Manwell

Triadic,

thankyou for your very well presented and rational response.

Your post is of a very high standard and I'll do my best to maintain a high degree of objectivity.

While I respect your argument, I consider the basis for your objections to be of questionable veracity. First, It should be pointed out that the concept that this is a fight against Dick Smith personally has been substantiated on a number of occasions. Whether Dick has anything to do with it or not should have no bearing on the proposal in any way. The issue should be solely one of projected benefits against projected diasadvantages. Your post does support the concept that it is a personal issue against one man in the following comments:

"It is not so much as what is in this proposal, but more on how it has been/is presented to the industry and what affect both long and short term it will have."

and,

"It is very sad that the person behind the push for these changes be they agreed to or not, good or bad, is also the single reason that they are likely to fail. It is a pity that his energy and commitment to making aviation better in this country, lacks an understanding of the very problems he is trying to solve."

Perhaps he does in fact have a more objective understanding of the problems that he is trying to solve simply because he has done a lot of flying all around the world and he is not part of a professional culture that precludes any differing opinion on this issue.

In the same paragraph you say "The guts and strength to make GA strong again belong to the politicians...". God help us if we have become so lacking in intestinal fortitude and reliant on Government that we can't find it in our selves to fix this problem ourselves. For if we must rely on the Government to solve our problems then we will have a very long, dark, and weary journey ahead.

If I got nothing else from the John and Martha show other than the comment that "you have to make GA vibrant again, don't wait for Government to do it for you", or words to that effect, then the trip was worthwhile.

We can help ourselves out of this mess, but it will require us to let go of some dearly held emotional addictions, not the least of which requires us all to prove our absolute rightness to others by proving them all wrong. Something I hope that I am not guilty of at this time.

With respect to your comments re: the education reform process being grossly inadequate I can only say"Haven't you been reading your mail?". The process is indeed inadequate if you have not accepted it's validity but education is a two way process, it requires one to teach and another to learn. It cannot be performed by one party in isolation, unless that single party is the willing learner.

The rest of your post I agree with in part about the quality of pilot trainees, however, aren't we really more responsible for that deficiency rather than a government who is really only interested in our wellbeing if it compliments their own?

The point I think that is central to this whole issue is that we are capable of defining our own destiny, whether it be with regard to safety from midair collisions, the health and vibrance of aviation in this country, or the quality of our new pilots. Personally, I wouldn't accept anyone telling me that it wasn't possible because I have far greater confidence in the ability of an individual , or individuals, to help themselves than I have in the ability of a remote third party to do it for us. Hasn't every pilot proven that to him/herself through out their career time and time again?

Gentlemen, I call on all of you who would call yourselves airmen, to ask yourselves "Is this the legacy of which I would be proud for my children to inherit?"

Life's a bitch.....then you fly!

tobzalp

The last time they tried this cr@p ie G demo, the only reason it did not end in a mass of welded BE20 and JS31 was because an ATC 'Broke" the rules and made 2 miss that were 'seeing and avoiding'.....

AirNoServicesAustralia

Manwell, you sound very much like our longlost mate Winstun, who believed that ATC should be rid of completely, and everyone should fly random routes with a random offset error put into their GPS, then abracadabra evryone will miss each other.

After being laughed down by the proffessionals on here, who make their living out of aviation he hasn't been back. Now you arrive.

Do you believe that it is a reasoned argument, to say that because the chance of a midair is slim, we can remove a couple of the defence mechanisms against it happening. Thats ridiculous, why remove any layers of safety for no savings. Thats the big question here, the concensus is now that there will be extra cost for NAS not savings, so why adopt a less safe system.

At the moment we have as far as safety layers go, in Class C, in no particular order:
1. ATC separation
2. Frequency monitoring by all pilots in airspace, to pick up ATC error if it happens (couple of major near misses in Queensland helped by this factor)
3. Looking out visually for other aircraft.
4. TCAS, with all airspace users having their Mode C constantly verified and found to be accurate.

After NAS in Class E (where E is replacing C) the safety layers we have are:
1. Looking out visually for other aircraft.
2. TCAS, with no guarantee the other aircrafts mode C has been verified recently.

Whether you say E airspace is "safe enough". it is by design not as safe as C, so why change to it.

ferris

In order to avoid "emotive waffle", I just have one thing to ask:

Most of the professionals on these NAS threads have been debating just that.
All that remains is for you to show us the error of our ways. Go right ahead. Line up the projected advantages against the projected disadvantages, then convince us all that NAS is a winner. I can't wait.

