Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

NAS Reform? What planet are these fools on?!

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

NAS Reform? What planet are these fools on?!

Old 1st Dec 2003, 10:52
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Godzone
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NAS Reform? What planet are these fools on?!

Just had a 'courtesy' call from the 'Department' in response to my protest call last week at the implementation of our 'new, better, safer, cheaper' airspace system.

Reasonably polite chap but certainly didn't like what I had to say though regarding safety and the impact beancounters and enthusiastic amatuers have had on the world of aviation. Liked it even less when I asked would he apologise to the families of the victims of an accident that was a result of a lack of Air Traffic Services previously available until these so called 'improvements'. Of course that won' thappen, it will be: "Crew failure to maintain sufficient lookout" or "inappropriate radio frequency selected" or "Crew failed to manage cockpit workload sufficiently to provide adequate scan for traffic". It ceratinly won't be "the changes implemented to ATS were poorly thought out in the eagerness to slash spending"

This US system is predicated on RADAR coverage to almost ground level across most of the continental US. His answer: that 'new technology' would take care of this (he meant ADS-B when I prompted him as he didn't recall the name of it). This was obviously from someone knowing very little about how much such systems cost etc. Of course a C150 through the radome of a 737 will kill all aboard just as well as a DHC-8 or C402 passing through it but he didn't have an answer to that.

It will be with no joy that I will make a public issue of this call after the aluminium shower.

He also stated that he had flown into several small airstrips with one Mr S_ and it all seemed quite safe to him, but he didn't have any qualifications or flying experience of course so had no idea of the cockpit workload in say a Dash8 on descent or just how fast they go and how hard it is to see another aircraft when you don't know where to look after all .... it may not even be on your radio frequency!

He tells me that he fields about 60 calls a week regarding the NAS Reform and I am the only one opposed to it! Of course that is 10 a day.. lot of ppl to be ringing up to pat them on the back!Could this be true?.. If so ignore this post.

I gave up on PPRuNe some time ago as generally the signal:noise ratio was rather low but here is an issue worth speaking on. Maybe I am completey on the wrong track here. This is what PPRuNe excels at and was orininally intended to do. Have your say.

Suggest anyone interested give their little 'Airspace Reform Hotline' a tingle on 18 0000 7024 and state their point of view. Be prepared to give your name and ARN. No need to be rude just state you want a record of your protest call made for future use when, God forbid, Australia has to bury a lot of people because we had people running the show who were more interested in acconts and political expediency than the lives of those they are supposed to protect. And they just wouldn't listen.
Breaker Morant is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 10:59
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are only a handful that are apposed to NAS. If our old Airspace system is so safe and good why is not being used elsewhere in the world?
Mooney Operator is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 11:44
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mooney boy, you just stick to your own area of expertise; show me one country in the world that has what we have right now...

Show me one country that uses IFR pick-up or VFR on Top like we have proposed (are using) here.

International harminisation; what a joke.

You and many like you are swallowing the line the US system; where in the US is it like this? Stepping stone; no it's not; will the end state have E above FL180, yes, does the US, NO.

Similar but not the same; as similar as their road system; it has cars, trucks and buses, stop signs, give way signs and even traffic lights, but is it the same?

Bottle of Rum
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 11:56
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mooney operator,
You are a fool. On what basis do you suggest a minority oppose NAS? Done some polling have you fool?
Oh, and heres a hint, if you morons are going to conduct a campaign here you might want to chose handles that don't expose you for what you are, pitiful amateurs.
WhatWasThat is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 12:55
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
US Airspace System

