Airspace Design - Some Background
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is beyond rollback. It is more like the airspace setup right after G demo and at the start ot the E airspace 'trial'. Plus some additional 2000' of Controlled Airspace over the GAFA.
Some people should dead set lose jobs over this one.
I await the apologies to Ted Lang personally from the many who slandered him and to Civil Air as a whole with respect to the Scaremongering claims. Additionally the Major Airlines QA departments should have a good look at themselves for being so quiet for so long especially since I am aware of what some within actually thought but would not come forward with.
ATC and pilots have been pointing out this risk for ages now and the people who assess risk ie the insurers, finally stepped in and put some what of a stop to the idiocy.
Alot of people did alot of work on this one and should be recognised for the effort. Unfortunately they were carrying an ever decaying can.
Some people should dead set lose jobs over this one.
I await the apologies to Ted Lang personally from the many who slandered him and to Civil Air as a whole with respect to the Scaremongering claims. Additionally the Major Airlines QA departments should have a good look at themselves for being so quiet for so long especially since I am aware of what some within actually thought but would not come forward with.
ATC and pilots have been pointing out this risk for ages now and the people who assess risk ie the insurers, finally stepped in and put some what of a stop to the idiocy.
Alot of people did alot of work on this one and should be recognised for the effort. Unfortunately they were carrying an ever decaying can.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QSK? The short answer is no...
A FIS/COM chart is to be made; but not superimposed on the charts in the interim.
I think long term, i.e. next MAP cyle, this may get a gig, but not right now...
I've seen the draft FIS/COM; it's a help but not really very detailed as on one slightly smaller than an A3 page was all Australia. Lots of lines lots of frequencies.
Zoomed in model on the back perhaps for appropriate regional area.
This is all together with advice about frequency monitoring... (like it used to be)
A FIS/COM chart is to be made; but not superimposed on the charts in the interim.
I think long term, i.e. next MAP cyle, this may get a gig, but not right now...
I've seen the draft FIS/COM; it's a help but not really very detailed as on one slightly smaller than an A3 page was all Australia. Lots of lines lots of frequencies.
Zoomed in model on the back perhaps for appropriate regional area.
This is all together with advice about frequency monitoring... (like it used to be)
FISCOM???
Good Grief - those of us old enough to remember
They rehashed it and named it the Planning Chart I think.
I might even have one stashed somewhere - along with a VEC (not a particularly useful chart, that one). Now the best chart I ever saw was a standard VNC with the ERC low routes overlaid along with the navaids, tracks & distances. It was a raw data proof that Airservices never went ahead with.
And on NAS: there is a lot of backroom lobbying and talking going on, I hear
Good Grief - those of us old enough to remember
They rehashed it and named it the Planning Chart I think. I might even have one stashed somewhere - along with a VEC (not a particularly useful chart, that one). Now the best chart I ever saw was a standard VNC with the ERC low routes overlaid along with the navaids, tracks & distances. It was a raw data proof that Airservices never went ahead with.
And on NAS: there is a lot of backroom lobbying and talking going on, I hear
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainMidnight
Cap'n, trouble is, those of us old enough to remember are having trouble remembering anyway.
And the youngsters and/or new pilots never knew what they don't have.
I'm think I'm coming down with a bad case of deja vu.
Cap'n, trouble is, those of us old enough to remember are having trouble remembering anyway.
And the youngsters and/or new pilots never knew what they don't have.
I'm think I'm coming down with a bad case of deja vu.
I miss the VEC. It was a pain in the backside when the twits did away with it. It wasn't ideal but a damn sight better than using an ERC for VFR ops. Or even middle-of-nowhere IFR ops.
What I'd have liked is a combined FISCOM, VEC & ERC (with frequencies & boundaries). Considering how little was on the FISCOM/PCA I'm reasonably confident it's information could be included without unacceptable clutter. Use very light shading for reception ranges etc.
