Some truth about the ML incident
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have heard QANTAS now have TCAS on the MEL as a result of NAS - No TCAS, no trip. Don't know about others....
TCAS is a MEL item I would guess on all aircraft, each aircraft having it's own Master MEL from the manufacturer, this can them be altered to an Operators MEL with approval of CASA.
For example Eastern OMEL for the Dash - TCAS 10 day item no operational restrictions.
Is now being changed to add conditions that the aircraft basically can't operate out of Class A with an inop TCAS. Still a 10 day item so theoretically could spend 10 days going SYD-CBR
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney N.S.W.
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As much as I hate to ruin a good NAS/VFR pilot bashing session, I would like to pose a couple of questions based on the known facts.
1. Why did the 737 need to go through the E airspace? At 50 DME and above FL180 he could delay his descent to stay in the class C steps and still not need to exceed 3000fm.
2. It was eight minutes from when the C421 requested an airways clearence into Essendon until he was advised VFR not available, then a further six minutes for an IFR clearence to be given. Is this considered an acceptable level of service, at 10:00 am on a weekday?
3. If the controller was concerned about a potential conflict why didn't he simply ask the C421 to do a orbit or standard rate turn at his current position. This would have given an immediate 2 minute increase in seperation. Happens going into CBR all the time.
Just trying to find the forest .... too many damm trees in the way....
1. Why did the 737 need to go through the E airspace? At 50 DME and above FL180 he could delay his descent to stay in the class C steps and still not need to exceed 3000fm.
2. It was eight minutes from when the C421 requested an airways clearence into Essendon until he was advised VFR not available, then a further six minutes for an IFR clearence to be given. Is this considered an acceptable level of service, at 10:00 am on a weekday?
3. If the controller was concerned about a potential conflict why didn't he simply ask the C421 to do a orbit or standard rate turn at his current position. This would have given an immediate 2 minute increase in seperation. Happens going into CBR all the time.
Just trying to find the forest .... too many damm trees in the way....
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RV8builder
Excellent questions. Herewith my thoughts:
I guess he could have, unless there are STAR requirements, such as those at Sydney, which would not permit this. I fact, at Sydney, aircraft are often required to be as low as 10,000 by 45NM. Avoiding class E is impossible in this case.
More to the point – why? The only reason to avoid a certain class of airspace would be if the airspace is not conducive to safe operations. That is precisely the point of the argument.
I am not sure about the timing in your post (a total of 14minutes), but even so, the ‘delay’ mentioned was not a delay to the aircraft. As far as I am aware, the clearance was issued when the aircraft required it. Of course, the change from VFR to IFR, the requirement to obtain flight plan details etc. and the requirement to rearrange the traffic to facilitate IFR separation will cause additional workload. This may lead to delays which would not have occurred under pre-NAS2B operations.
The point here is that the controller was not required to be ‘concerned about a potential conflict’. There is no requirement for the controller to separate - - only to provide traffic information and allow Class E procedures to kick in. The system should have allowed the B737 to descend straight through the C421’s level with no intervention by the controller. Of course, in this case, the controller did not sit idly by and let it all go bad.
Fortunately, this incident amply demonstrates the potential short-comings of NAS. Many of the ‘holes in the swiss cheese’ lined up on the day. Happily, some of them did not.
Failed defences
1) VFR aircraft was operating in an area of high levels of IFR traffic, and in fact at a major IFR tracking and holding point.
2) Mode C was not operating correctly, resulting in radar and TCAS defences becoming unusable (until later when the problem was rectified).
3) Despite the relatively close proximity, the C421 pilot failed to see (and therefore was unable to avoid) the B737 at any time, despite the fact that it was undoubtedly VMC at the time.
Successful defences
1) A spot of luck – in that the C421 called up, and the Mode C problem was rectified.
2) Traffic information was passed correctly.
3) The controller intervened.
4) The B737 pilot saw the C421 – with the benefit of directed traffic information.
5) TCAS provided a further defence.
What can we learn from this incident? What would have happened of the C421 had not chosen that moment to call? Can we make the system safer? Please, let us all learn from this.
