NAS Area frequencies and boundaries
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck you made me realise that all of my concerns re the NAS are unfounded. I missed the very important characteristic of the model that VFR aircraft must avoid IFR routes and approach and departure areas. Thankfully when this hapens this means that all VFR aircraft will be well and truely out of the way of any collision risk.
Obviously seeing all of the VFR support for NAS the pilot of such will be heeding the rules and avoiding all of these above mentioned areas. It quite obviously is MUCH MUCH more restrictive than the current system where you can fly where ever you want. But hang on, you can fly anywhere you want AND MORE under NAS if you listen to some of the 'pilots' in this debate. Guess what, no you can't. The model alone tells you not to so by supporting it you support flying even more restrictively.
Tell me who this benefits again?
Obviously seeing all of the VFR support for NAS the pilot of such will be heeding the rules and avoiding all of these above mentioned areas. It quite obviously is MUCH MUCH more restrictive than the current system where you can fly where ever you want. But hang on, you can fly anywhere you want AND MORE under NAS if you listen to some of the 'pilots' in this debate. Guess what, no you can't. The model alone tells you not to so by supporting it you support flying even more restrictively.
Tell me who this benefits again?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having followed most of the Nas threads, I thought I'd throw my two bobs worth in . I've been a controller for seventeen years.
We have, in the last 5-10 years ,seen major changes and reductions in staff numbers. The do more with less mantra. Thats fine. Most of these changes haven't been well thought out at a middle management level and usually involve the workface making it work until it is properly thought out .e.g. the TAAATS system is somewhere in the 19 000 faults area in 6 years. The great majority of controllers are here to help, we don't get any joy from delaying aircraft or denying clearances.
NAS looks like it is going to happen, well thats something else we have to implement. My greatest concern is that if the nightmare does occur ( a midair), however remote some may see that as happening, who are the lawyers going to go after? The people with the most money ( insurance), which will probably Asa.
What will Asa do? , try to prove that the controller was at fault and Asa was blameless. I have seen it occur. The Seaview incident is still vivid in my mind, the controllers ,who were blameless were deeply affected by their grillings by lawyers with 20/20 hindsight and glib tongues. And our employers did jacksh*t to assist.
If something does happen (however remote) my sincere condolences to the families, but spare a thought for the controller who will no doubt be tried to be fitted up with the blame for the whole fiasco. Even though he never spoke to the aircraft nor saw either of them on radar, even though the controller did everything by the book, he is the bunny and the most conveneient scapegoat. Think about it before replying
We have, in the last 5-10 years ,seen major changes and reductions in staff numbers. The do more with less mantra. Thats fine. Most of these changes haven't been well thought out at a middle management level and usually involve the workface making it work until it is properly thought out .e.g. the TAAATS system is somewhere in the 19 000 faults area in 6 years. The great majority of controllers are here to help, we don't get any joy from delaying aircraft or denying clearances.
NAS looks like it is going to happen, well thats something else we have to implement. My greatest concern is that if the nightmare does occur ( a midair), however remote some may see that as happening, who are the lawyers going to go after? The people with the most money ( insurance), which will probably Asa.
What will Asa do? , try to prove that the controller was at fault and Asa was blameless. I have seen it occur. The Seaview incident is still vivid in my mind, the controllers ,who were blameless were deeply affected by their grillings by lawyers with 20/20 hindsight and glib tongues. And our employers did jacksh*t to assist.
If something does happen (however remote) my sincere condolences to the families, but spare a thought for the controller who will no doubt be tried to be fitted up with the blame for the whole fiasco. Even though he never spoke to the aircraft nor saw either of them on radar, even though the controller did everything by the book, he is the bunny and the most conveneient scapegoat. Think about it before replying
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the best thing to do is write you MP. You can do it on the web. Go to your Federal MP's web site, and put your concerns on there, and they will pass it on to the Minister for Transport (and ....)
Grandpa Aerotart
tobzalp...perhaps you didn't catch the deeply sarcastic/cynical 'tone' of my last post...or perhaps I didn't catch the correct tone of yours
Spoke to a Grade 1, and experienced, Instructor today. All the instructors she works with are dismayed by what they've recieved in the mail the last few days. Come to think of it I reckon not a professional I've asked about NAS has anything positive to say.
I can see a few positives in the NAS...but they are so few and so minor that they are swamped by the negatives....this change is not worth the agravation IMHO.
