Airspace Reform - Your wish list.

[WhatWasThat]

Once again an attempt to reform our airspace system is mired in controversy, with uncertain outcome. This is the third time around for me, some of my colleagues have seen this come and go many more times.

My question is, do we need radical change at all? If we do, is it the Airspace that needs changing, or is it the charging regime or some other characteristic?

What aspects of the present system are you unhappy with?

What would you change if YOU had one over the minister?

I cannot see any benefit for anyone in the proposed changes under NAS, I suspect it will die a death before too long. There is no clear operational concept I can distinguish other than allowing a certain citation driver to fly VFR up to FL245 without talking to me. This does not seem a good basis for radical reform.

I am genuinely prepared to support any change I see as being driven by industry, the problem is that I see industry as being the pilots and their passengers, but my managers see industry as the Qantas bean counters. The minister obviously thinks the industry is represented by one citation driver.

We all think NAS is cobblers - so what do we want?

[BIK_116.80]

We all think NAS is cobblers - so what do we want?

Who is the “we” that you purport to be speaking on behalf of?

Would you care to define, precisely please, who it is that makes up the collective “we”?

Are you perhaps speaking on behalf of air traffic controllers?

If I, or anyone else, wish to fly an aircraft from (say) Griffith to Broken Hill VFR at FL225 then why, exactly, should I be obliged to use and pay for a “service” that I neither need nor want?

Aren’t air traffic controllers employed to serve the needs of aircraft? Or are the aircraft only allowed to fly because they make work for air traffic controllers?

Are you down there because I’m up here......or am I up here because you’re down there?

I am genuinely prepared to support any change I see as being driven by industry, the problem is that I see industry as being the pilots and their passengers....

A noble statement – but you appear to fail to carry through. Perhaps you are just understandably ignorant about the nature of air traffic outside the J-curve.

You may be surprised, even shocked, at the number of “pilots and their passengers” who view the government’s monopoly air traffic “service” as completely irrelevant to their flight operations. Perhaps you are totally oblivious to the existence of this significant body of “pilots and their passengers” because you’ve never spoken to them on the radio.

These people fly VFR (although many of them fly IFR-capable aircraft and hold current instrument ratings, and I’m in no doubt that a cloud might get in the way from time to time ;) ) and almost all of them carry a VHF radio. The vast majority of them do make all the required radio calls, eg on CTAF / MBZ frequencies, but will virtually never feel the urge to transmit on a government monitored ATC/ATS frequency. If you’ve never spoken to them on the radio then the chances are you don’t even know that they exist.

These people don’t waste their time and effort on adding to the perpetual political machinations associated with airspace reform and the never-ending diatribe from vested interest groups. These people are able to fly because they are successful in life – something that they have achieved, in part at least, by their ability to judiciously prioritise their own time. In short – they’ve got better things to do!

There is no clear operational concept I can distinguish other than allowing a certain citation driver to fly VFR up to FL245 without talking to me.

Your reference to “a certain citation driver” and inclusion of the word “me” is both interesting and telling.

It seems to me, at least, that you have some quite powerful feelings :

Feeling sour grapes (he’s got a Citation and I don’t).
Feeling envious (he’s got a Citation and I don’t).
Feeling a loss of control (he might be allowed to fly his Citation without my permission).
Feeling that your status is threatened (currently I rule the sky).
Feeling unwanted (not everyone thinks the service I provide is essential).
Feeling without purpose (why am I here then?)
Feeling that your employment is threatened (maybe they’ll need less air traffic controllers in future?)
Feeling that your livelihood is threatened (I could lose my job).

Whether any of these emotions has any basis in fact is a separate issue.

These are all entirely understandable human emotions.

But they are human emotions that have no place in a national debate on the classification of Australian airspace.

I suggest that air traffic controllers are there to service the needs of air traffic – not the other way round.

[Ausatco]

Y'know, in the pommy ATC Issues forum an opening post like Whatwasthat's would not have drawn 40-odd lines of vitriolic crap.

Over there pilots and controllers are mature enough to be able to present and discuss differing opinions in a professional manner. Each values the other's opinion, and, dare I suggest, their function in the industry we are in. They rarely resort to personal attack, and certainly not as an opening gambit.

Not a single one of the "human emotions" you list in your dot points was evident in Whatwasthat's post, they are wild figments of your paranoid and antagonistic imagination. Then you patronisingly allow him to have them. How jolly decent of you.

Alright Bik, the man clearly doesn't see a need for the changes NAS proposes.

What is your opinion ABOUT NAS, and why do you hold it? Your post explained neither, it was merely an uncalled-for personal attack.

Grow up, fer chrissake because unless you do then among the professionals on this board you're out of your league.

AA

[Capcom]

WhatWasThatOnce again an attempt to reform our airspace system is mired in controversy, with uncertain outcome.Mired in controversy – No doubt. Groundhog day eh!!!
Uncertain outcome – I wish it were clear that common sense would prevail. I suspect now that the imperative is so great to see change for changes sake and with the decks stacked with “yes” men of dubious motive I doubt an eleventh hour reprieve will occur without a coalface revolt from IFR pilots and ATC’s.
Is a revolt likely to occur? – I doubt it, I personally am so tired of explaining why I am concerned particularly with C being replaced by NON RADAR E. It becomes a case of –
“Oh well, if people cannot understand why this is fraught then let it be and god bless all who sail in her”. I see the inevitable outcome will be a farce similar to the G trial. Groundhog day!!!

Fear not though, there are huge dossiers already in the system articulating concerns with this NAS rubbish for the coroner down the track. ;)
Even Bernie is attempting to fit responsibility with the government (read ARG, ex CASA luminaries’ etc) for pushing this garbage. I think the quote goes “This is a government initiative, we are merely implementing that as safely as possible”!?!?.):hmm:
If you are concerned and have not already done so Email your Team leader, SATC and or the NAS implementation people within AsA with your concerns and if 2b goes ahead “Over service” the industry as best you can to keep it safe!!. “The actions of a reasonable person” and all that.:ok: My question is, do we need radical change at all? If we do, is it the Airspace that needs changing, or is it the charging regime or some other characteristic?Radical Change??- No is the short answer:-

Airspace
- Leave Non Radar C as is
- Change G to E were reliable radar coverage exists
- Change “Aus”G to ICAO F where IFR traffic routes dictate ie. Where IFR receive DTI in G.
- Elsewhere (Boondocks) ICAO G (Nil zip nothing) Specially for BIK and his pressurised Lanceair.

Charging regime
- VFR NO charge in C, E, F and G of course.
- Return current profit dividend taken by the Fed Gov’t to fund VFR TXPDR’s/ADS-B boxes and no cost VFR flight in C, E and F to ensure IFR’s and Airlines are not paying more as VFR will no longer contribute. Any funds left over to fund Infrastructure improvement into the future ie. RADAR/ADS-B to extend E areas where C or F would currently exist.What aspects of the present system are you unhappy with?The list would be to long to post here, most of which has been discussed to death on this forum and others many times.What would you change if YOU had one over the minister?
- The Minister:hmm: :hmm:
- Return the ARG to the golf courses and Cognac clubs from which they came!:yuk:
- Send John and Martha back to the US via the scenic route!.:} :E

BIK

I guess you have all the answers!
Perhaps you might explain why ATC’s being the apparently self interested bunch we are would not support NAS if it meant more jobs which it clearly will (More cost to you Ol bean, then again if you are VFR I guess not!)??, and while your at it give me your best go at justifying changing C to Non Radar E???

Peanut….!!:suspect: :hmm:

[Lodown]

“My question is, do we need radical change at all?”

Depends what you mean by “radical”, but on first glance…emphatically, YES!

“If we do, is it the Airspace that needs changing, or is it the charging regime or some other characteristic?”

The airspace procedures. The charging regime and the regs need changing too, but let’s gets the airspace essentially right first. The momentum is with changing the airspace. Don't change direction now. The charging regime can be organized around the airspace. The airspace cannot, and should not be organized around the charging regime.

“What aspects of the present system are you unhappy with?”

1. It’s effectively blocking VFR aircraft out of the system/CTA.
2. It is promoting CTA use solely for scheduled IFR turbine aircraft, and Class G for everyone else.
3. It is too restrictive for overflights of major centres in CTA for any aircraft in the lower flight levels and at all altitudes. VFR aircraft are forced to avoid CTA rather than feel welcomed into CTA.
4. Aircraft remaining entirely in CTA are handled well. Aircraft remaining entirely in Class G are okay. Transitions from Class G to CTA and CTA to Class G are far more complex than they should be and are handled very poorly.
5. Radio calls in Class G are more complicated and numerous than they need to be.
6. The “system” is taking the fun out of recreational flying and adding unnecessary costs to commercial GA operations.
7. (Related to all the above) The “system” is not adaptive to changes in technology and equipment. New aircraft have entered the marketplace – PC12, etc – and the VFR private/commercial pilot/entrepreneur should be encouraged to embrace the new technologies. The system does not have the flexibility to allow the maximum and obvious benefits to be gained from the investment in these new technologies.

“What would you change if YOU had one over the minister?”

It's a direct recrimination on our legislative, regulatory and adminstrative system that getting "one over the minister" is even seen as the only recourse to implementing effective change.
However, to answer in the spirit of the question:
1. I would be pushing for a US-style airspace system as well. To be sure, it has its drawbacks, but the advantages far, far outweigh the negatives in my view.
2. I’d encourage the employment of just a few very knowledgeable and highly respected aviation/legal professionals to identify major hindrances to the growth of aviation within the regulations and to propose solutions.
3. Invest in a national digital terrain database for use with charts and new technologies (off the subject of airspace but highly important nevertheless).

WWT, I think NAS has many advantages over the current “system”. (LLAMP had initial advantages too, until the proposed radio procedures were determined.) They might not be so obvious now, but when the airspace overhead controlled airports allows unfettered access, I think you will see many benefits to GA operations.

Yes! It will be a pain in the rear end for controllers initially. However, the current "system" does little more than encourage airline pilots and controllers to press for ongoing modifications that make CTA more restrictive to non-scheduled operators. I’m not blaming anyone. It is human nature to look for ways to make work easier. However, the fact that Airservices has the major influence over airspace design and at the same time, Airservices is subject to overwhelming influences from controllers and airline pilots, means that NAS was always going to be difficult to implement.

I don’t like Dick Smith’s methods or his PR-speak at times. I have issues with the design and implementation of NAS and the education, but I also believe the “system” is well overdue for an enema.

[Stick Pusher]

I just saw the topic of the post and hanen't read on, but in my ideal world we would have a hell of alot more radar coverage, less amalgamation of ATC frequencies and congestion and all aircraft fitted with Mode C and TCAS. At the moment it is going the other way and we will soon get to the point where the reason for having the above mentioned items will be apparent when there is a serious a to a . i don't compromise my safety but the system seems to be... and that only can go so far!

[tobzalp]

My wish list is that Winstun, bk11etc and their kind would grow up.

[Creampuff]

1 Decide what outcomes you want to achieve.

It’s amazing how much easier it is to achieve outcomes if you know what outcomes you’re trying to achieve.

