Dick Smith sightings and other atmospheric phenomena
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YCKT,
The Cairns incident you mention (I don't work there BTW) : I don't know all the details, but it sounds like a case of the C172 got slower than the ATC predicted, the following ACFT didn't slow as much as needed or predicted and a safe separation standard could not be maintained by either Radar, Tower Separation or visual sighting by the following aircraft. So there is really only two options isn't there: i.e. either the C172 breaks off the approach to orbit back and follow, or the B737 gos around and is resequenced.
Technically, CS being a non-capital city there are no priorities, first to land has right of way. However, legislation exists to allow the controller to make a decision contrary 'when it would be of significant overall economic benefit'. So, is there a significant economic benefit in the 737 being allowed to continue it's approach whilst the C172 does an orbit? The C172 pilot might not think so! The 150+ or so passengers on the B737 will probably argue there is - as will the operator. And, the AirServices view in terms of 'core' customers will probably argue there is as well.
Not the answer you would want to hear if you were the C172 driver I am sure. But what is the cost of the airspace use for the C172 (assuming VFR)? $0.
What is the cost for the QF 737? (Terminal Area only) : just under $1000.
So, AirServices knows which side it's bread is buttered I guess.
It is run as a business (I don't agree with that BTW - it is another Thatcherist right-wing conservative concept - the Libs love this sort of thing!) - so as a business it is of course going to serve it's premium customers - hey, honestly... woudln't you?
Thats the way it is - which bit of legislation would you like to see changed? How are you going to argue it?
I am not taking AirServices side here - just stating the playing surface as I see it.
The Cairns incident you mention (I don't work there BTW) : I don't know all the details, but it sounds like a case of the C172 got slower than the ATC predicted, the following ACFT didn't slow as much as needed or predicted and a safe separation standard could not be maintained by either Radar, Tower Separation or visual sighting by the following aircraft. So there is really only two options isn't there: i.e. either the C172 breaks off the approach to orbit back and follow, or the B737 gos around and is resequenced.
Technically, CS being a non-capital city there are no priorities, first to land has right of way. However, legislation exists to allow the controller to make a decision contrary 'when it would be of significant overall economic benefit'. So, is there a significant economic benefit in the 737 being allowed to continue it's approach whilst the C172 does an orbit? The C172 pilot might not think so! The 150+ or so passengers on the B737 will probably argue there is - as will the operator. And, the AirServices view in terms of 'core' customers will probably argue there is as well.
Not the answer you would want to hear if you were the C172 driver I am sure. But what is the cost of the airspace use for the C172 (assuming VFR)? $0.
What is the cost for the QF 737? (Terminal Area only) : just under $1000.
So, AirServices knows which side it's bread is buttered I guess.
It is run as a business (I don't agree with that BTW - it is another Thatcherist right-wing conservative concept - the Libs love this sort of thing!) - so as a business it is of course going to serve it's premium customers - hey, honestly... woudln't you?
Thats the way it is - which bit of legislation would you like to see changed? How are you going to argue it?
I am not taking AirServices side here - just stating the playing surface as I see it.
QSK? said
I disagree, the real issue was the way Airservices didn't stand up and say NO. Performance bonuses were at stake if NAS wasn't introduced. Sad but true.
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
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncommon
A nice post, OK I will back off.
Sending a 172b with 40 degrees down around at 300 feet for 'economic reasons' SHEER BLOODY LUNACY if you ask me.
'Turn right overwater' except both right and left from there are overwater, following an unusual and unexpected 'command'.
To quote the pilot "i am OK but the Dash-8 passengers are still in therapy'
Were I to apportion blame it would go
1. The econorats for the silly 'procedure' you quote.
2. ATC for doing it.
3. The pilot for not saying, 'negative, continued approach at this point REQUIRED'
after all, who was only holding the tail.
A nice post, OK I will back off.
Sending a 172b with 40 degrees down around at 300 feet for 'economic reasons' SHEER BLOODY LUNACY if you ask me.
'Turn right overwater' except both right and left from there are overwater, following an unusual and unexpected 'command'.
