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

The NAS Debate: Other Opinions

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

The NAS Debate: Other Opinions

Old 21st Jun 2004, 11:49
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick Smith, I am sure you can iron out this concern, or misunderstanding of mine, so please do. You said:

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
Now if that VFR pilot is flying Morrabin to Mildura at say 3,500, he follows your advice on departure from Morrabin and monitors all appropriate ATC frequencies. Then at the end of the flight tunes into the low level ATC frequencies on approaching Mildura and then switches to the MBZ. In the interim, as there is no benefit to be had in monitoring ATC frequencies "because he is flying enroute", he listens to some Slim Dusty tapes on his walkman instead. All well and good, except for the IFR aerocommander jumping out of Swan Hill for Essendon. The controller sees the potential conflict, but cannot contact the VFR aircraft because obviously as he is enroute there is no need for him to listen out.

The comment you made highlights your lack of understanding of the realities of flying. Just because one aircraft is in the enroute stage of flight happily cruising along outside any CTAF or MBZ's, doesn't mean an IFR aircraft in the area isn't on climb or descent or in the process of changing level, and thus about to upset the happy and ignorantly blissful VFR enroute flight.

Please answer this question with a straight answer and don't rollout that "Airspace at a glance" diagram for the 30th time, we have all seen it a lot of times and we are all really impressed.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2004, 11:57
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Another View On Airspace

The Eurocontrol AIRSPACE AND NAVIGATION TEAM (ANT) has a fresh understanding of airspace categorisation. The ANT works with 40 member states across Europe to harmonise and simplify airspace and at the ANT’s 34th meeting (9-11 June) work papers 2 and 3 on Operational Improvements within the European Airspace Strategy are being debated.

Improvement 2A concerns airspace below F195 while 1A is aimed above F195. The widespread opinion among stakeholder groups is that ICAO class E should not be used, therefore leaving ICAO class C and
D or G to choose from for Improvement 2A. It is expected that States who need to implement airspace improvements should adopt principles that keep the current level of safety and whenever
possible improve it. This means many States will need to provide funding for an increase in service provision from class G &/or E to class D &/or C airspace with a target date for completion of April 2006.

ICAO Airspace Classification system classifies airspace as either controlled or uncontrolled; A to E being controlled. The big difference with the Europeans is the notion of airspace environments, in particular class E where VFR flights are permitted without ATC clearance. This ANT meeting should formalise the approach that ICAO classification of airspace be based on known or unknown traffic as opposed to controlled or uncontrolled. Therefore A to D would be known traffic environments and E to G would be unknown traffic environments. Consequently the Europeans don’t consider class E to be controller airspace
Wow what a novel idea, controlled airspace applying to known traffic...

Dick, internationally harmonize with this please!

It would be interesting to see a list of 'stakeholders' and wonder how it would compare to an Australian list of stakeholders.
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2004, 12:10
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick Smith said in the 'other' thread:

I should point out that an airline aircraft flying from New York to Fairbanks – an internal flight as far as the USA is concerned – transits non-radar Class A airspace with Class G below to FL245. Of course aircraft transiting from Los Angeles to Honolulu are in Class A non-radar airspace.
Now you are confusing me. In the AOPA (USA) picture you keep posting (“airspace at a glance”), there is no mention of Class G going up to FL245, with Class A above. The highest level for class G in your picture is 14,500ft, abutting Class E.

Are you suggesting that this picture, which you keep posting, and on which you base so much of your view of the US system, does not accurately reflect the US system?

Surely you are not admitting that there is more to it than you have led us to believe.

Are you suggesting (again) that we are not adopting the US system, but rather a compromise/hybrid?

So, what is the truth?

truth (tr th)
n. pl. truths (tr thz, tr ths)
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5.
a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
PS: You will remember that you lied about my job and impugned my motives for posting on these forums. You falsely suggested that I was motivated by pecuniary gain. As you have recently acknowledged, this was a lie, and I am indeed what I have always claimed to be, an air traffic controller. Do you intend to apologise for this lie?

PPS: As ever, I anxiously await your response to your question about the truth behind the ‘horrific’ Brisbane Virgin incident. Surely you are not afraid of answering? You did say you would answer. Some people still believe you will.
Four Seven Eleven is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2004, 12:25
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RE: Dick's post of 21/6 debate thread

Dick, congratulations.

A very compelling, well crafted argument that cannot help but persuade most people that you have public interest at heart in your fight against bureacratic waste.

A compelling, well crafted pack of half-truths and misinformation designed to dupe people who can't see through it.

You are still lying, but getting better at it.

eg.
Many people believe that air traffic controllers, pilots and managers on bonuses at Airservices should decide what airspace we move to. I happen to believe the elected Government should make the decision.
Why, then, do you campaign so vigourously for 'world's best practice', the US system at some times, yet not others? In the US, they let ATC, pilots etc. do it all via the FAA. Surely you would want to copy that system, a proven system, which doesn't allow wealthy individuals to 'stand-over' the member for Gwydir in order to subvert due process in choosing airspace models?

