Some truth about the ML incident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plazbot
No not a threat, sort of a warning. Anyone can download or buy a variety of IP trackers, I have one and use it to keep track of multiple personalities in the GA forum.
I put it on here and low and behold, many posters come from the same IP address (by the way, the AsA IP can identify an area, I just can't go that far, you have to be 'inside' to do that).
Oh, and no, I am not a moderator, just an engineer who can work IP stuff, even one of the Woomeri is a tad concerned at that
AK
No not a threat, sort of a warning. Anyone can download or buy a variety of IP trackers, I have one and use it to keep track of multiple personalities in the GA forum.
I put it on here and low and behold, many posters come from the same IP address (by the way, the AsA IP can identify an area, I just can't go that far, you have to be 'inside' to do that).
Oh, and no, I am not a moderator, just an engineer who can work IP stuff, even one of the Woomeri is a tad concerned at that
AK
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek,
Apology accepted. OK, You are right, U/S transponder should not be in E. I'll come back to that...
Your scenario,
C could not have prevented this because there was no transponder, no-one knew he was there, and the pilot didn't think he was in C. The causal factors are:
1. U/S transponder
2. A VCA due to Navigation Error
Given these two causal factors, Class A,C,G,E has no other defences apart from unalerted see and avoid.
Note, though, that in my scenarios, I only had one causal factor - the U/S transponder. No Navigation Error is necessary. The NAS allows for the aircraft to be there. If my scenario had been Class C airspace, then the VFR would have also had to have VCA'd to get anywhere near the jet. The Class C airspace effectively adds a big layer of protection that E doesn't have.
Given just a transponder failure, and no failure of any other kind (eg nav error, ATC failure), Class E allows for such a near miss whilst Class C doesn't. Class C requires more errors before you get to a near miss situation
Your comment on see and avoid is valid, but in all of these scenarios, it would have to be unalerted see and avoid with a fast moving jet - not effective all of the time.
You said that U/S transponder should not be in E. Yes, but how does the VFR pilot know that the transponder is working? The blinking reply light is not a confirmation. The VFR pilot is not required to be in any comms with ATC to verify the mode A and C (even if he did have the freq), and even if he was, if he is not in radar coverage then nobody knows.
So you are right - VFR with U/S transponder should not be in E, but how can the pilot tell if it is U/S to avoid that airspace in the first place?
Apology accepted. OK, You are right, U/S transponder should not be in E. I'll come back to that...
Your scenario,
"C421 approaching Cairns from overhead Townsville at 14,500 on Nov 24 2001 with Transponder U/S and having miscalculated a position due to a 50-kt tailwind mistakes Cape Cleveland for Cape Bowling Green and misses a 717 climbing out of Tvl by 50 feet and 100 meters.
So, how would 'C' prevent this???"
So, how would 'C' prevent this???"
1. U/S transponder
2. A VCA due to Navigation Error
Given these two causal factors, Class A,C,G,E has no other defences apart from unalerted see and avoid.
Note, though, that in my scenarios, I only had one causal factor - the U/S transponder. No Navigation Error is necessary. The NAS allows for the aircraft to be there. If my scenario had been Class C airspace, then the VFR would have also had to have VCA'd to get anywhere near the jet. The Class C airspace effectively adds a big layer of protection that E doesn't have.
Given just a transponder failure, and no failure of any other kind (eg nav error, ATC failure), Class E allows for such a near miss whilst Class C doesn't. Class C requires more errors before you get to a near miss situation
Your comment on see and avoid is valid, but in all of these scenarios, it would have to be unalerted see and avoid with a fast moving jet - not effective all of the time.
You said that U/S transponder should not be in E. Yes, but how does the VFR pilot know that the transponder is working? The blinking reply light is not a confirmation. The VFR pilot is not required to be in any comms with ATC to verify the mode A and C (even if he did have the freq), and even if he was, if he is not in radar coverage then nobody knows.
So you are right - VFR with U/S transponder should not be in E, but how can the pilot tell if it is U/S to avoid that airspace in the first place?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HTH
There are many ways an aircraft could enter C accidentally beyond just a nav error.
I think here we have established that to make E work transponders need checking, which comes back to the main point we agree about, being on the right freq, ie
"Brisbane Center, XXX, 120 GPS on 150 Radial Cairns, 6500, squarking 1200, Morning Plazbot can I get a transponder check please"
Oh and lots more education, a failure of the NASIG that AOPA is trying to address.
AK
PS, one day Plazbot I'll tell you my rego and we can wink at each other
I mean, if I can do it so can others within your organisation. Use different computers!!!
