The Bondi Beach Project-spin off thread too!
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mental Telepathy would be my guess missy. Or hang on I remember from a similair thread one of these VFR "professionals" suggesting pilots use 121.5 to avoid frequency congestion. Mr Smith again says that a pilot will be alerted to other traffic, by way of traffic alerts from ATC on appropriate frequency, even though the mental midget and his mates removed the frequencies from the charts, so the chances of both aircraft being on the same "appropriate frequency" is slim. But hey thats right Dick says away from the airports there is nothing to worry about, and if Dick says it, it must be true.
Dick,
You said:
Rubbish! 80% of OUR land area doesn't have life, let alone aircraft! You CANNOT compare the land mass areas with the traffic levels.
You said:
After all, there is 20 times the density of traffic in around about the same land area.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
It is obvious you do not understand how Class E and alerted see and avoid works.
What I’m saying is that all around the world where Class E airspace is used and a traffic information service is given, aircraft look in that direction (ie alerted) and then see and avoid the other aircraft.
Fair dinkum, ya mate the 'little bloke' should create a new portfolio just for you. Your new title would surely be:-
Hon The Minister for half stories and misplaced beliefs
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: World's most livable city
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Capcom,
I guess I see the rollback as problematic chiefly because we have recognised that there are flaws in the NAS design and the way it was implemented, but rather than reverting to the tried and true system we had previously while we figure out our next step (which I thought was standard practice in any change management technique), we have chosen to go 'half and half'. I also have serious concerns about why ACTUAL economic benefit has not played a far more apparent role in NAS until recently.
At present I am occasionally moonlighting as a NAS SME and quite frankly even I can't figure out the hodge-podge of airspace and procedures at times, so what hope do the masses have? I'm sorry to say that I probably can't help you from the TWR or APP P perspective, though I make no bones about the fact that I feel considerably less safe transiting non-radar E over D than I did C over D if that helps?
I pointed out to one of the NASIG (or is it NASPAG now?!) members recently, that on one position I now work, I can have up to 21 airspace volumes now abutting my own, plus another six planner/flows with no actual airspace. In these twenty-two volumes there are all five Australian airspace classes (A, C, GAAP/D, E and G), many restricted areas, and over ten different vertical airspace splits, several of which have been added by the NAS project and are about to become generally non-uniform around my boundaries (for those that weren't aware, BN and ML centres have decided that they require two different things and as such the E/G splits vary across the FDRG boundary). I now find myself having to consciously ask "What service am I supposed to be providing to this aircraft here? What about in another five miles? Ten miles?" I don't mention any of this to gain sympathy or to hint that 'mine is bigger than yours' (I rarely flop it out
) but to illustrate my belief that we should be aiming at simplifying and standardising rather than adding more layers of complexity.
Sorry - a bit wishy-washy I know, but hangovers'll do that to a person!
I guess I see the rollback as problematic chiefly because we have recognised that there are flaws in the NAS design and the way it was implemented, but rather than reverting to the tried and true system we had previously while we figure out our next step (which I thought was standard practice in any change management technique), we have chosen to go 'half and half'. I also have serious concerns about why ACTUAL economic benefit has not played a far more apparent role in NAS until recently.
At present I am occasionally moonlighting as a NAS SME and quite frankly even I can't figure out the hodge-podge of airspace and procedures at times, so what hope do the masses have? I'm sorry to say that I probably can't help you from the TWR or APP P perspective, though I make no bones about the fact that I feel considerably less safe transiting non-radar E over D than I did C over D if that helps?
I pointed out to one of the NASIG (or is it NASPAG now?!) members recently, that on one position I now work, I can have up to 21 airspace volumes now abutting my own, plus another six planner/flows with no actual airspace. In these twenty-two volumes there are all five Australian airspace classes (A, C, GAAP/D, E and G), many restricted areas, and over ten different vertical airspace splits, several of which have been added by the NAS project and are about to become generally non-uniform around my boundaries (for those that weren't aware, BN and ML centres have decided that they require two different things and as such the E/G splits vary across the FDRG boundary). I now find myself having to consciously ask "What service am I supposed to be providing to this aircraft here? What about in another five miles? Ten miles?" I don't mention any of this to gain sympathy or to hint that 'mine is bigger than yours' (I rarely flop it out
) but to illustrate my belief that we should be aiming at simplifying and standardising rather than adding more layers of complexity.Sorry - a bit wishy-washy I know, but hangovers'll do that to a person!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some replies
Mode SHHH
Indeed, the common theme of your replies and of many others is the resulting confusion of so much change and such poor communication. This has been a theme of Voices of Reason as well. The VOR has long chastised change that is too rapid, poorly communicated and confusing to the user.
