View Full Version : NAS apathy

Chief galah
22nd Dec 2002, 01:49
The current topics on the AVweb site may point to where we're going with NAS.

Have a look at


particularly the anecdote in the purple window and


Is this worlds best practise??

One of the biggest impacts of NAS is the introduction of more E airspace. From what I have read on the NAS site, even they only have a vague idea of where new E airspace is to be established. It would surprise me greatly if the NAS committee has any statistical data to support their E airspace program.
Are you going to be charged for every instrument approach you make when you transition from E to G airspace?

Other sections of NAS are downright dangerous and totally unnecessary, particularly - Model NAS-Stage 3-Characteristic 7.

VFR climb procedures will confuse all users.

NAS is bad karma. It is rolling along without informed comment from those on the front line - both pilots and controllers.
The FAQ responses on the NAS are feeble and clerical.
The obsession that the US system is better must be challenged. By just reading the Avweb articles, it's obvious the US system is different, but not necessarily better or safer.

Since the "sticky" forum has gone, I think the subject has gone cold. NAS will not affect me greatly, but I know a crock when I see one. Thus far, characteristics 1 and 28 have been underwhelming - a bit of a softener for things to come.

Is any of this worth the dubious benefit of "free flight" for a few selected VFR's - something that is already enjoyed by most.

Seasons greetings from CG.

22nd Dec 2002, 02:12
Chief galah

I only unstuck the NAS thread as there were other priorities going at the time and it was also getting too long and off thread.

I'm going to sticky this one and hope that we can keep the light shining on the subject.

The "promoters" of this scheme were quick to access the PPRuNe user base when they were trying to sell their "ideas", but have been very conspicuous by their absence when those "ideas" have been tested by those directly affected and those who actually know or have some real world experience to offer. But then they were never really good listeners.

I like you, fear a replay of the dabblers first attempt at "aviation reform" which was long on rhetoric but very short on useful fixes beyond firing everyone in sight and/or who disagreed with the direction. As usual the baby got thrown out with the bathwater.

We are still dealing with the wreckage.

I still feel embarrassment for the way Mr Leroy Keith was handled, notwithstanding that he was well skilled and experienced in and came from the very system that is now being touted as "the way".
His then very pivotal appointment was the result of an extremely thorough and presumably intense search and assessment and approved by the Chairman, Board and the Minister with much acclaim.
There maybe only 3 possible scenarios as to the final result.
1. The Recruitment Firm, The Chairman, The Board, The Minister ALL go the appointment totally wrong.
Don’t think so.
2. The real riding instructions he was ultimately given by the Chairman and Board on his appointment, were fundamentally flawed and totally incapable of professional implementation without serious risk to the safety case and delivering the huge cost savings loudly proclaimed by them to anyone who would listen.
Sound familiar.
3. When it came to the inevitable shoot out between the real professionals and the amateurs, as usual, it came down to who had the biggest gun and the most money and influence.
The really sad part is the thuggery against a profesional Public Servant who has no means of public redress and with only one means of protecting his/her professional reputation, being that of resigning.

It all sounds very familiar don’t you think.

And here we go again, or am I drawing a long bow here.

22nd Dec 2002, 13:44
You are quite right the NAS must not be allowed to be left to stealthy implementation.

It was interesting to read the comments by the pros and their troubles with MBZ calls. The srapping of MBZs and replacing them with CTAFs of only 10nm, is totally unacceptable to busy regional a/ps, recently it was claimed upto 12 a/c were in an MBZ at one time, personally I can vouch for 6 inbound and 2 on the deck leaving.

Try sorting that out on a 737 just reaching a 10mn CTAF!!

I am advised that BME CAG/RS welcomes 737 calls 45nm out in busy periods as 30/nm can be tight for interaction between the "relevent" A/C in the MBZ.

As the USA model is considered the bee's knees I spent 3 nights looking through the FAA mega web site.I was sure that a 10mn CTAF is unworkable and had been proved so by unacceptable frequency of incidents at Wagga, Ayers and Broome.

This is not a " I don't like this type" problem it is a "this cannot and has been proved not to be able to work" problem.So the USA system must have encounted the same point where CTAFs did not work. CASA and NAS does not specify any mixed use airports as busy as some of our regionals that use their proposed CTAF only system.Hence my FAA search and guess what.

NAS and the Smiths did not tell us or report on is an FSS being based at some regional A/Ps and providing LAA services ie:the same service presently done in Aussie as a CA/GRS in an MBZ weather etc on an ATIS and traffic advice on an airport based A/G frequency to aid separation.

My bet is the FAA use the FSS LAA procedures on A/Ps that are much smaller than our main regional A/Ps and still don't allow the landing of 737s RPT services on busy mixed use CTAF airports with or without LAA.If this is true we are going two steps down the safety ladder from ATC to CTAF+LAA to 10nmCTAF.

Can someone advise me on any busy USA regional A/P with mixed use that has 737 RPT ops and is not ATC or at least FSS LAA served?

Where are the Chef Pilots and Ops Managers public comments on the NAS proposals? or the unions and associations? Some of the NAS proposals to me are absolutely appalling and I sit in the back with the other lambs.

:D :D

22nd Dec 2002, 22:48
The Industry have the clout to say yay or nay to the elements of NAS, but thus far the RAPACs have been silent, just accepting the NAS briefs with a few questions at best. Meanwhile behind the scenes implementation work continues (not that you would know it, due to the lack of communication).

Get in the ear of your association or industry rep.

Feather #3
23rd Dec 2002, 01:17
Worth repeating; the present system works quite well.

IF you take the US NAS system, take the lot!! :mad:

It is indeed a proven package which works well and can be applied here. What we don't know in this country [in the majority, at least] is the how it should be used. Users from both sides of the fence need a massive education program to cope.

Let me reiterate my "King Herod" principle [right time of the year, anyway!!:D ]; if you took all pilots and ATCO's over the age of 21 years and slaughtered them, you could safely import NAS [or any mature system, really] and those left would simply grow with it and get on with life! The problem is educating those over the age of 22 years to cope with the change.

I wonder is it all worth it [as in cost effective?]

G'day & Merry Xmas ;)

Chief galah
23rd Dec 2002, 03:40

Where VMC exists and an airways clearance is not received an aircraft may enter Class E airspace.
Should the pilot be unable to maintain VMC, the pilot must immediately notify ATS and request an amended clearance,
Who writes this stuff?
If you are operating VMC because you don't have an airways clearance, BECAUSE presumably Centre can't give you one, then how can you request an amended clearance????? I don't think Centre will be very happy with you, because you've just set them up with the situation they were trying to avoid.
Amended clearances just don't appear magically. Even with radar it can take some time to attain a legal separation standard.
The requirements for operation in Class E airspace allow pilots of IFR aircraft the flexibility to assume responsibility for their own separation when VMC exists
I don't think the "responsibility for their own separation" is mutual. If you're the other traffic that is IFR and operating on a clearance and another pilot elects VMC operations because of you, do you have to participate in this procedure?
Do you have the option?
Will RPT companies want to participate? Have they been asked?
The Centre people I know all seem pretty uninformed about the E airspace proposals.


23rd Dec 2002, 09:55
How many times does one have to say that a CTAF / MBZ is NOT a parcel of airspace but a PROCEDURE.

Good airmanship should dictate that if a size is stated (or whatever) then you should be on that frequency earlier enough to sort out all the traffic NO LATER THAN THE STATED DISTANCE. Making the first call at 10nm (or wherever) is just plain dumb and creates more workload than any of us would want - especially at 250kts.!

