No Radio Dick: The Next Instalment
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Firstly, thank you for your NAS statement which I received on Monday morning. I appreciate your forthrightness and value your input.
The Government has decided to adopt the US FAA airspace model as the model for airspace reform. In Airservices, our responsibility is to ensure the safe implementation of these changes. The NAS model does result in a change of classification of some volumes of airspace and inherent with re-classification is a change of level of air traffic service provided. The re-classification and the resultant level have been deemed appropriate by the Aviation Reform Group. The NAS model has undergone an examination utilising the safety assessment process required for any change to the national airways system. It has been subject to two Safety Cases, one for implementation and one for design, and both have been endorsed as safe by Airservices’ own Directorate of Safety and Environmental Assurance (DSEA), and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as the aviation regulatory body in Australia.
Airservices Australia has examined the implementation of the change utilising its own safety management system. The Board and Management are satisfied that the 27 November changes are safe and should proceed.
The argument that the expansion of “E” airspace is less safe than the current system of “C” is somewhat inconsistent given that Class E is an ICAO airspace category and is widely used around the world. Services have been provided in Class E airspace between Canberra and Ballina for approximately 5 years. Nevertheless, this issue was carefully considered by management, the Board Safety and Environment Committee and the Board itself.
The Head Air Traffic Controller and Managers of the Centres have examined risks in the context of the ALARP model and have been signatories to both safety cases.
Training has been provided to ensure controllers can competently provide the services expected of them in Class E airspace. The professionalism of the ATC workforce in the successful completion of this training is well recognised by Melbourne Centre Management and by the Office of HATC.
In summary, I acknowledge that the nature of this airspace change is causing a degree of concern within the professional ATC workforce, however NAS 2B has undergone the mandated safety assessment process, which has been endorsed by the regulator.”
The Government has decided to adopt the US FAA airspace model as the model for airspace reform. In Airservices, our responsibility is to ensure the safe implementation of these changes. The NAS model does result in a change of classification of some volumes of airspace and inherent with re-classification is a change of level of air traffic service provided. The re-classification and the resultant level have been deemed appropriate by the Aviation Reform Group. The NAS model has undergone an examination utilising the safety assessment process required for any change to the national airways system. It has been subject to two Safety Cases, one for implementation and one for design, and both have been endorsed as safe by Airservices’ own Directorate of Safety and Environmental Assurance (DSEA), and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) as the aviation regulatory body in Australia.
Airservices Australia has examined the implementation of the change utilising its own safety management system. The Board and Management are satisfied that the 27 November changes are safe and should proceed.
The argument that the expansion of “E” airspace is less safe than the current system of “C” is somewhat inconsistent given that Class E is an ICAO airspace category and is widely used around the world. Services have been provided in Class E airspace between Canberra and Ballina for approximately 5 years. Nevertheless, this issue was carefully considered by management, the Board Safety and Environment Committee and the Board itself.
The Head Air Traffic Controller and Managers of the Centres have examined risks in the context of the ALARP model and have been signatories to both safety cases.
Training has been provided to ensure controllers can competently provide the services expected of them in Class E airspace. The professionalism of the ATC workforce in the successful completion of this training is well recognised by Melbourne Centre Management and by the Office of HATC.
In summary, I acknowledge that the nature of this airspace change is causing a degree of concern within the professional ATC workforce, however NAS 2B has undergone the mandated safety assessment process, which has been endorsed by the regulator.”
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
If you check the second posting in this very thread, you will find the questions that I posted. Not critical, not abusive, not trivial, but questions that need to be answered.
89 steps to heaven, I'm not sure after 10,000 words of posting what questions I haven't answered. Give me a call on 02 9450 0600 or 0408 640 221 to discuss this. Don't be timid! Bite the bullet and give me a call.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Smith
You state:
"Safety has always been limited to what society can afford. That's why you have to be very astute and allocate the finite resources so they save the most lives."
Save the most lives?? Yet you have degraded the safety afforded to those that carry the most lives.
Then:
"The reason Class C airspace above places like Launceston has been changed to Class E is so that air traffic control resources can be moved to where the collision risk is highest and where the most serious incidents have been occurring."
To an enroute radar controller, Class E demands more resources than Class C.
We still have to separate IFR/IFR and now have to provide reactive separation with VFR's rather than planned tactical separation.
By the way, caught your input on the "Ugg Boot" issue. Good to see you're not pro-U.S. on everything. Maybe there is hope yet.
You state:
"Safety has always been limited to what society can afford. That's why you have to be very astute and allocate the finite resources so they save the most lives."
Save the most lives?? Yet you have degraded the safety afforded to those that carry the most lives.