Chuck.
Spoke to a Grade 1, and experienced, Instructor today. All the instructors she works with are dismayed by what they've recieved in the mail the last few days. Come to think of it I reckon not a professional I've asked about NAS has anything positive to say.
I can see a few positives in the NAS...but they are so few and so minor that they are swamped by the negatives....this change is not worth the agravation IMHO.
Chuck.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank Christ, it looks like the penny is dropping.
We the ATCs have been in full knowledge for some time, what with our hazard assessments and procedure developments and training...
I'm very encourage by the turn in this (these) threads in the last two days.
Max1, having being involved in the very event of which you discuss; the ATCs will be in the sights of the lawyers, both prosecutors (to get the money) and OoLC (to save ASA). As soon as they can finger a 'grossly negligent' employee the sooner the pressure comes off the higher insurance bills; that would be just too cynical right?
Just look at the cr@p that's going on post the BK accident. ASA ducking and weaving, changing reports, words, intent etc. Really supporting their employees huh, only if it gets them out of the ****e.
Bottle of Rum
We the ATCs have been in full knowledge for some time, what with our hazard assessments and procedure developments and training...
I'm very encourage by the turn in this (these) threads in the last two days.
Max1, having being involved in the very event of which you discuss; the ATCs will be in the sights of the lawyers, both prosecutors (to get the money) and OoLC (to save ASA). As soon as they can finger a 'grossly negligent' employee the sooner the pressure comes off the higher insurance bills; that would be just too cynical right?
Just look at the cr@p that's going on post the BK accident. ASA ducking and weaving, changing reports, words, intent etc. Really supporting their employees huh, only if it gets them out of the ****e.
Bottle of Rum
The ATSB take on.... "See and Avoid"
Problems encountered, and ways to fix the mess of the first "go" at fixing the airspace... The most gripping reading is contained in Part 4 of the report.
How many of the people who are championing this new airspace fall into this group? Very interesting reading...
... and what is to be gained by making the system fit their needs better, at the expense of using an on-going useful safety tool (situational awareness booster), such as a humble radio? Used correctly, it is another pair of eyes which can be an invaluable asset, especially where the airspace is busy.
The fact that some people seem to ignore the fact that most of the origin of the 'constant noise' as they put it, is primarily due to the fact that many frequencies are paired together, sometimes many many frequencies can be heard over just one outlet. This is not the aviators problem, but the fault belongs squarely at the feet of the people who decided in the first place to cut a few jobs and chuck a couple of atc frequencies together. From there it got worse.
I am sorry, but even in my position within my company I cannot see much in the way of enhancing safety coming out in these new publications that have just arrived. From what I can gather the ones who stand to gain are the ones who fly the least, and certainly not for a living.
Flying is a priveledge, not a right. Wasn't getting your levy off your fuel enough, you are now chasing the very thing that was boosted-up in it's place to keep the government coffers ticking over because now you believe that it is your right to fly when/where you want?
The bottom line is... one of the most useful tools for avoiding a potential conflict is being further removed from our hands. A more realistic outcome would be to introduce that further spoken about gps thingie (radar replacement), and then perhaps reorganise the airspace and reporting requirements to suit that higher level of coverage.
Creamy, thanks for the link....
I know I will pi$$ many of the masses off when I say this, but I feel that I will still be position reporting when changing frequencies. Sorry, I want others to have some idea that I'll possibly be blundering through their flightpath and give them the chance to either ask me to level, or level themselves.
Problems encountered, and ways to fix the mess of the first "go" at fixing the airspace... The most gripping reading is contained in Part 4 of the report.
How many of the people who are championing this new airspace fall into this group? Very interesting reading...
... and what is to be gained by making the system fit their needs better, at the expense of using an on-going useful safety tool (situational awareness booster), such as a humble radio? Used correctly, it is another pair of eyes which can be an invaluable asset, especially where the airspace is busy.
The fact that some people seem to ignore the fact that most of the origin of the 'constant noise' as they put it, is primarily due to the fact that many frequencies are paired together, sometimes many many frequencies can be heard over just one outlet. This is not the aviators problem, but the fault belongs squarely at the feet of the people who decided in the first place to cut a few jobs and chuck a couple of atc frequencies together. From there it got worse.