What I'd have liked is a combined FISCOM, VEC & ERC (with frequencies & boundaries). Considering how little was on the FISCOM/PCA I'm reasonably confident it's information could be included without unacceptable clutter. Use very light shading for reception ranges etc.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a pity that those that make the charts aren't accessible to those that use them, ie. pilots.
On our ATC consoles we use our own personalised charts. For instance, a WAC with an overlay of airspace boundaries, low or high level routes as appropriate, frequencies, and sector boundaries. Others are VNCs with similar overlays.
It seems that these sort of charts might be very useful to pilots. Maybe AOPA could lobby AsA to provide these sort of charts to their members in the interest of serving their members needs?
Just a thought.
On our ATC consoles we use our own personalised charts. For instance, a WAC with an overlay of airspace boundaries, low or high level routes as appropriate, frequencies, and sector boundaries. Others are VNCs with similar overlays.
It seems that these sort of charts might be very useful to pilots. Maybe AOPA could lobby AsA to provide these sort of charts to their members in the interest of serving their members needs?
Just a thought.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and what of the organisation that is required to monitor these issues with vigilance and neutrality and intervene to assure safety for flying operations.
What of CASA as an organisation and the the senior CASA public servant or servants who actively supprted this.
Are they sitting at their desks today watching the back of their office doors waiting for them to open to allow them to find a more appropriate place of employment?
Damn well should be.
You know who you are and democracy, not your presumed expertise, has won over.
Ethics and integrity - don't live here no more!
What of CASA as an organisation and the the senior CASA public servant or servants who actively supprted this.
Are they sitting at their desks today watching the back of their office doors waiting for them to open to allow them to find a more appropriate place of employment?
Damn well should be.
You know who you are and democracy, not your presumed expertise, has won over.
Ethics and integrity - don't live here no more!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FISCOM Charts
SM4 Pirate:
thanks for the reply. At least the production of a new FISCOM is still an improvement on what we have today under NAS.
I've still got a copy of an old FISCOM chart (1984) in case anyone is having trouble remembering what they look like.
thanks for the reply. At least the production of a new FISCOM is still an improvement on what we have today under NAS.
I've still got a copy of an old FISCOM chart (1984) in case anyone is having trouble remembering what they look like.
What would you like from NAS ?
I would be more than happy to go forward with NAS if the following were applied :
1) For each VHF centre/control freq "Airservices" provided a "flight service" frequency at the same transmitter (not req when there would be a geographic overlap). This would give everyone equal "access" to "flight service".
2) Aerodromes that are MBZ's have an ADSB receiver to link Mode S transponder output and GPS position into TAAATS. This would provide pseudo radar service to MBZs. Could be expanded to proivde a DGPS facility in this airspace as the MBZ receiver location could be fixed providing an accurate DGPS position.
3) Fitting of a Mode S transponder and GPS position output to each aircraft that will transmit the unique 12 bit aircraft code that is assigned to a mode S transponder at all times irrespective of the position of the "OFF-STBY-ON-ALT-TEST" switch.
Cost recovery : IMHO the cost recovery for this technology could easly be recovered by Airservices with the next phase of the SSR replacement. Its much cheaper to add radio re-transmitters and to equip all aircraft with Mode S/GPS then to install a new radar mast.
Why Mode S transponders : they have a datalink facility in the transponder that can be used for ADSB and TCAS II uses Mode S transponders for better RA/TA's.
In the UK they are making everyone now install a Mode S transponder.
1) For each VHF centre/control freq "Airservices" provided a "flight service" frequency at the same transmitter (not req when there would be a geographic overlap). This would give everyone equal "access" to "flight service".
2) Aerodromes that are MBZ's have an ADSB receiver to link Mode S transponder output and GPS position into TAAATS. This would provide pseudo radar service to MBZs. Could be expanded to proivde a DGPS facility in this airspace as the MBZ receiver location could be fixed providing an accurate DGPS position.
3) Fitting of a Mode S transponder and GPS position output to each aircraft that will transmit the unique 12 bit aircraft code that is assigned to a mode S transponder at all times irrespective of the position of the "OFF-STBY-ON-ALT-TEST" switch.