No matter what size may be stated... 5, 10 or 15nm then by then you should have all the traffic sorted out and your approach planned.

Chief G
The EXISTING procedures for class E allow for an aeroplane other than an RPT to operate in Class E whilst VMC exist without even a call to any possible or known conflicting traffic. You just have an operating transponder.
Under LLAMP it was to be a 3way contract (both a/c and the controller). Not so under NAS. Notwithstanding the major beneficiary of this procedure will/would be regional RPT aircraft, especially where there is parallel scheduling and aircraft with differing performance.

Without the benefit of knowing what the NAS people are planning it is difficult to see any of the picture as yet, and as said above it seems very much as if only some elements of the NA system are to be introduced, and not the FULL package.

I would say however that the costing estimates (due by March) for the proposed NAS changes will grab the Ministers attention and then we may just see some changes…. again!

The people behind NAS must realise that to operate under a veil of secrecy and to implement by stealth is risking everything that they are aiming for. The sooner the AEG and the NAS group start operating in OPEN forum the sooner they might see some (?) understanding of what they have in mind. One reason the RAPACs have said little is that they have been told very little to date.

23rd Dec 2002, 10:05
Apathy? Who Cares :)
Why does nobody seems to care
1) There is a bunch of controllers waiting for VR and they hope that this may give them a way out. They are probably mainly TMA/Tower controllers and NAS is going to have little or no effect on them anyway.
2) A whole heap of them have become bitter and cynical (even more than usual)with ASA over the EBA negotiations and simply don't give a sh!t anymore. We will still get paid regardless of what system they decide to implement. They just want to go to work, separate the planes and get paid, regardless of how many times they "clearance not available"
3) A smaller number of people brown nosing there way to management and telling mis-management what they want to hear is good way to earn some brownie points for that non-traffic job they have always wanted.
4) People are sick of reading the massive amount of sh!t that regularly gets presented to them as "operation information". The latest work around, the latest software fault, indecipherable MATS instructions, LOAs, Management instructions. Add to this the very brief information that has been released on NAS its no wonder that nobody can even make a comment on it let alone care about it. The devil is always in the detail with these things. Remember the RVSM implementation debacle. It wasn't until some procedures were worked up that the fatal flaws in it were identified. NAS will be no different. Once the procedures have been worked out someone will come along and shoot it down.

I have seen airspace reform come and go about every 5 years. I think NAS has some good stuff in it. With a full implementation of ADS-B it may even work. But I am quite confident that NAS will go the way of all the others without any help from me.

23rd Dec 2002, 11:36

Your bow is drawn to the correct tension for a bullseye shot. Money and influence beats skill, expertise and common sense every time.

Neither of the Smiths have demonstrated, in my personal experience, much interest in views which do not concur with their own. Their skills in dealing with contrary arguments vary but ignoring them where ever possible seems to work well.

And as Triadic well knows stealth is the preferred method of the NAS promoters.

They have access to key decisionmakers ie. the Minister that are simply not, and never well be, available to the industry while it a. relies on RAPACs to represent it and b. continually squabbles over minutae and detail and ignores broad policy matters and the direct influencing of politicians.

I suspect that, as willadvise surmises, some bits of NAS may see the light of day one day but it won't be soon.

23rd Dec 2002, 15:25
Still no advise on 737 RPT ops into CTAF in the USA. Would really appreciate advise here to help with an appproach to the Minister.

Triadic, please excuse my terminology. As stated I am no pro but let me advise this "the Ctaf is only as safe as the worst pilot in the area." I like my life in the hands of the RPT captain,not the undertrained pilot flying VFR and leaving his call to the last minute then getting flustered when there is too much traffic.

In my previous reply above I stated an incident when there was 6 A/C in the MBZ and 2 on the deck taking off I know this as the AN captain had been kind enough to ask me up front.

Why it remains clear in my memory as it was the final straw that led me to demand a CA/GRS for Bme. In this case one 210 was between us and the A/P and was not coping he kept changing his position including Alt. The FO was handling comms and he and the Captain were becoming worried. Finally the Captain simply asked the 210 was he over land or sea when advised "land" he ceased descent levelled off and headed for the sea and approached from there.

I was impressed, but thought if the approach procedure was coming to this, it needed changing.At least the 210 was on the correct frequency 2 weeks later another incident was because of incorrect frequency. To tell the full story there was 5 incidents involing RPT A/C in 6 weeks!!

The reliance on transponders, to me, has no positive feedback if flying VFR in E class airspace. How do you know it is working or even switched on, the real confirmation is only from someone elses radar.

In Per out of Jandacot we lowlifes are told to turn them off when doing circuits etc. not a great learning curve for ops. When is a CTAS mandatory for RPT? will there be a pax carrying limit or some arbitary rule for turboprops?

While access to ministers is possible for me, one error can ruin your case, that is why I am seeking some guidence on the 737 ops in USA and am suprised there is no flags being raised by the pilot bodies and airlines it sure would help. :confused:

Chief, thanks the articles were great

23rd Dec 2002, 22:31
Most people in airline management are so sick and tired of trying to beat this thing to death that they have given up.

There is so much more that has a higher priority - rightly or wrongly - and the stealth method used by the Smiths to introduce this fiasco is aimed correctly - make little noise and those that pay the bills won't know what has hit them..

The introduction of Airspace 2000 by stealth is a disgrace, and both Smiths should be ashamed of themselves.

Have a merry christmas to you all - hopefully you will be with your families and not in an aeroplane....

I Fly
24th Dec 2002, 00:26
I have never flown outside Australia. I assumed that because we are more or less ICAO we are more or less flying by the same rules. I am intrigued by the comment in AvWeb's article

"In Class G it is legal (and generally stupid) for an instrument pilot -- or 10 instrument pilots -- to fly inside the clouds without an ATC clearance because it's uncontrolled airspace."
Are they suggesting to get a clearance in G or are they suggesting not to fly in cloud in G????
The US system must not work very well when there is a need for an article like this.
Do we rally want to import bits of that system???

24th Dec 2002, 01:32
Unlike the Class G here, the American G has no directed traffic information, and no specific segregation methods or standards therefore as they say it is stupid to do it if you have no way of knowing who you might be sharing a cloud with! Anyway, as G is uncontrolled a clearance is never required, IFR or VFR.

No, we really don't want "bits" of their system. The whole package is not afordable here, so that wont happen. The best we can hope for is that which is cost zero or minimal. If there are some efficiency gains then great.

you are correct. when the managers etc see the costs, then we will see some involvement and I suggest at a very high level. Just depends on how much can be introduced by stealth in the meantime.

24th Dec 2002, 22:12

All IFR federal airways in the US are controlled airspace (class E) from 1200'AGL up to 18000' (class A). Class E extends down to 700'AGL at a non controlled airport with an IFR approach procedure. To operate IFR in controlled airspace, you need to file an IFR flight plan and get an ATC clearance.

I Fly,

The US airspace system works very well and is mostly supported by the interest return of an aviation development fund set up in the early part of last century.

25th Dec 2002, 04:07
Agreed. However there are "chunks" of G in the US which do not meet that criteria and to which the Avweb item might have been referring to (?). So as a rule IFR ops would always be in E (or ABCD).

This is obviously not the case here, nor I suggest ever will be. Therefore there will have to be procedures in NAS if IFR is to take place in G. On this basis alone, we can never say it will be the same!

25th Dec 2002, 07:10
Yes, all low level IFR ops (below 18000'+ class A) are generally operating on the controlled airspace airways (class E) which are 4 miles wide each side.

