Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

The NAS, facts and fantasies

Old 9th Oct 2003, 09:50
  #101 (permalink)  
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
tobzalp make a statement that the public want Big jets separated from IFR and E makes this all OK. Do the public even know what IFR is.
No – I’m quite certain that they don’t.

Just the same as the general public think that there is an air traffic control tower at every two-bit country airstrip, and that an aircraft will crash if it attempts to fly without filing a flight plan.

Away from the airport class G would be plenty good enough. Class E is just to keep up appearances (kind of like the way non-radar class D control zones do now).

VFR Flying Jacket Crowd = Volvo Drivers of the sky.

Cowboys = Volvo Drivers of the Sky.

Get it yet?
Oh yes – I get it. In fact, I think I first got it quite some time ago.

What I get is that a worryingly significant number of air traffic controllers have an unhealthy and disrespectfully condescending attitude towards the pilots of private category flights (ie their “customers”).

I’m sure that this attitude contributes, in part at least, to many of the all-too-common “remain outside controlled airspace – clearance not available” rebuffs.

The air traffic control system has been primarily designed to cater for scheduled IFR traffic – basically, for RPT. The air traffic control system has real problems coping with the more random nature of unscheduled traffic, and in particular with VFR GA traffic.

The ridiculous amount of TAAATS data-input required when pop-up traffic requests a clearance is an example of this.

Thankfully, the vast majority of GA traffic has no real need for any type of “service” from the air traffic control system.

Class E at least relieves the air traffic control system of the apparent burden of having to deal with VFR GA traffic. With class E the air traffic controllers are free to “roger” and “wilco” their way through the day with their captive audience of IFR traffic (at enormous expense), leaving the VFR traffic to get on with it, unhindered by the delays (and expense) of the air traffic control system.

Four Seven Eleven,

Scenario : B737 descending through class E airspace, being radar vectored for sequencing at a controlled aerodrome. The pilot spots an unidentified aircraft and determines that a collision risk exists . No traffic information has been passed by ATC. What happens now?

1. Does the pilot deviate from his vector/ route clearance?
2. Does the pilot deviate from his level assignment?
The pilot manoeuvres as required to avoid the collision risk.

Actually – I was faced with a very similar scenario a few months back in class C airspace.

When being radar vectored for an ILS approach in day VMC conditions I noticed a parachute canopy (with a person dangling beneath it) in my 12 o’clock, about half a mile, slightly above, and with a very low rate of descent. It looked like a regular parachute, but it may have been one of those fancy ones that can go up as well as down. I was at 5,000 feet on a left base with about 18 track miles to run. As I was about to take action to alter course so that I would pass laterally clear, the canopy rolled right 90 degrees and commenced a rapid descent. It seemed apparent that the parachutist had seen (or possibly heard) me coming and had decided that it was in their best interests to get out of the way. In the end I could see that there was no need for me to alter course.

Once clear I reported the sighting to ATC who helpfully told me “no traffic, no traffic”.

Is that the kind of scenario you are getting at, Four Seven Eleven? If so, then I’m sure it’s all been done before.

In particular, if anyone has relevant experience in how RPT jets operate in non-radar E airspace in the USA, your input would be very worthwhile.
Forgive me - I’m not sure if this relates to your earlier scenario or not. But if it does, how can an aircraft be radar vectored when it is outside radar coverage?

Surely we could have called it something like IFR Uncleared Transition in E - or IFR UTE for short.
Excellent idea! How very Australian.

Shall we have a government funded committee debate for months whether it should be a HOLDEN ute or a FORD ute?


Long time no seeum, great chat the other night.
Yeah – and if you keep up that kind of behaviour then you can expect to be hearing from my lawyers!

(With a cheque for AOPA membership.... )

I had a very good run with Volvos....
Yeah – I learnt to drive in one myself. They’re great cars! As they say : “boxy, but safe”.

(Actually, I learnt to drive in two Volvos – one 1,700 kg one and one 14,900 kg one.)

How come these left-wing socialists want to pick on Volvo drivers all of a sudden? Me thinks it’s just penis-envy from the peasants.

