Airspace Design - Some Background
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unbelievable
Mr Smith
You are incredible!. We have been over the technical, safety and for that matter the cultural and political issues SO MANY TIMES!.
I am not going to go around in circles again when clearly you are incapable of listening!
If any one is interested, once Danny has restored the search function, Do a search on NAS and or Dick Smith, the 100's of thousands of words are there for all to see.
Do you remember the conversation you had with line controllers in YSTW TWR during the country music festival in January of this year?
Perhaps you might reproduce your statements here about the facts relating to your E airspace!
How bout I refresh your memory on one of those points:-
You signed a piece of paper confirming that YOU agree that RPT traffic should NOT have Unalerted See and Avoid
That said can you show us how changing C to E conforms to that principle?
I'll look forward to your advice, beliefs, gut feelings, and empirical waffle!..........NOT!
You are incredible!. We have been over the technical, safety and for that matter the cultural and political issues SO MANY TIMES!.
I am not going to go around in circles again when clearly you are incapable of listening!
If any one is interested, once Danny has restored the search function, Do a search on NAS and or Dick Smith, the 100's of thousands of words are there for all to see.
Do you remember the conversation you had with line controllers in YSTW TWR during the country music festival in January of this year?
Perhaps you might reproduce your statements here about the facts relating to your E airspace!
How bout I refresh your memory on one of those points:-
You signed a piece of paper confirming that YOU agree that RPT traffic should NOT have Unalerted See and Avoid
That said can you show us how changing C to E conforms to that principle?
I'll look forward to your advice, beliefs, gut feelings, and empirical waffle!..........NOT!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four Seven Eleven, sorry, I thought I had answered your question in relation to objective analysis. Yes, I will certainly support an objective analysis of whether the NAS changes result in higher safety than the previous system. I have no doubt that they do.
When will this analysis be publicly announced?
Which independent authority do you recommend to do this analysis?
Given that NAS2C is scheduled for later this year, by what time do you anticipate that this analysis, which you now support, will be completed?
Will NAS2B be (belatedly) subject to the same analysis?
Why has it taken this long for you to support a safety analysis?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick A+B=An apple.
You have an interesting view on logic.
No it doesn't; you increased levels of risk in enroute, so you could devote resources to the higher level of risk, without devoting any more resources to the supposed higher risk environments. You introduced a higher level of risk to all the enroute airspace, fact. We have attempted to compensate for this increased level of risk, by having more sectors open than pre 27 November 2003, fact.
It is harder to control class E than Class C in a radar environment, why don't you listen... In class C everything is known so every decision taken is reflective of known elements, and you can say no if it is needed for safety; sure in a procedural environment it could be complex; but now you need to continually monitor every piece of IFR traffic; yes we used to do that anyway, but now we have a legal and moral obligation to increase this monitoring, vigilance. You used to monitor for potential unknown traffic, which effectively was rarer than hens teeth, now the unknowns are there constantly. This increased monitoring has resulted in more opening hours of the low level positions; it's a joke if you think it's any other way.
And the controller could say no at anytime for safety. VFRs did used to cop that from time to time, now VFRs come in unannounced, do what they want and no one knows they are there until the pesky little TCAS screams. This is not a safety enhancement. It's different task allocation. Managing the circuit traffic at LT is not a difficult job; you have saved no resources at LT, because there are less than 6 on station, which now only have to concentrate on the circuit traffic... No point having a circuit if no one can get to it safely.
In the USA, some of the resources which compensate for this lack of safety is radar, yes I acknowledge that there are some locations that don't have radar, and they also don't have very much VFR traffic, due to altitude or inclement locations, such as Steam boat springs, or Alaska locations. Steam Boat has radar coverage to the circuit, provided by centre radar, which separates and sequences (essentially) all IFRs inbound.
Dick you have good intent, but again you've biiggered it up. The ARG member, who just resigned, your good friend, should be able to explain to you why this went wrong. Known levels of risk, replaced by hope and maybes, shoulds, coulds and I believes; not knowns.
Please admit defeat and leave it to the professionals to sort out your mess, again.
Bottle of Rum
You have an interesting view on logic.