2 Work out what options there are for achieving the outcomes you want to achieve.

Include every option, whether obvious or obscure, weird or wild.

3 Exclude the options that will be patently unacceptable.

Some options may be patently impossible from a technical perspective, or patently unacceptable from a political perspective due to cost.

4 Conduct a rigorous and objective analysis of the risks and rewards of each option.

Publish them

5 (and here’s where the Australian airspace ‘reform’ process always goes wrong) Get the politicians to make the decision as to which option to take

Each airspace model will have an opportunity cost. A airspace from the ground up, across the entirety of Australia and associated oceanic airspace, would be comparatively safe but expensive in the short term. G airspace from the ground up, across the entirety of Australia and associated oceanic airspace would be comparatively unsafe but cheap in the short term. There’s an infinite combination of risks and rewards in between. The decision as to which opportunity cost to pay is a political one, not a technical.

You keep stuffing it up because you have a never ending line of technical experts who, for a few pieces of silver, are prepared to take the political decisions and dress them up as technical decisions.

6 Start the hard work of proper implementation

[OpsNormal]

This has been a very interesting read, thanks to those who've voiced their reasoning and not hidden behind motives.

My only concern is the attitude: .....Elsewhere (Boondocks) ICAO G (Nil zip nothing) Specially for BIK and his pressurised Lanceair.....
taken to the airspace that inhabits a great percentage of this land across the interior. Why is it that from perhaps rather insulated positions in either the cities or suburbia, do some of you (especially those with the loudest voices), seem to forget that even though there may be nothing much on the ground (in your opinion) out here where I try and earn a living, the skies out here are reasonably near full of PC-12's, Metro's, Kingair's, Caravans, 146's, 737's and high performance piston twins and singles all trying to earn a living as well getting into and out of non-controlled strips and MBZ's. Why don't you check with the folks in the tower at Alice as to what sort of traffic flows they experience? They ought to have a fairly good idea as to peak times etc (as a great % of the traffic either originates from here or arrives back here). There is far more in the way of commercial traffic out here then private that's for sure. So why can't I get the same (or better) coverage of my flight then someone stooging around out the back of Sydney in a tomahawk?

Then there are the "migrating geese" (tongue firmly planted in cheek here), escaping the cold from schools down south etc who are getting out and amongst it in the bush, which is great to see, but they deserve as much help and protection from being lost as anyone alive also.

What I'm trying to get at is that is that this country has these dirty great designated remote areas on the ground, why should the airspace above it be treated the same? Surely those flying around out here deserve a bit of extra help (constant VHF coverage across the country at 4-5000' would be a fantastic start and an incredible leap forward in adopting a "mantle of safety" for those who have to traverse this country), and why is it so hard to spend a few million dollars and cover a bit more of the interior of the country with a couple of well placed SSR radar units (Mount Gillen, or even Mount Zeil at 5000+') would have to have enough elevation to be able to see 3-400 miles over the reasonably flat country out here.

It has to take those who make the decisions actually starting to look at the issue for what it IS..... The value of a human life (I didn't say lives). When they can do that, and get away from this stupid notion that somehow the lives of those flying around out here are not as important as those flying around on the east coast, then the airspace reforms of this country may well begin to move ahead in a positive way.

Ausatco, I'm sorry mate, but I don't see where the vitriol was, only a post that perhaps cuts close, but not into you guys. I'm prepared to be told where I've missed it, though. ;)

tobzalp, stop depriving a village somewhere of an idiot and take your self-serving crud away until you can find something either constructive to add, or an idea that might make a difference. Sniping like that is childish in the extreme. Twit.

[Captain Custard]

Bindook,

Typical post from you. Lay off. It's not the controllers fault. And others, this attitude of VFR being excluded is not becuase of the type of airspace, it's the attitude of senior ATC management. At the recent I endured a 10 minute rant and rave by Mike Smith and the Kings about how one could fly a 172 into LAX, land on a taxiway and go to a FBO for lunch after dropping off unsecured pax, and how you can't do that at SYD. The relevance to NAS? NOTHING. It's the attitude of the australian government that causes this problem!

The real issue out of all this nonsense is that Dick Smith doesn't want to pay any money to fly anywhere and he doesn't want to talk to anbody. Period. That's what this is all about. It's got nothing to do with increasing safety: making use of radio in CTAFs optional IS reducing safety, and replacing class F with class E is NOT going to increase safety (or at least will be a total and utter overkill: how many IFR operators have jumped up and down demanding E instead of F? None. John King take note. "IFR need E for safety." Nonsense). Dick has always been on the hobbyhorse of User Pays (arguably the main reason the GA industry is in decline in this country as opposed to the US), so as Capcom said, do this:

Charging regime- VFR NO charge in C, E, F and G of course.


Noting, of course, that GA get a hell of a lot for nothing now (well, maybe 50c for a phone card call), all funded by the fare-paying passenger: all the Flight Information Services, NAIPS pilot access, Internet, AERIS, AWIBs, SAR. If you mob want to get really petty, then start paying for all of that. GA benefit in many ways from hopping on the coattail of commercial operators; it's just that some of you self-centered cowboys can't see it/forget that/refuse to admit it.

Lowdown,
but when the airspace overhead controlled airports allows unfettered access, I think you will see many benefits to GA operations
Is just plain dumb at, say Alice Springs. I've been there when 5 jets are within 30 nm, and to expect us to have to lookout for no-radio VFRs waffling around overhead the 'drome at 4500ft just above the control zone while managing the aeroplane, and the radio is "alive", is just stupid. I mean, what is the problem with getting on the radio and telling the tower what you're doing? This sort of nonsense will NOT make hoards of people stay away from flying aeroplanes!

Time for a cup of tea.

[OpsNormal]

Custard, you wrote:
GA benefit in many ways from hopping on the coattail of commercial operators;
I think you may be confusing the term "GA" with "Private Pilot". Or at least at what size company does one start being regarded as a "commercial operator" within General Aviation?

I think I can see where you are coming from, but I'm not sure....

Pep, Tim and the guys all do a fantastic job here, and in the situation you've outlined they are a thing of beauty to listen to when it all gets going hard and fast.... Nice one boys! :ok:

[WhatWasThat]

BIK,
I have up until know respected your viewpoint. Your posts have generally been reasoned, even if I did not always agree with you.

I am surprised and disappointed at the spray my genuine inquiry recieved from you.

I may be wasting my time, but I will respond to some of your allegations.

I dont claim to speak on behalf of anyone but myself - yes I am an ATC and that may colour my opinions on any aviation related subject, however, I believe that ATC exists to provide a service to industry. I always endeavour to provide the best service that my abilities and the rules and regs allow me too. You are way out of line to question my professionalism or suggest that I am motivated by self interest. Whenever it has been in my power I have sought to deliver improvements and efficiencies, in the hope that any dollars saved would filter down to industry.
You are obviously intent on some sort of ego contest pissing competition with ATC, I dont give a damn what you fly or how you earned your money, I just want to do my job the best way I can. Believe it or not I am genuinely interested in knowing what my customers want, the problem is knowing who the customers are.

My comments about the citation driver stem from my belief that he uses his position of power to drive a personal agenda without consultation or thought for the people who will wind up dealing with the fall out from his schemes. (I would like a citation though, guilty on that count)

I have not workrd in the J curve for some time, I think I have a pretty good understanding of what goes on away from the coast.

What I was seeking was an understanding of what is unsatisfactory about the current system. Why dont you take a breath and try to detail what it is that you want out of the system. I will do you the courtesy of listening without prejudice.

[Capcom]

Lodown
I appreciate yours and others forthright posts, perhaps a mature debate might at last clarify positions. The following is a little long winded sorry, however I hope it better explains my thoughts on the AusNAS in relation to your posted comments.The charging regime and the regs need changing too, but let’s gets the airspace essentially right first.Agreed.The momentum is with changing the airspace. Don’t change direction now.The momentum seems to be coming from a small section of the industry with a disproportionate influence. Far from changing direction now, it seems clear to me that the vast majority of posters here and those from industry across the spectrum I have talked to have never supported the AusNAS system.
Yes, I am one of those who firmly oppose this and have on various occasions on PPRuNe discussed my concerns openly with the rest of the forum and Dick Smith. Technical and other questions throughout remain unanswered or at least not adequately addressed despite spin, threats and name calling, the later I admit I was guilty of also (Eye for an eye and bloody frustrating!!).
I assume those who have followed this from the beginning would be hard pressed to draw a conclusion that the technical concerns based purely on design and safety are a sound change set, particularly stage 2b.

So why are the minority but significantly influential powers pushing AusNAS???

To enable VFR pilots to fly without radio across vast airspace areas including over terminal areas! Why?
I would argue there are 2 main driving forces:-
- VFR reluctance to conform/participate in those procedures set out in a controlled environment. In part due to the generally poor exposure to such procedures (education/radio use) and a belief that it is all too hard and fraught with punitive danger if you stuff it up (the wroth of CASA etc).
- Lessen the financial cost of VFR flight. Fair enough given the cost of User Pays (Thanks Dick!!). Perhaps there is the common denominator!?!?.

OK lets discuss how this can be logically and safely achieved WITHOUT degrading protection for other airspace users whilst facilitating better VFR access.
- I assume that for VFR to transit airspace without talking to anyone they must be within radar coverage and TXPDR ON, ATC can then give DIRECTED traffic information/vectors to IFR. (Maintains IFR protection)
- Outside radar coverage VFR must use the radio in C and E so that ATC can provide PROCEDURAL directed traffic information/separation. Otherwise TCAS and or See and Avoid is the last line of defence and assumes that IFR pilots have time to CONSTANTLY scan out the front for traffic in VMC, we all know that is impossible, flight deck management requires heads down for regular periods during climb and descent. (Therefore it is not good enough IMHO and certainly a reduction in safety levels where C becomes Non-radar E)

So assuming that we accept these minimums so as NOT to reduce tangible safety for radar and non-radar areas that are currently C, E and G (ICAO F) the formula seems simple to me and is reflected in my previous post.