Circa 1969 and I'm standing on the tarmac at Perth Airport being roundly berated by an apoplectic airline captain for having the temerity to;
a. operate an aircraft in IMC within 100nm of his AIRLINE AIRCRAFT (F27)
I’m sorry – but I nearly fell off my chair at that one! I thought you said “airline aircraft”?

Your F27 driver sounds like a typical big fish in a little pond. How many gold bars did he have? PMSL!

Four Seven Eleven,

And where traffic levels warrant it, the primary mitigator is supplemented by secondary, tertiary etc. mitigators, such as traffic information, control etc. No airspace system relies only on this primary mitigator. No safe transport system does.
Herein lies the crux of the debate : where traffic levels warrant it.

In my opinion the traffic levels in the vast majority of Australia’s airspace warrant nothing more than genuine ICAO class G (ie no service, no delay, no charge).

I do agree that in areas of high traffic density (like in the terminal area around a very busy airport) the Big Sky Theory is not enough on its own.

But whereas you might suggest further layers of collision risk mitigation based on an expensive air traffic control infrastructure – like DTI or controlled airspace, I would advocate less restrictive, less labour-intensive, and more effective solutions - like using a TCAS traffic display and like looking out the window.

In the Australian enroute environment the random chance of a mid-air collision is sufficiently remote to rely on the Big Sky Theory on its own.

True, simply ‘listening’ and ‘talking’ have no bearing on the chances of avoiding a mid-air collision.
With respect, I suspect that you might have missed the point. I do admit that I might have been a bit too obtuse.

My comments were not in regard to “the chances of avoiding a mid-air collision”.

My point was that the Big Sky Theory functions just as well whether you talk on the radio or not, and whether you are in radar coverage or not, and whether you have TCAS or ADSB or not, because the geometry of a very large sky with relatively few aeroplanes flying around in it is unaffected by all those things.

Although why you would want one if it has no bearing on ‘the above factors’ is beyond me. Perhaps it is because TCAS does in fact offer a supplementary level of safety?
Of course TCAS offers a further level of safety over and above what is available from the Big Sky Theory on its own.

I think this relates to my apparently obtuse point above.

Thanks to the Big Sky Theory there is an extremely remote chance that an aircraft will be involved in a mid-air collision in Australia’s enroute environment – whether the aircraft has TCAS or not.

If the aircraft has TCAS then the chance of a mid-air collision is reduced even further.

Anyone who is concerned about a mid-air collision should buy a TCAS.

True, but does not tell the full story. Merely being aware of the current position of conflicting traffic is not the same as being aware of the other traffic’s intentions, nor does it afford the opportunity to negotiate mutual avoiding action, either directly or via a third party.
I disagree.

Intentions are wonderful (eg “climbing to altitude 5,000 feet”), but useless. What matters is what the other aircraft is actually doing (eg erroneously climbing to 8,000 feet).

TCAS calculates the closure rate and time to closest point of approach of nearby aircraft. These are the all-important factors, not what the pilot of the other aircraft intended to do.

A TCAS traffic display allows the pilot to see the relative position and altitude of nearby traffic. Aircraft that are climbing or descending are shown as such. It is very easy for a pilot to manoeuvre around other traffic using a TCAS traffic display.

In any case, if both aircraft are fitted with TCAS II then mutual avoiding action will be automatically calculated (and co-ordinated) by the TCAS units themselves.

If one aircraft is fitted with TCAS II but the other aircraft is not then TCAS II will still automatically calculate avoiding action.

VFR aircraft have ‘announced’ through broadcasts. It is precisely this that Dick Smith has been trying to avoid.
What proportion of VFR aircraft do you say make these broadcasts?

Despite all the VFR waffle on the airwaves, my information is that something less than 20% of VFR pilots make radio transmissions in class G airspace (other than on CTAF or MBZ frequencies).

For the vast majority of VFR traffic in the enroute environment it has been the Big Sky Theory alone that has kept the planes apart for over a decade.

Where traffic has been known (e.g. in radar coverage) traffic has been and continues to be provided.
Fantastic. So if you’ve got radar, where’s the problem with class E? If you haven’t got radar then you haven’t known about the VFR traffic (and therefore have not passed DTI on it) since the AMATS changes of 1991. Either way – same result : ZERO enroute mid-air collisions since 1991. Again, where’s the problem?