To quote the pilot "i am OK but the Dash-8 passengers are still in therapy'
Were I to apportion blame it would go
1. The econorats for the silly 'procedure' you quote.
2. ATC for doing it.
3. The pilot for not saying, 'negative, continued approach at this point REQUIRED'
after all, who was only holding the tail.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any suggestion I fly VFR in IMC is nasty and slanderous to the extreme
I don't believe for one minute that any of these pilots are not IFR capable, nor do I make the same accusation of you. I'm suggesting you or others call yourself VFR to avoid charges, not that you fly VFR in IMC, and I've had pilots of vastly greater experience than you admit that is the case to save $25 on a TL-MK flight. So sue me if you want, but spare me the piety.
As for your understanding of ATC priorities when things break down close to the minima, there is no point in engaging in further conversation. I suspect your viewpoint is heavily skewed towards the C172 for a good reason.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont know anything about the incident in Cairns nor much about Cairns approach in general - so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics. (do you hear me dick?)
However speaking in general terms I will say that sequencing lighties in with Jets and high performance turboprops is not always an easy thing to do. A C172 gets swallowed by a 767 at a truly alarming rate.
Sequencing is an art - even very competent controllers with many years experience still get it wrong occasionally. It never ceases to amaze me how willing many pilots are to second guess ATC decisions on sequencing. It is also incredible the conspiracy theories that abound about favourable treatment of one subset of industry or another by ATC. The fact is that there is generally very little latitude for ATC to favour one aircraft over another. The sequence is arranged to get the aircraft over the threshold at the agreed rate as efficiently as possible - I have never in my career seen or heard of any policy of conscious favouratism being applied to any airline.
As part of my training we studied an NTSB report detailing the results of getting it wrong sequencing jets behind a C172. I believe it took place at O'Hare in the early 90s. On this occasion the ATC chose not to pull the cessna out and wound up with a serious traffic jam behind him - and subsequently put on an airshow over Chicago trying to sort out the resulting mess- some of the planes got VERY close indeed. The report should be available from the NTSB database, I recommend it as required reading before suggesting you know better than the guy doing the vectoring.
However speaking in general terms I will say that sequencing lighties in with Jets and high performance turboprops is not always an easy thing to do. A C172 gets swallowed by a 767 at a truly alarming rate.
Sequencing is an art - even very competent controllers with many years experience still get it wrong occasionally. It never ceases to amaze me how willing many pilots are to second guess ATC decisions on sequencing. It is also incredible the conspiracy theories that abound about favourable treatment of one subset of industry or another by ATC. The fact is that there is generally very little latitude for ATC to favour one aircraft over another. The sequence is arranged to get the aircraft over the threshold at the agreed rate as efficiently as possible - I have never in my career seen or heard of any policy of conscious favouratism being applied to any airline.
As part of my training we studied an NTSB report detailing the results of getting it wrong sequencing jets behind a C172. I believe it took place at O'Hare in the early 90s. On this occasion the ATC chose not to pull the cessna out and wound up with a serious traffic jam behind him - and subsequently put on an airshow over Chicago trying to sort out the resulting mess- some of the planes got VERY close indeed. The report should be available from the NTSB database, I recommend it as required reading before suggesting you know better than the guy doing the vectoring.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binoculars
If the charging system is causing that behaviour then it should be subject to an ATSB enquiry.
Regardless of what you say re the Cairns incident, read the ATSB report. In my humble view the controllers were UNBELIEVABLY WRONG and created an UNSAFE incident to save QF and VB a few bucks.
Are you saying the lives on the 172B were worth the $1000 VB would have been charged???
If the charging system is causing that behaviour then it should be subject to an ATSB enquiry.
Regardless of what you say re the Cairns incident, read the ATSB report. In my humble view the controllers were UNBELIEVABLY WRONG and created an UNSAFE incident to save QF and VB a few bucks.
Are you saying the lives on the 172B were worth the $1000 VB would have been charged???
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a very hard thing to prove YCKT. Nobody will openly admit to it - only privately as in the case of Bino's confidante.
