NAS - The Political Farce Continued (Thread 5)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
1. Wether they chose to use "see and avoid" or not, they used it as a primary separation tool and it failed. I suggest a major contributing factor to this is the extremely high workload experienced by a jet transport crew in the approach phase of flight.
Just think what sort of workload a single pilot in a high performance turbo prop aircraft would be experiencing at this point. Admittedly, more manouverable than a heavier jet and slightly more vision, but same speeds as the jets in this phase of flight and only one pair of eyes, concentrating at this point on possibly 3 or 4 issues at once with "see and avoid" on 2 or possibly 3 VFR aircraft to boot.
2. The same situation in many areas (C over D towers) does not exist now. On the 27th, when C becomes E over D towers and VFR no longer require a clearance to operate in E, the transcript you have reproduced above may very well become a common occurence.
This was spoken by Mike Smith, talking about why the changes would make us safer
The new system was also safer because it put responsibility onto the pilots, he said. "When people are responsible for their actions they're more accountable." They would not be able to rely on air traffic controllers but would have to ensure their own safety.
Who is accountable when the pilot and the pax are all dead????!!!!
The new system was also safer because it put responsibility onto the pilots, he said. "When people are responsible for their actions they're more accountable." They would not be able to rely on air traffic controllers but would have to ensure their own safety.
Who is accountable when the pilot and the pax are all dead????!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for their actions they're more accountable
Fix the charging system, not the airspace system.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why they are so for this system. It shifts responsibility (and liability) to the crews.
If a MAC occurs, well, the crews did not 'adequately maintain visual separation' from each other.
I am working on getting a copy, or at least making a partial transcription of the 1991 BASI research report entitled 'Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principles' and posting it up. '
This report is quite damning of the use of see-and- void, infact the final line in its summary reads:
'The most effective response to the many flaws in see-and-avoid is to minimise the reliance on see-and-avoid in Australian airspace.'
This, is obviously something that no one inthe ARG bothered to read.
Stand by, I'm a busy boy.
If a MAC occurs, well, the crews did not 'adequately maintain visual separation' from each other.
I am working on getting a copy, or at least making a partial transcription of the 1991 BASI research report entitled 'Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principles' and posting it up. '
This report is quite damning of the use of see-and- void, infact the final line in its summary reads:
'The most effective response to the many flaws in see-and-avoid is to minimise the reliance on see-and-avoid in Australian airspace.'
This, is obviously something that no one inthe ARG bothered to read.
Stand by, I'm a busy boy.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris
I have noticed that very valid point about charging posted by you half a dozen or so times. I have also noticed that not once has anyone addressed it. I don't know the answer but I have a feeling that it just may cost these terry towling hat wearing cry monkeys more to fly!
I have noticed that very valid point about charging posted by you half a dozen or so times. I have also noticed that not once has anyone addressed it. I don't know the answer but I have a feeling that it just may cost these terry towling hat wearing cry monkeys more to fly!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is the Basi Posting
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/edit...void/index.cfm
EDITORIALS
See And Avoid
Background
In 1991 ATSB's predecessor (BASI) published a research report titled Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle. This report concluded that 'the see-and-avoid principle in the absence of traffic alerts is subject to serious limitations'. Unalerted see and avoid has a 'limited place as a last resort means of traffic separation at low closing speeds', and is 'completely unsuitable as a primary traffic separation method for scheduled services'.
Nevertheless, operations in a number of types of airspace currently require the application of see-and-avoid techniques by the pilots of both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules aircraft operations. In areas such as mandatory broadcast zones, pilots should be assisted by radio calls from all other aircraft to provide an 'alerted' see-and-avoid environment. However, the final level of protection is provided by pilots being able to see potentially dangerous traffic in time to take avoidance action.
The report highlighted the fact that 'many of the limitations of see-and-avoid are associated with physical limits and human perception' and encouraged pilots to be 'made aware of the limitations of the see-and-avoid procedure, particularly the factors which can reduce a pilot's effective visual field'.
Each year ATSB investigates incidents where aircraft have come perilously close whilst operating in weather conditions well above the visual meteorological conditions minima. Some of these incidents occur in the circuit area, where pilots should have had an acute awareness of the position of all traffic at all times. Incidents also occur where aircraft were established in an en-route cruise. Given that there indeed is a lot of sky out there, there is often an understandable tendency during the cruise to be less assiduous in maintaining a lookout. The following paragraphs address the issue of detecting other aircraft during an en-route cruise by examining some of the problems of lookout or visual search.
