Resistence to Change and Reform -- Anywhere. [Archive]

LeadSled

9th Apr 2016, 02:12

Folks,
The below is from the Friday Australia, it is not about aviation, but it encapsulates, precisely, why any real reform is so bleeding difficult that it is bordering on impossible, and that goes double if aviation is involved.

I am old enough to remember the fight by the then pilots union domestic pilots branches of the APA, AGAINST the fitting of weather radar to Australian airline aircraft, as just one lunatic example. In another thread, recently, the refusal of AVM(Rtd.) Don Bennett to countenance the use of radio navigation aids at BSAA was detailed.

The quote is from William Morris (Billy) Hughes, the "Little Digger", several times Prime Minster of Australia.

Greg Melleuish
The Australian
April 8, 2016 12:00AM
Save (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/the-case-for-legislative-change-must-be-made-credible/news-story/0777ea58c05556fb018590fb00c015cf#)
Print

I recently came across the following observation by former prime minister William Morris Hughes in his book The Case for Labor.

“He clings to his old environment like a limpet to a rock, and regards those daring spirits who depart ever so little from there with hatred, amazement, or contempt … This is not to say that a complete change in man is impossible, only that it is so slow as to pass unnoticed; the adjustment of society to a changing environment is rarely so abrupt as to startle the timid soul of the great majority.

Men at first either ridicule or furiously denounce new ideas; then criticise them, finally accept them, frequently with ingenious excuses or reservations.”

What Hughes identified is the extraordinary conservatism of most people, especially Australians. They are not agile or *innovative but are hostile to almost any change.
Does that strike a chord??

Tootle pip!!

Sunfish

9th Apr 2016, 02:17

LeadSled

9th Apr 2016, 02:42

And, strangely, peacetime ex-military officers are some of the most change resistant of all.

And in wartime, both WWI and WWII, many of our most brilliant commanders were "weekend warriors", John Monash being one outstanding example. This was also true for other Commonwealth countries, like Canada, NZ and SA.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Does anybody have the full details of, during the Malaysian Emergency, the "Academy Ace" doing a bit of "hand on" in an RAAF Lincoln dropping his bombs with the bomb bay doors closed.

Dick Smith

9th Apr 2016, 02:42

Lead. So true. Especially about airspace. It's all about clinging to the old and "perception" not rational evidence as you have correctly pointed out in the past.

le Pingouin

9th Apr 2016, 03:41

ADS-B anyone??? CASA rule changes??? Seems it's only change resistance when you're not having the change inflicted on you. Hypocrites.

LeadSled

9th Apr 2016, 03:54

Le Ping,

Your post says more about you than anybody else.

The opposition to the " change" in your post is all about rejection of crippling costs for completely unjustified impositions, by regulation.

The difference between the "Rule of law" and the "Rule by law".

Tootle pip!!

Chronic Snoozer

9th Apr 2016, 04:11

This utter rubbish about 'ex-military' has really, really run its course. There are peace time, ex-military professionals in all walks of life having wrested themselves from the wretched world of status quo, and gone on to make a very good career for themselves, IN NON-GOVERNMENTAL careers. But lets not toss up them as examples.

This constant whinging about ex-military spectres ruining CASA or Airservices is just that, whinging. Constant carping about individuals who happen to be ex-military is feckless and disrespectful, unless you can provide specific examples that illustrate you know that person, and are in a position to provide an objective opinion about their suitability for post.

And, strangely, peacetime ex-military officers are some of the most change resistant of all

Why is this strange? Aren't there libraries dedicated to describing this phenomenom, cataclysmic events precipitated on one individual's refusal to move at other than a glacial pace?

Fatuous generalisations aren't worth the data packet they're sent by.

What is ironic is the way the Australian quote has immediately been applied to dreaded 'ex-military' by the usual suspects rather than acknowledging that resistance to change exists in society at large.

Howabout

9th Apr 2016, 06:46

Leady, I do not know whether you have seen an associated observation by one Greg Melleuish, Professor of Politics and History at the University of Wollongong (8/4/16) in a letter to the Australian.

The thing is that in a conservative democracy such as Australia, achieving change, even change dictated by necessity, ain’t easy.

(and I bold the following when he goes on to say):

It 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.

Does that strike a chord??

Leady, that is a very perspicacious observation on the part of the Professor if you are trying to draw some sort of parallel between, 'airspace reform,' 'resistance,' and Billy Hughes!

LeadSled

9th Apr 2016, 08:18

How,
I think your quote came from the same article in the Friday Oz?
Tootle pip!!

Howabout

9th Apr 2016, 08:37

I'll just add a couple of things to my last after getting the Giant Border Collie back from his run.

Your listeners are not a bunch of brain-dead idiots that resist for the sake of 'resistance.' Most are intelligent professionals that are willing to listen, but not be brow-beaten by someone that says 'I know what's good for you.' That approach just gets people's backs up.

Having been around the game long enough before retirement, I know that people are receptive to logical, cogent arguments. And if those arguments hold water, people need to be brought along, not bludgeoned into submission. That's the primary cause of resistance. People just turn off and get resentful to what is no more than a paternalistic approach. I'll say again: 'I know what's good for you.' It is not the avenue to win friends and influence people.

Personally, and it's just MY OPINION, I happen to believe that there is merit in Dick's push for IFR/IFR separation, and traffic on known VFR down to 700 AGL, where we have radar coverage at some of the busier places. But my OPINION AND BELIEF count for little. People need to be persuaded that such a move is a safety enhancement and not blind allegiance to ideology. If the latter is the case, they'll just turn off again.

That said, I've seen some posts where the boys and girls have said they'd be happy to provide the service, but that training and current regs don't allow. Hardly their fault in acting within current constraints. That is not 'resistance,' it's reality.

Give them the tools, provide logical argument in respect of a thorough safety case and risk analysis and, dare I say, you'd have them jumping on board to provide the service. Most I've known over the years have that thing called 'professional pride' in respect of doing all they can to facilitate traffic, whether IFR or VFR.

Aussie Bob

9th Apr 2016, 10:00

I renewed my instructor rating the other day. It could only be done in a single, that's all that was available. It also counted as my flight review SEA

So, with the part 61 changes I can now instruct SEA. I can no longer instruct multi, that needs another flight review. I can no longer instruct at night, that needs another review again.

Have I misread the changes or are they good for me and everyone else?

I am not resistant to change at all, these are great changes (not) :(

Ultralights

9th Apr 2016, 11:47

i blame the legal professions.

le Pingouin

9th Apr 2016, 13:19

Sled, in any change there are winners and losers. You are judging the objections of others by the value you put on those things and not how they see them. Taking your attitude I don't give a rats about the cost of ADS-B as I'm not paying and it makes my job easier. Whereas in fact I can entirely see why people are objecting.

Whereas I do give a rats about replacing C with dirt tack E when it's purely for ideological reasons and nearly killed a 737 of pax.

LeadSled

9th Apr 2016, 16:27

---- when it's purely for ideological reasons and nearly killed a 737 of pax.Le Ping,

That's an ideological statement, if ever there was one, with no basis in fact. And I do mean fact. Not my opinion, fact.

As has been said, ad infinitum, as nauseum, the light aircraft pilot had the B737 in sight at all relevant times.

He could not have mistaken sighting another aircraft, there was only one other aircraft in the area, the B737. The probability of a collision was as near nil as it is possible to be -- "vanishingly small" is the correct technical term.

To suggest he was just going to sit there and fly smack into the B737 is just too silly for words, is idealogical ---- and I don't care what the ATSB report said, because all too often ATSB reports are far from unchallengeable.

