NAS Area frequencies and boundaries
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Queensland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****su- Tonka.
I was in the US at that glider contest in 1986 and we were briefed that there would be no radar coverage at Laughlin that day. This may have changed nowadays.
All we are going to lose is the VFR requirement to maintain a listening watch and respond if we think we may have a conflict with an IFR aircraft. Enroute we are at different levels so this really should not happen anyway. Note that gliders have always been there and have never participated in this.
Close to airports if I can't realistically avoid them I'll now be on the relevant CTAF or maybe listening to a radar controller. My single engine has a Mode C transponder so TCAS will also be there for the regional airliners fitted with it.
I'm going to enjoy the opening up of more airspace to VFR without getting a clearance. The currrent priority system doesn't look so good to those at the bottom. I can see how the people higher up the list may have a different view. I don't like flying over totally unlandable terrain because clearance is unavailable even after I've filed a flight plan well before departure.
The military is the worst so I'm looking forward to reforms of this too. We already share G airspace with fast movers with only a notam danger area and no ATC service at all.
Currently not many VFR pilots are making position reports anyway. It is pretty quiet except for the irrelevant garbage on the area frequency. Better to use the comms in the higher risk areas where they will be meaningful.
ATC doesn't mean no collision risk. There have been quiet a few where a pilot or controller makes a mistake resulting in a collision.
The relatively recent one near the Swiss German border comes to mind.. In really low density airspace not having ATC is probably no riskier than having it. At least without it you are free to look outside and don't have a false sense of security.
I was in the US at that glider contest in 1986 and we were briefed that there would be no radar coverage at Laughlin that day. This may have changed nowadays.
All we are going to lose is the VFR requirement to maintain a listening watch and respond if we think we may have a conflict with an IFR aircraft. Enroute we are at different levels so this really should not happen anyway. Note that gliders have always been there and have never participated in this.
Close to airports if I can't realistically avoid them I'll now be on the relevant CTAF or maybe listening to a radar controller. My single engine has a Mode C transponder so TCAS will also be there for the regional airliners fitted with it.
I'm going to enjoy the opening up of more airspace to VFR without getting a clearance. The currrent priority system doesn't look so good to those at the bottom. I can see how the people higher up the list may have a different view. I don't like flying over totally unlandable terrain because clearance is unavailable even after I've filed a flight plan well before departure.
The military is the worst so I'm looking forward to reforms of this too. We already share G airspace with fast movers with only a notam danger area and no ATC service at all.
Currently not many VFR pilots are making position reports anyway. It is pretty quiet except for the irrelevant garbage on the area frequency. Better to use the comms in the higher risk areas where they will be meaningful.
ATC doesn't mean no collision risk. There have been quiet a few where a pilot or controller makes a mistake resulting in a collision.
The relatively recent one near the Swiss German border comes to mind.. In really low density airspace not having ATC is probably no riskier than having it. At least without it you are free to look outside and don't have a false sense of security.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ETA23:
Your simplified safety case is noted. I have raised my technical concerns about the airspace proposals on the last thread on this topic. What I thought were salient points were never answered by those from the AOPA/Smith camp - their support is obviously total - and totally blinkered. I cannot see any point therefore on arguing once again why your position is flawed - it is on the record.
The campaign being waged is testimony to the absolute power of political lobbying - even in the face of unanswered serious questions about the nuts and bolts of making it work - let alone the far greyer legal implications.
Those who take legal responsibilty into their hands 'every' working day, are far from convinced the safety case is complete. Having seen this all fall over twice before at the 11th hour there is a nervous humor that this will once again be the outcome - this time I am not so sure. Political pressure has been applied to some sensitive parts, and the screws must be tight because those with the most to lose (financially) are still staying Mum.
Even if you dismiss safety implications, put them to one side, and look at the costs - it simply does not make sense.
I honestly - and I mean truly - can only see this costing everybody more. The airspace configuration alone is going to cost millions - please dont think the taxpayer is going to absorb it.
If you thought AOPA/Smith lobbying was effective, watch the fiery QF/VB lobbying for costs back onto GA when ASA try to stick up the NavCharges to pay for this - maybe then the thumbscrews wont feel so tight on them.
Or have you already thought of that in your next move?
Your simplified safety case is noted. I have raised my technical concerns about the airspace proposals on the last thread on this topic. What I thought were salient points were never answered by those from the AOPA/Smith camp - their support is obviously total - and totally blinkered. I cannot see any point therefore on arguing once again why your position is flawed - it is on the record.