Not sure how well the US airspace system applies here. The US have radar coverage to the ground almost everywhere. Their ATC works a lot harder for you (apples to apples comparing terminal area procedures). Outside controlled airspace, they are more comfortable relying on VMC see/avoid, ATC advisories, and TCAS warnings to make it work. It's a fine system once you get used to it.

25th Dec 2002, 13:58

I thought TCAS was not meant to be anything other than an aid?
I cant see "see and avoid" working when there are 6 to 8 aircraft involved,hence the USA using LAA at some busy USA uncontrolled a/ps.
I have been asking in the North American "room" how it works early days but it seems the LAA gives the IFR traffic priority as the LAA is mainly at a/ps with bad vis.
Is this your or other crew experience?

Merry Xmas to all

25th Dec 2002, 22:33
TCAS is a great aid if you have it. Several units available now for light GA aircraft. The see/avoid works (for the most part) - there have been a few midairs over the years at airports with both tower and not, due I think radio position misunderstanding or no radio. I flew jets (without TCAS) into many uncontrolled airports with several planes in circuit area, it can be a little tense, you sure need to keep your heads up. Slow guys will usually help you out. In the US, if you're an IFR in VMC, you have the same responsibilty to avoid traffic as a VFR guy.

27th Dec 2002, 03:32
My information (and I do not claim to be very well informed) is that outside radar coverage, i.e. the East coast and 150 miles around PH and AD, the base of Class E will be F180. This means that the 737 descending into a busy regional airport in IMC will not get traffic info on the Metro at F170, the Navaho at A100 or the C310 at A070. I would not have thought that this was an appealing prospect to pilots who venture outside the J-Curve.
Australia has a number of regions where there is significant traffic density but no radar coverage. I cannot see how NAS is safe or desirable for these areas.
Perhaps I am drastically overvaluing the importance of DTI, but the prospect of just cutting fast moving traffic lose to fend for themselves below F180 when I know there is likely to be traffic down there worries me.

29th Dec 2002, 12:12
TCAS, as i am sure all of you are aware, does not pick up aircraft without a transponder, or with the transponder turned off.

Its a big sky, but its not THAT big

Feather #3
30th Dec 2002, 21:14

The logic is that if those locations worry CASA/airline[s], Class E airspace can be introduced to cover the route. It would be procedural control, but IFR coverage would be there.

However, if it's VFR; look out the window and broadcast.

Anyone for the status quo ?

G'day ;)

Niles Crane
31st Dec 2002, 01:56
I have just read this on the DOTRS site:

Following discussions with the Aviation Reform Group, it has been agreed that the final Stage One characteristic will be implemented Thursday 20 March 2003. This is to ensure that all parties have a clear understanding of the procedure, provide sufficient time for pilot and ATC training, and avoid the potential confusion of making a change during the Christmas/New Year period.

The Class E “IFR pick-up” procedure is summarised below:

The pilot of an IFR flight planned aircraft may enter Class E airspace in VMC, whilst awaiting an airways clearance, and continue to receive a DTI and Flight Information Service.

We are now getting Class E VFR climb for IFR aircraft by another name!!!

How comes up with these names?

I just love the way they do things:mad:

31st Dec 2002, 03:07
Er.. excuse me, but what is the problem with an arrangement that permits climb in VMC with traffic info in class E??

You can do it now in class G - what you call it is not the issue.

So long as everyone knows the procedure............

I just love the way the ARG do business (behind closed doors). Why dont they table their deliberations ? There is no reason to hold them in camera unless of course they have something to hide?

2nd Jan 2003, 00:02
Feather3, This assumes that ASA has the capacity to provide the services required in Class E airspace in the areas affected. Providing procedural separation is very expensive, it requires more navaids, frequencies and controllers than providing traffic. It is not as simple as just redesignating airspace.
I feel that NAS will probably work adequately in areas of reasonable radar coverage and/or low traffic density, unfortunately there are a few significant areas of Oz where there is plenty of traffic and no radar. In these areas the choice will be NO SERVICE G airspace below F180, or Class E corridors which will work perfectly well in VMC, and become a total debacle during the Summer months when VMC is the exception not the rule.
Consider this scenario, Busy Non-Radar environment under NAS, Class E airspace down to ten thousand due to the traffic density. Frontal thunderstorms with widespread diversions, everybody for a hundred miles making for the same gap, Icing and Turbulence, everyone wants a clearance into CTA but cant go VFR. Currently aircraft would get DTI in Class G up to F200 and, if the controller was unable to provide a clearance immediately, be able to maintain any level up to F200 until clearance became available. In this scenario under NAS there is a very strong likelihood of significant delays on clearance into E airspace, (the system is generally at capacity now in the stated conditions) Aircraft would be required to remain 10000 or below, receiving no traffic on the other aircraft in the same situation(no services in G under NAS). I dont think too many pilots would look forward to operating their 737/BA146/Brasilia/F100 etc under these circumstances.
Bear in mind that in parts of Oz this weather/traffic mix is an almost daily occurence.

2nd Jan 2003, 13:39
Could someone shed some light on these proposed 10nm CTAF's with these new proposals. At my local airport, in the dry ( peak) season there are 2 companies with up to 20 lighties inbound within 10 mins of each other and poor Scare North Braz is trying to get a slot to T/O or sequence for landing. 10nm is way too short, poor guys in 737's etc. Would all these changes result Aust Aviation more cost efficient? Hope we don't find out

2nd Jan 2003, 20:36
drshmoo It does NOT matter what the size is, be it 5, 10, 15nm or whatever. Unless you are in a Cessna 150 or a Bell47, you should have made your calls and sorted the traffic out well before the stated boundary. If NAS is to take up the NA model, then CTAFs do not have a published size. Its up to the pilot to make the calls and sort himself out PRIOR to the circuit. Again, the CTAF is a PROCEDURE, not a block of airspace. It really should have no boundaries, but does so, (in Oz anyway) to try and keep it simple, but maybe we are too simple? As I have said before the place to make your calls is around 7 minutes out (minimum) - that should have most sorted out by the circuit. And remember you do NOT have to talk to everyone else that makes a call. A simple b'cast should do the job in all cases, leaving direct exchanges to when a conflict needs to be resolved.

3rd Jan 2003, 14:25
TRIADIC, This early call idea is great, if it is why not make it mandatory so less enlightened pilots do it?

I must also advise this is not what the USA rules state"Communication/Broadcast Procedure...10nm out. for CTAF. In Australia we increased some if not all MBZs to 30nm from 15nm as analysis showed 15nm was too tight for some a/ps.

Now we are saying 10nm is safe this is very poor management in an industry that prides itself with a safety first approach. You have no credibility if you change from 15nm to 30nm to 10 nm Joe average can see that and captains and pilots know 10nm won't work.
The MBZ system was strained at our two busiest uncontrolled a/ps Ayers and Broome we found this out independantly both of us were experiencing unacceptable rates of incidents, this shows it was a systemic failure apparent at a/ps with large mixed use traffic.
The solution was CA/GRS which works, so why pull it apart and say "10nm see and avoid" will now work when 15nm did not !!

The only aviation enviromental change is greater traffic and bigger RPT a/c as well as more hubbing, we at Broome now have 8 RPT bays and are planning for 2 more plus 2 large heliports as the Oil companies advise there will be 2 rigs offshore.

The USA have LAAs for this with nearly all a/p approaches controlled and with radar. Why why why are we doing this I honestly don't understand, in Broome the cost of CA/GRS amounts to 50c per Pax so its not money it makes no sense, God help us if this gets up:confused: :confused:

4th Jan 2003, 00:58
Cheers Triadic:) . Good points. Generally speaking 7 mins for me is mbz boundary, so thats when i make my call. 7 mins is enough time to sort out potential conflicts.