In general to your numbered points, (Pilot hat on now!) I have difficulty with how you simplify radio requirements particularly in terminal areas without reducing the protection for IFR flight. Unless you can provide IFR pilots with either self announced VFR positioning or ATS surveillance based substitution of the same information it means IFR are left with see and avoid as the only and last line of defence, is that acceptable? NO IMHO.
Further adding to the difficulty outside radar coverage is that VFR’s are being taken off frequencies that ATS and IFR operate enroute. In the absence of ATS surveillance based DTI (RIS/RAS) it makes it even less likely IFR and VFR will be able to know of each other and arrange segregation/separation. Should it not be the case that VFR should be at least LISTENING on the local ATS area frequency for IFR in their area and speaking when a confliction might occur.
Every part of this seems to be removing the defences for pilots both IFR and VFR and ATC. Silly and short sighted IMHO thus my opposition to specific parts of AusNAS.Yes! It will be a pain in the rear end for controllers initially. However, the current "system" does little more than encourage airline pilots and controllers to press for ongoing modifications that make CTA more restrictive to non-scheduled operators.With respect I am at loss to understand your point.
The only pain in the “date” for ATC is that we are being asked to provide services without the tools to provide it efficiently, ie Radar. Where E will replace G and radar does not exist, we are legally required to separate IFR from IFR using large procedural separation standards ie IFR delays. VFR will not be seen or heard and thus not exist as far as we (ATC and IFR pilots) are concerned TCAS and BIG PILOT EYES will be the only defence, won’t “kill” ATC’s if it don’t work.
As far as C being replaced by NON radar E, again not a pain in the “date” as we will be blissfully unaware of VFR blasting over the top of D CTR’s, Your opposition here will be the crews of DHC8's, SW4's, IFR's in general who quite rightly will be a tad uncomfortable leaving A045 climbing until reaching C, A or RADAR E or of course the reverse on descent.
The only time a VFR would in my experience be denied a clearance through C is when separation with IFR traffic CANNOT be achieved, delays generally would amount to 2-3 mins at most whilst a Vertical Separation standard is achieved, a small inconvenience given the piece of mind and safety provided. No discrimination occurs between IFR, VFR scheduled or Non-scheduled in this regard.I’m not blaming anyone. It is human nature to look for ways to make work easier.I cannot understand or read your comments to be other than accusing/blaming ATC’s/IFR’s of some sort of laziness or deliberate obstruction to VFR traffic. I hope that is not what you are implying otherwise I would expect some sort of qualification of your statement. I am certain that every ATC and IFR pilot will do whatever is possible to accommodate all airspace users as expeditiously as possible, any accusation to the contrary I would find offensive in the extreme.

OpsNormal

Yep, fair cop, I should have further clarified my “G” explanation. “Below FL245 or the appropriate CTA steps under A or B where C, D, E radar or F don't exist”.

I agree though with your sentiments re:- remote areas, the perfect world would see radar E everywhere outside the primary cities, or at the very least “F” with SAR available for VFR and everyone on the appropriately sized (geographically and workload manageble) area frequencies.
If you can convince the powers that be it is needed I will go into bat for ya’.
There is a lot to be said for the good old days when everyone had access, everyone paid with the levy, the big end of town accepted that they derived a benefit from subsidising GA and flying was fun, cheap and all inclusive.

Oh!, what I would give to have a time machine and a Gun!!!.:ugh: :ooh: :suspect: :E :ouch: :{

[Captain Custard]

Ops Normal,

My apologies. Yes, I meant Private/VFR, not commercial GA. I know you guys do it tough.

Re Capcom's excellent post and VFR in E, did you know that Mike Smith said to 300+ (mostly VFR, I suspect) pilots in Perth on Monday night that "the option that may be the best for you in E airspace is to turn your radio off". Well, he did. I kid you not. That says it all, I reckon.

Now I'm off to do my eye exercises!

[Lodown]

Capcom, as I mentioned, I have a number of issues with the NAS as well. Particularly how it fits with the lack of radar coverage for places like Alice Springs as mentioned above. I don’t think we are in disagreement on that point. I apologise for not considering the inland areas in my note above. I got carried away thinking about the Class C’s on the coast.

A big difference this time with airspace momentum is that the Minister is personally involved. They (the Ministers) have all been stand-offish in the past. Lose the momentum and the Minister and his advisors go back to concentrating on other matters and airspace goes back into the wilderness.

It is a shame that the whole lot has to be killed in order to remove some non-negotiable issues in NAS because there are some very good aspects too. If Creampuff’s blueprint had have been allowed to continue from the start (and it was with LLAMP), this might be a different story. (And we all know who to blame there.) However, LLAMP wasn’t really having an effect on the big picture and I can see what Dick meant when he said it was taking too long. It would be years at that pace before reform occurred to the foundations of airspace regulation. It would be nice to be able to modify NAS while airspace is at the front of everyone’s mind, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.

You mentioned two points:
"- VFR reluctance to conform/participate in those procedures set out in a controlled environment. In part due to the generally poor exposure to such procedures (education/radio use) and a belief that it is all too hard and fraught with punitive danger if you stuff it up (the wroth of CASA etc).
- Lessen the financial cost of VFR flight. Fair enough given the cost of User Pays (Thanks Dick!!). Perhaps there is the common denominator!?!?."

I would argue differently, and I speak for myself on this one. VFR aircraft aren’t welcome (or made to feel welcome) at the major Australian city airports. And I mean Sydney, Brisbane, etc. There’s generally no reason for them to land there, which is another matter. I hope Capt Custard will forgive me if I leave Alice and Canberra, etc, out of the argument. So there is very little reason for VFR aircraft to utilize the major airports as a destination. They get hit by a small fortune in payments anyway. However, many VFR aircraft would like to transit by a scenic/direct route through the airspace if it was available. By the time the pilot passes on all the details to be fed into TAAATS; possibly gets held; then gets vectored all over the sky to locations that he/she didn't even consider as realistic track points, it just isn’t worth the time to even try and transit through CTA. A VFR pilot gets directed all over the sky in Australian CTA wondering why he/she can't just be allowed a little autonomy to use the Class 1 eyeballs in conjunction with the radar. It is far more convenient and easier simply to remain at low level and skirt the boundaries. So not only are people concerned about VFR pilots’ poor exposure to CTA procedures, but those same procedures are actively discouraging VFR pilots from getting that exposure. It is “too hard” and too expensive. And then we wonder why there is a conglomeration of VFR traffic scooting around the edge of CTA.

Why can VFR pilots fly in Class E in radar coverage over similar airports to Sydney, Brisbane (Class B, C, D) in the US with considerably more traffic without the same hassles? What obstructions are there to Sydney, Brisbane, etc. doing likewise? They have primary radar. Australia supposedly has the far better ATC information system in TAAATS. Why are there VFR routes IN Class B overhead major airports in the US? I can fly a VFR route at relatively low level over LAX, Phoenix, etc. and am hardly required to speak with ATC. I can’t do that in Sydney. Why can I fly over the football stadium at Philadelphia for an hour, which is just on the southern side of finals and ATC asks me to turn off my transponder because it is setting off the TCAS on arriving aircraft, yet I can still remain there? Why is it that as soon as I receive acknowledgement of my call at Class C in the US, I have a clearance, yet I can’t do that in Australia? I realise visual contact between two consenting captains is part and parcel of this efficiency.

If I want to take some friends up to see the tourist sights and their homes over any city in the US, I can; yet I have to be satisfied in Australia with looking at the major capital cities from the lanes unless I want to spend hours tooling around slotting my friends’ schedules in with those of the airlines. What's the point of going flying in this scenario? What is so different that we can’t at least look at doing the same in Australia without blowing it off and saying it is all too hard to mix VFR 172s with IFR 737s, and besides the 737s pay more so we concentrate on our paying customers? The capital city airports have primary radar. Why can’t it be utilized better in conjunction with, rather than instead of, pilot eyes in VFR? If the weather allows for visual augmentation of the radar screen, it seems silly not to take advantage of a few pilots' eyes.

No doubt someone will mention flight paths. There are noise issues to contend with requiring a multitude of flight paths in Australia, but what is wrong with one or two convenient flight paths for VFR and low level transitting traffic? Why weren't VFR aircraft considered as part of the traffic when these flight paths were worked out? VFR pilots just seem to have been left out of consideration entirely.

This is what I mean by Airservices being influenced by airline pilots and controllers. No, I’m not blaming anyone, but when there is a consultation get-together, the airlines turn up with a team, the controllers have a team, RAAF turn up with a team and yet there is lucky to be one representative from GA. The airline pilots, controllers and RAAF jockeys still get paid and have their transport covered. For the GA rep, the expense often comes out of their own pocket. It is understandable that final decisions benefit the majority at these meetings. I don’t doubt the various reps have VFR pilots in mind, but understandably their priorities lie with their own interests first.
The way things are progressing, current Class C airspace may as well be considered Class P (for Prohibited) airspace to VFR aircraft in the future. I have watched over the years as VFR aircraft have been progressively pushed from CTA with the increase in IFR traffic. The trend will continue unless changes are made.
As I mentioned above, I have issues with a number of NAS points. I don't agree with many of his design initiatives or processes but I still appreciate the fact that Dick Smith is trying to improve the system. No one else seems to have the motivation, urgency or resources to tackle it.

[Capcom]

LoDown
I genuinely understand your position and frustration. I guess those issues you raise are the watershed that have brought the airspace reform agenda to where it is. As you pointed out the LLAMP process was well advanced and at least included all the various sectors of industry. Progress was being made albeit slowly. Telling though in that process was that everyone had their point of view and was able to express their preferred end state. Given the complexity/difficulty of providing those things that each wanted through the process of negotiation (within safety guidelines) the inevitable result was in this example the retention of radio for alerted see and avoid and the like.
Yes, that might not have being VFR pilot’s preferred outcome, it was however an acknowledgement that no one group had the right to force another (IFR in this case) to reduce flight safety levels. To do otherwise would be undemocratic and unpalatable to those whose operations would be negatively affected by the change.
With regard to oveflight of primaries.
Category of airspace i.e. A is by nature restrictive (Everything separated) given how complex the airspace arrangements are around SY, BN, ML etc. Could that be changed?? I honestly do not know.
The rules ATC’s operate within in these terminal areas are now so complex (Coordination between APP, DIR, TWR, DEP, SID’s, STAR’s, Noise abatement, Noise sharing Runway modes, Flow control to multiple runways, etc), it becomes a nightmare dealing with the big stuff let alone a VFR over the top. I am not attempting to make excuses in this regard, it is just the reality of the primary beast.
Class B used in US primary areas may provide easier access to VFR and might be possible here. It would have to be a compelling case to further increase the capacity and cost of ATC to accommodate the extra complexity of allowing a few VFR into a very busy and complex environment given it is not simply a case of talking to one Controller on one Frequency.
There is of course far more to the primary access issue both operational and political than the brief comment above.
I would highly recommend that interested pilots contact AsA and perhaps organise a visit to the TCU (Terminal Control Unit) in their capital, it is the best way to get a real picture of how the system works.:ok:

[Lodown]

I’ve been to the TCU’s several times and I have nothing but respect for how the controllers do their jobs. My comments relate to my impression that US controllers seem to have procedures and regulations in place that make their airspace management much more efficient and open to all, while maintaining a high level of safety. It seems to work.

There are several aspects to US control that I like, and they relate to deferring operational decisions back to the cockpit as much as possible. I can think of two at the moment. One is the ability of controllers to defer separation decisions to pilots under visual conditions within CTA. The second is the implementation of clearance limits, whereby the pilots are given the responsibility to arrive at certain points at certain times. Australian controllers seem to regard this as the quintessential aspect of their job, whereas the US controllers are quite willing to dump this workload back into the cockpits.

Australian procedures appear to favour controllers managing the aircraft – telling the pilots what to do and how to do it. These procedures work well but appear to have a limit in terms of traffic capacity.

US procedures appear to favour controllers managing the airspace – telling the pilots where they want them and when, what’s in the way and letting them manage the aircraft. The procedures appear designed to get work off the controllers' desks and seem to be more effective.

Again, just my impression, but the US system seems to better encourage both controller and pilot to work in unison towards a common goal and appears to be more effective and efficient.

