Civil Air changes its position?

[Dick Smith]

I found details of a letter from Michael Haines of Civil Air to Minister Anthony Albanese dated 30 November 2007, which states:

"The current system of airspace promulgation is an ill defined half way system. The main problem from an Air Traffic Control perspective is that the service to be provided in some classes of airspace are ill or under defined. Air Traffic Controller and Pilots must be clearly aware of the service that is provided in a particular class of airspace."

I wonder if Civil Air has changed its position?

[sunnySA]

I doubt anyone who disagree with the proposition that both ATCs and pilots must be clearly aware of the service being provided in a particular class of airspace A to G.

What is the context of the letter?

[Dick Smith]

I agree that it is a half way system.

The original AMATS decision in the 90s and the later NAS decision completed the design to go to a world proven system. This never happened.

The Mangalore accident should make it clear that one day we will have to follow proven world practices.

[sunnySA]

Breathtaking.

Is there anyone who disagrees with the proposition that both ATCs and pilots must be clearly aware of the service being provided in a particular class of airspace A to G?

[Dick Smith]

In the USA if you are operating on an IFR plan under surveillance and communicating with ATC you will be separated by ATC from other IFR aircraft even if in G airspace.

Just commonsense!

Doesn't happen here.

[sunnySA]

Is there an election coming up? Is this when you announce you are standing against Anderson Vaile Truss Scullion McCormack Joyce?

[alphacentauri]

In the USA if you are operating on an IFR plan under surveillance and communicating with ATC you will be separated by ATC from other IFR aircraft even if in G airspace.

The FAA disagrees with you.... Airspace (faa.gov) (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap_3.html) and PHAK Chapter 15 (faa.gov) (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/17_phak_ch15.pdf)

[Dick Smith]

Yes. Heard that before-

Not a lot of G in the USA and I can assure you that IFR are separated from IFR when under surveillance.

It's just part of their safety culture.

[missy]

It's just part of their safety culture.

DIck, you'll be pleased to know that 1000's of years of ATC experience has left Air Services over the past few months or so. All those recalcitrant have now retired. Ideal opportunity for you to weave your magic and engender a new safety culture.

[Old Akro]

Alfacentauri, I respect your experience and judgement and don't doubt the correctness of the regs you referenced. However, there are now quite a lot of private and corporate pilots in the US who now put up flights on youtube. When you watch them, it makes a stark contrast with the experience in Australia with AsA. While I cant bring to mind specific examples, having watched many of these videos I don't doubt Dicks statement at all that (regardless of regs) the US controllers do still provide separation srervice in class G. Some of these pilots who publish these videos are a VP of sales for Cessna (Schmindy), a freelance video guy who flies a baron but also flies jets for a part 135 operation (Baron Pilot) an ex-miltary fighter pilot in a Beechjet (Premier 1 Driver). Not dumb people and people who fly a lot. some of their interaction with controllers makes me jealous.

Part of the AsA disease is common to other departments. They keep hiring middle managers, safety managers, compliance managers, HR managers, etc. and retrench operational staff to pay their salaries.

[le Pingouin]

missy, Dick is an enthusiastic amateur, nothing more. He's very definitely not the messiah you seem to think he is. What makes you think it was recalcitrant controllers who caused AMATS and NAS to fail? The transition process was a huge experiment fraught with risk, and it was very definitely an experiment.

[Wizofoz]

Almost like we replaced a system (CTA v OCTA) that suited the Australian environment with a system developed to fit a differenet set of circumstances.

WHY would US ATCs provide IFR to IFR seperation in G when it is not a requirement? Because there's not much of it, and they have the resouces to do so- so Alphabet works in the US because ATC go above and beyind its' scope.

The idea that a system was introduced that only works when key players do other than what the system is actually designed to do would seem to be a flaw.

Now, on who's watch was it instigated?

[Lead Balloon]

[A] huge experiment fraught with risk, and it was very definitely an experiment.Just like the masterpiece that is the Ballina Broadcast Area and SFIS. Ask the heavy metal drivers – not the enthusiastic amateurs – what they think of it.

