Dick Smith sightings and other atmospheric phenomena
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bush Pelican.
To discuss your point about the Maroochy incident. I suggest you research the NAS intent a bit closer. The VFR uses see and avoid as the primary means of conflict avoidance in E. The VFR should be monitoring the appropriate frequency which happens to be in Dick's opinion the MC tower freq as it is the closest approach and departure frequency. ATC do not separate in E VFR to IFR. What you are suggesting is C airspace not E and have nullified the rest of your post.
To discuss your point about the Maroochy incident. I suggest you research the NAS intent a bit closer. The VFR uses see and avoid as the primary means of conflict avoidance in E. The VFR should be monitoring the appropriate frequency which happens to be in Dick's opinion the MC tower freq as it is the closest approach and departure frequency. ATC do not separate in E VFR to IFR. What you are suggesting is C airspace not E and have nullified the rest of your post.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tobzalp
You personify the problem that exists with NAS and it's implementation. The VFR at MCY had departed and was climbing at a speed and through levels where the frequency he was on was the appropriate one. You know what the ATC manual states regarding controller discretion and commonsense. The statements of people with your mindset do nothing to advance the common ground that may be found if there was a little more
graciousness and consideration for others opinions. I am not blaming anyone least of all ATC. It is a question of attitude to change.
If you read my very early post relating to NAS and had noted I was involved first hand with the MCY incident you would not have bothered to ask me to research the NAS intent closer.
NAS is subject to modification with experience.
Lets keep personal inuendos out of it.
BP
You personify the problem that exists with NAS and it's implementation. The VFR at MCY had departed and was climbing at a speed and through levels where the frequency he was on was the appropriate one. You know what the ATC manual states regarding controller discretion and commonsense. The statements of people with your mindset do nothing to advance the common ground that may be found if there was a little more
graciousness and consideration for others opinions. I am not blaming anyone least of all ATC. It is a question of attitude to change.
If you read my very early post relating to NAS and had noted I was involved first hand with the MCY incident you would not have bothered to ask me to research the NAS intent closer.
NAS is subject to modification with experience.
Lets keep personal inuendos out of it.
BP
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bush Pelican,
Unfortunately the possibility of sensible debate disappears whenever Dick appears. His transmitter is set to permanent "ON" and Auto Repeat but he doesn't have a receiver at all. In the end pure frustration causes us to start screaming and shouting and getting personal. I know that is not a credible debating stance, and a lot of possible intelligent input is not heard in the slanging match, but it shows the level of frustration and anger felt by many of the anti-NAS brigade.
Our basic argument is that while Class E provides more flexibility for VFR aircraft (and it makes my job easier until there is a confliction) it is by definition LESS safe than Class C.
The whole concept of affordable safety has been with us for a while, and quite clearly a balance has to be found between cost and ultimate safety. But in this case there is NO financial benefit to be found, and we object to AOPA basically arguing that their freedom to do what they like wherever they like is paramount.
I have no problem with Class E airspace per se, and as I mentioned it actually makes my job easier most of the time. And the rollback does not mean the end of Class E, far from it. I simply believe that without demonstrable financial savings of a high order, it is inappropriate over Class D towers.
This brings me to one other factor which is being tiptoed around at the moment, but I'll bring it up because I think it's the crunching argument, whether Dick or AOPA like it or not. I'll attempt to be diplomatic: if every VFR pilot had thousands of hours and a solid understanding of all procedures, E over D would be a safe system. As an ATC, I'm sorry to have to report that such is not the case, and we see the evidence of it every day of our lives. It is my belief that an airspace system should not be designed with no heed paid to the lowest common denominator. I have no doubt at all that you and many like you understand the system well and use it with commonsense and airmanship, BUT.........
As Ferris has said repeatedly, what needs changing desperately is not airspace but the charging regime. It is also my personal belief that air safety is a community service, and the community has a right to expect that it will be provided without being compromised by the pursuit of profit.
But that is another subject altogether, isn't it? Or is it?
