Brisbane Virgin incident - what are the facts?
Thread Starter
Brisbane Virgin incident - what are the facts?
You be the judge on the facts.
On 4BC radio on 15 April 2004, the President of Civil Air (the air traffic controllers’ association), Ted Lang, stated the following:
What do the facts state? The official Airservices Australia air traffic controllers training information for the 27 November 2003 changes, entitled “NAS Training Coordinator” dated 30/7/03 states:
The Airservices training manual then quotes the Australian Manual of Air Traffic Services (the Bible for Australian air traffic control rules):
Note the phraseology for a “safety alert” comes under the MATS Paragraph 5.1.13.6 as follows:
It is clear that the air traffic controller, if following the correct training, could have prevented the planes getting so close together so that a collision warning in the Virgin plane was not triggered.
This is the procedure used throughout the world in Class E airspace. It is almost identical to the “safety alert” listed in the pilot/controller glossary of the FAA approved Airman’s Information Manual (AIM).
Does anyone know why it was not used here? Surely the reason can’t be that the Lancair was not an “unknown” aircraft?
By the way, what has Airservices done to help general aviation? On a previous thread there was a list of the enormous changes that air traffic controllers have had to cope with in relation to RVSM etc, and every change increases the profits of the major airlines – which are already making tens of millions of dollars.
I note there is nothing listed that helps general aviation. That is what I am on about. I believe there are thousands of small aviation businesses that could be assisted by having an efficient airspace system. Yes, there are other savings that need to be made but at least this is a start.
I see nothing but selfishness from Airservices as they are only interested in the people they make profits from. They will go to the most extraordinary efforts to please these major airlines, while poor general aviation – being weak and unrepresented – is screwed.
I will stand up for them.
On 4BC radio on 15 April 2004, the President of Civil Air (the air traffic controllers’ association), Ted Lang, stated the following:
Fancy even suggesting that an air traffic controller could sit and watch two aircraft come together, but unfortunately the situation that happened at Maroochydore, that is exactly what they have to do. There is no way that in the wide world that an air traffic controller can intervene in that circumstance. That Virgin aircraft, it was the pilot’s responsibility to see the other aircraft.
ATC has no responsibility to initiate avoiding action with unknown aircraft OCTA;
UNLESS considered a hazard to the aircraft under control.
UNLESS considered a hazard to the aircraft under control.
(Airservices original underlining)
5.2.1.2 Nevertheless, if in the judgement of the radar controller, the action of an observed radar return or information received from other sources gives good reason to believe that the observed radar return of an unknown aircraft is likely to be a hazard to an aircraft under control, the controller has complete discretion to take such action as considered necessary to maintain the safety of the aircraft under radar control. This may comprise of:
a. traffic information; or
b. controller initiated traffic avoidance advice; or
c. a safety alert.
a. traffic information; or
b. controller initiated traffic avoidance advice; or
c. a safety alert.
(my underlining)
When a controller is aware that an aircraft is in unsafe proximity to another aircraft, a safety alert shall be issued as follows:
“(Callsign) TRAFFIC ALERT (position of traffic if time permits) [SUGGEST] TURN LEFT / RIGHT (specific heading, if appropriate), and / or [SUGGEST] CLIMB / DESCEND (specific altitude if appropriate), IMMEDIATELY.”
“(Callsign) TRAFFIC ALERT (position of traffic if time permits) [SUGGEST] TURN LEFT / RIGHT (specific heading, if appropriate), and / or [SUGGEST] CLIMB / DESCEND (specific altitude if appropriate), IMMEDIATELY.”
This is the procedure used throughout the world in Class E airspace. It is almost identical to the “safety alert” listed in the pilot/controller glossary of the FAA approved Airman’s Information Manual (AIM).
Does anyone know why it was not used here? Surely the reason can’t be that the Lancair was not an “unknown” aircraft?
By the way, what has Airservices done to help general aviation? On a previous thread there was a list of the enormous changes that air traffic controllers have had to cope with in relation to RVSM etc, and every change increases the profits of the major airlines – which are already making tens of millions of dollars.
I note there is nothing listed that helps general aviation. That is what I am on about. I believe there are thousands of small aviation businesses that could be assisted by having an efficient airspace system. Yes, there are other savings that need to be made but at least this is a start.
I see nothing but selfishness from Airservices as they are only interested in the people they make profits from. They will go to the most extraordinary efforts to please these major airlines, while poor general aviation – being weak and unrepresented – is screwed.
