to remain recent)
Or were you wanting something else trialled?

Dick Smith

11th Apr 2016, 16:44

Malroy, interesting about the "extensive training to give en route an approach rating"

Did anyone bother to find out how they do it in the USA without approach ratings?

Does ASA have a culture of asking advice and copying the best from around the world?

Does an approach rating pay more money?

My threads get thousands of clicks from the industry that is nearly broke - that's why it's important to uncover these things.

le Pingouin

11th Apr 2016, 20:34

No extra pay for doing approach.

I wonder how many $100s of millions all your proposed changes would cost to implement? Who will pay?

Lookleft

12th Apr 2016, 04:04

I notice that Dick has posted at 02:44. How is he going to be adequately rested before he flies off to Tamworth?

truthinbeer

12th Apr 2016, 05:51

Maybe he had just risen...

Howabout

12th Apr 2016, 07:46

God, can we please stop this infantile sniping on both sides?? Sorry, Malroy, the reference to 'sniping' does not apply to you.

Cost a bit to implement (extra frequency, extra consoles, extra staff, new airspace and procedures, plus extensive training to give enroute an approach rating, plus recurrent training, as traffic is too light to remain recent)
Malroy and no disrespect, because I appreciate you believe that your points are valid. But I would offer the following based on 36 years in the game:

Why would an extra frequency be needed, when controlling enroute is hardly a brain-busting task? The high-flyers are 'straight and level' and subject to a bit of management - speed control, holding etc, to get them in a line prior to TODC. I can't believe that an enroute controller could honestly tell me that the capacity is not there to do more on his/her freq.

If the capacity is there, then why the call for extra consoles? We are talking about minimal extra traffic being given an E service out of existing resources that, IMHO, could cope with standing on their heads.

New airspace yes, but that's a few lines on the charts. New procedures? No, nothing needs to change in respect of current standards and procedures.

'Extensive training?' 'Extensive' is a pretty broad, and potentially open-ended description of what may actually be required. I could run a competent enroute controller through the sim in a couple of afternoon rides to get him/her up to speed with the traffic volumes we are talking about. You seem to suggest that a competent enroute controller is not capable of adapting to a relatively minor increase in work-load.

I will qualify, again, that change needs to be predicated on cost/benefit. But let's not close our minds to benefits that might accrue over costs incurred.

malroy

12th Apr 2016, 09:02

Comparing US ATC to Oz ATC is not one for one. The last time I talked to an (ex)ATC from US, they still operate with one controller working traffic, and a separate controller for coordination (or planner). Airservices moved away from this model a generation ago. In Oz, their is only one ATC, with responsibilities for traffic and coordination.

When commenting on the required resource and timeframes, I am reporting my observation of what occurred, rather than what might be possible.

There is no pay difference between approach and enroute, or for holding both endorsements, so the requirement to achieve the approach endorsement is more a recognition of a different ruleset being applied.
When controlling E to 700' there are new considerations that are not dealt with by enroute control, including the different rules once a pilot reports visual, Minimum Safe Altitudes and Radar lowest safes, protection of an aircraft once cleared for an approach, protection of missed approach path (including from VFR, intentions unknown and not responding on frequency), different phraseologies (only small differences, but still a difference). I am sure there are other risks/considerations, but this isn't really my area of expertise.

As to the number of controllers, one controller is responsible for both YBRK and YBMK. This requires two separate windows to view both airports. To try to display both airports at a resolution suitable for approach work, and display all airspace between Brisbane and Hamilton Island at the same time is a difficult task. Not saying it is impossible, but we really don't want one person working two separate consoles. While the enroute controller may have the capacity in a normal shift to provide both services, they do need the training, and they need the capacity to deal with the unexpected.

It is worth considering, the risks are the number of airports an ATC would need to provide the service for, and VFR with unknown intentions.

To implement this a YBNA, why not also Grafton, Inverell, Lismore and Armidale, which are all within the same sector.

le Pingouin

12th Apr 2016, 09:42

Howabout, do you seriously think it's a good idea to have to zoom in on a tiny piece of airspace to appropriately monitor an approach for however long that approach takes when we also have to monitor the whole rest of our airspace? You forget US sectors small Aus sectors big.

