Chris Higgins

Moderator

Please leave this up just for a couple of days, then you can dump it.

Gaunty

I appreciate your feelings that this is a road already traveled, but one which I think needs to be traveled again in a different vehicle.

You have made references to Australian pride through a personal belief in isolationism. I do not believe that your daughter can fully realize her potential without using NASA, Boeing, Airbus, Dassault or Gulfstream as a means to her ultimate success. None of these are Australian companies yet they are the only chance of furthering her research into any kind of end product.

You have also held onto the belief that as an "Aussie turned Yank", Indiana Jones type (?), without having flown actively in Australia for quite a few years, I have nothing to offer.

I simply cannot have been in two places at once and had I been flying for Qantas over America, it would have given me no opportunity to observe GA operations in this country. This is completely relevant to the problems faced by the GA industry in Australia. In fact, you could argue that my experience in the Hawker is fairly close to light GA, because we operate into so many uncontrolled fields, quite a few are non-radar.


Moderator

You have my assurances that PPrune will not be used show a policy opinion. It may only be referenced as "a meeting place", of various views from mostly anonymous subscribers.


Everyone else!

Yes, you can bring promotional material with you for your company or organisation, but no booths.

No, you don't need to RSVP. The reason for this, is for the same reason we have PPrune, you can maintain some anonymity.

No, Dick Smith has not and will not be allowed to contribute anything financial to this meeting.

No, I am not receiving remuneration.

No, we won't have free food now, because we don't know how many will be there, so bring a lunch with you.

I might come back to work in Australia some day, but that is not on my agenda for this meeting.

No, I don't represent the company I work for now, nor any association.

I hope to achieve a meeting where some parties who have been adversarial, can shake hands and agree to look beyond their differences and look forward, not backwards.


Any other questions?


[email protected]

011.1.724.493.0000

Thanks!

Chris

The Bondi Beach Project- A meeting about Australian Airspace

Circular Quay Marriott

August 10, 2004

1000 to 1400

gaunty

Chris Higgins

not even close, they sought her and him, not the other way round.

We are the least isolationist family you could meet, our children are spread evenly around the globe, a bugger for Christmas and the Telstra board send us Christmas card as one of their seriously good customers.

All of our children were conceived outside of Oz.

I am deeply concerned that my granchildren may only know me in cyberspace.

I can only, sincerely, applaud the progress of your career overseas. Well done.
Just don't demean , it's the only word I can think of right now, those who have stayed here in the backwater.

You? Nothing to offer, ...........I don't think so!.

Indiana Jones is not you, we in Oz know of whom I speak.

Hawker? I will forgive your enthusiasm for the type and it's not altogether that bad, but the "yanks" and "froggies" actually build a much better and technically more sophisticated product by miles. and I'm even a bit of an anglo or froggo phile. :/

It's technical wine tasting v economical v crow bar and axe technology. The former, intelectually satisfying, the latter makes money.

And believe it or not we were/are much better developed in the down home "GA" business than ever the "yanks" were.

Chris Higgins

I completely agree with your last comment about GA. Most GA operations in Oz are better run than the airlines here!

Chris Higgins

The Bondi Beach Project

An informal meeting about Australian Airspace

The Circular Quay Marriott

30 Pitt Street, Circular Quay Sydney

Dorothy MacKellar Room

Level 3

10:00 to 14:00

Telephone 61.2.9259.7000

OZBUSDRIVER

Anyone heard how the meeting went?

Dick Smith

I’m sure Chris Higgins will give an update on the Bondi Beach Project. I attended, plus a dozen or so others. Most were from the GA community and supported NAS. There was one air traffic controller who offered constructive criticism about my actions. This was well received. He also had some positive comments about how we could move forward in the future.

By the way, PPRuNe readers will be interested in the fact that I have informed the Deputy Prime Minister that I will cover my share of the costs of the NAS 2b wind back. I’ve also got John Forsyth to agree to cover his share. I’ve spoken to Angus Houston and I will be speaking to the other ARG members (Ken Matthews and Ted Anson) to make sure everyone contributes their share.

