Airservices option 3 and Industry model link
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM4 Pirate wrote
There were back to back meetings for GTS types in Bris and Mel a few weeks ago where each one did a TNA for their staff listing the training requirements for O3 and IO.
It appears that IO (and O3) is on the surface a doable event by the Nov 25 map date if the board can make their decision at the July meeting or even put it off for a month and still get there without cutting any educational corners. I think however that the training deficiencies will once again show up on the pilots side of things as I am sure it will be via a half arsed mail out booklet like last time.
P.S. why no internal briefings on these things, the NAS SMEs and GTSs have been busy working on something, one presumes on this...
It appears that IO (and O3) is on the surface a doable event by the Nov 25 map date if the board can make their decision at the July meeting or even put it off for a month and still get there without cutting any educational corners. I think however that the training deficiencies will once again show up on the pilots side of things as I am sure it will be via a half arsed mail out booklet like last time.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More of a question, I have looked through the slides and all of the E seems to now be above 10,000', so O2 or pressure to play in it. And it seems, in the wedding cake views to be VERY small, but I have not worked out the horizontal extent.
But, why not bucket E and have C instead? No special procedure needed, one radio procedure fits all, and you are in OCTA or not...
But, why not bucket E and have C instead? No special procedure needed, one radio procedure fits all, and you are in OCTA or not...
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vicious rumour is that a letter change from E to C over D is politically untenable (constitutes a recognition that it was never that good an idea and all that).
E F180 to F245 is being maintained because of the 3 or so VFRs that can get up that high who are demanding that their right to do so without talking to anyone must not be infringed!!!
The idea that the majority of IFRs like it that way is demonstrably untrue- maybe it would be different if the E procedures weren't so crap.
E F180 to F245 is being maintained because of the 3 or so VFRs that can get up that high who are demanding that their right to do so without talking to anyone must not be infringed!!!
The idea that the majority of IFRs like it that way is demonstrably untrue- maybe it would be different if the E procedures weren't so crap.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OPTION 3
At first glance option 3 appears to be a “giant leap” forward in the right direction. However a few questions arise in my interpretation of the proposal.
1. Why the rush (yet again) to implement another change by November the 25th. This WILL NOT give time for industry (both private and public) to asses, establish, distribute and implement training and familiarisation packages.
2. Why the tiny “strip” of Class E airspace within the Northern and Southern parts of the J curve? These strips appear to be so small as to be entirely redundant causing more work for no result.
3. Establishment of VRA’s. Why? If the possibility of collision is deemed to be higher in certain areas, why not maintain class C airspace? A VRA at first glance, will only create higher work loads for all concerned, with no added benefit. Wasn’t the entire farce called NAS brought about in the first case in order to “SIMPLIFY” the way we all work? To me a VRA is a “rebadged” form of class A clearance requirements.
While I applaud the changes proposed in OPTION 3 and believe that the basis of the proposals provide a sound and solid foundation, lets not get carried away with trying to be all things to all people. There is some truth in the cliché that “a camel is actually a horse designed by a committee”.
Why did we ever change from what we had pre NAS 2b? Be aware, the war is not over yet. DS will still be trying every trick in his large repertoire to have his own way.
1. Why the rush (yet again) to implement another change by November the 25th. This WILL NOT give time for industry (both private and public) to asses, establish, distribute and implement training and familiarisation packages.
2. Why the tiny “strip” of Class E airspace within the Northern and Southern parts of the J curve? These strips appear to be so small as to be entirely redundant causing more work for no result.
3. Establishment of VRA’s. Why? If the possibility of collision is deemed to be higher in certain areas, why not maintain class C airspace? A VRA at first glance, will only create higher work loads for all concerned, with no added benefit. Wasn’t the entire farce called NAS brought about in the first case in order to “SIMPLIFY” the way we all work? To me a VRA is a “rebadged” form of class A clearance requirements.
While I applaud the changes proposed in OPTION 3 and believe that the basis of the proposals provide a sound and solid foundation, lets not get carried away with trying to be all things to all people. There is some truth in the cliché that “a camel is actually a horse designed by a committee”.
Why did we ever change from what we had pre NAS 2b? Be aware, the war is not over yet. DS will still be trying every trick in his large repertoire to have his own way.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can some one give a detailed statement as to how much money we are saving by introducing E airspace outside of radar, or really E airspace fullstop. There is no reduction in staffing levels, there is no reduction in IFR en route charges to IFR planned aircraft. The only winner is the VFR operator.
Where is the massive cost saving that will rejuvenate the GA sector?
From my decades of experience in the industry I cannot see any benefit.
Can some one please tell what I have missed?
Where is the massive cost saving that will rejuvenate the GA sector?
From my decades of experience in the industry I cannot see any benefit.
Can some one please tell what I have missed?
Dog One:- there isn't any.
My understanding that any changes would not be implimented unless they complied with two requirements:
1. No degradation of safety
2. Cost saving
Look at all the posts since before Nov 2003 to the present and all the documented airprox events etc.
You can only conclude that NAS has failed on both counts.