Pilots who have flown in the system since 27 November will notice that it is considerably quieter. This means fewer sectors and cost savings
It is harder to control class E than Class C in a radar environment, why don't you listen... In class C everything is known so every decision taken is reflective of known elements, and you can say no if it is needed for safety; sure in a procedural environment it could be complex; but now you need to continually monitor every piece of IFR traffic; yes we used to do that anyway, but now we have a legal and moral obligation to increase this monitoring, vigilance. You used to monitor for potential unknown traffic, which effectively was rarer than hens teeth, now the unknowns are there constantly. This increased monitoring has resulted in more opening hours of the low level positions; it's a joke if you think it's any other way.
.. would have difficulty in convincing you that your operations in Class E are safer... If you fly an aircraft from Sydney to Launceston, you no only go through Class E airspace, but you also enter Class D airspace where the collision risk is higher. Before 27 November 2003, the controllers at Launceston were responsible for airspace of very large dimensions. Separating IFR and VFR aircraft in Class C without radar is extremely complicated, and I’m told (by controllers) requires a high workload. This obviously means that the controller could be concentrating on separating IFR and VFR aircraft well away from the field, whilst at the same time the controller has responsibility for the separation of circuit traffic.
In the USA, some of the resources which compensate for this lack of safety is radar, yes I acknowledge that there are some locations that don't have radar, and they also don't have very much VFR traffic, due to altitude or inclement locations, such as Steam boat springs, or Alaska locations. Steam Boat has radar coverage to the circuit, provided by centre radar, which separates and sequences (essentially) all IFRs inbound.
Dick you have good intent, but again you've biiggered it up. The ARG member, who just resigned, your good friend, should be able to explain to you why this went wrong. Known levels of risk, replaced by hope and maybes, shoulds, coulds and I believes; not knowns.
Please admit defeat and leave it to the professionals to sort out your mess, again.
Bottle of Rum
Last edited by SM4 Pirate; 25th Feb 2004 at 12:26.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, if you really believed in what you posted on this thread, I believe you would do it under your own name. For what other reason can your anonymity reflect other than a lack of confidence in your beliefs? If you genuinely believe that safety has been reduced with the NAS changes, I suggest you go public under your own name, and use your persuasive powers to convince the Australian people of this.
You however found the experience so bloody baffling it took three weeks, the apparent full time efforts of your secretary, multiple phone calls to our Oz based helpers and nearly 20 e-mails to me in the UK.
In the way of contrast, more than 80,000 people have successfully registered themselves on this website over the last 7 years. Alone, solo, without assistance. Here in the UK our views are coloured by your total inability to even register yourself on such a stupid thing as a website let alone be expected to answer basic, simply phrased questions about airspace.
I suspect that someone who set themself up as an outsider asking tough questions, a visionary, a blue skies thinker, someone outside the establishment getting things done in aviation is actually struggling to cope with this medium where anyone, irrespective of status or education, stands or falls by the quality and content of their posts.
Rob Lloyd
PS I sign with my real name. This is absolutely immaterial to the readers of this site. They determine whether my thoughts are cogent or those of a publicity seeking ****wit by reading my words not my name.
Personally I suspect you err more towards this philosophy:
"Words can only hurt if you try to read them. Don't play their game."
Derek Zoolander
Derek Zoolander
Last edited by PPRuNe Towers; 25th Feb 2004 at 00:25.
Chris Higgins, I note your comment:
Chris, your comments really worry me. You spent almost 3 years at JFK, and were a union safety chairman, yet you didn’t know that your aircraft were always descending and climbing through large amounts of Class E airspace. It certainly confirms what a non safety issue it is. I suggest you check your charts again and then correct your post.
Qantas does an arrival in New York that descends from Class A airspace over the top of La Guardia and into Class B airspace at JFK. They never fly through Class E airspace in the Northeast. The arrival is called the “Lindy Five Arrival”, you surely have Jepp view? I was the union safety chairman based in JFK for almost three years.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is getting nowhere fast. Dick firmly believes one thing, professionals from the Australian aviation community with no agenda other than getting home safely to the wife and kids each night believe another, and never the twain shall meet.
