NAS on the skids?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty:
Well said. The old saying that "The truth is always the first casualty of war" comes to mind. Thankfully, most thinking individuals (regardless of their occupational status) can see through the propaganda generated by the extreme elements of all stakeholder representative organisations, and generally form their own perspective of what is of value and what's not. Hopefully, all representative organisations in this NAS debate (including AOPA) will heed your advice and only continue to submit balanced and reasoned debate that eventually contributes to an effective and safe NAS.
89 Steps:
A very valid observation, 89 (sounds a bit like Maxwell Smart doesn't it?). This is a planning aspect of the NAS implementation that hasn't received the attention it deserves. Your point has made me realise that many stakeholders probably don't realise some of the more subtle cultural or economic factors surrounding the operation of the US air traffic management system.
For example:
1. The US ATM system is taxpayer funded, which means that a VFR pilot is entitled to the same level of service from the ATM system as his IFR counterpart. In Australia, the funding base for our ATM system is more discriminatory and favours the provisions of services on a selective basis to IFR/RPT pilots (user pays principle). This fact is quite significant as it means that, regardless of the policy environment, the workface controller in the US, is not in a really good defensible position to refuse services to a VFR aircraft when he knows that the same aircraft has also helped pay for the ATM system in the first place! I don't believe that the ARG or the NASIG has really grasped the significance of this little aspect on the controllers' psyche when they will be delivering ATM services under NAS.
2. Based on my research, I can find very few differences (ON PAPER) between the current US airspace model and that proposed for Australia under NAS. However, PRACTICALLY, there are huge differences, and it is these differences that are significant in assisting the US model to overcome the system limitations that we are discussing in this forum.
For example, the extensive surveillance capability within the US airspace system ensures that, practically, "see and avoid" is never relied on as the SOLE or PRIMARY means of conflict detection and resolution. Following the airline mid-air collisions over LAX and San Diego in the early '70s, the FAA has had a long established (informal) policy environment in place to encourage greater VFR participation in the ATM system so that collision avoidance capability is improved. The FAA recognises that controllers are the key to implementing this "VFR friendly" policy environment and encourages controllers to provide a level of service to VFR aircraft which is generally above that required under national regulation (in other words the system is generally over-servicing the VFR pilot. Not a bad thing in my view)!
Therefore, it is easy to see how the combination of a favourable policy and funding environment, encouraging controller service attitudes, as well as a more effective technical surveillance cability contributes towards the virtual elimination (in the US system) of most of the issues and limitations that we in Australia are trying to come to grips with in the implementation of NAS.
So, 89, you're right. These are crucial ingredients and no-one in either the Department, the ARG, CASA, Airservices, ATSB, Civil Air, AFAP, AOPA or NASIG are addressing them. So who wants to pick the ball up and run with it?
Safe flying and separation to all.
Civil Air and the airline pilots are entitled to their view of the universe, but they should be a whole lot more responsible about how they present it.
89 Steps:
If we are to implement what is basically the US system, it not only needs the technical base to support it, but we need to adopt the underlying culture & training as well.
For example:
1. The US ATM system is taxpayer funded, which means that a VFR pilot is entitled to the same level of service from the ATM system as his IFR counterpart. In Australia, the funding base for our ATM system is more discriminatory and favours the provisions of services on a selective basis to IFR/RPT pilots (user pays principle). This fact is quite significant as it means that, regardless of the policy environment, the workface controller in the US, is not in a really good defensible position to refuse services to a VFR aircraft when he knows that the same aircraft has also helped pay for the ATM system in the first place! I don't believe that the ARG or the NASIG has really grasped the significance of this little aspect on the controllers' psyche when they will be delivering ATM services under NAS.
2. Based on my research, I can find very few differences (ON PAPER) between the current US airspace model and that proposed for Australia under NAS. However, PRACTICALLY, there are huge differences, and it is these differences that are significant in assisting the US model to overcome the system limitations that we are discussing in this forum.
For example, the extensive surveillance capability within the US airspace system ensures that, practically, "see and avoid" is never relied on as the SOLE or PRIMARY means of conflict detection and resolution. Following the airline mid-air collisions over LAX and San Diego in the early '70s, the FAA has had a long established (informal) policy environment in place to encourage greater VFR participation in the ATM system so that collision avoidance capability is improved. The FAA recognises that controllers are the key to implementing this "VFR friendly" policy environment and encourages controllers to provide a level of service to VFR aircraft which is generally above that required under national regulation (in other words the system is generally over-servicing the VFR pilot. Not a bad thing in my view)!
