Slanderous Smith Comments
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mountains
Ian,
I am an engineer, I will put this in our speak
A complex system involving peoples lives works, you for cost or advancement want to change it, what do you do?
Appoint a project manager, create a multi talented professional team that covers all the major facets of the system.
Do a feasibility study examine the outcomes against your preproposed gains.
Audit the feasibility using professionals not on the feasibility team.
Present finding to the Board, Execs etc
I could now take you through the development,design, trial and impliment stage but this is not necessary as the NAS has already failed. As:
1.Project Manager not qualified
2.Team not acceptable no Pilots,ATC,Eng,Scientist,Maths.
3.No proper analysis of cost savings, indications from system supplier cost neutral at best a small saving
4. Study of a comparable system report says- No good for us. Your Project Manager won't release the Team report on the comparable system.
5.Independent Audit not done.
Decision made impliment imediately!!!
Result: near disaster, confusion and rage.
Would you build an aircraft, bridge, road system, airport, power grid, housing code, skyscraper, nuclear plant, wiring code, childs play equiptment- like this?
Yet you want to change a nations airspace system in this manner?
I would love to see you approach a USA major 500 company and try to sell them this approach to a system overhaul of a key part of their enterprise.
We have the expertise to determine if the system needs changing and how to do it. The timing is bloody obvious do it as you start to introduce ATSB.
NAS if you really want to do it now, do it properly and if problems arise fix the system not paper over the cracks.
I am an engineer, I will put this in our speak
A complex system involving peoples lives works, you for cost or advancement want to change it, what do you do?
Appoint a project manager, create a multi talented professional team that covers all the major facets of the system.
Do a feasibility study examine the outcomes against your preproposed gains.
Audit the feasibility using professionals not on the feasibility team.
Present finding to the Board, Execs etc
I could now take you through the development,design, trial and impliment stage but this is not necessary as the NAS has already failed. As:
1.Project Manager not qualified
2.Team not acceptable no Pilots,ATC,Eng,Scientist,Maths.
3.No proper analysis of cost savings, indications from system supplier cost neutral at best a small saving
4. Study of a comparable system report says- No good for us. Your Project Manager won't release the Team report on the comparable system.
5.Independent Audit not done.
Decision made impliment imediately!!!
Result: near disaster, confusion and rage.
Would you build an aircraft, bridge, road system, airport, power grid, housing code, skyscraper, nuclear plant, wiring code, childs play equiptment- like this?
Yet you want to change a nations airspace system in this manner?
I would love to see you approach a USA major 500 company and try to sell them this approach to a system overhaul of a key part of their enterprise.
We have the expertise to determine if the system needs changing and how to do it. The timing is bloody obvious do it as you start to introduce ATSB.
NAS if you really want to do it now, do it properly and if problems arise fix the system not paper over the cracks.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere in Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Dick would Paint all mountains White and remove their height from charts, and issue instructions to ATC not to tell any body unless they asked about mountains, this would save money, pilots should be able to see and avoid mountains
The air traffic controllers who are defending Airservices have to decide one simple thing. Do you want Airservices to be a profit maker, or a regulator? The two are totally conflicting – you can either be one or the other.
Mike Caplehorn of Broome Airport also has to decide what he wants to be – either a profit maker or a regulator. The only reason he does not agree with me in relation to the necessity for a Class D tower at Broome is profit. His own study shows that a tower would make it 20% safer. So the only reason he could be against the tower is the fact that costs would rise slightly and his profits may be lower. As Airservices must put safety in front of profit, it is obvious that they should go ahead with the tower.
Mike Caplehorn can naturally be more concerned with profit than regulation as he is running a business. His lawful job is to make profits.
We need an independent regulator who will say in an unbiased way that just as in the USA Broome Airport with its traffic mix and density would have a Class D tower, we need one here.
I’ll do my best to make sure it happens.
Mike Caplehorn of Broome Airport also has to decide what he wants to be – either a profit maker or a regulator. The only reason he does not agree with me in relation to the necessity for a Class D tower at Broome is profit. His own study shows that a tower would make it 20% safer. So the only reason he could be against the tower is the fact that costs would rise slightly and his profits may be lower. As Airservices must put safety in front of profit, it is obvious that they should go ahead with the tower.
