The NAS Debate: Other Opinions
Noticed the following on the Airservices website http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...cnsw040617.pdf
Minutes of NSW RAPAC Meeting 17 June 2004
To Gaunty and other AOPA members:, is this gent your national president or speaking on his behalf when conveying your unified support?
Also below in the same document although off topic. It relates to a proposal that Airservices report incidents involving aircraft to the Certificate of Registration holder, and Airservices's response that privacy issues were involved if they were to do so.
Minutes of NSW RAPAC Meeting 17 June 2004
On completion of Peter’s presentation Bill Hamilton responded, stating he was speaking on behalf of the members of AOPA, AUF, ASAC and RFAC, and advised that they all support NAS Stage 2B.....
Also below in the same document although off topic. It relates to a proposal that Airservices report incidents involving aircraft to the Certificate of Registration holder, and Airservices's response that privacy issues were involved if they were to do so.
Bill Hamilton, AOPA, requested Bernie Smith, CEO Airservices, to review the privacy policy, in reference to this particular situation, in order for COR holders to become immediately aware of an incident report involving their aircraft.
Len Yates, CASA, explained that the ESIR’s received by CASA are reviewed before the decision is made to notify the pilot. This review process by CASA can contribute to the delay in notifying pilots as there is a lack of resources to quickly process the information. He explained however that not all ESIR’s upon review require notification by CASA to the pilot.
Therefore having all notifications sent directly to the COR holder may infer that an incident is being investigated by CASA, when in fact they may have decided not to proceed further.
Len Yates, CASA, explained that the ESIR’s received by CASA are reviewed before the decision is made to notify the pilot. This review process by CASA can contribute to the delay in notifying pilots as there is a lack of resources to quickly process the information. He explained however that not all ESIR’s upon review require notification by CASA to the pilot.
Therefore having all notifications sent directly to the COR holder may infer that an incident is being investigated by CASA, when in fact they may have decided not to proceed further.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serious reply
I agree with ****su’s and 4711’s previous posts.
I also agree, in part, with Dick Smith
We each oppose it for different reasons ie
Mr Smiths utterances to date indicate complete objection to VFR radio transmissions!
VFR transmissions is better than silence as a stop gap for all the reasons discussed here previously. Is it effective use of resources and good enough longer term?
Apart from the Sports lobby and AUF etc (assume opposition due lack of radio carriage, although it seems pointless in the context of above D's as the transponder carriage requirement would exclude most of them anyhow!), most groups now support the need for VFR to communicate above terminal airspace. It seems reasonable to me that if we assume VFR will be communicating, then that communication should be made as effective as possible.
Which leads into Mike’s (WALLEY2) question:
The issue of what could be put in place that provides the safety levels of the pre-NAS airspace whilst allowing flexibility to VFR is IMHO the following:
(Comment limited to the climb and descent airspace above class D)
Airspace design:
- Class D from SFC to A085AMSL incorporating climb and descent profiles and IAP's. For high elevations, upper limits that incorporate Instrument approach commencement altitudes.
- Large enough laterally to enable sufficient advance warning and planning time for pop-up VFR traffic ie Where the class D is providing Approach and Departures services, a minimum 15nm radius with additional higher base CTA steps with inbound calls at not closer than 10nm for the CTR/A boundary.
- Instrument approaches should be contained within the Tower Terminal airspace otherwise the cost of training Enroute ATC for approach control services will be large. Workload management is also a large issue with Enroute providing TMA services.
- Tower contained IAP’s means simple co-ordination between Enroute and Tower/TMA. If enroute were to have part of the IAF altitudes in their airspace, the complexity of Enroute to tower coordination becomes onerous.
- Class D rules that require VFR communication in so far as establishing a clearance request prior to the airspace boundary.
- VFR MUST receive an acknowledgment ie clearance or standby. In these two examples the VFR can enter class D with or without a clearance. The VFR pilot in this circumstance will be solely responsible for separation and or segregation from other traffic (known or unknown) until ATC provide an airways clearance.
- If the VFR receives no reply or remain clear of class D then they must not enter. This will enable ATC to provide a safety stop gap if the reported position of the VFR was not heard (Comm fail or over-transmitted) or traffic is such that a serious collision risk exists if the VFR were to enter class D immediately. In reality, this would rarely be used except where a VFR called at the boundary (No planning time if a confliction exists) or an expectation existed of delay approaching the boundary. In other words, the traffic conflicting with the VFR will in most circumstances be vertically or laterally clear by the time the VFR reaches the boundary. Any subsequent traffic that might conflict will be processed with the VFR clearance issue in mind ie planned from the initial call.
- Class D rules can be supported well either procedurally and/or by TSAD (Tower situational awareness display, the radar you have when you are not having a radar) augmentation. TSAD is not commissioned for radar services, it can however be use by tower controllers to confirm an aircraft position. Therefore assisting in the provision of D services IFR/VFR where a separation standard need NOT be applied. (This discretion is explained in both the ICAO and MATS definitions of an “Air traffic Control service”, which in short can mean full separation standards through to traffic information or no action necessary’. I can provide the definitions here if people are interested.)
This provides to industry:
- Nil additional cost to the provision of ATS above what was in place prior to 27Nov 2003 and now
- Provides IFR and VFR separation/segregation services
- Service is free to VFR (as it always was)
- IFR will receive separation/segregation rather than guesswork
- VFR may still enter after establishing 2 way communication when not in receipt of an airways clearance (Undesirable but legal)
- IFR are aware that whilst it would be very rare, VFR could enter without clearance. This possibility will heighten the need for IFR and VFR pilots to maintain where ever a good visual scan.
- Provides ATS with the ability to manage traffic most effectively ie All levels are useable again. Separation IFR/IFR will not be inadvertently disrupted (Missed vertical or lateral req) by an unknown VFR target appearing at the last minute requiring IFR deviation.
All needs to be discussed, if accepted, verified to ALARP prior to mapping and mail outs etc
The Enroute above D above A085 I will leave to those who may like to comment further on the appropriate class of airspace for their areas.
I will say this though! D is not smoke and mirrors, it is a very useful set of operating standards that provide ATS with the tools needed to be less restrictive that C (where appropriate) yet flexible enough to preserve safety. As far as I am aware (ICAO), there are no restrictions on where it can be utilised.
Enroute Radar D might be OK? Comments
As far as the MBZ stuff goes:
The same basic principles can apply ie
- MBZ should contain the IAP vertical and lateral dimensions
- Sufficient in size to allow pilots and opportunity to gain SA prior to 15nm inbound etc
It is achievable, and can still be called NAS to appease Canberra
This a brief outline, over to ewe’s for mastication
The Charging regime
The Airspace issue is being driven by the charging issue
The two need to be separated and worked on individually!
