NAS - The Political Farce Continued (Thread 5)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the chainsaw..?
Snarek
Peaceful? So was Kingsford-Smith back when Penicillin was cutting edge and your Grumman was nothing more than a wet dream. Move on mate, there are thousands of “Jet Jocks” out their every day flying yours and my loved ones from A to C via B, its called commercial aviation!
I hope you AOPA guys do better due diligence on your aircraft when you buy them than you do on airspace!
Why were AOPA the only group silly enough to place their logo on the glossy crap education packs. No wonder you all (I wonder just how many?) support 2b.
Really? Are you suggesting that the ARG, NASIG and AOPA have NOT been running around briefing people to proceed no-radio in E?
AOPA supports NAS 2b you kept telling us….??
Pure fabrication on who’s part??
You’re a contradictory goose!
Are you really an AOPA board member??? Or is this some sort of prepubescent wind-up by a “short bloke whacking young’un with a shiny new sheriffs badge’” ???
Either way again I guess....
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.
I hope you AOPA guys do better due diligence on your aircraft when you buy them than you do on airspace!
Why were AOPA the only group silly enough to place their logo on the glossy crap education packs. No wonder you all (I wonder just how many?) support 2b.
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.
AOPA supports NAS 2b you kept telling us….??
Pure fabrication on who’s part??
You’re a contradictory goose!
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
Either way again I guess....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about the rest of you but i'm getting a bit tired of listening to the lies coming from the mouth of MS. They are without doubt, someone elses script, but i wonder if Mike understands that he's the one that will be held responsible and hauled over the coals by the minister and the Royal Commision when the inevitable, "touch wood", happens.
Good luck Mike. It's been real
Good luck Mike. It's been real
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a very good point Bargearse. Looking at the American Mid air stats given that we have about 10% of the movements and also 10% of the controllers we will have 10% of the Mid airs. I can guarantee that they will apportion some of the blame to the short comings of see and avoid and then these people beating the Pro NAS drum are going to see reality. This is a time bomb waiting to oust this government well and truely. I wonder why they support it so much?
Bottums Up
tobzalp
you don't really think that the system will be blamed for any breakdown in separation, or heaven forbid, a collision, do you?
'Course not, it'll most likely be the pilots fault for failing to see and avoid, after that it'll be some poor ATCOs fault, but never the system or those who pushed its implementation!
'Course not, it'll most likely be the pilots fault for failing to see and avoid, after that it'll be some poor ATCOs fault, but never the system or those who pushed its implementation!
Last edited by Capt Claret; 26th Nov 2003 at 07:07.
NAS
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey 2B1
I am wondering if I should shut up about getting the freqs back on the maps, I'm not sure I even want to listen to these @rseh@les
Oh and I like the 'fly slow' threat from AFAP. Gee whiz, I can do that too, how does 60 kt down a 5 mile final into Merimbula sound
Will that help???
AK
I am wondering if I should shut up about getting the freqs back on the maps, I'm not sure I even want to listen to these @rseh@les
Oh and I like the 'fly slow' threat from AFAP. Gee whiz, I can do that too, how does 60 kt down a 5 mile final into Merimbula sound
Will that help???
AK
Hmmm, seems there really is a problem with see and avoid...
Why does the saying "There are none so blind as those who will not see." come to mind?
Dunno, and the thought that this sounds like the sort of hysteria around when some Yanks thought they could fly. Wilbur and Orville, I think.
Emotion is a characteristic of all humans, but one would have thought that airmen would be less susceptible to it's illusions.
Someone scoffed at the comment on the NAS educational material that suggested that cockpit workload should not take precedence over lookout when on descent/climb. The response suggested that a cooked engine would be the result.
In multi-crew cockpits that I've encountered, the health of the engine is very low on the list of priorities compared to the priority to get everything to look and sound right, and have all the I's dotted and the T's crossed. Perhaps this is what was alluded to, rather than monitoring the engines.
I'm sure that some of you blokes will find fault with my argument, but can I just assure you that the problem isn't just with the argument, it's also related to the attitude of the opponents.