4th Jan 2003, 22:28
Hi Walley

Calling outside the nominated boundary is something many operators/pilots have done for some time. You may remember that when there were AFIZs the size was 15nm but the recommended call was at 30nm.

Making an early call is just good airmanship and like many other things in that category it should not have to be written down. Please don't give CASA an excuse for more rules, we have enough and I think we have a real problem when people ask for every item to be written down. It doesn't have to be and whats more it shouldn't.

Part of the problem is that the legal people in CASA (the ones that really run the outfit) have no idea what airmanship is let alone the ability to define it within the regs. So as a result they have to write pages and pages of rules which few people read, have no relation to common sense (can't define that either) and we wonder why we have the problems we do!

Sadly, many good airmanship practices these days are not passed on (they are not taught) and there are many pilots about, especially those trained in the past 10 years that really don't seem to know what it means and don't have the CDF to apply it!

As for the current US rules, I don't have a copy and based my comment on past experience over there.

It is good to hear that you believe that the CAGRO is working, but I think it will take time for the practice to evolve to many other locations, even tho' some are quite busy at times and there may be a need.

NAS will not work in this country unless there is a volume of education to the level we have never seen before. Feather#3 is correct in that many will NEVER be taught the changes. The other thing that has to occur before the change process is successful is to convince us all that it is needed. 'IF' they can do that, then maybe, just maybe we might see the wheels turn.

And as the holdiday season is now over, I think it is about time the NAS team and the Smith's came out of their bunker.


5th Jan 2003, 20:27
Triadic, two points, you continually mention that a CTAF/MBZ is a procedure not a parcel of airspace, surely it is a procedure adopted in a parcel of airspace? By definition, "CTAF area" as per ERSA Intro 15.

and I think we have a real problem when people ask for every item to be written down. It doesn't have to be and whats more it shouldn't.

If it isn't written down how are new pilots to know, common sense is not so common, do they pick it up from other pilots at the bar? AS a CFI/CP it was much easier when the radio calls were more prescriptive in the AIP (and old VFG).

You bemoan the lack of what is taught...

Sadly, many good airmanship practices these days are not passed on (they are not taught) and there are many pilots about, especially those trained in the past 10 years that really don't seem to know what it means and don't have the CDF to apply it!

...surely having each call written down to have the format learnt is preferable to the present system? I happen to agree that standards have fallen, but they have fallen in line with CASA requirements.

14th Jan 2003, 22:08
I am a Yank Airline pilot who has flown a little bit in Oz and have been reading with interest this NAS proposal and all the resistance to it. I have read some of the info on the NAS websight and I think you are wrong about traffic info supplied to aircraft operating in the terminal area of a non-tower airport. I believe DTI will be provided in the NAS to aircraft approaching or departing a non-tower airport as is current practise.

Also, you discuss concerns about regions in Oz which have significant traffic and no radar. It would help me if you defined significant traffic. After flying in the U.S. for a long time and flying in Oz for several years, I find we may have differences about what significant is.

Feather #3
15th Jan 2003, 09:08

As to traffic levels, I rather think you may have hit the nail on the head! ;)

However, your reality and mine are one thing; the perception of the affected parties in this country is that they're being "dudded". :mad: Thus, until the relativities are explained, we're no better off! ;)

G'day :rolleyes:

19th Jan 2003, 05:35
Can somebody please tell me what is a sticky?:confused:

a sticky is used when the moderator wishes a thread to remain at the top of the page, regardless of the date and time of the last post. W

22nd Jan 2003, 10:00

It is happening because the NAS driver - RHS - wants it. Whether the procedure is of use or otherwise appears to be irrelevant.

Implementation is a milestone to be met, and failure is not an option.

Four Seven Eleven
23rd Jan 2003, 08:19
Followers of the various NAS threads may remember that on 13 May 2002, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services announced:

The ARG recommended:

(i) the National Airspace System (NAS) be selected as the preferred model for future airspace reform in Australia, subject to the development and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) endorsement of a comprehensive implementation safety case, specifying an appropriate timeframe for all necessary industry communication and education programmes;
(ii) the ARG establish an Implementation Group to assist it in developing the NAS implementation process;
(iii) as an input to the Implementation Group's work, the Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics undertake a more comprehensive cost benefit study of the NAS plan to identify more clearly the net benefits to be gained from its implementation; and
(iv) work be immediately set in train for the establishment of an Airspace Directorate, separate from CASA or a corporatised Airservices Australia, to progress future airspace reform.

Has anyone heard from the Bureau on this issue? It would seem prudent to test RHS's claims of fifty-million dollar savings before implementing changes, would it not? Particularly as the Minister specified that the cost benefit study was to be an input to the Implementation Group's work.

Perhaps Dick Smith could enlighten us all.

Perhaps Mr Smith could also offer his opinions on the way that stage 1 (sorry 1A....sorry stage 1, to be followed by 1A) have been implemented. Of particular interest would be the discrepancies between:
The various provisions of the AIC SUPP
The training package for pilots
The training package for ATC
which all contradict each other to various degrees.

Personal Note to Dick Smith

You have previously accused me of attempting to prove that you were 'dishonest'. I both denied that charge and offered a 'provisional' apology in case I was wrong. I STILL await your reply and proof of this scurrilous accusation. (Nothing but honour is at stake, however.)

28th Jan 2003, 11:12
the nas is doomed,

the air that we fly around in today is the same air they flew around in at the beginning of the century, at the beginning of flight.

the future system currently under " test or evaluation" in queensland australia has gone from one end of the spectrum of flight to the other and will negate the reqirement for third party, searation at every level, (bye bye airservices), and every aircraft will have the ability to know the whereabouts of all the aircraft that may be in conflict with it, including the terrain. (bye bye tcas).

this new system, if it goes as sure as progress does, will soon be the norm for the world.

cheaper by far than radar, $400,000 per ground unit, with minimal service, versus radar at $6,000,000 per unit with a high service cost, follow up with a natural progression from gps and this new system will provide every aircraft all the information that it needs to safely navigate the skies. each aircraft mainaining it's own separation.

freedom of the skies. at last?

duke 16,

believe me that australia does not know what significant traffic is.
we actually don't have any traffic at all if you use any place in the world as a sample.

Four Seven Eleven
29th Jan 2003, 03:40
A thread already exists on the private flying forum for this accident. This accident highlights the possibility of mid-air collisions, even in the best of systems. We need to be constantly vigilant that any new systems adopted in Australia bring with them inherent risks as well as advantages.

Interestingly, on the US statistics of 16 mid-air collisions per year and corrected for Australia's population (i.e. not using aviation stats as I don't have the comparative data) , we should expect approximately 1 of these per year. (The statisticians out the can probably shoot holes in this analysis)

Denver Channel article on mid-air (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/1935703/detail.html)

NTSB investigation update (http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2003/030127.htm)

Note for those of impetuous nature: I am NOT suggesting that NAS will or will not cause mid-air collisions of this nature. It may be argued that the service being provided to these two aircraft was in excess of that which may be provided to VFR aircraft in Australia today. I raise the issue merely because we are adopting the US/'North American"/hybrid system, which may include aspects similar to those which prevailed here, and which may raise safety concerns.

As there is official reluctance to actually carry out any safety studies or assessment of the new system, this may be the only way we can evaluate the safety of NAS.