Dick Smith

13th Apr 2016, 11:19

Le Ping. Seems logical re what you are saying re big sectors in Aus in the vast hinterland.

But what about the airspace between Melbourne and Brissy? I thought it was supposed to be some of the busiest in the world.

Couldn't we have smaller , non stratified sectors in that area and try some low level non tower E?

le Pingouin

13th Apr 2016, 16:42

Which probably makes it the worst choice for a trial. You need to understand that the existing airspace and sector structure forms an integrated system and trying to carve out a chunk and have it work differently isn't straightforward as you need to modify the entire system to accommodate the differences.

Think of the sector structure as two overlapping and unaligned jigsaw puzzles with oddly shaped pieces that are shaped to fit the current system. You're trying to cut a piece all the way through based on a third aerodrome layer that previously had no connection to the other two layers - it's not going to be neat and tidy.

ferris

13th Apr 2016, 21:13

So, Dick, you appear to be designing the ATC set up that was contributory to "Uberlingen", and resulted in recommendations that the ANSP NOT do this? The controller was solely responsible for the entire ATC within ACC Zurich. For this he had to fill two adjacent workstations with different frequencies and worked with two radar moni-tors. In order to control flights in the upper airspace and the approach in the lower airspace to Friedrichshafen. Radar charts with different ranges were displayed on the monitors. and During the last five minutes prior to the collision, the controller paid more attention to the Airbus A320 in approach to Friedrichshafen. BFU report, Conclusions.
When ACC is required to manage the approach services for Friedrichshafen and Al-tenrhein/St. Gallen, one additional controller shall be assigned to this task. Alternatively, this task should be taken over by APP Zurich. BFU report, Recommendations.
http://http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Investigation%20Report/2002/Report_02_AX001-1-2_Ueberlingen_Report.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
Isn't there someone on 'prune always banging on about controllers being distracted from where the risk is?

Dick Smith

14th Apr 2016, 00:19

So does that mean we can never in Australia have our en route ATCs providing a higher level of service with terminal class E like they do in the US and Canada?

Seems a real pity if so. What's the use of having Control in the lower risk en route airspace and then " do it yourself" class G where the risk is higher. Very strange way of allocating resources.

ferris

14th Apr 2016, 04:19

I will check on what happens in Canada, but the US does not do what you propose be done in Australia.
The US has much smaller sector sizes, so can do the thing you are looking for. They do not have enroute controllers with large display ranges working traffic in the weeds. It cannot be done in Australia without either adding a lot more controllers (like they have in the US) or spreading the resources thinner and establishing the sort of multi-task distraction which was one of the causes of Uberlingen, which would be a Very strange way of allocating resources as the identified HAZARD does not demand the mitigation TREATMENT. There are not a lot of IFRs banging into each other in the Australian F airspace, which you want upgraded to E. From your posts, there have been two light aircraft accidents in the history of Australian aviation that involved CFIT, which may have been prevented were there E to 700'. Maybe.
Further, you want to trial it at places where you believe the resources may be available right now for no extra cost (radar coverage and ATC workload), thereby creating yet another unique hodge-podge of Australia only system- because as sure as anything, the trial at a handful of aerodromes might well prove successful but will not rolled-out system-wide due to.........resources.

Perhaps a better use of the resources you want to throw at this non-problem would be equipment upgrades (ADS-B anyone?) and pilot education.

Dick Smith

14th Apr 2016, 07:13

What about the Bundaberg and Orange incidents with airline aircraft in cloud on the same or conflicting approaches. Isn't that a pretty serious warning?

Dick Smith

14th Apr 2016, 07:15

I received an answer from CASA today, to the letter sent by my solicitor Mark O’Brien.

After reading the answer 5 times, I can’t fathom out what it means.

Possibly some of the readers of this thread can assist me.

Does it mean you give calls on non-mapped marked aerodromes on the multicom of 126.7 or does it mean you call on the area frequency?

Look forward to everyone’s guess.

Perhaps RAPAC could make a comment.

http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj561/meredith34D/Letter%20from%20CASA%2011.4.16%2000198704xBADA9_zps1olmoava. jpg (http://s1268.photobucket.com/user/meredith34D/media/Letter%20from%20CASA%2011.4.16%2000198704xBADA9_zps1olmoava. jpg.html)

CaptainMidnight

14th Apr 2016, 09:11

It means operate per what is specified in AIP (ENR 1.1-47)

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

14th Apr 2016, 09:28

I would have thought you were paying your legal team to tell you what it meant, rather than asking random strangers on an internet forum to guess it's intent.