Unfortunately the possibility of sensible debate disappears whenever Dick appears. His transmitter is set to permanent "ON" and Auto Repeat but he doesn't have a receiver at all. In the end pure frustration causes us to start screaming and shouting and getting personal. I know that is not a credible debating stance, and a lot of possible intelligent input is not heard in the slanging match, but it shows the level of frustration and anger felt by many of the anti-NAS brigade.
Our basic argument is that while Class E provides more flexibility for VFR aircraft (and it makes my job easier until there is a confliction) it is by definition LESS safe than Class C.
The whole concept of affordable safety has been with us for a while, and quite clearly a balance has to be found between cost and ultimate safety. But in this case there is NO financial benefit to be found, and we object to AOPA basically arguing that their freedom to do what they like wherever they like is paramount.
I have no problem with Class E airspace per se, and as I mentioned it actually makes my job easier most of the time. And the rollback does not mean the end of Class E, far from it. I simply believe that without demonstrable financial savings of a high order, it is inappropriate over Class D towers.
This brings me to one other factor which is being tiptoed around at the moment, but I'll bring it up because I think it's the crunching argument, whether Dick or AOPA like it or not. I'll attempt to be diplomatic: if every VFR pilot had thousands of hours and a solid understanding of all procedures, E over D would be a safe system. As an ATC, I'm sorry to have to report that such is not the case, and we see the evidence of it every day of our lives. It is my belief that an airspace system should not be designed with no heed paid to the lowest common denominator. I have no doubt at all that you and many like you understand the system well and use it with commonsense and airmanship, BUT.........
As Ferris has said repeatedly, what needs changing desperately is not airspace but the charging regime. It is also my personal belief that air safety is a community service, and the community has a right to expect that it will be provided without being compromised by the pursuit of profit.
But that is another subject altogether, isn't it? Or is it?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: oz
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To maintain a thread "Dick Smith sightings etc when he has been gagged from responding is un-Australian.
His treatment here has been nothing short of the most vile character attacks seen anywhere. It redefines "hate". His apparant crime was to reply to the attacks.
The Woomera action asking he apologise is amazing. Who should he should apologise to? a phantom? Woomera? God?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. A most amazing action indeed from this forum.
His treatment here has been nothing short of the most vile character attacks seen anywhere. It redefines "hate". His apparant crime was to reply to the attacks.
The Woomera action asking he apologise is amazing. Who should he should apologise to? a phantom? Woomera? God?
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. A most amazing action indeed from this forum.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually I have been flying a while, my ARN may be 6 digit, but it starts with a 1.
The water-skiing anology isn't fair.
I am allowed to sail the same waters channels etc as the big ships, I am just required to use a little common sense even though, when under sail I have right of way.
I am however not allowed to park at the container terminal just as I cannot fly into KSA unless I have purchased a very expensive 'slot'.
As I have said before, AOPA seem to have their act together and some at least don't seem involved. Isn't it better to engage with them rather than, as another poster higlights above, ban, insult or slander them because they have a different point of view???
I personally think C over the top of D airspace is unnecessary and enjoyed the freedoms of E. Except for Brisbane, I have never been refused an IFR clearance in C. Now that things have changed I will get 'agitated' if I ever am, but as long as I am not (and am not charged to use it) I really dont care about airspace.
I will get a little more insistent next time the YBNE approach refuses a clearance and puts me down the lane though!!!
The water-skiing anology isn't fair.
I am allowed to sail the same waters channels etc as the big ships, I am just required to use a little common sense even though, when under sail I have right of way.
I am however not allowed to park at the container terminal just as I cannot fly into KSA unless I have purchased a very expensive 'slot'.
As I have said before, AOPA seem to have their act together and some at least don't seem involved. Isn't it better to engage with them rather than, as another poster higlights above, ban, insult or slander them because they have a different point of view???
I personally think C over the top of D airspace is unnecessary and enjoyed the freedoms of E. Except for Brisbane, I have never been refused an IFR clearance in C. Now that things have changed I will get 'agitated' if I ever am, but as long as I am not (and am not charged to use it) I really dont care about airspace.