There are many ways an aircraft could enter C accidentally beyond just a nav error.
I think here we have established that to make E work transponders need checking, which comes back to the main point we agree about, being on the right freq, ie
"Brisbane Center, XXX, 120 GPS on 150 Radial Cairns, 6500, squarking 1200, Morning Plazbot can I get a transponder check please"
Oh and lots more education, a failure of the NASIG that AOPA is trying to address.
AK
PS, one day Plazbot I'll tell you my rego and we can wink at each other
I mean, if I can do it so can others within your organisation. Use different computers!!!
PPruNaholic!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Buckinghamshire
Age: 61
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use different computers
Andy
Bottums Up
TXPDRS
Another example of the risk of relying on Mode C txpdr and TCAS for separation.
Yesterday out of CS, identified as normal, and happily climbing to F300 enroute GV. Somewhere in Class E, to the NW of CS, our friendly and probably scared ATCO calls and advises that he's lost our altitude readout.
A quick look and Claret & Reisling realise that the fork that dropped off the meal tray has inadvetantly knocked the txpdr alt selector to off.
Had this happened outside radar coverage, and in a busier environment, it could very well have been another hole of the swiss cheese lined up with the next.
Yesterday out of CS, identified as normal, and happily climbing to F300 enroute GV. Somewhere in Class E, to the NW of CS, our friendly and probably scared ATCO calls and advises that he's lost our altitude readout.
A quick look and Claret & Reisling realise that the fork that dropped off the meal tray has inadvetantly knocked the txpdr alt selector to off.
Had this happened outside radar coverage, and in a busier environment, it could very well have been another hole of the swiss cheese lined up with the next.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TOBZALP
Here here to all of that.
I am a long time advocate of ATC telling the lazy:
".VFR pop up calls for clearance.. call flight watch and submit details then get back to me. "
Why should those who bother and are not trying to rort the system and push undue priorities get delayed.
Further - let the market forces sort this out - If you absolutely intend to continue to fly VFR in E and forget to turn transponder on etc etc get in there and do some listening out on E and transmit regardless of NAS recommendations. Especially VFR high performance aircraft using mid-levels.
CTAF will only be worse so get used to talking now 'cause it isn't going to be pretty later. If instilling a subversive reporting culture is the answer by the folk who use the system, then do it. If you're IFR in non-radar E then I suggest R/T for G and take the added benefit of ATC. Who's going to hang you for chucking in an extra report? A quiet chat (with relevant counselling ) under the gum tree for transgressions may help. Extreme measures for extreme circumstances.
The discussion is hingeing on transponder success or failure due to one recent instance in ML but this ignores a significant hazard mitigator which is R/T.
Also, there are plenty of ATC who still separate/segregate VFR/VFR so why not VFR/IFR in E. Blame it on duty of care or whatever - offer the service and do the best with what you've got. Sure the inevitable will happen but you can rest easier knowing you have tried and be satisfied that you were always right when those couple of stupid people are locked up.
For me - the bottom line, at a personal level, is to do what must be done to prevent a collision. Lobbying by typing is obviously not making a difference - of blockheads and brickwalls!l
Here here to all of that.
I am a long time advocate of ATC telling the lazy:
".VFR pop up calls for clearance.. call flight watch and submit details then get back to me. "
Why should those who bother and are not trying to rort the system and push undue priorities get delayed.
Further - let the market forces sort this out - If you absolutely intend to continue to fly VFR in E and forget to turn transponder on etc etc get in there and do some listening out on E and transmit regardless of NAS recommendations. Especially VFR high performance aircraft using mid-levels.
CTAF will only be worse so get used to talking now 'cause it isn't going to be pretty later. If instilling a subversive reporting culture is the answer by the folk who use the system, then do it. If you're IFR in non-radar E then I suggest R/T for G and take the added benefit of ATC. Who's going to hang you for chucking in an extra report? A quiet chat (with relevant counselling ) under the gum tree for transgressions may help. Extreme measures for extreme circumstances.
The discussion is hingeing on transponder success or failure due to one recent instance in ML but this ignores a significant hazard mitigator which is R/T.
Also, there are plenty of ATC who still separate/segregate VFR/VFR so why not VFR/IFR in E. Blame it on duty of care or whatever - offer the service and do the best with what you've got. Sure the inevitable will happen but you can rest easier knowing you have tried and be satisfied that you were always right when those couple of stupid people are locked up.