I am sorry, but even in my position within my company I cannot see much in the way of enhancing safety coming out in these new publications that have just arrived. From what I can gather the ones who stand to gain are the ones who fly the least, and certainly not for a living.
Flying is a priveledge, not a right. Wasn't getting your levy off your fuel enough, you are now chasing the very thing that was boosted-up in it's place to keep the government coffers ticking over because now you believe that it is your right to fly when/where you want?
The bottom line is... one of the most useful tools for avoiding a potential conflict is being further removed from our hands. A more realistic outcome would be to introduce that further spoken about gps thingie (radar replacement), and then perhaps reorganise the airspace and reporting requirements to suit that higher level of coverage.
Creamy, thanks for the link....
I know I will pi$$ many of the masses off when I say this, but I feel that I will still be position reporting when changing frequencies. Sorry, I want others to have some idea that I'll possibly be blundering through their flightpath and give them the chance to either ask me to level, or level themselves.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the education manual
IFR's
The risks are recognised here in writing. Can anyone tell me what the visual scan area from the cockpit of a B737 is? I imagine the vertical limits are restricted and the horizontal limits not much better. Have they examined if the "conflict window" exceeds the crew's ability to see and avoid? i.e. Is a potential collision intruder outside the normal scan view from an airliner's cockpit?
The worst case will be when climbing out of a D tower into the E steps. If there is a scattered to broken cloud layer topping out at 3-4000ft, and a unnotified lighty is legally VMC 1000' above the layer, then there will be little time for a crew to visually acquire the traffic, assess the risk, (disengage autpilot?) and take appropriate manoeuvring action.
The locations where this can occur have the greatest risk factors
No radar
Low level E airspace
VFR traffic not notified
Transponder serviceability or setting unable to be monitored by ATC
"Appropriate frequency" subjective.
If these points can get up in a safety case, (if indeed it has been done at all) then we could probably prove working with live electricity whilst standing in water is safe.
The snarek brigade have gone quiet. Second thoughts perhaps?
CG
Cockpit workload increases while operating in a climb or descent phase. You should ensure that during this critical phase of flight your workload does not prevent you from looking out from the cockpit.
The worst case will be when climbing out of a D tower into the E steps. If there is a scattered to broken cloud layer topping out at 3-4000ft, and a unnotified lighty is legally VMC 1000' above the layer, then there will be little time for a crew to visually acquire the traffic, assess the risk, (disengage autpilot?) and take appropriate manoeuvring action.
The locations where this can occur have the greatest risk factors
No radar
Low level E airspace
VFR traffic not notified
Transponder serviceability or setting unable to be monitored by ATC
"Appropriate frequency" subjective.
If these points can get up in a safety case, (if indeed it has been done at all) then we could probably prove working with live electricity whilst standing in water is safe.
The snarek brigade have gone quiet. Second thoughts perhaps?
CG
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CG
I am hardly a brigade. If you knew the internnal deleiberations of the AOPA Board you would know that I am neither black nor white on NAS.
However my personal concerns with NAS 2b are not strong enough to hold it back, as my problems are of a technical nature, and especially as some of it has been deferred.
I basically have frequency/comms concerns, but rather than whinge now, I intend to fly the system for a few months and try to make some constructive suggestions. I have spoken to people who have indicated they are open to and even supportive of changes based upon experience in the system rather than just an ideological union position.
I talk to as many people as I can, and in stark contradiction to what I read here, one senior RFDS pilot said to me "NAS is fine and the whingers are the second rate pilots" (or words to that effect). I have encountered some NAS concern, very little 'anti-NAS' sentiment and a general admission that what we have now is messy, expensive and unnecessary and urgently needs fixing.
AK
I am hardly a brigade. If you knew the internnal deleiberations of the AOPA Board you would know that I am neither black nor white on NAS.
However my personal concerns with NAS 2b are not strong enough to hold it back, as my problems are of a technical nature, and especially as some of it has been deferred.
I basically have frequency/comms concerns, but rather than whinge now, I intend to fly the system for a few months and try to make some constructive suggestions. I have spoken to people who have indicated they are open to and even supportive of changes based upon experience in the system rather than just an ideological union position.
I talk to as many people as I can, and in stark contradiction to what I read here, one senior RFDS pilot said to me "NAS is fine and the whingers are the second rate pilots" (or words to that effect). I have encountered some NAS concern, very little 'anti-NAS' sentiment and a general admission that what we have now is messy, expensive and unnecessary and urgently needs fixing.