Nothing I say will change your minds, and nothing you say will change mine, unless you can tell me why it's safer and more efficient to discount one of our senses in favour of a system that relies on human intervention, and as such, is susceptible to human error as well.
There is nothing wrong with see and avoid, it's managed to keep most of us safe in all pursuits other than aviation, and then, only in Australia is it considered inadequate to the extent that you guys propose.
Has the thought occurred to you that multicrew pilots spend too much time doing things of little real value simply to fill in the time and look busy, and professional?
I know that will be a difficult concept to accept, but it is pretty close to the truth. The challenge is to find better ways to spend our time and money so that safety is enhanced, not just the illusion of safety. That's the point gentlemen, call it affordable safety if you like, but it is the whole point.
When the money being spent is not ours we all want the best there is, that's why, in my view, that the private pilot probably has the clearest view of all. And it also explains why many professional pilots and ATC don't like it. They aren't going to pay for it, so it is the best.
It might be safer, for the pro's, since it means losing some of the responsibility that goes with the job, but it does shift the responsibility to where it belongs, with us.
Tough call, maybe, the truth hurts, although not as much as continuing allowing yourself to be deluded until you finally realise that the system is not foolproof. Then it's too late.
Life's a bitch....
Why does the saying "There are none so blind as those who will not see." come to mind?
Dunno, and the thought that this sounds like the sort of hysteria around when some Yanks thought they could fly. Wilbur and Orville, I think.
Emotion is a characteristic of all humans, but one would have thought that airmen would be less susceptible to it's illusions.
Someone scoffed at the comment on the NAS educational material that suggested that cockpit workload should not take precedence over lookout when on descent/climb. The response suggested that a cooked engine would be the result.
In multi-crew cockpits that I've encountered, the health of the engine is very low on the list of priorities compared to the priority to get everything to look and sound right, and have all the I's dotted and the T's crossed. Perhaps this is what was alluded to, rather than monitoring the engines.
I'm sure that some of you blokes will find fault with my argument, but can I just assure you that the problem isn't just with the argument, it's also related to the attitude of the opponents.
Nothing I say will change your minds, and nothing you say will change mine, unless you can tell me why it's safer and more efficient to discount one of our senses in favour of a system that relies on human intervention, and as such, is susceptible to human error as well.
There is nothing wrong with see and avoid, it's managed to keep most of us safe in all pursuits other than aviation, and then, only in Australia is it considered inadequate to the extent that you guys propose.
Has the thought occurred to you that multicrew pilots spend too much time doing things of little real value simply to fill in the time and look busy, and professional?
I know that will be a difficult concept to accept, but it is pretty close to the truth. The challenge is to find better ways to spend our time and money so that safety is enhanced, not just the illusion of safety. That's the point gentlemen, call it affordable safety if you like, but it is the whole point.
When the money being spent is not ours we all want the best there is, that's why, in my view, that the private pilot probably has the clearest view of all. And it also explains why many professional pilots and ATC don't like it. They aren't going to pay for it, so it is the best.
It might be safer, for the pro's, since it means losing some of the responsibility that goes with the job, but it does shift the responsibility to where it belongs, with us.
Tough call, maybe, the truth hurts, although not as much as continuing allowing yourself to be deluded until you finally realise that the system is not foolproof. Then it's too late.
Life's a bitch....
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd like to think you were a wind up Snarek, but I have a sneaking suspicion you are actually serious.
The feeling is mutual about the radio too. It would make things a whole lot better not having to listen to twats like you balls up the radio calls every time you PTT.
Oh, and go as slow as you like - someone else is paying for my flight.
The feeling is mutual about the radio too. It would make things a whole lot better not having to listen to twats like you balls up the radio calls every time you PTT.
Oh, and go as slow as you like - someone else is paying for my flight.
what some of you learned gentlemen - and i use the term loosely - forget is that many of the high performance aeroplanes are simply not conducive to see and avoid.
Lets take the 737. Even on descent you have a nose up attitude - particularly if you are at 250 or 210 knots. This nose up attitude, coupled with the location of the glareshield, windscreens etc, means that you can't see anything below you for a couple of miles.
what this means is that if you are descending through cloud and pop out the bottom, good ole AK flogging along fat dumb and happy listening to an "appropriate" frequency is impossible to see - and I will quite happily descend onto the top of him - all without ever knowing he was there until the thump..it is a similar story for most jets.