Wrong. It is important that someone knows the positions, intentions etc of aircraft so that a cogent plan can be formulated which provides – dare I say it – a ‘safe, orderly and expeditious’ flow of air traffic. (We can’t all be number one in the sequence.)
We will continue to disagree on this point. I suspect that our differing opinions are based on our different experiences.

TCAS shows the positions of transponding traffic. ADSB will, in the future, do many things. ADSB will be akin to an ashtray on a motorbike on November 27.
To be entirely honest, I haven’t yet figured out what ADSB can do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do. I’ll stick to TCAS for now, thanks.

Operations in the terminal area involve much more than avoidance of a mid-air collision. The ‘ease’ with which terminal area operations can be conducted safely would, I suggest, be dependent on the traffic levels, complexity, weather etc. A point will be reached when it becomes less easy, difficult and ultimately impossible.
Again – I suspect that our differing opinions are based on our different experiences.

Excellent point. Even though in Class A airspace, the current primary mitigator against mid-air collisions is ATC, the regulators have long recognised that reliance on one, single mitigator is unsatisfactory. This is exactly why we have a ‘layered defence’. If ATC fails, pilot situational awareness may detect it. If not, then TCAS. If not, then ‘see and avoid’. (Not forgetting ‘luck’ or big sky theories.)
Whereas for a whole lot less money we could rely on the Big Sky Theory as the primary risk mitigator, use TCAS as the secondary risk mitigator, and have looking out the window as the last line of defence. (I presume we are talking about the enroute environment here.)

One of the many problems with the current, outdated air traffic control procedures is that they increase the chance of a mid-air collision by funnelling all the aircraft into the same few flight levels along the same routes - reducing the effectiveness of the Big Sky Theory.

Knowing where the aircraft are is the very smallest part of a safe air traffic management system. The reason controllers (Say in class A) know where the aircraft are is because they ‘put’ them there. They did this because they knew the positions, intentions etc. of other aircraft. They plan for safety. By doing this, pilots can, in most cases fly more directly, staying at the same levels for longer, thus saving money.
The day you come up with an air traffic control procedure that can get me a more expeditious routing than direct to the destination is the day that I’ll be your biggest advocate.

But until that day comes I’ll continue to view the air traffic control system as an elaborate and expensive system of traffic lights in the sky – their only possible effect being delay and expense.

As has been pointed out already, the public do not want to be ‘positively separated from other IFR aircraft’. They probably want to avoid mid-air collisions altogether.
I concur.

But I suggest that once an aircraft is away from the airport environment it doesn’t need any air traffic control service in order to avoid a mid-air collision.


As professionals (and that includes amateur professionals, or is that the professional amateurs?) I believe that none of these associations would use the safety argument if they did not believe it was valid to do so.
Your belief in the altruism of the Australian union movement is much greater than mine.

The "I only want what is good for me" position is unbalanced and inappropriate to the discussion. We must consider the whole picture and how each of us interacts with other users. To do less, dare I say… is not professional.
I disagree.

If everyone lobbied for what is best for them then we ought to end up with a solution that offers the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.

Isn’t that how a democracy is meant to work?

Certainly the big sky policy is a significant mitigator in terms of a possible mid-air collision, however I know at least one regional airline pilot that had a very close call with a glider in en-route airspace (above 5000ft) a few years back. By the time they saw each other there was no time to move and the glider went under the regional turbo-prop by only a matter of metres – a close one.
I’m sorry – didn’t you say they missed?

Where’s the problem then?

A miss is as good as five miles.


None of the reresentatives from the AFAP AIPA or Civilair are paid for their time, they just happen to care about the safety of ALL airspace users.
Oh come now – get real.

Civil Air represents the interests of the air traffic controllers.

AFAP and AIPA represent the interests of the RPT pilots (who are just a small fraction of the total pilot population).

