How does the new NAS improve Air Safety in Australia?

[Capt Claret]

Andy

In the view of many, myself included, the concept of a Class D tower controller having a much reduced area of responsibility making it safer doesn't hold water.

Imagin the poor sod having several IFR, which through ATC co-ordination, the Tower will know about, roll up on frequency at 15nm, along with several VFR popups.

Practice in the immediate past was to contact Alice Tower, for example, at 60DME. They would then issue onward instructions, occasionally imposing speed control. The Tower had a complete picture of what was coming and enough distance to massage competing requirements and priorities. Soon (Alice tower looks after Class E to FL125 until about Jan) he'll have only a few minutes.

[Aussie Andy]

G'day Capt Claret:

Imagine the poor sod having several IFR, which through ATC co-ordination, the Tower will know about, roll up on frequency at 15nm, along with several VFR popups.

Good point. If this environment at Alice is as busy as you say (i.e. that you routinely have several IFR and VFR pop up at once 15NM out) then it sounds like your real problem is that there should be a radar environment, and perhaps no one has funded that? Why do you think that is? Surely the airspace regs is a separate (albeit complicating) issue, and you would already have a need for radar if your airspace is such a high density environment? Or is it the case that the airspace is not high dnesity enough to warrant radar? Or for all I know the real underlying problem here is purely budgetary?

Andy

[Capt Claret]

Andy

I don't agree. Radar would be nice but the controllers at Alice have managed very nicely without it.

The point I was trying to make is that they will have less forewarning than pre NAS, yet the argument for reducing the size of their patch, is to increase safety. Sorta out of sight out of mind!

I don't think any of the Alice controllers are happy about the changes either. Yet another example of what others on these fora have pointed out. Namely the Implementation Group haven't consulted any of the coal face professionals, or answered any concerns, other than to say our complaints are an industrial ploy or resistance to change.

[Aussie Andy]

Hi,

the Implementation Group haven't consulted any of the coal face professionals

So from what you and others say, I suspect the real issues are the politics and consultation process of this issue, perhaps more than the fundamental principles of the change. That's what I am hearing anyway.

Andy

[Capcom]

Col. Walter E. Kurtz

Also, the ATCers who have to monitor the airspace, and probably feel a moral responsibility to work to avoid the potential MACs the new system has opened greater opportunity for.

Absolutely!
3 days in the seat and I am already convinced that when “**** turns to trumps” AusNAS is gunna contribute to a MAC eventually.

The following rumoured to have already occurred:-
- VFR Nil Transponder 20nm from a D zone at A065 in E
- VFR Nil Mode C, Nil Comm O’fly D in E
- VFR leaving D into E A045 6nm out monitors a G freq instead of D/E till clear of the terminal area
- VFR cruising at IFR levels in E

Individually not a huge deal, relatively quite for each, won’t always be that way!

It is becoming clearer that any ability to “catch separation” for IFR and a pop up VFR is all but lost in E i.e.

DHC8 30nm on descent “Visual Approach” leaving A090, VFR calls At 20nm in E A050 for clearance into D at a “Bearing from the airfield” (within 20deg of the track of the DHC8), what do ya do?

1st – Issue mutual traffic information (15-30s) as we apparently cannot attempt to separate IFR from VFR in E just in case by altering the flight path or altitude (Maintain) of the IFR could cause a collision with another UNKNOWN VFR in E!?!?
2nd – Try to ascertain a more accurate position of the VFR for separation/segregation into D, if in any doubt! Then
3rd – Leave the VFR in E until a sight and follow or some other form of separation/segregation becomes apparent! Or
4th – Update traffic information and let them both rip on into D……..Faaark!!!

Result

VFR are delayed into D if a confliction is considered “close”
IFR have “traffic info” only for descent through the VFR in E
Preventing collisions to aircraft under our control cannot be effectively achieved i.e. IFR/IFR and VFR in D and IFR and IFR in E, when VFR are already in the E airspace at close proximity to D vertically and laterally.

In this case the DHC8 monitored the traffic on TCAS for the descent, lucky the VFR in this case was not Mr Example 1 above!!!!

The same scenario with “C” over D

VFR would call at 35nm and receive a clearance inbound on descent, (before the DHC8 called although I have an estimate well prior so I know the Dash is coming) positive separation applied to the DHC8 above i.e. A step descent (Any level assignable not just IFR levels) until both visual to the tower, or lateral or one of the many other standards available. EASY and SAFE!.

