Slanderous Smith Comments
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Change the rules
BP, I am sorry but you are not correct.
Aussie's used to go to war under English Staff command now we lead our own troops. In WW1 England shot the poor blighters who were stressed out and walked away, this is when for once we said no way. We are not pommies anymore
As others have said culturally we tend to ignore rules more than most cultures but dig in when needed. Cockpit analysis shows Aussies FO question command decisions far quicker than in most other cultures.
Now to the real problem-
Do you accept a new flawed set of rules and try to make them work by bending them - or say no I will apply the rules as you wish and the consequences will demonstrate the rules are wrong.
A difficult question if you were examining just one rule.
However, NAS is a suite of rules being imposed without professional design analysis by Engineers Scientist and Mathameticians and by Mr Dick Smith own admission without Professional Pilots or ATC.
Due to the Broome DAS, I can now say CAGRS is safer for Broome, does NASIG backoff no they hold a workshop on 2c while CASA has yet to complete the NPRM on MBZ and CTAF(which includes the DAS) and have the outrageous gall to write to CASA and tell them to begin the writing out of CAGRS legislation, don't tell us it is only our service at our airport.
They do this when I can in a court of law prove I am right, NASIG have nothing to present as evidence except throw away hearsay of comparisions to a system that is not comparable.
If they proceed with CTAF(USA) not MBZ do I give ground use CAGRS within a 10nm CTAF tell pilot and Captains what we know (to a higher probability) is not complete relative traffic?
No way I know the system is wrong I can't try and make do I comply and fight. In our case as it is not yet implimented its Fight and fight and then if I lose the last round in the courts I will comply.
ATC is not my profession but if you are "secretly" using radar make E class work, and indoing so you are not following the new NAS rules.What risk enviroment are you setting up for E class without radar?
The unauthorised risk mitigator is not there yet to the uninformed public and even pilots they see no difference or the danger.
Now try and explain it to the press and ordinary bloke when others are spouting simplistic one liners and lies or perverse logic based on scant statistics. 20% my @rse!!
The answer is clear if it is your profession you must do your utmost for the common community good, fight for the correct rule not scrape by using unauthorised mitigators. That road leads to user stress, system strain and disaster.
Take a step back we should not be having this discussion. Why are we trying to bend rules to patch up a NEW SYSTEM for goodness sake!!
Concentrate on stopping the source asap, let the system expose its inherent flaws and hope that we only get a few nasty scares, before Professionals gain control again.
Aussie's used to go to war under English Staff command now we lead our own troops. In WW1 England shot the poor blighters who were stressed out and walked away, this is when for once we said no way. We are not pommies anymore
As others have said culturally we tend to ignore rules more than most cultures but dig in when needed. Cockpit analysis shows Aussies FO question command decisions far quicker than in most other cultures.
Now to the real problem-
Do you accept a new flawed set of rules and try to make them work by bending them - or say no I will apply the rules as you wish and the consequences will demonstrate the rules are wrong.
A difficult question if you were examining just one rule.
However, NAS is a suite of rules being imposed without professional design analysis by Engineers Scientist and Mathameticians and by Mr Dick Smith own admission without Professional Pilots or ATC.
Due to the Broome DAS, I can now say CAGRS is safer for Broome, does NASIG backoff no they hold a workshop on 2c while CASA has yet to complete the NPRM on MBZ and CTAF(which includes the DAS) and have the outrageous gall to write to CASA and tell them to begin the writing out of CAGRS legislation, don't tell us it is only our service at our airport.
They do this when I can in a court of law prove I am right, NASIG have nothing to present as evidence except throw away hearsay of comparisions to a system that is not comparable.
If they proceed with CTAF(USA) not MBZ do I give ground use CAGRS within a 10nm CTAF tell pilot and Captains what we know (to a higher probability) is not complete relative traffic?
No way I know the system is wrong I can't try and make do I comply and fight. In our case as it is not yet implimented its Fight and fight and then if I lose the last round in the courts I will comply.
ATC is not my profession but if you are "secretly" using radar make E class work, and indoing so you are not following the new NAS rules.What risk enviroment are you setting up for E class without radar?
The unauthorised risk mitigator is not there yet to the uninformed public and even pilots they see no difference or the danger.
Now try and explain it to the press and ordinary bloke when others are spouting simplistic one liners and lies or perverse logic based on scant statistics. 20% my @rse!!
The answer is clear if it is your profession you must do your utmost for the common community good, fight for the correct rule not scrape by using unauthorised mitigators. That road leads to user stress, system strain and disaster.
Take a step back we should not be having this discussion. Why are we trying to bend rules to patch up a NEW SYSTEM for goodness sake!!