I’m sure everyone will agree that if people take public positions and are given responsibility by the Government to make important decisions, they must be accountable for their actions. This will probably be a first.

tobzalp

Obviously this was a [sarcasm]massively successful[/sarcasm] meeting as here we are 2 days later with no back slapping and fanfare. Here it comes.. I told you so.

Oz Ocker

Oh, the "Ego Fest" as someone called it.
Cmon Chris give us yer impressions mate.
An Dick, how precisely do you figure out "your costs"?
An interestin concept Dick.
In need of the limelight yet again?

Chris Higgins

Ladies and Gentleman,

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you all. I am waiting for an airline brief change to Omaha, so this is the perfect time to recount the events of the last few weeks.

First of all, I want to thank the staff of Qantas who made our flight with three children a pleasure both ways from LAX to Sydney. The quality of the Australian version of airline flying as a product is far better than I ever could have dreamed of, or remembered.

The Bondi Beach Project was succesful in some ways. Dick Smith gave a good summary of his actions, and he was questioned about his more controversial methods of communication. It seems that the issues are too technical for mainstream Australian media to grasp, so Dick has at times believed it better to ramp up his media machine to get his points across.

I took Dick to be an extremely intelligent and energetic achiever. He admits freely that he took great ideas from abroad, modified them for an Australian audience and with his own personality, founded his own fortune. He never raised his voice, made accusations about any one individual, nor did he speak in a condescending tone to any member of the audience. He seems a lot more convincing in person than in his written word. His facts were supported with original letters and original responses. Nothing was edited out.

There was an Air Traffic Controller present who had some candid questions for Dick. I would like to call him, "Mode S", to protect his anonymity.

Mode S made a candid remark to Dick Smith that many controllers found his communications somewhat dictatorial, when he was CASA Chairman. He said that he felt his relationship with Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson, was suspicious, to say the least and that many controllers believed he might be intimidating to Mr Anderson.

Dick responded tthat he felt it was a shame that he was viewed that way, and that was never his intention to intimidate anyone.

Mode S outlined the poor training offered to pilots as part of the NAS change over. He felt that it should have been much better. He outlined the confusion surrounding controller and pilot responsibilities as part of "see and avoid", during transitions from VFR to IFR in controlled airspace. He outlined the operating parameters of his controller manual that makes it somewhat restrictive to offer the services that Dick Smith has requested.

Dick Smith countered that the transition had been improperly handled, that FAA controllers had made corrective suggestions that had not been inacted by Air Services.

Personally, I find it surprising just how restrictive ATC is in Australia, given the good weather and low volume.

Dick Smith was corrected numerous times by Mode S, with regards to politics that might have existed at one time in Air Services. Mode S acted in a calm and professional manner, while respectfully dismissing some of Dick's claims. Dick was equally respectful and humble in his justification of his beliefs.

On August 9, I was invited to tour the approach and tower facilities at Sydney, and it was a wonderful visit and it did educate me about the complications of "noise sharing" and the close proximity of Bankstown and the Lane of Entry. More about this later.

I have just been paged to go to catch a different flight to work, so I'll continue this later.


All the best!

Chris Higgins

Chris Higgins

Dick Smith believed that there were elements of the ATC union that were preventing the progress of NAS and not allowing continual services of VFR flight following, he also believed that there was a perceived hierachy between "mainstreamed" controllers and non-mainstreamed. He illustrated an example of the skills required to work a non-radar approach control facility to that of a tower.

Mode S gave assurances that no such hierachy existed and that all Air Service Controllers were a cohesive group of workers with a shared goal...to prevent crashes and direct traffic efficiently. Mode S told the audience that he had no knowledge of any widespread conflicts of any kind in his workplace or at any other facility.

Dick Smith asked about the lack of availability of VFR flight following with continual traffic updating. Mode S responded that the controllers believed that a directive that contained language, "workload permitting", implied that controllers were not already busy, which he asserted they are. He believed that the controllers manual does not protect controllers adequately from enforcement or civil liability, if a pilot is offered a service like this, and there is a break down of seperation or something even worse occurs.

At this point I interjected and stated that "see and avoid", in other ICAO world airspace is published as a pilot responsibility. Mode S responded to me that his is not outlined very clearly in existing Australian manuals.

Dick Smith acknowledged that the language, "workload permitting", could in fact be seen as offensive to some controllers.