Although Australia has its own unique identity and challenges, including vast areas without radar coverage, whatever changes are made must simplify existing workloads and improve safety.
Capcom
I acknowledge your abilities to provide seperation without radar in Class C Airspace. I flew Navajos for a short time into Coolangatta before it had radar and flew up and down the coast in single-engine trainers from PMQ for many years. I also flew an aircraft with a radial engine, I prefer the jet engines I use now.
Having flown into the Class C, or it's equivalent, with and without radar, I believe that any changes from "E" to "C" are largely lost without radar. Just as I believe it would be a step backwards to not mandate the use of transponders or TCAS in turbojets.
This is not a slight to you or the many professionals I have met over the years. I was a "go-between", with ALPA and NATCO for a couple of years out of JFK. Every controller I have ever met has impressed me!
Creampuff
Point well taken about the number of controllers and the number of sectors to effectively control a typical departure or approach corridor. Yep...Australian resources are limited which begs for a more efficient system. The only problem is that the message has been lost somewhere.
Capn Bloggs
I asked your question at the meeting if the statistical averages had been loaded to show a low density of traffic and therefore risk in Australia. The assurances I received were that the "J" curve of traffic that is East of The Great Dividing Range was considered in the analysis and that our densities in Australia are still lower. I personally believe this is accurate after visiting the approach facility and discussing this with various controllers.
AirNoServices
You're absolutely correct in stating that any seperation standards are dependent upon two-way communication. I used to like the radio boundary charts, I can't think of a reason why we don't have them now? Dick?
All the best, gotta go back to work!
Indeed, the common theme of your replies and of many others is the resulting confusion of so much change and such poor communication. This has been a theme of Voices of Reason as well. The VOR has long chastised change that is too rapid, poorly communicated and confusing to the user.
Although Australia has its own unique identity and challenges, including vast areas without radar coverage, whatever changes are made must simplify existing workloads and improve safety.
Capcom
I acknowledge your abilities to provide seperation without radar in Class C Airspace. I flew Navajos for a short time into Coolangatta before it had radar and flew up and down the coast in single-engine trainers from PMQ for many years. I also flew an aircraft with a radial engine, I prefer the jet engines I use now.
Having flown into the Class C, or it's equivalent, with and without radar, I believe that any changes from "E" to "C" are largely lost without radar. Just as I believe it would be a step backwards to not mandate the use of transponders or TCAS in turbojets.
This is not a slight to you or the many professionals I have met over the years. I was a "go-between", with ALPA and NATCO for a couple of years out of JFK. Every controller I have ever met has impressed me!
Creampuff
Point well taken about the number of controllers and the number of sectors to effectively control a typical departure or approach corridor. Yep...Australian resources are limited which begs for a more efficient system. The only problem is that the message has been lost somewhere.
Capn Bloggs
I asked your question at the meeting if the statistical averages had been loaded to show a low density of traffic and therefore risk in Australia. The assurances I received were that the "J" curve of traffic that is East of The Great Dividing Range was considered in the analysis and that our densities in Australia are still lower. I personally believe this is accurate after visiting the approach facility and discussing this with various controllers.
AirNoServices
You're absolutely correct in stating that any seperation standards are dependent upon two-way communication. I used to like the radio boundary charts, I can't think of a reason why we don't have them now? Dick?
All the best, gotta go back to work!
AirNoServicesAustralia, in fact there is now a greater chance of being on the correct frequency. I am looking at the NAS reference guide and it clearly states that you monitor the tower/MBZ/CTAF:
· when close to an aerodrome to gain situational awareness of other aircraft operations
· when approaching or departing an aerodrome
· when enroute if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome.
AirNoServicesAustralia, what could be simpler? Why would you need frequency boundaries on charts when it is quite simple to look up the frequency of the aerodrome and monitor that frequency if in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic?
I am fascinated that you believe we need some type of unique form of radio arranged separation whereas in the USA (and other countries) in their non-radar Class E airspace they do not. What is your explanation for that?