Then:
"The reason Class C airspace above places like Launceston has been changed to Class E is so that air traffic control resources can be moved to where the collision risk is highest and where the most serious incidents have been occurring."
To an enroute radar controller, Class E demands more resources than Class C.
We still have to separate IFR/IFR and now have to provide reactive separation with VFR's rather than planned tactical separation.
By the way, caught your input on the "Ugg Boot" issue. Good to see you're not pro-U.S. on everything. Maybe there is hope yet.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Putting aside the radio requirements and broadcast requirements for one minute.....
Why do we 'need' to change the circuit entry and pattern for non-controlled aerodromes - just because it is the US system? Why confuse everyone even further? Dick - you did premise this whole NAS 'adventure' with the requirement to stimulate GA in Australia right? This would just scare me off!
(As an aside .... I am sick to death of being suffocated with the US v.v:- television / fast-food / rap music / australian kids trying to look like gangsters / john howard and his sycophantic ass-licking / soldiers in my army fighting a war that nobody believes in / one sided trade deals ...... and an airspace system that the US themselves admit is flawed and resulted from band-aid measures... - I say ENOUGH!!! Does anyone else feel like we are losing our identity here? ....goddamn! ------ returns to Gin and Tonic (hic
))
Why do we 'need' to change the circuit entry and pattern for non-controlled aerodromes - just because it is the US system? Why confuse everyone even further? Dick - you did premise this whole NAS 'adventure' with the requirement to stimulate GA in Australia right? This would just scare me off!
(As an aside .... I am sick to death of being suffocated with the US v.v:- television / fast-food / rap music / australian kids trying to look like gangsters / john howard and his sycophantic ass-licking / soldiers in my army fighting a war that nobody believes in / one sided trade deals ...... and an airspace system that the US themselves admit is flawed and resulted from band-aid measures... - I say ENOUGH!!! Does anyone else feel like we are losing our identity here? ....goddamn! ------ returns to Gin and Tonic (hic
))
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick - I think common sense and clarity of thought is escaping you.
The list you provided would probably have still occurred and more.
The only difference is that they would have occurred in a quieter environment. Other's would have been added due to the required alert factor of right frequency and required reporting.
NAS would only have increased the numerical value of incidents however they will now remain invisible due to NAS rule definitions changing the reporting rate. (you cunning devil you).
Your argument regarding concetration on the area of concern is fallacious. By reducing CTR size you are shifting the hazard to CLOSER to the aerodrome and CONCENTRATING the hazard closer to the aerodrome. By changing reporting requirements and causing confusion with what is the appropriate frequency there will be less voice alerts. ATC workload has increased due to illogical C airspace steps and higher levels of alerting in E and higher levels of intra-system coordination by ATC's. NAS 3 will icrease this with the unalerted free-for -all at MBZ's and multi-runway GAAP's out of hours.
Have you any idea what workload you have caused so many people trying to find workarounds to make this monster safer?
I have campaigned long and hard on VCA's, discovering the reasons 'why' and designing and promoting strategies for reductions in VCA incidence. NAS does not reduce the VCA problem - it exacerbates it. It concetrates it and multiplies it and most importantly reduces our awareness of the problem and prevents corrective action.
I'd like to say watch me prove it but no honest assessment can be made. The statistics cannot be collected.
Where is the Post Implemention Review on all of this.
I note you are now doing some self-image marketing (SAFETY - now that is sacriligious) - or is this merely some preparatory work in anticipation of appearing before someone especially impressive.
The list you provided would probably have still occurred and more.
The only difference is that they would have occurred in a quieter environment. Other's would have been added due to the required alert factor of right frequency and required reporting.
NAS would only have increased the numerical value of incidents however they will now remain invisible due to NAS rule definitions changing the reporting rate. (you cunning devil you).
Your argument regarding concetration on the area of concern is fallacious. By reducing CTR size you are shifting the hazard to CLOSER to the aerodrome and CONCENTRATING the hazard closer to the aerodrome. By changing reporting requirements and causing confusion with what is the appropriate frequency there will be less voice alerts. ATC workload has increased due to illogical C airspace steps and higher levels of alerting in E and higher levels of intra-system coordination by ATC's. NAS 3 will icrease this with the unalerted free-for -all at MBZ's and multi-runway GAAP's out of hours.
Have you any idea what workload you have caused so many people trying to find workarounds to make this monster safer?
I have campaigned long and hard on VCA's, discovering the reasons 'why' and designing and promoting strategies for reductions in VCA incidence. NAS does not reduce the VCA problem - it exacerbates it. It concetrates it and multiplies it and most importantly reduces our awareness of the problem and prevents corrective action.
I'd like to say watch me prove it but no honest assessment can be made. The statistics cannot be collected.
Where is the Post Implemention Review on all of this.