The campaign being waged is testimony to the absolute power of political lobbying - even in the face of unanswered serious questions about the nuts and bolts of making it work - let alone the far greyer legal implications.
Those who take legal responsibilty into their hands 'every' working day, are far from convinced the safety case is complete. Having seen this all fall over twice before at the 11th hour there is a nervous humor that this will once again be the outcome - this time I am not so sure. Political pressure has been applied to some sensitive parts, and the screws must be tight because those with the most to lose (financially) are still staying Mum.
Even if you dismiss safety implications, put them to one side, and look at the costs - it simply does not make sense.
I honestly - and I mean truly - can only see this costing everybody more. The airspace configuration alone is going to cost millions - please dont think the taxpayer is going to absorb it.
If you thought AOPA/Smith lobbying was effective, watch the fiery QF/VB lobbying for costs back onto GA when ASA try to stick up the NavCharges to pay for this - maybe then the thumbscrews wont feel so tight on them.
Or have you already thought of that in your next move?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"snarek, Brianh and Bill Pike.
Your posts continue indicate a lack of knowledge of the current, iminent and proposed systems. AOPA's fanciful notions of increased freedoms are typical navel gazing and insular thinking.
Chief Galah."
Chief Galah,
(Aptly named?)
While you assisted the others, you failed to indicate where I was wrong. Please rid me of such ignorance.
Your posts continue indicate a lack of knowledge of the current, iminent and proposed systems. AOPA's fanciful notions of increased freedoms are typical navel gazing and insular thinking.
Chief Galah."
Chief Galah,
(Aptly named?)
While you assisted the others, you failed to indicate where I was wrong. Please rid me of such ignorance.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day all,
I'm currently a university student studying aviation (management, not pilot) at a reputable university. I am only a few weeks from finishing and I have a mini-thesis to finish before the end of next week. (Don't worry, I have nearly finished it!!
)
My thesis is loosely about the NAS and the safety issues surrounding it. A question on the last page about a US CTAF. I was wondering that myself so I asked a few people.
Nobody I asked had any idea what the difference is! This included GA pilots and flying instructors, who, I assume, would be using CTAFs fairly regularly. I even had a chance to ask a pilot from the US, and, after explaining the procedures we have in our CTAFs, he had no idea either. I think there may be a communication/education issue for NASIG here.
Finally I spoke to a friend of mine who is an airline pilot who flies internationally. He referred to his manuals about flying in the US (Jeppesen manuals, I think) and gave me the definition. I'm not going to post it here word for word (unless someone really wants me to), but I think it can be summarised as this:
- there is no "airspace" assumed for the CTAF. Any radio-equipped aircraft in the vicinity of the aerodrome should monitor the CTAF. Some common sense should be exercised here.
- CTAFs can offer services! There may be a third-party operator (this is not explicitly stated, but can be inferred) giving services such as weather, NOTAMs, basic traffic (how many in the circuit, etc.), runway in use and some other stuff that I can't remember right now. This is called a flight service station (FSS). Obviously, these services are not available at all aerodromes all the time.
But without those services, I struggle to find any other difference, apart from the "airspace" issue. We can probably all guess how many aerodromes in Australia will actually have those services when we change over to the NAS. Does anyone from Airservices know? Is it higher than zero?
On another issue, one thing I would like to know is how useful a radio is when flying enroute. I am a low-hour (I have exactly 50 hours), GFPT pilot and I've not been flying in about three years. I've not done any navigation flights yet, so I don't really know. In other words, I'm asking seriously, even though it may be a silly question, because I don't know. It does seem silly to me, however, that the FIA frequency boundaries are on the new ERCs, but not the VNCs. Does that mean that VFR pilots will now have to look at TWO charts, instead of ONE, when they are finding out what frequency they have to use?
Sorry for the long post, but sometimes they are necessary - I hope this one was...
Cheers,
Oz Mate!!
I'm currently a university student studying aviation (management, not pilot) at a reputable university. I am only a few weeks from finishing and I have a mini-thesis to finish before the end of next week. (Don't worry, I have nearly finished it!!
)My thesis is loosely about the NAS and the safety issues surrounding it. A question on the last page about a US CTAF. I was wondering that myself so I asked a few people.
Nobody I asked had any idea what the difference is! This included GA pilots and flying instructors, who, I assume, would be using CTAFs fairly regularly. I even had a chance to ask a pilot from the US, and, after explaining the procedures we have in our CTAFs, he had no idea either. I think there may be a communication/education issue for NASIG here.