I fully expect not a hint of any comment or answers from RHS, or any of the NAS hangers-on. Such is the state of aviation reform in Australia today.

Chimbu chuckles
6th Feb 2003, 00:28
AU-708 23 nov 01

3 Operations in Class E Airspace


VFR flights entering and operating in Class E airspace should:
a. Avoid published IFR routes, where possible;
b. Unless recieving RIS, monitor the Class G area frequency; and
c. take appropriate action to avoid potential conflict.


AU-801 6 dec 02

2 Air Traffic Clearances and Instructions


Within VHF radio coverage, pilots must maintain continous communications with ATC when operating in Classes A, C and D airspace, as must pilots of IFR flights in Class E airspace. Further, when in Class E airspace, pilots of VFR flights should monitor the ATS frequency appropriate to the area of operation.

So which is it? Should we monitor Class G Area VHF or ATS VHF?

Or are we next going to have dual VHF as mandatory for VFR operations in Class E airspace?

Why can VFR flights operate in Class E without clearance but IFR need clearance?

It would seem to me you are mixing aircraft on full reporting(and/or RIS) with aircraft that are not. Gotta be a recipe for pain sooner or later.

Why not have IFR/VFR nil clearance required in Class E BUT all aircraft must be fitted with operational Mode C and have it turned on? Seems that would be simple and in combination with the IFR & VFR cruising levels and RIS to IFR and on request to VFR, would keep everyone apart.

Seems it would also solve the IFR Climb in VMC in Class E quandry, in fact they could climb anytime they liked, VMC or no, having requested traffic info from ATS.

Or am I being silly?


Chimbu chuckles
6th Feb 2003, 13:03
And as far as average traffic densities being light in Oz...very true until you get real near YSBK,YBAF etc. And yes even BK on a busy day probably doesn't compare to any number of US airfields...but we still had a midair at BK last year.

The link below makes interesting reading and, except for the place names you'd swear it was Australia...you'd think we already have the North American System!!

Michael Maya Charles on the Denver midair collision (http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182618-1.html)


7th Feb 2003, 09:02
Chimbu for president !!!!;) ;)

16th Feb 2003, 23:27
I spoke to Mike Smith at Avalon. While I felt his tone was a little too high and mighty he did make some valid points on NAS and I remain happy that it isn't going to change anything for the worse.

One thing I didn't like. He really doesnt want cockpit displays in GA aircraft using ADSB. He also feels Private operators should (will end up??) pay for the unit and installation.

Now AsA have intimated that ADSB will be waaay cheaper than replacing soon to be obsolete radar heads, not to mention increasing coverage. So i hope Mr m Smith sticks to NAS and stays out of this debate, otherwise we will see another 'mandatory ELT' debacle and ADSB will falter!!!! :(


16th Feb 2003, 23:49
Did he say why he wouldn't respond to what I thought were pretty valid questions and criticism of NAS on PPRuNe.

Niles Crane
17th Feb 2003, 01:05
Open Mike also want to bring in alot more "E" airspace once ADS-B is in place.

It is my understanding that he believes IFR will have ADS-B so they can be controlled in "E" and VFR will be transparent to the system, ie: no ADS-B or optional ADS-B.

Also the education program will consist of training pilots to call on the radio specific phrasiology consisting of where they are, and what they are doing, this will negate any reason to talk to each other for separation as we will know what each aircraft in doing.

All very interesting.

Open Mic
17th Feb 2003, 02:50
I'd just like to clarify my view of ADS-B which a couple of posts have refered to. Firstly, I would be happy to see CDTI installed into any aircraft whose owners want it, I just don't believe that any scheme to fund its instalation is likely to extend beyond a basic fit, CDTI would be an option at the owners expence.

I certainly believe that ADS-B in all aircraft, not just IFR, has a lot of potential benefit, my point is that Class E airspace is the most effective way of managing a situation where all IFR and most VFR are known to the system. IFR can be seperated from each other and get traffic information about know VFR as far as practicable, the ICAO and FAA interpretation of Class E airspace. No service (therefore cost) is imposed on the VFR in this airspace.


17th Feb 2003, 05:47
All for info:

The next NSW RAPAC will be held in Sydney this Thursday, and the word is that RHS himself will be there to defend NAS and answer questions from all (unless he reads this and pikes out). Also copies of the November 2003 AIP charts will be revealed.

When: Thursday 20th February 11am
Where: Building 250 Airservices Control Tower annex, Sydney airport.

I understand that the entrance is off Gen. Holmes Drive, just past the control TWR, and that the car park is south of the Hertz area on the Sydways map covering the area. Maybe someone who has been there before can shed more light.

The "Industry only" meeting is at 11am (everyone except DoD AA and CASA) followed by a combined meeting at 1300. Suggest attend the first because some parties may not hang around for the second ;)

Niles Crane
17th Feb 2003, 06:00
A new AIP Sup has been posted on the Airservices websit:


It is interesting that we have been given a threat of complience with this AIP. If we do not conduct ourselves accordingly, we will be charged more. Obviously our friends at the LASH have done some bean counting and they have realised that this new airspace will cost more money!!!:mad:

Also, why are we asking of an "IFR Pick-Up" if the terminology from the controller is Standby for "Clearance".

Is it a "Pick-Up" or a "Clearance"?

And, what reference to ICAO is there for a "Pick-Up"?

Annex reference please!!


17th Feb 2003, 06:09
One of the back ups in the US system is the fact that all facilities monitor 121.5 and 243. This is a good safeguard, as if a pilot is on the wrong frequency and is monitoring Guard, as most airlines do, then they can be contacted. It would be a good idea to ask the authorities if this will be part of any changes for the new system as Australian towers etc do not monitor these frequencies.

Niles Crane
17th Feb 2003, 06:14
So, the IFR guy cannot get a "Pick-Up" and he climbs to a VFR level and waits.

What calls does he make and on what frequency?

What frequency is the VFR traffic on?

Somehow, I do not think this AIP SUP has been fully thought out!:confused:

17th Feb 2003, 20:52

Took the bait, there ya go gaunty. (If Barra were so quick they'd be extinct) :}

Anyway, my problem with the comments were.

1. GA don't need it and it will be waaaay too expensive.

My perspective. You are having a hard time convincing some here that NAS will be safe. Now I have said, and I say again, I am 98% sure it will be. However there are some very intelligent and persuasive people here who are not at all convinced and I don't think you can just ignore that.

I agree that GA probably don't need it. But in my view it is the answer to the DTI that people here fear they will lose. As well as that it will make ops safer out of small airports where RPT and GA mix. The more aircraft that have it the safer it will be.

Now AsA want it. It will save them mega bucks on radars and give us virtual radar everywhere. In another thread Woomera elludes to the cost of SAR. Well if you have a 'puta that knows where every aircrat is, there is another cost. So if AsA want it and RPT want it, and the government can be convinced we should have it, then AsA can pay.

2. Even if GA get it they should only get the black box and no CDTI.

Why??? Anyone with half an ounce of engineering knowledge knows that once you have paid to install a complex bit of equipment the extra cost of the bells and whistles is almost irrelavent. Now if we look at CDTI and the safety it will give to aircraft operating away from your 'random flight path' areas (ie, the whole coast, 50% of SE Oz and most MBZ and CTAF) the increase in safety is well worth it. Even at BKT i wonder if what happened would have happened if both aircraft had full ADSB with displays.

3. GA should pay for fitting.

Yeah right. :mad: Just like mandatory fitted ELTs. It just won't happen!!!!