I note you are now doing some self-image marketing (SAFETY - now that is sacriligious) - or is this merely some preparatory work in anticipation of appearing before someone especially impressive.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that struck me reading thru all those incident reports, was that most of them were caused by lightie pilots not using the radio correctly. To me, this suggests that if all those places had control towers, there would have been a lot less risk. Alternately, if you reduce radio use, there will be MORE risk. Or, raise the bar re; testing and licensing of said pilots, and reduce risk.
Dick, you might want to consider more carefully the posts you make in trying to support your argument. The MAJOR THING your post says, is how NAS WOULDN'T HAVE HELPED ONE IOTA, and in fact would promote more of these types of incidents.
Now that you have had air traffic controllers point out that NAS doesn't "concentrate resources closer to the airports", will you give it up? BTW, removing pre-existing services that existed away from the airports, isn't "concentrating resources closer to the airports". In the same way that "forcing pilots to listen to enroute reports from hundreds of miles away" was a product of making ATS "more efficient". Safety and efficiency are often competing interests. If you don't like the bad press associated with the reduction in safety, stop wearing the shoe that fits.
Dick, you might want to consider more carefully the posts you make in trying to support your argument. The MAJOR THING your post says, is how NAS WOULDN'T HAVE HELPED ONE IOTA, and in fact would promote more of these types of incidents.
Now that you have had air traffic controllers point out that NAS doesn't "concentrate resources closer to the airports", will you give it up? BTW, removing pre-existing services that existed away from the airports, isn't "concentrating resources closer to the airports". In the same way that "forcing pilots to listen to enroute reports from hundreds of miles away" was a product of making ATS "more efficient". Safety and efficiency are often competing interests. If you don't like the bad press associated with the reduction in safety, stop wearing the shoe that fits.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next Generation, I did not introduce the concept of affordable safety. I've never heard of anything so ridiculous in all my life.
I hear you.
Perhaps Next Generation and other associate affordable safety with you because you talk about it a lot.
Like on your website. Here for example.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Looking at these postings and the way you conduct yourself here a number of points become evident.
Firstly you are a businessman - and a successful one at that.
Nobody has a gripe with that and good on you.
You are used to 'running the show' your own way so to speak.
As a consequence of the above you talk at people, you dont talk to them .
In other words you dont really listen to what others have to say, especially if it is in direct conflict to your beliefs.
Someone here mentioned your appearance to protect the NAS like a protective parent.
You may be passionate about this new NAS reform but the fact is that I have not met one transport/charter category pilot (ie: Professional Pilot) I know of that has applauded your baby here Dick.
Listen to the professional pilots, their associations as well as the Air Traffic Controllers that all think this isn't a good idea and has some serious flaws.
Listen to their inputs as to how this reform can be improved for the better and not just cast aside their opinions and recommendations.
Remember the Pope and Cardinals of the Catholic church a few hundred years ago jailing a great scientist for daring to suggest that the Earth actually rotated around the sun and that the Earth was not actually the centre of the universe?
Just who sounds like the Catholic church here Dick?
As soon as someone comes out in opposition to the NSA you seem to treat their comments with contempt, as though its heresy and like my nephews and nieces put there hands over their ears going "lah lah lah lah lah" so they dont hear the facts of reality.
Listen to people Dick, especially those pilots and controllers at the coal face that have to put up with a system which in my opinion and theirs, is a fundamentally flawed model.
It may work in the USA (even thats doubtful) where I can fly from Edwards AFB to Andrews AFB at 500' agl and get vectors the whole way under Primary radar coverage, but improving the risks of having passenger RPT jets/turboprops in direct conflict with light aircraft is a sad state of affairs.
Lets see what the crystal ball provides here Dick.
Your comments??
Looking at these postings and the way you conduct yourself here a number of points become evident.
Firstly you are a businessman - and a successful one at that.
Nobody has a gripe with that and good on you.
You are used to 'running the show' your own way so to speak.
As a consequence of the above you talk at people, you dont talk to them .
In other words you dont really listen to what others have to say, especially if it is in direct conflict to your beliefs.
Someone here mentioned your appearance to protect the NAS like a protective parent.
You may be passionate about this new NAS reform but the fact is that I have not met one transport/charter category pilot (ie: Professional Pilot) I know of that has applauded your baby here Dick.
Listen to the professional pilots, their associations as well as the Air Traffic Controllers that all think this isn't a good idea and has some serious flaws.
Listen to their inputs as to how this reform can be improved for the better and not just cast aside their opinions and recommendations.
Remember the Pope and Cardinals of the Catholic church a few hundred years ago jailing a great scientist for daring to suggest that the Earth actually rotated around the sun and that the Earth was not actually the centre of the universe?