Cost recovery : IMHO the cost recovery for this technology could easly be recovered by Airservices with the next phase of the SSR replacement. Its much cheaper to add radio re-transmitters and to equip all aircraft with Mode S/GPS then to install a new radar mast.
Why Mode S transponders : they have a datalink facility in the transponder that can be used for ADSB and TCAS II uses Mode S transponders for better RA/TA's.
In the UK they are making everyone now install a Mode S transponder.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh
1) But under NAS how would you know where the frequency was transmitting receiving. Access Flight Service all you want. there will be noone sitting on the other end of the radio. Your mate Dick has aleady seen to that.
2)Who will do this radar service in the MBZ? Controllers? Homey don't think so. Who is gunna pay that bill year in year out?
3)The govermen/Airservces are not going to pay to fit TCAS/Datalink/Transponers to your aircraft. They wont pay to fit an airbag to my kingswood so why should they put something in you aircraft.
Make mode S compulsory if you want. Sounds good but I think that you are off with the elves in lala land if you think that it will be free.
1) But under NAS how would you know where the frequency was transmitting receiving. Access Flight Service all you want. there will be noone sitting on the other end of the radio. Your mate Dick has aleady seen to that.
2)Who will do this radar service in the MBZ? Controllers? Homey don't think so. Who is gunna pay that bill year in year out?
3)The govermen/Airservces are not going to pay to fit TCAS/Datalink/Transponers to your aircraft. They wont pay to fit an airbag to my kingswood so why should they put something in you aircraft.
Make mode S compulsory if you want. Sounds good but I think that you are off with the elves in lala land if you think that it will be free.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I can say is that I'm thankful that I've heeded the warning issued by Jeppesen to keep the old charts - I just hope that a rollback is on the cards...
Although the spin doctors may have something to say about it.
Although the spin doctors may have something to say about it.
DownDraught, I find that Voices of Reason is a breath of fresh air. As you would know, I believe that the ICAO airspace classifications should be allocated to reflect risk levels. Because of this, it is extraordinary that Class C airspace is deemed necessary in link airspace above Launceston, however Class G airspace is acceptable at places like Ayers Rock - with twice as many jet movements.
Professionalism requires objective judgement. Using any reasonable logic it is obvious Australia has misallocated airspace categories. Even if you believe that Class C airspace is required above Launceston, that surely must mean that Class B airspace is required in the Launceston terminal area – i.e. where the risk is many times higher, you place a higher category of airspace.
I support what Voices of Reason says, as that organisation explains that airspace should be allocated in relation to objective risk assessment. I particularly agree with Voices of Reason that there is no present safety risk that would require the reversal of the 27 November 2003 changes:
It’s great to see that so many others support Voices of Reason on this.
I find that many postings on this thread – which come from air traffic controllers and some pilots – mainly tend towards the status quo.
How can Airservices justify Class D airspace at Albury, with a few turbo-props, but Class G airspace at Ayers Rock, with 16 jet movements per day and loads of VFR traffic? I’ve been told it is because air traffic controllers like to live at Albury, but would not like to live at Ayers Rock. Does anyone have any other suggestions?
By the way, most posters on this thread rave about how wonderful Voices of Reason is. Do I then dare point out that the Voices of Reason posting of 3 February 2004 at 22:05 clearly explains my views in relation to the affordability of safety – Swedavia - McGregor were my mentors!
Professionalism requires objective judgement. Using any reasonable logic it is obvious Australia has misallocated airspace categories. Even if you believe that Class C airspace is required above Launceston, that surely must mean that Class B airspace is required in the Launceston terminal area – i.e. where the risk is many times higher, you place a higher category of airspace.
I support what Voices of Reason says, as that organisation explains that airspace should be allocated in relation to objective risk assessment. I particularly agree with Voices of Reason that there is no present safety risk that would require the reversal of the 27 November 2003 changes:
Unless there is an imminent safety risk (and despite the rhetoric, we do not believe such a risk currently exists) we do not - and cannot - intervene directly.