Changes to procedures do not necessarily involve extra controllers and higher workload. Airservices may find that the US procedures actually reduce workload at the same time allowing the same number of controllers to handle more aircraft. I think it's worth consideration.

[karrank]

I've seen a few suggestions that B airspace will mean more flexibility for VFR. NO, NO, NO. The only differences from the current C is VFR are separated from VFR, and the G & E airspace surrounding it requires a transponder, regardless of level. Both will pose ADDITIONAL restrictions from now:eek: :eek:

In addition, after implementation, implied clearances will apply in C, not B, and B airspace will go to a higher level, both disadvantaging VFR.:ouch:

[BIK_116.80]

WhatWasThat

Ahhhhh – so it was the ROYAL “we”. :)

Let’s review. When you said :

We all think NAS is cobblers....

as later modified by :

I dont claim to speak on behalf of anyone but myself....

what you really meant was :

I think NAS is cobblers....

I’m so glad you cleared that up. For a moment there I thought you might be trying to imply that you held some sort of mandate to speak on behalf of some kind of constituency – presumably the greater pprune community, which would include me. It’s now abundantly clear that you never held any such mandate.

Which leaves the question - if you meant “I” then why didn’t you say “I”?

Were you perhaps distracted by a misguided belief that everyone else in the pprune community shared your point of view? Or did you take a conscious decision to deliberately and misleadingly over-state the case so that it would tend to support your position?

(I didn’t consider for a moment the possibility that you might be schizophrenic – not seriously anyway. ;) )

To be entirely honest, it was your use of the words “We all think NAS is cobblers....” that prompted my reply. If you had written what you really meant (ie “I”) then I wouldn’t have bothered.

Any suggestion that everyone in the greater pprune community “think NAS is cobblers” is factually incorrect.

You are way out of line to question my professionalism or suggest that I am motivated by self interest.

You call it the way you see it and I’ll call it the way I see it.

Upon reflection and after careful consideration I don’t believe that any of my comments were even moderately inappropriate.

Believe it or not I am genuinely interested in knowing what my customers want....

And I’ve offered you one of the answers - NOTHING. They just want to be left alone.

But it’s very interesting that in your first post you used the words “pilots and their passengers”, whereas in your more recent post you use the term “customers”.

I did attempt to suggest that a great many of the “pilots and their passengers” that you initially referred to may not in fact be your “customers” at all.

A great many “pilots and their passengers” don’t need or want any “service” from you. In fact – many of them fly thousands of miles each year (or fly great distances at sub-optimal altitudes they’d not otherwise fly at) just to avoid being obliged to use the government’s air traffic “service”.

Not only do these “pilots and their passengers” choose not to receive a “service” (because they perceive no net benefit) but worse than that – they are inconvenienced by it and incur additional expense in avoiding it (as Lodown has alluded).

These people might not be your “customers”, but they are certainly “pilots and their passengers”.

So tell me again who it is that you are really interested in? Is it all “pilots and their passengers”, or only the “customers” who pay their way?

My comments about the citation driver stem from my belief that he uses his position of power to drive a personal agenda without consultation or thought for the people who will wind up dealing with the fall out from his schemes.

I realise that Dick-bashing (what an unfortunate term – then again, perhaps the double entendre is highly appropriate ;) ) has become something of a national past-time – so much so that in certain circles it’s almost de-rigueur.

This is highly unfortunate. I suggest that Dick-bashing is simply passé.

One of the great things about being a pilot is that you get to visit different places and see different things – some of them a long way from home and in countries vastly different to our own. Many of these places make you realise just how good things are in Australia. But every now and then you come across a place that gives you ideas about how things back home could be done so much better. Spending time in other countries does give you a very different perspective to someone who has never left these shores.

Now I’m no great Dick-lover - I’ve openly and loudly disagreed with a number of his ideas both here and elsewhere. But there is no denying that he has vision, drive and enthusiasm in abundance. Combine this with his extensive experience of other parts of the world and you have a man that can see how good things in Australia could be, and who also has the time and energy to push for change.

And what’s wrong with that?

From reading some of the nonsense on these pages one does get the impression that those in certain circles are so anti-Dick that even if Dick Smith had discovered electricity there would have been hordes of knockers coming out of the woodwork in an attempt to belittle him - arguing that electricity was unsafe, that there was no need for it, that it’d never catch on, that it would be inefficient and a waste of money, and that it would result in unemployment for all the gas workers and steam engineers.

In my experience Dick’s loudest detractors are often those who are not well travelled and who are so engrossed in the micro-detail of the local status quo that they cannot see the forest for the trees.

....I think I have a pretty good understanding of what goes on away from the coast.

Maybe you do and maybe you don’t. I remain unconvinced. I suggest that it’s rather difficult to know what you don’t know.

What I was seeking was an understanding of what is unsatisfactory about the current system.

And that’s precisely what I am trying to tell you (although perhaps not as clearly as is apparently required).

What aspects of the present system are you unhappy with?

There is a large group of “pilots and their passengers”, remote from the capital cities and high traffic areas in the J-curve, who are currently obliged to use (and in some cases, pay for) a government monopoly air traffic “service” that they neither need nor want.

Ausatco,

What is your opinion ABOUT NAS, and why do you hold it?

Some aspects of NAS are a really good start. But in my opinion NAS doesn’t go nearly far enough.

If I had my way all of Australia would be class G. (proper G, not ICAO F as Australian G is now)

Since you asked....

I hold that opinion because I know that the flight crews of a dozen or so IFR and VFR aircraft arriving at a CTAF airport within 10 minutes of each other are perfectly capable of safely and sensibly sequencing themselves for landing without any assistance from air traffic control – day or night – even in IMC – even when one of them has a radio failure – and even without the very great traffic awareness benefit to be gained from TCAS. I know that because I have seen it happen a great many times. With the benefit of TCAS this kind of self-arranged mutual separation would be even easier. In contrast, the same level of traffic at a similar towered airport always results in lengthy delays.

I hold that opinion because I believe in the big sky theory (with certain qualifications). If all aircraft in Australia flew a GPS derived direct track from origin to destination with a random right offset (rather than funnelling everyone into the same narrow piece of airspace along a route defined by terrestrial navigation aids) and flew at a random cruising levels (eg 6,243 feet or 33,724 feet etc, rather than forcing everyone to funnel into the same few levels at 33,000 / 34,000 / 35,000 etc) the probability of a midair collision would be sufficiently remote – even within the high density east coast J-curve – as to justify reliance on existing TCAS systems to assist the flight crew resolve the very low residual risk of a collision. Outside the east coast J-curve the probability of a collision would be sufficiently remote as to be acceptable even without the benefit of TCAS (although the use of TCAS would decrease the risk of a collision even further).

I hold that opinion because I believe that a significant proportion of current air traffic control procedures are an anachronism based on now irrelevant technological constraints of a by-gone post-war era, exacerbated by the chronic lack of air traffic control infrastructure (ie primary radar) outside the capital cities. And I don’t see Australian radar coverage being extended anytime soon. Fortunately, I don’t think it will really matter.

What does matter is that the planes don’t collide. I suggest that the very best way of avoiding a collision is to ensure that the flight crews know where the other traffic is. A TCAS traffic display is an excellent means of achieving this. The better TCAS displays show traffic to a range of 40 miles and within a window of +/- 9,900 feet. Current TCAS systems can track up to 45 aircraft, display up to 30 of them, and can simultaneously co-ordinate resolution advisories with up to three intruders. Future TCAS systems will be even better.

The current air traffic control arrangement involving the use of a ground-based radar operator and/or air traffic controller has evolved from a time when the technology to provide a cockpit display of real time traffic information simply didn’t exist.

Additionally, in the bad old days airliners had to work their way along straight lines from one terrestrial radio navigation aid to the next. It wasn’t very efficient, and it did tend to funnel all the traffic into one narrow piece of airspace. But at least you knew where you were – somewhere between A and B! Thankfully, those days are long gone and airborne navigation technology has advanced to the point where an aircraft can be accurately and reliably navigated from anywhere to anywhere. There is no longer a need to funnel all the traffic down the same narrow highway in the sky and the chance of a midair collision is greatly reduced.

It’s hugely ironic that in the vast tracts of non-radar controlled airspace in Australia we currently have a situation where two conflicting TCAS-equipped aircraft are aware of each other’s actual position and pressure altitude, updated on a second by second basis, but the air traffic controller who owns the airspace and who is responsible for maintaining separation between these two aircraft is not. Why don’t we simply cut out the middle-man and let the flight crews get on with it?

In short, that’s why I hold that opinion (since you asked. ;) )

But having said all that, I recognise that there are a great many people who are less trusting of modern technology than I am, who have trouble dealing with the statistical probability of their own death in an air crash in a rational way (irrespective of how remote that probability might be), and who have a different attitude toward perceived risk than I do.

I can understand that Australian society will demand that jet airliners flying between capital cities need to be positively separated from other IFR traffic – if for no other reason than as a “feel good” measure. As a minimum, that would require class E airspace in and between capital cities at typical jet levels.

For everywhere else I see no problem with ICAO class G. :ok:

Capcom,

Send John and Martha back to the US via the scenic route!

Vindictive sentiment towards John and Martha is justified because........ ?

John and Martha are two of the finest people you could ever hope to meet. They are in Australia at the invitation of the Australian government to make a contribution to pilot education as experts in their field.

But I guess they aren’t out there campaigning for a ten-fold increase in the number of air traffic controllers eh? :rolleyes:

Perhaps you might explain why ATC’s being the apparently self interested bunch we are would not support NAS if it meant more jobs which it clearly will....

Whenever there is any kind of change proposed the air traffic controllers always come out saying that we will need more air traffic controllers. This is hardly surprising.

Unfortunately, the only people who are even pretending that they believe NAS will require more air traffic controllers are the air traffic controllers.

More cost to you ol bean, then again if you are VFR I guess not!

I would choose to operate a private flight in Australia VFR whenever possible. I’d prefer to fly VFR so I don’t have to pay to be delayed.

....give me your best go at justifying changing C to Non Radar E???

I don’t see any need for anything more than class E. If it’s in or between capital cities at typical jet levels then it should be class E – radar or no radar. All the traffic that matters already has TCAS and everyone else can get TCAS if they want it. It doesn’t matter whether people on the ground know where the planes are, what matters is whether the flight crews know where the planes are.

Lodown

4. Aircraft remaining entirely in CTA are handled well. Aircraft remaining entirely in Class G are okay. Transitions from Class G to CTA and CTA to Class G are far more complex than they should be and are handled very poorly.

5. Radio calls in Class G are more complicated and numerous than they need to be.

6. The “system” is taking the fun out of recreational flying and adding unnecessary costs to commercial GA operations.

All agreed. :ok:

1. I would be pushing for a US-style airspace system as well. To be sure, it has its drawbacks, but the advantages far, far outweigh the negatives in my view.

I concur. :ok:

3. Invest in a national digital terrain database for use with charts and new technologies....

Already exists in various forms, doesn’t it? eg EGPWS for basic terrain elevation data, GA GPS moving map display data for topographical features and airspace boundaries etc??? What kind of database do you mean?

I....believe the “system” is well overdue for an enema.