Just who sounds like the Catholic church here Dick?
As soon as someone comes out in opposition to the NSA you seem to treat their comments with contempt, as though its heresy and like my nephews and nieces put there hands over their ears going "lah lah lah lah lah" so they dont hear the facts of reality.
Listen to people Dick, especially those pilots and controllers at the coal face that have to put up with a system which in my opinion and theirs, is a fundamentally flawed model.
It may work in the USA (even thats doubtful) where I can fly from Edwards AFB to Andrews AFB at 500' agl and get vectors the whole way under Primary radar coverage, but improving the risks of having passenger RPT jets/turboprops in direct conflict with light aircraft is a sad state of affairs.
Lets see what the crystal ball provides here Dick.
Your comments??
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Quite frankly, your whole argument is simply one of beliefs with little or no fact. The ‘you believe’, ‘I believe’ tit for tat has become boring.
You have not answered many of the questions posed to you. And those you have answered have been very selective. I am sure you have put down over 10 000 words in this and other threads. But you speculate and use conjecture for the basis of your argument. It does you little credit and has reached its use by date.
You have provided no modelling, no meaningful statistics and no safety case. For the life of me (possibly literally), I cannot understand how this (AusNAS) got up on the specious conjecture you espouse.
“Affordable safety” has no bearing on the merits or otherwise of NAS. However your assertion that you found “affordable safety” ridiculous and yet you were using the term in 1990 (with apparent glee) questions your integrity.
Dick, unless you bring something new to the table, your arguments are becoming irrelevant as more people understand your lack of depth and insight.
Lastly, I would like to see you respond to Voices of Reason. They have challenged the basis of many your ‘beliefs’ and spurious arguments. However, I won’t hold my breath.
Griffinblack
Quite frankly, your whole argument is simply one of beliefs with little or no fact. The ‘you believe’, ‘I believe’ tit for tat has become boring.
You have not answered many of the questions posed to you. And those you have answered have been very selective. I am sure you have put down over 10 000 words in this and other threads. But you speculate and use conjecture for the basis of your argument. It does you little credit and has reached its use by date.
You have provided no modelling, no meaningful statistics and no safety case. For the life of me (possibly literally), I cannot understand how this (AusNAS) got up on the specious conjecture you espouse.
“Affordable safety” has no bearing on the merits or otherwise of NAS. However your assertion that you found “affordable safety” ridiculous and yet you were using the term in 1990 (with apparent glee) questions your integrity.
Dick, unless you bring something new to the table, your arguments are becoming irrelevant as more people understand your lack of depth and insight.
Lastly, I would like to see you respond to Voices of Reason. They have challenged the basis of many your ‘beliefs’ and spurious arguments. However, I won’t hold my breath.
Griffinblack
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. The incident investigations of all those incidents would have determined a number of causal factors that contributed to the incident occurring. Many of these factors are system based, and some would be based on actual deliberate or accidental non-compliance by aircrew or ATC. Without that reporting by the investigating team, merely listing the incidents has no useful purpose and neither supports nor contradicts your position.
.....In Class C or D controlled airspace, total incidents caused by error by either pilot or controller: 6.
1 (ATC), 7 (Pilot), 8 (Pilot), 10 (Pilot), 68 (ATC), 76 (Pilot).
.....Impossible to tell from the data given: 9.
2, 5, 6, 8, 36, 51, 53, 62, 73
Instances where other measures had been taken to assure separation, giving an unrealistic RA: 7
9, 50, 52, 70, 72, 74, 77
Total Non-sequiturs: 1
79
Instances occurring OCTA due to poor airmanship, faulty procedures, incorrect or non-use of transponders, and overwhelmingly, incorrect frequency selection: 56
3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 71, 75, 78.
In only one of these (57) was the air transport pilot apparently the offending party.
Instances where the replacement of Class C airspace with Class E would have made the slightest bit of difference: ZERO
If the purpose of quoting these incidents were to show what an effective and indispensable last-resort tool TCAS is, it would have been a remarkably successful strategy. In fact the post is a piece of meaningless folderol designed to divert attention from the real issue, and it demonstrates clearly why nobody bothers taking up Dick’s offer of phoning him. It has nothing, diddly squat, zilch, nada, to do with the Class E argument, which is the one most controllers want resolved.
Dick, your constantly repeated refrain of diverting controller attention to where it is most needed has been addressed already by those whose job it is to survey Class E airspace, and shown to be invalid. Additionally, in the history of your posts, the closest I can come to your addressing the LT incident is that it could have happened under Class C because after all people make mistakes and the VFR pilot may not have called for a clearance. This is irrelevant, dangerous and malicious nonsense. If you can’t address the subject at hand, stay out of it.
