karrank

It's very clear in the US ATC Handbook that the link between C airspace and radar is because (for reasons best known to themselves) a "protection area" (a predicted area that will contain the possible positions of the flight) can be put around an IFR flight, but not a VFR flight. Hence C airspace where there is radar, and nothing beyond E (in Enroute airspace) if there isn't. Under their rules, if a VFR flight was given clearance through C airspace without radar contact the only separation standard available with IFR flights would be vertical.

Here it works (worked) differently, if a pilot indicates O on the flight plan we know he has and can use a VOR and we can use the appropriate tolerance. There are published tolerances for visual flight. The towers that Dick feels so sorry for when they were separating IFR from VFR in C airspace were doing something the Yanks COULDN'T (despite their fabled "Can-do" attitude that Mike Smith slavered about on the road.) For every VFR flight moved from his god-given flight path on one of these teary encounters there was an IFR being moved also. I don't hear them complaining.

You are fixing something that isn't broken. The majority of towers that have had their workload reduced operate with a duty staff of one anyway, so nothing has been saved. They'll just be a little more out of practice and a little bit less capable next time a complex separation problem arises, and will get less capable as time goes on. This whole project (and the others you have tainted or provoked) merely indulge your blinkered fetishes.

Thank you anyhow Dick, for not hiding behind the "chart simplification" flag. It is sabotage of the radio-separation culture that Australian pilots seem to expect. I have no opinion either way, I'm not a pilot, but it's nice to hear somebody come out from the bunker and say why the green lines have gone.

piniped

To all the AOPA guys out there that seem to believe that NAS is the panacea to the current downturn in GA in this country.

Interesting article in a recent Flight magazine said that it is a Global downturn in GA...so do you really believe that we here in OZ can reverse the trend using some ill conceived "new" ideas?
Or are you all that insular that you don't think the global market affects us in Oz?

I remember back in the good old days of full reporting, Flight Service, Controlled airspace and OCTA.

The GA industry was booming...even with all that extra "gold plated" stuff going on. Now why was that?

I don't remember too many VFR guys getting knocked back (unless it was a VFR helo trying to get from Terry Hills into his office in the SY CTR, back in the dark ages).
That change to the SY CTR was overdue, and Dick should be applauded for his tireless efforts in getting it brought in.
Many people will say that it was mainly for his own benefit that he went to all that trouble..doesn't matter really, he did it and it was worth while.

Unfortunately, it seems that it may have created a monster that could only see his own point of view.

Can anyone from the pro NAS camp, come out in the national media and state that this system is safer than what was previously in place? Or is it merely affordably more safe, and how exactly is that being determined.

I can only echo what others have said far more eloquently than I, if the VFR guys are basically opting out of the system in a user pays system, why is anyone paying them any notice? Surely the heavy metal end of town and IFR guys (who will be footing the bills) should have just about the first last and every word on the subject.

The VFR guys are there for their own pleasure, the others have to use the airspace for their livelihood.

Snarek, if you can afford to own and run an aircraft, you can afford to have the thing fitted out with what is required for the safe flight (to yourself and other airspace users). You will not get too many people feeling sympathy for a private aircraft owner when they may be flying in an RPT aircraft and they come into close proximity to a non ssr equipped buggy.

PS how come you haven't used your other handle of ULM for a while?

ferris

Your silence on 98% of the safety concerns raised on this forum is deafening. You choose, instead, to try and defend yourself over a slight on your personality! Read the forums, and if you can't see where to direct your energies, then I give up. I'm sure that a professional pilot will tell you that when he is in controlled airpspace that most of the calls he hears aren't directly for him, either. Is the solution for him to turn the radio off? I'm sorry if your priveleged life has enamoured you to personal service, but sometimes public services have to be provided- TO THE PUBLIC. The yanks consider their ATS a public service- why aren't you avidly campaigning for that model? Or their charging model? The selective nature of your crusade makes me just a little cynical of your motives.

Chief galah

Having been out of town this week and watching the pathetic media coverage of NAS from a distance, it's little wonder the punters would be confused.

7.30 Report - RB flying up Victor 1 trying to find traffic close by.

ML Age - Ari from Pearsons in ML flogging their PA27 around the edge of the zone.

Ted Lang - talking about dodgem cars?%$#?*&%

Ch 7 BN - interview with M. Smith - what th!! Give us an answer please!

Not a NAS issue among them.

The NAS people must be delighted with the misinformation. Not a chance of addressing the realilities.

As for the stuck-up, nerdy, smarmy, smug, twerp on the NAS info number, who was embarrassingly uninformed, you my friend, are an idiot.