Therefore, it is easy to see how the combination of a favourable policy and funding environment, encouraging controller service attitudes, as well as a more effective technical surveillance cability contributes towards the virtual elimination (in the US system) of most of the issues and limitations that we in Australia are trying to come to grips with in the implementation of NAS.
So, 89, you're right. These are crucial ingredients and no-one in either the Department, the ARG, CASA, Airservices, ATSB, Civil Air, AFAP, AOPA or NASIG are addressing them. So who wants to pick the ball up and run with it?
Safe flying and separation to all.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groundhog Day
I have been reading this thread as an observer but cannot hold my tongue anymore.
As we are apparently showing our colours I am an ATC, also hold/held ATP, CPL, CIR etc. So to answer certain de facto entry requirements that other correspondents here espouse, am I a professional pilot? - well not any more. Now I just fly my bugsmasher VFR on my days off. I consider myself a professional nonetheless and am quite frankly offended by 'us and them' context of some of the contributors here. Aviation is too small an activity/industry from a 'public perception' for all this infighting.
I have to admit that one could consider some of the press recently to be sensational - however, how does it get to that stage? Well generally the story needs to be 'sexed up' , to quote another political witch hunt , to get the media interested - i.e. to 'get ones story out there' . So you need a punchy one liner or sound grab - because as said elsewhere, the facts are too complicated for not only the journos, but the lay reader/viewer.
The idea of a press release is too get some interest and then develop the nitty gritty from there - I am not a journo and am happy to stand corrected. I believe the pilots association and ATC association were simply responding to an equally 'sensational' whitewash press release from AirServices, NASIG, Anderson et al , that "The System will be safer", "safety is our first priority" etc. - that has no fact either - it is simply rhetoric. I think AIPA, AFAP and CivilAir realised they had to counter with the same level of 'dumbing down / sexing up' that our society now seems to require - might I add, unfortunately. (Perhaps if NAS happens on a particular day John Anderson and Dick Smith could fly onto an Aircraft Carrier somewhere off the Sydney heads, march from their Citation (sounds like something Dick might attempt) in flight suits and proudly proclaim to the assembled waiting hacks and journos "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - THE SKYS ARE NOW SAFE". Eat your heart out George Dubya!
Snarek , may I ask you to elaborate on something you posted:
Where does this occur? PJE canopies and ACFT should be separated by ATC in Class C.
That is one of the issues with NAS as I see it - e.g. on desc into say CG from the south thru Class E airspace aircraft are currently positively separated from PJE ACFT and canopies at Ballina. Under NAS that aircraft won't even have to be broadcasting or on a discrete code (.i.e. identified) to the controller descending the 767.
One of the big issues that really worries me from an ATC perspective is compliance with procedures. The proposed system is more complex and requires a higher level of compiance with procedures than we have now. But the problem is even NOW we have aircraft entering C airspace without clearances, transponders, or on anywhere near the right frequency. I can honestly say that every 2 days I see aircraft moved off of standard IFR routes in CTA as a precuation against unknown aircraft. A lot of the time we never know who they were - not that we really care if it turns out safe - we are not the cops on this, another thing that is insinuated here. The only reason penetrations are written up is for statistical data to identify possible system/design failures, and identify areas where better (safer) procedures airpspace design is needed.
I too, cannot see how NAS is going to help the GA driver!? There was a rant on here about someone not getting a clearance into CB airspace. Well first of all how do you know how many aircraft were in the zone - were you monitoring all ATC frequencies? Were there NOCOM MIL flights in the area? Was there an airspace release to another authority or Military where you wanted to go? Was there an emergency that the controller may have been dealing with you dont know about? Did you flight plan? Do you know what a controller has to do to enter a flight plan into TAAATS when you hadn't bothered? It is a low priority task when separating aircraft and if you arent aware the flight plan entry window covers over your traffic picture when it is open. So please dont pretend to tell an ATC when he/she can cannot give a clearance - it is our job to give clearances - we dont get any sadisitic thrill or extra money for not issuing them!
I shall pause.....
I am really yet to be convonced of any benefit in this exercise - it appears to me that losing MBZ's for CTAFS is a retrograde step if as we are told 'Safety is the Priority'.