To suggest that somebody who is smart enough to be a leading local businessman, who is smart enough to have accumulated a considerable number of hours as PIC without problems, who has flown that route many times, was going to sit there until a collision ---- I really wonder about your mental processes.

I guess the real issue is that you do not accept the whole basis of modern ICAO airspace management and separation assurance standards, and want to revert to the previous "everything controlled/nothing controlled" so called system.

It looks to me like you are the one who can't accept change, has never accepted, in this case, change.

Here's a change for you, and on your thinking, should be accepted as change --- make all airspace A, effectively grounding VFR entirely, that would obviously be "safer".

But, in the real world, it would not be reasonable --- or, maybe to people like you, it would be.

I narrowly avoided death or injury several thousand times, today, driving to YSBK and back home, by taking the normal precautions to avoid collision, competent driving. The Tobago pilot was a competent pilot.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Not that long ago, ATSB wasted who knows how many $$$ investigating a "near miss" between two VFR aircraft in G, SW of Sydney, on a severe clear day, not just CAVOK, but CAVU. The "near miss" distance was assessed to be 3nm and 500' vertically --- and this warrants "investigation"?? A completely worthless report.

le Pingouin

9th Apr 2016, 17:10

Well, he clearly failed basic geometry and navigation. Would you call 2 degrees at 12 miles adequate separation? I don't call an RA a vanishingly small risk of collision.

He did just sit there and nearly have a collision - he was amazed when the 737 appeared to move laterally in front of him. What makes you think he could have manoeuvred enough when he realised it was seriously going to poo? Having something in sight doesn't mean you won't be hit by it.

You know very well that eyewitness statements are some of the least reliable evidence available. People are very poor observers. Being a business man changes this not one tiny bit

You've clearly never worked in ATC - the only constant is change.

le Pingouin

9th Apr 2016, 17:44

P.S. I'm not the one trying to impose a whole system of ideas, something that is generally referred to as ideology.

Capn Bloggs

9th Apr 2016, 23:15

Leddie, you do amaze me sometimes, but that last post takes the cake.

Dick Smith

9th Apr 2016, 23:38

Le Ping The E over D at Broome and Avalon is clearly not for ideological reasons.

It follows an objective risk criteria.

Le Ping. You support C over D at Launceston because you believe that's what we had before and as per the original post quoting PM Billy Hughes you resist change in every way you can.

The airspace at Launceston is clearly upside down. Or reversed.

It's obvious that the collision risk in link airspace is far lower than airspace close to the runway.

The C would clearly be safer if it was adequately manned. This is not so in Launceston. Some of the C is controlled by the tower controller which means attention has to be taken away from the higher risk circuit and runway operations.

If putting C above D could improve safety at no extra cost other countries would have copied this by now.

Le Ping. You should learn that safety costs money and it's not possible to get something for nothing.

I have spoken to FAA Air Traffic Control experts about the system you so strongly support. They say the allocation of the airspace simply shows an incompetent resistance to change.

If it's so good why is there not one other country in the world with this type of reversed airspace?

To quote and paraphrase " What Hughes identified was the extraordinary resistance to change of most Australians- they are hostile to almost any change"

le Pingouin

10th Apr 2016, 02:33

Ideology..........

CharlieLimaX-Ray

10th Apr 2016, 03:01

So, Dick is the airspace ICAO compliment in Tasmania?

Should you write to the AFAP and ask them to tell its members not to fly into Wynyard, Devonport, Launceston and Hobart until the issues are resolved with airspace design?

What about after hours when Launceston and Hobart towers are closed, is it safe for RPT aircraft such as B737 and A320 to fly into those places with no radar, high terrain, poor weather, limited met information, pilot activated lighting-sounds like a disaster waiting to happen!

Dick, you owe it to the Australian public to save them from this unfolding disaster happening in our skies.

LeadSled

10th Apr 2016, 03:10

I guess the real issue is that you do not accept the whole basis of modern ICAO airspace management and separation assurance standards, Le Ping,
From my previous post. You seem to believe in a strange system of inverted risk management, as the risk decreases, the CNS-ATM services increase.

Amazing, isn't it, you (and Bloggsie and his mates) have got it right, the rest of the world, but particularly FAA and Eurocontrol has got it wrong !!

Not only ideological, but, and if I may say so, which I will, arrogant in the extreme --- and all despite our rather poor record of loss of separation incidents.

As a matter of interest, are you a pilot, or just ATC? Genuine question. Back in the G-O-Ds, DCA used to fund flying training for controllers, to give then some idea of what happens at the other end. Likewise, jumpseat rides for the day, multiple sectors, to see what really happens on the flight deck.

Tootle pip!!

PS: A bit like CASA claims for the Part 61 disaster, that CASR Part 61 is a beacon for the rest of the known universe, but I don't notice any rush from said known universe to emulate this self-describes "great achievement".

Car RAMROD

10th Apr 2016, 03:32

Dick, any idea why the low level E around Karratha was removed (down to 1200ft if I remember correctly from the maps a while ago)?

My guess is that it didn't work, otherwise it reasons that if it worked it would have remained. But there might be people out there who know the situation better and can comment.

Lookleft

10th Apr 2016, 05:02

and all despite our rather poor record of loss of separation incidents.

Wheras European and North American loss of separation incidents have only ever been minor> Uberlingen anyone, or would you prefer a Zagreb with that? I also was highly amused that you had the arrogance to accuse others of being arrogant!

Howabout

10th Apr 2016, 05:48

As a matter of interest, are you a pilot, or just ATC? Genuine question. Back in the G-O-Ds, DCA used to fund flying training for controllers, to give then some idea of what happens at the other end. Likewise, jumpseat rides for the day, multiple sectors, to see what really happens on the flight deck.

Two points, Leady, in respect of your quote from #21:

Firstly, you must stop using paternalistic language and consider what you write before hitting 'send: 'As a matter of interest, are you a pilot or just ATC (my underlining).' That lends the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you regard yourself as some sort of winged-god that considers ATC a lower form of life. You could write a book on 'How to Alienate a Target Audience 101.'

Secondly, and the previous aside, you are right on the jump-seat rides - I had several and they were invaluable as regards broader education. I enjoyed each and every one. Particularly the first time I had an Ansett ride in the 767 and saw the early days of the 'glass-cockpit' for the first time with the IRS display.

Why that has seemingly ended, I have no idea. Maybe it's the commercialization of ATC provision, whereby the numbers are no longer available to release people for a ride. Maybe 'user pays;,' but in my memory the rides I got were gratis. Just don't know on that one, but I did learn a lot.

In conclusion, and just a bit of advice. Stop lecturing and hectoring like you're delivering the Ten Commandments!

There's stuff that can be addressed, but people don't like being bashed over the head by those that treat them like morons!

Jabawocky

10th Apr 2016, 09:40

Dick, I Don't get it. You say most other modern countries etc etc, well I just had a look at these 2 Wiki pages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_airspace

Not many places have E, and not many of them have E above a towered Airport unless Primary and Secondary Radar Approach, and, The Canadian C zones go up to FL125

I wonder if our class D regionals would be Class C with Radar App in these O/S systems? That would cost a heap more, and achieve what for us?

mgahan

10th Apr 2016, 12:44

Jaba,

Bad boy - you do not know or follow the rules: when arguing with experts on airspace, particularly those who have implemented change in the past which has been half turned back, you must NOT inject facts or cogent argument.

Go immediately to the naughty corner and tune to a frequency with constant overtransmits.

I suspect those wiki pages were inserted by military officers in any case.

MJG

Jabawocky

10th Apr 2016, 22:55

Sorry….I forgot. :-0 Back in my box.