Mike Caplehorn can naturally be more concerned with profit than regulation as he is running a business. His lawful job is to make profits.
We need an independent regulator who will say in an unbiased way that just as in the USA Broome Airport with its traffic mix and density would have a Class D tower, we need one here.
I’ll do my best to make sure it happens.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please NO!
Please Dick,
Just leave this industry alone, you have caused so much damage already, please stick to making your own profits and leave the aviation industry to those who know about it - PLEASE!
BSB
Just leave this industry alone, you have caused so much damage already, please stick to making your own profits and leave the aviation industry to those who know about it - PLEASE!
BSB
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well what do you know? Dicks back on line!
Unfortunately Dick I'm a bit confused. I thought this thread was about SLANDEROUS SMITH COMMENTS !
So sticking to the thread - got any more comments about your 4BC comments Dick?
Or perhaps given your profound experience, you could offer some advice to the Virgin Blue pilots (and Ian McKenzie) as to what YOU would have done under the circumstances?
Traffic NOT Sighted!!!
Unfortunately Dick I'm a bit confused. I thought this thread was about SLANDEROUS SMITH COMMENTS !
So sticking to the thread - got any more comments about your 4BC comments Dick?
Or perhaps given your profound experience, you could offer some advice to the Virgin Blue pilots (and Ian McKenzie) as to what YOU would have done under the circumstances?
Traffic NOT Sighted!!!
Last edited by Duck N Weave; 20th Apr 2004 at 09:00.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
This has nothing to do with the thread - but since you asked, I think most Air Traffic Controllers have no interest in AirServices Australia being a profit maker.
Most of them probably see Air Traffic Services Safety and profit (something the Federal Government as sole shareholder demand of it every year despite imposing arbitrary cost reductions) as incongruent.
The model I favour and I think many would agree is a not for profit model where any surplus revenue after costs must be either reinvested in equipment/training or refunded to users of the system.
The amount of money that has been simply wasted on the crash or crash through approach to NAS however would probably not see to much on the profit front!
This has nothing to do with the thread - but since you asked, I think most Air Traffic Controllers have no interest in AirServices Australia being a profit maker.
Most of them probably see Air Traffic Services Safety and profit (something the Federal Government as sole shareholder demand of it every year despite imposing arbitrary cost reductions) as incongruent.
The model I favour and I think many would agree is a not for profit model where any surplus revenue after costs must be either reinvested in equipment/training or refunded to users of the system.
The amount of money that has been simply wasted on the crash or crash through approach to NAS however would probably not see to much on the profit front!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The air traffic controllers who are defending Airservices have to decide one simple thing. Do you want Airservices to be a profit maker, or a regulator? The two are totally conflicting – you can either be one or the other.
You have stuffed this up royally, like we predicted. Please find a rock and crawl under it.
Dick, Clearances for VFRs in enroute C were free pre 27 NOV; why is it so bad to get a clearance in C? Why is it that RPTs should be diverted around VFRs; it the priorities all wrong... I know you think you are doing it for the good of the GA industry; for everyone's good, just rack off!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The air traffic controllers who are defending Airservices ....
It was Airservices that put out a public statement ...
Airservices Australia ,..., cannot stand by and allow statements made in media broadcasts today to denigrate the professionalism of its staff.
CEO Bernie Smith said that statements made on radio contained gross inaccuracies, were untrue and unfairly damaged the reputation of the organisation and its staff.
I wilI continue to stand by the professionalism and dedication of staff and management.
CEO Bernie Smith said that statements made on radio contained gross inaccuracies, were untrue and unfairly damaged the reputation of the organisation and its staff.
I wilI continue to stand by the professionalism and dedication of staff and management.
.... if there's a prang they carry the can.
Pass traffic (3 times) .... controller is wrong ...
Turn one of the aircraft .... controller is wrong .... again
Chapi
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, you just don't get it!!
Dick,
do you read other people's posts, or just bits and pieces? I don't recall you answering any of my questions except to drivel off tangent about some wrong allegedly perpertrated by Australian ATC.
What is wrong with you?
Australian ATCs work for the government and are bound by law to carry out the tasks and responsibilities assigned by that government. We have, to a limited degree, some input into what goes on, but the final say in anything AsA does rests with the government of the day.
