NAS - The Political Farce Continued (Thread 5)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS - The Political Farce Continued (Thread 5)
Starting Again - more for amusement than anything else at this stage.
The dollar button on the NAS'ometer has fallen off anyway.
The dollar button on the NAS'ometer has fallen off anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did 1.8 VFR yesterday, some of it thru' two outer holding patterns used for NAT. I think it was a lot easier monitoring the "appropriate ATS frequency," found conveniently on the VNC, than trying to avoid whatever the limits of the holding patterns could be. Didn't hear any relevant traffic, so why go out of my way?
The frequency was moderately busy with traffic from ground level to FL outer space. Obviously combined low and high frequencies with the one controller. As Ferris, I think, put it in a previous post, frequency clutter is more manufactured by ASA intra management of staff rather than over use by pilots.
CG
The frequency was moderately busy with traffic from ground level to FL outer space. Obviously combined low and high frequencies with the one controller. As Ferris, I think, put it in a previous post, frequency clutter is more manufactured by ASA intra management of staff rather than over use by pilots.
CG
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too right.
AsA sacked the FS officers, and their radio comms role is now performed by ATCs. The ATCs perform this role by combining the old FS frequencies with the ATC frequencies. This was all done in the name of efficiency (despite the warnings about frequency congestion- just more union whinging!). So now the ATCs have the flexibility of splitting off the low-level freqs when freq congestion gets too much, and then combining back up again when it is quiet (ie at night). This provides an efficiency for AsA, but the only way to get rid of any more staff is to stop the VFRs from talking. The IFRs in G, although not totally predictable, are more predictable than VFR in their flying patterns and use of radio and services. At the moment, AsA has to staff positions that may or may not be used (depending on wx etc). So if you stop VFR freq use, you can get rid of a few more jobs. Stop DTI and you can really slash and burn (this is AsA thinking btw).
The fault in the plans.
When they sacked the FS officers, frequency congestion didn't allow anywhere near the number of ATC jobs to be deleted as they had hoped. In fact, much higher paid ATCs were now doing some jobs that were previously done by FS.
Now Mike Smith fronts the Senate committee and says they need to change the airspace (because of a situation that they created- freq congestion).
What he really means is that AsA is driven by a profit imperitive, and that the only way managers can make their performance targets (and therefor their bonuses) is to make the NAS changes, reduce VFR chatter, reduce the need for ATCs doing FS, sack people.
The flaws in that plan have been hashed to death on the previous incarnations of this thread.
Summary of the NAS so far:
-AsA creates freq congestion
-solution....change the airspace into a stupid and dangerous form that will allow the overcharging and defacto taxation to continue, all in a misguided attempt at staff reduction
-AsA runs the numbers, and finds it may even need more staff to run NAS than under the present system
-make the 'end state' of NAS a secret. That way you don't have to tell anyone that you are going to remove DTI until the very last minute, and after you have passed the point of no return, and hope that crash or crash thru continues to work.
-industry wants, and is willing to pay for, DTI. solution....NAS (cost shift the provision of DTI to CAGROs that are paid for by the companies directly- a la AYE) The flaws in that have also been done to death.
AsA is allegedly a "business enterprise". You don't often see businesses actively trying to close themselves down. Usually, they try and expand. Then again, governments never were much good at running "businesses", were they?
I also wait with baited breath the re-introduction of FS and briefing offices. They have them in the US, and we are getting the US system, right?
AsA sacked the FS officers, and their radio comms role is now performed by ATCs. The ATCs perform this role by combining the old FS frequencies with the ATC frequencies. This was all done in the name of efficiency (despite the warnings about frequency congestion- just more union whinging!). So now the ATCs have the flexibility of splitting off the low-level freqs when freq congestion gets too much, and then combining back up again when it is quiet (ie at night). This provides an efficiency for AsA, but the only way to get rid of any more staff is to stop the VFRs from talking. The IFRs in G, although not totally predictable, are more predictable than VFR in their flying patterns and use of radio and services. At the moment, AsA has to staff positions that may or may not be used (depending on wx etc). So if you stop VFR freq use, you can get rid of a few more jobs. Stop DTI and you can really slash and burn (this is AsA thinking btw).
The fault in the plans.
When they sacked the FS officers, frequency congestion didn't allow anywhere near the number of ATC jobs to be deleted as they had hoped. In fact, much higher paid ATCs were now doing some jobs that were previously done by FS.
Now Mike Smith fronts the Senate committee and says they need to change the airspace (because of a situation that they created- freq congestion).