I will get a little more insistent next time the YBNE approach refuses a clearance and puts me down the lane though!!!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP
No mister, you personify the problem that we face. This entire mess has eventuated through the initial rubbish of not requiring a safety case as it is already a stand alone system (allegedly). The NAS is not able to be changed due to this in the world of Dick. What we have now is a hybrid system that attempts to make things right by having slight changes is a farce.
I will play my cards straight up and point out that I did work on the LLAMP project. It was a great way to get out of doggos and get a few jollies down to Melbourne. While working on it , it was obvious that things were done correctly through consultation. This NAS crap has been all about Dick getting his own way. If I thought that the NAS was safer, more efficient and would actually achieve anything in Australia I would I assure you be typing madly to back that up. I through much research and professional application do not. I assume that Dick will now point the finger at me and my bonuses. i get no bonuses at all in excess of the bonus paid to all staff RE: productivity (1% this year).
The important aspect that is missed so often is how all of this stuff is modelled. People like Bush Pelican point out what should be done and where. When the risk is assessed and the classes are designated for airspace, the minimum is applied. E airspace will see no VFR IFR assistance. The cost benefit/worlds best practice crap is based on this. As soon as you start expecting over and above this on professional grounds, you are bastardising the classifications. Work it backwards and look at the costings and with all these nice extras that C airspace has with them by definition, you may as well just have it in the first place as is what is occurring now.
Seriously people start having a good think beyond support for a certain camp and look at exactly how these things have/will/did come about and tell me straight faced that the NAS is what this country needs. If you can give me hard facts (omg swings and roundabouts) then I will listen. Anymore of this 'please be nice to dick cos he is so aussie' crap and I am going to spew.
NAS is subject to modification with experience.
I will play my cards straight up and point out that I did work on the LLAMP project. It was a great way to get out of doggos and get a few jollies down to Melbourne. While working on it , it was obvious that things were done correctly through consultation. This NAS crap has been all about Dick getting his own way. If I thought that the NAS was safer, more efficient and would actually achieve anything in Australia I would I assure you be typing madly to back that up. I through much research and professional application do not. I assume that Dick will now point the finger at me and my bonuses. i get no bonuses at all in excess of the bonus paid to all staff RE: productivity (1% this year).
The important aspect that is missed so often is how all of this stuff is modelled. People like Bush Pelican point out what should be done and where. When the risk is assessed and the classes are designated for airspace, the minimum is applied. E airspace will see no VFR IFR assistance. The cost benefit/worlds best practice crap is based on this. As soon as you start expecting over and above this on professional grounds, you are bastardising the classifications. Work it backwards and look at the costings and with all these nice extras that C airspace has with them by definition, you may as well just have it in the first place as is what is occurring now.
Seriously people start having a good think beyond support for a certain camp and look at exactly how these things have/will/did come about and tell me straight faced that the NAS is what this country needs. If you can give me hard facts (omg swings and roundabouts) then I will listen. Anymore of this 'please be nice to dick cos he is so aussie' crap and I am going to spew.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tobzalp
I have had a go at you in another post. You are, in my humble opinion of course, blinkered and doing your cause no good whatsoever with your evangelical arguments.
Linking multiple pots and threads it has become apparent that:
a) The problem is 'user pays', and
b) The organisations best placed to form a real alliance to beat it are at war over something as mundane as airspace.
Get over it and you can win. Divided you will all fall to the 'econorats'.
I have had a go at you in another post. You are, in my humble opinion of course, blinkered and doing your cause no good whatsoever with your evangelical arguments.
Linking multiple pots and threads it has become apparent that:
a) The problem is 'user pays', and
b) The organisations best placed to form a real alliance to beat it are at war over something as mundane as airspace.
Get over it and you can win. Divided you will all fall to the 'econorats'.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YCYT
I have asked the question in another thread. Point out exactly what I have said that is incorrect.
I myself am not warring over anything. To put it bluntly, if the airspace fails, you die, not me.
I have asked the question in another thread. Point out exactly what I have said that is incorrect.