I find that many postings on this thread – which come from air traffic controllers and some pilots – mainly tend towards the status quo.
How can Airservices justify Class D airspace at Albury, with a few turbo-props, but Class G airspace at Ayers Rock, with 16 jet movements per day and loads of VFR traffic? I’ve been told it is because air traffic controllers like to live at Albury, but would not like to live at Ayers Rock. Does anyone have any other suggestions?
By the way, most posters on this thread rave about how wonderful Voices of Reason is. Do I then dare point out that the Voices of Reason posting of 3 February 2004 at 22:05 clearly explains my views in relation to the affordability of safety – Swedavia - McGregor were my mentors!
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well we seem to have adapted a lot of things from the states.
Why could'nt we have their WAC charts, which include topographical info, frequencies and boundaries, airspace, PRD's but cant quite remember if they had airways on them!!
Sounds like a great idea to me, everything on one chart!!
Anyone, Anyone?
Cheers, HH.
Why could'nt we have their WAC charts, which include topographical info, frequencies and boundaries, airspace, PRD's but cant quite remember if they had airways on them!!
Sounds like a great idea to me, everything on one chart!!
Anyone, Anyone?
Cheers, HH.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howard Hughes
Part of the friendly Woomera service for you.
FAA Airmans Manual
9-1-4. General Description of each Chart Series
a. VFR Navigation Charts.
1. Sectional Aeronautical Charts. Sectional Charts are designed for visual navigation of slow to medium speed aircraft. The topographic information consists of contour lines, shaded relief, drainage patterns, and an extensive selection of visual checkpoints and landmarks used for flight under VFR. Cultural features include cities and towns, roads, railroads, and other distinct landmarks. The aeronautical information includes visual and radio aids to navigation, airports, controlled airspace, special-use airspace, obstructions, and related data. Scale 1 inch = 6.86nm/1:500,000. 60 x 20 inches folded to 5 x 10 inches. Revised semiannually, except most Alaskan charts are revised annually.
(See FIG 9-1-1 and FIG 9-1-11.)
2. VFR Terminal Area Charts (TAC). TAC's depict the airspace designated as Class B airspace. While similar to sectional charts, TAC's have more detail because the scale is larger. The TAC should be used by pilots intending to operate to or from airfields within or near Class B or Class C airspace. Areas with TAC coverage are indicated by a · on the Sectional Chart indexes. Scale 1 inch = 3.43nm/1:250,000. Charts are revised semiannually, except Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands revised annually. (See FIG 9-1-1 and FIG 9-1-11.)
3. World Aeronautical Chart (WAC).
WAC's cover land areas for navigation by moderate speed aircraft operating at high altitudes. Included are city tints, principal roads, railroads, distinctive landmarks, drainage patterns, and relief. Aeronautical information includes visual and radio aids to navigation, airports, airways, special-use airspace, and obstructions. Because of a smaller scale, WAC's do not show as much detail as sectional or TAC's, and; therefore, are not recommended for exclusive use by pilots of low speed, low altitude aircraft. Scale 1 inch = 13.7nm/1:1,000,000. 60 x 20 inches folded to 5 x 10 inches. WAC's are revised annually, except for a few in Alaska and the Caribbean, which are revised biennially. (See FIG 9-1-12 and FIG 9-1-13.)
Is this perhaps the missing link in all of this.
If we going to have US airspace then should we not have the complete nav package???
The rest is here FYI;
FAA Airmans Information Manual
Part of the friendly Woomera service for you.
FAA Airmans Manual
9-1-4. General Description of each Chart Series
a. VFR Navigation Charts.