What he really means is that AsA is driven by a profit imperitive, and that the only way managers can make their performance targets (and therefor their bonuses) is to make the NAS changes, reduce VFR chatter, reduce the need for ATCs doing FS, sack people.
The flaws in that plan have been hashed to death on the previous incarnations of this thread.
Summary of the NAS so far:
-AsA creates freq congestion
-solution....change the airspace into a stupid and dangerous form that will allow the overcharging and defacto taxation to continue, all in a misguided attempt at staff reduction
-AsA runs the numbers, and finds it may even need more staff to run NAS than under the present system
-make the 'end state' of NAS a secret. That way you don't have to tell anyone that you are going to remove DTI until the very last minute, and after you have passed the point of no return, and hope that crash or crash thru continues to work.
-industry wants, and is willing to pay for, DTI. solution....NAS (cost shift the provision of DTI to CAGROs that are paid for by the companies directly- a la AYE) The flaws in that have also been done to death.
AsA is allegedly a "business enterprise". You don't often see businesses actively trying to close themselves down. Usually, they try and expand. Then again, governments never were much good at running "businesses", were they?
I also wait with baited breath the re-introduction of FS and briefing offices. They have them in the US, and we are getting the US system, right?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a question...
Now, I'm not really a pilot - I've only got 50 hours and I've not been flying in about 3 years - and I'm not an air traffic controller either. My "qualification" is a brand new degree in aviation management, but please don't hold that against me.
It would seem to me that NAS might work outside the terminal areas, where there is a low traffic density, especially outside radar coverage. My reasoning for this is that, without surveillance, Class E airspace is not really all that different to Class G airspace, which is what is out there currently. I'm told that with all the frequency coupling going on, monitoring the area frequency for relevent traffic is not really all that effective for gaining a situational awareness of the local traffic anyway - because of all that frequency clutter manufactured by AsA. What is the difference if a VFR pilot doesn't monitor the frequency at all and makes no transmissions?
Am I wrong in suggesting that there would not be much change, in a practical sense, outside the terminal areas? Don't pilots flying outside radar coverage rely on see-and-avoid separation anyway? If I'm right, does that mean that there are no real safety issues with NAS outside terminal areas? Is the problem really limited to terminal areas, where the airspace is being downgraded from Class C or D to Class E?
I'm not advocating NAS in any way here, because if I'm right, there's no real point in changing the system and wasting a lot of money doing it!
Oz Mate!
It would seem to me that NAS might work outside the terminal areas, where there is a low traffic density, especially outside radar coverage. My reasoning for this is that, without surveillance, Class E airspace is not really all that different to Class G airspace, which is what is out there currently. I'm told that with all the frequency coupling going on, monitoring the area frequency for relevent traffic is not really all that effective for gaining a situational awareness of the local traffic anyway - because of all that frequency clutter manufactured by AsA. What is the difference if a VFR pilot doesn't monitor the frequency at all and makes no transmissions?
Am I wrong in suggesting that there would not be much change, in a practical sense, outside the terminal areas? Don't pilots flying outside radar coverage rely on see-and-avoid separation anyway? If I'm right, does that mean that there are no real safety issues with NAS outside terminal areas? Is the problem really limited to terminal areas, where the airspace is being downgraded from Class C or D to Class E?
I'm not advocating NAS in any way here, because if I'm right, there's no real point in changing the system and wasting a lot of money doing it!
Oz Mate!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ozm8 (good handle),
I think that the issues are somewhat more complex; the cost of providing E and C is the same, arguably it costs more for E, radar or not.
It is clear that class C is safer than class E. Equally you can say class E is safer than class G.
What is happening here is a “vast amount” of class C is being replaced by E, a downgrade in safety for probably extra cost... It's harder to do E than C due to its unpredictable, ever changing environment. Harder equals more ATCs. Great work folks. See the USA model, more ATCs per flight hour, why?
This is then "offset" with a small band of levels i.e. two IFR levels, over a massive area, which is currently G airspace being replaced by E; where there is no identifiable lack of safety in it being G, due to the particular levels; i.e. high… No cost savings... Same workload issues, same ATC numbers needed.
Over Tassie the class C is replaced by class G between Fl125 and FL145; demonstrably less safe. no cost savings...
Less safety, more cost for those that pay = more flexibility to those that don't.
Dodgy unique procedures not available anywhere else in the world too; the whole package doesn’t smell to good. No consultation with those that don't like any element; well not after the first complaint.