I will stand up for them.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, are you really Dick Smith, or is this wind up? At the risk of embarrassing myself, I'll reply in the belief that you actually ARE.
Let me start by saying that I work for one of those major airlines you speak of, and I have to operate through Class E every day.
I have problems with your logic, Dick. By stating that Air Services should be doing everything to help GA, is like saying that the Main Roads Department should build a four lane highway to Farmer Blogg's ranch. It just won't happen. And might I add, nor should it.
You put your resources towards the place where most of the people will be, most of the time. And that is RPT. And you wrap them up in cotton wool, and you protect them. If people then wish to go off the beaten trail, then good, they get assistance too, but not to the level that RPT should.
And you certainly don't put them unprotected in the same environment.
Let me start by saying that I work for one of those major airlines you speak of, and I have to operate through Class E every day.
I have problems with your logic, Dick. By stating that Air Services should be doing everything to help GA, is like saying that the Main Roads Department should build a four lane highway to Farmer Blogg's ranch. It just won't happen. And might I add, nor should it.
You put your resources towards the place where most of the people will be, most of the time. And that is RPT. And you wrap them up in cotton wool, and you protect them. If people then wish to go off the beaten trail, then good, they get assistance too, but not to the level that RPT should.
And you certainly don't put them unprotected in the same environment.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe
There you go again Dick.
You cannot make a convincing argument with "I believe", just give me the facts. "I believe" that there are not actually 1000's of small aviation businesses in Australia, however I don't have the facts so I can't really argue with you so how about PROOF, the same PROOF that we have all be asking you for for ages now.
That's spelt P R O O F, not I believe!!!
BSB
I believe there are thousands of small aviation businesses that could be assisted by having an efficient airspace system.
That's spelt P R O O F, not I believe!!!
BSB
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: somewhere in Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that there are 1000’s of professional pilots that think NAS is unsafe and that DS is out of his mind and should check into hospital for a series of anal brain scans… in fact after a recent phone call to the states it was reveled that a great percentage of unprofessional pilots are the only people who support NAS…
Mr Smith,
If you stop telling lies, then maybe you would be taken seriously:
You are a fraud, Sir, and no longer have any credibility.
If you stop telling lies, then maybe you would be taken seriously:
Smith:...At the moment Qantas have sixteen jet movements a day into Ayers Rock, it's in class G air space, the lowest safety level, and it works perfectly safely.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, you say - "I see nothing but selfishness from Airservices as they are only interested in the people they make profits from. They will go to the most extraordinary efforts to please these major airlines, while poor general aviation – being weak and unrepresented – is screwed."
If you want to help GA not get screwed then you need to speak to your great mate John Anderson. Advise him as the minister responsible, that the board he appointed are a selfish bunch who only want to make money for the Government and help their big airline mates!
Given the board impliments government policy, you should be able to convince your good mate Anderson of the merits of a POLICY change to your liking, but leave the AIRSPACE changes to the professional ATC's and pilots.
Simple!
If you want to help GA not get screwed then you need to speak to your great mate John Anderson. Advise him as the minister responsible, that the board he appointed are a selfish bunch who only want to make money for the Government and help their big airline mates!
Given the board impliments government policy, you should be able to convince your good mate Anderson of the merits of a POLICY change to your liking, but leave the AIRSPACE changes to the professional ATC's and pilots.
Simple!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
poor general aviation– is screwed.
I will stand up for them.
I will stand up for them.
I seem to recall you once saying that you supported Australian air traffic controllers.
A warning to GA in Australia, with a friend like Dick Smith, stand by for treachery and vilification.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: aus
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
I find it highly amusing that you call this thread "what are the facts" because you obviously have no idea about what happened in this incident. It would have been sensible to gather all the facts or at least wait till the ATSB released its report before you ran off to the media defaming the Air Traffic Controllers involved. Are you aware that the VFR ac had the B737 in sight 8 miles from the crossing point, with still 4000 feet vertical separation.
Both pilots were given traffic more than once, the were even specificaly told they were in class E airspace and would not be separated. What more is the controller suposed to do. Do you think the actions of the 2 pilots were reasonable, and if not why have you not attacked pilot actions with as much venom as you have displayed to ATC.
Maybe you should be less worried about the level of ATC training and worry more that maybe the hurried introduction of NAS has left some deficiency in pilot training and education. I wonder whose responsibility that was?
I find it highly amusing that you call this thread "what are the facts" because you obviously have no idea about what happened in this incident. It would have been sensible to gather all the facts or at least wait till the ATSB released its report before you ran off to the media defaming the Air Traffic Controllers involved. Are you aware that the VFR ac had the B737 in sight 8 miles from the crossing point, with still 4000 feet vertical separation.
