The NAS Debate: Other Opinions

[planespeaker]

Roger, Woomera!

I just hope those who's "clearance requests" are ignored at the discretion of the "controller" don't get all indignant at being told "clearance not available.. remain OCTA"!

[Blastoid]

planespeaker = bindook.com supporter/author/administrator/... ??
(Woomera: Sorry I couldn't resist this "radio chatter" )

[Capcom]

Speakplainer
He replied to some of my questions, good on im', gave me an opportunity AGAIN to show the rubberiness of his arguments. That said, I am quite happy to sit and watch what happens from here on in!
If he chooses to concentrate on the VoR thread, even better.

I assume the others are asking for follow up on relevant questions asked PRIOR to the latest round that had not been answered. This has been going on for a year on and off between large bouts of NOCOM. Fair enough don't you think, considering this is the 'other opinions' thread.

Yep, he and VoR are devoting time on this issue, and it is appreciated for a number of reasons, first and foremost is that, it is the discussion that SHOULD have been had BEFORE AusNAS, not after.

Smith had mentioned months ago on here that he has 'helpers', so no hearts and flowers eh. He is in effect, in part, making up for tasks (Consultation) not undertaken properly previously!

I just hope those who’s "clearance requests" are ignored at the discretion of the "controller" don't get all indignant at being told "clearance not available.. remain OCTA"!

Oh c'mon now, to take such a position would require:

- Pandering to a high profile army of 1 food merchant
- Membership of a self indulgent, self serving micro-minority
- Horse blinkers
- Little if any professionalism
- Being prepared to whine about something unrelated to the real problem (Airspace instead of the charging regime)
- Being flexible enough to be able to insert one's head in one's own augmenter.

This on balance seems to be the “Pro-AusNAS” prerequisites. ?

Bye now!

[Oz Ocker]

planespeaker - maate - although this is a pilots' forum, do ya really hafta speak like a w@nker...." how about a suggestion to contributors to keep "radio chatter" to a minimum.... Dick has his hands full trying to "arrange clearances" for others on another frequency.". "Roger, Woomera!
I just hope those who's "clearance requests" are ignored at the discretion of the "controller" don't get all indignant at being told "clearance not available.. remain OCTA"!"
This is a mainly adults' website - that sorta stuff is what we'd expect from 9 and 10 year olds.

Oi Capcom, yer not playin' the same game as Dicky Peanutbutter are ya, by tryin' to guess who "ps" is are ya?
Poor ol' Dicks beside 'imself - shadow boxin' with VOR, Adrian, and the ATC'ers at large.

[Gunner B12]

Dick

Thank you for taking the trouble to respond to my point my appologies for not getting back sooner.

Gunner B12, you have asked who has declared the American system as world’s best practice. It wasn’t me but anyone who has had experience in flying in many airspace systems around the world would agree that it is a very good one. Why wouldn’t it be? It has evolved over 100 years with large amounts of money available (America is the wealthiest country on earth) and it is a very litigious society so pressure is brought to bear to have the best balance of safety, freedom and cost. So whilst it may not be the best one in the world in every situation, it is certainly an excellent system.

I would have to point out that just because it is a very good system in many peoples opinion doesn't make it best. The pre november australian system had evolved over the same period so we can't use that arguement. So I can only assume that you are using the litigation arguement to justify saying it is better. But isn't it also true that in a legal system those best represented are those who can best afford to litigate?

I will ask once again more clearly wouldnt worlds best practice be judged by the unbiased be the system with, the least accidents, the acknowledged most efficient services, the least burden on government funding and all that without the expensive radar coverage of other countries.

If you hadn't had the blinkers on when looking for worlds best practice is it not possible you could have found it right here? What we seem to have is change for change sake. The typical Australian industry model of It works so let's fix it.

[planespeaker]

Not an opinionated post

Since some of you don't seem to have a sense of humour, I'll put it in plain english for you.

The post here was not for me to state an opinion on PPRuNe about NAS.