I myself am not warring over anything. To put it bluntly, if the airspace fails, you die, not me.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, I will not die. I am not reliant on ATC I use all the other things I have learned (and bought) to stay alive.
In either my flying for work or personal transport I am not reliant on nor do I need ATC. That said I understand RPT need you and need you to vector me. As I have said, just as I avoid tankers when I sail i am happy to avoid their airbourne equivalent, PROVIDED you do not say 'clearance no available, descend to 2500 for the AF lane' when my TCAS tells me the is NO TRAFFIC (that wasn't you was it???).
BUT, the problem is user pays, the problem is unionised fighting, be it CivilAir or AOPA.
At the end of the day we are all aviators, we should be trying to work out where we agree instead of helping the econorats divide us and drive us out of usiness or (in your case) jobs.
And Sir/Madam, I do not say that lightly. You are obviously ATC, let me tempt you with two econorat inspired words... AVALON/JETSTAR.
I say you should stop the war and concentrate on the enemy!!!
This by the way gets us nowhere, PM me
In either my flying for work or personal transport I am not reliant on nor do I need ATC. That said I understand RPT need you and need you to vector me. As I have said, just as I avoid tankers when I sail i am happy to avoid their airbourne equivalent, PROVIDED you do not say 'clearance no available, descend to 2500 for the AF lane' when my TCAS tells me the is NO TRAFFIC (that wasn't you was it???).
BUT, the problem is user pays, the problem is unionised fighting, be it CivilAir or AOPA.
At the end of the day we are all aviators, we should be trying to work out where we agree instead of helping the econorats divide us and drive us out of usiness or (in your case) jobs.
And Sir/Madam, I do not say that lightly. You are obviously ATC, let me tempt you with two econorat inspired words... AVALON/JETSTAR.
I say you should stop the war and concentrate on the enemy!!!
This by the way gets us nowhere, PM me
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOTE
Contrary to what the noisy scrub birds would have you believe, Mr. Smith has NOT been banned from this site.
We sincerely hope Mr. Smith will continue to post here.
We simply require that he like the rest of us, respects the anonymity of his fellow PPRuNers, if he wishes to continue to post here.
bush pelican
Thank you for your participation and I can assure you your remarks are valued by us here.
A large number of the posts to which you refer either contained nothing but personal attacks void of any reference to the thread issue, or, sheer frustration on the part of the poster when the response was discursive or polemic on the point at issue.
We have had it up to our necks too.
We the Forum Moderators with Admin have last week, determined to restate and reset the rules, EVERYBODY has been put on notice and we can assure you that there will be stronger or should I say more correctly NORMAL moderation in the future.
There have been and will be we suspect further bannings, “floggings will continue until morale improves”.
Your productive input to the NAS debate is much appreciated and I think you would find most around here in heated agreement with you in regard to the implementation and issues surrounding it.
Mr. Smith was taken to task by me, not for his position re the NAS, that is for PPRuNers to debate, but for his belligerent attitude towards PPRuNe and the right of PPRuNers here and elsewhere, if they so chose, to remain anonymous, a right I see that you as have most chosen to take. He is welcome on PPRuNe on exactly the same basis as anyone else.
Here, as you know, your input is not judged on whether you wish to remain anonymous or not, nor who you may or may purport to be, but on the quality of your input, which in your case has always had our respect, been of the highest standard and relevant to the thread at issue.
Mr. Smith however has developed the habit of suggesting that views or properly constructed rebuttal, especially those with which he disagrees or that expose a flaw in his comments expressed here, are less valid because they are stated anonymously. Further he suggests that the authors are therefore cowards.
It has been and will remain an article of faith in PPRuNedom that the quality, rational, technical accuracy and mature method of expression in posts is valued beyond the who. We even had a poster who, it turned out was a youngster still at school and studying to be a pilot, turned a thread on its head, maturity beyond some players here
You will be familiar with and I am sure would applaud with us the moral contained in the fable “The Emperors Clothes”
There is not one of us here who has not made a “loose” statement or comment that has not been picked up by someone else with the actual fact of it, or the guidance to it.