Both pilots were given traffic more than once, the were even specificaly told they were in class E airspace and would not be separated. What more is the controller suposed to do. Do you think the actions of the 2 pilots were reasonable, and if not why have you not attacked pilot actions with as much venom as you have displayed to ATC.
Maybe you should be less worried about the level of ATC training and worry more that maybe the hurried introduction of NAS has left some deficiency in pilot training and education. I wonder whose responsibility that was?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the procedure used throughout the world in Class E airspace. It is almost identical to the “safety alert” listed in the pilot/controller glossary of the FAA approved Airman’s Information Manual (AIM).
Does anyone know why it was not used here?
Does anyone know why it was not used here?
By allowing 'crash or crash' through amateurs to run the system here, this government has allowed the dangerous situations exposed in the now numerous Class E incidents to occur.
Yes, some of the procedures here are almost identical to those in the US. But, by failing to adopt sound professional safety analysis and deliberately stacking the ARG with amateurs for what Dick Smith has concede were industrial and political reasons, the 'almost' becomes the fatal (possibly literally) flaw in our system.
For what it's worth (knowing that Dick Smith could not give a toss about safety):
ATC has no responsibility to initiate avoiding action with unknown aircraft OCTA; UNLESS considered a hazard to the aircraft under control.
5.2.1.1 In providing radar services within controlled airspace, including Class E airspace, or designated restricted airspace, ATC has no responsibility to initiate avoiding action in respect of unknown aircraft which can reasonably be assumed to be outside controlled airspace.
5.2.1.2 Nevertheless, if in the judgement of the radar controller, the action of an observed radar return or information received from other sources gives good reason to believe that the observed radar return of an unknown aircraft is likely to be a hazard to an aircraft under control, the controller has complete discretion to take such action as considered necessary to maintain the safety of the aircraft under radar control. This may comprise the provision of:
a. traffic information; or
b. controller initiated traffic avoidance advice; or
c. a safety alert.
5.2.1.2 Nevertheless, if in the judgement of the radar controller, the action of an observed radar return or information received from other sources gives good reason to believe that the observed radar return of an unknown aircraft is likely to be a hazard to an aircraft under control, the controller has complete discretion to take such action as considered necessary to maintain the safety of the aircraft under radar control. This may comprise the provision of:
a. traffic information; or
b. controller initiated traffic avoidance advice; or
c. a safety alert.
If it had been the intention that the above provisions were to be applied between two aircraft inside Class E airspace, then any professional and safe airspace reform program would have got it right, in terms of procedures, documentation, training, safety analysis and impelementation.
Simply, the FAA, being professionals would have got it right. You, being a dangerous, selfish amateur, with no respect or regard for the safety or economic well-being of your fellow Australians, got it wrong.
You will stand forever indicted as the man who, for vain and selfish reasons imposed a half-baked, error-riddled and dangerous system upon this country. It could have been done safely. It could have been done correctly. But, because you refuse to even consider safety, above your personal ideological crusade, people may die. More and more aviation businesses will fold.
That will forever be your legacy.
Your attempts to misrepresent documentation and to feign interest in finding the truth after you make defamatory, incorrect and dangerous statements in the media exposes you for the dangerous amateur that you are.
Dick Smith: Can't read, won't listen.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Sydney N.S.W.
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Thanks for a reasoned, logical statement of the facts.
As usual your efforts are not appricated by the natives, who after five months of NAS are getting desperate to discredit it.
Whatever are these Luddites going to do when ADS-B gets here?
Rgds
Thanks for a reasoned, logical statement of the facts.
As usual your efforts are not appricated by the natives, who after five months of NAS are getting desperate to discredit it.
Whatever are these Luddites going to do when ADS-B gets here?
Rgds
RV8 Builder,
Could you please explain why in God's name we should get ADSB just to make you ratbags more visible, so that WE can more easily avoid YOU? We'll get ADSB when your ilk cough up the money for your own squitter. I sure as hell am not going to pay one cent out of my taxes to subsidise you, just because you "luddites" refuse to get and use a radio. You guys really do have tickets on yourselves.
If you have already budgetted the $15k for ADSB -Out for your bugsmasher then all well and good! Have you, are or you waiting for an Anderson (taxpayer) handout?
Dick,
You obviously didn't get my hint. WHAT sort of airspace exists at Ayers Rock?