The comment about ATCO's protecting their jobs is laughable - are you aware that NAS requires MORE air traffic controllers to make it work? Did you read the parliamentary Hansard response to the Willoughby report by Bernie Smith - when asked to respond to the reports suggestion that NAS would save $70M Bernie had no idea. Let me tell you for a fact - the amount of overtime that is being spent on training people for NAS at the moment , and changing of airspace and all that entails (simulators, staff released from OPS for training, Maps changes, radar data changes, TAAATS systems data changes just for starters..), is costing a fortune - and remember that is not a contingent cost - it has and is being spent. As an ATCO I can tell you that I feel quite 'safe' in my job security as a RESULT of NAS not in despite of it - so could we please put that spin to bed.
Why did it take CivilAir, AIPA, AFAP to have to speak up about this first - why didnt the airlines? This sounds like groundhog day.....
FollowUp:
There IS a lane.
As we are apparently showing our colours I am an ATC, also hold/held ATP, CPL, CIR etc. So to answer certain de facto entry requirements that other correspondents here espouse, am I a professional pilot? - well not any more. Now I just fly my bugsmasher VFR on my days off. I consider myself a professional nonetheless and am quite frankly offended by 'us and them' context of some of the contributors here. Aviation is too small an activity/industry from a 'public perception' for all this infighting.
I have to admit that one could consider some of the press recently to be sensational - however, how does it get to that stage? Well generally the story needs to be 'sexed up' , to quote another political witch hunt , to get the media interested - i.e. to 'get ones story out there' . So you need a punchy one liner or sound grab - because as said elsewhere, the facts are too complicated for not only the journos, but the lay reader/viewer.
The idea of a press release is too get some interest and then develop the nitty gritty from there - I am not a journo and am happy to stand corrected. I believe the pilots association and ATC association were simply responding to an equally 'sensational' whitewash press release from AirServices, NASIG, Anderson et al , that "The System will be safer", "safety is our first priority" etc. - that has no fact either - it is simply rhetoric. I think AIPA, AFAP and CivilAir realised they had to counter with the same level of 'dumbing down / sexing up' that our society now seems to require - might I add, unfortunately. (Perhaps if NAS happens on a particular day John Anderson and Dick Smith could fly onto an Aircraft Carrier somewhere off the Sydney heads, march from their Citation (sounds like something Dick might attempt) in flight suits and proudly proclaim to the assembled waiting hacks and journos "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - THE SKYS ARE NOW SAFE". Eat your heart out George Dubya!
Snarek , may I ask you to elaborate on something you posted:
By the way, how will NAS make your almost hits get better??? I still have to avoid meatbombs around Mission Beach, and they're in C!!!!
That is one of the issues with NAS as I see it - e.g. on desc into say CG from the south thru Class E airspace aircraft are currently positively separated from PJE ACFT and canopies at Ballina. Under NAS that aircraft won't even have to be broadcasting or on a discrete code (.i.e. identified) to the controller descending the 767.
One of the big issues that really worries me from an ATC perspective is compliance with procedures. The proposed system is more complex and requires a higher level of compiance with procedures than we have now. But the problem is even NOW we have aircraft entering C airspace without clearances, transponders, or on anywhere near the right frequency. I can honestly say that every 2 days I see aircraft moved off of standard IFR routes in CTA as a precuation against unknown aircraft. A lot of the time we never know who they were - not that we really care if it turns out safe - we are not the cops on this, another thing that is insinuated here. The only reason penetrations are written up is for statistical data to identify possible system/design failures, and identify areas where better (safer) procedures airpspace design is needed.
I too, cannot see how NAS is going to help the GA driver!? There was a rant on here about someone not getting a clearance into CB airspace. Well first of all how do you know how many aircraft were in the zone - were you monitoring all ATC frequencies? Were there NOCOM MIL flights in the area? Was there an airspace release to another authority or Military where you wanted to go? Was there an emergency that the controller may have been dealing with you dont know about? Did you flight plan? Do you know what a controller has to do to enter a flight plan into TAAATS when you hadn't bothered? It is a low priority task when separating aircraft and if you arent aware the flight plan entry window covers over your traffic picture when it is open. So please dont pretend to tell an ATC when he/she can cannot give a clearance - it is our job to give clearances - we dont get any sadisitic thrill or extra money for not issuing them!
I shall pause.....
I am really yet to be convonced of any benefit in this exercise - it appears to me that losing MBZ's for CTAFS is a retrograde step if as we are told 'Safety is the Priority'.