Deception/half-truth? How about this
The differences are so minor they are irrelevant. For example, there were points such as
..... you then go on to quote a few minor differences that suit your argument. Please publish the complete list , and then show how 'minor' they all are. "SUCH AS" just doesn't cut it.

Lies?
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.
Remove the reporting system, then claim less reports? How very 'Yes, Minister'. Are there less incidents? What are the facts ?
As to learning the "culture", do you mean the way that controllers in the US control traffic, as if it WAS ACTUALLY UNDER THEIR CONTROL, and not as the rules require? Or does it mean their system is creaking at the seams, and they just do 'whatever they have to' to try and make it work? Try telling a VFR in oz to follow vectors or climb/descend in class 'E', and see how far you get. Try telling an IFR flight commencing from class 'G' to wait. All 'cultural', just no basis in 'rules' or 'law'- possibly why you are having trouble introducing a system that mainly exists in 'culture'.
In relation to safety management and the safety case, I can only use commonsense to prove that the US system provides safety levels that are acceptable by Australians. This is because Australians regularly fly in the United States in both radar and non-radar airspace
By your own admission, we are currently in a limbo between what was, and what will be. Where is your 'proven system' that has this interim stepped airspace? Or where is your safety case?
I would far prefer to accept a proven system, rather than a system designed by a group of well-meaning but inexperienced (in airspace design) pilots and air traffic controllers
So who designed ausNAS? I'd suggest people in exactly the same category as those you don't trust? Who designed the US system? I'd suggest the same. Furthermore, HOW CAN YOU BE SURE IT IS THE SAME SYSTEM? Don't you think radar coverage is a fundamental aspect of the US system? Were you and the gentleman from Qantas qualified to factor in the lack of radar in oz? These are the sorts of questions that make the professionals squirm when they read your diatribes about 'proven systems' and who designs what.
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
Who do you think you are kidding? You are not saving money, you are cost shifting. THE AIRLINES now have to absorb the cost of diversions, RAs etc. Your 'third party' ops are going to be CAGROs funded by who? Airlines of course!! And guess who are, by far, the largest group of airspace users? People sitting in the back of AIRLINERS!

You are screwing the public for your own selfish ends.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that a Boeing aircraft was safer than an Airbus aircraft. They both meet very high safety standards. I would be happy to purchase either one. Airspace is the same. I am happy to copy a safe airspace system – not build a Nomad.
The trouble is with this analogy is that you are not building a Nomad- what you are doing is more akin to taking a B747 and cutting it down to a B737. You might have end products of each one to look at, but the steps involved might warrant testing?
It stands to reason that if we are going to move away from our system – which relied very much on a traffic information service in Class G (pretty well unique in the world) – run by flight service, to a system run by air traffic controllers, it would be more sensible for us to follow the North American system as the geography has greater similarities to that in Europe.
Why move to a different system. Aren't you happy with world's best practice, the oz system, a system the americans are trying to MOVE TOWARDS? You've already shown your reason for change to be flawed or outright lies.
The difference with the FAA is that it does not profit out of the airspace so there is not a conflict of interest.
So all of this could have been avoided if only you'd changed the charging system, the real cancer? Stopped the govt using AsA as a tax?
If we do this in Australia in relation to aviation we will be leaders in the world.
So, we copy a creaking, old system, and that will makes us world leaders? Yeah, right......

Anyway, people can make up their own minds. Good effort, though. Much more compelling lies etc.
ferris is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2004, 15:43
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: AUS
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The so called bleating minority won't go away!

It's Planespeaker, Xxx - whatever you want to call me - here.

First of all, if you are wondering WHY I continue changing my username it isn't by choice, or some weird way of going about things.

Since someone at PPRuNe has decided to "block me out" (I'm not banned they use a certain program to "brown me out"... c'mon fellas I ain't stupid) as soon as they recognise who it is making these posts they move to prevent me from getting in and stating an opinion, so.. I have no choice other than to change my username and IP address!!


It's excellent to see some practical, realistic operational scenarios are being played out by you guys in your postings. That means this debate is getting somewhere.

I have quite a few personal messages in my PPRuNe box, to whoever has sent them, sorry, I am unable to read them / respond to your msg thanks to PPRuNe's block , feel free to make them public knowledge on this thread or send them again through this name. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

PPRuNe Don't expect someone like me to give up my convictions that easily. I have a thousand IP's & names to use so PPRuNe, give it up!!! After all, I'm the only one in here with "Dick" who has the guts to come in and slug it out with the anti-NAS folks here and cop the abuse.