There are lots of other operational difficulties with Tower E (outside radar coverage) over D, this is but one to highlight the retrograde step E is over C.

I think he is right in that for months, after the questions got a bit too 'hot', well certain people 'dissappeared', when there was still alot of questions to be answered.

Yep, interesting the ones he left completely alone, the rest was political waffle that did in no way address the practical aspects of AusNAS and particularly 2b. In the end there really was no point continuing debate with them. I guess they worked that out also and slipped away to Timbuktu and elsewhere quietly.

They went away, The Kings came and went and we were none the wiser, we now know why!.

Aussie Andy

i) that it is more safe for controllers of D underlying what was C, now E, to be more focussed on traffic close in than far out as this is where - statistically - more incidents are likely to occur; and

Well if they said that and you believe them then explain why?

I explain above, IMHO it has made our airspace less safe and less flexible!!

So why do you still say "the question remains: How does the new NAS improve Air Safety in Australia?" I think perhaps it is not because no-one has answered the question, but because you don't agree with the answers provided, which is what I was trying to say earlier on. So its a bit specious to suggest you are just being ignored, which is the impression I think you were trying to give.

Yep, “IGNORED”, these questions have been asked of the handful of NAS supporters and NOT ONCE have they backed their support with answers that resemble practical or statistical analysis. When we (Professional Pilots and ATC’s) put the practical aspects back at them they flee…

I think Chief Galah makes a very good point about transponders being "fail off" and the reasons for this, that some VFR pilots think big brother is watching them, and they do not wish to be pinged for some illegal operations. This is a real issue and a terrible danger

That is the sort of thing that makes me wonder?, you think AusNAS is OK yet accept that Transponders are an important mitigator in class E (TCAS as a primary separation tool), yet will not accept that in C TCAS and pilots eyes remain a "Second tier safety net" only needed when ATS or Pilots screw up!. That does not happen that often compared to the number of successful separations effected each and every day.
NAS E cannot in anyone’s language be considered as safe or safer than C.
Not ranting, wild accusation, just FACT that cannot be denied by the NAS brethren.

When it eventually happens:-

Anderson will plead - “But the experts said it was safe!”
Smith and Smith will plead – CASA and AsA said it was safe!”
CASA and AsA will plead – the ATC’s/Pilot’s did not prevent the collision!
Do you have any idea how many years the legal process takes to run its course, can’t blame the next of kin wanting answers and accountability can we?!.

Aside from the potential loss of life and loss of confidence in our industry! Which end of town do you think will get it in the neck post accident? …………… “Big Picture” my man!!!

With respect Andy, you have not provided anything other than transnational interference. Enjoy your RADAR E and leave Oz to us.

"The question remains: How does the new NAS improve Air Safety in Australia?"?

Oh, I get it!
It’s a trick question!…………
………..There is NO answer!!!!

Not surprised to hear about the SW4’s………………….5hit Oh Dear!!!

[Binoculars]

In other words, "Aussie" Andy, if RPT pilots and controllers in the UK were having an exchange of views about proposed and arguably dangerous changes to their system, what credibility do you think an Australian private pilot would have if he stuck his nose in because he flew there twenty years ago?

I notice Dick got his opinions printed in the national newpapaer again this weekend, sprouting the same old stuff. Reminds me of how the national road toll was going to reduce because Dick's reforms to airspace meant that aviation would be so cheap and so safe everybody would be flying. A pity the newspapers don't come here and listen to the views of the workface pilots and controllers instead of swallowing this simplistic boy scout nonsense.

The CEO of AirServices, yet another Smith, has confirmed that ASA have no say in this whole business. They don't formulate policy; they simply implement it. In other words they do what they are told. By whom? By a minister who knows nothing about aviation, guided by a private pilot with his hand up the minister's back.

Why is the minister listening to this private pilot when all around him the protests from those who actually work the system are getting louder? What an excellent question. Well, Minister? Are you a bit worried about a popular (except with professional aviators) independent threatening to stand against you in your electorate unless you pass these changes?

No? Oh well, just a thought.

110 paydays to go, if I make it that far.

[ferris]

Andy, you keep trotting out the lie "but they do it like that elsewhere, and it's fine". Either you are perpetuating this lie because you believe the NASIG spin, or you are being dishonest. The differences are all over these threads (the primary one being radar coverage).
Airspace System . You can't just change the services provided in parts of the airspace, then claim "it's the same as the U.S.", unless the whole system is changed (radar coverage, FS, flight following, 'control culture' etc etc.).