LeadSled

14th Apr 2016, 09:38

Folks,
I am, to say the least, mystified.

I hope Lead Balloon will comment, because it seem to me that the CASA reply implies that the default radio call in G are nil, but I think the LB view that the radio calls required is nil is a bit contentious.

In my view, taken as a whole, various regulations that require a radio equipped to keep a listening watch, CAR 166 (and others??) can be interpreted as requiring "some" radio calls, is the "legal" minimum nil if you have a serviceable VHF.

It doesn't address the core issue of the legal action mounted by Dick, that VFR aircraft in G should not be using ATC frequencies, but 126.7, at uncharted airfields.

Tootle pip!!

gerry111

14th Apr 2016, 09:38

Yes, TIEW. But if he does that, he may not hear what he wants to hear.

Lead Balloon

14th Apr 2016, 10:00

I agree Dick. The content of that letter is meandering twaddle.

The first sentence doesn't make sense. I can't figure out the subject of the clause "as expressed in". For those who appear to understand it, if the first sentence instead finished with a full stop after "126.7", what would the words after that be changed to turn it into a second sentence?

Second paragraph? Wiser minds than mind will have to work that one out.

CASA "sought to give meaning" to a phrase within the CARs? Doesn't matter a toss what CASA "sought" to do. A phrase in the CARs means whatever it means, no matter what CASA says, does, seeks or hopes.

Grade: F.

Dick Smith

14th Apr 2016, 10:04

Traffic. Nah, can't afford any more xpensive legal advice when I may be able to get it on prune for nothing.Remember I'm saving up for ADSB for the CJ.

What does this mean. "- unless they are in fact the frequencies in use for a particular aerodrome" ?

Clear as the Yarra.

Lead Balloon

14th Apr 2016, 10:26

The question as to when a pilot of a radio equipped aircraft at or in the vicinity of an unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strip is obliged to broadcast is a related but different question as to the frequency on which that broadcast has to be made.

Dick's gripe is about the latter question, not the former.

I'm guessing - and this is only a wild guess - that the letter is trying to say that so far as CASA is concerned, the word "aerodrome" in CAR 166C(1) always meant, and continues to mean, something that includes an unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed airstrip, and in 2014 CASA merely "sought" to make clear what was already true.

However, as I said before, it doesn't really matter a toss what CASA "sought" to do. A phrase in the CARs means whatever it means, no matter what CASA says, does, seeks or hopes. CASA could be right. And CASA could be wrong.

But this at least gets us back - finally - to the issue at the heart of the matter. Some people consider the treatment of unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips as "aerodromes" for the purposes of CAR 166 to be a change that happened in 2014. Other people (including CASA, apparently) consider it not to be a change.

Capn Bloggs

14th Apr 2016, 10:33

Remember I'm saving up for ADSB for the CJ.
Don't over-renovate a dump, Dick. ;)

Some people consider the treatment of unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips as "aerodromes" for the purposes of CAR 166 to be a change that happened in 2014. Other people (including CASA, apparently) consider it not to be a change.
2013, actually. ;)

Lead Balloon

14th Apr 2016, 10:44

Or was it 2009? Doesn't make much difference to the underlying issue.

triadic

14th Apr 2016, 10:45

Actually the interpretation is that if you use one frequency today and another tomorrow, that is in fact a change.

Lead Balloon

14th Apr 2016, 10:46

And what was the date of each of those days?

Dick Smith

14th Apr 2016, 11:01

So at a non map marked strip can you use 126.7?

Capn Bloggs

14th Apr 2016, 11:19

So at a non map marked strip can you use 126.7?
Blimey! Can you read AIP? No, you use the FIA freq as per Captain Midnight's post. Some of us give you references to answer your questions/educate you. Please read them, Dick.

It doesn't address the core issue of the legal action mounted by Dick, that VFR aircraft in G should not be using ATC frequencies, but 126.7, at uncharted airfields.
That's not the core issue at all. Read the letter to CASA again.

Dick Smith

14th Apr 2016, 23:20

Blogs. Does that mean you and CASA are at odds over this ?