The comment about ATCO's protecting their jobs is laughable - are you aware that NAS requires MORE air traffic controllers to make it work? Did you read the parliamentary Hansard response to the Willoughby report by Bernie Smith - when asked to respond to the reports suggestion that NAS would save $70M Bernie had no idea. Let me tell you for a fact - the amount of overtime that is being spent on training people for NAS at the moment , and changing of airspace and all that entails (simulators, staff released from OPS for training, Maps changes, radar data changes, TAAATS systems data changes just for starters..), is costing a fortune - and remember that is not a contingent cost - it has and is being spent. As an ATCO I can tell you that I feel quite 'safe' in my job security as a RESULT of NAS not in despite of it - so could we please put that spin to bed.
Why did it take CivilAir, AIPA, AFAP to have to speak up about this first - why didnt the airlines? This sounds like groundhog day.....
FollowUp:
And unless someone invents a VTOL 747 I dont see why I can't cross straight over Cairns at 1500 feet (through a lane of course) avoiding the approach and departure run ins (sort of a high Victor One).
Last edited by Shitsu-Tonka; 1st Oct 2003 at 10:18.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually CG, there will be a bone for Snarek's C airspace gripes.
From Stage 3 you get:
Characteristic 42 - Target resolution - Separation standard between IFR and VFR aircraft within Class A and B airspace.
This means ATC don't need a separation standard, just have to avoid scraping the edges of the radar symbols.
From Stage 4 you get:
Characteristic 14 - Class C dimensions - Class C airspace will consist of a 5NM radius core surface area that extends from surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10 NM radius step that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation.
Characteristic 15 - Class C dimensions will have an upper limit consistent with the United States model.
Which both mean you could fly over MC without clearance at about 4500.
From Stage 3 you get:
Characteristic 42 - Target resolution - Separation standard between IFR and VFR aircraft within Class A and B airspace.
This means ATC don't need a separation standard, just have to avoid scraping the edges of the radar symbols.
From Stage 4 you get:
Characteristic 14 - Class C dimensions - Class C airspace will consist of a 5NM radius core surface area that extends from surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10 NM radius step that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation.
Characteristic 15 - Class C dimensions will have an upper limit consistent with the United States model.
Which both mean you could fly over MC without clearance at about 4500.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if you are competent with procedures
Perhaps that is not a good example, but in places like Cairns where traffic comes in and out on one runway I dont see why we can't have an E corridor right over the top.
I also still fail to see the reason for C at Coffs, Maroochy, Hamilton Is etc etc. The 'whitsunday' airspace is an embuggarance to all who fly it and just isn't necessary.
We need better airspace, I think NAS goes some of the way towards that.
AK
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3000 RPT type pilots were responsible for the safety of 33,700 000 passengers in Australia last year. The same year GA pilots flew 1,700 000 hours (includes training and airwork) and at a generous guess flew 3 million passengers?
So if we throw into the mix all the stakeholders who are effected by NAS it would seem reasonable that the RPT pilots (and by default their passengers) get heard.
They may have a strong voice - but no-one is yet listening to what they have to say. NAS2B is still scheduled for 27 Nov.
So if we throw into the mix all the stakeholders who are effected by NAS it would seem reasonable that the RPT pilots (and by default their passengers) get heard.
They may have a strong voice - but no-one is yet listening to what they have to say. NAS2B is still scheduled for 27 Nov.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek and others
You make it so easy for me.
MB is GAAP airspace.
Coffs, Maroochy and Hamilton Is. are all D Class zones.
Can we be certain that the pro NAS group actually know the current system, let alone what's to come?
My only concession is that above A045, C becomes E and transit VFR without clearance will be possible. Good luck.
Spodman
A airspace - VFR not permitted.
B airspace - where?
C separation rules same as now, including wake turbulence separation, I believe. Mind you, the official NAS website (DOTARS) is pretty thin on detail.
IF MC has E steps from NOV 27, then I suppose VFR flight in VMC will be possible above A045. DONT QUOTE ME.
I see LT and HB are exempt from E steps. Does this mean B717, B737, SF34, DHC8 and all other IFR's have myopia in these areas?
CG
MB is GAAP airspace.
Coffs, Maroochy and Hamilton Is. are all D Class zones.
Can we be certain that the pro NAS group actually know the current system, let alone what's to come?
My only concession is that above A045, C becomes E and transit VFR without clearance will be possible. Good luck.
Spodman
A airspace - VFR not permitted.
B airspace - where?
C separation rules same as now, including wake turbulence separation, I believe. Mind you, the official NAS website (DOTARS) is pretty thin on detail.