To suggest otherwise is either disingenuous or naďve.
BIK_116.80 is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2003, 09:54
  #102 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 358
Can I assume that since nobody has told me that the scenario I painted in my last post couldn't happen, that it can?
If that is the case then I would have to oppose this reform in it's current form.
Why wouldn't you role with the lowest common denominator?
The paying public don't care that the mid-air occured because of a mistake the lightie made.
The system would allow a ppl, with no duty time limits, to WORK (thats what it becomes towards the end of a big day), in the same airspace as the rpt's without involving the third party as a safety backstop. Thats degradation of current safety standards.
I'm not saying it's right to have a ppl working 12hr days with 10hrs airborne on PJE (and if you're wondering I've never done it), but thats what our system allows, and it happens, and therefore it is ludicrous to expect them to never make a simple mistake thus endangering the lives of others.
Go the lowest common denominator that the system allows.
cjam is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2003, 11:20
  #103 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 3,404
We are ndeed a nation divided by a common language.

Before I get carried away and forget.
Regardless of what system we have, whilst we contunue to run "airways" and other means of funelling traffic and combine that with the fantasticly accurate GPS and IRS systems available today we are setting ourselves up for a coming together not previously statistically probable using the old steam driven stuff.
Opposing or conflicting traffic in the "steam driven nav" days could reasonably be expected to "miss" each other simply due to the nature of the signal and receiving apparatus. Not so today with the several metres accuracy available.

Should we not be insisting that any GPS or IRS system have an acceptable random dither applied to the information so derived to open up the probability a bit??

Forgive me if it looked like I was attributing "that" quote to you, I was not, I was simply using it as one does on the manner of conversational aside.

LCD, well there is low and there is unsupportable low.

I made the comment to an ATC gentleman the other day that we could get the risk to absolute zero by not flying, period.

That is as stupid as suggesting we have a free for all, although I suspect that might actually work.

What I was trying to convey was that the lowest common denominator in that case is actually the pilot training and disciplines. It might be able to be held that the "young tyro" is actually more conscientious than the "old hand", either way we all have to assume that whoever is sharing the airspace with us is going to act responsibly.
I get the feeling that some ATCOs assume the exact opposite.


Spot on argument as usual.

I believe that his has been recognised of late and there are steps in place.


Bwahahah, in them days they were, at least around the region, and yes they DID own the skys AND were until then, the ONLY aircraft operating in IMC, hence one of the MAIN reasons our Regulatory and ATC systems evolved the way they did and echoes of which are still reverberating loudly through the reform process.

I wont bore the audience with a full exposition of this thesis, but you know what I mean.

You might be surprised to learn that I actually agree with you.

Go the lowest common denominator that the system allows.
Isn't this what this debate is really all about, "what the system will allow"

The whole "system" under normal circumstances is politically driven by properly informed punter sentiment, Government from whence the funds derive and the Regulator.

Unfortunately that whole thing is skewed by this "user pays" and "private" enterprise Air Services provider. They are no longer funded by Government, they are expected to run at a profit within acceptable safety parameters, but are artificially constrained by Government from "doing their thing" by a political limiting of the charge they can apply.

IMHO they have done an amazing job in the transition and are unique in the world and I would have expected nothing less from the professionals they are.

But the halcyon "gold plated" days are over.
The punters voted, as always. for cheaper everything, a certain enthusiast told em they could and should have it, the rest is history.

We are not going to unscramle that egg any time soon so it's up to the professionals to find an answer that is acceptable to all.

The ray of sunshine being, that we will all be challenged to rethink old attitudes, procedures and mindsets. Heck we might even find a better way.

We'll never know until we try, not recklessy certainly, but certainly outside the square.

So for all of us looking outside of our own individual boxes, responsibly;

What will the "whole system" allow?
gaunty is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2003, 11:26
  #104 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62

I was having a chat with family a few days ago they reminded me that as a child all I wanted to do was be a pilot some 40 years have past now and I am and have been in the industry for many years. I have worked in the industry in most countries and it is so sad that here at home pilots and aviation as a whole in my eyes are probably the lowest lifeform in the human chain we only have to look at these posts to see how we attack each other at the slightest comment. I admit to attacking others at times myself usually on the basis that they are pushing their own barrow and distorting the truth and the system to prove they are right.