Dog One

Manwell

If the million to one midair happens when a high performance jet pops out of the scattered cloud and finds a VFR aircraft legally doing his own thing, who will bear the ultimate responsibility?

Will you and your supporters get up in court and say we have made a mistake - perhaps Australia is not like the US. Wht about 'duty of care'?

I have yet to see the CASA safety study on E airspace outside of radar coverage, but after 40+ years in the industry, just the prospect of operating in it makes retirement look really good.

In the lead up to 27/11, we have had extensive promotion of this wonderful new concept (with some important bits glossed over), but no real technical how it will work type information. Training material has only just being released and the new charts are supposed to arrive by Monday - 3 days before the changes!!!

See and be seen has advantages, as a back up (until some one invents glasses that enable you to see through cloud), just like TCAS. Accidents never occurr because of one single factor, even I (not being a rocket scientist) can sense all is not well.

Have you ever seen the eyes of a VFR pilot when you pass over him at 250kts in an MBZ. I have. He was legal distance from the cloud base - but on the wrong frequency. However, as you would realise, sometimes their isnt a clear definition of the cloud base when on descent.

In Tasmania, as well as places like Alice Springs, we will have heavy jet RPT operating in non radar E airspace mixing with VFR and sports aviation operating below 10000' on different frequencies. Did the safety case take in local weather conditions, pilot experience and knowledge?

I guess early in December we will know.

Jet_A_Knight

What about the rest of us chumps WITHOUT TCAS?? We may not fly at jet speeds, but fast enough to make visual acquisition difficult, especially in some atmospheric conditions (glare, haze etc).

Not to mention the very fact that the object you are going to collide with does not move in the windscreen and is therefore even more difficult to detect.

But the ARG know this.

Whilst I am at it, if VFR aircraft are going to mix it with IFR aircraft in Class E, why is not the monitoring of the relevant frequency MANADATORY for VFR aircraft?

Two_dogs

I fly single engine VFR at 8-10000ft.

I regularly hear and sometimes see IFR traffic that will affect my day. I hear this traffic because we're all on the same freq. Self separation occurs on a daily basis.

If I don't know which freq to monitor after 27th Nov, I'm much more likely to see him (or not) and not hear him...scary.

On another point, being VFR in G class is akin to being VFR in E class. We're already out of the loop and need to maintain a good listening watch, as well as a good lookout. Sometimes radio calls are less than helpfull. eg: BN CEN...ABC... Left 10000 on descent YLHR...call again after landing. I prefer to know where he's coming from as well as where he's going. Correcrt phraseology!

I also fly single engine VFR at lower levels. I passed Mission Beach dropzone a few days ago at A065 and had both PJE aircraft in the same bit of airspace, climbing...dropping bombs...and descending fast. What will happen when these guys want to conduct ops OCTA below A085, and don't self announce on ATC freq. Traffic departing Tully may have their CTAF transmissions shielded by terrain from traffic approaching from the North. Quite often the first you hear from them is a request for clearance,... passing A060.


I see that from 27th I have two choices...

Fly IFR everywhere I go... or continue to self announce on ATC freq's everywhere I go.

Jet_A_Knight

Another gem on the cd is that 'during this critical phase' (descent) do not let cockpit workload stop you looking out' or words to that effect.

Yep, I'll just let the motors cook, the checks can look after themselves etc etc

This principle of See-And-Avoid was the subject of a 1991 Bureau Of Air Safety Research Report named "Limitations Of The See And Avoid Principle' and this report concluded (in part):

· The see-and-avoid principle in the absence of traffic alerts is subject to serious limitations. It is likely that the historically small number of mid-air collisions has been in a large part due to low traffic density and chance as much as the successful operation of see and avoid.

· Unalerted see-and-avoid has a limited place as a last resort means of traffic separation at low closing speeds but is not sufficiently reliable to warrant a greater role in the air traffic system. BASI considers that see-and-avoid is completely unsuitable as a primary traffic separation method for scheduled services.

· Many of the limitations of see-and-avoid are associated with the physical limits of human perception, however there is some scope to improve the effectiveness of see-and-avoid in other areas

· The most effective response to the many flaws of see-and-avoid is to minimise the reliance on see-and-avoid in Australian airspace.

Did anyone in the ARG read this, or read it and ignore it?

NOtimTAMs

J-A-K

Quote:

"What about the rest of us chumps WITHOUT TCAS?? We may not fly at jet speeds, but fast enough to make visual acquisition difficult, especially in some atmospheric conditions (glare, haze etc)."