That is the Power of PPRuNe, we all come here to share experiences and learn from each other. We can make fools of ourselves sometimes, we can stumble across the answer to something that has puzzled us, and we can ask what we] may think are “foolish” questions and get a polite answer.
We all know that in aviation there is no such thing as “foolish” questions only “foolish” answers.
We sincerely hope you will persevere with us, anonymously if you wish.
Contrary to what the noisy scrub birds would have you believe, Mr. Smith has NOT been banned from this site.
We sincerely hope Mr. Smith will continue to post here.
We simply require that he like the rest of us, respects the anonymity of his fellow PPRuNers, if he wishes to continue to post here.
bush pelican
Thank you for your participation and I can assure you your remarks are valued by us here.
A large number of the posts to which you refer either contained nothing but personal attacks void of any reference to the thread issue, or, sheer frustration on the part of the poster when the response was discursive or polemic on the point at issue.
We have had it up to our necks too.
We the Forum Moderators with Admin have last week, determined to restate and reset the rules, EVERYBODY has been put on notice and we can assure you that there will be stronger or should I say more correctly NORMAL moderation in the future.
There have been and will be we suspect further bannings, “floggings will continue until morale improves”.
Your productive input to the NAS debate is much appreciated and I think you would find most around here in heated agreement with you in regard to the implementation and issues surrounding it.
Mr. Smith was taken to task by me, not for his position re the NAS, that is for PPRuNers to debate, but for his belligerent attitude towards PPRuNe and the right of PPRuNers here and elsewhere, if they so chose, to remain anonymous, a right I see that you as have most chosen to take. He is welcome on PPRuNe on exactly the same basis as anyone else.
Here, as you know, your input is not judged on whether you wish to remain anonymous or not, nor who you may or may purport to be, but on the quality of your input, which in your case has always had our respect, been of the highest standard and relevant to the thread at issue.
Mr. Smith however has developed the habit of suggesting that views or properly constructed rebuttal, especially those with which he disagrees or that expose a flaw in his comments expressed here, are less valid because they are stated anonymously. Further he suggests that the authors are therefore cowards.
It has been and will remain an article of faith in PPRuNedom that the quality, rational, technical accuracy and mature method of expression in posts is valued beyond the who. We even had a poster who, it turned out was a youngster still at school and studying to be a pilot, turned a thread on its head,
maturity beyond some players hereYou will be familiar with and I am sure would applaud with us the moral contained in the fable “The Emperors Clothes”
There is not one of us here who has not made a “loose” statement or comment that has not been picked up by someone else with the actual fact of it, or the guidance to it.
That is the Power of PPRuNe, we all come here to share experiences and learn from each other. We can make fools of ourselves sometimes, we can stumble across the answer to something that has puzzled us, and we can ask what we] may think are “foolish” questions and get a polite answer.
We all know that in aviation there is no such thing as “foolish” questions only “foolish” answers.
We sincerely hope you will persevere with us, anonymously if you wish.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bush Pilot, You stated that you fly a Chieftain. Only two days ago I had a Cheiftain at F140. Hope the pilot was on oxygen, but he was up there cruising happily with a ground speed of 190Knots.
I watch all types of aircraft climb and descend every day. 737s going in and out of Coffs as you quite rightly point out must do 250knots below A100. That's 250 knots IAS. This can be a ground speed of up to over 300 knots.
If you in your Chieftain are doing 3nm per minute, and the jet is doing 5 nm per minute, when will you see him if you are not aware he is coming at you. At about 8-10nm? So with a closing speed of 8nm per minute you have about 60 seconds to see the aircraft, decide if a collision risk will occur, then take evasive action.
Hmmmm. Me thinks you are over estimating your ability to get out of the jet's way. Launy, Albury, Coffs, Maroochy, Smoka, ML incidents all relate to VFR aircraft with PICs who thought like this, but the jet actually avoided the VFR aircraft, not the other way round.
BP, you've been in the game a long time, so you obviously have the experience, skill and aviation nouce to have survived this long. But the facts do not stack up to supporting E class steps over D towers or into major airfields like Brissy or Melbourne. Your belief about Class E safety is not well founded and is contrary to a lot of other aviation professionals.