For me - the bottom line, at a personal level, is to do what must be done to prevent a collision. Lobbying by typing is obviously not making a difference - of blockheads and brickwalls!l
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had this happened outside radar coverage, and in a busier environment, it could very well have been another hole of the swiss cheese lined up with the next.
"All stations... just a moment.... I'll have the fish thanks"
Snarek,
You're my hero. Spying on people's IP addresses. So what if a person has multiple user names: it's a rumour board, for god's sake!! You really are a nasty piece of work by the sound of it, and a nerd to boot.
Re the transponder checks, we tried that with your AOPA leaders and ATC management years ago (probably before you knew what an aeroplane was) when Dickspace first reared it's ugly head. They told us to get stuffed.
You're my hero. Spying on people's IP addresses. So what if a person has multiple user names: it's a rumour board, for god's sake!! You really are a nasty piece of work by the sound of it, and a nerd to boot.
Re the transponder checks, we tried that with your AOPA leaders and ATC management years ago (probably before you knew what an aeroplane was) when Dickspace first reared it's ugly head. They told us to get stuffed.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and the one that got away.............
Notes:
1. Two aircraft operating companies operating within the rules
2. My information suggests that for Brisbane ATC read Darwin ATC
3. Had the rules REQUIRED the aircraft to even report on common frequency this would have been sorted well before the event. TRUE or FALSE - you tell me. Is such a minor adjustment to procedure relevant or needed - you tell me.
4. Names removed intentionally. The companies are not at fault here - the system is.
Transcript
Station: ABC CENTRAL AUSTRALIA
Date: 01/12/2003
Program: DRIVE SHOW
Time: 04:48 PM
Compere: BARRY NICHOLLS
Item: DESCRIBES A NEAR MISS ABOVE DARWIN AIRPORT
COMPERE: Last Thursday the Government introduced controversial air space reforms and pilots, airlines, air traffic controllers in airports all warned of dangers under the new rules.
Now today there are claims that just one day after the laws were introduced, there was a near collision between two aircraft near Darwin. The claims were just 10 nautical miles apart and approaching one another at close to 500 kilometres per hour. The ***** plane was ascending through the other's air space but the pilot didn't know it was in danger because the ***** plane was operating on visual flight rules with no obligation to call its position on the radio.
Cherie Beach asked *****, just how serious was this near collision.
*****:
The aircraft were definitely in a conflict situation, there's no doubt about that. And it wouldn't have happened in the previous organisation of air space. We were unaware of each other which is the issue that we are concerned about. Neither captain knew that they were in a conflict situation.
COMPERE: So your skipper came back to Darwin quite shaken up by this incident?
*****: Concerned, there's no doubt about that. Brisbane Control advised us to alter course and they were obliged to notify the Air North aircraft that they were in a possible conflict situation so…
COMPERE: How close were those aircraft before you heard from Brisbane Air Traffic Control?
*****: I think - I don't know, ten miles has been talked about.
COMPERE: And is that a reasonable gap? I mean that's not really a near collision, is it?
*****: The most dangerous episode in flying is approaching airports because one aircraft can be coming up and the other one's going down. So this changing of levels is potentially the most hazardous arena in flying. And it's just been made a little bit more so now by the fact that aircraft aren't on the same frequency.
COMPERE: With one pilot using visual flight rules, this was directly related to the government changes in air space rules introduced just a few hours earlier?
*****: That is correct. Under the previous regime, they would have been on the same frequency and our aircraft would have been in controlled air space and been positively separated from the other aircraft, yes.
COMPERE: Can I ask you why you would operate on visual flight rule? Is it cheaper?
*****: If the weather's fine we can carry more people. And the weather was fine.
COMPERE: Under visual flight rules.
*****: Yes.
COMPERE: So under the changes, it was expected of you that you would go to VFR and, as a result, you would not have to give a radio call. Therefore you weren't able to communicate with the other aircraft and neither of you knew that you were able to share the same air space?
*****: Yes.
COMPERE: How as it and when was it that you were notified of the danger, or that your pilot was notified of the danger?
*****: Both aircraft have got a transponder and the information is going down to a radar screen which just happens to be in, of all places, Brisbane. That's to say a controller is sitting in front of a big screen and can see that two blips on his screen are moving towards each other.
*****: Well doesn't this show then that the new air space regulations are working, and that the situation is safe, that they identified that you were coming together?
*****: There's quite a bit of interpretation in that. Some of us in the industry are keeping our views open as to whether it's a good or a bad thing. This is the first one which faced a bit of concern but it actually, as you just said, was resolved by a controller telling one of the aircraft to alter course. So it's comforting to know that was it*. But, if the controller was occupied in some other area of his screen, he may not have picked up the potential conflict. So, we're not 100% sure whether the system is going to work or whether it's going to be a bit hairy scary. But as we've been told, it works in America so why shouldn't it work in Australia?
