NAS Reform? What planet are these fools on?!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a GREAT way to rejuvenate GA.
Plenty of work in RETRAINING, if the posts by PPL's on these forums are anything to go by.
Can't flight plan, can't talk on radio, can't monitor more than one radio frequency.......
Plenty of work in RETRAINING, if the posts by PPL's on these forums are anything to go by.
Can't flight plan, can't talk on radio, can't monitor more than one radio frequency.......
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek & Icarus2001,
Why do we have the flight notification form? It's called "International harmonisation"! Heard that term before?
We once had a form that allowed you to lodge details and it was actually useful during flight. The same ill informed amateur that has given us NAS is the same one who pushed us down the path of "that's the way they do it at ICAO" cr@p when it comes to everything we do.
Start asking yourselves a few pertinent questions in regards to the following:
Who pushed the "user pays" argument?
Who is behind the blind following of ICAO airspace regardless of it's suitability?
Who was at the helm when AOPA began it's slipperry slope to irrelevance?
Who was behind the numerous failed airspace reforms that have cost the industry (you, user payer, you) millions of dollars?
But you just keep comin" back for more!
Tell me where are the savings in NAS? The question keeps getting asked and the silence is deafening.
Why do we have the flight notification form? It's called "International harmonisation"! Heard that term before?
We once had a form that allowed you to lodge details and it was actually useful during flight. The same ill informed amateur that has given us NAS is the same one who pushed us down the path of "that's the way they do it at ICAO" cr@p when it comes to everything we do.
Start asking yourselves a few pertinent questions in regards to the following:
Who pushed the "user pays" argument?
Who is behind the blind following of ICAO airspace regardless of it's suitability?
Who was at the helm when AOPA began it's slipperry slope to irrelevance?
Who was behind the numerous failed airspace reforms that have cost the industry (you, user payer, you) millions of dollars?
But you just keep comin" back for more!
Tell me where are the savings in NAS? The question keeps getting asked and the silence is deafening.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever we get a change to instructions, or new instructions, no matter how minor, we have to sign it off as read and understood. It's a CASA requirement.
All ATC's will have to sign off 2b one way or another.
A big change like 2b should ensure all pilots that use the system acknowledge the education package and sign it off as understood. If CASA are serious about it's implementation, this should be a minimum requirement.
We do it, it's not too much to expect the other side to do it as well, especially those who are supposed to benefit by it.
CG
All ATC's will have to sign off 2b one way or another.
A big change like 2b should ensure all pilots that use the system acknowledge the education package and sign it off as understood. If CASA are serious about it's implementation, this should be a minimum requirement.
We do it, it's not too much to expect the other side to do it as well, especially those who are supposed to benefit by it.
CG
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Vic
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy, one point I neglected to raise earlier...
You seem keen for 'Chief Galah' to justify his post with relevant statistics whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that 'Mooney' provides no empirical backup re his statement that only a 'handful' are opposed to NAS'.
Doesn't that strike you as odd? Further suggestion - find a dictionary and check the relevant definitions of 'subjective' and 'objective'. Just to help you along, I'd suggest you're the first option!
To the ATC guys - thanks for contributing on this topic (this and other threads also) Very impressed with the logical way you present your views, without resorting to the poisonous bitchings common to this forum! Love your work, please keep pushing to ditch this oxymoron of a system.
PS Don't forget to wish us luck!
You seem keen for 'Chief Galah' to justify his post with relevant statistics whilst simultaneously ignoring the fact that 'Mooney' provides no empirical backup re his statement that only a 'handful' are opposed to NAS'.
Doesn't that strike you as odd? Further suggestion - find a dictionary and check the relevant definitions of 'subjective' and 'objective'. Just to help you along, I'd suggest you're the first option!
To the ATC guys - thanks for contributing on this topic (this and other threads also) Very impressed with the logical way you present your views, without resorting to the poisonous bitchings common to this forum! Love your work, please keep pushing to ditch this oxymoron of a system.
PS Don't forget to wish us luck!
Last edited by FluffyBunnyFeet; 2nd Dec 2003 at 11:03.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plenty of work in RETRAINING, if the posts by PPL's on these forums are anything to go by.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can lead a horse to water...........
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooney Driver, that's got to be one of the funniest things I have read on these posts for a long time!
The reality is something more like, some people shouldn't be flying - period.
The reality is something more like, some people shouldn't be flying - period.
willadvise Question ,would you dob me in if I happened to give an all stations call on 125.2 as I was abeam Millawa tracking WGT Myrtleford at 9500 after I happen to hear a Dash or whatever cleared to descend FL135 and 50 from AY on track from ML with no known traffic? I know I will be in that area of his track when he passes my altitude.
