The NAS, facts and fantasies
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it aint broke......
So if, once again, your beef is with the charging system , why is the 'reform' about the airspace system? A lot of the support for NAS is driven by claims about reduced charges. Why don't we just import the U.S. charging system? That would, of course, invlove the truth, and we can't have that......can we?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I suppose if this is what passes for inteligent 
debate around here then we really are in trouble.
Lets go for the man/org eh, it's much easier, I mean AOPA are just a bunch or anoraks hey.
There must be a HUGE number of really stupid people involved in the NASIG.
Funny, I've met most of them and none of them have eyes in the middle of their foreheads, there was no evidence of prefrontal lobotomies and they could ALL walk and chew gum at the same time.
Amazing stuff, they must have been practising for yonks, just so they could pull the wool over everybodies eyes.
I can't work out why they would be so motivated but I'm sure someone out there will have an opinion or three.
debate around here then we really are in trouble.Lets go for the man/org eh, it's much easier, I mean AOPA are just a bunch or anoraks hey.
There must be a HUGE number of really stupid people involved in the NASIG.
Funny, I've met most of them and none of them have eyes in the middle of their foreheads, there was no evidence of prefrontal lobotomies and they could ALL walk and chew gum at the same time.
Amazing stuff, they must have been practising for yonks, just so they could pull the wool over everybodies eyes.
I can't work out why they would be so motivated but I'm sure someone out there will have an opinion or three.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTAF vs MBZ
Snarek,
thanks for your imput, clearly you follow the risk analysis process and modelling so won't bore others with it.
This is a very serious problem but your reply demonstrates some time you just can't win!!
With regards to the Risk analysis by CASA that determined CTAF was unsafe at airports with 10,000+ movements p.a. where as MBZ were still acceptable. You point out the CTAFs chosen in the risk analysis were large CTAFs, therefore high charging Airports, therefore higher non radio usage to avoid fees.
In discussions with Mike Smith he stated the risk analysis was flawed as the CTAF airports were smaller than the MBZ airports and therefore pilots would think it OK to not make the calls. Mike to my knowledge has no qualifications or analysis to back up this statement.
You can see the problem, Mike says flawed CTAFs needed to be bigger,you say flawed CTAFs should have been smaller.
Me? I say it is the people advocating the change to do the analysis of the new system vs the old and that has not been done. I'll leave you and Mike to workout the size of the CTAF that should be used for the statistical analysis. AN analysis most here know will never happen.
On CA/GRS, yes stolen from Canada and not my idea in the first place we helped and pushed to solve a disturbing problem in the skies above our a/p.
On consultants to maintain the integrity of a Risk analysis it should be by an independent party, ICAO says this and I wish NAS IG and the Smiths would apply it to any analysis of the NAS.
I agree there seems to many reports on airspace but can you advise of one that has a risk analysis that shows CTAF is OK at airports with 20,000 a/c movements p.a., 250,000 PAX p.a. and serviced by 737 RPT aircraft, I seem to have misplaced my copy of that report.
Gaunty,
the NAS IG is what it says an implimentation group, it is not their job to do the analysis.
It would be a very poor career move for the seconded personnel in NAS IG to say no don't like this not proven won"t implement this.
They are in an invidious position, just ask Mick what the pressures are like if you say "hey wait on this not proven and should not be implemented."
Where are all the normal steps involved in aviation rule changes? Why and how is this being steamrolled through?
Don't ask a mid level seconded member of NAS IG to stand up and say HOLT, NOT ON, BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARDS. Even the Dep P.M. seems reluctant ,dispite some serious concerns being presented to him, to make that call.
thanks for your imput, clearly you follow the risk analysis process and modelling so won't bore others with it.
This is a very serious problem but your reply demonstrates some time you just can't win!!
With regards to the Risk analysis by CASA that determined CTAF was unsafe at airports with 10,000+ movements p.a. where as MBZ were still acceptable. You point out the CTAFs chosen in the risk analysis were large CTAFs, therefore high charging Airports, therefore higher non radio usage to avoid fees.
In discussions with Mike Smith he stated the risk analysis was flawed as the CTAF airports were smaller than the MBZ airports and therefore pilots would think it OK to not make the calls. Mike to my knowledge has no qualifications or analysis to back up this statement.
You can see the problem, Mike says flawed CTAFs needed to be bigger,you say flawed CTAFs should have been smaller.
Me? I say it is the people advocating the change to do the analysis of the new system vs the old and that has not been done. I'll leave you and Mike to workout the size of the CTAF that should be used for the statistical analysis. AN analysis most here know will never happen.
On CA/GRS, yes stolen from Canada and not my idea in the first place we helped and pushed to solve a disturbing problem in the skies above our a/p.
On consultants to maintain the integrity of a Risk analysis it should be by an independent party, ICAO says this and I wish NAS IG and the Smiths would apply it to any analysis of the NAS.
I agree there seems to many reports on airspace but can you advise of one that has a risk analysis that shows CTAF is OK at airports with 20,000 a/c movements p.a., 250,000 PAX p.a. and serviced by 737 RPT aircraft, I seem to have misplaced my copy of that report.
Gaunty,
the NAS IG is what it says an implimentation group, it is not their job to do the analysis.
It would be a very poor career move for the seconded personnel in NAS IG to say no don't like this not proven won"t implement this.
They are in an invidious position, just ask Mick what the pressures are like if you say "hey wait on this not proven and should not be implemented."