And mandate ASD-B then watch the accurate returns on radar screens collide.

Yep: No one should ever presume to upset government agencies doing it their way in the name of ‘safety’.

Part of the AsA disease is common to other departments. They keep hiring middle managers, safety managers, compliance managers, HR managers, etc. and retrench operational staff to pay their salaries.But that’s why these organisations exist: To suit themselves.

[Geoff Fairless]

Almost like we replaced a system (CTA v OCTA) that suited the Australian environment with a system developed to fit a differenet set of circumstances.

WHY would US ATCs provide IFR to IFR seperation in G when it is not a requirement? Because there's not much of it, and they have the resouces to do so- so Alphabet works in the US because ATC go above and beyind its' scope.

The idea that a system was introduced that only works when key players do other than what the system is actually designed to do would seem to be a flaw.

Now, on who's watch was it instigated?

Wizofoz,
You mistake the requirements placed on ATC. In the ICAO documents the aim of ATC is to "prevent collisions between aircraft".
A nation's airspace is (should be) then designed, according to local conditions, to enable controllers to fulfill that requirement. The aim of the ICAO airspace designations was to standardise on all of the different ways member nations were fulfilling their ICAO obligations. Note: The airspace divisions came first, ICAO only standardised the naming convention.
Believe it or not, even Australian controllers will try to maintain safe separation between aircraft, regardless of the airspace classification! They are, however, hobbled in this country, by lack of surveillance and an ANSP that has to make a profit for the owner, the Federal Government. This results in an over -emphasis on the money making aspects of ATC. Where the big jets fly, oceanic, high level cruise and busy terminals areas. The rest is left to "see-and-be seen", with the help of a regulator and an investigator, that all answer to the same department and minister.
They all, it seems, are pinning their hopes on ADS-B becoming so widespread that surveillance becomes cheap. The question therefore is whether their (our) luck will hold out.
Le Penguin,(Apologies in advance but someone has to say this)
To refer to Dick Smith as an enthusiastic amateur, is not only contemptible, it begs a question, in my mind, about who you think you are. A sarcastic "professional" it would seem!
If you had, given as much to Australian aviation as Dick, been so active in air safety, and held positions such as CEO of the Civil Aviation Authority, while not taking any salary, then I might listen to you.
But no, you post anonymously on a pilots' forum while bagging those who try to make a difference.
Have long look in the bathroom mirror and make a decision about who you are, before critisising those who do try to make meaningful contributions.

[triadic]

Geoff, wise words as usual.

As I have said in another post, part of the ATS problem I believe is culture shift and the other part related to airspace management and design is related to ego's within senior CASA management that don't want to do anything should they upset their mates in ASA or perhaps their political masters?? (and make them spend money)

A few years ago, I had a mate that did a lot of international ferry flying (non-airline). He came back from one trip and said.... "You know that everywhere I have flown they (ATC) treat you as a professional until you prove you're an idiot, but entering the Aust FIR you seem to be treated as an idiot until you prove you're a professional" Now that was a few years back and things might have changed, but the culture that we see is grown from the top and controllers seem to be silently encouraged not to work outside the box for fear of their job. I suggest a lot of GA pilots think they are treated as idiots - some are no doubt, but that should not be the way to start a conversation. A more flexible culture where that thinking did not prevail might be better for us all? (like in the USA as stated above providing a service in class G) Like all culture issues, it is the leadership that sets it up.

[Awol57]

Triadic, slightly off topic, but did your mate elaborate about what they were doing to treat him like an idiot? I have heard this anecdotally before and I am not sure if maybe it's something centre do versus a tower but I am genuinely curious. I try not to treat anyone like an idiot unless they really earn it, but I still do need to chase up read backs etc. I know all the sayings like world's second best but the bulk of my workmates are just trying to move as much traffic as we can safely and efficiently within the rules. If it's something we are doing specifically at least we can keep an eye out.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Triadic, slightly off topic, but did your mate elaborate about what they were doing to treat him like an idiot? I have heard this anecdotally before and I am not sure if maybe it's something centre do versus a tower but I am genuinely curious. I try not to treat anyone like an idiot unless they really earn it, but I still do need to chase up read backs etc. I know all the sayings like world's second best but the bulk of my workmates are just trying to move as much traffic as we can safely and efficiently within the rules. If it's something we are doing specifically at least we can keep an eye out.