Jabawocky

11th Apr 2016, 09:36

OK, I did not get a response on the other thread, mind you not much above either. :ooh:

Talk about resistance. (I used to sell resistors, transistors, IC's and such as a 15 year old for a well known electronics shop in the early 80's. But I digress….. ;) )

Dick,

1. Has CASA had international consultants examine the safety benefits of surveillance in airspace? And if so, what was learned or reported?

2. Any comments on my post a few above this one.

Dick Smith

11th Apr 2016, 10:08

Jaba. When CASA gets international consultants they nearly always come from Europe- rarely the USA.

If CASA has had consultants doing this study they haven't published anything.

In the UK, like the rest of Europe, GA is in severe problems. Only in North America is there a commercially viable GA industry.

I have flown both IFR and VFR in the countries your post covers.

To maximise the use of existing radar we could have designed our own unique system- then flyers and passengers would be Guinea Pigs for an unproven system.

Or we could have copied a proven system that had lots of data available on on the resultant levels of safety. And that's why both times we decided on the US NAS as the way to go.

Unfortunately those who resist change have stopped us ever completing the NAS system.

And if fact ,they have forced reversals on the introduction so the present system is half wound back and a stuff up. No wonder CASA is trying to make it work with piecemeal changes on frequencies at CTAFs. Unfortunately the internal CASA " code " prevents them from getting anyone with professional experience in the US NAS to advise on how to complete the introduction.

I am hoping that new people coming into the system will embrace the proven overseas system and we will be able to comple the plan.

Jabawocky

11th Apr 2016, 21:20

This is where your ideology fails. Here is my take.

You want the US system here, how do we do that without serious investment in Primary and Secondary Radar which is independent surveillance that mitigates the risk of non transponder VFR. Each Radar would be in the millions to purchase and install, then maintenance, perhaps a million a year each. Then you need Approach Radar Controllers, still need Tower Controllers, big money. Likely too if you are copying the US, Regional D towers would become Radar C terminals. Then, the question logically has to be asked, who pays. Airlines, GA. No federally funded FAA here.

The question logically should be, do we have a problem that needs fixing? All I have seen is long bows been drawn by you and you alone against accidents decades ago. Where is the relationship comparison with incidents in the US? I'm fairly certain you would not have to go very far back at all to find incidents and accident data from the US. Better or worse?

I cannot see how we can emulate the US system here without Mega dollars invested.

If other countries can have similar systems to ours, why make wholesale change. Refine , improve, sure, but only objectively where a need is identified.

BTW, ask about 09/342 and see what you find. It's a good read :ok:

Perhaps you could then ask why it was not published :=

Snakecharma

11th Apr 2016, 21:20

I have to say that using the US as the be all and end all example of how things should be done is getting rather droll.

From Americans coming into the country on 457 visas to "run" our airlines (which has to be an abuse of the 457 visa system if there ever was one) to using US airspace examples to show how crap our system is, if the joint is so good, Bugger off to the US and stay there!

Or better yet lets import their health system (which we slowly seem to be doing anyway), their corporate governance rules (hello mortgage scandal and subsequent 2007/2008 GFC), their presidential style elections with everyone from the local dog catcher to the president being voted upon by an elite few given voting is not mandatory, gun control or lack thereof - we too can have a mass execution weekly courtesy of a misinterpreted statement in the constitution which somehow turns an armed militia (written at a time when it makes sense and was in context) into an almost unlimited access to assault rifles and automatic weapons for the general population. Stuff it, let's have their federal marshal program for airline pilots, I want to shoot out the PFD with my sig sauer 1911 9mm semi auto with the 15 round clip. Never know when that PFD is just going to leap out and grab you by the throat.

Let's throw in the contradiction of the religious south and their extreme God bothering and contrast that with their almost callous disregard for anyone who is unfortunate enough to not live up to the American Dream and be successful with very limited social security and health care policies.

We have it good here people and just because someone doesn't agree with Dick in airspace it doesn't make them resistant to change or stupid, or unwilling to listen to new ideas or anything else.

I cannot for the life of me see how I am protected when I am flogging around in my rpt jet by the see and avoid principle and frequency separation! Isn't that the airspace equivalent of using peril sensitive sunglasses? If I can't hear you or see you then you aren't there! Anyone who is close enough to hit me I am unlikely to see as I don't have a huge amount of visibility forward and to the side of my jet (and none behind obviously) - yes I can see straight ahead and up, but not too far behind and if anyone is a bit lower than me I have no chance, my field of view is such that anyone inside 4-5 miles is nearly invisible under the glare shield or nose of the aeroplane. I can't see the engines in my jet only the winglets, so anyone in that area is invisible to me as well. So frankly see and avoid is a crock of horse poo that really only applies to the other bloke who has to see the big white jet and miss me. And given that a lot of those people (the ones that I am worried about anyway) are weekend warriors that are not very current, have the fam in the back and have numerous distractions, not the least being a noisy piston engine making a lot of noise in a aluminium frame with no air conditioning (so it is hot or cold) with a windscreen that has managed to become a bit scratched over the 40 or so years it has been installed in the aeroplane, looking into the sun for the White jet that blends into the background. Let's just set up a few hurdles for the poor sob to overcome why don't we? Or we could help him with a "listen shags there is a jet in your way" or " I am here where are you?" call, which we cannot do in an unalerted environment where the bloke is either not talking or is talking on a different frequency.

Clearly I am in desperate need of my morning caffeine and a truck load of Valium (oh can't do the Valium I won't pass a damp test).

Sunfish

11th Apr 2016, 21:54

Snakecharma, your heartfelt reply to Dick strikes a chord in me. There seems to be a problem in Australian Aviation that divisions are drawn between "Sky gods" flying heavy jets with a hundred or more pax, "RAAF" pilots flying at taxpayers expense, and "weekend warriors" who of course are characterised as bumbling fools, then of course there are the even lower folks on the totem pole, LSA, weight shifters, etc. This is unhelpful.

Have you considered that the weekend warrior and her family are as much entitled to protection from YOU as you are from them? This is where the Aviation Act with its priority on the safety of RPT passengers above all fails first in my opinion.

I understand your working environment provides challenges to separation but to blame it all on some theoretical VFR PPL holder is a bit rich. To put that another way; he may be looking out of a scratched windscreen, with Thirty year old radios in a noisy environment, but you have an air-conditioned quiet cockpit with the latest tools and superb training, so exactly who is responsible if an airprox occurs? In my opinion both of you.

I cannot comment on the debate Dick started because I don't have the experience, but I would like to suggest that the underlying idea that somehow volume of passengers count in determining who gets safe passage is fatally flawed.

In a marine environment, (with one exception*) large and small vessels seem to co exist quite well and while big ships often have right away, they are not absolved of blame if they hit something smaller, nor do they go around slagging off at recreational boaters.

*The one exception being a certain ships pilot who is irrationally hostile to all recreational vessels and who can be heard on VHF calling them "marine pollution".

fujii

11th Apr 2016, 22:14

LeadSled, when in the G-O-Ds do you reckon DCA gave flying training to ATC? I did my course in 1972 to 1974. I know some overseas ANSPs do provide flying training but as far as I know, it was never done here. I did have a total of six weeks jump seat during my course.

50 50

11th Apr 2016, 23:41

Jesus. Pprune has become the old guy version of Facebook. Arguing with strangers over boring crap.

Quick everyone have a go at me.

Capn Bloggs

11th Apr 2016, 23:51

Sunny, lots of air pollution forecast for Tamworth today, I believe... :)

Snakecharma

12th Apr 2016, 02:42

Sunfish,

I suspect that you have missed the intent of my post.