Excellent questions. Herewith my thoughts:
1. Why did the 737 need to go through the E airspace? At 50 DME and above FL180 he could delay his descent to stay in the class C steps and still not need to exceed 3000fm.
More to the point – why? The only reason to avoid a certain class of airspace would be if the airspace is not conducive to safe operations. That is precisely the point of the argument.
2. It was eight minutes from when the C421 requested an airways clearence into Essendon until he was advised VFR not available, then a further six minutes for an IFR clearence to be given. Is this considered an acceptable level of service, at 10:00 am on a weekday?
3. If the controller was concerned about a potential conflict why didn't he simply ask the C421 to do a orbit or standard rate turn at his current position. This would have given an immediate 2 minute increase in seperation. Happens going into CBR all the time.
Fortunately, this incident amply demonstrates the potential short-comings of NAS. Many of the ‘holes in the swiss cheese’ lined up on the day. Happily, some of them did not.
Failed defences
1) VFR aircraft was operating in an area of high levels of IFR traffic, and in fact at a major IFR tracking and holding point.
2) Mode C was not operating correctly, resulting in radar and TCAS defences becoming unusable (until later when the problem was rectified).
3) Despite the relatively close proximity, the C421 pilot failed to see (and therefore was unable to avoid) the B737 at any time, despite the fact that it was undoubtedly VMC at the time.
Successful defences
1) A spot of luck – in that the C421 called up, and the Mode C problem was rectified.
2) Traffic information was passed correctly.
3) The controller intervened.
4) The B737 pilot saw the C421 – with the benefit of directed traffic information.
5) TCAS provided a further defence.
What can we learn from this incident? What would have happened of the C421 had not chosen that moment to call? Can we make the system safer? Please, let us all learn from this.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. If the controller was concerned about a potential conflict why didn't he simply ask the C421 to do a orbit or standard rate turn at his current position. This would have given an immediate 2 minute increase in seperation. Happens going into CBR all the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that the whole reason E was introduced? So those pesky Air traffic controllers don't have to issue clearances and delay important VFR operators?..... actually this is a good example of why the old system DID work. The only time an ATC clearance was not immediately issued was when a Sep standard did not immediately exist but would do very soon - it was safe. (or when the aircraft had not submitted a flight plan which the controller has to do on a screen which goes over the top of their traffic picture they are trying to run).
One point I think is not appreciated here is that the ATC was under no obligation to cut off VB's descent. VB could have sailed right on thru the E airspace.
The point about descending thru E airspace on descent to C - just about all major AD in Australia almost require that now with the E steps. e.g. Gold Coast E starts at 30nm S at 8500 ' up.
If you apply the Ministers rhetoric one step further....IF the worst HAD happened and there WAS a midair.... there still would have been NO BREAKDOWN in SEPARATION, because.... no sep standard existed! Now tell me again how this is safe and not crazy??
Why wont Anderson talk to CivilAir or AIPA? If he is so confident in the system why doesnt he get out and tell the professional bodies why?
Why hasnt he responded to Martin Fergusons questions in parliament about why Dick Smith didnt oppose him in Gwydir?
From Hansard link: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr210803.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. If the controller was concerned about a potential conflict why didn't he simply ask the C421 to do a orbit or standard rate turn at his current position. This would have given an immediate 2 minute increase in seperation. Happens going into CBR all the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't that the whole reason E was introduced? So those pesky Air traffic controllers don't have to issue clearances and delay important VFR operators?..... actually this is a good example of why the old system DID work. The only time an ATC clearance was not immediately issued was when a Sep standard did not immediately exist but would do very soon - it was safe. (or when the aircraft had not submitted a flight plan which the controller has to do on a screen which goes over the top of their traffic picture they are trying to run).
One point I think is not appreciated here is that the ATC was under no obligation to cut off VB's descent. VB could have sailed right on thru the E airspace.
The point about descending thru E airspace on descent to C - just about all major AD in Australia almost require that now with the E steps. e.g. Gold Coast E starts at 30nm S at 8500 ' up.
If you apply the Ministers rhetoric one step further....IF the worst HAD happened and there WAS a midair.... there still would have been NO BREAKDOWN in SEPARATION, because.... no sep standard existed! Now tell me again how this is safe and not crazy??