Your simplistic and repetitive arguments fly in the face of almost everybody on this forum except a few private pilots. If we get to the stage where such vested interests determine aviation policy in this country, it will be an extremely sad day.
The Class E changes are self-evidently less safe, and provide no benefit. Please refute that with facts or be exposed as an ego-driven ideologue.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Water Ballast:
Thank you. I was attempting, in what now seems an apparently unneccessary move (considering 'your' arse is officially uncensored) , to trick the naughty-word checker, whilst simultaneously demonstrating that I too have succumbed to the dreaded culture which I vociferously berated whilst tired and emotional. Perhaps the tonic:gin ratio was extreme , but of course.... I was very very drunk at the time.
Shitsu-Tonka
Thank you. I was attempting, in what now seems an apparently unneccessary move (considering 'your' arse is officially uncensored) , to trick the naughty-word checker, whilst simultaneously demonstrating that I too have succumbed to the dreaded culture which I vociferously berated whilst tired and emotional. Perhaps the tonic:gin ratio was extreme , but of course.... I was very very drunk at the time.
Shitsu-Tonka
Last edited by Shitsu-Tonka; 4th Feb 2004 at 22:26.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think we were supposed to read them!
We were just supposed to look on in awe at all the words that Dick posted, and be satisfied that he must be right.
However, it is also abundantly clear (see item 79), that Dick didn't bother to read them all either!
NG
We were just supposed to look on in awe at all the words that Dick posted, and be satisfied that he must be right.
However, it is also abundantly clear (see item 79), that Dick didn't bother to read them all either!
NG
NAS Stage 2c is Fundamentally Flawed
I have very, very carefully read the whole of NPRM 0401 AS, and it is fatally flawed.
Section 4 refers: all pilots of aircraft to take all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not cause a danger to other aircraft being operated in the vicinity of the aerodrome
Whilst this 'due care and regard' statement reads well - it fails, because a pilot simply cannot comply with it when all traffic is not meeting the same standards for communication.
Without radio use, pilots cannot be fully situationally aware , as recommended in 4.4.1 of the NPRM.
The optionality of radio use must increase the risk to all users CTAF/MBZ airspace. Who is going to conduct a straight in approach to a main runway, in marginal VFR conditions, when there is even the remotest chance of non-radio traffic? Only the suicidal is my suggestion!
My experience with traffic conflicts in MBZ's and CTAF's has been that it's mostly radio related all right - because the average private pilot doesn't carry out a sufficient cross check on matters radio...including, volume up, audio switched correctly,headset plugs in, and lastly the correct frequency.
But it's not just the denigrated PPL who has finger trouble. I was confronted with a B200 landing straight in on the main runway here,(an MBZ),a year or two back, while we were doing circuits on the cross runway. He subsequently apologised at the flight school, because he'd been on area frequency up until he shutdown!
Now if we have had difficulties in the past, there is no way that an optional system is going to improve things. And please, don't anyone mention the word training to me. We currently hammer pilots with lookout, and radio use in MBZ's - I don't beleive you can just write on a 24 page NPRM that
4.5.1 Note: The recommended broadcast procedures require significant pilot training and education
and it will automatically translate into safety. The issue is that we already train pilots as well as the system allows in terms of 'see and avoid', and 'situational awareness'.
Once you remove their confidence that not all aircraft will be on radio, and others might be - but choose to not talk, I forsee a great decline in pilot's confidence in the 'system'.
It just defies logic and common sense, (not a bureaucratic term, or even understood in Canberra), to not require radio. They are cheap, and if you can afford even a bug-smasher Mk3, then you can sure afford a hand held VHF.
Are hand signals still used by cars - of course not - lights replaced them years ago, and you cannot register a vehicle without them. I see a fair comparison with radios and aircraft. Forget what type of aircraft - if it flies, then it should communicate. Lets remember it's the 21st century, and the standards need to lift, not revert to the steam age!
This NPRM fails to bring aviation into the 21st century, and will further erode safety in terminal area airspace.
I do not support it in several areas, and will be holding a pilot/aircraft owner meeting in Albany WA to encourage pilot responses to this NPRM.
happy days
I have very, very carefully read the whole of NPRM 0401 AS, and it is fatally flawed.
Section 4 refers: all pilots of aircraft to take all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not cause a danger to other aircraft being operated in the vicinity of the aerodrome
Whilst this 'due care and regard' statement reads well - it fails, because a pilot simply cannot comply with it when all traffic is not meeting the same standards for communication.
Without radio use, pilots cannot be fully situationally aware , as recommended in 4.4.1 of the NPRM.
The optionality of radio use must increase the risk to all users CTAF/MBZ airspace. Who is going to conduct a straight in approach to a main runway, in marginal VFR conditions, when there is even the remotest chance of non-radio traffic? Only the suicidal is my suggestion!