CG

Max Range

Picked up my "new, improved" NAS VTC and VNC today. That VNC used to be such a useful chart. Post-Nov 27, not only have they removed the area frequency boundaries, there are no area frequencies at all on the VNC. So one has to buy an ERC as well.
AND GUESS WHAT!
The price for an ERC this week? $3.15. And now ASA have effectively made ERCs compulsory, I'm informed the price for that chart will go up to $9.20 in December. How can ASA justify this price rise of nearly 300%?

snarek

Dick

As you know AOPA supports NAS 2b and generally supports the whole concept.

Speaking PERSONALLY I'd like to explore...

OK, boundaries I can understand. but even my little Grumman does 140 knots. 126.7 (or whatever) is OK if I call say 10 - 15 out, but then I am on CTAF in the 'congregation zone', I have two readios, why can't I be 'taught' so to speak to MONITOR area on 118.X for IFR incoming, outgoing.

to do that I need the freqs in a Tim-Tam near that CTAF.

Now, by biggest gripe. Lets say I am flying Moruya to Can'tberra up the Araluen at 6500. I get to Majors Creek. I look for approach on my VTC or VNC, it isn't there!!!!

I swear at Airservices and you.

I fumble in the back for my Besser Block ... sorry. useless ERSA (thinking this is a marketing ploy now).

I fumble with the brick looking for Can'tberra.

I find approach just in time to be told of my VCA!!!!

OR, I call tower (there it is in the Tim-Tam).

They get the s%$#s with me cos they are really busy (two Dash-8 and a C150), the read back the approach freq, but I cant hear it cos someone coming the other way calls on top.

My point.

Why no Approach freqs???

AK

Aussie Andy

G'day fellas,

Speaking as a private pilot in the UK, we simply plan ahead before we fly and write down the appropriate frequencies we anticipate will be required. This includes relevant ATC, TWR, MATZ, ATIS, etc. and is recorded on the PLOG. What is so hard? Planning ahead is easy. Why I should expect to find this info on the map I don't know!?

Good luck with the transition guys: I think with hindsight this will seem a storm ina teacup... especially the maps / radio freqs issue... sheesh!

Andy

pesawat_terbang

Andy

Yeah, but we were sold a "VFR navigation Chart" as a one map solution.

Why have to write em down when they can be on the map in the first place?????

PT

Aussie Andy

G'day pesawat: My thoughts on this are as follows:

• Is it really so difficult to look things up before you fly? Why does this seem such a big deal for you guys, I mean its hardly onerous?
• I believe its good arimanship to look things up prior to flight ... in case they have changed is one reason (maps not cycled as often as some other docs - but this may not be the same in your enviromnet)...
• but, moreover, it is a good planning exercise to go over your route before flyign it - do you prepare a PLOG, or just jump in and go?
• If you do prepare a PLOG, its no additional work to write down the freqs.
• If you just jump in and go, then I hope you are either very experienced, or maybe you have another PPL along in the right hand seat and can split the workload. If low hrs PPL, planning ahead must be better, n'est-ce pas?

This is just how it strikes me. Sorry if you viloently disagree - ready for the flames!!

Andy

snarek

Andy

I used to plot all the freqs and transition on my WAC Chart. But that was before I started to go IFR. I now use the ERC low and the WAC just to check LSALT (I like to visualyse Cumulo-Granite as I fly around Cairns).

Where Pesawat is coming from is the VNCs. Sorta like big VTCs. If you are in a VNC area (sadly not NQ even though we have almost continuous C from Brisbane to Cairns), you have all the airspace and all the freqs on one chart. Not any more.

The VTC is a good map for a short hop, like the one I decribed to Dick and which I am sure he knows well. 57 NM. not a great deal of planning, 115 on the VOR and off I go.

But now there are no app freqs on the maps. Not identifyably approach anyway. I think that will clag the tower freqs as people try to get in and are passed back.

While I generally support NAS, I think the frequency issue is a retrograde step and should be fixed.

AK

Four Seven Eleven

Aussie Andy
I asked you on a previous thread: "Where would a PPL look up the area frequency?"

Given that you fly in the UK, you may not know the Austalian answer, but I would appreciate it if you or anyone else could let me know. (This is a genuine question -I don't know if the answer is in fact as simple as it seems to be in the UK)

Also, would not having the frequncies on the chart make mid-flight changes (e.g. diversions, level changes) much simpler?

Aussie Andy

G'day Four Seven ElevenFor NAS in Australia, my understanding from the training materials available - even at this distance - on the web is that the point is NOT to use the AREA frequency, but to use the APPROPRIATE frequency. See http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspaceref...e_guide%20.pdf page 27 which lists APPROPRIATE FREQUENCY - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VFR OPERATIONS. ATC is one of the choices (third down the list after TWR/MBZ/CTAF, listed in ERSA etc., and MULTICOM 126.7 - which you are just meant to know). I believe from what has been said that the ATC frequencies are available on various charts and in what has been described in the biscuit boxes on the new maps.