Why wont Anderson talk to CivilAir or AIPA? If he is so confident in the system why doesnt he get out and tell the professional bodies why?
Why hasnt he responded to Martin Fergusons questions in parliament about why Dick Smith didnt oppose him in Gwydir?
Then we have the final Dick: Mr Dick Smith. Dick, to be fair, is an enthusiastic amateur pilot, adventurer and successful marketing man. Mr Smith and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services are not the best of mates. They had a very public stoush in the lead-up to Mr Smith's leaving the CASA board. Mr Anderson, as we were told then, was not going to work with him again. We then had Mr Smith embark on a strategy to get back into the tent. He threatened to stand against the minister in Gwydir.
Before we knew it, Dick Smith visited the Liberal Party court and soon announced that he would not run in Gwydir. We do not know what happened in those discussions but, soon after the election, the minister put him in charge of airspace design and reform. The design and development of our airspace has been outsourced to Dick Smith. The result is that not one person on the Airspace Reform Group has air traffic control or airline pilot qualifications.
The proposed NAS system does not have widespread industry support and it will put the Australian travelling public at risk. It is one thing to lose ownership of Telstra, and it is another thing to spend millions of dollars to prop up a friend's industry; but to risk the aviation and the travelling public's safety to deliver a political outcome—in essence, to get Mr Dick Smith not to run or support a candidate in Gwydir at the 2001 election—is unforgivable.
Before we knew it, Dick Smith visited the Liberal Party court and soon announced that he would not run in Gwydir. We do not know what happened in those discussions but, soon after the election, the minister put him in charge of airspace design and reform. The design and development of our airspace has been outsourced to Dick Smith. The result is that not one person on the Airspace Reform Group has air traffic control or airline pilot qualifications.
The proposed NAS system does not have widespread industry support and it will put the Australian travelling public at risk. It is one thing to lose ownership of Telstra, and it is another thing to spend millions of dollars to prop up a friend's industry; but to risk the aviation and the travelling public's safety to deliver a political outcome—in essence, to get Mr Dick Smith not to run or support a candidate in Gwydir at the 2001 election—is unforgivable.
Last edited by Shitsu-Tonka; 20th Dec 2003 at 07:27.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RV8builder
The ATSB report fails to mention any of the other factors involved in this (choke) incident.
These would be -
Workload
Internal intercom coordination
Other routine traffic handling
Weather
The coordination can be frustratingly slow. Probably the Traffic Manager and/or the Flow controller would be involved in approving the final clearance. They in turn may have had to assess the weather conditions down the line. If there were TS in the area, this would have complicated matters, especially VFR. If diversions had been going on closer in, the TM will be pretty conservative about having a VFR'y in the terminal area. If the pilot asked for IFR, then there may have been another round of coord. More time taken.
The BE20 mentioned in the report as not a factor, was still part of traffic picture, and I believe occupied some of the controllers traffic management strategies.
For some reason, maybe because it's an interim report, none of the above is made evident.
I am happy to stand corrected on any of the above.
CG
The ATSB report fails to mention any of the other factors involved in this (choke) incident.
These would be -
Workload
Internal intercom coordination
Other routine traffic handling
Weather
The coordination can be frustratingly slow. Probably the Traffic Manager and/or the Flow controller would be involved in approving the final clearance. They in turn may have had to assess the weather conditions down the line. If there were TS in the area, this would have complicated matters, especially VFR. If diversions had been going on closer in, the TM will be pretty conservative about having a VFR'y in the terminal area. If the pilot asked for IFR, then there may have been another round of coord. More time taken.
The BE20 mentioned in the report as not a factor, was still part of traffic picture, and I believe occupied some of the controllers traffic management strategies.
For some reason, maybe because it's an interim report, none of the above is made evident.
I am happy to stand corrected on any of the above.
CG
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did the 737 need to go through the E airspace?
Is this considered an acceptable level of service, at 10:00 am on a weekday?
why didn't he simply ask the C421 to do a orbit
The BE20 .... occupied some of the controllers traffic management strategies
The ATSB report fails to mention any of the other factors involved in this (choke) incident.
What can we learn from this incident?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney N.S.W.