See the other pages @ the link above.....
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/edit...void/index.cfm
EDITORIALS
See And Avoid
Background
In 1991 ATSB's predecessor (BASI) published a research report titled Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle. This report concluded that 'the see-and-avoid principle in the absence of traffic alerts is subject to serious limitations'. Unalerted see and avoid has a 'limited place as a last resort means of traffic separation at low closing speeds', and is 'completely unsuitable as a primary traffic separation method for scheduled services'.
Nevertheless, operations in a number of types of airspace currently require the application of see-and-avoid techniques by the pilots of both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules aircraft operations. In areas such as mandatory broadcast zones, pilots should be assisted by radio calls from all other aircraft to provide an 'alerted' see-and-avoid environment. However, the final level of protection is provided by pilots being able to see potentially dangerous traffic in time to take avoidance action.
The report highlighted the fact that 'many of the limitations of see-and-avoid are associated with physical limits and human perception' and encouraged pilots to be 'made aware of the limitations of the see-and-avoid procedure, particularly the factors which can reduce a pilot's effective visual field'.
Each year ATSB investigates incidents where aircraft have come perilously close whilst operating in weather conditions well above the visual meteorological conditions minima. Some of these incidents occur in the circuit area, where pilots should have had an acute awareness of the position of all traffic at all times. Incidents also occur where aircraft were established in an en-route cruise. Given that there indeed is a lot of sky out there, there is often an understandable tendency during the cruise to be less assiduous in maintaining a lookout. The following paragraphs address the issue of detecting other aircraft during an en-route cruise by examining some of the problems of lookout or visual search.
See the other pages @ the link above.....
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being new to this forum and being professional aircrew, I am curious as to how many other pilots are puzzled about the actual proceedures to be used in the new G airspace. A lot has been said about E and in particular VFR in E over D and tower airspace. but both the forums and information distributed (and I use this term in an extrodinarily loose fashion) have a dearth if suggestions for want of a better term on the practical use of the the new G airspace. Most of my operations will be in areas of E with a base of F180 and no one has any idea.
OUtBAck Pilot
We seem to be a rare bird who can recal old BASI publications that were more usefull to read than to use as crapper rapper. I have highlighted this publication recently to the ATSB and await a reply, though I doubt that it will be usefull considering their last few efforts.
OUtBAck Pilot
We seem to be a rare bird who can recal old BASI publications that were more usefull to read than to use as crapper rapper. I have highlighted this publication recently to the ATSB and await a reply, though I doubt that it will be usefull considering their last few efforts.
Grandpa Aerotart
During a break today (I'm at Boeing in Seattle) I chatted to my Sim Instructor about US Airspace. I told him what we're getting in Oz and his first reaction was "That's not the US airspace model". Our lack of Radar impressed him...not positively.
Seems here they have Class A above 18500 and E tops out at 14500 most places...if I'm quoting him correctly, it has been a long day!!
Jets don't descend in E as they whistle temporarily out of A on their way to B/C.
For those VFR PPLs out there I can asure you the view out a jets windows is NOT good forward and down. We are very busy below 10000'.
One thing I have noticed is that virtually every aircraft I've seen inbound/outbound from KBFI (Boeing Field) has flashing landing lights.
Chuck.
Seems here they have Class A above 18500 and E tops out at 14500 most places...if I'm quoting him correctly, it has been a long day!!
Jets don't descend in E as they whistle temporarily out of A on their way to B/C.
For those VFR PPLs out there I can asure you the view out a jets windows is NOT good forward and down. We are very busy below 10000'.
One thing I have noticed is that virtually every aircraft I've seen inbound/outbound from KBFI (Boeing Field) has flashing landing lights.
Chuck.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been in this industry for 24 years now, maybe not as long as some. What I can say is that having seen and at times been part of airspace changes in a few countries in the world. I hear the very same arguments over and over again, remember when mandatory position reporting was stopped, professional pilots had there arms in the air quoting mid air accidents would happen all over Australia it did not happen we accepted then that there would be an increased risk.