Icarus2001
Sharp as a razor as usual
Gaunty
Good to hear your dulcet key strokes again
Thanks for keeping us informed
I also agree, in part, with Dick Smith
I was previously asked about a “VRA proposition in E areas above terminal areas.” I stated correctly that I did not know what this was referring to. I now understand that VRA stands for “VHF Reporting Area” which is a unique Airservices/Qantas proposal that brings back full position reporting from the 1950s as a mandatory requirement in the Class E airspace to FL180 above Class D towers.
If this is what you refer to as the “Industry Option”, I can assure you that I do not support it. I have had no involvement at all other than a number of incredulous people telling me what was proposed and allegedly supported by Chris Manning of Qantas.
If this is what you refer to as the “Industry Option”, I can assure you that I do not support it. I have had no involvement at all other than a number of incredulous people telling me what was proposed and allegedly supported by Chris Manning of Qantas.
Mr Smiths utterances to date indicate complete objection to VFR radio transmissions!
VFR transmissions is better than silence as a stop gap for all the reasons discussed here previously. Is it effective use of resources and good enough longer term?
Apart from the Sports lobby and AUF etc (assume opposition due lack of radio carriage, although it seems pointless in the context of above D's as the transponder carriage requirement would exclude most of them anyhow!), most groups now support the need for VFR to communicate above terminal airspace. It seems reasonable to me that if we assume VFR will be communicating, then that communication should be made as effective as possible.
Which leads into Mike’s (WALLEY2) question:
The issue of what could be put in place that provides the safety levels of the pre-NAS airspace whilst allowing flexibility to VFR is IMHO the following:
(Comment limited to the climb and descent airspace above class D)
Airspace design:
- Class D from SFC to A085AMSL incorporating climb and descent profiles and IAP's. For high elevations, upper limits that incorporate Instrument approach commencement altitudes.
- Large enough laterally to enable sufficient advance warning and planning time for pop-up VFR traffic ie Where the class D is providing Approach and Departures services, a minimum 15nm radius with additional higher base CTA steps with inbound calls at not closer than 10nm for the CTR/A boundary.
- Instrument approaches should be contained within the Tower Terminal airspace otherwise the cost of training Enroute ATC for approach control services will be large. Workload management is also a large issue with Enroute providing TMA services.
- Tower contained IAP’s means simple co-ordination between Enroute and Tower/TMA. If enroute were to have part of the IAF altitudes in their airspace, the complexity of Enroute to tower coordination becomes onerous.
- Class D rules that require VFR communication in so far as establishing a clearance request prior to the airspace boundary.
- VFR MUST receive an acknowledgment ie clearance or standby. In these two examples the VFR can enter class D with or without a clearance. The VFR pilot in this circumstance will be solely responsible for separation and or segregation from other traffic (known or unknown) until ATC provide an airways clearance.
- If the VFR receives no reply or remain clear of class D then they must not enter. This will enable ATC to provide a safety stop gap if the reported position of the VFR was not heard (Comm fail or over-transmitted) or traffic is such that a serious collision risk exists if the VFR were to enter class D immediately. In reality, this would rarely be used except where a VFR called at the boundary (No planning time if a confliction exists) or an expectation existed of delay approaching the boundary. In other words, the traffic conflicting with the VFR will in most circumstances be vertically or laterally clear by the time the VFR reaches the boundary. Any subsequent traffic that might conflict will be processed with the VFR clearance issue in mind ie planned from the initial call.
- Class D rules can be supported well either procedurally and/or by TSAD (Tower situational awareness display, the radar you have when you are not having a radar) augmentation. TSAD is not commissioned for radar services, it can however be use by tower controllers to confirm an aircraft position. Therefore assisting in the provision of D services IFR/VFR where a separation standard need NOT be applied. (This discretion is explained in both the ICAO and MATS definitions of an “Air traffic Control service”, which in short can mean full separation standards through to traffic information or no action necessary’. I can provide the definitions here if people are interested.)
This provides to industry:
- Nil additional cost to the provision of ATS above what was in place prior to 27Nov 2003 and now
- Provides IFR and VFR separation/segregation services
- Service is free to VFR (as it always was)
- IFR will receive separation/segregation rather than guesswork
- VFR may still enter after establishing 2 way communication when not in receipt of an airways clearance (Undesirable but legal)
- IFR are aware that whilst it would be very rare, VFR could enter without clearance. This possibility will heighten the need for IFR and VFR pilots to maintain where ever a good visual scan.
- Provides ATS with the ability to manage traffic most effectively ie All levels are useable again. Separation IFR/IFR will not be inadvertently disrupted (Missed vertical or lateral req) by an unknown VFR target appearing at the last minute requiring IFR deviation.
All needs to be discussed, if accepted, verified to ALARP prior to mapping and mail outs etc
The Enroute above D above A085 I will leave to those who may like to comment further on the appropriate class of airspace for their areas.
I will say this though! D is not smoke and mirrors, it is a very useful set of operating standards that provide ATS with the tools needed to be less restrictive that C (where appropriate) yet flexible enough to preserve safety. As far as I am aware (ICAO), there are no restrictions on where it can be utilised.
Enroute Radar D might be OK? Comments
As far as the MBZ stuff goes:
The same basic principles can apply ie
- MBZ should contain the IAP vertical and lateral dimensions
- Sufficient in size to allow pilots and opportunity to gain SA prior to 15nm inbound etc
It is achievable, and can still be called NAS to appease Canberra
This a brief outline, over to ewe’s for mastication
The Charging regime
The Airspace issue is being driven by the charging issue
The two need to be separated and worked on individually!
Icarus2001
Sharp as a razor as usual
Gaunty
Good to hear your dulcet
key strokes again Thanks for keeping us informed
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capcom
Capcom
Can you show up for The Bondi Beach Project? Perhaps we could all construct a paper for CASA review with the sequential reasoning you have just shown in your arguments. Very good!
Icarus 2001
Would like to know where you hail from? Any chance you can make it to Sydney in August? Your arguments are quite strong, (don't always agree, but who cares?). I would like to talk to you about some ideas to revitalise the student starts too.
4711
Thanks for your post regards Class D Airspace, I must admit that I hadn't bothered to read further down the same paragraph of the AIM. I'm always IFR, in fact, our company doesn't allow VFR outside of 50 Nm anymore! So I don't just call up and announce.
Can you come down in August?
To everyone
To keep the thread "Bondi Beach Project" up where people will notice it, feel free to reply on the thread. I will certainly read the responses! Thank you once again!
Can you show up for The Bondi Beach Project? Perhaps we could all construct a paper for CASA review with the sequential reasoning you have just shown in your arguments. Very good!