Ferris, world leading programs are made anywhere by taking an already successful system/product/SERVICE and making it BETTER. Macdonalds took the hamburger and said "lets not let people wait 20 minutes for it" and look at them now. Pizza has been around for a thousand years, but just tell Pizza Hut it's a ricketty, old food. That's one of the secrets to Dicks riches, and one of the reasons he comes across as so dynamic, he's made a success out of many more things than you have.

He's wrong you say? How the hell can you compare Pizza or Hamburgers to Air safety? Easy. It's the same principle... take something that works well somewhere, and has been proven to do so for years, (the US airspace system) add the missing "ingredient/s" required here and PRESTO you have a world leader.

I DON'T BELEIVE EVERYTHING DICK SAYS!!!!!

Tobzalp I agree completely to your last post. Self reporting?? For God's sake C'mon..... CAIR will be back eventually, no doubt. ASRS must be Mike's suggestion, Dick. Wonder if he ever reported himself for not making any radio calls in MBZ's to save his company the landing fee? (ask him.. catch him by surprise & look into his eyes Dick...) Maybe 95% of the reports received from CAIR were so called self serving rubbish... So are 95% of the leads Police receive (my Wife's a cop) but that genuine 5% are absolute gold, well worth that 95% of rubbish.... you think the cops could use ASRS hey???? "Sure that'll solve a helluva lot more crimes."

BUT CLASS "E"? HE'S RIGHT!" ...

Blastoid question for you... If you're vectoring that 747 you mentioned in Aussie C airspace nearing a capital city aerodrome, Dick's about 5,000 below in a lightie in G airspace with mode "A" selected on his transponder, (maybe he doesn't even have that, he's just a primary target) what did you do then prior to NAS??? Wouldn't you rather be vectoring the 74 in E with all operating mode "C'"s rather than with an ID'd target in "C" with unidentified primary target (that could be in C you never know) in "G"???? Wouldn't mandatory "C" be FAR better than transponder "whatever"???

Did someone mention Slim Dusty on a walkman?? Awww C'Mon!!!! Must have been you!!!

As for the inconvenience to IFR Pilots in E, I'd much rather traffic advisories in E on unknown VFR's rather than being an IFR Pilot in G without TCAS on descent heading at 200KTS toward a 4 seat 120KT VFR with no transponder coming the other way. It's actually happened to me, thank GOD for the big sky theory... imagine 0 Ft vertical separation and about 200 ft lateral separation... talk about unalerted see and avoid! (It's like Oooooh!!!! oh.......). True, I feel far safer in C, but that just isn't practical in a well spread out country such as AUS.

Dirty Pierre and Capcom It's "writeoffs" like yours that are the real concern... if you are high capacity RPT pilots, hope you don't write off the no nothing passenger that shows you the "crack" in your fuselage. Unlike you with me, I won't write off your "serious" aviation related concerns, wrong or otherwise. You have no idea about another's experience. I always assume here in PPRuNe I am dealing with professionals.

Alright PPruNE, there it is.. Wonder how many posts before you block this username out???

Last edited by GaggedAgain; 21st Jun 2004 at 16:30.
GaggedAgain is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2004, 16:34
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Broome DAS and charges

The NAS question is complicated but lets try to give Dick and VoR some simple Question or statements. I will start:

Dick, the BME DAS advised the change in risk and cost of a number of options CAGRS/MBZ was the base line. It found CTAF unnacceptable, D tower 20% improvement. Best if tower done on subcontract to AsA:

BME CAGRS record indicates no terminal airspace problems or major incidents, all major users and most pilots say system is fine and cost effective- I say do not change-You now say go to D class Tower no study etc needed.

You say I am worried about my profits. I say CAGRS cost us as our charge was pre Ansett collapse and based on 146 a/c not 737-800 and tower will not cost us as all costs will be passed on to users therefore my profit goes up.

We now seem to agree on MBZ at major regional a/ps and at least CAGRS at BME.

With regards tower, I am worried about:- cost to users- arbitary unstudied decision making- need for transponders that most NW GA a/c do not have and will be a large expenditure for them that some can not afford.

So for NAS to be acceptable to BME all we wanted was studied approach( we would have done and financed this, if asked), consultation with us and stakeholders( we would have organised), alerted see and avoid(mandatory calls now accepted) and third party comms. You are now of this opinion, or one step ahead with D Class Tower.

We could have solved BME terminal airspace and been well down the road to all major regional a/ps and NAS full ahead.

We went ballistic only when Mike Smith said we would be a CTAF(USA) and learn to live with it, even when he could not point to one A/P in the USA as big and diverse as BME that was CTAF- refused to release the taxpayer funded report on the experts trip to USA and bagged Captain Beville-Anderson's report of the same trip that confirmed our desktop study.