Would this be prudent for me to be listening out on ML-CEN 125.2? even though I am not expected to. Funny thing How do YOU know which frequency I am monitoring if you wish to tell me that I have mutual traffic? This is the only bit of NAS I dislike. How the hell can I be doing my job if I have to dig around to find the correct freq for the area I'm in. I care not that we cannot converse anymore. BUT I do care that I am on the same freq at the same time as you guys!
Question is, do you realy care?(Thats a silly question...I KNOW you do!) I know I care and I WILL be listening out on the appropriate ATS freq for the area (once I can find it )
Regards
Mark
PS BEWARE I have got my licence
Would this be prudent for me to be listening out on ML-CEN 125.2? even though I am not expected to. Funny thing How do YOU know which frequency I am monitoring if you wish to tell me that I have mutual traffic? This is the only bit of NAS I dislike. How the hell can I be doing my job if I have to dig around to find the correct freq for the area I'm in. I care not that we cannot converse anymore. BUT I do care that I am on the same freq at the same time as you guys!
Question is, do you realy care?(Thats a silly question...I KNOW you do!) I know I care and I WILL be listening out on the appropriate ATS freq for the area (once I can find it
)Regards
Mark
PS BEWARE I have got my licence
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 2nd Dec 2003 at 16:50.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the documentation that supports this?
And this?
Anderson maintains that the new system is both safe and proven. "It has been subjected to rigorous safety analysis by Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, with both of these agencies satisfied that the changes are safe," he says.
The Government says this means air travel in Australia has never been safer.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVR transcript PSA182, San Diego California
Captain (radio): Lindbergh, PSA182 downwind.
Tower: PSA182, Lindbergh tower, ah, traffic twelve o'clock one mile a Cessna.
F/O: Flaps five.
Captain: Is that the one we're looking at?
F/O: Yeah, but I don't see him now.
Captain (radio): Okay, we had it there a minute ago.
Tower: One eighty two, roger.
Captain (radio): I think he's passed to our right.
Tower: Yeah.
Captain: He was right over here a minute ago.
Tower: How far are you going to take your downwind? Company traffic is waiting for departure.
Captain (radio): Ah, probably about 3 to 4 miles.
Tower: Okay, PSA182, cleared to land.
Captain (radio): One eighty-two's cleared to land.
F/O: Are we clear of that Cessna?
F/E: Suppose to be.
Captain: I guess.
Jumpseat: I hope.
Captain: Oh yeah, before we turned downwind, I saw him about one o'clock, probably behind us now.
F/O: There's one underneath. I was looking at that inbound there!
Captain: Whoop!
F/O: Argghh!
Cabin: [sound of impact with the Cessna in mid-air]
Captain: Easy baby, easy baby. What have we got here?
F/O: Its bad. We're hit man, we are hit.
Captain (radio): Tower, we are going down, this is PSA...
Tower: Okay, we'll call the equipment for you.
Cabin: [sound of stall warning]
END OF TAPE
After collision with the Cessna, the PSA plummeted to the ground in a residential area of San Diego. All 135 passengers and crew of the PSA died, along with the pilot of the Cessna and 9 people on the ground.
Cause of the accident: the crew of PSA182 failed to adequately See and Avoid the Cessna..............
Captain (radio): Lindbergh, PSA182 downwind.
Tower: PSA182, Lindbergh tower, ah, traffic twelve o'clock one mile a Cessna.
F/O: Flaps five.
Captain: Is that the one we're looking at?
F/O: Yeah, but I don't see him now.
Captain (radio): Okay, we had it there a minute ago.
Tower: One eighty two, roger.
Captain (radio): I think he's passed to our right.
Tower: Yeah.
Captain: He was right over here a minute ago.
Tower: How far are you going to take your downwind? Company traffic is waiting for departure.
Captain (radio): Ah, probably about 3 to 4 miles.
Tower: Okay, PSA182, cleared to land.
Captain (radio): One eighty-two's cleared to land.
F/O: Are we clear of that Cessna?
F/E: Suppose to be.
Captain: I guess.
Jumpseat: I hope.
Captain: Oh yeah, before we turned downwind, I saw him about one o'clock, probably behind us now.
F/O: There's one underneath. I was looking at that inbound there!
Captain: Whoop!
F/O: Argghh!
Cabin: [sound of impact with the Cessna in mid-air]
Captain: Easy baby, easy baby. What have we got here?
F/O: Its bad. We're hit man, we are hit.
Captain (radio): Tower, we are going down, this is PSA...
Tower: Okay, we'll call the equipment for you.