Could you please explain why in God's name we should get ADSB just to make you ratbags more visible, so that WE can more easily avoid YOU? We'll get ADSB when your ilk cough up the money for your own squitter. I sure as hell am not going to pay one cent out of my taxes to subsidise you, just because you "luddites" refuse to get and use a radio. You guys really do have tickets on yourselves.
If you have already budgetted the $15k for ADSB -Out for your bugsmasher then all well and good! Have you, are or you waiting for an Anderson (taxpayer) handout?
Dick,
You obviously didn't get my hint. WHAT sort of airspace exists at Ayers Rock?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You be the judge on the facts.
On 4BC radio on 15 April 2004, Dick Smith said ...
The interim ATSB report states ...
The ATSB also noted ...
Over to you Dick ...
On 4BC radio on 15 April 2004, Dick Smith said ...
The air traffic controller allowed this to happen. It's basically criminal
crews of both aircraft and the ATS controller complied with the published procedures for Class E airspace under NAS.
Prior to NAS phase 2b, that section of airspace was classified as Class C airspace. In Class C airspace, both aircraft would have been subject to an ATS airways clearance and would have been separated in accordance with prescribed standards.
Information 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.
What is "Basically criminal" here?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brisbane Virgin incident - what are the facts?
Did Dick Smith inadvertently reveal that NAS has been an amateurish cock-up?
You be the judge on the facts.
In starting this thread, Dick Smith purported to defend his defamation of air traffic controllers by citing what he believed to be MATS references supporting his personal ideas of how Class E airspace works. He was spectacularly wrong.
In an embarrassing blunder, Dick Smith quoted MATS references which have absolutely nothing to do with ATC or pilot responsibilities wholly within Class E airspace.
In doing this, Dick Smith has shown that NAS has been implemented in an amateurish manner, with major aspects of Class E operations left out. For one thing, it shows that he has no idea what the procedures actually are in the airspace he believes is so safe.
Then reasons for this are apparent:
In attempting to implement a ‘world-class’ airspace system, as operated safely in the US, John Anderson allowed himself to be swayed by a self-centred, self-interested and dangerous amateur. The result, predictably, has been an unmitigated disaster, with lives and jobs in the aviation industry being risked daily by this shambles. The shambles was predicted by every major organisation representing aviation professionals in Australia. To his discredit, the Minister chose to ignore this advice. The Australian aviation industry and the economy in general will pay the cost for years to come.
The US system does work. It works to a level of safety that is acceptable to the citizens of the United States. US citizens fly happily on their aircraft, knowing that their safety is in the hands of a group of dedicated professionals. In the US, it would be inconceivable that the people responsible for airspace reform programs would be posting such embarrassing mistakes on an internet forum, exposing their system to ridicule around the world. Unfortunately, Australia has to suffer the indignity of Dick Smith making us the laughing stocks of the world. That is what Minister Anderson has subjected us to.
It is incumbent upon all professionals within the aviation industry to ensure that the Minister is made fully aware that his abandonment of air safety will be remembered at the next election.
Dick Smith defamed air traffic controllers by his false claims that there were instructions and training in place which required them to “limit the descent of the Virgin plane until the small plane had passed.”
What Dick Smith said on 4BC was false. He did not tell the truth. He tried to justify this falsehood by quoting the wrong section from MATS. Once again, he did not tell the truth. He has not yet had the courage to admit he is wrong. He obviously realises that his credibility is shot.
It is interesting to note that Dick Smith has not responded to my earlier post pointing out his dangerous and embarrassing error.
Why the silence, Smith? Out of answers again?
Unfortunately for Dick Smith, this thread is merely a symptom of the badly organised, amateurish and downright dangerous farce that is NAS.
He said it: You be the judge on the facts.
PS: I’ll save you the time:
Now you can pretend that your lack of any answers is because I, like approximately 70,000 people on these forums, choose to remain anonymous, as is the intent of PPRuNE.
I am sure that no-one will believe for a minute that your silence is because you have no answers. Surely not!
Did Dick Smith inadvertently reveal that NAS has been an amateurish cock-up?
You be the judge on the facts.
In starting this thread, Dick Smith purported to defend his defamation of air traffic controllers by citing what he believed to be MATS references supporting his personal ideas of how Class E airspace works. He was spectacularly wrong.
In an embarrassing blunder, Dick Smith quoted MATS references which have absolutely nothing to do with ATC or pilot responsibilities wholly within Class E airspace.