The Dash-8 is slightly better, though not much - the blind spot may be a mile or so - but even though still enough to clean up AK, and all the other rabid NAS supporters.
All professional pilots want - and these are the ones having their workplace deliberately made less safe - is a fighting chance to not hit anything else.
If you make radio calls and get a response, directed traffic etc - you can make plans - level off higher until passed or similar - but if you don't know - you can't plan and are left to react at the last minute.
the two smiths - god bless their little cotton socks - make these great airy fairy statements about how it will be safer and save heaps of money - yet when pressed CANNOT quantify these statements - this is because these statements and projections are BULL****!
there is a statement elsewhere in this thread about "taking away one of your senses" - where the writer was referring to the sense of sight - well in my opinion they have taken away our sense of hearing - what maniac came up with frequency separation as an ATC standard - if I can't hear you I can't hit you!
having a means of obtaining directed traffic information is not taking away see and avoid - it is facilitating it - it is making it possible to have a half reasonable chance of finding the needle in the haystack before you prick yourself with it!
maybe someone should suggest Project DAYGLO to mike smith - paint all your GA aeroplanes dayglo orange to make them stand out - that will be a winner with the AOPA crowd!!
Lets take the 737. Even on descent you have a nose up attitude - particularly if you are at 250 or 210 knots. This nose up attitude, coupled with the location of the glareshield, windscreens etc, means that you can't see anything below you for a couple of miles.
what this means is that if you are descending through cloud and pop out the bottom, good ole AK flogging along fat dumb and happy listening to an "appropriate" frequency is impossible to see - and I will quite happily descend onto the top of him - all without ever knowing he was there until the thump..it is a similar story for most jets.
The Dash-8 is slightly better, though not much - the blind spot may be a mile or so - but even though still enough to clean up AK, and all the other rabid NAS supporters.
All professional pilots want - and these are the ones having their workplace deliberately made less safe - is a fighting chance to not hit anything else.
If you make radio calls and get a response, directed traffic etc - you can make plans - level off higher until passed or similar - but if you don't know - you can't plan and are left to react at the last minute.
the two smiths - god bless their little cotton socks - make these great airy fairy statements about how it will be safer and save heaps of money - yet when pressed CANNOT quantify these statements - this is because these statements and projections are BULL****!
there is a statement elsewhere in this thread about "taking away one of your senses" - where the writer was referring to the sense of sight - well in my opinion they have taken away our sense of hearing - what maniac came up with frequency separation as an ATC standard - if I can't hear you I can't hit you!
having a means of obtaining directed traffic information is not taking away see and avoid - it is facilitating it - it is making it possible to have a half reasonable chance of finding the needle in the haystack before you prick yourself with it!
maybe someone should suggest Project DAYGLO to mike smith - paint all your GA aeroplanes dayglo orange to make them stand out - that will be a winner with the AOPA crowd!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, here is an argument that no-one seems to have explored that may appeal to AK and the AOPA crowd: Are you aware of the standards of some of the foreign crews who fly heavy metal into oz? I'm not going to name names, but I'm sure somebody will help you out if you ask around (alternatively, just go to an air accident site and have a look at the recurring names).
Do you really want to be in the same airspace without a clearance as these guys?
Do you really want to be in the same airspace without a clearance as these guys?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eeeek!
Stop it Ferris. 
In the last 2 weeks I have flown LanChile, LanExpress and Varig. In the last 6 Months I have flown Vietnam Airlines, China Southern, China Eastern, White Rat Airlines and even Brutish Airways. In 4 days time it is Varig, LanExpress and LanChile again.
Ooooh, I am scaring myself. Did I miss any
Gonna think twice before getting on a Trash 8 or a Beech 1900 (or similar) in Oz in future though after reading some of the codswallop on this thread.
AK
In the last 2 weeks I have flown LanChile, LanExpress and Varig. In the last 6 Months I have flown Vietnam Airlines, China Southern, China Eastern, White Rat Airlines and even Brutish Airways. In 4 days time it is Varig, LanExpress and LanChile again.
