Jet_A_Knight

Snarek:

I beg to disagree. I have yet to interact with a regional that has 'bullied' its way onto the runway or pushed in for a landing or take off that was outside of the rules of right of way, without the very least a courteous request. That goes both ways where I have requested with a 'do you mind if we' usually agreed to. Most of the time they give way if there is any conflict, and take the longer way round to keep out of 'harms way'.

The generalisation that regional drivers and companies are bully boys around regional airports in not correct.

By the way, why doesn't AOPA help educate their members in the better and appropriate use of the radio as per the rules rather than try to get them off the radio altogether? Ditto for CTA procedures and phraseology.

It seems to me that there is a reluctance by PPL/Recreational pilots to have to deal with the issues of operating in CTA (procedures, phraseology etc) so it makes it 'simpler' for the non-professional pilot to operate at a lower state of 'recency' than professionals who fly on a daily basis.

The costs issue is a smoke screen. If you can afford an aeroplane, you should be able to pay for the airspace, otherwise, don't fly. If you own a car and can't afford to pay the Harbour Bridge/Tunnel toll, then go the long way round, or don't drive.Also, if it's a matter of avoiding costs, well various altitudes will get you around most airspace if you want to avoid the requirements for a clearance etc.

Duff Man

Civil Air has directed its members not to use VFR on top procedures.

There is confusion caused by a difference between AIP ENR 9.1.7 and MATS 4.1.1.15, where the responsibility for separation during cessation of the VFR on top procedure is specified differently.

Chimbu chuckles

Snarek whether AOPAs members like it or not the airspace system was instituted and expanded for one reason and one reason only.....commerce!!

We are fortunate indeed that we live in a country which allows private individuals to own and fly small aircraft at all...even within our region, i.e. Asia Pacific, that's not all that common.

IMHO Private Ops should be allowed to piggy back on the system at minimal cost but in no way should the system be dicked with in the way it has been.

For the last 15+ years the govt, via it's various regulatory instruments, has been stripping away layers of 'service' (read safety) and at some point the accident rate WILL be adversely affected.

I firmly believe that NAS is a significantly retrograde step and will realise NO positive outcomes for aviation in Australia.

Definately no cost savings, probably the reverse.

If NAS WAS all AsA/Govt etc have convinced you it will be then why the 'Yes Minister' routine to get it up?

In my opinion AOPA have had their egos stroked by being included in the process and for all the wrong reasons.

Why would an honest implementation group ignore the concerns of ALL professional bodies and yet blow sunshine up AOPAs backsides?

NAS COULD have been implemented with virtually no opposition at all if it was done with true industry consultation. Instead any reasonable requests from industry were ignored if they didn't fit within the model ALREADY DECIDED ON.

Why couldn't E be limited to say 14500 and perhaps 8500 with a certain distance of Capital city Class B? Why couldn't frequencies be left on charts? Why can't VFR in E be given the same service as IFR? It doesn't cost anything to do so as the ATCO will be sitting there doing his job, and getting paid, whether he talks to a VFR pilot or not!!!

At least that would be a mitigator that would keep high speed jet traffic and unreported VFR seperated while still giving us NAS with all it's great benefits

Once we had an excellent system and it's been progressively gutted over time for no good reason....the only reason being the abject stupidity of the people in charge of the various GBEs.

AsA created the system they have identified as being so terrible against the wishes of industry....we didn't want frequency combining (just one example) but got it shoved down our throats anyway...Now they want a significant portion of pilots to essentially not use the radio at all if it can be avoided.

Why would I accept the proposition that the same 'public servants' who have f**ked so much in the past for no good reason have all of a sudden got it right now?

Chuck.

F111

Did anyone else have any problems today? I did and it occured near one of the danger area's that have been identified (MC).