Concentrate on stopping the source asap, let the system expose its inherent flaws and hope that we only get a few nasty scares, before Professionals gain control again.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even Dick seems to be changing his stance to say that it was the charging system he wasn't happy with anyway. Change the AIRSPACE back and rage against the CHARGING SYSTEM!!!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Middle East
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The controller passed traffic information to the Virgin Blue pilots three times. :P
The controller passed traffic information to the Virgin Blue pilots three times.
Why did the Virgin Blue pilots wait until they had a TCAS RA before they altered their trajectory?
Having been passed traffic information three times, did the Virgin Blue pilots adjust their rate of descent to avoid the VFR aircraft? If not, why not?
Having been passed traffic information three times, did the Virgin Blue pilots ask the controller for a suggested heading to avoid the VFR aircraft? If not, why not?
In the circumstances would a sensible pilot wait until they get a TCAS RA before altering their trajectory?
What is the point of passing traffic information to pilots if they are unwilling to do anything with that information?
Why did the Virgin Blue pilots wait until they had a TCAS RA before they altered their trajectory?
Having been passed traffic information three times, did the Virgin Blue pilots adjust their rate of descent to avoid the VFR aircraft? If not, why not?
Having been passed traffic information three times, did the Virgin Blue pilots ask the controller for a suggested heading to avoid the VFR aircraft? If not, why not?
In the circumstances would a sensible pilot wait until they get a TCAS RA before altering their trajectory?
What is the point of passing traffic information to pilots if they are unwilling to do anything with that information?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
stop punishing yourselves
STOP PUNISHING YOURSELVES
Nearly all ‘recent’ free thinking movements had their practical expression in the USA. Remember the music of the 50s 60s & 70s? Woodstock etc. etc. The reason for US industrial and economic superiority is that nothing is off limits, and a phenomenal freedom and encouragement to try anything free of bureaucratic interference is embodied in their constitution.
When I grew up we still had Menzies and our Commonwealth ‘EMPIRE’ attachments with all that ‘British is better’ crap. The Queen on the wall at school, raising the British flag and singing God save the old bitch. It wasn’t until the Poms dumped Aust for the EEC and stopped buying our agricultural products, and the Whitlam area, that Australians started on the road to true independence and a cultural identity of it’s own at a grass roots level. If you want to know how far we have come look at the Republican and National flag debate! Fact is that despite the fabulous anti-authority Aussie larrikin image which existed way back when Waltzing Matilda was written and your posts refer to, (and by the way this spirit was mainly fostered and developed by the independence and isolation of the people in the bush) the national psyche is much more conservative and cautious than the USA, due to our recent British heritage.
Whether we like it or accept it or not doesn’t matter, it takes a conscious effort to try and negate it and it will be many generations more before we are all genuine Aussie larrikins!!
Australian aviation professionals are generally intelligent independent people by virtue of their career choice, and don’t have the same family, religious or social class cultures as found in Asia or the UK. That’s why they can be so assertive when required. However it still requires training as I have noticed.
I mustn’t have made myself clear, by all means control as per the rules, but added to that do what I have heard other controllers doing (my post of 16 April). Give comprehensive ADVISORIES. That IS legal, obviously shows Duty of Care and satisfies any negligence issues and should allow you to live with yourself. You are NOT responsible for an accident which is the result of bad decisions by your superiors and accepted into law by the government.
I run my own business so I am used to taking risks and weighing up consequences; this doesn’t worry me unduly. With the current system I have weighed the risks and my decision is that I can manage it by ignoring or bending some of the rules. (which is actually how most people manage rules) I talk to ATC when transiting Class E over Class D. I talk to other Pilots on ATC frequencies for separation. I continually monitor the ‘area’ ATC frequency as if IFR. I use all the Nav aids and airports for navigational purposes as always. (How could I fly NVFR otherwise?) For busy routes or airspace I lodge flight plans and can change category to IFR if required. If I felt the risk was too high or unmanageable I would leave the industry, which ultimately is the discission you will have to make if things don’t change or you can’t rationalise what you are required to do. The acid test as always is will you put your money where your mouths (and minds) are? If I felt as strongly as you do I would be taking some collective action which is all some people understand. If what you say is true what does it matter if the public is inconvenienced? Crashing is very inconvenient.
What amazes me is that I have heard very little against NAS from any of the large (or small) carriers. Who will REALLY suffer if a midair occurs? I know that even in some of the bigger charter companies it barely rates a mention to the line pilots; just, ‘work it out for yourselves.’
The political powers that be, out of ignorance OR otherwise, are freeing up the ATC system. You don’t like it because the safety, security and control of outcomes is being diminished for no good reason. I think it’s out of your hands and you should stop blaming yourselves for what might/could/will happen. You have made it abundantly clear, you have acted responsibly. Now continue to act reasonably BUT Life is for Living.