You speak of CS. I know and I am sure every controller and local operator in CS knows of one particular pilot who flies VFR in ALL weather - and I mean ILS Minima wet season walls of water. He knows that ATC have no authority to deny a VFR clearance or declare the airport closed to VFR even if the ATIS says OVC003. He also frequently REQUIRES tracking via the 332 radial inbound or whatever it is that 'coincides' with the 15LLZ. Apparently the red sea opens up down final and that is the only place that he can remain 'visual'. This particular plane grounds at about 100KN in such conditions. I am sure you can imagine what that does to the following sequence - they get 'pinged all over the sky' to accomodate this fool.
How do you prove it though? And what are the ATSB going to do? It really is a compliance issue - over to CASA.
BTW: Nobody but you suggested putting a price on safety of the C172 occupants. If you want to talk about affordable safety call Dick on his mobile.
You speak of CS. I know and I am sure every controller and local operator in CS knows of one particular pilot who flies VFR in ALL weather - and I mean ILS Minima wet season walls of water. He knows that ATC have no authority to deny a VFR clearance or declare the airport closed to VFR even if the ATIS says OVC003. He also frequently REQUIRES tracking via the 332 radial inbound or whatever it is that 'coincides' with the 15LLZ. Apparently the red sea opens up down final and that is the only place that he can remain 'visual'. This particular plane grounds at about 100KN in such conditions. I am sure you can imagine what that does to the following sequence - they get 'pinged all over the sky' to accomodate this fool.
How do you prove it though? And what are the ATSB going to do? It really is a compliance issue - over to CASA.
BTW: Nobody but you suggested putting a price on safety of the C172 occupants. If you want to talk about affordable safety call Dick on his mobile.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This incident happened in March? Six months enables a lot of people to develop an incandescent rage at what they perceive as a grievous mistake on somebody's behalf, especially if that view suits their own agenda.
I know nothing else of this incident, nor do I feel particularly inclined to look up the details. Why? Because I do know that in 21 years of tower control I have occasionally got it spectacularly right, where everybody in a busy sequence gets what they want and thank me for doing it, slightly more often spectacularly wrong where the sh*te hits the fan till it's all sorted out, and I'm abused from all sides, but in the majority of cases, it just works. Some get what they want. Others don't. It's never been personal.
If you think your opinion about when a controller has got it UNBELIEVABLY WRONG is worth putting into print, then you go for it. But I'm sorry, I treat that opinion with the same reserve as you would my opinion about how you fly your 172 with TCAS.
I know nothing else of this incident, nor do I feel particularly inclined to look up the details. Why? Because I do know that in 21 years of tower control I have occasionally got it spectacularly right, where everybody in a busy sequence gets what they want and thank me for doing it, slightly more often spectacularly wrong where the sh*te hits the fan till it's all sorted out, and I'm abused from all sides, but in the majority of cases, it just works. Some get what they want. Others don't. It's never been personal.
If you think your opinion about when a controller has got it UNBELIEVABLY WRONG is worth putting into print, then you go for it. But I'm sorry, I treat that opinion with the same reserve as you would my opinion about how you fly your 172 with TCAS.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uncommon
Funny, despite our start I find myself in agreement.
Binoculars.
It wasn't me. It was a lady who i now well and spoke to immediately following the incident. I don't care how it is portrayed, a go around at that point to save a hundred thousand bucks, in that terrain, is still wrong.
oh, uncommon.
I have come round False Cape, having been told 'ten miles' to find a wall of water etc. Finding the Holloways water Tower (cant see forward then) got me in, with ATC help (and a bit of worry re high ground to the west). They aint all bad, but they should push tin, not $$$$$
Edited to say
Oh, and Binos, wasnt you that got me in 'Special' at YBMK just after Christmas was it
Funny, despite our start I find myself in agreement.
Binoculars.
It wasn't me. It was a lady who i now well and spoke to immediately following the incident. I don't care how it is portrayed, a go around at that point to save a hundred thousand bucks, in that terrain, is still wrong.
oh, uncommon.