Advantages for most is no pay (in E) for all the things that they currently don’t pay for in C; but it is the nasty ATCs don’t give me a clearance… because I didn’t flight plan; you mongrels… But there’s no traffic, I know, you don’t, so you should just jump and give me first priority because I’m noisy… I’ll fix you, I’ll get rid of you… How, lets change all the CTA into OCTA; done, no more pesky ATCs. Sure...
Did you know that IFATCA describes class E as uncontrolled airspace? They are currently lobbying ICAO to have them also declare it as such, uncontrolled airspace with enhanced IFR services… You know it makes sense…
Bottle of Rum
I think that the issues are somewhat more complex; the cost of providing E and C is the same, arguably it costs more for E, radar or not.
It is clear that class C is safer than class E. Equally you can say class E is safer than class G.
What is happening here is a “vast amount” of class C is being replaced by E, a downgrade in safety for probably extra cost... It's harder to do E than C due to its unpredictable, ever changing environment. Harder equals more ATCs. Great work folks. See the USA model, more ATCs per flight hour, why?
This is then "offset" with a small band of levels i.e. two IFR levels, over a massive area, which is currently G airspace being replaced by E; where there is no identifiable lack of safety in it being G, due to the particular levels; i.e. high… No cost savings... Same workload issues, same ATC numbers needed.
Over Tassie the class C is replaced by class G between Fl125 and FL145; demonstrably less safe. no cost savings...
Less safety, more cost for those that pay = more flexibility to those that don't.
Dodgy unique procedures not available anywhere else in the world too; the whole package doesn’t smell to good. No consultation with those that don't like any element; well not after the first complaint.
Advantages for most is no pay (in E) for all the things that they currently don’t pay for in C; but it is the nasty ATCs don’t give me a clearance… because I didn’t flight plan; you mongrels… But there’s no traffic, I know, you don’t, so you should just jump and give me first priority because I’m noisy… I’ll fix you, I’ll get rid of you… How, lets change all the CTA into OCTA; done, no more pesky ATCs. Sure...
Did you know that IFATCA describes class E as uncontrolled airspace? They are currently lobbying ICAO to have them also declare it as such, uncontrolled airspace with enhanced IFR services… You know it makes sense…
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few things Ozm8. The area around Alice Springs and Ayers Rock is non radar and at times has quite a lot of traffic and more important than density of traffic is the mix of traffic. You have C172's mixing it with WestWinds, 737's and 767's.
You say E airspace is not that different from G. The problem is they aren't just replacing G with E. They are replacing big chunks of C (very safe airspace everyone is positively controlled), to E (less safe airspace, some aircraft separated, othere are not).
Its apparent from your post that you haven't searched through the other 5 threads about NAS. If you had you would know all the problems with NAS, the concept and the implementation. Do yourself a favour (as Molly used to say) and give them a read. Then if you have any questions there are many people here will be happy to help you out.
SM4 pirate, you were typing reply same time as me. You stole my thunder, you Bastard!!!
Great minds think alike I spose.
I think Corals odds on when/if the NAS debacle will be stopped/postponed was on the finished thread but for the record my money is on the 24th of NOV. The monday before implementation. You heard it first here.
You say E airspace is not that different from G. The problem is they aren't just replacing G with E. They are replacing big chunks of C (very safe airspace everyone is positively controlled), to E (less safe airspace, some aircraft separated, othere are not).
Its apparent from your post that you haven't searched through the other 5 threads about NAS. If you had you would know all the problems with NAS, the concept and the implementation. Do yourself a favour (as Molly used to say) and give them a read. Then if you have any questions there are many people here will be happy to help you out.
SM4 pirate, you were typing reply same time as me. You stole my thunder, you Bastard!!!
Great minds think alike I spose.I think Corals odds on when/if the NAS debacle will be stopped/postponed was on the finished thread but for the record my money is on the 24th of NOV. The monday before implementation. You heard it first here.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Big V
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have tried to maintain an open mind regarding the NAS, however I believe I have found two possible solutions.
1
An enormus MBZ/CTAF that covers the entire country including 200 nm out to sea and up to 20,000 feet. Controlled Airspace above.
If an IFR aircraft is interested in climbing/desending through the Cowabungus CTAF, they just broadcast their intentions, any goon within 200 miles now has situational awareness.
2
Reject the entire concept on the 27th, and refuse to utilise the the system if possitive seperation cannot be garrenteed by ATC. Emagine the fuss the travelling public would make to QF deputy CEO Anderson.