Where are all the normal steps involved in aviation rule changes? Why and how is this being steamrolled through?
Don't ask a mid level seconded member of NAS IG to stand up and say HOLT, NOT ON, BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARDS. Even the Dep P.M. seems reluctant ,dispite some serious concerns being presented to him, to make that call.
short flights long nights
As I keep saying (its because I am old enough to remember) we USED to have a thing called a FLIGHT SERVICE UNIT at places that were served by RPT and GA, but not enough to have a tower. So why not now? Has Dicks "dicky plan" really destroyed that much saftey?Comments please.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walley
Well at least you got the point (re stats and manipulation vs hidden causals). Keep trying ferris, you can buy very nice little maths books with apples and stuff, good place to start before you try Bayseyan Theory
.
I liked the little AOPA ad above too. Succinctly points out the problem of regionals not looking out the window
(cos they do own the sky .... don't they???)
Now some CTAFs are bigger than some MBZs, and there really isn't a problem. I would like to see a fairer charging regime, remembering that all these airports were paid for with taxpayers money to begin with.
But if we could get some sort of 'sticker' system working again, leaving out the AVDATA middle-man take, then maybe, just maybe the guys and gals who 'avoid unecessary calls' won't feel the need anymore
Oh, and for those above STILL blaming the PPL, the last 'no-radio' I saw was at a CTAF in FNQ and it was a Citation, hardly a PPL!!!
The week before that, small CTAF in FFNQ (ie North of Cairns) and it was a Caravan (and no, it wasn't Dick). Again, not too many PPL Caravans around (other than the obvious one).
So give the PPL whinge a break, the problem at CTAFs is regionals not looking vs 'struggling' mid-level charter not talking.
Both members of the so-called 'professionals' strutting their stuff in this forum.
Oh, and Ferris, YET AGAIN (please absorb this fact this time) AOPA IS LINKING NAS AND ADSB AND HAS WRITTEN TO THE MINISTER TO THAT EFFECT.
OK, are we straight with that now.
AK
Well at least you got the point (re stats and manipulation vs hidden causals). Keep trying ferris, you can buy very nice little maths books with apples and stuff, good place to start before you try Bayseyan Theory
.I liked the little AOPA ad above too. Succinctly points out the problem of regionals not looking out the window
(cos they do own the sky .... don't they???)Now some CTAFs are bigger than some MBZs, and there really isn't a problem. I would like to see a fairer charging regime, remembering that all these airports were paid for with taxpayers money to begin with.
But if we could get some sort of 'sticker' system working again, leaving out the AVDATA middle-man take, then maybe, just maybe the guys and gals who 'avoid unecessary calls' won't feel the need anymore
Oh, and for those above STILL blaming the PPL, the last 'no-radio' I saw was at a CTAF in FNQ and it was a Citation, hardly a PPL!!!
The week before that, small CTAF in FFNQ (ie North of Cairns) and it was a Caravan (and no, it wasn't Dick). Again, not too many PPL Caravans around (other than the obvious one).
So give the PPL whinge a break, the problem at CTAFs is regionals not looking vs 'struggling' mid-level charter not talking.
Both members of the so-called 'professionals' strutting their stuff in this forum.
Oh, and Ferris, YET AGAIN (please absorb this fact this time) AOPA IS LINKING NAS AND ADSB AND HAS WRITTEN TO THE MINISTER TO THAT EFFECT.
OK, are we straight with that now.
AK
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA agrees with AFAP, AIPA and Civil Air
AOPA's position (from snarek's last post):
AOPA IS LINKING NAS AND ADSB AND HAS WRITTEN TO THE MINISTER TO THAT EFFECT.
Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
(From the list of requirements AFAP, AIPA, and Civil Air have advised the Minister that are necessary for a safe airspace (see link in coral's post)).
The full list of these 10 safety requirements sent to the Minister are below (I've added point numbers to assist in discussion).
--------------
1. Transponder coverage in 'E' airspace must be mandatory
2. Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.
3. Replacing MBZs with (US) CTAFs is unsafe, not acceptable
4. Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.
5. Airspace designed to capture normal aircraft operating profiles and ensure protection of IFR flights conducting instrument procedures.
6. Require Class C steps abutting/over Class D towers, to the base of Class A.
7. No 'straight in' approaches for non-radio equipped aircraft.
8. Transparent safety case system - nothing hidden or unexplored, mitigation of hazards to be real, not just words.
Increased consultation and exploration with key industry groups.
9. Financial and/or safety benefit to be clearly identified prior to change.
10. Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
----------------
These are the concerns these professional organisations have. Some are to do with specific procedural/airspace issues, others are to do with the transparency and accountability of airspace reform in general.
The airspace reform issues obviously assume that the NAS process so far:
- has not clearly identified the safety and financial benefits,
- consultation and exploration with key industry groups has not been sufficient,
- mitigation has largely been cursory and superficial,
- the safety case system is not transparent.
The 10 points above serve as a "roadmap for peace" for implementation of NAS. If the IG and/or Minister address each of these points then there is a way forward for NAS.
Notice that the organisations are not opposing NAS - they have actually communicated a way they see it being introduced safely and responsibly.
As NAS2b implementation approaches, people would be far better off discussing the real contentious issues, such as those above, not wasting time attacking the man, attacking motives, creating a straw man and attacking him, or responding to obviously antagonistic posts unprofessionally or in kind. Doing so detracts from the argument and demeans the poster.