Air traffic control is about the safe expeditious flow of air traffic. That is our goal. We are not policeman of the air, just the air traffic management service providers.
Australian ATCs have no interest in profits. AsA management might, but not the controller that sits at the console deciding how to fit in the no flight plan VFR acft that has just popped up asking for a clearance. Controllers do not assign priorities for airspace use, these are preordained as per our own Manual of ATS and AIP.
There is no great ATC conspiracy. Not even a small conspiracy.
You are making us look foolish to the rest of the aviation world.
Do you know what the Oz avaition industry says NAS stands for?
No Actual Separation.
do you read other people's posts, or just bits and pieces? I don't recall you answering any of my questions except to drivel off tangent about some wrong allegedly perpertrated by Australian ATC.
What is wrong with you?
Australian ATCs work for the government and are bound by law to carry out the tasks and responsibilities assigned by that government. We have, to a limited degree, some input into what goes on, but the final say in anything AsA does rests with the government of the day.
Air traffic control is about the safe expeditious flow of air traffic. That is our goal. We are not policeman of the air, just the air traffic management service providers.
Australian ATCs have no interest in profits. AsA management might, but not the controller that sits at the console deciding how to fit in the no flight plan VFR acft that has just popped up asking for a clearance. Controllers do not assign priorities for airspace use, these are preordained as per our own Manual of ATS and AIP.
There is no great ATC conspiracy. Not even a small conspiracy.
You are making us look foolish to the rest of the aviation world.
Do you know what the Oz avaition industry says NAS stands for?
No Actual Separation.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
belief that the air in Australia is somehow different to the air in other parts of the world
and
It’s often hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Sometimes you gotta get a new dog.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Middle East
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
settle down buddy
Whoa there big fella! I didnt invent NAS so save me the sermon. Im just wondering if Australian pilots are a bit thick or something? Why else would they descend even though youve just told them there is another plane below?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian McKenzie,
No need to be insulting to Australian pilots. You are obviously showing how little you know of the incidents involved to expect such exclusive answers. Can you answer it yourself? In case you missed it before, what is your answer to your own question that I modified to suit Class E airspace?
Well? a or b? These are the options you supplied, please pick one. If you can't pick one then don't expect to be able to make inane comparisons with mountains and aircraft, and to demand multi-choice answers to complex situations, without getting a sermon in reply.
The main point is that we have airspace that allows one aircraft with a clearance and one without to share the same airspace, causing the problem in the first place. Simple.
No need to be insulting to Australian pilots. You are obviously showing how little you know of the incidents involved to expect such exclusive answers. Can you answer it yourself? In case you missed it before, what is your answer to your own question that I modified to suit Class E airspace?
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)
(a) Take avoiding action
(b) Continue straight ahead until he can see the other aircraft.
(choose one)
The main point is that we have airspace that allows one aircraft with a clearance and one without to share the same airspace, causing the problem in the first place. Simple.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian McKenzie
I'd be interested what your response is to the questions posed by Here to Help rather than read your desultory comments.
You are assuming an aircraft is actually below you. Why not assume the pilot of the VFR had forgotten to set the correct QNH or has a faulty transponder.
The VFR pilot, according to NAS need not communicate with anyone whilst in E Class airspace.
That is why ATC suffix the traffic information provided (in respect of altitude) with "unverified".
I'd be interested what your response is to the questions posed by Here to Help rather than read your desultory comments.
Why else would they descend even though youve just told them there is another plane below?
The VFR pilot, according to NAS need not communicate with anyone whilst in E Class airspace.
That is why ATC suffix the traffic information provided (in respect of altitude) with "unverified".
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is by no means a "bedded-down" system. I think its worth considering that this may have been the first time this crew were passed traffic information they didn't sight. Did you see anything in the pathetic training comics that covered this possibility? The comics seemed to just blandly assume that you WILL see anything you HAVE to. (A similar approach to the Ravenous Bug-blatter beast of Traall.)
If the f%ckwit bikkie maker was expecting controllers to become aware of requirements other than what was in the training program and the documentation the only way to make it happen was INCLUDE THEM IN THE PROCESS. His decision not to was as silly as not including controllers in the specification of TAARTS, another thing we are still paying for.