Imagine for a second that you're Dick Smith (God help you right?!) Now imagine deciphering line upon line after line of a post of EPIC proportions to weed out the "valid" points.

Give everybody a chance to have their opinion absorbed by the main players in the game. My advice? Keep it short, to the point, and concise.

Even the PM can't ramble on for that long in the house of reps.

Start up your own website if you wanna write a ton on it...

Darn it, think I will make a point after all. I happily take my wife and 3 kids into class E airspace from time to time. THAT's the strength of my conviction it is SAFER than what some of you make it out to be! If I am PIC under the dreaded VFR, my TX is always on, mode C, correct freq tuned, your unverified altitude observations of me to my IFR cousins in the area are almost always bang on, and I am ALWAYS listening to where VH-IFR and buddies are coming from and going to... how high/low etc... oh, and by the way if I'm nearby and even if there's any remote possibility of swapping paint existed, I always let VH-IFR know.. and... and if you got my intentions or unverified details wrong i.e. you think I'm S&L but I'm actually climbing or I'm passing through 7,000 shortly and you think I'm passing 5000.. and VH IFR is headed my way, if it's relevant (and without going into a long rambling, unprofessional monologue about it I know you're busy) I'd tell you!!!

Thing is, some of you might not trust those VFR lighties out there, (which is probably your core objection) but some of those lighties don't trust you either... no offence.

[DirtyPierre]

The ol' hard hat mentality

Planespeaker,

You have a mentality that comes about because;

- little experience
- little knowledge
- highly opinionated

= opens one mouth and establishes beyond any doubt that they have NFI!

Bit like Dick really.

Hasta la vista.

[Capcom]

Oz Ocker

Oi Capcom, yer not playin' the same game as Dicky Peanutbutter are ya, by tryin' to guess who "ps" is are ya?

Who, li’l ol’ me?

ps is just doin’ his bit to 'keep dick focused …'

No, what I meant to say was ‘he is focused on dick’s…’

No, ‘his dick is focused….’…No..

‘he is being partial to dick….’….No, No

‘he is responding to a dick…’..Ah ****, no…

Ahfarkit, you know what I mean!

Poor ol' Dicks beside 'imself - shadow boxin' with VOR, Adrian, and the ATC'ers at large.

Gee, that’s a bugga, such a nice bloke n all!. Must send him a ‘get in a well soon’ card!

Nightie night!

[Kaptin M]

Well done, planespeaker, your attitude towards safety when aviating is responsible, and commendable

I am ALWAYS listening to where VH-IFR and buddies are coming from and going to... how high/low etc... oh, and by the way if I'm nearby and even if there's any remote possibility of swapping paint existed, I always let VH-IFR know..

Unfortunately though, it would appear to be at loggerheads with Dick Smith's

In modern countries such as the United States a pilot can fly enroute in silence, concentrate on the flying and enjoy the scenery. Imagine if everyone who went driving on the weekends in their car were forced to monitor and listen to a constant barrage of radio calls the whole time from commercial traffic – I’m sure you would agree driving wouldn’t be as popular.

With reference to the relationship between leisure pilots (PPL's in the main) and Air Traffic Controllers, you state

but some of those lighties don't trust you either.

However, I wonder if it's really more a case of those PPL'ers not being confident with their R/T procedures, and being AFRAID to speak up for fear of thinking they'll make an ass of themselves.
Obviously I'm not referring to you, planespeaker, as your post indicates that you are quite comfortable in your communications work.

[Blastoid]

Planespeaker ... or is it xxx?

Planspeaker

It is nice to hear you do the right thing - by the sounds of it you have your transponder maintained properly (with an accurate Mode C), you listen out to the barrage of radio chatter (which according to Dick you should ignore and watch the pretty little lakes and mountains below), and it even sounds like you speak up when you think you need to. Godd work. If only we could depend on all VFR pilots to do likewise, it would be so much easier to pass traffic and get pilots talking to each other when they need to know they are in coflict. Unfortunately, in my experience, only about half of VFR pilots do what you do (more later).