We were absolutely worried about safety, bugger profits, I like to sleep at night. We had seen a 15NM MBZ fail and an alarming number of incidents and with CASA help increased the MBZ area and introduced CAGRS. Yet this guy was telling us a 4.5-10NM CTAF was all that was needed. We went head to head to protect the public from this arrogant ,stupid proposal and the system that was trying to impliment it without data, consultation or study.


Looking on this VoR-Dick debate and the Others thread I am coming to the conclusion that it was the- From high,No changes allowed, no studies, no discussion, no trust and Mike Smith lecture approach that has resulted in a major stuff up, much angst and near tragedy. While infact with a more flexibly analysed approach with ARG & NASIG recognising lack of radar, culture difference and therefore some serious changes to say 15% of USA model, the NAS could have been successfully implimented.

So S-T, Capcom etc

Is this over simplistic or could your major concerns on airspace and ATC be solved within a designed analysed hybred NAS that takes account of the differences AUS vs USA or, unlike BME terminal airspace, is it impossible to realistically apply NAS(USA) plus 10-20% changes and get a NAS(AUS). Lets leave aside the question as to wether the existing system needed fixing.

If it could be done, can you try to simply explain what changes were needed to the USA NAS to make a safe transition if properly done. Factors like C vs E, VFR over top, VFR tracking, IFR-VFR seperation without radar. How our ATC, Pilots ways needed to be allowed for. etc

Thanks Mike Caplehorn

Last edited by WALLEY2; 21st Jun 2004 at 17:05.
WALLEY2 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2004, 16:59
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mr. Smith

Sir, Without getting caught up in the finer detail of airspace management and politics could you please explain to me why light aircraft are so over-represented in all of this?

This is about a SAFE system for the travelling public, the vast majority of which are travelling with the airlines.
Apologies to the weekend warriors decked out in tweed jackets and moleskins but this is a case of you guys working around the TRAVELLING PUBLIC and not vice versa.

This is not a contest of big plane pilots versus small plane pilots... In fact lets leave the pilots out of it for arguments sake. This is all about what the travelling public pay for and are entitled to.... They are certainly entitled to a ride where they are not inconvenienced by; let alone endangered by a light private operation!

Has this become a headbutting contest between those with the public's safety at heart and those silvertails fortunate enough to fly themselves about?

Why was there such public outcry when taxpayers money was used to surface the late Sir. Joh's driveway when Highway One was in such a state of disrepair?
Mr.Buzzy is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2004, 17:10
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gagged again:

I really appreciate where you are coming from, but 'what is better ' is open to interpretation. Personally, I don't think McDonalds makes better burgers than the fish & chip shop !! In a high pressure environment, like the states, you might want a McDonalds (fast and bad for you), but does Australia need it? For Australian conditions, who says that what was made in Australia isn't better? I would've thought that Dick, as quick as he is to beat the ozzie marketing drum on his own products, would've been very keen to package the oz system and SELL IT TO THE YANKS, not vice versa. He even bags AsA for tendering for an Hawaiian tower!

More to the point, it's the total disregard for, and subversion of, the normal change process that really grates. He might've got it in without a peep if he had done it properly.
ferris is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2004, 21:18
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: x
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder what NAS would be like if they made the following changes;

1. Put the area frequencies and sectors back on the charts and tell all VFR aircraft that they must listen to that frequency when in that sector so that they can be contacted by ATC or an IFR aircraft re any impending conflicts.

2. Make another frequency for FL120 and above so that the jets don't have to listen to incessant 'bugsmasher' chatter and visa versa.

3. Tell Dick Smith to shut up and just fade away. He is doing more damage to NAS by being the defacto spokesperson for it because more people dislike him personally, and therefore by association, dislike NAS.
KLN94 is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2004, 21:32
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
KLN94.
I agree in part with your first two points but have to disagree on point three.
Mr.Buzzy is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2004, 21:57
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Some place over on the other side of Mos Eisley I think
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GaggedAgain
Don't expect someone like me to give up my convictions that easily. I have a thousand IP's & names to use so PPRuNe, give it up!!! After all, I'm the only one in here with "Dick" who has the guts to come in and slug it out with the anti-NAS folks here and cop the abuse.
Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?
Obi von Kenobi is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2004, 00:01
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Hiding..... in one hemisphere or another
Posts: 1,067
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
VOR said to Dick Smith:
As a side point, you might notice that when challenged, we go to the trouble of providing hard factual evidence and reasoned assumptions. Perhaps you might be able to respond with copies of data or information on which you are making assumptions and statements. I suspect it would help to bolster your arguments amongst the wider audience.
Indeed!!

