NAS Website

[Open Mic]

The NAS Implementation Group has launched the NAS Website at http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/index.htm . The site contains basic information about the NAS and will be expanded as work progresses towards implementation.

Mike

[Woomera]

I'm going to "sticky" this for a while.

Please dont start any new threads on this matter and confine you comments to this one, to make my life a little easier.

[Capcom]

Terms of Reference
1. The ARG will make, no later than 25 March 2002, a recommendation to the Deputy Prime Minister on the preferred plan for future low level airspace reform, to be based on an assessment of each of:
(i) the Airspace Working Group's Low Level Airspace Reform Plan (LAMP); and
(ii) Mr Dick Smith's proposed National Airspace System (NAS).
2. The assessment of the two proposals will take into account:
(i) the cost effectiveness of each of the competing proposals;
(ii) the degree of industry support for each proposal and the comments of the industry stakeholders on the merits of LAMP and NAS;
(iii) the ability to implement each proposal within a reasonable timeframe;
(iv) the degree to which each proposal is in accordance with ICAO airspace classifications;
(v) which proposal is more closely harmonised with international best practice; and
(vi) other substantive issues that the ARG considers relevant to an informed recommendation.
3. The Group will provide a written report to the Deputy Prime Minister recommending its preferred proposal by 25 March 2002:
(i) the report to include a detailed assessment of any further work required before an implementation safety case can be provided for endorsement by CASA;
(ii) a proposed schedule of implementation, including training, education and TAAATS system change requirements; and
(iii) a timeframe specifying the required period to achieve full implementation.
4. In preparing its advice to the Deputy Prime Minister the ARG may draw upon, but is not bound by, advice from appropriate sources.
Really Mike???

In the interests of getting on board as Ken suggests:-While reform to Australia's airspace has been challenging to date, it is fundamental that we learn from our experiences.
ANDI encourage the aviation industry to embrace airspace reform and to work with each other to improve the current airspace system.
Perhaps you could provide us with the ARG’s reasoning for selecting NAS over LLAMP as it appears BOTH were assessed!!. Specifically the work relating to the dot points para 2.

Yours in anticipation

Kart be-fore-Horse

[Neddy]

Mike,

I appreciate the attempt however there is little more on here than was already in the NAS document dated 14 December 2001.

It does not answer any of the fundamental questions which have arisen in this and other forums.

Oh, and by the way the information is already wrong. The June 2002 changes did not take place.....or did they?

[Four Seven Eleven]

It is pleasing to see things going ahead so quickly.

In particular:

4. The role of the IG is to:
.......
(f) develop an implementation safety case including, but not limited to, details of the requirements and timelines for any regulatory changes, charts and other operational material, air traffic controller and pilot educational material and training and facilities implementation; and
(g) facilitate, in conjunction with Airservices, the passage of the airspace reform process until such time as it is fully implemented, conditional on CASA's endorsement of the implementation safety case.

STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.

It's hard to believe that an implementation safety case has been able to be prepared and endorsed in the short time available so far. This must have taken an enormous amount of work to allow for the first stage of the implementation to go ahead in December.

After all, as the Minister himself said:

"This model is based on the airspace model used in the world's leading aviation nation, the United States. A safety case will be required to be developed for NAS, and the existing processes will continue to be followed in finalising the safety case.

and

It is vital that the mistakes of the past airspace reform attempts are not repeated. In particular, the aviation industry must be kept informed and involved with appropriate education programmes developed regarding the implementation of the system.

http://www.dotars.gov.au/media/anders/archive/2002/may_02/a54_2002.htm

Given that stage 1 is such a short time away, would it be possible to publish the implementation safety case material on the website?

While we’re on the subject of safety cases:

The role of the IG is to:

…….

(d) develop a design safety case if required, noting the advice of CASA that it would not require a design safety case if NAS remains compliant with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) model;

This seems at odds with: (from the FAQ section)

Why are you just blindly following the US system?
The first part of this answer is that the NAS in fact is a hybrid North American model, which takes features of both the US and Canadian systems. Both systems are recognised by each other's safety regulator as being safe.
Does this mean that the advice from CASA is no longer valid? After all water is considered safe. So is dry ice. Ever tried a ”hybrid”?
The NAS is based on a safe, efficient and proven airspace architecture.
Which one?

[twodogsflying]

IG Composition

1. The IG will consist of:

(a) a team leader, who will report regularly to the ARG and manage the overall tasks of the IG; and

(b) staff seconded from Airservices, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Defence, DOTARS and other appropriate organisations.

2. The IG will be supplemented as required by an invited representative from the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other experts.


If work has started, who are these people????????

And what: other appropriate organisations are we talking about here???????????

Not much content after 9 months


:o

SAFETY ANALYSIS

3.1 Methodology

ICAO provides two methodologies for "determining whether the system is acceptably safe:

a. comparison to a reference system, and
b. evaluation of system risks against a threshold.

Comparison with a reference system is a relative method, i.e. all the relative characteristics of the proposed system are compared with the corresponding characteristics of a reference system which has been judged to be safe. Provided that the proposed system can be demonstrated to be the same or better than the reference system in all safety aspects, then it may be assumed also to be safe…"19

As the NAS draws on international best practice and the proven ATM system of North America, process a. above is the appropriate methodology.

Well we have an answer on the safety case!!!!!!!!

I can still find no detail on any of the pages.

As for 3.2 Application
One could apply all the same reasonings for Lamp except for the MBZ, but then Lamp submitted a safety case. Silly AsA.

Too Much Information.

As for What happened to LAMP?

The AWG developed what became the LAMP proposal. In January 2001 it appeared the AWG had been able to reach a position of industry agreement on a preferred model, however, subsequent developments made to the LAMP model resulted in statements from both AOPA and the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation (ASAC) that they no longer supported the LAMP proposal because of its inherent radio requirements and the proposed increase in the number and size of mandatory broadcast zones (MBZs).


We now have it from the horses mouth that the electronic dick killed it all by himself.

This really gives me the SH%^S:mad:

One more
What are the main differences between NAS and LAMP?

Three key differences between LAMP and NAS are:

1 remove MBZs and replace them with Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) procedures or Unicoms, third party provided traffic information procedures;
2 continued use of 'see and avoid' where radio use remains optional; and
3 expanded implementation of Class E airspace corridors.


All three where looked at by the AWG and discarded by safety analysis and fully documented by AsA. From what I heard from an AWG member about the expanded E corridors, AsA made some maps with E corridors over them, placed these maps on the floor and 12 people tried to work out how one would fly from one destination to another, low level. After 2 hours, not one person in the room could figure them out and could say they where satisfied that they would know what class of airspace they would be in at any one time.

ALL THIS BECAUSE AOPA AND SPORT AVIATION WILL NOT USE A RADIO

If this airspace system is impimented, unfortunately we will not have the safety record we now enjoy, all because some person will not use a radio.

God help us.

[Capn Bloggs]

Here Here to the above.

Additionally, if NAS persists with this VFR Climb nonsense (Non-ICAO, I might add: ICAO only allows it up to A100), then I DEMAND that we be allowed the same procedure in Class C Airspace.

It is preposterous that, on the one hand, we are subjected to 20nm separation, no night visual passings etc and then 1 minute later be thrown to the dogs (oops, I mean No-radio VFR), as we plunge, with our 80 pax, into CTAFs, Multicoms, E Corridors etc all on the pretext that it'll be alright because I've got my eyeballs looking out!

I reckon this whole thing stinks, and I haven't even started yet...

[ulm]

2-Dogs.

I simply don't got a radio in my 1944 ex-Mil bugsmasher (got no power either). What do you suggest I do??? This is an honest question.

Bloggs, yeah right, probably a straight in approach into a crowded circuit eyes firmy glued to the GPS. The most unsafe things I have ever seen is Metros and Bandits doing just that, radio or no radio!!! Closest I ever came to a mid air is when some Richard Head did just that at Mildura on the day of the airshow :mad: :mad:

No sympathy for your post mate.

[Open Mic]

Tealady,

Right now, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is conducting an investigation into the accident you refer to and it would be quite improper for anyone to pre-empt their work. I am certain that the professionalism of all participants in this forum means that you will not get us to speculate on what might or might not have contributed to this tragic event.

Mike

[Lodown]

Open Mic,

The website and the information it contains is interesting, but...

1. What is the "North American" model anyway? Is NAS based on the US model, or the Canadian model? What gives? A mix of the two is not "the proven model" that has been so passionately espoused.

2. "Australia currently has similar continental airspace to that of the USA but only 5% of the traffic." So the question is: Why are we overservicing our industry? What would happen if Melbourne built a new freeway with the capacity to handle (100/5 = 2000%) 2000% more traffic than the current freeway?

3. "Airmanship
As part of the pilot education programme, pilots of VFR aircraft will be encouraged where practical to:

- avoid routes likely to be used by IFR aircraft."

Where does the Australian VFR pilot find these routes on the charts he/she is required to carry?

"- when not approaching or departing a CTAF, remain clear of arriving and departing traffic"

You're spending money on something they already have to do.

- remain clear of the circuit area of an airport unless departing or approaching the airport."

More money spent on something pilots already do.

This isn't telling anyone anything.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Mike Smith

I note that your website contradicts Mr (Dick) Smith’s version of events in relation to the ‘downfall’ of LAMP. It would be prudent to get the facts straight on this issue – to avoid upsetting the wrong people.

LAMP downfall?
This change to MBZs was the LAMP downfall. CASA refused to allow MBZs to be changed to even larger DAFs and did not accept the safety case that was prepared.
Dick Smith's website (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Content.php?ContentID=213)

In a subsequent development, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority provided feedback to Airservices that it was not prepared to sign off on the LAMP design case in its current form, particularly in relation to the proposed increase in size of MBZs.
Airspace Reform Site (http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/faq.htm )

To have gone from “did not accept the safety case” to “feedback… that it was not prepared to sign off on the …..design case in its current form” is a seriously different version of events.

If the author is asserting that CASA did not in fact reject a safety case, then I am sure that Mr (Dick) Smith would be extremely upset that his reputation for honesty has been so sullied.

PS Your “Frequently Asked Questions” page appears to be missing some! :D :D

[willadvise]

My favourite part of the whole website is http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/training_and_education.htm

Does that mean we are to just find out about it by ourselves?

What concerns me is that AsA is going to have to carry than cost of developing yet another doomed airspace reform and that it will cost us our paltry productivity payrises. Is DOTARS going to carry the cost of development?

[safeskiesabove]

How could anyone in thier right mind dismiss the fact that MBZ"S are safer than CTAF's.
Having spent some time in Broome and seeing the traffic that can be generated just in a small place like that, I think it is imperative that the law buliders of this this country reconsider thier decision.
On any given day you could have 3 plus 210's , metro, bandits and a 146 in the circuit at the same time.See and Avoid ???????
how?????????
Get with the programme boys, You're Nuts.
oh I'm sorry in the name of safety!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:confused: :mad: ;) ;)

[Ozgrade3]

How the hell are VFR flights supposed to avoid IFR, routes. PPLs wothout an IR won't know where thet are anyway, or much less care. You take a plane to go a direct route, not wander around the countryside just to stay outside the IFR corridors. Besides many charters, or bank runners fo VFR if possible, flying the same route(especially with GPS). How would that work.

Its seems some people who think up this airspace don;t actuallyget their butts in a aeroplane. Go out and have a look how it operates for real.

[Capn Bloggs]

Ulm,

I can assure you, my son, that there are far more VFR pilots heads down looking at their GPS than a commercial crew (that probably knows how to actually use the thing!). And I can assure you that I have seen more VFR smasher drivers who have NO IDEA about what is going on, the radio being the only saving grace. Have you done SI Approaches as two-crew often? I can assure you they are far safer than doing a circuit when it come to looking out. Most of the in-cockpit duties are done BY 5nm, not on mid-downwind just where all the bugsmashers might be!

No comment about the Non-ICAO VFR climb, eh?

I will say again that the only danger to aviation in the regions is VFR larrikins who refuse to talk. We have beepbacks to solve the "off freq" problem, and we (currently) have DTI (or full [over]control with E in LLAMP), and a mandatory radio environment for most "big" operations. I haven't heard these rednecks who want CTAFs also say that they want traffic lights or seatbelts banned??!! Get with it: it's the 2002s, there are big, fast aircraft that cannot be turned quickly enough even if I do see Dick Smith before he fills my windscreen! Get a radio and use it.

Re the "no CASA personnel" on the NAS team (SYD RAPAC post), I assume that Mike Smith has quit CASA then, has he? I will, of course, stand corrected if the Mike Smith doing all the talking for NAS and DS is NOT the Mike Smith from CASA!

[Open Mic]

Yes Captain Bloggs,

I am the same Mike Smith from CASA and you are correct, I have left CASA and I am currently employed by the Department of Transport and Regional Services.

Mike

[Icarus2001]

Mike

Since there is nothing (yet) on the education and training page of the website, how do you hope to bring in albeit minor changes by December?

I made the point elsewhere that the next ERSA edition is due out in a few weeks, charts changes seem to take around six months to implement!

I am at the coal face of training and it seems to me that if this first change is rushed or not widely promulgated early enough it will be a disaster.

Second point, tell me again why we need to reform our airspace?

A final point, it is great to see those that make these decisions engaging on this forum.

[Lead Balloon]

Icarus

Re: your question about reform.

Reform is a word the Government use when they are actually implementing distasteful changes.

Remember Tax Reform. A cleverly disguised spin doctoring of a new tax. The collective Government (Fed + State) actually have a bigger tax take now than they used too, funny how these things work.

"Reform" is a buzz word that the media love, and that the punters can't argue against. I mean if it needed "reforming" it must have been bad right?

[twodogsflying]

Having read all of the website, I would serious urge any professional aviator to not become involved in this "Reform" is any way, shape or form. All anyone has to say, is the same as QF, we will fly with whatever CASA approves.

The NAS as presented is the "Class G Trial" by another name.

As this whole thing is politically driven, when it falls over (hopefully, not in an accident), Anderson will be looking for the inevitable scape goat.

If the electronic person, AOPA, and sport aviation are the only contibuters, the blame cannot be laid elsewhere.

If you participate, you will be the person responsible, because the electronic person will do his usual and tell all and sundry that it was not what HE wanted.

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

[Creampuff]

Open Mic

In your post of 0207180705UTC in “The NAS – without the personalities” thread you stated among other things that:I am also not currently working for CASA, I have taken leave from CASA to work on this task and I am currently employed by DOTARS.[my bolding]

In your post above you state among other things that:I have left CASA and I am currently employed by the Department of Transport and Regional Services.[my bolding]

A subtle but important difference in language.

Straight answer to a simple question, please: have you or have you not terminated your employment relationship with CASA?

[Chimbu chuckles]

I think the system needs reform too...I think we need more towers, RADAR, that GPS pretend radar thingamyjig, Satelite VHF coverage everywhere, real FSOs manning real FSUs...in other words reverse the damage that has been forced on aviation since Bosch and Dicks input started.

Oh and don't think about charging the industry because it's the Govts responsibility to provide the basic infrastructure to allow private enterprise to flourish.

THAT'S WHY WE PAY TAXES YOU CKSUKERS :mad:

You people have just about destroyed the aviation industry...why don't we all go on strike and just refuse to play their stupid games.

Chuck.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Creampuff

Let's hope this Mr Smith is more able to answer questions than the last one!!

It is interesting to see that there has been no sign of Dick Smith on PPRuNe since he was unable to provide answers to the infamous 'seven questions' and so many others. His version of events is now being squarely refuted by the 'official' version on the Airspace Reform website, and not a peep.

Well, Messrs Smith? Who has been telling the truth?

Mr Dick Smith

If the Airspace Reform website is spreading false information about you and affecting your public credibility, is it not time to set the record straight? Perhaps produce the documentary evidence to back up your claims about the LAMP safety case, for instance?

Suggestions that the rejected safety case was, after all, no more than 'feedback' on a 'design' case would be very serious indeed, would they not?

Mr Mike Smith

Now that the "proven US model" mantra has been demonstrated to be less than the whole truth, do you intend to ensure that a safety case on this unproven, unique airspace system is completed? The fallacy that we can adopt a 'hybrid' just because each system from which components of the 'hybrid' are drawn is 'safe’, is utterly ridiculous.

For example: The Americans drive relatively safely on the right hand side of the road. We do it on the left. Hands up anyone called Smith who will participate in the 'hybrid' system?! :D

Without a safety case of some sort, it appears that we would be in breach of the ICAO methodology cited in the NAS document:

ICAO provides two methodologies for "determining whether the system is acceptably safe:

a. comparison to a reference system, and
b. evaluation of system risks against a threshold.

Comparison with a reference system is a relative method, i.e. all the relative characteristics of the proposed system are compared with the corresponding characteristics of a reference system which has been judged to be safe.

It would be interesting to hear your comments.

[ulm]

Bloggs

And power the radio with????

Your attitude is why PPLs will out lobby you and win the CTAF argument. Your attitude is why I'm inclined to help them. Was probably you at Mildura.

The other day I asked to see the safety case on CTAFs Vs MBZs. CASA couldn't provide the statistics although they did try.

I asked how many 'no-radio' incidents happened at 'expensive' airports. CASA hadn't even looked at this.

Someone in a post above said 'go out and see how it is in the real world'. In the real world we have Pvt, Awk and even Charter operators avoiding the radio to save what little profit they have made from that run. Mandating radio won't change that. MBZs won't change that. Only changing the way airports are funded will change that.

Real world!!!

[CaptainMidnight]

Open Mic

A tip - you would have more credibility at your briefings if you did not parrot the same things as your counterpart with the same surname.

I'm also curious re the MBZ vs CTAF debate. At a recent briefing you parroted exactly what Dick did - claims that MBZs were not safer than CTAFs etc., yet your previous employer (while you were with them?) said the opposite:

Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71


Comment 47 – Mandatory Broadcast Zones (MBZ) – Non-ICAO – MOS Part 71 paragraph 2.2.10 (page 2-4)

CASA Response
CASA acknowledges that MBZs are not ICAO compliant in that they require carriage and use of radio by VFR flights in Class G airspace. When MTAFs (later renamed MBZs) were introduced under the Airspace Management and Air Traffic Services (AMATS) project on 12 December 1991, no risk assessment was conducted. The MTAFs replaced the pre-existing AFIZs. In 1994/95, CAA and a risk consultancy firm developed the Airspace Risk Model (ARM), which was later incorporated into an ICAO airspace planning manual. Initially, the ARM was used to model the difference in risk between MBZs and CTAFs. It found that for a given traffic level and mix, an MBZ reduced risk by a factor of about three or four.

Your comments?

Also CASA have included MBZs in the heirachy of risk mitigators (and not UNICOMs):

Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71


Comment 21 – Impact analysis of options – Economic impact – NPRM page 15, paragraph 5.5, fourth dot point.