· when close to an aerodrome to gain situational awareness of other aircraft operations
· when approaching or departing an aerodrome
· when enroute if operating in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic at an aerodrome.
AirNoServicesAustralia, what could be simpler? Why would you need frequency boundaries on charts when it is quite simple to look up the frequency of the aerodrome and monitor that frequency if in the airspace normally used for arriving and departing traffic?
I am fascinated that you believe we need some type of unique form of radio arranged separation whereas in the USA (and other countries) in their non-radar Class E airspace they do not. What is your explanation for that?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like the previous posters have said I cannot believe I am bothering to reply, but I really truly cannot believe you believe what you wrote, that being,
How in the hell does that help the VFR to hear traffic information from the ATC, since the area controller will not be passing traffic on the MBZ or CTAF. There are huge stretches of airspace where VFR and IFR aircraft regularly come into close proximity of each other, often outside radar coverage. One of the biggest assets they had was that they would be on the same frequency. So please tell me again, how it works that the IFR on climb out of Melbourne flying out past Swan Hill and on through past Mildura will hear the position of the VFR in his path, or vice versa, when the VFR halfway between SWH and MIA is monitoring the CTAF or MBZ frequency????? Please tell me why it is that you cannot see that there are big areas where the VFR aircraft NEEDS to monitor the Area Control frequency yet you and your buddies in their wisdom had that info removed from the charts. I am astounded that a person who supposedly has done a lot of flying thinks it is adequuate to fly around this country and only ever monitor MBZ's, CTAF's and Twr frequencys!! Please is that what you are saying?
AirNoServicesAustralia, in fact there is now a greater chance of being on the correct frequency. I am looking at the NAS reference guide and it clearly states that you monitor the tower/MBZ/CTAF:
Chris,
You said:
NAS does not, and does not. So why is Dick trying to introduce it?
Given the "experts" at your meeting, I can only view their hypothesis with scepticism. Whatever, it is a scandal and (planned?) deception on Smith's part that he continues to quote the USA "has 20 times more traffic than Australia", implying that it is 20 times busier. This is clearly plain wrong.
You said:
Although Australia has its own unique identity and challenges, including vast areas without radar coverage, whatever changes are made must simplify existing workloads and improve safety.
I asked your question at the meeting if the statistical averages had been loaded to show a low density of traffic and therefore risk in Australia. The assurances I received were that the "J" curve of traffic that is East of The Great Dividing Range was considered in the analysis and that our densities in Australia are still lower. I personally believe this is accurate after visiting the approach facility and discussing this with various controllers.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Mode SHHH
Apologies for not replying sooner, busy week
.
Understand what you say, it is most definitely a problem not only for our folks but pilots as well. What a mess.
I guess given yesterdays decision our (TWR/APP) issue will be fixed. Perhaps after the election (Particularly if the ‘littl bloke’ keeps standing on his one inch of fury
) there might be an opportunity to further fix/streamline the system. Let’s hope so.
Keep the AS (Coalface) group in the loop, we might be able to help with the necessary work
Cheers
Cap
Apologies for not replying sooner, busy week
.Understand what you say, it is most definitely a problem not only for our folks but pilots as well. What a mess.
I guess given yesterdays decision our (TWR/APP) issue will be fixed. Perhaps after the election (Particularly if the ‘littl bloke’ keeps standing on his one inch of fury
) there might be an opportunity to further fix/streamline the system. Let’s hope so.Keep the AS (Coalface) group in the loop, we might be able to help with the necessary work
Cheers
Cap
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Higgins,
Not my area of expertise (ATC etc). Just wanted to politely point out the use of "I believe", has caused a great deal of problems in AUS Airspace. Where if we had used "We have collected data-studied-consulted-analysed-and-concluded " a lot of angst and error could have been avoided.
If you really are basing decisions on "I believe" as you did a number of times in your last post, take a step back and ask do I have the qualifications and experience to (as VoR would define) be able to make a reasoned response.
Cheers
Not my area of expertise (ATC etc). Just wanted to politely point out the use of "I believe", has caused a great deal of problems in AUS Airspace. Where if we had used "We have collected data-studied-consulted-analysed-and-concluded " a lot of angst and error could have been avoided.
If you really are basing decisions on "I believe" as you did a number of times in your last post, take a step back and ask do I have the qualifications and experience to (as VoR would define) be able to make a reasoned response.
Cheers