PLAY THE GAME
BP
Nearly all ‘recent’ free thinking movements had their practical expression in the USA. Remember the music of the 50s 60s & 70s? Woodstock etc. etc. The reason for US industrial and economic superiority is that nothing is off limits, and a phenomenal freedom and encouragement to try anything free of bureaucratic interference is embodied in their constitution.
When I grew up we still had Menzies and our Commonwealth ‘EMPIRE’ attachments with all that ‘British is better’ crap. The Queen on the wall at school, raising the British flag and singing God save the old bitch. It wasn’t until the Poms dumped Aust for the EEC and stopped buying our agricultural products, and the Whitlam area, that Australians started on the road to true independence and a cultural identity of it’s own at a grass roots level. If you want to know how far we have come look at the Republican and National flag debate! Fact is that despite the fabulous anti-authority Aussie larrikin image which existed way back when Waltzing Matilda was written and your posts refer to, (and by the way this spirit was mainly fostered and developed by the independence and isolation of the people in the bush) the national psyche is much more conservative and cautious than the USA, due to our recent British heritage.
Whether we like it or accept it or not doesn’t matter, it takes a conscious effort to try and negate it and it will be many generations more before we are all genuine Aussie larrikins!!
Australian aviation professionals are generally intelligent independent people by virtue of their career choice, and don’t have the same family, religious or social class cultures as found in Asia or the UK. That’s why they can be so assertive when required. However it still requires training as I have noticed.
I mustn’t have made myself clear, by all means control as per the rules, but added to that do what I have heard other controllers doing (my post of 16 April). Give comprehensive ADVISORIES. That IS legal, obviously shows Duty of Care and satisfies any negligence issues and should allow you to live with yourself. You are NOT responsible for an accident which is the result of bad decisions by your superiors and accepted into law by the government.
I run my own business so I am used to taking risks and weighing up consequences; this doesn’t worry me unduly. With the current system I have weighed the risks and my decision is that I can manage it by ignoring or bending some of the rules. (which is actually how most people manage rules) I talk to ATC when transiting Class E over Class D. I talk to other Pilots on ATC frequencies for separation. I continually monitor the ‘area’ ATC frequency as if IFR. I use all the Nav aids and airports for navigational purposes as always. (How could I fly NVFR otherwise?) For busy routes or airspace I lodge flight plans and can change category to IFR if required. If I felt the risk was too high or unmanageable I would leave the industry, which ultimately is the discission you will have to make if things don’t change or you can’t rationalise what you are required to do. The acid test as always is will you put your money where your mouths (and minds) are? If I felt as strongly as you do I would be taking some collective action which is all some people understand. If what you say is true what does it matter if the public is inconvenienced? Crashing is very inconvenient.
What amazes me is that I have heard very little against NAS from any of the large (or small) carriers. Who will REALLY suffer if a midair occurs? I know that even in some of the bigger charter companies it barely rates a mention to the line pilots; just, ‘work it out for yourselves.’
The political powers that be, out of ignorance OR otherwise, are freeing up the ATC system. You don’t like it because the safety, security and control of outcomes is being diminished for no good reason. I think it’s out of your hands and you should stop blaming yourselves for what might/could/will happen. You have made it abundantly clear, you have acted responsibly. Now continue to act reasonably BUT Life is for Living.
PLAY THE GAME
BP
Last edited by bush pelican; 18th Apr 2004 at 07:33.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has become clear from the ATC forum, that there is a major cultural difference when it comes to how to work E airspace around the world.
Europe appears to be of the same thinking as Australia, that is in E airspace, IFR to VFR pass traffic and allow to self separate. Whereas the Yanks, pass traffic but if need be establish some sort of separation standard by turning or levelling off their IFR aircraft. As I have said on that forum, I have concerns with trying to establish separation between 2 aircraft of which you only have the intentions and verified mode C of one of those aircraft. The yanks still believe that it is negligent to not try and separate the aircraft, even though due to the above concern, I could see it as also being negligent to base separation on potentially incorrect radar information, or just as bad, turn your IFR only to have the VFR make a subsequent unnanounced turn at your turning IFR.
Any thoughts?
Europe appears to be of the same thinking as Australia, that is in E airspace, IFR to VFR pass traffic and allow to self separate. Whereas the Yanks, pass traffic but if need be establish some sort of separation standard by turning or levelling off their IFR aircraft. As I have said on that forum, I have concerns with trying to establish separation between 2 aircraft of which you only have the intentions and verified mode C of one of those aircraft. The yanks still believe that it is negligent to not try and separate the aircraft, even though due to the above concern, I could see it as also being negligent to base separation on potentially incorrect radar information, or just as bad, turn your IFR only to have the VFR make a subsequent unnanounced turn at your turning IFR.
Any thoughts?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong - but isn't the reason the US uses E Airpsace so extensively a result of a stop-gap measure when Reagan fired all the ATCO's?