Icarus 2001
Would like to know where you hail from? Any chance you can make it to Sydney in August? Your arguments are quite strong, (don't always agree, but who cares?). I would like to talk to you about some ideas to revitalise the student starts too.
4711
Thanks for your post regards Class D Airspace, I must admit that I hadn't bothered to read further down the same paragraph of the AIM. I'm always IFR, in fact, our company doesn't allow VFR outside of 50 Nm anymore! So I don't just call up and announce.
Can you come down in August?
To everyone
To keep the thread "Bondi Beach Project" up where people will notice it, feel free to reply on the thread. I will certainly read the responses! Thank you once again!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capcom.
I can see issues, but it's a great start.
I still think that at the end of the day, this whole thing is a people issue.
Dick, as a pilot only, doesn't understand the air traffic side of what he is doing. I also think that some ATCs have not a great idea of what Dick is on about (mainly due to his confrontational and disdainful style). eg Dick doesn't really get that the freedom he sees in the US is a product of them having controllers coming out of their arses. What is achieved in oz is done with 1/20th of the US' controller resources, alone. Same amount of airspace, 1/16th the traffic, but 1/20th the resources, and god knows how much less radar (thereby intensifying the labour side of controlling). Basically, workload issues. He then thinks delays to VFRs etc are a product of laziness and over-regulation. I don't think, as a profit-focussed individual, that he recognises that a railroad still has to have a long, expensive train track, clear of obstructions, no matter how many trains run along it per day, one or one hundred, which is why public transport is generally run by governments. Before I get too far off on this analogy- the US has the resources to enable greater VFR freedom. Specifically, radar coverage and the eyes to monitor it. There are other things as well, such as the shear volume of jet traffic means that the inbound flow to an airport is heavily regulated, allowing 'dead zones' directly over the top that VFRs can transit etc. No such thing in oz. Oz is much more flexible for arriving and departing jets at, say, Sydney. It is the very fact that oz has less traffic that precludes VFR transits. SY also has bizarre 'noise sharing' arrangements that you won't find anywhere in 'the US system'. This means that VFRs CAN'T have the same NON-PARTICIPATORY freedom.
I think there is room for flexibility (as Capcom has shown), but not the 'US system'. Whatever is decided will only exist for a short time anyway, until technology enables a lot of the freedoms that he craves.
If only you had held the "Higgins Airport Hilton Conference" BEFORE you went down the path of lying and steamrolling, Dick. You might have found all this out without all the aggro.
I can see issues, but it's a great start.
I still think that at the end of the day, this whole thing is a people issue.
Dick, as a pilot only, doesn't understand the air traffic side of what he is doing. I also think that some ATCs have not a great idea of what Dick is on about (mainly due to his confrontational and disdainful style). eg Dick doesn't really get that the freedom he sees in the US is a product of them having controllers coming out of their arses. What is achieved in oz is done with 1/20th of the US' controller resources, alone. Same amount of airspace, 1/16th the traffic, but 1/20th the resources, and god knows how much less radar (thereby intensifying the labour side of controlling). Basically, workload issues. He then thinks delays to VFRs etc are a product of laziness and over-regulation. I don't think, as a profit-focussed individual, that he recognises that a railroad still has to have a long, expensive train track, clear of obstructions, no matter how many trains run along it per day, one or one hundred, which is why public transport is generally run by governments. Before I get too far off on this analogy- the US has the resources to enable greater VFR freedom. Specifically, radar coverage and the eyes to monitor it. There are other things as well, such as the shear volume of jet traffic means that the inbound flow to an airport is heavily regulated, allowing 'dead zones' directly over the top that VFRs can transit etc. No such thing in oz. Oz is much more flexible for arriving and departing jets at, say, Sydney. It is the very fact that oz has less traffic that precludes VFR transits. SY also has bizarre 'noise sharing' arrangements that you won't find anywhere in 'the US system'. This means that VFRs CAN'T have the same NON-PARTICIPATORY freedom.
I think there is room for flexibility (as Capcom has shown), but not the 'US system'. Whatever is decided will only exist for a short time anyway, until technology enables a lot of the freedoms that he craves.
If only you had held the "Higgins Airport Hilton Conference" BEFORE you went down the path of lying and steamrolling, Dick. You might have found all this out without all the aggro.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Pressure
Dick, sorry but I found the evidence I was looking for to demonstrate your actions when it comes to NAS and safety design in Australian Airspace reforms and government influence
I have found the correspondence that I referred to previously with regards to Dick Smith and his attempt to influence government decisions re NAS
The first letter dated 11th December to Ken Matthews Secretary of DOTaRS and chairman of ARG
Dear Ken
Recently on the Professional Pilots/ Rumour Network (PPRuNe), a pilot operating under the pseudonym "CaptainMidnight" quoted a summary of responses in relation to the CASR Part 71 documentation.
"Quote : Comment 47 - Mandatory Broadcast Zones (MBZ - non-ICAO - MOS Park 71 paragraph 2.2.10 (page 2-4)
CASA Response
CASA acknowledges that MBZs are not ICAO compliant in that they require carriage and use of radio by VFR flights in Class G airspace... Initially, the ARM (Airspace Risk Model) was used to model the difference in risk between MBZs and CTAFs. It found that for a given traffic level and mix, and MBZ reduced risk by a factor of about three or four."
Ken, I understand that this ARM document is flawed. It used subjective opinions of airline pilots when deciding the chance of a pilot misdialling a frequency. Also the people in charge of the risk modelling would not accept the "diffusion of responsibilty" issue where a pilot puts extra reliance on radio arranged separation when he or she believes that a mandatory requirement improves compliance.
This issue must be resolved urgently. It is simply not possible for us to go to the US CTAF system if CASA continues to claim that this will mean a reduction in safety.
Could this be discussed at the next ARF meeting so that the matter can be urgently resolved?
Yours faithfully,
Dick Smith
This second letter is dated 18 March 2003 to Ken Matthews
Dear Ken
I refer to my letter to you dated 11 December 2002 in relation to the airspace risk model and MBZs. I believe this issue must be resolved urgently. Would you be able to discuss the matter with Mike Smith and see how we can move forward?
I have recently been told that when the ARM was prepared, that the airline pilots who sat on the panel were by no means objective - in fact, they had stated aim to keep MBZs. This is hardly a way to do a scientific study.
I also understand that this flawed document has been unknowingly accepted by ICAO as the basis for airspace risk modelling. MBZs do not comply with ICAO airspace classifications, let alone accepted world practice.
I will look forward to this issue being resolved urgently.
Yours faithfully
Dick Smith
IT SEEMS KEN WAS NOT MOVING IN THE REQUIRED DIRECTION FAST ENOUGH!!