So then we lose the advantages just because of some blinkered liberal 'user pays' ideology. Utter [email protected] :yuk:

Again I will leave Woomera to argue the 'social benefit' bits, but it seems to me ADSB offers a hell of a lot to fix the criticisms of NAS, can save AsA trck loads and really increase safety in our skies.

If you get it right!!!! And, just cos it ain't in the yank model don't mean it's wrong, why can't we have a better NAS than them???. So, either stick to NAS, or think outside the box!!!

18th Feb 2003, 06:06
Niles Crane

The notebox in the AIP SUP has Dick all over it - his words and thinking. And it is the first time I have ever seen such a thing in an AIP SUP, which after all is a formal notification of a change to AIP, with the same standing as a NOTAM. Just goes to show who is pulling the strings.

There is no obligation to adopt the procedure. The same controller normally works both the E & G, and if you operate in G rather than E, as you are being provided with a lower level of service, you would think you should be charged less :D

Interesting how the IFR cruising in E gets traffic information on the "IFR Pickup" and vice versa, instead of IFR-IFR separation which is a class E requirement. With the stroke of a pen ....

18th Feb 2003, 13:06
Is this "IFR Pick-up" thing part of that "proven North American system" that doesn't need a safety case? Sounds like a mutation to me.

Feather #3
18th Feb 2003, 21:56
No, Lodown , it's not a mutation, simply a procedure used over there, but renamed.

Capt 0001 misses the point that until the IFR requiring a pickup, is, in fact, picked up, he is VFR and thus only gets information. That may, of course, include headings to steer away from the traffic or indeed, if the relevant traffic is IFR, the ATCO would be obliged to separate the IFR from the pickup.

As an aside, I strongly object to the issue of AIP SUP's to change procedures without any background or education. They end up being written by those I refer to as "professional Notam writers" without any semblance of user guidance on either side of the fence. :mad:

It will surprise some readers that the NAS in the USA actually works quite well with levels of service and traffic levels unheard of here. However, one of the major problems we have is getting over to folks the background and culture behind the procedures and how it works in practice. We have already overcome a major hurdle with many ATCO's providing service on a 'can do' basis to allcomers.

However, no-one will be surprised that when I took up this issue with a believing insider, it was pointed out that they're expressly forbidden from doing anything like even attempting to explain anything; just stick out an AIC!! :rolleyes:

And so we plod on.

G'day ;)

Ivana Tinkle
19th Feb 2003, 00:33
Capt 0001 misses the point that until the IFR requiring a pickup, is, in fact, picked up, he is VFR and thus only gets information.

Now i'm really confused.

Can someone please explain to me how a flight planned under the IFR is VFR until it gets picked up.

This maybe a trivial question, but my brain still hurts.

19th Feb 2003, 01:54
Capt 0001 misses the point that until the IFR requiring a pickup, is, in fact, picked up, he is VFR and thus only gets information. That may, of course, include headings to steer away from the traffic or indeed

As a controller one thing I would never do is give a heading to VFR aircraft as firstly they are outside CTA so if we vector a VFR aircraft and they hit a mountain, look out for the lawsuits. Secondly if you're saying you would give a heading to avoid another VFR, then how do you know the other VFR aircraft isn't going to do some see and avoid action at the same time, and turn straight into your recently vectored aircraft.

19th Feb 2003, 04:01
Feather #3

Unfortunately Lowdown is right (I suspect he has first hand knowledge based on his previous posts) this is not the US system.

You are perpetuating the same lie(s) that NAS has pushed from day one. In the US an IFR aircraft without a clearance wishing to carry out this procedure becomes VFR and operates on a VFR basis. In Australia this is not able to happen under the present legislation (particularly for RPT) and an IFR aircraft remains an IFR aircraft operating in VMC (be it marginal or otherwise) with “claytons” IFR procedures. We are now burdened with this [email protected] attempt, explained in a [email protected] AIP Supp, to disguise the ineptitude.

I also understand that you are incorrect about the issue of the Supp. being generated by “professional NOTAM writers”. This disgracefully worded, hastily cobbled together, ill conceived document was, I understand, generated by Indiana himself after he was unable to get agreement within the project. Airservices should be ashamed that this is being passed off as an official operational document. No “professional NOTAM writer” would touch this with a barge pole!


I find it interesting that many of those who subscribe to the big sky theory and oppose the use of radio and transponders are now sticking their hands up and demanding free ADS-B sets and gadgets on the basis that it will increase safety. Suddenly because they can sniff a potential freebie the sky has become decidedly smaller.


I thought an “IFR pick up” was the result of too many square bears in a singles bar!

Feather #3
19th Feb 2003, 04:42

I certainly stand corrected on a re-read of both the SUP & Lodown's point on the VFR/IFR vs VMC/IFR argument. It is not exactly the same, however looking at the service provided to the IFR Pick-up and given that he must remain in VMC, I have a real difficulty with objections as noted. Surely you will be getting the very services which are being removed in G [under the NAS proposal]; DTI and VFR advisories?

OTOH, if your collective objection is to any change to the status quo , then that's another matter.

G'day :confused:

PS I should remind all that I support the status quo as it works well and we all understand it, but I don't see that the NAS wouldn't work here either without loss of safety margins. What I do object to :mad: is a mish-mash featuring the worst of both worlds and a couple of way-out concepts included!!:eek:

19th Feb 2003, 04:45

Didn't say the small end (or me) wanted a freebie. What I said was, you guys seem to be concerned over potential collisions wbetween VFR and IFR(???) aircraft. The ADSB system will fix this.

The only time I mentioned a freebie was when I said that AsA might as well pay for CDTI as well and get a big safety bonus at very little extra cost.

The real winners with ADSB will be the Regional guys operating in and out of CTAFs or below 10,000. Their gain will be peace of mind, more flexible operations and much higher safety levels.

You will only get that peace of mind if the vast majority of what flies is fitted. If you say 'user pays' and then define the user as the owner of the aircraft you fit it in, then most stuff below 5700KG won't be fitted and you are back to sweating in a CTAF.

So, since it is AsA that will save on radar upgrades, it is AsA that can pay to fit ADSB. It should be that way because the 'safety of the travelling public' is their concern, not the concern of a C150 owner!!!

And if you think you can force PVT opertors to fit it, 'mandatory ELTs' :} nyer nyer!!! :P

19th Feb 2003, 05:06
Going back a few posts, Open Mic said:

"IFR can be seperated from each other and get traffic information about know VFR as far as practicable, the ICAO and FAA interpretation of Class E airspace. No service (therefore cost) is imposed on VFR in this airspace. "

Can anybody out there tell me what the cost difference will be? What air navigation charges do VFR currently pay to Airservices for operations in class G, E, C or any other class of airspace for that matter? :confused: (I admit that I think I already know the answer)

If it looks like snake oil, smells like snake oil, and feels like snake oil. it must be...

19th Feb 2003, 05:53
Feather #3 No, I haven't missed the point, just failed to clearly explain it :D

Neddy say it all succinctly, and is right on all counts re the procedure and the SUP author.

19th Feb 2003, 07:59

I don't give a flying twodogs about DTI, what I want to know when flying is where EVERYONE is!

The only way that can happen is if EVERYONE is on THE SAME FREQUENCY!!

And when has an IAP SUP been used to threaten all and sundry to comply othrwisw WW WILL CHARGE YOU MORE!

This is a joke. CASA should be screaming over this.

Political idiots (AOPA and sport aviation) playing politics and risking my life, just because they don't want to pay any airnav charges.

This [email protected]#$% will only stop when it rains aluminium.