CASA Response
CASA has proposed a hierarchy of risk mitigators applicable to terminal airspace i.e. CTAF, AFRU, MBZ, CA/GRS, Class D and Class C control towers. CASA has not included UNICOM in that hierarchy for the following reasons:

a) UNICOMs originated in the USA, however, CASA understands that the FAA does not include them in any risk mitigation hierarchy for airspace and traffic services;

b) UNICOM is not necessarily a dedicated service that will always be available when called; the nature of UNICOM is that it may be a secondary function to the commercial activities of the operator, e.g. refuelling, aircraft hire, pilot shop. Indeed provision is made for CTAF broadcasts should the operator not respond;

c) In Australia, as in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, the standards for UNICOM services limit the information that may be provided. The service is approved only to provide basic aerodrome and basic weather information, not to provide assessed, relevant traffic details, or meteorological observations. These limitations have been placed on UNICOM services because the operators are not necessarily certified to any standard other than that of a basic radio operator. CASA is not prepared to have UNICOM standards unique to Australia;

d) In regard to above point, the FAA AIM (4-1-9 d & e), makes a clear distinction between the ‘known traffic’ that may be passed by a FSS and the general traffic information that can be passed by a UNICOM, e.g. five aircraft operating in the pattern;

Comments also?

[ferris]

Do you ever wonder if these guys (the Smiths etc.) are embarrassed when you keep pointing this stuff out to them?






I love it.;)

[Chimbu chuckles]

I reckon the greatest thing about PPrune is that these bozos don't get to slip this stuff through unchallenged anymore....and I believe they hate that with a passion.

Incompetence always requires secrecy to work in the short term and a lack of accountability to be hidden in the long term.

Hail the Internet!

Stone the Smiths and all who abide by them!!

Chuck.

PS Can anyone tell me what was wrong with the system we have had up to now?

And don't bother with the "we can't afford it' line because nobody believes that political, self serving BS.

With all the huge problems this industry faces with under staffed, under financed CASA etc etc why are we farking around with this rubbish....could it be they are trying to divert our attention?

Fiddling while Rome burns springs to mind:mad:

[Lodown]

Chimbu,

I'll have a go at answering your question. Just my opinion though. There are probably lots of other far more valid arguments.

"Why do we need to change airspace?"

Cost is one reason, which is heavily touted, but you already know that. The other (more important) reasons are associated with advances in technology and information requirements; better weather forecasting and reporting methods, more reliable aircraft, better communications and communications coverage, better navaids, better emergency location devices and safety/risk assessment, better radars, improved ATS procedures, spreading population, changing pilot and public attitudes and so forth. The current airspace design is a holdout from the 1950s and 60s. It is not that it is massively inefficient. It works, but it could be better. If we are to embrace the benefits of future technologies such as ADS-B, Mode S, etc, then we need to change. It won't be too long either before there is less emphasis on the machine/human-human/machine interface with growing development in the human/machine-machine/human interface. That will bring a new set of problems that will only be exacerbated with the current airspace design.

From the days when FS used to impose conditions on pilots (Remember the "Request intentions." phrase?); we have now moved to pilots having more say in the conditions they are prepared to accept to continue flight and ATS has taken more of a backseat role as an information provider and decision supporter rather than a joint decision maker. That is not to say that ATS do not have decisions to make. Rather, the decisions made by ATS and pilots have diverged. It was once a situation where all pilots were serviced with similar information regardless of whether they were in an Electra or a Cherokee. In fact, everyone in aviation, including ATS used to have similar information in front of them. Now it is a case where there is so much more information that there is an enormous aspect to information processing, selection and disbursement. Now, we have some pilots wanting considerably more information, and some pilots wanting considerably less, with the remainder spread out and occupying the area in between. ATS have a different set of information needs. Defense have other information requirements. Somehow, everyone wants the information tailored to their particular needs, and they need to be able to work in essentially the same environment.

The challenge is to design an airspace that takes advantage of these changes and allows us to benefit from future developments, while augmenting the information flow to the cockpit and ATS for improved decision-making. At the same time, we need an airspace design that opens aviation navigation to as many pilots, people, aircraft and areas of Australia as possible at an acceptable cost to all. It also has to conform to an internationally acceptable standard - ICAO.

In the context of this discussion in the mix of aircraft in Class G, very few feel the services offered by ATS are worth the cost. VFR private (or like) operations need only a small amount of information to be relayed to and from, while the RPT/IFR operations want a lot. NAS is trying to minimise the information need by trying to separate the pilots with tactics like VFR aircraft "encouraged to avoid IFR routes". LAMP went slightly the other way with larger MBZs and additional radio calls.

One of the problems with NAS as I see it, basing on the "proven North American model" is that in the US and Canada, there are a range of other "silent", less obvious sources of information supporting the airspace and information infrastructure - charts, AWIB, greater radar saturation, etc. - that are not available to the same extent in Australia.

I'm not particularly pro-NAS or pro-LAMP. There are aspects of both that I like. Rather, I'm a relatively silent, but diehard pro-consultation advocate. LAMP was taking time, but at least I felt confident in the change process that a workable result could be achieved in due course. (As you mention, the current airspace design is serving its purpose. There was/is no particular imperative I can see for rushing headlong towards the implementation of a new airspace design.)

The same does not seem to be happening with NAS. The further we get along with NAS, the more holes we see in both the consultation process and acceptable methods for change. As holes are discovered, they appear to be getting filled with putty and glossed over (or ignored). NAS started as a half-baked plan and appears to be progressing downhill rapidly. It doesn't inspire much confidence from me.

Hope this makes sense and helps out.

[Icarus2001]

Helloooooooooooooo

Are there any Mr. Smith's in the house?

[snarek]

What happened at Mildura

It was November 1999. 10:30 am. The airport closed at 11:00 and a hell of a lot of aircraft were inbound, including a Hazo metro.

The radio was 'active' but most aircraft were only calling when they joined and when they turned base. It was working.

(of course there were the usual idiots reporting the colour of their undies, and their friends undies in the plane behind. One 'older' gentlemean was even asking everyone if they had heard everyone else!!!!)

A big crowded circuit was quite hapilly landing about one aircraft every 30 seconds or so.

Then the Metro reported a 5 mile straight in approach.

Once sighted the aircraft on downwind extended to come in behind the faster Metro. The Metro landed and another aircraft called base, a blue Cherokee 180. Trouble was it turned a 'normal' base with six or seven aircraft still strung out on final behind the now landed Metro (including me). of course the 'turning base' calls didn't point this out.

A Grumman slowed to come in behind the Cherokee and all looked OK. But then a second Grumman, following the 'Cherokee Base' turned final, right on top of the first Grumman. I figure there was 20 feet between them. An aircraft on 'Metro final' alerted the lead Grumman. The 'Cherokee final' Grumman was obviously confused and asked 'ABC (grumman) what are your intentions' (it was above ABC.)

The lead Grumman (female pilot) said 'landing' (she couldn't see the red Grumman from where she was). The trail Grumman said something about cutting him off (interesting observation) and backed off. (probably couldn't see the other either).

All landed with no incident although there was a heated exchange between the two Grumman pilots.

But, back to the regs. The Metro had absolutely no right to do a straight in in those circumstances and in my opinion nearly caused a fatal accident.

I have often considered a CAIR report, but I think my rather blunt comments to the Metro drivers (in front of their boarding passengers) probably did the trick.

So, how is an MBZ going to change this?????

[Icarus2001]

But, back to the regs. The Metro had absolutely no right to do a straight in in those circumstances and in my opinion nearly caused a fatal accident.

Really? So should the Metro have flown 3 legs, mixing it with the slow, small and light stuff?

If you were the Metro PF what would you have done?

[Neddy]

Lodown,

A truer and more balanced assessment I have not heard.
Ever thought of a job with Airservices or CASA? But then again, by virtue of such reasonableness, you have just ruled yourself out.

I think there is little point arguing that some reform of airspace is not required. Those that do don’t appreciate how much has changed in technology, work practices and competition over the last decade or so. This is not a criticism of them, simply a statement that while they have been looking after (their) business, doing what they do, other influences (as you have outlined) have been at work altering the nature of the business they are in.

Unfortunately as a result of the dabbling of a certain individual over the last decade, the reasons and intentions for reform have engendered (rightly so) enormous distrust and scepticism within the industry. The industry is quite simply sick of the plethora of PR bull dressed up as documentation and “education” (and the workload and costs associated with it) only to have it canned and resurrected under yet another acronym a year or two later. No wonder they question the need for reform! It is not reform. It is simply part of the ongoing self promotion and political interference dressed up as reform. NAS is “today’s” acronym.

I believe LAMP's downfall was not as a result of what it wasn’t achieving but what it was. There was the real possibility that it might achieve what the “strolling adventurer and amateur aviator” could not. That would have meant no more chance at aeronautical immortality, no more airspace soapbox to stand on, no more limelight. This would of course also have been a problem for all the Dick- proclaimed experts and coat-tailing bureaucrats who have been rewarded/appointed for perpetuating the myth. Whilst the Emperor may not be in the palace unfortunately, as we have seen, there are still many of these individuals occupying positions of influence.

In any real test of ability they would have been flat out finding the "playing field" let alone making the starting team.

Mike,

Interesting choice of questions that you have decided to answer! Your choice, but it does little for your, or the project’s, credibility.

Snarek,

Much as I concur with your sentiments regarding the actions of the Metro, no regulations were broken (although there is a requirement to notify your intention for a SIA during the inbound broadcast at or near15nm). The metro was only required to give way to aircraft established on base or finals. In terms of appropriate airmanship…based on what you say here…couldn’t agree more. The same however can be said of the light aircraft involved in the consequential breakdown. If they are incapable of adjusting to changed circumstances then they shouldn’t be flying.

In regards to MBZ or no MBZ justification it is completely irrelevant. Failure to comply with either regulatory or airmanship standards is not related to a class of airspace. For everyone of those that fail to comply there are a multitude that do.

It’s a bit like saying “I saw someone run a red light so why have them”.

[CaptainMidnight]

Re the MBZ vs. CTAF safety debate. The ATSB released their report for comment this week.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/atsb/discuss/mbz.cfm

Interesting reading, and to my mind a not unexpected result.

Extract from the Executive Summary (my bolding):

The rate of total reported occurrences in MBZs has increased significantly over the period studied. This appears to be primarily the result of a significant increase in the rate of reported airspace-related occurrences involving RPT aircraft operating within MBZs. This pattern is generally reflected in the reporting rates of all RPT occurrences within Australian airspace, and is not specific to airspace-related occurrences within MBZs. These changes may be indicative of an improving reporting culture within the Australian aviation industry (including those operating within MBZs) rather than an increasing occurrence rate.

The percentage of reported airspace-related occurrences which result in an airmiss has not changed significantly over the period studied.

[ulm]

Icarus

I don't know. Perhaps you could tell us???

From my perspective there are a number of options...

1. Join overhead at 1500 and radio intentions so everyone could extend downwind. (cost at least $20 in fuel, better to kill 5 people)

2. Stay away at that one time every two years. (gee, can't do that, better to kill 5 people)

3. Wait and get permission to land once the airport was closed for the airshow (gee a 1 hour delay, better to kill 5 people).

4. Slow down and join downwind (another $20, better to kill 5 people).

5. Do a straight in and nearly kill 5 people.

6. Cop a CAIR report, or better still a complaint to CASA, lose AOC and never get to kill anyone again.

Bear in mind that incident, A/C, time etc is still in my log, so if it was you don't **** me off!!!!! There is no statute on complaints to CASA. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Icarus2001]

Ulm take a tablet and have a little rest.

So the metro nearly killed five people? Nothing to do with the loss of visual seperation of the two aircraft in question?

Anyway that is off topic. I was actually asking snarek what he would have done.:)

Still no sight of Mr Smith.

[ferris]

Gee ULM, I thought you were of the school of thought that money was more important than safety? What if there had been a temporary tower at MIA that day, for say- $5 per head?

Are you starting to see the big picture of SAFETY now, or just when it applies to you?

[Neddy]

Still no sign of the Smiths?

Well, I think they're a little preoccupied as the first stage (November 28) of the implementation is fast unravelling.

No safety case.
No procedures.
No notification of change to CASA or Airservices (I checked).
No documentation.
No Pilot education.
No controller training.
No one to undertake the aforementioned tasks.
No idea!

The Dodgy Brothers of project management!

[Four Seven Eleven]

Ulm: Bear in mind that incident, A/C, time etc is still in my log, so if it was you don't **** me off!!!!! There is no statute on complaints to CASA.
AIR NAVIGATION ACT 1920 - SECT 19BC
Reporting of incidents
SECT. (1) If:

(a) an incident occurs and the aircraft involved in, or affected by, the incident is an Australian aircraft; or
(b) an incident occurs in Australian territory and the aircraft involved in, or affected by, the incident is not an Australian aircraft;

each responsible person who is aware of the incident must give the Director written notice of the occurrence of the incident within 48 hours after the incident occurs.

(3) A person who intentionally or recklessly contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offence.


Penalty: 30 penalty units.

Ulm: From my perspective there are a number of options...
1. Join overhead at 1500 and radio intentions so everyone could extend downwind.

Ulm: I simply don't got a radio in my 1944 ex-Mil bugsmasher (got no power either). What do you suggest I do??? This is an honest question.

[Capcom]

NeddyThe same however can be said of the light aircraft involved in the consequential breakdown. If they are incapable of adjusting to changed circumstances then they shouldn’t be flying.Assuming the events went as reported there are 2 issues here only:-

1. Are multiple pilots attempting ATC from the cockpit going to visualise, understand in the same way and thus fly based on the same perceived sequence??
2. Assuming everyone knows about everyone else and has the 3D picture in the same way, will they see and correctly identify the aircraft they are following??.

This is by no means questioning the pilots involved rather the guesswork they were all doing at the time!!

The AA5 pilots I have no doubt were very nearly statistics due to the inadequacy of “See and Avoid” as a primary means of separation. Any system must give pilots a RELIABLE chance. See and Avoid fails sufficiently often to have me convinced that without 3rd party alerting in the terminal area, YOU ARE ONLY RELYING ON LUCK!!

Ned, I have watched countless professional pilots in perfect conditions miss others in reasonable proximity and never see each other. Again not a criticism rather a fact of life!!

YOU CANNOT SEE EVERYTHING ALL OF THE TIME, especially in the terminal areas. Wings, cowlings, pillars, roof, floor, tail etc are made of NON-SEE through Aluminium!!!!!!!

ULM

Blood pressure OL’ Bean. Gotta protect that medical!!http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/shocker.gif

Interesting that you make my argument regarding “Powering Aircraft systems”. It is a simple answer PRIM RADAR. It can see your Trike and everything else. Nothing else can!!

Oops, that must be “your tail” coming up in “your 12”!!!!http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/cheesy.gifhttp://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/rotfl.gif

Erudite Posts All.

We are approaching the end game!!!

[Four Seven Eleven]

In Dick Smith’s words……..
“The NAS USA system….”

“…….yes, the idea of moving to the USA NAS system came from Qantas.”

“In relation to the US system and traffic information, our system will be identical – i.e. if the air traffic controller knows of the traffic this will be passed on (on a workload permitting basis) just as it is in the USA.”

“I also point out that this proposal to move to the USA NAS system was instigated by both Ian Lucas (Qantas Chief Pilot) and senior people at CASA. I happen to agree with them that this is the way to go.”

“In the long term, Governments must make decisions and that is what they have done this time. The decision is actually very conservative as no one could say that the US airspace system is unsafe.”

“It will follow the proven and very safe US system.”

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52201


In Deputy PM John Anderson’s words……
“This model is based on the airspace model used in the world's leading aviation nation, the United States.”

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52201&perpage=15&pagenumber=2

And now…….
…. NAS in fact is a hybrid…..

http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/faq.htm

So, what’s going on?

Who told the Minister that it was based on the US system?

At what point did this change?

Which system did the minister think he was accepting – the US or the hybrid system?

Has the Minister been put into a situation where he has inadvertently misled the Australian people?

[Capcom]

http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/arms.gif

Yet another one that cannot (Will Not for the damage it could cause) be answered!!!!

[ferris]

It amazes me how they all just GO MISSING when the hard questions are asked.


Hope they lodged a SARtime. Can you still do that?



The embarrassment is tangible.


"Smith, Smith, anyone, anyone? Ulm, Ulm, anyone, anyone?"
-quote from 'Airspace Designers' Day Off'.




Richard Dudley is available for short-term "spin" campaigns.

[ftrplt]

CAPCOM, not disagreeing with what you write, but of the 2 latest mid-airs, one was in an ATC environment and the other was not.

Was one more likely to happen than the other??? Thoughts?

[snarek]

Guys

ULM was in a Grumman not 'the no-radio bugsmaher'.

What would I have done. Dunno. I am well used to extending downwing to let Metros in at Moruya. No skin off my nose and makes their day easier.

In this case there were just too many aircraft around to do that. Perhaps those of us who extended were just as much at fault. Had we not done that the Metro guys would have had no option but to 'give way to traffic on base and final', that would have delayed their landing by half an hour as I can see no other way a metro can mix it with a/c like the 1950 C140 that was in the circuit.

The Metro did not call at 15. Perhaps it couldn't, there was a lot of noise.

A straight in was not appropriate. But where was the situational awareness from the Blue Cherokee or the Red Grumman. The Cherokee obviously wasn't listening, (extend call were made by all five a/c that extended for the Metro) neither was the second Grumman. The first Grumman was also white with stripes, I could see it from 2 miles away, so why couldn't the pilots (yes there were two) of the red Grumman.

Don't think this is as simple as it looks. The chooks were spooked by the Metro, but then they behaved like chooks (or at least the Cherokee and those that followed it did) cr@ppy airmanship on both counts in my humble opinion.

As for the 'dibber - dobber' approach suggested by one post, I wouldn't even consider that until CASA start improving safety rather than increasing their prosecution count, and that means changing a few people in their legal section!!!!

In the end, armed with 20 - 20 hidsight, I would have resheduled the Metro to arrive after the curfew on GA. Any of you who work in that area of things might like to consider that option for future 'high movement' airshows.

Towers??? No thanks, I doubt that would have made much difference. It would have cost more, slowed things up and created one big mess. I would argue that only the presense of the Metro indicated the need for a tower, so would Hazo (Rex) like to pay for it???

[Four Seven Eleven]

Snarek

I have no intention of implying that Ulm was, on the day in question, anything other than the epitome of airmanship. I had gathered that he was radio equipped on the day.

The juxtaposition of his two quotes is intended to highlight the contradiction between his solution to one problem - use the radio - and his own unwillingness to carry a radio. (Ulm A serious question: Is a 'hand held' with a headset an option in your bugsmasher?)


Towers??? No thanks, I doubt that would have made much difference. It would have cost more, slowed things up and created one big mess. I would argue that only the presense of the Metro indicated the need for a tower, so would Hazo (Rex) like to pay for it???

Knowing absolutely nothing about the specific incident at MIA, I can only offer the following general comments:

1) If there was an airshow on, some sort of third party service may have been appropriate.

2) It needn't cost anything. I - and some of my colleagues - would gladly offer a voluntary service for 'one off' events like this.

Lots of issues like liability, airspace promulgation etc. need to be sorted out, but it happens (commercially) for various events, so it can be done. It needn't be a full blown controlled situation, but a 'spotter' on the ground can get the air picture much more easily than someone flying a circuit.

3) Perhaps more cooperation between the event organisers and the Metro operators would prevent recurrences. A 'slot time' for the RPT to get in and out would only cause a minor disruption to other movements and allow everyone to get on with things safely and without the agro.

Open Mic

A genuine question:

Do you intend to use this forum to discuss NAS and airspace reform in a meaningful way?

Specifically, do you intend to respond to questions asked of you?

[twodogsflying]

STAGE 3 November 2003

Directed traffic for the en-route phase of flight in Class G airspace will be withdrawn.