I make the comparison between snarek's ADSB comment and point 10 above, at the start of this post, to illustrate that there are agreements that can be found. How many more points do people agree on?
AOPA IS LINKING NAS AND ADSB AND HAS WRITTEN TO THE MINISTER TO THAT EFFECT.
Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
(From the list of requirements AFAP, AIPA, and Civil Air have advised the Minister that are necessary for a safe airspace (see link in coral's post)).
The full list of these 10 safety requirements sent to the Minister are below (I've added point numbers to assist in discussion).
--------------
1. Transponder coverage in 'E' airspace must be mandatory
2. Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.
3. Replacing MBZs with (US) CTAFs is unsafe, not acceptable
4. Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.
5. Airspace designed to capture normal aircraft operating profiles and ensure protection of IFR flights conducting instrument procedures.
6. Require Class C steps abutting/over Class D towers, to the base of Class A.
7. No 'straight in' approaches for non-radio equipped aircraft.
8. Transparent safety case system - nothing hidden or unexplored, mitigation of hazards to be real, not just words.
Increased consultation and exploration with key industry groups.
9. Financial and/or safety benefit to be clearly identified prior to change.
10. Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
----------------
These are the concerns these professional organisations have. Some are to do with specific procedural/airspace issues, others are to do with the transparency and accountability of airspace reform in general.
The airspace reform issues obviously assume that the NAS process so far:
- has not clearly identified the safety and financial benefits,
- consultation and exploration with key industry groups has not been sufficient,
- mitigation has largely been cursory and superficial,
- the safety case system is not transparent.
The 10 points above serve as a "roadmap for peace" for implementation of NAS. If the IG and/or Minister address each of these points then there is a way forward for NAS.
Notice that the organisations are not opposing NAS - they have actually communicated a way they see it being introduced safely and responsibly.
As NAS2b implementation approaches, people would be far better off discussing the real contentious issues, such as those above, not wasting time attacking the man, attacking motives, creating a straw man and attacking him, or responding to obviously antagonistic posts unprofessionally or in kind. Doing so detracts from the argument and demeans the poster.
I make the comparison between snarek's ADSB comment and point 10 above, at the start of this post, to illustrate that there are agreements that can be found. How many more points do people agree on?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I stopped posting on this thread a while ago purely because the PPL/AOPA guys on here never seemed to answer the concerns and questions put forward by the aviation professionals be they RPT pilots or ATC's. The response has always came back to its ok for me in my bugsmasher so it must be ok for everyone else.
The difference in mentality I have decided comes down to the fact that the professional pilots have to go to work each day to pay the mortgage as do the the ATC's. They don't want to be party to a midair collision or even a close call while they are doing their job again either as a professional pilot or ATC. The PPL/AOPA guy looks out the window decides its a nice day to go for a flight and chooses to do this. He doesn't want to be stuffed around by the air police as he sees them, he wants to come straight in no delays (even if that means he delays 100 fare paying passengers. Just a little point, the AOPA guys whinge and say why should the RPT carrying the fare paying passengers get priority and special treatment, WHY THE HELL NOT???!!!??? The old thing about the greater good comes to mind.) He also doesn't want to pay anything to anyone. And in his mind because this kind of flying is ok for him then its ok for everyone.
As I said the AOPA guys won't answer genuine concerns about the NAS airspace model, and just blindly put it down to job protection by the ATC's and arrogance by the RPT's.
The difference in mentality I have decided comes down to the fact that the professional pilots have to go to work each day to pay the mortgage as do the the ATC's. They don't want to be party to a midair collision or even a close call while they are doing their job again either as a professional pilot or ATC. The PPL/AOPA guy looks out the window decides its a nice day to go for a flight and chooses to do this. He doesn't want to be stuffed around by the air police as he sees them, he wants to come straight in no delays (even if that means he delays 100 fare paying passengers. Just a little point, the AOPA guys whinge and say why should the RPT carrying the fare paying passengers get priority and special treatment, WHY THE HELL NOT???!!!??? The old thing about the greater good comes to mind.) He also doesn't want to pay anything to anyone. And in his mind because this kind of flying is ok for him then its ok for everyone.
As I said the AOPA guys won't answer genuine concerns about the NAS airspace model, and just blindly put it down to job protection by the ATC's and arrogance by the RPT's.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirNoServices
Don't oversimplify and overinclude. There are plenty of PPLs (and even AOPA members!!) who fly themselves for business/work, fly IFR and are interested in surviving! I for one have to fly at least weekly single pilot IFR any weather except thunderstorms (no radar) and clouds/icing levels below LSALT(no deice) , with a PPL/CIR - because I have to be there for work and pay the rent etc. etc.....Hell, I even make sure I shoot that ILS every 35 days or less!
My experience is that most lighties are quite happy to hold or throw in a few litres of fuel for an orbit to help the scheduled guys (or stay out of the wake turbulence).... the fact that you say otherwise just seems to show you don't have actual experience flying around the traps. Furthermore, my experience is that most (but not all) of the regional jockeys are fine to deal with and don't deliberately taxi out and back track when a lightie's on final just because they can.
Before you point the finger re: what questions are being answered by whom, please note there have been NO facts presented on the issue, comparing between the demonstrated (not theoretical) safety records of similar airspace (i.e. traffic density, ATC/Flightservice levels, radar etc.) in Australia & the US. No side (including NASIG, CASA, ATSB, AOPA, AFAP, AIPA and other letters of the alphabet) has presented any data or facts that DIRECTLY address this issue. All we have is folks skirting around the issues, personal attacks on various aviation groups and a flush of nostalgic reminiscences!