There are many examples of this worldwide and overall I hear stories all the time about America having greater radar coverage than us. Tell that to the pilots that fly over there in areas with no coverage and 6 to 7 times the amount of traffic, does that mean they are better? Do you think they wanted the change? Well I can say the answer to both is no, but they have now moved on and get on with it so should we.
I have an extract of an sop from a well known flying school re: NAS it clearly states as policy and teaching practice the following appropriate frequencies to monitor would be the same that are used today, we will now operate lights on always and transponder is switched to alt during run ups and will be amended on the check lists. Now is that not reasonable? The fact that most PPL pilots out there realise that large aircraft travel faster can have a heavier workload and find it harder to see escapes most of your pea brains.
You did not invent the wheel most PPL pilots do have a brain and some have more flying experience than check and training captains that I know. Last night I listened to Robin Brevill Anderson actually say what happens when a light aircraft descends through a small hole in the cloud at the same time as us and we collide (don’t quote me for exact words). Is he real? I now instruct and do BFR's etc the fact that most VFR pilots do not like to fly above cloud let alone descent through a small hole.
Remember the outcry again from you guy's when they introduced the PIFR how there would be an increase in midair collisions, well where were they? Give some credit to the GA industry in fact whether you like to admit it or not they are the ones that are at greater risk. We are a belt and braces country sometimes we only need a belt.
When passenger aircraft were first manufactured they had a built in safety fact of between 1.6 and 2. Today’s modern fleet has factors between 1.2 and 1.4 on average does that mean they are less safe? Sure, but that has now been accepted as being as safe as it needs to be and I don’t see that many aircraft falling out of the sky do you?
Most of you think I am a pro NAS supporter, I see good and I see bad but I am prepared to work with it and help adjust and try and make it work and be safe, not the view I see on this forum.
Take a pill or take up golf if you really cant see ways to make this work then I am afraid aviation perhaps is not your field.
There are many examples of this worldwide and overall I hear stories all the time about America having greater radar coverage than us. Tell that to the pilots that fly over there in areas with no coverage and 6 to 7 times the amount of traffic, does that mean they are better? Do you think they wanted the change? Well I can say the answer to both is no, but they have now moved on and get on with it so should we.
I have an extract of an sop from a well known flying school re: NAS it clearly states as policy and teaching practice the following appropriate frequencies to monitor would be the same that are used today, we will now operate lights on always and transponder is switched to alt during run ups and will be amended on the check lists. Now is that not reasonable? The fact that most PPL pilots out there realise that large aircraft travel faster can have a heavier workload and find it harder to see escapes most of your pea brains.
You did not invent the wheel most PPL pilots do have a brain and some have more flying experience than check and training captains that I know. Last night I listened to Robin Brevill Anderson actually say what happens when a light aircraft descends through a small hole in the cloud at the same time as us and we collide (don’t quote me for exact words). Is he real? I now instruct and do BFR's etc the fact that most VFR pilots do not like to fly above cloud let alone descent through a small hole.
Remember the outcry again from you guy's when they introduced the PIFR how there would be an increase in midair collisions, well where were they? Give some credit to the GA industry in fact whether you like to admit it or not they are the ones that are at greater risk. We are a belt and braces country sometimes we only need a belt.
When passenger aircraft were first manufactured they had a built in safety fact of between 1.6 and 2. Today’s modern fleet has factors between 1.2 and 1.4 on average does that mean they are less safe? Sure, but that has now been accepted as being as safe as it needs to be and I don’t see that many aircraft falling out of the sky do you?
Most of you think I am a pro NAS supporter, I see good and I see bad but I am prepared to work with it and help adjust and try and make it work and be safe, not the view I see on this forum.
Take a pill or take up golf if you really cant see ways to make this work then I am afraid aviation perhaps is not your field.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Misinformant,
Class G for IFR should continue virtually unchanged as of 27th Nov.
Tho only difference is that there is reduced likelihood that a VFR aircraft operating in proximity to you will hear your broadcasts on the area frequency. The area frequency boundaries have been removed from the ERC-L. ATC will still direct you to the appropriate FIA frequency and you will still be required to make all the usual broadcasts, its just that noone will be listening. The VFRs will be tuned to "the most appropriate Frequency" whatever that may be.
Class G for IFR should continue virtually unchanged as of 27th Nov.