Talk of duty-of-care needs an experience base. How can controllers or crews act as a reasonable person would if they have been excluded from the process to the point they have no idea how a reasonable person would react overseas in the same situation? And then you would have to decide where.
It seems a reasonable person here adds 1001' to the normal separation here if one is unverified, in Europe anything up to 4000', the US believe the numbers. If the f%ckwit bikkie maker expected something in particular then it should have been part of the program, its not enuf just to whine about it later. If somebody has acted criminally it is YOU you w@nker.
"...controllers who are defending Airservices..." What planet are you on??? Controllers have been bagging the sh1t out of ASA for meekly taking it up the @ss (like the minister) on your amateur-built, half-@ssed downgrading of airspace. Despite this they have defended the controllers you saw fit to slander. No OZ ATC will ever forgive you for that, even in the unlikely event you do apologise.
"Do you want Airservices to be a profit maker, or a regulator " Neither you idiot. We want Airservices to be a safety-driven service provider that is able to consider the safety implications of new technologies and stuff imposed by external authorities. We want to be consulted on changes that affect us, and when (for instance) half-@ssed systems are imposed by slimy, back-stabbing, half-witted, partly-informed, hobbyists (who appear to have the minister in a squirrel-grip,) to retain the ability to include some reality in its implementation and the ability to put the blame on the sbshwpih WHEN HE GETS IT WRONG. AGAIN.
If the f%ckwit bikkie maker was expecting controllers to become aware of requirements other than what was in the training program and the documentation the only way to make it happen was INCLUDE THEM IN THE PROCESS. His decision not to was as silly as not including controllers in the specification of TAARTS, another thing we are still paying for.
Talk of duty-of-care needs an experience base. How can controllers or crews act as a reasonable person would if they have been excluded from the process to the point they have no idea how a reasonable person would react overseas in the same situation? And then you would have to decide where.
It seems a reasonable person here adds 1001' to the normal separation here if one is unverified, in Europe anything up to 4000', the US believe the numbers. If the f%ckwit bikkie maker expected something in particular then it should have been part of the program, its not enuf just to whine about it later. If somebody has acted criminally it is YOU you w@nker.
"...controllers who are defending Airservices..." What planet are you on??? Controllers have been bagging the sh1t out of ASA for meekly taking it up the @ss (like the minister) on your amateur-built, half-@ssed downgrading of airspace. Despite this they have defended the controllers you saw fit to slander. No OZ ATC will ever forgive you for that, even in the unlikely event you do apologise.
"Do you want Airservices to be a profit maker, or a regulator " Neither you idiot. We want Airservices to be a safety-driven service provider that is able to consider the safety implications of new technologies and stuff imposed by external authorities. We want to be consulted on changes that affect us, and when (for instance) half-@ssed systems are imposed by slimy, back-stabbing, half-witted, partly-informed, hobbyists (who appear to have the minister in a squirrel-grip,) to retain the ability to include some reality in its implementation and the ability to put the blame on the sbshwpih WHEN HE GETS IT WRONG. AGAIN.
Last edited by karrank; 20th Apr 2004 at 23:27.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought I'd post this here as well as another thread because of the government's charter letter.
Dick,
Could you please quote a credible, reliable and authorative source for your "outrageous" claim: To put it simply, the airspace system before 27 November 2003 added millions of dollars to the cost of general aviation.
It is your qualification If used correctly: If used correctly, the NAS system has the potential to be very safe and to save general aviation large amounts of money – this will assist the industry to be viable again and employ many more people.
If used correctly relates to the training and education which has failed this implementation; and in this regard you shoulder much responsibility.
Your graph is descriptive, but so too is the raw data:
Key Indicators
General Aviation, 2002
• General Aviation flying continued to show a decrease in activity in 2002, with a drop in flying hours of 0.9 per cent. Aerial agriculture flying fell by 33.6 per cent from the effects of drought conditions across much of Australia. Charter, business flying and test and ferry activity also decreased by 4.4, 1.8 and 9.9 per cent respectively. Aerial work recorded the largest increase in flying activity, with a rise of 11.2 per cent. Private and training activity also saw more moderate increases of 3.2 and 1.1 per cent respectively.
• The major activities in 2002 were charter operations (445,700 hours, down 4.4 per cent on 2001), training (410,800 hours, up 1.1 per cent) and aerial work (327,100 hours, up 11.2 per cent).