Me too. :ok: And it’s going to be a messy and uncomfortable affair.

Stick Pusher,

....all aircraft fitted with Mode C and TCAS

Now you’re talkin’. :ok: :ok:

OpsNormal,

It has to take those who make the decisions actually starting to look at the issue for what it IS..... The value of a human life (I didn't say lives).

A western, middle-aged, professionally employed university graduate white male with a wife and 2.5 dependent children living in a developed country is worth about US$2m. As cold as that might sound, the FAA uses this kind of actuarial valuation every day of the week in calculations regarding mandated levels of aviation safety.

....get away from this stupid notion that somehow the lives of those flying around out here are not as important as those flying around on the east coast

Aside from any issue about why one life is worth more than another (which, like it or not, is an actuarial reality) there are simply more lives at stake in the east coast J-curve, and so it is possible to justify a greater safety expenditure.

Captain Custard,

Typical post from you.

Am I being accused of consistency? ;)

Lay off.

If I post something that does not comply with the forum rules then I would expect to be appropriately castigated by the forum’s moderator.

Unless and until that happens I will continue to call it as I see it.

It's not the controllers fault.

I would agree with any suggestion that in many cases air traffic controllers are eminently sensible people who are obliged to work in accordance with a silly and outdated set of rules.

In short - sensible people doing a silly job.

It's the attitude of the Australian government that causes this problem!

Agreed. And the sooner the provision of air traffic services is truly privatised the better. :ok:

....GA get a hell of a lot for nothing now (well, maybe 50c for a phone card call), all funded by the fare-paying passenger: all the Flight Information Services, NAIPS pilot access, Internet, AERIS, AWIBs, SAR. If you mob want to get really petty, then start paying for all of that. GA benefit in many ways from hopping on the coattail of commercial operators; it's just that some of you self-centered cowboys can't see it/forget that/refuse to admit it.

Your argument would be sustainable if the allegedly parasitic GA operators you refer to actually needed or wanted any of those “services”.

If those “services” weren’t available for free, would GA operators go out and purchase them? In a great many cases the answer would be NO.

Lodown,

I agree with everything in your 16:52 post. :ok:

[Creampuff]

From the House Hansard for 21 August 2003 (at: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr210803.pdf)

Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (Batman) (4.39 p.m.) —This evening I want to speak about cronyism and the very important story about the three Dicks who have the Howard government in their pockets. It is a story about Dick, Dick and Dick and their reach into infrastructure, transport and safety policy-making in Australia. Their power is derived because they are mates of the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister. Not just any Tom, Dick or Harriet can access this power; only the elites who have the Howard government in their pockets.

Let us look firstly at the influence of Mr Dick Estens on communications and infrastructure. Mr Estens is a fellow farmer and a very close personal friend of the National Party member who holds the seat of Gwydir. Who better to roll in to calculate how many pieces of silver it would take to change the views of National Party members on Telstra privatisation? Dick Estens, the loyal local Nat and mate of the Deputy Prime Minster, was given the power to determine what it would take to buy off his mate's colleagues. Mr Estens, a man who had had no prior communications experience to speak of, delivered the whitewash, as requested, ignoring hundreds of submissions decrying the quality of telecommunications.

Then we have a very special Dick: Dick Honan—another mate at the Liberal Party court. Mr Honan's company comprises about 90 per cent of the ethanol industry and has been selected for a leg up of close to $50 million from the taxpayer. Any other Australian businessperson unable to stimulate demand for their particular product would be told to fix it themselves—but not when you are a friend of the Liberal-National Party court. Dick Honan just visited his mate the Prime Minister and did a deal for a slug on the taxpayer to prop up his business. The PM also threw in the services of his deputy to market his product; he was told to hold special meetings with fuel producers, retailers and fuel users to force them to ignore what their customers were saying and to use more ethanol.

Then we have the final Dick: Mr Dick Smith. Dick, to be fair, is an enthusiastic amateur pilot, adventurer and successful marketing man. Mr Smith and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services are not the best of mates. They had a very public stoush in the lead-up to Mr Smith's leaving the CASA board. Mr Anderson, as we were told then, was not going to work with him again. We then had Mr Smith embark on a strategy to get back into the tent. He threatened to stand against the minister in Gwydir.

Before we knew it, Dick Smith visited the Liberal Party court and soon announced that he would not run in Gwydir. We do not know what happened in those discussions but, soon after the election, the minister put him in charge of airspace design and reform. The design and development of our airspace has been outsourced to Dick Smith. The result is that not one person on the Airspace Reform Group has air traffic control or airline pilot qualifications.
The proposed NAS system does not have widespread industry support and it will put the Australian travelling public at risk. It is one thing to lose ownership of Telstra, and it is another thing to spend millions of dollars to prop up a friend's industry; but to risk the aviation and the travelling public's safety to deliver a political outcome—in essence, to get Mr Dick Smith not to run or support a candidate in Gwydir at the 2001 election—is unforgivable.

I consider the Howard government to be shameless in its reach for political patronage. This week we have had the member for O'Connor, better known as `Ironbar Tuckey', now become known as `Wee Willie Tuckey'—`Will he or won't he go Tuckey'. I simply say that the facts speak for themselves: he should go. He gives this House a new version of `family assistance'. Forget the laws that ordinary Australians are expected to live by. We have seen the member for Berowra using his ministerial powers to fatten his campaign funds and to look after friends—forget the rules that others have to live by. They have lost perspective and they are a disgrace. They have ignored the integrity of the Australian political system.

[WhatWasThat]

BIK,
I apologise profusely, I had assumed you had some idea about that which you speak. Your ill informed ideologically based ranting make it clear to me that you are utterly ignorant.
You accuse me of attempting to claim a mandate that I do not possess, and then, unbelievably, claim to be speaking on behalf of a giant "silent majority"; I doubt that you have any grasp of the complexity of the profession of ATC, nor the intricacies of designing an airspace system that balances the requirements of all airspace users. Well here's a newsflash sky god, the world doesn't end outside your cockpit, you may think its acceptable to have open slather everywhere, but the majority of airspace users are the pax on the majors, and even one hull loss due to an idiot with a grossly inflated sense of his own abilities is too much for them. Grow up - I may think I can drive safely without speed limits or stop signs, but the family in the Tarago I splatter will probably disagree.

For those whose egos allow them to consider another’s point of view, here is my recipe for a better system.

Subsidise fitment of ADSB squitter to all aircraft capable of powering them. Economies of scale should drive the price down to something reasonable.

Mandate carriage of ADSB in areas where traffic density warrants it, (willing to negotiate on exact dimensions, suggest above 10000 nation wide and down to top of MBZs at aerodromes serviced by RPT)

Remove air route structure and allow "Free flight", (this is more complex under TAAATS than it seems if you want to chase winds, but I'm sure solutions could be found)

Increase use of visual separation, in the circumstances where one aircraft reports sighting another. (Done below F125 now, have never fully understood why we can’t do it at any height) Note this is different to Dicks look and hope philosophy.

Contain majority of RPT trajectories within Class C, E down to 10000 elsewhere, Class F for GAFA.

No Enroute charges to private users, recover costs through charging commercial operators (ala USA)

Fund all this through removal of radar heads and those ground based NAVAIDS which are no longer required by us or by industry, stopping the requirement for us to return a dividend to the government each year, cleaning house and getting rid of the oxygen thieves which encumber ASA.

Also administration of severe beatings to those ATCs who still think it’s the 60s and don’t do their best to make the system work as flexibly as possible, they only encourage people like BIK and Dick. I often wonder how much trouble could be avoided by a little politeness on the RT to those individuals whose fragile egos require constant massage to reassure them they are indeed captain of the ship.

[Capcom]

Part 1

BIK_116.80

WhatWasThat said:Believe it or not I am genuinely interested in knowing what my customers want....you replied:And I’ve offered you one of the answers - NOTHING. They just want to be left alone.“They” according to you are:- A great many “pilots and their passengers” who don’t need or want any “service” from you

I assume you have a mandate from "A great Many pilots (Assumed to be VFR)" either by their having declared a public position or something else?? and I assume you quiz your unsuspecting pax on their approval or dis-approval of strapping in and blasting off reliant on your Big Sky eyes and a confidence that you can “see and avoid” everything without having a schmick where ANYTHING is. Pleeeeeeease....

You go on to say:But it’s very interesting that in your first post you used the words “pilots and their passengers”, whereas in your more recent post you use the term “customers”.And the difference would be :-that a great many of the “pilots and their passengers” that you initially referred to may not in fact be your “customers” at all.

Only if "they" as you then say:-fly thousands of miles each year (or fly great distances at sub-optimal altitudes they’d not otherwise fly at) just to avoid being obliged to use the government’s air traffic “service”.You then assert:-Not only do these “pilots and their passengers” choose not to receive a “service” (because they perceive no net benefit) but worse than that – they are inconvenienced by it and incur additional expense in avoiding it (as Lodown has alluded).NO, the Pax don't get a choice, and are incurring additional expense because:-

A pilot would fly around or under ATS services airspace at great expense (Probably 10's if not 100's of dollars per flight) to save a few dollars NOT receiving a safety service from ATS on their optimum track. More expensive and less safe, I think that qualifies said pilots as STUPID.

One would then ask why would a pilot make that decision?

I suspect their competence or lack of it within the ATS system would seem the only other reason for someone to make the decisions you suggest they do??? If I have missed something in your explanation please enlighten me or at least let me know where you fly from and to, so I as a PAX can make the decision TO POLITELY DECLINE YOUR SERVICES!!! or as a PILOT remain well clear of you (In CTA/CTR)!!!.So tell me again who it is that you are really interested in? Is it all “pilots and their passengers”, or only the “customers” who pay their way?We only provide services to those who choose to use them and as you suggest there are some (I would suggest a very small minority of VFR PVT pilots) who consider big sky better than an ATS service. I am certain most ATC's do have a concerned interest in the safety of all airspace users irrespective of whether Pilot or unsuspecting passenger. Your attempt to place the context of WhatWasThat's questions into some sort of ATC self interest is a poor attempt at deflecting the intent of the original questions.

Interestingly though, you have not commented on my suggestion for VFR No Charge in C, E, F and G?.
Is it because it would not matter to you if it were free or not and is it is all about you and your dislike of participating in the ATS system and using a radio.
What is your problem?
Scared of CASA, AsA, ATSB or are scared of making a goose of yourself if god forbid you have to use procedures and/or a radio!!!!.