Cabin: [sound of stall warning]
END OF TAPE
After collision with the Cessna, the PSA plummeted to the ground in a residential area of San Diego. All 135 passengers and crew of the PSA died, along with the pilot of the Cessna and 9 people on the ground.
Cause of the accident: the crew of PSA182 failed to adequately See and Avoid the Cessna..............
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are going to start quoting mid-air collisions - then you are going to have to start quoting the more pertanent runway incursion accidents that seem to be the major risk in aviation today. They are a lot scarier - and when they happen - it's on a bigger scale (eg - Tenerife). This is relevant because the new airspace changes are supposed to be taking the focus away from airspace not within the immediate vicinity of major aerodromes - so that controllers may monitor busy aerodromes more closely (in theory anyway).
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris,
thanks for that detailed response. I'm sorry I've been thinking less of the aussie controllers until now, glad to see it's the system and not the people. While I got ya, do you know if the separation standards are different for aircraft in the two countries for class C/B airspace?
thanks for that detailed response. I'm sorry I've been thinking less of the aussie controllers until now, glad to see it's the system and not the people. While I got ya, do you know if the separation standards are different for aircraft in the two countries for class C/B airspace?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PSA182
...... is exactly what we are trying to avoid.
The PSA182 accident occurred after the crew had received “DIRECTED Traffic information” and reported sighting the Cessna. AusNAS gives you less than that!
In E:- NAS won’t give you DTI (RIS) outside radar coverage!. Eyes and TCAS (If you are lucky enough to have it?) are all you got!.
In C:- You had full separation!. Eyes and TCAS were the second tier safety net, a fall back!. (Rarely needed!).
To the few NAS supporters and those at AOPA who bought this pup!
If reading the CVR transcript does not sharpen your focus and raise a hair or two on the back of your neck, then perhaps this infamous photo might:-
PSA182
NOT A SCARE CAMPAIGN!
............A SAD REALITY!
The PSA182 accident occurred after the crew had received “DIRECTED Traffic information” and reported sighting the Cessna. AusNAS gives you less than that!
In E:- NAS won’t give you DTI (RIS) outside radar coverage!. Eyes and TCAS (If you are lucky enough to have it?) are all you got!.
In C:- You had full separation!. Eyes and TCAS were the second tier safety net, a fall back!. (Rarely needed!).
To the few NAS supporters and those at AOPA who bought this pup!
If reading the CVR transcript does not sharpen your focus and raise a hair or two on the back of your neck, then perhaps this infamous photo might:-
PSA182 NOT A SCARE CAMPAIGN!
............A SAD REALITY!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blair - Runway incidents do have a huge potential for disaster and they are an issue that demands attention (and get it). NAS will increase this potential with the new CTAFs because with reduced or nil R/T there will probably be a few tractors/cars and work-people getting clobbered on runways by aircraft landing or taking off.
I appreciate that we may be considering Apples and Bananas here but the greatest hazard is (was) Violation of Controlled (restricted) Airspace (VCA). This is the largest ICEBERG by far.
These are, statistically, the most reported incidents and are the most under-reported. What that means is that there are so many of them that they are either not reported due to ATC/pilots having the time or inclination to do so or are not reported because of complacency from an ineffective, historical, response to fix up the problem.
NAS will drastically reduce the incidence of VCA's because it takes out one significant factor - VFR and increases another - E airspace. The result is a cosmetic reduction in the problem of (especially) VFR aircraft straying into airspace that provides protection from other airspace users.
NAS will increase the statistics of air safety because it fiddles, quite effectiveley, with the status of airspace, rules and procedures to change the issue from what is safe or not safe to what is legal or normal. This effect will increase with further stages of NAS with the changes of status of resticted airspace and danger areas.
Heck when this is complete we probably will have solved the VCA problem completely and safety statistics will be accordingly improved.
Y' all be careful out there now!!!!!!!!!!!
I appreciate that we may be considering Apples and Bananas here but the greatest hazard is (was) Violation of Controlled (restricted) Airspace (VCA). This is the largest ICEBERG by far.
These are, statistically, the most reported incidents and are the most under-reported. What that means is that there are so many of them that they are either not reported due to ATC/pilots having the time or inclination to do so or are not reported because of complacency from an ineffective, historical, response to fix up the problem.
NAS will drastically reduce the incidence of VCA's because it takes out one significant factor - VFR and increases another - E airspace. The result is a cosmetic reduction in the problem of (especially) VFR aircraft straying into airspace that provides protection from other airspace users.
NAS will increase the statistics of air safety because it fiddles, quite effectiveley, with the status of airspace, rules and procedures to change the issue from what is safe or not safe to what is legal or normal. This effect will increase with further stages of NAS with the changes of status of resticted airspace and danger areas.