We were cruising at 10'000 FT in an RPT Shorts 360 enroute from BN to MYB via overhead MC. When we approximately 10nm NNW of MC when we observed traffic on the TCAS approaching us from the opposite direction. There was no ALT reading from the traffic. We tried to sight the aircraft, but couldn't find it, by this time the traffic was approximately 5 nm form us. Due to the lack any ALT read out the only option for us was to request a left turn to avoid "TCAS traffic". The controller advised us that the TCAS teaffic was not appearing on his radar screen. After turning onto a heading of the 310, we observed the traffic on TCAS passing to our right at approximately 4-5 nm. We never did get the traffic visual, so will never know how if we had any vertical separation form the traffic.

From the time we first observed the TCAS traffic until it had passed us was about 3-4 mins. During this time we, as a crew were in a "high work" load environment, as we were preparing for our descent into MYB (ie completing descent brief, setting up navids etc).

SM4 Pirate

F111,

I hope you filed the appropriate paperwork, CAIR'd it etc.

It is possible that he was low hence not on the ATC radar, but also possible he was close and just not painting.

I issued traffic to a B737 in E today (Sydney bound) on a non Mode C paint, he said not on TCAS, I said 2 o'clock 3 miles crossing you; not sighted... crossed him with less than .5 of a mile B737 with 430KTs GS, then I kept watching it... the aircraft called CB approach (20 minutes later) who said select mode C, popped up nicely at A065. One assumes always around that level.

Come on folks use your mode C, it saves us lots of worry and ultimately you will all get a better service.

Bottle of Rum

snarek

There is one thing we can do.

I will try to wrtite an article on transponder use, and how cheap it is to get them checked (I get mine done annually for about $60).

I suppose I could even do a bit about second hand and cheap new units for the 0.5% who don't have one.

AK

Manwell

BASI Backpedals....

For all those who actually believed the intellectually dishonest report "Limitations of the See and Avoid Principle", and please, I don't have the time to debate every point...

Check this out,
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/edit...void/index.cfm

Follow the links to the other associated editorials too.

If anyone of you blokes out there really want me to explain it all to you in detail, then I'm afraid you'll have to pay for it.....

After all those of you who are in most dire need of re-training can probably afford it, and then you might just then listen to what I've got to say. Works for most high priced consultants these days, and I'll even keep my cool while I painstakingly explain everything to you as the hours tick away..............

Work it out for yourself if you like, because if you can't do it, then I'm damn sure I won't have a chance, unless of course you want to pay me, then I'll make a career out of it.

Life's a bitch,..then you fly?

Jet_A_Knight

manwell,

I think that you have misinterpreted the purpose and intent of these BASI editorials.

If you refer to the conclusions of the 1991 report, part of the conclusions is:

These editorials go same way in addressing the above conclusion, but in no way promote the increased reliance of see-and avoid in Australian airspace as the (NAS 2b effectively does) but merely as a final level of protection , and therefore in no way represent a 'backflip'by BASI.

Sincerely, I would like to know on what basis you consider the report to be 'intellectually dishonest' and would appreciate it if you would provide some facts or links to site(s) or reports to support your argument and/or counter the BASI reports' conclusions.

ferris

A word of warning about modeC complacency.

I work in dodgy aircraft land here, and we are required to check EVERY modeC on first contact (and carriage/use is compulsory). Even with all RPT traffic (that's all we deal with), we still see (anecdotally) about 1 in 500 with a transponder problem, sometimes with errors of 10000' or more. Under NAS, this is an accident waiting to happen. Everyone flying around squawking alt will lead to complacency, sure as anything. Even responsible owners/operators who have regular servicing (like snarek) still don't know their transponder is working on any particular day, unless it is routinely verified.

I realise what a pain no modeC targets are, but that might be better than unverified modeC. At least TCAS addresses them.

pesawat_terbang

An honest question

When I climb out and say

"Approach, NNN passing 500 on climb 8500, turning left"

and they say "NNN Identified"

Don't they check that my transponder is squarking C and giving +/- 200 ft of how high I say I am????

PT

Aus ATC

pesawat_terbang,

Yes - your Mode C altitude is verified at that point (which is precisely why you tell us "passing 500ft"). If the controllers radar altitude data is +/- 200ft then all is OK. If outside tolerances you will be queried further - in the first instance it will just be a request to "verify altitude" again - at high rates of climb there can be enough of a lag in the radar display to present a figure outside of tolerances.