• 270,200 hours were flown for private purposes including recreation and personal travel. Sport aviation flew an additional 80,600 hours in ultralight aircraft, 122,200 hours in hang gliders and 32,300 hours in gyroplanes. Recent gliding activity statistics are not available, but totalled 63,900 hours in 1998/99.
Hours flown ('000') in General Aviation
Year Private Business Training Agriculture Aerial work Test & ferry Charter TOTAL
1992 255.4 204.2 421.6 80.9 256.7 28.2 403.9 1,651.0
1993 265.3 212.3 436.8 89.2 278.8 28.2 393.4 1,703.9
1994 256.9 198.5 419.5 78.9 301.7 25.9 424.4 1,705.7
1995 251.0 189.1 430.6 94.5 302.4 28.2 465.7 1,761.3
1996 261.6 182.8 444.9 117.4 285.7 26.2 480.4 1,799.0
1997 266.7 176.0 449.5 128.4 307.4 27.6 483.7 1,839.3
1998 263.0 163.8 478.5 139.2 312.4 26.6 494.6 1,877.9
1999 275.9 153.3 448.8 126.3 306.6 26.6 504.6 1,842.2
2000 248.5 136.3 413.6 115.0 296.9 27.9 476.7 1,714.8
2001 261.7 144.9 406.2 106.7 294.2 23.2 466.0 1,702.9
2002 270.2 142.2 410.8 70.8 327.1 20.9 445.7 1,687.7
Sorry if the table is corrupted check it out here.
http://www.btre.gov.au/avstats/genpage.htm
Quote from the 2002/2003 Airservices Annual report (page 89) and the Charter Letter, Ministerial Directions and Notifications:
“..It is the Government’s view that Airservices has a responsibility to operate in a way that promotes the general health of the aviation industry, but this does not require Airservices to ensure the viability of any individual operator, nor will it require that the aspirations of any particular aviation sector be met.”
Given this government charter - what place is there for you amongst the other industry players, other than a lobyist seeking best advantage for your commarades. Why not are the other legitimate concerns, reasonably argued also valid?
Dick,
Could you please quote a credible, reliable and authorative source for your "outrageous" claim: To put it simply, the airspace system before 27 November 2003 added millions of dollars to the cost of general aviation.
It is your qualification If used correctly: If used correctly, the NAS system has the potential to be very safe and to save general aviation large amounts of money – this will assist the industry to be viable again and employ many more people.
If used correctly relates to the training and education which has failed this implementation; and in this regard you shoulder much responsibility.
Your graph is descriptive, but so too is the raw data:
Key Indicators
General Aviation, 2002
• General Aviation flying continued to show a decrease in activity in 2002, with a drop in flying hours of 0.9 per cent. Aerial agriculture flying fell by 33.6 per cent from the effects of drought conditions across much of Australia. Charter, business flying and test and ferry activity also decreased by 4.4, 1.8 and 9.9 per cent respectively. Aerial work recorded the largest increase in flying activity, with a rise of 11.2 per cent. Private and training activity also saw more moderate increases of 3.2 and 1.1 per cent respectively.
• The major activities in 2002 were charter operations (445,700 hours, down 4.4 per cent on 2001), training (410,800 hours, up 1.1 per cent) and aerial work (327,100 hours, up 11.2 per cent).
• 270,200 hours were flown for private purposes including recreation and personal travel. Sport aviation flew an additional 80,600 hours in ultralight aircraft, 122,200 hours in hang gliders and 32,300 hours in gyroplanes. Recent gliding activity statistics are not available, but totalled 63,900 hours in 1998/99.