AS
Atlas Shrugged is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2004, 01:04
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Devil Transponder and Airspace

Planespeaker/GaggedAgian

You have said,

Wouldn't you rather be vectoring the 74 in E with all operating mode "C'"s rather than with an ID'd target in "C" with unidentified primary target (that could be in C you never know) in "G"????
and

I'd much rather traffic advisories in E on unknown VFR's rather than being an IFR Pilot in G without TCAS on descent heading at 200KTS toward a 4 seat 120KT VFR with no transponder coming the other way.
It is the mandatory transponder requirement of the NAS changes that gives the safety margins you are alluding to not the airspace reclassifications.

Whilst acknowledging that both the changes came in with NAS, they should not be seen as a package. There is no reason the two elements cannot be decoupled.
GaryGnu is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2004, 01:17
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry

Now I am really getting concerned. It looks like a few of us are suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome".

NAS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN ANY WAY

NAS is not compatable with the ATM Strategic Plan.

If NAS is implimented as advertised and the Stategic Plan come into effect when ATS-B comes on line, we will end up with "E" airspace down to 1200 feet AGL all over the country, no VFR aircraft fitted with ADS-B sqitters, 3 times the number of controllers for the expanded "E", all at the expense of IFR aircraft!

This is not a very good outcome.

Please do not think that just because we go through correct safety procedures to justify that it is safe that is the airspace that we need for the future. IT IS NOT!!
Niles Crane is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2004, 04:16
  #95 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There have been many comments on the transponders in "E" outside radar as a "mitigator" with the use of TCAS, which in Oz GA, means "just about everywhere".

The following might be a little subtle for the pro NAS lot but:

www.avweb.com

"Security Mandarins Ponder DC Panic...
Pilot error has been ruled out and now the people who try to keep Washington, D.C., safe from terrorism will figure out among themselves what led them to scramble fighters and evacuate the Capitol last Wednesday for an airplane that never strayed an inch from its approved (and very well-documented) flight path. The King Air 200 carrying Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher (a former fighter pilot) had a waiver to take Fletcher into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport so the governor could attend a memorial for the airport's late namesake. But before it landed, its arrival caused panic (see AVweb's prior coverage") ... perhaps an appropriate reaction to police officers at the Capitol building shouting, "one minute to impact." The pseudo drama began with a balky transponder that quit working shortly after the King Air left Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport early Wednesday afternoon. Following the regulations for such an occurrence, the pilots of the Kentucky State Police aircraft notified air traffic control and maintained contact throughout the flight. "They followed directions from air traffic controllers explicitly," said Doug Hogan, Fletcher's communication's director. "

Yup about the same age as most of the GA transponder equipment operating in the same "Oz just about everywhere".

Myself and the more rational members of the last AOPA board voiced similar concerns pre and post 2b implementation, which in typical fashion brought calumnny and personal vilification upon our persons by the zealot PPL and self proclaimed legends and Smith apologists there, as not "in the interests of members" and the heretical suggestion by us that there should be a means of "verifying" transponder operation for aging aircraft that rarely if ever went near a "radar" as "against the interests of the members and an uneccesary cost imposition".
Biennial radio inspections ? yeah right!

Neither should you assume that the "official" AOPA position in support of the NAS is held by the membership at large, there has been the same form of "consultation" with the AOPA members on this subject as was undertaken by the NASIG at large.!

Before last year the AOPA "Board" (you should not assume the members) position was UNEQUIVOCAL NAS support i.e. "whatever Dick said".
A number of us on the board had to fight very hard, yes against the same relentless calumny and personal vilification, to get it changed to add the very important "but will closely monitor its implementation".

Who in his right mind will give a blanket endorsement to anyone without the knowledge of what will actually get implemented.

I will also state unambiguously, that in my opinon the AOPA board were AT THE VERY LEAST, misled and manipulated regarding the proposed agreed contents and the final release of the actual content of the 2B Training and Educational material.

The timing of which was foiled by an equally concerned Qantas, the other major stakeholder/participant in the T & E material, alerting us to its shortcomings only 4 days before it was to be comitted.

WE at least the then AOPA VPs including the one whose portfolio it was, were NOT addressees to the final 2b iteration from the NASIG, which did NOT include the "frequencies and boundaries on the charts in the transition", nor were we informed of the meeting that was proposed on the subject in Sydney the Friday before the commital date. There is more which I will not discuss here for the moment.

AOPA had agreed (with I believe Qantas) to "badge", ie endorse the 2B implementation TRAINING AND EDUCATION package SUBJECT to it containing ALL of the mitigators agreed between the NASIG and ALL INDUSTRY as part of the hazard identification process conducted by them in Sydney, around July 2003.

The "TRAINING AND EDUCATION " mitigators in question were, "frequencies and boundaries on the charts in the transition".

"Frequencies and boundaries on the charts in the transition" was to allow airlines, Qantas and it's regionals and industry the "time" that was not available in the "NAS timetable" for "timely" dissemination throughout their organisations.

The thousands of "orphan" pilots identified by us who did not have easy access to a "knowledgeable" organisation were to be ignored as irrelevant. That is anyone not in the "J" curve.