As I have pointed out before, this debate goes nowhere unless the facts are presented.
........and (directed at all sides) cut out the infantile PPLvs CPL vs ATPL crap - it ill becomes us.
<Rant off>
mmm, looks like a nice day outside for flying, might cancel that IFR plan.
Safe flying
NOtimTAMs
Don't oversimplify and overinclude. There are plenty of PPLs (and even AOPA members!!) who fly themselves for business/work, fly IFR and are interested in surviving! I for one have to fly at least weekly single pilot IFR any weather except thunderstorms (no radar) and clouds/icing levels below LSALT(no deice) , with a PPL/CIR - because I have to be there for work and pay the rent etc. etc.....Hell, I even make sure I shoot that ILS every 35 days or less!
My experience is that most lighties are quite happy to hold or throw in a few litres of fuel for an orbit to help the scheduled guys (or stay out of the wake turbulence).... the fact that you say otherwise just seems to show you don't have actual experience flying around the traps. Furthermore, my experience is that most (but not all) of the regional jockeys are fine to deal with and don't deliberately taxi out and back track when a lightie's on final just because they can.
Before you point the finger re: what questions are being answered by whom, please note there have been NO facts presented on the issue, comparing between the demonstrated (not theoretical) safety records of similar airspace (i.e. traffic density, ATC/Flightservice levels, radar etc.) in Australia & the US. No side (including NASIG, CASA, ATSB, AOPA, AFAP, AIPA and other letters of the alphabet) has presented any data or facts that DIRECTLY address this issue. All we have is folks skirting around the issues, personal attacks on various aviation groups and a flush of nostalgic reminiscences!
As I have pointed out before, this debate goes nowhere unless the facts are presented.
........and (directed at all sides) cut out the infantile PPLvs CPL vs ATPL crap - it ill becomes us.
<Rant off>
mmm, looks like a nice day outside for flying, might cancel that IFR plan.
Safe flying
NOtimTAMs
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOtimTAMs
Thank you for that, spot on and just for the record AOPA members include, PPLs, to ATPL, bizjet, regional, domestic and international.
AirNoServicesAustralia
You do your argument no good at all by demeaning AOPA and suggesting that they are just a bunch of bugsmasher PPLs.
The fact that your payslip does not have a QF or whatever airline logo on it doesn't make you an unprofessional.
That is bulls hit and you know it. Take it from an ATPL who has had PMs and multigrillionaires down the back and never been nor ever wanted to be near an "airline".
Thank you for that, spot on and just for the record AOPA members include, PPLs, to ATPL, bizjet, regional, domestic and international.
AirNoServicesAustralia
You do your argument no good at all by demeaning AOPA and suggesting that they are just a bunch of bugsmasher PPLs.
The fact that your payslip does not have a QF or whatever airline logo on it doesn't make you an unprofessional.
That is bulls hit and you know it. Take it from an ATPL who has had PMs and multigrillionaires down the back and never been nor ever wanted to be near an "airline".
cut out the infantile PPLvs CPL vs ATPL crap - it ill becomes us.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reply to Here to Help
HTH
You claim we agree and then post a number of points, I beg to differ.
That is still under discussion. For AOPA to agree to Txps in all E I would argue that E starts at A050 and not a few hundred AGL as planned.
We don't agree. However this is not really an issue for the 'average PPL' and I personally see no reason for AOPA to sing the NASIG line on this provided there is no attempt to pass the associated costs onto those who don't need or want the service.
Now this seems to have horns on it. As long as it doesn't mean unecessary procedures for aircraft in VMC, fine. But AOPA won't support changing CTAF procedures to give IFR aircraft any priority when VMC exists. In IMC reality means there will generally be no problem, BUT, there is a thing called 'special VFR' and IFR pilots would be well advised to familiarise themsleves with low level VMC requirements.
NO!!! That disadvantages our members. If 'you' want C or D joining A to C or D then we need to talk. To convince us 'you' need to prove to us that 'clearance not available, remain OCTA' will be a thing of the past. Otherwise, we are happy with current NASIG plans.
Not legal anyway. But we also need some education for RPT operators, I'd prefer 'no straight in approaches where a circuit is operating'. It is nearly impossible to know you have the accord (premission?) of every a/c in a circuit. My closest near hit happened at Mildura when an RPT did a straight in with 20 a/c in the circuit.
This doesn't mean anything. Consultation has happened, none of us got it all our own way. Consultation does not mean submission.
To who??? AOPA won't be supporting anything that increases our costs to provide a system we don't want or need.
Agreed to a point, and we all need to work together on this. But NOT Radar, it is too expensive to build and maintain and becomes unsupportable for 'all of Oz' deployment when infrastructure costs are considered. Also, to ensure an all of GA fit, the ADSB Mode S units MUST be funded by the AsA project office. If a $5K impost is attempted on GA owners, AOPA, GA and others WILL resist and it is likely the Mode S requirement will then only come in at below 8500'. This would not allay any RPT problems. AOPA would also like to see CDTI made available to all aircraft so there is a benefit to compensate for downtime, weight and maintenance of these units.
NAS 2b.
We also do not agree on 2b. We see nothing wrong with it. There is no real difference between CTAFs and MBZs and the reason for 'no-radio' ops needs to be futher explored and dealt with using education. I see no reason that a no-radio a/c or ultralight can't operate for the 6 days and 22 hours an RPT isn't at most airports around Oz.
