Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Why do we need to be more restrictive than the USA?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Why do we need to be more restrictive than the USA?

Old 19th Apr 2004, 05:25
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211
Why do we need to be more restrictive than the USA?

Would it be possible to get an answer to something that I’ve asked many times before?

The question is simple. The Melbourne Virgin incident and the Brisbane Virgin incident happened in airspace that is equivalent in radar coverage with the radar Class E airspace in the United States at places like Los Angeles and New York.

Qantas flies thousands of Australians through this US airspace every day in perfect safety.

The other incident which received a large amount of publicity is the one at Launceston. It took place in non-radar Class E airspace linking Class A with Class D. This airspace exists in the USA at places like Juneau and Williamsport (only 130 miles to the west of Washington) with Class D non-radar towers. There is an important difference in that at Launceston we have mandatory radio and transponder requirements in Class E airspace below 10,000’, whereas the equivalent non-radar airspace in Juneau and Williamsport has no transponder or radio requirement for VFR.

As the United States has something like 20 times the traffic density in approximately the same land area, and as it is a very wealthy society (and also litigious), why can’t their airspace be used successfully and safely in Australia?

Many air traffic controllers that I know take holidays in the United States. I know controllers that have taken their families to Disneyland, and skiing in Colorado, flying in and out through Class E airspace. I have not met one controller who was concerned about the safety of the US airspace system. Surely they would not take their families to the USA, flying through Class E airspace, if they were. If Australian controllers are happy to fly in the US (with the US airspace system) in both radar and non-radar areas, why do many insist that we cannot have the freedom and efficiency advantages here in Australia?

I believe that Australia should have the same economic and efficiency advantages as the USA – especially in aviation. Don’t you?

A number of years ago, industrial associations insisted that Ansett Boeing 767s be extensively modified from the FAA US airworthiness standards to include a special engineer’s console. It was claimed that this modification (which cost tens of millions of dollars) was necessary for safety. This was shown to be a waste of money, was not necessary for safety, and was one of the contributing reasons that 15,000 people lost their jobs in the Ansett demise.

Could it not be that the US airspace system could operate successfully here and substantial amounts of money could be saved by the aviation industry in the same way that Boeing 767s now operate in Australia using standard US certification without unique Australian changes and costs?

Of course some will say that the US has more radar coverage. This is so, however the incidents in Melbourne and Brisbane were in airspace similar to US radar covered Class E airspace, and the incident in Launceston was in airspace similar to US non-radar covered Class E airspace.

If US pilots can have the freedoms that additional amounts of Class E airspace gives, why can’t Australian pilots have those freedoms?

Please keep the postings positive and productive. If one of the fundamental reasons is that our pilots and controllers have not been trained correctly, tell me. If one of the reasons is that we have a different culture here, I have great difficulty in accepting this, as Qantas pilots have no problems in flying in the US system safely. Have a glance at the colour diagram below – every airline flight in the USA transits Class E airspace!



Notes
Class B airspace

· major airports such as LA and JFK
· typically to 10,000’ with Class E to FL180
Class C airspace
· busy airports such as Reno and Palm Beach
· typically 10 nm radius to 4,000’ AGL with Class E to FL180
Class D airspace
· non-radar towers
· typically 4.3 nm radius to 2,500’ AGL with Class E to FL180
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 05:48
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
More irrelevant mumblings.

Don't imagine your dickisms will get you out of this one.

When something is wrong, it is just wrong and no amount of bullying by people like you will make it right.

If you like the USA so much, leave!!!!

Goose
89 steps to heaven is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 05:54
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 70
Posts: 4,275
Dick Smith seeks an answer to his questions, which, without the verbosity, appears to be:

1. "...why can’t their (US) airspace be used successfully and safely in Australia?"

2. "I believe that Australia should have the same economic and efficiency advantages as the USA – especially in aviation. Don’t you?"

3. "Could it not be that the US airspace system could operate successfully here and substantial amounts of money could be saved ..... without unique Australian changes and costs?"

4. "...why do many insist that we cannot have the freedom and efficiency advantages here in Australia?"

5. "If US pilots can have the freedoms that additional amounts of Class E airspace gives, why can’t Australian pilots have those freedoms?"

Could those professionals technically competent to respond, provide reasoned, rationalised responses to Dick Smith's questions - hopefully without wrath and anguish - and I'll unstick the thread.