The meeting did deviate off topic somewhat to talk briefly about cost recovery and the increase in Air Service fees at towered airports. I am personally very frightened for the future of general aviation at Bankstown which seems to be seeing an enormous increase in those fees. I would like to point out that at no time did the blame for those fees be be discussed as being tied to one individual, but rather there was a widespread concern for the impending rise in costs.

Also off topic, I asked Dick Smith why he didn't make landfall at Port Macquarie on his well publicised trip from Lord Howe in the Caravan. He told me that the restricted area from Williamtown had occupied that airspace and given him no choice but the routing he flew. I told him that his responses on PPrune did not make that clear.

Then, while we were off NAS, I asked Dick Smith why he thought that Avalon needed a tower for Jetstar operations? He responded that he provoked that argument to outline the inconcistency of Coffs Harbour requiring one with a non-radar approach facility, when in his opinion, it required neither for RPT operations. Dick Smith was told by several members of the audience that his message did not read well and left the reader confused.

Back on NAS....

Dick Smith outlined the lack of accountability connected to the latest intentions to do a NAS rollback. He pointed out that the statistical risk models were being considered proprietry by the holding body, Air Services, and would not be released for evaluation. Dick Smith and the entire audience agreed that these statistical models could have been loaded with any number of inconcistencies and should therefore be discounted unless evaluated independently. It was dicussed that a petition be developed to stop NAS rollback.

Dick Smith also held the belief that Class C Airspace above Class D without a radar aproach facility would contribute to delays, not allow controllers to concentrate on the immediate risks close in to the airport and cost even more money.

I agree...you gotta have radar to make C work!

Dick Smith told the audience that if there could be a proven model that showed that the consequences of his actions with NAS were dangerous, he would contribute his share to cost of the roll back.

Mode S volunteered that many controllers that he knew would not be in favour of a NAS rollback, until the industry had time to recover from the constant change and confusion it has experienced over the last few years.

All agreed!

Dick Smith offered his knowledge of Air Services contracting it\'s services to run American towers, one in Hawaii, (man, can you imagine being one of the lucky controllers that gets that one?!). He thought that it was inconsistent that Air Services are preaching the folly of American Airspace, but were willing to contribute and assume some operational liability in working in the same system.

I countered that the staff that work abroad will in fact bring some ideas back home with them when they return. Dick Smith said that it would be unlikely given the present environment at Air Services to change.

+++++++++++++++++++

On August 9, I was given the pleasure of a tour of the TMU at Sydney Mascot and the tower facility. In the interests of preserving the intent of this forum, the provider of this tour shall remain anonymous.

Sydney has it\'s own unique problems that I must admit, I have never been fully aware of. The political pressure of Botany Bay residents and surrounding suburbs have placed Sydney on "noise sharing" runway operations. The need for changes in runway usage contributes to delays and otherwise unnecessary vectoring/holding to align traffic at certain times of the day, often in a way that is difficult to streamline flow.

Truly, I think that Bankstown is quite an impediment to flow as well. I will probably get flamed for this...but I think we might have to look at moving Bankstown further West or Southwest in time. Such a move could possibly be funded by the sale of the airport property.

Sydney is by no means as busy as New York or Washington Dc, but the controllers are working with one hand tied behind there backs. There is no question that Sydney is safe, but it\'s a difficult political environment to work in with a secondary zone located too close...it\'s really as simple as that.


Thanks guys...I\'ll continue this later.

Capcom

Mr Higgins and SmithFor the 30,000th and LAST time..................THIS IS A FLAWED INACCURATE ASSUMPTION, PERIOD

FACT:

VFR/IFR interaction in radar and non-radar E by its very nature is creating the disraction to D operations that Smith purports will happen with C. It is crap. There are 2 very real negative effects on efficiency and safety with E rather than C!

1.

IN E
ATC will (If they know of a VFR and it is a conflict for IFR or other VFR for that matter) workload permitting, pass traffic information. Remember, we (ATC) CANNOT SEPARATE IFR AND VFR in E. What will be the immediate reaction of the IFR and most probably the VFR to the 'traffic information'? Yup, a
"'We are over here Bob where are you", Bob says, "well we are over here doin' this", then the inevitable discourse ensues so as to sort out how they are going to miss each other.
Meanwhile the D controller who's frequency this understandable and important conflab is occuring on, is watching two about to collide on base, powerless to do anything as the frequency is jammed!. FACT This situation is exacerbated outside radar coverage as ATC cannot interviene with an updated and more accurate 'traffic information' picture that will reduce the need for pilots to play ATC in E.