AK
You claim we agree and then post a number of points, I beg to differ.
1. Transponder coverage in 'E' airspace must be mandatory
2. Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.
5. Airspace designed to capture normal aircraft operating profiles and ensure protection of IFR flights conducting instrument procedures.
6. Require Class C steps abutting/over Class D towers, to the base of Class A.
7. No 'straight in' approaches for non-radio equipped aircraft.
8. Transparent safety case system - nothing hidden or unexplored, mitigation of hazards to be real, not just words.
9. Financial and/or safety benefit to be clearly identified prior to change.
10. Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
NAS 2b.
We also do not agree on 2b. We see nothing wrong with it. There is no real difference between CTAFs and MBZs and the reason for 'no-radio' ops needs to be futher explored and dealt with using education. I see no reason that a no-radio a/c or ultralight can't operate for the 6 days and 22 hours an RPT isn't at most airports around Oz.
AK
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.
I have huge problems with the concept of providing some services to flights in G, yet pretending known traffic information is not relevant. Let alone the farcical concept of providing traffic information (somehow) in the terminal area, but nowhere else... I don't see how I would be able to justify this before an inquest. The consideration all ATC need to have when providing services mandated by those responsible (as does anybody providing ANY sort of service where your decisions affect the outcomes of others) is whether a decision was that of a reasonable person.
The only way such a concept would be acceptable to me as an ATC is if aircraft specifically opt out, or those mandated to recieve no traffic info are also receiving no other services from me. Especially in view of this quote from FAA 7110.65, the goober's MATS:
Unless an aircraft is operating within Class A airspace or omission is requested by the pilot, issue traffic advisories to all aircraft (IFR or VFR) on your frequency when, in your judgment, their proximity may diminish to less than the applicable separation minima. Where no separation minima applies, such as for VFR aircraft outside of Class B/Class C airspace, or a TRSA, issue traffic advisories to those aircraft on your frequency when in your judgment their proximity warrants it.
Parachuting in E airspace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi snarek,
I should have been more clear in my post. I did not intend to imply that AOPA agreed with all the points - just the one I could see re: ADSB, and in that you've identified a reserved agreement.
My point was that there can be agreement on some issues.
I also wanted to stimulate discussion about specific issues. Thanks for replying - your response to most of the points have communicated AOPAs views clearly.
I am curious to see what you think about point 4:
Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.
Because this will be in NAS 2B and it seems to me to be less safe with a greater possibility of aircraft being on an incorrect area frequency than there is now. Some might argue that boundaries clutter the maps, but aren't they essential information?
For the record I am an ATC, and I work with G, E, C, and A airspace.
I should have been more clear in my post. I did not intend to imply that AOPA agreed with all the points - just the one I could see re: ADSB, and in that you've identified a reserved agreement.
My point was that there can be agreement on some issues.
I also wanted to stimulate discussion about specific issues. Thanks for replying - your response to most of the points have communicated AOPAs views clearly.
I am curious to see what you think about point 4:
Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.
Because this will be in NAS 2B and it seems to me to be less safe with a greater possibility of aircraft being on an incorrect area frequency than there is now. Some might argue that boundaries clutter the maps, but aren't they essential information?
For the record I am an ATC, and I work with G, E, C, and A airspace.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
karrank
Speaking personally now, I too find it interesting when tracking Cairns - Tvl, VFR 'on top' Dunk traffic is told of Cns and Tvl traffic below me, but not me.
It is even more 'interesting' when I am squarking a known code (there is a tendancy to hold the same code for both Cns and Tvl CTR), have a plan in the system and have just been 'soft' handed to Bris by Cns approach.
Why is this, culture or edict??
I just call up the Dunk guys and arrange to be East of them or above them for a certain time. I suppose that's just as easy, but a little more 'radio clogging' than if you passed the info.
By the way, this is just me asking, the 25 year aviation 'veteran' who also remembers FSO's fondly
not AOPA policy.
AK
Speaking personally now, I too find it interesting when tracking Cairns - Tvl, VFR 'on top' Dunk traffic is told of Cns and Tvl traffic below me, but not me.
It is even more 'interesting' when I am squarking a known code (there is a tendancy to hold the same code for both Cns and Tvl CTR), have a plan in the system and have just been 'soft' handed to Bris by Cns approach.
Why is this, culture or edict??
I just call up the Dunk guys and arrange to be East of them or above them for a certain time. I suppose that's just as easy, but a little more 'radio clogging' than if you passed the info.
By the way, this is just me asking, the 25 year aviation 'veteran' who also remembers FSO's fondly
not AOPA policy.AK
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Snarek, I don't really understand your question. Dick's fault again because I don't know what you mean by "VFR On Top"
I think what you mean is that you are "known" to CS approach, and will be "known" to TL, but BB inbetween seems not to. This must mean you are VFR, and CS "turned off" your flight plan when you left C airspace. As an Enroute controller this is good, I can't see you, except as a radar return I'll tell others (that have elected to have a service) about. I don't give you anything unless you ask for it. Creating a mystery about what freq you or the jumpship will be on won't really help you will it?
As regards BIK's campaign for G airspace, best of luck mate. There have been attempts to please all of the people in the past. They were called Airspace 2000 & LLAMP and were both scuttled by (among other things) incompatible expectations. We now have the "big stick" approach, where some luminary plucks an airspace system out of his @rse and IMPOSES it on everybody.