WhatWasThat also said:-My comments about the citation driver stem from my belief that he uses his position of power to drive a personal agenda without consultation or thought for the people who will wind up dealing with the fall out from his schemes.An entirely reasonable assumption given Dick’s past endeavours in airspace dabbling and how Dick, the ARG and NAS have come to prominence. The widespread comment over many months on this forum in the absence of industry consultation/debate would also support the same assumption!!! In my experience Dick’s loudest detractors are often those who are not well travelled and who are so engrossed in the micro-detail of the local status quo that they cannot see the forest for the trees.Hmmm, micro detail such as C becoming non-radar E over D zones!?!?
“Forest for the trees” or the “Squashed bug for the approaching traffic”If I had my way all of Australia would be class G. (proper G, not ICAO F as Australian G is now)Says a lot…!!! I hold that opinion because I know that the flight crews of a dozen or so IFR and VFR aircraft arriving at a CTAF airport within 10 minutes of each other are perfectly capable of safely and sensibly sequencing themselves for landing without any assistance from air traffic control – day or night – even in IMC – even when one of them has a radio failure – and even without the very great traffic awareness benefit to be gained from TCAS. I know that because I have seen it happen a great many times. With the benefit of TCAS this kind of self-arranged mutual separation would be even easier. In contrast, the same level of traffic at a similar towered airport always results in lengthy delays.How many times do you think the scenario you have cited would pan out safely (NCD)??
- I note only one was apparently not using radio!!!
- Even without TCAS???? But better with TCAS!?!?!
- Same level of traffic at a similar towered airport always results in lengthy delays????.
I was taking you seriously until that rubbish…
…and which would you consider safer? ATS or Big Sky probability, or is that an irrelevance to you?.I hold that opinion because I believe in the big sky theory (with certain qualifications). If all aircraft in Australia flew a GPS derived direct track from origin to destination with a random right offset (rather than funnelling everyone into the same narrow piece of airspace along a route defined by terrestrial navigation aids) and flew at a random cruising levels (eg 6,243 feet or 33,724 feet etc, rather than forcing everyone to funnel into the same few levels at 33,000 / 34,000 / 35,000 etc) the probability of a midair collision would be sufficiently remote – even within the high density east coast J-curve – as to justify reliance on existing TCAS systems to assist the flight crew resolve the very low residual risk of a collision. Outside the east coast J-curve the probability of a collision would be sufficiently remote as to be acceptable even without the benefit of TCAS (although the use of TCAS would decrease the risk of a collision even further).So on the one hand you say 12 or so IFR and VFR in the terminal area works a treat, yet you apparently consider that off track and an "altitude free for all with TCAS" being those “Certain qualifications” needed to mitigate against the failings of see and avoid????.
OH, I get it, climb and descent into and out of terminal areas is Sooooo much easier than en-route flight!!!!......

Sorry Ol bean, can’t have it both ways!. You either believe “see and avoid” is OK for primary means separation or you are suggesting that some pilots and their passengers who are NOT TCAS equipped (large numbers of aircraft below 7,000kg and others) should accept the Odds of surviving the Big Sky.
Awwww Sure….What does matter is that the planes don’t collide. I suggest that the very best way of avoiding a collision is to ensure that the flight crews know where the other traffic is.Yup, we agree on this fundamental issue!A TCAS traffic display is an excellent means of achieving this. The better TCAS displays show traffic to a range of 40 miles and within a window of +/- 9,900 feet. Current TCAS systems can track up to 45 aircraft, display up to 30 of them, and can simultaneously co-ordinate resolution advisories with up to three intruders. Future TCAS systems will be even better.Yup, great system that not many aircraft have that operate in the classes of airspace under discussion i.e. Non-pressurised IFR and VFR.
TCAS whilst an extremely valuable safety tool IS NOT APPROVED FOR PRIMARY MEANS OF SEPARATION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!!!
Until it can provide pilots “every” part of the service that ATC currently do it will remain as it should a excellent safety augmentation system.The current air traffic control arrangement involving the use of a ground-based radar operator and/or air traffic controller has evolved from a time when the technology to provide a cockpit display of real time traffic information simply didn’t exist.Still does not for most aircraft!!! (TCAS that is!)It’s hugely ironic that in the vast tracts of non-radar controlled airspace in Australia we currently have a situation where two conflicting TCAS-equipped aircraft are aware of each other’s actual position and pressure altitude, updated on a second by second basis, but the air traffic controller who owns the airspace and who is responsible for maintaining separation between these two aircraft is not. Why don’t we simply cut out the middle-man and let the flight crews get on with it?Yep, as a safety enhancement device it serves that purpose already. Separation initially facilitated by ATC thence DTI directing pilots where to look for the conflicting traffic in preparation for assigning Pilots visual separation. SAFE!!. I recognise that there are a great many people who are less trusting of modern technology than I am, who have trouble dealing with the statistical probability of their own death in an air crash in a rational wayModern technology, Hmmm is that TCAS your talking about or YOUR EYE’s?. If you have both then you have not just been pushing the “see and avoid” barrow have you?!?! So what is the statistical probability difference with and without TCAS IYHO eh!.
You have been a naughty little spin doctor you!!!.I can understand that Australian society will demand that jet airliners flying between capital cities need to be positively separated from other IFR traffic – if for no other reason than as a “feel good” measure. As a minimum, that would require class E airspace in and between capital cities at typical jet levels.

For everywhere else I see no problem with ICAO class G.

Oh My!, the double standard again!!! Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics Eh Dick…I mean BINDICK…..Ops sorry I meant of course BINSOOK.:yuk: :yuk:

[Capcom]

Part 2

BIK_ 116.80

I suggested:-Send John and Martha back to the US via the scenic route!Then you ask:-Vindictive sentiment towards John and Martha is justified because........ ?Not vindictive and I reject your suggestion that it is, I was merely suggesting that John and Martha have no place in this country telling Aussies what we should accept. To condone Mike Smith telling industry to turn their radios OFF in E outside radar coverage seems dangerous bordering on Bazaar to Littl’ Ol’ Me. The scenic route is a suggested flight plan track through the outback to visit the sights, spend some of that hard earned cash at some of the many struggling one horse towns.John and Martha are two of the finest people you could ever hope to meet. They are in Australia at the invitation of the Australian government to make a contribution to pilot education as experts in their field.Don’t doubt that and yes who wouldn’t when the Gov’t is paying. They might be pilot educators in the US, this ain’t Texas Ol’ Bean.But I guess they aren’t out there campaigning for a ten-fold increase in the number of air traffic controllers eh?Nor was I and seeing as you raise it, Dick kicked this whole shooting match off on the promise of 70Million in savings Blah, Blah Blah. Yet all we get to support this ridiculous claim after much pressure is Mr “$1000bucks a day” Willoughby pumping out a report (If that what is was?!?!) that said Jack ****e’ about how it was to be achieved.
So where is the industry going to save??

NAS will result in:-
G becomes E outside radar coverage = IFR delays (Costs) and possibly greater ATS staff to run it given the greater workload.
C becomes E outside radar coverage = IFR now getting less separation/DTI on VFR and paying more as VFR don’t play any more. (Run as it is in the US would mean an additional E controller in each D Tower as the Centres will not be assuming the “E” that is changed from “C” below A085. More cost to the IFR GA/RPT industry!)
The Kings, CASA road shows, Documents, Maps, AsA staff hours trying to work it up so IFR people don’t die unnecessarily etc etc.

Leaving the safety issues aside, the only people who win from NAS on the cost front is VFR.
Jeeez, wonder why you say don’t worry about the micro safety details, NAS is great! Amazing how many sectors of the industry you would sell down the dunny on safety and costs to save yourself a couple of dollars. Discraceful!.

So Einstein, If we were campaigning for a ten –fold increase in the number of air traffic controllers we would be saying:-

NAS… GO YOU GOOD THING!!!!…………………You Idiot, think about it and save us your deceitful spin!.

I asked:-....give me your best go at justifying changing C to Non Radar E???You replied:-I don’t see any need for anything more than class E. If it’s in or between capital cities at typical jet levels then it should be class E – radar or no radar. All the traffic that matters already has TCAS and everyone else can get TCAS if they want it.All the traffic that matters eh, I am sure those Pilots and their Passengers in PA31’s and the like would consider themselves “TRAFFIC THAT MATTERS” and they don’t have TCAS and cannot afford the 20K+ to put it in.It doesn’t matter whether people on the ground know where the planes are, what matters is whether the flight crews know where the planes are.Sums up your clear lack of awareness of the holistic ATS system and its role in ensuring flight crews know where the other traffic is as well as a multitude of other services. Your bias and motive is abundantly clear.
Good day to you Dick Spinner!.:mad:

[Winstun]

EVOLUTION....does not happen overnight
What we witness here is a broad character aspect of mainsteam Australian society...xenophobia, ignorance, low aptitude, and an obsession with pendantic gossip of trivial detail. :rolleyes: This Aussie behaviour would almost be tolerable if it were not supplemented by such wild assertions like sporting greatness...invention of everything ....etc etc (much like the old Russians) :hmm: Its high time Aussie pilots and controllers pulled their heads out of their ass....
...willingly or not :ok:

[BIK_116.80]

WhatWasThat,

....then, unbelievably, claim to be speaking on behalf of a giant “silent majority”

Nope. Merely bringing their existence to your attention, in reply to your thread-starting questions.

....balances the requirements of all airspace users.

Yep – there are some (rare) times when running the show as a democracy and trying to be all things too all people is far from ideal.

Sometimes a benevolent dictator is preferable to committee and consensus.

....the world doesn't end outside your cockpit....

Thank goodness! It’d be a bit of a mystery were one would fly to if it did! ;)

Subsidise fitment of ADSB squitter to all aircraft....

Excellent idea! Everyone can know where everyone else is. Great stuff!

Mandate carriage of ADSB in areas where traffic density warrants it,

Yeah, why not – fill yer boots!

(I’m gonna put this one in big red letters coz it’s such a corker!)
Remove air route structure and allow "Free flight"

YES! YES! YES! YES! YES!
(Am I starting to sound like Meg Ryan?)

See – you knew what people wanted all along! :ok:

No Enroute charges to private users....

Absolutely! :ok:

....recover costs through charging commercial operators (ala USA)

Um, not sure what you mean on this one. Please explain? :confused:

....removal of radar heads and those ground based NAVAIDS which are no longer required by us or by industry, stopping the requirement for us to return a dividend to the government each year, cleaning house and getting rid of the oxygen thieves which encumber ASA.

Where do I sign? You’ve got my vote! [1]

....administration of severe beatings to those ATCs who still think it’s the 60s and don’t do their best to make the system work as flexibly as possible....

Could do. Better yet – put ’em out to pasture. Send ‘em to the middle east or somewhere. :ok:

....I often wonder how much trouble could be avoided by a little politeness on the RT....

All BS aside, me too. :)

Capcom,

Good to see you’re still awake, mate. ;) :ok:

Appreciate you taking the time to explain your situation.

I’ll try to answer your questions as best I can.

I assume you have a mandate from “A great many pilots” (assumed to be VFR) either by their having declared a public position or something else??

WhatWasThat sought information about what people want from the air traffic system.

It has been my observation, made over a number of years, that there is a large and significant group of pilots who don’t want anything – they just want to be left alone.

It seems quite likely that we move in very different circles.

If WhatWasThat was unaware of the existence of this group of people (I note that he says he wasn’t) then I hope that he might now at least entertain the possibility.

Many of these pilots have instrument ratings and fly IFR-capable aircraft, but current Australian airspace procedures (that use ICAO class F procedures in what is nominally called class G) mean that these pilots are forced to fly in accordance with the visual flight rules when in class G unless they want to pay.