It simply lingered as air traffic growth rocketed and ATC staff slowly filtered back in to the system.
i.e. A system by accident - not design.
It simply lingered as air traffic growth rocketed and ATC staff slowly filtered back in to the system.
i.e. A system by accident - not design.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I called my local member...
...and "S" in his office, after asking me to detail my concerns, stated that I should write to the Minister for Transport - at his parliamentary office - as it is a Transport issue.
I pointed out that Parliament is currently in recess and if I were to send a letter to CBR it wouldn't be received or read for months.
My local member's staffer was adamant that he would not pass on the concerns to his boss because this is a Transport issue, not a constituency issue.
JOHN ANDERSON IS MY LOCAL MEMBER.
What do you do?
See News Review in the SMHerald yesterday (SAT 17/4/04) for a lively discussion of our government's attitude to bad news.
I pointed out that Parliament is currently in recess and if I were to send a letter to CBR it wouldn't be received or read for months.
My local member's staffer was adamant that he would not pass on the concerns to his boss because this is a Transport issue, not a constituency issue.
JOHN ANDERSON IS MY LOCAL MEMBER.
What do you do?
See News Review in the SMHerald yesterday (SAT 17/4/04) for a lively discussion of our government's attitude to bad news.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: At lunch
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smith is irrelevant, acting like a spoilt child, and I have no greater wish than watching him having to make a substantial donation as an out of court settlement to a Charity of Civil Air’s choosing (provided of course that he, doesn’t manage to stage manage the event into some magnanimous gesture of Dick
!-@#$ing Smith)
But, this Minister, Anderson, only cares about getting re-elected and consequently needs his credibility to achieve this.
To move to a higher level, John Howard , read the above re Anderson
As angry as most of the readers are here , we are a (not very) vocal, but extremely informed minority, with little public exposure, easily branded as whingers, self interest etc but Smith, Anderson etc.
Nett affect: John A, and John A don’t really give a stuff, unless their own personal security (read income/ status etc.) is affected.
Proposal: every concerned Aviation individual, that gives a stuff, and disagrees with NAS, write a personal letter to their local member and Senator along the lines, that unless NASA is rolled back within (suggest 2 weeks Not 6 months), that they have lost your vote. ( And be prepared to stick with your threat, if NAS| isn’t rolled back)
If you are in a safe seat (such as mine) expect some waffling/ condescending reply in six months plus, but given the Australian political landscape, keep the pressure on your Senators and MHRs if your seat is marginal.
steady on W
!-@#$ing Smith)
But, this Minister, Anderson, only cares about getting re-elected and consequently needs his credibility to achieve this.
To move to a higher level, John Howard , read the above re Anderson
As angry as most of the readers are here , we are a (not very) vocal, but extremely informed minority, with little public exposure, easily branded as whingers, self interest etc but Smith, Anderson etc.
Nett affect: John A, and John A don’t really give a stuff, unless their own personal security (read income/ status etc.) is affected.
Proposal: every concerned Aviation individual, that gives a stuff, and disagrees with NAS, write a personal letter to their local member and Senator along the lines, that unless NASA is rolled back within (suggest 2 weeks Not 6 months), that they have lost your vote. ( And be prepared to stick with your threat, if NAS| isn’t rolled back)
If you are in a safe seat (such as mine) expect some waffling/ condescending reply in six months plus, but given the Australian political landscape, keep the pressure on your Senators and MHRs if your seat is marginal.
steady on W
Last edited by Woomera; 18th Apr 2004 at 10:06.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Voice
Yes, the AOI's used to say (in red type at the front) "Nothing in this document prevents an Air Traffic Controller acting to prevent a collision..." or something like that anyway - it was a long time ago. But that was the old days when we had control of all traffic in CTA and well before we had an american airspace system (NAS) imposed. Is it any wonder then as we move to american educational and legal systems, that we all have to cover our arses 'cause if you don't, Dick (& NAS) will !
Ian McKenzie
You asked: "The controller passed traffic information to the Virgin Blue pilots three times. Why did the Virgin Blue pilots wait until they had a TCAS RA before they altered their trajectory?"
The problem for the VB pilots is that they were trying to sight a small (probably white) aircraft doing in excess of 180kts crossing left to right below them against a clouded background. Now if Dick Smith was aboard (in the jump seat) he'd have spotted the little blighter no problems. But the crew could not see an aircraft at an unverified level under the circumstances and were saved from the failure of "see and avoid", by TCAS. Since the other aircraft was on climb, what would you do? At what level would you guess you and your pax were safe?
Bush Pelican
Those who suffer in order of magnitude are as follows:
(1) Those who die (2) Those who don't die (surviving pilot(s)/pax, ATC(s), families of all)
(3) Companies (Insurance & Aviation) (4) Government
(5) Taxpayers (you and me)!!!