I have just recently came from the States where I flew a scheduled cargo route, in a light aircraft (PA31) for 2 & a half years. The one big difference I found when comparing the 2 systems... is the ease at which it was to pick up IFR clearances on the go, and to get around to where you wanted to go easily & directly. This wasn't due to the popular belief that most of the country has radar coverage, in fact unlike Australia, they have quite a few mountains, which makes radar coverage impossible in a lot of built up areas. Not only that, I found that you actually had more say in where you wanted to go - even in the very densely populated areas. Although my experiences are from a light aircraft view point, I felt that the transitions from G to E to B class airspaces were really effortless. Traffic avoidance in class E airspace was routine and safe (with or without ATC help) - and most heavies had TCAS. The hardest part was after you landed, getting to your park. If these changes really do start to focus more ATC attention on runway incursions - and less on the air to air incidents, then it sounds like a good theory.
Blair is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 14:25
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unfortunately, even the best systems fail.....

The NTSB released its final report last week on the October 2002 midair crash of two Cessna 172s in Coral Springs, Fla., in which two people died.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The failure of the dual students and flight instructors on both N9840V and N6101F to see and avoid each other, which resulted in a midair collision.
CG
Chief galah is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 16:07
  #7 (permalink)  
PPruNaholic!
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Chief galah: One data point does not cut it mate. Unless you can show evidence of overall rates of accidents, fatalities, MAC, or whatever (per passenger/mile, hrs/flown, etc.) which illustrate that the current US system is less safe than the pre- 27 November Australian system, then the point you just made may not tend to persuade people.

Andy

p.s. Blair, Mooney: brace yourselves, as certain ATCs from Melbourne (like WWT) on here won't like it if what you say goes counter to their prejudice... they may call you "fool" and such like.
Aussie Andy is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 18:44
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Vic
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Speaking as someone who will be spending a large portion of their work time descending/climbing in and out of Tasmanian destinations, I can tell you that this NAS thingy gives me the screaming heebie jeebies. There is no radar coverage in Tas, and relying on TCAS as the final link in preventing an accident is farcical. (Note that 'See-and-avoid' was deliberately ignored here, a great principle, it has saved my @rse in the past, but it's just not up to being the basis for an airway system. Traffic's hard enough to pick up when ATC are telling you where to look!) No, I'm not convinced that operating in radar airspace will be much better, it's just that Tassie seem so much worse - Braille descents!

Safety has gradually increased over many years as a result of defences being placed to prevent recurrenced of painful lessons. Here, we are doing the opposite, change for changes sake - to suit the selfish/political motivations of a some peanut millionaire. For what it's worth, I'll certainly be making that 1800 call.

Andy, I know a number of ATC controllers quite well - they are very concerned, not about their careers, but about the safety of the travelling public. Your comments are insulting to an extremely professional body. Their 'prejudices' are probably aimed more in your direction - recreational, wrong hemisphere as well as full of ****e.... To paraphrase Roy and HG, you need to find a room full of mirrors and have a good look around! (Buck palace might be a great place to start looking).

How (and could someone please provide details) is safety being improved here?

PS Mr Murphy knows that his Law is ultimately irrefutable. He's sitting back, relaxed, waiting, quietly chuckling. Time is on his side...
FluffyBunnyFeet is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 19:07
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Andy. You wonder why the amatuer pilot is deemed to be mostly retarded and best left at the bottom of a bucket.
tobzalp is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 19:33
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm pretty sure that the biggest risk of an accident/incident occuring is in & around the immediate area or an aerodrome...? Taking away some class C airspace & replacing it with E in areas not in the immediate vivinity of aerodromes, to free up ATC to monitor GND & TWR frequecies sound logical. As far as getting in and out of E... it's more "hands on"... but it is safe. The main issue should be the main risk factor.... that just makes sense.
Blair is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 19:47
  #11 (permalink)  

Metrosexual
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mooney Pilot,

There are only a handful that are apposed to NAS. If our old Airspace system is so safe and good why is not being used elsewhere in the world?
There you go AGAIN!

If the NAS is so much better and SAFER, why don't you explain it to the rest of us morons - we obviously have missed something....
Jet_A_Knight is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 19:50
  #12 (permalink)  
Sprucegoose
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Post

Well I took my first flight under the new airspace system today. (just back off holidays). I fly a regional turboprop fitted with TCAS.