The reality is that NAS will go ahead, eventually, when Airservices actually follow legal procedure (for a change) and rubber stamp their safety case. A few band-aid measures (a mobile radar that doesn't comply with TAAATS) and it's presented to the fare paying public as "fixed".
Dick has been ridiculed by aviation professionals in Australia for years. This hurts his ego because he believes that he hasn't been given due credit for his own aviation expertise. After all, he flew his JetRanger "solo*" around the world, and "solo*" to the North Pole. He's certain that he has forgotten more about aviation in this country than most of you will ever learn. If you think NAS is bad, of course it must be good. How can an aviator who's been compared with Hinkler and Mollison be wrong? I'm sure that if all the NAS nay-sayers said the sky was blue, Dick would have the Minister for Big Skies (or at least the Minister for the Big Sky Theory) propose a colour change to pink.
*I do not use the word solo in the same context as the Oxford Concise English Dictionary
The reality is that NAS will go ahead, eventually, when Airservices actually follow legal procedure (for a change) and rubber stamp their safety case. A few band-aid measures (a mobile radar that doesn't comply with TAAATS) and it's presented to the fare paying public as "fixed".
Dick has been ridiculed by aviation professionals in Australia for years. This hurts his ego because he believes that he hasn't been given due credit for his own aviation expertise. After all, he flew his JetRanger "solo*" around the world, and "solo*" to the North Pole. He's certain that he has forgotten more about aviation in this country than most of you will ever learn. If you think NAS is bad, of course it must be good. How can an aviator who's been compared with Hinkler and Mollison be wrong? I'm sure that if all the NAS nay-sayers said the sky was blue, Dick would have the Minister for Big Skies (or at least the Minister for the Big Sky Theory) propose a colour change to pink.
*I do not use the word solo in the same context as the Oxford Concise English Dictionary
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: 125 George St. Sydney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Please explain the basis of your statement ¡°I agree with the Voices of Reason¡±.
Understand this:
Reason is man's ONLY means of knowledge and is based on fact.
The facts of reality are knowable through a process of objective reasoning that begins with sensory perception and follows the laws of logic.
Logic is the method by which we reach conclusions about reality based on the evidence of the senses and begins with the evidence provided by the senses.
Identification is the primary goal of our conceptual faculty. Our brains are put there to identify---to grasp in conceptual terms---what is out there in reality.
Non-contradictory refers to the primary rule of logic: contradictions do not exist. If one arrives at the conclusion that a ball is both solid gold and solid lead then one has made an error.
All errors in logic ultimately manifest themselves as contradictory identifications, without exception.
A process of thought based on arbitrary premises or ¡°beliefs¡± is not logic.
Although the technical details may vary among fields of knowledge and among forms of reasoning, the basic rule of logic is that contradictions do not exist.
Every logical conclusion can be traced back to an ultimate grounding in observation.
Logic dictates that each man use his own independent, rational judgement as is his only guide to action and reject "beliefs" such as yours; that knowledge is a matter of opinion; the belief that knowledge is a product of revelations or insights.
As a rational being, I possess inalienable rights. As these rights can only be violated by force, you, through NASIG are instituted to hold a monopoly on the legal use of force and to use it as your only line of defence against anyone opposing it.
Your underlying expectation is that people will risk their very lives and the lives of others by blindly and unquestionably following your principles.........Why?
You are not qualified to "agree with Voices of Reason"
Paul
Please explain the basis of your statement ¡°I agree with the Voices of Reason¡±.
Understand this:
Reason is man's ONLY means of knowledge and is based on fact.
The facts of reality are knowable through a process of objective reasoning that begins with sensory perception and follows the laws of logic.
Logic is the method by which we reach conclusions about reality based on the evidence of the senses and begins with the evidence provided by the senses.
Identification is the primary goal of our conceptual faculty. Our brains are put there to identify---to grasp in conceptual terms---what is out there in reality.
Non-contradictory refers to the primary rule of logic: contradictions do not exist. If one arrives at the conclusion that a ball is both solid gold and solid lead then one has made an error.
All errors in logic ultimately manifest themselves as contradictory identifications, without exception.
A process of thought based on arbitrary premises or ¡°beliefs¡± is not logic.