I understood your RAPAC group in WA wanted to stick to the NAS system that I introduced( thanks for your support for NAS) and have non map marked airports use the multicom of 126.7.

Howabout

15th Apr 2016, 08:11

Please, boys and girls; I honestly can't see the problem in respect of a Class E trial at one location and then doing a cost/benefit on the implications of rolling out the system further. See my previous - they have all been totally consistent in respect of cost/benefit and risk. Opinion does not suffice.

In addition, I fully agree le P's point on sector size in the contemporary environment. Where I disagree, is on the capacity of controllers, and resources available, to conduct a trial at just one location. No more than one provided by one sector. It'll either work or it won't.

If it works, in respect of 'safety enhancement,' then the numbers must be crunched as regards the additional cost of infrastructure/training versus the benefits of a wider roll-out.

This will come across to some as some sort of 'hero' comment from an 'old fart.' and I'll take the inevitable bagging. But when I did it for a living, and lost my oppo on a deployment to the middle-east without a replacement, I ran a one-man sector for six months.

That involved controlling with crap radar coverage because of the ranges west of BN on a 5rpm radar, so it was half procedural at lower levels out to 200 nm; over-water airspace to the east across four or five international air routes when the pigs were doing supersonic runs; Evans Head; plus APP control into AMB on Fridays when their radar was off for service. One bloke.

That was not a picnic and it was less than ideal, but I do not believe that any of the current crop couldn't stand up in the same situation - far from it.

I just believe that the talent and capacity are there to give this a run in one location and then assess the cost/benefit, risk management, and investment implications.

Just an entirely personal perspective. My 'opinion' counts for squat in this debate. It must come down to the fundamentals in respect of airspace change.

Aussie Bob

15th Apr 2016, 08:51

Blimey! Can you read AIP? No, you use the FIA freq as per Captain Midnight's post. Some of us give you references to answer your questions/educate you. Please read them, Dick.Yep, great idea. I can show you a strip where, if the area frequency was used, the end result would be problematic to say the least and most probably downright dangerous. I am sure it is not the only airstrip where this is a problem. This airstrip by the way, was built by the army prior to WW2 and despite the best efforts of the owner and the airstrip users, is still not marked on aeronautical charts. But I am repeating myself here, this has already been posted.

So, here we have sensible pilots possibly breaking the law by not congesting an area frequency. It has been suggested by several of them that perhaps if the area frequency was in fact used as per the AIP, then something would have been done by now.

Someone really needs to sort this out.

le Pingouin

15th Apr 2016, 09:14

Howabout, you never address the problem that as the regs currently stand the trial will require approach ratings for those involved. You might have been allowed to do it back in the day in the RAAF but times have changed and there is no way I'd be allowed to without an appropriate rating. En-route controllers receive no approach training.

CaptainMidnight

15th Apr 2016, 09:45

give this a run in one location and then assess the cost/benefit, risk management, and investment implications.Cart before the horse.

All that and a lot more needs to be done before any trial anywhere.

For some light reading, have a look at the Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2015 and the section "Process for Changing the Class or Designation of a Volume of Airspace".

And that's just one aspect. There are many hoops to go through before CASA will consider an airspace classification change.

Howabout

15th Apr 2016, 15:43

le P, I do not dispute your argument in respect of providing an 'approach service.' It's a valid point in the contemporary world. I suppose part of my beef goes to wasted talent and, therefore, loss of flexibility on the part of the ANSP. The controllers are not to blame.

Years ago I had a bit of a barney with the then HATC after 'streamed training' had been introduced. Fair enough, I was sticking my nose in where it wasn't wanted, but I just saw long-term negatives. After a lot of f-words, he admitted that 'streaming' was just a cost-saver in respect of training and that 'it was the worst decision we've ever made.'

Rightly or wrongly, I happen to believe that the talent is there for a half-decent enroute guy to provide what would amount to a modest APP service to one location after a bit of sim time for a trial.

Captain M, I hear what you are saying and I had a little to do with a previous iteration. I'd offer that a 'trial' would not be at odds with the fundamental thrust of the document in respect of airspace change. The document is framed in respect of long-term change. For mine, a 'trial' is not counter to the fundamentals mapped out in the AAPS.