IN C

ATC separate the two aircraft UNDER POSITIVE CLEARANCES and therefore CONTROL, no frequency loading, no pilot stress, ATC retain the ability to manage (prioritise) the frequency for safety critical actions when and as necessary.

2.

IN E

Pilots are not readily aware of whether ATC in a given area are able to monitor radar/TSAD (radar coverage) for non announced VFR traffic.

IN C

It is not safety critical to a pilot IFR or VFR as they know if they are within radar/TSAD areas simply because ATC will be aware of all traffic (clearances) and be separating. Whether it be procedurally (lots and lots of standards applicable, Smiths claim of one in one out is just plain misleading BOLLOCKS) or by radar, C is far far better from a safety and efficiency (which also adds to the safety levels as explained above) stand point.

Chris, you said it yourself, there are lot of people who do not see and understand what goes on behind the scenes. Things that are all relevant and in the end very important when deciding on efficient use of services. All of these and a myriad of other relevent facts have been assessed in the analysis of airspace service levels for the Nov changes.
Why do you think the yanks say nothing about D services? because they have little if any experience with procedural approach tower services that utilise D in close (Visual separation etc) with a paired C approach cell above (outside visual range) in the same way Australia has for years. We do it and do it very bloody well!

Now I will politely say that I am way past fed up with Smith and his 'I believe' and so on with nothing other than hot air to support his flawed assumtions. His arrogant disregard of the issues and views expressed by those who should know better than anyone, particularly by those who have never had experience of accually provided these types of services is unforgivable.

For Smith and others to now critise the analysis that takes into account the practicalities of airspace service provision, when he by his own admission did not in any way test his NAS E changes is quite frankly breathtaking hypocracy!.

Answer me this:-

Who is more likely to understand and therefore best equipped to design ATS services.

- A handful of private pilots who whilst well meaning have no ATS experience? ; or

- 800 odd air traffic controllers with years of experience and the safety of the travelling public private or commercial as number one priority (None of us want anyone to get hurt or worse)?

and before answering that, answer me this:-

You are flying you aircraft in a certain manner, I (who is not endorsed on your aircraft type) walks in and tells you that you know nothing, and from now on (even though it will save no money) you will fly it this way whether you like it or not. Would you say:-

Sure, he knows what he is talking about although I see no factual basis for it; or

For the following reasons, I suggest you 'Fark off idiot'!

Try as Smith might, data and facts will always stand up in the face of money and media tarts!

Have a nice day

Edited to correct spelling after a torrent of sh1t stirring

Uncommon Sense

Its the same old argument going around and around and wasting many more millions of dollars.

Chris,

Dont assume that the controllers associated with the ASA bid to staff TWRS in the US will be Australian. I think you will find they will be sourced locally. It's just ASA pretending to be SerCo. Previous projects of this nature suggest a competitor will probably succeed in the tender process.

DirtyPierre

Chris,

You got this bit wrong.

Australian ATCs have been controlling aircraft in C airspace without radar since ATC began in Oz. Remember that only 15% of Australian airspace is within radar coverage. That means that 85% is outside radar coverage and controlled procedurally.

Mate, we controllers know how to do it. And when ADS-B gets up and running, who gives a big flying fcuk about radar anyway. Maybe Dick would have been better off putting his energy into getting ADS-B up and running. A Dick Smith ADS-B transponder and associated display in every aircraft would go a long way to making our airspace less restrictive for ALL types of airspace users.

Mode SHHH

The big plunge! Hi everyone. Long time reader, first time poster.

Firstly I'd like to say thanks again to Chris for organising the opportunity for the opposing camps to meet face-to-face, and secondly for reporting back to the masses on what happened at the meeting. You made a commitment, both financial and temporal, and followed through, despite the prospect of little of formal note being achieved at the meeting apart from spleen-venting!