You will note those responsible are second from the bottom or in (Dick's case) the bottom (if you know what I mean)!
You will also note - that makes it easier to "move on", as you say.
Duck N Weave
Yes, the AOI's used to say (in red type at the front) "Nothing in this document prevents an Air Traffic Controller acting to prevent a collision..." or something like that anyway - it was a long time ago. But that was the old days when we had control of all traffic in CTA and well before we had an american airspace system (NAS) imposed. Is it any wonder then as we move to american educational and legal systems, that we all have to cover our arses 'cause if you don't, Dick (& NAS) will !
Ian McKenzie
You asked: "The controller passed traffic information to the Virgin Blue pilots three times. Why did the Virgin Blue pilots wait until they had a TCAS RA before they altered their trajectory?"
The problem for the VB pilots is that they were trying to sight a small (probably white) aircraft doing in excess of 180kts crossing left to right below them against a clouded background. Now if Dick Smith was aboard (in the jump seat) he'd have spotted the little blighter no problems. But the crew could not see an aircraft at an unverified level under the circumstances and were saved from the failure of "see and avoid", by TCAS. Since the other aircraft was on climb, what would you do? At what level would you guess you and your pax were safe?
Bush Pelican
Those who suffer in order of magnitude are as follows:
(1) Those who die (2) Those who don't die (surviving pilot(s)/pax, ATC(s), families of all)
(3) Companies (Insurance & Aviation) (4) Government
(5) Taxpayers (you and me)!!!
You will note those responsible are second from the bottom or in (Dick's case) the bottom (if you know what I mean)!
You will also note - that makes it easier to "move on", as you say.
Duck N Weave
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Where the wild things are
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop the Rot
Tried Tobzalp; yr link gave me no delete options. BTW, my first post - yrs of inactivity; curtailed by instantaneous realization of Smithalomania. This is surely a geriatric reassignment of the condition commonly suffered by younger people! Sometime I think I.... no we won't go there.
Fortunately NAS 2B does not affect me personally; hence my reluctance to even join PPrune. However my rage at the private entity that is SMITH seriously needs redress. He is to be withdrawn from the public arena. I suspect that as a professional entity, the Australian aviation community can collectively subdue the Public's interest in this man. All who have been here, (in this forum) bar the intolerable pelicanPelican agree.
Therefore, I suggest that irrespective of Smith's response to Civilair's letter, we up the ante and go ahead with the required letters / emails / faxes to our respective Ministers / Senators and have this man, once and for all put out of his misery. For Goodness' sake have him realize he is not wanted.
Fortunately NAS 2B does not affect me personally; hence my reluctance to even join PPrune. However my rage at the private entity that is SMITH seriously needs redress. He is to be withdrawn from the public arena. I suspect that as a professional entity, the Australian aviation community can collectively subdue the Public's interest in this man. All who have been here, (in this forum) bar the intolerable pelicanPelican agree.
Therefore, I suggest that irrespective of Smith's response to Civilair's letter, we up the ante and go ahead with the required letters / emails / faxes to our respective Ministers / Senators and have this man, once and for all put out of his misery. For Goodness' sake have him realize he is not wanted.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hate to spoil the letter-writing frenzy, but you want to think how effective a bombardment of letters will be now especially as safeskies never even got an acknowledgement to their petition?
Earlier this year I saw only one possibility to force a comprehensive rollback of E airspace design:
CLASS E RPT DISASTER
The optimist in me sees another option:
COORDINATED airline, GA, and air traffic control INDUSTRIAL ACTION
God I hope it can happen.
Earlier this year I saw only one possibility to force a comprehensive rollback of E airspace design:
CLASS E RPT DISASTER
The optimist in me sees another option:
COORDINATED airline, GA, and air traffic control INDUSTRIAL ACTION
God I hope it can happen.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeezus aitch Keerist! Bush Pelican, what a lot of syrupy, condescending, uninformed, DANGEROUS twaddle.
FACT:
In class E airspace IFR aircraft are separated from other IFR aircraft, and receive traffic information about known VFR aircraft.
FACT:
Before NAS 2b the aircraft involved in the incident near SMOKA would have been in class C airspace and therefore SEPARATED by ATC.
FACT:
If ATC has to actively SEPARATE IFR aircraft from known VFR traffic in class E airspace the SYSTEM DESIGN HAS FAILED.
FACT:
You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. How many times does ATC have to give traffic information before a pilot gets his finger out and either talks to the other guy on the radio or asks for avoidance instructions?
RUMOUR:
In the SMOKA incident the VFR guy reported that he had sighted the jet! (Can anyone confirm?)
OPINION:
Fat lot of good that did. Has anybody bothered to wonder about how hard it is for a VFR lightie pilot to effectively avoid a jet aircraft when he doesn't know its trajectory and it's travelling at about 400KT TAS? A Lancair is a pretty slippery beast, so the closing TAS was probably in the order of 500 - 600KT!