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
" Maintaining F190 til 40Nm Melbourne, and then trying to meet STAR requirements and setup for a straight-in ILS is pushing it a bit for a slippery B737."
Why do we insist on low and slow arrivals in this country? Perhaps we should look at the STAR's and SID's next. As much as I like the sound of 747's wandering around the Sydney basin low and slow burning tons of unnecessary fuel (and I know the political implications of having JWH at Kirribilli) I really think we need to start thinking outside our 1960's square of ideas on ATC.
quote:
" Depends ... but in this case, the controller had to identify the aircraft, get his mode C on and verified, take flight details 'cause the pilot didn't submit any! coordinate clearances with TMA especially since the wx was poor ... and, maybe he had to separate other traffic! At 10:00 am near Melb, these weren't the only two aircraft in the sky!"
Yep, there was probably at least two others in the area! Last time I called Socal Approach for a pop-up clearence it took all of thirty seconds, and that included a "G'day Mate" for a controller who had seen too many Crocodile Dundee pix. Even Stansted only takes one to two minutes and both are a hell of a lot busier than Melbourne in the middle of the morning.
I think we need to all take a deep breath, stand back and look at things from a new perspective - just because we are used to having things done one way dosen't make it the best way.
Arr... there's the forest....now pass the chainsaw...
" Maintaining F190 til 40Nm Melbourne, and then trying to meet STAR requirements and setup for a straight-in ILS is pushing it a bit for a slippery B737."
Why do we insist on low and slow arrivals in this country? Perhaps we should look at the STAR's and SID's next. As much as I like the sound of 747's wandering around the Sydney basin low and slow burning tons of unnecessary fuel (and I know the political implications of having JWH at Kirribilli) I really think we need to start thinking outside our 1960's square of ideas on ATC.
quote:
" Depends ... but in this case, the controller had to identify the aircraft, get his mode C on and verified, take flight details 'cause the pilot didn't submit any! coordinate clearances with TMA especially since the wx was poor ... and, maybe he had to separate other traffic! At 10:00 am near Melb, these weren't the only two aircraft in the sky!"
Yep, there was probably at least two others in the area! Last time I called Socal Approach for a pop-up clearence it took all of thirty seconds, and that included a "G'day Mate" for a controller who had seen too many Crocodile Dundee pix. Even Stansted only takes one to two minutes and both are a hell of a lot busier than Melbourne in the middle of the morning.
I think we need to all take a deep breath, stand back and look at things from a new perspective - just because we are used to having things done one way dosen't make it the best way.
Arr... there's the forest....now pass the chainsaw...
Rv8Builder:
Low and slow? Burning tons of unnecessary fuel? You're kidding, aren't you, mate? The IDLE POWER descent profile for the Boeings around here is very roughly the following:
80nm... FL200... 300KIAS
60nm... FL150... 300KIAS
40nm... FL110... 300KIAS
35nm... FL110... 250KIAS
20nm... 5000.... 250KIAS
So at 40nm to be on a normal idle power glide descent, you want to be around FL110. Roughly. So, as you can see, FL190 as about 8000' above profile. That's a fair few extra track miles or a fair bit of speedbrake to get back onto profile....
Low and slow? Burning tons of unnecessary fuel? You're kidding, aren't you, mate? The IDLE POWER descent profile for the Boeings around here is very roughly the following:
80nm... FL200... 300KIAS
60nm... FL150... 300KIAS
40nm... FL110... 300KIAS
35nm... FL110... 250KIAS
20nm... 5000.... 250KIAS
So at 40nm to be on a normal idle power glide descent, you want to be around FL110. Roughly. So, as you can see, FL190 as about 8000' above profile. That's a fair few extra track miles or a fair bit of speedbrake to get back onto profile....
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RV8builder
The future of airtraffic control is a more rigid and inflexible system. ASA long term plan is to put everyone on a SID/STAR with no track shorting, flow done by the MAESTRO system everyone 250 below A100. Eventually they hope to get rid of departures entirely and a very much reduced approach service.
I suggest you also take a look at Ferris's interesting post on why it takes longer to get a cleareance is Aus
The future of airtraffic control is a more rigid and inflexible system. ASA long term plan is to put everyone on a SID/STAR with no track shorting, flow done by the MAESTRO system everyone 250 below A100. Eventually they hope to get rid of departures entirely and a very much reduced approach service.