If I may, I'd like to correct a couple of points that somehow may have been misinterpreted on the day, or miscommunicated in the generally comprehensive summary you have made above. For the benefit of everyone else, I preface this by saying that I am not speaking for or on behalf of Airservices or even other controllers - indeed I may draw some ire! - the following are my thoughts and in various places a few of my colleagues (is 5% of a workforce a statistically valid sample?!).

As far as VFR flight following is concerned, a couple of observations. On the day of the meeting I believe that all of us were under the impression that a single, snapshot service on position, traffic or navigation assistance was available to VFR aircraft OCTA. Indeed this was the case until recently. I have since refamiliarised myself with the relevant portion of the Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS), and as it turns out RIS or Radar Information Service (which is similar to the old-style flight following and includes an alerting service) is available to VFR aircraft under radar coverage on an ongoing basis, though it is 'workload permitting' and at the complete discretion of the controller.

You have portrayed the expression 'workload permitting' as somehow offensive as it implies laziness or some other negative virtue. I don't believe this is the case. Controllers can either perform the task or they can't, and they don't generally think of themselves as lazy or incompetent if at that particular moment they can't. We like to think of ourselves as professional (no matter what our bosses call us!) and try to behave as such. I think that the major points I was trying to get across are that:

1) Whether controller workload is too high to provide a service or not is not something that a pilot can generally pass judgement on. It has been covered ad nauseum elsewhere and I don't wish to go over old ground, but a quiet frequency does not necessarily equate to low workload. The best way to understand this concept is to visit an ATC unit and watch what they do - Chris has done precisely this and in a few short minutes gained a fairly clear understanding of many of the hurdles, both regulatory and procedural that we have to abide by.

2) There are different experience and skill levels amongst controllers and what takes one out of their comfort zone may well be within the reach of another. The best way I can describe this to our pilot bretheren is that you probably all know pilots who are too conservative, and others who are too brash. Well, from day one in the ATC college, we are taught to be conservative, to the point where flair or over-confidence can actually be punished with failure. It was continuously reinforced to me all those years ago that an extra mile or two on track is far preferable than pushing them too tight and having a breakdown in separation or worse (of course we'd then get hammered if we didn't get everyone to destination on time as well, but that's another story!). Some pilots are accommodating and push a little closer to the edges of the envelope, some like to play it safe and others are more difficult or downright obstreporous - ATCs are the same. Anyway, like in many parts of life, the smart ones know their limits and never get in an overload situation. While you may think you can take on one more aeroplane/task and probably be okay, if it is not imperative you could choose not to and certainly be okay. To a pilot, this can often lead to problems with conformity (i.e. "But I got a clearance/climb/RIS there yesterday! Why not today?"). I'm afraid that's just the nature of the beast.

3) Finally, in an age of increasing industry litigation where both pilots and controllers have been jailed (or worse!), often because they were the final link in an error chain, many controllers are distrustful of the phrase 'workload permitting' as it represents a veritable minefield in a legal sense should anything go wrong, particularly if that misadventure should befall a paying customer. Another phrase which generates these cold sweats is 'duty of care' which we discussed on the day.

Pilot responsibility to 'see and avoid' in all classes of airspace is clearly defined in all Australian documents, Chris, and I'm not quite sure how you got the impression that I thought otherwise.

As far as rollback was concerned, my intention was to show that many ATCs were not in favour of the coming rollback for two main reasons. One was the issue of constant change which you mentioned. I am personally offended every time some moron asserts that Airservices, or CivilAir or ATCs in general are change-resistant. I cannot think of a single industry sector which has undergone more radical and persistent change over the last decade than Australian air traffic control.

Secondly, in many areas of Australia (including around my patch), the rollback will cement and in some instances actually worsen the negative aspects of the project i.e. the increased airspace complexity, ICAO non-compliance, and multifarious procedures which have been introduced to date. And that's before we even touch what would appear to be an incredible financial waste for very little if any actual benefit (I'm still waiting for Bill, or anyone else for that matter, to post the figures he promised about savings his company has made since NAS began). I don't think I'm alone in the belief that airspace (and aviation in general) benefits from simplicity, not layer upon layer of complex regulation or procedural intricacy.