I watch all types of aircraft climb and descend every day. 737s going in and out of Coffs as you quite rightly point out must do 250knots below A100. That's 250 knots IAS. This can be a ground speed of up to over 300 knots.
If you in your Chieftain are doing 3nm per minute, and the jet is doing 5 nm per minute, when will you see him if you are not aware he is coming at you. At about 8-10nm? So with a closing speed of 8nm per minute you have about 60 seconds to see the aircraft, decide if a collision risk will occur, then take evasive action.
Hmmmm. Me thinks you are over estimating your ability to get out of the jet's way. Launy, Albury, Coffs, Maroochy, Smoka, ML incidents all relate to VFR aircraft with PICs who thought like this, but the jet actually avoided the VFR aircraft, not the other way round.
BP, you've been in the game a long time, so you obviously have the experience, skill and aviation nouce to have survived this long. But the facts do not stack up to supporting E class steps over D towers or into major airfields like Brissy or Melbourne. Your belief about Class E safety is not well founded and is contrary to a lot of other aviation professionals.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YCKT,
If you are IFR, Class E airspace has no "freedoms" over Class C. Are we to assume from this that you are one of those who flies IFR but nominates VFR to avoid paying enroute charges? But you reserve the right to get 'agitated' if at the end of your pseudo VFR flight you are denied your natural rights to an IFR clearance?
Perhaps I am missing something here, but since you specified
....I would take a bit of convincing that your wallet is not all you are worried about.
We thank you for your helpful input.
I personally think C over the top of D airspace is unnecessary and enjoyed the freedoms of E. Except for Brisbane, I have never been refused an IFR clearance in C. Now that things have changed I will get 'agitated' if I ever am, but as long as I am not (and am not charged to use it) I really dont care about airspace.
Perhaps I am missing something here, but since you specified
as long as I........am not charged to use it, I really don't care about airspace.
We thank you for your helpful input.
Bottums Up
Well stuff my duck YCKT!
Thanks for pointing out that TCAS can be used to assess local traffic
and decide whether ATC are just pinging us about the sky for no good reason.
Thanks for pointing out that TCAS can be used to assess local traffic
when my TCAS tells me the is NO TRAFFIC
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YCKT
The more you write, the less credible your declared experience appears.
Somehow I doubt anyone would let you loose with a TCAS equipped aircraft with so little understanding of it's predicitive range, and an apparent ignorance of most of the core issues in this 'debate'.
Your comments about ATC pinging you about the sky for no good reason and other such comments do not warrant any further engagement with you on a constructive level.
You appear to just be banging a big loud (and strangely very familiar) drum, which doesn't allow you to hear anyone else.
The more you write, the less credible your declared experience appears.
Somehow I doubt anyone would let you loose with a TCAS equipped aircraft with so little understanding of it's predicitive range, and an apparent ignorance of most of the core issues in this 'debate'.
Your comments about ATC pinging you about the sky for no good reason and other such comments do not warrant any further engagement with you on a constructive level.
You appear to just be banging a big loud (and strangely very familiar) drum, which doesn't allow you to hear anyone else.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YCKT...
Sorry only just saw this thread.
Actually going back to the boating analogy, you do not have the right of way when operating in a channel under sail. You must give way to all the "heavies", as they cannot manoevre out of those channels.
A guy I know ran a yachty like you over one day in Portsmouth harbour...Aircraft carriers apparently give way to no one, and the yachty wasn't looking out the window..he had just hit a lighthouse and was playing with his radio at the time reporting it!
You would think that he could see something the size of an office building coming towards him at less than 10 knots wouldn't you?
Back to the thread now...
Everyone knows that ATCs vector for controller amusement, no other reason is there?
Sorry only just saw this thread.
Actually going back to the boating analogy, you do not have the right of way when operating in a channel under sail. You must give way to all the "heavies", as they cannot manoevre out of those channels.