Just my thoughts. The NAS has gone far beyond saving. The only way to change whats about to be put in place is an accident. I'll be requesting night shift to reduce my chances of collision.
best of luck,
Leatherdog
1
An enormus MBZ/CTAF that covers the entire country including 200 nm out to sea and up to 20,000 feet. Controlled Airspace above.
If an IFR aircraft is interested in climbing/desending through the Cowabungus CTAF, they just broadcast their intentions, any goon within 200 miles now has situational awareness.
2
Reject the entire concept on the 27th, and refuse to utilise the the system if possitive seperation cannot be garrenteed by ATC. Emagine the fuss the travelling public would make to QF deputy CEO Anderson.
Just my thoughts. The NAS has gone far beyond saving. The only way to change whats about to be put in place is an accident. I'll be requesting night shift to reduce my chances of collision.
best of luck,
Leatherdog
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM4 Pirate and ANSA - thanks for responding to my post! Most of my posts thus far have been completely ignored! 
Sure the issues are more complex! My final project at university was generally about the issues surrounding NAS - and it ended up being about 14,000 words, and I could have said more, given more time. I didn't even touch on the issues surrounding VFR-on-top and IFR pickup procedures.
I have read a good proportion of the other posts on NAS - I've not read it all because discussion seemed to descend into cheap political bickering at times and drifted away from the safety issues. I was only really interested in the safety issues before when I was writing my report, but now I guess I'm open to those arguments just like anyone else - it's really the only way possible to get the politicians to understand.
My previous post represents my understanding of what I've read so far and gleaned from speaking to various people in the industry. Sure it's simplified, but I didn't see the need to be overly complex - I was just asking a simple question. From the response I received, I suppose I should probably go back and read it all again.
Surely this goes against DS's theory of affordable safety? Would this not be heading into the realms of "UNaffordable UNsafety"?
Oz Mate!
Sure the issues are more complex! My final project at university was generally about the issues surrounding NAS - and it ended up being about 14,000 words, and I could have said more, given more time. I didn't even touch on the issues surrounding VFR-on-top and IFR pickup procedures.
I have read a good proportion of the other posts on NAS - I've not read it all because discussion seemed to descend into cheap political bickering at times and drifted away from the safety issues. I was only really interested in the safety issues before when I was writing my report, but now I guess I'm open to those arguments just like anyone else - it's really the only way possible to get the politicians to understand.
My previous post represents my understanding of what I've read so far and gleaned from speaking to various people in the industry. Sure it's simplified, but I didn't see the need to be overly complex - I was just asking a simple question. From the response I received, I suppose I should probably go back and read it all again.
Originally posted by SM4 Pirate:
Less safety, more cost for those that pay
Less safety, more cost for those that pay
Oz Mate!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozm8, you're missing Dick Smiths reason for all these changes. He calls it affordable safety, but what it really means is,
-Less safe airspace
-The Big guys pay more to fund the extra controllers needed to run it.
-The little guys instead of paying the pittance they do now, pay nothing as they can wander thru E airspace for free, instead of paying to go through C airspace as they used to.
Bottom line, the top end of town pays more, resulting in higher air fares, and the weekend warriors go from paying a little to paying nothing.
Worst thing is while paying nothing, they still can call up out of the blue and rely on the fact that ATC is still there, even though they contribute nothing to maintaining the service. That is if they can find the correct ATC frequency.
The world seems completely out of whack in my opinion. Got a black man as worlds best golfer, a black woman as worlds best tennis player, Switzerland a land locked country wins the Americas Cup Yacht race, England makes the final of a major international sporting event, and we have a guy who couldn't tie his own shoelaces as the President of the USA.
-Less safe airspace
-The Big guys pay more to fund the extra controllers needed to run it.
-The little guys instead of paying the pittance they do now, pay nothing as they can wander thru E airspace for free, instead of paying to go through C airspace as they used to.
Bottom line, the top end of town pays more, resulting in higher air fares, and the weekend warriors go from paying a little to paying nothing.
Worst thing is while paying nothing, they still can call up out of the blue and rely on the fact that ATC is still there, even though they contribute nothing to maintaining the service. That is if they can find the correct ATC frequency.
The world seems completely out of whack in my opinion. Got a black man as worlds best golfer, a black woman as worlds best tennis player, Switzerland a land locked country wins the Americas Cup Yacht race, England makes the final of a major international sporting event, and we have a guy who couldn't tie his own shoelaces as the President of the USA.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The little guys instead of paying the pittance they do now, pay nothing as they can wander thru E airspace for free, instead of paying to go through C airspace as they used to.