Although the technical details may vary among fields of knowledge and among forms of reasoning, the basic rule of logic is that contradictions do not exist.
Every logical conclusion can be traced back to an ultimate grounding in observation.
Logic dictates that each man use his own independent, rational judgement as is his only guide to action and reject "beliefs" such as yours; that knowledge is a matter of opinion; the belief that knowledge is a product of revelations or insights.
As a rational being, I possess inalienable rights. As these rights can only be violated by force, you, through NASIG are instituted to hold a monopoly on the legal use of force and to use it as your only line of defence against anyone opposing it.
Your underlying expectation is that people will risk their very lives and the lives of others by blindly and unquestionably following your principles.........Why?
You are not qualified to "agree with Voices of Reason"
Paul
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CULTURE !
Having been in North America recently, I asked a few questions of people that have significant experience flying in that part of the world.
Seems that if there is E over B or D (zones) then the "culture" of the VFR pilot and the "way" he has been trained, is to keep away from flying anywhere near over the top of such locations. They laugh when it is suggested that because it is E they could just cruise across the top at a VFR level. (special VFR procedures like LAX excepted) Of course they "could" but they "don't" because they have been taught how to use their airways system in a manner that reduces the risks involved.
The very problem with NAS and the Education (or lack of) associated with this change is that nobody including the Smith's have, it seems, either recognised or bothered to address the CULTURE differences between North America and Australia.
Until the people driving this project come to terms with the FACT that Australia is not and never will be North America (culture wise) and address the culture differences and the training and education we will continue to have problems trying to process airspace reform.
Australia it seems is creating an airspace environment which actively discourages VFR operations from participating in the system. I believe this to be on the verge of criminal and certainly not in the interests of safety.
To address the issues of change and the introduction of a North American style system the culture differences must be addressed. The system and those that operate it and train people how to use it, must be on the basis that the door is always open and should the VFR want/wish to participate, he/she should be welcomed with open arms. He/she should also be trained in how to operate outside the system if that is their choice.
The training and education of both pilots and controllers must reflect this, otherwise we will just have more of the same and airspace change proposals (reform) will continue to stumble.
Seems that if there is E over B or D (zones) then the "culture" of the VFR pilot and the "way" he has been trained, is to keep away from flying anywhere near over the top of such locations. They laugh when it is suggested that because it is E they could just cruise across the top at a VFR level. (special VFR procedures like LAX excepted) Of course they "could" but they "don't" because they have been taught how to use their airways system in a manner that reduces the risks involved.
The very problem with NAS and the Education (or lack of) associated with this change is that nobody including the Smith's have, it seems, either recognised or bothered to address the CULTURE differences between North America and Australia.
Until the people driving this project come to terms with the FACT that Australia is not and never will be North America (culture wise) and address the culture differences and the training and education we will continue to have problems trying to process airspace reform.
Australia it seems is creating an airspace environment which actively discourages VFR operations from participating in the system. I believe this to be on the verge of criminal and certainly not in the interests of safety.
To address the issues of change and the introduction of a North American style system the culture differences must be addressed. The system and those that operate it and train people how to use it, must be on the basis that the door is always open and should the VFR want/wish to participate, he/she should be welcomed with open arms. He/she should also be trained in how to operate outside the system if that is their choice.
The training and education of both pilots and controllers must reflect this, otherwise we will just have more of the same and airspace change proposals (reform) will continue to stumble.
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
Hempy, I totally agree.
It seems to me that the proponents of both sides of the argument will never see eye-to-eye.
I admit that I am not a professional pilot (I hold a PPL/MECIR) and that my involvement in the industry is limited having handled a number of matters involving aviation law. My practise consists entirely of commercial litigation matters.
Disputes involving a conflict of legal rights, where the parties are unwilling to resolve their differences, are determined by the Courts.
Whilst the issues raised in this thread are not strictly 'legal' (although the ramifications of any incidents arising may raise legal issues), the method of analysis which is applied to legal problems can be adopted topics such as this to determine the preferred argument.
I have read the arguments put forward in this thread (and others). I have also read the arguments (both for and against) ventilated prior to the introduction of NAS on 27 Nov 03. I have also considered BASI's 1991 Report regarding the limitations of 'unalerted see and avoid' and the ATSB's findings regarding the incident at LT on 24 Dec 03.