There are so many untruths sitting in this post it shows only how ignorant some of you are. For example WHO ARE NASIG?, easy unlike some of you may think they are not hand picked by dick or some other political party to field their dreams, they are in fact men and or women from a cross section of the industry chosen to do a job. They have no hidden motives they may have their own personal opinion of NAS the group in fact change after this stage to try and keep NAS objective. Some of them are experts in their own right and are well aware of the problems outlined in some peoples minds. Each of you are only expressing self interests they have to look at the whole picture in the interests of us all. They also have to return back and work in the very thing they are changing so please stop attacking them.

Next for the rest of you that think you know better for each of you that have a particular barrow to push a representative from your field or organisation has been at the workshops to identify and where possible mittigate safety issues both on US compliant and non compliant issues and that has been done in my eyes to the best of all presents ability. Next 2b has been signed off by CASA I dont know where this one has been dreamed up, not so dedline 20th OCT 2003 that is why the training package is not out yet why spend squillions on printing what woud be toilet paper if it does not get signed off. Arms are not being bent here if it is not accepted there has to be a very valid reson why not dreamed up reasons or percieved issues. My suggestion to those that are not happy with the representative from your particular organisation is stop wasting time here with inane rantings and take your issues up with him or her.

Personally I have no hidden motives here I have been in a position where I can express safety issues and help with training my mind is not one sided my goal is to make aviation safe for all users, My personal view is aviation in Austrailia statistically speaking is not safe for many reasons and airspace reform will eventually help this, perhaps 2b is not perfect but it is another step forward and I believe it is as safe as it can be if we compare it to current model then perhaps not but did we need the current level of safety in the first place or was it just belt and braces.

Perhaps some of you out there would like me to put an extra rib in you wing or another bulkhead in the fuselage just in case it may fail, wake up aviation is all about a compromise why dont I put another bulkhead in your fuselage when I know it would be far safer and stronger? simple because it would cost you more and you would have to carry less so I compromise because under normal circumstances it will be safe.

In our current airspace system regionals go into busy CTAF's in some areas this has not caused that great a problem in the past so why should it in the future. If representatives show me a good reason then fine I will support them. A valid reason is not that just because radio carriage is not mandatory or calls compulsory GA pilots wont do them how stupid are you. Some years ago give way to the right on our roads was removed from the rules, tell me how many people out there don' t give way to the right? easy answer no one and why because it would be stupid to not do it, driving instructors still teach giving way to the right the same as flying instructors will still teach radio calls at appropriate points as recommended. One good thing will happen and that is they will be able to spend more time on teaching flying and airmanship that getting the average pilot to understand complicated airspace procedures and rules, some of you may have actually forgotten how hard that was or is now.

For those of you that think they know what NAS end state is dream on sure there are are goals for a model but it is clear that with the process so far it will not be exactly the same as the US model and as long as I am invited to help and I have a hole in my A#SE then I wont agree to anything that I do not see as safe.

The simple truth in all this is the process is being delayed by people with vested interests and hidden agendas sadly they are not always valid safety issues. Thats why its hard to get information out. How can a goal be scored when the players are moving the posts. Blackmail tactics do nothing but make the system dangerous because people dig in and wont budge and objectives and real issues become clouded, scaring the Australian public is criminal. A real fact now no GA no aviation everything starts somewhere and everything needs somewhere to start and GA is the very foundation its built on from engineers to pilots. 152 pilot to 747-400 in 6 years for a close friend of mine, where does he go if there is no GA in 10 years circuits in a 152 sim perhaps or 747 sim with no real flying experience how scary. Do yourselves a favour help look after GA as they helped and will continue to help you meet your dreams we are all pilots something to be proud of and admired by others after reading some of this I wonder what I should realy be proud of.

Sorry this is so long passionate I am dangerous I am not, I have lost many friends to aviation and been to far to many funerals. If I can make a change and loose less friends then pardon me if I care. Keep flying (A VINCULO TERRAE).
2B1ASK1 is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2003, 11:52
  #105 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 3,404
Thumbs up

And so say all of us.
gaunty is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2003, 18:03
  #106 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 12
At the risk of offending Woomera

Yo! Binnie et al,

This thread is reaching its ordained maximum length. Over a hundred posts which means Big W will be canning it momentarily. (RANT ON: On that topic BW, how about relaxing the 100 post rule? It seems to me if a thread’s getting plenty of activity, wielding the electronic cleaver at 100 posts only serves to provide opportunity for endless repetition of the same [email protected] as the newcomers – or God forbid, someone who has been deprived of PPRuNe for a while – can’t get the context of current posts. Other forums on the site seem quite happy with 30 odd pages and still going strong. RANT OFF)