One very pissed off twodogs#$%^&*#

SM4 Pirate
19th Feb 2003, 09:13
Feather #3 wrote:

That may, of course, include headings to steer away from the traffic or indeed, if the relevant traffic is IFR, the ATCO would be obliged to separate the IFR from the pickup.

The heading would only be on request, and then only advisory. The IFR in E with a clearance, would not be separated from the IFR pick-up, that's the point, otherwise you'd just issue the 'IFR pick-up' with a clearance and separate them.

You will get traffic on IFR in E and known VFR in E, whilst doing an IFR Pick-up. Known VFRs (i.e. ones getting a RIS and talking to the controller), will get traffic on you, IFRs with a clearance will get traffic on you, they then can ask us for avoiding action if necessary and we are able, i.e. in radar, shouldn’t be too hard, outside radar, just about forget it.


1) Procedure introduced initially in RADAR (just about) only airspace, procedure stays forever. Will it be used in a radar environment, rarely (why cause you can see everything and only need 5 miles and headings are an option as above), will it be used later after E's rolled out into non radar areas (can’t vector off radar), definitely makes sense, procedural standards are larger, more opportunity to use it, possibly safer, if I need 15 DME and I’ve got 10 DME should be safe enough.

2) CASA yet won't allow Bigger RPTs to use the procedure (on good mail), but wait that's who its designed for, i.e. the ones that can't just go VFR... that's why we 'invented' this procedure.

Can anyone confirm the info I have about the US model, the IFR pick-up is given to a VFR aircraft (that has planned IFR, but currently isn't) operating in 'E', for 2 reasons:

1) wishing to enter a new class (A, C etc.) of airspace, where VFR or not would need a clearance to enter (vertical or lateral boundary) so would do so IFR cause it makes no difference, e.g. still subject to a clearance and that's what it planned, or

2) wishing to upgrade to IFR and therefore need a clearance as an IFR in 'E', ‘picking up your IFR plan’.

Isn't that how its used there?
Why don't we need a design safety case?
Is it the same? Apples with apples please...

Bottle of Rum

19th Feb 2003, 20:13
The smoke and mirrors in the SUP are at their most acrid and dazzling with these weasel words:The pilot must request the operation which is VFR on entering Class E.’scuse me? Exactly through what mechanism does the flight change to VFR? Pilot choice? Or are the rules of the flight somehow deemed to have changed as a consequence of the request merely for ‘IFR pick-up’. Big, big difference in outcomes for pilot responsibility and the validity of the SUP.

And could someone explain to me the intended difference between: “should” request; “may not” initiate; “must” request; “must” .. fly; “will” receive. Does “should” mean may or must? Does “may not” mean must not or should not? Does “will receive” mean AA must provide?

Chief galah
19th Feb 2003, 21:40
Annex A to SUP H6/03 - AIP book amendments says to insert

"*Request IFR pick-up". into AIP GEN 3.4 para 5.10.

This phrase is preceeded with a large black dot.

AIP GEN 3.4 para 4.2.2 shows that this is UNIQUE TO AUSTRALIA (ICAO SILENT).

There has been little said of the requirement to remain in VMC whilst awaiting your "pick-up". In my experience one mans VMC can differ from anothers, especially when the pressures to be on ones way come into force. So if clearance is not immediately available, and a pilot wishes to proceed, he may have to divert from planned track to remain in VMC. Will this impact on ATC's ability to issue a clearance later?

The phrase IFR pick-up contains more connitations than is explained in the SUP. To me it means -

"I am requesting clearance, but will remain in VMC, and I might have to level out out a VFR hemispherical level and in these SCT clouds head off to the right a bit towards a hole where those pesky little VFRies are whose transponders are on standby or simply don't work and MY EYES ARE GLUED TO THE WINDSCREEN, while you fart around giving me traffic which you used to do anyway and try to work out out clearance which you didn't have to do in the old days, but I still have the time to be comforted by the fact THAT THIS IS COSTING ME LESS!!!"

19th Feb 2003, 22:48

Beginning to sound like a parrot here, ADSB with CDTI will give you accurate traffic alerts with altitude and in some sets collision warning advice.

The sports and owners bodies will play politics, that is their job. You say it is with your life, perhaps, but it isn't meant to be. It is against the non-pilot grey cardie set who wake up every morining with a neat new safety initiative and to hell with how much it costs GA.

Again (and again and again) ADSB will save AsA millions EVEN IF they are forced by the pollies to pay for fitting every aircraft in the fleet. (And what the hell, even microlights could have one with a small battery!!!).

Then you get your DTI, even if you have to do it yourself.

Now it is a pity CASA is associated with NAS, because I believe NAS, with alittle tweaking, is a good system. But the sort of self interested bullsh!t CASA write in their so-called 'safety' magazine doesn't help build trust. Go read the one sided [email protected] they have written on Paer121B!!!

One last point 2-dogs. Whinging about AOPA et al wont help, whinging about NAS won't help (read Anderson's latest statement on it in CASA's Flight (un)safety mag. You are gonna cop it.)

What will help is if all of us stop sniping at each other and hit the government with some combined political clout so we get a system we all think will work.

And at the moment the only organisation with the size and credibility to do this is AOPA. And anyone who says AOPA is just for PPLs will cop a roasting from hamilton, so, no matter what you think of the guy, he is representing you so represent yourselves to him!!!!

SM4 Pirate
4th Mar 2003, 06:46
Has anyone got the flip cards yet?

If so, what do you think about them?

Is this easy to understand, will you use the IFR Pick-up?

I think the phraseologies could have been expanded upon significantly; a few more variations about different circumstances etc.

Bottle of Rum

4th Mar 2003, 08:50
I too thought ADS/B was the answer to... whatever the question was! But at the Avalon airshow a kind gent on the Airservices stand surprised me with his display showing the 20-odd ground stations spread around the country which YOU HAVE TO BE WITHIN LINE-OF-SIGHT OF TO USE. If you are outside the footprint of the ground station you are just as invisible to my radar screen (and your buddies traffic screen) as you are today.

Far from providing 5nm "radar" standards across the country, the nearest ground stations to, say, Mildura are at Mt. Oxley NSW or Woomera!

The project intends to provide continuous "radar" coverage only at FL300, bug-smashers only get it if they are near the ground station.

If I've got all this backwards my sincere apologies, but there is nothing to contradict this view on the website.

7th Mar 2003, 11:35
We did have an airspace model that was going to be suitable for all and it was called Llamp. Pity some thought otherwise!

You are almost correct. ASA will only be able to "see" aircraft that are line of site to a ground station (radar). But the ground station does not "retransmit" this info back up to aircraft.

For aircraft that are equiped with recieving eqipment, they will able to "see" other aircraft irrespective of ground base coverage.

If one aircraft cannot "see" another one it is too far away ie, over the horizon from each other.

As for the flip card :confused:

Interesting at the FLOT the part pursuant to NAS has been with held until openmike has finalised the NAS, then CASA will re-issue the part and it will be "Compliant".

Good to see CASA rolling over. The only person who has the power to stop NAS it the Director (he can always leave and give a very public reason for doing so) and he is doing his usual. The Minister can only "Direct" the regulator, not the people.


7th Mar 2003, 12:08
I hear that there is a "team" from NAS in North America at the moment. Another "jolly" at our expense?

Will be interesting to hear what they have to say. I find it difficult to understand why the NAS people are operating behind closed doors and not providing industry with regular updates of their deliberations and progress. Certainly does not help keep those that should be, on side!

7th Mar 2003, 13:55

:rolleyes: It's like elephants mating insn't it.:*

If you are making it up as you go along then you wouldn't want any doors open, now would you.