As ****su-Tonka pointed out, let's imagine Class C airspace for a minute: IFR pay for a service, VFR do not. VFR calls for a clearance - nothing in the way - VFR gets clearance as requested. No delay.

This time, there is IFR traffic. VFR calls for a clearance. ATC will facilitate clearance to the VFR without significant delay to the IFR aircraft (yes, even in class C airspace, IFR can and do get moved around VFR - look at PJE as an example). Do you think it is providing a service to the paying customers (generally RPT, if not private IFR) to prioritise the VFR traffic?

Now bring in Class E airspace. VFR happily flying along. IFR is subject to a clearance. VFR is not. ATC does not provide a separation service, but provides traffic information - and facilitates "segregation" if necessary. Who has to move? The VFR traffic, if listening out, is often in a significantly different performance category that it would not even work if the VFR traffic tried to move for the IFR. So as it turns out, every time, without exception (in my experience since November 27), IFR traffic has had to maintain level or divert around known or unknown VFR traffic. So now VFR traffic get priority, by virtue of the fact that nobody apart from the pilot has the authority to move them.

But as I said before - good on you for doing the right thing. Except for the following example (which occurred to me recently): VFR was in E, overflying a D tower. A jet dpearted from the D tower, opposite direction to the VFR traffic. A broadcast was made, the VFR traffic identified himself, verified his level, confirmed his tracking intentions. Great stuff Jet calls, advised of traffic, advises he will maintain a level beneath untill passed Everyone is doing the right thing. About 45 sec. prior to passing, VFR traffic announces "we have the traffic sighted, and we are passed" to which the jet quickly replies "we also have the traffic sighted .... but we are not passed yet ... "

We depend on all pilots to see and avoid in AusNAS. Perhaps some pilots' definitions of "avoid" differ from others?

Dick

How do you reconcile the fact that those who pay their way in the airspace now have to move around those that don't? So not only are IFR operators paying Avchrges (even though VFR never had to anyway), but they are also wasting money in "lost efficiency" avoiding other traffic. And I can assure you, Dick, that the money saved by VFR aircraft tracking direct is offset by the fuel wasted by RPTs (including 747s) dirverting around unknown traffic. Well Done.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Dick Smith said:

Four Seven Eleven, you state:
quote:

Why do you still not have the courage to answer your own thread about the Brisbane Virgin incident? What are you afraid of?

Can you tell me the particular question you would like me to answer? I will answer it promptly.

The question is simply:

Brisbane Virgin incident - what are the facts?

In your original post on this subject, you incorrectly stated 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.”

In support of this proposition, you cited some documentation which was wrong, in that it had nothing to do with the Brisbane Virgin incident.

So, to repeat the question, and to take you on your word that you “will answer it promptly”, “what are the facts?”. (More specifically, what are the facts which explain how such a ‘horrific’ incident could have occurred, when all parties apparently followed AusNAS procedures correctly?)

[Dick Smith]

Kaptin M, my comments in relation to flying enroute VFR in silence is of course only if the pilot avoids the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome. I have always supported that if a pilot flies in the airspace normally used for approach and departure that the pilot should monitor the frequency of that airport – nothing could be more logical.

However I simply cannot see the point of a VFR pilot flying enroute (say, at 3,500’) having to monitor airline aircraft above FL200. On the east coast, where the airline aircraft are within radar coverage, they do not give position reports so the VFR pilot monitors useless information – i.e. no position report means that the VFR aircraft does not know where the airline aircraft is. With the NAS system, the pilot flying enroute when in the approach or departure airspace of an aerodrome monitors that frequency, and gets a good alerted see and avoid procedure.

Blastoid, you seem to be mixed up between radio arranged separation and alerted see and avoid. What you actually describe (i.e. where two aircraft talk to each other in VMC and then arrange separation as if they are in IMC) is not BASI/ATSB alerted see and avoid. Alerted see and avoid is just that – the pilot receives traffic on another aircraft, looks in that direction and avoids the aircraft. BASI/ATSB have never said that alerted see and avoid is not satisfactory and that all pilots must use radio arranged separation when in VMC. The reason for this is because once two aircraft start radio arranging their separation; the frequency is completely blocked for any other traffic announcements. The radio arranged system may have worked in VMC in the 1950s in Australia, but with increasing traffic densities we need to move to a modern airspace system using alerted see and avoid.

