(CASA + AsA) / NAS = Big Brother
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(CASA + AsA) / NAS = Big Brother
CASA, via channels in airservicesaustralia.com, are getting ATCs to note callsigns of VFR aircraft making unnecessary broadcasts on ATC frequencies.
This list of recalicitrants is being compiled and sent with phone numbers to the Terry Hills Terry Towling Pilot Education Call Centre.
Expect your call, shortly!
This list of recalicitrants is being compiled and sent with phone numbers to the Terry Hills Terry Towling Pilot Education Call Centre.
Expect your call, shortly!
An interesting question...
What legal authority does a controller have to use the phrase " VH-ABC cease transmitting" ?
If the pilot complied and a mid air or near miss resulted from the lack of transmission...
The Australian Communications Authority is responsible for regulation of the radio frequency spectrum. Do AirServices have a licence to control the use of the frequency?
Creampuff jump in here.
What legal authority does a controller have to use the phrase " VH-ABC cease transmitting" ?
If the pilot complied and a mid air or near miss resulted from the lack of transmission...
The Australian Communications Authority is responsible for regulation of the radio frequency spectrum. Do AirServices have a licence to control the use of the frequency?
Creampuff jump in here.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ACA merely license the frequencies used to ASA.
The licence states, in effect, that communications must be carried out in accordance with the CARs.
The licence (or the Act) does not give the ACA any powers to determine what ATC or pilots say as long as that communications are in accordance with the CARs (and associated regulations). Essentially that is the business of AsA and CASA.
How do I know. I have just ammended the licence (now guess where I work ).
AK
The licence states, in effect, that communications must be carried out in accordance with the CARs.
The licence (or the Act) does not give the ACA any powers to determine what ATC or pilots say as long as that communications are in accordance with the CARs (and associated regulations). Essentially that is the business of AsA and CASA.
How do I know. I have just ammended the licence (now guess where I work
).AK
Slightly off topic, but I came across another scenario the other day.
I was conducting a VFR nav exercise with a student and we had to maintain a non-hemispherical level due cloud - from memory we were flying at A035 westbound. A045 was not available due cloud and A025 not available due terrain. This was done in accordance with the table published in AIP ENR and the comments made in CAR173.
In the past I would have always pre-empted this behaviour with a brief radio call advising that I was maintaining a non-standard level and my position and tracking details.
But this time no radio call was made thanks to NAS - and now I've read this thread I am thankful I didn't. Even if I did make a radio call, who's to say that any conflicting traffic was monitoring the same frequency?
For the next 10 mins or so until we could climb up to a hemispherical level I didn't bring my eyes inside once. I was in a position to do this because the student was flying and as such I could devote all my efforts to "seeing and avoiding". If it was a single pilot operation that wouldn't be the case unfortunately.
Am i taking the whole "no radio transmissions" thing a little too far or is this yet another deficiency with the new system?
TL
I was conducting a VFR nav exercise with a student and we had to maintain a non-hemispherical level due cloud - from memory we were flying at A035 westbound. A045 was not available due cloud and A025 not available due terrain. This was done in accordance with the table published in AIP ENR and the comments made in CAR173.
In the past I would have always pre-empted this behaviour with a brief radio call advising that I was maintaining a non-standard level and my position and tracking details.
But this time no radio call was made thanks to NAS - and now I've read this thread I am thankful I didn't. Even if I did make a radio call, who's to say that any conflicting traffic was monitoring the same frequency?
For the next 10 mins or so until we could climb up to a hemispherical level I didn't bring my eyes inside once. I was in a position to do this because the student was flying and as such I could devote all my efforts to "seeing and avoiding". If it was a single pilot operation that wouldn't be the case unfortunately.
Am i taking the whole "no radio transmissions" thing a little too far or is this yet another deficiency with the new system?
TL
Thanks for the info snarek. In your usual style you gave only half an answer.
Does the controller have any legal authority to tell a pilot to "cease tranmission" in the event that the pilot believes a broadcast is required in the interests of safe air navigation?
Does the controller have any legal authority to tell a pilot to "cease tranmission" in the event that the pilot believes a broadcast is required in the interests of safe air navigation?
Hey, don't get me wrong Tonka I have the highest regard for ATCO's. I have never had anything but excellent service and consideration from them.
I merely ask the question as they act as an instrument of whoever is pushing this wheelbarrow full of excrement. I wondered if when push comes to shove the instruction to "cease transmission" has any legal backing rather than bluff?
An honest question. I am sure Creampuff or someone similar can help. Meanwhile I will keep searching the regs and act.
I merely ask the question as they act as an instrument of whoever is pushing this wheelbarrow full of excrement. I wondered if when push comes to shove the instruction to "cease transmission" has any legal backing rather than bluff?