FACT:
Bush Pelican, your BS reminds me of another obnoxious avian (of the edible, Christmas kind) that once scratched around this patch - the gone but sadlly unlamented Snarek! Has he/you indeed returned to amuse us in this dark hour? Oh joy!
REQUEST:
Tobzalp et al, let's not ignore this contributor (and I do use the term loosely). At least he communicates. Where there's light, there's hope. (Albeit a pretty damned dim light)
REFOCUS:
This thread was about the reaction to that self appointed know all reptile (who has proven himself to know fark all) SLANDERING ATC FOR PROVIDING THE LEVELS OF SERVICE HE DEMANDED.
DICK:
Every time you open your mouth you prove you don't have a skerrick of an idea of what you're talking about.
But how far will your bullying behaviour carry you?
All readers (apart from Dick and BP) pardon me for SHOUTING, but self congratulatory, idiocy induced deafness is difficult to penetrate.
FACT:
In class E airspace IFR aircraft are separated from other IFR aircraft, and receive traffic information about known VFR aircraft.
FACT:
Before NAS 2b the aircraft involved in the incident near SMOKA would have been in class C airspace and therefore SEPARATED by ATC.
FACT:
If ATC has to actively SEPARATE IFR aircraft from known VFR traffic in class E airspace the SYSTEM DESIGN HAS FAILED.
FACT:
You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. How many times does ATC have to give traffic information before a pilot gets his finger out and either talks to the other guy on the radio or asks for avoidance instructions?
RUMOUR:
In the SMOKA incident the VFR guy reported that he had sighted the jet! (Can anyone confirm?)
OPINION:
Fat lot of good that did. Has anybody bothered to wonder about how hard it is for a VFR lightie pilot to effectively avoid a jet aircraft when he doesn't know its trajectory and it's travelling at about 400KT TAS? A Lancair is a pretty slippery beast, so the closing TAS was probably in the order of 500 - 600KT!
FACT:
Bush Pelican, your BS reminds me of another obnoxious avian (of the edible, Christmas kind) that once scratched around this patch - the gone but sadlly unlamented Snarek! Has he/you indeed returned to amuse us in this dark hour? Oh joy!
REQUEST:
Tobzalp et al, let's not ignore this contributor (and I do use the term loosely). At least he communicates. Where there's light, there's hope. (Albeit a pretty damned dim light)
REFOCUS:
This thread was about the reaction to that self appointed know all reptile (who has proven himself to know fark all) SLANDERING ATC FOR PROVIDING THE LEVELS OF SERVICE HE DEMANDED.
DICK:
Every time you open your mouth you prove you don't have a skerrick of an idea of what you're talking about.
But how far will your bullying behaviour carry you?
All readers (apart from Dick and BP) pardon me for SHOUTING, but self congratulatory, idiocy induced deafness is difficult to penetrate.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP,
You have opened your mouth and removed all doubt that....you don't know what you're talking about.
In the incident near SMOKA, the velocities of the aircraft involved give less than 40 seconds for the pilots of either aircraft to visually acquire each other, determine the other aircrafts velocity, decide on a course of action to avoid collision and then implement that course of action.
In this case traffic was passed three times in an attempt by the controller to adequately update the Virgin's crew picture of the conflicting traffic. This is also in an attempt to provide the Virgin crew with some idea of the intentions of an aircraft that is not communicating with ATC and whose intentions are unkown.
Separation assurance is not available because the intentions of the VFR aircraft are not known.
Remember the basic premise of NAS is that it:
- is a safer system
- is a cheaper system
- is a more VFR friendly system
It has been proven not to be a safer system since Nov. 27 2003.
There is no cost benefit because it does not save any money. This has been verified by the CEO of AsA Bernie Smith.
VFR friendly....well it is til one of these red 737s hits a VFR.
Also, it would do well to remember that prior to 27 Nov. 2003, with C class airspace at SMOKA, it cost the same to separate IFR from VFR, it was safer, and there would have been little restriction for either aircraft. How has NAS benefited aviation?
DICK,
in answer to your claim that there has been an industrial campaign by Oz ATC to stop any airspace reform or development I'd like to list just some of the innovations Oz ATC has been directly involved in, in regard to Air Traffic Management in the past 13 years.
OZ ATC has been directly involved in these airspace, air traffic procedure reforms;
- Mach number technique. Testing and development of this procedure done on Australian Oceanic sectors in late eighties and early nineties by OZ ATCs which proved the concept for ICAO. Halved the 20 minute longitudinal route separation standard to 10 minutes.
- CPDLC and ADS. First used extensively in Australia before anywhere else in the world. Allowed reliable comms between ATC and pilots when outside VHF coverage. ADS enabled reduced separation standards as well.