Finally I spoke to a friend of mine who is an airline pilot who flies internationally. He referred to his manuals about flying in the US (Jeppesen manuals, I think) and gave me the definition. I'm not going to post it here word for word (unless someone really wants me to), but I think it can be summarised as this:
- there is no "airspace" assumed for the CTAF. Any radio-equipped aircraft in the vicinity of the aerodrome should monitor the CTAF. Some common sense should be exercised here.
- CTAFs can offer services! There may be a third-party operator (this is not explicitly stated, but can be inferred) giving services such as weather, NOTAMs, basic traffic (how many in the circuit, etc.), runway in use and some other stuff that I can't remember right now. This is called a flight service station (FSS). Obviously, these services are not available at all aerodromes all the time.
But without those services, I struggle to find any other difference, apart from the "airspace" issue. We can probably all guess how many aerodromes in Australia will actually have those services when we change over to the NAS. Does anyone from Airservices know? Is it higher than zero?
On another issue, one thing I would like to know is how useful a radio is when flying enroute. I am a low-hour (I have exactly 50 hours), GFPT pilot and I've not been flying in about three years. I've not done any navigation flights yet, so I don't really know. In other words, I'm asking seriously, even though it may be a silly question, because I don't know. It does seem silly to me, however, that the FIA frequency boundaries are on the new ERCs, but not the VNCs. Does that mean that VFR pilots will now have to look at TWO charts, instead of ONE, when they are finding out what frequency they have to use?
Sorry for the long post, but sometimes they are necessary - I hope this one was...
Cheers,
Oz Mate!!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All we are going to lose is the VFR requirement to maintain a listening watch and respond if we think we may have a conflict with an IFR aircraft. Enroute we are at different levels so this really should not happen anyway
I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which someone sitting in an air conditioned office in Brisbane or Melbourne is likely to "save my butt". How many times has this fanciful event actually happened, I wonder? (Here we go. "There was once this private pilot lost....") 121.5 is more likely to find an in range overflying airliner who will quickly connect you with ATC if necessary
The bottom line in safety is that if only one VFR aircraft gets into trouble EVER and due to these changes doesn't know where to turn for help and people die because of these changes, its once too often and makes the people pushing through these ridiculous unneccesary changes culpible for those peoples deaths.
The most common and most important service a VFR will request off the ATC is for navigational assistance by radar, and this does happen often, and Bill if you don't think the recieving of this in a timely manner is critical to the safety of the pilot and the passengers you are kidding yourself. With the new charts (as has been mentioned by many of the pilots on here, the frequency information is a joke) it will make it almost impossible to know what frequency to call for assistance on, and 121.5 is not an adequate alternative, purely because when asked if the domestic RPT's if they are monitoring 121.5 the response was invariably "NO". The international guys appear to monitor 121.5 religiously but I have found the domestics to be less likely. Where does that leave the now very lonely confused VFR pilot wondering why those goats are dancing in the clouds.
as pilot in the inland area, i think that there is a case for a ctaf below a certain alt eg. 5000'. area freq would be available if required. that way i would only have to listen to traffic within 70 miles of me. obviously this would not work in the more congested coastal "J Curve", but would work just fine in the majority of the inland. most ifr operates above 5000' except when there are huge westerlies. the new charts have one problem that i can see straight up. the vtc area freqs are very hard to seee as they are the same colour as the relief colours, especially in the qld south east. my other beef is that when ifr pilots report TOD to centre, they think they are the only ones around. no distance or direction from their destination. fine if you are familiar with a particular area and daily traffic, but what if you are not.
just my thoughts.
just my thoughts.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sitting in airconditioned offices...
Dear Bill,
I can only echo what ANSA and others have said here...also well done Chimbu, you really should run for office!!
As for how many times??? Scores...lost count really...and I have to say that it's been a very rare event that we (the controllers/and FSO's in a different era) have had to asisst an IFR aircraft...it has almost always been a VFR driver in difficulties.
Personally I have assited loads of lost (perhaps geographically embarrassed if you prefer) lighties, including several solo navex guys that were right on the edge of panic. We had them climb, identified them, vectored them for the nearest decent airfield and in several cases, IFR drivers in the air at the time came up on freq to give them some really good gen about the spot they were about to land.
Please don't think that this doesn't happen. And of course you are right...how do we know that anything that we had done made even the slightest difference?