Seeing as you ask, in the UK you can find APPROPRIATE frequencies in much the same way. Instead of ERSA we have publications such as Jeppesen/Bottlang VFR Guide and Pooleys which give TWR and APP frequencies. Also available in the AIP of course, which in the UK is online at www.ais.org.uk. Register for apassword (easy to do) and you could have a look inside at an airfield plate. Try for example, say, Shoreham EGKA (near Brighton). Go to http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/html/egka.htm and in particular within this section http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/p...es/302KA01.PDF and http://www.ais.org.uk/aes/pubs/aip/p...s/32KA0201.PDF and you will find ATIS, TWR, APP (approach) frequencies listed there. (There are other sources for this information). NOTE by the way that this IS NOT an ATC area frequency.

So if I was flying, say, from my home airfield in Oxfordshire to, say, Dieppe via SFD VOR then my track would, as it happens, take me near to Shoreham in Class G, outside their local ATZ (2NM radius zone which they control). I would say to myself "I think it APPROPRIATE" to write down the Shoreham APP frequency on my PLOG. Then, when transiting nearby their airspace, say within 10NM, and after QSY'ing from Farnborough LARS (who would just say "freecall enroute") I would at least monitor Shoreham APP, and I may well call them for a Flight Information Service. This would not give me any separation, but would give me traffic information if they knew if. They definitely cannot see the traffic (NO RADAR!) and not all traffic in the area would be on their frequency (or necessarily on any frequency), so I would still also be required to SEE AND AVOID, which is what VFR is all about. They will also be handling IFR / GA approaches to their field on this frequency, by the way.

And all of this seems to work fine - in the much greater traffic density that is experienced in Sothern England than might typically the case at a non-radar destination in Australia, like e.g. Williamtown during the holidays when the MIL guys are all away on leave (which is one of my few flying experiences at home in Asutralia).

Hope this helps?


Andy

triadic

Dick Smith


Yes, Dick it was a bit tough, but I am sure that realise that even tho' you are a successful businessman etc., you are not a career aviator. Your experience and knowledge is certainly significant, and your motivation towards this change process is also significant. I know you have a lot to offer and it is my belief that you could do most off what you want with most everyone on side, if you tackled it slightly differently. But then you probably might say you may have not have been so successful if you had followed tradition? No win I guess? Is there middle ground?

However….

I would suggest that every proposed airspace change from AMATS on could have been introduced successfully if you had stayed right out of it (or at least right in the background). Sure we have only got this far because you have the ability to pick up the phone and call the Prime Minister and any other politician that the average Joe does not. You also obviously have much political influence which I suggest from observation you use from time to time to further your cause. NAS 2b is a political push, make no bones about it. I guess if you are doing the pushing then everyone else has to toe the line with your ideas or just butt out? Certainly the Minister is not listening to anyone but you right now. This is not the way business is undertaken in aviation and the Minister should know better if he really wants to promote aviation reform and aviation safety in particular.

Many aviation professionals (those that get paid for it) see you as a Private pilot regardless of your experience and qualifications. This does not necessarily place you in a position of respect with the industry at large, even if you are a nice bloke with all the right motives. The issue with airspace changes is and always will be in how those changes are "sold". The debate on 2b has only been brought about because nobody really understands why it is all going this way, especially as many believe that we already had "worlds best practice". Certainly I would be the first to agree that our airspace model needed an overhaul, but with the appropriate methodology and industry involvement it might have been a walk in the park.

I don't believe the issue is really about what is in the NAS proposal, but in the way it is presented and understood by those within the industry. One of the reasons we have so much angst on this matter is that the motive has not been sold or what's more understood. The savings are questioned and most would say highly dubious. The levels of safety are of concern to many and many pilots just don't understand the message.

The ARG is a joke and has little respect as a group, although the individuals thereon may be ok people it has never come out and made any public comment or statements in support of what it is doing, nor has it held open forum with industry representatives to discuss many of the issues that industry leaders have a problem with. This is no way to do business in aviation – you only get the opposition that you now see. This has been left to poor old Mike and the NASIG, again good people just trying to do a job, but failing because the direction they have been given is seen as totally inflexible.

For example, when it was obvious that the training package was not going to be in place some 3 months before the planned intro date, then the call should have been made and the implementation postponed. There are still pilot's not in receipt of their package and nobody has picked up the banner to take responsibility for training the trainers and for standardisation. (CASA?? Cant seem the for dust… not in their budget I suspect)

From what I hear the meeting called by Minister Anderson last Friday came out very strongly with concerns on the education and how it should have been handled. Sadly many of us have seen it before where the implementation date drives the project or the change process. The implementation date should only be agreed upon when the whole package is complete including all the education. To do otherwise is to put the cart well in front of the horse.