IMHO the very ones the most exposed in the new system.

There were also to my knowledge many ATCers, who were not yet themselves fully trained nor entirely up to speed with the material.

The "non inclusion" was as I understand it a unilateral decision by a single individual imposed on the NASIG on the grounds, "that it wasn't done in the US model". therefore it couldn't be done here.

The 2B implementation from our perspective was either an unmitigated shambles, an exercise in shameless duplicity or both.

The most prominent proponent of the whole fiasco admitted to me in a telephone conversation that we were serially misled and that the persons involved in doing so should be hailed as "Australian heroes" for ignoring the concern and leading the country to a better system against an incompetent majority. My response that "it is OK for them (the incompetents ) to be misled then" was met with a "whatever it takes".

Oh and whilst I am at it re the "independent" Willoughby and Associates report.
Was there a declaration/disclaimer in the report of who are/were the "Associates" and any "conflict of interest"
I have it on impeccable authority (the Townsville refueller again ) that at least one of the contributors/authors was an employee of Dick Smith.
A "Dorothy Dixer" report indeed?


In closing: for all the concerned pilots and ATCers out there, I also have it on impeccable authority (not the TVL refueller) that this debate and Smiths participation in it is now all relatively immaterial apart from the lessons to be learned.
It is now firmly back where it always belonged in the first place "in the hands" of DOTARS now actually running NASIG, CASA and AirServices with NASPAG controlled by the relevant CEO's.
I also understand that there have been some seriously career limiting observations made about some by DOTARS.
VOR's classic "Authority WITH Responsibility". I don't imagine really clever public servants get their personal ambitions confused with a non government persons "Influence".

I am not surprised but very pleased to see that neither are VOR deflected by the usual discursive polemic.

I am also really dissappointed that the little bully boy is back with his personal and libellous attacks against public servants and others who by convention have no means of defence.
The idea that the Airservices executive design airspace to increase their bonus is as ludicrous, cheap and bankrupt a notion as is the person who promotes it.

edited to close a bracket.

Last edited by gaunty; 22nd Jun 2004 at 04:46.
gaunty is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2004, 04:23
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GaggedAgain (or whatever you reincarnate as....)

Wouldn't you rather be vectoring the 74 in E with all operating mode "C'"s rather than with an ID'd target in "C" with unidentified primary target (that could be in C you never know) in "G"???? Wouldn't mandatory "C" be FAR better than transponder "whatever"???
There is some validity in your point - of course it would be lovely if everybody had a transponder, was squawking Mode C, serviced their transponders so that they were accurate, etc.

To respond, however: vectoring in Class C airspace - any targets that were observed (primary or secondary with Nil Mode C) are assumed to be outside class C airspace. You may argue that assumption. If they are inside, they are breaking the law. That is a defence in this system - the pilot has to be doing something wrong for him to be there in the first place. Having said that, see-and-avoid (unalerted of course) would still be a defence, as would TCAS for a nil Mode C secondary target (which, when it calls "Traffic", the 747 pilot will query you. And that will make you pay attention, because the fact that his TCAS can see it means that it is within a reasonable vertical distance of the 747).

However, VFR can now fly through E happily all day without a clearance, and talk to no-one. The key point in your post was that all have operating mode C - and while many do, this is where there is a major shortcoming.

As I said to you, full marks to you for listening out, activating Mode C, and speaking up if required. And if we can see you, we won't vector the 747 towards you (if we need to vector him), and the fact that we can see you means that the system is working as it should (albeit unless we talk to you, we need to apply extra buffers on your Mode C).

However, since Nov 27, I have literally lost count of the number of occassions that I have realised there are VFR aircraft in E without a serviceable Mode C (or that is incorrect), or their transponder doesn't provide a return whatsoever. That is the most concerning thing, because they think "My transponder is on Mode C, people can see me" but in fact no-one can. And before you refute this with a "but their transponder won't be indicating that it is replying", yes they have, and their has still be no return on the RADAR.

Don't get me started on non-RADAR - refer to my post to Dick.

The message in all of this is that post November 27, everyone is working within the letter of the law (or AIP, or whatever) - IFR with a clearance, VFR in E - except that he doesn't know it is not working. Everyone is doing as they should and yet the ONLY defence it comes down to is unalerted see-and-avoid. See comparison with previous example on C airspace.

And when it comes to non-RADAR - the seriousness of the Christmas Eve incident at LT is plain to see when all concerned were operating as required under NAS.

Slim dusty? No, it wasn't me - you must be confusing me with somebody else. I mentioned you were enjoying the view below.

