(CASA + AsA) / NAS = Big Brother

[Spodman]

4711 - Marvellous, we think alike, was counting the words in the Sir Humphrey waffle and spotted your post. I can only imagine the blather that would come out if he picked up his (rather dusty) microphone.

Was very tempted to make an entry this week regarding an ultralight who blathered on for ages (including 6 drawn out "uuummmmm") about his proximity to some sh1thole I've never heard of. Somebody had pitched the form but.

On the whole I am rather impressed how quiet the VFR have become, IFR are broadcasting madly still.

[Aussie Andy]

ferris: I see you are stirring up trouble and insulting people on this thread as well... He says that:

So, a 737 came within 1.3 nm and 400' of a cessna 421, the 737 got an RA (ask someone in the industry what that is), yet the cessna didn't see him.

But, dear readers, do not be misled..! This is only part of the picture (seemed to suit his argument I suppose) as the report says that:

When there was approximately 5 NM between the aircraft, the crew of the 737 identified the C421 on their TCAS and subsequently saw the aircraft.

In this "incident", sufficient separation was achieved because:[list=1][*]ATC, who were in communication with both aircraft, ensured that there was 500' nominal vertical separation by instructing the 737 to arrest his descent at FL180 (atop the Class E space) while the C421 was known to be level at FL175;[*]TCAS worked - it provided a traffic advisory (TA) to the 737 crew when the a/c were 5NM apart; and[*]this enabled the 737 to visually see and avoid the C421, even if the C421 did not see the 737...[/list=1]Andy

[tobzalp]

Sepatation is 1000 feet not 500 so there was no 'separation'. VFR are responsible for see and avoid in E. That did not happen. TCAS worked yes. TCAS is not a separation tool. The primary means of resolving that conflict is for theVFR to see and avoid not TCAS alerted seeing and avoiding by the IFR.

[RTB RFN]

MANWELL

Your intention to inspire people to clarity of thought has in fact revealed a closed mind on your behalf. You speak of intellectual thought processes et etc and infer that all of the Pro aviation safety respondents and all of their intellectual anaysis, historical literature and all of the statistical evidence (that's the evidence that is not distorted or limited to provide the desired outcome) is in fact not intellectual and is in fact worthless compared to your own analysis.

I challenge you and the other pro- NAS supporters to stand tall when this falls in a heap and an accident occurs, that is directly attributable to NAS and your intellectual anaysis.

Stand tall - open your bank accounts, take out your hankerchiefs and start geting emotional - as I do when I hear such self-congratulating, arrogant and disrespectful diatribe.

This is the problem, this is why we are here - you guys just will not listen to anybody else. You will not listen to the plethora of evidence and expertise and experience that is telling you that you are incorrect. If you have some experience flying then I can only presume that your head has been securely tilted inside of the cockpit (that cockpit not designed for look-out - unless you fly MIL) for most of your career.

You've been missing them all.

[Aussie Andy]

Sepatation is 1000 feet not 500

Is that so? Well, between IFR and IFR that it is true: but in Class G, E etc. the hemispherical system provides separation of 500' between IFR and VFR. Look it up.

VFR are responsible for see and avoid in E

Is that so? IFR have to see and avoid VFR in class E, because - as I think you know - in Class E ATC only separate IFR from IFR.


Andy

[Manwell]

Tobzalp,

unless I'm mistaken VFR are still encouraged to listen out on an appropriate frequency, so hearing is still a valid point. Sure, they are not required to talk, unless of course, there is a valid requirement to respond to an IFR aircraft making a report in their immediate vicinity. But yes, it is up to us. Don't you feel empowered and validated by that courageous delegation of responsibility?

Four Seven Eleven

Thanks for your concise and incisive post. You have illustrated perfectly what I was trying to say regarding the futility of trying to inform those who will not see. You have the potential for a great career in tabloid journalism.

RTB RFN

You're right, I do have a closed mind about this. Why, because I've been over it many times before and the result still comes out the same. The difference is that I have analysed the concept thoroughly, had I simply agreed with the collective wisdom of the time I wouldn't have needed to do that.

By the way, I will be happy to accept the full responsibility for any mid-air collisions that occur under the NAS provided,-

a) it can be proven that neither aircraft was in a position to see the other in VMC, whether due to their excessive closing speeds or otherwise,and

b) they were adhering to hemispherical levels, and

c) someone did not simply stuff up.