At no point did I suggest that the weekend warrior or VFR/PPL is a bumbling fool, indeed I used to be one, BUT the point I was trying to make was that the weekend warrior or VFR/PPL is the one with the least amount of support, operating in, for the most part, aeroplanes that are not superbly equipped, in an environment which is conducive to fatigue, stress, and a whole bunch of other things, which will in turn take the focus off looking outside for me in my white jet.

If we look at the above objectively and not emotionally then it will be easier to see where I am coming from.

On a side note I accept that some of us might come across as "sky gods" as you call us, but for the most part almost every airline pilot I know is an enthusiast who loves flying in most, if not all, it's forms and doesn't consider themselves better than the average amateur driver.

The difference between "us and them" as you would have it is this...

Airline pilots are (mostly) professional pilots who eat, live and breath their work. It is what they do. Some do so begrudgingly because they have lost the interest given all the crap that gets piled on, but nevertheless they fly every week, do maybe between 500-1000 hrs a year, sim checks every 6 months etc. you get the picture they are very familiar with their environment and aeroplane.

Amateur pilots have lives outside aviation, most don't fly as regularly as either they want to or should for recency purposes, and very few I would wager have sufficient dough to own their own aeroplanes and have them fitted with the very latest in overhead under hangs, chrome grease nipples and twin fox tails, so by extension they are dipping their hand into their pocket to go flying, so every second and dollar counts. They go flying single pilot, so no help from old mate in the other seat, they are flying a piston single so it is noisy and fatiguing, they can't get a hot coffee at the push of a call button, they can't push the seat back and have a hot meal, they haven't got a fmc with triple IRU's coupled to a cat 3b autopilot so they have to hand fly or at least reasonably closely monitor the autopilot, they can't go down the back and go to the dunny and they typically don't have an effective means of managing cabin temp other than in the coarsest of means - so it can be cold or hot (both of which are stress inducing)

Couple to this they are usually, and this is a generalisation, less experienced in hours (but not necessarily years of flying) than professional pilots (GA, Airline, military, flying doc, coast watch, aero rescue, aeromedical chopper etc) and they have a much lower base to work from, and do so in considerably more trying conditions.

What the above paragraphs means to me is this. The amateur pilot is by virtue of their workload/conditions/experience/recency are subject to a higher workload than the airline pilot.

It is a well known phenomena that when placed under stress cognitive ability reduces. I have trained a lot of airline pilots and you see it when they start their line training. They are overloaded and their brain prioritises what it needs to in order to cope. This includes peripheral vision and hearing.

It is very common for pilots under initial training to have tunnel vision and not see and hear (or if they hear not be able to process) visual and aural messages/warnings/radio calls/crew member communications. As they progress through their training their cognition improves and they take in more and more and their awareness of their surroundings becomes broader and more complete.

Whilst I admit I have not flown a piston powered aeroplane in over 25 years, I can't help but feel that the same applies to the amateur pilot, in some way shape or form. Some people would be able to cope with the lack of recency and use it to sharpen their edge, but others wouldn't be able to.

So, the point of my post was that if we take away the alerted part of traffic awareness and simply rely on see and avoid, we are taking away an element of the system that gives the person who is working with a heap of competing priorities a nudge to go looking for the traffic.

If you operate in an environment where you don't see a lot of traffic up close you will become used to not looking too closely for it, as it has never been there. So it will come as a big surprise the day the traffic is there!

However if you have a radio call that says (and I am paraphrasing AIP here! " ready or not here I come!" Then the guy/gal who sees very little traffic when flying, who is working single pilot with the least amount of support, in the more hostile environment (compared to an airline flight deck) BUT who has the more manoeuvrable aeroplane with typically the better opportunity to see the big white jet (by virtue of not having bits of the aeroplane in the way), then they will have the best opportunity to see and avoid you.

This doesn't absolve the airline pilot of liability and nor should it, and infact liability isn't something I put my mind to on a regular basis as the reality is if I hit something like a GA aeroplane it is likely to be my estate that has to deal with the question of liability and culpability not me.

As I previously mentioned, I don't have a lot of visibility out of the front of my steed, a bit more to one side (but not the other) and bugger all behind, so I can't help much..

I have had a jet a couple of thousand feet below me about 10-15 miles in front and reducing for some considerable time and only saw them just before they vanished under the nose at about 4-5 miles in front. I knew they were there, they were on TCAS, I was looking but couldn't for the life of me see them (neither could my offsider) so that says to me that alerted see and avoid is difficult enough, take away the "alerted" bit and you have even less effective chance of seeing the oncoming traffic before you become a noise abatement issue.

So I don't want one of the legs of the stool pulled out from underneath me.

Hope that clarifies what I was saying

Stationair8

12th Apr 2016, 02:53

A very good post Snakecharma.

Fred Gassit

12th Apr 2016, 03:33

2 "likes" from me too Snake

Lookleft

12th Apr 2016, 04:01

Nice work SC it sums up nicely the current state of play for both the average domestic jet pilot and the average GA recreational pilot. Hopefully Sunny will read it in the right context.

Or to put that another way, hope he doesn't jump to conclusions before he gets to the end of the post.:ok:

QSK?

12th Apr 2016, 04:55

Are there other 'pruners out there who are enjoying the peace and quiet today, or is it just me?

I wonder where everybody is?

Jabawocky

12th Apr 2016, 06:04

Nice post Snakie :ok:

100% agree………coming from a single pilot IFR piston river. Albeit my environment is not as hostile and under resourced as you describe, but even in my fortunate position, your big white jet is not all that easy to find as you rightly describe. Until it is in your face so to speak.

:ok:

Chronic Snoozer

12th Apr 2016, 06:16

Get ADSB-IN and a decent display and VFR wouldn't have to worry. I'm sure thats how they'll do it in the USA.

Sunfish

12th Apr 2016, 21:19

thank you for your excellent and cogent post Snakecharma, I agree with you entirely.

mgahan

14th Apr 2016, 13:44

Jabba,
Re your post #28. Been busy here in Singapore earning $$$ to service the Port Melbourne mortgage and missed your posts until this afternoon.

Great intell mate! Buy her a beer. The RFQ number might be incorrect so make it a lite beer or softie.

There certainly was a report commissioned by CASA to look into this. It was in mid 2010 but for some reason the report was not published.

The report was researched and drafted by an experienced international team of airspace managers, pilots, regulators and - shock, horror - ex FIS from Australia, UK, US and NZ. Critical sections and the full report were peer reviewed by an independent team from the UK, Australia and FAA. It runs to 102 pages with a comprehensive bibliography. It even includes that coverage chart of US airspace showing the redundant surveillance below 1000ft that one prominent aviation luminary calls a furphy.

Despite some of the team being - again, shock, horror - ex military senior officers, the recommendations were anything but, "no change". In fact one of the recommendations was "fundamental change".

The team devised a three dimensional risk model and applied it to the various surveillance technologies in all classes of airspace to come up with a relative numerical grading of the safety benefits of surveillance.

I led the team but the IP rests with CASA and the decision on publishing is theirs and theirs alone. After seeing some of the posts here, today I reminded the research and drafting team and peer review team where that IP lies.

Biased personal opinion but I think many serious posters here would benefit from reading the report in its entirety.

Do not bother sending a PM. Despite my desire as a past airspace regulator and leader of the drafting team to have the report available for all and sundry - and some of you are very sundry - I respect the contract conditions on the IP rights of CASA.

MJG
(decrepit old military type with some airspace and regulatory experience in Australia and elsewhere)

LeadSled

14th Apr 2016, 16:47

Jaba,
On airspace classes, have a look at India and Pakistan, that's give you pause for thought, given the traffic levels.

Mind you, Bloggsie would undoubtedly approve, none of that E stuff, just lots of G & F, with a bit of D & C for terminal control areas around major airports.