KLN94,

2. Make another frequency for FL120 and above so that the jets don't have to listen to incessant 'bugsmasher' chatter and visa versa.
We already have that in most areas - Class A frequency, and Class E/G frequency. The trouble is the sectors are often combined resulting in everyone being able to hear everyone else. The trouble is it would require many, many more controllers to split the frequencies permanently. But nice idea.
Blastoid is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2004, 04:54
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Generalisations in general!

Gaunty,

Thanks for your input. You probably already know this, but many ATCs in OZ are actually also private pilots. In fact, I used to work with two who also flew part-time with the old Bush Pilots (BPA).

Oz ATCs know that not everyone in AOPA is not in support of NAS (No Actual Separation), as we actually have some ATCs who are members of that organisation. It seems that the same loud minority within AOPA, along with Dick, have hijacked what could have been very sensible airspace reform.

Gaggedagain, I say again, you have NFI!

Australia is a place renown for innovation and invention. Stumpjump plow, combine harvester, DME, MLS, TAAATS, just quickly spring to mind. Why not have the best, most innovative airspace in the world suitable for our uniquely Australian conditions and culture. Give ALL stakeholders a say in the process, and carry out appropriate testing of new airspace and procedures.

Lets do it better than the yanks. F#$@ McDonalds, I'd rather have my hamburger with beetroot, not pickles (whatever they are), I sit in the front seat of the cab, and I watch footy and cricket.

And I'd like my airspace Australian as well.
DirtyPierre is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2004, 06:13
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Blastoid, yes, you have it 100% correct. It is “inherent to the Australian aviation culture” that IFR and some VFR will use radio arranged separation rather than alerted see and avoid when in VMC. The radio arranged separation system can only work in Australia where traffic densities are so low. As I explained previously, once two aircraft start arranging separation, the frequency is blocked for any other traffic announcements.

In the USA and other countries in which I have flown, a system called “alerted see and avoid” is used. It is the one that BASI/ATSB claims is necessary for airline aircraft. With an alerted see and avoid system, an aircraft receives an announcement from another aircraft and then looks in that direction to avoid the other plane.

Yes, you are correct. In the US system (and in systems right around the world) unalerted see and avoid is the norm in low traffic density airspace. It actually results in the same level, or a slightly higher level, of safety than what we get with our “radio arranged separation”. I believe the reason is easy to understand. If you look at the BASI/ATSB MTAF and MBZ reports (1993 and 2003), you will see that there are many unalerted see and avoid incidents happening. This is because the frequency is blocked with people using radio arranged separation, or often the radio is on the wrong frequency or the volume is turned down.

We have a system at the present time in Class G airspace that relies very much on unalerted see and avoid. It is a fact of life that pilots have to be vigilant at all times.

Launceston incident
In relation to the Launceston incident, the ATSB report was totally biased and showed that the investigators had no understanding of how the ICAO Class E airspace should work. The Tobago pilot was monitoring both the tower and the ATC area frequency and had full traffic information on the Virgin aircraft. He sighted the aircraft well out and claims to this day that there was never any chance of a collision. He agrees that the Virgin plane came closer than he thought it would, however he maintains that if necessary he simply would have altered heading or descended. He told the ATSB investigators that there was simply no chance of a collision – that is why he did not alter heading, climb or descend.

In that particular situation it was the big sky theory that saved the potential collision. If it had been necessary for the Tobago pilot to alter heading or climb and descend, it would have been alerted see and avoid. If the collision had been prevented by TCAS it would have been the TCAS that saved the potential collision. Remember that in the USA there is no transponder requirement in similar non-radar airspace – nor do they even recommend that VFR aircraft monitor the tower or any frequency. They do not have this recommendation as they have found it to be totally unnecessary. Obviously 100 years of experience counts.

If the Launceston situation occurred without a mandatory transponder requirement and if the Tobago was not fitted with a transponder, there never would have been an incident reported. This is because the Virgin aircraft never sighted the Tobago, and the Tobago pilot believed there was no incident. This shows what an incredible beat up the situation was. It was clearly the system working correctly and the ATSB beat it up out of all proportion and called it a serious incident. You may like to look at my website (see http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Con...?ContentID=288) because the Tobago pilot does not agree with the ATSB report but has never been able to gain access to the actual wording of what was said during the communication in which he was involved. I understand that people at Virgin were able to read the transcript, but not the private pilot. Readers can make their own judgement on that.

In relation to it being an acceptable level of safety, all I can say is that it is certainly better than what we have overhead busier airports such Ayers Rock and Broome. The airspace above those airports is Class G - there is no requirement for a transponder at all and the airline aircraft is not being separated from other IFR. I would prefer to go to Class E with mandatory transponder, than Class G without transponder any day.

Icarus2001, you ask how I know that some benefits are already happening. It is quite simple – I ask advice. For example, the ATSB figures show that resolution advisories are reducing, and I have spoken to many pilots who are now gaining the benefit of being able to track directly over Class D towers – where in the past they were often diverted or held. The Tobago pilot of the Launceston incident is an example. He has claimed that with the system before 27 November 2003 up to 50% of the time when overflying Launceston, he was given extra tracking distance – even if it was only an IFR Navajo in the airspace and the conditions CAVOK.