The AIM is that nobody be particularly happy, but you get the system you NEED, even if nobody is convinced of this neccessity besides DS & JA. Are you sure what the result of achieving the system proposed in your (rather prolix) posts would be? US controllers don't give a toss about the class of airspace IFR aircraft operate in, they just separate them untill they give up and stop being IFR. If such is implemented (particularly with our crap radar coverage) you may wistfully remember DTi?
We are not getting the US system
US controllers don't do what their books say they do anyhow
Don't you get suspicious of consultation that is prefaced with statements that nothing said here will change anything in the model?
PS. I like this tribute to the BIG SKY THEORY
PPS. I don't know how I can answer a BIK post and end up above it? First sign of traffic priorities being relaxed???
I think what you mean is that you are "known" to CS approach, and will be "known" to TL, but BB inbetween seems not to. This must mean you are VFR, and CS "turned off" your flight plan when you left C airspace. As an Enroute controller this is good, I can't see you, except as a radar return I'll tell others (that have elected to have a service) about. I don't give you anything unless you ask for it. Creating a mystery about what freq you or the jumpship will be on won't really help you will it?
As regards BIK's campaign for G airspace, best of luck mate. There have been attempts to please all of the people in the past. They were called Airspace 2000 & LLAMP and were both scuttled by (among other things) incompatible expectations. We now have the "big stick" approach, where some luminary plucks an airspace system out of his @rse and IMPOSES it on everybody.
The AIM is that nobody be particularly happy, but you get the system you NEED, even if nobody is convinced of this neccessity besides DS & JA. Are you sure what the result of achieving the system proposed in your (rather prolix) posts would be? US controllers don't give a toss about the class of airspace IFR aircraft operate in, they just separate them untill they give up and stop being IFR. If such is implemented (particularly with our crap radar coverage) you may wistfully remember DTi?
We are not getting the US system US controllers don't do what their books say they do anyhow Don't you get suspicious of consultation that is prefaced with statements that nothing said here will change anything in the model?PS. I like this tribute to the BIG SKY THEORY
PPS. I don't know how I can answer a BIK post and end up above it? First sign of traffic priorities being relaxed???
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy,
Your aircraft cockpit photo appears to be of a Lockheed KC-130T – a military aircraft operated by the US Marines.
Military pilots are not required to comply with civilian rules.
If that were a civilian aircraft that was flying in Australia then the crew would appear to be in contravention of :
CAR 163A - Responsibility of flight crew to see and avoid aircraft.
Unfortunately, it appears that the aircraft is neither civilian, nor flying. All the engine instrument failure flags are showing. The aircraft is either shutdown and on the ground, or else it has experienced a complete electrical failure!
WALLEY2,
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Integrity of a risk analysis? Couldn’t you just ask Civil Air (the air traffic controllers trade union) to take a look at it? I am assured that they have the highest possible standards of integrity and never ever tell fibs.
Yep – and I fail to understand why the world needs any more (other than to keep the consultants employed).
SOPS,
If the value they added was in excess of their cost of operation then they would still exist. Sadly, it wasn’t, and they don’t. (cue tape of “As Time Goes By”)
snarek,
Why not? I know lots of PPLs that fly Citations. Citations are about a hundred times easier to fly than (say) a Twin Comanche or something of that ilk.
Here to Help,
What does the term “transponder coverage” mean?
Does it mean “the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder”?
Or does it mean “air traffic control radar coverage”?
If it’s the former then I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, I think the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder should be mandatory at all times in all classes of airspace for all aircraft with an electrical generating system capable of powering it.
If it’s the latter then I disagree whole-heartedly – you don’t need air traffic control radar for class E airspace.
Then again, upon reflection, if it means that where there is currently no radar coverage it should be class G airspace (rather than class E) then I’d go for that option for sure!
If there is directed traffic information then it’s not ICAO class G.
ICAO class G = no service, no delay, no charge.
ICAO class F has directed traffic information for participating IFR aircraft, but participation by IFR aircraft is not mandatory.
If Australia is going to use ICAO class F procedures then let’s at least refer to it by the correct name – class F.
In any event, in my opinion, for the vast majority of Australia’s airspace there is no need for anything more than genuine ICAO class G.
G = Good
Why not?
As snarek has posted :
A “frequency boundary” is not something that is relevant to ICAO class G airspace because there is no “correct ATS frequency”.
“Capture” them in what class of airspace, exactly? I’d suggest that “capturing” them in class G would be about right in most cases.
I presume that the word “protection” implies controlled airspace.
Does this mean that the pros reckon there should be (say) class C airspace around (for example) Ceduna, South Australia, just because there is a published NDB approach?
Nah – that sounds like a backwards step to me. (should create lots of work though)
Well that would create lots of jobs and cause lots of unnecessary delays and expense – but for what benefit?
Some of these non-radar class D towers should have been shut down years ago.
For the others, what’s wrong with class G over the top? OK – make it class E to keep up appearances if you really must.
In the UK Boeing 737s and BAe 146s (etc) regularly fly into airports with relatively small class D control zones that are not equipped with air traffic control radar. In many cases the class D control zone is only a few miles across and is surrounded by class G. It all seems to work just fine. What is so different about Australia?
Oh – and raise the base of class A to FL280 (same as RVSM).
Sounds reasonable. I’ll plead “no contest” on that one.
Waffle waffle waffle. Let’s all have a group hug and sing Koombayah.
The only people who believe that NAS wont lead to a reduction in the number of air traffic controllers are the air traffic controllers.