Well buddy, I just hope you haven't been doin' any of that really dangerous stuff in class G, CTAFs (or even Class E and MBZs for that matter)!! 'Cos hundreds of us do it every day, NOW, and have been doin' it for years. What do you do now? Jus' fly A,C & D??

Safe Flying

NOtimTAMs

Jet_A_Knight

Firstly, without getting into a pi$$ing competition with you, I assure you I have plenty of time doin the 'really dangerous stuff' in varying airspace, just like 'hundreds of others' and on a daily basis. So please, spare me the sarcasm, and let's keep this discussion professional.

Back to business...........The difference under the new 'NAS' is that there are defense mechanisms being withdrawn from the airspace we operate in, and traffic avoidance outside A & C in VMC is being weighted more toward the reliance on 'see and avoid', which the BASI have previously pointed out is flawed, and also the use of TCAS which is not part of the equipment that all aircraft operate with. Even in D, no separation is provided between IFR and VFR, only traffic 'information'. (I am sure regional pilots operating into YSTW with all the CT4 training that goes on in that area are happy about this).

I am a stickler for a sharp lookout - hell, it has even saved me on more than one occasion - but I am only human, and human vision has its frailties. Therefore we have inventions like radio and ATC for assistance in the visual acquisition process and in the event of no visual contact (not that rare an occurrence) as an aid to situational awareness. Their utilisation as a backup is important in reducing collision risk. Offloading VFR aircraft into the ether increases their chance of appearing in front of the cockpit at a most inopportune time and is not exactly an excercise in risk reduction.

When procedures and training material regarding traffic info/separation is promulgated containing terms like "given traffic info as far as is practicable' and "may not be aware of unknown VFR aircraft but should be visible on TCAS" and advise to pilots to 'not let high cockpit workload stop them from looking out at all times", well it worries me. Call me paranoid.

Our jobs as pilots involves risk analysis and reduction. Read the material and then tell me, with a straight face, that the new system actually reduces the risk of a midair, especially with more airliners now having to transition from A to D at a max alt of 4500' via E, with no C intermediate and mixing up with VFR aircraft who 'may be monitoring another frequency' nobody may be aware of, or 'should appear on the TCAS'.

triadic

Manwell
A good post. Whilst I believe our goals are the same, they are around the oval a bit from each other. Some comments if I may:

Although it is obviously Dick that has provided significant influence on this exercise, what I question is the methodology involved by both Dick the Minister and others. I have every respect for Dick and in fact know him personally and have been to many meetings with him and others on airspace. However my previous words stand in that I don't believe he either understands or wants to acknowledge some of the issues, including culture that must be addressed as part of this process.

I have yet to see a list of benefits and disadvantages that we can all agree on, however to date there is clearly no savings dollar wise (unless ASA can sack 200 controllers - can you see that happening?) and we all seem to agree that the levels of safety are reduced, but of course the people pushing this have another list which they also believe in. Obviously this should be subject to some form of independent review.

Maybe, but he should then share this with the rest of us in a manner that might allow many to understand what he is on about. In other words the "project" needs to be sold.

I suggest you fail to understand the issue. Government will generally only act in areas where they see votes. There is few votes in aviation and even less in GA unless you can highlight a major issue that might effect the masses. For example, it is only the politicians that will fix CASA who at present are in the process of destroying GA as we knew/know it. (they don't care – no votes)

It was nice to have J & M here, but was it worth it? Who knows? Maybe the money might have been better spent getting the Unions on side, who I suggest have the power to stop it.
Yes, it would be nice to have GA vibrant again, but NAS is not going to fix that one bit. I believe you have to look deeper and wider for those reasons. I would start at CASA and cost recovery and lack of tax incentives.


The education is insufficient, misguided and late. Only those that want to learn will pick up on it and there is absolutely no way of obtaining what sort of penetration the program had.(except from looking at the incidents that will no doubt occur) The package has errors and many of the presentations that some of us may have attended are in conflict with what we read. Ad to that the package has only just arrived and is still subject to correction/change, it is way below par.

The only thing going for 2b is that it is not such a big deal, but nowhere in the package does it get down to grass roots and say that….!

Ask that question to the flying schools who deliver a licence for a fixed price?? Usually you will find the standard of training matches the cost.

Maybe so, but at the end of the day it is usually only strength in numbers that will rule the day.

"No known traffic"

Capt Claret

Manwell,

After 20 years in the industry I've come to the inescapable conclusion that our ears are the best eyes we have!

Ozm8 - Just some Answers!

Class E is significantly different from the current class G. Mainly because VFR don’t require a clearance and are discouraged from speaking on an ATC frequency, whereas IFR must speak on an ATC frequency. No longer will an ALL STATIONS broadcast really be effective, as VFR traffic can now listen to whatever frequency they think appropriate, rather than a geographically based Area/ATC frequency.