COMPERE: So in this instance it did work. But this is the exact kind of incident that the industry is extremely concerned about, where the risk of collision would be increased?
*****: Exactly, that's correct, Cherie. I'm concerned because my passengers and my clients and even myself might be in this hazardous situation so we're hoping that this system does work.
COMPERE: It doesn't sound like you are convinced though. CASA and the Government says the changes are safe. Given this incident occurred a couple of hours after the changes were introduced, are you convinced?
*****: No not entirely, but then again, there were situations under the old regime where there were areas of conflict that could occur despite the system. So it wasn't entirely foolproof before and it's always difficult to put something together that is foolproof. What's probably missing from all this is that they may require us all to carry an electronic device, traffic positioning voicing system which bigger aircraft have all got. So if you're flying along in a 7 - or anything that's 30 people or more, you have a TCAS system in your aircraft which the pilot of the aircraft immediately has an electronic display telling him what traffic is around him and will give positive instructions to him to avoid a collision. We may all be required to carry one of these things in the near future which will make - which will resolve the human factor.
COMPERE: Cherie Beach there talking with *****, just about that near collision that happened near Darwin between two aircraft earlier today, or in the last 24 hours or so.
* * END * *
BTW - ISP address spying - is that legal?? If not LOCKIMUP!
Notes:
1. Two aircraft operating companies operating within the rules
2. My information suggests that for Brisbane ATC read Darwin ATC
3. Had the rules REQUIRED the aircraft to even report on common frequency this would have been sorted well before the event. TRUE or FALSE - you tell me. Is such a minor adjustment to procedure relevant or needed - you tell me.
4. Names removed intentionally. The companies are not at fault here - the system is.
Transcript
Station: ABC CENTRAL AUSTRALIA
Date: 01/12/2003
Program: DRIVE SHOW
Time: 04:48 PM
Compere: BARRY NICHOLLS
Item: DESCRIBES A NEAR MISS ABOVE DARWIN AIRPORT
COMPERE: Last Thursday the Government introduced controversial air space reforms and pilots, airlines, air traffic controllers in airports all warned of dangers under the new rules.
Now today there are claims that just one day after the laws were introduced, there was a near collision between two aircraft near Darwin. The claims were just 10 nautical miles apart and approaching one another at close to 500 kilometres per hour. The ***** plane was ascending through the other's air space but the pilot didn't know it was in danger because the ***** plane was operating on visual flight rules with no obligation to call its position on the radio.
Cherie Beach asked *****, just how serious was this near collision.
*****:
The aircraft were definitely in a conflict situation, there's no doubt about that. And it wouldn't have happened in the previous organisation of air space. We were unaware of each other which is the issue that we are concerned about. Neither captain knew that they were in a conflict situation.
COMPERE: So your skipper came back to Darwin quite shaken up by this incident?
*****: Concerned, there's no doubt about that. Brisbane Control advised us to alter course and they were obliged to notify the Air North aircraft that they were in a possible conflict situation so…
COMPERE: How close were those aircraft before you heard from Brisbane Air Traffic Control?
*****: I think - I don't know, ten miles has been talked about.
COMPERE: And is that a reasonable gap? I mean that's not really a near collision, is it?
*****: The most dangerous episode in flying is approaching airports because one aircraft can be coming up and the other one's going down. So this changing of levels is potentially the most hazardous arena in flying. And it's just been made a little bit more so now by the fact that aircraft aren't on the same frequency.
COMPERE: With one pilot using visual flight rules, this was directly related to the government changes in air space rules introduced just a few hours earlier?
*****: That is correct. Under the previous regime, they would have been on the same frequency and our aircraft would have been in controlled air space and been positively separated from the other aircraft, yes.
COMPERE: Can I ask you why you would operate on visual flight rule? Is it cheaper?
*****: If the weather's fine we can carry more people. And the weather was fine.
COMPERE: Under visual flight rules.
*****: Yes.
COMPERE: So under the changes, it was expected of you that you would go to VFR and, as a result, you would not have to give a radio call. Therefore you weren't able to communicate with the other aircraft and neither of you knew that you were able to share the same air space?
*****: Yes.
COMPERE: How as it and when was it that you were notified of the danger, or that your pilot was notified of the danger?
*****: Both aircraft have got a transponder and the information is going down to a radar screen which just happens to be in, of all places, Brisbane. That's to say a controller is sitting in front of a big screen and can see that two blips on his screen are moving towards each other.