I have come round False Cape, having been told 'ten miles' to find a wall of water etc. Finding the Holloways water Tower (cant see forward then) got me in, with ATC help (and a bit of worry re high ground to the west). They aint all bad, but they should push tin, not $$$$$
Edited to say
Oh, and Binos, wasnt you that got me in 'Special' at YBMK just after Christmas was it
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YCKT,
The controllers DO push tin only.
If you come first in the sequence, second or last .... SAME MONEY.
As had been said frequently on PPrune - controllers apply the rules - they don't make them or neccessarily agree with them.
[You can therefore imagine their disgust when very legitimate heartfelt professional concerns about NAS were dismissed by Minister Anderson, Dick Smith, and even AirServices Australia as 'Industrial Scarmongering'. Remember: NAS meant more jobs not less, nothing to do with pay and conditions.... yet out it kept coming: 'Industrial Campaign!!' It all gets a bit tedious after a while
]
The controllers DO push tin only.
If you come first in the sequence, second or last .... SAME MONEY.
As had been said frequently on PPrune - controllers apply the rules - they don't make them or neccessarily agree with them.
[You can therefore imagine their disgust when very legitimate heartfelt professional concerns about NAS were dismissed by Minister Anderson, Dick Smith, and even AirServices Australia as 'Industrial Scarmongering'. Remember: NAS meant more jobs not less, nothing to do with pay and conditions.... yet out it kept coming: 'Industrial Campaign!!' It all gets a bit tedious after a while
]
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and Binos, wasnt you that got me in 'Special' at YBMK just after Christmas was it
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You speak of beating drums and of second hand information like you are some kind of expert on this whole aviation thing. Time in and time out your position is proven to be way off the mark and it is this consistent rubbish that is muddying the waters of this whole airspace debacle. You and your AOPA buddies are responsible for much of this mess through your pilot education misgivings. I suggest that you focus on fixing that and stop wasting our time with you constant finger pointing and subsequent retractions when you learn that you really do have no clue. I am heartened when I look at the way the education of ATC is progressing for the rollback and I hope that your association will get up to speed as well. Interestingly enough, I had a whole bunch of transponder check requests today. Maybe the masses got the wrong 27th?
eabod
eabod
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AOPA,FLYING FOR FUN
YCKT
What could be more fun than a right (or left) turn over water at Cairns at 300ft in a 172 whilst watching a 73 on final approach?
Gees, why doesn't that happen to me?
Hope you didn't complain about the landing fees.
C'mon MAKE MY DAY!!!!
BP
What could be more fun than a right (or left) turn over water at Cairns at 300ft in a 172 whilst watching a 73 on final approach?
Gees, why doesn't that happen to me?
Hope you didn't complain about the landing fees.
C'mon MAKE MY DAY!!!!
BP
Last edited by bush pelican; 28th Sep 2004 at 00:25.
Grandpa Aerotart
YCKT
Wouldn't mind betting the 172 was asked to keep the speed up due following traffic....but instead dangled the flaps all the way to 40 on final and dragged it in at 60kts...as no doubt taught to do. Personally I have come in flapless and got outa everyones way...but that's just me....there are other flap settings besides full down.
If it was rwy 15 at CNS with the usual trades blowing ground speed might have been as low as 45kts...that hardly what I'd call playing the game with a Dash and 737 following you down finals.
If going around from a full flap approach caused an incident then the person needs more training.
Just my rambling thoughts.
Wouldn't mind betting the 172 was asked to keep the speed up due following traffic....but instead dangled the flaps all the way to 40 on final and dragged it in at 60kts...as no doubt taught to do. Personally I have come in flapless and got outa everyones way...but that's just me....there are other flap settings besides full down.
If it was rwy 15 at CNS with the usual trades blowing ground speed might have been as low as 45kts...that hardly what I'd call playing the game with a Dash and 737 following you down finals.
If going around from a full flap approach caused an incident then the person needs more training.
Just my rambling thoughts.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chuckles
Too true, unless of course you are exercising your right to fly without unnecessary restrictions and costs.
YCKT
I'd give his particular issue away if I were you, unless you are prepared to give us chapter and verse, on the real who, what and why. I'm sure there are many other examples but this was not one that would further your undoubtedly sincerely held cause.