Electing to fly VFR when IFR capable is not restricted to private flights or PPL pilots. When enroute charges were introduced for avgas powered IFR flights in class G a very significant proportion (I would guess about 70%) of charter category operators changed their policy overnight from one of always going IFR to one of always going VFR unless there were too many clouds (nudge nudge wink wink). These operators were happy to take the ICAO class F service if it came for free, but the value that these operators placed on the ICAO class F service was less than the cost of the enroute charges that were introduced.

RPT is of course required by regulation to fly IFR whether they want to or not.

So yes, most of these pilots now fly VFR.

I assume you quiz your unsuspecting pax on their approval or dis-approval of strapping in and blasting off reliant on your Big Sky eyes and a confidence that you can “see and avoid” everything....

Every passenger who’s ever flown with me has relied on me to get them back on the ground safely. I’ve never let one down yet - despite the occasional ATS screw up.

Like being cleared to “line up and wait” with a lander at 300 feet on final (“thanks, but I’ll wait for the aircraft on final to land first”), and like being given DTI on opposite direction IFR traffic (tracks 160 degrees apart) at the same level and with the same estimate for the same enroute terrestrial radio navigation aid only AFTER I had reported sighting the aircraft passing down the left side a few wing-spans away (both aircraft in and out of broken cloud, neither aircraft TCAS equipped), etc etc.

You mention “see and avoid”. I’ve never been a big advocate of see and avoid for IFR aircraft. I agree that it doesn’t work as well as, say, a 40 mile TCAS traffic display.

What I would advocate is the big sky theory. It’s very simple and works on the idea that the sky is very large, the aeroplanes very small (in relative terms), and that in the vast majority of enroute Australian airspace the traffic density is very low.

What was it that prevented me from colliding with the opposite direction IFR traffic (in the example above) as we flew along, predominantly in cloud, each blissfully unaware that the other was coming the other way? It wasn’t DTI - that much is for certain! The DTI came AFTER the two aircraft had already passed and I’d given the ATS guy a nudge. No – it was simply the big sky theory.

Despite being at the same level and despite passing overhead the same terrestrial radio navigation aid at virtually the same moment the two aircraft STILL managed to miss. It’s not a matter of black magic or divine intervention - it’s simple geometry. The sky is very large.

If two aircraft are able to miss each other in those circumstances, then surely the probability of a collision could have been further reduced if the aircraft had not been at the same cruising level. The safety margin would have been greater if one aircraft had been cruising (say) a few hundred feet lower and the other aircraft (say) a hundred feet higher. I suggest that funnelling traffic into the relatively few cruising levels increases the chance of a collision.

So what do the passengers make of it all?

I once took a very “high maintenance” lady from overseas to a tiny Australian country town with a small, deserted grass airstrip. She was a very up-market city-slicker type and she’d never been there before. On final approach she tapped me on the shoulder, “Where’s the runway?” She thought I was about to land in a sheep paddock! Which I was - one containing a grass runway.

During taxi after landing she asked, “Where’s the control tower?”

“Back in Sydney,” I told her, realising she’d probably never seen anything quite like this.

“How do you know where the other planes are?” she asked, looking very concerned.

“Look around you – how many other planes do you see?”

“Err, none.”

“There you go then.”

When in Rome, as they say. :ok:

....without having a schmick where ANYTHING is. Pleeeeeeease....

Try as I might, I’m not exactly sure what you mean here. :confused:

NO, the Pax don't get a choice, and are incurring additional expense because:-

A pilot would fly around or under ATS services airspace at great expense (Probably 10's if not 100's of dollars per flight) to save a few dollars receiving a safety service from ATS on their optimum track. More expensive and less safe, I think that qualifies said pilots as STUPID.

One would then ask why would a pilot make that decision?

The passengers always have a choice. No one is forcing them to get on the aeroplane – except perhaps in certain very specific situations (eg persons in custody).

I agree that an additional expense is incurred in avoiding controlled airspace (as I suggested in an earlier post), but I suggest that this expense is often not as great as what the additional expense could be if the aircraft routed via controlled airspace.

It’s not just the AsA charges that people are trying to avoid, like the charter operators who fly IFR-capable aircraft VFR in class G, it’s also the potentially unlimited extra track mileage once inside controlled airspace. There is no guarantee of getting a direct routing at an optimum altitude. It’s a judgement call for the flight crew to decide which one will be the least-worst option – to go through, or to go around – neither choice is ideal.

I once did a flight from one country aerodrome to another country aerodrome. I’d flight planned the most sensible route (which by coincidence just happened to be an entirely class G route) via all the radio navaids (in case of com failure etc), but once airborne I elected to go straight to the destination. The direct track was going to take me 20 miles inside one corner of another aerodrome’s procedural class D airspace. The controlled airspace was in the shape of an enormous sectorised inverted wedding cake, and the point at which my direct track would enter CTA was 50 miles past the class D aerodrome. Whilst still in class G, and with plenty of time to run, I requested a clearance to cross the class D. The clearance that came back was to track present position direct to the class D aerodrome’s on-airport VOR, and then turn towards my destination. This would have required an immediate left turn of about 60 degrees and a right turn over the VOR of about 70 degrees, and would have added about 60 extra track miles to the flight. I declined the clearance and instead descended 4,000 feet (in order to be underneath one of the class D airspace steps) and turned right 4 degrees (in order to remain laterally clear of a lower airspace step – including an allowance for the required navigation tolerance etc). The revised track in class G took me about 10 miles right of the direct track I had been hoping to take.

(All numbers approximate....)

I chose to incur a time and cost penalty (compared to the optimum direct routing) in order to avoid controlled airspace because I judged that penalty to be many times less than what the penalty would have been had I followed the best available controlled airspace clearance.

Did I need or require the “service” of controlled airspace? No.

Were the passengers ever going to get the “service” of controlled airspace when flying between A and B? No.

Stupid? I don’t think so.

Now about this “less safe” business....

Had I chosen to make the maximum possible use, I could have flown in controlled airspace for nor more than about 20% of the route distance.

But what’s the point? VFR is not separated from VFR in class G. Nor is VFR separated from VFR in class D. Nor is VFR separated from VFR in class C. So why bother?

I suspect their competence or lack of it within the ATS system would seem the only other reason for someone to make the decisions you suggest they do???

I am in no doubt that there are a great many people who are in precisely that position.

Having tried out this controlled airspace malarkey a couple of times with a “Hello – I’m at [location 1] and I want to go to [location 2]” type radio call (or a variation thereof) and having been greeted with “remain outside controlled airspace – clearance not available” many people tend to give up and put it in the too hard basket. Lodown described the problem well in one of his earlier posts. A hapless pilot might get the impression that it’s a bit like asking Claudia Schiffer out on a date – completely hopeless. After asking the first few times you don’t bother to waste your time asking again.

The other unfortunate thing that can happen is that pilots who only rarely venture into controlled airspace can be so poorly treated that they are made to feel intimidated and unwelcome. A subtly sarcastic tone, a rapid fire airways clearance followed by a condescending repeat, a stressed controller with an unnecessarily aggressive correction to an erroneous pilot read-back. It’s often something very subtle. Sometimes, less so. You think they’re going to want to come back for more?

These are AsA’s potential “customers”.

If I have missed something in your explanation please enlighten me....

See above.

....or at least let me know where you fly from and to so I as a PAX can make the decision TO POLITELY DECLINE YOUR SERVICES!!!

I suspect that it’s highly unlikely that you’ll ever receive an invitation that would cause you to have to make that decision.

....or as a PILOT remain well clear of you (In CTA/CTR)!!!.

If, as a pilot, you wish to make maximum possible use of controlled airspace then that is entirely your decision to make. Good luck to you! ;)

....as you suggest there are some (I would suggest a very small minority of VFR PVT pilots) who consider big sky better than an ATS services.

I suggest that you might be very surprised.

I’m just thinking through all the people I know who will go to great lengths (some of them to extraordinary lengths) to avoid having to use ATS - either by electing to go VFR or by avoiding controlled airspace. Lots of them are PPL-holders, that’s true. I don’t share the popular belief that PPL holders are somehow second-class citizens, though. But in any case, many of these people are CPL or higher licence holders, many of them have an instrument rating, some of them are Chief Pilots, some Chief Flying Instructors, some of them are very experienced line pilots. All of them are sensible, rational people who have made a judgement that, by and large, they are better off flying VFR and in class G. They have determined that the benefits to be gained by flying IFR, or in controlled airspace, are simply not worth the extra hassle and expense.

....you have not commented on my suggestion for VFR No Charge in C, E, F and G?.

Is it because it would not matter to you if it were free or not....

I am more than happy to pay the full price for any kind of service that I decide I need.

By and large, AsA don’t provide any services that I need.

I don’t want to have to pay to be delayed.

I acknowledge that under the current arrangements if I want to visit a major airport in a capital city then I have no option but to pay the AsA toll collectors.

I’m sure that this is part of the reason for the rapid growth of non-government, un-controlled aerodromes like Wedderburn, near Sydney. At the current rate that Wedderburn is growing, and at the current rate that Bankstown is shrinking, Wedderburn should have more aircraft than Bankstown by about 2008.

Scared of CASA, AsA, ATSB or is it you are scared of making a goose of yourself if, God forbid you have to use procedures or a radio!!!!.

PMSL! ;) ;) You could not possibly realise just how far from the truth you really are. ;) ;)

Hmmm, micro detail such as C becoming non-radar E over D zones!?!?
“Forest for the trees” or the “Squashed bug for the approaching traffic”

Changing C to D is one step in the right direction. :ok:

Changing C to E is two steps in the right direction. :ok: :ok:

How many times do you think the scenario you have cited would pan out safely??

Empirically, more than 600 times with no collisions.

- I note only one was apparently not using radio!!!

No – not quite.

One of the IFR aircraft had a radio failure on two separate occasions.

There were other aircraft that are without an electrical system, and without a radio, that were part of the traffic mix on various occasions.

- Even without TCAS???? But better with TCAS!?!?!

You punctuation suggests that you are incredulous, but I’m not clear on just what it is that you are incredulous about. Which bit needs explaining?

- Same level of traffic at a similar towered airport always results in lengthy delays????.

Correct. No doubt about it.

I was taking you seriously until that rubbish....

I’m not sure what it is that you think is rubbish.

It seems that you might not be aware of how things work at a busy country CTAF.

If you’ve not had the same experiences and seen the same things then that’s hardly something I’m going to feel guilty about.

....and which would you consider being safer ATS or Big Sky probability or is that irrelevant to you?.

Actually, it’s more relevant to me than you could possibly imagine.

It is my suspicion that in Australia’s enroute airspace outside the east-coast J-curve the answer would be the big sky theory.

So on the one hand you say 12 or so IFR and VFR in the terminal area works a treat, yet you apparently consider that off track and an altitude free for all with TCAS being “Certain qualifications” is needed to mitigate against the failings of see and avoid????.

I’ve never been a big advocate of see and avoid.

OH, I get it, climb and descent into and out of terminal areas is Sooooo much easier than en-route flight!!!!

Yes. In the terminal area, as well as having the big sky theory, and as well as having a TCAS traffic display to 40 miles and +/- 9,900 feet, flight crews have the benefit of a CTAF frequency to organise mutual sequencing. That’s not (or rather, isn’t going to be) available in the class G enroute environment.