I suggest you also take a look at Ferris's interesting post on why it takes longer to get a cleareance is Aus
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney N.S.W.
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote:
" Low and slow? Burning tons of unnecessary fuel? You're kidding, aren't you, mate? The IDLE POWER descent profile for the Boeings around here is very roughly the following:
80nm... FL200... 300KIAS
60nm... FL150... 300KIAS
40nm... FL110... 300KIAS
35nm... FL110... 250KIAS
20nm... 5000.... 250KIAS"
Interesting figures. According to my mental E6B that works out at about 1125ft/min. Why then was the Virgin 737 coming down at 3000ft/min?
Not wishing to upset anyone but it seems to me that arriving at 45DME @ ~FL200 would only require a 2000ft/min descent, which is well within the capabilities of the aircraft and a lot slower than the Virgin was doing into class E.
If you don't like class E, don't use it! If the STAR is outdated lets get it changed. Request a TOD to remain in A/C and everyone can stop worrying and get back to important stuff, like how the hell are we going to beat the Indians twice!
" Low and slow? Burning tons of unnecessary fuel? You're kidding, aren't you, mate? The IDLE POWER descent profile for the Boeings around here is very roughly the following:
80nm... FL200... 300KIAS
60nm... FL150... 300KIAS
40nm... FL110... 300KIAS
35nm... FL110... 250KIAS
20nm... 5000.... 250KIAS"
Interesting figures. According to my mental E6B that works out at about 1125ft/min. Why then was the Virgin 737 coming down at 3000ft/min?
Not wishing to upset anyone but it seems to me that arriving at 45DME @ ~FL200 would only require a 2000ft/min descent, which is well within the capabilities of the aircraft and a lot slower than the Virgin was doing into class E.
If you don't like class E, don't use it! If the STAR is outdated lets get it changed. Request a TOD to remain in A/C and everyone can stop worrying and get back to important stuff, like how the hell are we going to beat the Indians twice!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RV8:
I have never flown anything heavy, but your averaging of the descent profile is not, I beleiev,how it works. Energy management is what the FMC and route/star design is supposed to optimise. Part of that descent might be 4000fpm, the last part probably no more than 800fpm. dont forget reducing to achieve 250KIASBLWA100.
1.Hmm. why didnt the ARG include changing the STAR design in part of their 'Wide Industry Consultation'.
2.The STAR would actually lokk quite entertaining as it looped down in small circles over the top of a major city airport.
3. If we dont like it , why should WE put up with it? How about we say to the RV8 fliers: If you dont like our C airspace dont fly in it? (or request a clearance like we used to?). Lets see - 3-4 people inconvenienced at the expense of 3000.
4. Getting a clearance was no big deal. All you had to do what be prepared to get off your ar$e and put a flight plan in. Either way you needed a transponder. But before we could tell if it was working.
Some bloody progress.
I have never flown anything heavy, but your averaging of the descent profile is not, I beleiev,how it works. Energy management is what the FMC and route/star design is supposed to optimise. Part of that descent might be 4000fpm, the last part probably no more than 800fpm. dont forget reducing to achieve 250KIASBLWA100.
If you don't like class E, don't use it! If the STAR is outdated lets get it changed.
2.The STAR would actually lokk quite entertaining as it looped down in small circles over the top of a major city airport.
3. If we dont like it , why should WE put up with it? How about we say to the RV8 fliers: If you dont like our C airspace dont fly in it? (or request a clearance like we used to?). Lets see - 3-4 people inconvenienced at the expense of 3000.
4. Getting a clearance was no big deal. All you had to do what be prepared to get off your ar$e and put a flight plan in. Either way you needed a transponder. But before we could tell if it was working.
Some bloody progress.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get Real
PLENTY OF DRIVEL AND DOUBLE STANDARDS HERE.
The NAS is a pup, but with commonsense, decency and cooperation we can help it to work, ( what is the alternative? )
Consider the following.
How many VFR aircraft in class E will have non functioning transponders from either faults or finger problems? How many VFR aircraft in class E , either cruising or climbing / descending above 10 000ft ( where +250knts permitted ) will have transponder problems..... I'll bet stuff all, and even this infinitesimal no. will decrease with greater awareness.