I also remember a time in Sydney when a VFR guy was vectored onto the runway at Mascot..the little guy had got lost and was flying after last light..not NVFR.
You might try speaking to your members instead of speaking for them.
Not everybody is a sky God.....
just my 100 baisars worth.
I can only echo what ANSA and others have said here...also well done Chimbu, you really should run for office!!
As for how many times??? Scores...lost count really...and I have to say that it's been a very rare event that we (the controllers/and FSO's in a different era) have had to asisst an IFR aircraft...it has almost always been a VFR driver in difficulties.
Personally I have assited loads of lost (perhaps geographically embarrassed if you prefer) lighties, including several solo navex guys that were right on the edge of panic. We had them climb, identified them, vectored them for the nearest decent airfield and in several cases, IFR drivers in the air at the time came up on freq to give them some really good gen about the spot they were about to land.
Please don't think that this doesn't happen. And of course you are right...how do we know that anything that we had done made even the slightest difference?
I also remember a time in Sydney when a VFR guy was vectored onto the runway at Mascot..the little guy had got lost and was flying after last light..not NVFR.
You might try speaking to your members instead of speaking for them.
Not everybody is a sky God.....
just my 100 baisars worth.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am no longer on the Board of AOPA and I speak only for myself old son.
It works in the US. It can work here. Some Australian pilots have developed some bad habits, due mainly to the lack of traffic. There are a lot more aircraft out there than the two jammimg the airways arranging IFR separation standards between each other on a gin clear day.
It works in the US. It can work here. Some Australian pilots have developed some bad habits, due mainly to the lack of traffic. There are a lot more aircraft out there than the two jammimg the airways arranging IFR separation standards between each other on a gin clear day.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thgis debate is certainly quite interesting. I must admit that I have not studied the new proposals in great detail as yet (not flying at the moment) and have not really decided if the changes are the best thing or not, however what seems to be a fact without too much doubt is that there are a lot of very confused people out there who are supposed to be using this system in the next month. It seems that the dissemination of practical information is somewhat lacking. Some seem to believe the new system is the greatest thing since sliced bread, others believe its a disaster waiting to happen - maybe both are right as well as wrong. I do tend to believe, from the little I've read that we are not really getting the "best" system that we could have and at the same time not really getting a system that is a whole lot better than the one we currently have. Just my opinion, I could very well be proved wrong - it wouldn't be the first time. I thought I was wrong once - but I was mistaken!
Having said all that, I received my package from NASIG yesterday and while not having studied it in detail, the little that I did see has made me wonder who has put this together. From my perspective it seems that not a lot of thought has gone into some of the theory of how this system should work. For example:
From page 30 of the Reference Guide, VFR Airmanship-
"Avoid, as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns."
What next? Don't track via aerodromes!, get serious, thats what you are TAUGHT to do in your training. Avoid navaids!, also part of the nav training you receive. What are you supposed to do, plan your flight over terrain that does not have easily identifyable waypoints. The best one though is to avoid aerodrome instrument approach paths. Firstly how many VFR pilots carry instrument approch plates, and even it they did, where do they get the training to read and understand them?
As an IFR rated pilot who has been known to fly VFR as well, I can see the flaws in this system from both perspectives.
See and be seen is great in theory but anyone who has had a 'close encounter' in the air will tell you that they only saw the other traffic as it went past, or was far too close for comfort when observed. I know the odds of a mid-air are small, but so are the odds of winning Tattslotto, but someone wins almost every week. Food for thought.
I don't want to get into an argument with anyone - I just want a workable system that affords the maximum safety for all that have the privelige to partake in aviation.
BSB
Having said all that, I received my package from NASIG yesterday and while not having studied it in detail, the little that I did see has made me wonder who has put this together. From my perspective it seems that not a lot of thought has gone into some of the theory of how this system should work. For example:
From page 30 of the Reference Guide, VFR Airmanship-
"Avoid, as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns."
What next? Don't track via aerodromes!, get serious, thats what you are TAUGHT to do in your training. Avoid navaids!, also part of the nav training you receive. What are you supposed to do, plan your flight over terrain that does not have easily identifyable waypoints. The best one though is to avoid aerodrome instrument approach paths. Firstly how many VFR pilots carry instrument approch plates, and even it they did, where do they get the training to read and understand them?
As an IFR rated pilot who has been known to fly VFR as well, I can see the flaws in this system from both perspectives.