I would suggest you use NAA AIPs as references, rather than Wikipedia.

As Dick has said, time and again, and correctly, E is not dependent on radar, and despite the mysteriously unpublished CASA airspace management analysis, nobody of consequence, of whom I am aware, has seriously challenged the basic principle of separation assurance as the basis for ICAO airspace management.

If this mysterious report says anything new, what is the motivation for not publishing it. Maybe it doesn't support current ASA/CASA/Union policies. ASTRA knows nothing about it -- unless??

If it demolished Dicks/NAS/Airspace Act Airspace Policy Statement, I would have expected its proponents to shouting it from the rooftops.
It is the best kept secret in CASA, I have never even heard a whisper of it, but now we know about it, the new Minister will be interested (I can guarantee that) and it will be a serious subject in the next RRAT Senate Estimates.

Unless, of course, you are referring to the lunatic (and lunatically expensive) proposal for 100% surveillance and 100% random tracking, with every aircraft airborne subject to real-time control, and the big-brother computer controlling all this was to be "more" infallible than any human controller or pilot. A whole different meaning to "One Sky", with an equally lunatic proposal to charge every aircraft in the country for "access to airspace" to pay for the whole monster.

If that had been released, it would have made Australia a laughing stock --- or even more than it already is in aviation circles.

It's a pity more of you didn't have at least a rudimentary knowledge of the development of airspace management techniques over the years since WWII --- most of which have appeared first in the US, because, simply, of the needs of the traffic. Go back before "alphabet soup" airspace, and what is now E in US was previously still controlled airspace, but was called " --- VFR Exempt", this predated the widespread radar coverage in the lower 48, which, by the way, is now shrinking.

How the FAA ADS-B mandate plays out in the next 4 years will be interesting, as major airlines are effectively boycotting it --- on the basis that it is a major expense for no measurable benefit. Last time I looked, several months ago, it was around 9% for airline aircraft.

In contrast, in Australia, post WWII the position was very different, it all belonged to the RAAF, and civil aviation was "tolerated". When I started flying aircraft that would go high enough, the ceiling over Sydney was 20-25,000 ft, above that, all mil. R, inbound to Sydney we would always have to descent 60-80 miles early, at great cost in fuel, to stay below mil. R, and clearances for civil aircraft through mil. R was not ever requested "please don't ask, as refusal may offend". The huge AU military zones with sod all military traffic is the remnant of that era. The then maximum flight level anywhere in Australia was (from memory) FL390, FL400 and up was all Mil P.

The "we won WWII, it all belongs to us" is still much in evidence -- sub-consciously, if nothing else.

Re. use of ADS-B in US, FAA does not regard ADS-B IN, (the mandate is only for ADS-B out) as an anti-collision aid, ADS-B OUT is just a supplement to or a substitute for radar.

Again, as been said, time and again, neither the FAA or Eurocontrol mandates for ADS-B impact un-pressurised GA aircraft to the degree that it does in Australia --- and now we have AVM() Skidmore advocating mandatory ADS-B for everything flying. Although expressed differently, the FAA and EEC mandates are very similar end results, with EEC mandate actually being less restrictive than US.

I'm sure thats how they'll do it in the USA.
Chronic Snoozer,
Been snoozing too much, FAA have no such plans, and so far, none of the manufacturers of TCAS II have taken up the option of incorporating ADS-B (or C) IN in the TCAS processing --- the standard has now been available for years ---- probably because there is negligible ( probably zero, but I don't know that for a fact) demand from the HCPT market or major airframe manufacturers --- and it doesn't produce an enhanced output, so why bother.

Fujii,
50's through early '60s, generally the period when Don Anderson was D-G of DCA. In those days, a very large % of recruits to ATC/FS were already pilots.

Snakecharma,
More likely, too much Valium is the problem, but it still hasn't been enough to temper you anti-US prejudices. How come you didn't recommend getting rid of their aircraft and engines, and avionics, they couldn't possibly be any good, coming from such a crap country.
You better stop using that yankee GPS rubbish.
Indeed, look at our pristine financial institutions in Australia, never a word about customers being screwed, never a word about inquiries into banks??
Our wonderful insurance companies, with hoards of happy smiling claimants --- never a dispute about a payout.
Obviously the present call for a bank Royal Commission is just a bunch of mislead dills.

Tootle pip!!

Chronic Snoozer

14th Apr 2016, 17:59

LS,
Not snoozing, just cruzin....I'm talking VFR mate, not RPT.

A quick LMGTFY search revealed this report on the FAA website.

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/adsb/media/ADS-BITPOpFlightEvalBenefitsReport.pdf

which I am inclined to believe is evidence of plans to use ADSB In in some fashion by the FAA which is all I alluded to.

Also found this

Garmin | ADS-B (http://ads-b.garmin.com/en-US)

which indicates that Garmin have an ADSB In/Out solution for 4K. Am I missing something?

Once ADSB In is truly affordable, why wouldn't you have it? Two guys out in the GAFA could safely operated at their unmarked strip, without radios (if thats your preference) and radio calls and still know each others whereabouts with higher accuracy than surveillance radar.

LMGTFY = 'Let me Google that for you'

Plazbot

14th Apr 2016, 18:45

Having been a long time sparring participant in this NASdebate, my main concern is that an enormous responsibility is put on the VFR pilot to be pretty much the final arbiter in separation as the enormous cluster **** in launny showed. I understand the apprehension of the RPT drivers who keeping in mind were once that very guy. Some are good I am sure but when a lowest common denominator is an 18 year old gen Y hotshot or worse, I certainly support some intervention to protect the person who pays for it all namely the passenger.

Sure the US does it under certain conditions but maybe, just maybe the way Australia is the world's best practice.

It's in my opinion unacceptable to allow a system to assume everyone does the right thing when they give out licenses to individuals from a packet of fruit loops.

Jabawocky

14th Apr 2016, 22:15

If it demolished Dicks/NAS/Airspace Act Airspace Policy Statement, I would have expected its proponents to shouting it from the rooftops.
It is the best kept secret in CASA, I have never even heard a whisper of it, but now we know about it, the new Minister will be interested (I can guarantee that) and it will be a serious subject in the next RRAT Senate Estimates.

GAME ON my dear Leadie!

I reckon there are bound to be folk on the board or in senior positions who know it/have it. I understand half the OAR don't know about it, but it exists none the less. I have no idea why it never saw the light of day. I see the team lead actually posts here, and has confirmed it, well I will be buggered!!

There is a link for the original RFQ if you go searching….or there was. It may have vanished by now. :ooh:

For some refresher reading perhaps, well worth a read are the Ambidji report appendices, in particular the stakeholder feedback and comparisons with US airspace and services which neatly align with the report providing advice to the government on ministerial direction and in particular on regional class C services.
https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/standard-page/papers-and-reports

Good luck hunting waskerly rabbits in the Capital Territory :}
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/looneytunes/images/e/e5/Gunfade.gif/revision/latest?cb=20110827193619

Dick Smith

14th Apr 2016, 22:57

The low cost Garmin "in" unit won't work in Aus. We don't have that frequency available nor the ground stations

Snakecharma

15th Apr 2016, 00:07

Leadsled, despite what you may think, I don't have a raging anti US bias, or pro anything else bias, BUT I am getting a bit sick of the constant referencing to the US model as the be all and end all. Or at least I am perceiving that some proponents are saying that the US system is awesome and what we have here is crap.

The US has some terrific stuff, but as I pointed out in my post, it has some less than terrific stuff as well, and I get the sense that we in this country have an inbuilt inferiority complex that says anything we do here MUST be less worthy, less capable, less efficient, less whatever than something designed overseas.