Now I seem to remember a meeting held in Canberra in Feb 2000 where all the "Airspace Users" got together and discussed the removal of DTI in class G. As it was impressed on us by the leader of CASA's Airspace team that this was not a simple problem and the time line would be about 2 to 2.5 years for this small rule change to go through the process of change.

Well as I recall, it was agreed that CASA could start the ball rolling but could not be implimente the rule change unless ALL AIRSPACE USERS AGREED!!!!!!!!

This was minuted and any rule change cannot happen unless ALL AIRSPACE USERS AGREE and part of this agreement was a FULL AND TRANSPARANT SAFETY CASE MUST BE PRODUCED TO SUPPORT ANY RULE CHANGE.

It will be interesting to see what transpires and who in CASA are white anted.

[Capcom]

ftrpltCAPCOM, not disagreeing with what you write, but of the 2 latest mid-airs, one was in an ATC environment and the other was not.

Was one more likely to happen than the other??? Thoughts?Fair question!
I’ll do my best to address the theme IN GENERAL TERMS. The accidents mentioned are still subject to investigation and I am not privy to ALL factors involved and therefore not prepared to make specific comment regarding those accidents!.
Note:
Nothing in this reply is to be considered as based on actual events surrounding those accidents referred to above, rather based on relevant general experience from an ATC perspective, further any conclusion drawn based on these general observations and assumptions is coincidental and not intended in the context of specific incidents or accidents..

There are tangible differences in the levels of safety of “3rd party” (ATS) terminal environs V’s MBZ/CTAF (No 3rd party) terminal environs. Why?

- Traffic densities
- Number of Runways
- Weather conditions
- Type of procedures in use
- Night V’s Day operations

The list goes on, so for bandwidth sake lets concentrate on these in the first instance.

Traffic Densities
This is of course one of the major factors in determining the level of service provided. Densities vary from minute to minute, day to day. Any decision on level of service must take into account the worst case scenario given the possible difficulties that could present on any given day.
Data used (Where data is available) to make decisions on services seems to be arbitrary in some cases. I have heard 60,000 movements per year as the cut off for ATC services. Does that take account of the various factors listed above and others, I do not know. Irrespective, the decision seems often to be one taken by the service provider who as we know has a corporate agenda to return a profit to the owner (Fed Gov’t).
Conflict of interest?? I’ll leave that up to you to decide!!!

Numbers of Runways (Parallel Runway Operations etc)
Perhaps as important as traffic density, multiple runway complex's provide the opportunity to move large volumes of traffic in a CONTROLLED environment. During the push for MBZ day Op’s at GAAP’s one of the issues CASA could not resolve was that of which Runways should be used for what Op’s. After looking at all the various configurations it became clear that runway usage, runway crossings, complexity etc made the risks high in any form unless regulated by ATC (or as was experimented with for a little while CAGRO!!).
So the one mode that provided a possible cost saving opportunity was night. (One runway lit and no markings required on the other runways to delineate their non-availability) It was decided that MBZ Operations could be undertaken in order to reduce ATC costs in the absence of any other option as ALL other "perceived unnecessary" costs had by that time been well and truly slashed.
Who made that decision???. Were night traffic densities assessed adequately??.I cannot answer that!!
Perhaps FOI might reveal what if any safety cases were done?!?
Another Gotcha in my opinion is intersecting runways. Aerodromes operating in MBZ/CTAF modes whilst these crossing runways remain available will inevitably cause a prang.

Weather
Self explanatory. The worst situation is without doubt the cloud base greater than 4 Ocktas at a level just above that which VFR will continue to fly and at which an IFR will breakout on an instrument approach. No MBZ/CTAF call is going to give the IFR a clue that is good enough to descend with confidence of missing a VFR in the area. That is assuming the best case scenario, it gets even worse when frequencies are wrongly selected and or people have radios selected O.F.F
ATC given the same scenario will assess the ability to provide IMC descent to a vertically separated level above that which VFR are using. If IFR’s will not be able to break visual above the VFR”S then SAFETY decisions require VFR to clear the area prior to the IFR approach. That provides the separation and safety that cannot be provide in an uncontrolled environ, Further there can be no arguments over who does what!!!
Play with an Umpire or fight (perhaps to the death) over who gets what and who has right of way!!!

Type of procedures in use
MBZ/CTAF “Self announced” traffic, relying on visual acquisition of relevant traffic. “See and Avoid” (See previous post)
ATC 3rd Party provides a system of regulation of traffic in a way that delivers directed traffic information by persons solely concentrating on the traffic picture. It provides more than just traffic alerting and separation, Aerodrome information, SAR etc. None of which can be adequately performed whilst flying an aeroplane as well. A full list of ATC functions is available in AIP. It is worth considering V’s what you cannot get in an MBZ/CTAF!!!

Night V’s Day
It is fair to say that generally less GA aircraft fly at night, thus less traffic density. What is often overlooked is the added difficulties of Night flying. It requires greater "head down" work in the cockpit as well as difficulties in sighting aircraft below when cluttered by ground lights. Those who have flown at night in and around populous areas would be fully aware of this common difficulty.
In a controlled environment at night, ATC are generally only seeing you above so our vision is far better (Not cluttered by background lights). Assuming ATC have sufficient resources (Eye’s) watching the traffic pattern, we will generally pick up 2 getting close together and take the necessary action to provide separation. “Saves” are not recorded and they happen all the time!!!

Day operations are a similar story although traffic density increases offset against the greater visual accuracy available to pilots. ATC can only provide remedies if problems are known about. If a problem is being monitored in one direction, it can be going "pear shaped" elsewhere. Unless sufficient numbers of eye’s are watching the whole circus, things can be missed!!!.
That said again it is still fair to say that ATC correct many more situations than not and of course these are not recorded unless it gets real nasty (Airprox Incident).
Degenerating separation situations are only recovered in an MBZ/CTAF by “See and Avoid”. Is that good enough?? Definitely not!!!!

Hope that helps!!!

SnarekIn this case there were just too many aircraft around to do that. Perhaps those of us who extended were just as much at fault. Had we not done that the Metro guys would have had no option but to 'give way to traffic on base and final', that would have delayed their landing by half an hour as I can see no other way a metro can mix it with a/c like the 1950 C140 that was in the circuit.

The Metro did not call at 15. Perhaps it couldn't, there was a lot of noise.Ever been to BK or similar and watched how SW4’s and GIV’s are made to fit with C150’s, of course you cannot see how it can be done I suspect because you have had little or no exposure to an ATC environment. Anyone who does on a regular basis would be fully aware of why ATC are there and know that it can be and is done regularly and SAFELY with minimal delays!!! IT IS CALLED A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT!!!

AndA straight in was not appropriate. But where was the situational awareness from the Blue Cherokee or the Red Grumman. The Cherokee obviously wasn't listening, (extend call were made by all five a/c that extended for the Metro) neither was the second Grumman. The first Grumman was also white with stripes, I could see it from 2 miles away, so why couldn't the pilots (yes there were two) of the red Grumman.Good Question that will never be answered. I would bet that had ATC had the same situation we would have used bread and butter techniques to move the Aircraft IN radio comm’s out of the way of the other who was not, further the NO-COM would likely not have been there anyway if a clearance was required!!!!!

AndIn the end, armed with 20 - 20 hidsight, I would have resheduled the Metro to arrive after the curfew on GA. Any of you who work in that area of things might like to consider that option for future 'high movement' airshows.So you reckon you can forward plan when the circuit will be quiet do ya??? Like to see that!!!

AndTowers??? No thanks, I doubt that would have made much difference. It would have cost more, slowed things up and created one big mess.Not even going to dignify that drivel with a response!!!.

AndI would argue that only the presense of the Metro indicated the need for a tower, so would Hazo (Rex) like to pay for it???You AOPA Guys just do not get it. You are barking up the wrong tree with “costs”.

In the past it seems quite clear that AOPA decided that it was easier to attempt to have ATS services removed (With the Enthusiastic support of the Fed Gov’t who can’t make it pay except at the primary airports!!) rather than take on the Fed Gov’t and make them pay as they should. AOPA sold User Pays to its members and what has it delivered??
Unless and Until you come to the realisation that removing the safety services is not going to solve the problem, the GA industry will bleed to death..
It will require AOPA and the Professional Organisations to consolidate a united position, then lobby unrelentingly in order to forge change!!.
The Fed Gov’t must be made accountable for delivering their "community service obligations" and providing services that enable the ENTIRE Aviation industry to flourish in a SAFE environment!!.
No more “Gov’t Snouts-in-the-trough” sucking out huge profits whilst the User’s Pay and Pay and Pay for less and less.

You all had better work it out soon!!!!!;) ;)

[weasil]

I'm an Australian Pilot, working in the USA and would be happy to answer any questions people might have about the airspace system over here or anything else.


Weasil

[Chimbu chuckles]

Lodown,

I think the system we have in Australia is excellent in most respects...and I have extensive experience of every other system in Asia & SW Pacific (The SW Pacific having the system installed by Aus/NZ in the 70's with four coats of paint since)...ours doesn't need 'Reform' it just needs tweaking.

As I've said before, we already have a 'worlds best practice' system...this is not North America and the Pollies will never spend the money to make it so from a technology point of view. We don't have the density of aircraft movements to justify it if they would.

You talk of all this wonderful technology but the 'reform' seems mostly concerned with giving less service to those who are 'out of sight and out of mind'.

I think if we took the system we have and added a bunch more controllers/frequencies, and a little more technology then we would have as good a system as we will ever have and without the huge upheavals and constant BS which has accompanied the 'reform' process over the last few years.

Chuck.

PS I flew into a GAAP zone yesterday for the for the first time in probably 10 years...it was terrifying...I vote for TCAS 2 for everything above Hang Glider:D:p

[Lodown]

Can't say I disagree with you Chimbu. I guess the main bone of contention is that everyone wants to pick and choose their level of service like a supermarket. The lighties want the generic brand on sale. The heavier aircraft want the name brand with the better warranty. The heavies want good service to know where the lighties are so they can avoid them. The lighties figure they stay out of the way most of the time and don't need any service. Both groups want access to the products in the entire store. Everyone wants a lower price. The supermarket can't afford security cameras and maintain value in the low volume areas. So instead, they want to implement procedures so that the heavies and lighties can self separate and stay out of each others' way. The heavies want TCAS. The lighties can't afford the transponders. The heavies want radio communications. The lighties can't afford a radio. Not an easy exercise.

[ulm]

Aha

Getting somewhere. :D

1. A Slot Time for the Metro, great idea and I think it would even work.

2. Voluteer ATC. Also great, and a great gesture. But I bet CASA has a twisted interpretation of an overly complex rule to stop it. After all, you have to call everything 'fly-ins' these days to avoid them shutting you down!!!! :mad:

3. Radio in the Ragwing. Yes, I use handheld, headset and intercom. All battery operated. But I don't want them mandated for CTAFs and thus I don't want more MBZs. I generally listen and get out of the way (it is after all camoflaged as well :) ). If there is a direct conflict I talk - this means my batteries outlive my fuel tanks. But handhelds are less reliable and battery powered. Just because it stops I don't want to be forced to land miles from my usual airstrip.

Oh, and have any of you guys flown in Europe. I have. way too complex, way too expensive and even then bloody dangerous. JARs are silly rules for a silly little continent full of silly tiny little coutries who formed a huge committee and then refused to agree on anything. :confused:

Stuff the JARs give me FARs (and thus NAS) any day.

Chuck

[BIK_116.80]

...way too complex, way too expensive and even then bloody dangerous. JARs are silly rules for a silly little continent full of silly tiny little coutries who formed a huge committee and then refused to agree on anything.

Stuff the JARs give me FARs [I dunno about "NAS"] any day.

Absolutely! :D

[Lead Balloon]

Has anyone checked the obituaries in the Canberra paper for a D or M Smith?

;)

[triadic]

Ref the 1999 Air Show day "incident"... how something (?) can be blown out of all proportions!!

There was a UNICOM there on the day, manned by two off duty controllers. I understand NO incidents were recorded other than the thunderstorm in the middle of the show!!

The best place for a high performance / RPT aircraft is on the ground and the quickest way for that to occur is to conduct a straight in approach. The last thing you want is for it to be mixing it with the bugsmashers on downwind.

When there is lots of traffic it is up to all to give and take a bit and to exercise some airmanship, something we don't see much of these days.

[Icarus2001]

Thanks for throwing in some facts Triadic. :)

[Chimbu chuckles]

Lodown,

As far as I'm concerned if you cant/wont buy/fit a radio then you should be confined to airspace specifically set aside for people with a death wish.

It could be a good utilisation for the 'F' airspace designation which currently sits unused...

'Class F airspace is that airspace surrounding designated aerodromes/alighting areas up to a limit of 2000 agl and not closer to Class 'alphabet' airspace than 20nm horizontally and 6000' vertically. Reserved for F ools!'

I remember joining the circuit at Redcliffe many years ago in a Piper Aerostar 700p right on dark...all radio calls made/procedures followed...and as I looked down to see if I could spot the windsock I saw an ultralight maybe 200' straight underneath me, and just barely 'cause it was bloody near dark...An animated discussion about airmanship with the long haired, 'hippy like' tree hugger on the ground after landing had zero affect...he was too interested in his own adjenda to care about anyone else.

So easy fixed!! Corral these 'individuals' into airspace where they can only do service to the gene pool when they run into each other!

As for the rest who operate in airspace other then 'F'?

More controllers, less frequency sharing, DTI to anyone anywhere under VFR or IFR, mandatory full reporting on flights proceeding further than, say, 50nm from point of departure in G airspace or outside designated training areas, mandatory TCAS/ACAS for all operations in Class C, D and E airspace and/or in aircraft capable of cruising at 250kts and above. Cheaper 'GA' units for small aircraft are certainly becoming available at reasonable cost so there shouldn't be a huge burden. Perhaps the Govt could make it tax effective to fit such gadgets whether the aircraft are private or otherwise.:rolleyes:

Increase the radius of MBZs to 25nm. CTAFs to 15nm.

NAIPS/AVfax provides all the flight planning, notam/weather service you could ever want. Keep it free and improve it. Perhaps have 'Internet Cafes' at airfields where access can be made to NAIPS, real time weather radar/satellite images etc for a small fee.

Zero charges for operating in any airspace for private ops, whether IFR/VFR. Perhaps remove all charges currently levied on aircraft below 2000kg and replace them with an annual registraion fee? $500/annum sounds fair..if you cant afford that you can't afford your aeroplane period!

No more privatising aerodromes which were once/ are Govt owned. Fat chance of that with the 'sell off the farm mentality' Govts have these days.:mad:

There ya go...problems solved without causing mass confusion, angst and without alowing DS to inflate his ego furher...win win situation.

Chuck.

[LeadSled]

Chaps and Chapesses,

A little note about radio ----- there is nothing voluntary or optional about the use of a serviceable radio in a CTAF, if you have one, you must use it.

The penalties for not using it are the same as being in a MBZ without a radio, and they are serious money.

In reality the only difference, radio wise, is that you can operate in a CTAF without one. I just cannot understand how this myth of “optional use of radio” in a CTAF became so thoroughly entrenched, it was never the case.

It persists, just like “don’t use the transponder around primary airports, it clutters the radar” persists, instructors are still teaching this, and the “CTAF myth”.

Tootle pip!!

[Icarus2001]

Back to the topic of this thread, the NAS website.

I notice a small addition to the "Training & Education" page...

A training and education schedule will appear shortly.

So here we are on September 2, 3 months until ...

STAGE 1 December 2002

Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E
Revised altimetry procedures

and what do we have? A soon to be announced training and education schedule? No sight of Open Mic or Dick Smith. As someone has already observed, is this the beginning of a slow death?

[Four Seven Eleven]

Open Mic

Safety Cases?

Can you please, please explain exactly what is the truth about safety case/s for NAS. There is a lot of conflicting information. For example:

The Minister said, on 13 May 2002:
A safety case will be required to be developed for NAS, and the existing processes will continue to be followed in finalising the safety case.
http://www.dotars.gov.au/media/anders/archive/2002/may_02/a54_2002.htm

The NAS document (undated and unattributed) says:
ICAO provides two methodologies for "determining whether the system is acceptably safe:
a. comparison to a reference system.......
.......As the NAS draws on international best practice and the proven ATM system of North America, process a. above is the appropriate methodology.
http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/nas.htm#Methodology


One assumes that the Minister's directive carries some clout in this matter. Also, given the fact that NAS is not in fact based upon "the" North American model, but is in fact a 'hybrid' – the previous justification seems no longer to apply.

Maybe the Minister knew what he was talking about, after all!!!

Dates and Timing

There has been some confusion about Phase 1. The Airspace Reform website has it occurring sometime in December 2002 (no specific day).

According to a post from SYD RAPAC, you told the NSW RAPAC meeting that it would be 28 November. (2002?)

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63402

What is the true timing and where is the material available?

VFR climb for IFR

Is there any information out there on this topic? Have there been any procedures developed for ATC? Will all IFRs be able to do it? Where can we find out more?

PS: If this is NOT the forum in which you intend to answer questions (and perhaps it is not the best forum), please let us know, as the date is perhaps drawing near for phase 1 implementation - and information is very, very scarce. So far PPRuNe is the only source of information around.

[triadic]

In regard to the VFR Climb, I think that you will find it is more likely to be a “VMC Climb/Descent” as if you declare VFR then the controller under the existing system in TAAATS will take you out of the system, which is not I suspect the desire of those wanting to do it as a bit later on they no doubt will want to re-enter the system.

In real terms this procedure is very much the same as self separation in Class G once you have been given traffic information. If it is ok in G then why not in E?

This matter was raised a number of years ago when E was first introduced but did not proceed because controller training was totally directed at TAAATS. This is now not the case. Procedures have been discussed at the RAPACs and I don’t believe are an issue. Very basically it will be a three way contract with ATC and the two aircraft – just like getting DTI!

As a matter of interest if you are a private Learjet, you can climb VMC in Class E now, and zoom past the IFR Saab or whatever on the climb and there is no requirement other than sound airmanship to even talk to the controller – just have your transponder on. Once above/in front of the other traffic you can call for your IFR clearance whilst still in the E. The existing rules just don’t allow RPT to suspend IFR, but it is fair go for everyone else.

This procedure is NOT an issue we need get our knickers in a knot about. It will help make things work in E where now there is only procedural separation (when there is no radar) and we all know how conservative that is.

The other two matters of using the local QNH on a short travel flight and the introduction of a Multicom are simple and long overdue.

As for a safety case? I don’t think you will see one, as the NAS procedures will be hung on the North American example – simple that way!

:cool:

[Four Seven Eleven]

Triadic:

You are very likely correct that "In regard to the VFR Climb, I think that you will find it is more likely to be a 'VMC Climb/Descent'" but I find it disturbing that so little information is available so close to the implementation date. (Whenever that might be?) No offence, but I would prefer to hear something from an 'official' source rather than your best guess.

You say "This procedure is NOT an issue we need get our knickers in a knot about." Could not agree more. Would just like to know what the procedure is.

For instance, you say "The existing rules just don’t allow RPT to suspend IFR, but it is fair go for everyone else." What about the new rules. Will they apply to RPT? Who knows? Is anyone talking?

In the absence of any information, some questions spring to mind:

What implications are there for TAAATS? For example an aircraft climbs VFR without talking to the sector with ‘jurisdiction’ and calls the next sector for IFR clearance. Unfortunately, the next sector may not have details (or jurisdiction). Have new procedures been written?