Woomera
Woomera is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 06:10
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Woomera

Dick has been told time and time again. You cannot bring in part of a system and hope it is going to work.

But he does not listen.

Pilot training & culture was the place to start, then follow up with proper ground based facilities & airbourne equipment on all aircraft. Then progressively make changes using proven methodology that ensures the safety of the system.

No I thinks or I believes, that's not good enough.

The system here is working the way he designed it. The fact that it carries far more risk clearly demonstrates that he had no idea what the consequences of his actions would be.

As for saving money, words fail me.
89 steps to heaven is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 06:17
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 70
Posts: 4,275
89 and Co.

Don't shoot the messenger. Woomera is here to moderate only - not influence.

I tried to clarify Dicks Smith's questions to avoid the inevitable wrath and anguish.

Woomera


Dick

The very reasonable, rational question below seems to be the central to the issue??

"...until he can prove a need for the change and at the same time show an overall safety increase per movement."

If it ain't broke, won't save money and diminishes safety, why change?

Woomera

Last edited by Woomera; 19th Apr 2004 at 06:38.
Woomera is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 06:19
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
We are done with you Dick. You have zero cred in this industry now. Give up on you ramblings it is just getting embarrasing.

There are none of his questions that require an answer until he can prove a need for the change and at the same time show an overall safety increase per movement.

edit. Side note. You woomera people have your own accounts. If you are going to interpret questions put up here do so under you own account and by the way [email protected] the loaded interpretations. /shakes head. Impartial my arse.

Last edited by tobzalp; 19th Apr 2004 at 07:16.
tobzalp is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 06:41
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 570
A number of years ago, industrial associations insisted that Ansett Boeing 767s be extensively modified from the FAA US airworthiness standards to include a special engineer’s console. It was claimed that this modification (which cost tens of millions of dollars) was necessary for safety. This was shown to be a waste of money, was not necessary for safety, and was one of the contributing reasons that 15,000 people lost their jobs in the Ansett demise.

Hate to tell you this Dick me old chum, but the Ansett 767's were DESIGNED AND BUILT STANDARD WITH THE F/E STATION. It was only post production were all the other initial 36 odd aircraft modified to REMOVE the F/E station.

It WAS NOT industrial pressure that made Ansett "fit" the flight engineers panel - it was designed, built and certified with it as a standard option.

Sure ANsett left them there while the rest took them out, and it subsequently became the norm post airframe 36 (I stand to be corrected on the number) but they didn't put them in as a result of industrial action.

How can you expect people to take you seriously when you can't get your facts right?

I'll come back and make a comment on your other points later
Dehavillanddriver is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 06:51
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
As the United States has something like 20 times the traffic density in approximately the same land area, and as it is a very wealthy society (and also litigious), why can’t their airspace be used successfully and safely in Australia?
And becasue they have 20% more atc per airborne aircraft; and they are accutely aware of the litigous ramifications they do more than they are required by their own rule book. They do it with a more expensive system; fact.

You seem to be more interested in costs than systems; if you want to attack costs, 400 managers for 2600 staff would be a good place to start.

Dick, it's a real shame that you have decided to enter PPRuNe again ignoring all that has been said over the last 5 days... Typical D.Smith attitude, ignore all contrary opinions and keep banging your own drum...

Question for you, Dick, why have any class E? Why not make it all class C with separation and free flight to VFRs? Is it the charges you resist or the 'permission' issues? Don't trump out costs, cause "C" is less ATCs than "E", fact.

Why have any E above A100. who uses it; where have the problems been?

Dick your comments last week were so appalling, you no longer give me any reason to take you seriously; Woomera, great try at making the thread worthwhile; but blah blah blah, who cares anymore; just make Dick go away and I'll feel a whole lot better.
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 07:15
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Sorry Woomera, but I know you want us all to be positive towards this man, but after calling us as professionals "criminals", how does he or you expect any ATC to give him any respect at all. I know you are just trying to moderate to allow a positive environment and hopefully have a meaningful discussion, but this man has lost the right to be spoken to. If he wants to meet the issues head on, post on the other sticky thread referring to his disgraceful comments and try and defend them there, and just explain to us why he wants us to treat E airspace as C airspace after he was the one that changed it in the first place. Either its E and IFR and VFR get traffic passed and self separate, or its C airspace and everyone gets separated. Either way there is still the same number of ATC's required, so why not leave it as C.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 07:45
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,839
Someone has to answer, if only to appease those members of the public who have not been following this embarrassing episode in oz aviation. Wrong conclusions could be drawn by the (understandably) vitriolic responses to date. I will also preface my answers with a note to effect; ALL THE ANSWERS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO MR. SMITH ON NUMUROUS OCCASIONS, AND EVEN ON THESE FORUMS, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