An honest question. I am sure Creampuff or someone similar can help. Meanwhile I will keep searching the regs and act.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus.
I can only answer what I know. I know it is not an ACA issue.
However nowhere in the CARs can I find any such authority. As long as the pilot is communication as a result of conducting a safe flight and/or for the pruposes of navigation there does not currently seem to be any law to prevent that.
AK
I can only answer what I know. I know it is not an ACA issue.
However nowhere in the CARs can I find any such authority. As long as the pilot is communication as a result of conducting a safe flight and/or for the pruposes of navigation there does not currently seem to be any law to prevent that.
AK
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus i am a little confused. There is no direction to be telling aircraft to cease transmitting. There is a form to be filled out for 'Unnecessary VFR chatter' on the control frequencies. Where did you get the idea the ATC were going to tell you to be quiet?
Tobzalp , I got the idea because I have heard it said twice since Nov 27. An aircraft broadcasting, another replying then a "VH-ABC ML/BN Centre cease transmitting".
The frequency was fairly quiet at the time. (Understood the sector may not be though.) There was no IFER in progress. So I just wondered.
The frequency was fairly quiet at the time. (Understood the sector may not be though.) There was no IFER in progress. So I just wondered.
So if I am IFR I can chat with my mates all I like?
Seriously though, I remember a promise that it was going to be safer cos they were not linking the frequencies anymore - so you could focus on what aircraft were around you.
Well at Esperance the other night we had Alice, Cooper Pedy etc etc. Another furphy?
CS
Seriously though, I remember a promise that it was going to be safer cos they were not linking the frequencies anymore - so you could focus on what aircraft were around you.
Well at Esperance the other night we had Alice, Cooper Pedy etc etc. Another furphy?
CS
As a VFR bugsmasher I am still making departure calls (although somewhat shortened) on area frequency. Whether someone is listening or not it has already saved a conflict from occuring.
Same level and converging tracks! End result was 3NM separation but we knew each other was there.
I'm waiting for their phonecall so I can tell them what I think.
Same level and converging tracks! End result was 3NM separation but we knew each other was there.
I'm waiting for their phonecall so I can tell them what I think.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: bris
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
compressor stall,
not sure where you heard that, i've never heard that mentioned and it will never happen because it would cost more money and more controllers. The reason so many freq's are combined is to have one controller monitor as many as possible at the one console. Area frequeny's are restricted by the range of the transmitters and receivers, so there are blocks of these area freq's clumped together on the on console, so one controller is responsible for anything from 3 in my current area, to up to about 10 at my last post in WA. The areas in WA are so big the traffic ammount one controller can handle is spread out over these 10 areas, where my current post is more concentrated and we can only have 3 areas before freq congestion becomes a problem. So to not combine the area freq any more would require lots more controllers to monitor single freq's with minimal traffic in them. So more controllers, less work, more money, its not likley to happen. Every call for less controllers would result in more area freq's being combined, so its probably going to get worse in the future.
not sure where you heard that, i've never heard that mentioned and it will never happen because it would cost more money and more controllers. The reason so many freq's are combined is to have one controller monitor as many as possible at the one console. Area frequeny's are restricted by the range of the transmitters and receivers, so there are blocks of these area freq's clumped together on the on console, so one controller is responsible for anything from 3 in my current area, to up to about 10 at my last post in WA. The areas in WA are so big the traffic ammount one controller can handle is spread out over these 10 areas, where my current post is more concentrated and we can only have 3 areas before freq congestion becomes a problem. So to not combine the area freq any more would require lots more controllers to monitor single freq's with minimal traffic in them. So more controllers, less work, more money, its not likley to happen. Every call for less controllers would result in more area freq's being combined, so its probably going to get worse in the future.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain
With some response to your above and the post in the Mel Incident thread. The pro NAS brigade have not once been able to answer you question on how it is safer. They will tell you that it is safer but not how. Would one of the brainwashed please come out and give us all a nice breakdown on how this whole thing is safer. The primary means of conflict avoidance is see and avoid and I can go and cut and paste the Basi study on this to rebut. How about you come clean and share it with us all. HOW IS IT SAFER. Mr Dick Smith, how about you field this one. Direct comparrisons thanks.
With some response to your above and the post in the Mel Incident thread. The pro NAS brigade have not once been able to answer you question on how it is safer. They will tell you that it is safer but not how. Would one of the brainwashed please come out and give us all a nice breakdown on how this whole thing is safer. The primary means of conflict avoidance is see and avoid and I can go and cut and paste the Basi study on this to rebut. How about you come clean and share it with us all. HOW IS IT SAFER. Mr Dick Smith, how about you field this one. Direct comparrisons thanks.
To Tobzalp from one of the brainwashed...