Because the nasty enroute controller won't be able to keep them out of the airspace?
How many get knocked back now, from an enroute clearance?
Bottle of Rum
(yes I already know the answers)
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 105 Likes
on
60 Posts
The term 'affordable safety' that Mr Smith seems to be so fond of using really bothers and worries me.
I remember seeing a poster on the door of the old Nationair offices at Jackson field in Port Moresby back in the early 90's
'If you think safety is expensive; try having an accident!'
I put no price on safety myself.
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
I remember seeing a poster on the door of the old Nationair offices at Jackson field in Port Moresby back in the early 90's
'If you think safety is expensive; try having an accident!'
I put no price on safety myself.
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so I have my new charts, I have studied the pilot info packs and I decide to go for a local flight on the 27th out of DN with a few friends. I dont intend to go that far ( within 20nm DN) so the only map i need is my VTC.
And after leaving class c and departures have advised "frequency chang approved" do you think I can find an "appropriate frequency" to monitor on that chart?????????????????!!!!!!!
There is only one frequency shown on the whole chart- DN TWR in very small writing in the nav box.
The biggest floor in this whole thing is the statement "monitor an appropriate frquency" just what that is is the biggest question and i think will vary from pilot interpretation!!!!
And after leaving class c and departures have advised "frequency chang approved" do you think I can find an "appropriate frequency" to monitor on that chart?????????????????!!!!!!!
There is only one frequency shown on the whole chart- DN TWR in very small writing in the nav box.
The biggest floor in this whole thing is the statement "monitor an appropriate frquency" just what that is is the biggest question and i think will vary from pilot interpretation!!!!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA MEMBERS
Re frequencies on charts.
I personally share the views expressed above.
I have seen similar things on VTCs for Cairns, Tvl and Canberra. No approach frequencies, so who does one call on the way in and out and what to monitor after flying into E. (in fact on the Tvl chart, and since the RAAF insist on having a different system, I'd like to see ACD as well!).
I have been told 'write it on the map', fine, if thats the answer, print the Maps with it on!!!
I believe we should be looking at a 'one map system' in and around C and D where we have a VTC, i.e all the info we need on the VTC. In busy areas it isn't a good idea to have ones head buried in a (almost useless) ERSA when, according to NAS, we should be looking outside.
I am not criticising NAS, just this phase of the implimentation, any AOPA member who shares my view (or otherwise) please let the Board know at:
www.aopa.com.au
AK
I personally share the views expressed above.
I have seen similar things on VTCs for Cairns, Tvl and Canberra. No approach frequencies, so who does one call on the way in and out and what to monitor after flying into E. (in fact on the Tvl chart, and since the RAAF insist on having a different system, I'd like to see ACD as well!).
I have been told 'write it on the map', fine, if thats the answer, print the Maps with it on!!!
I believe we should be looking at a 'one map system' in and around C and D where we have a VTC, i.e all the info we need on the VTC. In busy areas it isn't a good idea to have ones head buried in a (almost useless) ERSA when, according to NAS, we should be looking outside.
I am not criticising NAS, just this phase of the implimentation, any AOPA member who shares my view (or otherwise) please let the Board know at:
www.aopa.com.au
AK
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can add VNC's in there too!!
They were produced as an "all-in-one" chart for the VFR pilot in populous areas so that you only needed to carry one chart with you. The scale, markings and price were set accordingly.
I've debated with AsA and NASIG on this, but the direction to AsA was to REMOVE any freq's other than FIS from the VNC. The cheerfully helpful chap from AsA suggested that;
[a] I carry two charts; ERC/VNC - I queried whether or not he'd ever flown in a Tiger Moth and/or tried to fold ONE map inflight? you can guess the reply!!
[b] I could mark the frequenices I need on the VNC! Funny, but THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS PAYING THE B*ST*RDS TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
For 'single-seat' operations, there is a most unnecessary additional workload pre-flight and very limited ability to update/amend inflight.
Not happy Jan!
G'day
They were produced as an "all-in-one" chart for the VFR pilot in populous areas so that you only needed to carry one chart with you. The scale, markings and price were set accordingly.
I've debated with AsA and NASIG on this, but the direction to AsA was to REMOVE any freq's other than FIS from the VNC. The cheerfully helpful chap from AsA suggested that;
[a] I carry two charts; ERC/VNC - I queried whether or not he'd ever flown in a Tiger Moth and/or tried to fold ONE map inflight? you can guess the reply!!