But very briefly and simply;
1. There is no reason why 'US' airspace cannot be used safely in Australia. It would require a lot more costs in resourcing the required radar coverage and controller numbers, but it could be done. To simply say "do it like they do it in the US" without providing all of the above, cannot be done.
2. Prior to 27Nov, Australian ATC was rated by Eurocontrol as BEING MORE EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE THAN THE US. Oz ATCs wear many hats, and move more aeroplanes per controller than their US counterparts. FACT.
3. No. See (2) above
4. We do not have the resources in oz. See (2) above.
5. US controllers look at much tinier pieces of airspace than oz controllers, so their ability to see and seperate on a small scale is greatly improved. This is quite a technical aspect, which those interested in understanding should visit a centre or talk to a controller about.


On a personal note: I hope they take you to the cleaners for your disgraceful slander, Mr. Smith.
ferris is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 08:12
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,315
Flogging a dead horse, but I'm game:-

1) "...why can’t their (US) airspace be used successfully and safely in Australia?"


Firstly, because our own (ICAO compliant) airspace was successful and safe, so why change? Secondly, because it is NOT successful and safe in the US. Read Voices Of Reasons first few posts (You claimed to be impressed by them, then COMPLETELY ignored the point they were making). Australia had a BETTER air safety record than the US pre NAS. They have Mid-Air collisions regularly. We don't (or didn't). TCAS was largely developed because of the proven limitations of US airspace shown by the Ceratous collision.

2) "I believe that Australia should have the same economic and efficiency advantages as the USA – especially in aviation. Don’t you?"


Firstly, no actually economic benefit has been identified anywhere but in your belief system and rhetoric. Ask Bernie Smith. Secondly, NO. Life is a balance between economic advantage and social responsibility. You want economic advantage? Scrap ATC altogether! Very cheap! Your ideologically driven insistence that all things American MUST be better simply doesn't wash. It is up to individual nations to decide where their priorities lie.

3) "Could it not be that the US airspace system could operate successfully here and substantial amounts of money could be saved ..... without unique Australian changes and costs?"


NO! The system was set up to take account of unique AMERICAN conditions. If it is the best model for ALL places, why is it not used universally?

4) "...why do many insist that we cannot have the freedom and efficiency advantages here in Australia?"

Because US freedoms come with terrible price tags. Look at their homeless. Look at their gun culture. Look at their corrupt political system. We are close ENOUGH to being the 51st state, but luckily have had the sense to avoid the worst excesses of Americanism. Their Airspace reflects their (and I suspect YOUR) ideology. The individual (in his Citation) is all, and the majority (in their "Cattle class" 737) can go to hell. After all, was not the "Basically Criminal" action of the controllers (and I DO hope a very full apology is forthcoming for THAT little gem) not getting the 60 tonne jet to avoid the VFR lighty, rather than the other way around?

5) US pilots can have the freedoms that additional amounts of Class E airspace gives, why can’t Australian pilots have those freedoms?"


Have a read of these forums Dick. Because the professional pilots who fly the VAST MAJORITY of people through Australian airspace DON"T WANT THEM!!!
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 09:10
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Woomera

Surely that is enough calm, reasoned responses.

Unsticky this turkey and let it disappear please.
89 steps to heaven is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 09:40
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
just delete it. Use the attitude from other forums here and apply the 'over and over and over' again test. This is same old same old. It is achieving nothing at all. Add NAS debate to the 89ers list of delete/lock topics because nothing is being achieved.
tobzalp is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 09:57
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 627
You said it yourself, in this forum some time ago Dick.
I think it was an average of 3 midairs every 2 years in the US.

If you think that is acceptable, you have a snowballs chance in hell of getting any credibility with the ( mainly ) professionals that post on this site.

I wonder what the families of those who have died over the years in mid airs in the US think of their wonderful airspace system.
cunninglinguist is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 11:46
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 819
In all my time in aviation, I have never been refused/denied a clearance, except to do orbits of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which is still in the same controlled Airspace!