No amount of regulation or ATC service will prevent accidents due to error. Check the mid-air stats and you'll see that too many occurred in CTA under Air Traffic Control.

By the way, it's interesting that you mentioned MIL flying. Why do you think their training is of such a high quality? Is it because they are required to do aerobatics, low level, and formation? Each of these operations requires an exceptionally high amount of head outside, do all three together and you will know how to fly.

Perhaps you have some MIL time, if so, how can you possibly disagree with the NAS? By the way, I do have a little, but that's not how I became convinced about see and avoid. In other words, I was not brainwashed in there either.

And finally Spodman,

Perhaps you would be interested to hear of a recent incident just after 27/11 where I spoke into my dusty mike thrice with no reply from the Saab that taxied on, backtracked, and lined up while I was still on the runway. They finally replied with " Yeah we heard you but we were copying traffic on the other frequency"!

All the way from the parking bay?

Gotta go now, things to do, mikes to dust, you know how it is...

Life's a bitch, and then you fly!

[Capn Bloggs]

Manwell,

You're not jet pilot are you? Because you obviously have no idea of the difficulty of Seeing and Avoiding others, espeically lighties. But then again, there are no so blind as those who will not see.

You said:

b) they were adhering to hemispherical levels,

Can't you get it into your thick skull that the cruise phase is NOT the area of concern? Obviously aircraft aren't going to run into each other if they are all happily level at their hemi levels!! The area of concern is the terminal area, the climb and descent phases where there is now no assured segregation method apart from looking out the window!

I really like the way your ilk keep harping on the wonders of TCAS. It's a last-ditch, save-your-arse collision prevention device, nothing else. Why, if it is so good, doesn't CASA allow us to use it for separation eg sight and pass in IMC or at night, trail climbs?? Because it doesn't make the grade. And so why should it be the major mitigator in Class E? Would class E airspace be safe it we didn't have TCAS? If your answer is yes, you're an out-and-out loony, pure and simple.

You also said:

c) someone did not simply stuff up.

Since when has the safety of commercial flight been determined by a "simple stuff up"? Never before in aviation in Oz has there been only 1 defence against a midair..until 27Nov. Simple stuffups occur all the time. The point is that in most safety systems, there is a backstop, a safety net to prevent that simple stuffup developing further. This is now not the case in E airspace, nor will it be the case in MBZs after they are changed to CTAFs.

[Four Seven Eleven]

In this "incident", sufficient separation was achieved because:
ATC, who were in communication with both aircraft, ensured that there was 500' nominal vertical separation by instructing the 737 to arrest his descent at FL180 (atop the Class E space) while the C421 was known to be level at FL175;

Firstly, if Class E procedures had been adhered to, the C421 would NOT have been in communication. His clearance request was for the adjacent Class C airspace, not Class E.
Secondy, the instruction to maintain FL180 was NOT a class E procedure. It was a controller seeing Class E potentially going bad and intervening.

TCAS worked - it provided a traffic advisory (TA) to the 737 crew when the a/c were 5NM apart;

TCAS only worked because - luckily - the C421 pilot had called up requesting a clearance for the adjacent Class C airspace, and the lack of a mode C read-out was detected. If he had followed class E procedures and kept quiet - the lack of mode C would not have been detected, and the TCAS defence would have been useless.

and this enabled the 737 to visually see and avoid the C421, even if the C421 did not see the 737...

So, with directed trafic information and radar assistance, ONE pilot sees the other aircraft at a range of 5NM. A study I cited in another post suggests that being alerted to traffic increases your chances of seeing it by a factor of eight.

So, if class E airspace procedures had been followed to the letter:
1) The C421 would have been silent, and invisible as far as mode C is concerened.
2) TCAS would have been no use whatsover.
3) In the absence of any information on the C421, no traffic or an instruction to maintain FL 180 would have been issued.
4) The ONLY way that a collision would have been avoided is if the B737 pilot had achieved an unalerted see and avoid, whelie descending at 3000fpm and 300KIAS.

Once again I ask - why are these procedures worth the decrease in safety and increase in cost?

[Manwell]

Very well then, chaps. I'll be on my way.

Bye!

[OPSH24]

Simple - the system broke down because it dosn't work - its not a matter of if - its a matter of when.

Manwell - please understand the limitations of see and avoid above 180KTS in aircraft with windows designed to see the runway directly in front of you.

High speed IFR aircraft climbing and descending are not good viewing platforms. Single pilot in this system is scary.