AK
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chief,
None of these issues have been "Safety Cased" as they are the same as the US system.
Only the differences have been safety cased and even those where done in the presence of the Biscuit King! So CASA had no choice but to agree with the system.
What is needed is some Niagras from the Acting Director of CASA or he will find himself in front of a coroner explaning his actions. The Minister will exonerate himself by saying he was under the advise of the Acting Director of CASA.
Once again we are being legistlated by the lowest common denominator!
We Live in Interesting Times.
None of these issues have been "Safety Cased" as they are the same as the US system.
Only the differences have been safety cased and even those where done in the presence of the Biscuit King! So CASA had no choice but to agree with the system.
What is needed is some Niagras from the Acting Director of CASA or he will find himself in front of a coroner explaning his actions. The Minister will exonerate himself by saying he was under the advise of the Acting Director of CASA.
Once again we are being legistlated by the lowest common denominator!
We Live in Interesting Times.
Grandpa Aerotart
CG...you're not suggesting they'd 'do a smiff' on us are you?
I agree that the D/E interface will be a potential disaster area. I tried posting this last night but got 'server to busy..' I'll use MC as it's one of snarek's bugbears.
My hypothetical;
Chap rents a 30 yr old C172 from Redcliffe to take family on a weekend trip up the coast somewhere. Having read carefully the NAS package he selects 'alt' on the mode C as he lines up on 07.
A strong SE wind is giving him a great GS as he heads north.
8 Dme MC he changes to MC TWR freq but just misses out on hearing takeoff clearance being issued to a Flying College LR45 which is being flown by a 300 hr cadet and an Instructor.
Something along the lines of "SQxxx maintain FL170, rwy 18, clear for takeoff, make left turn, contact Brisbane Radar 125.7 leaving 6000."
The cadet takes a good 30 seconds to settle himself before pushing up the thrust levers. Neither he nor the instructor notice a TA on the TCAS as the sun's shining on the IVSI and the instructor was destracted with line up checks, acknowledging takeoff clearance and final 'hints' to the young tyro in the RHS...it only being his second ride in the Lear pocket rocket.
By now the C172 is a little north of Point Cartwight over water as the pilot is carefully avoiding the runway approach/departure and is hoping to spot some whales for his kids to see.
As our cadet hit's 500' he curves left onto 090 to pick up the 120 radial on initial climb to FL170. As he rolls out on heading the aircraft is accelerating through 250kts and is climbing at 4000'/min. Within seconds he's curving right in an attempt to capture the 120 radial cleanly, and now above 1000' and they get an RA. For this readers not familiar with TCAS RAs are not given below 1000' so that they don't fly you into the ground.
Precious seconds pass as they sort out what's happening and, with the instructor pushing on the controls as well they get the needle in the IVSI into the green arc while searching for the threat aircraft.
A C172 appears in the windscreen passing agonisingly slowly from right to left and...too late... the left wing of the Lear hits the tail of the 172....they both spiral into the sea several miles apart.
What happened?
Why didn't TCAS and 'see and avoid' stop this tragedy?
Well the C172 pilot felt pretty safe at 4500' so close to the runway....what can climb to 4500' within 6nm?
He was also distracted by his 8 year old throwing up down the back of his neck.
What about the Pros in the Lear 45?
Well they were busy as f**k quite frankly.
The cadet was trying to drag his brain from mid cabin while the instructor had glanced down to check the gear and flaps were 'up lights out', the pressurisation was working & climb power set. He was coaching his cadet and selecting 125.7 to the active frequency so he could call Brissy approaching 6000 (in about 15 seconds from now)...all in preparation for the cadet to call "After takeoff checklist" (hopefully, remember his brain is just aft of the fwd galley by now) after established on track/above MSA and establishing two way comms with Brissy.
But they got the IVSI in the green arc...they should have (just barely) missed the 172?
Well after dragging the two aircraft from the sea and checking maintenance records ATSB's best guess is that perhaps the transponder was transmitting an altitude a little higher than actual. It hadn't been checked for over 10 year as there is no such requirement for VFR aircraft.
Or perhaps the 172 pilot saw the LR45 in the last few seconds, nose high and clearly climbing at an unbelievable rate, and in a reflex shoved the controls fwd to avoid the midair...thereby rendering the TCAS RA useless.