Whilst the US has many many more "Major" airports than us, our ones are ONLY basically on the coast, and transiting them is NOT a drama... never has been. Those that are frequently used have their own VFR route, such as "VICTOR 1", as well as the Nowra, and Newcastle VFR lanes. These were there BEFORE NAS... and worked as well.

I cannot see ANY benefits that have come from this "new" system. I have not seen any cost saving passed on to passengers, I have not seen any INCREASE in safety. I have not seen any DECREASE in TCAS Advisory's etc.

We have given your airspace a go.... we don't like it, it doesn't work... accept the FACTS
apache is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 12:28
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
As the United States has something like 20 times the traffic density in approximately the same land area, and as it is a very wealthy society (and also litigious), why can’t their airspace be used successfully and safely in Australia?

Many air traffic controllers that I know take holidays in the United States. I know controllers that have taken their families to Disneyland, and skiing in Colorado, flying in and out through Class E airspace. I have not met one controller who was concerned about the safety of the US airspace system. Surely they would not take their families to the USA, flying through Class E airspace, if they were. If Australian controllers are happy to fly in the US (with the US airspace system) in both radar and non-radar areas, why do many insist that we cannot have the freedom and efficiency advantages here in Australia?
One of the primary differences is that the US system has been developed by an agency staffed and managed by highly credentialed professionals. It has developed, step by step, with appropriate checks and balances, ensuring that the pace of reform does not overtake the prime goal of a safe system. In Australia by contrast, a ham-fisted attempt has been undertaken to rush through significant airspace reform, with a deliberate attempt to exclude any professional civil aviation input. According to Dick Smith, the minister stacked the ARG in favour of private pilots and one military pilot, for industrial reasons, and to avoid the conclusions which professional air traffic controllers and pilots might arrive at.

I ask you, Mr Smith: ”What is the fundamental difference between United States Class E airspace and the Class E airspace hastily introduced by you on November 27?”

If you are to regain any last vestige of credibility, you will be able to enlighten us a to:

1) What the difference is;
2) Why US Class E procedures, including all safety mitigators were not introduced in Australia;
3) As the justification for not doing a safety study for NAS generally was that it followed a proven model, what was the justification for not doing a safety analysis on this important and very different aspect of that model?

Given that there have so far been at least five serious incidents, of which three would have been avoided if US class E procedures had been adopted in Australia, how can you possibly justify introducing a lesser level of Class E safety than is present in the US system.

As you said: “They never have a problem. But we've had three. And the one last week was so horrific I cannot believe it.” Well, believe it Mr Smith. You were warned by every professional aviation body in Australia that this would happen, yet you chose to ignore that advice.

You tell us, why have we had three near catastrophic incidents in the airspace model you introduced? What a do you intend to do about it? Do you even care? Will it take the deaths of countless Australians and the decimation of Australia’s aviation industry before you take notice of the potentially fatal flaws in your system?

I believe that Australia should have the same economic and efficiency advantages as the USA – especially in aviation. Don’t you?
No. I believe we should keep the superior levels of economic efficiency that were identified in the independent study by Eurocontrol. I see no reason why the Australian aviation community should increase our costs to US levels just to satisfy your ego. Why not keep our more efficient, cheaper and safer system?

If one of the fundamental reasons is that our pilots and controllers have not been trained correctly, tell me.
Are you seriously telling us that even now you have no idea, as the prime instigator and proponent of AusNAS, whether or not the training has been carried out correctly? You were repeatedly warned of the dangers of such wholesale and ill-prepared change to the fabric of the airspace management system. You chose to ignore (and exclude from the ARG) any advice that might have prevented the debacle we now face. To now trawl for answers to your mistakes on an internet forum merely displays the total amateur-hour nature of the entire NAS program.

A plea from the heart:

Dick Smith,

Your divisive and ill-conceived attempts to push through unneeded reforms at the cost of real improvements to the system have so far risked the lives of countless members of the public. Step down now. Understand that lasting and worthwhile reform is often frustratingly slow. That is how the US system developed to what it is today. It is not run by sectional interests, but by a slow, sure and steady bureaucracy. Airspace management, unlike an aviation adventure trip, calls for careful, measured and considered change.

Your skills, your methods and your character are anathema to the goals of a safe public aviation safety network. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but the sad fact is that your continued participation in the process can only be negative, even to the extent of ensuring the failure of your own aims. It is time to pack up your tent, make a public apology for your more intemperate statements and to retire quietly into the night.