My experience with traffic conflicts in MBZ's and CTAF's has been that it's mostly radio related all right - because the average private pilot doesn't carry out a sufficient cross check on matters radio...including, volume up, audio switched correctly,headset plugs in, and lastly the correct frequency.
But it's not just the denigrated PPL who has finger trouble. I was confronted with a B200 landing straight in on the main runway here,(an MBZ),a year or two back, while we were doing circuits on the cross runway. He subsequently apologised at the flight school, because he'd been on area frequency up until he shutdown!
Now if we have had difficulties in the past, there is no way that an optional system is going to improve things. And please, don't anyone mention the word training to me. We currently hammer pilots with lookout, and radio use in MBZ's - I don't beleive you can just write on a 24 page NPRM that
4.5.1 Note: The recommended broadcast procedures require significant pilot training and education
and it will automatically translate into safety. The issue is that we already train pilots as well as the system allows in terms of 'see and avoid', and 'situational awareness'.
Once you remove their confidence that not all aircraft will be on radio, and others might be - but choose to not talk, I forsee a great decline in pilot's confidence in the 'system'.
It just defies logic and common sense, (not a bureaucratic term, or even understood in Canberra), to not require radio. They are cheap, and if you can afford even a bug-smasher Mk3, then you can sure afford a hand held VHF.
Are hand signals still used by cars - of course not - lights replaced them years ago, and you cannot register a vehicle without them. I see a fair comparison with radios and aircraft. Forget what type of aircraft - if it flies, then it should communicate. Lets remember it's the 21st century, and the standards need to lift, not revert to the steam age!
This NPRM fails to bring aviation into the 21st century, and will further erode safety in terminal area airspace.
I do not support it in several areas, and will be holding a pilot/aircraft owner meeting in Albany WA to encourage pilot responses to this NPRM.
happy days
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Free for all in CTAF's. No radio. No requirement for circuits.
Just like driving a car on a Sunday eh Dick? Do we REALLY want all those unnecessary requirements, rules, procedures and airspace to take the pleasure out of it??
This whole thing, the next stages, the condascension is completely laughable, if it wasn't so serious.
And the only thing to prove the point is the death of a few scores or tens of gentiles.
I'm starting to choke from all the unadulterated bull$hit.
Just like driving a car on a Sunday eh Dick? Do we REALLY want all those unnecessary requirements, rules, procedures and airspace to take the pleasure out of it??
This whole thing, the next stages, the condascension is completely laughable, if it wasn't so serious.
And the only thing to prove the point is the death of a few scores or tens of gentiles.
I'm starting to choke from all the unadulterated bull$hit.
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Reading the postings of the two main "players" on this thread, and that initiated by Voices of Reason (http://pprune.org/forums/showthread....hreadid=117373) is akin to comparing chalk and cheese.
Whilst one attempts to bombard readers with reems (10,000) of words and references to incidents that seemingly NEGATE his argument, the other provides a professional, logical, and reasoned debate built upon a solid foundation.
One really does wonder precisely what you have in mind as your "Final Solution", Dick Smith. From your posts to date, you indicate that many private pilots (PPL's) are bewildered/confused by the number of VHF frequencies which they SHOULD be utilising, as they transit from one airspace to another.
But because they either (a)don't have the necessary charts from which to gleen this info, and/or (b)are unable to understand these charts, and/or (c)are incapable/not confident of making/understanding R/T transmissions, and/or (c)don't have a radio capable of receiving/transmitting on those frequencies - YOUR solution is to opt for the lowest common denominator by insinuating that as long as an aircraft is equipped with 126.7, then that is ALL that is really required.
The majority of the 79 incidents you have elected to publish on page 1 were, IN FACT, apparently caused by light, non-revenue pax transporting aircraft, being where they should not have been, and in conflict with RPT aircraft.
Yet your plan is to INCREASE the access of this airspace to even more "lighties" who will converge, unannounced, to join a melee of other aircraft, and pray the SOMEONE has a functional TCAS to prevent what appears to be the inevitable.
An Australian airspace version of Russian Roulette!
As has been the opinion voiced by many other professional aviation employees, I concur with them in condemning these latest changes as far LESS safe than the system they replace.
Whilst one attempts to bombard readers with reems (10,000) of words and references to incidents that seemingly NEGATE his argument, the other provides a professional, logical, and reasoned debate built upon a solid foundation.
One really does wonder precisely what you have in mind as your "Final Solution", Dick Smith. From your posts to date, you indicate that many private pilots (PPL's) are bewildered/confused by the number of VHF frequencies which they SHOULD be utilising, as they transit from one airspace to another.