The fundamental issues as I see them (there are other related issues) are 1) see and avoid and 2) communication.
BASI found that unalerted see and avoid "has a 'limited place as a last resort means of traffic separation at low closing speeds', and is 'completely unsuitable as a primary traffic separation method for scheduled services'".
Dick Smith disagreed with those findings stating the "recommendation could never be complied with, and never was. If you look at the incidents in MBZs in the last 2 years (I suggest you check my website www.dicksmithflyer.com.au) it will be noted that there are numerous occasions of unalerted see and avoid taking place. The BASI requirement simply could not be complied with unless every airport operated in a minimum of Class D airspace (even then this would probably not satisfy the requirement) and the cost would be horrendous." [refer http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/]
With respect, it appears to me that Dick Smith has missed the point. BASI's findings were made by comparing the merits of alerted see and avoid and unalerted see and avoid. Quite simply, it found that alerted see and avoid was safer than unalerted see and avoid. The fact that there are "numerous occasions of unalerted see and avoid taking place" is beside the point. The fundamental finding is that unalerted see and avoid is not as safe as alerted see and avoid.
Dick Smith's other argument is that it would cost too much to operate "every" airport in Class D airspace. There is no need to operate every airport as Class D. Whilst there are limitations so far as human factors go, the provision of 'mandatory broadcasts' (eg MBZs) assists the pilot in situational awareness. The fact that VFR pilots are encouraged to remain silent, even in E Class, flys in the face (no pun intended) of BASIs Report.
A related issue is that of the definition of 'appropriate frequency'. I will not entertain the argument that listening to the area frequency will lead me to be "complacent" or "stressed". This is an insult to my and other private pilots' intelligence.
I find it difficult to see as enhancing safety, the possibility that any number of pilots in close proximity could be on different frequencies based on their subjective definition of 'appropriate'.
The argument that NAS will help reduce incidents in CTAF/MBZs is illusory as the radio procedures prescribed under NAS are still subject to the same human factor limitations identified in the BASI report. The problems are exemplified by the active discouragement of the use of radios (see the ATSB report re: incident at LT).
The argument that NAS will help allocate resources to where they are most needed (ie terminal areas) where the risk of collision is greatest is not satisfactory in light of the ATSB report re: incident at LT. That incident occured just 14nm from the aerodrome.
Finally, I cannot get past the fact that those who are against NAS predicted the type of incident that actually occurred at LT even before this system got up and running! (this opens whole can of worms legally!)
One thing is for sure, I would rather argue the case against NAS than for it.
NAMPS B.A., LL.B. (Hons), LL.M. Barrister-at-Law
It seems to me that the proponents of both sides of the argument will never see eye-to-eye.
I admit that I am not a professional pilot (I hold a PPL/MECIR) and that my involvement in the industry is limited having handled a number of matters involving aviation law. My practise consists entirely of commercial litigation matters.
Disputes involving a conflict of legal rights, where the parties are unwilling to resolve their differences, are determined by the Courts.
Whilst the issues raised in this thread are not strictly 'legal' (although the ramifications of any incidents arising may raise legal issues), the method of analysis which is applied to legal problems can be adopted topics such as this to determine the preferred argument.
I have read the arguments put forward in this thread (and others). I have also read the arguments (both for and against) ventilated prior to the introduction of NAS on 27 Nov 03. I have also considered BASI's 1991 Report regarding the limitations of 'unalerted see and avoid' and the ATSB's findings regarding the incident at LT on 24 Dec 03.
The fundamental issues as I see them (there are other related issues) are 1) see and avoid and 2) communication.
BASI found that unalerted see and avoid "has a 'limited place as a last resort means of traffic separation at low closing speeds', and is 'completely unsuitable as a primary traffic separation method for scheduled services'".