What are ATC ‘back coordination’ requirements for aircraft changing category at/crossing/just after sector boundaries in Class E?

What training implications are there for pilots and ATC?

Are any software changes required in TAAATS?

Will full IFR charges apply? (Without software/procedures/flight planning changes, TAAATS won’t differentiate.)

You go on to say "As for a safety case? I don’t think you will see one, as the NAS procedures will be hung on the North American example – simple that way! " Yes, when it was sold as the US system, it did sound simple. But now, which bits of which system? US? Canadian? Does Mexico count as North American? There is no single North American system.

Remember the Minister was led to believe that we would be adopting the United States system. As Dick Smith himself said (in a previous thread0:

Four Seven Eleven, you make out that I made the decision to go with the NAS proposal. I did not. This was made by the Government – it actually went to Cabinet. Surely that is our democratic system?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52201&perpage=15&pagenumber=9

So, if the Minister and Cabinet have decided to go with the US system that Dick Smith so passionately advocated, who went and changed it into a 'hybrid'?

Strange that Dick Smith isn't out there (or here), staunchly defending his US-based vision.

Vale NAS. Long live the NAS-Hybrid (NASH)

[ensor]

Helloooooooooo, is any Smith out there????????????

I am sure that four seven eleven is not the only airspace user in Australia who is dying to find out what proceedures will be adopted to allow your implemention of stage 1 in December 2002.

On the subject of VFR climb for IFR aircraft within class E airspace, I would like to table some points for discussion.

1.How many pilots of high performance aircraft out there would accept climb through the level of an opposite direction aircraft which may be difficult to see?

The reason we separate IFR aircraft from IFR aircraft is usually because of aircraft performance, as in speed of aircraft. Additionally, most IFR RPT aircraft have very limited vision over the nose during climb out therefore making spotting aircraft at a distance difficult.

If a clearance is not available, then the controller is not doing this for their amusement. There is a reason. Maybe an oposite direction aircraft at a level within class E airspace which is going to conflict with the climbing aircraft.

Usually closing speed will be at least in the vicinity of 360 knots if not more. That is at least 1 mile every 10 seconds. Not much time to do anything if you lose sight of the other aircraft.

:eek: :eek:

Addtionally, on the dotars site under the new traffic management proceedures for class E airspace it proposes:

VMC climb and decent procedures to enable self-separation between IFR aircraft subject to specified criteria This is an IFR procedure where ATC delegate responsibility for separation to the two aircraft subject to their mutual acceptance and satisfying other criteria

ATC already has a separation standard for visual separation below FL125, assigned to the pilot of one aircraft to sight and maintain his own separation with the other aircraft.

I am aware that E airspace will extend higher than FL125 but this does not appear to be happening in December

Now you are proposing that the pilots mutually accept the responsibility for separation.

Sounds to me like there will be more transmissions, more confusion and once the dust has settled you will have passed by radar anyway.

Furthermore, the ability for VFR climb in class E airspace.

Ability for VFR climb in Class E airspace after departure pending availability of an airways clearance. This procedure will be available to aircraft which have filed IFR details and operating in VMC. ATC will provide flight following and known traffic.

I don't believe that at the present time, IFR RPT can proceed VFR so how is to help the likes of Eastern, Rex etc?

As for PVT, AWK & CHT, if you nominate IFR then you obviously are after an ATS service be it Traffic or Separation to ensure your passengers arrive at their destination as safely as possible. If a clearance is not available, then you obviously have a conflict of some description. Should you downgrade to VFR and climb to you level within Class E airspace, then be ready to absorbe a traffic statement about what your confliction was. Now you have increased your workload because not only are you flying the aircraft, you have to look out and ensure that you do not hit the aircraft which was denying you a clearance. Why not ask for a radar vector to remain clear? :eek:


Pop Up Clearances.

Provision of a pop-up clearance for climb and decent through Class E airspace, or to cross Class E corridors, in IMC conditions.

This will be dependent on where the class E corridor is and if under radar coverage and traffic within the corridor.

Difficult to argue until we know where the corridors will be.

Finally.

VFR on top" services (known in Australia as full position VFR) will be available. ATC will provide flight following and known traffic. Normal ATS charges will apply.

Didn't VFR used to operate on full reporting in the 80's.

I thought this was airspace reform. :confused:

In closing, can anyone shed some light on what

Revised altimetry procedures

are?????????:confused: :confused:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Revised altimetry may be to do with setting 1013/area/station QNH as soon as cleared through transition as opposed to when passing transition. I believe, from mates who've recently been issued British ATPLs, this is how they do it under JARs.

I for one will not be accepting 'own seperation' with other IFR aircraft under any circumstances...anyone else remember that full page picture of relative size of a Mirage Fighter in the closing few seconds before a head on that was in the old crash comic years ago?

Smiths the silence is deafening!!

Didn't cross all your 'T's and dot all your 'i's?

Your adjenda looking a bit battered?

Just remember this as you try to save money and reduce service...The 'big sky' theory doesn't work anymore since the advent of GPS...these days if you don't see you WILL hit!

Chuck.

[Creampuff]

Mr Anderson has given Mr Smith his pound of flesh. Nothing less, but nothing more.

[twodogsflying]

Looks like the NASH is becoming the Llamp.

In Llamp, VFR climb in E was allowed as long as all 3 parties agreed, ATC, and the 2 aircraft concerned. This could not happen if more than 2 aircraft where involved.

I wonder how much more will change, then we can call it the LASH!!

twodogsflying looking for a good LASHing!!
or
Whip me, Beat me, LASH me, but respect me in the morning!!

[triadic]

Ensor… with respect, I think you are missing the point here:


On the subject of VFR climb for IFR aircraft within class E airspace, I would like to table some points for discussion.

1.How many pilots of high performance aircraft out there would accept climb through the level of an opposite direction aircraft which may be difficult to see?


Firstly I don’t believe that anyone would do anything different to what they do now… if you get DTI on someone coming the other way that would be a conflict, would you climb through his level? I doubt it. It would not be any different to now!



The reason we separate IFR aircraft from IFR aircraft is usually because of aircraft performance, as in speed of aircraft. Additionally, most IFR RPT aircraft have very limited vision over the nose during climb out therefore making spotting aircraft at a distance difficult.

If a clearance is not available, then the controller is not doing this for their amusement. There is a reason. Maybe an oposite direction aircraft at a level within class E airspace which is going to conflict with the climbing aircraft.

Usually closing speed will be at least in the vicinity of 360 knots if not more. That is at least 1 mile every 10 seconds. Not much time to do anything if you lose sight of the other aircraft.


Your example is one that would not occur very often, more likely I suggest where two aircraft are proceeding in the same direction with different performance levels. At present it is not uncommon for a high(er) performance aircraft to be held down below a preceeding aircraft until procedural or radar sep is obtained. With this procedure, traffic info would be provided and it would then be up to the pilot/s to decide if a VMC climb would be suitable. If VMC exist then I suggest that a procedure that allows the following higher performer to proceed thru the level of the preceeding aircraft is one that should be endorsed. After all, if you get DTI in G today, most of us would do the same thing.


Now you are proposing that the pilots mutually accept the responsibility for separation.


That’s exactly what pilots do today in Class G


Sounds to me like there will be more transmissions, more confusion and once the dust has settled you will have passed by radar anyway.


And what if there is NO radar ??


I don't believe that at the present time, IFR RPT can proceed VFR so how is to help the likes of Eastern, Rex etc?


Heaps!
You are correct that IFR RPT cannot cancel IFR – but the ability for them to proceed in VMC with traffic info is now available in G. This procedure makes EXACTLY the same flexibility available to those same crews when in Class E and VMC exists. So whats the problem?


As for PVT, AWK & CHT, if you nominate IFR then you obviously are after an ATS service be it Traffic or Separation to ensure your passengers arrive at their destination as safely as possible. If a clearance is not available, then you obviously have a conflict of some description. Should you downgrade to VFR and climb to you level within Class E airspace, then be ready to absorbe a traffic statement about what your confliction was. Now you have increased your workload because not only are you flying the aircraft, you have to look out and ensure that you do not hit the aircraft which was denying you a clearance. Why not ask for a radar vector to remain clear?


If an IFR clearance is not available, you will be advised as to the reason – The reason will in many cases be traffic – DTI if you like. It is then up to you what you want to do, as it is now in G.
I suggest that there is very little difference in workload to what you have now in accepting DTI in G and acting accordingly – it is your choice, always has and always will be!

Again… what if there is no radar service? Much of this country will never have radar coverage, so the procedures have to be designed to cater for that situation. There is no good reason for enforcing procedural sep in E when VMC exists. As has been said elsewhere it would only slow everything down when there is not a need. Of course when the weather is bad, that is another story.

As for “pop-up clearances” they really should not be a drama. They work fine in othr parts of the world, but I think that neither pilots or controllers have got used to the concept in this country as yet. And in Class E they only apply to IFR.

[Capcom]

Triadic
Ensor’s example occur’s all the time!!!
You should know how many 2 way tracks into and out of regional ports exist!!!Again… what if there is no radar service? Much of this country will never have radar coverage, so the procedures have to be designed to cater for that situation. There is no good reason for enforcing procedural sep in E when VMC exists. As has been said elsewhere it would only slow everything down when there is not a need. Of course when the weather is bad, that is another story.There is the problem!!

Pilots (I assume you are not!!) are rightly concerned about climbing or descending through (NON-SPECIFIC) reported traffic.
The DTI (Non-RADAR) must provide the pilots with the confidence that climb without separation will be such that they could not hit in a pink fit (ACCURATE TRAFFIC INFO). It is not good enough to rely on “see and avoid” as anyone with real life experience in the cockpit or flight deck will attest, it is all to late if the traffic is close and not seen VERY Early.

Weather does change the story but not as much as you suggest!!!

As for DTI in “G”, perhaps you could explain why it is even classified as “G” and not “F” or “E”(within radar coverage) ???:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Open Mic
Perhaps you should consider changing to Comm Failure and divert to the nearest no-radio "free-for-all"!!!!

[Four Seven Eleven]

Open Mic

Could you please confirm that the Stage 1 implementation is to be in accordance with the NAS Expanded Information and Revised Implementation Program for National Airspace System Australia (NAS) 18 March 2002 at http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/nas_information.htm which states:
2.14 Implementation
A delayed :D implementation schedule allowing more time for education :D is as follows:

STAGE 1 December 2002
Class A and C airspace will be realigned. Class E airspace will also be established above 8,500' and FL145 as appropriate. The existing directed traffic information service in Class G airspace will remain unchanged. CTAF/MBZ operations and procedures will be realigned with FAA practice.
Can you confirm that this supersedes the DRAFT plan at http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/I_Timetable.htm which said:
Draft NAS Implementation Schedule
STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.
I gather this means that the “draft” items (Multicom, VFR and altimetry procedures) have now been canned in favour of airspace and CTAF and MBZ realignment in the “Revised Implementation Program”?

Is there really going to be an airspace change in December?

To make it easier and safer, could you perhaps publish all of the draft, revised and other implementation programs in the same part of the document? I am sure that many people missed the ‘draft’ bit and thought they were looking at the actual implementation program.

Does this mean I’ve been wasting my time reading up on US VFR climb procedures? Or was that Canadian?

[triadic]

Capcom - with the greatest respect for your usually thought provoking posts, may I suggest that you really either don't understand what is proposed or perhaps don't want to ??

Certainly there are many 2 way tracks and like I said you have to make a judgement call each time you get DTI just as you do now - whats the problem? It would depend on schedules etc as to when you usually passed much of the other similar traffic - no? Otherwise there is little reason to believe that 50% of the traffic is same direction and the other 50% opposite. I think that on the some of the busy tracks/locations you will see sometime soon the establishment of diversion tracks so as to provide lateral sep for climb and descent.

For info I have over 20years turboprop and jet time (most of it OCTA) and don't have a problem with what is proposed. Maybe I just understand it better than you???

Read my previous post again... the passing of traffic in E will be little different from what you do now in G - how simple is that?

I do agree that what we have now is much closer to F than G, but the powers that set the rules way back said no to F. Mind you I still think they were wrong. There is a place for F, we just have to work on it.

Neither G, F or E require a radar service. The class of airspace (A thru G) usually indicates the level of service - how that service is provided is up to the State.

4711 - I am sure that the info will come thru in a timely manner. It is not worth getting your blood pressure up as yet.

I think it matters not which items come first, so long as we all get to understand them and what is required. None of the ones you mention in either option should present a problem, so long as education can be completed in time.

VMC climb will be a bonus - Its not hard and it is not any less safe than present procedures in G.

:cool:

[divingduck]

why bother with all the different types??

A C and F is all you need.

It's a bluddy sight simpler than all that tosh that goes on nowadays..

I'm with whoever said bring back full reporting, sartimes, Flight Service, outstations, briefing offices etc.

Mind you that was back when we were a first world country with an aviation record the envy of the civilized world, and a govenment who put the welfare of the population before mere monetary means.

I have a couple of questions for all those flying out there...

Is it now cheaper to fly around than it was in the 80's when we had loads of FSO's and ATCs and everyone received a service?

Do you feel safer?

cheers

[Four Seven Eleven]

Triadic

Very sensible post indeed. I'm just disappointed that the same website could have two conflicting 'implementation schedules' for later this year.

One correction (since there is no 'official' information.....as yet):

VMC climb will be a bonus - Its not hard and it is not any less safe than present procedures in G. Worth noting that what is (or perhaps isn't) in the November/December Phase 1 programs is VFR climb , not VMC climb. VMC climb and desecent are in the NAS document but not as part of Phase 1.

(Open Mic can you confirm that?)

[ensor]

Triadic,

My point is why introduce airspace which will require more complex proceedures than those which we currently have.

For Example.

In Class G airspace whilst in you DH8B etc, you receive traffic information on what has been assessed as a conflict. You discuss with the other pilot how you will separate yourselves and be on you ways. (Separation may be via maintaining a level beneath until clear or by climbing through the level of the traffic because you can see and avoid)

Now we introduce Class E airspace. You call for your clearance and are advised that "Clearance not available due BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" You are provided with a traffic statement which informs you of the traffic. You both are happy to mutually accept separation responsibility and you are on your ways. Should there have been bad weather and you are unable to climb in VMC then you have maintained a level beneath the other aircraft until advised you are clear by the controller.

What benefit is Class E airspace then?????????

I can see none as you are doing the same thing you would in class G.

What service do you expect to receive from Class E airspace ??????

As the majority of Class E airspace at present is below FL125 then ATC can assign visual separation responsibility to the pilot of an aircraft climbing into the airspace and at the present time only one aircraft needs to accept responsibility. The present system is not a lot different from that proposed.

As for you comment about what if there is no radar. How can we make the airspace workable without radar anyway?

VMC climb I hear you say.

Why not leave it as is with proceedures that have worked for years.

[Capcom]

Triadic

OK I’ll cop that on the chin!!!.
I do agree that at the moment “See and Avoid” is the sole savior in the context of IFR and VFR outside RADAR coverage. That is the problem!!!
I completely reject your assertion that I am not aware of what is being proposed!!!
Do I like it?, ABSOLUTELY BLOO’DY NOT!!!

What concerns me the most is the context in which IFR will be expected to climb and descend in VMC without DTI.
Perhaps My interpretation of the change is different from yours!!. If I am wrong???
- IFR DTI in VMC will continue to be available instead of “Nil DTI” for IFR in VMC as was suggested by Open Mic and the NAS team.

It was my understanding that they considered this to be the “pill” to minimise ATS usage (i.e. NO DTI).Neither G, F or E require a radar service. The class of airspace (A thru G) usually indicates the level of service - how that service is provided is up to the State.That is technically true!. The state (Fed Gov’t) would seem to have a cost imperative!!!
So given the opportunity, do you have confidence that the classes of airspace’s and the resulting geography boundaries will be objectively assessed and therefore correctly defined and serviced????

It concerns me greatly those that have been selected for NAS work would seem to be "contract" staff!!!!

It is for this reason I have advocated a careful (Independent and Transparent) analysis of exactly where traffic densities (IFR AND VFR) would dictate the need for RADAR coverage. This will provide a basis for “RADAR E” protection for those IFR’s in and around those who don’t want to use a radio in areas of medium traffic densities involving climb and descent phases.
E Non-RADAR (Above A085) and F in the more remote areas where traffic is likely sparse and more often than not cruising. This might be acceptable if we assume the Government will not cough up for little used infrastructure and services in remote areas!!!. (Telstra- come on down???)

Will the Fed’s do the right thing? I personally think it will require further loss of life before they give up OUR dollars to provide these infrastructures. In the mean time confidence in aviation is further damaged, families are grieving and no one wins (Except the mean and tricky money grubbing Pukes in Canberra)!!.

Why does this guy get so animated about this I hear you ask?

- I want the industry (particularly GA) that has given me so much to be there into the future for our kids!
- I want participants in our industry to have real tangible confidence that safety levels are such that GA has a place into the future without having to fly on a wing and a prayer and pay *****’ loads for bug.ger all!
- I do not want people to experience as I have a windscreen full of “blur” and spend the rest of their flying careers knowing how close they and their pax had come to meeting the almighty and waiting for that or worse to happen again!

What is in it for Me?

Nothing other than the hope that one day I will be able to sleep at night knowing I have done my best to prevent the likes of pollies and self-interested, self-absorbed amateurs setting up innocent’s for the above when it is clearly preventable!!!

AN ARMY OF 1….

[snarek]

CAPCOM

NAS aside, AsA are looking a remote area infrastructure under ADSB. But I know how you feel, I spent 15 years bulding microwave radios in the NT and northern SA. Telstra has already been brought down, in the bush at least.

A question. Won't ADSB at least give a partial cure to your 'blur in the windscreen'. If we can get it into every lightie that it. It will give AsA traffic and you and every lightie TCAS like warnings possible ven with height, range and bearing.

I think ADSB is viable and necessary, the radars you talk of will never be erected at 'The Monument'. So shouldn't we all be getting behind ADSB and insisting the Govt pay for a full fleet fitout.

AK

[I Fly]

Snarek, what makes you think the Government is going to spend 1c for our ADSB installation. They paid a s**t load of money on buying back illegal guns, but they paid nothing for our legal domestic DME, just because the TV barons wanted the frequency. The Government even collected a s**t load of money from the TV barons and still paid us no compensation. I may look like Santa Clause but I don't believe in him anymore.

[ulm]

Heh heh.

Well Santa, because if Uncle John Anderson and his little elf Bernie wants us nasty evil 'Joe Lighties' to fit them, instead of flying round in Captn Bloggs' (and other similar Gods of RPT) personal airspace unseen and unheard, then him and his little band of elves are just gonna have to give em to us for Christmas.

Cos I ain't paying for one!!!

Either that and he can go replace all his ageing RADAR heads with brand new Thomson CSF rubbish (and associated kickbacks and rorts).

That option is much much more expensive and simply just not as good.

:)

Chuck

[Four Seven Eleven]

Does anyone have any idea of how the new hybrid airspace thingy is going?

New procedures? Changes? Which changes ? (the draft or the 'real' ones?)The website seems to be locked in time!

Seems we're fast running out of Smiths!:mad:

[CaptainMidnight]

I hear some more bumpf is to be added to the NAS website this week, and that the changes on 28 November will be done by AIP SUP. Funny about that - the last I heard only about 25-30% of licensed pilots subscribed to SUPs, so I hope there is a bit more publicity than just that.