This is the third letter dated 12 June 2003 to Peter Langhorne, Chief of Staff
Dear Peter,
The management of Broome Airport and others have recently been made aware of the CASA claim that MBZs are three or four times safer than CTAFs. This is the prime reason they are lobbying the Western Australian government to keep MBZ procedures at Broome Airport.
I attach two letters to Ken Matthews written many months ago in relation to this. I particularly point out the paragraphs
"This issue must be resolved urgently. It is simply not possible to go to the US CTAF system if CASA continues to claim that this will mean a reduction in safety."
Peter, it is imperative that this claim in the ARM be corrected.
Yours faithfully
Dick Smith
THE COPY OF MR ANDERSON'S LETTER WAS HIGHLY CENSORED BUT IT SHEDS AN INTERESTING LIGHT ON DICK'S ATTITUDE TO A D.A.S.
The fourth letter is from John Anderson to Dick Smith dated 3 July 2003
Dear Mr Smith
......I am also advised that Airservices Australia (AA) and NAS IG will be conducting a design analysis of the characteristics to be introduced in stage 2b, using the Safety Case Analysis and Review Determination (SCARD) methodology. This analysis will determine whether a design safety case would be required for any characteristic depending on the risk level identified.
I have noted your concern that if a design safety case is performed for the US CTAF procedure, it will not be accepted by CASA. I would like to assure you that should the SCARD analysis identify the need for a design safety case for any NAS characteristic, it must and will be developed and examined in a transparent manner.........
Dick, who claims he does not use undue influence, jumps over his own Chairman and goes to the Dep PM Cheif of Staff!!
In the reply to Dick from the Dep PM(signed by Anderson) he notes Dick's concern "..that if a design safety case is performed for the US CTAF procedure it will not be acceptable to CASA!!!!
So you do not do a design case as you are afraid of the results?- and you bag the ARM (which used actual monitored non call DATA at a number of a/p to get the non compliance figures) and later bag our BME DAS using non-industry experts and members of the skeptics,then bag Dr Fulton who audited our preliminary report to the Chairman on the CSIRO.
NOW YOU CLAIM YOU DO NOT USE ANY INFLUENCY AND ADVOCATE A STUDIED APPROACH
You can not claim any moral ground on these matters or expect ppruners to believe your arguments and statements on design analysis and no influence on Government and its bureaucracy when this evidence is available to show otherwise.
I also note like Mike Smith you were looking at a CTAF for Broome and now it has lept to a tower when the facts showed a CTAF was not acceptable.
Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group
I have found the correspondence that I referred to previously with regards to Dick Smith and his attempt to influence government decisions re NAS
The first letter dated 11th December to Ken Matthews Secretary of DOTaRS and chairman of ARG
Dear Ken
Recently on the Professional Pilots/ Rumour Network (PPRuNe), a pilot operating under the pseudonym "CaptainMidnight" quoted a summary of responses in relation to the CASR Part 71 documentation.
"Quote : Comment 47 - Mandatory Broadcast Zones (MBZ - non-ICAO - MOS Park 71 paragraph 2.2.10 (page 2-4)
CASA Response
CASA acknowledges that MBZs are not ICAO compliant in that they require carriage and use of radio by VFR flights in Class G airspace... Initially, the ARM (Airspace Risk Model) was used to model the difference in risk between MBZs and CTAFs. It found that for a given traffic level and mix, and MBZ reduced risk by a factor of about three or four."
Ken, I understand that this ARM document is flawed. It used subjective opinions of airline pilots when deciding the chance of a pilot misdialling a frequency. Also the people in charge of the risk modelling would not accept the "diffusion of responsibilty" issue where a pilot puts extra reliance on radio arranged separation when he or she believes that a mandatory requirement improves compliance.
This issue must be resolved urgently. It is simply not possible for us to go to the US CTAF system if CASA continues to claim that this will mean a reduction in safety.
Could this be discussed at the next ARF meeting so that the matter can be urgently resolved?
Yours faithfully,
Dick Smith
This second letter is dated 18 March 2003 to Ken Matthews
Dear Ken
I refer to my letter to you dated 11 December 2002 in relation to the airspace risk model and MBZs. I believe this issue must be resolved urgently. Would you be able to discuss the matter with Mike Smith and see how we can move forward?
I have recently been told that when the ARM was prepared, that the airline pilots who sat on the panel were by no means objective - in fact, they had stated aim to keep MBZs. This is hardly a way to do a scientific study.
I also understand that this flawed document has been unknowingly accepted by ICAO as the basis for airspace risk modelling. MBZs do not comply with ICAO airspace classifications, let alone accepted world practice.
I will look forward to this issue being resolved urgently.
Yours faithfully
Dick Smith
IT SEEMS KEN WAS NOT MOVING IN THE REQUIRED DIRECTION FAST ENOUGH!!
This is the third letter dated 12 June 2003 to Peter Langhorne, Chief of Staff
Dear Peter,
The management of Broome Airport and others have recently been made aware of the CASA claim that MBZs are three or four times safer than CTAFs. This is the prime reason they are lobbying the Western Australian government to keep MBZ procedures at Broome Airport.
I attach two letters to Ken Matthews written many months ago in relation to this. I particularly point out the paragraphs
"This issue must be resolved urgently. It is simply not possible to go to the US CTAF system if CASA continues to claim that this will mean a reduction in safety."
Peter, it is imperative that this claim in the ARM be corrected.
Yours faithfully
Dick Smith
THE COPY OF MR ANDERSON'S LETTER WAS HIGHLY CENSORED BUT IT SHEDS AN INTERESTING LIGHT ON DICK'S ATTITUDE TO A D.A.S.
The fourth letter is from John Anderson to Dick Smith dated 3 July 2003
Dear Mr Smith
......I am also advised that Airservices Australia (AA) and NAS IG will be conducting a design analysis of the characteristics to be introduced in stage 2b, using the Safety Case Analysis and Review Determination (SCARD) methodology. This analysis will determine whether a design safety case would be required for any characteristic depending on the risk level identified.
I have noted your concern that if a design safety case is performed for the US CTAF procedure, it will not be accepted by CASA. I would like to assure you that should the SCARD analysis identify the need for a design safety case for any NAS characteristic, it must and will be developed and examined in a transparent manner.........
Dick, who claims he does not use undue influence, jumps over his own Chairman and goes to the Dep PM Cheif of Staff!!
In the reply to Dick from the Dep PM(signed by Anderson) he notes Dick's concern "..that if a design safety case is performed for the US CTAF procedure it will not be acceptable to CASA!!!!
So you do not do a design case as you are afraid of the results?- and you bag the ARM (which used actual monitored non call DATA at a number of a/p to get the non compliance figures) and later bag our BME DAS using non-industry experts and members of the skeptics,then bag Dr Fulton who audited our preliminary report to the Chairman on the CSIRO.