And yes, it would help if you understood the politics as background. It might give you some insight into the frustration and anger displayed. (eg. watch with dismay while large area freqs are joined onto control freqs, despite the warnings, in order to sack the FSOs for "efficiency". Then have "freq congestion" cited as the reason some of these stupid changes are required. The same people who stuffed the system are stuffing it further. The U.S. system has FSOs, so when will they be re-hiring them? We are getting the U.S. system , right?)

[Outback Pilot]

May I ask, if Australia's Air Space system was so safe before 27th Nov 2003, then how come none of the other Countries are using it?

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

Outback Pilot; if having the constitutional right to bear arms was so great, why is it that it happens only in the US?

ANother example of flawed rationale and sarcasm - no substance and zero answer.

Andy,

I really think that you need to look at the new system and stop swallowing hook, line and sinker the propaganda that you are being fed. For Class D towers, how does a reduced airspace (lateral limits for example) enhance safety. Being non-radar, the separation/information is procedural or visual. One of the problems introduced is a greater 'time pressure' imposed on the twr controller. For example, say Tamworth, which has a good mix of RPT turboprops, Air Ambulance, BugSmashers and CT4 and other trg aircraft, with the surrounding C airspace withdrawn, the airpace the twr controller controls is now the D CTA step up to A045 is now 15DME, the time the tower controller has to control an incoming Dash 8 , say doing 220KTS gs on descent, and look at the 'traffic picture'and then give traffic info on VFR aircraft, is 4minutes. Previously, C went out to 36nm (in the SE Quadrant) which gave the controller just under 10 minutes to 'map things out'.

So the argument 'that it is more safe for controllers of D underlying what was C, now E, to be more focussed on traffic close in than far out as this is where - statistically - more incidents are likely to occur' now introduces a greater risk to human error and MAC due to the increase of stress and pressure on the ATCer.

Re the frequency congestion, that could have been solved by not linking frequencies as much as is done, as well as pilots, especially the privates, adhereing to proper radio procedure and phraseology. This would go a long way to reducing clutter. To be honest, if you fly an aeroplane, and you can't sort the wheat from the chaff broadcast wise and what pertains to you in your vicinity, frankly, you shouldn't have a RTF operators licence, or be flying in the first place.

I suspect the real issues are the politics and consultation process of this issue, perhaps more than the fundamental principles of the change. That's what I am hearing anyway.

Whilst it may seem that the critics are on a 'girlie rant'about not being asked, it is not in the sense that it seems to you: you need to look a little closer at the issues.

It is not about being resistant to change, but it is a resistance to change that has negative effects on the safety of our airspace.

When their are cries of lack of consultation, it is not because the industry expects to be asked for permission, it is about 'hey, we operate in this everyday, and we are capable of foreseeing problems in its operation and where the safety of the system is comprimised - we can help iron out the problems, or assist with a fix', instead they don't even get a PROPER SAFETY CASE!

But the implementors, don't want to hear the bad news that the new NAS HAS flaws - and IS an accident waiting to happen - so consequently, ignore the industry, and go about its implementation in an autocratic manner, resulting in, you guessed it, a pissed off industry for having this ****e, for no proven COST or SAFETY BENEFIT, forced upon them.

By the way Andy, I do commend you for sticking your head up and debating the points. Most of your peers have scattered, or can offer no more than sarcasm and cheap shots at the critics.

[piniped]

US airspace

A question...

if the US airspace is sooooo much better than ours, how come they are about the only first world country (or 2nd and most 3rd ones as well) not to be using RVSM?

Does this mean that the RVSM that is used in the rest of the world is unsafe?? OR, is the US lagging behind us in this as well as other ways.

Just makes you wonder doesn't it?

[bekolblockage]

Spot on piniped. Think Oz led them with civilian DME, T-VASIS and Interscan as well. Strip away the glitz and glamour from the good ol' US of A and you find a tired old dinosaur underneath. Health system, Education system and ATC systems are all the same- held together with string and sealing wax but lots of mirrors and marble to make it look good. We just make all the same mistakes as them but about 30 years later. NAS will be another.

[MrApproach]

USA RVSM

Piniped I think the answer to your question is that the US has not only more aeroplanes than anywhere else but also more old aeroplanes than anywhere else, particularly high flying freighters, biz jets and the like. The cost of fitting them all for RVSM is astronomical and the operators are still fighting the move. It will of course come because it dramatically increases the efficiency of the airspace ---but back to the real topic