It seems to me that we have developed a lot of innovative ideas in this country only to see them shift offshore and become successful.

Nevertheless, the point I was trying to make, clearly unsuccessfully, is that our system here may well be different to that that exists in the US, but is it wrong, or worse, or more dangerous? If we remove the alerted part of see and avoid we are dumping a lot of additional pressure/workload on those that are the least equipped to manage it (as a generalisation - i am not trying to denigrate GA pilots).

Whilst we are broadly similar to the US in many ways, we are also very different. Culturally, politically, socially we are different and things that seem to be acceptable there (gun control - or lack thereof, public health care - or lack thereof, religious zealotry, the US style of management - which quite frankly sucks the big weinie) aren't necessarily ok here. Having worked for some airline managers directly imported from the good old US of A I have to say that they are not the best thing since sliced bread - quite the opposite, and if you look at airline salaries, terms and conditions, the ability to furlough people, the ability to hide behind chapter 11 protection etc, the US airline industry is a much less pleasant and dare I say ethical place than that which exists here.

So back to my original statement, just because I disagree with Dick (and clearly you) it doesn't necessarily make me wrong and because people are advocating a shift to the US system, it doesn't necessarily make them right!

But in true democratic form I respect your right and ability to tell me I am wrong :)

Chronic Snoozer

15th Apr 2016, 04:53

The low cost Garmin "in" unit won't work in Aus. We don't have that frequency available nor the ground stations

As I understand it the GTX345 is 1090ES transponder. Coupled with a display and presto! Receives both 978UAT and 1090ES frequencies. The GTX 345 ADS-B Out and In transponder has a list price of $5,795

OK...what am I missing now?

LeadSled

15th Apr 2016, 09:11

Chronic Snoozer,
You are missing the required C-145/146 GPS feed.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Despite the very slow takeup of ADS-B by US airlines , the shortcomings of a 1090ES based system are becoming very evident re. channel saturation. This was forecast in the mid-90's, but the lobby for the "el-cheapo" 1090ES system, as opposed to a broadband datalink envisaged by ICAO, buried the forecasts.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost.

PS2:
Snakecharma,
What I want to see is a properly ICAO risk managed and efficient airspace management. where resources are not squandered on perceived risks, but on real and quantified risks. As the current ICAO system was based on the US arrangements, the US NAS represents the most mature iteration of said ICAO recommended system. My experience of the US NAS, over some (now) 50 years, in aircraft from very small to very large, informs my view of how well it works.

As for culture, if that is really a problem, how do so many Australian pilots (approximately 100% -1) , flying in US airspace, instantly adapt to the "foreign culture".

This "cultural difference" argument was run for years by AFAP, along the lines that "Australian pilots" ( and LAMEs) are used to a narrow and highly prescriptive regulatory command and control system, and would be unable to cope with a system where they were required ( for example) to vary radio calls, depending on the circumstances, that is MAKE JUDGEMENT CALLS AND DECISIONS, as opposed to chanting the prescribed mantra, as laid down in the AU AIP.

To this day, CASA make the same claim, as to why we have to have such prescriptive and detailed micro-management regulation, all backed up by a draconian criminal penalty system, because quote:Neither CASA nor the Australian aviation industry is sufficiently mature to be able to handle outcome (performance) based plain language regulation.

This despite the fact that Australian industry, on the whole, exists in a performance based regulatory environment --- AU aviation is the odd one out in Australia.

NAS 2b was NOT wound back because of "safety" problems, it was entirely industrial. Indeed, the circumstances were not entirely unrelated to the failure of Ansett some time later --- same personalities.

Chronic Snoozer

15th Apr 2016, 09:39

Yep. I thought that was obvious. I'm guessing most VFR guys have that equipment or at least plan to install it.

LS you did once say that Sadly, with the collapse of GA flying in Australia, channel saturation will never be a problem here.

Capn Bloggs

15th Apr 2016, 09:52

and would be unable to cope with a system where they were required ( for example) to vary radio calls, depending on the circumstances, that is MAKE JUDGEMENT CALLS AND DECISIONS, as opposed to chanting the prescribed mantra, as laid down in the AU AIP.

As I've said before... twoddle. Where's that Jepp 1-page summary of the 100-odd pages of Fastair ops radio calls (aka ICAO RT Doc 9432) you were pontificating about last week, Leddie?

Taps on one's head: "Bloggs, make sure you don't use judgement calls and decisions when going flying tomorrow. Only activity permitted is chanting!".

Snakecharma

15th Apr 2016, 13:25

Leadie, I disagree entirely with the premise that the winding back of NAS was entirely industrial. I genuinely believe it was safety driven.

I, and clearly a large number of fellow pilots were really concerned that we were going to get ourselves into a position where our lives, and the lives of those that we were transporting, were going to be placed in danger.

The personalities involved at the big end of town were indeed big personalities prone to theatrics however that didn't apply to the chief pilot of impulse, who I had and continue to have an enormous amount of respect for. I really can't see him caving on some flimsy industrial argument. Without putting words into his mouth or indeed knowing what he was thinking, but using what I know of the man, I just can't see NAS being the fight he would have in order to satisfy some form of industrial agenda.

At the end of the day what is ICAO? How can a one size fits all approach to anything the world over possibly mean anything other than a compromise for most if not all of the parties? Not just aviation, but anything? Do we have standard electrical safety standards the world over? Do we have common traffic laws the worldwide over? Do we have common medical standards world over? These are areas where the risk to lives is real and as we know from the statistics medical and road safety standards or lack thereof kill 1000's of times more people than aviation.

Let's fight the fights that matter, the fights that genuinely improve safety and reduce the number of lives lost and families decimated by their loss. The number of mid air collisions between aeroplanes, particularly lighties and airliners is larger in the US than it is here, and whilst a reasonable argument can be made that says the rates of traffic are greater in the US and as a result the real risk of a mid air here, given our traffic levels, is correspondingly low and therefore considered negligible and can be disregarded, the fact remains that we, the people who will be directly impacted - literally and figuratively - by a midair, have concerns. Why should our concerns be disregarded as industrial crap simply to satisfy the need some people have to align with a theoretical model that cannot possibly be all things to all people.

We of course have been guilty of industrial sabotage of safety improvements or changes - CVR's/FDR's, weather radar, two man crews (yes, yes I know but you get my point), so it is not unreasonable to suspect it as an underlying motivation, BUT in this instance it is my genuine belief that the fear of being splattered across the landscape (however remote and unlikely that may be) is the true motivation of most pilots at the coal face.

mgahan

15th Apr 2016, 13:35

LS,

Bit distracted here in Singapore on fee paying work (oh, and watching the Rebels get a rugby lesson from the Canes - pity I picked the wrong team in the tipping comp).

I can assure you that the report we submitted to OAR in 2010 was not the one to which you referred in your post #45:
"Unless, of course, you are referring to the lunatic (and lunatically expensive) proposal for 100% surveillance and 100% random tracking, with every aircraft airborne subject to real-time control, and the big-brother computer controlling all this was to be "more" infallible than any human controller or pilot. A whole different meaning to "One Sky", with an equally lunatic proposal to charge every aircraft in the country for "access to airspace" to pay for the whole monster."

I can also assure you that as recently as October 2015 someone in OAR went looking for and found the report.

I can also tell you that when I advised the peer review team of the CASA decision not to publish, one of the reviewers, who was a very senior ATM person in an international industry representative organisation, offered to pay for the research to be redone so that organisation could publish. On legal advice, I declined the offer.

Next rugby game on TV here is 0100 and I have tickets for the Sevens tomorrow so I might retire to my monastic couch.

MJG
Idiot who has worked on airspace issues in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan and Iraq.