Dick Smith disagreed with those findings stating the "recommendation could never be complied with, and never was. If you look at the incidents in MBZs in the last 2 years (I suggest you check my website www.dicksmithflyer.com.au) it will be noted that there are numerous occasions of unalerted see and avoid taking place. The BASI requirement simply could not be complied with unless every airport operated in a minimum of Class D airspace (even then this would probably not satisfy the requirement) and the cost would be horrendous." [refer http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/]
With respect, it appears to me that Dick Smith has missed the point. BASI's findings were made by comparing the merits of alerted see and avoid and unalerted see and avoid. Quite simply, it found that alerted see and avoid was safer than unalerted see and avoid. The fact that there are "numerous occasions of unalerted see and avoid taking place" is beside the point. The fundamental finding is that unalerted see and avoid is not as safe as alerted see and avoid.
Dick Smith's other argument is that it would cost too much to operate "every" airport in Class D airspace. There is no need to operate every airport as Class D. Whilst there are limitations so far as human factors go, the provision of 'mandatory broadcasts' (eg MBZs) assists the pilot in situational awareness. The fact that VFR pilots are encouraged to remain silent, even in E Class, flys in the face (no pun intended) of BASIs Report.
A related issue is that of the definition of 'appropriate frequency'. I will not entertain the argument that listening to the area frequency will lead me to be "complacent" or "stressed". This is an insult to my and other private pilots' intelligence.
I find it difficult to see as enhancing safety, the possibility that any number of pilots in close proximity could be on different frequencies based on their subjective definition of 'appropriate'.
The argument that NAS will help reduce incidents in CTAF/MBZs is illusory as the radio procedures prescribed under NAS are still subject to the same human factor limitations identified in the BASI report. The problems are exemplified by the active discouragement of the use of radios (see the ATSB report re: incident at LT).
The argument that NAS will help allocate resources to where they are most needed (ie terminal areas) where the risk of collision is greatest is not satisfactory in light of the ATSB report re: incident at LT. That incident occured just 14nm from the aerodrome.
Finally, I cannot get past the fact that those who are against NAS predicted the type of incident that actually occurred at LT even before this system got up and running! (this opens whole can of worms legally!)
One thing is for sure, I would rather argue the case against NAS than for it.
NAMPS B.A., LL.B. (Hons), LL.M. Barrister-at-Law
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Time for action
Mr Smith,
look how terribly wrong it can go, when it does go wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3484878.stm
More than enough has been written and spoken on the Australian NAS debacle, and much can be learnt from our Swiss colleagues on their experiences, with the tragic results of failure demonstrated, and now this latest development just further adding to the anx of all involved.
Assuming you still have the ability to provide input to the decision makers, isn't it time to stop the postualtion, chest beating and general grand standing, and take the necessary actions to ensure such a scenario as witnessed in Switzerland does not occur on Australian shores?
"Affordable safety" was a catch cry once attributed to your reform processes. Such a price as experienced elswhere can never be measured.
Do something, and do it NOW.
look how terribly wrong it can go, when it does go wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3484878.stm
More than enough has been written and spoken on the Australian NAS debacle, and much can be learnt from our Swiss colleagues on their experiences, with the tragic results of failure demonstrated, and now this latest development just further adding to the anx of all involved.
Assuming you still have the ability to provide input to the decision makers, isn't it time to stop the postualtion, chest beating and general grand standing, and take the necessary actions to ensure such a scenario as witnessed in Switzerland does not occur on Australian shores?
"Affordable safety" was a catch cry once attributed to your reform processes. Such a price as experienced elswhere can never be measured.
Do something, and do it NOW.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAMPS,
In regard to your last post, how does the fact those who introduced stage 2b new that by doing so would cause" Apparent more en-route risk and less terminal risk.", as stated in Hansard (Senates Estimates Comittee)?
In regard to your last post, how does the fact those who introduced stage 2b new that by doing so would cause" Apparent more en-route risk and less terminal risk.", as stated in Hansard (Senates Estimates Comittee)?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Not in Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this message floating around the other day. Apparently the words early in September of that frustrated Airservices employee to his GM:
"My whole week seems to have been taken up by NAS2b and the inconsistent behaviour of an organisation that on the one hand as an ATSP desires to introduce capabilities (ADS-B & TAREP) to increase safety and efficiency, that issues directives to staff because we need to ensure separation assurance, and on the other as an airspace authority is expected to rubber stamp an initiative that is not its own and that deliberately reduces the level of safety and through the random movement of unnotified VFR traffic will likely hamper the efficiency of operations."