- RVSM. Implemented by AsA controllers working groups progressively throughout the South East Asia region in conjunction with PNG, NZ, Fiji, Indonesia, Malayasia, Indian and Phillipine ATC.
- UPR User preferred routes. In conjunction with international carriers, AsA ATC implemented UPRs throughout the Pacific and Indian oceans.
- TAAATS. The state of the art ATC system first introduced in the 90s was developed in conjunction with ATCs from OZ. It provides significant advantages over the old strip system, and significantly enalbed reduced costs to avaition. It also reduced ATC numbers in OZ. Thank God, we didn't have enough at the time any way.
- ADS-B. this is an AsA driven project. There is a large ATC involvement in the use of the system to develop and implement a system to help reduce the reliance on radar within Australia.
- NAS. Hate to say this, but there is a huge OZ ATC involvement in the development and implenetation of NAS. Sure as a group we don't like it. But we still have to work with it.
Dick stick to the facts, not supposition and half truths. Your beliefs are not evidence, and the fact that you sprout publicly your lies belittles yourself and Australians in general.
You have opened your mouth and removed all doubt that....you don't know what you're talking about.
In the incident near SMOKA, the velocities of the aircraft involved give less than 40 seconds for the pilots of either aircraft to visually acquire each other, determine the other aircrafts velocity, decide on a course of action to avoid collision and then implement that course of action.
In this case traffic was passed three times in an attempt by the controller to adequately update the Virgin's crew picture of the conflicting traffic. This is also in an attempt to provide the Virgin crew with some idea of the intentions of an aircraft that is not communicating with ATC and whose intentions are unkown.
Separation assurance is not available because the intentions of the VFR aircraft are not known.
Remember the basic premise of NAS is that it:
- is a safer system
- is a cheaper system
- is a more VFR friendly system
It has been proven not to be a safer system since Nov. 27 2003.
There is no cost benefit because it does not save any money. This has been verified by the CEO of AsA Bernie Smith.
VFR friendly....well it is til one of these red 737s hits a VFR.
Also, it would do well to remember that prior to 27 Nov. 2003, with C class airspace at SMOKA, it cost the same to separate IFR from VFR, it was safer, and there would have been little restriction for either aircraft. How has NAS benefited aviation?
DICK,
in answer to your claim that there has been an industrial campaign by Oz ATC to stop any airspace reform or development I'd like to list just some of the innovations Oz ATC has been directly involved in, in regard to Air Traffic Management in the past 13 years.
OZ ATC has been directly involved in these airspace, air traffic procedure reforms;
- Mach number technique. Testing and development of this procedure done on Australian Oceanic sectors in late eighties and early nineties by OZ ATCs which proved the concept for ICAO. Halved the 20 minute longitudinal route separation standard to 10 minutes.
- CPDLC and ADS. First used extensively in Australia before anywhere else in the world. Allowed reliable comms between ATC and pilots when outside VHF coverage. ADS enabled reduced separation standards as well.
- RVSM. Implemented by AsA controllers working groups progressively throughout the South East Asia region in conjunction with PNG, NZ, Fiji, Indonesia, Malayasia, Indian and Phillipine ATC.
- UPR User preferred routes. In conjunction with international carriers, AsA ATC implemented UPRs throughout the Pacific and Indian oceans.
- TAAATS. The state of the art ATC system first introduced in the 90s was developed in conjunction with ATCs from OZ. It provides significant advantages over the old strip system, and significantly enalbed reduced costs to avaition. It also reduced ATC numbers in OZ. Thank God, we didn't have enough at the time any way.
- ADS-B. this is an AsA driven project. There is a large ATC involvement in the use of the system to develop and implement a system to help reduce the reliance on radar within Australia.
- NAS. Hate to say this, but there is a huge OZ ATC involvement in the development and implenetation of NAS. Sure as a group we don't like it. But we still have to work with it.
Dick stick to the facts, not supposition and half truths. Your beliefs are not evidence, and the fact that you sprout publicly your lies belittles yourself and Australians in general.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know, when I was starting out in this game, just about every pilot I spoke to would jump at the chance to bag Dick if given the opportunity. I couldn't understand their anger at the time.
Like many others, I use to admire the bloke for what he acheived. I'm now seriously concerned for his mental health after listening to him over the last 6 months or so.
Dick, you could be a great asset to aviation. Unfortunately, you've become a huge liability.
Like many others, I use to admire the bloke for what he acheived. I'm now seriously concerned for his mental health after listening to him over the last 6 months or so.
Dick, you could be a great asset to aviation. Unfortunately, you've become a huge liability.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Middle East
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a little quiz for you....
A controller tells a pilot there is a mountain in front of him. A sensible pilot would :
(a) Take avoiding action
(b) Continue straight ahead until he can see the mountain.