Dick Smith

15th Apr 2016, 13:53

I have been told that the Garmin transponder only has ADSB "in"using uat 900 MHz band

This means no ADSB "in" in Australia with this unit.. Can anyone confirm this?

Aeromil have come back and advised that if the Garmin is fitted the two Collins transponders have be turned off or disabled.

This results in a permanent amber warning showing. It appears CASA have allowed one Sovereign to fly this way but claim they will not allow any other installations to go this way

This is what happens when people decide to lead the world with ADSB mandates

Jabawocky

19th Apr 2016, 08:01

Leadsled,

How is the hunting going? Surely you would have something by now?
Did you get stone walled in CBR perhaps?

Wabbits…yeah to keep the rabbits out son.

no_one

19th Apr 2016, 08:32

I have been told that the Garmin transponder only has ADSB "in"using uat 900 MHz band

This means no ADSB "in" in Australia with this unit.. Can anyone confirm this?

From the Garmin website it appears that the GTX345 is "dual link" meaning it will pick up traffic on 1090.
https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/in-the-air/general-aviation/transponders/gtx-345/prod140949.html

Dual-link Completes the Picture
The GTX 345 ADS-B receiver is a dual-link system. So, it can receive on both frequencies (978 MHz and 1090 MHz) authorized for ADS-B operations in the U.S. Not only does this provide the most complete traffic picture from aircraft transmitting on either frequency, but it also enhances your aircraft’s ability to access ADS-B transmissions and services from virtually anywhere. When integrating an active traffic system with the GTX 345, ADS-B traffic and active traffic targets are merged on the display to give pilots a truly comprehensive traffic picture.

mgahan

20th Apr 2016, 02:13

Jaba,

LS might not be looking but it seems others are. I've had several PMs asking for a copy.

Folks who have PM'd: A reminder about my stance on the IP. Under the contract IP restrictions I am unable to distribute copies. I appreciate the assurances some of you have given on confidentiality; however, as those who know me have come to realise over the years, although I'm quite a personal risk taker - hell, I spent 12 months in Kabul and 6 weeks in Iraq on ICAO work, I've been to Mogadishu a couple of times and the staff in BATS know me by name - my professional standards (and legal advice) dictate no spare copies of that report will get into the wild direct from my laptop.

Names have been changed to protect the guilty who have asked for copies:
X - I'd be on shaky ground even with your suggestion of paraphrasing;
Y - I can confirm that paragraph you quoted was in the final draft provided to OAR, so it seems you have a copy;
Z - You obviously do not know me as the name you addressed me by is not mine. Perhaps my PPRuNe handle is effectively hiding my true identity;
AA - I'm in Singapore/KL for the rest of the year but if they summon me and pay the travel and accom costs I'd be happy to attend and give them the benefit of my experience.

MJG

Sunfish

20th Apr 2016, 23:11

how about an foi application Dick?

LeadSled

21st Apr 2016, 14:51

Leadie, I disagree entirely with the premise that the winding back of NAS was entirely industrial. I genuinely believe it was safety driven.

Snakecharma,

You are quite entitled to your beliefs and fond memories, the difference is, I know exactly what happened, blow by blow, I would love to be able to spell it out, but I can't afford the possible legal costs of a defo. action. Sadly, truth is not an absolute defense, despite reforms of recent years.

Somewhere in my files, I/AOPA have the wash-up of all the monitoring that was done over the 12 months "trial" that informed the decision that the NAS 2b system would continue as permanent, and the NAS would move to the next phase. In the first few months, results and "incident" reports were investigated almost in "real time", there was 100% "sampling" for the whole 12 months, the industry/AsA/CASA team were most thorough.

The decision was made, and then virtually unilaterally reversed at the last moment ---- and it had nought to do with "safety".

Tootle pip!!

Snakecharma

21st Apr 2016, 21:36

Leadsled, clearly I wasn't in as exalted position as yourself during that time, but I can tell you from a coal face participant that our concern was entirely about safety and our ongoing ability to stay alive and NOT industrial.

Who manipulated what to achieve what end was not visible to the mere mortals but it achieved what we had hoped it would achieve, which was to put a stop to a change that we felt was reckless and stupid in the extreme.

I have popped out of cloud in a dash 8 to have the windscreen literally filled with an unannounced Pitts special flown by a now deceased "legend" of aviation who was doing a bit of VFR don't ask and don't tell aviating and it frightened the crap out of me with the rapidity with which it occurred and the impact (both literally and figuratively) that it would have had if we were no more than 5-10 seconds earlier or maybe 2-3 knots faster, because you would have had 36 pax plus 3 crew plus the legend in a Pitts spread across the landscape.

Not saying that NAS did or didn't have anything to do with that but it occurred at the same time and demonstrated to me how quickly things can evolve, particularly in weather that isn't 8/8 blue.

All done and dusted these days of course and we are just arguing like Statler and Waldorf from the muppets, but please don't dismiss any contrary view as simply being a reflection of a presupposed industrial agenda and not founded in a good faith belief that the proposed system was fundamentally flawed, regardless of its pedigree.

Dick Smith

21st Apr 2016, 22:16

Snake. How about a few more details. What altitude did this incident take place and at what location.?

Are you suggesting that with the pre 1990 system such incidents did not place?

A few more details please. Also what year was this?

thorn bird

21st Apr 2016, 22:46

"Are you suggesting that with the pre 1990 system such incidents did not place?"

Of course they did Dick.
I recall a Bathurst race day, the regulator used to install a temporary Tower at Bathurst with its own frequency. One of those crappy weather days. One operator elected to go to orange and Bus to Bathurst rather than face the delays. Shot the approach at orange completely unaware that another aircraft had diverted from Bathurst and was doing the same approach at the same time, except he was still on Bathurst tower frequency. In those days we had flight service, they were unaware of the aircraft from Bathurst as well.

CaptainMidnight

22nd Apr 2016, 01:00

Are you suggesting that with the pre 1990 system such incidents did not place?I would say that in the "pre 1990 system" the Pitts would probably have advised FS that FYI he was conducting AWK/aerobatics NOSAR - or possibly asked for skeds - but either way the Dash 8 would then be informed re the presence of the Pitts.

VFR weren't entitled to a TFC info service outside an AFIZ, but the Pitts would probably been given by FS a "For info, ABC a Dash 8 inbound ..".

These days because VFR particularly NOSAR have been scared off - indeed actively discouraged by certain parties - from talking to ATC or broadcasting on area frequencies, the self-announcement may not happen.

Snakecharma

22nd Apr 2016, 03:02

Hi Dick,

Actually I don't think that this particular incident was NAS related other than I would expect to see more of those types of things happening in a NAS unalerted see and avoid environment.

Can't remember the dates but it would have been somewhere between 92-94.

Altitude would have been 5-6000 and we were probably 15 or so miles from a reasonable sized regional airport. As I say it is a few years ago now and the only vivid thing is a very big yellow Pitts flashing right to left right before our very eyes (which because a Pitts ISNT a very big aeroplane meant he was very close). We had made all the appropriate calls on the appropriate frequencies and nada heard from our now dead intrepid aviator.

At the end of the day Dick, Leadsled and whomever else cares, my view is that any heads up on things that can hurt you is a good thing. Alerted see and avoid is better than unalerted see and avoid.

I fly for a living and don't have any issues with VFR traffic getting in the way of my radio calls, I am often a hundred miles (maybe more) east of Perth and hear traffic broken hill, Dubbo, etc etc etc, whether I get in the way of theirs because I can't hear them and inadvertently over transmit them I don't know, but I have VHF 2 tuned to 121.5 as well so would hope to hear something on that frequency if someone close enough was in strife.