I must say everything went very smoothly on both sectors. However there seemed to be a distinct lack of traffic flying, we encountered no traffic VFR or IFR until we reached 30 miles from a capital city airport.

This has me a bit worried, it was a great sunny afternoon, were there people out flying? Were they listening out on the frequency that I was on? Or are they not flying for fear of the new airspace changes?

I flew through class G (with no radar coverage till about FL 135), and then class E, and finally into class C.

I would like to address some of the previous remarks with my own personal point of view.

I think FBF has made some good points, I certainly feel for the pilots flying into airports with overlying class E and no radar, relying on see and avoid as the primary separation tool.

Our country has many climactic and natural extremes, here are just a few that can affect your ability to see other aircraft even when you know where they are. Smog, smoke, sunglare at dawn and dusk (most RPT services run at these critical times), insect plagues and many more.
Now imagine descending to the west, late in the afternoon, into non radar controlled class D airport, during fire season, looking for aircraft (through bug splatter), that you dont even know are there. Does this sound safe or logical even?
Now this may sound extreme but it occurs every day at airports all over this great country.

Aussie Andy you are right, you cant make comparisons unless you take in all available data. I see a problem there in that Australia is unique and there is no other country with suitable data with which to compare.

Blair, I too have flown in the US, albeit a long time ago. Whilst I was there I was told By ATC's that the US excluding Alaska and Hawaii is 97% covered by radar to below 1000 ft (approx). This is approximately 67% more tha Australia and that is promulgated on 30,000 feet not 1000.

As far as aerodromes being the place where traffic is most concentrated, this is true, but as we approach an aerodrome we are more aware of which direction to look for traffic. ie: upwind, crosswind, downwind, base, final or a 5 mile final. On the open airways traffic could be coming, from virtually any direction as well as above or below!!

Now I have always been a forward thinker and have embraced change. I do like the new airspace system but with some reservations.

I think that:

1/ Class E should not overly Class D at Non radar airports.

2/ See and avoid should not be the primary seperation tool in Class E & G airspaces (non-radar). What is wrong with letting people know where you are?

I wish you all safe and enjoyable flying.

Cheers, HH.



Last edited by Howard Hughes; 1st Dec 2003 at 20:01.
Howard Hughes is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 20:16
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dittos what blair said.... the US system is 100% less dramatic. Clearances into class C airport don't require flightplans and almost always get approved, and we regularly pick up IFR clearances in the air. I'm not sure why the aussie system can't work like this.
druglord is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 20:30
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry

You may be interested to know that controllers have been given a sheet to record "inappropriate" transmissions from VFR aircraft on the former area frequencies and the info will be handed to CASA so they can send them a "please explain"
willadvise is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2003, 21:48
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How many of you saw this on the weekend?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...8004159%255E23

The thing which worries me is that if what I've read elsewhere is right about safety assessments then the bit towards the end is either a mis quotation or an outright lie. The thing is as things stand I'm more inclined to believe it is a lie which is sad testament on the current situation. Can someone please put me right?
Gunner B12 is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2003, 03:33
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Druglord