Hours flown ('000') in General Aviation
Year Private Business Training Agriculture Aerial work Test & ferry Charter TOTAL
1992 255.4 204.2 421.6 80.9 256.7 28.2 403.9 1,651.0
1993 265.3 212.3 436.8 89.2 278.8 28.2 393.4 1,703.9
1994 256.9 198.5 419.5 78.9 301.7 25.9 424.4 1,705.7
1995 251.0 189.1 430.6 94.5 302.4 28.2 465.7 1,761.3
1996 261.6 182.8 444.9 117.4 285.7 26.2 480.4 1,799.0
1997 266.7 176.0 449.5 128.4 307.4 27.6 483.7 1,839.3
1998 263.0 163.8 478.5 139.2 312.4 26.6 494.6 1,877.9
1999 275.9 153.3 448.8 126.3 306.6 26.6 504.6 1,842.2
2000 248.5 136.3 413.6 115.0 296.9 27.9 476.7 1,714.8
2001 261.7 144.9 406.2 106.7 294.2 23.2 466.0 1,702.9
2002 270.2 142.2 410.8 70.8 327.1 20.9 445.7 1,687.7
Sorry if the table is corrupted check it out here.
http://www.btre.gov.au/avstats/genpage.htm
Quote from the 2002/2003 Airservices Annual report (page 89) and the Charter Letter, Ministerial Directions and Notifications:
“..It is the Government’s view that Airservices has a responsibility to operate in a way that promotes the general health of the aviation industry, but this does not require Airservices to ensure the viability of any individual operator, nor will it require that the aspirations of any particular aviation sector be met.”
Given this government charter - what place is there for you amongst the other industry players, other than a lobyist seeking best advantage for your commarades. Why not are the other legitimate concerns, reasonably argued also valid?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: bRISBANE
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ian MacKenzie wrote
"Whoa there big fella! I didnt invent NAS so save me the sermon. Im just wondering if Australian pilots are a bit thick or something? Why else would they descend even though youve just told them there is another plane below?"
The answer lies in how TCAS was designed to work. It is there as a last ditch final attempt at ensuring that the 2 (or more) acft don't hit. That is, by design you get only one shot at missing the other acft. The algorithms will search for a solution where the acft miss but not by any standard.
As a consequence pilots need to monitor and then follow the TCAS implicitly to avoid the conflict parameters changing and further TCAS calculations/ instructions which will get more violent the closer in to conflict point. I believe it is only company policy which allows pilots to do something other than the TCAS resolution based on having correctly identified the conflicting acft visually.
Imagine if pilots didn't follow the TCAS - you could have a domino effect not just involving that conflicting pair but you could introduce other conflicts ... that is why TCAS can never be a standard for separation.
The answer lies in how TCAS was designed to work. It is there as a last ditch final attempt at ensuring that the 2 (or more) acft don't hit. That is, by design you get only one shot at missing the other acft. The algorithms will search for a solution where the acft miss but not by any standard.
As a consequence pilots need to monitor and then follow the TCAS implicitly to avoid the conflict parameters changing and further TCAS calculations/ instructions which will get more violent the closer in to conflict point. I believe it is only company policy which allows pilots to do something other than the TCAS resolution based on having correctly identified the conflicting acft visually.
Imagine if pilots didn't follow the TCAS - you could have a domino effect not just involving that conflicting pair but you could introduce other conflicts ... that is why TCAS can never be a standard for separation.
the leyland brothers
If you genuinely believe what you've posted, then you have a blinkered and naïve understanding of airspace design and air traffic management. ATCs are the ones who work in the system H24. If you wanted to review surgery procedures in the hospital system, would you leave it to the patients, and exclude the doctors & nurses???
Perhaps you’d like to fill us in on your background and experience which leads you to offer such useful advice.
If you genuinely believe what you've posted, then you have a blinkered and naïve understanding of airspace design and air traffic management. ATCs are the ones who work in the system H24. If you wanted to review surgery procedures in the hospital system, would you leave it to the patients, and exclude the doctors & nurses???
Perhaps you’d like to fill us in on your background and experience which leads you to offer such useful advice.
lame's post
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=127388
Looks like someone owes someone an apology!
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=127388
MEDIA RELEASE
2004/10
7 April Airspace Incident Interim Factual Investigation Report
21 April, 2004Information obtained from the crews of both aircraft, the Airservices ATS controller, recorded flight data from the B737, ATS audio recordings and radar data, is consistent and indicates that the crews of both aircraft and the ATS controller complied with the published procedures for Class E airspace under NAS 2b.
2004/10
7 April Airspace Incident Interim Factual Investigation Report
21 April, 2004Information obtained from the crews of both aircraft, the Airservices ATS controller, recorded flight data from the B737, ATS audio recordings and radar data, is consistent and indicates that the crews of both aircraft and the ATS controller complied with the published procedures for Class E airspace under NAS 2b.