How hard is it for a controller to say to a 73 " unverified traffic 10nm ahead 12 O'clock "? ( and even " altitude unknown" ) How hard is it for the superior being at the pointy end to then diverge 5 or 10 degrees for a few seconds till the traffic is sighted or passed? This happens many times a day in the US.
Don't give me the " it's not the controllers job " crap either. It's everybody's job to maintain and contribute to safety. C O M M O N S E N S E. The VFR had every-right to be where he was and it's not ' his job ' either, to be somewhere else if you want to persue that logic.
It disgusts me to see the no of jabs and insinuations made at this ' inferior pilot ' ( Chief galah and others ) As an ex military guy he has been through training to a competency level most of you blokes could only dream about. He did nothing wrong and the point he was making was that under the rules, and in his opinion thing worked out and were resolved satisfactorily. Sure, experience will help him fine tune future actions but that is normal given the rate of change and new circumstances.
If you think this incident is an exception, think again. I have 20k hours. I fly a Navajo. I fly in the flight levels. I fly mainly VFR. I always plan via IFR routes if possible. I usually submit an IFR formulated flight plan but lodge VFR to save money if conditions are suitable, ( unlike you prima donnas with someone else to pay the bill on a sky clear day ). If required, the plan is in the system so there will be no delays if a change of category is required. I monitor the correct frequencies ( now made a damm side harder with them and boundaries being removed from the charts ) I will be listening and looking out for you and I hope you will be doing likewise.
I notice an insinuation from some posting whom I assume to be ATC that they will give the run around to anyone they feel doesn't fit into their cosy world of expectations. You should know boys that that behaviour will not be tolerated and as well as getting a serve over the airwaves you will be filling out a lot of paperwork and maybe even getting some legal ' please explains '
Stop bitching and change your procedures and habits to live with the realities as they now exist.
I think like most involved that there has been a significant dilution of the ' safety ' environment that we perceived existed prior to NAS. However how this actually reveals it's self or whether it is even significant will only be shown over time. The emphasis on changing pilot behaviour and expectations, and transponder use may completely mitigate the changes.
One effect on me will be to fit one of the new ' cheapy ' TCAS systems. I may also request a transponder check from ATC when approaching busier areas. You can be sure that I will also be listening and talking to you if the need arises.
Safe Flying. BP
The NAS is a pup, but with commonsense, decency and cooperation we can help it to work, ( what is the alternative? )
Consider the following.
How many VFR aircraft in class E will have non functioning transponders from either faults or finger problems? How many VFR aircraft in class E , either cruising or climbing / descending above 10 000ft ( where +250knts permitted ) will have transponder problems..... I'll bet stuff all, and even this infinitesimal no. will decrease with greater awareness.
How hard is it for a controller to say to a 73 " unverified traffic 10nm ahead 12 O'clock "? ( and even " altitude unknown" ) How hard is it for the superior being at the pointy end to then diverge 5 or 10 degrees for a few seconds till the traffic is sighted or passed? This happens many times a day in the US.
Don't give me the " it's not the controllers job " crap either. It's everybody's job to maintain and contribute to safety. C O M M O N S E N S E. The VFR had every-right to be where he was and it's not ' his job ' either, to be somewhere else if you want to persue that logic.
It disgusts me to see the no of jabs and insinuations made at this ' inferior pilot ' ( Chief galah and others ) As an ex military guy he has been through training to a competency level most of you blokes could only dream about. He did nothing wrong and the point he was making was that under the rules, and in his opinion thing worked out and were resolved satisfactorily. Sure, experience will help him fine tune future actions but that is normal given the rate of change and new circumstances.
If you think this incident is an exception, think again. I have 20k hours. I fly a Navajo. I fly in the flight levels. I fly mainly VFR. I always plan via IFR routes if possible. I usually submit an IFR formulated flight plan but lodge VFR to save money if conditions are suitable, ( unlike you prima donnas with someone else to pay the bill on a sky clear day ). If required, the plan is in the system so there will be no delays if a change of category is required. I monitor the correct frequencies ( now made a damm side harder with them and boundaries being removed from the charts ) I will be listening and looking out for you and I hope you will be doing likewise.