the US system is 100% less dramatic
Very valid point, which I think is the basis for some pilots being pro-NAS (including the big Dick).
I'll attempt an answer, and hope that some others more current can jump in and (politely) help.
The U.S. has a ****eload more infrastructure. I liken it to a full service petrol station, with mechanic attached. In oz, we have a fully automated self serve, with a console operator taking your money. They have a lot more traffic, but 20 times the number of controllers, plus FS, full radar, briefing etc etc. Their system is a lot more labour intensive and less automated. This is a double-edged sword in oz, because TAAATS, a big shiny computer that can do things amazing, requires a lot of prompting. Once your details are in there, it's great. But for you to just pop-up, a controller (who is also controlling, doing Flight Service, and the asistant job) has to basically do a flight plan on his console and enter it into the system for you. As a one-off, that might be OK, but it is very time and attention consuming, and he cannot regulate his workload. If it's a nice day, any number of guys might pop-up in a 10 minute period, and he still has to wear all his other hats, some of which are a higher priority (such as seperating). U.S. controllers don't wear various hats, they are specialised because of the volumes they are working, and have that huge infrastructure to do the other jobs.
Clearances into class C airport don't require flightplans and almost always get approved
Is this now clearer why? The U.S. controller just jots your details on a strip, his co-ordinator starts co-ord, his flight data (assistant) enters data and your in. Some of these tasks are made easier in oz by TAAATS, but you have the hurdle that is step 1 (many-hat-wearing controller manually entering plan) as previously mentioned.
I'm not sure why the aussie system can't work like this
The oz system has been stripped down to save money (FS gone, Data's gone, computerised briefing etc). The controller cannot just jot details on a piece of paper anymore. In addition (and this is a key point), the U.S. charges differently. Their system is payed for out of consolidated revenue. In oz AsA is run as a "business" which pays a dividend to the govt. This is a crucial factor in much of how the airspace is run. It is essentially a large billing system. This is an aspect of airspace that no-one high up wants mentioned. If they were serious about solving the "GA malaise", this is the aspect they would address.
ferris is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2003, 04:44
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Flight Plans

Ferris

But for you to just pop-up, a controller (who is also controlling, doing Flight Service, and the asistant job) has to basically do a flight plan on his console and enter it into the system for you.
OK, so I take it a plan makes things easier. So why are plans so darned complicated???

If all I had to do was give you type, time, where from and altitude I could lodge a plan in 1 minute. By phone even.

But we still seem to be stuck with a form demanding detail all the way up to a rivet count.

Why is that.

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2003, 05:04
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That is all you need to give us

eg


tosser1-C150/S-VG
YBCG 2200 A090DCT
HELL
REG/VHABC NAV/TCAS

Goes in in that order pretty much as well (cept the G is at the bottom and we need the rego at the end to make sure you pay for your service). Many operators do it by phone. There is even a special number for it!
tobzalp is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2003, 05:26
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Aussie Andy,

One data point does not cut it mate
That "data point" is two people dead.

What that accident shows is that see and avoid is not 100% successful. The next line of defence in our new airspace in Class E is TCAS/Controller alerts, and unfortunately that comes down to whether the transponder is working or on. With no radar it is just down to TCAS (if fitted). Because radio frequencies are not denoted or delineated, listening out or making broadcasts will probably not be a factor.

Everyone knows that see and avoid is not 100% successful - it is a human limitation.

Everyone knows that transponders are not 100% reliable - it is a human and mechanical limitation.

Everyone knows that IFR and VFR traffic can cross paths on climb and descent to hemispherical levels - it is probability.

These are the three holes that need to line up for a collision in Class E Airspace. As an ATC I see the last two happen nearly every day. I also get pilots never sighting an aircraft I've given a radar position on. All it takes is for these three to line up. And, outside of radar coverage with no TCAS, there is only one line of defence.

In Class C airspace, a VFR aircraft will be known to the system, it will be radar or procedurally separated from other traffic. It is only when the ATC system fails (multiple layers of defence), and when the VFR enters without a clearance, that we get to the same level of protection in Class E.

There is less risk of collision in Class C than in Class E. NAS2b replaced some Class C with E. NAS2b, in that airspace, is less safe. A comparison with the US is not required to establish this fact.
Here to Help is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2003, 05:39
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 3,860
Likes: 0
Received 233 Likes on 99 Posts
Tobzalp do you see how complex that can be for a private owner. Clearly this is the cause of the downturn in the GA sector.

We need to "simplify" those complex processes to make them more "accessible" this will invigorate GA once more. In concert with the NAS "reforms" of course.
Icarus2001 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.