Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Nas End State!!!end It Now!!

Old 25th Nov 2003, 08:53
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Anti-NAS is a Union Beat Up!

The whole anti-NAS proparganda thing is just one big UNION BEAT UP. "End of Storey"

Lets get on with NAS.....................
Outback Pilot is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 09:01
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Out Back Pilot
Obviously you have never had a near miss. An accident will happen, and when it does the "affordable safety" will be very expensive!
RB63 is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 09:39
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 54

tobzalp, I'm trying to see things from your point of view but I can't get my head up my [email protected]#e far enough. The US just happens to have a couple more aircraft than Australia.
Bart Ifonly is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 09:50
  #24 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Thats right Bart. They do. Around 10 times. And 10 times the controllers and around 550% more radar coverage. Lets run with those figures then. That would give us 2 mid airs a year. That is 2 more than we should have just because of a political deal done by a bunch of no idea idiots and the most unoriginal person on earth.

I find yoga helps your flexibility. Pity I can't think of an exercise to help your intelligence.
tobzalp is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 10:45
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Bart, C182 , Piper arrow and 2b1ask1

Your posts demonstrate a frightening level of ignorance. No wonder the Proffessional pilot community is concerned about these changes if they will be forced to rely on the diligence of pilots like you people to keep them safe.

For goodness sake do some research and at least try to gain an understanding of the issues.

Start by asking yourselves why the vast majority of Aviation Proffessionals are against these changes. These changes were conceived by an amateur and are supported almost exclusively by amateurs.

The tired old "union beat up" line is hardly relevant when directed against AFAP and AIPA, what possible industrial concerns for pilots could there be in this???

I think it would be best if you toddled back to the AOPA forums from whence you came, this is grown up business.
WhatWasThat is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 11:40
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
The only RPT people who are against the move to NAS live on PPRuNe. The couple I have spoken to over the last few weeks, are all for it or maybe they just do not believe that their union is telling the whole truth to the travelling public.

Bring on the NAS....
Outback Pilot is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 12:15
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 54
WWT There were those that were against the introduction of GPS, there are also those that oppose change because thy can't handle it. Perhaps you would be better off joining the Flat Earth Society.
Bart Ifonly is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 13:43
  #28 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Angel NAS


Draw your pension and take up golf the only level of ignorance I see is yours or perhaps we should call it arrogance?.
2B1ASK1 is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 14:27
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,960
ffs...............who cares, just let em crash
Hempy is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 15:48
  #30 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Hey Hempy, I have to agree. Only problem is these ignorant f.u.c.k.s will take some other poor bastard with them.

They come on here and blurt out "Bring On Nas....YEH!!" like some Bruce Willis action hero, but don't take the time to read the concerns raised throughout all the threads and answer them. So for their benefit ( yes I know I am wasting my time) here we go again,

-The US is not the same as Australia, predominantly because they have more controllers per aircraft movement than we do, and vastly more radar coverage to work with. Compare apples with apples Australia does not have the infrastructure that the US has.
-The US has never discouraged VFR aircraft from broadcasting on Control frequencys, and certainly have not made the frequencys dissapear off the charts to "encourage" mute VFR pilots.
-TCAS cannot be relied upon because there is no requirement for the Mode C of the VFR to be checked and verified as being correct on a regular basis, and if flying in non radar airspace the Mode C could be wildly out (seen often) and cause an accident with an RPT responding to a TCAS RA not save one.
-How is this a union beatup when with all this E airspace there will be more controllers not less and there will still be the same number of RPT pilots. If it was all about vested interests, CivilAir (the controllers union for the ignorant) would be screaming from the rooftops that NAS was wonderful, as it will bring them more members paying there $1200 a year in subscriptions.
The rest you can find on all the other threads. I know you'll all drag your hairy knuckles across your keyboards and type the usual "Once upon a time in a pub far far away I spoke to two imaginary friends of mine who both were RPT pilots and they both loved NAS very very much, cos they love coming out of cloud and having Bitching Betty telling them to "Climb Climb Now" " Yep thats the way to run an Aviation industry.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 16:17
  #31 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 6
Thumbs down What the???