But because they either (a)don't have the necessary charts from which to gleen this info, and/or (b)are unable to understand these charts, and/or (c)are incapable/not confident of making/understanding R/T transmissions, and/or (c)don't have a radio capable of receiving/transmitting on those frequencies - YOUR solution is to opt for the lowest common denominator by insinuating that as long as an aircraft is equipped with 126.7, then that is ALL that is really required.
The majority of the 79 incidents you have elected to publish on page 1 were, IN FACT, apparently caused by light, non-revenue pax transporting aircraft, being where they should not have been, and in conflict with RPT aircraft.
Yet your plan is to INCREASE the access of this airspace to even more "lighties" who will converge, unannounced, to join a melee of other aircraft, and pray the SOMEONE has a functional TCAS to prevent what appears to be the inevitable.
An Australian airspace version of Russian Roulette!
As has been the opinion voiced by many other professional aviation employees, I concur with them in condemning these latest changes as far LESS safe than the system they replace.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS @c
Dick,
you know who I am, for others, I am the Chairman of Broome International Airport and an admirer of Dicks achievements in business,aviation and adventure
I have a number of observations that are at the core of the MBZ debate.
1. The only sudy on MBZ radio compliance vs CTAF(AUS) showed non compliance at CTAF airports was 500% higher.
2. NASIG has yet to find, since being asked 8 months ago an airport in the USA that is similar to our major regional airport with 20,000+ a/c movement Class G airspace, no radar and 737 RPT ops.
3 On reading the a/p example given by NASIG to the Senate I rang the airport to check and corrected the advise goiven to them by NASIG. THIS USA SKY RESORT AIPORT HAD MANDATORY CALLS 10 MINS OUT ON APPR. OR BEFORE TAXI. I also needed to advise the Senate that contary to NASIG advise there was radar down to 4000 ft AGL and when IFR conditions pervailed they used a one in one out procedure with Denver center placing IFR a/c into a holding pattern until the first a/c had cleared the runway then allowing the nexy a/c to descend below the radar floor which is high due to the surrounding mountains.
4. The USA has FSS sited at airports giving DTI via a ASS Airport Service Station, these can use radar as well as comms monitoring to check on known traffic.
5. In response to our FOI on the department we have been advised there is no risk or safety analysis done for adopting CTAF(USA) at our major regional airports!
6. When I asked John King (who did the NASIG road show) privately, was there to his knowledge airports like Broome (giving him a rundown on a/c type and movements) on CTAF in the USA? after discussing with Martha he said NO. I note about one week later Dick you issued a press statement that Broome was to have a tower neither CASA, AA, or ourselves had been informed of this nor had NASIG! Since then the matter has not been raised.
7. Since 1994 unlike the USA CTAF airports we have had no midair collisions at our MBZ airports.
So todate we have, no number of comparable airports in the USA, no radio useage data or study, no risk analysis of our terminal airspaces that will be effected by this change.
Broomes independent design risk analysis which has taken 5 months to comly to ICAO and Australian standards and cost $40,000 involving four Doctorates in Stats, Engineering and Risk analysis will be complete at the end of this month.(including your imput)
Any proper risk analysis of terminal airspace must be site specific as traffic volumes, traffic direction, trafic peaks, terrain, aircraft type and mix,weather, airport characteristics, availabilty of radar and many other factors influence the outcomes
The USA in the FAA carry out such studies to determine risk at there major regional airports. Infact at the a/p mentioned above they had just complete a study to see if a D class tower was required.The answer was no, but the a/p is asking for a gov funded radar at their ehanced dedicated Unicom "tower" its presence and the FSS service plus radar coverage would have been parameters in the FAA study.
You can look at the USA airports and see many of their gov funded D class towered airports are at "smaller" a/ps than our major uncontrolled regional airports.Though as also stated above the traffic volume is only one parameter in determining risk. It does indicate that at least a FSS providing ASS at the airport as a step prior to a D class tower maybe overdue.
But NASIG are not analysing this or any other option for terminal airspace at our important busy regional airports even though they exist in the USA airspace NAS that we are adopting.
Instead without even examining and analysis any major regional airport terminal airspace we propose to change from a system with no accident since 1994 to a unproven new airspace procedure. Note: unproven as unlike enroute procedures terminal procedures are site specific. Just as you don't have one type A chart for all regional a/ps, you can't have a one size suits all approach to terminal airspace.
This proposed change from MBZ to CTAF(USA) is not an aviation methodology based on learned analysis of data and risk.
We have here an idiological approach to terminal airspace design that if successful will increase risks and may ultimately cost lives.
Dick, you need to answer the above concerns not with "I believe"," it works there" etc but with data, analysis and study addressing all the parameters of a terminal airspace change.