Heck when this is complete we probably will have solved the VCA problem completely and safety statistics will be accordingly improved.
Y' all be careful out there now!!!!!!!!!!!
Last edited by RTB RFN; 3rd Dec 2003 at 04:18.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Druglord, you should not be sorry for thinking that way. Aussie controllers have been bludging for so long, that even a slight increase in their exceedingly light workload, is percieved to be "an overload" 
Friggin bone please..
Several mistakes were made by the controllers that contributed to the PSA 182 collision: ATC did not restrict PSA 182 to 4000 ft over Montgomery as required, ATC radar seperation was not used when it was available, ATC conflict alert was not conveyed to pilots, ATC were not proactive to evident loss of visual on traffic by PSA 182.
Friggin bone please.. Several mistakes were made by the controllers that contributed to the PSA 182 collision: ATC did not restrict PSA 182 to 4000 ft over Montgomery as required, ATC radar seperation was not used when it was available, ATC conflict alert was not conveyed to pilots, ATC were not proactive to evident loss of visual on traffic by PSA 182.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Druglord:
Standards applied in C/B airspace in US the same as here, except between VFR and IFR where they have the concept of "target resolution". I understand this means they pass traffic and don't let the radar symbols overlap. It was to be implemented here on 27NOV, but is now in stage 3. Don't know why.
Everybody picking on Tobzalp about ICAO FPL, including that f@ckwit Winstun:
How much simpler can it be? We have a standard ICAO flight plan system, like US & Europe. By this definition we CAN'T make it any simpler, formwise. Regardless of this, when somebody gives me a FPL in the air, (and it happens, and I take them unless I really am doing something else that a reasonable set of workload priorities says should take precedence,) and doesn't give me all I need or gives me stuff that's obviously wrong I just ask for what I need. It's what I did when I used to work breifing also. The ONLY pilot I can recall that ever "arced up" when prompted for more detail was DICK SMITH, "I designed this system so I don't have to tell you that," was his farcical response...
Winstun:
If it was such a crime for the ATC in that incident to use visual separation why are you such an ardent supporter of NAS? The project has already introduced procedures that give PILOTS the opportunity to abandon current separation standards if they believe in the power of windows, and will introduce more IN ALL CLASSES OF AIRSPACE in later stages.
Nobody here in the big white box is frightened of more workload. Bring it on. Even a pea-brain like yourself must understand that more workload means more ATC sectors. But, hang on, NAS is supposed to REDUCE workload and SAVE money isn't it. Maybe if you tone down the sarcasm we could find out what it is you want out of life
RTB RFN:
What you are saying is that because VFR continue to blunder through airspace they shouldn't we will adopt that as the system? Because kiddies won't use the school crossing and run across the road, we'll retire the Lollipop-Lady and encourage kiddies to run across the road anywhere, dramatically reducing the fatalities at school crossings...
Standards applied in C/B airspace in US the same as here, except between VFR and IFR where they have the concept of "target resolution". I understand this means they pass traffic and don't let the radar symbols overlap. It was to be implemented here on 27NOV, but is now in stage 3. Don't know why.
Everybody picking on Tobzalp about ICAO FPL, including that f@ckwit Winstun:
How much simpler can it be? We have a standard ICAO flight plan system, like US & Europe. By this definition we CAN'T make it any simpler, formwise. Regardless of this, when somebody gives me a FPL in the air, (and it happens, and I take them unless I really am doing something else that a reasonable set of workload priorities says should take precedence,) and doesn't give me all I need or gives me stuff that's obviously wrong I just ask for what I need. It's what I did when I used to work breifing also. The ONLY pilot I can recall that ever "arced up" when prompted for more detail was DICK SMITH, "I designed this system so I don't have to tell you that," was his farcical response...
Winstun:
If it was such a crime for the ATC in that incident to use visual separation why are you such an ardent supporter of NAS? The project has already introduced procedures that give PILOTS the opportunity to abandon current separation standards if they believe in the power of windows, and will introduce more IN ALL CLASSES OF AIRSPACE in later stages.
Nobody here in the big white box is frightened of more workload. Bring it on. Even a pea-brain like yourself must understand that more workload means more ATC sectors. But, hang on, NAS is supposed to REDUCE workload and SAVE money isn't it. Maybe if you tone down the sarcasm we could find out what it is you want out of life
RTB RFN:
What you are saying is that because VFR continue to blunder through airspace they shouldn't we will adopt that as the system? Because kiddies won't use the school crossing and run across the road, we'll retire the Lollipop-Lady and encourage kiddies to run across the road anywhere, dramatically reducing the fatalities at school crossings...