No aggro and just personal opinion.

le Pingouin

15th Apr 2016, 17:23

Trial or otherwise, it's still an approach service so proper training and rating will be required - talented or not "a bit of sim time" won't cut it. And nor should it. Cutting corners solely for the sake of expediency is hardly a great way to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of something.

Plazbot

15th Apr 2016, 18:25

Howabout, a bloke who drove sector 4 lecturing Air Traffic Controllers on workload is like a person whose life's work is recording famous Samoan gymnasts claiming a high workload.

Howabout

16th Apr 2016, 06:52

Plazbot,

I did work a few other places, but I don't want to get into a p155ing contest. You remind me of a bloke who was an arrogant ass, spent time in uniform, worked in Darwin, and thought himself God's gift to ATC. I wonder what happened to that monkey?

I am not interested in comparing appendage sizes.

My observations have been dispassionate and made from reflection in retirement. I happen to believe the talent is there, if properly managed, to test whether this is a goer or not.

It's sad that your abuse substitutes for rational debate.

Plazbot

16th Apr 2016, 08:18

Too many enthusiastic amateurs involved already.

Lead Balloon

16th Apr 2016, 09:53

Tough crowd, eh Howabout.

FWIW, I agree that a trial of LL E at Ballina would be a good idea. But I'm just an amateur, too.

Sometimes the ATC spokespeople remind me of CASA AVMED. They sometimes express their opinions as objective truths. A challenge to those opinions is usually met with the Armageddon mid air 100s of deaths scenario.

Howabout

16th Apr 2016, 10:17

Yeah, Plazbot,

We are just 'enthusiastic amateurs.' I'm an 'enthusiastic amateur' because I am willing to listen to cogent argument in respect of where improvements might be made.

But, despite my time, I suppose that I'm just an irrelevancy when it comes to rational debate.

le Pingouin

16th Apr 2016, 12:10

Except doesn't Dick have the copyright on "we's all gonna die!!!"? :}

Howabout

16th Apr 2016, 12:53

You is better dan da cheap shots, le P!

le Pingouin

16th Apr 2016, 13:01

Just a feeble attempt at humour so I'll add a smiley.

missy

17th Apr 2016, 03:34

Howsabout said
My observations have been dispassionate and made from reflection in retirement. I happen to believe the talent is there, if properly managed, to test whether this is a goer or not.

Its not about "talent", its about proper project management that considers all aspects, procedures, airspace, documentation, facilities, ATC training, pilot education, to name just a few.

I'd be concerned about the timelines, timelines to develop a trial, timelines for the trial, and then what? Continue with an orphan? Withdraw at the end of the trial? Park the idea until a full roll-out?

Howabout

17th Apr 2016, 07:28

Missy, post #97,

Your comments have always been pretty free of emotion and the points you make are accepted. No argument whatsoever; the same way I have no issues with what le P has posted.

Yes, there are a a number of undoubted hurdles that can't be ignored and just swept under the carpet for the sake of convenience. That has never been my position.

Someone, previously, suggested that I was putting 'the cart before the horse.' Far from it. I'd be horrified if any trial was conducted without those issues you raise being addressed and rigorous cost/benefit and risk being applied in the first instance.

Maybe I did not make my position clear enough. Captain M may have assumed that I was in support of 'just doing it' and weighing up the cost/benefit later. Sorry, Captain M, in respect of clarity.

The proposal stands or falls on cost/benefit and risk analysis alone.

That said, I just happen to think the that it has legs. If it does not stand up, then you won't get any bleats out of me if it's tested, and found to be wanting, prior to any attempt to implement a trial of the concept.

I hope that clarifies where I stand.

Dick Gower

17th Apr 2016, 07:48

Answer for Lead Balloon: For ten (10) years prior to and including Wednesday, 29 May, 2013, the AIP specified that the frequency to be used at all aerodromes, marked on charts or otherwise, that did not have a designated CTAF was the MULTICOM, 126.7.

On Thursday 30 May, 2013 AIP amendment #75 became effective and a new paragraph was added to ENR 1.1 para. 44.1.1. This paragraph changed the frequency to be used at non-charted aerodromes from the MULTICOM to the area VHF frequency.
There was no stakeholder consultation or education process at all.

The fact is that the new requirement is being widely ignored.