See and be seen is great in theory but anyone who has had a 'close encounter' in the air will tell you that they only saw the other traffic as it went past, or was far too close for comfort when observed. I know the odds of a mid-air are small, but so are the odds of winning Tattslotto, but someone wins almost every week. Food for thought.
I don't want to get into an argument with anyone - I just want a workable system that affords the maximum safety for all that have the privelige to partake in aviation.
BSB
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Culture ! It's different
What the likes of Bill Pike, Dick Smith and some others do not seem to appreciate is that although the air and the planes are the same, the culture is very different.
Pilots in the US have grown up with certain procedures in place and yes they work over there. The problem with importing some of those very same procedures into Oz is that that the pilots here have NOT grown up those procedures and put in very simple words the established culture is therefore DIFFERENT.
Only those pilots trained after the change will have a culture which understands the new procedures with no memory of what existed in the past. Tell me how many years did it take for airline pilots to realise that AERADIO had been replaced by FLIGHT SERVICE? (5 to 10 years - and that was only a name change!!) Both now only a memory.
The only way to address the change of culture is by education and training. The package in the mail this week is only a start and I would hope that there will be lots more.
The other issue is that this sort of self help education has limited potential for success and the responsibility for ensuring there is standardisation rests with CASA, who have been very quite on this of late.
"no known traffic"
Pilots in the US have grown up with certain procedures in place and yes they work over there. The problem with importing some of those very same procedures into Oz is that that the pilots here have NOT grown up those procedures and put in very simple words the established culture is therefore DIFFERENT.
Only those pilots trained after the change will have a culture which understands the new procedures with no memory of what existed in the past. Tell me how many years did it take for airline pilots to realise that AERADIO had been replaced by FLIGHT SERVICE? (5 to 10 years - and that was only a name change!!) Both now only a memory.
The only way to address the change of culture is by education and training. The package in the mail this week is only a start and I would hope that there will be lots more.
The other issue is that this sort of self help education has limited potential for success and the responsibility for ensuring there is standardisation rests with CASA, who have been very quite on this of late.
"no known traffic"
Last edited by triadic; 1st Nov 2003 at 07:00.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP
For 21,000 hours of my 51,000 hour controlling career, I have been entertained by your band of mary (sic) men, blundering thru' on their BFR's. They are under educated on the current system, and will be less on NAS.
AMATTS in the early 90's was your best win. No longer having to account within the ATS system. Thank god for GPS, it came along just at the right time. No need to worry about navigation anymore.
CG
AMATTS in the early 90's was your best win. No longer having to account within the ATS system. Thank god for GPS, it came along just at the right time. No need to worry about navigation anymore.
CG
Thread Starter
All,
Most interesting, this is the first thread I have started, must try it again some times.
With all the references to Tattslotto, and games of chance in general, you have a far greater statistical probability of winning a national lottery than winning ( loosing) the air to air lottery.
It’s a pity we have given airspace names A through G. The automatic assumption ( the culture) is that A is better ( higher class, safer, superior, what ever) than B, and so forth through G, who must be a quite low class chap. Except we are not talking about school football teams.
Maybe we should have Red, blue, green, chartreuse etc airspace.
What ICAO standards actually call for is “separation assurance”, based on rational risk management principles, so that the level of services provided by an CNS/ATM (note that word Management, NOT control) service is commensurate with achieving the required separation assurance standard.
And what’s that all mean, I hear you cry. There is no such thing as "safe" and "unsafe" in terms of risk management, which is what we each and all practice in almost every thing we do, every day of our lives. There are only varying levels of risk, and individual, collective and governmental decisions about acceptable standards of risk.
It means that the maximum risk of a mid air is the same in any airspace, if the CMS/ATM ( there's that word Management, NOT Control again) services have been properly allocated/provided.
At present, we wildly over service. And we all pay. And the real cost goes well beyond raw AA charges, and who pays them.
In reality, even after the NAS (assumed to be non ADS-B) end state, I would bet we will still over service in Australia, over provide CNS/ATM services, given the present and likely future traffic levels in D,E and G airspace. It's the culture. It's also ecomonic waste, for no reduction in real world risk.
________________________________________________
Cap’n Bloggs. (early post) that’s just what is intended, be on the frequency that is applicable --- around an airfield, not an ATS frequency, if it's in E or G.
There are many of us who have been flying “off track” for years, including in Class A airspace, the improvements in navigational accuracy of modern equipment make it even more important, now we can do it “legally”.