Bart, C182, Piper Arrow, 2B1ASK1,

I am in the RAAF and fly PC9s. I have no union affiliation whatsoever. I have had two extremely near misses, in my time at Pearce. With one we missed by about 30 feet with absolutely no time to react by either aircraft. Closure speed was about 400kts.
Both aircraft were VMC, operating VFR and the PC9 allows for excellent unrestricted vision.
SEE AND AVOID SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK! Pilots DO have to contend with higher workloads at times, which WILL degrade lookout. TWO WAY COMMUNICATION CAN HELP ORGANISATION OF SEPARATION, but by all accounts VFR traffic are being discouraged from using the radio. I have genuine concerns about NAS, stemming from what I perceive to be a reduction in services in order to reduce ATC costs by the government and to justify expenditure on TAATS. Make no bones about it - NAS = greater flexibility for VFR pilots, but GREATER DANGER TO IFR OPERATORS.

My $0.02 worth.
8kcab is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 18:35
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
A couple fo points we seem to be missing.

(And I am ignoring the frequency issue because when I'm not p!ssed off at plazbot i am arguing to put them back).

1. ATC must give IFR - IFR and KNOWN VFR.
2. Transponders become mandatory in E.

So, if you are letting down over Dunk Island, Merimbula, Moruya, Dubbo etc etc, where there is NO RADAR, won't the fact that the a/c in E have transponders INCREASE the safety levels???

The arguments that you are going so fast you are gonna hit em means that you will hit em in the CTAF because the ones in the CTAF won't be listening to you on the area even if it is printed on the maps. Remedy, faster planes make further out calls.

So, that seems safer to me.

Where there is RADAR, but no C or D won't the fact that the a/c will now be in E WITH transponders make it more likely the traffic will be KNOWN and thus passed to the IFR???

Or is there a cultural problem I am overlooking here???

snarek is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 00:47
  #33 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Planet Earth, Down Under
Posts: 115
Tell if we do see something coming towards the windscreen, how do I talk to them when in the publications they say that the aircraft might not be on the same frequency? great, yep just great. (helps without the boundaries to the frequencies!)

And if aircraft have to have transponders on in E why the hell not in G to vainly try to enhance safety?

P.S some of you might wnat to see how alot of professional organisations are telling their troops not to use the IFR pickup rubbish and the like...?

Agreed 8kcab, see and be seen - right! Bit too late when your windscreen if full of flying metal, so much for a mental situational big picture of the airspace around you when it's all too late!
Stick Pusher is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 02:32
  #34 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 567

Concur with your 0.02c worth. Mid-air collision has been the greatest perceived risk in that airspace since Pontius I think. And that's with radar, a gazillion procedures and highly vigilant pilots.... What hope for NAS?

Chronic Snoozer is online now  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 04:49
  #35 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere in Australia
Posts: 241

How does the average VFR pilot know their transponder is serviceable? I know for a fact that not all pilots turn them on… how often have you been given traffic on a VFR flight and then spoken to the aircraft and asked “have you got your transponder on?” then suddenly someone pops up on TCAS.. Now you will not know they are there, not be able to speak to them if they are not on the same frequency and what’s more even if they are listening out the decision made to reply to an all stations call are put in the hands of the least experienced…

As for see and avoid even given TCAS and directed traffic and being in contact with other traffic it is some times difficult to acquire a conflicting aircraft until after you have passed, at least now you are able to arrange your own separation OCTA with other aircraft because they are on the same frequency.

It’s a wonder air services haven’t suggested the fitting of car horns to aircraft to supplement the use of headlights I mean landing lights…

spinout is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 05:50
  #36 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139

Just wondering if the other traffic was military or civilian.

(not a wind up - just curiuous)
ugly is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 06:17
  #37 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 430

your argument can just as easily apply to those who dont turn on the radio, tune the correct frequency or dont know what to listen for or say at the appropriate times.

Stick Pusher, just because some organisations ban a procedure does not make it unsafe. My organisation bans us from accepting VFR, doesnt mean VFR is unsafe.

I have used IFR poickup, VFR on top in the US and it works fine; (was nice to have an Air to Air radar though) always had flight following though in radar coverage.
ftrplt is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 06:21
  #38 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787

Please stop pushing the XYZ of NAS, the X is OK, The Y is dodgy, the Z is unacceptable. Then you don't want the X, transponders in E do you? But you're prepared to hang onto that for your argument.