What could have stopped this chain of events?
"Maroochy twr, ABC, Moffet head 2500 for Hervey Bay, request airways clearance".
"ABC maintain 2500, track direct to the field, taffic is a departing LR45 rolling shortly rwy 18, left turn"
"Direct the field, 2500, ABC"
SQxxx- Maroochy twr, Traffic is C172, 6nm south at 2500', maintain 1500, rwy 18 clear for takeoff make left turn"
Couldn't happen?
Well that's not the experience in the US.
Chuck.
editted for snareks last post. Just yesterday spoke to an experienced grade 1. She was horrified by the NAS package and suggested that was not an uncommon reaction by the other instructors she knew!
I agree that the D/E interface will be a potential disaster area. I tried posting this last night but got 'server to busy..' I'll use MC as it's one of snarek's bugbears.
My hypothetical;
Chap rents a 30 yr old C172 from Redcliffe to take family on a weekend trip up the coast somewhere. Having read carefully the NAS package he selects 'alt' on the mode C as he lines up on 07.
A strong SE wind is giving him a great GS as he heads north.
8 Dme MC he changes to MC TWR freq but just misses out on hearing takeoff clearance being issued to a Flying College LR45 which is being flown by a 300 hr cadet and an Instructor.
Something along the lines of "SQxxx maintain FL170, rwy 18, clear for takeoff, make left turn, contact Brisbane Radar 125.7 leaving 6000."
The cadet takes a good 30 seconds to settle himself before pushing up the thrust levers. Neither he nor the instructor notice a TA on the TCAS as the sun's shining on the IVSI and the instructor was destracted with line up checks, acknowledging takeoff clearance and final 'hints' to the young tyro in the RHS...it only being his second ride in the Lear pocket rocket.
By now the C172 is a little north of Point Cartwight over water as the pilot is carefully avoiding the runway approach/departure and is hoping to spot some whales for his kids to see.
As our cadet hit's 500' he curves left onto 090 to pick up the 120 radial on initial climb to FL170. As he rolls out on heading the aircraft is accelerating through 250kts and is climbing at 4000'/min. Within seconds he's curving right in an attempt to capture the 120 radial cleanly, and now above 1000' and they get an RA. For this readers not familiar with TCAS RAs are not given below 1000' so that they don't fly you into the ground.
Precious seconds pass as they sort out what's happening and, with the instructor pushing on the controls as well they get the needle in the IVSI into the green arc while searching for the threat aircraft.
A C172 appears in the windscreen passing agonisingly slowly from right to left and...too late... the left wing of the Lear hits the tail of the 172....they both spiral into the sea several miles apart.
What happened?
Why didn't TCAS and 'see and avoid' stop this tragedy?
Well the C172 pilot felt pretty safe at 4500' so close to the runway....what can climb to 4500' within 6nm?
He was also distracted by his 8 year old throwing up down the back of his neck.
What about the Pros in the Lear 45?
Well they were busy as f**k quite frankly.
The cadet was trying to drag his brain from mid cabin while the instructor had glanced down to check the gear and flaps were 'up lights out', the pressurisation was working & climb power set. He was coaching his cadet and selecting 125.7 to the active frequency so he could call Brissy approaching 6000 (in about 15 seconds from now)...all in preparation for the cadet to call "After takeoff checklist" (hopefully, remember his brain is just aft of the fwd galley by now) after established on track/above MSA and establishing two way comms with Brissy.
But they got the IVSI in the green arc...they should have (just barely) missed the 172?
Well after dragging the two aircraft from the sea and checking maintenance records ATSB's best guess is that perhaps the transponder was transmitting an altitude a little higher than actual. It hadn't been checked for over 10 year as there is no such requirement for VFR aircraft.
Or perhaps the 172 pilot saw the LR45 in the last few seconds, nose high and clearly climbing at an unbelievable rate, and in a reflex shoved the controls fwd to avoid the midair...thereby rendering the TCAS RA useless.
What could have stopped this chain of events?
"Maroochy twr, ABC, Moffet head 2500 for Hervey Bay, request airways clearance".
"ABC maintain 2500, track direct to the field, taffic is a departing LR45 rolling shortly rwy 18, left turn"
"Direct the field, 2500, ABC"
SQxxx- Maroochy twr, Traffic is C172, 6nm south at 2500', maintain 1500, rwy 18 clear for takeoff make left turn"
Couldn't happen?