Bless me father it has been several weeks since my first and last post (NAS on the skids). I’ve waded through the many posts, some of which seem to rely on quantity rather than quality, and note some quite interesting oppositions in common throughout the past few NAS is doomed type threads:

Fat cat bureaucrat ATCs bent on the destruction of aviation in this once great land, feathering their own nests at the cost of the aviation industry, which , let’s face it they’re not part of vs. terry-towelling hatted weekend warriors who want to be able to fly anywhere, anytime at no cost other than the transport strapped to their prodigious @rses

The sky is falling Heavy Metal bus drivers vs. “If he can hit me he can f*#@ me – it’s a big sky” PPLs

BIK 116.8 vs, urm vs, weeellll virtually everyone (including himself) as it happens

My observation (sorry I am an ATC so I know my opinion is not valid but…):

I think it’s less safe. I support the position of the unions in that the basic premises for the change (based on the Willoughby report) that it’ll be at least as safe, and $70 million cheaper both seem to have flown out the window. Most of my peers seem to be pretty apathetic about it all. Call me old-fashioned but no matter how bad it gets out there, I’d have to be very unlucky for the prang to kill me.

Let’s all hold hands, pull the black cloth onto our heads and pronounce the verdict. I’m sick of it. Let the charred wreckage fall where it may.

Over and definitely out…
dickluvva is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2003, 18:23
  #107 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 71
Posts: 4,275

Hey you up there

Modesty forbids me from typing your name, but Big W here has some discretion in these things and in recognition of its importance and interest will let this thread run along for a bit, subject to the usual rules.

I'm even going to sticky it.

So play on chaps, no eye gouging, goolie crushing, or hitting below the belt please.
Woomera is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2003, 20:35
  #108 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 12
All Hail Big W

On ya Woomera,

Power and discretion, an uncommon package in these parts.

dickluvva is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2003, 21:06
  #109 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
****** me!

what have I started?

8 bloody pages of posts now!

"oh.. the humanity!!!"
ugly is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2003, 21:23
  #110 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 3,404
The horror ! The horror !
gaunty is offline  
Old 9th Oct 2003, 22:14
  #111 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
What is even scarier is at a meeting I attended today we discussed the 2c delivery timetable ::
tobzalp is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2003, 03:32
  #112 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
BIK 116.8


As a matter of interest you should ask yourself :

"how many years of maths and stats have I studied?

how many risk analyses have I contributed to?

how many experts have I employed or given consultancies to for reports on airspace problems or reforms?

Do I get all ICAO and CASA reg changes on terminal airspace across my desk for my library?

Have I had changes excepted by CASA to existing and proposed regs due to my teams analysis of their and others standards?"

Airspace reform is not developed by flight or ATC personal experience, and is not anecdotal it is scientific.

Our current Risk analysis involves guys with Phds in Engineering, Statistics,and Risk management in addition to extremely well Qualified Pilots and ATC personnel.

In stage two of our risk assessment all the heavy metal, regional, and G.A. players are being consulted and surveyed as have CASA and AA.

We are one of two major regional airports doing such analysis on CTAF vs MBZ vs CAGRS vs D Class Towers. Our costs alone are $40,000 for this exercise. Infact for us it is the second time we have studied terminal airspace procedures at our airport, the first lesser study resulted in Australia adopting CA/GRS procedures.

I accept that unless we are also pilots and some of us are, our enroute knowledge is probably not at a standard to offer an opinion at this level of play. It is to try to understand it that I read this forum, even though I abour the personal attacks that abound here.

What I contend is that while I understand you have a penchant for attacking others who have a different view to yourself; I would like to correct you when you say "airport owners and operators know nothing about anything above our OLS"

We do pay attention to and are qualified to comment on Terminal Airspace Reform.

Infact at uncontrolled airports we are the only source of the base data needed to commence a risk analysisand in todays enviroment appear to be the only organisations examining comparing and analysing this data.