I Fly, the reason I would not support the Russian system here is that it is the most restrictive and costly in the world. It is basically a type of Class A airspace everywhere with VFR being forced to fly as if they were IFR. It is constant position reporting all the time for VFR, similar to our pre-1991 Aussie system.

Scramjet77, the difference between the Aussie MBZ calling in the blind system and the US CTAF system is that they obtain a far higher level of compliance with their recommended procedures than we do with our mandatory procedures. All the data I have seen shows that they do not have the major problems that we have in relation to unalerted see and avoid at non-tower airports. The most obvious reason for this is that their system relies on alerted see and avoid with more announcements, rather than radio arranged separation with two aircraft blocking the frequency.

More importantly, virtually every non-tower airport you operate at in the United States that has airline traffic also features a UNICOM. The UNICOM gives a third party confirmation that the radio is working. Our very high number of unalerted see and avoid in MBZs does not come from non-radio aircraft, it comes primarily from simple pilot error. I believe by moving to the US system we would have similar compliance rates and our quite serious problems in MBZs would be reduced.

In relation to your question number 1, I do not have exact figures for the cost of so far introducing NAS 2b and the attempted 2c, however it could be some millions of dollars. This will pale into insignificance when compared to the continuing savings by the industry as they do not have to hold or be sent extra distances in the old Class C airspace.

I can’t show exactly how the claimed $70 million savings will be achieved other than point you to the Willoughby Report, where an independent expert stated that this was his estimate. I’ve always believed that the savings would be far higher.

CaptainMidnight, my comments in relation to the design safety case remain. Mick Toller of CASA particularly told Airservices that they would not be required to do a design safety case in relation to certain NAS features. Even though this was stated by Mick, it appears that Airservices’ internal procedures stated that they must do a full design safety case. As I have stated numerous times before, that's Airservices’ responsibility, not Mick Toller’s or mine.

By the way, there is nothing to say that a design safety case cannot primarily rely on statistics from a proven system. It is obvious that if someone did a correct design safety case on the full US system (the FAA has never bothered) it would show that the system was acceptably safe.

AirNoAirservicesAustralia, you are basically claiming that the US system (i.e. a system where VFR aircraft do not monitor ATC frequencies when enroute as in the USA) cannot work in Australia. If you really believe that in the system before 27 November 2003, VFR pilots were monitoring the correct ATC frequency when enroute, you are wrong. Many pilots ended up on the wrong frequency or with the volume turned down because of the constant communication on the frequency that was irrelevant to them. I would suggest that if there is an IFR aircraft climbing or descending in enroute Class G or E airspace that the pilot remains vigilant to see and avoid other traffic. This is what I did as a pilot before 27 November 2003 and I continue to do so now.

Four Seven Eleven, as pointed out by Voices of Reason, an aircraft flying from New York to Fairbanks is actually in Canadian airspace, and in the northern airspace their Class A airspace drops to FL245.

Four Seven Eleven, whether you like it or not, you work for a commercial organisation. As an air traffic controller your income comes from the commercial sale of your services to a customer. You will benefit if your organisation produces higher profits as your union will be astute enough to make sure you get a share – that is good. Don’t kid yourself, you are not some type of charitable safety regulator – you are just as commercial as when I stood behind the counter selling products. You sit behind a radar screen selling air traffic services. Don’t be holier than thou, everyone knows that your interests are commercial and that is in total conflict with having Government regulatory powers for airspace – which your organisation has.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 22nd Jun 2004 at 23:34.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2004, 07:13
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,079
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick

In the thread titled "The NAS debate: Voices of Reason and Dick Smith", you've stated among other things that:
I [Dick Smith] should point out to all readers that the NAS model (see http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/nasfinal.doc) has been approved by Federal Cabinet. It was not just the Minister, it went to Cabinet level, and the elected Government decided that this was the airspace system that Australia was to move to.
You've also stated that:
The elected Government clearly instructed Airservices to comply with the law on the introduction of NAS.
I note that the Air Services Act says in section 16 that:
(1)The Minister may give written directions to AA relating to the performance of its functions or the exercise of its powers.

(2) AA must comply with a direction given under subsection (1).
I'm sure that you would agree that if the Minister and the Cabinet thought the introduction of NAS was so important, the Minister would have given, or would have been made by the Cabinet to give, a direction to Airservices to do so.

Are you aware if such a direction has been given? If such a direction has not been given, I'm sure that you would agree "the government" is, like you, prepared to talk the talk but not prepared walk the walk.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2004, 09:09
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dagobah
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
****su Tonka is right!

I say......


Y0DA is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.