Well that's not the experience in the US.
Chuck.
editted for snareks last post. Just yesterday spoke to an experienced grade 1. She was horrified by the NAS package and suggested that was not an uncommon reaction by the other instructors she knew!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually
There is, and mine has just been serviced again on the request of Cairns controllers. The trouble with 'scheduled service' is it often stuffs up a perfectly good unit that then has to be recalibrated as was the case this time.
I would prefer to have mine checked by the (obviously new) system the approach guys have and not do the Inst 8s or 9s.
As for your scenario, well the VFR was operating legally, seems the IFR was not.
I am sure there are people out there who are 'horrified', I just haven't found any yet. From an AOPA perspective, the current Board policy is set by the majority and that policy is to support 2b and monitor the implimentation of the rest.
That means AOPA is open to any suggestions AOPA members may wish to make on the topic and this comment may change Board majority opinion. So, I suggest you ask any members you know who are 'horrified' to contact any one of us as a matter of urgency.
AK
It hadn't been checked for over 10 year as there is no such requirement for VFR aircraft.
I would prefer to have mine checked by the (obviously new) system the approach guys have and not do the Inst 8s or 9s.
As for your scenario, well the VFR was operating legally, seems the IFR was not.
I am sure there are people out there who are 'horrified', I just haven't found any yet. From an AOPA perspective, the current Board policy is set by the majority and that policy is to support 2b and monitor the implimentation of the rest.
That means AOPA is open to any suggestions AOPA members may wish to make on the topic and this comment may change Board majority opinion. So, I suggest you ask any members you know who are 'horrified' to contact any one of us as a matter of urgency.
AK
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shoot the Messenger
I have spoken to people who have indicated they are open to and even supportive of changes based upon experience in the system rather than just an ideological union position.
By now it is apparent for all and sundry to see that rolling out the 'union protecting their jobs' line is a transparent fallacy - try it out on gullible newcomers to this debate, but don't insult our intelligence - you might just appear two faced.
How about addressing the real and specific practical concerns that have been raised by those here with a daily dose of this system - and all the points raised in the previous incarnation of this thread.
Glossing over the sticking points should be left to the Minister and his spin doctors - after all, they are so good at it.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
There is an aviation world out there besides AOPA and it's members. From my dealings with part-time pilots, they have little idea of the big picture of the industry. This is evident in their posts as well.
Even tho' we "control" C CTR, where transponder use is mandatory, we are constantly reminding pilots to activate transponders, change code, check alt, recycle. The discipline is not there now and I can't see this improving. Additionally, faulty transponders are not detected until ATC intervenes. It's only the primary radar backup that reveals the aircraft in the first instant.
But as primary backup is not available at remote locations, faulty transponders render traffic invisible to all detection.
I would like to know how many are going to be able to take advantage of E airspace. Apart from the riskiest area of E steps to D towers, will your members be able to drag their Grummans above 8500? Just a poultry (sic) few I suspect. So why have we placed the paying public to unnecessary and increased risk. There is no logic to it.
Niles C.
This is the folly of NAS. Anyone who thinks we will have the same as the US, obviously has serious delusional problems.
CG
There is an aviation world out there besides AOPA and it's members. From my dealings with part-time pilots, they have little idea of the big picture of the industry. This is evident in their posts as well.
Even tho' we "control" C CTR, where transponder use is mandatory, we are constantly reminding pilots to activate transponders, change code, check alt, recycle. The discipline is not there now and I can't see this improving. Additionally, faulty transponders are not detected until ATC intervenes. It's only the primary radar backup that reveals the aircraft in the first instant.
But as primary backup is not available at remote locations, faulty transponders render traffic invisible to all detection.
I would like to know how many are going to be able to take advantage of E airspace. Apart from the riskiest area of E steps to D towers, will your members be able to drag their Grummans above 8500? Just a poultry (sic) few I suspect. So why have we placed the paying public to unnecessary and increased risk. There is no logic to it.
Niles C.
This is the folly of NAS. Anyone who thinks we will have the same as the US, obviously has serious delusional problems.
CG
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure there are people out there who are 'horrified', I just haven't found any yet. From an AOPA perspective, the current Board policy is set by the majority and that policy is to support 2b and monitor the implimentation of the rest.