1. Sectional Aeronautical Charts. Sectional Charts are designed for visual navigation of slow to medium speed aircraft. The topographic information consists of contour lines, shaded relief, drainage patterns, and an extensive selection of visual checkpoints and landmarks used for flight under VFR. Cultural features include cities and towns, roads, railroads, and other distinct landmarks. The aeronautical information includes visual and radio aids to navigation, airports, controlled airspace, special-use airspace, obstructions, and related data. Scale 1 inch = 6.86nm/1:500,000. 60 x 20 inches folded to 5 x 10 inches. Revised semiannually, except most Alaskan charts are revised annually.
(See FIG 9-1-1 and FIG 9-1-11.)
2. VFR Terminal Area Charts (TAC). TAC's depict the airspace designated as Class B airspace. While similar to sectional charts, TAC's have more detail because the scale is larger. The TAC should be used by pilots intending to operate to or from airfields within or near Class B or Class C airspace. Areas with TAC coverage are indicated by a · on the Sectional Chart indexes. Scale 1 inch = 3.43nm/1:250,000. Charts are revised semiannually, except Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands revised annually. (See FIG 9-1-1 and FIG 9-1-11.)
3. World Aeronautical Chart (WAC).
WAC's cover land areas for navigation by moderate speed aircraft operating at high altitudes. Included are city tints, principal roads, railroads, distinctive landmarks, drainage patterns, and relief. Aeronautical information includes visual and radio aids to navigation, airports, airways, special-use airspace, and obstructions. Because of a smaller scale, WAC's do not show as much detail as sectional or TAC's, and; therefore, are not recommended for exclusive use by pilots of low speed, low altitude aircraft. Scale 1 inch = 13.7nm/1:1,000,000. 60 x 20 inches folded to 5 x 10 inches. WAC's are revised annually, except for a few in Alaska and the Caribbean, which are revised biennially. (See FIG 9-1-12 and FIG 9-1-13.)
Is this perhaps the missing link in all of this.
If we going to have US airspace then should we not have the complete nav package???
The rest is here FYI;
FAA Airmans Information Manual
ανώνυμος
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
does this mean you agree with this quote from VoR
Or are you going to be selective about what you agree with, or will you now accept that we should never have got into this position in the first place.
If the latter are you acknowledging any liability for any of the possibly dire outcomes suggested by VoR.
and since you are now posting on this thread can you cofirm or deny the existence of the documentation which VoR referrs to here
I won't hold my breath
R4+Z
I think I posted this mid merge ??????
does this mean you agree with this quote from VoR
You will immediately respond conspiracy - that is not, we believe, the case - though you may prove differently. We believe that the proponent(s) of change are not that clever, and that is not their motivation. This is being driven by a few people with sufficient aura or position to directly influence - by reason of that aura - the normal checks and balances. We believe that this process has developed such momentum that it will be impossible to stop cleanly - hopefully it will stop without an accident.
Let us be clear - we are NOT accusing anyone of deliberately seeking to undermine safety levels in your country. We believe that the proponents of change genuinely believe that the outcome of their process will be better than your current system.
We have provided factual evidence that challenges this assumption. We have also provided factual evidence that the process is incorrect.
Let us be clear - we are NOT accusing anyone of deliberately seeking to undermine safety levels in your country. We believe that the proponents of change genuinely believe that the outcome of their process will be better than your current system.
We have provided factual evidence that challenges this assumption. We have also provided factual evidence that the process is incorrect.
If the latter are you acknowledging any liability for any of the possibly dire outcomes suggested by VoR.
and since you are now posting on this thread can you cofirm or deny the existence of the documentation which VoR referrs to here
We were shown information which prompted our participation in this forum. That information outlines a complex matrix of interactions between senior airspace management personnel in your country, leading to the highest levels. It is possible to interpret how and why certain airlines have taken certain positions to protect other initiatives - how certain senior airspace management staff have been influenced to adjust or re-interpret their positions, and how certain infuences have been brought to bear to ensure certain outcomes. That is why we have suggested that you attempt to access all of the relevant documentation through legal process.
R4+Z
I think I posted this mid merge ??????
Last edited by R4+Z; 12th Feb 2004 at 15:48.