PDA

View Full Version : What Law allows RPT/CHTR to fly with no ATS?


Capn Bloggs
28th Aug 2002, 12:51
Serious question guys:

Under what law/rule/authority are we allowed to fly if ATS is not available?

Apart from being a stupid idea plunging into busy G airspace with no DTI (and one which any company, I'm sure, would go for a row for if there was a midair), ARE we allowed to operate if all the normal services aren't available, and what rule is it?

Or is there a rule somewhere saying we can't?

Dick Smith, don't bother participating in this post thank you! :mad:

Warren Rabbit
28th Aug 2002, 13:06
A good question, Captain. Not one that I can provide an answer to, but to which I'll add another question. As a controller I have been asked by local operators what is the status of the airspace when we are on strike. I hazarded a guess that it became a free for all; certainly local movements (Class D tower) can fill their boots. Meat bomb operations wishing to enter the overlying Class C airspace is another matter, and I would be grateful for any opinions with references.

I know what's GOING to happen, they'll be up there with bells on getting a freebie and good luck to them, but what is the legal position?

Capcom
28th Aug 2002, 13:08
Bloggs

Good question

Answer

Affordable safety “G”

Alas Dick (Head [former]) of CASA made sure of that!!!

Be careful all.

24 hour case of **** might be good insurance in the absence of other!!!!!

Sincerely Sorry (We would not be taking this action if fair play prevailed)

Regards:( :( :( :(

Deaf
28th Aug 2002, 14:58
Years ago there was an ATC strike for some time (77 for a week ?). Memory is vague but IIRC FS was operating and controlled airspace was deferred, the only restriction was you couldn't use primary fields (ML, KS etc). Spent most of that charter Berwick - Bankstown etc. I used to offer the punters the option (for $) of a circuit over the Sydney harbour bridge at A1500.

ferris
28th Aug 2002, 20:42
From a practical point of view, I would be more concerned about what your insurance company had to say on the matter.

Remember the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold, makes the rules."
(Thanks you-know-who).

Creampuff
28th Aug 2002, 21:47
The answer (at least so far as legislation is concerned) is contained in CARs 100 and 101 of the 1988 CARs, and the associated definitions.

Read them very carefully, twice.

shakespeare
29th Aug 2002, 01:40
NOSAR/NO details Capn Bloggs. Just like you jockstraps used to do in the RAAF in your MIRAGE (single engine light a/c)..

Think I would like to sit it out for the day, just as they do in other parts of the world.

I just heard on JJJ that the lads have resolved their differences and will not be going on strike now.

Capt Claret
29th Aug 2002, 05:42
I didn't have the presence of mind to keep today's NOTAMS, however I think the pertinent one indicated:[list=1]
Class A & B declared temp restricted airspace
Class C & E declared Glass G
Class D, and I'm not sure if this is all Class D or just those like AS which are MBZs outside Tower hours, declared Class G with MBZ procedures applying.
[/list=1]

BIK_116.80
29th Aug 2002, 09:35
TCAS :

- Never goes on strike
- Does not come with an exhorbitant charge for "head office overhead"
- Does not have an attitude problem
- Does not function on a "workload permitting basis".

Current Australian air traffic control procedures are based on principles developed in the 1960s and have out-lived their use-by date.

Please go on strike guys - make it a long one if you like. But do be aware that we might just realise that we dont actually need you as much as you think we do.

ferris
29th Aug 2002, 09:53
Ask the jet (the ones that actually pay for the service) drivers who go into the likes of AYE if they think controllers are necessary.

Capt EFIS
29th Aug 2002, 14:05
Ayers Rock's no problem. Spent a few years operating into there without any worries. It all boils down to situational awareness.

However, back on topic, last I heard was that the strike was called off.

Low-Pass
29th Aug 2002, 14:50
Yeah, controllers may not be "necessary", but you'll be working a lot harder without them!

BIK_116.80
29th Aug 2002, 21:01
ferris,

Who are the jet drivers that go into AYE that pay for ATC services themselves?

(As distinct from those who pass on the charges to their employer or clients?)

ferris
30th Aug 2002, 11:20
Is that the best you could do BIK116.8?

I specifically put the brackets after the word 'jet', and not after the words 'jet drivers' in an attempt to show that I was aware the pilots at airlines don't pay the bills. You really must get your mother or father, or whoever it is that reads the posts to you, to be more clear.

Coral- don't confuse BIK116.8 with pilots.

BIK_116.80
30th Aug 2002, 12:19
ferris,

I did notice that the brackets were after the word "jet". I concluded that it must have simply been poor grammar. I came to that conclusion because I have never heard of an aircraft being party to a financial transaction - as distinct from being the subject of one.

So please tell me about these aircraft that are party to financial transactions? Now I'm no accountant, but how can an aircraft have legal personality? Unless it has legal personality, how can an aircraft be party to a transaction?

You sure you don't want to say it was just poor grammar?

ferris,

The world is full of people who want something for nothing. There are millions of examples of people who lobby for an improvement in services (as they perceive it) but who would never dream of paying the cost themselves.

This is the situation of the pilots of the RPT jet aircraft that fly into AYE. They want something that will cost more money - but they sure as hell are never going to pay for it.

If you told me that a group of private owner/pilots (being both the direct users of the service and also the people that will ultimately have to pay for it) were lobbying for increased ATC service at AYE then that would make a strong argument.

But I don't believe any such group of people exists.

The RPT jet pilots that fly into AYE are not the ones that pay for the service. Their airline employer will simply pass on the costs to their customers.

Since AsA operates as a monopoly and since it is compulsory to purchase AsA services whether you want them or not (in the terminal environment, where services are provided) all RPT operators incur the charge, and so no airline is at a competitive disadvantage. As long as AsA levies its charges on a uniform basis no airline will complain.

Any claim of a perceived demand for services is nullified when the direct user of the service is not the person who ultimately has to pay for it.

coral,

...you would all be trying to beat everyone else with the shortest track and dodgy estimates , until it came time to depart when you would be blocking the runway in front of arrivals!

Cripes mate - I think you might be onto us! :D

ferris
30th Aug 2002, 13:00
BIK116.8

What utter drivel!! (Oh, and by the way, the aircraft are party to the financial transactions. Billing is conducted via the a/c rego, to it's owner. The aircraft chalks up the bill, the owner pays it. An aircraft is a legal entity, like a ship. But I wouldn't have expected you to know that).

Then you go on to try and make the argument that the users of the service don't pay for it!!
The passengers are the users of the service, and the passengers pay for it.
At AYE, the services are provided by the airport owners, and they charge for them. That's the point. It's class G. No services, apart from CAGRO, and the actual airport. That's why RPT pilots have voiced their concern. And that charge is quite high- but it still gets paid.
To argue the passengers are not the user of ATS services is, well, lame and indicative of your small-picture thinking.

Capn Bloggs
30th Aug 2002, 13:24
CreamPuff,
Thanks. I'll take a sickie and try to digest said Regs. We can always rely on you for no-nonsense posts.

Shakespeare,
Now now, there's no need to get abusive. Jealousy's a curse you know! BTW, how much Mach 2 time do YOU have in your logbook?!:)

All,
Off thread re AYQ, I can't help but say that, if it were NOT for all the lighties (Dick Smithites etc) then RPT would not need the service (from the CAGRO) that they currently get, what with TCAS and beepbacks to mitigate.

-------------------------------------
"Faster you barstard!"

BIK_116.80
30th Aug 2002, 13:45
ferris,

I disagree with every point in your last post.

And that leads me to believe that I am on the right track. :D