With reference to your question I don’t. Like most professional pilots, I’ve lost count of the number of aircraft I have passed, when I’ve had a good idea of their relative position to myself, and failed to actually see them. As an example, on descent into Alice a week or so ago, descent was limited due to an opposite direction helicopter. Visible on TCAS, I was unable to see the helicopter until he was in my 8 o’clock and the sun reflected off the rotors. See and avoid is not fail safe and does not work as a sole means of separation.

As a further example of this limitation of see and avoid, I do not know any IFR pilot who knowing there is opposite direction or conflicting traffic in the vicinity, continues and relies on seeing and then avoiding the other aircraft. We talk, arrange mutual separation, usually vertical as it is far safer than lateral, and we all go on happily. With the 27/11 changes, this may not work as the other traffic may be VFR and on another frequency and IFR pilots may not be able to contact them to arrange separation.

Almost every flight I conduct (in a 146 - a slow jet but still capable of 400 to 500 kts GS on descent) involves flight through Alice Springs. Our flight path is almost always arranged to stay in Class C & D airspace, in other words in CTA. Why? Because it’s safer.

Post September 27, for 20,000’ on descent into Alice or 20,000’ on climb out of Alice (Class E from F245 to A045) I’ll have to mix it with unannounced and undirected VFR traffic. I have to rely on either guessing what frequency they’re on, or the TCAS alerting me, or seeing them if I can. Visibility around Alice (and many other places) whilst being VMC is often not conducive to actually seeing another aircraft, be it smoke or dust haze.

I’d be prepared to wager that if I told the passengers prior to departure of what the NAS changes mean, most would ask to get off the aircraft.

In short, for aviation generally I can’t see any benefits in this airspace change. For VFR it’s probably good as they can stooge around and just have fun without thinking of the attendant responsibilities to other airspace users. I can tell you though; the thought of any impact, high or low speed, scares the hell out of me, and many of my colleagues. (Think of the force of 38,000 kg at say 210 KIAS as low speed!)

The chances, thanks to the big sky theory, of a collision are probably remote, but post Sept 27, it’s much higher than it was pre Sept 27, and every one should be scared about that.

Hempy

Capt Claret, your view reminded me..........

IFATCA Policy on Class E

SM4 Pirate

Privately funded independent candidate ready to run in Gwyder. Make one individual a promise about airspace reform. Privately funded candidate concentrates on being the Mayor. Minister retains seat.

Minister soon announces new airsapce reform. Time for consultation is over; implement something. ARG established to choose reform.

ARG made up of Government department heads plus the 'problem' that won't go away, mate of the PM, Australian icon and favourite. Old favourite now charged with determining future, his idea or industries? (NAS or LLAMP) Shock horror group "chooses" NAS?

NAS now government policy; the author plus three government employees now in charge of implementing government policy, do they decide anything, or follow as directed?

Design safety case, not needed unless it's proved that it is needed. Identified differences, unique Australian procedures... Keep the message it's the same as the US which has more traffic, and "statistically" less midairs? Ignore all attempts at improving safety because (it requires a deviation from my idea) we know best.

Hazard and Mitigation process very controlled, problems identified, change the group (include political mates), no changes but also no problems anymore. We can save money; where, make up some figures, stack the deck. Poor old Wes, I'm sure it wasn't his fault...

$70M p.a. was referred to on ABC news tonight, despite numerous attempts in the senate committees from everyone to say its not even likely that $1 will be saved.

ASA implements government policy; CASA examines the implementation safety cases; doesn't approve them; but accepts them, subtle difference. ASA says CASA says it safe, full steam ahead... whoo whoo!

Professional Pilots and ATCs forced to accept the changes, no choice, no one listening to them. Media sniffing for industrial action threat. Major airlines accept the process, political influence in other areas abound, ACCC cases halted, just a coincidence I'm sure.

Companies (privately) tell pilots to stop NAS; publicly don't criticise it, they still have to fly if it comes in.

Industrial action off the agenda, why? It would be Illegal Industrial action if 'real' action is taken, too many saying its not a safety issue, including those who are charged with the implementation and the regulator (government policy). ASA would pursue controllers with full government backing, industry players can't afford to collapse the clientel again.

Are we doomed, no (some one is), are we all disenfranchised, no (mostly), is NAS 2b safer, no way; even CASA said that. It will all be OK, unless there is a middair in the first few weeks or maybe even a near miss that will get company attention.