Please draw breath and think again before pushing this agenda.
cheers and regards Mike
you know who I am, for others, I am the Chairman of Broome International Airport and an admirer of Dicks achievements in business,aviation and adventure
I have a number of observations that are at the core of the MBZ debate.
1. The only sudy on MBZ radio compliance vs CTAF(AUS) showed non compliance at CTAF airports was 500% higher.
2. NASIG has yet to find, since being asked 8 months ago an airport in the USA that is similar to our major regional airport with 20,000+ a/c movement Class G airspace, no radar and 737 RPT ops.
3 On reading the a/p example given by NASIG to the Senate I rang the airport to check and corrected the advise goiven to them by NASIG. THIS USA SKY RESORT AIPORT HAD MANDATORY CALLS 10 MINS OUT ON APPR. OR BEFORE TAXI. I also needed to advise the Senate that contary to NASIG advise there was radar down to 4000 ft AGL and when IFR conditions pervailed they used a one in one out procedure with Denver center placing IFR a/c into a holding pattern until the first a/c had cleared the runway then allowing the nexy a/c to descend below the radar floor which is high due to the surrounding mountains.
4. The USA has FSS sited at airports giving DTI via a ASS Airport Service Station, these can use radar as well as comms monitoring to check on known traffic.
5. In response to our FOI on the department we have been advised there is no risk or safety analysis done for adopting CTAF(USA) at our major regional airports!
6. When I asked John King (who did the NASIG road show) privately, was there to his knowledge airports like Broome (giving him a rundown on a/c type and movements) on CTAF in the USA? after discussing with Martha he said NO. I note about one week later Dick you issued a press statement that Broome was to have a tower neither CASA, AA, or ourselves had been informed of this nor had NASIG! Since then the matter has not been raised.
7. Since 1994 unlike the USA CTAF airports we have had no midair collisions at our MBZ airports.
So todate we have, no number of comparable airports in the USA, no radio useage data or study, no risk analysis of our terminal airspaces that will be effected by this change.
Broomes independent design risk analysis which has taken 5 months to comly to ICAO and Australian standards and cost $40,000 involving four Doctorates in Stats, Engineering and Risk analysis will be complete at the end of this month.(including your imput)
Any proper risk analysis of terminal airspace must be site specific as traffic volumes, traffic direction, trafic peaks, terrain, aircraft type and mix,weather, airport characteristics, availabilty of radar and many other factors influence the outcomes
The USA in the FAA carry out such studies to determine risk at there major regional airports. Infact at the a/p mentioned above they had just complete a study to see if a D class tower was required.The answer was no, but the a/p is asking for a gov funded radar at their ehanced dedicated Unicom "tower" its presence and the FSS service plus radar coverage would have been parameters in the FAA study.
You can look at the USA airports and see many of their gov funded D class towered airports are at "smaller" a/ps than our major uncontrolled regional airports.Though as also stated above the traffic volume is only one parameter in determining risk. It does indicate that at least a FSS providing ASS at the airport as a step prior to a D class tower maybe overdue.
But NASIG are not analysing this or any other option for terminal airspace at our important busy regional airports even though they exist in the USA airspace NAS that we are adopting.
Instead without even examining and analysis any major regional airport terminal airspace we propose to change from a system with no accident since 1994 to a unproven new airspace procedure. Note: unproven as unlike enroute procedures terminal procedures are site specific. Just as you don't have one type A chart for all regional a/ps, you can't have a one size suits all approach to terminal airspace.
This proposed change from MBZ to CTAF(USA) is not an aviation methodology based on learned analysis of data and risk.
We have here an idiological approach to terminal airspace design that if successful will increase risks and may ultimately cost lives.
Dick, you need to answer the above concerns not with "I believe"," it works there" etc but with data, analysis and study addressing all the parameters of a terminal airspace change.
Please draw breath and think again before pushing this agenda.
cheers and regards Mike
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised NAS has lasted this long, but it looks like a very quick retreat is on the cards now. I feel sorry for all the public servants who have spent 3 years in a holding pattern. It's longer than that if you include 11/11 and G trial, etc. It must be difficult trying to fill out a resume with your achievements when nothing has been achieved other than a huge waste of money.
Next...
Next...
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At what cost?
One should feel sorry for the industry and the tax payer as this sorry story has cost around $M50 over the past decade.
And as I have said elsewhere... what have we achieved ?
Nothing!
Who is going to be held accountable for that? The answers are there, and we can do it, but only if the self interest, ego and politics is kept OUT of the process.
And as I have said elsewhere... what have we achieved ?
Nothing!
Who is going to be held accountable for that? The answers are there, and we can do it, but only if the self interest, ego and politics is kept OUT of the process.