Tho only difference is that there is reduced likelihood that a VFR aircraft operating in proximity to you will hear your broadcasts on the area frequency. The area frequency boundaries have been removed from the ERC-L. ATC will still direct you to the appropriate FIA frequency and you will still be required to make all the usual broadcasts, its just that noone will be listening. The VFRs will be tuned to "the most appropriate Frequency" whatever that may be.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2b1ask1
I hear stories all the time about America having greater radar coverage than us.
remember when mandatory position reporting was stopped
but they have now moved on and get on with it so should we.
transponder is switched to alt during run ups and will be amended on the check lists. Now is that not reasonable
The fact that most PPL pilots out there realise that large aircraft travel faster can have a heavier workload and find it harder to see escapes most of your pea brains.
I now instruct and do BFR's etc the fact that most VFR pilots do not like to fly above cloud let alone descent through a small hole
Plus, you don't need most pilots doing it. One is enough.
We are a belt and braces country sometimes we only need a belt.
Take a pill or take up golf if you really cant see ways to make this work then I am afraid aviation perhaps is not your field.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ADSB
Ferris
If you were a member you would have read a report in the last AOPA referring to correspondence with the Minister, drafted by me, signed by the President, re ADSB.
If you were a member you'd also have more say.
We represent the views of our members, not the views of Civil Air and AFAP, two organisations I personally do not trust with the truth.
AK
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.
If you were a member you'd also have more say.
We represent the views of our members, not the views of Civil Air and AFAP, two organisations I personally do not trust with the truth.
AK
Good luck to all those flying in the NAS (National Airspace Stuffup) from tomorrow - I am on leave and won't get that pleasure for a little while..
I hope everyone, despite the efforts of the two Smiths is safe....
I hope everyone, despite the efforts of the two Smiths is safe....
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek
Funny, I thought both you and AOPA were supporters of NAS. The minister seems to think so to, as he (or his office) counts AOPA as publicly supporting NAS.
Is AOPAs position now: no ADSB, no NAS? Or are you trying to have 50cents each way?
Is AOPAs position now: no ADSB, no NAS? Or are you trying to have 50cents each way?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris
I bet you played the game 'twister' when you were pushing toy airplanes around the kitchen floor
Now, I summarise.
AOPA supports NAS 2b and reserves the right to comment on implimentation. (This includes maps, education etc). We ABSOLUTELY support getting rid of MBZ.
AOPA supports the concept of NAS and will continue to observe its implimentation and comment in consultation with our members.
AOPA recognises the great benefit ADSB will bring to the existing or new airspace system and encourages the Government to expediate its implimentation.
SH!T Ferris, we even listen to you when you are making good points and not being a Ted Lang puppet
AK
I bet you played the game 'twister' when you were pushing toy airplanes around the kitchen floor
Now, I summarise.
AOPA supports NAS 2b and reserves the right to comment on implimentation. (This includes maps, education etc). We ABSOLUTELY support getting rid of MBZ.
AOPA supports the concept of NAS and will continue to observe its implimentation and comment in consultation with our members.
AOPA recognises the great benefit ADSB will bring to the existing or new airspace system and encourages the Government to expediate its implimentation.
SH!T Ferris, we even listen to you when you are making good points and not being a Ted Lang puppet
AK
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Ted Lang puppet?
That made me laugh!
Not a union member, and I certainly couldn't be called a Dick Smith puppet (unlike some who roam here).
Unions aren't even LEGAL here.
Not a union member, and I certainly couldn't be called a Dick Smith puppet (unlike some who roam here).
Unions aren't even LEGAL here.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither are wild women, booze and dirty movies, watch out behind you Ferris, you might get belted by an Arab Prince.
"Thank you Sir, may I have another"
Hmm, wonder why I don't work there
AK
"Thank you Sir, may I have another"
Hmm, wonder why I don't work there
AK
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Snarek you don't know anything about the Mid East. More wild women here than back in Oz, many many more. You haven't lived till you've been to a bar full of British, Aussie and Irish school teachers and nurses all getting free wine all night 
. And unlike Oz I have a licence to drink booze here. They tell me on the licence to drink 1,000 dirhams ($400) worth of booze each month and I damn well try.
Back onto the subject though. The issues with the airspace as I can see them are,
1. Lack of frequencys on charts and the general discouragement from the authoritys for VFR broadcasts on Control frequencies.