I mean if nobody knows what you are doing, then there can't be any criticism, with the possibility of a fait accompli and we all know how well the driver of this farce handles criticism.

Any criticism is then very easily diverted by simply stating that "you don't know all the facts, we haven't finished yet, but when we have, it will be blindingly clear"

Maybe if we send in some more straw, they can weave some gold cloth out of it whilst they are at it.:sad:

Somebody may well be obliged to point out that the Emperor is actually stark staring naked. :suspect:

7th Apr 2003, 10:24
Latest I hear is that NAS is undershooting with all engines out.

8th Apr 2003, 05:32
Circular to Airservices Staff stated something along the lines of the above. In this latest perceived downturn as NAS makes nothing for Airservices, I believe it is being put on the backburner till someone with something to gain pays the Airservices people working on it to continue. As if that is going to happen.


10th Apr 2003, 23:39
The sports and owners bodies will play politics, that is their job. You say it is with your life, perhaps, but it isn't meant to be. It is against the non-pilot grey cardie set who wake up every morining with a neat new safety initiative and to hell with how much it costs GA.There is the problem in one paragraph!.:mad:
Politics of costs, PERHAPS (Your word) giving rise to jeopardising the lives of others, but it is not meant to be!!!!
Jeezus H!!:yuk: , If AOPA really want to serve our industry, forget about the ridiculous notion that costs will only be reduced by sacrificing safety systems (ICAO compliant airspace) and concentrate on undoing the damage that Indiana has caused with his crusades such as LSC, a point apparently acknowledged in the AOPA thread.
Your arrogance is quite frankly breathtaking, as a PPL you consider you have the right to inflict such changes to other sections of the industry because you don’t want to pay yet acknowledge that lives in greater danger might well be the result.:confused: Again (and again and again) ADSB will save AsA millions EVEN IF they are forced by the pollies to pay for fitting every aircraft in the fleet. (And what the hell, even microlights could have one with a small battery!!!).Again and again and again,that is just plain horse5hit. ADS-B currently being trialed in Bundaberg involves 1 ground station and two RFDS BE20’s. That my friend does not a system make!. If you are going to mount the argument do it fairly ie
- 20 ground station installations (That may or may not increase coverage above that currently under RADAR if ADS-B is assumed to replace RADAR).
- Conservatively , 3,000 odd aircraft installations (Does not include AUF).
- Unless you equip with uprated boxes there will NOT be cockpit traffic advisories (Additional costs).
- If Airservices (Gov Business enterprise ie profit making) pay for the installations, do you really think they will not pass that cost back to the very industry you say cannot sustain safety costs.
- Procedures and separation standards must be developed and training provided.

V’s RADAR Augmentation
- At most 10 additional RADAR heads nationwide to provide coverage in areas where traffic density warrants a RADAR class E airspace arrangement and Class F elsewhere.
- A comparatively small number of transponders fitted to those not currently equipped.

Irrespective of which surveillance system is used it must be installed and commissioned PRIOR to airspace reform!!!

2 Chocolate frogs to the those who can work out which system could be implemented first for the less cost!?;)

And as for that camel excreta that Phelan put up in the December AA, if that is his idea of providing industry with a balanced view me thinks he exists in weightlessness!!.:* One last point 2-dogs. Whinging about AOPA et al wont help, whinging about NAS won't help (read Anderson's latest statement on it in CASA's Flight (un)safety mag. You are gonna cop it.)Perhaps you are right, amazing what buying silence at an election can do for one President Indiana’s cause. The Jet Set have reported from the US that the system over there does not operate as was purported by Indiana and his underlings! WELL NO 5HIT SHERLOCK!!!!. Maps and airspace boundaries are proving a challenge for the aspiring, think it might have something to do with the extent of RADAR coverage and proposed class E!, WELL BLOW ME OVER AND PICKLE ME GRANNY!!!!
Are we gonna cop it!?!?! We will see I guess:} ;)
What will help is if all of us stop sniping at each other and hit the government with some combined political clout so we get a system we all think will work.God damn ULM we agree on something!:p , although me thinks “a system we all think will work” does not represent that which you and AOPA think will work. Your response to valid concerns raised above and the vast number of previous threads on these subjects make clear the vastness of the void between beliefs. Unless and until the common ground is struck within those parameters open to industry negotiation (Read that some system design requirements MUST be left to those expert in such matters), the sector will remain paralysed and haemorrhaging with disputation.And at the moment the only organisation with the size and credibility to do this is AOPA. And anyone who says AOPA is just for PPLs will cop a roasting from hamilton, so, no matter what you think of the guy, he is representing you so represent yourselves to him!!!!FOX Scat!!!! AOPA wilfully or otherwise has ONLY represented PPL’s in some areas and IMHO poorly, although to be fair to some at AOPA they were dazzled and blinded by the rhetoric and promises of past “rudders”. Flying Training and commercial operators were left out of the very representation you talk about; otherwise AOPA would never have supported some of the horse5hit that Indiana thrust on them such as LSC. If wild Bill does not like to hear it, tough!, his one eyed single minded “Roastings” are the very thing that have alienated so many he is suppose to represent, why then would members serve themselves up for such a roasting?. Anyway, what gives him the right, he’s not Mr Jesus H Christ.
The sooner AOPA start communicating with their members and other Professional groups within industry to seek dialogue and perhaps common ground you will continue to fight alone!!!.
That said and given the annihilation occurring within AOPA at the minute, I sincerely hope the broom through will stop the rot and the organisation can return to doing what it should be i.e Representing the wishes of the majority of its members not the will of a small band of know-it-all’s. I would then seriously give consideration to rejoining, as would I suspect a large number of PPL/CPL ATC’s.:=

17th Apr 2003, 09:27
Word is that Dick and the Minister have had a falling out or at least a significant difference of opinion. CASA has been caught in the firing line for doing its job.

The NAS team (?) seem to have disbanded.

It is more than likely that their project continues by stealth and you will read about it in the NOTAMS or AIP.

What a way to do business!

:confused: :confused:

17th Apr 2003, 10:00

Why would we be surprised that Dick and the Minister have had a falling out.

Surely the Minister knows that anyone having the temerity to challenge Indianas view on life will get the full "Temple of Doom" routine applied to him.:rolleyes:

Indianas latest personal effort, not interestlingy enough published by ASA or the NAS group, is breathtaking in its arrogance and this is the dude who is desperate to be President of the Republic when and if it ever comes.:sad:

The NAS "team" disbanded??

May I suggest that it was only held together at Ministerial gunpoint to appease His Indianaship.:*

The resultant is distressingly, depressingly and boringly familiar.:{


As usual :ok:

Spread your arms,
Take a deep breath
And trust your cape.

17th Apr 2003, 10:05

This matches what I am hearing and the consternation referred to in the thread ol' Man Gaunty started.

Also rumours of the attempted resignation of the "Executive Vice President" of the implementation group. Ships and Rats!

As to why? Well where do we start?

1. Dick is involved
2. Ever increasing realisation that there ain't no "North American" model
3. Dick is involved
4. Dick's mates are involved (although also seeking to resign)
5. The need for a design safety case
6. Territorial disputes between the participants
7. Dick is involved
8. The Minister thinks he may become responsible for something
9. See 1.

Choose any or all of the above!

Also interesting how fast CASA managed to change CAO 82 to facilitate the IFR pickup [email protected] No NPRM, No consultation, No notification, No nuthin'. Pity it's still a [email protected] procedure that nobdy uses.