________________________________________________
Feather 3. Spot on. And maximize the real world value of alerted see and avoid.
________________________________________________
Aussie etc. The answer is MicroAir, they will have a very cheap, light, low power drain Mode S, ADS-B enabled transponder available, just need Mode S and GPS cards added to the existing unit, the initial units are probably up and running now.
________________________________________________
Chief Galah,
You talk about “rules”, that’s part of the Australian cultural problem, can’t leave it to proper training and indoctrination, gotta’ have rules.
Part of the cultural change that must happen (not just for NAS) if we are to achieve the US world leading standards of air safety outcomes ( and it was finally publicly admitted at SafeSkies this year that we DO NOT have the world'a best air safety record, and that include RPT) is to wean ourselves off the ideas that we can write “a rule” to cover everything, and then all we have to do is “obey the rules”. And something called "air safety" will be the result.
Many of the upcoming “Parts” of new CASA rules are the ultimate expression of the old culture, in draft form so far. For learning, licensing, operating or maintaining aircraft alone, the number of pages of rules is already somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000, and climbing, as MOS's are churned out like there is no tommorrow.
Repleat with thousands of "strict liability" ( no defence) offences.
Just can’t work. Doesn't now, will not in the future, we have to change. Much of the rest of Australian industry have made the change, in improving workplace safety, what's wrong with the aviation sector, that we are so far behind the rest of Australia.
With a worse air safety record than US.
_________________________________________________
Triadic. What a condemnation of what has passed for years here, and a very good reason for a major cultural shift. If we get it right, we have some chance of achieving US air safety outcomes. If we don’t, we condemn Australian aviation to continue with the same mediocre air safety outcomes that we have racked up for years.
_________________________________________________
Who said “ It’s the culture, stupid”. With most of our aviation woes, it certainly is !!
Tootle pip !!
Most interesting, this is the first thread I have started, must try it again some times.
With all the references to Tattslotto, and games of chance in general, you have a far greater statistical probability of winning a national lottery than winning ( loosing) the air to air lottery.
It’s a pity we have given airspace names A through G. The automatic assumption ( the culture) is that A is better ( higher class, safer, superior, what ever) than B, and so forth through G, who must be a quite low class chap. Except we are not talking about school football teams.
Maybe we should have Red, blue, green, chartreuse etc airspace.
What ICAO standards actually call for is “separation assurance”, based on rational risk management principles, so that the level of services provided by an CNS/ATM (note that word Management, NOT control) service is commensurate with achieving the required separation assurance standard.
And what’s that all mean, I hear you cry. There is no such thing as "safe" and "unsafe" in terms of risk management, which is what we each and all practice in almost every thing we do, every day of our lives. There are only varying levels of risk, and individual, collective and governmental decisions about acceptable standards of risk.
It means that the maximum risk of a mid air is the same in any airspace, if the CMS/ATM ( there's that word Management, NOT Control again) services have been properly allocated/provided.
At present, we wildly over service. And we all pay. And the real cost goes well beyond raw AA charges, and who pays them.
In reality, even after the NAS (assumed to be non ADS-B) end state, I would bet we will still over service in Australia, over provide CNS/ATM services, given the present and likely future traffic levels in D,E and G airspace. It's the culture. It's also ecomonic waste, for no reduction in real world risk.
________________________________________________
Cap’n Bloggs. (early post) that’s just what is intended, be on the frequency that is applicable --- around an airfield, not an ATS frequency, if it's in E or G.
There are many of us who have been flying “off track” for years, including in Class A airspace, the improvements in navigational accuracy of modern equipment make it even more important, now we can do it “legally”.
________________________________________________
Feather 3. Spot on. And maximize the real world value of alerted see and avoid.
________________________________________________
Aussie etc. The answer is MicroAir, they will have a very cheap, light, low power drain Mode S, ADS-B enabled transponder available, just need Mode S and GPS cards added to the existing unit, the initial units are probably up and running now.
________________________________________________
Chief Galah,
You talk about “rules”, that’s part of the Australian cultural problem, can’t leave it to proper training and indoctrination, gotta’ have rules.
Part of the cultural change that must happen (not just for NAS) if we are to achieve the US world leading standards of air safety outcomes ( and it was finally publicly admitted at SafeSkies this year that we DO NOT have the world'a best air safety record, and that include RPT) is to wean ourselves off the ideas that we can write “a rule” to cover everything, and then all we have to do is “obey the rules”. And something called "air safety" will be the result.