My understanding that any changes would not be implimented unless they complied with two requirements:
1. No degradation of safety
2. Cost saving
Look at all the posts since before Nov 2003 to the present and all the documented airprox events etc.
You can only conclude that NAS has failed on both counts.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There appears to be significant Cost Benefit Analysis, (risks and hazards vs. costs) underway and a decision from the ASA board later this month, and probable court action next?
Both of these options represent increased safety over today's system (lets not mention pre 27 Nov 03). Both are likely to have minimum impact on “overall” costs. The Industry Option will have some benefit to the VFR operator over Option 3; but probably require extra "Planner Controllers" to achieve this benefit to the VFR pilot.
Option 3 definitely looks like better safety for your buck, but only if you currently spend a buck, VFRs may have to travel further under a “clearance not available” scenario, regardless of the realities of that.
I would imagine that there will be a significant push from the VFR end of town to have the "Industry Option" over Option 3 at all cost; but it will be a bitter pill regardless as those who would insist on the Industry Option would be insisting in the first instance, no change.
Why is the Sydney airspace so complex? Brisbane, Adelaide, Cairns, Perth and Melbourne have very simple distance based airspaces, with the same levels at the same distances, why not Sydney? The more complexity the more chance of error from controllers and pilots will this help the VCA statistics?
My biggest question is what else will arrive in the 25 November changes? I heard a very vicious rumour about US CTAFs replacing MBZs and CTAFs in this round.
Are CASA appeasing the NASIG again (for what reason) and attempting to cut corners on training to get it in? What exactly is meant by a CTAF(R)?
Both of these options represent increased safety over today's system (lets not mention pre 27 Nov 03). Both are likely to have minimum impact on “overall” costs. The Industry Option will have some benefit to the VFR operator over Option 3; but probably require extra "Planner Controllers" to achieve this benefit to the VFR pilot.
Option 3 definitely looks like better safety for your buck, but only if you currently spend a buck, VFRs may have to travel further under a “clearance not available” scenario, regardless of the realities of that.
I would imagine that there will be a significant push from the VFR end of town to have the "Industry Option" over Option 3 at all cost; but it will be a bitter pill regardless as those who would insist on the Industry Option would be insisting in the first instance, no change.
Why is the Sydney airspace so complex? Brisbane, Adelaide, Cairns, Perth and Melbourne have very simple distance based airspaces, with the same levels at the same distances, why not Sydney? The more complexity the more chance of error from controllers and pilots will this help the VCA statistics?
My biggest question is what else will arrive in the 25 November changes? I heard a very vicious rumour about US CTAFs replacing MBZs and CTAFs in this round.
Are CASA appeasing the NASIG again (for what reason) and attempting to cut corners on training to get it in? What exactly is meant by a CTAF(R)?
NAPAC Convenor
Re. this "Airservices" option 3 vs. "Industry" option - can you outline the parties behind each i.e. who created each, and who endorses them?
Reason I ask is I'm told that options 1, 2 and now 3 have evolved with industry input and endorsement via forums (i.e. not cooked up by Airservices in house) , whereas the "Industry" option is a curved ball from select parties.
Re. this "Airservices" option 3 vs. "Industry" option - can you outline the parties behind each i.e. who created each, and who endorses them?
Reason I ask is I'm told that options 1, 2 and now 3 have evolved with industry input and endorsement via forums (i.e. not cooked up by Airservices in house) , whereas the "Industry" option is a curved ball from select parties.
NAS Update
NAS Update:
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed down from generation to generation, says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.
At AirServices Australia however, a whole range of far more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
• Change riders.
• Buy a stronger whip.
• Do nothing: "This is the way we have always ridden dead horses".
• Visit other countries to see how they ride dead horses.
• Perform a productivity study to see if lighter riders improve the dead horse's performance.
• Hire a contractor to ride the dead horse.
• Harness several dead horses together in an attempt to increase the speed.
• Provide additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
• Appoint a committee to study the horse and assess how dead it actually is.
• Re-classify the dead horse as "living-impaired".
• Develop a Strategic Plan for the management of dead horses.
• Rewrite the expected performance requirements for all horses.
• Modify existing standards to include dead horses.
• Declare that, as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overheads, and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line than many other horses.
• Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.
This is so close to the truth it's scary!!!!
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed down from generation to generation, says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.
At AirServices Australia however, a whole range of far more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
• Change riders.
• Buy a stronger whip.
• Do nothing: "This is the way we have always ridden dead horses".
• Visit other countries to see how they ride dead horses.
• Perform a productivity study to see if lighter riders improve the dead horse's performance.
• Hire a contractor to ride the dead horse.
• Harness several dead horses together in an attempt to increase the speed.
• Provide additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
• Appoint a committee to study the horse and assess how dead it actually is.
• Re-classify the dead horse as "living-impaired".
• Develop a Strategic Plan for the management of dead horses.
• Rewrite the expected performance requirements for all horses.
• Modify existing standards to include dead horses.
• Declare that, as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overheads, and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line than many other horses.
• Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.