NOW YOU CLAIM YOU DO NOT USE ANY INFLUENCY AND ADVOCATE A STUDIED APPROACH
You can not claim any moral ground on these matters or expect ppruners to believe your arguments and statements on design analysis and no influence on Government and its bureaucracy when this evidence is available to show otherwise.
I also note like Mike Smith you were looking at a CTAF for Broome and now it has lept to a tower when the facts showed a CTAF was not acceptable.
Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****su et al
There are lots of periphery issues to be worked through, no doubt about that. I am prepared to lend what ever support I can to draw common ground across industry and get this mess fixed. It will as you all suggest require goodwill from many.
It must be done properly and expeditiously though!
Dude, you know without me saying it that we are most definitely in heated agreement. The architect of this mess is not of a mind to be told his baby is cold and blue. So what do we do?
I figure a resolution with widespread acceptance will make it very hard for him to object. Well object with any effect if you know what I mean. So not withstanding him, the only other albeit large hurdle is Canberra.
Now I could get all vitriolic in my usual fashion here when referring to JA, but what does it achieve?.
...........Ah stuff it, why not..
J.A You are without doubt the most incompetent, unprincipled, weak, pathetic administrator this industry has had to endure. If you have one shred of decency left in you, fix this mess before you retire.
May the fleas of a thousand Camels infest your retirement ya fool.........
Now I got that of my breast....
We all know that politicians are either kissin’ babies or stealin’ their lollypops!
He has shown nothing of any character or conscience through out this mess, or a preparedness to accept that a policy is wrong. 'Plausible deniability', I think not, he knows this NAS has knobs on it!.
That farkin’ public perception thing, scares the **** outa them!.
So as much as kickin for a fresh start is what should happen, I sincerely don’t’ think he can stomach backing down on the brand name NAS.
Next best thing, lets build what we all need from a system safety point of view and sell it to this lizard in a politically acceptable way.
That said, the name NAS may be academic if we go to the polls in Aug
Cheers
Cap
There are lots of periphery issues to be worked through, no doubt about that. I am prepared to lend what ever support I can to draw common ground across industry and get this mess fixed. It will as you all suggest require goodwill from many.
It must be done properly and expeditiously though!
And let us not forget, during all this, The Missing in Action Minister remained silent - and still does in any practical sense.
So I am sorry, but to suggest that:
quote:
It is achievable, and can still be called NAS to appease Canberra
is even possible.....? With the current personalities involved, I don't honestly think it is.
Why try and patch up a bad idea? Why not do it right like it should have been done from the start?
Strong Leadership does mean listening and consulting widely. It doesn't mean caving to in every demand from every lobby group. But equally it doesnt mean working behind industry/communities backs.
This hasn't happened with this go, and the goodwill for this has gone. New blood is needed, and it needs to be managed by people who need to know how to 'listen' in the first instance.
Some of the incumbents have already had too many chances at doing this abd failed.
(personally I say bugger appeasing Canberra - if Anderson had shown some real leadership this situation wouldn;t have been permiited to happen - again)
So I am sorry, but to suggest that:
quote:
It is achievable, and can still be called NAS to appease Canberra
is even possible.....? With the current personalities involved, I don't honestly think it is.
Why try and patch up a bad idea? Why not do it right like it should have been done from the start?
Strong Leadership does mean listening and consulting widely. It doesn't mean caving to in every demand from every lobby group. But equally it doesnt mean working behind industry/communities backs.
This hasn't happened with this go, and the goodwill for this has gone. New blood is needed, and it needs to be managed by people who need to know how to 'listen' in the first instance.
Some of the incumbents have already had too many chances at doing this abd failed.
(personally I say bugger appeasing Canberra - if Anderson had shown some real leadership this situation wouldn;t have been permiited to happen - again)
I figure a resolution with widespread acceptance will make it very hard for him to object. Well object with any effect if you know what I mean. So not withstanding him, the only other albeit large hurdle is Canberra.
Now I could get all vitriolic in my usual fashion here when referring to JA, but what does it achieve?.
...........Ah stuff it, why not..J.A You are without doubt the most incompetent, unprincipled, weak, pathetic administrator this industry has had to endure. If you have one shred of decency left in you, fix this mess before you retire.
May the fleas of a thousand Camels infest your retirement ya fool.........
Now I got that of my breast....
We all know that politicians are either kissin’ babies or stealin’ their lollypops!
He has shown nothing of any character or conscience through out this mess, or a preparedness to accept that a policy is wrong. 'Plausible deniability', I think not, he knows this NAS has knobs on it!.
That farkin’ public perception thing, scares the **** outa them!.
So as much as kickin for a fresh start is what should happen, I sincerely don’t’ think he can stomach backing down on the brand name NAS.
Next best thing, lets build what we all need from a system safety point of view and sell it to this lizard in a politically acceptable way.
That said, the name NAS may be academic if we go to the polls in Aug
Cheers
Cap
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Higgins
Perhaps you could expand on why your company deems this an unacceptable practice.
I'm always IFR, in fact, our company doesn't allow VFR outside of 50 Nm anymore!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Townsville, QLD
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capcom & friends.
Perhaps we should ask, when do you get the most response from a Government Minister? Usually when refuting claims made by the opposition.
We should then probably target the Shadow Minister with our accrued information and get him to approach John Anderson. He would then have no option but to respond. Excuse me if this has already been tried.
Secondly, DICK, is your reply to SM4 on the 23rd
a backing down on your opinion that ATCs are only financially driven (with reference to NAS).
We should then probably target the Shadow Minister with our accrued information and get him to approach John Anderson. He would then have no option but to respond. Excuse me if this has already been tried.
Secondly, DICK, is your reply to SM4 on the 23rd
It must be frustrating for you as a professional to see the ridiculous unique changes that are being proposed. I can understand your view on the radar in Tasmania. Once again, it is obvious that there is a total lack of leadership. It is very sad for Australia and for our aviation industry.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Higgins
Hey Chris,
Perhaps you could tell us.
I seem to remember on one of the multitude of threads on NAS that in the US, VFR aircraft are not permitted more than 50 (or some figure) from their home airfield, otherwise they must file IFR.
Is that the case or do I have the wrong end of the stick?
If it is, sheds a whole new light on introducing US airspace here.
Thanks in advance.
Perhaps you could tell us.
I seem to remember on one of the multitude of threads on NAS that in the US, VFR aircraft are not permitted more than 50 (or some figure) from their home airfield, otherwise they must file IFR.
Is that the case or do I have the wrong end of the stick?
If it is, sheds a whole new light on introducing US airspace here.
Thanks in advance.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walley2.....
Wally2,
Thanks for shedding the light. It seems the truth is starting to come out.