In doing this, Dick Smith has shown that NAS has been implemented in an amateurish manner, with major aspects of Class E operations left out. For one thing, it shows that he has no idea what the procedures actually are in the airspace he believes is so safe.
Then reasons for this are apparent:
In attempting to implement a ‘world-class’ airspace system, as operated safely in the US, John Anderson allowed himself to be swayed by a self-centred, self-interested and dangerous amateur. The result, predictably, has been an unmitigated disaster, with lives and jobs in the aviation industry being risked daily by this shambles. The shambles was predicted by every major organisation representing aviation professionals in Australia. To his discredit, the Minister chose to ignore this advice. The Australian aviation industry and the economy in general will pay the cost for years to come.
The US system does work. It works to a level of safety that is acceptable to the citizens of the United States. US citizens fly happily on their aircraft, knowing that their safety is in the hands of a group of dedicated professionals. In the US, it would be inconceivable that the people responsible for airspace reform programs would be posting such embarrassing mistakes on an internet forum, exposing their system to ridicule around the world. Unfortunately, Australia has to suffer the indignity of Dick Smith making us the laughing stocks of the world. That is what Minister Anderson has subjected us to.
It is incumbent upon all professionals within the aviation industry to ensure that the Minister is made fully aware that his abandonment of air safety will be remembered at the next election.
Dick Smith defamed air traffic controllers by his false claims that there were instructions and training in place which required them to “limit the descent of the Virgin plane until the small plane had passed.”
What Dick Smith said on 4BC was false. He did not tell the truth. He tried to justify this falsehood by quoting the wrong section from MATS. Once again, he did not tell the truth. He has not yet had the courage to admit he is wrong. He obviously realises that his credibility is shot.
It is interesting to note that Dick Smith has not responded to my earlier post pointing out his dangerous and embarrassing error.
Why the silence, Smith? Out of answers again?
Unfortunately for Dick Smith, this thread is merely a symptom of the badly organised, amateurish and downright dangerous farce that is NAS.
He said it: You be the judge on the facts.
PS: I’ll save you the time:
By the way, Four Seven Eleven, if you really believe in what you say you would phone me. (etc., etc., etc., ……..)
I am sure that no-one will believe for a minute that your silence is because you have no answers. Surely not!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure someone over there with the books in front of them will set you straight, but in the mean time........did you know the ATSB had done an investigation?
So the ATSB seems to think everyone followed the published procedures.
Your quote
Implies you think this paragraph is relevent ie. you think the procedures don't promote safe flight? Correct? And yet you don't think the procedures might be flawed?
Information 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.
Your quote
MATS 4.1.1.1 Nothing in this chapter precludes a controller from using discretion and initiative in any particular circumstance where these procedures appear to be in conflict with the requirement to promote the safe conduct of flight.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick,
I do believe we live in AUSTRALIA and that we use the AIP (Aeronautical Information Publication)!
Granted, on the surface this statement is true, but the majority of Australian small aviation businesses do not use class E airspace and this is where the problem lies. No one is saying we should'nt have a more efficient system, we are trying to make class E airspace safe!!
Lets face it most small aviation businesses in Australia are either charter or training businesses. Most charter is done in piston powered aircraft in northern/western remote areas in class G airspace. Most training even around capital cities, is done once again in piston powered aircraft in classes C,D and G.
Why do we need an effectively uncontrolled airspace overlying controlled airspace? I cant see who it benefits, well yes I can but that would be getting personal.
Cheers, HH.
Dick: you got it wrong!
NB: According to the Penguin english dictionary: Fact n 1 an actual event or occurence. 2 a piece of information. 3 in law an actual or alleged event or state as distinguished from its legal effect.
This is the procedure used throughout the world in Class E airspace. It is almost identical to the “safety alert” listed in the pilot/controller glossary of the FAA approved Airman’s Information Manual (AIM).
I believe there are thousands of small aviation businesses that could be assisted by having an efficient airspace system.
Lets face it most small aviation businesses in Australia are either charter or training businesses. Most charter is done in piston powered aircraft in northern/western remote areas in class G airspace. Most training even around capital cities, is done once again in piston powered aircraft in classes C,D and G.
Why do we need an effectively uncontrolled airspace overlying controlled airspace? I cant see who it benefits, well yes I can but that would be getting personal.
Cheers, HH.
Dick: you got it wrong!
NB: According to the Penguin english dictionary: Fact n 1 an actual event or occurence. 2 a piece of information. 3 in law an actual or alleged event or state as distinguished from its legal effect.
Last edited by Howard Hughes; 1st May 2004 at 22:11.