Still no detail has been forthcoming, only the same general stuff given at the early RAPAC briefings by the travelling roadshow.

[Four Seven Eleven]

CaptainMidnight

Are you sure about those dates? Is anybody?

the website has it as December for the draft changes:
Draft NAS Implementation Schedule
STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.

and also for the 'other' changes:
STAGE 1 December 2002
Class A and C airspace will be realigned. Class E airspace will also be established above 8,500' and FL145 as appropriate. The existing directed traffic information service in Class G airspace will remain unchanged. CTAF/MBZ operations and procedures will be realigned with FAA practice.

Nothing about 28 November. :confused:

AT least CASA wouldn't dare try to prosecute anyone for non-compliance after November (or was it December?). Nobody will have any idea what the rules are anyway.
:confused:

[divingduck]

Hi guys,

In a very large part of the rest of the world, the 28th of November 2002, marks the introduction of EMARSSH, a complete restructure of airways and introdution of RNP in various FIR's along the way.
In case you are interested, it stands for Europe/Middle East/Asia Route Structure South of the Himalayas.

Perhaps with that about to happen, and the charts being updated to the West and North of OZ, this would be an ideal time to get everything done, rather than implement changes incrementally.

good luck, it looks like a spiders web in our airspace!!

[CaptainMidnight]

Four Seven Eleven

I only said 28 November because that is an AIRAC date, and I am making the assumption that when they say "1 December 2002" they are using a generalisation, or (more likely) they made a blue and picked the wrong date. As you probably know, ICAO recommends the use of AIRAC dates for the implementation of anything significant, and it usually means that most electronic systems and databases, publications etc. are in alignment. The next chart release, ERSA, AIP etc. is 28 November, so it makes sense to do whatever they are going to do on that date, rather than delay it for 2 days. Keyword = "sense" :)

Interesting about the Class E establishment above A085 & FL145 on the same date, which would require some charting I would think, which is a bit difficult to do in an A5 sized SUP. You can get away with doing some things by AIP SUP, but theoretically they are only supposed to be used for either activities or events taking place for a short period, or for permanent changes that require implementation ASAP for safety reasons. One item that will have to be addressed in their implementation safety case is the risk that pilots will not be aware of the changes due to not receiving/being aware of the SUP, or not checking NOTAMs. One way to mitigate that to a small degree is to post the SUP out to everyone who has an ARN. I don't know that qualifies as much of an education process though -

[Four Seven Eleven]

CaptainMidnight

Your assumption about 28 November is probably correct. What I found absolutely frustrating about this process is that we are forced to make 'assumptions'. That seems to be the price for having 'enthusiastic amateurs' running the show.

If they still haven't got the dates and changes figured out, what hope is there that a proper education process will be finalised in time?

If you look at the official information, all we can know for sure is that an as yet undetermined set of changes may yet occur on an as yet undetermined date. Is this good enough?

Small point: I notice you say "1 December 2002" when in fact the reference is "Stage 1 December 2002". The lack of punctuation could lead one to believe that the "1" refers to either "Stage 1" or "1 December". Looking at later references, it becomes apparant that one could make the 'assumption' that it is in fact Stage 1, which will occur at an indeterminate time, perhaps in December. Everyone clear on that?

[CaptainMidnight]

Very true. And there is a lot of work to be done on design & development of airspace, pilot & ATC procedures, consultation etc. before the close-off date for the June 2003 charts which apparently is next January, though I'm told in reality it is early December due to the Christmas/New Year break, mil. stand down from mid December, most players on recreation leave till late January, etc. etc.

They had better get their skates on :)

I take your point over the confusion, particularly as you highlight in your previous post that their website has two different lists of happenings supposedly taking place in December.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Open Mic

A sterling job!! The same level of clarity prevails.

The website now appears to confirm that the previous 'draft' stage 1 changes have been canned (they have disappeared from the site)

So, reading the website, the following are NOT happening as stage one:

Draft NAS Implementation Schedule
STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.

The remaining STAGE 1 changes are:

STAGE 1 December 2002

Class A and C airspace will be realigned. Class E airspace will also be established above 8,500' and FL145 as appropriate. The existing directed traffic information service in Class G airspace will remain unchanged. CTAF/MBZ operations and procedures will be realigned with FAA practice.Implementation (http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/nas_information.htm)


In keeping with the process so far, all reference to training and education has been removed, and a timetable without times/dates has been published. Timeless table (http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/I_Timetable.htm)

One problem, however: The implentation timetable contradicts the content of the implementation section mentioned earlier.




Enthusiasm reigns supreme!!:confused: :confused:

[Creampuff]

Mr Anderson has given Mr (D) Smith his pound of flesh: nothing less; but nothing more.

[Lodown]

Anyone know the US requirements for establishing Class B airspace as opposed to Class C?

What are the determining factors for upgrading Class C to Class B?

Just interested because a crucial part of NAS seems to be avoiding the implementation of "North American" Class B with the associated mandatory transponder requirements and (eventually) higher upper limits.

[Feather #3]

US Class B

Put simply, we don't have an airport here which matches the US criteria for Class B.

In earlier studies, Seattle Seatac came the closest to SYD in terms of operations, but everything else pales to insignificance.

The perspective that some pursue on their posts that there is a lot of traffic in Oz is a fallacy; get out more - we're small beer.
:rolleyes:

Having said that, I'm more than aware that it only takes two to 'tango' and that should be avoided at all times, but not at all costs which some would argue.

G'day ;)

[weasil]

North American Class C also has a mandatory mode c transponder requirement.

The difference between B and C includes but is not limited to

1. B has a 25 mile radius and a ceiling of 10000' where C has a 10 mile radius and 4000' ceiling.

2. All a/c in B are separated from each other

3. Only IFR a/c in C are separated from each other, VFR a/c are given advisories and traffic alerts only.

4. B requires a specific clearance to enter where C requires only that you establish two way radio communication which the FAA specifies as the controller having repeated your tail number back to you.

[triadic]

If you want to look at it another way.. maybe in Oz we only need class B and class F - I am sure that would do the job.

Maybe you could then call it "controlled" or "uncontrolled" .. sound familiar?

[CaptainMidnight]

Back to the top again -

Open Mic

When you gave your NAS brief at one of the RAPACs, you said something along the lines of "...forget Dick, he has no influence over the NAS implementation, and is he not driving it ...".

Could you confirm or otherwise that over the last few weeks (and as recently as the last couple of days) your implementation group has had to re-write the VFR climb in E procedures at least twice, because a certain high profile (though not lately) identity was not happy with them - they were not what he wanted?

Could you also comment on whether the latest procedures are significantly different from US FARs, and if so, how this impacts on CASA's advice that no safety case was required for NAS if it was compliant with US FARs?

[Icarus2001]

I think Open Mic is a misnomer. More like PTT stuck in the off position.

What is the situation with the NAS website? The timetable page has airspace structure on it, no sign of a timetable. There are references to the "North American model". That is about as useful as "the Australasian model" or "the antipodean model".

My world atlas shows North America running from Mexico to Alaska. Which bits do we get?

[Four Seven Eleven]

Icarus and Cap'n Midnight

I am afraid you're whistling in the wind. It seems the way of the Smiths is to enter into the fray and - particularly in the case of Smith the elder - to make various statements and accusations. However, when challenged to provide any evidence to back themselves up, they retreat silently into the murk from which they emanated.

The contradictions and inaccuracies in the NASH website remain uncorrected and unexplained. The fact that the website appears to contradict nearly everything that Dick Smith claimed when 'selling' NAS appears also to go unexplained. Mr Smith was vociferous in his unsubstantiated and false accusations and abuse on previous threads when questioned about certain aspects of the process. Thousands of words were written, but ever since he was asked to provide a single shred of evidence - he has become strangely silent.

Safety cases, the 'North American' model, the 'proven' (and yet unique) model, the ever-changing but ever vague 'timetable'.... a continuing litany of inconsistencies.

Perhaps the truth is out there. It just seems that those with answers are unwilling to state their case.

Sad. :(

[SM4 Pirate]

CASA have or are about to reject the VMC climb procedure for IFRs due to be introduced at the end of November. :)

Any truth to a sensible rumour such as that? ;)

Smith, Smith??? anyone...:confused:

Bottle of Rum

[Icarus2001]

Sorry, this thread started by Mr Smith is now a Smith free zone.

[ferris]

Obviously Mr Smith got a bit flustered, dealing with people who might know what they are talking about. He is, after all, only used to dealing with politicians.

[CaptainMidnight]

SM4 Pirate

CASA rejected the VMC climb in E procedure safety case. I am told that it has had the points of concern addressed, and been resubmitted.

The AIP SUP relating to the procedure is said to be brief, ambigious and confusing - and that is to the people who understand exactly what is supposed to happen. Apparently a fistful of changes recommended by Airservices ATC specialists were rejected by the ARG, who refuse any amendment to the SUP wording, saying that all the issues would need to be addressed in the ATC & pilot education packages.

Also the procedures to be adopted vary extensively from that used in the USA.

The introduction of this VMC climb in E procedure has been pushed by the regionals for some years, but curiously they won't be able to use it. Evidently insurance companies refuse to allow the airlines to operate VFR category, which aircraft are required to be while adopting the procedure .....

[gaunty]

You know it's upside down when the insurance companies are forced to second guess the regulator or air services supplier.

[triadic]

VFR... VMC

Thats why the procedure in Australia has been called "VMC" climb and not "VFR" which is what it is called in the US.

In Oz, RPT are required by CASA to operate IFR, so changing to VFR is not an option unless CASA change the rules.. hence we got VMC climb, which says it all and should keep everyone happy, except of course it is not in line with US practice... geeeeez!

In class G now, when VMC exists, the IFRs get traffic and keep themselves apart. The proposed procedure in E would have been much the same, but then the experts got at it!

[Lodown]

I thought the "experts" got at LAMP.

[Icarus2001]

Triadic, do you have a reference for the "RPT only IFR" rule? What about the single engine RPT flights taking place every day? IFR in VMC?

[triadic]

CIVIL AVIATION ORDERS PART 82 SECTION 82.3 Issue 4

CONDITIONS ON AIR OPERATORS' CERTIFICATES
AUTHORISING REGULAR PUBLIC TRANSPORT
OPERATIONS IN OTHER THAN HIGH CAPACITY AIRCRAFT


7. Obligations in relation to flight category and aeroplane requirements



7 OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO FLIGHT CATEGORY AND AEROPLANE REQUIREMENTS
7.1 Subject to paragraph 7.4, each operator must conduct operations in multi-engined aeroplanes equipped for flight under the instrument flight rules (IFR).
7.2 Subject to paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4, each operator must conduct flights under the I.F.R.




and for High Capacity AOC holders



7 OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO FLIGHT CATEGORY AND AEROPLANE REQUIREMENTS

7.1 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA, each operator must conduct operations in multi-engined aeroplanes equipped for flight under the instrument flight rules (IFR).
7.2 Unless otherwise approved in writing by CASA, each operator must conduct flights under the I.F.R.


= If you are RPT and capable of IFR you must plan IFR. Change to VFR is not permitted without CASA approval.
Hence the use of VMC in respect to the proposed ops in E.

[Icarus2001]

Thanks Triadic but what about Paragraph 7.4

7.4 An operator may conduct flights under the VFR in single engine aeroplanes equipped for flight under the IFR if:


and even 7.3

An operator may conduct a flight under the VFR in multi-engine aeroplanes if:

So I can't see any problem with RPT flights operating to the VFR as happens every day around the top end.

[Woomera]

It's taken this most important thread 2 months to get to the magic ton. In other words why are we waiting?
I have stickied it, lest it disappears due to supreme lack of attention from those who wish to run our lives according to their personal agenda.

Lots of questions, very few answers it would appear.

I don't wish to be unkind to the Messrs Smith, but if you want to use this Forum to disseminate your ideas and theories you might have the common courtesy to provide some answers and feedback to it.

To the Mr R. Smith, I know you are busy playing with your toys, but if you want to be taken seriously here, it would help if you followed through on your propositions with us mere mortals lest you be consigned to an irrelevancy.

To the Mr M. Smith, we understand the difficulties you have dealing with the multifarious personalities to get this thing sorted, but that is what they are paying you for.

I believe that there are still some questions extant, if they have been satisfied please point to where, if not then we are entitled to be shown the error of our ways, as promised.

You (collectively) have the floor, use it or lose it.:)

[triadic]

Icarus Sounds maybe (?) you might be getting VFR and VMC confused in this context?? Do you operate RPT on VFR or IFR Flight plans? My reading is that if you are RPT you are required to operate on an IFR FPL, even tho it is 8/8s blue. You are of course then operating in VMC, not VFR. Certainly there is an out for single engine RPT and others with specific approval, but I think you will find the intent is that all RPT ops must be conducted on an IFR flight plan and changing to VFR rules is not permitted even in VMC.

=====


Woomera Well done and said.
I have recently obtained a copy of a document titled:
National Airspace System Implementation Group - Concept. Version 5.0 dated 26/Sep/02.

This document is signed by:
Mr Stephen angus (NAS Implementation Group Team Leader)26/9/02,
Mr Mike Smith (NAS Implementation Group Executive Director) 26/9/02, and
Mr Ken Matthews (Chairman Aviation Reform Group) 1/10/02.

As there is no dates or version numbers on the web site it is difficult to assess if the web site is up to date or not. Seems that QA is not part of the plot to date.

It is still difficult to see where they are going. Certainly the gos seems to be that CASA have had some input re the safety case on the VFR/VMC climb for IFRs in E. If there is to be any changes on the 28 Nov, the AIP SUPs/AICs must be in the mail this week to be received one month in advance.




:)

[Icarus2001]

Thanks triadic, I am aware that many:rolleyes: people confuse VFR and VMC but no I am not guilty (in this case) I chose my acronyms carefully :) .

Perhaps I am not making my point very well. All I was trying to observe was that SE RPT operations are fully approved under current rules and as such must operate VFR therefore VMC due to the rule regarding fare paying passengers and SE (turbines noted).

PS There are many more who confuse IMC with VMC ;)

[Four Seven Eleven]

As late as 3 September, the NAS website was promulgating:

Draft NAS Implementation Schedule
STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.

The same timetable section has now been amended to include:

Stage 1
VMC operations in Class E airspace for IFR aircraft while awaiting an airways clearance.

Seems like only professional pilots know the difference. Amateurs need some education. ;)

As Woomera has aptly pointed out, the lack of any dates or changes section makes it impossible to tell when this significant change occurred. One only hopes that no-one was misled into believing that VFR climb would actually be implemented. Could lead to some serious safety and compliance issues.

Interesting to see that the official DOTARS website can be amended with no warning or explanation. How are we to know when it actually has the correct information?

Mr Smiiiiiiiiiiiith......................??

[triadic]

4711


One only hopes that no-one was misled into believing that VFR climb would actually be implemented. Could lead to some serious safety and compliance issues.


Clearly the intent all along was to introduce this procedure and indeed it has been on the books for some time and has also been ticked off I believe by all the RAPACs. It really is no big deal as when you boil it down it is not all that different from operating in G with DTI. Non RPT can do it NOW in E. I know who I would rather mix it with in E when the choice is another RPT or an infrequent flyer in his PC12/TB10 etc.

I believe the problem is undertaking the procedure with all three parties in agreement. (This was in fact agreed upon within LLAMP) However, it is not as per the US model and the insistance of the regionals and perhaps CASA to have all parties agree may have caused it to be removed from Stage One. Thats only a guess of course!

It is clear that the communication from the NAS group has to be a lot lot better.

[Four Seven Eleven]

The problem with the 'enthusiastic amateurism' shown so far is that a proposal to implement VFR climb would have carried with it all of the ramifications of VFR flight: No SAR service, no reporting etc. This, if applied to RPT, would have been a significant downgrading of the level of 'protection' offered to the fare paying public.

VMC procedures in E are largely limited to two main areas:


A 'self separation' procedure
The ability to operate without a clearance


There is a raft of difference between the two, and the original wording implied that the more radical change was to be adopted. It seems that the authors of either the website or the NAS proposal were unaware of the difference.

It is clear that the communication from the NAS group has to be a lot lot better.

You are certainly the master of understatement. Perhaps the policy from the Smiths has become "If we don't say anything, we can't say anything wrong." Certainly a policy that Smith the Elder adopted after his recent disasterous attempts on these forums. (Surely he's back from Timbuktu by now?)

Your reference to RAPACs is apt. This is one of the appropriate fora where professionals can make a contribution to airspace and other reform with due consideration and understanding of all the ramifications.

[CaptainMidnight]

Well, I thought I'd leave posting this for a few days after Woomera's post, in the hope that one of the Smiths would respond. They have not, and I'm not surprised.

I have no doubt that the ARG is firmly in control of the IG, what they do and say, and that it is highly likely there is a policy of no-one posting anything here lest logic, knowledge and real expertise show up the shortcomings of the players and system. M. Smith said at a recent RAPAC that the worst thing that happened to NAS was Dick involving himself, and I understand that the latter is essentially driving everything that is happening, though obviously with a low profile.

Expect 2 of the three AIP SUPs in the mail - Multicom & Area QNH, but not VFR/VMC climb in E, which I believe has been canned due to a lack of a tick by CASA.

[SM4 Pirate]

I'm not surprised by the Smith Perfomance either; I have sent numerous emails to the 'contact point' on the NAS website and have never received a reply.

Captain, is it true that the multicom will be 'advisory' only and only below 3000ft?

Also is the QNH change only to apply to VFR category aircraft?

Why do most VFRs ask for A/QNH, to get it or to establish two way comms? i.e. will this reduce the 'chatter' or will this just get VFRs calling saying 'radio check'?

Bottle of Rum

[I Fly]

SM4 Pirate, I think you are right. A lot of pilots call just to get a 'time stamp' on tape. In case they 'disappear it's easier to trace them. No one likes hanging upside down in a tree for hours waiting for the SARTIME to expire. Full reporting is no longer an option for VFR. And yes, I do have an ELT.

[ferris]

I think you are correct in saying a lot of VFR QNH requests are just time stamps (and in fact SAR does look for them when you go missing), so they will continue in another form- as suggested.

They don't, however, cause anyone to look for you any quicker- your SARtime still has to expire. They just help the search after that.

[Icarus2001]

A much bigger issue for VFR pilots and SAR is not notifying changes in route flown as per the AIP requirements (ENR 1.10-9)

If a plan was lodged for a flight A-B-C-D, then the pilot flys A-B-D and crashes en-route B-D without getting a Mayday out then search aircraft will initially be looking :eek: in the wrong area. Depending on the legs this can have major implications.

Another bigger issue is Sartimes that are lodged by radio. Censar only want callsign, type, POB, destination and time; and will accept the Sartime. When it expires, what was the route flown?

Sorry a little off topic I know but part of the "system" that needs attention.

[CaptainMidnight]

SM4 Pirate

My understanding is that 126.7 is to be used for “terminal area broadcasts” if using an aerodrome or landing area that is outside a CTAF or MBZ in class G airspace. The stated reason for the procedure is to stop such broadcasts on the area (FIA) frequencies. Outside this “terminal area”, and CTAFs/MBZs, the area frequency is to be used.