Too true, unless of course you are exercising your right to fly without unnecessary restrictions and costs.
YCKT
I'd give his particular issue away if I were you, unless you are prepared to give us chapter and verse, on the real who, what and why. I'm sure there are many other examples but this was not one that would further your undoubtedly sincerely held cause.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu
RWY 33 actually, interesting for that time of the year.
Uncommon.
Yes, generally I accept they just push tin. But that decision, and potentially others, seem swayed by $$$$
The point I made earlier is that safety of either a 172, a Dash-8 or a 737 should not be based on $$$$ and that ATC charges should be funded either from consolidated revenue or a ticket tax in combination with rego fees.
That way certain (non-ATC) AsA employees would have no incentive to drive fees up and thus try to enshrine different levels of service at controlled airports.
A combination of tax funding and spread user-pays seems to me to be the only way safety isnt compromised.
RWY 33 actually, interesting for that time of the year.
Uncommon.
Yes, generally I accept they just push tin. But that decision, and potentially others, seem swayed by $$$$
The point I made earlier is that safety of either a 172, a Dash-8 or a 737 should not be based on $$$$ and that ATC charges should be funded either from consolidated revenue or a ticket tax in combination with rego fees.
That way certain (non-ATC) AsA employees would have no incentive to drive fees up and thus try to enshrine different levels of service at controlled airports.
A combination of tax funding and spread user-pays seems to me to be the only way safety isnt compromised.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YCKT
I am having trouble finding the ATSB report on the ATSB website. Could you please post a link to it.
Regardless of what you say re the Cairns incident, read the ATSB report
I am having trouble finding the ATSB report on the ATSB website. Could you please post a link to it.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YCKT,
I think maybe you are trying t be provocative in a small way, but I am kind of past rising to a lot of it after the many manifestations of Dick Smith and his blame-free existence coupled with his menopausal mood swings.
What you are talking about is the charging system right? I think you will find little disagreement that IT is what needed/needs looking at - NOT the airspace. Lets put that one to bed (even if others wont just yet)
What you are also talking about is 'cross-subsidisation' as opposed to user-pays. Mate, I could not agree more. Unfortunately the Lib/Nat administration effectively prohibit it. A bit too 'socialist' for their platform. Personally I blame the whole school of economic rationalism, but hey, what an I going to do?
Having said all that, you are plain wrong, possibly badly informed, about ATC operations being swayed by $$$$ over safety. As Binos said: ATC just apply the rules they are given to work with.
End of story.
I think maybe you are trying t be provocative in a small way, but I am kind of past rising to a lot of it after the many manifestations of Dick Smith and his blame-free existence coupled with his menopausal mood swings.
What you are talking about is the charging system right? I think you will find little disagreement that IT is what needed/needs looking at - NOT the airspace. Lets put that one to bed (even if others wont just yet)
What you are also talking about is 'cross-subsidisation' as opposed to user-pays. Mate, I could not agree more. Unfortunately the Lib/Nat administration effectively prohibit it. A bit too 'socialist' for their platform. Personally I blame the whole school of economic rationalism, but hey, what an I going to do?
Having said all that, you are plain wrong, possibly badly informed, about ATC operations being swayed by $$$$ over safety. As Binos said: ATC just apply the rules they are given to work with.
End of story.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the whole 'corporatisation' of AsA/user pays/cessation of cross-subsidisation thing happen in the post-Thatcherite Keating Government (under the guidance of RHS)?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It spans many years now. But Telecom, Australia Post, QANTAS, AirServices all spring to mind as in the life of the Howard reign of terror.
My point was more about philosophy than timelines, but I do accept and concede your point.
My loathing for the policy as it applies to services that I strongly contest should never have been 'corporatised' remains nonetheless - as does it for the incumbent liars of federal government.
My point was more about philosophy than timelines, but I do accept and concede your point.
My loathing for the policy as it applies to services that I strongly contest should never have been 'corporatised' remains nonetheless - as does it for the incumbent liars of federal government.