IF MC has E steps from NOV 27, then I suppose VFR flight in VMC will be possible above A045. DONT QUOTE ME.
I see LT and HB are exempt from E steps. Does this mean B717, B737, SF34, DHC8 and all other IFR's have myopia in these areas?
CG
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bindick_116.8
I hope you , as a super-NASite, are starting to get the picture. ATCers are concerned about the safety (and in some cases the methods of change) of this debacle. You can bleat about "job protection" and self interest all you want. Hopefully others are getting the message.
I find it amusing that a lot has been made of the 'sensational' way it is being brought to the public's attention. You Machiavellians crack me up. Something about 'your own medicine' comes to mind.
And as to your reply- well! If you read my post, I was actually reflecting your own post back at you! If you think the post lacked intellectual rigour- better think before you type next time. And that old "I have a ball, it is red, therefor all balls are red" argument wouldn't get past my five-year old.
Keep spitting that dummy though- very amusing!
And good luck with the process from here
I find it amusing that a lot has been made of the 'sensational' way it is being brought to the public's attention. You Machiavellians crack me up. Something about 'your own medicine' comes to mind.
And as to your reply- well! If you read my post, I was actually reflecting your own post back at you! If you think the post lacked intellectual rigour- better think before you type next time. And that old "I have a ball, it is red, therefor all balls are red" argument wouldn't get past my five-year old.
Keep spitting that dummy though- very amusing!
And good luck with the process from here
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TBT-
Kind of our point really - best leave responsible comment to the pilots who do understand the implications.
The average pilot would not know the difference between a safety case and a suitcase......
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah George, from the HAZlog outcomes, ATC requires more staff. BIK (some numbers here) seems to think we stand to make something from it failing. All I see is extra cashola in my pay and more jobs in the future. Please beat another drum or get a clue.. whichever, I don't really care.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Blizz
I stand corrected re. the ML-LT-HB Class E airspace.
After reading AIC H7/03 ten times over, I think you are right.
All airline crews who ply the airspace a hundred times a day please resume looking out for the once a year VFR who could be lurking there.
CG
After reading AIC H7/03 ten times over, I think you are right.
All airline crews who ply the airspace a hundred times a day please resume looking out for the once a year VFR who could be lurking there.
CG
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CG
Well I checked and you are right, Maroochy and HI are D, under and around C (near Bris) but no B anywhere
All to bl@@dy confusing. Roll on the NAS and ADSB. Then we can all be friends again.
AK
Well I checked and you are right, Maroochy and HI are D, under and around C (near Bris) but no B anywhere
All to bl@@dy confusing. Roll on the NAS and ADSB. Then we can all be friends again.
AK
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blatzapcr@p
Heh heh, you are certainly helping me get the members riled, keep it up 
Bliz, yeah, but those pilots ain't the ones making the stink (and hysterical bull-merde arguments), it is the AFAP crowd all upset about safety in CTAFs. Nuffin to do with millions of passengers or REX wouldn't be trying to get Public Servants forced to use their cramped little airplanes!!!
Of course the airport operators are upset too, it must be safety, they wouldn't be cynically using the safety bandwagon to protect a cash cow now would they. I'm sure AVDATA wouldn't either.
I mean, if they were to do that, it'd undermine safety, now wouldn't it. I'm sure AFSAP and CivilAir would never allow that
Y'know, if we had a FAIR system of landing fees where a broker didn't skim off 40 - 60% you'd probably find a 100% radio call compliance. But then, that argument ain't gonna keep TOZZY in a $130K a year desk job now is it???
AK
Heh heh, you are certainly helping me get the members riled, keep it up
Bliz, yeah, but those pilots ain't the ones making the stink (and hysterical bull-merde arguments), it is the AFAP crowd all upset about safety in CTAFs. Nuffin to do with millions of passengers or REX wouldn't be trying to get Public Servants forced to use their cramped little airplanes!!!
Of course the airport operators are upset too, it must be safety, they wouldn't be cynically using the safety bandwagon to protect a cash cow now would they. I'm sure AVDATA wouldn't either.
I mean, if they were to do that, it'd undermine safety, now wouldn't it. I'm sure AFSAP and CivilAir would never allow that
Y'know, if we had a FAIR system of landing fees where a broker didn't skim off 40 - 60% you'd probably find a 100% radio call compliance. But then, that argument ain't gonna keep TOZZY in a $130K a year desk job now is it???
AK
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some truth from a well respected aviation writer
This was sent to me today by a very well repected and experienced aviation writer and aviator.