By the way, ICAO Class E and G airspace specifically states (under ICAO recommendations) that no radio is required for VFR aircraft. That means that ICAO recognises that the airspace is a “see and avoid” airspace. If see and avoid is not satisfactory, why would ICAO have Class E and G airspace knowing that commercial airline traffic uses this airspace throughout the world? The reason is simple. Due to low collision risk in the Class E and G airspace used overseas, the unalerted see and avoid system is satisfactory to give the required level of safety.

Look at the US airspace diagram again.



There are many Class D airports in the USA (where the Class D goes to 2,500’) with Class E above. Many of these airports have no radar coverage in Class E above the Class D, and even if they do, American controllers consistently tell me that they only provide traffic on a workload permitting basis and at many times they are simply too busy to provide a traffic service for an IFR aircraft descending through Class E into a Class D tower. In the USA there is no radio or transponder requirement for VFR in this “link” airspace.

As Voices of Reason said on another thread, there is no call from air traffic controllers or pilots to change the Class E airspace in the United States. The reason for this is that they all agree it is a very safe airspace.

Four Seven Eleven, you are an air traffic controller working for Airservices. If you are telling me that 5 years after Class E airspace was introduced to Australia that air traffic controllers have not been provided with the correct documentation, I will have to agree with you. I have previously said that the leadership in Airservices is abysmal, so I would accept that your documentation is faulty.

I have consistently pushed for Airservices to get American experts to explain how Class E airspace works.

I would have thought that plain commonsense would make it clear to an air traffic controller that if two planes were going to get very close together (and if both planes were communicating to the controller) that the controller would give a simple direction to one of the aircraft to help reduce the chance of a collision. I think you are telling me that a controller cannot do this because that is not in the current documentation. It seems like a very strange system to me. I believe many readers would agree.

I have an outrageous idea. Why don’t you contact your management at Airservices and ask them to introduce the US system where controllers are allowed to use commonsense? In situations similar to the Virgin Blue incident north of Brisbane, the controllers could then give one or the other aircraft an instruction, a suggestion or guidance that would keep the aircraft well apart – amazingly logical!

Perhaps you could advise www.bindook.com of the Airservices answer.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Dick Smith
Once again, I will take you at your word that you will answer the question. I will repeat the question, bearing in mind that you were the one who asked it in the first place:

……“what are the facts?”. (More specifically, what are the facts which explain how such a ‘horrific’ incident could have occurred, when all parties apparently followed AusNAS procedures correctly?)

I look forward to your reply to the question.

If you are telling me that 5 years after Class E airspace was introduced to Australia that air traffic controllers have not been provided with the correct documentation, I will have to agree with you.

I am not telling you that. Please do not attempt to avoid the issue by misrepresenting what I have said. A simple answer to the question will suffice.

I think you are telling me that a controller cannot do this because that is not in the current documentation.

Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting what I have said. Please stick to direct quotes, or the facts.

Perhaps you could advise www.bindook.com of the Airservices answer.

Sorry, I am unable to do so, as the website cited does not allow me access.
Edited to add:

I have an outrageous idea. Why don’t you contact your management at Airservices and ask them to introduce the US system where controllers are allowed to use commonsense?

Are you suggesting that we have not introduced the US system?

[tobzalp]

Dick Smith. ATC separate IFR from VFR in C not E. You are mistaken as to how class E works, ICAO E.

[Blastoid]

Dick

Thanks for your reply and clarifying the difference between alerted see-and-avoid and radio-arranged separation.