*****: Well doesn't this show then that the new air space regulations are working, and that the situation is safe, that they identified that you were coming together?
*****: There's quite a bit of interpretation in that. Some of us in the industry are keeping our views open as to whether it's a good or a bad thing. This is the first one which faced a bit of concern but it actually, as you just said, was resolved by a controller telling one of the aircraft to alter course. So it's comforting to know that was it*. But, if the controller was occupied in some other area of his screen, he may not have picked up the potential conflict. So, we're not 100% sure whether the system is going to work or whether it's going to be a bit hairy scary. But as we've been told, it works in America so why shouldn't it work in Australia?
COMPERE: So in this instance it did work. But this is the exact kind of incident that the industry is extremely concerned about, where the risk of collision would be increased?
*****: Exactly, that's correct, Cherie. I'm concerned because my passengers and my clients and even myself might be in this hazardous situation so we're hoping that this system does work.
COMPERE: It doesn't sound like you are convinced though. CASA and the Government says the changes are safe. Given this incident occurred a couple of hours after the changes were introduced, are you convinced?
*****: No not entirely, but then again, there were situations under the old regime where there were areas of conflict that could occur despite the system. So it wasn't entirely foolproof before and it's always difficult to put something together that is foolproof. What's probably missing from all this is that they may require us all to carry an electronic device, traffic positioning voicing system which bigger aircraft have all got. So if you're flying along in a 7 - or anything that's 30 people or more, you have a TCAS system in your aircraft which the pilot of the aircraft immediately has an electronic display telling him what traffic is around him and will give positive instructions to him to avoid a collision. We may all be required to carry one of these things in the near future which will make - which will resolve the human factor.
COMPERE: Cherie Beach there talking with *****, just about that near collision that happened near Darwin between two aircraft earlier today, or in the last 24 hours or so.
* * END * *
BTW - ISP address spying - is that legal?? If not LOCKIMUP!
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Kapt.
This incident sounds like it happened in E airspace? As far as I know (my sources are relaible they tell me
) Darwin ATC does not 'own' any E airspsce. I believe the steps have changed quite considerably with NAS. I would be interested to know what happened ATC procedures wise. I think there are a few new ones since I was up there. Any comments? Cheers to all in YPDN,
NFR.
This incident sounds like it happened in E airspace? As far as I know (my sources are relaible they tell me
) Darwin ATC does not 'own' any E airspsce. I believe the steps have changed quite considerably with NAS. I would be interested to know what happened ATC procedures wise. I think there are a few new ones since I was up there. Any comments? Cheers to all in YPDN,NFR.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kremlin.
IP tracking is quite legal, look at the bottom RH corner of each post
Now, HTH, Plazbot et al.
Where we agree (that is ME, not AOPA position).
1. In E above (say) 8500' an aircraft needs to be monitoring the same freq as inbound IFR a/c.
2. The congestion argument, as applied in US NAS does not apply in Australia and should not be used to reduce safety margins on a frivilous cost cutting exercise.
3. We need a system of transponder checking, bit like asking for QNH.
4. More education!!!!
Where we disagree.
1. Pop-up requests are lazy. They are legal and I get quite grouchy and feel very 'Ministerial' when I feel I am denied one on union grounds. (see above post from 3rd Officer Kremlin).
2. Somehow 'commercial aviation' has a priority anywhere any time.
3. VFR don't belong in E at mid levels. See point 2.
4. The ML incident was a failure of NAS. (I am still looking at the supposed Darwin incident).
AK
IP tracking is quite legal, look at the bottom RH corner of each post
Now, HTH, Plazbot et al.
Where we agree (that is ME, not AOPA position).
1. In E above (say) 8500' an aircraft needs to be monitoring the same freq as inbound IFR a/c.
2. The congestion argument, as applied in US NAS does not apply in Australia and should not be used to reduce safety margins on a frivilous cost cutting exercise.
3. We need a system of transponder checking, bit like asking for QNH.
4. More education!!!!
Where we disagree.
1. Pop-up requests are lazy. They are legal and I get quite grouchy and feel very 'Ministerial' when I feel I am denied one on union grounds. (see above post from 3rd Officer Kremlin).
2. Somehow 'commercial aviation' has a priority anywhere any time.
3. VFR don't belong in E at mid levels. See point 2.
4. The ML incident was a failure of NAS. (I am still looking at the supposed Darwin incident).
AK
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KAPTAIN KREMIN
and others, just a little reminder that you post here under the "rules" and I'm not suggesting that you have trangressed.