Pardon the intrusion, I've rarely had an issue with any section of ATC. You give respect, you get respect.

The FAA disagrees with you.... Airspace (faa.gov) (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap_3.html) and PHAK Chapter 15 (faa.gov) (https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/17_phak_ch15.pdf)

The second document says *Beginning January 1, 2020, ADS-B Out equipment may be required in accordance with 14 CFR part 91, section 91.225". Can you tell us what the status quo is in the US is ATM WRT ADSB-in/out?

[Awol57]

Pardon the intrusion, I've rarely had an issue with any section of ATC. You give respect, you get respect.

Agreed, that's how I try to operate, but if there is something happening that makes people think we assume they're idiots it probably should be addressed. I get this may have just been said to make a point, but in the off chance the friend elaborated I am genuinely interested.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Agreed, that's how I try to operate, but if there is something happening that makes people think we assume they're idiots it probably should be addressed. I get this may have just been said to make a point, but in the off chance the friend elaborated I am genuinely interested.

I took it to mean that our Australian ruleset is such that 'entering the Aust FIR you seem to be treated as an idiot until you prove you're a professional'. It's not individual ATCs fault, it's the system they're working with a lot of the time.

[Awol57]

Oh right, yeah I see that now. My bad.

[missy]

Le Penguin,(Apologies in advance but someone has to say this)
To refer to Dick Smith as an enthusiastic amateur, is not only contemptible, it begs a question, in my mind, about who you think you are. A sarcastic "professional" it would seem!
If you had, given as much to Australian aviation as Dick, been so active in air safety, and held positions such as CEO of the Civil Aviation Authority, while not taking any salary, then I might listen to you.
But no, you post anonymously on a pilots' forum while bagging those who try to make a difference.
Have long look in the bathroom mirror and make a decision about who you are, before critisising those who do try to make meaningful contributions.

Geoff, as a tennis coach once said to me "never change a winning game". Dick posts a baiting title to his post, and it seems to me he's always pushing an agenda. The same old mantra, half baked system, affordable safety, calling in the blind, roadblocks, AMATS circa 1990. IMHO, you'd be better placed to cut through based on a coherent argument, excellent research and one that is well articulated.


Believe it or not, even Australian controllers will try to maintain safe separation between aircraft, regardless of the airspace classification! They are, however, hobbled in this country, by lack of surveillance and an ANSP that has to make a profit for the owner, the Federal Government. This results in an over -emphasis on the money making aspects of ATC. Where the big jets fly, oceanic, high level cruise and busy terminals areas. The rest is left to "see-and-be seen", with the help of a regulator and an investigator, that all answer to the same department and minister..
Yes, I do believe that the ATCs are hobbled by the lack of surveillance and an ANSP that has been structured with the Minister of Finance as the majority shareholder. Safety shouldn't been seen through a profit lens.

The Broderick Review into the Culture of Airservices wasn't looking at the whole picture, the safety culture at Airservices is adversely affected by this profit motive.

[Advance]

There are some comments on here that reflect very poorly indeed on their authors.
Geoff Fairless has pointed out the service Dick Smith has given to aviation and his continuing attempts to improve aviation safety in this country.
In turn, let me point out that Geoff has a lifetime of experience in Air Traffic Control and as a consultant to aviation ANSPs in other nations.
These are people who truly know what they are talking about.

I hold both Australian and US pilot licenses and an Australian ATC licence.

In the USA it is very simple indeed; IF you are operating IFR it is assumed you can not see to separate yourself therefore ATC separate you from other aircraft. To avoid delay to yourself and others, you are expected to announce when you can proceed VFR. There is little class G airspace and it is at levels where you had better be VFR because you are below LSALT for IFR.