I expect Dicks response will be something along the lines that every third party document concerning NAS safety concerns was flawed, regardless of the professional esteem of the author.
He will soon be using his arrogance as a legal defence, because unless he can prove that the authors of the ARM document, the BRM DAS and others deliberately disobeyed their charter and prepared false, misleading and subjective reports, his only defence can be that he believes he knows more than both hard data and non-partisan expert analysis.
I know who I'd indict.....
Thanks for shedding the light. It seems the truth is starting to come out.
I expect Dicks response will be something along the lines that every third party document concerning NAS safety concerns was flawed, regardless of the professional esteem of the author.
He will soon be using his arrogance as a legal defence, because unless he can prove that the authors of the ARM document, the BRM DAS and others deliberately disobeyed their charter and prepared false, misleading and subjective reports, his only defence can be that he believes he knows more than both hard data and non-partisan expert analysis.
I know who I'd indict.....
Wally2
Thanks also for shedding the light. I'm also touched that I've been MID
The same old rhetoric
Thanks also for shedding the light. I'm also touched that I've been MID
Ken, I understand that this ARM document is flawed.
I have recently been told ...
I also understand that this flawed document has been unknowingly accepted by ICAO as the basis for airspace risk modelling
I have spoken to US airspace experts
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick response to Bekolblockage and Diving Duck...
The reasons on our company requiring us to be IFR within 50nm of departure are more related to trying to prevent Controlled Flight Into Terrain and preventing inadvertent penetration into restricted airspace, such as Camp David.
There is no restriction on light aircraft doing commercial operations VFR, but it is actively discouraged in the spirit of the writing of our CPL requirements. No CPL can conduct commercial operations more than 25nm from their departure point unless they possess an instrument rating. Hence, any CPL could only conduct, say, scenic flights without an IFR rating.
There is no restriction on light aircraft doing commercial operations VFR, but it is actively discouraged in the spirit of the writing of our CPL requirements. No CPL can conduct commercial operations more than 25nm from their departure point unless they possess an instrument rating. Hence, any CPL could only conduct, say, scenic flights without an IFR rating.
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 24th Jun 2004 at 10:45.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainMidnight ,I thought you would be pleased that the highest levels in the land were rocked by your ROAR. 
On the serious side it shows the importance Pprune plays in these issues. It is often quoted in conversation I have in Canberra and Sydney.
You betcha!!!
Woomera
On the serious side it shows the importance Pprune plays in these issues. It is often quoted in conversation I have in Canberra and Sydney.
You betcha!!!
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 25th Jun 2004 at 07:23.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK
it has to be noted that after Woomera's shut down of Dick's favourite tactic he picks up his ball and goes home....
I for one totally disagree with this statement by Dick!
You have not provided all of the information, in fact you have obviously sought to do the opposite. no direct question seems to have recieved a direct answer. I say seemed as you probably have answered one directly just so that you can point to that one to rubbish this point but if you did it was probably the most insignificant of the questions asked.
Once again I will point out that I am a low time PPL who just wishes that both you and AOPA would stop claiming to be trying to help / represent me, or make life easier for me.
You use analogies to prove your point such as the one about drivers of cars having to report their position and how that wouldn't be acceptable yet you fail to take it to it's logical conclusion. If I were a car driver who could expect a road train to pop out of a fog bank without warning I would want it to know I am there and have the chance to arrange for it to miss me or vice versa.
The one point that really sticks with me is that you keep suggesting others (eg. Airservices) should have sorted the design safety case aspect of the implementation of NAS. I would like to know how you (for that read the whole group of people making the recommendation) could recommend the move to NAS when without doing a design safety study or risk / benifit analysis it is impossible to say to the government that this is the way to go. At best the most you could have reasonably recommended was that subject to a favourable result this would be the way to go, giving them the decision whether or not to do what was required. The failure to phrase the recommendation in this way must surely place liability for any unfavourable outcome on those who made the recommendation?
One final question..... Am I now likely to be accused of being Adrian, A vested interest ATCer, some other (otherwise compromised) party or will you just seek to make some other personal attack.
Mind you as just a lowly PPL without the millions you have, am I worth your effort, after all you seem to be getting your own way without caring about the likes of me or the fare paying RPT passengers.
it has to be noted that after Woomera's shut down of Dick's favourite tactic he picks up his ball and goes home....
Voices of Reason, by the way, this is my last post on this thread. I have to get on with my other life! I have intentionally provided all of the information so there is a contemporary and open account of the decisions in which I was involved. This will be of assistance to any future inquiries.
You have not provided all of the information, in fact you have obviously sought to do the opposite. no direct question seems to have recieved a direct answer. I say seemed as you probably have answered one directly just so that you can point to that one to rubbish this point but if you did it was probably the most insignificant of the questions asked.
Once again I will point out that I am a low time PPL who just wishes that both you and AOPA would stop claiming to be trying to help / represent me, or make life easier for me.
You use analogies to prove your point such as the one about drivers of cars having to report their position and how that wouldn't be acceptable yet you fail to take it to it's logical conclusion. If I were a car driver who could expect a road train to pop out of a fog bank without warning I would want it to know I am there and have the chance to arrange for it to miss me or vice versa.
The one point that really sticks with me is that you keep suggesting others (eg. Airservices) should have sorted the design safety case aspect of the implementation of NAS. I would like to know how you (for that read the whole group of people making the recommendation) could recommend the move to NAS when without doing a design safety study or risk / benifit analysis it is impossible to say to the government that this is the way to go. At best the most you could have reasonably recommended was that subject to a favourable result this would be the way to go, giving them the decision whether or not to do what was required. The failure to phrase the recommendation in this way must surely place liability for any unfavourable outcome on those who made the recommendation?
One final question..... Am I now likely to be accused of being Adrian, A vested interest ATCer, some other (otherwise compromised) party or will you just seek to make some other personal attack.
Mind you as just a lowly PPL without the millions you have, am I worth your effort, after all you seem to be getting your own way without caring about the likes of me or the fare paying RPT passengers.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Higgins
Thanks for the explanation. I thought for a moment that despite the application of see-and-be-seen, ATC flight following and TCAS in the wonderful US system, your company's insurers wouldn't accept the level of risk involved in launching VFR into the murk rather than wait for an IFR clearance.
Thanks for the explanation. I thought for a moment that despite the application of see-and-be-seen, ATC flight following and TCAS in the wonderful US system, your company's insurers wouldn't accept the level of risk involved in launching VFR into the murk rather than wait for an IFR clearance.
Grandpa Aerotart
Well we have a long term known egomaniac who has been exposed for innappropriately menacing various and sundry industry professional groups and govt bodies. (Broome/Dumstra)
By his own acknowledgement he views AOPA and everyone else as being of some lower intellect than himself (phone conversation with Gaunty)
His complete disdain for logical argument is here on pprune for the world to see.