For our VFR friends operating in E airspace, anytime you request a RIS your Mode C will invariably be verified by the controller (provided you tell us you altitude). If it is out of tolerance you WILL be told.

Aus ATC

snarek

Yes

And it MAY cost you $220 for a new encoder

But it stops the Dash-8 boys having kittens around Bellenden Kerr

AK

Dick Smith

Triadic, you state in relation to me:

That is a pretty tough statement to make. As I would like to direct my “energy and commitment” in the most effective direction, can you advise further?

By the way, the reason the ATC frequency boundaries have been removed from the charts is not primarily chart simplification. The prime reason is to follow the proven overseas system where pilots are trained to concentrate on traffic which is approaching and departing an aerodrome. That is where the risk of collision is highest.

Many people who post on this website have not read the educational material thoroughly. It makes it very clear that even when flying enroute the appropriate frequency to monitor and communicate on when flying in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome is the frequency of that aerodrome.

With the new system, instead of pilots – quite often low time VFR pilots – constantly monitoring enroute frequencies where over 98% of the calls are irrelevant, pilots in future will be concentrating on traffic which is approaching and departing airports.

An important point is that the introduction of Class E airspace over Class D is not primarily to save VFR aircraft from unnecessary holding and diversions. I point out that Class C terminal airspace is normally designed for a radar environment. In the case of the new system in Australia, where Class E replaces the Class C over Class D, it will allow air traffic controllers in the Class D tower to concentrate where the risk is highest – that is, aircraft which are close to the airport.

There have been times when controllers are busy attempting to separate a VFR aircraft flying over a Class D tower, at say, 8,500’ or 9,500’ from descending IFR aircraft and then not concentrating on traffic close to the aerodrome where the collision risk is highest.

Capt Claret

It would seem you didn't consult too much with some of the Class D towers. Alice for example sees it's airspace responsibility reduced from Jan next year, to about 15nm radius up to 2200'AGL.

I've been flying through there for years now and they've always in my experience handled all commers really well. I know from my discussions with some of them that they're not at all comfortable with the new arrangements and can't see any enhancement to safety.

Personally I don't see that any of them were so over-wrought with their old airspace that they needed it reduced to such an extent, supposedly in the name of improved safety.

Dehavillanddriver

Dick,

whilst I believe that you are genuine in your desire for reform - and that you genuinely believe it to be for the best, I also believe that you are 100% wrong.

You are nothing more than an amateur pilot with ****loads of money and the political clout to make people listen.

I am a professional pilot with many years flogging around Australia and overseas - including the US, and I firmly believe that the system that we had before you stuffed it up WAS world class and worlds best practice.

for some reason you believe that the US is the role model that we should emulate.

Do you also believe that the US medical system is "worlds best practice"?

the FAA air traffic control system is creaking at the seams and does have much more traffic than we do - but at the same time it also has a far greater level of near misses and mid airs.

what you and your mate mike smith have achieved is to downgrade safety at the same time as increasing costs - WELL DONE!

There is no $70 million worth of savings to be had - there are no gains for private aviation to be had, GA will not suddenly make a lazarus like revival on the back of your "reforms" quite the contrary.

I just wish you would stick to making money flogging products rebadged with your face on the front and leave aviation people to those that genuinly know what is going on - because you quite frankly have NO idea.

Please feel free to respond - though I know you won't bother. Send me a private message if you like and we can discuss this on the phone - I don't intend to post my mobile number here, but I am happy to speak to you if you like....

Niles Crane

Dick, good to "see and avoid" you once again, you may have been here, but without speaking up, we would never know!

Anyway, I find it interesting that you advocate the US NAS as Worlds Best Practice when it has 7 pages of differences with ICAO whilst the old, pre 27 Nov, "Unique" Australian airspace only has 1 page of differences.

Also, if the US NAS is actually Worlds Best Practice, why are they changing to NAS2?

And are we going to follow them?