Even CASA said that the major mitigator on the implementation of 2b was education. What we have seen to date is only token and not for real. Only time will tell how many pilots got right into their package and understood it. You can bet many did not, but with a good plan and presentation they could have been picked up.

If you are of the belief that NAS will be the saviour of GA, which is now suffering it's worst time in history, then you obviously know something that many do not. I have seen numerous pilots give flying away over the years and usually it is all cost related. Certainly the introduction of user pays and a lack of an understanding by both Commonwealth and State Governments of the value of aviation and it's infrastructure is a significant factor that is not given the support it needs, because I guess it usually means high expense for not many votes. Well of late, I suggest there are certainly many pilots still walking away because of the cost, but now they are also walking or maybe running away because it is "over regulated", "too complicated", "strict liability" "in-fighting", etc. That certainly did not feature a decade or more ago. The direction of CASA must take responsibility for this. Any wonder it is really the CARA – they are more concerned with regulation than with safety. And as you would know, one can be 100% compliant and not safe – something the legal people in CASA and AG Dept just don't understand.

The standard of flying training is with few exceptions the worst we have seen and the standards of testing have been compromised by a system that does not work. A pilot passing a CPL today would not have passed a PPL 15 plus years ago. Now I wonder why that is?

Why is AOPA now floundering? Did you really use that platform as a stepping stone to other things? Many feel that you did and then you walked away at a crucial time. The last decade of that organisation has been quite tragic, something you should understand and perhaps take some responsibility for. Remember that a strong AOPA might have made a difference of late.

Bottom line

Yes we can have airspace reform and a vibrant GA sector. BUT… it takes some understanding by those that make the policy decisions and provide the marketing of change to process it with a minimum of fuss for it to occur. The flow-on effects are just not seen, let alone forecast.

Place your energy into some of these other aspects of aviation and you may well be seen as a Messiah.


(Nothing personal, but you did ask…. Apologies for the long post.)


"No known traffic"

KAPTAIN KREMIN

Heard this:

2 days after the fact in new E.

Dick, John and others you were nearly broke for life from litigation and you were warned- there but for the grace of GOD.

Nose to nose, precisely, two SW4's, at mid levels, one V on descent and one I on climb and 10 NM apart, 600kts closing. Different freqs and no TCAS.

Non-controlling airspace controller intervened and suggested one go left 30 degrees. Not pretty I believe. Count me out for E into D or similar. Heard something else happened in the vicinity of TAM on the 26th, where else, what else, but who keeps the stats.

This, of course, is normal therefore - no incident reports????

Shitsu-Tonka

Dick Smith,

My opinion only - you are a bloody disgrace and have a cheek poking your dial in here when there have been months of genuine questions about the process, consultation and operational implementation of this farce. You and the NASIG had a well disciplined policy of no comment except to roll out that Mike Smith puppet to speak loudly and say nothing whenever our media could be forced into addressing this issue. Will you be ducking for cover and rolling him out to take the blame when it ****s up as well?

So tell me this - where are the savings? Where is the improvement for VFR? Where for IFR? Where for anyone? Where are the 70M bucks from Willoughby's fable?

And finally.... why I am wasting my time asking you?

Aussie Andy

**** su What would your MUm think mate? Try and keep it civil, eh!?

I suppose people like you wonder why noone listens to you, eh?

twodogsflying

I can confirm KAPTAIN KREMIN's post about the 2 Metros. The one that was asked to turn 30 degrees was actually flying VFR (non RPT) at Flight Levels and being IFR trained they where on the ATC frequency, otherwise the instruction would have been missed and the inevitable happened.

Also lucky it was in Radar coverage!

Now we have High Peformance Turbo Props flying VFR to save costs! How is this safer?

DirectAnywhere

As an instructor I never used to let students use a VNC for two reasons.

1. The scale was a pain in the a$%e as at 1:500,000, at some point during the flight, usually diversions etc., you usually end up with a piece of paper the size of an unfolded tablecloth covering the window, instruments etc.

2. The coverage was (and still is) somewhat limited, meaning if the pilot had to go somewhere without a VNC they wouldn't kow where to find basic operational info such as area freqs, CTA boundaries etc. See my point...?

I haven't seen an ERC Low for a little while but surely the frequencies must still be on there (?) I don't agree with NAS per se but the idea that if the frequencies aren't on the VFR chart, they're not available, seems a little strange to me.

Buy a WAC, buy an ERC Low and plot your track on both. The frequencies (hopefully) you will need should all be on the ERC or in ERSA.

Although, referring to Max Ranges post

Owwww....that's gotta hurt.

Also, it's good to see Dick Smith using his real name, as much as I disagree with his ideas. I wouldn't be so game...

WhatWasThat

Directanywhere
Nope, they have taken the FIA boundaries off the ERC. All part of a cunning plan to encourage you to "see and avoid".

Hempy

....... stay there