That means AOPA is open to any suggestions AOPA members may wish to make on the topic and this comment may change Board majority opinion. So, I suggest you ask any members you know who are 'horrified' to contact any one of us as a matter of urgency.
If they really are interested in us members they should set up their web site with a quiz on pressing issues a bit like an online Survey. You can see an example of this @ http://www.ozipilotsonline.com.au/home.php
They should also get out in the Aviation Community at the grass roots and see what people have to say. We need to see the human side of the AOPA board as real people who are genuinely concerned about us individuals and collectively too.
The perception of the AOPA board needs to be turned around from Board members from pushing their own personal agenda’s once elected, to pushing the collective agenda of the AOPA members & General Aviation for what they where elected for.
At the moment when you vote in a AOPA election it is a bit like playing Russian roulette or spin the bottle as none of the candidates have a policy, so we know what we are getting if we elected the individual. It is a bit like investing in something without knowing what the return is going to be in the end.
We just have to hope this all changes in the future, so the AOPA members are not flying blind when it comes to election time.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CG
Yes there is, but we are here to represent them against the regionals (who, given the opportunity would own all the airspace), the RAAF (who, given the opportunity, would own all the airspace) and the ATC union (who, given the opportunity would control all the airspace thus pricing VFR out of the system).
Just as your union represents you, we represent our members and because they pay the bills, we listen to their opinions.
You want your opinion considered by us, join.
And transponders ain't mandatory in 'E' now, so NAS improves this situation markedly!! (not that I'm agreeing to mandatory txps below 8500' anyway).
How many members can drag...
I thought you guys were supposed to know about aeroplanes 
Well both the Tiger and Cheetah can operate quite hapilly at 12,000' as can most normally aspirated a/c with more than 150 horses. I regularly use 9500' on longer trips. Many of our members have TC'd Arrows, Cessnas, Bonazas, Twins, 'super' homebuilts etc. For many of these FL250 is no challenge!!!
Oh, and in answer to the typical 'anti-AOPA bleat' of the previous poster, I did this already on
www.aopa.com.au
Just go to forums, Airservices issues.
AK
There is an aviation world out there besides AOPA and it's members
Just as your union represents you, we represent our members and because they pay the bills, we listen to their opinions.
You want your opinion considered by us, join.
But as primary backup is not available at remote locations, faulty transponders render traffic invisible to all detection
(not that I'm agreeing to mandatory txps below 8500' anyway).How many members can drag...
their Grummans above 8500
Well both the Tiger and Cheetah can operate quite hapilly at 12,000' as can most normally aspirated a/c with more than 150 horses. I regularly use 9500' on longer trips. Many of our members have TC'd Arrows, Cessnas, Bonazas, Twins, 'super' homebuilts etc. For many of these FL250 is no challenge!!!
Oh, and in answer to the typical 'anti-AOPA bleat' of the previous poster, I did this already on
www.aopa.com.au
Just go to forums, Airservices issues.
AK
Grandpa Aerotart
Umm snarek what were the IFR Lear crew in my hypothetical doing that was 'illegal'.
I'm as fallible as the next guy but that example of a departure with a young inexperienced trainee was pretty much, in general terms, what I have experienced first hand.
Not knocking the excellent fellas at SQ Flying College at all...just a generic example of what CAN go wrong.
I see in your post above you don't even support mandatory transponder below 8500 in E....so in my hypothetical they wouldn't even have got the RA in the first place!!!
Chuck.
I'm as fallible as the next guy but that example of a departure with a young inexperienced trainee was pretty much, in general terms, what I have experienced first hand.
Not knocking the excellent fellas at SQ Flying College at all...just a generic example of what CAN go wrong.
I see in your post above you don't even support mandatory transponder below 8500 in E....so in my hypothetical they wouldn't even have got the RA in the first place!!!
Chuck.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: brisbane
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What drivel again snarek,
AOPA is a union( for pilots and owners), no different to civilair, AMA etc. Its job is to protect its members and enhance their position. Civilair does not want to own all the airspace, but rather make all the airspace safer and more user friendly.
AOPA is a union( for pilots and owners), no different to civilair, AMA etc. Its job is to protect its members and enhance their position. Civilair does not want to own all the airspace, but rather make all the airspace safer and more user friendly.