Just about sums it up.
AK
1.. First, the "jumbos crashing into lighties" scenario does not exist. Nothing will change at Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville or Cairns for example, as the unions have untrithfully implied it will. What they're talking about is Dash 8 and BAe146 country and the occasional B737 (eg at Ayers Rock) with VFR aeroplanes overflying in uncontrolled airspace.
2.. They conveniently forget that the aircraft perceived as a threat are operating to visual flight rules, and therefore won't be around in IMC weather. To the response that VFR pilots do irresponsible things, it should be noted that a large number of incidents have been due to airline pilots entering a terminal area, calling up on the wrong frequency, hearing nothing, and assuming they are alone in the sky until a C172 appears in their windscreen.
3.. Un-notified aircraft complying with quadrantal rules will be able to use the airspace above (for example) Coffs harbour, Rockhampton and Dubbo, just as they are now, slap bang over Los Angeles International.
4.. The hue and cry is NOT coming from "pilots and air traffic controllers", it is coming from their unions. The AFAP demonstrated its corporate intellect in 1989 by resigning en masse, and the ATCs' union appers to believe that aeroplanes and pilots were put on this earth to create employment for air traffic controllers.
5.. Almost all the pilot noise is coming from regional airline pilots represented by the AFAP, who have coined an interesting new expression - "commercial air space" which does not appear in any of the catalogues of abbreviations I've ever seen.
6.. The perceived problems could be resolved in the nearer term by requiring that aircraft in the relevant airspace carry and operate transponders.
7.. The perceived problems will cease to exist altogether when ADS-B is implemented in low level air space. It is a measure of the controllers' union's intellect and attitudes that when they see ADS-B aircraft painting on their radar screens they get excited about the increased amount of airspace they'll be able to control.
Just about sums it up.
AK
1.. First, the "jumbos crashing into lighties" scenario does not exist. Nothing will change at Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville or Cairns for example, as the unions have untrithfully implied it will. What they're talking about is Dash 8 and BAe146 country and the occasional B737 (eg at Ayers Rock) with VFR aeroplanes overflying in uncontrolled airspace.
2.. They conveniently forget that the aircraft perceived as a threat are operating to visual flight rules, and therefore won't be around in IMC weather. To the response that VFR pilots do irresponsible things, it should be noted that a large number of incidents have been due to airline pilots entering a terminal area, calling up on the wrong frequency, hearing nothing, and assuming they are alone in the sky until a C172 appears in their windscreen.
3.. Un-notified aircraft complying with quadrantal rules will be able to use the airspace above (for example) Coffs harbour, Rockhampton and Dubbo, just as they are now, slap bang over Los Angeles International.
4.. The hue and cry is NOT coming from "pilots and air traffic controllers", it is coming from their unions. The AFAP demonstrated its corporate intellect in 1989 by resigning en masse, and the ATCs' union appers to believe that aeroplanes and pilots were put on this earth to create employment for air traffic controllers.
5.. Almost all the pilot noise is coming from regional airline pilots represented by the AFAP, who have coined an interesting new expression - "commercial air space" which does not appear in any of the catalogues of abbreviations I've ever seen.
6.. The perceived problems could be resolved in the nearer term by requiring that aircraft in the relevant airspace carry and operate transponders.
7.. The perceived problems will cease to exist altogether when ADS-B is implemented in low level air space. It is a measure of the controllers' union's intellect and attitudes that when they see ADS-B aircraft painting on their radar screens they get excited about the increased amount of airspace they'll be able to control.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They conveniently forget that the aircraft perceived as a threat are operating to visual flight rules, and therefore won't be around in IMC weather
But then, that argument ain't gonna keep TOZZY in a $130K a year desk job now is it???
I am an Air Traffic Controller, admittedly not quite yet on the top salary level. I earn about 55K plus shift penalty and allowances (rolled up to one package many years ago).
The is NOT an argument about ATC jobs. This is NOT an argument about Industrial Relations. (see my previous post on the Willoughby report) This is a stand on purely professional issues. Don't hijack the debate into something it is not.
Leave that to the Minister and his spin doctors.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't hijack the debate into something it is not.
And those $130K desk jobs DO exist, you just ain't got one yet. I have no probs with the pay either, when doing the work, the problem I have with that deal is keeping the pay when yoy retire to a desk. The pay is for the stress and professionalism you guys DO show when working the tower, it isn't for blokes (or blokettes) signing leave forms!!!
AK