Of late any, and I mean ANY/EVERY, professional group/Govt Dept/professional individual/private individual has been labelled as a 'fundamentalist' if they dare to dissagree with RHS.
His use of 'spin' as opposed to factual argument is constant. Just like the Pollies his answer to any question is to turn it back to 'the message'...the 'known, safer, proven and ICAO compliant North American System'. It makes no difference how many times it is shown that the North Americans are no more ICAO compliant than Oz was pre November 2003.
His constant whining about people on pprune posting annonymously has been proven to be about his innability to then threaten them personally/professionally.
Three different serious threats of legal action don't even shut the fool up.
And yet I feel compelled, in the Ozzy spirit of a fair go, to give Dick the last word.
"As patron of the Australian Skeptics I can assure you that the human power to self-delude is almost unlimited."
Chuck
By his own acknowledgement he views AOPA and everyone else as being of some lower intellect than himself (phone conversation with Gaunty)
His complete disdain for logical argument is here on pprune for the world to see.
Of late any, and I mean ANY/EVERY, professional group/Govt Dept/professional individual/private individual has been labelled as a 'fundamentalist' if they dare to dissagree with RHS.
His use of 'spin' as opposed to factual argument is constant. Just like the Pollies his answer to any question is to turn it back to 'the message'...the 'known, safer, proven and ICAO compliant North American System'. It makes no difference how many times it is shown that the North Americans are no more ICAO compliant than Oz was pre November 2003.
His constant whining about people on pprune posting annonymously has been proven to be about his innability to then threaten them personally/professionally.
Three different serious threats of legal action don't even shut the fool up.
And yet I feel compelled, in the Ozzy spirit of a fair go, to give Dick the last word.
"As patron of the Australian Skeptics I can assure you that the human power to self-delude is almost unlimited."
Chuck
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with Mr Smith - VOR should identify him/herself and the "group" of aviation supporters that he/she leads.
That will give your argument far more credibility.
Why is that rescue1? Did the debate go right over your head?
Anonymity is a fundamental and inviolable tenet of PPRuNe and has been since the site’s inception eight years ago. Many are forced to anonymously participate in PPRuNe due to the philosophies of their employers or their position within Government or the aviation industry.
Is it really relevent who Voices of Reason is, whether an individual or collective group, if the supporting arguments to his posts were conclusive, accurate and concise? Besides, he openly revealed his identity as John Williamson on a number of occasions - what do you now expect, a notarised Birth Certificate?
Play the ball - not the man!
If identification is so relevent to the integrity of a post, I could ask why you use the name "rescue1" and an annonymous email address?
But I won't!
Woomera
That will give your argument far more credibility.
Why is that rescue1? Did the debate go right over your head?
Anonymity is a fundamental and inviolable tenet of PPRuNe and has been since the site’s inception eight years ago. Many are forced to anonymously participate in PPRuNe due to the philosophies of their employers or their position within Government or the aviation industry.
Is it really relevent who Voices of Reason is, whether an individual or collective group, if the supporting arguments to his posts were conclusive, accurate and concise? Besides, he openly revealed his identity as John Williamson on a number of occasions - what do you now expect, a notarised Birth Certificate?
Play the ball - not the man!
If identification is so relevent to the integrity of a post, I could ask why you use the name "rescue1" and an annonymous email address?
But I won't!
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 25th Jun 2004 at 07:41.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO compliant
The USA NAS has many compulsary comms and flight procedures at large uncontrolled regional aiports where they do not have their nomal radar coverage.These are mainly in Alaska and the Rockies, though in the contiguous states these airports are in E class.
VoR my question
Subject to ICAO ANNEX 2 Rules of the Air Chapter 4 VFR
I could require a flight plan and radio watch and compulsary calls in G class (ref4.9)
Under ANNEX 11 can a member state's appropriate authority (CASA) make a designated zone requiring comms or flight procedures in uncontrolled airspace while maintaining compliance to ICAO.
If you allow the airspace designation to have priority over other annexs and recommendations you could say you are non ICAO compliant when applying an ICAO rule of the air!!
Clearly as someone who knows little about enroute airspace, I am suprised that an ATS designated zone requiring comms or an approach procedure to an airport cannot be in a class E or G airspace and remain ICAO compliant.
While a CAGRS and MBZ is NAS(USA) compliant I thought it could be demonstrated it is ICAO compliant. I realise it is of little importance and that complying to ICAO only would only get you a third world level of coverage.
However, when reading ICAO Airport Annex 14 and 11 when I can find it, the ICAO recommendations seemed aimed at allowing enhancements to safety like MBZ procedures yet mainaining the right of compliancy.
Could you advise thanks Mike Caplehorn
Resue1 I am not anonymous so I must be right even when asking a question
VoR my question
Subject to ICAO ANNEX 2 Rules of the Air Chapter 4 VFR
I could require a flight plan and radio watch and compulsary calls in G class (ref4.9)
Under ANNEX 11 can a member state's appropriate authority (CASA) make a designated zone requiring comms or flight procedures in uncontrolled airspace while maintaining compliance to ICAO.
If you allow the airspace designation to have priority over other annexs and recommendations you could say you are non ICAO compliant when applying an ICAO rule of the air!!
Clearly as someone who knows little about enroute airspace, I am suprised that an ATS designated zone requiring comms or an approach procedure to an airport cannot be in a class E or G airspace and remain ICAO compliant.
While a CAGRS and MBZ is NAS(USA) compliant I thought it could be demonstrated it is ICAO compliant. I realise it is of little importance and that complying to ICAO only would only get you a third world level of coverage.
However, when reading ICAO Airport Annex 14 and 11 when I can find it, the ICAO recommendations seemed aimed at allowing enhancements to safety like MBZ procedures yet mainaining the right of compliancy.
Could you advise thanks Mike Caplehorn
Resue1 I am not anonymous so I must be right even when asking a question
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example, it was agreed over 18 months ago that Airservices would upgrade the Class G airspace above FL145 to Class E right across Australia. This is a major safety improvement, requires no extra training for controllers and no extra facilities or equipment, yet Airservices has once again delayed the introduction. Initially the Class E upgrade was to come in by June 2004. Airservices then insisted that the upgrade needed to be put off until November 2004. At recent meetings they have claimed that they can do nothing in November and it needs to be postponed again
Mr. Smith; there have been multiple trials about lowering E to FL145; all of these conclude that multiple extra facilities (VHF frequencies) are required; that probable resectorisation is needed and extra staff; that training would be required for every ATC that currently works E to FL180. They won't need training in E airspace procedures, but the will need training in how to manage traffic with 'new CTA' areas, new frequencies, new sectors etc... VOR is right that due to the limited surveillance the 'procedural standards' cause significant delays, lowering the base increases the delays; solving this with VFR E procedures makes it incredible complex; who needs traffic who needs separation; you can't plan anything in that environment, which means you are really lousy doing your job.