The Mangalore mid air collision was not the fault of the ATCs on the console even if they could see what was about to happen. Geoff F points out the ICAO requirement that the function of ATC is to prevent collisions between aircraft BUT the Airservices Act specifies that it is up to Airservices to decide the extent of services that they will provide (where, when and to whom). IF Airservices management decides no separation is to be provided to IFR aircraft in an airspace it would be untenable for some controllers to nevertheless provide it and some to not do so - the confusion would itself be a safety risk.

The concept of "traffic is" separation for IFR aircraft is and always has been a flawed concept. An aircraft on an IFR approach is, by regulation, compelled to remain on the published track and to follow the published approach (or go around but still following the published track) It matters not what the ATC says the traffic is, the pilot is legally required to follow the procedure. Likewise on IMC departure, the pilot must follow the route chosen for terrain clearance until LSALT is reached.

The management of Airservices needs to consider its lack of professional pilot input to their decision making - their level of service does not meet the ICAO requirements now and never has. Since people like Geoff Fairless and Merv Fowler left Airservices, even their incidental knowledge of aviation user needs has vanished. Not too many professional pilots left in CASA either though there are a frew - maybe they can push CASA into pushing Airservices, maybe??

That accident occurred in Victoria; which has a rare (for Australia) stature on Corporate Manslaughter. Applicable or not is beyond my legal knowledge but........

[Capn Bloggs]

IF you are operating IFR it is assumed you can not see to separate yourself therefore ATC separate you from other aircraft.
You mean other IFR aircraft.

To avoid delay to yourself and others, you are expected to announce when you can proceed VFR.
See and avoid. Alerted?

The Mangalore mid air collision was not the fault of the ATCs on the console even if they could see what was about to happen.
How about you wait for the report.

The concept of "traffic is" separation for IFR aircraft is and always has been a flawed concept. An aircraft on an IFR approach is, by regulation, compelled to remain on the published track and to follow the published approach (or go around but still following the published track) It matters not what the ATC says the traffic is, the pilot is legally required to follow the procedure. Likewise on IMC departure, the pilot must follow the route chosen for terrain clearance until LSALT is reached.
Nonsense. Have you heard of class F? Have you never organised traffic segregation OCTA while doing an instrument approach? "Must follow the route chosen for terrain clearance"?? Do you really get airborne, then ascertain the affect the traffic is going to have on you and say sorry, can't do, I'm already on my departure"?

Geoff Fairless is out of line in his criticism of Le Ping. Geoff may be the ace of the base but everything Le Ping writes on Prune is sensible and logical.

[Ia8825]

You mean other IFR aircraft.


See and avoid. Alerted?


How about you wait for the report.



I’m assuming you mean this report?

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5781079/ao-2020-012-final-3.pdf

[Capn Bloggs]

Excellent Ia8825, thanks. Good to see you're on the ATSB ball.

[Plazbot]

*checks newspaper and sees upcoming election* Checks Pprune and sees R Smith banging on again.

Mazel Tov!

[Spodman]

It is simply brilliant to see Dick post an opinion continuing an energetic conversation of half a decade ago and the debate just launches beautifully into an elegant multi-stream hydra of profundity and bogusness. But I compliment everybody on the content. Advance & Geoff Fairless make lovely sense. Plazbot does not disappoint with his insightful comment. It would be lovely if this stuff DID influence the vote here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1956_Grand_Canyon_mid-air_collision#Catalyst_for_change

As Missy indicates, I have taken my 39.5 years of ATS experience and become a LEGEND, (Learned Erstwhile Gentleman Experiencing New Directions). I have looked into all this stuff from the prospect of an Australian ATC and a VFR private pilot, with a very limited experience of flying in the US. I am not seeking or expecting re-employment from the lovely department of many names. My other identities can wither and die, and SPODMAN will communicate anything I have to say from henceforth. From the above debate:

Why do even those who were involved in past change debacles seem so uninformed: Being involved in the implementation of NAS and the previous LLAMP way back when I could see a HUGE disconnect. Those driving the project had their eye on the finish line, and assumed everybody else did too. Any pushback on any element was seen as an attack on the project end-state. Line controllers, dedicated competent controllers, proud of their safety record and their own drive for an efficient service, had no appreciation or great understanding of the end state, and saw each individual element as a bizarre distraction from their core business, with no plausible benefit, and pushed back on details. I can't speak for the attitudes of professional pilots, but discussions with individual pilots in safety discussions and pilot union groups at the time seemed quite similar. The debate above seems to make more sense when looked at this way.