Many of the upcoming “Parts” of new CASA rules are the ultimate expression of the old culture, in draft form so far. For learning, licensing, operating or maintaining aircraft alone, the number of pages of rules is already somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000, and climbing, as MOS's are churned out like there is no tommorrow.
Repleat with thousands of "strict liability" ( no defence) offences.
Just can’t work. Doesn't now, will not in the future, we have to change. Much of the rest of Australian industry have made the change, in improving workplace safety, what's wrong with the aviation sector, that we are so far behind the rest of Australia.
With a worse air safety record than US.
_________________________________________________
Triadic. What a condemnation of what has passed for years here, and a very good reason for a major cultural shift. If we get it right, we have some chance of achieving US air safety outcomes. If we don’t, we condemn Australian aviation to continue with the same mediocre air safety outcomes that we have racked up for years.
_________________________________________________
Who said “ It’s the culture, stupid”. With most of our aviation woes, it certainly is !!
Tootle pip !!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Queensland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled - Well said.
Sure hope the media don't get to this site. Could lead to a reduction in people wanting to fly in OZ airspace after seeing the posts by supposedly professional pilots and controllers.
Note: nothing to do with the NAS, just the hopeless attitudes and inability to understand plain english or accept that something shown to work in other parts of the world could possibly work here.
As for controllers "helping" - I stopped relying on that years ago after they lost a flightplan and didn't want know when I called in an amendment due wx. I now have a good friend of mine do SAR for me.
As I told the South Australian RAPAC in the 80's - for VFR and sport aviation ATC is NOT a service, it is a hindrance. And the controllers I met there were unimpressive to say the least.
Roll on GPS/ADS-B. Then can we fire some controllers???
Sure hope the media don't get to this site. Could lead to a reduction in people wanting to fly in OZ airspace after seeing the posts by supposedly professional pilots and controllers.
Note: nothing to do with the NAS, just the hopeless attitudes and inability to understand plain english or accept that something shown to work in other parts of the world could possibly work here.
As for controllers "helping" - I stopped relying on that years ago after they lost a flightplan and didn't want know when I called in an amendment due wx. I now have a good friend of mine do SAR for me.
As I told the South Australian RAPAC in the 80's - for VFR and sport aviation ATC is NOT a service, it is a hindrance. And the controllers I met there were unimpressive to say the least.
Roll on GPS/ADS-B. Then can we fire some controllers???
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roll on GPS/ADS-B. Then can we fire some controllers???
Also no wonder me and my colleagues are getting more and more annoyed at this whole NAS process. All these spurious things getting wrapped up in this project; when in reality they have nothing to do with this project.
We see a degredation in the services we provide (under NAS); and say it's just stupid; private pilots come out in mass and say get rid of controllers; great responce. I love the xxxx hours flying so "I know boats"... You don't no ****e about ATC; we don't tell you how to fly, so don't tell us how to control.
Doing Class C airspace is less difficult and more safe than doing Class E. It takes the same amount or less controllers to do Class C than Class E; fact. See USA model, more ATCs per flying hour than here.
The ultimate consequence of all this is that the majority of users, i.e. the ones that use it regularly will get less and it will cost them more. Great stuff.
My understanding is that thorough annalysis from Airservices' states that nearly 200 extra controllers will be needed just to keep up with NAS by 2005. So those looking for an ATC career, the entry bar will be low because they'll need nearly 350 trainee controllers in the next 2 years. Cost effective, awsure. More efficeint.... well really.
Better use resources where the risk is higher, cr@p with a capital 'C'; the same resources are in the same seats just doing ****e different.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope ADSB gives us more controllers.
Imagine the growth of GA if they could fly safe direct controlled sectors anywhere anytime!!! Passenger confidence would improve out os sight and the whole industry and country would benefit
I see you point about C being safer than E. But for VFR or even private IFR ops that comes at cost in both thers of money and delays, which is why the 'bottom end' of GA is supportive of NAS. I really can't see that this cost and inconvenience pays back proportionally.
On a long drive from Townsville to Can'tberra this weekend I was pondering our differences, I figure basically they step from a lack of a viable alternative to this current Government and an aceptance by all of us that 'user pays' is unassailable.
Is it???
AK
Imagine the growth of GA if they could fly safe direct controlled sectors anywhere anytime!!! Passenger confidence would improve out os sight and the whole industry and country would benefit
I see you point about C being safer than E. But for VFR or even private IFR ops that comes at cost in both thers of money and delays, which is why the 'bottom end' of GA is supportive of NAS. I really can't see that this cost and inconvenience pays back proportionally.