From ASAs point of view, ADS-B is only a few months/years away; why change this when the 'easy solution' is probably just around the corner. ADS-B will greatly improve efficiency and will reduce controller numbers, not increase them (as would lowering without it). If the change in airspace is concurrent with the change in technology it would happen very, very smoothly...
Mr. Smith, we don't make these types of decisions lightly, to imply that Bernie is making a bonus derived decision in this case is crazy. There would be a minimum of 80 controllers who would refuse to operate with an E base FL145 with today’s technology and I wouldn't blame them. There s no way it can be done (without technology or significant extra controllers and frequencies); let alone done in the manner in which you imply.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBZ and CAGRO-re ICAO
VoR
Thankyou for answering my question in the main NAS debate thread,
In your researched and careful manner you have shown that the proposed actions by CASA of maintaining MBZ and CAGRS are NAS(USA) and ICAO compliant.
What had me concerned is that not only was Dick appearing to be claiming MBZ and CAGRS were non compliant but CASA-AsA's in the ARM in its comments section were suggesting the same. Combined this appeared a confirmed position.
To me this was very strange as clearly a busy mixed use airport could be in G class and a DAS such as ours at BME conclude an ATS was required. If ICAO Member States wished to graduate their terminal airspace and not jump from CTAF(USA) allowing non radio equipted aircraft straight to costly D class towers, it appeared such graduated intelligent action was non-compliant.
Thankfully I found my ICAO ANNEX 11( cunningly hidden in my in tray on my P.A.s desk and not in our technical Library)
With your advise and reread of ANNEX 11, we are now armed to negate yet another furfy of MBZ being non-compliant in class G, if it is raised again by NASIG etc.
You may find it extraordinary but, late last year I am advised Mr Mike Smith of NASIG actually wrote or instructed CASA to delete CAGRS legislation, without advise to Ayers Rock or BME Airports the only two civil Airports in Australia gazetted to have CAGRS.
Combined we only have 600,000 pax p/a to protect, but Mike Smith,he new best, probably because of his extensive tertiary qualifications in Mathematics,Engineering, or Science and previous experience in Airspace management- funny but I can not find either his thesis or published papers demonstrating this. Open Mike pehaps you could enlighten us on your qualification in airspace risk management or at least tertiary maths and statistical analysis.
Mike Smith surely you would need this training to have the confidence to make such an order to CASA experts without consulting either the persons doing the CAGRS work or the qualified providers and airport owners and their qualified consultants who monitor the service.
Mike Smith, for me that was one of the high water marks in the stupid, arrogant and devisive behavoir by of NASIG. To me, you claimed MBZ and CAGRS was not only non ICAO compliant but also non NAS (USA) compliant I did know the latter was absolute unresearched total rubbish. You then mis-informed the Senate Estimates Committee in a smug and condesending manner "they (STEAMBOAT SPRINGS) like their unicom infact they call it an enhance unicom". Pity you did not ring the airport you quoted as we did to find they had compulsary calls 10 mins out! and radar coverage down to 4000ft and one in one out IFR procedures controlled by Denver.
No wonder the wheels fell off the NAS implimentation, forget industry consultation you did not have the decency to even consult a team of two players.
In hindsight you were probably the right person for the job,you had the attributes to attempt this now discredited illinformed, selectively manipulated, non consultative, expensive, highanded and unqualified approach to airspace reform. thanks for the memories.
VoR, thankyou for your huge efforts, many of us owe you greatly, not least the pax who will never know their safety was so impressively protected by your wise counsel.
Mike Caplehorn
B.E. MIEAust.C.P.Eng. FAICD
Chairman BIA Group
Thankyou for answering my question in the main NAS debate thread,
In your researched and careful manner you have shown that the proposed actions by CASA of maintaining MBZ and CAGRS are NAS(USA) and ICAO compliant.
What had me concerned is that not only was Dick appearing to be claiming MBZ and CAGRS were non compliant but CASA-AsA's in the ARM in its comments section were suggesting the same. Combined this appeared a confirmed position.
To me this was very strange as clearly a busy mixed use airport could be in G class and a DAS such as ours at BME conclude an ATS was required. If ICAO Member States wished to graduate their terminal airspace and not jump from CTAF(USA) allowing non radio equipted aircraft straight to costly D class towers, it appeared such graduated intelligent action was non-compliant.
Thankfully I found my ICAO ANNEX 11( cunningly hidden in my in tray on my P.A.s desk and not in our technical Library)
With your advise and reread of ANNEX 11, we are now armed to negate yet another furfy of MBZ being non-compliant in class G, if it is raised again by NASIG etc.
You may find it extraordinary but, late last year I am advised Mr Mike Smith of NASIG actually wrote or instructed CASA to delete CAGRS legislation, without advise to Ayers Rock or BME Airports the only two civil Airports in Australia gazetted to have CAGRS.
Combined we only have 600,000 pax p/a to protect, but Mike Smith,he new best, probably because of his extensive tertiary qualifications in Mathematics,Engineering, or Science and previous experience in Airspace management- funny but I can not find either his thesis or published papers demonstrating this. Open Mike pehaps you could enlighten us on your qualification in airspace risk management or at least tertiary maths and statistical analysis.
Mike Smith surely you would need this training to have the confidence to make such an order to CASA experts without consulting either the persons doing the CAGRS work or the qualified providers and airport owners and their qualified consultants who monitor the service.
Mike Smith, for me that was one of the high water marks in the stupid, arrogant and devisive behavoir by of NASIG. To me, you claimed MBZ and CAGRS was not only non ICAO compliant but also non NAS (USA) compliant I did know the latter was absolute unresearched total rubbish. You then mis-informed the Senate Estimates Committee in a smug and condesending manner "they (STEAMBOAT SPRINGS) like their unicom infact they call it an enhance unicom". Pity you did not ring the airport you quoted as we did to find they had compulsary calls 10 mins out! and radar coverage down to 4000ft and one in one out IFR procedures controlled by Denver.
No wonder the wheels fell off the NAS implimentation, forget industry consultation you did not have the decency to even consult a team of two players.
In hindsight you were probably the right person for the job,you had the attributes to attempt this now discredited illinformed, selectively manipulated, non consultative, expensive, highanded and unqualified approach to airspace reform. thanks for the memories.
VoR, thankyou for your huge efforts, many of us owe you greatly, not least the pax who will never know their safety was so impressively protected by your wise counsel.
Mike Caplehorn
B.E. MIEAust.C.P.Eng. FAICD
Chairman BIA Group