[b] I could mark the frequenices I need on the VNC! Funny, but THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT I WAS PAYING THE B*ST*RDS TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
For 'single-seat' operations, there is a most unnecessary additional workload pre-flight and very limited ability to update/amend inflight.
Not happy Jan!
G'day
Oh boy!
I've never heard so much emotive waffle in my life.
You blokes are supposed to be pilots, yes? Presumably you chose aviation as a career because of the excitement, women, and money, possibly in the reverse order for those posting on this forum.
Take a long hard look at yourselves gentlemen, the chance of having a midair are extremely remote, in fact, if you will have done any research at all before blasting the NAS you will have noticed that THE PROVISION OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES IS NO GUARANTEE OF AVOIDING A COLLISION. In fact, many collisions have occurred in CTR's, while pilots were presumably busy doing other more important things since ATC was doing the looking out for them.
Do you guys realize that more than half the midairs involve gliders? Therefore, the already small numbers of midairs is in fact even less if considered in relation to powered aircraft.
We are worrying about something that is so small in terms of a safety risk that it barely shows up on the radar! Then, the fact is that many midairs occur in CTA or usually CTR's.
Think about this blokes. Do some research, decide for yourself, don't just get on the most populated bandwagon that happens to be passing. There are many more things that kill pilots and their pax on a regular basis than midairs, and oddly enough, the best defence is the old MK 1 eyeball. Yes, technology hasn't made them obsolete yet, so don't believe the rhetoric.
How many times have your trainers told you to look out? I know it does seem insincere when they might not do as they say, and there is no traffic around, but it is the ONLY SURE WAY TO PREVENT A MIDAIR, a good listening watch is supplementary to, but does not replace it.
And beware the safe and secure feeling of ATC separation, they are human, and so are you, but at least you should be more motivated to prevent your "target" merging with another.
Life's a bitch, then you fly!
I've never heard so much emotive waffle in my life.
You blokes are supposed to be pilots, yes? Presumably you chose aviation as a career because of the excitement, women, and money, possibly in the reverse order for those posting on this forum.
Take a long hard look at yourselves gentlemen, the chance of having a midair are extremely remote, in fact, if you will have done any research at all before blasting the NAS you will have noticed that THE PROVISION OF AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES IS NO GUARANTEE OF AVOIDING A COLLISION. In fact, many collisions have occurred in CTR's, while pilots were presumably busy doing other more important things since ATC was doing the looking out for them.
Do you guys realize that more than half the midairs involve gliders? Therefore, the already small numbers of midairs is in fact even less if considered in relation to powered aircraft.
We are worrying about something that is so small in terms of a safety risk that it barely shows up on the radar! Then, the fact is that many midairs occur in CTA or usually CTR's.
Think about this blokes. Do some research, decide for yourself, don't just get on the most populated bandwagon that happens to be passing. There are many more things that kill pilots and their pax on a regular basis than midairs, and oddly enough, the best defence is the old MK 1 eyeball. Yes, technology hasn't made them obsolete yet, so don't believe the rhetoric.
How many times have your trainers told you to look out? I know it does seem insincere when they might not do as they say, and there is no traffic around, but it is the ONLY SURE WAY TO PREVENT A MIDAIR, a good listening watch is supplementary to, but does not replace it.
And beware the safe and secure feeling of ATC separation, they are human, and so are you, but at least you should be more motivated to prevent your "target" merging with another.
Life's a bitch, then you fly!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Manwell, but those statistics might change in the brave new world.
What worries me IS the factual research thats been done on the subject.
We are trying to put elements together that may not fit.
Have you read the references papers refered to in the topic ' Continuing the Walk Through the NAS Reference Guide'?
If so, why are you pushing the 'there's no problem' barrow?
BP
What worries me IS the factual research thats been done on the subject.
We are trying to put elements together that may not fit.
Have you read the references papers refered to in the topic ' Continuing the Walk Through the NAS Reference Guide'?
If so, why are you pushing the 'there's no problem' barrow?
BP
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manwell
I think you miss the point and the picture is significantly larger than you elude to in your post by looking at just the risks of a mid-air.
It is not so much about what is in this proposal, but more on how it has been/is presented to the industry and what affect both long and short term it will have. GA is the worst it has been in living memory and NAS is not going to fix that one iota. (More than likely make it worse!) The guts and strength to make GA strong again belong to the politicians, but they suffer from a complete lack of interest in what is seen as a unimportant industry (if that, in some minds) and they don't see many votes in it. As a result the carrots that would bring GA out of trouble are not even planted.