I notice an insinuation from some posting whom I assume to be ATC that they will give the run around to anyone they feel doesn't fit into their cosy world of expectations. You should know boys that that behaviour will not be tolerated and as well as getting a serve over the airwaves you will be filling out a lot of paperwork and maybe even getting some legal ' please explains '
Stop bitching and change your procedures and habits to live with the realities as they now exist.
I think like most involved that there has been a significant dilution of the ' safety ' environment that we perceived existed prior to NAS. However how this actually reveals it's self or whether it is even significant will only be shown over time. The emphasis on changing pilot behaviour and expectations, and transponder use may completely mitigate the changes.
One effect on me will be to fit one of the new ' cheapy ' TCAS systems. I may also request a transponder check from ATC when approaching busier areas. You can be sure that I will also be listening and talking to you if the need arises.
Safe Flying. BP
Last edited by bush pelican; 20th Dec 2003 at 16:42.
RV8 Builder:
Knots INDICATED airspeed, mate. INDICATED. Yes, I know that 300/6=5 nm per min and that means 8 mins to cover 40 nm and FL200-FL110 is 9000, 9000/8=1125. But you're not thinking TAS. And then there's wind... ie, Ground Speed... May well be doing 3000 fpm, even 4000 fpm at times, if only to get BACK onto profile for a range of reasons.
Bush Pelican:
Quote 1: The NAS is a pup, but with commonsense, decency and cooperation we can help it to work, ( what is the alternative? )
The alternative is to expand Class C back out so that heavy RPT aircraft containing the BULK of the Australian population that flies is properly contained in such airspace. Doesn't mean VFR can't be there - just need a clearance and receive proper separation from the heavy tin, and everyone else in there for that matter.
Quote 2: As an ex military guy he has been through training to a competency level most of you blokes could only dream about. He did nothing wrong....
The first sentence - that may be. However the second sentence - well he DID do wrong - he was in Class E airspace without his transponder in Mode C. Undeniable cock-up. Please don't argue otherwise. It worries me that YOU may not realise this. Better read your NAS stuff again. And while you are there you'd better read the VFR Airmanship stuff about not tracking via aerodromes, navaids, etc....... if you say you fly VFR along IFR routes.
400'/1.5nm separation BY PURE LUCK is not acceptable for the paying public. It could have been even less. It COULD have ended up zero/zero under this system. How close is it going to have to come before the "powers" in charge wake up?
Oh, and if you are wondering what the airlines are actually thinking vs saying officially - well they are two very different things. The reason is neither airline wants to get the minister offside. Think about the various things going on at the moment (Pacific rights, Tasman flying, QF-ANZ tie up, etc etc) and you may start to understand. True story. So it s#it$ me when Anderson says QF and DJ support NAS2B. Well the reality is that they just haven't said "Minister, NAS2B is a crock". So far it has been left to the unions to fight and thus far hasn't been terribly well handled.
What's it going to take?
Knots INDICATED airspeed, mate. INDICATED. Yes, I know that 300/6=5 nm per min and that means 8 mins to cover 40 nm and FL200-FL110 is 9000, 9000/8=1125. But you're not thinking TAS. And then there's wind... ie, Ground Speed... May well be doing 3000 fpm, even 4000 fpm at times, if only to get BACK onto profile for a range of reasons.
Bush Pelican:
Quote 1: The NAS is a pup, but with commonsense, decency and cooperation we can help it to work, ( what is the alternative? )
The alternative is to expand Class C back out so that heavy RPT aircraft containing the BULK of the Australian population that flies is properly contained in such airspace. Doesn't mean VFR can't be there - just need a clearance and receive proper separation from the heavy tin, and everyone else in there for that matter.
Quote 2: As an ex military guy he has been through training to a competency level most of you blokes could only dream about. He did nothing wrong....
The first sentence - that may be. However the second sentence - well he DID do wrong - he was in Class E airspace without his transponder in Mode C. Undeniable cock-up. Please don't argue otherwise. It worries me that YOU may not realise this. Better read your NAS stuff again. And while you are there you'd better read the VFR Airmanship stuff about not tracking via aerodromes, navaids, etc....... if you say you fly VFR along IFR routes.