In my experience, alerted see-and-avoid does not provide a complete outcome - perhaps it is inherent to Australian aviation culture, but IFR pilots who are have been alerted to traffic often try and communicate with the said traffic (if not within the confines of an MBZ or CTAF) on the area frequency to determine each other's intentions and to self-separate. They are eagerly monitoring their TCAS (for those fortunate enough to have it) to determine the proximity of the traffic and whether any avoiding action is in fact required.

Don't forget, alerted see-and-avoid can only occur in an environment where there is adequate surveillance. You say that there is plenty of "non-RADAR Class E" in the US - and therefore I presume unalerted see-and-avoid (or is there VFR flight following in this non-RADAR airspace? Please explain).

I therefore ask you the following:

You have implied from previous posts that the three Virgin incidents which have occurred post Nov 27 have been blown out of proportion. The crucial incident (IMHO) was the Christmas eve incident at LT: unalerted see-and-avoid, resulting in a TCAS RA. The ATSB report indicates that the Tobago pilot mis-judged the anticipated profile of the jet. The ATSB report also states that at no time did the Virgin pilots ever see the traffic.

1. Did TCAS save a potential collision? (or was it Big Sky Theory?)

2. Why has Launceston magically benn provided with RADAR surveillance? Surely if non-RADAR Class E airspace is part of the overall NAS design, and therefore "safe"*, then this measure should not have been necessary?

3. What if (as you say in the US system) there was no mandatory transponder requirement - what in your opinion would have occurred?

4. Based on your answers to 1,2 and 3, do you think that this is an acceptable level of safety?

* by risk-analysis standards

[Icarus2001]

Dick you must be congratulated on your use of language. Excellent sound bite material, you are truly a walking headline.

Now then, in a recent post you made these comments...

As we move to the US system in an incremental way, and pilots and air traffic controllers learn the “culture”, unnecessary safety incidents will reduce. This is already happening.

Commonsense alone is all that is necessary to know that there will be a substantial cost saving for the industry if there is less holding and fewer diversions. That is already happening with Class E airspace above Class D.

How on earth do you know this is happening? Not feel or believe but know it is happening? You claim elsewhere that you have little authority so where is this knowledge coming from? Do you visit BN or ML TAAATS centres daily?

One of your often used lines is that the US system has evolved over 100 years. Well here is some history direct from www.faa.gov

Oct 10, 1929: The Aeronautics Branch inaugurated position-reporting service for planes flying the Federal airways.

Nov 12-14, 1935: Representatives of all segments of the aviation community, except manufacturers, met at the Commerce Building in Washington, D.C., with Bureau of Air Commerce officials to discuss airway traffic control. Although the conferees agreed that the Bureau should establish a uniform system of air traffic control, a lack of funding prevented it from assuming control. Director of Air Commerce Vidal convinced the airline operators to establish airway traffic control immediately and promised that in 90 to 120 days the Bureau of Air Commerce would take over the operations. He also relaxed the general ban on instrument flying by private fliers. Those pilots could now fly by instruments if they filed a flight plan with the Bureau of Air Commerce and with at least one airline flying over the route they planned to use.

Dec 1, 1935: A consortium of airline companies organized and manned the first airway traffic control center at Newark, N.J. It provided information to airline pilots on the whereabouts of planes other than their own in the Newark vicinity during weather conditions requiring instrument flying. Two additional centers, similarly organized and staffed, opened several months later: Chicago in Apr 1936, Cleveland in Jun 1936.

Jan 1, 1938: An Airport Traffic Control Section was created in the Airways Operation Division of the Bureau of Air Commerce. The new section was to standardize airport control tower equipment, operation techniques, and personnel. Forty airport control tower operators had been certificated by Jun 30, 1938.

Feb 1, 1943: CAA inaugurated an expanded flight advisory service at all air route traffic control centers. The centers originated advisories on weather changes and hazardous conditions, and airway communication stations relayed this information to nonscheduled pilots. The service provided these pilots with some of the assistance that airline pilots received from their dispatchers. In Jul 1943, CAA's communication stations also began a flight

[I Fly]

Sorry for being a bit late with my post. With regards to the pprune contributors being anonymous. Most if not all Safety Management Systems have anonymous reporting for very good reasons. Or are you suggesting they are all wrong?