However it is a condition of this and most other forums that the IP address from which you posted is logged for each and every post.
This IP address is not monitored routinely except where there may be mischief about or revealed to any third party unless there is a properly constituted enforceable legal demand from a court in the event of any actionable conduct.
All that will reveal is the identification of ISP, the identification of the owner of the IP address is then between the ISP and the court.
It may also be used to block a poster who has been banned and attempts to register with different email address and user name.
Likewise the identity revealed during the registration process which rarely goes beyond a valid email address is held confidential, again unless there is a properly constituted legal demand in the event of any actionable conduct.
It's easy, stay within the bounds of civilised society and we have no problems.
As distinct from some other Forums we recognise the "right" of free speech only insofar as it does not impinge on the "individual rights" of others.
Simply we will not tolerate the posting of defamatory, mischievous or vilifying material about any individual.
Simple continue to play the ball and not the man and we can all have fun.
and others, just a little reminder that you post here under the "rules" and I'm not suggesting that you have trangressed.
However it is a condition of this and most other forums that the IP address from which you posted is logged for each and every post.
This IP address is not monitored routinely except where there may be mischief about or revealed to any third party unless there is a properly constituted enforceable legal demand from a court in the event of any actionable conduct.
All that will reveal is the identification of ISP, the identification of the owner of the IP address is then between the ISP and the court.
It may also be used to block a poster who has been banned and attempts to register with different email address and user name.
Likewise the identity revealed during the registration process which rarely goes beyond a valid email address is held confidential, again unless there is a properly constituted legal demand in the event of any actionable conduct.
It's easy, stay within the bounds of civilised society and we have no problems.
As distinct from some other Forums we recognise the "right" of free speech only insofar as it does not impinge on the "individual rights" of others.
Simply we will not tolerate the posting of defamatory, mischievous or vilifying material about any individual.
Simple continue to play the ball and not the man and we can all have fun.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
Not guilty. You must be thinking about someone else. For the record, there was never any restriction (CAR or otherwise) on VFR in C. (I think there used to be a high level restriction – not above FL205 by very vague memory – before alphabet airspace.)
Of course, VFR are now not allowed above FL180/FL245 due to the wholesale introduction of Class A.
IP tracking
I think your veiled threat here is, in your own words, approaching ‘below the belt’ tactics. If you are unhappy about respecting the expectation of anonymity here on PPRuNe, then can I suggest that you use other means of expressing your views? The AOPA forums would seem to be appropriate. (Perhaps you could insist that only real names be used there.)
You do your cause and reputation no good by resorting to tactics such as these. Let your arguments and those of others stand on their merits.
Anonymity has its advantages and disadvantages, for example:
Advantages: It allows people who would otherwise be constrained by concerns for their employment etc. to engage in meaningful discourse on matters of public importance.
Disadvantages: Winstun
It is up to you to decide which side of the ledger you would like to be associated with.
Thank you. All the best to you and let the reasoned debate continue.
Someone (4-7-11??) said something about a VFR not being allowed in C at flight levels. Really, point me to the CAR please.
Of course, VFR are now not allowed above FL180/FL245 due to the wholesale introduction of Class A.
IP tracking
I think your veiled threat here is, in your own words, approaching ‘below the belt’ tactics. If you are unhappy about respecting the expectation of anonymity here on PPRuNe, then can I suggest that you use other means of expressing your views? The AOPA forums would seem to be appropriate. (Perhaps you could insist that only real names be used there.)
You do your cause and reputation no good by resorting to tactics such as these. Let your arguments and those of others stand on their merits.
Anonymity has its advantages and disadvantages, for example:
Advantages: It allows people who would otherwise be constrained by concerns for their employment etc. to engage in meaningful discourse on matters of public importance.
Disadvantages: Winstun
It is up to you to decide which side of the ledger you would like to be associated with.
4-7-11 and DehavDrver seem to be able to make a point without going too far below the belt.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tobzalp.
Not the law mate, do it with extreme caution, especially to me!!!
4-7-11, nup, no threat intended, I use it to give me an idea of whether I am seeing a body of opinion, or one body with a lot of different opinions. I just thought I'd point out that this stuff can be tracked.
In fact a somewhat infamous ex AOPA VP once used it to dob me in to my employer (who laughed at his feeble attempt) but a Woomera banned him for his trangression.
I make an undertaking to you and everyone that I would never even consider doing the same, especially when 'unvetted' opinion is important, as it is in this case.
AK
Not the law mate, do it with extreme caution, especially to me!!!