Though it appears at first to be a monumental task, I believe that we would all be best served by revisiting First Principles (though utilsing the benefit of hindsight on already solved problems, so I guess it's actually Second Principles!) and redesigning the entire system from the ground up, industry consultation and all. But boy would you have to have big cojones to task someone with that job!!! Not to mention doing it!!!

SM4 Pirate

On a recent post Dick posted So changing Class G into Class E takes no extra resources, yet changing Class E to Class C is misallocating resources. Well which is it? What's the bigger change to ATC procedures? What example of airspace management would really take extra resources?

Bottle of Rum

Capcom

Mode SHHHNice post, and welcome.

I am curious though, could you explain why you see the rollback as problematic. I am looking at the argument from the tower/app p point of view, have not really followed the enroute stuff.

Are you refering to the 'C over E over C over D' type issue?

Cap

Chris Higgins

This is the last part of the summary. I am very grateful for all of the responses, especially Mode SHHH. Please understand that I just got done with a tour that included shooting an approach to minimums at a non-towered airport in Maine at 2:30 am this morning...the weather has been awful and the delays are exhausting as well. I will respond to everyone tomorrow.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As you are all aware, the meeting was not regulatory and had no proprietry purpose, it was not sponsored by Dick Smith, nor endorsed by PPrune. The meeting was there to allow Dick Smith to explain his side of the story and allow others to explain their's.

The objective was to allow any political motivations within the industry to attend and try and figure out a way for the industry to look forward. Some showed up, sadly, not nearly as many as I had hoped, but it has allowed some valid contributions to these forums.

Perhaps another meeting at Bankstown in December or January might be helpful for those who can't make the city commute?

When I was growing up in Wauchope, inland of Port Macquarie, we went to an agricultural show where we had an exhibit. We thought the exhibit was a failure, until weeks later, people kept referring to the show as they toured the showroom. Our months sales were the best ever.

I think it matters less the number of people that were there, than the number of people who were present that were in a position to influence....which were most of them.

Only time will tell.

I enjoyed meeting everyone and learning as much as I could. I enjoyed the TMU and tower tour and I really enjoyed having my countries carrier Qantas, take care of my brood.

I'll be back at the end of this year.

I'm fading fast, I'll finish this up tomorrow. There's an enormous thunderstorm passing through, I hope the kids will sleep tonight.

Dick Smith

Capcom

It is obvious you do not understand how Class E and alerted see and avoid works. It is amazing to me that you are not prepared to jump on the phone and talk to an American controller and find out how it works there. After all, there is 20 times the density of traffic in around about the same land area. You state that VFR and IFR aircraft interaction in Class E jams the tower frequency like this:

'We are over here Bob where are you", Bob says, "well we are over here doin' this", then the inevitable discourse ensues so as to sort out how they are going to miss each other.

Capcom, this is not how alerted see and avoid works. You are actually describing “radio arranged separation” which is used when in IMC in Class G airspace. In Class E alerted see and avoid is used. What happens is one aircraft hears information on the other aircraft, looks in that direction and avoids. I can assure you nowhere has the ATSB ever said that alerted see and avoid needs to be changed to “radio arranged separation”.

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. Surely if the ATSB believed that alerted see and avoid did not give the required safety levels, they would insist that aircraft used radio arranged separation when in VMC. They have never said this because they know that internationally proven alerted see and avoid gives the required levels of safety in Class E airspace.

Chapi

Thanks for clearing that up Dick ... but how would the following real life event fit into that scheme ???

"All stations location , C172 ABC 28 miles south 5500" followed closely by ... "All stations, this is EAxxxx 30miles south location on descent through F120 estimating location at hhmm"

Aircraft look for each other so they can see and avoid each other but obviously they weren't sighted at that time because a few minutes later ....

"ABC this is EAxxxx, what's you distance from location ?"
"EAxxxx, this ABC 20 miles south"
"Ahhhh ABC this is EAxxxx, we've got you in sight, ahead of us and we're at 8 miles!"
"ABC thanks for the position update"

Obviously, a pre-requisite of see and avoid is that aircraft actually know where they are and, coincidentally, ... are on the right frequency!!

missy

Lets get this right, alerted see and avoid. Just remind which frequency is being used for this "alerted see and avoid" and how are the intentions of one pilot conveyed to the other.