(choose one)
A controller tells a pilot there is another aircraft in front of him. A sensible pilot would :
(a) Take avoiding action
(b) Continue straight ahead until he can see the other aircraft.
(choose one)
Why do Australian pilots refuse to take avoiding action based on radar derived traffic information?
Why bother passing traffic information if they refuse to do anything about it?
(a) Take avoiding action
(b) Continue straight ahead until he can see the mountain.
(choose one)
A controller tells a pilot there is another aircraft in front of him. A sensible pilot would :
(a) Take avoiding action
(b) Continue straight ahead until he can see the other aircraft.
(choose one)
Why do Australian pilots refuse to take avoiding action based on radar derived traffic information?
Why bother passing traffic information if they refuse to do anything about it?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mountains tend to remain static and are shown on charts by way of LSALT etc.
One tends to know about them at the preflight level.
Mountains altitudes are generally 'verified'.
Mountains don't need to be seen to be avoided.
Mountains don't change direction.
Mountains don't have to broadcast on area frequencies or carry transponders.
Mountains are predictable.
There aren't many 'pop-up' mountains.
The closing speed on a mountain equals your speed x1.
And most importantly......... controllers dont tell aircraft there are mountains in front of them.
Now, what was your point again...apart from being the final luddite clinging to the wreckage of NAS blinded only by your own ignorance of how aircraft are processed on a radar controllers screen?
(Mountains have been reclassified 'American' - the best mountains in the world - and are now 23% safer which is great news for the Australian mounting Public)
One tends to know about them at the preflight level.
Mountains altitudes are generally 'verified'.
Mountains don't need to be seen to be avoided.
Mountains don't change direction.
Mountains don't have to broadcast on area frequencies or carry transponders.
Mountains are predictable.
There aren't many 'pop-up' mountains.
The closing speed on a mountain equals your speed x1.
And most importantly......... controllers dont tell aircraft there are mountains in front of them.
Now, what was your point again...apart from being the final luddite clinging to the wreckage of NAS blinded only by your own ignorance of how aircraft are processed on a radar controllers screen?
(Mountains have been reclassified 'American' - the best mountains in the world - and are now 23% safer which is great news for the Australian mounting Public)
Last edited by Shitsu-Tonka; 19th Apr 2004 at 11:46.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big difference between aircraft and mountains (ty S-T!)
IM,
Let me edit your question to suit Class E airspace conditions (which is what this part of NAS is all about) and then see if you can answer it:
A controller tells a pilot there is another aircraft in front of him, level unverified, intentions unknown. A sensible pilot would :
(a) Take avoiding action
(b) Continue straight ahead until he can see the other aircraft.
(choose one)
What do you choose? Seriously - which option?
If "a" then are you suggesting that a pilot base avoiding action on another aircraft who could turn, climb, or descend. How do you know if the other aircraft won't be making it's own avoiding action? How do you know what height the other aircraft is at?
If "b" then are you suggesting that the pilot keep on his/her cleared track until sighting the other aircraft and basing avoidance on a visual sighting?
Both options are fraught with danger, both options are unsatisfactory.
How about a third option, the one advocated by Mr D Smith:
(c) Controller intiates avoiding action for the aircraft.
Again, like "a", the other aircraft, whose level is unverified, can also initiate avoiding action - the controller could potentially put them together.
Any other options? Anybody?
If the other aircraft has a clearance then IM's scenario would not happen.
Does it cost anything for a VFR to obtain a clearance in Class C? Did VFR's get knocked back for clearances regularly in airspace that was C and now E? If "no" to both then why the change? Why the increased risk?
Let me edit your question to suit Class E airspace conditions (which is what this part of NAS is all about) and then see if you can answer it:
A controller tells a pilot there is another aircraft in front of him, level unverified, intentions unknown. A sensible pilot would :
(a) Take avoiding action
(b) Continue straight ahead until he can see the other aircraft.
(choose one)
What do you choose? Seriously - which option?
If "a" then are you suggesting that a pilot base avoiding action on another aircraft who could turn, climb, or descend. How do you know if the other aircraft won't be making it's own avoiding action? How do you know what height the other aircraft is at?
If "b" then are you suggesting that the pilot keep on his/her cleared track until sighting the other aircraft and basing avoidance on a visual sighting?
Both options are fraught with danger, both options are unsatisfactory.
How about a third option, the one advocated by Mr D Smith:
(c) Controller intiates avoiding action for the aircraft.
Again, like "a", the other aircraft, whose level is unverified, can also initiate avoiding action - the controller could potentially put them together.
Any other options? Anybody?
If the other aircraft has a clearance then IM's scenario would not happen.
Does it cost anything for a VFR to obtain a clearance in Class C? Did VFR's get knocked back for clearances regularly in airspace that was C and now E? If "no" to both then why the change? Why the increased risk?