Sir,
If you think that it is we who are brainwashed, think again.
The intellectual process that I personally applied on this very subject about ten years ago was extensive and conclusive. If you think that the pro-NAS minority has been brainwashed, you are sadly mistaken.
It would have been much easier to accept the "wisdom of the day", aka BASI's Limitations of the see and avoid principle, but I couldn't permit myself to do that when I felt compelled to disagree. I was an Instructor at the time, still am, and I took my responsibility very seriously. To simply regurgitate the flawed argument that BASI published would not be acceptable if I wanted to sleep at night.
You would not accept my explanation of the justification for see and avoid because it is you who have been brainwashed, first by the the BASI report, and supported by individuals who have had a personal agenda beside safety.
One would think that it would be safer if all of us had the privelege of being led by the hand through the valley of the shadow of death, but it is simply not true. Would you trust another person with something as important as your life and the lives of your passengers? Especially when you are quite capable of performing that function yourself?
Honestly Tobzalp, I don't mean to sound arrogant or patronizing, but the simple fact is that I don't like the idea of doing the thinking for someone else who is quite capable of doing it himself. And if I don't like it, how do you think ATC like the idea of taking on the responsibility of looking out the window for you when you are seated in the front of the aeroplane and they are seated in front of a TV screen? At least they get paid for it, and unless you are interested in paying for me to do your thinking for you then I can't be bothered. And even if you were paying me, my patience would only last so long. I am human.
To discover something new you first have to forget all that you thought you knew.
A painful process I'm sure, especially for all those who swallowed the whole BASI report hook, line, and sinker. It would require you to recognise that the foundations upon which you have built your concept of safety is seriously flawed, and to do that is difficult. Nevertheless, it is true.
As they say, "The truth hurts."
Another quick quote that doesn't quite fit in here, but it is very good and relevant, "There are none so blind as those who cannot see."
I know you blokes will think that I'm not offering you the kind of patient fatherly advice that you may be seeking, but I'm not your dad or even your close mate. However, I'm inclined to think that even if I were, you wouldn't listen anyway. At least, judging from the many patient and rational arguments already posted on this website who haven't been heard.
DON'T JUST LOOK, SEE! DON"T JUST LISTEN, HEAR!
Life's a bitch, then you fly!
If you think that it is we who are brainwashed, think again.
The intellectual process that I personally applied on this very subject about ten years ago was extensive and conclusive. If you think that the pro-NAS minority has been brainwashed, you are sadly mistaken.
It would have been much easier to accept the "wisdom of the day", aka BASI's Limitations of the see and avoid principle, but I couldn't permit myself to do that when I felt compelled to disagree. I was an Instructor at the time, still am, and I took my responsibility very seriously. To simply regurgitate the flawed argument that BASI published would not be acceptable if I wanted to sleep at night.
You would not accept my explanation of the justification for see and avoid because it is you who have been brainwashed, first by the the BASI report, and supported by individuals who have had a personal agenda beside safety.
One would think that it would be safer if all of us had the privelege of being led by the hand through the valley of the shadow of death, but it is simply not true. Would you trust another person with something as important as your life and the lives of your passengers? Especially when you are quite capable of performing that function yourself?
Honestly Tobzalp, I don't mean to sound arrogant or patronizing, but the simple fact is that I don't like the idea of doing the thinking for someone else who is quite capable of doing it himself. And if I don't like it, how do you think ATC like the idea of taking on the responsibility of looking out the window for you when you are seated in the front of the aeroplane and they are seated in front of a TV screen? At least they get paid for it, and unless you are interested in paying for me to do your thinking for you then I can't be bothered. And even if you were paying me, my patience would only last so long. I am human.
To discover something new you first have to forget all that you thought you knew.
A painful process I'm sure, especially for all those who swallowed the whole BASI report hook, line, and sinker. It would require you to recognise that the foundations upon which you have built your concept of safety is seriously flawed, and to do that is difficult. Nevertheless, it is true.
As they say, "The truth hurts."
Another quick quote that doesn't quite fit in here, but it is very good and relevant, "There are none so blind as those who cannot see."
I know you blokes will think that I'm not offering you the kind of patient fatherly advice that you may be seeking, but I'm not your dad or even your close mate. However, I'm inclined to think that even if I were, you wouldn't listen anyway. At least, judging from the many patient and rational arguments already posted on this website who haven't been heard.
DON'T JUST LOOK, SEE! DON"T JUST LISTEN, HEAR!
Life's a bitch, then you fly!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the many patient and rational arguments already posted on this website
FYI, from the ATSB report on the "ML incident"
The pilot of the C421 later reported that he never saw the 737
"As they say, "The truth hurts." "
Embarrassed?
ps. How is it safer?