Sorry Ol bean, can’t have it both ways!. You either believe “see and avoid” is OK for primary means of separation....

I’ve never been a big advocate of see and avoid.

I do believe that looking out the window occasionally whilst in the cruise can be good for your health, and I would advocate looking out the window quite a lot when in the circuit area, but in the end I think you are more likely to be spared a midair collision by the fact that the sky is very large than by your own vigilance.

....or you are suggesting that some pilots and their passengers who are NOT TCAS equipped (large numbers of aircraft below 7,000kg and others) should accept the Odds of surviving the Big Sky.

Yes.

I believe that those odds are as good as any other odds.

The 7,000 kg aircraft you mention are not mainline jets that carry passengers between capital cities. These are regional aircraft that come into capital cities from country areas, or that carry freight between capitals.

I have acknowledged that Australian society would expect that IFR jet airliners flying between capital cities are positively separated from other IFR traffic (by a ground-based ATC service). When these small regional aircraft come into the big smoke they are that “other IFR traffic”. When they are away from the capital cities the low traffic densities and the big sky theory provide a sufficiently low probability of a collision as to be acceptable on their own.

As an aside, there are those who have postulated on these pages that CAR 3 / FAR 23 types should be removed by regulation from Australian commercial fleets.

Such a regulation, should it be introduced, would take out the most numerous aircraft in the 7,000 kg class, along with the hundreds of 20-35 year old light twins.

I’m not advocating that, but I would advocate that all commercial aircraft operating in the east-coast J-curve should have TCAS. (And for everyone else it would be a very good idea.)

[TCAS....] Yup, great system that not many aircraft have that are operating in the classes of airspace under discussion i.e. Non-pressurised IFR and VFR.

The small aircraft in the Australian commercial aircraft fleet are generally old and worn out.

Things are so dire that one regional airline has been forced to operate hand-me-down aircraft from Mexico (for god’s sake!) alongside even older hand-me-down aircraft that were first retired from Australian airline service six or seven years ago.

I would agree with any suggestion that putting TCAS in these old clunkers would be an unwise over capitalisation.

Thankfully, as replacement aircraft are brought into Australia (either new builds or overseas hand-me-downs) they’ll generally have either TCAS (medium and large aircraft) or TCAD (small aircraft) already fitted.

TCAS whilst an extremely valuable safety tool IS NOT APPROVED FOR PRIMARY MEANS OF SEPARATION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD!!!

And the Trimble Transpack was never approved for anything – but it still got me round the world and back to where I started from. :ok:

Modern technology, Hmmm is that TCAS your talking about or YOUR EYE’s?. If you have both then you have not just been pushing the “see and avoid” barrow have you?!?! So what is the statistical probability difference with and without TCAS IYHO eh!.

You have been a naughty little spin doctor you!!!.

Sorry – I can’t quite follow your line of reasoning. Run that buy me again?

Not vindictive and I reject your suggestion that it is....

It seems you’re back-pedalling....which is pleasing. John and Martha don’t deserve any of this BS.

....Mike Smith telling industry to turn their radios OFF in E outside radar coverage....

I’m not going to try to justify anything the ex-NRMA break-down repair man says.

....this ain’t Texas Ol’ Bean....

Yeah – pity about that.

The aviation industry would be 100 times more vibrant if it was.

G becomes E outside radar coverage = IFR delays (Costs)

BINGO! We got one! I agree with you on that one! :ok:
(I knew we’d get there in the end. ;) )

Yep – that sucks big time.

Should be made into ICAO G instead.

C becomes E outside radar coverage = IFR now getting less separation

VFR aircraft in class E have a mode C transponder. TCAS equipped aircraft will have a TCAS traffic display of the VFR aircraft even if the no-radar air traffic controller is unaware of them.

Leaving the safety issues aside, the only people who win from NAS on the cost front is VFR.

Yep - people will simply go VFR and won’t bother with IFR. Changing existing G into all that no-radar E (and then charging for it) is a non-sense. It should all be ICAO G so that IFR doesn’t have to pay either.

Amazing how many sectors of the industry you would sell down the dunny on safety and costs to save yourself a couple of dollars.

I’m happy to pay for all the services I need.

If you ever come up with a service that’s worth having then I’ll be the very first one in line and I’ll be delighted to pay!

Go on – I dare you! ;)

All the traffic that matters eh, I am sure those Pilots and their Passengers in PA31’s and the like would consider themselves “TRAFFIC THAT MATTERS” and they don’t have TCAS and cannot afford the 20K+ to put it in.

Of course they matter. In the areas where Chieftains fly, at typical operating altitudes the probability of running into another aircraft is extremely remote. They don’t need TCAS. (Although they’d be better off if they had it, of course.)

Chieftains are a fine aircraft and they have served Australia very well. But at the rate these old CAR 3 / FAR 23 aircraft are currently falling from the sky a midair collision is the very least of their worries! There are other more pressing issues that are far more likely to down a Chieftain than running into another aeroplane.

(except for this one (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/129032/M/), of course! ;) )

....clear lack of awareness of the holistic ATS system....

Sounds like some kind of 1960s religious cult.... ;) :ok:

G’day Witsun,

Say – can you do a couple verses of the Lumberjack Song for us? That’d be neat! ;) :ok:

[89 steps to heaven]

At the moment we have C steps down to D tower airspace in some regional centres.

If it is possible to prove why a change to E steps down to D tower airspace is better, it would make things clearer.

As it is, no cost reduction, a reduction in Federal government provided services to regional Australia (again and despite promises) and an increase in risk in flying through this airspace.

I'm sorry, but I can't be sold just on the sizzle of this one, I want to know about the whole sausage.

[Capcom]

BIK_116.80Good to see you’re still awake, mate.I must confess, I am banned from PPRuNe by “She who must be obeyed…..” :O , thus the midnight oil…:hmm:
The beatings are long and brutal if I get caught. :ooh: :E

But seriously…

I guess our philosophical positions are clear to those who read this thread and the multitude of threads past on AusNAS.

AusNAS reduces some safeguards particularly where C becomes non-radar E. http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/Itchscratch.gifI guess perhaps we will agree to disagree on its merits, it is irrelevant in the end, what is important is that those views are aired and people can make up their own minds.

I said:-…..or at least let me know where you fly from and to, so I as a PAX can make the decision TO POLITELY DECLINE YOUR SERVICES!!!To whit you said:-I suspect that it’s highly unlikely that you’ll ever receive an invitation that would cause you to have to make that decision.To whit I say:-
If you could only “INVITE” me, I guess that means you are not an RPT/Charter pilot………WHAT A RELIEF!!!http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/bootyshake.gif

I also said:-....clear lack of awareness of the holistic ATS system....To whit you said:-Sounds like some kind of 1960s religious cult....What can I say………….http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/smiley_watchout.gifhttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/madgrin.gif:p

89 Steps...

There is sizzle elsewhere OCTA (Aus G/ICAO F whichever you want to call it, MBZ/CTAF and Radio or lack of it!) but I’ll leave that to those most experienced and affected by those changes. Perhaps John and Martha’s road show might answer some of your questions…………or not!!!http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/RSRen5.gif

[ferris]

A couple of points.

1. Implanting the US system here WILL NOT CAUSE A SUDDEN AVIATION REVIVAL. Stop spouting that lie (or spin, or whatever). Implanting a different system while calling it the US system is fraud and a contemptable act (surely that was part of the intention of the John and Martha thing???? or am I just too cynical???).
The health of the aviation industry has far more to do with economics (you could even go so far as to say the charging system) and the demographics of rural Australia, than the airspace system. By your own admission, most people are driven out of the system by the charges, not the model. Why aren't you pushing for the US charging system???? The mind boggles. The only reasonable conclusion is that this whole thing is about being given free-reign, freed from the (safe) shackles of ATC.
2. There is nothing worse than amateurs meddling where professionals will have to operate in the mess created (it's bad enough dealing with the "$hit floats to the top" managers). Witness the attempts at airspace 'reform' to date.
3. ATC's (IMHO) really couldn't give a toss what happens to the airspace model. At the end of the day, the people who pay the wages are the airlines, and they will dictate what service they get. It is only the few who dislike the philosophy being pushed, the underhanded way it is being pushed, and care enough to say so, who vocally oppose it.

I hope you get the system you deserve.

[BabyMetroBoy]

This whole airspace revival is just exactly what they were trying to bring in a couple years ago - just a bit disguised. My critisisms are:
1. They seem to claim that we are trying to make the airspace more accessible for VFR aircraft. So why are we keeping the upper airspace Class A where VFR is not allowed? Class B would do the job.
2. Basing the whole thing on the US system. Doesn't this assume that we have radar coverage down to low level across the continent for it to work? I mean if you are going to have Class E everywhere including on top of a Class D aerodrome how will ATC provide traffic information to IFR aircraft climbing/descending if ATC cant see the VFR radar returns. Now we know that VFR aircraft do not necessarily know their EXACT position all the time so if ATC asks a VFR for his position, what if there is some degree of error? Considering you might have an IFR B737/Dash8/SAAB340 type aircraft rocketing through this airspace relying on see and avoid... hmmmm hope the transpoder and TCAS is working.
3. I believe they eventually want to have Class G in some areas. The current Class G we have is more like Class F as IFR get traffic information. They want to have Class G where IFR and VFR fly around willy nilly and noone knows anything. I still cant get this idea into my head safely.

[willadvise]

Capcom et al:-

I hope I am not tell you to suck eggs here but are you aware that the current enroute cost for VFR in Class C is zilch, nothing, zero, not a brass razoo.

[Capcom]

Willadvise

Brilliant…..Thankyou!! 100% Correct:ok:

Checked the Avnet today to make sure and sure enough (Facilities and Services Page 6, 5.7) VFR no charge for en-route services!!

Through out this whole sorry debacle there had being something niggling at me that did not add up!:* :hmm:

Alas, I had glossed over perhaps the most important thing in all of this!. 20 outa’ 10 to Dick and his spin team, they had me and apparently most of us believing NAS was supposed to save industry (Particularly VFR) 70mil blah blah blah (Even though we didn’t have anything definitive on that score anyhow!), when in reality it was the biggest red herring of the lot!.:mad: :yuk:

So then what does AusNAS achieve apart from reducing IFR protection outside radar coverage????

How much money will industry have to pay to cover the cost of this folly??

Loco Loco ****e’….. :{ :ugh: :uhoh: :mad:

[ferris]

Don't give Dick etc. too much credit. I think the guys in GA are acutely aware of what they get charged for. The impression I had was that a lot of the proposed changes were aimed at making the system more flexible for flip-flopping between IFR and VFR (as the conditions are like that). That sort of flexibility is misunderstood by amateurs such as Dick, who cannot see why it's a problem. Ninety percent of what he is doing is purely about freeing him of the constraints of an orderly (non-radar) system.

I certainly concur that there is a great amount of BS, red herrings, spin, call it what you will. How Machiavellian.

The charging issue should be treated as a totally different kettle of fish. That, of course, would serve none of the 'higher-ups' purposes, would it?