Why didn't NAS go forward: Management seemed to welcome being bypassed by the 'crash through or crash' implementation process until somebody noticed that despite Dick and side-kicks bashing individual bits of the US system to fit, in a process that may have worked when they all came together, it was not following the process for implementing new procedures THEY were responsible for. So they rolled the stuff back that had not been introduced with a valid safety analysis or valid comparison with the US system, then said, "Now do it properly." Nobody did, and we are stuck with a half-assed system. The service provided at Mangalore aerodrome today is fundamentally the same as when I did it from Melbourne FIS7 in 1991, and from the year after that there has been radar coverage in the circuit permitting a premium US-style Enroute ATC approach service at high efficiency, but we don't do it. Last year there was a proposal to lower Class E to 1500'AGL in the J-curve. BRILLIANT! Ham-fisted implementation needlessly locking VFR out the airspace may have led to a less practical change.

The US hasn't got G airspace: They have lots. They have a network of skinny airways, with G airspace underneath below 1,200' AGL, lowering to 700' AGL in terminal areas. Between the airways are blocks of G from the surface to 18,000'

The US wouldn't separate in G airspace: They do! It doesn't matter what is written down, a US pilot would not take off into IMC without a clearance, even if they have to do it by telephone and cop a delay. If the conditions are visual they can get airborne and enter Class E, but if they get airborne and require an immediate clearance it is their problem if ATC say, "Unable clearance." The NAS 'IFR Pickup' procedure was supposed to replicate this, rather torturously and impractically, because it permitted IFR flight without a clearance in Class G in the interim stages.

What would have happened at Mangalore if NAS had been fully implemented: Full and due respect for all those working or flying that day. If this had happened to me on FIS7 in 1991, or with the arrangements today and all boxes real or imaginary everybody could think of ticked, the outcome could have been exactly the same. With Class E base 1200', a cloud base of 4,000', airplane #1 on instrument approach, and airplane #2 taxies. They are told, "Unable clearance, call again at time [xx]". Everybody is safe. When #1 gets visual he has the option of cancelling IFR enabling a clearance. #2 has the option of departing VFR, and getting a clearance when ATC has 5 miles by radar or #2 lands or gets 1,000' above the MSA on a missed approach. This is what Dick wants. It is good. It is needed. It is best for everybody. It is just obviously fahking simple! If it makes it impractical to do practice VOR approaches at Manglore, stiff sh1t!

Please keep banging, Dick!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

In the ICAO documents the aim of ATC is to "prevent collisions between aircraft".
A nation's airspace is (should be) then designed, according to local conditions, to enable controllers to fulfill that requirement.
Why then does ICAO countenance airspace that does not fulfil that requirement? Why is ICAO happy for ATC to only prevent collisions between some aircraft, but not all?
They are, however, hobbled in this country, by lack of surveillance
You can have ATC without surveillance, it's just inefficient. If, however, ICAO doesn't mandate it anyway "to prevent collisions between aircraft", what good is their aim or even their charter? Why all the emphasis on being ICAO compliant, when they are toothless tigers.
Get a system that works for us, and if it isn't ICAO compliant, who gives a sh*t.

[Lead Balloon]

Well said, Spodman. More power to your voice. Safe flying.

TIEW: ICAO mandates only one thing: Notification of differences from SARPS. That’s because it provides a common ‘baseline’ and transparency as to the ‘deltas’ from it, for all contracting states. (Be interesting to find out, for example, whether the FAA would permit Part 121 certified US operators to conduct those operations into and out of places like Ballina.)