Sir I say to you "you are being somewhat harsh and infact not correct in your illmannered comment on airports lack of knowledge on airspace reforms."
WALLEY2 is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2003, 12:23
  #113 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: In the air
Posts: 102
airports and airspace..!


What I contend is that while I understand you have a penchant for attacking others who have a different view to yourself; I would like to correct you when you say "airport owners and operators know nothing about anything above our OLS"

We do pay attention to and are qualified to comment on Terminal Airspace Reform.

Infact at uncontrolled airports we are the only source of the base data needed to commence a risk analysisand in todays enviroment appear to be the only organisations examining comparing and analysing this data.

the problem is that the perception regarding airport owners/operators being involved in airspace is that it is for no other reason that to enable the collection of charges

some airport operators take an interest for other reasons but this seems to be a small %

some years back some airports wanted to become part of the rapac process and it was resolved that they should be observers only as the majority of airspace users did not believe airports should be involved in airspace which was deemed not to be something they had any responsibility for *the mbz vs ctaf is a good example

of course they can speak on any matter they like but to be heard they must be seen as speaking responsibly and without an alternative motive which is not often the case at the moment

until airports and the aaa realise that their involvement is seen as genuinely safety related and not to put in place a means of collecting charges they will not advance their cause one bit in the eyes of many

sorry walley2 but thats a fact

get ken to work on that and it will improve your lot somewhat
bonez is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2003, 15:21
  #114 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Part of the airspace reform that no-one here has mentioned yet is that military airspace will become more flexible (see here)

What are everyone's thoughts on this?
ugly is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2003, 16:13
  #115 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 990
Military Airspace


Whilst the Military use of airspace is important to many of us, I believe that discussion on it has taken a back seat to some of the other issues that many consider more important (at this time).

I believe that over the past 10 years or so much of the military activity has been undertaken with civil inconvenience a consideration at the planning stage. It is certainly a lot better that in the 70's and 80's (and earlier of course).

The proposals as outlined have been pushed for many years and I would like to think that these proposals will free up much airspace and increase the flexibility of its use by civil users.

The management of military airspace is also a consideration, especially in recent times where military ATC resources are not as large as they used to be. Except for a few key locations I see civil ATC being responsible for what is now military airspace in the not too distant future.

"no known traffic"..
triadic is offline  
Old 10th Oct 2003, 20:08
  #116 (permalink)  

Nunc est bibendum
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,370
I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes so can one of the pro NAS guys fill me in here?

If NAS is safe and ready to go now, what possible justification is there at ANY stage in the future for the taxpayer to fund ADSB. If ADSB makes NAS 'safer', then surely moving to a system that is 'less safe' tha NAS + ADSB in the short term isn't the brightest thing to be doing?!?!

I've got immense respect for some of the players in this discussion but I just keep coming back to these questions.
Keg is online now  
Old 11th Oct 2003, 01:34
  #117 (permalink)  
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114

I have studied your most recent post carefully and more than once.

But I fail to understand what particular skill or knowledge is required to be able to squander large sums of money on hordes of consultants.

Aviation is, in essence, a very simple business. Unfortunately there is an endless supply of parasites who seek to make it more complicated than it really is in order to facilitate their own financial gain.

So you got CAGRS approved – fantastic! But those procedures have been in use in other countries since the 1930s.

Did you really need to spend all that money on consultants just for that?

There are already about a million consultant’s reports on airspace issues – why does the world need yet another one? (other than to keep the consultants employed )

All that aside, I do whole-heartedly agree that you need an air traffic control tower like you need a hole in the head. That would be a big step in the wrong direction because it would cause unnecessary costs and delays.

G’day Keg,

....what possible justification is there at ANY stage in the future for the taxpayer to fund ADSB.
There isn’t one, and there wont be one.

I’ve never suggested that the tax-payer should fund ADSB.

Actually – I still can’t figure out what ADSB can do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do. Any suggestions, Andrew K???

I do believe that the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder should be mandatory for all aircraft with an electrical generating system capable of powering it.

TCAS is commercially available now (as is it’s cheaper cousin, TCAD) and I strongly suggest that anyone who is worried about the risk of a collision should get one.