"My whole week seems to have been taken up by NAS2b and the inconsistent behaviour of an organisation that on the one hand as an ATSP desires to introduce capabilities (ADS-B & TAREP) to increase safety and efficiency, that issues directives to staff because we need to ensure separation assurance, and on the other as an airspace authority is expected to rubber stamp an initiative that is not its own and that deliberately reduces the level of safety and through the random movement of unnotified VFR traffic will likely hamper the efficiency of operations."
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well
I am of the opinion, as are others that this debate is between facts and analysis vs beliefs and is getting no where.
Re: See and Avoid. The CTAF USA where there is no feed back to advise a VFR pilot if they are on the wrong frequency as they choose to monitor rather than call vs a MBZ or Radio equipt a/c in CTAF(AUS) requiring a mandatory call with a AFRU beep back which the pilot only gets when on the right frequency is self evidently safer and beyond dispute.
At our busiest uncontroled airports, this is augmented by a CAGRS giving DTI of a/c relevant to the approach or departure path of a new comer is even more robust as all pilots expect a reply from "Broome Radio" and start checking frequency or switching radios to check for faulty equiptment.
Undoubtedly the statistics will be in our consultants study.
Why then am I informed, after my enquiry, by NASIG that they have asked CASA to delete the regs on CAGRS as they are "non compliant to NAS." As the provider of the service and owner of the airport why was I not advised? ICAO states I must be involved and advised and asked to comment.(ref VoR posts which you agree with!)
I also note USA has AAS at many uncontrolled airports providing the same services as our CAGRS, a logical cost effective step before the expense of a D class Tower.
Yet through our FOI process we are told there is no Design safety case been done on CAGRS,MBZ,CTAF(AUS) vs CTAF(USA)
Forget the waffle this is happening as we speak while 2b is being fine tuningly unwound, and you are arguing on this forum about safety. NASIG is surely being directed by ARG- Not overly happy Dick, a phone call would have been nice- Hardly inclusive consultation. When all parties know the one and only Aeronautical Design Study done on this characteristic is by our independent consultants and is due in 2 weeks.
But lets forget about safety, as it appears all agencies except ATSB have, and look at your major aim to get GA happening in Australia. An aim I share. This fiasco on 2b is scaring RPT pax (personal experience as I am getting asked. Is it safe to fly? - My answer is the same as Captain Chris Mannings : ) .
I'd be interested to know how it is effecting flight training numbers 2003 vs 2004. I'd be suprised that a continued all ahead full and forget about those como pilots and atc degenerates will allow us to portray a safe and easier to fly impression to the public and get them moving to the nearest training school
Has anyone got any data on this?
I am of the opinion, as are others that this debate is between facts and analysis vs beliefs and is getting no where.
Re: See and Avoid. The CTAF USA where there is no feed back to advise a VFR pilot if they are on the wrong frequency as they choose to monitor rather than call vs a MBZ or Radio equipt a/c in CTAF(AUS) requiring a mandatory call with a AFRU beep back which the pilot only gets when on the right frequency is self evidently safer and beyond dispute.
At our busiest uncontroled airports, this is augmented by a CAGRS giving DTI of a/c relevant to the approach or departure path of a new comer is even more robust as all pilots expect a reply from "Broome Radio" and start checking frequency or switching radios to check for faulty equiptment.
Undoubtedly the statistics will be in our consultants study.
Why then am I informed, after my enquiry, by NASIG that they have asked CASA to delete the regs on CAGRS as they are "non compliant to NAS." As the provider of the service and owner of the airport why was I not advised? ICAO states I must be involved and advised and asked to comment.(ref VoR posts which you agree with!)
I also note USA has AAS at many uncontrolled airports providing the same services as our CAGRS, a logical cost effective step before the expense of a D class Tower.
Yet through our FOI process we are told there is no Design safety case been done on CAGRS,MBZ,CTAF(AUS) vs CTAF(USA)
Forget the waffle this is happening as we speak while 2b is being fine tuningly unwound, and you are arguing on this forum about safety. NASIG is surely being directed by ARG- Not overly happy Dick, a phone call would have been nice- Hardly inclusive consultation. When all parties know the one and only Aeronautical Design Study done on this characteristic is by our independent consultants and is due in 2 weeks.