As I have said on other posts the airspace reform education to date has been grossly inadequate and it will be only those that are briefed by a responsible AOC employer (who has a handle on what it is all about) and those that choose to read all of the documents in the self-help mode that may get some idea of what is in it. Of course without any standardisation and specific courses to train the trainers it is more than likely that we will end up in the same boat as the 1999 G trial where for every 100 pilots and controllers involved there were 90 different interpretations. The training failed then also, and by the look of it the proponents of this change did not learn from that experience. Why is this so? Politics I suggest?
The deliberate push to exclude VFRs from the airways system is almost criminal. Not even in the USA are they excluded or is there any "push" to keep them out, as has been demonstrated in the most miserable project management exercise (NAS) I have seen. The US has recommended practices which all pilots are trained in and how to use them and should they so choose the system is there to be used. Not here. We don't even train correctly or accept that VFRs should be encouraged to use the system. And then we fail again by removing essential safety information from charts which should have been addressed (reduce chatter on ATC freqs) in the education program. Why do you think that info was placed on the charts in the first place?
There is to date absolutely no recognition that there are significant culture differences between pilots in the USA and Oz. Sure we can go over there and fly in their system without much bother, to most of us it is easy and user friendly and there is a significant difference between the cultures of the controllers (who 'drive' the system) who over there almost without exception will help you out, workload permitting. Our controllers are good by world standards but the culture they present (maybe driven by the employer?) (with some few exceptions) is that life would be better if not for pilots and aeroplanes. The best example I can quote of this is an experienced ferry pilot that I know once said…"everywhere I fly, you are treated as a professional until you prove yourself to be an idiot, but cross the FIR boundary into OZ and you are treated as an idiot until you prove yourself to be professional"…. Say no more. I think it somewhat strange that the FAA provide more service than ASA who actually have "service" in their name. Controllers that I know here have actually been "spoken to" for providing that little bit beyond what the book states. If that is the culture of the organisation and the supervisors then we don't really have much chance. I wonder if the Quality Management System in ASA has identified the "customer" and then established if they are happy or not. Nobody has ever asked me! Makes a bit of a farce of QA and ISO certification. The idea that we can import the US system and drop it in the slot here is pure bunkum and show that the proponents just don't understand the issues. It could be done, but not in the present manner.
Sure the chance of a mid-air is "remote" but you don’t get a second chance if the dice falls your way one day. With the advent of GPS the tracking of aircraft is to an accuracy that we have never seen before and I would suggest the risk is higher as a result. There has already been one midair in Canada which may not have occurred if not for GPS. The ball game is altogether different now and I suggest statistics based on historic surveys etc are now irrelevant.
The pilot training in this country with very few exceptions is very poor and many items have fallen off the training cake as new ones have been inserted. And all this, together with a push to produce pilots with less hours and training than ever before. Airmanship fell off most training schools cake a decade or so ago and the rash of very poor displays of late, now show. Training (or lack of) is also a factor in many more accidents than it was 15 or 20 years ago. A pilot passing a CPL today would not have passed a pre-licence test for a PPL in the '80's. Again it is ironic that much of this deterioration in standards occurred about the same time that CAA/CASA Examiners/FOIs stopped conducting flight tests. Mind you, in that case the standards have fallen, not entirely because of the training, but because of the testing (standards).……
Get the training and testing/exams right and changes such as NAS would not be so much of an effort. Of course it helps to have such a project managed well driven by people that the industry have confidence in and for the politicians to stay right out of it.
Like previous attempts to change the airspace model (reform, I support) there is a good chance this will fail for the very same reasons as before. What are they you might say? Well for a start engage all players in the game from day one and then very carefully walk them through the proposed changes and why they are considered appropriate, and in the process get them on side. This has never been done.
Educate, educate and educate, because if people don't understand why they have to change and accept that the reasons are valid, the process open and advantages obvious to a blind man, then I am afraid all this money has been wasted (yet again) and the process is doomed.
It is very sad that the person behind the push for these changes be they agreed to or not, good or bad, is also the single reason that they are likely to fail. It is a pity that his energy and commitment to making aviation better in this country, lacks an understanding of the very problems he is trying to solve.
"No known traffic"
I think you miss the point and the picture is significantly larger than you elude to in your post by looking at just the risks of a mid-air.