2. The changing off alot of airspace from C into E, and the resultant VFR's flying in airspace without a clearance, whereas before Nov 27 they needed one.
At the moment they seem to be the biggies. The frequency thing is pretty simple to change back and getting the VFR's to continue to speak up is something AOPA could help with.
Problem is the 2nd one and resultant reliance on see and avoid between vastly different aircraft and in vastly different conditions is the reason I cannot see how anyone can say NAS is a positive step.
There have been people finding places where ATC stuffed up, for the past 2 pages of this thread. Yep, youre right ATC stuffs up, I'm sure as often as most pilots do. Everyone makes mistakes, but the reason most of those mistakes haven't been fatal, is because of the existance of a multi layered defence against a MAC.
We are removing 2 very important layers when you change from C to E. You are removing ATC separation for VFR's (Traffic information is suggestions to pilots, it is not separation), which in effect means the IFR's also flying in the airspace is no longer being completely separated by the controller. The second one is the layer of defence where the pilots broadcast, hear there may be someone in the area and work it out between themselves. The IFR's will be on ATC freq post NOV 27, god knows what the VFR's will be on.
Anyway all this has been said before, but Snarek, won't ever admit E is less safe than C, and hence NAS is less safe. He always just goes on about how lots of G is changing to E. Fine that is the case but it is the C to E, where the big fast heavy jets will most likely collect a happily paid up AOPA member on his nose on descent into Alice Springs.
. And unlike Oz I have a licence to drink booze here. They tell me on the licence to drink 1,000 dirhams ($400) worth of booze each month and I damn well try. Back onto the subject though. The issues with the airspace as I can see them are,
1. Lack of frequencys on charts and the general discouragement from the authoritys for VFR broadcasts on Control frequencies.
2. The changing off alot of airspace from C into E, and the resultant VFR's flying in airspace without a clearance, whereas before Nov 27 they needed one.
At the moment they seem to be the biggies. The frequency thing is pretty simple to change back and getting the VFR's to continue to speak up is something AOPA could help with.
Problem is the 2nd one and resultant reliance on see and avoid between vastly different aircraft and in vastly different conditions is the reason I cannot see how anyone can say NAS is a positive step.
There have been people finding places where ATC stuffed up, for the past 2 pages of this thread. Yep, youre right ATC stuffs up, I'm sure as often as most pilots do. Everyone makes mistakes, but the reason most of those mistakes haven't been fatal, is because of the existance of a multi layered defence against a MAC.
We are removing 2 very important layers when you change from C to E. You are removing ATC separation for VFR's (Traffic information is suggestions to pilots, it is not separation), which in effect means the IFR's also flying in the airspace is no longer being completely separated by the controller. The second one is the layer of defence where the pilots broadcast, hear there may be someone in the area and work it out between themselves. The IFR's will be on ATC freq post NOV 27, god knows what the VFR's will be on.
Anyway all this has been said before, but Snarek, won't ever admit E is less safe than C, and hence NAS is less safe. He always just goes on about how lots of G is changing to E. Fine that is the case but it is the C to E, where the big fast heavy jets will most likely collect a happily paid up AOPA member on his nose on descent into Alice Springs.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANSA
I am trying. However this was put to a vote while I was not there and was very close. I respect the decision of the majority, but I won't stop pushing.
I won't support this because it doesn't take a lot of reading amongst these threads to discover a 'commercial airspace' mentality backed up by a 'priority system' that disadvantages our members.
In real life this is epitomised by 'no radio' regionals who think they not only own the sky, but the tarmac as well, and taxi out regardless of who is on short final!!!
If your position is no change, then we will have to agree to disagree, but as I once said to ****zu-Tonka in an unaswered PM, come up with a solution that meets all our needs and we will consider it.
AK
The frequency thing is pretty simple to change back and getting the VFR's to continue to speak up is something AOPA could help with.
The changing off alot of airspace from C into E, and the resultant VFR's flying in airspace without a clearance, whereas before Nov 27 they needed one.
In real life this is epitomised by 'no radio' regionals who think they not only own the sky, but the tarmac as well, and taxi out regardless of who is on short final!!!
If your position is no change, then we will have to agree to disagree, but as I once said to ****zu-Tonka in an unaswered PM, come up with a solution that meets all our needs and we will consider it.
AK