Many elements of the changes are acceptable, but the things that are not:

Class E above Class D towers;
Airspace design that doesn't capture IFR instrument procedural approaches;
Steps to steep, which force IFRs into G;
No identifiable safety 'benefit';
No identifiable cost savings to justify reducing safety;
Removal of frequency boundaries.

1. ATC must give IFR - IFR and KNOWN VFR.
2. Transponders become mandatory in E
What is known VFR, radar observed or VFR in receipt of a service; and it will be passed 'workload permitting'.

The problem with E airspace is this.

Outside radar coverage, TCAS and See and avoid are your only tools. BE20 RFDS aircraft (for example) without TCAS will not have a chance, high speed single pilot ops; lets hope their mark one eyeballs are freshly calibrated.

Inside radar coverage, the controller must spot the 'black track' (we've been trained to ignore them) assess it as a collision hazard and pass traffic to the IFR; this amost always will mean more ATCs looking at each screen, = increased costs.
The USA has two or three controllers per radar sector, why? unknown elements... Will we double our controller staff at radar sectors? This is why it will cost more.

If you make the assessment as the VFR is not a collsion risk, then get on with your other tasks, the VFR turns around, because it can (or just turns 30 degrees or so), and now is a collision risk, I have to spot it, stop doing the other tasks and ensure 'relative' safety, by issuing traffic.

If the radar controller does everything right, there still is a collision risk, (that just sucks).

With Class C airspace a pilot and/or a controller must make a mistake for a collision risk to exist.

With Class E airspace the risk of collision exists when nobody has made a mistake. TCAS is not fail safe.

This is similar to the USA model, but not the same...

Much less radar sites, less controllers per aircraft movement; these are undeniable facts. Much less traffic here, but the ratio of traffic to infrastructure and controllers is more in oz than in the US.

Bottle of Rum

I have used IFR pickup... and it works fine; (was nice to have an Air to Air radar though) always had flight following though in radar coverage.
Is IFR pickup in the USA applied to VFR or IFRs? Do the controllers worry about you or treat you differently to other VFRs?

My undertsanding is VFRs get an IFR pickup, which simply means please activate my IFR plan and give me a clearance.

We are doing it wrong, it's not a procedure that enables an IFR to switch to a super VFR category (VFR with SAR, FIS and DTI) and get into E without a clearance.

Are pilots being taught not to use VFR on TOP outside radar coverage? How can you issue VFR traffic outside radar coverage?

Bottle of Rum
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 08:07
  #39 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia.
Posts: 305

I heard Mr John Anderson in Parliament yesterday mention the fact that the current airspace design was based on design originating from the 1950's and 60's.

That may be true. But doesn't he and all the other champions of NAS realise that the concept of 'See and avoid" originated before WW1. How's that for archaic practice!!

May I suggest that there is some compulory reading out there. Pick up a copy of AIR DISASTER Volume 2 by Macarthur Job (ISBN 1 875671 19 6) (An australian publication). Turn to page 23. Read the tragic story and see those horrific diagrams and pictures of the PSA B727 colliding with a Cessna 172 in the circuit area at San Diego.

The intro reads:

"Are we clear of that Cessna?" - B727 F/O to Capt.

"Faultless inflight visibility, a primary airport control zone, state-of-the-art ATC radar equipment, a computer controlled conflict alert warning system, and experienced crews in both aircraft, all failed to prevent a horrific midair collision that took the lives of 144 people."

This tragic story does not support the view that positive atc control is ineffective as might be suggested from this intro. Rather, it demonstrates the pathetic inadequecy of pilot to pilot visual traffic separation.

These pilots were told many many times that they were in potential conflict. The B727 crew sighted the Cessna when joining the downwind leg, got busy with puting the gear down and other pre-landing procedures, looked out again and could no longer see the Cessna. They were descending at 400 ft/min and had slowed down to 154 kts. The Cessna was climbing at about 65 kts.

The Cessna was moving from right to left but when at the 12 O'Clock position, turned right 20 degrees and was then directly in the path of the B727.

I implore those so confident of their ability to "see and avoid" to pick up a book on Aviation Medicine and Human Factors and learn about the limitations of human eye sight, then read the account of this tragic accident. Then you might express a more educated and reasoned opinion on this forum.

Last edited by Blip; 26th Nov 2003 at 09:22.
Blip is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 12:43
  #40 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Angel NAS

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.
2B1ASK1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.