Just a few thoughts on Dick\'s reply of 21 June.

1 "As we move to the US system in an incremental way, and pilots and air traffic controllers learn the “culture”, unnecessary safety incidents will reduce."
How many 'necessary' incidents will there be?

2 This is because Australians regularly fly in the United States in both radar and non-radar airspace.
Dick and many Australians fly or have flown through Russian airspace. Our population distribution is more like theirs rather than the US. Why don't we adopt the Russian system? It's probably cheaper?

3 I am far happier to use commonsense and accept that 100 years of US airspace evolution has resulted in a very safe system.
I'm not aware that the Wright brothers were involved in airspace design.

4 As I’ve mentioned previously, all independent scientific experts tell me that the Aviation Risk Model that Airservices uses for design safety cases in Australia is so subjective that it is not really worth the paper it is written on.
Does that mean that 99.99% of scientific experts are not independent?

5 It is almost as if we developed a unique system in Australia which presumed that pilots were getting a “favour” from the air traffic control body to be able to fly in controlled airspace and they were indeed lucky if they got a clearance.
Perhaps Dick could work on the Australian Constitution and give us a right to the air.
The Australian Constitution is unique and ALL law has to comply with it.

5 I have never said that the United States system is safer than that used in any other country in the world.

6 I have had three successful businesses – all successful because I asked advice and copied the success of others. If we do this in Australia in relation to aviation we will be leaders in the world.
By following item 5, does that not make us sheep rather than leaders? I don't understand how we can be leaders by following someone.

[tobzalp]

I Fly. Whilst i agree with your sentiment, unfortunately the powers that be have now removed the only system (CAIR) that we could anonomously or even with our own names report any safety issues. I bet a pound of burnt aluminium that Dick and his buddies come preachng the reduction in reported incidents that are a direct result of not actually being able to report them.


p.s. Hi PC

[scramjet77]

Dick, the fourth time that the question has been asked

Dick, you say in response to the non mandatory carriage of radio within MBZ/CTAF areas

Quote, “Yes, it is true that I do not support mandatory radio requirements when there is a calling in the blind system because the BASI/ATSB data shows that the result is many thousands of unalerted see and avoid incidents. This is because pilots in this calling in the blind system can have the radio on the wrong frequency, the volume turned down, or the wrong microphone selected. I have always supported mandatory radio requirements where there is a third party to ensure that the radio is working. This is consistent with ICAO.”

Dick if it is true that “many thousands” of see and avoid incidents occur because “pilots in this calling in the blind system can have the radio on the wrong frequency, the volume turned down, or the wrong microphone selected”, how the hell would carriage of a radio make a difference in a “third party environment”. The problem would be the same.

So mate, because your fellow weekend warriors either can not, will not or are too incompetent to adopt correct radio procedures, we drop the whole radio requirement. Your logic is akin to dropping all speed limits on Australian roads because we will never stop drivers from speeding.

Finally, for the THIRD BLOODY TIME, WILL YOU ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS? Don’t you have the guts or is it just that you have no damn idea?

Q1. Exactly how much money has been spent so far on introducing NAS 2b & and the attempted 2c.

Q2. Show us exactly and precisely how the claimed savings of $75,000,000 will be achieved.

[CaptainMidnight]

Dick

DESIGN SAFETY CASE
In relation to your last post (20 June 2004 22:31) about the design safety case, I will say once again. This was a unique requirement introduced by the Adrian Dumsa and the air traffic controllers at Airservices. I believe it was introduced so that any reform that was not supported by the air traffic controllers (Civil Air) and management could be stopped.

I think your claim that Airservices/Adrian Dumsa/air traffic controllers introduced the design safety case requirement purely to be obstructive is incorrect. CASA requires Airservices to conduct such assessments for all changes to the airways system as part of their ATS provider certification. But then I guess you also think CASA are a bunch of obstructive burocrats too.