Please don’t think that I hold that view because of any reservations about NAS – I’ve been a staunch advocate for TCAS for some time (long before NAS).
BIK_116.80 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2003, 02:26
  #118 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156

Yes there could be some smaller airports looking at thia MBZ/CTAF from a money collection issue.

Let me assure you though the vast concern is coming from the large regional who have plenty of staff to see the landings.

We for instance have 24hr coverage due to security concerns as do others.

There is a self interest in that a disaster will deeply hurt the reputation of the region, even though that is illogical it does occur.

My main point of my previous post was that airports are the main source of data and analysis and do take terminal airspace issues very seriously.

Infact if as NAS IG say that flying into a major regional a/p covered by CTAF without making normal calls would be reckless flying ,it is the airports that will have the records and data too issue the 225s, a rather thankless task.

Prior to NAS 2c the AAA will need written confirmation of this intended legal action against offenders. Personally I don't like this approach and can't see why it is so important to push the major regional airports into CTAF plus reckless flying litigation instead of remaining MBZ.

It gives a/p airspace a more multi stage approach from CTAF, then MBZ,then MBZ plus CA/GRS, then D class towers.

Compared with NAS which has CTAF, then D class towers.

Most studies show CTAF should cope upto 10,000 annual movements provided there very low amounts of RPT services yet D class towers are not needed untill 40 to 50,000 annual movements.

We would have no alternative but to bring D class towers in before they are needed and all users large and small will be charged accordingly. USA don't use the user pays method and their 450 D class towers are paid by consolidated revenue.

AOPA should consider this when dealing and advising on NAS 2c. User pays will be big dollars, Bernie Smith advised the Senate some existing small towers would only cut even at $38 per Tonne. Hence their desire to quite these a/ps before the $7,000,000 Fed Gov subsidy runs out at the end of this year.

Any attemt to charge only major airline Pax would be unfair and not stand up to a ACCC ruling.

As most of you should know AA is the only allowable provider of towers except at Broome and Ayers that had existing ATS though they can only provide ATS/ATC at these a/ps and no others.

WALLEY2 is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2003, 08:06
  #119 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
I have a feeling there may be a buck or two to be made from the supply of ADSB equipment.

Why is ADSB so important, when those pushing it don't even want to fit radios? It seems ironic that the pro ADSB persons are also the ones so enarmoured with the "see and avoid" principle.

As for the part timers like me, we are yet to see the Nov. 27 charts.
No time for comment by the users, no time for fine tuning. A wonderful piece of industry consultation.

Holding patterns on VNC's? Sh*t, that is going to be helpful!

My flying is still going to be C to G, and G to C. Like 99.9% of VFRy's we wont bother the E.
when we overfly a D tower. What fun, think of the savings.

Only difference is, it'll be harder to know the correct frequency to monitor. Like many others, will I bother?

Chief galah is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2003, 18:11
  #120 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429

Unfortunately I have studied about 4 years of maths and stats burried in an engineering degree, a masters and a PhD.

I looked at some CASA 'maths and stats' a few months ago, those relating to 'non-radio' movements in CTAFS and MBZ's.

They said thet the rate of non-radio compliance was X.X% (forgive the Xs, I ferget the exact numbers) GREATER for CTAFs than MBZs.

SO, THEREFORE IT OBVIOUSLY FOLLOWS THAT CTAFs are more dangerous than MBZs (I shall leave the derivation of that for the dilligent undergrad).

HOWEVER, what they failed to say was they looked mainly at BIG MOVEMENT CTAFs (to make the numbers easier to crunch) and all MBZs (cos there aint as many).

Now looking at the 'big movement' CTAFs we see PRODIGIOUS RIPOFFS in landing fees.

Thus a lateral thinking stats professional would question the safety basis of their assertion and may even suggest that 'non-radio' could be linked to $$$$$ and not 'lazy irrespaonsible acts' (even if it is the same thing).

I bet my left one that if we put all the 'big charge' MBZs in the same bucket and did the same analysis we'd get X.X +/- 0.Y% for red wide stress.

When suggesting this CASA replied that they weren't an economic regulator and my guessanalysis didn't show a safety issue.


What we need is a fairer way of charging so the Ag guys, 207 drivers and bankrunners don't land on the cheap!!!

snarek is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.