It is interesting to note that the implementation timetable states that FIA boundaries will be removed from the charts next June (“Charting will be simplified ….” – guess they think we are too thick to interpret these dang things), so how you will know where one area ends and another begins is a mystery, which could prove interesting if you are in proximity to someone else but on different frequencies. I suspect the real reason for removing the FIA boundaries is the clutter caused by class E corridors.

I believe the QNH procedure applies to all aircraft operating below the transition altitude in all classes of airspace, and they must use a local QNH obtained from the point of departure or a TAF for a location within 100 nautical miles, or if not available then the area QNH. I believe IFR get provided with the relevant QNH, VFR have to work it out themselves based on the above or ask Flightwatch. Not sure if I have it all correct, but hopefully the AIP Supp will make the procedure clear.

[SM4 Pirate]

Hi all, we got a note from our GM today, stating that the VMC climb will be introduced on 26 DEC 2002, that the multicom and QNH changes would go ahead on 28 NOV 2002, but the QNH changes would only affect VFR category aircraft.

The stated reason for the delay in the VMC climb procedure was to allow for ATC and Pilot training. Also there would no more changes to the procedure, the minister has said; so it's implemented as flagged or not at all (I'm reading between the lines perhaps).

Icarus, the route info is recorded by the controller, there's a box on our pink slip for that; if your not asked say it anyway. If there's an expired SAR the first place they look (before searches start anyway) is on the logs and through the change of details forms. Over the radio we write the info down on the form; then ring Censar and give them the changes; file the form; it's true that we don't pass amended routes etc to Censar, but we can find that stuff pretty quickly should they need it.

Bottle of Rum

[Icarus2001]

SM4, yes I understand all of what you say, however when lodging a SARtime with Censar via VHF, some of their operators are not as diligent at recording route etc as ATCOs. When the whole thing ends up in AusSARs lap it can take some time to unravel.

My point is that there are many pilot's unaware of how useless some of their SARtimes are, if it turns to worms.

[triadic]

The AIP SUP for:

Multicom:
http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotcentre/aip/additionalsups/h51_02.pdf

Altimeter Settings below transition:
http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotcentre/aip/additionalsups/h52_02.pdf


Both effective 28 Nov 02


VMC Climb in class E proposed for 26 Dec 02 - Details to follow no doubt!

[twodogsflying]

Well, these are informative!

I cannot believe the content of these documents.

We can assume that the rest of the NAS will be this professional in content and education and especially knowledge of what goes on in the airspace they are our masters of.

This is a great confindance boost!

I just hope the farmers will not get showering aluminium instead of rain.


Sui Generis

[Lodown]

Well! Now I know as much as I did before the SUPs were prepared. Very little.

Why the VMC in E on Dec. 26? Couldn't they get themselves organised to make the distribution on time? Who pays for this separate distribution?

I would like to say something positive and I keep looking here for a chance to do so, but there doesn't seem much to show for a year's work.

Oh well, perhaps I should check back at this time next year.

[SM4 Pirate]

I got the word today that the VMC Climb in E is dead.

The new procedure is IFR switching to VFR (category) in E; with flight following, Traffic and Sar/Hazard alerting etc. Will go ahead on 26 December. Phraseologies such as "Climbing to FL195 VFR" and "Request IFR clearance" were discussed in the new procedures.

My information is that this will now preclude RPT's in the main using the procedure.

My question is then why are we mucking around with it; VFRs can currently use 'E' as they see fit; why push this change; why not just educate the wide pilot community about when to fly VFR in 'E' and why they should/shouldn't etc.

Bottle of Rum

[Swingwing]

:( Lest you think that it's only civil aviation that's in the dark...

The following was received by my CO today, and passed to me, as the person responsible for briefing the Squadron on the upcoming changes:

2. Accordingly, Stage 1 will proceed, with Characteristics 1 (Altimetry) and 28 (Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs) being implemented on 28 Nov 02, and Characteristic 19 (VFR climb in Class E airspace) on 26 Dec 02. The CASA educational material covering the first two characteristics is enclosed and I request this material be disseminated to all aviation related units and training organisations under your command. This material is in addition to the AIP SUPPS, which have already been promulgated. AFHQ expects that all Commanders and Commanding Officers will ensure that aircrew and air traffic controllers are familiar with the revised procedures. The CASA educational material regarding Characteristic 19 will be distributed as soon as it becomes available .

This is from the Deputy Chief of Air Force, who was the Defence representative on the NAS Committee. Even he's still waiting on CASA to favour us with the implementation details! God knows what's going to be forthcoming with regard to the VFR / VMC climb procedure.

For what it's worth though, we in the military have been using a similar procedure in CTA for years, called MARSA. It allows us to dispense with ATC separation standards and operate in such proximity to other military traffic as the captains deem appropriate. This procedure is often used when a fast jet is fuel critical, to facilitate climb through levels being used by lower performance aircraft (tankers, Hercs, etc. ) Use of this procedure does of course require a sound knowledge of the other aircraft's position and intentions, based on radar contact, air-air tacan, eyeballs and so on. Where this SA is to be gained from in Class E airspace if radar DTI is not available is not quite so clear!

For the previous contributor who asked, my reading is also that the new altimeter setting procedures apply only to VFR, ie IFR below the transition level will still have the appropriate QNH provided to them.

Just another question from left field - the NAS website makes reference to a transition altitude of 10000', but signally fails to mention a transition level. Given that we are changing to a US model, does this mean that all altimeter changes will be made at 10000', ie on the way up and down? After all, that's how it's done in the States, albeit at 18000 / FL180??

So many questions, so few answers...

Eyes out!!!

SW

[SM4 Pirate]

NAS crew in USA; actually looking at their system not just listening to Dick.

An ASA Board member; three ASA employees, Mick Toller and Mike Smith are currently in the US; They went on a spur of the moment; so couldn't get into most (any) ATS facilities (good to see the public purse well spent) due to their tight rules on visitations; 10 days notice, etc.

They have done some flying over there; seems all the peanut butter king has said isn't true. Info I was given earlier today was the VMC (which will be VFR category in E now) climb is delayed again. March 2003 is now being discussed; they will implement a system closer to the US model than that proposed...

…Hmmm; seems they now agree that what was touted, as the US model, wasn't the US model.

Bottle of Rum

[Four Seven Eleven]

This shambles is exactly why the now infamous "seven questions" and so many questions by other PPRuNErs, which Dick Smith was scared to answer, were so important.

The entire process is now unravelling.

A lesson for the minister: Next time, hire a professional without an agenda of his own to look at the situation. Single-interest, fixed-vision amateurs rarely know how to do the job properly. When questioned, they evade the questions and hide behind personal attacks. That lack of accountability and openness is now bearing fruit.

There is still time to sort out Dick Smith's mess. It seems to be up to you now, Mike.

Anything to add, Dick? 'Thought not.

Edit: One hopes that lawyers and others are keeping track of this farce. When the inevitable incidents and breaches occur, one wonders if any court in the land could possibly convict a pilot for breaching, for example the VFR/VMC climb/descent November/December Stage 1/Stage 1a or whatever procedure.

According to Swngwing's post, the RAAF are promulgating:
and Characteristic 19 (VFR climb in Class E airspace) on 26 Dec 02.

Surely it is time for someone to actually clarify exactly what is going on here. If the RAAF think it's VFR, others think it's VMC ('cause that's what the DOTARS website says), then we have here the recipe for an imminent disaster.

Dick, Mike, or whoever has the guts to say "we might have made the slightest of boo-boos here, chaps", it is now incumbent upon you, for reasons of safety and accountability to sort this mess out.

Or do we just wait............and hope..........?

Minister? ATSB? Dick? Mick? Journos?

[ulm]

Why has Mike Smith got a Defence e-mail address quoted on the AIP :confused: :confused:

[triadic]

This was raised previously.

He (NAS) has an office in DoD buildings and uses some of the facilities including obviously IT.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Has anybody answered the questions,

"Why are we doing all this anyway?"

"What is wrong with our system as it is that fine tuning wouldn't fix?"

"How can we even look at the US model when we will NEVER have that level of infrastructure?"

Out of the last 18 years, since gaining a CPL, I've spent 15 flying overseas and 1 here flying a Bae146 + the last few months 'between contracts' flying a C441 occasionally and revising VFR stuff so I can fly around in my Bonanza without embarrassing myself.

Other than wondering why they have gone back to +500 VFR cruising levels, yet again, I can't see anything really wrong with the ATC system as it stands...and I'm coming from a 'fresh' perspective.

Is it just a cynical cost cutting excercise? (rhetorical question)

I've flown the length a breadth of Asia, Australia and PNG/SW Pacific....bloody hell, Indonesia has more Aviation infrastructure than Australia, Towers and ILSs in the most unlikely places...albeit required because of terrain and weather.

Australia is blessed with vast wide open spaces and almost always good weather..we should be blessed with a very simple system as well.

The IFR system, particularly those parts of it frequented by foriegn registered aircraft is without peer..it needs nothing other than to keep abreast of technology.

The Secondary CTZs/GAAPs are overcrowded (due, in part, to airport closures:mad: ) and really need to get some precision approaches...they need some tweaking.

The rest is adequately served by the 'MTAF/CTAF System'...although the boundaries around those should be increased. The only reason we have requency congestion is because 'THEY' keep putting more and more of us on the same frequency OCTA...it's easily fixed you tossers, if you don't have half the country on one frequency you don't get people talking over one another all the time...if I'm in North Western Australia I shouldn't be competing with guys in the Torres Straights to get a word in.

The 'what little weather we get worth reporting' system is excellent..the AWIS system could be extended, and the flight planning services available free through AsA are very good but could be improved with some satellite picture info and wx radar feeds.

I think the user pays system such as the Light Aircraft Options is a good system although I object strongly to Govt Infrastructure like BK, AF being 'sold off' and turned into profit centers run by private enterprise...if there is one thing we all have learned, or should have, lately it's that Private Enterprise does not necesarily promote competition and lower prices...despite the lies told by Govt and private enterprise.

I don't think it unreasonable to expect to be able to walk into a Flight Service Office at larger airfields and be able to discuss you're proposed flight with a professional, submit details and pick up operational information, FREE...you can in the US System they are all so enamoured with.

Full Reporting VFR sould be encouraged given our wide open spaces and lack of radar...as it used to be.

Someone MUST tell the politicians that 'See and be Seen' is the absolute LAST RESORT and not the way to save costs. It's a hangover from the days when everone was tooling around at 80kts...not 160 to 250 below 10000'!

Dick Smith should be taken out the back and FLOGGED before being told in no uncertain terms to stop meddling in areas he's no more qualified in than any other PPL holder.

The ATC system is NOT in need of all this BS...CASA on the other hand is in desperate need of overhaul and extra funding so that it has at least some chance of fullfilling it's Charter.

But I suspect that all this 'Airspace Reform' is about looking busy and productive in areas that are safe rather than tackle the real burning issues in Australian Aviation today such as Training Standards, Training Curriculae and Industry Oversight...hell we wouldn't want to open that can of worms would we?

Face it people...this 'Industry' is being run 'by Idiots for Idiots'(Politicians/Lawyers/amatuer Lobby groups)..while the rest of us fly/control aeroplanes and shake our heads in horror.

Chuck.

PS And that lot who feel the need to bring out amendments every two weeks should be spoken to in fairly basic terms as well. Perhaps their office machinery should be wired to give off electric shocks so they only go near them when it's absolutely NECESARY:mad: For 20 years I've been doing amendments THAT MOSTLY WERE NOT REQUIRED...I'm getting a bit sick of it:( :D

[Woomera]

SM4 et al

It seems they may well have been listening to whats going on here, if they are finally going to see if the Emperor of the Peanut Kingdom really has been wearing any clothes.

A picture of a plucked parrot comes to mind.:D

I have copied this thread on the occasion to M Smith, trying to be helpful, on the basis that he may have been too busy to catch up with us.

Chuckles you are in severe danger of being burnt on the stake, for your heresy against the party line.:D :D :rolleyes: :cool:

4711 why are you surprised??;)

[ulm]

Hmmm

Seems the biggest OPPONENT of NAS at RAPAC is AsA's own Bernie Smith.

I have heard he says it is unsafe :)

Biggest PROPONENTs are AOPA's Hamilton and Pike (besides Dick Smith).

So if you are a member, send them a fax or an e-mail, tell them you DON"T support it, or that you do. Make reasoned argument, but voice your opinion, it is your organisation.

www.aopa.com.au

Include your member number, but if you aren't a member, don't expect them to listen. I actually think NAS is OK (see other posts) but if industry (that is you guys) has serious problems then you need strong representation.

Chuck.

[gaunty]

ulm

But what would Bernie Smith know then:rolleyes: I mean he only has to try and implement it.

Geez there is a plague of Smiths:D

And since when have Pike and Hamilton ever listened to anyone but themselves and their amateur puppetmaster D. Smith.

Include your member number, but if you aren't a member, don't expect them to listen.

you lost me right about there.

Of course I realise that it isn't their job to try and "sell" their services and philosophy to us unwashed who are unable to accept their received wisdom at face value, how silly of me to even contemplate as a concept, that they would be inclusive.

The membership numbers are a fairly accurate measure of the success that they have had in bringing people along with them in the debate on these or any issues. No one doubts their commitment or motives, but we are not running a flight deck or using our millions to indulge an fanciful interest in aviation.

Ahhhhhh there's that word again.
debate;
v. 1. tr discuss or dispute about, public meeting etc.
2. consider, ponder intr consider different sides of a question.
n 1. a formal discussion on a particular matter. 2. debating, discussion (open to debate).

[Chimbu chuckles]

I think that comment requires a smilie of some description to convey your meaning Woomera:confused:

Chuckles.

[Woomera]

Our esteemed Chuckles.

Please accept our our apologies for being inadvertantly "smilie challenged" and we look forward to supping with you soon, shouldst your engineer deliver upon his promise. :D:p

[ulm]

Bit of a slip there gaunty, don't go for a job with ASIS mate!! :D

Yes well debate is an interesting concept in AOPA. Munro censored the Magazine with gusto. Even the rabid opponent of censorship from WA wants it when what is said doesn't suit him. Other presidents since have not been at all happy to have their collective wisdom challenged and that has continued from the age of bufoonery into the Napoleonic era. ;)

But I say, even if they are not open to opinion, just bombard them with it, some of them will listen and will at least try to impliment change.

As for the member number bit, don't bother with the above if you aren't a member. I fail to see why any organisation dependant on member subscriptions should pay any attention to the great unwashed.

[twodogsflying]

As AOPA love to jam the ministers fax with thousands of transmissions (other peoples faxes as well) I suggest that all proponants, memebers or not do the exact same thing to them!

What goes around, comes around!

[cficare]

I would'nt waste my fax paper sending a message to an organisation that wont listen and runs it;s own (hidden) agenda.
I was a member for 20 years prior to the ***** taking over

[Bill Pike]

And what "hidden agenda" is that, for Chrissake? (Or is it hidden from me as well?) This site is just full of unsubstantiated allegations, urban myths, and "this must be true because it is stated as a fact by me". All by people who won't sign their names.

[SM4 Pirate]

The VFR/VMC climb in E is definitely off until March 26 2003; will be introduced concurrently with "VFR on TOP" procedure.

Will these changes be before or after the extension of the existing "E" Airspace; or will that happen at the same time?

Bottle of Rum

[Creampuff]

From pages 8716-8717 if the House of Representatives Proof Hansard for 12 November 2002, available at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr121102.pdf

Mr Anderson …There is no doubt that the last 12 months have been difficult for aviation right across the globe. In reality, our market has probably survived in better shape than almost any other around the world, but we have been busy. We have reformed airport pricing arrangements; we have liberalised international airline access to Australia’s key regional gateways; we have encouraged and supported the successful relaunch of Ansett’s regional subsidiaries; we have stepped in to keep airlines flying after the September 11 tragedy, through the provision of a government indemnity for aviation war risk insurance; we have exempted regional airlines from en route air traffic control charges; and, we have endorsed and progressed a plan for low-level airspace reform. It is time that we got on with this in Australia.

There have been several attempts over the last decade; this time we have it within our grasp, with the support of all the major players, including the Royal Australian Air Force—which is very welcome indeed. We are moving to simplify our arrangements and to harmonise them with what will be known as the North American airspace arrangements, and we have announced a review of federal government taxes and charges levied on the regional aviation sector. This is in addition to my announcement yesterday that we would review the Airports Act. …

BTW, Mr Anderson went on to say:Coupled with announcements to come shortly about further streamlining of CASA’s arrangement—following the receipt by the government at the end of July of the report by CASA’s chairman, Ted Anson, on future government arrangements—that points to a lot of activity in the aviation sector. It is an important part of the Australian economy in its own right, but it is terribly important to our business, our commuter sectors and also to our tourism, both domestic and international.

[all bolding added]

[Bill Pike]

I am at a loss to understand the logic behind the resistance to VFR/VMC climbs in E airspace for IFR aircraft. As I understand it, an aircraft awaiting clearance may not climb, while another, identical in all respects, not awaiting clearance, ie filed VFR, may. The only reason I can come up with, and I am open to education here, is that once Australian ATC get the feeling that this is "their" airspace, they guard it jealously, as anonymous posts on this site personally attacking Dick Smith, Bill Hamiltion, and myself for doing little more than attempting to simplify Australia's airspace, can attest. E is only G except that the workload is sufficiently great to be able to economically use the services of a professional to separate traffic, a procedure which I support. I do not believe that E should surreptitiously become a form of C simply because Australian ATC find the concept of uncontrolled traffic in "their" airspace, alien. Dick might be right, he might be wrong, remarks about "the Peanut King" lead me to believe that "his facts are right, lets attack the man" is at work here. The first time I met him was "Airspace One". I was President of AIPA and we didn't know what our policy should be. In an attempt to get to all sides in the same room at once I attempted to arrange a meeting between the AIPA B767 and B737 representatives, Regional Pilot representaives, Airservices and Dick Smith. I was dumfounded when the Regional Pilot Representative refused to attend because "Dick Smith had nothing to teach him." (Any bloke who started off with the seat out of his trousers and now has his own chopper and jet has plenty to teach me.) I was equally dumfounded to hear, after the meeting , the B737 rep say. "If you listened to Dick you would have to agree with him." How remarkably effective those with serious "hidden agendas" and “political motives” (read “industrial motives”) have been, and still are to-day.

[triadic]

Bill, your contribution to this forum in my mind is significant and worthwhile and I understand your concerns with dealing with nameless speakers, but that is the way of the beast. We don't of course have to agree with what you say, but it certainly has the potential to give an understanding of some of the issues from your (AOPA?) perspective.

Certainly there may be some resistance to what is proposed in regard to airspace change, but I suggest that can be expected from those that either don't want change, or considering the lack of any education to date, a lack of understanding on what it is all about.

The way I understand it is there are some considerable anomalies in this proposal when you compare the North American model and what is proposed in respect to VFR (VMC) climb procedure here. Certainly non RPT aircraft can do it today, but under the existing rules RPT can not. Like it or not, this is a CASA issue and certain rules/procedures must be changed in order for RPT to participate and when it all boils down the major beneficiary of this procedure will be the regional RPT operators. I don't believe you are correct in saying it is controllers or others in the system that are stonewalling it. It is CASA.

Part of the problem with NAS to date is that the proposal has been sold with what many see as a "forked tongue" in that the message is not consistent from those in the NAS group and the plot is not standing still. Certainly no fixed goal posts as yet, let alone a level playing field! The web page is miles out of date, when it should be updated on a regular basis with data which give confidence to all readers that "it is all on the table for all to see". Sadly I don't think this is the case (so far anyway).