Why?
What’s important in busy terminal areas is that the pilots know where the aircraft are. Whether some third-party ground-based air traffic control service knows where the planes are is largely irrelevant.
AirNoServicesAustralia,
Since I am neither a PPL nor a member of AOPA I’ll leave that comment for those who are (although if gaunty keeps going the way he is going he might be able to twist my arm and get me to sign up ).
A number of people that you dismissively deride fly 400 knot “bugsmashers”. More like bug obliterators I’d say!
Your aircraft cockpit photo appears to be of a Lockheed KC-130T – a military aircraft operated by the US Marines.
Military pilots are not required to comply with civilian rules.
If that were a civilian aircraft that was flying in Australia then the crew would appear to be in contravention of :
CAR 163A - Responsibility of flight crew to see and avoid aircraft.
Unfortunately, it appears that the aircraft is neither civilian, nor flying. All the engine instrument failure flags are showing. The aircraft is either shutdown and on the ground, or else it has experienced a complete electrical failure!
WALLEY2,
....we helped and pushed to solve a disturbing problem in the skies above our a/p.
On consultants to maintain the integrity of a Risk analysis....
I agree there seems to many reports on airspace....
SOPS,
....we USED to have a thing called a FLIGHT SERVICE UNIT at places that were served by RPT and GA, but not enough to have a tower.
snarek,
....it was a Citation, hardly a PPL!!!
Here to Help,
1. Transponder coverage in 'E' airspace must be mandatory.
Does it mean “the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder”?
Or does it mean “air traffic control radar coverage”?
If it’s the former then I agree whole-heartedly. In fact, I think the carriage and use of an altitude encoding transponder should be mandatory at all times in all classes of airspace for all aircraft with an electrical generating system capable of powering it.
If it’s the latter then I disagree whole-heartedly – you don’t need air traffic control radar for class E airspace.
Then again, upon reflection, if it means that where there is currently no radar coverage it should be class G airspace (rather than class E) then I’d go for that option for sure!
2. Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.
ICAO class G = no service, no delay, no charge.
ICAO class F has directed traffic information for participating IFR aircraft, but participation by IFR aircraft is not mandatory.
If Australia is going to use ICAO class F procedures then let’s at least refer to it by the correct name – class F.
In any event, in my opinion, for the vast majority of Australia’s airspace there is no need for anything more than genuine ICAO class G.
G = Good
3. Replacing MBZs with (US) CTAFs is unsafe, not acceptable.
As snarek has posted :
I see no reason that a no-radio a/c or ultralight can’t operate for the 6 days and 22 hours [per week that] an RPT isn’t at most airports around Oz.
4. Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.
5. Airspace designed to capture normal aircraft operating profiles....
....and ensure protection of IFR flights conducting instrument procedures.
Does this mean that the pros reckon there should be (say) class C airspace around (for example) Ceduna, South Australia, just because there is a published NDB approach?
Nah – that sounds like a backwards step to me. (should create lots of work though)
6. Require Class C steps abutting/over Class D towers, to the base of Class A.
Some of these non-radar class D towers should have been shut down years ago.
For the others, what’s wrong with class G over the top? OK – make it class E to keep up appearances if you really must.
In the UK Boeing 737s and BAe 146s (etc) regularly fly into airports with relatively small class D control zones that are not equipped with air traffic control radar. In many cases the class D control zone is only a few miles across and is surrounded by class G. It all seems to work just fine. What is so different about Australia?
Oh – and raise the base of class A to FL280 (same as RVSM).
7. No 'straight in' approaches for non-radio equipped aircraft.
8. Transparent safety case system - nothing hidden or unexplored, mitigation of hazards to be real, not just words.
Increased consultation and exploration with key industry groups.
Increased consultation and exploration with key industry groups.
9. Financial and/or safety benefit to be clearly identified prior to change.
10. Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
What’s important in busy terminal areas is that the pilots know where the aircraft are. Whether some third-party ground-based air traffic control service knows where the planes are is largely irrelevant.
AirNoServicesAustralia,
....the PPL/AOPA guys on here never seemed to answer the concerns and questions put forward by the aviation professionals....
).
....its ok for me in my bugsmasher....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
karrank
I meant the Dunk RPT not the Mission Beach meatbombers!!! I stay well out to sea away from them, been flying that route for nearly 10 years and have never figured out exactly what those guys do, where they radio their intentions or what happens if they say 'dropping in one minute' and i say 'XYZ overhead Clump Point 8500'
And I'm gonna hafta take BIK on a bit now.
I don't suppose there are too many a/c with elec systems and no Txps. But there are a few. Probably a few more without Mode C.
So, if you are going to 'mandate them' who will pay???
Even with no Mode C a cheap Txp is $2K. Then, once it is in it has to be tested every x years. With a mode C add $500 and more tests (and after these tests it really is broke and has to be fixed). So add a few hours every 100. (and thanks to karrank and his mates making us all get them 'tuned' last month, another $400).
And who/what is this for. It is like me carrying a spare tyre for a Taxi in my car, and having to pay for the priveledge. identified public benefit, sure, but my problem (and thus financial responsibility) no way.
Don't forget BIK. 'Free in G'
NOW BIG PERSONAL OPINION WARNING - NOT AOPA POLICY
I liked FSOs too. I'd like to think that with full ADSB we could perhaps get some back. I wouldn't be happy if I were made to plan again though, you just dont need that in a computer age.