400'/1.5nm separation BY PURE LUCK is not acceptable for the paying public. It could have been even less. It COULD have ended up zero/zero under this system. How close is it going to have to come before the "powers" in charge wake up?
Oh, and if you are wondering what the airlines are actually thinking vs saying officially - well they are two very different things. The reason is neither airline wants to get the minister offside. Think about the various things going on at the moment (Pacific rights, Tasman flying, QF-ANZ tie up, etc etc) and you may start to understand. True story. So it s#it$ me when Anderson says QF and DJ support NAS2B. Well the reality is that they just haven't said "Minister, NAS2B is a crock". So far it has been left to the unions to fight and thus far hasn't been terribly well handled.
What's it going to take?
Last edited by Ushuaia; 20th Dec 2003 at 16:17.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bush pelican
Your
Yeah right.
Your professional pilot did not comply with AIP ENR 1.10-4 2.3 or 2.4 in regard to Flight Notification.
He did not comply with AIP ENR 1.6-9 8.1.2 in regard to Operation of Transponders.
He did not comply with AIP ENR1.1-30 18.3.2 a & c. and 18.3.2 in regard to VFR flights in Class E Airspace.
He did not comply with AIP ENR 1.1-3 3.18 in regard to submitting of flight plan details.
He did not comply with AIP ENR 1.1-29 18.1.2 in regard to see-and-avoid.
None of this seemed to be contributory in the ATSB report.
As for double standards - why do you need a TCAS when the Class E golden rule of "see and avoid" should be all you need?
CG
Your
military guy he has been through training to a competency level most of you blokes could only dream about
Your professional pilot did not comply with AIP ENR 1.10-4 2.3 or 2.4 in regard to Flight Notification.
He did not comply with AIP ENR 1.6-9 8.1.2 in regard to Operation of Transponders.
He did not comply with AIP ENR1.1-30 18.3.2 a & c. and 18.3.2 in regard to VFR flights in Class E Airspace.
He did not comply with AIP ENR 1.1-3 3.18 in regard to submitting of flight plan details.
He did not comply with AIP ENR 1.1-29 18.1.2 in regard to see-and-avoid.
None of this seemed to be contributory in the ATSB report.
As for double standards - why do you need a TCAS when the Class E golden rule of "see and avoid" should be all you need?
CG
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Townsville Qld.
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chief Galah
Yes, appropriately named.
I know snarek well, he helped run our aero club for a while.
For your info:
1. Snarek has been flying for about 20 years.
2. He owns two aircraft, one 'normal' one warbird.
3. He seems to me to be the only one here to have listened to the debate and modified his position based on what he heard.
We are, I think, lucky you are not on the AOPA Board.
BANGSAT!!!
PT
Yes, appropriately named.
I know snarek well, he helped run our aero club for a while.
For your info:
1. Snarek has been flying for about 20 years.
2. He owns two aircraft, one 'normal' one warbird.
3. He seems to me to be the only one here to have listened to the debate and modified his position based on what he heard.
We are, I think, lucky you are not on the AOPA Board.
BANGSAT!!!
PT
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney N.S.W.
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chief galah:
A bloke comes here and tries to ask a few sensible questions, and you get personal abuse instead.
No, I haven't been able to play Flight Sim lately, hell I haven't even got 2004 yet. I've been too busy flying in places where they have air traffic service instead of air traffic control.
A mindset change appears to be overdue at your console.
A bloke comes here and tries to ask a few sensible questions, and you get personal abuse instead.
No, I haven't been able to play Flight Sim lately, hell I haven't even got 2004 yet. I've been too busy flying in places where they have air traffic service instead of air traffic control.
A mindset change appears to be overdue at your console.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many VFR aircraft in class E will have non functioning transponders from either faults or finger problems?
This non-incident certainly highlighted the need to look for non-mode C radar tracks ... and now that I'm looking .... there's lots more than I thought ... and lots appearing in the path of RPT traffic.
How hard is it for a controller to say to a 73 " unverified traffic 10nm ahead 12 O'clock "? ( and even " altitude unknown" )