A guy I know ran a yachty like you over one day in Portsmouth harbour...Aircraft carriers apparently give way to no one, and the yachty wasn't looking out the window..he had just hit a lighthouse and was playing with his radio at the time reporting it!
You would think that he could see something the size of an office building coming towards him at less than 10 knots wouldn't you?
Back to the thread now...
Everyone knows that ATCs vector for controller amusement, no other reason is there?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Airspace is not the Issue
Bush Pelican:
The issue of whether one airspace model (eg NAS) is superior, or otherwise, to the other airspace options on the table (eg the existing airspace model or LLAMP) has never been the real issue in my view.
Every airspace model in the world has its advantages and disadvantages - the challenge for airspace planners is to work with industry to vie for maximum airspace advantage whilst tweaking the infrastructure (equipment, training and procedures) to adequately manage the disadvantages and risk.
The real issue, however, is that our politicians and senior aviation bureaucrats within DOTARS, CASA and Airservices allowed an individual to take control over the strategic planning of Australia's airspace system and, in the process, aided and abetted him when he ignored internationally-accepted and well-tested airspace planning and industry coordination processes that were designed to maintain the safety, efficiency, integrity and availability of the system - at the best (dare I say it, affordable) cost to the industry.
Had these established planning processes been adopted for the NAS implementation by the ARG and NASIG in a fully transparent manner. I believe the level of industry support, from professional aviation bodies, would have been far more favourable and would have possibly resulted in the majority of NAS elements being implemented in some form or another, as the industry would have been more diligent in identifying and validating the benefits to all sectors of the industry.
I must admit that I find it absolutely ironic that both DS and AOPA are now criticising ASA for not making its safety analyses, relating to rollback, public and for ignoring advice from CASA; when it wasn't that long ago that many anti-NAS proponents on PPrune fora were accusing the ARG/NASIG of doing exactly the same thing.
Yeah, I agree with you BP that the existing airspace is not perfect and there are some good features in NAS, which could be implemented quite successfully in Australia with little safety or cost impact.
However, the one thing that is NOT ACCEPTABLE is any attempt by any advocate of any airspace model to force industry to adopt an airspace model that has not been adequately assessed for its safety, cost or efficiency implications.
Australia is recognised throughout the aviation world for its expertise in safety management systems and regulatory impact analyses, so why do some people see the need to ignore what the rest of the world sees as "best practice"?
Sure, let's all continue to strive for airspace improvement but to reach that goal, we need to have a planning framework that has wide industry acceptance, as well as one that can effectively solicit, consider and resolve your airspace views as well as mine, befoe arriving at the most optimal implementation solution.
If nothing else come about from this NAS debacle, I sincerely hope that the industry and government now realise that a robust airspace planning and coordination framework is both essential and a national asset, and it's function and effectiveness should never again be compromised in the future by any political process or airspace stakeholder.
I'm now off my soapbox.
The issue of whether one airspace model (eg NAS) is superior, or otherwise, to the other airspace options on the table (eg the existing airspace model or LLAMP) has never been the real issue in my view.
Every airspace model in the world has its advantages and disadvantages - the challenge for airspace planners is to work with industry to vie for maximum airspace advantage whilst tweaking the infrastructure (equipment, training and procedures) to adequately manage the disadvantages and risk.
The real issue, however, is that our politicians and senior aviation bureaucrats within DOTARS, CASA and Airservices allowed an individual to take control over the strategic planning of Australia's airspace system and, in the process, aided and abetted him when he ignored internationally-accepted and well-tested airspace planning and industry coordination processes that were designed to maintain the safety, efficiency, integrity and availability of the system - at the best (dare I say it, affordable) cost to the industry.
Had these established planning processes been adopted for the NAS implementation by the ARG and NASIG in a fully transparent manner. I believe the level of industry support, from professional aviation bodies, would have been far more favourable and would have possibly resulted in the majority of NAS elements being implemented in some form or another, as the industry would have been more diligent in identifying and validating the benefits to all sectors of the industry.