It is not so much about what is in this proposal, but more on how it has been/is presented to the industry and what affect both long and short term it will have. GA is the worst it has been in living memory and NAS is not going to fix that one iota. (More than likely make it worse!) The guts and strength to make GA strong again belong to the politicians, but they suffer from a complete lack of interest in what is seen as a unimportant industry (if that, in some minds) and they don't see many votes in it. As a result the carrots that would bring GA out of trouble are not even planted.
As I have said on other posts the airspace reform education to date has been grossly inadequate and it will be only those that are briefed by a responsible AOC employer (who has a handle on what it is all about) and those that choose to read all of the documents in the self-help mode that may get some idea of what is in it. Of course without any standardisation and specific courses to train the trainers it is more than likely that we will end up in the same boat as the 1999 G trial where for every 100 pilots and controllers involved there were 90 different interpretations. The training failed then also, and by the look of it the proponents of this change did not learn from that experience. Why is this so? Politics I suggest?
The deliberate push to exclude VFRs from the airways system is almost criminal. Not even in the USA are they excluded or is there any "push" to keep them out, as has been demonstrated in the most miserable project management exercise (NAS) I have seen. The US has recommended practices which all pilots are trained in and how to use them and should they so choose the system is there to be used. Not here. We don't even train correctly or accept that VFRs should be encouraged to use the system. And then we fail again by removing essential safety information from charts which should have been addressed (reduce chatter on ATC freqs) in the education program. Why do you think that info was placed on the charts in the first place?
There is to date absolutely no recognition that there are significant culture differences between pilots in the USA and Oz. Sure we can go over there and fly in their system without much bother, to most of us it is easy and user friendly and there is a significant difference between the cultures of the controllers (who 'drive' the system) who over there almost without exception will help you out, workload permitting. Our controllers are good by world standards but the culture they present (maybe driven by the employer?) (with some few exceptions) is that life would be better if not for pilots and aeroplanes. The best example I can quote of this is an experienced ferry pilot that I know once said…"everywhere I fly, you are treated as a professional until you prove yourself to be an idiot, but cross the FIR boundary into OZ and you are treated as an idiot until you prove yourself to be professional"…. Say no more. I think it somewhat strange that the FAA provide more service than ASA who actually have "service" in their name. Controllers that I know here have actually been "spoken to" for providing that little bit beyond what the book states. If that is the culture of the organisation and the supervisors then we don't really have much chance. I wonder if the Quality Management System in ASA has identified the "customer" and then established if they are happy or not. Nobody has ever asked me! Makes a bit of a farce of QA and ISO certification. The idea that we can import the US system and drop it in the slot here is pure bunkum and show that the proponents just don't understand the issues. It could be done, but not in the present manner.
Sure the chance of a mid-air is "remote" but you don’t get a second chance if the dice falls your way one day. With the advent of GPS the tracking of aircraft is to an accuracy that we have never seen before and I would suggest the risk is higher as a result. There has already been one midair in Canada which may not have occurred if not for GPS. The ball game is altogether different now and I suggest statistics based on historic surveys etc are now irrelevant.
The pilot training in this country with very few exceptions is very poor and many items have fallen off the training cake as new ones have been inserted. And all this, together with a push to produce pilots with less hours and training than ever before. Airmanship fell off most training schools cake a decade or so ago and the rash of very poor displays of late, now show. Training (or lack of) is also a factor in many more accidents than it was 15 or 20 years ago. A pilot passing a CPL today would not have passed a pre-licence test for a PPL in the '80's. Again it is ironic that much of this deterioration in standards occurred about the same time that CAA/CASA Examiners/FOIs stopped conducting flight tests. Mind you, in that case the standards have fallen, not entirely because of the training, but because of the testing (standards).……
Get the training and testing/exams right and changes such as NAS would not be so much of an effort. Of course it helps to have such a project managed well driven by people that the industry have confidence in and for the politicians to stay right out of it.
Like previous attempts to change the airspace model (reform, I support) there is a good chance this will fail for the very same reasons as before. What are they you might say? Well for a start engage all players in the game from day one and then very carefully walk them through the proposed changes and why they are considered appropriate, and in the process get them on side. This has never been done.
Educate, educate and educate, because if people don't understand why they have to change and accept that the reasons are valid, the process open and advantages obvious to a blind man, then I am afraid all this money has been wasted (yet again) and the process is doomed.
It is very sad that the person behind the push for these changes be they agreed to or not, good or bad, is also the single reason that they are likely to fail. It is a pity that his energy and commitment to making aviation better in this country, lacks an understanding of the very problems he is trying to solve.
"No known traffic"
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Aust
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts