Class E Airspace Is Safe
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I'd boil all that waffle down to a few dot points:
1. E airspace is safe, provided that E (and not C) is the appropriate sort of airspace for the traffic traversing it.
2. Transponders/radar is not required, but will mean less headlines (Not supported in fact so far.)
2. Dick has nailed a lot of stuff from all the previous plans he has implemented and then fought against into this schemozzle.
3. Dick is willing to kill an entire system to preserve any detail of his current whim.
4. Any post from VOR that doesn't seem to match something said before by VOR is the fault of naughty rogue pixies. It would not be reasonable to say that, like any other group in Australian aviation, if you get three VOR members with something to say A will say one thing, B will take a contrary view and C will talk long & loud and try to convince everybody that his view is a consensus of A & B (while really being another contrary view.)
1. E airspace is safe, provided that E (and not C) is the appropriate sort of airspace for the traffic traversing it.
2. Transponders/radar is not required, but will mean less headlines (Not supported in fact so far.)
2. Dick has nailed a lot of stuff from all the previous plans he has implemented and then fought against into this schemozzle.
3. Dick is willing to kill an entire system to preserve any detail of his current whim.
4. Any post from VOR that doesn't seem to match something said before by VOR is the fault of naughty rogue pixies. It would not be reasonable to say that, like any other group in Australian aviation, if you get three VOR members with something to say A will say one thing, B will take a contrary view and C will talk long & loud and try to convince everybody that his view is a consensus of A & B (while really being another contrary view.)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second, as to credentials, suffice it to say our resumes would stand more than favorably against any offered by participants to this forum.
The identity of VoR is not required, but what is required is an assurance that what is written by VoR is from a consistent voice and not just from a bunch of people with differing ideas writing under the one pseudonym, otherwise why not post under different names? VoR has proven on the most part, without supplying credentials, that what they say is worth reading because it is generally well reasoned and referenced. When this thread came up, most people were up in arms because it wasn't they came to respect.
Yes, the change from Class C to Class E does increase risk – but is it an unacceptable level of risk – probably not. Are the incidents in Class E airspace indicative of a safety deficiency – yes. Is it a deficiency in airspace design – probably not.
You make a judgement here that Class C to E is "probably" an acceptable risk. To make this statement you must believe that the benefits "probably" outweigh the increased risk.
You have not outlined what the benefits of E are, so to understand what you mean, we need to know what you think these benefits are. What are the benefits, in Australia, of Class E over C, in the areas that NAS has introduced it?
Many here have outlined the increased risk in Class E, and we have seen several incidents that have highlighted the immediate dangers associated with the airspace, even when it is applied correctly. These incidents would not have happened in Class C under the same circumstances. No-one on this forum has yet to demonstrate the net benefit of Class E and many of us are waiting to see it.
It is more likely to be a misapplication of the procedures associated with Class E airspace.
Again you assert that it seems to work OK in the US so it should be OK here. This is a premise that requires more elaboration. As I've stated before, we have a TCAS RA occuring when everyone involved followed the rules.
This is not acceptable here.
Does this happen in the US?
Would this situation be acceptable in the US?
Maybe Class E in similar areas in the US is acceptable because US controller and pilots apply procedures in Class E that are different to those prescribed to make it work. Do you have evidence that Class E procedures are followed to the letter in the US and that no workarounds (either culturally instilled or unofficially endorsed) are used?
To summarise:
The ATSB says that everyone followed the Class E procedures in the most recent Virgin incident, and we still got an RA.
You agree that there is a safety deficiency but say that it is probably the application of the rules and not the design of the airspace that faulty.
One of these is wrong - which one?
HtH
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Life before Nov. 27
Vast volume of airspaCe.
Two airCraft, one Controller.
A Couple of radio transmissions.
AirCraft separated.
Cheap, EffiCient, BORING.
LifE aftEr Nov. 27.
Vast amount of airspacE.
Two aircraft, onE onlookEr.
MultiplE radio transmissions.
SEparation anxiEty.
Costly manoEuvrEs by airlinE aircraft.
NEar collision.
Bad PR.
ExpEnsivE, Labour intEnsivE, TERRIFYING.
So why not put somE ExcitEmEnt into your lifE. Fly E airspacE, availablE nEar your major cEntrE.
CG
Vast volume of airspaCe.
Two airCraft, one Controller.
A Couple of radio transmissions.
AirCraft separated.
Cheap, EffiCient, BORING.
LifE aftEr Nov. 27.
Vast amount of airspacE.
Two aircraft, onE onlookEr.
MultiplE radio transmissions.
SEparation anxiEty.
Costly manoEuvrEs by airlinE aircraft.
NEar collision.
Bad PR.
ExpEnsivE, Labour intEnsivE, TERRIFYING.
So why not put somE ExcitEmEnt into your lifE. Fly E airspacE, availablE nEar your major cEntrE.
CG
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dirty P....
I dont have a good answer for you. Your question is a little more technical than I ever wish to get. I like flying and want to keep it that way
As far as I know there is TCAS I and TCAS II, giving Traffic Advisories and Resolution Advisories respectively. You may want to check out THIS
I dont have a good answer for you. Your question is a little more technical than I ever wish to get. I like flying and want to keep it that way
As far as I know there is TCAS I and TCAS II, giving Traffic Advisories and Resolution Advisories respectively. You may want to check out THIS
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early on in the piece VoR said:
More recently VoR suggests that Class E procedures are misapplied in Australia and that this may be the cause of our problems.
Unfortunately, VoR, you are wrong in this instance. The fact that US controllers routinely do not apply Class E procedures "by the book" is confirmed in independent reports by both Captain Robin Beville-Anderson and Airservices Australia from a 'fact finding' tour of a number of US ATC facilities in, I think, 2002. The Beville-Anderson report is available through the AFAP but I don't know whether the Airservices report has been published.
Both of these reports confirm that higher levels of service than required by the airspace classification are routinely provided by US controllers. The reasons for this are not identified, but one might speculate.
As to Class E airspace being loved the world over - well, like everything, it has its place. The Frogs, for example, have recently come to the conclusion that it maybe isn't such a good idea to be punching RPT aircraft into airspaces where all VFR traffic isn't known after they had two mid-air collisions in the space of six months between IFR RPT aircraft and VFR aircraft.
Oh yeah, VoR, the mandatory transponder requirements in Class E were first mooted during the AMATS project in 1988. The Mother of all Airspace Debacles since.
What differences, exactly, are there between the application of Class E procedures in the United States, Europe, and Australia?
Unfortunately, VoR, you are wrong in this instance. The fact that US controllers routinely do not apply Class E procedures "by the book" is confirmed in independent reports by both Captain Robin Beville-Anderson and Airservices Australia from a 'fact finding' tour of a number of US ATC facilities in, I think, 2002. The Beville-Anderson report is available through the AFAP but I don't know whether the Airservices report has been published.
Both of these reports confirm that higher levels of service than required by the airspace classification are routinely provided by US controllers. The reasons for this are not identified, but one might speculate.
As to Class E airspace being loved the world over - well, like everything, it has its place. The Frogs, for example, have recently come to the conclusion that it maybe isn't such a good idea to be punching RPT aircraft into airspaces where all VFR traffic isn't known after they had two mid-air collisions in the space of six months between IFR RPT aircraft and VFR aircraft.
Oh yeah, VoR, the mandatory transponder requirements in Class E were first mooted during the AMATS project in 1988. The Mother of all Airspace Debacles since.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philthy,
Your comment on B-A report has been on my lips, I remember the pasting it got, yet now these same people are saying yes it is E with culture(USA that is) and our pilots and ATC must be teught to apply it.
VoR nice to see your reasoned comments again, If USA applies E+(moves RPT away from radar detected VFR) how do you apply equality of risk between E Class with RADAR coverage and E Class without?
Surely lack of RADAR is removing an important line of defence in E Class therefore you move quicker to C class in non radar areas with similar traffic parameters.
Another question of personal interest: Is radar and its effective cover an imput parameter to FAA D Class tower analysis?
thx Mike
Your comment on B-A report has been on my lips, I remember the pasting it got, yet now these same people are saying yes it is E with culture(USA that is) and our pilots and ATC must be teught to apply it.
VoR nice to see your reasoned comments again, If USA applies E+(moves RPT away from radar detected VFR) how do you apply equality of risk between E Class with RADAR coverage and E Class without?
Surely lack of RADAR is removing an important line of defence in E Class therefore you move quicker to C class in non radar areas with similar traffic parameters.
Another question of personal interest: Is radar and its effective cover an imput parameter to FAA D Class tower analysis?
thx Mike
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow2,
Thanks for the heads-up on that material.
In OZ when Virgin still had TCAS Version 6, we would get RAs while still applying 100ft vertical separation if one aircraft was on climb or descent. With TCAS Version 7 this does not occur.
Happy Flying,
DP
Thanks for the heads-up on that material.
In OZ when Virgin still had TCAS Version 6, we would get RAs while still applying 100ft vertical separation if one aircraft was on climb or descent. With TCAS Version 7 this does not occur.
Happy Flying,
DP
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Calcutta
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the problem with this?
I don't want to plan and I don't want to be told no; or expect delay (cause I didn't plan) or anything else for that matter... E gives the average Jo average pilot, like Dick, the ability to go whereever and do whatever. No restrictions, no limits, often no idea... e.g. transponder on a A045 over AY... In the bloody training video...
The onus is on the (VFR) pilots to take more responsibility, so we can save, save, save, without saving anything and without much onus taken...
The onus unfortunately is on the controller to over service, and over control where it's not needed and over restrict the planes that actually pay for me to be here... makes sence, NOT!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: No fixed address.
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two aircraft.
One aircraft wants to miss by 5 miles. The other aircraft is happy just to miss.
Q: Which aircraft should endure the extra track miles?
A: The one that wants to miss by 5 miles.
There are two aircraft.
One aircraft wants to be able to talk to a radio operator. The other aircraft has a CD player.
Q: Which aircraft should bear the cost of operating the radio service?
A: The one that wants the service.
It aint rocket science, is it?
One aircraft wants to miss by 5 miles. The other aircraft is happy just to miss.
Q: Which aircraft should endure the extra track miles?
A: The one that wants to miss by 5 miles.
There are two aircraft.
One aircraft wants to be able to talk to a radio operator. The other aircraft has a CD player.
Q: Which aircraft should bear the cost of operating the radio service?
A: The one that wants the service.
It aint rocket science, is it?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LB,
From your many-thoughts-provoking post I gather you believe that VFR aircraft in Class E should get priority over IFR, that VFR aircraft do not need to see and avoid IFR aircraft, and that they do not need to be on the same frequency as IFR aircraft. In short, you believe that IFR aircraft must get out of the way of VFR because it is the IFR that want the service, not the VFR.
From this I gather that you think that the IFR, which has a clearance, should either request an amended clearance or the controller should issue an amended clearance to get out of the VFR's way.
You are suggesting that the controller separate the IFR from the VFR, am I right?
What you suggest does not exist in any airspace classification.
You don't really want E airspace, because IFR get traffic on VFR, not separation. You don't want C airspace, because it means that VFRs need to talk to someone and be separated.
So what airspace do you really want? Do you have an idea?
This thread is about the safety of E airspace and the procedures used in it. I have asked for evidence of what procedures (official or unofficial) are used in the US and whether they are the same as the procedures applied in Australia.
If Class E is to be overserviced in Australia ("E+" : ) to bring it up to C standards (like it appears to be in the US) - then, LB, can you tell me what the cost savings are? Can you tell me what the point of reclassification is? What are the specific cost savings, particularly when it doesn't cost anything for a VFR Class C clearance? Do you acknowledge that overserviced Class E is more workload intensive, and more costly for the IFR's that get deviated, than Class C?
From your many-thoughts-provoking post I gather you believe that VFR aircraft in Class E should get priority over IFR, that VFR aircraft do not need to see and avoid IFR aircraft, and that they do not need to be on the same frequency as IFR aircraft. In short, you believe that IFR aircraft must get out of the way of VFR because it is the IFR that want the service, not the VFR.
From this I gather that you think that the IFR, which has a clearance, should either request an amended clearance or the controller should issue an amended clearance to get out of the VFR's way.
You are suggesting that the controller separate the IFR from the VFR, am I right?
What you suggest does not exist in any airspace classification.
You don't really want E airspace, because IFR get traffic on VFR, not separation. You don't want C airspace, because it means that VFRs need to talk to someone and be separated.
So what airspace do you really want? Do you have an idea?
This thread is about the safety of E airspace and the procedures used in it. I have asked for evidence of what procedures (official or unofficial) are used in the US and whether they are the same as the procedures applied in Australia.
If Class E is to be overserviced in Australia ("E+" : ) to bring it up to C standards (like it appears to be in the US) - then, LB, can you tell me what the cost savings are? Can you tell me what the point of reclassification is? What are the specific cost savings, particularly when it doesn't cost anything for a VFR Class C clearance? Do you acknowledge that overserviced Class E is more workload intensive, and more costly for the IFR's that get deviated, than Class C?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VoR,
A excellent summary of events!! Couldn't have put it better myself! As to credentials; I've heard the denials, but I hope it's warming up in your part of the world.
Philthy,
Robin may have put it into precise terms in his report, but the US "culture" of operating Class E [ indeed, the US culture of operating radar services - "green between"], and for that matter, Class D, has been known since the original AMATS days of 1990!
AsA/Gov't are to blame for a lot of the lack of culture transfer as highlighted in many Pprune posts. You can't take a system and dump it onto somewhere else where a fully mature system has operated unless you;
1. take the WHOLE [and, yes, I am shouting!
] system, otherwise you commit fraud, and
2. in any case, fully educate all the stakeholders. VFR can simply 'piss off' is not a suitable option, esp in the light of #1.
Enuff for now, thanks again VoR.
G'day
A excellent summary of events!! Couldn't have put it better myself! As to credentials; I've heard the denials, but I hope it's warming up in your part of the world.
Philthy,
Robin may have put it into precise terms in his report, but the US "culture" of operating Class E [ indeed, the US culture of operating radar services - "green between"], and for that matter, Class D, has been known since the original AMATS days of 1990!
AsA/Gov't are to blame for a lot of the lack of culture transfer as highlighted in many Pprune posts. You can't take a system and dump it onto somewhere else where a fully mature system has operated unless you;
1. take the WHOLE [and, yes, I am shouting!
] system, otherwise you commit fraud, and 2. in any case, fully educate all the stakeholders. VFR can simply 'piss off' is not a suitable option, esp in the light of #1.
Enuff for now, thanks again VoR.
G'day
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Wybacrik
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only people who want to mix amateur light aircraft pilots with professional high speed jet RPT pilots are...
wait for it....
amateur light aircraft pilots!
We know Dicks an amateur, so what does that say about Omni and his mates who support Dick?
wait for it....
amateur light aircraft pilots!
We know Dicks an amateur, so what does that say about Omni and his mates who support Dick?
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walley2 asked
The short answer is that I think it isn't, but I'd welcome other inputs on the topic. I think its effect sits, unquantifiably, deep inside the analysis. Let me give a simplified answer for reasons of space.
The FAA analysis method is in the report: (1990) Establishment and discontinuance criteria for airport traffic control towers. Report FAA-APO-90-7. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington. These criteria are stated to be for VFR towers. The FAA state that the primary responsibility of the VFR tower controller is to provide aircraft sequencing in the air and separation on the ground, and controllers determine aircraft position from pilot's reports and by direct observation of the aircraft.
There is no requirement for radar in executing this responsibility, and the criteria themselves do not provide for radar in the capital costing of the tower, nor do they provide any mechanism to check the value of radar. So it is simply not an input parameter.
The benefits of the tower in the analysis come from preventing collisions between aircraft, other prevented accidents and reduced flying time. To estimate those benefits, the FAA has developed a series of equations. For example, the reduction in collisions comes from the calculated difference using equations predicting collisions at towered airports and at non-towered airports.
These equations came from an analysis of all aircraft accidents on US soil using data from 1983-87, which were then screened to pick out accidents within 5 miles of airports. The final screening was to eliminate airports where there were less than 10,000 or more than 250,000 annual operations. A total of 2227 airports and 864 accidents were then used.
The equations for no tower/tower were found by analysis. The FAA tried some sophisticated methods to isolate out the effect of other variables such as ASPPCOV – the existence of radar approach control at the airport, and others such as the number of runways, but were not able to do so. So the fact that some (or was it many) airports with VFR towers have radar approach control is submerged somewhere in the computation of benefit, but it is not possible to see what the effect of radar is explicitly.
I don't know if there have been any later developments on this which bring the cost of radar into the analysis, or whether this tower analysis simply remains for VFR towers without the specific provision of radar. Anyone else got inputs? VoR? Philthy?
Another question of personal interest: Is radar and its effective cover an input parameter to FAA D Class tower analysis?
The FAA analysis method is in the report: (1990) Establishment and discontinuance criteria for airport traffic control towers. Report FAA-APO-90-7. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington. These criteria are stated to be for VFR towers. The FAA state that the primary responsibility of the VFR tower controller is to provide aircraft sequencing in the air and separation on the ground, and controllers determine aircraft position from pilot's reports and by direct observation of the aircraft.
There is no requirement for radar in executing this responsibility, and the criteria themselves do not provide for radar in the capital costing of the tower, nor do they provide any mechanism to check the value of radar. So it is simply not an input parameter.
The benefits of the tower in the analysis come from preventing collisions between aircraft, other prevented accidents and reduced flying time. To estimate those benefits, the FAA has developed a series of equations. For example, the reduction in collisions comes from the calculated difference using equations predicting collisions at towered airports and at non-towered airports.
These equations came from an analysis of all aircraft accidents on US soil using data from 1983-87, which were then screened to pick out accidents within 5 miles of airports. The final screening was to eliminate airports where there were less than 10,000 or more than 250,000 annual operations. A total of 2227 airports and 864 accidents were then used.
The equations for no tower/tower were found by analysis. The FAA tried some sophisticated methods to isolate out the effect of other variables such as ASPPCOV – the existence of radar approach control at the airport, and others such as the number of runways, but were not able to do so. So the fact that some (or was it many) airports with VFR towers have radar approach control is submerged somewhere in the computation of benefit, but it is not possible to see what the effect of radar is explicitly.
I don't know if there have been any later developments on this which bring the cost of radar into the analysis, or whether this tower analysis simply remains for VFR towers without the specific provision of radar. Anyone else got inputs? VoR? Philthy?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the fact that some (or was it many) airports with VFR towers have radar approach control is submerged somewhere in the computation of benefit, but it is not possible to see what the effect of radar is explicitly.
Hope that helps.
G'day
PS This was the intention for places like MC, AY, CH, etc., but either the radar picture won't go that low or AsA was unwilling. It was never envisaged that our Class D towers would control the volume of airspace they do. The intention was that the Centre would sequence and pickup outside a basic aerodrome CTR.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: vic
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VoR
I never said that it was a legal requirement. As a matter of fact I even said that "Just because all the legal requirements have been met, doesn't make it safe."
Insofar as "failing air law"... I don't think so.
My opinion is that it is YOUR, and your cronies', narrowmindedness, and bullheaded approach to these reasonable questions that make it seem as if you have "blinkers" on. You see what you want to see... you hear what you want to hear, and you will brook NO argument
Maybe I should phone DICK himself? after all, his numbers are listed in the AUSTRALIAN FLYING MAGAZINE, which by the way is becoming a MOUTHPIECE for the NAS. Very disappointed that a magazine with journalists of that calibre need to express themselves in THAT kind of fora!
Perhaps you would like to find a reference in ANY global documentation that identifies a requirement for radar in Class E airspace. It is not a pre-requisite, and Class E - in fact Class A, B, C, D E, F and G can - and are - be operated satisfactorily with or without radar coverage.
Insofar as "failing air law"... I don't think so.
My opinion is that it is YOUR, and your cronies', narrowmindedness, and bullheaded approach to these reasonable questions that make it seem as if you have "blinkers" on. You see what you want to see... you hear what you want to hear, and you will brook NO argument
Maybe I should phone DICK himself? after all, his numbers are listed in the AUSTRALIAN FLYING MAGAZINE, which by the way is becoming a MOUTHPIECE for the NAS. Very disappointed that a magazine with journalists of that calibre need to express themselves in THAT kind of fora!
Last edited by whogivesa????; 30th Apr 2004 at 01:57.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late reply- I've been away......
Still no-one has answered my point about US radar sectors being smaller scale than oz radar sectors, thereby enabling 'separation' between IFR and VFR of 'the paints don't overlap'. What do you do in oz when a paint is about 4 NM wide on the screen? Green-between might equal 6NM lateral!!!!!
NoTimTams.
As you have read, the VoR have clarified their position on "CLASS E IS SAFE". It's a QUALIFIED statement. Look it up. No need to apologise.....
Someone else said that US controllers wear 3 hats too...... NOT AT THE SAME TIME. They are gobsmacked when you describe this to them.
Leyland brothers.
I'll pose a question to you.
There are 2 aircraft
One that wants to miss by an accepted industry standard (5NM), and one that just wants to miss (too ignorant to understand the concepts involved).
Q. Should both aircraft bear the responsibility of missing, or should it be born by the people who don't have the political clout to scare the Transport Minister?
A. The Transport minster might have to begin to worry about the number of people beginning to get the message. Hence, one day soon, BOTH aircraft may have to participate again.
or
Q. Wealthy gent, flying privately, couldn't give a toss about social responsibility because he believes he can use visual separation in any situation (including unalerted see-and-avoid of jet traffic) as he doesn't like asking for permission. Should the public (in the back of the jet) be forced to endure this increased risk, even though they have paid the govt fees and charges, paid the various taxes (fuel, air nav, etc), airline costs (avoiding actions, off-profile descents, TCAS fitments) paid paid paid paid, in order that the wealthy gent doesn't have to get a clearance?
A. No
It's definately not rocket science.
Still no-one has answered my point about US radar sectors being smaller scale than oz radar sectors, thereby enabling 'separation' between IFR and VFR of 'the paints don't overlap'. What do you do in oz when a paint is about 4 NM wide on the screen? Green-between might equal 6NM lateral!!!!!
NoTimTams.
As you have read, the VoR have clarified their position on "CLASS E IS SAFE". It's a QUALIFIED statement. Look it up. No need to apologise.....
Someone else said that US controllers wear 3 hats too...... NOT AT THE SAME TIME. They are gobsmacked when you describe this to them.
Leyland brothers.
I'll pose a question to you.
There are 2 aircraft
One that wants to miss by an accepted industry standard (5NM), and one that just wants to miss (too ignorant to understand the concepts involved).
Q. Should both aircraft bear the responsibility of missing, or should it be born by the people who don't have the political clout to scare the Transport Minister?
A. The Transport minster might have to begin to worry about the number of people beginning to get the message. Hence, one day soon, BOTH aircraft may have to participate again.
or
Q. Wealthy gent, flying privately, couldn't give a toss about social responsibility because he believes he can use visual separation in any situation (including unalerted see-and-avoid of jet traffic) as he doesn't like asking for permission. Should the public (in the back of the jet) be forced to endure this increased risk, even though they have paid the govt fees and charges, paid the various taxes (fuel, air nav, etc), airline costs (avoiding actions, off-profile descents, TCAS fitments) paid paid paid paid, in order that the wealthy gent doesn't have to get a clearance?
A. No
It's definately not rocket science.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just on the Question of "that wealthy gent", what if he CAN fly IFR, is in an IFR aircraft, in IFR conditions.... but is too miserley to pay the en-route charges ? ie... tooling around no comms, doing approaches etc, climbing and descending through IFR levels ABSOLUTELY BLIND ???
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a bit strange really, but the wealthy fella told me in a meeting once that he doesn't begrudge any of the considerable amount of avcharges he pays every year.
I've heard a rumour he don't hold an IFR rating, but enjoys the concept so much he frequently has a flying buddy when he wishes to do so. It is fair enuf also if a bloke experiences relative freedom flying in the US and forms the resolve to do the same here. Where he falls in the mud is he seems to think he is the ultimate architect of how this could be implemented, and anybody who may have an opinion on the subject is somebody opposing the brave new world of flying niceness.
I believe he is genuinely attempting to nurture the Australian aviation industry (from B747's to KLAX down to Cri-Cri's doing circuits in Sh1thole North) by reforming the airspace, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You got it wrong Dick.
Haven't seen much comment on this forum about Project Rollback yet.
I've heard a rumour he don't hold an IFR rating, but enjoys the concept so much he frequently has a flying buddy when he wishes to do so. It is fair enuf also if a bloke experiences relative freedom flying in the US and forms the resolve to do the same here. Where he falls in the mud is he seems to think he is the ultimate architect of how this could be implemented, and anybody who may have an opinion on the subject is somebody opposing the brave new world of flying niceness.
I believe he is genuinely attempting to nurture the Australian aviation industry (from B747's to KLAX down to Cri-Cri's doing circuits in Sh1thole North) by reforming the airspace, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
You got it wrong Dick.
Haven't seen much comment on this forum about Project Rollback yet.