AOPA is open to make whatever comment on the NAS it wants and to support or otherwise all or any part of the proposal. But please make sure that whoever writes in the magazine gets it right. I don't support those that have criticized Dick, you or anyone else in this forum, it should never come down to personalities. (and yes I do know the regional rep to whom you refer – he did the association he represented a huge disservice because of his closed door policy on Dick and AS2000).

At the end of the day, it will be the costing of the proposed changes that will dictate what happens. The small changes that are going thru now and some others perhaps in the New Year are really cost neutral but do provide certain efficiencies. (and of course harmonization ) To provide E airways all over the place in order to remove DTI is likely to be a significant expense to Airservices (which of course they would pass on) and I suggest that the savings will not be enough to justify the change fully to the NA system. In fact the changes may cost more? Much more?

It is my guess that it will be unlikely that we will see any significant change to airspace in Australia for some time once the dollars on what is proposed are on the table. A full change to the NA model may well take 4 or 5 years, any thoughts of seeing it by the end of '03 are just dreams.

And yes I am a AOPA member. I support change, but not the methods we have seen to date.

[Lodown]

I agree with your comments Triadic. Bill, you're supporting VFR procedures for IFR traffic in Class E. You won't get any argument out of me on that one. I like it. No doubt many others would like to see it introduced too. But there is a lot more to NAS than just that one procedure. You could have had something similar with LAMP and probably in the same timeframe. It might not have been in the first cut, but I couldn't see anything stopping its future implementation. (If I'm wrong on that point, I'm sure someone will point it out.)

As Triadic mentioned, the silence on education and awareness issues with NAS is deafening. The implementation of NAS appears to be a shambles from my point of view. It started as a lot of talk and doesn't seem to have progressed to much action. Whether NAS has run up against CASA, rule problems, chart hassles, operational issues, or whatever, it doesn't matter. Dick was highly critical of the 3 year time period, and now he is going to be lucky to have his changes introduced in twice that time. When is it coming, if ever, is anybody's guess. Forgive the industry for a certain degree of complacency and cynicism.

LAMP/NAS started out as a change to Class G airspace. That is a big change in itself. For some reason, Dick and his team do not seem satisfied with changing just the G airspace. They want chart changes, procedure changes, rule changes, radio use changes and a seemingly unending list of other reformations. In my mind, they're biting off more than they can chew, more than the industry can keep up with, and far more than Airservices and CASA has the ability to devote resources towards.

What is the goal? Who knows? I thought the goal was to change Class G airspace to be safer, more user-friendly and more efficient with the introduction of greater Class E coverage. It seems that Dick has gone off-track there somewhere and is now preoccupied with changing other aspects of the aviation infrastructure, such as the actual procedures within Class E. That's fine, but I would much prefer from a personal standpoint, devoting my efforts to a series of ongoing little improvements, rather than being asked or told to take one enormous leap of faith in a direction that appears different to the one I initially imagined. He's told us he will be introducing airspace changes. Fine! Just stick with Class G for the moment. What has VFR for IFR got to do with the introduction of Class E and G airspace? Yeah, it's nice to have, but is it essential to the big picture? Isn't it something that can come later on? Stop piddling about and diluting efforts trying to introduce VFR separations for IFR aircraft and other modifications seemingly unrelated to the task at hand. Or is it perhaps, that the NAS team can't introduce greater coverage of Class E without these VFR/IFR changes, otherwise the operational efficiency aspects are blown to pieces? It would certainly be nice to have some information on this aspect.

Relatively simple things aren't being accomplished. The website can't be kept up to date. The education issues are not being handled. What hope for the bigger issues like the actual airspace changes?

[snarek]

An interesting aside to what Bill Pike said.

Yesterday I met Mike Smith. One of the things that struck me was his story of how helpful US controllers are, giving information, clearnaces, traffic etc even when they were not 'required' to. :cool:

Smith told the group that the reason the US system works is because of the culture of aviators (drivers and tin pushers) in the US.

Keen on speeding up the introduction of this culture in Oz I did ask him when in the implimentation plans was he going to shoot all the AsA and CASA lawyers!!! :D :D

AK

[SM4 Pirate]

Bill et al,

As soon as people stop having an “us and them” debate something may actually happen. We need to work together, there are no "agendas" to make this fail from any side.

As an ATC; I don't care what the airspace that I work looks like, if pilots what something then so be it, if you make a mistake you die; I make a mistake you die.

What I don't want is an opportunity to make a mistake (as you would be the case from your seat). Give me a clear set of rules and responsibilities that are within a human's ability to perform and I'll do it. I prefer safer the better. Where I work we have a mix of 'G' 'E' 'C' and 'A' Airspace, all brought together by lines on a map, distances plucked out of soemone's behind; never a plan; I think we don't need any 'E' in our bit of airsapce; it's used by VFRs maybe once a day, probably more like once a month; would they get a clearance if it were 'C' airspace, definitely; would it need more controllers (in my area) to provide a higher class and safer airspace, NO! But the assumption is it must.

What will kill airspace reform (look at the recent history) is and has been that we've never set the rules in concrete, ever, AMATS, GNAF, A2000 etc. changing the rules, goals objectives right up to the start or demise of the project; no (or little) education, documentation that doesn't reflect the true intent etc.

From my view successful implementation; would follow a path similar to this:

1) work out what you want.
2) Subject it to 6 months of consultation/safety assesment; finalise your documentation stating that there will be no alterations from that point;
3)choose a date to implement; 3 months 6 months whatever, based on training needs analysis.
4)conduct education and dissemination of appropriate material;
5)implement new procedures. Game over;
6)if you identify changes later, fix it later unless it will impact on the overall safety, if a change is needed, say why and what will happen as a result; possibly delay the date at that point (return to step 3) so that the dissemination of appropriate material can occur and training, never forget training!

Not this is what we want; no wait, whoops didn't think of that; this is the date; whoops didn't think of that; that's what it says, no its not, change it then; no I don't like the change; the date is coming; don't worry, change it back; whoops didn't think of that; Oh I see what you mean; OK so lets change that; now it doesn't look like what we wanted; change it back; whoops its now less than 28 days before implementation; delay the change... Safety case, why do you need a safety case...?

What is the true agenda behind this reform; if it's to simplify the airspace then that would be nice; but it isn't, it's possibly going to make it much more complex.

If it's to move to the US system because they have more traffic and can do it there; then lets do what they do in the US, not just the bits that allow certain flexibilities (dare I say it the cream); but the whole thing, rights and responsibilities…

If it's to get rid of ATC jobs (then it must be cheaper and more affordable), it won't be using this model; our best guess from the original plans would be job neutral at best, more jobs needed probably. I would see little resistance from ATCs if you could actually reduce some jobs, many people would line up for VR.

Again, what is the true agenda of this reform?

ATC has had a significant reform process in the last five years; sector consolidations (to BN and ML), introduction of TAAATS, removal of FIS etc. Introduction of E Airspace, RVSM, CPDLC, ADS, ADS-B trails, GNAF trail, A2000 training, LLAMP, NAS, MAESTRO, etc. I’ve probably left off heaps…

Any chance of letting things settle down a bit before we all blow a gasket... I don't oppose change, see above, just do it properly; I'm not going to accept, this is what the AIP SUPP says, but this is the intent and we'll get around the issues by conducting ATC and Pilot training. Just change the bloody AIP SUPP to say what it means; if CASA doesn't like what the intent is, don't hide it, it won't get through by hiding it, you have to amke them l,ike it; you do that by proving the safety aspects and demonstrating the need for change.

Bottle of Rum

[Bill Pike]

There is a great deal of truth and wisdom in much of what you say, but if you will excuse my human frailty I will focus on the negative. Why are you negative towards E airspace? If there isn't much VFR traffic, all the safer, lets get rid of more C. E isn't "controlled" airspace in the way we have grown up with the term, it is G except that a professional is doing the separating of IFR using known standards instead of a couple of young blokes in bouncing cockpits using rafferty's rules. That is great provided VFR are left alone. It can be a pain in the butt to put in a flight plan at times, and at least until Australian controllers stop resisting "pop ups" at places like Coolangatta, we want more of E. I flew from Nashville to New Orleans VFR and the first radio transmission after take off was "New Orleans we are ten miles North info P request clearance." "N77XB you are clear runway 12" (or whatever, don't hold me to the runway.) It is just so damned easy over there.

[ferris]

It is so damned easy over there, Bill, because they have a massive infrastructure funded by a massive industry. One reason for resistance to NAS is the 'pic-a-part' approach being used. "We like that bit, so we'll use that" sort of thing. You can't do that and expect to get the same result. And some people (Brits) would say that the US model is not the greatest anyway (there are several well-documented examples of RPTs pranging into 'no-talking' VFRs).
Controllers don't like pop-ups because of the lack of control over their workload. Ask a controller exactly what that means to her. This leads to a clash with the employer, who doesn't want to pay guys who may or may not work on any given day (especially when no revenue is derived from that work, should it occur).
There is also the mixed service airspace dilemma. Giving a different standard of service to different aircraft simultaneously is cumbersome. Full control, traffic, RIS, RAS, and (my favourite) 'duty of care alerting'. It sends you bananas. And obviously you've never been abused by a (supposedly professional) regional airline pilot for not separating him from a VFR in class E. Even the people whose very lives are at stake don't always know what is going on.

But far and away the worst problem is the 'spinning', the lying. Most of the changes are to save the government some money. They may be called 'harmonizing with best practice', 'modernisation' or 'reform' (immediately implying that something is wrong), but at the end of the day they are enabling a reduction of service to the community. ATCs generally are painted as change resistant because they are trying to save their jobs. Utter garbage (E everwhere would see a lot more employed). The queue for VR would be around the corner. They (generally) care about their profession, and the potential damage being done. Let's call a spade a spade. It's a clash of philosophies. Safety versus cost. I just wish the government would come out and say that to the electorate, and let it be decided on the facts.

[SM4 Pirate]

There is a great deal of truth and wisdom in much of what you say, but if you will excuse my human frailty I will focus on the negative. Why are you negative towards E airspace? If there isn't much VFR traffic, all the safer, lets get rid of more C. E isn't "controlled" airspace in the way we have grown up with the term, it is G except that a professional is doing the separating of IFR using known standards instead of a couple of young blokes in bouncing cockpits using rafferty's rules.
Bill,
Where was I negative..., where did I imply that I don't like 'E'. The concept is the higher class of airspace; the higher the safety afforded. My point was that we currently do a class of airspace; not for safety reasons; not because of job issues; but because of political interference; and I bet the minister doesn't even know what it is I'm talking about. Lines on a map - plotted to implement a new airspace; not to improve or degrade safety.

Take the bit of airpace to the south of Sydney; 12 mile (if that) wide corridor of 'E' where there is not published route that utilises it? Why have it there. It originated because someone somewhere drew a line on a map at 70NM SY and 50NM Canberra and didn't look at what they had created; stupidity in it's highest form. 5 years later; it's still like it because the "political climate" is to not remove any existing 'E'.

That is great provided VFR are left alone. It can be a pain in the butt to put in a flight plan at times, and at least until Australian controllers stop resisting "pop ups" at places like Coolangatta, we want more of E. I flew from Nashville to New Orleans VFR and the first radio transmission after take off was "New Orleans we are ten miles North info P request clearance." "N77XB you are clear runway 12" (or whatever, don't hold me to the runway.) It is just so damned easy over there. Were you under radar surveilance the whole way? I bet you were...

I'm sure it is bloody easy over there; bring the whole thing here not just the few procedures that make it seem easy; would you rather have the "pop-ups" dealt with more readily at CG and have RPT aircraft holding so that that can occur? Ferris is right; the infrastructure that enables their system to run so well is massive; yes they have 10 times, or whatever the traffic; they have about the same ratio of controllers per head of aircraft as we have here; but they have 1000 times the radar; and as a radar controller; it takes far less work and you can fit more in when you don't have to be making all those calculations; but can apply 1000ft or 5 miles. The radar debate comes back....

Until there is some recognition that a controller not using VHF is not working this debate will go on and on. DS has a firm view that controllers do very little because of the so called 'air-time'; you can tell when they are busy; often ten transmission in a row is easier than the other tasks; but dick would only consider me busy when making ten transmissions in a row. Sorry.... aaahhh!

Bottle of Rum

[Adamastor]

ferris,

I'm really interested in one particular facet of the whole NAS project - could you (or anyone else) please provide more details of the RPT/VFR-no-talkies prangs? Cheers,

Adamastor

[CaptainMidnight]

SM4 Pirate

Politics did play a part, particularly with the E corridors. The one Dubbo to Broken Hill was not wanted by the sole airline operating on the route, they regularly flew under it westbound due headwind, and above it on return due tailwind, and at a post implementation review asked for it to be removed because it was un-necessary. As it was created at the request of the then Chairman of CASA, nervousness set in about removing it and so it has remained ever since.

Also I came across the following little gem. I found a brochure put out by the CAA in March 1994, a few months after the shelving of the 11 November 1993 airspace changes. It talks about the intention to introduce ICAO-based airspace ie. Class ABCDEG etc. alphabet airspace. In a section titled "Common Questions":

Could the U.S airspace system be introduced in Australia?

Yes. Australia could adopt an airspace similar to that which exists in the USA, however the cost of providing the infrastructure to support such a system is considered prohibitive.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Good to see someone decrying (as I have since my first post on NAS) the personal vitriol which has emanated through these threads. Unfortunately, the chief proponent of cheap, nasty and personal attacks has been one Dick Smith, who has used threats, personal abuse and other pathetic tactics to avoid the issues. When challenged (for instance to back up his false claims that I called him 'dishonest') he fled, never to be heard again. I actually apologised to the man in advance (just in case I had inadvertently done him a disservice), believing him to be a man of honour, who would reciprocate in kind. He has not.

For example of an issue which has been avoided by all, consider the current debacle where stage 1, through an amateurish attempt to rush things, has now been spilt into two stages (1 & 2? 1a & 1b?) with the second (and more substantial) to occur when most of the 'responsible' (yes, I know) people will be sunning themselves on a beach in Noosa. What has been the response?

Regarding your comments about the difference between IFR and VFR in E:

I have no problem with you, whether in a C152 or a PA31, flying through class E to your heart's content. If you want to fly IFR, then, of course, you need a clearance. As I see it, this is designed to protect both you and other users in IMC. If, however you are in VMC, then by all means fly happily under the VFR. If you want something from me, then I am happy to oblige (I can't speak for the bean-counters who might have a different view.)

The big difference arises with RPT. The paying public, who buy a ticket (flying Qantas - or so they think) from Brisbane to Mildura expect a certain level of 'protection' for their money. They hop on a 'big jet' at Brisbane, change to one of 'those small aeroplanes' at Melbourne, but always on their RPT ticket, flying 'Qantas'.

It is these people who deserve to receive the full level of service available, or be in some way well informed that they will receive less. You, as a pilot, are able to make those decisions for yourself. Passengers rely on a set of standards.

With respect, I think you are confusing a well held scepticism about the manner in which airspace reform is being conducted in this country with 'negative' feelings about class E. Most professionals become nervous when proponents of a particular model are reluctant to have it scrutinised. This is particularly so when terms such as 'VFR' and 'VMC' ; 'US' and 'North American' are so readily interchanged as to lose any semblance of meaning. What we want is a system which is safe, and demonstrably safe. We do not want flim-flam like 'proven North American system' when it is patently a new, untried and unproven system.

As an air traffic controller, I don't pretend to 'own' the airspace. If, however, a mid-air collision occurs in 'my' airspace, I will take it very personally indeed, regardless of how it occurred.
:(

[ferris]

Adamastor: There are abundant amounts of info on the net if you search. eg. Capitol Airlines Viscount vs T-33, Maryland 1958
Convair vs C150 Wisconson 1968
PSA B727 vs C172 San Diego 1978
and I am sure a host of others.

In my opinion the most relevent for NAS is
Allegheny Airlines DC9 vs PA28, Indiana 1969
in which the official finding was "no fault" because everyone was doing as they were supposed to (DC9 under ATC, PA28 VFR no clearance required, no radio calls required, both on-track). Maybe the finding should have been "system at fault", except how likely is the FAA to blame itself?

Dick seems to think looking out the window solves everything. And if holding up the US system as the shining example, then implementing some half-baked, under resourced version of it is his plan...... expect the professionals in the industry to fight him every inch of the way (again). And to cop all the rhetoric and flak for doing it (again).

[Four Seven Eleven]

You say:
The VFR/VMC climb in E is definitely off until March 26 2003; will be introduced concurrently with "VFR on TOP" procedure.

However, the 'official' website says (as at the time of posting):

Implementation Timetable

The following table outlines the characteristics associated with the changes required to introduce the NAS.

Stage One implementation will take place in two steps. Characteristics 1 (Altimetry) and 28 (Multicom) will come into operation on Thursday 28 November 2002 and Characteristic 19 (Class E climb) will be introduced on Thursday 26 December 2002
http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/I_Timetable.htm


Now, who is correct: one of Dick Smith's dreaded 'anonymous' contributors, or the official version? I know where my money is going.

What a complete and utter shambles. With some luck, this amateurish farce can be fixed or stopped before people get killed.

[ulm]

OK

So why does it all work in the US???

Why can I fly at 4000' right over the top of LAX, VFR, but to come into YSCB (which should really be just a CTAF) and ask for a pop-up clearance, I get stuffed around, yet I can't hear any other traffic???.

Tell me why, when I listen to the controllers at and above transition I cant hear anything. Why cant they control SFC to Space???

I would have thought that in all that GAFA country out there, the ability to climb to get clearance and submit a plan would have been a great boon.

I think what we have here is what I will call 'pink-and-green' syndrome. You all got too used to VFR full reporting when you learned to fly and you are now showing your inability to adapt let alone look rationally at a new system. Face it guys, the days of free aviation are over, for every unnecessary controller we keep, we gotta pay.

As for the 'sky is falling' from all those collisions that are bound to occur here (but for some magical reason, don't in the US), well I'm not a keen fan of see and avoid. But it does work in the US and i'm sure we can make it work here.

So, intead of insisting we refurbish the wooden cart how about you guys and gals come up with suggestions to fix the bits of NAS you don't like.

For me, the see and avoid thing would be fixed with a full and early implimentation of ADSB including cockpit displays for all radio equipped aircraft.

Chuck

[Lodown]

Ulm, when full reporting went out, so did the "controllers", or FSO's to match. Now you want an increase in service levels, but you don't want the extra staff, or more appropriately, you want the RPT pax to pay for it.

I can fly down the beach past LAX under departing aircraft at 50 feet too. Must be nice to be able to have light winds from offshore for 90% of the year, four runways aligned into wind, take-offs out over the Pacific and without the same noise issues to worry about. If you want some fun, try the IFR route from Orange Co. to LAX.

I know LAX procedures would be nice, but NAS is about Class G. No good blaming the controllers. They work to their procedural requirements.

You should try contacting the NAS Implementation Group. Ask about their project scope. Ask about timelines, planning, strategies, costings, benefits, resources, issues, progress etc. When you find out, can you let the rest of us know?

[CaptainMidnight]

Lodown: :D :D :D :D :D


Rumour file: the stuff "scheduled" for June next year is most likely going to slip till the end of the year.