But lets forget about safety, as it appears all agencies except ATSB have, and look at your major aim to get GA happening in Australia. An aim I share. This fiasco on 2b is scaring RPT pax (personal experience as I am getting asked. Is it safe to fly? - My answer is the same as Captain Chris Mannings : ) .
I'd be interested to know how it is effecting flight training numbers 2003 vs 2004. I'd be suprised that a continued all ahead full and forget about those como pilots and atc degenerates will allow us to portray a safe and easier to fly impression to the public and get them moving to the nearest training school
Has anyone got any data on this?
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
DD
I too read the Senate Estimates Committee hearing transcript. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to read the documents to which they were referring.
My understanding is that they are comparing NAS 2b airspace with the airspace it is replacing.
The increased risk enroute is created by replacing C Class with E class airspace, thus allowing unannounced VFR traffic into airspace that would previously require a clearance to enter.
Another factor is the 're-allocation of resources to terminal areas'. This means taking away resources from enroute sectors.
These actions have the effect of increasing risk enroute.
I too read the Senate Estimates Committee hearing transcript. Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to read the documents to which they were referring.
My understanding is that they are comparing NAS 2b airspace with the airspace it is replacing.
The increased risk enroute is created by replacing C Class with E class airspace, thus allowing unannounced VFR traffic into airspace that would previously require a clearance to enter.
Another factor is the 're-allocation of resources to terminal areas'. This means taking away resources from enroute sectors.
These actions have the effect of increasing risk enroute.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The increased risk enroute is created by replacing C Class with E class airspace, thus allowing unannounced VFR traffic into airspace that would previously require a clearance to enter.
Another factor is the 're-allocation of resources to terminal areas'. This means taking away resources from enroute sectors.
We have increased the risk in tower and enroute airspace; we have increased the 'staff' needed in enroute and not saved one body from any tower.
I think the concept is that because the tower controller is now only responsible for class E it is less work than class D; which could be true in some circumstances; but not in others. This means we can get rid of Tower controllers; or we certainly won't need anymore than we all ready have ever....
All, you can't claim to be increasing or re-allocating resources where the risk of collision is higher, without doing so, it's a bad joke and "Dick Smith" is the punch line.
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
SM, thanks for clarifying that.
I think it was Gemmell (?) that made the statement during the Estimates Committee Hearing that DownDraught referred to.
If what you say in respect of the allocation of resources is the case, then I don't understand how the assertion made during the Estimates Committee Hearing is correct (or at least accurate).
Anyway, NAS has fleas.
I think it was Gemmell (?) that made the statement during the Estimates Committee Hearing that DownDraught referred to.
If what you say in respect of the allocation of resources is the case, then I don't understand how the assertion made during the Estimates Committee Hearing is correct (or at least accurate).
Anyway, NAS has fleas.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANSP credibility
Is this true?
Annex 11:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“….initiative that is not its own and that deliberately reduces the level of safety and through the random movement of unnotified VFR traffic will likely hamper the efficiency of operations”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The highest levels of the ANSP were advised by their HATC that this initiative, that was from another source, was a deliberate lowering of safety standards? How was this factored into the “safety assessment process” - assuming some credible one was undertaken?
And he was ‘rewarded’ with the sack!!!
Annex 11:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“….initiative that is not its own and that deliberately reduces the level of safety and through the random movement of unnotified VFR traffic will likely hamper the efficiency of operations”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The highest levels of the ANSP were advised by their HATC that this initiative, that was from another source, was a deliberate lowering of safety standards? How was this factored into the “safety assessment process” - assuming some credible one was undertaken?
And he was ‘rewarded’ with the sack!!!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My original question to namps was for a reason. If the ugly had happened, or indeed does happen now, where there is a collision en route, and the safety submission given to CASA pre implementation regarding nas2b implementation acknowledges that by implementing nas2b there will be "Apparent more en-route risk and less terminal risk.", then does not meet the classic case of negligence?