4-7-11, nup, no threat intended, I use it to give me an idea of whether I am seeing a body of opinion, or one body with a lot of different opinions. I just thought I'd point out that this stuff can be tracked.
In fact a somewhat infamous ex AOPA VP once used it to dob me in to my employer (who laughed at his feeble attempt) but a Woomera banned him for his trangression.
I make an undertaking to you and everyone that I would never even consider doing the same, especially when 'unvetted' opinion is important, as it is in this case.
AK
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
Thanks. On with the debate.
One of your 'truths' about the ML incident:
Nothing could be further from the truth. As I understand the incident, the three aircraft were at FL170, FL175 and descending to FL180.
The Virgin aircraft was instructed to maintain FL180. This is patently not the 'controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR'. (Separation between these aircraft would be 1,000FT vertically or at least 5NM by radar.) Whatever else the controller was doing at the time, he was not - at this stage - providing IFR/IFR separation. While one aircraft was VFR, he was not required to.
Whatever other benefits you may wish to ascribe to Class E airspace and to NAS2B changes in particular, it is incumbent on all to acknowledge that the events leading to three aircraft within 500FT of each other vertically, with only two of them subject to a clearance could not have happened up to 26 November.
Whether or not having these aircraft in this position and leaving the avoidance to TCAS is desirable and the proper basis for a safe and orderly airways system is open to debate. But at least we should acknowledge that this incident/non-event is NAS related. It could only happen under NAS.
What I see as a safety flaw, you may see as a design feature, allowing flexibility. That is why I would like to see this issue debated using facts, statistics and proper safety studies, not just Dick Smith's beliefs and feelings - or mine for that matter. Either the US system is safer or less safe than the previous Ausralian system. Either it is cheaper or more expensive that the previous Australian system. (The recently released Eurocontrol study states that the Australian system was more effecient in terms of economics and efficiency.)
Why not allow the truth to be revealed?
Thanks. On with the debate.
One of your 'truths' about the ML incident:
Cessna hears Virgin decent modified to 18,000. Virgin has Cessna visual and requests descent through Cessnas level, this is denied due to lack of lateral separation (my interpretation: this is an interesting point, the Cessna is still VFR in E, the rules allow this, has it occured the TCAS alert may not have triggered. Nontheless it also shows the controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR).
The Virgin aircraft was instructed to maintain FL180. This is patently not the 'controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR'. (Separation between these aircraft would be 1,000FT vertically or at least 5NM by radar.) Whatever else the controller was doing at the time, he was not - at this stage - providing IFR/IFR separation. While one aircraft was VFR, he was not required to.
Whatever other benefits you may wish to ascribe to Class E airspace and to NAS2B changes in particular, it is incumbent on all to acknowledge that the events leading to three aircraft within 500FT of each other vertically, with only two of them subject to a clearance could not have happened up to 26 November.
Whether or not having these aircraft in this position and leaving the avoidance to TCAS is desirable and the proper basis for a safe and orderly airways system is open to debate. But at least we should acknowledge that this incident/non-event is NAS related. It could only happen under NAS.
What I see as a safety flaw, you may see as a design feature, allowing flexibility. That is why I would like to see this issue debated using facts, statistics and proper safety studies, not just Dick Smith's beliefs and feelings - or mine for that matter. Either the US system is safer or less safe than the previous Ausralian system. Either it is cheaper or more expensive that the previous Australian system. (The recently released Eurocontrol study states that the Australian system was more effecient in terms of economics and efficiency.)
Why not allow the truth to be revealed?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WOOMERA
Never for a minute did I doubt that there are those who have the intellectual or technological ability to identify persons on this forum and are doing so on a minute by minute basis. My concern is use or disclosure and how that applies to Privacy Law and the resulting hurt to individuals who assume anonymity. I am not one of those "intelectually" blessed and haven't got a clue about IP's and clearly hadn't even noticed or considered the interesting bottom corner of replies!!!!!! But , believe me, I do write in fear of retribution.
As for going for the man not the issue this is fair comment and you are correct in saying that you are not inferring that. My issue was the legality of disclosure or usage and it was a question not a statement.
I must admit that it is difficult to 'control' responses when induviduals have improper influence or are in positions of power and do not exercise that power to the good of the general community - in my humble opinion, of course.
Or we could get rid of emotive issues and passion for flying and woops - there goes PPRUNE!