Who will be held accountable if it goes wrong, the PIC or the ATC on duty if the PIC doesn't make it. The NAS is all wrong; the player with (generally) the least exerience, with (generally) the worst equipment, usually with the less speed is now responsible for everyone elses safety.

John Anderson you are the only man to stop this now, when the worst happens we will be all demanding your head on a platter. I hope you are lucky, because it means the rest of us have been lucky.

Must be time for my Bottle of Rum

Gunner B12

It occours to me that legislation in other industries allows for there to be a risk in the workplace. I'll use the example of Asbestos, workers can work in buildings where it exists as long as it is "passivated" and workers can carry out the removal of Asbestos as long as they have the necessary protective clothes and proceedures.

The big thing here is that in order to protect the worker the Employer is charged with a duty of care and it is the employer who is legally responsible in the event of an accident or work related illness.

Now lets apply that to the NAS situation. The legislation allows for risk, But will the Employers be providing a safe working environment? They won't be able to claim it is safe just because of the legislation and I believe the law does not allow a third party to assume the responsibility for them. So just how are they going to meet thier legal responsibility to safety?


Don't fly, its the only way to stop this.

Just my opinion

snarek

I just read the latest Civil-Air/AFAP CR@P press release.

What rot and waffle.

So things get more dangerous after Thursday do they, especially it seems around Uluru.

Garbage, what is the difference in 2b between now and then. Nuffin!!!

In fact, with more E and thus more transponders, it can only get safer.

Just as I was beginning to listen you come up with a pack of lies.

Can't be trusted, thats my view!

AK

Capn Bloggs

Snarek,

You really are a twit. E won't save anybody below FL180, because there isn't any E! And in the end state, you and your mates will be buzzing around Yulara (Uluru is The Rock) with no radio as well.

If you continue with your jaundiced view, I can tell you that there will be an unstoppable push for ICAO SARPS to be introduced: MANDATORY transponders for ALL aircraft in ALL airspace. I suggest you get real and think of the consequences of your rantings against those who know more about the problems of flying big areoplanes than you do. You really are doing your cause no good, especially since you are on the board of AOPA.

tobzalp

Snarek do you mind quoting this press release. I am unaware of such a release.

snarek

Bloggs

Y'know those nasty tall towers between Erldunda and The Resort, well I built em. 'Back in the old days' we used to FIFO from Darwin in a clapped out Cherokee Six.

In those days there was another airport, near the big red thingy. It was nice and peaceful, no jet jocks with their eyes in their laps.

In fact the Resort airstrip is a classic example of airline bullying. Here we come boys, we can make a quick buck here, get out of our way, install expensive transponders cos we are calling this 'commercial airspace' now.

Don't make me

And why would we be 'running round with no radios', we don't now and we won't then. Seems to me that line is so typical of the irresponsible attitude taken by some on your side of the argument. it is pure fabrication designed to scare the public, nothing more.

Perhaps we should just ban fast jets from the Resort. You can land at Alice where you have a comfy tower to do your thinking for you. Then that town can live again (since it has been decimated by direct flights) and you can have a nice warm voice to remind you about those three green lights

That'd be safe now wouldn't it.

Edited, plazbot, here is the link

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...522527598.html

AK

Clothears

Snarek,

Sorry, sport, but you may be surprised to learn that you don't really know everything there is to know about flying, air traffic services, or the aviation industry in general. Don't get me wrong - after 23 years in this game in stations providing ATS over about two thirds of the continent in total (and a bit of recreational flying in between) I still learn something every day.

More to the point,however, your intemperate and frequently provocative manner in this forum does you no credit, and reflects poorly on the board of an organisation which claims to represent about one tenth of the active pilots in Australia.

For example, with what knowledge or research are you able to support your claim that the AFAP/Civilair position is a "pack of lies"? To what extent is this different to the other lies about NAS (safer, proven, more simple, etc...) which you appear to support?

Have you considered the difference between Ayers Rock (not particularly relevant under NAS 2B?) and, say, 40DME BN at FL120 climbing, on descent or holding?

While I respect you for being an "outed" Pprune contributor (and most of us do not enjoy or cannot afford that privelege), I think most of your posts reflect a blinkered and doctrinaire approach to this subject, bereft of any evidence of rational deliberation or of research among the many highly qualified and experienced pilots who spend their working lives in our airspace. Perhaps you're more interested in the "balls to the wall" approach which, while perhaps amusing at the aero club bar at ten o'clock on a Friday night, frightens the bejeezus out of the rest of us.

Grow up, and act like a member of an organisation striving for industry credibility rather than an ill informed, belligerent, self-opinionated ****.