With ADSB, pop-ups should be relatively simple. Po-up, get a code and away you go. Get a TCAS for a letdown and the FSO could suggest separation.
But, who pays. Unions will do what unions do and try to get the biggest buck for their members, that made FSOs unaffordable under a (stupid) user pays government policy. So FSOs dissapeared
I would like to see B050 come back. That way you shouldn't need a Txp below that. Gives the AUF people a cheap place to fly.
Wanna fly above that??? Hopefully Govt funded ADSB will fix that. I can fly my Grumman at 8500 and my T-Craft at 3500
I am also heedful of C to a via 'X' arguments. I wouldn't like to see it as C though, too restrictive unless you took away priority. So at the moment I like the NAS suggestion, but am willing to listen.
AK
AK
I meant the Dunk RPT not the Mission Beach meatbombers!!! I stay well out to sea away from them, been flying that route for nearly 10 years and have never figured out exactly what those guys do, where they radio their intentions or what happens if they say 'dropping in one minute' and i say 'XYZ overhead Clump Point 8500'
And I'm gonna hafta take BIK on a bit now.
What does the term “transponder coverage” mean?
So, if you are going to 'mandate them' who will pay???
Even with no Mode C a cheap Txp is $2K. Then, once it is in it has to be tested every x years. With a mode C add $500 and more tests (and after these tests it really is broke and has to be fixed). So add a few hours every 100. (and thanks to karrank and his mates making us all get them 'tuned' last month, another $400).
And who/what is this for. It is like me carrying a spare tyre for a Taxi in my car, and having to pay for the priveledge. identified public benefit, sure, but my problem (and thus financial responsibility) no way.
Don't forget BIK. 'Free in G'
NOW BIG PERSONAL OPINION WARNING - NOT AOPA POLICY
I liked FSOs too. I'd like to think that with full ADSB we could perhaps get some back. I wouldn't be happy if I were made to plan again though, you just dont need that in a computer age.
With ADSB, pop-ups should be relatively simple. Po-up, get a code and away you go. Get a TCAS for a letdown and the FSO could suggest separation.
But, who pays. Unions will do what unions do and try to get the biggest buck for their members, that made FSOs unaffordable under a (stupid) user pays government policy. So FSOs dissapeared
I would like to see B050 come back. That way you shouldn't need a Txp below that. Gives the AUF people a cheap place to fly.
Wanna fly above that??? Hopefully Govt funded ADSB will fix that. I can fly my Grumman at 8500 and my T-Craft at 3500
I am also heedful of C to a via 'X' arguments. I wouldn't like to see it as C though, too restrictive unless you took away priority. So at the moment I like the NAS suggestion, but am willing to listen.
AK
AK
Last edited by snarek; 13th Oct 2003 at 12:24.
Nunc est bibendum
Snarek, direct question. If NAS is as safe as it should be, why will ADSB be a benefit UNLESS that is a safety increase. In that case, shouldn't we be delaying NAS until we ALL have ADSB? I asked this question on the other page but BIK claimed he didn't want (or need) it but you have mentioned a number of times that you do.
Either the NAS system is 'safe' and therefore ADSB shouldn't even raise it's head- ever- or it isn't and something needs to be done. Your continued insistance on ADSB shows flawed logic.
Either the NAS system is 'safe' and therefore ADSB shouldn't even raise it's head- ever- or it isn't and something needs to be done. Your continued insistance on ADSB shows flawed logic.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
apples and apples
Keg
I (and AOPA) see no safety problems with NAS 2b.
We reserve our position on all NAS and probably won't go the way CivilAir want, i.e. we may push for less E and more G below 8500.
However, some here whose opinios I respect, have argued (but not proven) a safety case. The main concern stems from E into C and E above 'busy' CTAFs under 2b.
While we are not convinced of the safety case we are interested in any systemic approach that makes airspace safer. Such a system is ADSB.
Now the Govt want NAS and no-one (especially a union) will change their minds. So, while we (AOPA) do not oppose NAS we are prepared to hang our support on ADSB, but only the Govt funded installation option.
In doing so I would have thought that the more rational on the other side of the argument would see that as a useful compromise rather than a reason to yet again criticise. A combined ADSB 'final-NAS' is both economically and technically feasable, it would make GA safer, it would make RPT safer, it would make CTAFs safer (although most midairs occur at GAAPs), it would provide more and better info in airways and probably save airlines a lot of money as it would reduce delays and allow better computerised arrivals planning.
AK
I (and AOPA) see no safety problems with NAS 2b.
We reserve our position on all NAS and probably won't go the way CivilAir want, i.e. we may push for less E and more G below 8500.
However, some here whose opinios I respect, have argued (but not proven) a safety case. The main concern stems from E into C and E above 'busy' CTAFs under 2b.
While we are not convinced of the safety case we are interested in any systemic approach that makes airspace safer. Such a system is ADSB.
Now the Govt want NAS and no-one (especially a union) will change their minds. So, while we (AOPA) do not oppose NAS we are prepared to hang our support on ADSB, but only the Govt funded installation option.
In doing so I would have thought that the more rational on the other side of the argument would see that as a useful compromise rather than a reason to yet again criticise. A combined ADSB 'final-NAS' is both economically and technically feasable, it would make GA safer, it would make RPT safer, it would make CTAFs safer (although most midairs occur at GAAPs), it would provide more and better info in airways and probably save airlines a lot of money as it would reduce delays and allow better computerised arrivals planning.
AK