All I would ask is that in your grail like quest for airspace change you don't dismiss the legitimate views of aviation professionals (note that word), some of whom have many many years of management experience at high levels in big aviation enterprises, as mere industrial manipulation and not real safety concerns.

And Leadsled, thanks for suggesting that I need more Valium, but how about playing the issue not the man.

LeadSled

22nd Apr 2016, 04:08

Snakecharma,
The core issue of my last several posts is straight forward fact.

The review and evaluation of the NAS 2b "trial" was extensive and thorough, both because it should have been, and because it was so controversial, with most (but not all) of the controversy generated by the AFAP.

AIPA was notably and sensibly very restrained on the matter, with no concerns about E, and Qantas management, the DFO of the day, was supportive.

On the east coast, in early days of the trial, there were independent observers on selected flight decks.

Every "incident" filed was considered, one of the first considerations was: Is this something caused by the new procedures, or would it have happened anyway, under the old system.

For example, on the first morning, a light aircraft downwind at Port Macquarie, making "normal" radio calls was rejected as an "air miss" because it had nothing to do with the NAS 2b, and had a perfect right to be there. Likewise, an "air miss" that was opposite direction traffic at the correct level VFR was nothing to do with NAS 2b.

In the first few weeks, most of the "incidents" attributed to NAS 2b would have been funny, if it hadn't been a serious example of the unbalanced attitude of many of the reporters.

During this time, the AFAP pushed very hard the concept that "a perception of a safety problem" should be addresses as if it was a "real" safety problem, that even if many of the reported "incidents" were not "real", they should be treated as "real". Apparently, the idea of a crew worrying about a non-existent problem was just as much a threat to air safety as a real threat.

Can you really mitigate a perception?? Would an episode of MythBusters done the trick.

In other words, NAS should be canned, on the basis of a perception of a problem, even when it was comprehensively demonstrated to not be a problem. The idea of evidence based evaluation was rejected, out of hand, by self-confessed professionals. Both the NAS implementation team and review team were highly experienced and qualified.

At times, some of the meetings I attended descended to low farce.

It was not just me, QF staff pilots and AIPA pilots, as well as others present, involved in the continuous evaluation of the trial, would shake their heads in wonder at the intellectual level of the objections of some of those opposed, regardless of the facts staring them in the face.

To quote one prominent AFAP identity of the day: "I don't care how safe the FAA system is, compared to Australia, or how safe NAS 2b is, we are not going to have Dickspace in Australia".

I have already explained that I would love to be able to say what really happened, in the end, but have explained why I cannot. Just that it was "industrial" and not safety, and only involved Ansett, not Qantas or any of its subsidiaries (despite a couple of individuals in QLink absolutely opposed), or the other smaller airlines of the day, such as Flight West.

The final report of the NAS 2b trial contained NOTHING that suggested that the NAS should be "wound back".

Tootle pip!!

PS: In some ways a bit like the matter of owner drivers and road safety. Despite the lack of any statistical causal relation between owner drivers and truck accident rates in Australia, the TWU position is that owner driver are the problem, not TWU member drivers. A self- serving "perception", if there ever was one.

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2016, 07:53

Snakecharmer. Under NAS 2 b there was a clear recommendation to monitor the CTAF if flying in the approach and departure airspace of an airport. In that case the Pitts would have heard your CTAF calls.

Recently I was at 9500' about 25 miles from Mildura. I monitored the Mildura CTAF and heard a departing aircraft. I was also monitoring he area frequency but for some reason did not hear a call on that frequency.

Lead Balloon

22nd Apr 2016, 08:04

Was the departing aircraft VFR or IFR?

Jabawocky

22nd Apr 2016, 11:42

I am flying from a class G aerodrome, very busy and going to VFR it with others to a unmarked station strip…….what do I do?

I will come back IFR…..what will I do?

Change fatigue……… :-/

Gne

22nd Apr 2016, 13:36

Michael,
Got a copy of that report from a mutual contact. Guess I cannot redistribute but it should be let loose.

I can see why someone on the RRAT committee wants to talk to you on the record. Good luck if that occurs. Is it a senator? Z?

That risk model has application wider than airspace. How did you get to that model? Why not expunge that and let it be used - surely that would not offed your standards.

Dick will like a lot of what you said but will nor like some of the the other parts. Has he asked for a copy?

PM sent.

GNE

Lead Balloon

22nd Apr 2016, 21:33

I am flying from a class G aerodrome, very busy and going to VFR it with others to a unmarked station strip…….what do I do?

I will come back IFR…..what will I do?

Change fatigue……… :-/Easy Jabba: Mike Sierra Uniform is the SOP these days. :ok:

Dick Smith

22nd Apr 2016, 22:04

Lead. It was an IFR airline aircraft that was departing

GNE. If it copies from other leading aviation countries the most efficient and lowest cost ways of operating airspace I will be a strong supporter.

I am a bit suspicious that it has been kept secret. Why?

Plazbot

22nd Apr 2016, 23:11

FAA budget. 15.3 billion. Airservices budget 920 million.

Tinstaafl

23rd Apr 2016, 03:43

FAA's budget covers a huuuuge number of FSDOs & ATC facilities required by the ginormously larger amount of aviation here in the US - that Oz doesn't have or need. The FAA's budget is approximately 16x bigger than AirNoServices, covering a population about 14 x bigger, over an area about 30% bigger, but includes equivalent functions to CASA as well.

Vref+5

26th Apr 2016, 05:12

From memory part of the justification to roll back NAS 2B – specifically E over D - was an Air Services (AsA) Airspace modelling report based upon Albury and the D/E airspace design under the 2B changes. The report used the AsA software program, which calculated the various collision pairs, level of safety etc. This was based on various inputs including aircraft numbers, flight category, mistakes rates of pilots, controllers etc. I’m sure someone reading this knows more about the actual system than I, please feel free to expand on this description. The report demonstrated that the risk level in E over D was marginally higher that the accepted ALARP level.

The problem was AsA intentionally manipulated the inputs to achieve the required outcome, specifically the VFR pilot mistake levels were artificially inflated to make them appear to pose a greater risk than they actually were. Several industry groups wrote to AsA formally complaining about this assumed incompetence of VFR pilots. And the controller/IFR pilot mistake levels were artificially lowered so that IFR/IFR conflicts would never enter the equation, and that controllers were able to administer the large area of airspace at Albury. I'm an IFR pilot with 20+years of experience,. The rate of mistakes AsA allowed for IFR pilots almost made me fall off my chair when I saw how incredibly brilliant AsA considered me to be!!

Problem was the VFR rate couldn’t be inflated too high because then the risk in the Class D airspace would also become intolerable.. So it had to relate only to VFR aircraft overflying Albury and remaining in Class E. But the problem was there wasn’t enough VFR only flights overflying Albury and remaining in Class E. The number of aircraft initially used was based on factual data, historical figures ie facts.

No problem here, AsA decided off their own back that VFR overflight of a Class D was a new procedure that must be taught, therefore the numbers of aircraft in that airspace must surely increase. Note that this training requirement was never identified by the NAS team, or CASA, it was never published in any syllabus of training for any licence. AsA decided to increase the numbers off their own back, until – guess what – the ALARP level was exceeded. Oh dear, we will have to reverse the airspace.

Oh by the way, during all of this 2B rollback, did you know that AsA was awarded a contract by the FAA to run several class D towers in the USA? Utilising the same airspace model they claimed was unsafe in Australia? And no, class D towers in the US don’t have radar, their tower controllers aren’t required to be radar rated, they administer the airspace within about 5NM of the aerodrome. And yes, they are a damn sight busier than Australian Class D, with 121/135 and 91 operations.
So in all reality the rollback was never based on safety, it was purely industrial.