Ooooh, I am scaring myself. Did I miss any
Gonna think twice before getting on a Trash 8 or a Beech 1900 (or similar) in Oz in future though after reading some of the codswallop on this thread.
AK
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good day gentlemen.
I have sat on the side for ages but have finally felt the need.
Would the pilots of the heavy burners please provide this information to me and others.
When sitting in the cockpit and flying, what is the angle of the visual line of sight that you have out the front and downward when decending?.
By how much is this angle greater than your decent angle?
Just a thought on see and avoid.
Cheers
I have sat on the side for ages but have finally felt the need.
Would the pilots of the heavy burners please provide this information to me and others.
When sitting in the cockpit and flying, what is the angle of the visual line of sight that you have out the front and downward when decending?.
By how much is this angle greater than your decent angle?
Just a thought on see and avoid.
Cheers
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safe in A, Ay????
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=388
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=385
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=386
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=361
or in C, hee hee
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...<br /> ID=235
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...tail.cfm?ID=14
(good thing this one had TCAS)
ah bugga it, there are just so many.
me thinks we need airspace reform
AK
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=385
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=386
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=361
or in C, hee hee
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...<br /> ID=235
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...tail.cfm?ID=14
(good thing this one had TCAS)
ah bugga it, there are just so many.
me thinks we need airspace reform
AK
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(good thing this one had TCAS)
Did you actually read these reports? Oh what a wicked web we weave...... The one thing they highlight very clearly to me is the multilayered approach to safety that is taken in aviation. NAS is deliberately removing some of those layers for no apparent gain. You call this reform?
How does quoting examples of incidents (which all had satisfactory outcomes, thanks to the multilayered approach) that occurred in CTA push the idea that some sort of "reform" is needed? You do realise that NAS would change none of those incidents (as they were all IFR), don't you? You could even argue that it would make some of them worse (controllers will now be required to watch out for 'black tracks' far more rigorously, distracting them even further from higher priority tasks).
I could go around and pick out incidents from around the world that have a single biggest contributing factor that is TCAS. Should we therefore ban TCAS? You simply cannot take that sort of view in aviation. You need as many lines of defence as you can muster, because you never know how many have failed at any one time (a la the Reason Model). What about the DC9 midair in the States, where the crew misidentified an aircraft they were supposed to miss and collided with another? Should we "reform" see-and-avoid?
NAS is a retrograde step (as even the former Head ATC admitted- much to AsA disgust). It removes layers of defence. Why? Why?Why???????
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually ferris I did it to counter plazbot, he posted a series of US near misses in E with the implication it didn't happen in A or C.
We all know that is rot.
If the DC-9 you refer to is the Aeromexico that went in near L.A. They didn't misidentify another aircraft, they decended on one 'illegally in the airspace' A,B,C,D,E or F would have made no difference here.
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The limitations of the ATC system to provide collision protection, through both ATC procedures and automated redundancy. Factors contributing to the accident were (1) the inadvertent and unauthorized entry of the PA-28 into the Los Angeles Terminal Control Area and (2) the limitations of the "see and avoid" concept to ensure traffic separation under the conditions of the conflict."
See, "The limitation of the ATC system to provide collision protection"
Yes it also quotes see and avoid, I'll give you that.
But...
"In 1986, the Cerritos crash investigators were highly critical of the air traffic control system, saying one controller was so busy that he never saw the smaller plane on his radar." (From another source).
Again though, still in C (or B in that case I suppose). Again, nothing in NAS will change this, if staffing is the problem, then say so. But don't blame an airways system.
OR, did you mean PSA182
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the flightcrew of Flight 182 to comply with the provisions of a maintain-visual-separation clearance, including the requirement to inform the controller when visual contact was lost; and the air traffic control procedures in effect which authorized the controllers to use visual separation procedures in a terminal area environment when the capability was available to provide either lateral or vertical separation to either aircraft. Contributing to the accident were (1) the failure of the controller to advise Flight 182 of the direction of movement of the Cessna; (2) the failure of the pilot of the Cessna to maintain his assigned heading; and (3) the improper resolution by the controller of the conflict alert."