At what Cost?

Manwell

Jet_A_Knight,

I will respond to your enquiry, might take a while though,

Regards,

Manwell

Jet_A_Knight

Dick,

1. Maybe you or an ATC can correct me; but re E replacing C over D.

a) Does not the D tower controller already concentrate on traffic closest to the aerodrome, eg the 'D' CTA?

b)Is there not usually another controller - seperate to the D tower controller - in control of the 'Ç'airspace above that?

c) How does allowing high performance Turboprop or Jet aircraft to descend through 'E' (effectively pseudo controlled airspace) to a 'D' with a weighting toward the use of the see-and-avoid principle as a means of avoiding collision (considering the fact that there may be known and unknown VFR aircraft monitoring a separate frequency) actually enhance safety?

2. Frequencies

Frankly, if 'low time VFR pilots' are not capable of maintaining a proper listening watch of the area and aerodrome traffic they may be in the vicinty of, then I argue that these pilots are not suitably qualified (or recent) and therefore should not be flying - listening watch being an important part of operating an aeroplane. If, as you say, 98% of the radio calls are 'irrelevant' then that leaves 2% that ARE! Surely, the level of irrelevant (to a specific aircraft at a specific place and time) radio chatter reaching the 'low time vfr pilot'surely is more of a problem relating to FREQUENCY COMBINING and poor radio technique or lack of adherence to proper radio procedures/phraseology than anything else, so why is this not addressed?

a) Why is it so difficult to monitor a KNOWN, COMMON area frequency when OUTSIDE of an CTAF/MBZ, but when in an CTAF/MBZ monitoring the correct frequency. What is so difficult or unacceptable about actually monitoring the area freq AND the MBZ/CTAF frequencies that are in close proximity or enroute, and may pose a threat of collision?

b)What if the pilot is flying through airspace that is part of the approach airspace of one airfield and monitoring the freq of another nearby airfield (Narrandera/Griffith for example comes to mind)

c) Which VFR documents that are currently promulgated actually show the non-cta approach and departure airspace around an aerodrome?

d) The education info states words to the eefect that VFR aircraft should avoid the Instrument Approach routes to airfields. How does a pilot who does not hold a CIR know where these points are? I realise that DAPs are available on the AA website, but does that mean that VFR pilots must now be educated in reading and deciphering Instrument Approach Plates? If not, then how are they to avoid the Instrument Approach routes?

See- And Avoid

Dick, are you aware of, and have you read the 1991 BASI Research Report "Limitations Of See-and-Avoid Principles'?

A brief exerpt of the summary and conclusions can be found here: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=110193

If so, can you please explain why the NAS 2b is weighted more toward this principle despite the report's conclusion that 'the most effective response to the many flaws of see-and-avoid is to minimise the reliance on see-and-avoid in Australian Airspace'.

Finally, what are the safety benefits to the new NAS2b?

PS Manwell - thanks.

Casper

NTSB: Broward County crash pilots simply didn't see each other

PARKLAND, Fla. (AP)- Two small planes collided in northwestern Broward County in October 2002 simply because the pilots failed to see one another in time, the National Transportation Safety Board reported.

Both aircraft were high-winged, single-engine Cessna 172s that had taken off from Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport on training flights.

A pilot and student in one plane died as it crashed. The pilot of the other managed to limp to a landing near the Sawgrass Expressway, sparing his life and that of his student.

The NTSB report, issued Wednesday, said one plane was in the "blind spot" of the other, because of the high wing, until just before the collision. The aircraft veered at the last moment, but the wing of one clipped the other, ripping off pieces of its tail and sending it into a fatal dive into a swampy area.

Federal aviation regulations say it is the responsibility of each pilot "to see and avoid the other."

--------------------------------------------------------
Note the last paragraph!

Pete Conrad

When amateur pilots get together with the backing of a minister that wouldn't know the first thing about aviation - what do you expect??

Question for the transport minister - how are you going to fumble your way through a TV interview when the inevitable lighty and RPT collide?

Dick Smith and Smith before they Dick the rest of us!!!