I must admit that I find it absolutely ironic that both DS and AOPA are now criticising ASA for not making its safety analyses, relating to rollback, public and for ignoring advice from CASA; when it wasn't that long ago that many anti-NAS proponents on PPrune fora were accusing the ARG/NASIG of doing exactly the same thing.
Yeah, I agree with you BP that the existing airspace is not perfect and there are some good features in NAS, which could be implemented quite successfully in Australia with little safety or cost impact.
However, the one thing that is NOT ACCEPTABLE is any attempt by any advocate of any airspace model to force industry to adopt an airspace model that has not been adequately assessed for its safety, cost or efficiency implications.
Australia is recognised throughout the aviation world for its expertise in safety management systems and regulatory impact analyses, so why do some people see the need to ignore what the rest of the world sees as "best practice"?
Sure, let's all continue to strive for airspace improvement but to reach that goal, we need to have a planning framework that has wide industry acceptance, as well as one that can effectively solicit, consider and resolve your airspace views as well as mine, befoe arriving at the most optimal implementation solution.
If nothing else come about from this NAS debacle, I sincerely hope that the industry and government now realise that a robust airspace planning and coordination framework is both essential and a national asset, and it's function and effectiveness should never again be compromised in the future by any political process or airspace stakeholder.
I'm now off my soapbox.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well spoken QSK, and well argued. I reckon even Bush Pelican will see eye to eye on that one.
But what a disaster it's been, we can only hope that air services doesnt get trashed after this debacle, the board remain and all parties can move on in a diplomatic manner to put in place the required airspace reform that's safe and proven.
Dick, maybe you could take a long earned holiday with no access to a mail box, computer, no pen, no access to electronic media, and have that mobile phone of yours taken away for a year or so.
Wouldnt life be sweet.
But what a disaster it's been, we can only hope that air services doesnt get trashed after this debacle, the board remain and all parties can move on in a diplomatic manner to put in place the required airspace reform that's safe and proven.
Dick, maybe you could take a long earned holiday with no access to a mail box, computer, no pen, no access to electronic media, and have that mobile phone of yours taken away for a year or so.
Wouldnt life be sweet.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binoculrs.
I use VFR or IFR depending on weather. Any suggestion I fly VFR in IMC is nasty and slanderous to the extreme. I do not. I will fly VFR 'on top' until I can no longer meet the requirements of VFR and then upgrade.
That raises a point. If I go YBCS - YBAF direct, but upgrade just before YBMC I am charged the entire journey, gouging in the extreme and it probably leads to some interesting behaviour???
Divingduck
Yes, you are correct, a bit like aircraft on finals having right of way. However an incident in Cairns in March where a VFR 172 was told to 'go round' because a Dash-8 and subsequently a VB 737 were behind leads to an interesting question on ATC interpretation of that 'rule' if it is in fact one (no, it wasn't me). It did lead to an 'incident' however.
I have no problems with 'right of way' for heavies in very busy airspace, but not at procedural ones where the procedures can lead to big delays or reroutes.
Uncommon sense,
You seem to have the wrong name. Beating the 'you don't agree with me therefore I will insult you' 'drum' is somewhat typical of a few around these traps.
I use VFR or IFR depending on weather. Any suggestion I fly VFR in IMC is nasty and slanderous to the extreme. I do not. I will fly VFR 'on top' until I can no longer meet the requirements of VFR and then upgrade.
That raises a point. If I go YBCS - YBAF direct, but upgrade just before YBMC I am charged the entire journey, gouging in the extreme and it probably leads to some interesting behaviour???
Divingduck
Yes, you are correct, a bit like aircraft on finals having right of way. However an incident in Cairns in March where a VFR 172 was told to 'go round' because a Dash-8 and subsequently a VB 737 were behind leads to an interesting question on ATC interpretation of that 'rule' if it is in fact one (no, it wasn't me). It did lead to an 'incident' however.
I have no problems with 'right of way' for heavies in very busy airspace, but not at procedural ones where the procedures can lead to big delays or reroutes.
Uncommon sense,
You seem to have the wrong name. Beating the 'you don't agree with me therefore I will insult you' 'drum' is somewhat typical of a few around these traps.