The controllers KNEW where the Cessna was. Cultural perhaps, I hear it got better.
This has been censored, I have heard the real transcript, it says what real pilots would say.
Legenda:
APP = San Diego Approach
CAM = Cockpit Area Mike
RDO = Radio transmission
-1 = captain
-2 = first officer
-3 = 2nd officer
-4 = casual PSA captain
Time: Source: Contents:
08.59:30 APP PSA one eighty-two, traffic twelve o'clock, one mile northbound
08.59:35 RDO-1 We're looking
08.59:30 APP PSA one eighty-two, additional traffic's, ah, twelve o'clock, three miles just north of the field northwestbound, a Cessna one seventy-two climbing VFR out of one thousand four hundred.
08:59:50 RDO-2 Okay, we've got that other twelve.
08.59:57 APP Cessna seven seven one one golf, San Diego departure radar contact, maintain VFR conditions at or below three thousand five hundred, fly heading zero seven zero, vector final approach course,
09.00:16 APP PSA one eighty-two, traffic's at twelve o'clock, three miles out of one thousand seven hundred.
09.00:21 CAM-2 Got'em.
09.00:22 RDO-1 Traffic in sight.
09.00:23 APP Okay, sir, maintain visual separation, contact Lindbergh tower one three three point three, have a nice day now.
09.00:28 RDO-1 Okay
09.00:34 RDO-1 Lindbergh PSA one eighty-two downwind.
09.00:38 TWR PSA one eighty-two, Lindbergh tower, ah, traffic twelve o'clock one mile a Cessna
09.00:41 CAM-2 Flaps five
09.00:43 CAM-1 Is that the one we're looking at.
09.00:43 CAM-2 Yeah, but I don't see him now.
09.00:44 RDO-1 Okay, we had it there a minute ago.
09.00:47 TWR One eighty-two, roger.
09.00:50 RDO-1 I think he's pass(sed) off to our right.
09.00:51 TWR Yeah.
09.00:52 CAM-1 He was right over here a minute ago.
09.00:53 TWR How far are you going to take your downwind one eighty-two, company traffic is waiting for departure.
09.00:57 RDO-1 Ah probably about three to four miles.
09.00:59 TWR Okay.
09.01:07 TWR PSA one eighty-two, cleared to land.
09.01:08 RDO-1 One eighty-two's cleared to land.
09.01:11 CAM-2 Are we clear of that Cessna?
09.01:13 CAM-3 Suppose to be.
09.01:14 CAM-1 I guess.
09.01:20 CAM-4 I hope.
09.01:21 CAM-1 Oh yeah, before we turned downwind, I saw him about one o'clock, probably behind us now.
09.01:38 CAM-2 There's one underneath.
09.01:39 CAM-2 I was looking at that inbound there.
09.01:45 CAM-1 Whoop!
09.01:46 CAM-2 Aghhh!
09.01:47 CAM Sound of impact
09.01:49 CAM-1 Easy baby, easy baby.
09.01:51 CAM [sound of electrical system reactivation tone on cvr, system off less than one second]
09.01:51 CAM-1 What have we got here?
09.01:52 CAM-2 It's bad.
09.01:53 CAM-2 We're hit man, we are hit.
09.01:56 RDO-1 Tower, we're going down, this is PSA.
09.01:57 TWR Okay, we'll call the equipment for you.
09.01:58 CAM [sound of stall warning]
09.02:04.5 CAM [end of recording]
Poor b@stards!!!!
Not something we should politicise, especially since it WASN'T in E IT WAS IN B.
AK
We all know that is rot.
If the DC-9 you refer to is the Aeromexico that went in near L.A. They didn't misidentify another aircraft, they decended on one 'illegally in the airspace' A,B,C,D,E or F would have made no difference here.
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The limitations of the ATC system to provide collision protection, through both ATC procedures and automated redundancy. Factors contributing to the accident were (1) the inadvertent and unauthorized entry of the PA-28 into the Los Angeles Terminal Control Area and (2) the limitations of the "see and avoid" concept to ensure traffic separation under the conditions of the conflict."