Signed,

One Of Dick Smith's Dreaded 'Anonymous' Contributors

[ulm]

Lowdown

When I'm flying in a way I 'need' ATC then I'm happy to pay for it.

When I'm flying in a way where RPT think they 'need' ATC because they don't understand statistics or risk management then they can pay.

Haven't yet flown somehwere where I figure I really needed ATC. Coffs :D, Darwin :), Tvl :) Albury :D :D :D

It is there, it got there because of RPT (or operators who wanted it), I don't need it and can separate without it.

Don't order a Porsche and expect your ute owning neighbour to chip in with the payments to seal the road.

[Chimbu chuckles]

ulm,

In the last few weeks I've experienced VFR SE in Australia again for the first time since about 1985.

I put in a flight plan and was greeted by ATC with, seemingly, confusion..."Confirm you're VFR?" "Affirm"...they didnt want to hear from me after that...couldn't be less interested...until I popped up again on VHF just inland of Casino to ask if there was any IFR traffic coming west as I was there at 7500'...ducking and weeving through truly crap weather. Then they wanted a weather appraisal...which I was happy to give. Despite submitting a flight plan which called for an ATC clearance to transit BN direct LAV-YRED when I asked for that clearance I got bounced through 4 frequencies by ATC before getting said clearance...??

Going to LRE last week I filled out a flight plan but didn't submit it...I figured no-one was interested anyway and with VHF coverage out there, not to mention all the aircraft converging for the big event, I would be well covered if I went down enroute.

Listening to ATC and the IFR traffic inbound caused me to make an all stations call about 30nm out inbound on xxx radial at xxxx altitude....just a heads up for whomever was listening...all of a sudden 4 other VFR aircraft around me popped up with the same info...that was nice to know before it became critical!

I read somewhere years ago that the US considers 38 midair collision/annum AVERAGE!!

So how many is an acceptable number for the people pushing cost cutting/ VFR exclusion from the system?

Would just one between a Bonanza and a 737 pay for an inclusive system for a great many years? I mean the real cost not the dollar/cents cost...several hundred people dead..what's that worth?

See that's the rub...when it happens, and it most assuredly WILL, then the monetary costs will be dispersed over countless insurance companies and the blame will be placed on the pilots, probably the 'amatuer' in the light aircraft.

Of course AOPA, AIPA, AFAP will scream that the system is at fault but the 'system' will protect itself via much self serving rhetoric from whomever is the Minister at the time.

Who will you blame when the utillity driver crashes into your new Porsche because he lost control on your unsealed road...him or the local council?

This is what professionals within this industry want to stop...and what amatuers don't understand...or more likely (and scarily) do understand but can accept because it's 'affordable safety'.

Put a value on human life and all of a sudden things look different.

Chuck.

[ulm]

Chuck

Seems you and I are in violent agreement. The one part of NAS I am not happy with is 'silent see and avoid' and have asked elsewhere for people with problems to propose solutions, not just shoot the whole thing down.

As I said in that post, ADSB with Cockpit Displays are the answer to my problem and we (all of us) should push for an early (and free) implimentation as a precursor to our acceptance of NAS.

Chuck

[CaptainMidnight]

Well, did we all get our little NAS "kit" in the mail from CASA today?

A particularly nice touch was the sticker. I expect to see all at the local GAAP AD proudly wearing them on their foreheads.

PS - Mike: make a bit more of an effort to sign your name next time -

[Chimbu chuckles]

Yeah!!

Anyone else feel like a little kid with the sticker...gave mine to my daughter for to stick on her school books...or where ever.

CASA trusts me to remember enough to be a C&Ter on a Jet, renew IR ratings etc etc, but think I can't remember 127.6...12...CHELSEA GIMME MY STICKER BACK!!!!;)

Chuckles

[Creampuff]

From the Proof Hansard of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Hearing of Friday 22 November 2002, pages 119 to 121: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s6036.pdf

...
Senator O’BRIEN—I wanted to know what the timetable was for the introduction of the new airspace model.

Mr Smith—There are components of the new airspace model that are due for implementation next week and then various phases of implementation over the coming years to achieve the final implementation of, essentially, the US airspace system into Australia.

Senator O’BRIEN—So the US—

Mr Smith—The national airspace system, which we are proposing to implement, is in fact the US airspace system.

Senator O’BRIEN—What is to be implemented next week?

Mr Smith—Next week we introduce changes to altimetry procedures for aircraft operating below the transition layer. We also introduce a new procedure to apply at uncontrolled aerodromes, which is called multicom. It relates to the method that pilots use to communicate with each other, and the frequency that they use to do that on.

Senator O’BRIEN—I understand there have been delays with the introduction of that stage. Is that right?

Mr Smith—Those two characteristics have been scheduled for implementation on 28 November since July, when the implementation group proposed a timetable for implementation.

Senator O’BRIEN—Other stages are the subject of delay, are they?

Mr Smith—There is further discussion on the time frame for implementation of future characteristics for the airspace reform.

Senator O’BRIEN—Has CASA issued AIPs for the new procedure?

Mr Smith—AIP supplements have been issued for the multicom procedure and for the altimetry procedures and they are due to come into effect on 28 November.

Senator O’BRIEN—What about Airservices issuing AIRACs?

Mr Smith—I am not sure what is meant by AIRACs in that context. A lot of people use the term AIRAC to refer to AIP supplements. In fact, AIRAC is the ICAO cycle of implementation timetables. AIRAC is essentially the cycle that calls up a date on which aeronautical changes can be introduced. It is a 28-day cycle.

The next cycle is Thursday 28 November.

Senator O’BRIEN—What is happening with training sessions for pilots on the new procedures?

Mr Smith—Pilots have been mailed the AIP supplements, which in themselves provide a high level of detail about the procedures and how they should be applied. The mail-out has gone to all licence holders, not just to those who would normally subscribe to those supplements. In addition, some colour brochures which detail the procedures have been mailed out to all licence holders.

Senator O’BRIEN—Is that the extent of the training on those procedures?

Mr Smith—That is fairly comprehensive training for a change of this magnitude. It is a very small change and one which is easily understood.

Senator O’BRIEN—What is happening with the implementation of the aspects which relate to visual flying rules as concerns class E airspace?

Mr Smith—Those procedures are currently subject to further discussion between CASA, Airservices, defence, industry and us. Once agreement has been reached as to the best way to implement those characteristics, then the proper time frame for their implementation can be determined.

Senator O’BRIEN—What concerns have been identified about the proposal?

Mr Smith—The principal concerns relate to the understanding that people have about class E airspace and the procedures that apply in class E airspace. The difficulty, in a broader sense, is that ICAO actually specifies five classes of controlled airspace labelled A through E. A is the most restrictive and E is the least restrictive.

Traditionally in Australia, although we do have classes A, C, D and E airspace, our practice is more like ICAO class B airspace. This is, in the scheme of things, the least restrictive of the controlled airspace classifications. The change in culture leads to difficulty in the minds of people who are used to flying with just controlled or uncontrolled airspace and who do not recognise that there are gradations of service available in controlled airspace.

Senator O’BRIEN—When is that particular change due for implementation?

Mr Smith—A firm date has not yet been decided.

Senator O’BRIEN—Has that always been the case or has it been deferred?

Mr Smith—There has not been a date promulgated outside of the organisations that are developing the characteristic, because we have not yet been able to determine the complete implementation of that characteristic. Whilst we have had notional dates on which we have expected that we might have been able to implement, we have not promulgated a date.

Senator O’BRIEN—What was the notional date for this change?

Mr Smith—The notional date was 26 December this year.

Senator O’BRIEN—Is that not going to happen?

Mr Smith—That will not happen.

Senator O’BRIEN—As I understand it, when introducing new airspace arrangements it is normal to complete a design safety case and an implementation safety case. Is that right?

Mr Smith—That is correct.

Senator O’BRIEN—Is that what is happening with the national airspace?

Mr Smith—It is. There are several ways of completing each of those safety cases in the ICAO system. The design safety case is covered off, in the case of the national airspace system for most characteristics, by drawing on an existing system that is operating successfully. That is why our national airspace system has been based on the US system. We can clearly cover off the design issues of the system on the basis that it is the existing and proven US system. The implementation safety cases are being prepared for each of the stages. The first stage of those implementation safety cases has been completed.

Senator O’BRIEN—So the National Airspace System model is exactly the same as the US model?

Mr Smith—Where there are differences, there will be a requirement for design safety cases. The only deviation from the US system will be imperative to Australian circumstances, and those will be subject to design safety cases.

Senator O’BRIEN—Do we know where those differences are, at the moment, or are they still being developed?

Mr Smith—They are still being developed. It is fair to say that the implementation of the National Airspace System, and the development of the implementation program, are still in their infancy.

Senator O’BRIEN—How long will it take the program to mature?

Mr Smith—Our current projections for stage 2 are to have sufficient understanding of what constitutes stage 2 around March next year.

Senator O’BRIEN—In relation to visual flying rules and climb options in class E airspace for instrument flying rules aircraft, I am told that a change is being considered to the National Airspace System model; is that right?

Mr Smith—Not that I am aware. The National Airspace System called up the US practice, and we intend to implement the US practice for visual climb or VFR climb in class E airspace by IFR planned aircraft.

There are several procedures that the FAA promulgates for doing that, and those are the procedures that we will be adopting in Australia.

Senator O’BRIEN—Have you been told there are concerns among Australian pilots about what is proposed in this area?

Mr Smith—There are concerns held by many people who are not informed of what is being proposed at this stage. It is worth noting that we have not proposed to implement this characteristic in a completed sense, because we have not actually developed the procedures that apply.

Senator O’BRIEN—I thought you said that we were implementing the US model?

Mr Smith—Yes. The difficulty you face in simply implementing the US system is that you need to understand it first :the rules as they are written and the practice which complies with those rules are different things. An example I use in Australia is—

Senator O’BRIEN—The rules and what happens are different; is that what you are saying?

Mr Smith—No, not at all. I am saying that there is the written rule and then there is the practice that interprets the rule and applies it. The difficulty is in the interpretation of US procedures and rules. What are the procedures that you use to comply with the rule? I think that is the best way to look at it. How do you
comply with the rule? I use an Australian example, which is familiar to most pilots. I talk about the services we provide in our class G airspace for IFR aircraft.

The documentation tells what will happen in terms of what you will need to do to plan your flight, whom you will need to talk to, what you say to the air traffic controllers and what they say back to you. Then, in order for Australian pilots to actually operate in our class G airspace, they talk between themselves and work out what level each pilot will remain at and how they will avoid the flight paths of each other. That is not actually written down; that is a practice that we understand because we have grown up with it in our airspace, we have learned it in our training, and we have seen and heard other pilots doing it. But it is not written in our documentation. So, for instance, a foreign pilot who comes to Australia and picks up our aeronautical information publication would not be able to do the procedure—they would not know what it was.

This is the difficulty we face in implementing the US system by simply picking up their rules manuals and writing them into our system. The way that you apply the rules is not specified; the culture that exists behind the rules needs to be understood. When you implement a new system, it needs to be explained, to take people from the system that they know to the new system that they do not know. That is a fairly complex process. If I give you a really simple example, it might be easier to understand than my description of our airspace. I recall learning to drive a manual car. I knew all the theory behind using the clutch but there was no way that I could do it when I first got in. That is something you have to learn.

Senator O’BRIEN—The clutch in a car is a bit of a feel thing, but understanding procedures might be a bit different.

Mr Smith—It is a bit of both.

Senator O’BRIEN—The Australian Federation of Air Pilots said of the procedure to their members:

The use of this procedure is commonplace in the US and accounts for a disturbing number of mid-air collisions.

What is the department’s view of comments such as that?

Mr Smith—Having received a copy of the letter from the AFAP yesterday, I have asked my staff to look at the accident rate in the US airspace system, to compare that with the midair collision rate in the Australian system and to baseline that against the level of traffic and activity. My view is that you would find in Australia that our midair collision rate is very similar to the US midair collision rate.

Senator O’BRIEN—I know we are due to break, but I want to get past this part. The AFAP says:

The procedure will not be available to RPT aircraft, but will be available for light aircraft operations. So, the light aircraft pilot will need to make a decision about whether or not it is safe to proceed.

The RPT aircraft of course, is supposed to receive traffic information on known VFR aircraft in Class E airspace, but by the time the climbing light aircraft has suspended IFR and the traffic information passed to the RPT aircraft, a conflict may well have already occurred.

This procedure is to be introduced in the existing Class E airspace before further changes six months later.

Mr Smith—There is another way to look at class E airspace in this procedure. Generally, class E airspace in the NAS will replace existing class G airspace.

The problem that the AFAP talk about exists in our class G airspace today. That procedure can happen, incidentally, in our class G airspace—regardless of whether it is in visual meteorological conditions or instrument meteorological conditions. By introducing class E airspace where existing class G airspace is, you actually prevent that circumstance from arising when the weather is bad. In other words, today, out there in class G airspace, aircraft can do this in cloud or in clear weather.

When you introduce class E airspace, you stop that practice in bad weather. So it is more restrictive than our current practice and is an enhanced level of safety to our current circumstance.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Has anybody answered the question,

"How can we even look at the US model when we will NEVER have that level of infrastructure?"

I'm still waiting.

When will Senator Obrien ask this questions?

Chuck.

[tsnake]

And to follow-on from Chuck's question Senator could we please have
1. A full costing of the NAS proposal, including benefits and savings that will flow from its implementation;
2. A timetable, budget and resources required for the education program required to support the implementation; and
3. Identification of the funding sources for the ongoing maintenance of NAS once it is implemented.

As Lowdown has already pointed out the implementation group has been remarkable in its lack of information for the pilot/aviation community about NAS or that matter any aspect of the work it is doing.

[SM4 Pirate]

I just read the pilot package;

RE the QNH; it seems pretty clear that there will be no change if you're IFR...

Yet my ATC training package said that this change was for all below the transition altitude...?

ATC have been taught, implied or whatever if someone asks for AQNH tell them to call flightwatch or give them AWIB or AERIS frequency... Much quicker just to give them the AQNH, I'd bet...

Which is it?

Will the request AQNH call be replaced by 'radio check'? We'll see on the weekend I guess.

Bottle of Rum.

[CaptainMidnight]

Creampuff

Thanks for posting the Hansard text.

Bit of ducking and weaving there, Open Mic ???
Mr Smith—Not that I am aware. The National Airspace System called up the US practice, and we intend to implement the US practice for visual climb or VFR climb in class E airspace by IFR planned aircraft.

There are several procedures that the FAA promulgates for doing that, and those are the procedures that we will be adopting in Australia.

Really? My information is that what you were trying to implement here with this VFR climb procedure is vastly different from the US system.

Feel free to correct me -

[grip-pipe]

Round and Round we go!

I've been involved in some of the industry meetings (some time ago) and following and watching the 'New Airspace" drama it seems for close on five years folks. Still the same to and fro over miniscule changes and still no results, well a bit more confusion.

When are we (industry participants) going to realise we are never going to replicate the American or European systems, and we will always need to compromise, either because of cost or technology.

The recent changes are minor and will have no effect on safety.
The past working groups had it right (the LAMPS model) and should have left it there.

I really don't know why DS bothers, this is an industry with a twenty year olds body and an octagenarian's view of the world. How about we get on with something important, like getting rid of NDB's for GPS systems, turbines for pistons, EFIS for analogue, instead of the same old outdated tried but true.

That's all folks.:cool:

[Lodown]

Ulm,

You mentioned RPT "think[ing] they 'need' ATC". Perception is everything. What they think they need is part of a safety case. If someone else doesn't think RPT needs ATC, then they are welcome to try and convince them otherwise. Getting them to agree to it is another matter.

It is not just the RPT operators that you need convince. The local councils of those airports you mentioned also have vested interests in the ATC services. You need to convince them too.

Your Porsche analogy isn't very accurate. I'm not the one with the Porsche. The few Porsche owners are the ones who have convinced the many ute owners on this dirt road that they need a 6-lane freeway from North America rather than just a sealed road and the trucking company operating on the same road should be the one to pay for it.

Can we afford a freeway and do we need one? How much will this cost us, both for implementation and ongoing running costs? Is it the right system for us?

The charging structure is vastly different in the US. I wouldn't expect many aircraft in the US would file VFR and actually fly unannounced IFR. How many aircraft do this in Australia to avoid fees and what impact would this have on a safety case? Australia also has a few pilots who avoid radio calls to escape airport charges. How many? What impact would this have? Maybe it is insignificant. How can you be sure?

Sectional charts cover the entire US and are updated semi-annually. The sectional chart presents a lot more information than the Australian WAC. What is the impact of NAS on Australian pilots flying with WACs updated every four years or so?

Another issue is ATC rostering. When the weather is clear, many pilots will be flying VFR with a reduced number of ATC. When the weather changes, then there will be an increased need for ATC. How do you roster for this without having extra controllers on duty during fine weather days and doing very little other than just being there in case "you need it" and not earning revenue? Seems to me to be a waste of resources.

These are just some questions that highlight the fact that you just can't selectively take pieces from a "proven North American" model and drop them into another system without supporting research. Maybe it can happen, but wouldn't you rather know as best you can before it was actually implemented?

[cficare]

Interesting to hear a REX pilot on the airwaves today asking where the NOTAM was advising of change of FIS frequency to 125.8

He suggested to Centre that Jepps haddent been notified of the change (AIP certainly knew about it)

[Capn Bloggs]

Chimbu,
Ref your post re the future MidAir, AOPA won't be complaining: their maniacal management are the ones pushing all this nonsense!

Ulm,
Your comments/suggestions re being given ADSB are a great but farcical idea. The most danger to fare-paying pax comes the AOPA brigade, which include Citation drivers, roaring around unannouced in E airspace. Being VFR or pop-up IFR, they will hardly be keeping an ADSB setup serviceable when it goes U/S, even if they got it for free. I note that the FAA in Alaska, where they paid for ADSB for all the aircraft in the area up there to trial the system, is now pushing for industry to pay up to keep it going.

The ridiculous anachronism about E airspace is that ATC apply full separation standards until we're OCTA then they wash their hands of us: VMC Climb (which by it's very name is crap, implying that "since I'm in VMC all collision risk is removed") merely allows ATC to wash their hands of it earlier. So why have them in the first place?? And why would you want to LOWER E airspace below current (FL200) levels just to force ATC standards for more time? Non-radar E airspace doesn't work unless all players have ADSB so sensible sep standards can be applied. I note that the only non-radar E airspace are the corridors where traffic could hardly be described as overwhelming: wait until it is implemented in busy airspace and the wheels will fall off. ATC sep standards MUST be reduced to those that we use OCTA to make it work: but then why have it in the first place?

The whole thing is non-sensical and merely a stunt by the Smith Family to set up airspace for the "turn-the-key-and-go" brigade.

[PGH]

Certainly, if AIP knew about the frequency change you'd expect JEP to have been vigilant enough to pick it up. After all isn't it the situation that all they really do is copy the AIP info, repackage and charge a fairly decent premium for selling back to us the same info.

[CaptainMidnight]

Jeppesen does pick up AIP including SUPPs, but they normally can't react quickly to late changes put out by Airservices ie. AIP SUPPs. They should include them (or at least reference to them) in their change bulletins though, therefore anyone using Jepps must check this bulletin along with Airservices NOTAMs. And ideally their AIP SUPPs as well, in case Jepp have not actioned them.