Time to pull my head in and say sayonara for a few years again me thinks!!! BFN
Never for a minute did I doubt that there are those who have the intellectual or technological ability to identify persons on this forum and are doing so on a minute by minute basis. My concern is use or disclosure and how that applies to Privacy Law and the resulting hurt to individuals who assume anonymity. I am not one of those "intelectually" blessed and haven't got a clue about IP's and clearly hadn't even noticed or considered the interesting bottom corner of replies!!!!!! But , believe me, I do write in fear of retribution.
As for going for the man not the issue this is fair comment and you are correct in saying that you are not inferring that. My issue was the legality of disclosure or usage and it was a question not a statement.
I must admit that it is difficult to 'control' responses when induviduals have improper influence or are in positions of power and do not exercise that power to the good of the general community - in my humble opinion, of course.
Or we could get rid of emotive issues and passion for flying and woops - there goes PPRUNE!
Time to pull my head in and say sayonara for a few years again me thinks!!! BFN
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4-7-11
So why the right hand turn???
My understanding is, in E, ATC provides separation to IFR and advisory on VFR. So by turning the Cessna s/he had 'taken control' and on that basis I can only assume was providing IFR/IFR separation.
Now I have absolutely no problems with that, that is the 'culture' everyone says we don't have in Oz. It is just that if it is true, then it is not a breakdown of NAS.
AK
This is patently not the 'controller was separating the aircraft as if they were both IFR'.
My understanding is, in E, ATC provides separation to IFR and advisory on VFR. So by turning the Cessna s/he had 'taken control' and on that basis I can only assume was providing IFR/IFR separation.
Now I have absolutely no problems with that, that is the 'culture' everyone says we don't have in Oz. It is just that if it is true, then it is not a breakdown of NAS.
AK
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KAPTAIN KREMIN said....
I shall explain briefly for you.
All internet IP's are registered, meaning that you have to apply to get one assigned to you or your company, just as you have to apply to your isp to connect. To connect to this website each end must know where to send stuff to, this is the IP address, each side must know the others (generally). If someone gets your ip address, all they can do is find out who it is registered to (ie telstra). If in this case they found out it was with telstra, telstra has to receive a court order to provide details as to who was using that ip at that time (privacy act) or have your permission to do so.
If you connect from a large company that has 1 or more registered IP addresses, than anyone can find out that you are online through their network. It may also be able to know, in a genral area where you are connecting from(ie telstra sydney, or telstra perth). All that can be done is to associate your forum handle with the ip address it was posted from. Earlier in this thread, snarek stated that the ip address was from AsA. To actually get the ip address, he must either have access to that information from the forum admins, or can "sniff" the information if he doesn't.
For example the ip address of 210.84.189.251 (The ip address I am posting from) can be found by going to http://www.apnic.net/search/index.html
and searching on 210.84.189.251
As you can see, not much data can be gathered legally on just an ip address, as to why snarek has access to ip's on this forum, I suppose you may request that info from the forum moderators, admins etc.
If you have good security and virus protection then it makes it a lot harder for anyone using non legal means to get this or any other private information.
Cheers
Never for a minute did I doubt that there are those who have the intellectual or technological ability to identify persons on this forum and are doing so on a minute by minute basis. My concern is use or disclosure and how that applies to Privacy Law and the resulting hurt to individuals who assume anonymity. I am not one of those "intelectually" blessed and haven't got a clue about IP's and clearly hadn't even noticed or considered the interesting bottom corner of replies!!!!!! But , believe me, I do write in fear of retribution.
All internet IP's are registered, meaning that you have to apply to get one assigned to you or your company, just as you have to apply to your isp to connect. To connect to this website each end must know where to send stuff to, this is the IP address, each side must know the others (generally). If someone gets your ip address, all they can do is find out who it is registered to (ie telstra). If in this case they found out it was with telstra, telstra has to receive a court order to provide details as to who was using that ip at that time (privacy act) or have your permission to do so.
If you connect from a large company that has 1 or more registered IP addresses, than anyone can find out that you are online through their network. It may also be able to know, in a genral area where you are connecting from(ie telstra sydney, or telstra perth). All that can be done is to associate your forum handle with the ip address it was posted from. Earlier in this thread, snarek stated that the ip address was from AsA. To actually get the ip address, he must either have access to that information from the forum admins, or can "sniff" the information if he doesn't.
For example the ip address of 210.84.189.251 (The ip address I am posting from) can be found by going to http://www.apnic.net/search/index.html
and searching on 210.84.189.251
As you can see, not much data can be gathered legally on just an ip address, as to why snarek has access to ip's on this forum, I suppose you may request that info from the forum moderators, admins etc.
If you have good security and virus protection then it makes it a lot harder for anyone using non legal means to get this or any other private information.
Cheers