I make no bones about the fact that I - and most of the aviation community - will not be sorry to see you go. That is the product of the poisonous environment you have seen fit to create to achieve your aims. However, with the rollback of NAS2B imminent and the near impossibility of any sort of working relationship ever being restored between you and Australian air traffic controllers, the best thing you could possibly do for Australia would be to remove yourself from the scene and allow the aviation community to continue the reform process in a cooperative and professional manner.

Minister Anderson,

If the airspace reform program is to be rescued, and the safety of the Australian flying public is to be assured, appoint a group of eminent aviation professionals along with input by a broad spectrum of interest groups to achieve the aims of:

· Meaningful aviation reform;
· A basic, unwavering commitment to safety as the prime motivator behind any change;
· Maintenance or improvement to the cost and safety efficiencies which Australia has achieved over many years.
· Ensuring that aviation safety is treated as a serious issue, worthy of the attention of qualified professionals.
Four Seven Eleven is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 12:32
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 264
VH-DIK requesting taxi for 12, ATC,DIK stanby
5 minutes later,DIK requesting taxi for 12,ATC,Stanby DIK!!!!!!!!SO on SO on.Suffer in your jocks DICK.Youd beter start carring a shit load of fuel.
bush mechanics is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 12:55
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Bushy .. I think the last comment is uncalled for. You're actually suggesting that the fine folk in some ATS positions would lower themselves to such action?

I don't think so Tim ...
The Voice is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 13:28
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
The Voice

Quite correct. Bushie’s comments were no doubt tongue in cheek, but it worth stressing that any operational communication between Dick Smith and controllers will be carried out in a strictly professional manner, exactly the same as with any other pilot.

It is unlikely, however, that any Australian air traffic controller would be willing to engage him in anything resembling a normal conversation, given the vile and vituperrious attack he launched upon the profession recently. Any sort of working relationship between Smith and large sections of the aviation community is now probably impossible, given the poisonous treachery of the man himself.
Four Seven Eleven is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 14:08
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 957
Dick, In answer to your question: No

but:

TRAINING TRAINING TRAINING
Clearly the training for this change has been a complete and total failure. There is no process in place to audit the delivery of the training and at the same time ASA put the price of their charts up to the extent that I would say many VFR pilots now do not even have the appropriate charts. The chart that you say is unsafe is without doubt the most popular and practical chart I have seen for some time.

It is interesting to note that for many of the same reasons Airspace 2000 failed. You may recall that not all of the interested parties and those able to provide professional input were included from the start of that project. The same mistake has been made with NAS. Insufficient training and not involving all the players from day one is a mistake that many project managers learn very early in their career.

The ARG was a joke and served no practical purpose as the members were not operational experts. NASIG with due respect to those in the group were give a task that was akin to mission impossible. There was no obvious project management experience (or for that matter an indication that established project management protocols were used), limited resources, a fraction of the required education, an unrealistic timeline and as you might know, it was political driven (for the wrong reasons?). There was more professionalism in the LLAMP project team. Even with a change of direction that group would have provided much better direction and prevented the fantastic (one of your words) waste of funds to introduce a change that is not understood at large, provided no obvious improvement to safety and saved the struggling GA community zip! I am sure you would put more effort into a marketing campaign for one of your products. Is it any wonder that NAS as we now see it is considered by so many to be a "dud"…?

This whole process is nothing but a change management program that has not been managed very well at all. It has been driven too quickly without an understanding on all the issues, especially training, culture and facility differences. Although your motives may be admirable, your personal passion for these changes has not been sold to those that it must be sold to.

I am sure that many of us support airspace reform. The problem is that it needs to be sold to all the players, it must show obvious benefits in both safety and cost and the education must match what is proposed. None of this has occurred to date with NAS. Over the past 12 years or so we have seen a number of attempts to reform airspace in Australia. Some have survived and others have failed, and you don't have to be bright to know that industry have paid thru the nose for all of this to the extent of somewhere between M$60 and M$100. Fair or not, you will cop the flack as you are the only common denominator in all of them! Overall the chase to implement "worlds best practice" has been, and will continue to be difficult as many believe we already have that, so, they say, why change to a system that even the US operate differently to what ICAO recommend.

There are still lots of unanswered questions and until airspace reform is driven and managed by a project team industry have confidence in, we will continue to see these problems.
triadic is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.