On a long drive from Townsville to Can'tberra this weekend I was pondering our differences, I figure basically they step from a lack of a viable alternative to this current Government and an aceptance by all of us that 'user pays' is unassailable.
Is it???
AK
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It isn't a question of whether or not C is safer than E, it is a question of whether or not the traffic levels require C. Where E has replaced G with DTI (sorry about the acronyms but I'm sure that you are with me. E with Directed Traffic Information is really F but in Australia we are used to that, we call airspace D but ATC still use C procedures etc.) Nevertheless E with a professional controller separating must be better than G with two pilots trying to sort out Rafferties Rules separation in their cockpits, regardless of what VFR are doing on the radio or whether or not VFR are equipped with anti stealth gear. I think of E as like our G but the supplier of DTI, i.e. someone in an office on the ground, with the overall picture clearly in front of him, (and some professional training and computer aids to assist him,) must be the best person to sort out IFR separation in all but the quietest environments surely? If transponders aren't required in G, why make them compulsory if that G is replaced with E, a better alternative? Doesn't make sense to me. The problem is that some of our controllers, having grown up with C airspace, (which is really B here, culture at work I agree) can't imagine having "controlled airspace" without owning everything that moves in it. This has to be the only country in the world wherein the tug driver needs a bloody clearance to drive across the tarmac after pushback!! That doesn't mean that they can't adjust, in my opinion the level of service from ATC (co-operation, flexibility, etc) has improved out of sight over the last say ten years, but if we need to retrain some old Flight Service Officers who don't have the same culture of control, well why not?.
The argument that our pilots are not competent to operate in the U.S. because of our "culture" is not one that I support and my experience indicates the opposite. It certainly is true that some will find it difficult for a while to fly without quacking on the radio , but the adjustment won't take long.
The argument that our pilots are not competent to operate in the U.S. because of our "culture" is not one that I support and my experience indicates the opposite. It certainly is true that some will find it difficult for a while to fly without quacking on the radio , but the adjustment won't take long.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Queensland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More controllers with ADS-B??? Whatever for?
Wait until pilots have an in cockpit display of all traffic around them, sorted by in cockpit computer power into threats and non-threats and voice alerting to the most likely threats. In VMC or IMC, day, night , automatically. Trivial in computing terms.
Automatic SAR activation/location.
This is not rocket science.
Like the internet such a system is robust and one VHF voice channel is a last ditch backup further backstopped by looking out in VMC.
Who needs controllers at all??? I guess someone has to look after the parking slots at the airport terminals.
The pity in all this is we actually had a demonstration in this country 4 years ago using one VHF frequency and simple commercial GPS receivers. I had lunch with the designer last week.
Cheap enough to fit TWO in every aircraft.
ICAO harmonisation killed it and we have the ICAO ADS-B system complete with gold plating over the triple platinum. Read expensive.
Wait until pilots have an in cockpit display of all traffic around them, sorted by in cockpit computer power into threats and non-threats and voice alerting to the most likely threats. In VMC or IMC, day, night , automatically. Trivial in computing terms.
Automatic SAR activation/location.
This is not rocket science.
Like the internet such a system is robust and one VHF voice channel is a last ditch backup further backstopped by looking out in VMC.
Who needs controllers at all??? I guess someone has to look after the parking slots at the airport terminals.
The pity in all this is we actually had a demonstration in this country 4 years ago using one VHF frequency and simple commercial GPS receivers. I had lunch with the designer last week.
Cheap enough to fit TWO in every aircraft.
ICAO harmonisation killed it and we have the ICAO ADS-B system complete with gold plating over the triple platinum. Read expensive.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like Guard will get a good workout..
Low level military aircraft going 240 knots spots T-CAS traffic..
1> Now there are no freq boundary's , how are we going to be on the same freq (VFR won't be by the sound of it, just on guard..).. > resulting in guard being talked on...
How are LL military aircraft going to see where to change freq's if we can't get it off the ERC lows?
PAF
Low level military aircraft going 240 knots spots T-CAS traffic..
1> Now there are no freq boundary's , how are we going to be on the same freq (VFR won't be by the sound of it, just on guard..).. > resulting in guard being talked on...
How are LL military aircraft going to see where to change freq's if we can't get it off the ERC lows?
PAF