This is so close to the truth it's scary!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At AirServices Australia however, a whole range of far more advanced strategies are often employed, such as:
• Change riders.
• Buy a stronger whip.
• Do nothing: "This is the way we have always ridden dead horses".
• Visit other countries to see how they ride dead horses.
• Perform a productivity study to see if lighter riders improve the dead horse's performance.
• Hire a contractor to ride the dead horse.
• Harness several dead horses together in an attempt to increase the speed.
• Provide additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
• Appoint a committee to study the horse and assess how dead it actually is.
• Re-classify the dead horse as "living-impaired".
• Develop a Strategic Plan for the management of dead horses.
• Rewrite the expected performance requirements for all horses.
• Modify existing standards to include dead horses.
• Declare that, as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overheads, and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line than many other horses.
• Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.
This is so close to the truth it's scary!!!!
• Change riders.
• Buy a stronger whip.
• Do nothing: "This is the way we have always ridden dead horses".
• Visit other countries to see how they ride dead horses.
• Perform a productivity study to see if lighter riders improve the dead horse's performance.
• Hire a contractor to ride the dead horse.
• Harness several dead horses together in an attempt to increase the speed.
• Provide additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
• Appoint a committee to study the horse and assess how dead it actually is.
• Re-classify the dead horse as "living-impaired".
• Develop a Strategic Plan for the management of dead horses.
• Rewrite the expected performance requirements for all horses.
• Modify existing standards to include dead horses.
• Declare that, as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overheads, and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line than many other horses.
• Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.
This is so close to the truth it's scary!!!!
Can I borrow this sometime? 
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Midnight.....
Captain Midnight
If I recall correctly ( don't have the file here ) the first 3 options were driven by Hazard ID workshops etc together with ASA board directions for ALARP. ALARP being as low as reasonably practical and not costing industry a motza.
The "industry option was dumped on some of ASA staff to put together on behalf of specific parts of industry. As far as I have been able to determine there is not an industry generated document put to ASA to coveroff option "I". If it is around at least no one is prepared to hand it over.
Hope this answers the question.
If I recall correctly ( don't have the file here ) the first 3 options were driven by Hazard ID workshops etc together with ASA board directions for ALARP. ALARP being as low as reasonably practical and not costing industry a motza.
The "industry option was dumped on some of ASA staff to put together on behalf of specific parts of industry. As far as I have been able to determine there is not an industry generated document put to ASA to coveroff option "I". If it is around at least no one is prepared to hand it over.
Hope this answers the question.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hate to say this, but the Industry Option is a bit like a horse designed by a committee......a camel.
VFR reporting areas in E?
Hmmmmm....I agree ....lets use the KISS principle.
If we keep airspace as simple as possible there is less chance for a stuff up...proven fact!
VRAs are a load of ****e! If VFRs need to report, give positions, be coordinated between ATS units, then why not give them a clearance as well. No additional workload for the controller, the controller can regulate his workload, and the VFR aircraft can provide a flight plan (remember them) to ATC prior to entry (like prior to actually getting into the acft and blasting off).
If a controller already has a flight plan to work with, then a clearance is far easier to get. That is, the controller doesn't spend a couple of minutes typing in a flight plan for someone who could have put it in prior to getting into the acft (like when he got his notams and weather).
Lets get with the program. VRAs WILL cause additional workload for ATC, meaning that there will be no cost saving. We want cost benefit with safety. Where's the cost benefit with VRAs?
By the way, are VRAs ICAO compliant? Is this another variation of a variation of an ICAO airspace design?
DP
VFR reporting areas in E?
Hmmmmm....I agree ....lets use the KISS principle.
If we keep airspace as simple as possible there is less chance for a stuff up...proven fact!
VRAs are a load of ****e! If VFRs need to report, give positions, be coordinated between ATS units, then why not give them a clearance as well. No additional workload for the controller, the controller can regulate his workload, and the VFR aircraft can provide a flight plan (remember them) to ATC prior to entry (like prior to actually getting into the acft and blasting off).
If a controller already has a flight plan to work with, then a clearance is far easier to get. That is, the controller doesn't spend a couple of minutes typing in a flight plan for someone who could have put it in prior to getting into the acft (like when he got his notams and weather).
Lets get with the program. VRAs WILL cause additional workload for ATC, meaning that there will be no cost saving. We want cost benefit with safety. Where's the cost benefit with VRAs?
By the way, are VRAs ICAO compliant? Is this another variation of a variation of an ICAO airspace design?
DP
Last edited by DirtyPierre; 12th Jul 2004 at 05:26.
NAPAC Convenor
Thanks for the clarification. There was a perception I heard in some quarters that option 3 being described as the "Airservices option 3" meant it was something AA were pushing and therefore treated with suspicion, and industry had arrived at a counter proposal. Not so it seems, and option 3 appears to have some science and logic behind it.
Thanks for the clarification. There was a perception I heard in some quarters that option 3 being described as the "Airservices option 3" meant it was something AA were pushing and therefore treated with suspicion, and industry had arrived at a counter proposal. Not so it seems, and option 3 appears to have some science and logic behind it.