See, "The limitation of the ATC system to provide collision protection"
Yes it also quotes see and avoid, I'll give you that.
But...
"In 1986, the Cerritos crash investigators were highly critical of the air traffic control system, saying one controller was so busy that he never saw the smaller plane on his radar." (From another source).
Again though, still in C (or B in that case I suppose). Again, nothing in NAS will change this, if staffing is the problem, then say so. But don't blame an airways system.
OR, did you mean PSA182
PROBABLE CAUSE: "The failure of the flightcrew of Flight 182 to comply with the provisions of a maintain-visual-separation clearance, including the requirement to inform the controller when visual contact was lost; and the air traffic control procedures in effect which authorized the controllers to use visual separation procedures in a terminal area environment when the capability was available to provide either lateral or vertical separation to either aircraft. Contributing to the accident were (1) the failure of the controller to advise Flight 182 of the direction of movement of the Cessna; (2) the failure of the pilot of the Cessna to maintain his assigned heading; and (3) the improper resolution by the controller of the conflict alert."
The controllers KNEW where the Cessna was. Cultural perhaps, I hear it got better.
This has been censored, I have heard the real transcript, it says what real pilots would say.
Legenda:
APP = San Diego Approach
CAM = Cockpit Area Mike
RDO = Radio transmission
-1 = captain
-2 = first officer
-3 = 2nd officer
-4 = casual PSA captain
Time: Source: Contents:
08.59:30 APP PSA one eighty-two, traffic twelve o'clock, one mile northbound
08.59:35 RDO-1 We're looking
08.59:30 APP PSA one eighty-two, additional traffic's, ah, twelve o'clock, three miles just north of the field northwestbound, a Cessna one seventy-two climbing VFR out of one thousand four hundred.
08:59:50 RDO-2 Okay, we've got that other twelve.
08.59:57 APP Cessna seven seven one one golf, San Diego departure radar contact, maintain VFR conditions at or below three thousand five hundred, fly heading zero seven zero, vector final approach course,
09.00:16 APP PSA one eighty-two, traffic's at twelve o'clock, three miles out of one thousand seven hundred.
09.00:21 CAM-2 Got'em.
09.00:22 RDO-1 Traffic in sight.
09.00:23 APP Okay, sir, maintain visual separation, contact Lindbergh tower one three three point three, have a nice day now.
09.00:28 RDO-1 Okay
09.00:34 RDO-1 Lindbergh PSA one eighty-two downwind.
09.00:38 TWR PSA one eighty-two, Lindbergh tower, ah, traffic twelve o'clock one mile a Cessna
09.00:41 CAM-2 Flaps five
09.00:43 CAM-1 Is that the one we're looking at.
09.00:43 CAM-2 Yeah, but I don't see him now.
09.00:44 RDO-1 Okay, we had it there a minute ago.
09.00:47 TWR One eighty-two, roger.
09.00:50 RDO-1 I think he's pass(sed) off to our right.
09.00:51 TWR Yeah.
09.00:52 CAM-1 He was right over here a minute ago.
09.00:53 TWR How far are you going to take your downwind one eighty-two, company traffic is waiting for departure.
09.00:57 RDO-1 Ah probably about three to four miles.
09.00:59 TWR Okay.
09.01:07 TWR PSA one eighty-two, cleared to land.
09.01:08 RDO-1 One eighty-two's cleared to land.
09.01:11 CAM-2 Are we clear of that Cessna?
09.01:13 CAM-3 Suppose to be.
09.01:14 CAM-1 I guess.
09.01:20 CAM-4 I hope.
09.01:21 CAM-1 Oh yeah, before we turned downwind, I saw him about one o'clock, probably behind us now.
09.01:38 CAM-2 There's one underneath.
09.01:39 CAM-2 I was looking at that inbound there.
09.01:45 CAM-1 Whoop!
09.01:46 CAM-2 Aghhh!
09.01:47 CAM Sound of impact
09.01:49 CAM-1 Easy baby, easy baby.
09.01:51 CAM [sound of electrical system reactivation tone on cvr, system off less than one second]
09.01:51 CAM-1 What have we got here?
09.01:52 CAM-2 It's bad.
09.01:53 CAM-2 We're hit man, we are hit.
09.01:56 RDO-1 Tower, we're going down, this is PSA.
09.01:57 TWR Okay, we'll call the equipment for you.
09.01:58 CAM [sound of stall warning]
09.02:04.5 CAM [end of recording]
Poor b@stards!!!!
Not something we should politicise, especially since it WASN'T in E IT WAS IN B.
AK
Last edited by snarek; 26th Nov 2003 at 00:48.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's exactly the sort of thing that should be raised, Mr Kerans. Who said anything about politicizing? I agree there has been some dirty politics involved in the NAS implementation, but those opposed are doing so for safety reasons, not to advance their careers!
What don't you understand here? You can call the airspace B, E or stupid, but the fact remains they were applying visual (see and avoid) sep to an IFR jet and a VFR lightie, exactly that which has been proposed in NAS for oz. In huge tracts of airspace! You wonder why pilots and controllers are a little worried?
Those 'low probabilities' the NASites quote are the PSA crew, their passengers, and the lightie pilot. Bit more real now, is it? Why take an unnecessary risk?
Not something we should politicise, especially since it WASN'T in E IT WAS IN B.
Those 'low probabilities' the NASites quote are the PSA crew, their passengers, and the lightie pilot. Bit more real now, is it? Why take an unnecessary risk?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
selective vision???
Ferris
I hope I don't ever get into a see and avoid situation with you, you seem to have selective vision, or did you miss
They didn't have to apply visual, because it was B. They CHOSE to. The same situation exists now, under PRE-NAS and the same situation will exist under POST-NAS.
It doesn't matter whaich of these two you quote (and you haven't said which) both were INDEPENDENT of the airspace and could happen in Australia today.
Except I think pilots will be paying more attention and not failing to alert the controller if visual is lost in E.
Remember, controllers will be separating only KNOWN traffic in E. Wouldn't Civil-Air and AFAP be better off joining AOPA in calling for ADSB so that (nearly) ALL traffic in E becomes KNOWN rather than trying to scare the public into going by bus????
AK
I hope I don't ever get into a see and avoid situation with you, you seem to have selective vision, or did you miss
the air traffic control procedures in effect which authorized the controllers to use visual separation procedures in a terminal area environment when the capability was available to provide either lateral or vertical separation to either aircraft
It doesn't matter whaich of these two you quote (and you haven't said which) both were INDEPENDENT of the airspace and could happen in Australia today.
Except I think pilots will be paying more attention and not failing to alert the controller if visual is lost in E.
Remember, controllers will be separating only KNOWN traffic in E. Wouldn't Civil-Air and AFAP be better off joining AOPA in calling for ADSB so that (nearly) ALL traffic in E becomes KNOWN rather than trying to scare the public into going by bus????
AK
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a world of difference between separation and traffic information. Please look it up and see how it applies to aus NAS.
That simply isn't true. Standards such as 'sight and follow' are great in the right situation, but a NAS cornerstone is sighting potentially unalerted traffic operating without a clearance.
What if they never aquire the other aircraft in the first place? What if a lightie's transponder is switched off/broken? How will anyone know?
No, they won't.
PSA was a case where alerted see and avoid went wrong. We are going to allow lots of unalerted see and avoid. For what?
So you are saying that NAS is dangerous and should be delayed until ADSB is available, correct? Why haven't you or AOPA come out publicly with this revelation until now? Another game of 'Yes Minister' is it? Make the airspace dangerous, then ask the govt to pay for your ADSB fitout because the airspace is dangerous? How very 'Smithavellian' of you.
They didn't have to apply visual, because it was B. They CHOSE to. The same situation exists now, under PRE-NAS and the same situation will exist under POST-NAS.
Except I think pilots will be paying more attention and not failing to alert the controller if visual is lost in E.
Remember, controllers will be separating only KNOWN traffic in E
PSA was a case where alerted see and avoid went wrong. We are going to allow lots of unalerted see and avoid. For what?
better off joining AOPA in calling for ADSB so that (nearly) ALL traffic in E becomes KNOWN